But wait there's more

[pmccarthy]

For an insight into when CASA were truly gods, watch this video. (DCA in 1950).

 

 

 

[facthunter]

The narrative is a bit puffy but some good footage of older types. Don't think anyone out in the central west is going to be able to look up and see a Super Connie at 5,000 feet, flying over. When I used to go bushwalking near Marilan (Bungonia) you could hear all the 4 engined piston stuff droning past at altitude. Often a little too high to see easily. That would have been going to Melbourne overflying Canberra.. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

In a population, there will always be a range of any attribute, like stupidity. What we need to fight against is the tendency to say " since we don't know better, we have to assume everybody is equal to the most stupid and regulate accordingly to save them from themselves".

 

Turning the argument around, there are some very stupid officials out there and they will do more harm than good if you let them loose to bully.

 

I like the parachute argument... what more incentive ( or penalty ) do you need to ensure that the owner/packer/jumper is doing the right thing?

 

You could repeal all the regulations tomorrow and I bet nothing would change. Except that we might have a bit more money in our pockets.

 

 

[slb]

Casa wanted annual inspections on all aircraft and modifications to all go through std engineering process.

 

Doing nothing or continuing L1 without training wasnt ever going to cut it unless an L2 inspected the aircraft annually

The HGFA have the same aircraft on their register as RAAus but the HGFA owners are allowed to maintain and modify without training, so I can't see that it comes from CASA.

 

 

[slb]

And for those who keep saying things along the line of "RAA should just say no to casa" obviously don't remember just what casa can do. For example do we remember when the whole fleet was grounded?

or maybe they did just say 'No'?

[frank marriott]

The HGFA have the same aircraft on their register as RAAus but the HGFA owners are allowed to maintain and modify without training, so I can't see that it comes from CASA.

The excuse that this BS is coming from CASA is in itself BS - some members accept political type crap.

[Keith Page]

the l1 was a complete waste of time anyone that failed should not even think about touching or doing anything to an aircraft according to the ceo it was made easy to pass so as everyone passed that's bullshxx neil

I will confess I did not attempt the L1 as in my view it is an absolute embarrassment to consider.Now what did teach us only where to find some legislation, the important aspect of maintenance and identifying of engine and airframe is NILL.

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Well' date=' I have just received an email from RAA entitled: Professional Development Program which announces [b']the rollout of practical Level One owner maintainer courses[/b]. We will have to wait and see what that means and how they are going to do it.Lets hope that once everyone has completed it ..... there will be no L1 shortcomings at all!

Then it will be on to the L2s and then the L4s but they will have to continue through to LAMEs who are not familiar with our aircraft and engines. The sky's the limit, so to speak.

In the formative years of AUF and later RAAus the L1 was delivered by the PE and CFI why not keep the original structure.As for L2 they were by recommendation from a PE or CFI.

 

To me it looks like micro managing is in vogue. Isn't RAAus to large for micro managing a system of delegating would be the go.

 

L4 is a CASA accreditation.

 

KP

 

 

[billwoodmason]

It never ceases to amaze me what Linke wastes our money on!. Why not stick to core values and do the basics well, and concentrate on getting prices for services provided back to reasonable levels - costs to members continue to spiral upwards while money is being spent on feel good nonsense. Where is the hard evidence that the L1 exam is absolutely necessary for example?. All these things are being paid for through fee increases to members, while the bottom line is being ignored. We are paying this bloke for goodness sake - he needs reining in.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

But if there isn't planes falling out of the sky because of dodgy L1 maintenance why put everyone through a costly course?

The end game may be take maintenance out of the hands of pilots and into the hands of professional maintainers.ie - first introduce a hurdle such as an exam, then when some comply (so as to continue legally maintaining their aircraft) and some drop off, then introduce another hurdle (practical test) so some comply and the majority drop off due to the impracticabilities of travel, time & cost etc. of getting the course done. And then of course there is update/refresher training. So the result will be some keep maintaining their aircraft as before for stuff they are capable of doing but no longer do log book entries (to avoid detection) or bite the bullet and use professional maintainer for everything.

