Mr F.Wit from CASA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr F.Wit from CASA
Aus CASA at it again, adhereance to the letter of the law, means that it is illegal for pilots to remove and replace dual controls in helicopters including the Robi. I timed it and in the Robi they can be changed over in less than 60sec. A maintainence (LAME)type has to sign off the release every time they go in and out. So if a school on a Saturday want to do three 1 hr trainning sorties and between these flights three 5 min scenic flights come in a LAME will have to be there for each removal of the duals. Unless Mr F Wit from CASA wants to leave the duals in while the scenic flight pax is in the aircraft. Now that would be safer wouldn't it ??? LAME would have to sit round between each flight . Minimal call out fees etc. OK some types like the 500 are a bit tricky to remove but surely a pilot could be shown how to do it properly and be signed off on the maintenence release as having the skill and the pilot do it from then on. The credability of CASA just goes out the door when they do this type of thing
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your Joking right!!!
The Robi has got to be the easiest of them all...i know that for the EC120 there is a requirement for the LAME to remove and replace but ive not heard of the other types being a requirement.
The Robi has got to be the easiest of them all...i know that for the EC120 there is a requirement for the LAME to remove and replace but ive not heard of the other types being a requirement.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..Helibiz,
I sympathise with you, CASA are not easy to deal with due in part because each F.O.I at each Area Office can and many times do have a different interpretation of the rules & Regs.
What is allowed by one FOI can be disallowed by another!
I just love taking casa on and have done so many times, I always win!!! the problem for most of them is they dont know rules and regs well enough to enforce them or how to apply the rules & regs.
I can't see any logic with having an engineer fit the duals for a robbi,,,
Whats the requirement around the world ??
I sympathise with you, CASA are not easy to deal with due in part because each F.O.I at each Area Office can and many times do have a different interpretation of the rules & Regs.
What is allowed by one FOI can be disallowed by another!
I just love taking casa on and have done so many times, I always win!!! the problem for most of them is they dont know rules and regs well enough to enforce them or how to apply the rules & regs.
I can't see any logic with having an engineer fit the duals for a robbi,,,
Whats the requirement around the world ??
Best way around all the horsefeathers is to get yourself certified by a LAME as being capable of: removing duals, fitting and removing cargo hook, doing a 25 hourly, etc etc to cover all the SLJs. (5hitty little jobs). This certification goes to CASA, and they will issue a maintenance approval to you.
It will cost money, maybe $40 per sign-up, but is worth it when you are away from a maintenance base.
But it is merely tinplating from CASA and a huge waste of time and effort.
It will cost money, maybe $40 per sign-up, but is worth it when you are away from a maintenance base.
But it is merely tinplating from CASA and a huge waste of time and effort.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why blame the agency??
Its interesting to observe that CASA is to blame for such "Rules"...I can only hope that the critics of the existing legislation have written many responses for consideration in CASR 91, 61 and 133????
If not then stop crowing foul!!!
FOI's have no authority to allow or disallow variations to existing legislation, and any pilot that asks an FOI of the "intent" of an item of legislation, can be sure that the requester will only get a personal understanding of the legislation....FOI's have no great insight of the rules, however most have read them unlike most pilots.
What you need, and yes your LAME can arrange it, is a Maintenance Approval [MA for short]....its good for life, but renewed every 2 years. [No cost]
Get one, and make your life easy and legal.
If not then stop crowing foul!!!
FOI's have no authority to allow or disallow variations to existing legislation, and any pilot that asks an FOI of the "intent" of an item of legislation, can be sure that the requester will only get a personal understanding of the legislation....FOI's have no great insight of the rules, however most have read them unlike most pilots.
What you need, and yes your LAME can arrange it, is a Maintenance Approval [MA for short]....its good for life, but renewed every 2 years. [No cost]
Get one, and make your life easy and legal.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Play the game
Helibiz,
We took a pro-active step and applied for and received Maintenance Authority's for all our pilots to put duals in and out on the 206 and 47. Bases now covered.
