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

Everything posted by Mriya

  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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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 of the things I have seen on first arrival in our workshop should have never been flying. Recent finds include brake pads installed back to front (metal side against the disc and the brake piston pressing against the lining), main electrical fuses being replaced with multi strand cable and substandard frame repairs with no documented factory repair scheme. All certified by L2's! Frank is very wise to recommend a high level of discernment with respect to letting any old L2 touch your aircraft. I know Darren Barnfield is actively working to address these concerns. I am sure he sees a lot more worrying things than I ever will, given his job. It continually amazes me what people manage to get away with and it is a testament to how forgiving and resilient our aircraft can be, however it is inevitable that if people keep pushing to the limits, one day (probably when they most need it) their luck will run out. Correct maintenance and observing the proper schedule will result in an aircaft that is as reliable as possible.
  20. 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 monitoring of compressions and metal in the oil is carried out. However the manufacturer's schedule is designed to detect items before they actually break. There is no getting away from the need to inspect for developing issues, and unfortunately this sometimes requires disassembly for access. The key to conducting this safely is to be methodical and work within your capabilities in order to prevent errors during reassembly of said items.
  21. 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...
  22. 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.
  23. 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 'chicken-feed' compared with the investment in your engine. Well worth the investment IMHO.
  24. Good evening. Great to see you on this forum. Regards, Justin
  25. To answer the basic question. Aviation hardware standards were established a while back now and have USA military origins (AN = Army Navy, MS =Military Std, etc). Civil Aviation in the USA adopted these standards and seeing as the US have been such a large player in aviation, these standards became common worldwide. Of course some British aircraft from yesteryear use Whitworth hardware and with the rise of European LSA's we now see much more metric hardware in use too, however the AN, MS, NAS standards are so well established and proven it is hard to see a need to discard them.
×
×
  • Create New...