CASA $1,000 Useless Compass Check
 

Readers of this site may remember years ago when I complained about AD Instrument 8 which was an Airworthiness Directive that required routine checks on things like the airspeed indicator, the compass and the fuel gauge.

I started a campaign to remove this AD and it was agreed by CASA that only items required in other leading aviation countries would be put over to a CAO.

CASA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and from what I can remember it had lots of submissions from the avionics industry that makes money from these ridiculous checks.

I understand we now have CAO 100.5 which results in some of the most onerous and expensive checks in the world, including every twenty-four months a compass check on privately-registered helicopters.

You can’t just tow a helicopter to do a compass check – you actually have to hover it. What if you had to pay a pilot to travel to the maintenance hangar to fly the helicopter to do the compass checks? The overall cost is about $1,000 and this has to be done every twenty-four months.

Of course, every time I taxi along the taxiway at Bankstown I know the exact compass heading and I can tell if the compass is faulty or not. So the $1,000 is a complete misallocation of money – other than for the maintenance industry who no doubt makes a fortune from it.

It also appears we have a forty-eighth month fuel gauge check.

Neither of these checks is required in the USA for privately registered aircraft.

I would like to hear other comments in relation to this.

Remember – if your aircraft happens to be in Birdsville and it is not concurrent with a one-yearly maintenance check, it could mean flying the aircraft to Adelaide or Longreach to have the check done. Imagine the cost!

Dick,

Do a search on 100.5 and you will find much bleating. A year or so back :ok:

The intent is great….the implementation is a disaster. Like some of the rude letters they send out to owners telling them that their SIL=0 broadcasts by their transponders may be correct, but they need top get it fixed before further flight or possibly face further action.

What moron wrote that? in the first instance what they are reporting is correct, they then say that it may well be correct, then they say fix it or else.

The place is a disgrace. If this was an isolated case of poor written communication, I would let it slide, but seriously these guys have lost the plot on so many fronts I have lost all hope in ever seeing improvement.

So what hope have you of getting sense on 100.5, and what is worse some avionics shops have some very weir interpretations of many things of late. And they are not always correct.

Good luck.

Rubbish, to start with it only tells you what is happening on that particular heading, do you honestly believe that just because a heading is correct in one direction that it is also correct on all headings? Also how do you know your axis is perfectly aligned with the taxiway. Believe me, I am no great lover of CASA, but after having done a "few" 100.5's I can tell you that there is more than one aircraft with fuel gauges that read in bananas and more critically, many ASI's that read elephants, coz they certainly don't measure Knots. :=

As I have said, I am no great lover of CASA, but I reckon this is one of the few things that they have done that is a good thing

Static leaks,,,,,,,,,dont get me started

Different taxi ways at different times. Surely that is clear.

Arnold. How come other countries don't reqire these expensive rules?

Resultant safety levels in the USA show that we should not be mis allocating this money.

I can't even remember the last time I even looked at my compass.

A $1,000 check on a potentially $100 item is beyond ridiculous for the owner.

I'm with Arnold E. Static + Pitot leaks mostly in VFR registered ****boxes. God damn I have spent days under dashes chasing leaks Eventually I came to the realisation that it's easier and less time consuming to change the whole static system in something like a Cessna 172.

I've found the static system open to atmosphere , Bolts stuck in the end on pipes and silastic up . Pipes completely missing, mud wasp nests ,chaffs and sun affected pipes etc.

VFR LAMEs have just been ticking boxes for a long time. Probably back to the days of when CAO 108.56 went extinct.

As for compasses most seem to have more air than fluid.

All over I think 100.5 has brought up the standard of aircraft. I get paid a wage either way and don't profit any extra from the additional work. My chiropractor might profit more as I'm breaking my back under a dash.

Hang about, lets be realistic here, a compass swing does not cost $1000. If its costing you that much, contact me.
When did 100.5 include a compass swing?