 

Either way a bad result for all concerned.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I'm in your camp bill, but I do think we are a dwindling group, darn it.

 

Here's a couple of examples of how the rest of society is going..

 

1. Establishing a garden in a new property... It never occurred to me that people would ignore their garden until they can afford to have professional landscapers move in, but this is the norm around here.

 

2. Servicing your own car... only silly old buggers like me do their own these days.

 

So there is a drift to paying professionals and this is helped out by legal fears. Like if you do some household electrical or plumbing work, you are at risk of dire consequences.

 

That said, I reckon we need to stick up for owner maintenance as hard as we can. I like the idea that the buck stops with the owner. Who else has the authority and incentive?

 

The GFA is about to ( I hope) allow owners to do their own maintenance , including signing out annuals, after completing a course.

 

The situation as of now is that you have to get the rating as a sort of gift from the right official. We went for about 15 years in SA without any new annual-inspector getting a rating. Gosh if there was a similar drought of new instructors, the system would close down.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

It occurs to me that airlines maintain their aircraft, not because of regulatory requirements but from a commercial desire to remain in business (crashes are not good for business, insurance etc). Why would it be any different for individuals who an interest in surviving to fly again? The FAA's review of the Canadian owner maintenance system is proof that owners are capable of unsupervised maintenance with safety outcomes at least as good as the professional maintenance system.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...the clowns who thought they could get away doing beat ups and generally not complying with much at all.

...one of them got a high-powered job with the regulator.

[facthunter]

Jim, Not sure they all behave that way but what Airlines do should have little or no effect on what is good/best for us. The best maintenance is owner derived, with the element of self interest you refer to.. Not all are competent but why should the lower or un qualified group cause all of us to lose what is fundamental to the Ultralight movement if it's going to be anything but a passing phase for rich thrill seekers. Education beats regulation. I always had a big input on the maintenance of any plane I owned and just won't leave it to anyone else to do it and sign it off.. When you work professionally as a pilot you have to accept that organisations maintenance standard often not really knowing much about it till it bites you..Lots of documentation only increases the cost, and makes it look as if things are covered and signed off and all is well. The graphite spanner, it used to be called. There are good organistions that do the right thing. It costs more and they operate at a big financial disadvantage to those who cut corners. Nev

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

"Not all are competent but why should the lower or un qualified group cause all of us to lose what is fundamental to the Ultralight movement"

 

Where is the evidence, rather than the fear, that unqualified(?) maintenance has been the cause of unfortunate outcomes? I repeat that the Canadian owner maintenance experience is as good if not better than professional maintenance.

 

As Bruce has observed, society is being dumbed down to the extent of the majority believing that they are only competent to pay bills, and that there is always a "qualified" person who should do the job in a manner approved by some authority, be it a TV personality or a public servant looking to expand their influence on peoples lives.

 

Anybody with any experience of the "qualified" people that the TAFE system is turning out in a number of disciplines (hence the recent Senate inquiry) knows that in many instances the presented qualifications have little worth.

 

When I was building my plane "off the street" observers would ask questions like "Are you allowed to build a plane?" which illustrates to me that our society has been reduced to the point where we have to seek permission to explore our capabilities., but this is a philosophical discussion for another place and a bottle of good red.

 

If we all understood what our capabilities were and worked within them, and knew when to go looking for assistance this is the desirable outcome. I believe that in the main this is what our education as pilots teaches us and if it doesn't there is a solution in the pilot training system that should be implemented.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm FOR owner maintenance. Those who are not confident to do things will/should seek advice, and /or have some /all of it done by others ,not have us all tick boxes for impractical and ineffective "tests" every two years. There are examples of shoddy work in many places. The way things are "progressing" here will just put people off being involved. Emphasis on paperwork/documentation not expertise/education/knowledge. development. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

In the days before I flew AUF, I hired a C172 or C182 and often it would be fresh out of maintenance. That was the time I went over every single part of the plane very carefully. It was seldom that I found the plane without defects, usually there were missing screws in inspection covers or even tools left loose in the fuse.

