To be clear LeadSled are you one of a few that think Conned Rod and myself are the same person?

I tried to sort this issue at #154?

Merry Christmas, and fly safely everyone.

Bend alot,
I have no idea who either of you are, nor do I care, although several of my colleagues have suggested the identity of yr right under his various alter egos.
What I do care about is the very serious misrepresentation of fact, in this case as it applies to "the law" and aviation maintenance of small aircraft in Australia, whether by CASA AWIs or people like Conned Rod.
The outcome is expense and inconvenience that all helps to drive what was once a thriving part of aviation into the dust of history.
Tootle pip!!

"What I do care about is the very serious misrepresentation of fact, in this case as it applies to "the law" and aviation maintenance of small aircraft in Australia, whether by CASA AWIs or people like Conned Rod.

The outcome is expense and inconvenience that all helps to drive what was once a thriving part of aviation into the dust of history"

It has nothing to do with CAsA AWI'sor people like Conned Rod - it is all to do with what are written or more importantly how it is written in the Regulations.

There is no misrepresentation - simply show me in the Regulation/s 1988 or 1998 where is says owners/operators may decide (use any other word that means optional) what maintenance they wish to do other than AD's.

If it is in either of the regulations then other approved data takes second fiddle - but it is not.

If we go back to the TBO for both TCM and Lycomming the TBO's are "recommended" by the manufactures and in the form of a service letter. But we all know with the exception of private these are deemed mandatory by CAsA.

So as the regs don't say any maintenance is optional, but they say maintenance must be done I.A.W Manufactures schedules, a SOM or CAsA Schedule 5. SOM's are approved when compared against the manufactures manuals/data. And Schedule 5 clearly states manufactures time/limits are to be carried out + any special inspections.

So while I don't agree with the system we have and yes lots of waisted money, I don't see there is much wriggle room to get out of any of the maintenance tasks given by all the entities listed in 2A of the 1988 regs.

From memory the REGS say - Maintenance will be carried out I.A.W Approved Data.

No before you respond, remember approved data is not the actual maintenance manual (but often is some of the approved data).

Another way it could be put is - Maintenance from sources of approved data, will be carried out in the correct seniority of the data. Unless clearly stated the maintenance is optional.

Bend a lot,
That is as a direct consequence of completely unjustified rules changes, in this case at the behest of an electrician who headed CASA airworthiness at the time and a lawyer. This dumb pilot who knows nothing about maintenance can even "name names" in this case. But, as usual, no risk justification was made for the change, no benefit/cost justification, just major extra costs imposed for no "safety" benefit.

Essentially, one word was removed from the regulations, "major damage" was reduced to "damage". Prior to that, a LAME here could do the same level of damage repair as in US, and a (then) CAR 35 engineer would only be involved for major repairs. Thus the practice has grown up that you describe, with a large additional bill for the owner.

Mind you, the change did have the support of a substantial cohort of the "maintenance sector", those who want ever more prescriptive rules, and do not want outcome/performance based rules, where they have to make any decisions that maybe second guessed by CASA.

Again, further evidence of a very sick culture at work in Australian aviation, the same culture that results in demands for less regulation, then in the same breath calls for a whole new third tier of legislated regulation in Manuals of Standards.

And, surprise, surprise, "an addition third tier of regulation" was the one recommendation of Forsyth taken up enthusiastically by CASA.

If you don't understand why "the rules" are the basis for much of the excess maintenance cost here, compared to US/CA/NZ, cost that is all helping to destroy the aviation sector, I will not be able to explain it to you.

Tootle pip!!

Not only in Aviation, for reasons that are beyond me Australians now have this overwhelming need to be regulated out of existence. Woe betide anyone who doesn't subscribe to this puerile paradigm.

You have tbe biggest ego on this site hands down.
You been asked nemous times now to state your qualifications in regrads to maintenance several times now to which you have not replied because you cant.
I an every other lame has to work within the rules that are given to us by the regulator. You dont because you cant.
You been proven wrong know how many times on this thread already but you still say i dont know the law when clearly you dont.
You misguided and straight out lies tnat you have said on this matter has been proven.
I have never said that tne rules we are faced to do are correct or needed. But i have to do tnem.
I pride myself with a high level maintenance. If the poeple whom i look after dont wish this then they free to take their aircraft else where. One operator has thank me they never had such reliable feet. When sitting on tghe ground broken can vost over 30k a day they happy as.
And at tghe end off ghe day what is the most humorist part of all of this is you started the process when you head aopa.
You have no quailifications at all to be opening your mouth on this subject outside ov being an owner.
Ypur a bus driver and mislead with your own views as been proven on these threads.
So ill as you these quick questions
I need to go out west. We will be approx 50kg over mtow
And we will break into fuel reserve by aprrox 10 min but we can get fuel there so that is covered.
Will you take us
Yes or no

Toot toot tootie pie toot tootie

F me dead you blokes, all this carry on over maintenance schedules. They are the least of the worries for an aircraft journeyman or mechanic. How about trouble shooting fluctuating oil pressure and such like when the pilot flying gives a different story each time it happens and incomplete information as you try to get the ficken thing sorted.

One does wonder how we’ve managed to keep what is mostly 1940s ‘technology’ in the air for tens of millions of hours over nearly a century.

Conned Rod,
A Laurence Welk would have said: "Wunnerfil, Wunnerful".
You speak with such absolute authority, all based on an assumption, from a position of abysmal ignorance, having no idea what formal qualifications I hold or have held, but including Maintenance Approvals to release an aircraft to service.
And before you ask, no, I am not going to list them, because those who need to know, already do, and it would probably identify me to those who do not.
Tootle pip!!

Or, in the case of my old radials, '20s and '30s.
Tootle pip!!

I am sure the pilot put a detailed entry into the MR for CAsA to see on each and every fluctuation.

Some have a dampener exiting the engine, others before entry to the gauge - both work better to dampen!

[QUOTE=LeadSled;9995793]Conned Rod,
A Laurence Welk would have said: "Wunnerfil, Wunnerful".
You speak with such absolute authority, all based on an assumption, from a position of abysmal ignorance, having no idea what formal qualifications I hold or have held, but including Maintenance Approvals to release an aircraft to service.
And before you ask, no, I am not going to list them, because those who need to know, already do, and it would probably identify me to those who do not.

Once again smoke and mirrors. You wont state anything because you cant, its as simple as that.
I note that you didnt answer the questions i gave you to take me out west. Why is that, is it because you would have to decline because its against the regulations. Yet you expect that i should break the regulations for you in regrads to maintenance. Double standards i believe in actions once again.

We already know who you are so please dont go along that line.
Answer the questions given too you. Stop misleading every one that you think your some sort of demi god. For you are not. Your knowledge on maintenance in regrads to the regulations is extremely low if not non existent and that is is a proven fact on these threads .

You hide behind the key board when you are exposed for what you are. Your not the no all as you think. You like to degrade myself and run and cry if i have a go at you for misleading information you post. Yet your ok you have a crack at me the difference is i can take it i dont go and try and get you banned.

Toot toot tootie pie

Conner Rod,
And you accuse me of denigrating you!!!
Helloo, pot calling kettle".
As I have said, several times, Tootle pip!!

Once again smoke and mirrors and avoiding any questions ask of you.
You exposed for what you are.
Your a troll.