Completely agree with you, Dick. Useless regulation for its own sake. Have you seen the justification for 100.5? Doesn't even talk about safety, just a nice to have arm waving statement.
More Eurocrap regulation for its own sake where VFR aircraft are treated like IFR, increasing costs for no safety benefit.
Let's go to the Canadian owner maintenance category for private aircraft owners who wish it. The resultant standard of the fleet is likely to rise, not because LAMEs do a bad job, because the owners themselves will fix problems when they become evident, not when maintenance is scheduled.
I've no objection to the old instrument 8/rad 47 as the altimeter, transponder and static system are where everyone interacts with the system.
If you LAMEs are finding static leaks now, why weren't you finding and fixing them under the old system?

Compass swing
 

maybe you should read 100.5 before looking ignorant in print.

Arnold.

I keep my Jetranger under the bedroom at my home at Terrey Hills.

How would you do the compass swing at less than $1k?

Reminds me of the mental midget AWI that demanded a "Remove Before Flight" placard on the INSIDE of my Airtourer canopy cover.

Tipsy

Yeah ok, but not in the specific amendment alluded to.

Ok you win.:)

Eyrie you ever looked under the dash of the average cockys aircraft dash?. They want the cheapest price on a service and the LAME's in the past complied. Now the avionics side got involved we actually did the tests and they come up short.

And the ever increasing number of home builts.:eek:

Yeah Arnold E , If homebuilders could not use nyloc nuts to put in aircraft instruments that would be great. We have these things called instruments nuts now days. Saves about half hour taking out instruments. Or even cherry rivets to hold in radio racks, even better a certain factory build Czech aircraft that silastics the entire transponder rack in (no hardware). Or a home builder that used household electrical joiners through out his audio panel install.


:ugh: I will never be out of a job it seems

I watched a Sikorsky S76 doing a compass swing only a couple of weeks back. At $100 a minute it was not a cheap exercise.

Or the high wing plastic Oz built factory aircraft with the encoder plummed to the pitot line.:{

I will bet that had an outstanding ROC on the radar screen :}

Actually ROD (well both actually), but as it happens he never went into controlled airspace so no one ever noticed, well atc must have noticed due to the negative altitude but they never said anything to him.

I really wish I could feel sorry for your plight Dick. I really do.

Having a jet ranger under your bedroom is s luxury... If you can't afford it - sell it.

24 monthly radio and instrument check, nothing that doesn't get done in other parts of the world.

If you're going to operate in controlled airspace VFR or IFR then this stuff needs to be working to some known level of accuracy or standard.

..........

I propose we copy other proven safe procedures from leading aviation countries if they result savings in expenditure.

If we don't we will further destroy our aviation industry.

Yes. I can afford the waste. But I am concerned about most in the industry who can't

27/09. You are incorrect. Other leading aviation countries such as NZ , Canada and the U.S. do not have such money wasting requirements . I have checked!

And the safety record of the single largest GA fleet on the planet, operating in less benign weather and geographic environments than the Australian fleet, provides the objective answer.

But as Australians cannot be trusted to exercise independent judgment or take individual responsibility to deal with these extraordinarily complex technical and risk issues, it's necessary to makes thousands of pages of rules to ensure that society is saved from individual Australian's innate incompetence and criminality. Give me strength ... :ugh:

I agree wholeheartedly with Dick's point on this one.

Ok, lets concede the compass, (assuming it hasn't leaked fluid or changes made to the aircraft), What about the other checks in the 100.5 amendment, do you think that they are not worthwhile as well. ASI's and altimeters last forever, for instance? Fuel gauges always accurate? Encoders never change? Static systems never deteriorate?

Compass calibration and other countries
 

NZ compass calibration requirements covered under Civil Aviation Rule 91.605(e) (5). And AC43-7 which lists the acceptable means of compliance as - 2 years

Canadian compass swing required under CAR standard 625 appendix C point 10 - 1 year

FAA - fairly typically no guidance provided HOWEVER aircraft is required to be in compliance with its type certification standard at completion of the annual inspection and type certification requirements FAR3, FAR23, require the compass to be accurate with errors of no more than 10 degrees. So technically annual should include a compass check - if not a full calibration.

