Jump to content

Mriya

Members
  • Content Count

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Mriya last won the day on September 26 2015

Mriya had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

218 Excellent

About Mriya

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

More Information

  • Location
    Coldstream (YCEM)
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Not sounding good 😞 https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/law-order/light-plane-crash-at-leigh-creek/news-story/e7720b4e33910bd5ddf65111a6727eb2
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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 version of the RAAus Maintenance Record form, which clearly sets this fact out for the owner. The Maintenance Record form (which is similar in layout to the GA Maintenance Release) if used correctly is a great tool for the owner to assess and keep track of Airworthiness requirements for their aircraft. I strongly recommend that all owners use this form or an equivalent which lets them track maintenance well.
  15. 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 tell me that they transferred their aircraft from VH to RAAus so that they would not have to keep doing Annual inspections. The aircraft had only had the occasional oil change over a 4 year period and there were no logbook entries in this time. This was not a deliberate attempt by the owner to bypass their obligations, but rather indicates to me that somewhere along the way better education is needed for owners who plan to do their own maintenance. I would therefore hope that any L1 induction and assessment requirements are aimed at plugging this education gap that exists and not seen as a threat to the concept of owner maintenance. As for the L2 system, it would seem appropriate that when someone walks off the street and wants to learn to fly in a hired aircraft, that they can expect that the person performing the maintenance has been assessed as able to perform the work competently. Unfortunately in a world full of litigation, some form of insurance is prudent if you are doing this work. It only takes one event to completely stuff up your finances. I know RAAUS investigated L2 group liability insurance some time ago, but it came to nothing. It is probably hard to provide a one size fits all approach as there are so many different modes of L2's operating anyway. Take your point however that for volunteer L2's the club who is benefitting from such services probably should consider extending their insurance cover to protect these volunteers. Lots of food for thought within this thread, both on topic and via some of the slight tangential discussions.
×
×
  • Create New...