Most reasonable CASA Airworthiness blokes are happy with this if in your supportuing documentation for an MA (Form #350) you include a statement from your LAME that Capt. X has been instructed in and found competent to carry out the task.
Good luck.
TCF
We took a pro-active step and applied for and received Maintenance Authority's for all our pilots to put duals in and out on the 206 and 47. Bases now covered.
Most reasonable CASA Airworthiness blokes are happy with this if in your supportuing documentation for an MA (Form #350) you include a statement from your LAME that Capt. X has been instructed in and found competent to carry out the task.
Good luck.
TCF
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilibiz
On the face of it I can see why you have flown off at the deep end,
However as usual there are reasons as to why these regs come around.
Not all pilots are as sensable as we would like, if they were then PPRUNE would be only a fraction of its size!, and so the regulators have to regulate for the lowest common denominator.
Several years ago a pilot replaced the duals in a R22 after Self Fly hireing the A/C. Later when this a/c was being used for instruction to a very low houred student the LHS collective lever separated from it's attachment, now you can imagine the look of surprise on the instructor face when the collective came off in his hand during the approach to land.
CASA as regulators have a duty of care and if they find that an event like that above is plausable/ possible then they have the right to put steps in place to eliminate or at the very least reduce the risk of re-occurence.
The Chinease fella and many others have done the right thing and Checked out the pilots that THEY want to perform this Mainainance task and got them authorized. Thus ensuring safety, CASA's prime objective.
Red Wine makes a good point to all of us that continually whinge when what seems to be a stupid reg gets enforced, get involved when asked and then you will be better able to understand why.
Be Proactive not reactive.
On the face of it I can see why you have flown off at the deep end,
However as usual there are reasons as to why these regs come around.
Not all pilots are as sensable as we would like, if they were then PPRUNE would be only a fraction of its size!, and so the regulators have to regulate for the lowest common denominator.
Several years ago a pilot replaced the duals in a R22 after Self Fly hireing the A/C. Later when this a/c was being used for instruction to a very low houred student the LHS collective lever separated from it's attachment, now you can imagine the look of surprise on the instructor face when the collective came off in his hand during the approach to land.
CASA as regulators have a duty of care and if they find that an event like that above is plausable/ possible then they have the right to put steps in place to eliminate or at the very least reduce the risk of re-occurence.
The Chinease fella and many others have done the right thing and Checked out the pilots that THEY want to perform this Mainainance task and got them authorized. Thus ensuring safety, CASA's prime objective.
Red Wine makes a good point to all of us that continually whinge when what seems to be a stupid reg gets enforced, get involved when asked and then you will be better able to understand why.
Be Proactive not reactive.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: new zealand
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At first glance rules are made, it would appear, to make things hard and secure ones job. However when situations are analized you find that rules have been put in place,generally. as a result of an incident / accident
The issue is not how hard or easy the task is, it is who is RESPONSIBLE for that task. So duals generally are easy to fit so why make it hard by adding paperwork.
An example. Earlier this year a pilot was having a check ride in a AS350 and was requested to fit the duals. In they went, easy. Except the cyclic was around the wrong way. True story. It resulted in restricted movement etc and a damaged aircraft. It cant be done, I hear. It can, if the murphyproof rivet has been at some time removed.
Responsibility here is now far reaching. Who did or how was the murphyproofing removed? Would another set of eyes noticed the error? Would someone else (an engineer) not under the pressure of the check ride fall into the same trap?
Who really now is responsible?
There is no doubt that when you have "to sign" for something there is always that extra bit of effort made.
Look at it this way, maybe the authority is trying to help you.
Not all is lost and as has already been mentioned get a Maintenance Authority if there is provision for it. After all you have one already for the AD's you sign off as a part of your preflight, dont you???
The issue is not how hard or easy the task is, it is who is RESPONSIBLE for that task. So duals generally are easy to fit so why make it hard by adding paperwork.
An example. Earlier this year a pilot was having a check ride in a AS350 and was requested to fit the duals. In they went, easy. Except the cyclic was around the wrong way. True story. It resulted in restricted movement etc and a damaged aircraft. It cant be done, I hear. It can, if the murphyproof rivet has been at some time removed.
