Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

Mriya

Members
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Mriya last won the day on September 26 2015

Mriya had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

211 Excellent

About Mriya

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 06/07/1971

More Information

  • Aircraft
    Various
  • Location
    Moorabbin
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. Mriya

    Mriya

  3. Not sounding good 😞 https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/law-order/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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 difficulties is puzzling.
  11. 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?
  12. 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 all the elements needed to record aircraft airworthiness status between 100hr/annual inspections, right down to the daily inspection. Every aircraft owner/maintenance controller is supposed to be doing this anyway. If someone chooses to use another system to track maintenance, no problem, howeevr it is hard to imagine another system that is as effective or simple as the Maintenance Record form provided by RAAus. Ramp check 'bullying' is another issue. I have no particular concerns about friendly ramp checks, as long as their main focus is to educate and enhance safety. I also have no issue with ramp checks being used to weed out people who show contempt or disregard for the rules and responsibilities they have as a pilot. I have not experienced a ramp check 'bully', but nothing that I have said would condone or endorse that style of enforcement.
  13. 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 and track the same things. The difference as I see it is in once word. RELEASE means that as a LAME I make a statement about the serviceability of the VH aircraft, where as a RECORD notes work done and ultimately the owner (who is the maintenance controller) needs to come to their own conclusion regarding airworthiness of their aircraft. The Maintenance Record does not need to be seen as a sinister way of making RAAus the same as CASA. This form has existed for many years, and considering the lack of adequate maintenance recording I see, I believe its use (or a suitable alternative) should be mandatory. Without it tracking of lifed components (ie 5year rubber replacement) or timed inspections (ie transponder or instrument calibrations) becomes haphazard and things get missed. The evudence I see is that relying on ones memory to track such items does not work.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...