So sorry dick but 27/09 has this one on the money.

It has occurred to me that the difference in compass swing requirements is more to do with the lack of navigational coverage in AUS as compared to the USA. WE have quite a few remote areas where 3 degrees of track can mean a long way from your destination. With little help from ATC

This statement is idiotic. Dick and others are wealthy because they don't spend their money stupidly. Just because you can afford to pay say $25 for a can of coke would you?

The problem is, unlike the can of coke,you can't just walk away from deal. If you want to keep flying you have to comply with every CASA solution to non existent problems.

We need a strong union to peer review all new rules or better still force the adoption of FAA rules.

What's a pissant country like Australia flying mostly American aircraft doing wasting millions and millions of dollars inventing it's own inferior system?:ugh:

Progressive. You are misreading the NZ and canadian regs. They are not as prescriptive as that

Do you work for CASA?

Rutan. Your last sentence is the best I have read on pprune for years. Can I quote it to the PM?

The word "compass" does not appear in CAO 100.5. So no checks required - by that CAO. So let's look elsewhere.

"Compass" does appear in AWB 34-008, but an AWB is not a regulation or an order, it's just advisory. CASA often tries to, but in reality, cannot demand things which are not mandated by regulation or order.

Does "compass checking" withstand the simple test: "show me where it says in the regulations that it needs testing."

It used to be in the old CAO 108.6, which got repealed in 2007, same time as AWB 34-008 hit the newsstands.

I suspect that it is just old wives tales regurgitated again and again by who knows, maybe poor LAMEs who can't keep up with the ever moving goal posts (regs) that keeps the compass checking BS alive and prosperou$ Dick. I'm with you on this one, it's pure BS. Sure - get it done if you notice a fault.

I also cringe whenever I hear LAMEs and others refer to CAR 35 engineers. THERE'S NO SUCH REGULATION 35! Hasn't been for years.

Hope this helps the battle Dick. I think we are out gunned by Fort Fumble. It's sad.:(


I also ask friends in USA this: "when, if ever, do you get your VFR aircraft instruments checked?" - NEVER.

That being the case, why bother to have them at all if what they may be telling you is nonsense?

You're right Thunder Bird Five is only suggested that it's carried out every two years. If they are travelling well from the last overhaul then I don't do swing them.

If the compass has been done in a vacuum chamber at last overhaul normally they go 4 years.

Of course if they have had a engine change or major electrical change then we would do them. I don't know what Dicks situation was.

I still call them CAR 35 , Even now its called Part 21M. Force of habit I guess.

:}

As usual, the debate disintegrates into the conflation of the "what maintenance should be done" argument with the "when and who should do it" argument.

Let's approach both arguments in a different way.

Who'd be prepared to fly a light aircraft with a dead compass, dead fuel gauges and a dead ASI?

Me, for one, if I had sufficient knowledge of the particular aircraft's systems.

This is the difference between being a piano tuner and a piano player.

Someone very close to me is lobbying to get rid of magnetic north, completely, in aviation navigation. For good reason.

If the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map on board my aircraft disagree with the compass, I'm opting for the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map, rather than the compass. On the one in a zillion chance that the 6 or so GPSs, my eyeballs and the map are misleading and the compass is correct, I'm lost. Oh dear.

But that will happen less often than the compass becoming wonky in between periodic, certified servicings.

I realise that some will be comforted by the fact that in the latter case I will have become 'legally' lost, as a consequence of a fully certified and fully maintained piece of 18th century equipment suffering a random failure, but that's not quite the point if you're worried about safety...

Who's silly enough to trust fuel gauges in a light aircraft? A common failure mode in the kind of aircraft I regularly fly is fuel gauges reading 'FULL' constantly, because of a fuel bladder being sucked up against the sender. To be safe(st), pilots need understand and be able to spot the typical circumstances in which fuel gauges maintained and certified in accordance with the rules are lying, rather than assume that periodically maintained and certified systems must be OK.

