Jump to content

Mriya

Members
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Mriya

  1. From the range of responses so far, it seems to be decidedly unclear. You can go fishing, you can play golf, you can go for a drive. These common activities have all been approved under the latest lockdown. This isn't about pushing boundaries (although it is clear that some do), but rather understanding how the rules should be applied to recreational flying in a considered and conservative manner. I think most people would agree that a private aircraft owner who goes for a local flight on their own or with someone else from their household and applies appropriate social distancing is not c
  2. Jokes aside, can anyone point me to any guidance material regarding what specific limitations currently exist for a Melbourne based flyer. The 'four reasons to leave home' rule is probably the biggest hurdle, although based on other allowable recreational activities, it is not exactly clear. I'm guessing that a recreational flight that takes you beyond the metropolitan lockdown zone is not acceptable. Any thoughts, preferably backed by government guidance material or specific rules are welcome...
  3. I think you will find that the aircrafts maintenance schedule will include a 12 month (annual) check. Normally the inspection schedule will be triggered by flying hrs or calendar time (whichever comes first). Typically, private owners will fly less than 100hrs in a year, in which case the check is based on calendar time. A lot of misunderstanding surrounds maintenance requirements of RAAus aircraft.
  4. Not sounding good ? https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/law-order/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2
  5. Just saw this one. Any more info out there? https://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2
  6. Congratulations Bruce. Sounds like this will simplify the parts supply chain considerably, thus providing better support to Tecnam owners in Oz. I have always found the Tecnam LSA engineering support your provide simple and effective. Quick and easy access to parts, while not discounting the considerable efforts of people involved in the previous supply chain, will be good step forward.
  7. Hi Geoff, Guess who.... Happy to chat and answer any Q's, just that I am not at YCEM this week (In Wollongong for a few days). Yes it was a nice Mooney. Hope your search for a new aircraft, gets you back flying soon.
  8. Coldstream have just recently got a Tecnam P92 back on line for RAAus and have quite an active social group which catch up most weekends.
  9. So it appears that a chute has been fitted at some stage. Can anyone definitively confirm whether it was still there yesterday? The non-deployment of the chute if fitted remains a mystery.
  10. Well that would be a 1st, the media not getting the facts right! Given the circumstances if a ballistic chute was fitted, this would have been the perfect time to use it. I did suspect the media report was wrong at this point. We will still look forward to answers on how this did happen. Very sad for everyone.
  11. Having read all the news articles and comments here 'Mystifying' is an apt word to describe this one. - Two pilots, at least one with vast experience. - Some type of control difficulty from altitude. - One article mentions a ballistic chute, yet not deployed. - Circumstances don't match expected outcome from an engine failure. There appears to be more info that is needed in order to 'join all the dots' on this tragic event. Can anyone confirm the one media report that this aircraft did have a ballistic chute? The non-deployment of that if the aircraft suffered sustained control
  12. OK.. I'll bite.... Care to elaborate Windsor? The article did highlight that it was not technically illegal, but from all I have heard it may as well be. Do women drive in Saudi Arabia? If so, what practical limits do they face?
  13. I suspect we are on the same page in reality. I am not necessarily arguing that the Maintenance Record as supplied by RAAus should be mandatory, but am suggesting that each aircraft owner be required to have an effective system that lets them track, document and demonstrate the ongoing airworthiness of their aircraft. A byproduct of such an effective system would be that airworthiness status can also be simply demonstrated to any friendly ramp check personnel upon request. The Maintenance Record form is one way of effectively doing this. It is a simple form and when used properly contains
  14. Agreed... If you have a ramp check without a form such as this maintenance record how can you demonstrate that maintenance is up to date. Personally, I think it is not so important which particular form is used. If you can develop your own system to document and trace required maintenance then great. However in lieu of reinventing the wheel the RAAus maintenance record form provides a convenient solution where you can track maintenance and record daily inspections. Yes it does look a lot like a CASA maint release, but I guess this is inevitable, given that it is providing a way to record an