Responsibility here is now far reaching. Who did or how was the murphyproofing removed? Would another set of eyes noticed the error? Would someone else (an engineer) not under the pressure of the check ride fall into the same trap?
Who really now is responsible?
There is no doubt that when you have "to sign" for something there is always that extra bit of effort made.
Look at it this way, maybe the authority is trying to help you.
Not all is lost and as has already been mentioned get a Maintenance Authority if there is provision for it. After all you have one already for the AD's you sign off as a part of your preflight, dont you???
Helibiz,
If you look at CAAP 42ZC-1(0), Approved Pilot Maintenance for Class B aircraft, all will be revealed. Available from CASA online here, as a small .pdf file. It's quite clear cut, and fitting and removal of dual controls is not approved. Unless, of course, you follow previous advice and have an MA issued.
For Class A aircraft (helicopters >2750kg) an MA is even required to do a pre flight to sign the Maintenance Release, so we are quite used to this procedure
Since CAAP 42 allows the changing of wheels and tyres, I sometimes wonder, though, as to the sense of some of these mandates! I did once do a duplicate on the BK117 cyclic and found it back to front, and also had a LAME put the pedal cover on with the pedals fully aft..........
Oh and Red Wine, MA's aren't free, unfortunately. General cost is about $250-300, but since CASA have just doubled their hourly charge rate, expect these prices to also double
If you look at CAAP 42ZC-1(0), Approved Pilot Maintenance for Class B aircraft, all will be revealed. Available from CASA online here, as a small .pdf file. It's quite clear cut, and fitting and removal of dual controls is not approved. Unless, of course, you follow previous advice and have an MA issued.
For Class A aircraft (helicopters >2750kg) an MA is even required to do a pre flight to sign the Maintenance Release, so we are quite used to this procedure
Since CAAP 42 allows the changing of wheels and tyres, I sometimes wonder, though, as to the sense of some of these mandates! I did once do a duplicate on the BK117 cyclic and found it back to front, and also had a LAME put the pedal cover on with the pedals fully aft..........
Oh and Red Wine, MA's aren't free, unfortunately. General cost is about $250-300, but since CASA have just doubled their hourly charge rate, expect these prices to also double
Last edited by John Eacott; 22nd Aug 2004 at 08:59.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason pilots in Oz gets so annoyed is that that it doesn’t stop at one stupid rule. They come up with them time after time after time.
If it were one stupid rule people would cope and get on with it. But no sooner is one rule promulgated, complained about, sorted out than another appears.
And some of the rule changes are so obviously brain-dead that they should never have seen the light of day.
Non-Oz list members may not be aware but about a year or so back it became illegal for pilots to clean dirty windscreens. Only LAME’s could do it. This came about because they changed the rules to one where pilots could only perform tasks which appeared on a list of allowed tasks. And you guessed it cleaning dirty windscreens was not on the list.
One CASA official in the NT actually said to a journalist from Autralian Flying magazine that he considered an aircraft with a dirty windscreen was unairworthy and that the pilot was not allowed to clean it. He had to get a LAME out to do it, even if he was out on some dirt strip in the middle of the NT. He further stated he was prepared to enforce that rule in his area.
I think that it got sorted out but only after a lot of complaining.
MaxNG - Duty of Care is a bandied around term that doesn’t apply to CASA – the courts have deemed that it applies to the pilot!
Red Wine - The problem of acquiescing and getting an MA rather than complain is the every MA costs time and money (not just the $40 or whatever to CASA – my LAME’s time costs money too so to get the "required training" etc will end up costing a lot more) and further encourages the nit-picking and “I make the rules”ethos that seems to pervade CASA.
Last year it was an MA to clean windscreens, this year an MA to put the duals in a Robbie what next year?
If it were one stupid rule people would cope and get on with it. But no sooner is one rule promulgated, complained about, sorted out than another appears.
And some of the rule changes are so obviously brain-dead that they should never have seen the light of day.
