deadstick

Good example of some logical decision making Russ, used all the tools at you disposal to make sound decisions in an ever changing environment. We'll done.

Stearman has put down in a simple few lines, what I have been trying so hard to spit out! Lol. This is nothing but a fruitless endeavour, as a LAME all I have to do to be current is excersise theprivileges of my licence once every six months. CASA's rationale behind this requirement is not that they believe the person will forget how to fix something but that it will allow the catch up on any changes to the rules. As I have eluded before, the better solution would be an exam to test the L2's knowledge of the regulations and correct approach to working on an aircraft. Do it at your local flying school every two years. I know it's not a great solution but it's a damn site better than 4 annuals!

Richo, what Darren is getting at is that a lot of L2's have received an unrestricted licence that allows them to work on any RAA rego'd plane meaning that without any experience technically he can repair a fabric skin without having the background knowledge or skill to do so. As he points out there is no such thing as an unrestricted LAME each licence has restrictions due experience and assessment. One thing that really chaps my arse is the blanket statement that 4 annuals in 2 years classifies you as current! what about the L2 that just carries out repairs or under other circumstances does lots of maintenance but only does 2 annuals in 2 years? this really is an unrealistic assessment and biased in the extreme. In my experience the major thing that is letting our L2's down is knowledge of the regulations, the majority that I know have no knowledge of different registration classes, nor the CAR's and CAO's overarching the requirement that RAA aircraft are registered under and the implications of such. Something that annoys me in the extreme, was the statement that he is looking to weed out the LAME's that have not touched an RAA aircraft? why? what a basic and un thought out statement for him to make! it makes absolutely no sense and sounds vindictive at the least, I am seriously concerned with the impending sh1tstorm, so disappointed with the people steering our ship at the moment, and truly a shame to see the witch hunting and grandstanding. Shame shame shame.....

Storchy, report them to RAA tech, its not on at all mate..

Storchy, thats bullshit, thats not complaicancy that is a deliberate violation of rules, regs and industry practice. the engineer should have been penalised and the insurance company should have provided you with an outcome!

What engine was fitted?

What a shame, why oh why are we turning over people so fast? Is the pay to low? Conditions too bad?

Storchy, what was the aircraft type and what repairs were agreed on? So sorry to hear of your misfortune.

Also be very carefull on your view that you can choose to deviate from the engine manufacturers best practice, there has been a case of a LAME in australia loosing everything he has worked for because of a non mandatory AD, story goes he performed the annual and checked all AD's in australia, the particular AD showed up but was not mandatory here, however it was mandatory overseas in a CASA recognised AA, subsequently the AD caused the aircraft to crash and the legal team ruled the LAME negligent. This will happen if you are ever held to account for persons or property damage resulting from yourdeviation from the factories advice even though its not illegal under aviation legislation.

Sorry andy, I used the jabiru example as it was quoted to me as the cause of the "maintainer induced engine failure reasoning" by a board member, and I respect your point, but I dont think the system needs changing for the sake of changing. Every further requirment lumped upon us without justification is just another move towards inadequite oversight and beurecratic red tape. I mean RAA apear to not be doing what is already legislated, all that well! if its better training and currency requirments that are needed then so be it, but how much is too much and wheres the stats. I find it hard to beleive that a person that only performs one 100 hourly a year will dramatically forget skill of hand or industry practice! FFS I only have to do a BFR once every two years and how many operations verse maintenance accidents are there? CASA has developed the RPL licence for a reason and its just one move in their big game of chess, here comes the next one and before you know it RAA does not exist...

Storchy, can you send me a link? who did the destruction?