  15. The form is buried in the RAAus website. I am aware that our Tech Manager is including a condition on (at least some) new aircraft CofA's that he issues that all flights be recorded on this form. In effect he is slowly implementing this as a mandatory form to use. I support this move, given the lack of adequate records and ability to track required maintenance that I observe from time to time. maintenance-form.pdf maintenance-form.pdf maintenance-form.pdf
  16. Anyone who calls it a Maintenance Release is mistaken. Check the forms on the RAAUS website. It is a Maintenance Record Form. The different name is very deliberate and that is why I go to great lengths to help people understand the responsibility that they carry as a RAAUS aircraft owner. I NEVER issue a maintenance release for a RAAus aircraft.
  17. You may note that RAAUS do not have a maintenance release like GA. RAAus have a Maintenance Record form which, though I believe is not mandatory currently, I understand our Tech Manager is planning to make it so, or at least strongly encourage it's increased use. As per the Tech Manual, the determination of Airworthiness of a RAAus aircraft remains solely with the owner at all times. A L2 simply states that they have performed a maintenance task or series of tasks per the appropriate maintenance data, but the decision regarding airworthiness remains with the owner. I use a modified versio
  18. Just to clear things up and as I hope anyone who has had their RAAUS aircraft in my workshop would attest, I have no problem with the concept of owner maintenance for privately owned and operated aircraft. I always make time to help owners better understand how maintenance can be correctly completed and recorded in logbooks. Some owners do this well, but others not so well (though not necessarily their fault). Often it is not willful disregard for required maintenance, but rather a lack of mentoring or understanding of their responsibility as an aircraft owner. I have had a person te
  19. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on that point too. This thread was talking about L2's and I commented on that, however as in every industry there are good and bad operators.
  20. As a LAME/L4 I fully endorse the need to protect yourself financially from litigation which could cost you everything you have worked for. Insurance is obviously the most comprehensive way fwd, although the idea of owning no assets is appealing (the bush lawyers out there or even the real ones may be able to advise if this is a strategy that would actually work). Without any strategy, one would appear to be almost inviting a financial train-wreak the moment an incident/accident is even remotely associated with work you have done. I also agree with the observations regarding L2's. Some o
  21. Spot on JJ. Many people are unaware that they are obliged to perform all maintenance per the manufacturers schedule. I've seen aircraft with no logbook entries for 3-4 years and people saying that it was all ok because the aircraft is registered by RAAus, not CASA. All that had happened was a few undocumented oil changes. I sympathise with Mike's thoughts re unnecessary invasive maintenance, however a good example of applying this is already possible using 'on condition' provisions for running engines past their TBO hrs or calendar time. This is done quite successfully when appropriate m
  22. Regarding the Sale incident, the report I heard is no-one hurt, so that is the main thing. Aircraft can be fixed. Not much more to say...
  23. I have no problems with your policy here. SOAP's are an extra diagnostic check and if not required as part of a manufacturers schedule, I see them as an optional extra, however as mentioned, once an engine is 'on condition' you have by default moved outside of the manufacturers recommended schedule (at least for the engines we are talking about here). I therefore see SOAP checks as a wise precaution to help detect trends in an engine that is now operating beyond the manufacturers schedule.
  24. As a maintainer I recommend them, but as highlighted already they provide most benefit in allowing identification of trends over the longer term. If an engine is running 'on condition' I will automatically do SOAP test. Some older aircraft only have oil strainers, so with no cartridge filter to cut open, regular oil analysis is another tool to monitor the health of your engine. Not a bad record to be able to show to a prospective buyer when the time comes to sell. They will have extra confidence that the engine internals are healthy if you can show them these results. The cost is 'chi
  25. Good evening. Great to see you on this forum. Regards, Justin
×
×
  • Create New...