Non-Oz list members may not be aware but about a year or so back it became illegal for pilots to clean dirty windscreens. Only LAME’s could do it. This came about because they changed the rules to one where pilots could only perform tasks which appeared on a list of allowed tasks. And you guessed it cleaning dirty windscreens was not on the list.
One CASA official in the NT actually said to a journalist from Autralian Flying magazine that he considered an aircraft with a dirty windscreen was unairworthy and that the pilot was not allowed to clean it. He had to get a LAME out to do it, even if he was out on some dirt strip in the middle of the NT. He further stated he was prepared to enforce that rule in his area.
I think that it got sorted out but only after a lot of complaining.
MaxNG - Duty of Care is a bandied around term that doesn’t apply to CASA – the courts have deemed that it applies to the pilot!
Red Wine - The problem of acquiescing and getting an MA rather than complain is the every MA costs time and money (not just the $40 or whatever to CASA – my LAME’s time costs money too so to get the "required training" etc will end up costing a lot more) and further encourages the nit-picking and “I make the rules”ethos that seems to pervade CASA.
Last year it was an MA to clean windscreens, this year an MA to put the duals in a Robbie what next year?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..REDWINE:
I can assure you i have had many many dealings with CASA and for the most part they arent worth Pissing on!!
I once had a FOI tell me that he was on his way to a spot of fishing in a R44 Clipper, and that he intended to land on a lake to do so, after ramp checking me, Only after i pointed out the section in the POH that he realised he couldnt do that with out breaking various rules etc..
I Had a FOI do a flight check with me for my Chief Pilot approval. what a joke, I made a mistake in letting him fly us back to base and in doing so he neally killed the both of us..
Ive met some great FOI's please dont get me wrong, BUT they are far and few between and far to many that are completly incompetant.
So far there has been only one example on this forum were there was a problem with duals fitted incorrectly.
I once had the command side Collective come out of its fitting after the Engineer had just signed the A/C as Airworthy after perfoming repairs!!! I wont say what i did to him after i finally landed..
CASA are a JOKE...
ROBBORIDER,
I'm with you big fella
Its interesting to observe that CASA is to blame for such "Rules"...I can only hope that the critics of the existing legislation have written many responses for consideration in CASR 91, 61 and 133????
I once had a FOI tell me that he was on his way to a spot of fishing in a R44 Clipper, and that he intended to land on a lake to do so, after ramp checking me, Only after i pointed out the section in the POH that he realised he couldnt do that with out breaking various rules etc..
I Had a FOI do a flight check with me for my Chief Pilot approval. what a joke, I made a mistake in letting him fly us back to base and in doing so he neally killed the both of us..
Ive met some great FOI's please dont get me wrong, BUT they are far and few between and far to many that are completly incompetant.
So far there has been only one example on this forum were there was a problem with duals fitted incorrectly.
I once had the command side Collective come out of its fitting after the Engineer had just signed the A/C as Airworthy after perfoming repairs!!! I wont say what i did to him after i finally landed..
CASA are a JOKE...
ROBBORIDER,
I'm with you big fella
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...AussieMate:
You assume am awfull lot AussieMate!!
I can F#%^$ assure you i did do a preflight, but after an engineer has spent a number of hours working on your A/C and he Tells you all is fine and wants you test fly the machine!!
Oh and the bolt that holds the Collective in position is behind a Panel and so not able to be checked by the pilot!
During the Preflight raising and lowering the Collective revealed no problems it was only after lowering the collective on approach to land that the bolt then fell out!!!!
Instead of CASA trying to Justify its own excistance, by coming up with these stupid rules..Can't wash the windscreen Jesus what next!!Maybe they could spend some time and money on
ridding the industy of the Shonks!!!
CASA claims its Credo is safety! but is only concentrating on the Big carriers..while some peanut comes up with some hair brain ideas and rules for G.A
Perhaps your preflight should have been completed.?????
I can F#%^$ assure you i did do a preflight, but after an engineer has spent a number of hours working on your A/C and he Tells you all is fine and wants you test fly the machine!!