 

Even worse was when it had gone in to fix a defect and come back with the message that there was nothing wrong. It happened once, went back again, same result, nothing wrong and had an engine failure on take off for the return journey to its usual location. 2 burnt out exhaust valves and luckily the pilot got it on the ground safely.

 

 

[slb]

I'm FOR owner maintenance. Those who are not confident to do things will/should seek advice, and /or have some /all of it done by others ,not have us all tick boxes for impractical and ineffective "tests" every two years.

I agree wholeheartedly. It wouldn't be hard to point all owners in the right direction for learning how to maintain their own aircraft (manuals for the aircraft and engine) and to seek answers from the Manufacturer, if they need to. They don't need an exam to be able to do this. The Tech team should be on hand to offer advice, but ultimately help them source the right information.

There are too many variables out there to put all maintenance into a simple 'test of knowledge'. It doesn't help those that genuinely want to learn how.

 

and if someone is already competent ... then let them maintain their own, without interference. Education without enforcement. Works in the UK and as Jim says above, also in Canada.

 

 

[jetjr]

hardly call it an exam

 

Few basic questions and letter on cert to say you've done it

 

As said,by others, if you fail it you probably should progress no further with self maintenance.

 

As far as getting CFI etc to train this, who says they have any maint knowledge. The aircraft they fly HAVE to be maintained by others. They may never have done any maintenance at all much.

 

They could reasonably be expected to get a student up to the "L1 exam" level....

 

 

[Keith Page]

hardly call it an examFew basic questions and letter on cert to say you've done itAs said,by others, if you fail it you probably should progress no further with self maintenance.

 

As far as getting CFI etc to train this, who says they have any maint knowledge. The aircraft they fly HAVE to be maintained by others. They may never have done any maintenance at all much.

 

They could reasonably be expected to get a student up to the "L1 exam" level....

Some schools have the CFI and the maintenance person being the some person, egos have jumped in and taken the maintenance authority from these people.

The qualified CFI, PE and certain maintenance personal will be qualified to deliver, their knowledge is still there can never go away, only under utilised.

 

So where do the L2's and L3's come from?

 

The AUF and old RAAus used to have a structure -- for some reason that is all gone and this micro managing is taking over.

 

The knowledge is out there but not utilised. Last week I was speaking to a wood and fabric gentleman his name is no here to be found, did wood and fabric in his trade.

 

I will put my hand up "I have not done his on line L1" it is an embarrassment and has floors as to the honesty of completion.

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes some schools for sure have the skills. Plenty do not and yet maintained status to train students about it for some time. Some held L2 who shouldn't have or simply weren't current. Not sure of structure you mention but it wasn't obvious.

 

As the number of pilots and planes increases, the L2 std and L1 std has to be monitored somehow and a base level set.

 

If someone lost their L2 it would have been a reason, like not qualified or experienced or not submitting documents to prove it. Just the same as certification in any job today. Displayed competency only get you so far.

 

Of course the online idea has flaws but less than old setup which had nothing.

 

The idea of face to face training is a good vision but very hard and expensive to deliver. Looks like some efforts have been made recently. Did any one attend?

 

Indicating to new people that self maint is a serious business is all this quiz is about.

 

If something comes for free and without effort is is often not valued and we have to see allowance to self maint as precious thing.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

So why doesn't RAA deliver the MPC currently delivered by SAAA online then RAA would be on the same regulatory basis as VH experimental?

