Cloudee - it needs to clearly state it is optional within the AWB for it not to be mandatory.

You will see that is a standard text included in AWB's - many AWB's refere you to other data often the manufacturer and those publications may be "Optional", "Recommended" or "Mandatory".

CAsA did have a policy that recommended means mandatory (piston engine TBO's confirm this as the manufacturers only give recommended figures)

So if the manufacturer states the data is optional - then you don't need to do it. If they say nothing, recommended or mandatory - then the AWB needs to be done.


* So the AWB dose not make you do it - The Regs do, on grounds that an AWB is approved data issued by CAsA.

Just had same thought!

Not read the AD or AWB so will take your word on it - I just recall that I think the red ones with pressure gauge have a monthly inspection and the yellow ones a 6 month reweigh that must be done. CAsA have not picked up on the red ones monthly check yet.

So what have I done wrong, Connedrod? All I did was to generously invite you (and a couple of your aliases) to a free Saturday breakfast at the Criterion Hotel at Crookwell.

If I don't consider that you have the competence to safely maintain an aircraft that I choose to fly in, then shouldn't that be fine with you?

That's a fair comment - but from the posts he has made he is over maintaining compared to FAA standard.

So from his posts how is it possible to determine his mechanical skills applied in relation to safety?

What regulation allows you to determine "competence to maintain safety" ?


I don't think there is one, just you don't like/want/require to use him for basically personal reasons from what he has said.

Wtf are you for real. Once again another useless post from yourself.
One you dont know me but i know of you.
I gave you an open invitation to come and work with me for a week to show me your superior avaition maintenance skills, you declined said you could meet for coffee or such.
I pm you. When you thought you knew were i was that was it. Clearly im not as dumb as to tell you were i am. I can tell you i am not at crookwell.

All i have ever given is truthful informative information on this site, not only as i see it but what is the law and how it works. I take note of what is said. I dont go and have a little like others when they have the hide to say extemly nasty and visishes things about me but they dont like it when something is said about them, please count yourself in that statement.
You have the hide to make judgement on me because of what i say on here. Ill stand my record in the industry agaist yours on any day, nomand ring a bell ?
What and i already said, is the tottal lack on this subject of one person in particular and i have clearly shown with the regulations as fact not if buts maybe but FACTS. Tjis person will not answer any questions that are relevant to this thread and what he is saying then defame me and says i should be a AWI because i know the gotchas. No i know the regulations that i have to work to, this is to stay on the right side of the law.
What you fellas now should be asking is what lead sled is doing and strat asking him what he is doing as can be seen he really has no idea. But no he is your buddy and we cant do that. Will just go after you instead.
For the record i am myself and know one else. Apart from looking up and getting the right # for a reg or copying and pasting the knowledge that is written here is from me and what i have learnt over the years.
So i challenge you folk to ask of leadie what you ask off me. Ask him what right he has to use the regulations in a day to day legal right. And all the other questions on this thread that i have ask him. You see all i have done is tell the trurth and as the movie said YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRURTH.
Tootie toot toot tweety.

Perhaps, but the law "dots the i and crosses the t". If you could take a little more time on basic spelling, correct English and understandable grammar you may get a little more credibility. :)

Disparaging other users is also a bad look! :=

Bob
Having a crack at others i fare game. You will note that i respone only im not the starter. Once again prehaps you should diect that at others as well do you think.
As for spelling etc well im sorry but when i read it , it all good, something i cant help.
As for credabillty well im not after any on here. Repect prehaps and the right to have an opinion yes. The only poeple i need credabillty from is the poeple whom i look after, after that im not really worried about.
Like ive said before and proven with the regs my statements are true and correct.

Im just waiting on conformation on another workshop to close

AD GEN 65
 

I'm looking through AT GEN 65 (fire extinguishes) and all it says is for charter you have to have one unit installed to the pilot compartment - not that it has to be reweighed every 6 / 12 months.

The only reference to the AWB is:
The AD isn't forcing you into using Australian Standard as the maintenance program.

Guidance and advisory material, as such, is not legally binding however prudent it may be to adhere to the recommended practices set out in guidance and advisory material, such adherence is not obligatory under the legislation.


Haydn

Really. You also need awb 003 as well.
So on board fire and ext dose not work. Deaths. What are you going to tell the judge that you didnt carry out the required awb and reweigh the ext.
Now.
The manufacturers require a reweight every 1 month for some 6 months for some and 12 months for some and require o/h at around 10 years or disposal. As such if the M/R requires all maintenance due in tne period of the M/R issue date. YOU MUST PUT IT IN. you do not have a choice. The awb is now considered mandatory.
This used to be cleare in the Fpe ad. Now this is now what we have.
You have just failed.
TOOT TOOT MY TOOTIE

It's the Australian Standard that requires the maintenance, not the manufacturer.

At no time have I said that the fire extinguisher should not be checked. What I am saying is there is not a LEGAL requirement to CHECK the extinguisher by the AD.

Maybe. But the words I used were not mine, they come from someone with far more intelligence than me. I'll put them here again:

Guidance and advisory material, as such, is not legally binding however prudent it may be to adhere to the recommended practices set out in guidance and advisory material, such adherence is not obligatory under the legislation.

Do what HAS to be done (AD's etc) work towards the good ideas (AC, AWBs etc)

If CASA wanted to mandate this maintenance, they could easily put it into the AD, and order (CAO) an instrument or a MOS. But it is not. It is advisory.


Haydn

Another one being sucked into Full Retard.

Never go Full Retard, Haydn.

Haydn what do you do for a living?

They are required by the Manufacturers.

A maintenance ord i know is about to close. When it dose i will imform why it closed . When i reless it you will not believe this reason. Casa is out of hand and so are the civil courts.
Remember this CYA. cover your arse because no one eles with.

Hey leadie i hear there is a cheap land sale in Toowoomba you should check it out!
Hope your not at work doing posts. 😁

Haydn

Ad fpe 6a7 used to be the document that was required. This ad was cancelled in 2011 whith a few extras. These ads set the stardards but now we are left with the mess we have now which in part was set by aopa.
Manufacturers not just for fire extinguishers can and do set there own periods of maintenance. This however is over ridden by the Airframe manufacture. However if the airframe manufacture has not addressed the component then the component manufactures maintenance and o/h periods MUST BE USED.

I read. I learned to in primary school.

I'm unsure of your meaning. Are you saying I'm retarded?

The quote I used, came from a PhD at law, yesterday.

By the sound of it, you seem to think it is your job to impose your views on the regulations on to aircraft owners. I have never once, heard CAR 41 quoted by an engineer.

Ummm, maybe something pretty similar, if the same were to happen to a private or airwork cat aircraft that doesnt have a fire ext fitted!!??!!


Haydn

Not my views haydn what is imposed on me by the regulator. Car 41 is superceeded btw

By what?

2A again?


Haydn

Find car41 and post the link !

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00094

Volume 1, Part 4A, Subdivision 2

Haydn
Ask your phd freind if the Manufacturer of the fire extinguisher have a o/h or required maintenance dose this have to be done under awb 26 003.
Then ask him dose it have to be placed on the m/r in part 1 as required at tne release of the aircraft.
Then ask him if it is on the m/r how is it then released.
Still waiting for the link.
Oh and while your asking him ask him what is required by the owner of the aircraft in regrads to maintence and what responsibility that owner has in law to work carried out on that aircraft.