Oh and the bolt that holds the Collective in position is behind a Panel and so not able to be checked by the pilot!
During the Preflight raising and lowering the Collective revealed no problems it was only after lowering the collective on approach to land that the bolt then fell out!!!!
Instead of CASA trying to Justify its own excistance, by coming up with these stupid rules..Can't wash the windscreen Jesus what next!!Maybe they could spend some time and money on
ridding the industy of the Shonks!!!
CASA claims its Credo is safety! but is only concentrating on the Big carriers..while some peanut comes up with some hair brain ideas and rules for G.A
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your vulgarity is obvious……personally I would work from within the system to change it [if warranted], rather than throw stones from the periphery.
Please send me all your submissions to the various CASR review committees , regarding the adoption of the new CASR’s, and I will ensure that they are followed through with.
Use the PM system….if your submission is more than one paragraph…….I will provide you with an e-mail address.
John….my MA was $40 years ago. and renewed free……??
Please send me all your submissions to the various CASR review committees , regarding the adoption of the new CASR’s, and I will ensure that they are followed through with.
Use the PM system….if your submission is more than one paragraph…….I will provide you with an e-mail address.
John….my MA was $40 years ago. and renewed free……??
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REDWINE:
Do you work for CASA ? Redwine?
Redwine i dont need to pm you old chap! i am more than happy to debate the issue of CASA on an open forum..LETS ALL HAVE A LAUGH..
Like the time i reported an operator to my local casa FOI as i had wittnesed a number of " shall we say indiscretions" oh and certain operator had shall we say KILLED a pax but thats another story, was being watched by BASI who considered the operation dangerous, buts that also another story, anyway CASA say to me
" we can't do anything unless we have Proof!
PROOF,, all he had to do was speak with Airservices and obtain the tape from the Tower! the Maint Rel from Operator ! and Pax manifest and do a weight and bal and he would have had the operator STONE COLD!
But no he was allowed to continue to operate..
CASA once asked me to Join its ranks..LMFAO
God i do have morals and standards..
Oh and anytime CASA want to do a Poll on whether we as operators and pilots think they are doing a good job!..I would love to see the results..
But CASA are to busy making up Dumb regs like the few we have seen discussed here on this forum and attempting to justify their existance rather than get to the real issues of the industry..
REDWINE! you think i am vulgar? thats fine.. because you ! like me are entitled to an oppinion.. i'm expressing mine.
Your vulgarity is obvious……personally I would work from within the system to change it [if warranted], rather than throw stones from the periphery.
Redwine i dont need to pm you old chap! i am more than happy to debate the issue of CASA on an open forum..LETS ALL HAVE A LAUGH..
Like the time i reported an operator to my local casa FOI as i had wittnesed a number of " shall we say indiscretions" oh and certain operator had shall we say KILLED a pax but thats another story, was being watched by BASI who considered the operation dangerous, buts that also another story, anyway CASA say to me
" we can't do anything unless we have Proof!
PROOF,, all he had to do was speak with Airservices and obtain the tape from the Tower! the Maint Rel from Operator ! and Pax manifest and do a weight and bal and he would have had the operator STONE COLD!
But no he was allowed to continue to operate..
CASA once asked me to Join its ranks..LMFAO
God i do have morals and standards..
Oh and anytime CASA want to do a Poll on whether we as operators and pilots think they are doing a good job!..I would love to see the results..
But CASA are to busy making up Dumb regs like the few we have seen discussed here on this forum and attempting to justify their existance rather than get to the real issues of the industry..
REDWINE! you think i am vulgar? thats fine.. because you ! like me are entitled to an oppinion.. i'm expressing mine.
As Shakespeare once said, Much Ado About Nothing 
These are not new regs, nor a new CASA interpretation of them. CAAP 42ZC was first published in March 1992, and is but an advisory publication letting us know the limitations of our licence. As with most pilots & operators, we all have our run ins and differences with Authority, but the maintenance permitted by pilots is quite clear cut. Anyone holding a licence should be well aware of what they can & can't do legally - if it doesn't suit the operation, apply for an MA that will only be issued when the pilot is checked out on the action needed.