 

And why is it that so many people in the aviation caper seek third party validation for their actions? I ould wander down to the marina, buy a boat, get all my mates over to go for a cruise (some would say I would be very lonely) capsize the thing, drown everybody and there would not probably even be a coroners hearing. Why? Because seafarers don't ask permission from any body else. There are rules of the sea as there are day VFR rules and we know that if everybody knows the rules and plays by them the chance of any one causing someone else grief is miniscule.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So why doesn't RAA deliver the MPC currently delivered by SAAA online then RAA would be on the same regulatory basis as VH experimental?And why is it that so many people in the aviation caper seek third party validation for their actions? I ould wander down to the marina, buy a boat, get all my mates over to go for a cruise (some would say I would be very lonely) capsize the thing, drown everybody and there would not probably even be a coroners hearing. Why? Because seafarers don't ask permission from any body else. There are rules of the sea as there are day VFR rules and we know that if everybody knows the rules and plays by them the chance of any one causing someone else grief is miniscule.

At the present time, Victoria is considering what actions can be taken to reduce the high number of cases where boats run out of fuel/break down/disintegrate/get lost, resulting in many expensive Helicopter/Police Boat Squad/Coastguard rescues, so something could burst on to the scene any time.The reason we don't have similar schemes to boats is probably just history, the way we always did it, and turf wars within the DIRD, which, by the way covers flying, boating, and motor vehicles.

 

I like the motor vehicle system which recognises the low incidence of mechanical failures in fatalities, by auditing the condition of all motor vehicles when they are sold (Victoria - some other States have a more onerous system). Boats could finish up with something similar at any time. Aircraft have that additional factor, in that they don't just roll to a stop, and the forced landing history is not that good, so we will probably have to show some additional performance standard.

 

The benchmark RAA has set to date can be seen from this link: Accident and defect summaries - RAAus

 

This link just shows recent incidents, which I mentioned earlier, but if you click on the historic data you can go back years.

 

That's the history you have to argue from, and to me it indicates some hands on training is required to do things like plug changes (correct torque etc), setting carburettor float levels, adjusting carburettors, checking and adjusting control linkages. This doesn't have to be extensive, but it establishes boundaries of skills, above which you take the aircraft to a qualified technician. If members were involved in those discussions, and RAA management accepted the result, you would get an equitable outcome.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Turbs,

 

I checked the reference site you gave (Accident and defect summaries - RAAus) and trolled through the many incidents and accidents reported. The vast majority were flying occurrences, some were things picked up on routine maintenance or pre-flight inspection but very few (I can't actually recall any) were maintenance related with in flight consequences.

 

Personally, in respect of engines, I would draw the line at doing any maintenance on an engine aside from plugs and oil changes. I certainly would not mess with a carby after experience with chainsaw carby adjustments and overhaul. Control linkage adjustments are OK but these are things where you know your limitations.

 

Experience tells me that arbitrary boundaries defeat endeavour, and the reason we are all aviators is to expand our personal boundaries. I have no problem with RAA developing advisory documents to assist our maintenance education but can see no reason why any "qualification" should be mandated.

 

I noticed on the EAA website description of an upcoming webinar:

 

To err is human, but when humans make mistakes working on aircraft, bad things can happen. Maintenance expert Mike Busch discusses the kinds and causes of maintenance errors and what can be done to prevent them. Mike thinks that some piston GA maintenance shops may have more distractions and less quality assurance than do airline and bizjet maintenance facilities, so savvy owners of GA aircraft need to act as final inspectors and take that role very seriously.

 

A refreshing attitude - in real contrast with our local attitudes where we rely upon the qualification hanging on the back of the office door.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are both more or less saying the same thing, the difference being "qualification" vs "advisory"

 

Given that RA is based on exemptions from GA regulations, and GA requires a LAME to do repair and maintenance, someone has to decide just how far that exemption should go, and that someone is within RAA, the self-administering organisation. As a shareholder, you're better off spelling out the limits, and making sure every owner knows them.

 

Yes, there will be a difference of opinion from the pilot who is looking to avoid the high hourly rates of qualified labour, and that's best hammered out by discussion.