If I take off with tanks that I know are full (this requires aircraft and systems knowledge) but gauges reading 'EMPTY', and I know I have a fuel totalizer designed after the 1950s and calibrated to 0.1 of a litre in hundreds of litres, I'm comfortable that I can conduct a lengthy flight and predict, within a tolerance of +/- 2 litres, how much fuel will be needed to fill the tanks at the end. I'll have to have a clever procedure to confirm fuel isn't venting at a high rate from an unsecured cap or drain, though.

If you bother to look at all of the fuel exhaustion accident reports, the vast majority involve aircraft that had perfectly serviceable fuel gauges. Again, I realise that some will be comforted by the fact that the fuel gauges on these aircraft were certified serviceable and telling the pilot that the motion lotion was about to run out, and then it did, but that's not quite the point if you're worried about safety...

The control column is an ASI. Ask aerobatic pilots why this is so.

The most recent 'real life' static system problem of which I am aware was caused by a maintenance problem: some engineer had reconnected the static lines, incorrectly, to the alternative static source valve.

Don't get me wrong: I'd prefer to have an ASI and other instruments and gauges that are working perfectly. The flight's usually a little less stressful if all the knobs and dials are in eye-pleasing positions.

But this discussion is not about - or shouldn't be hijacked into a discussion about - the principle of whether it's safe(r) to have all these things working. The discussion is about whether the suite of regulations requiring periodic inspections and certifications by licensed aircraft engineers is necessary, in practice, to produce sufficiently reliable systems. That question has been answered, based on statistically valid data, elsewhere.

Unfortunately, Australian's innate incompetence and criminality results in the rejection of that answer as acceptable and implementable in the Australian context.

Apparently it's all OK because you can afford it, Dick....

Rutan and Creamie POTY award contenders for sure. :Dx2

Dick….I am with you on this one. :ok:

Did you find through the search function a heap of history?

I used to have my instruments checked every two or three years but it was a waste of time.

altimeters are calibrated to within 100ft of actual.

I could never understand why my altimeter on the ground never matched the QNH settings of others. they were calibrated but they never ever agreed.
so I came to the opinion that aviation instruments were crap.
as a surveyor I am well accustomed to calibrated precision instruments.
one day I was collecting my recalibrated instruments.
the guy (lacewing) said thank god you've turned up. you were the last customer and now I can retire. thank fcuk for that.
as I took the instruments out the door he shared with me this little gem...
"you homebuilt guys haven't got a hope you know. I always calibrate your instruments so that no matter how well you fly you always appear in the circuit at the wrong height."
why I asked.
"got to maintain the need for a certified environment you know".

well as the years have rolled by since I now have 5 altimeters.
I also have access to the kollsman instrument adjustment manual.
I adjusted all my altimeters sitting beside an IFR certified instrument (sitting on the ground in the copilots seat one day.)
only since I have adjusted them do I have 5 instruments that always agree within the 100ft tolerance.

Dick, even when you do get them calibrated, you can't trust the work done.

I swing my own compass. it isn't hard to do.
they are only accurate to 5 degrees. they aren't marked any finer than that unless you have a tiger moth P2 style compass.
you really only need to work on the compass if the rotation of the card becomes erratic due to the peening out of true of the tapered pivot post.
or they develop a leak.
havent had a problem with mine in a decade. it is tucked away out of the heat at the bottom of the panel which helps.

calibrations are yet another set of sensible ideas developed to idiocy.
W8

Jeez Jabba it's only the 8th Jan. I'm sure Creamy and certainly I wish you'd posted that 9 days ago.:E:E

..........

Fuel gauges? Why has no one mentioned the fact that we use a dipstick, every flight, because fuel gauges are about as accurate as news reporting?

It's a foolhardy pilot that trusts a fuel gauge without dipping the tank. Properly certified or not.

Dick SmithDick I cannot talk about the Canadian Regs, but I can for the NZ ones and the 24 month inspection is not optional it is mandatory. Every NZ registered aircraft has a compass calibration sticker near the compass or on the panel which has an expiry date. It has to be renewed every 24 months.

I'm sorry your information on this issue is incorrect.