I know what your saying andy, those stories are everywhere including in GA, its not the regulations that have let this man down, its that the regul;ators didnt act. There is enough regulation for safe operation of RAA aircraft, its only when people step outside the regs that bad things happen. The example that you quoted is a fine case for litigation, I as an L2 and LAME have professional indemnity insurance and so should this 'repairer', storchy should have persued his rights first with the comission and then with RAA and CASA. I assumed that he paid for the work? if so why? I am one of the stupid ones that will touch the jabiru engine, and I mean stupid in the sence that its a product that has the potential to bite you even when its put together right and there is nothing overly complicated apart from the factory's many tested and refined loop holes of convenience whenever you have a component failure. Much to the disgust of my peers (LAMEs) that say you must have rocks in your head, you could lose everything on those timebombs, I document everything and record the critical steps on film. The maintenance caused engine failures that have supposedly spurred this course of action, have as I understand it come from multiple jabiru failures, these are always explained away by the factory as operator or maintainer error, without investigation just acceptance of the word from a factory with a history of deceipt. Shouldnt RAA be investigating the cause otherwise its an erronious statistic that counts for nothing. If not for defect clarity then purely to protect their members from any identified causal factors? do they have the stats that show this info? Heres what to expect if they make mandatory the suggested practises in the tech manual, recent comparison of 100 hrly GA to RAA, Piper pa38a $3500 Jabiru J230 $550. The costs of maintaining a facility to the letter of an audit will be passed on, and IAW the big game of chess thats slowly playing out in front of us the goal posts will be moved until its so close to GA that the statement will be made well its only a small change now lets just go GA. This is not what we are about, its not where we have come from and we all should speak up and ask why the change? On what statistics. Point of note: Anyone seeking rectification or servicing work should first research the person they are about to engage, if you need an overhaul send it to the best person you can find etc. if you except the least experienced and cheapest person then the product will reflect. and lsatly, ask them to provide a copy of their insurance just in case they damage your equipment.

Mriya, comparing LAME work to RAA is a bit of a stretch in some respects, due mainly to the different level of regulation. Most RAA aircraft do not comply with airworthiness standards hence the mandatory placarding requiring owner and passenger to fly in it at their own risk, this is a trade off that many make to be able to afford and own a flying machine. Statistically speaking there are none! and to fix a system there needs to be statistical evidence that its broken first, I dont think it is! There is an adequite system for regulating L2 approvals now and it happens all the time, for example L2 restricted to airframes, L2 restricted to rotax engines and line maintenance etc. Basically the motor mechanic that wants to get an authorisation submits his application with work history, trade certs etc. He then has two recomendations from other L2's or LAME's, the technical department at RAA forms a board to review the application, if the applicant meets what they determin to be a low level of risk they will approve the applicant but because of limited aviation experience will require that they are supervised for a set period and are only allowed to conduct line maintenance or some other limitation. After the period imposed the applicant submitts his record of experience attained over the two year period and the technical department either imposes further probation, a category of approval limitation or some other restriction. I, like you supplied my licence details and received an unrestricted licence and like you I pick and choose the work I do and who I do it for. Your argument points to evidenced L2 maintenance or legislation violation/failures but I dont see the reports or investigations into violations coming out of the RAA office or CASA's. Those that partake in RAA flying do so with an understanding of the risk and the lower regulation, Casa traded these risks off with at first no flights higher than 300 feet and no road crossings and an MTOW under 540kg, then the height was extended to NA 5000ft and so on as the statistics proved that it was no more prone to accidents than GA. Our roots come from a dream to build and fly affordable and experimental aircraft with factored risk and mittigated safety, so what happened and where are we now? We are about to become over regulated based on a fear campaign that has no evidentary fact. I say show us the statistics of dodgy L2's, the investigation findings and their L2 removal or punishment! maybe if our technical manager put as much energy into defect investigation the uninvestigated 'engine failures because of operator error' may prove to be a faulty product I was told by the CASA head of defect investigation that they arent funded to investigate defects under RAA! One thing that text does not portray well is tone, this text is not designed to be nasty or condescending so please dont take it that way.

Rob it seems to me that the only statistics that we should be concerned with are the number of engine failures reported and no examination of cause! I mean if the too many engine failure line is going to be used where are the hard facts, the investigation findings stating that it was maintenance caused etc. the only maintenance engine failures I can recall were all homebuilt. Changing the maintenance system when its more robust than the CASA 51% rule is a farce!

Nong, your right on top of it mate, I read that line as well and have seen it for what it is! regulation will kill our hobby and if you take the time to read between the lines and understand the suttle movements of all the chess pieces it has been coming for a while and is a premeditated attempt to destroy RAA. Last word from CASA = 'Check mate'

No, just turned up in the mail.

Hey Frank, yes mate.

Hi all, I received a letter today informing of the proposed changes and new regulation that is going to come into effect. It appears that regulation is way out ahead of any real statistics on this one, my scanner is playing up so will take a pic and post up the letter for those interested.

What prop is fitted? What static RPM (ground full power) do you get? When was the Carburettor last serviced?

Sure can Geoff, if its LSA it just has to match the factory configuration, if its a C model the same applies as it was an option from the factory., My J160-C has EGT and CHT fitted form the factory and my LSA 230D had it fitted at 230 hours after a top end failure.

What sort of head lubrication config is it?

Got a pic of the piston crown and valve face Geoff?

Congrats mate.

Frank, I have a brand new carb here factory jetted for the 6 cylinder, if you want to try that.