With the proposed CAR changes coming in, and Class A & B becoming more alike in requirements, be prepared for Class A type issues. Pilots must be approved by the Maintenance Controller to do pre flights, almost no maintenance whatsoever can be approved (even via an MA) by pilots, and remote area ops become a support nightmare
These are not new regs, nor a new CASA interpretation of them. CAAP 42ZC was first published in March 1992, and is but an advisory publication letting us know the limitations of our licence. As with most pilots & operators, we all have our run ins and differences with Authority, but the maintenance permitted by pilots is quite clear cut. Anyone holding a licence should be well aware of what they can & can't do legally - if it doesn't suit the operation, apply for an MA that will only be issued when the pilot is checked out on the action needed.
With the proposed CAR changes coming in, and Class A & B becoming more alike in requirements, be prepared for Class A type issues. Pilots must be approved by the Maintenance Controller to do pre flights, almost no maintenance whatsoever can be approved (even via an MA) by pilots, and remote area ops become a support nightmare
Red Wine, you sound as if you have a direct channel into CASA, and that submissions will be followed through. Interesting.
While I was a committee member of the HAA, and afterwards as well, I fired many submissions into the bowels of the Authority regarding rules thought up by an administrator with no thought for the implications on the industry. Rarely did i get a reply, even more rarely did anything result in a change to the draft legislation, and here we are stuck with the draconian Classification of Operations, and "Charter" has disappeared.
Tell the world how to get a result from CASA from a submission, we are squirming in our pants, waiting to hear.
While I was a committee member of the HAA, and afterwards as well, I fired many submissions into the bowels of the Authority regarding rules thought up by an administrator with no thought for the implications on the industry. Rarely did i get a reply, even more rarely did anything result in a change to the draft legislation, and here we are stuck with the draconian Classification of Operations, and "Charter" has disappeared.
Tell the world how to get a result from CASA from a submission, we are squirming in our pants, waiting to hear.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In CASA only section head MPS and Team Leaders, Airworthiness can issue a Maintenance Approval to a non LAME. That's the law.
You cannot get an MA from a LAME.
Even though Pilots in Australia have been removing and replacing controls for years without a maintenance approval they have been in conravention of the CAR's.
CASA has known about this for a long time but are now covering their proverbial after a recent event. The controls in this event were fitted by an engineer but that doen't matter.
There was some legislation written a few years ago to cover Robbies but it seems no-one can find it.
You cannot get an MA from a LAME.
Even though Pilots in Australia have been removing and replacing controls for years without a maintenance approval they have been in conravention of the CAR's.
CASA has known about this for a long time but are now covering their proverbial after a recent event. The controls in this event were fitted by an engineer but that doen't matter.
There was some legislation written a few years ago to cover Robbies but it seems no-one can find it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paperwork strikes again!
I was once in the same perdicament with a bolkow. For years installing the duals was no problem. Im fact, did it in front of the rule makers.
Then the rules changed.
Commercial helicopter- pilot can do it with E.M.T. (maintenace task training)
Private helicopter single engine. Pilot can do it in accordance with the regs.
"Wait a minute" I am told one day. "your Bolkow has two engines and is privetly registered,"
"yaa so what" I says
"well you dont fit into either catagory" "so you cant do it"
"so you mean to tell me cause this aircraft has two engines I cant put the duals in"
"yes sir"
I am still confused to this day
I was once in the same perdicament with a bolkow. For years installing the duals was no problem. Im fact, did it in front of the rule makers.
Then the rules changed.
Commercial helicopter- pilot can do it with E.M.T. (maintenace task training)
Private helicopter single engine. Pilot can do it in accordance with the regs.
"Wait a minute" I am told one day. "your Bolkow has two engines and is privetly registered,"
"yaa so what" I says
"well you dont fit into either catagory" "so you cant do it"
"so you mean to tell me cause this aircraft has two engines I cant put the duals in"
"yes sir"
I am still confused to this day