deadstick Posted May 15, 2014 Author Share Posted May 15, 2014 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! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 15, 2014 Share Posted May 15, 2014 how about the school that has a training air craft that has a fuel tank that has had a leak in it for over 4 years sighned out by lame l2 neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadstick Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 Storchy, report them to RAA tech, its not on at all mate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 how about lame that sighned out ga plane with prop 6 months out of time or the bloke with that bought the drifter with mended spar or the l2 l3 that replaced steering rods in a 24 reg aircraft from bearing services how many more do you want how about the lame l2 l3 telling me that 912 motors don't have return line to tank when shown in rotax installation manual said that's bullxxxx they don't have to have that neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 sorry deadstick that don't work what raa and casa are saying is that the lame l2 l3 that found this are lying neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_richo Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I spoke with Darren yesterday personally regarding my status as an L2 and why I haven't sent anything in for reassessment the last couple of years. I explained that I simply hadn't had any extra time from the kitchen boss to help out with maintenance for other aircraft since I was building my Sonex. I had attended an excellent Jabiru maintenance course a couple of years ago, did a pre-sale inspection on a Sonerai and had submitted a defect report recently to help out our local flying school but not much else apart from the building. Even though I was building I was still keeping my skills up on the tools, researching AC43- and so on, and Darren commended me on being a builder saying that we need more builders with experience, then went on to say he wouldn't view that experience favourably for L2 re-assessment?? I could contact him later and my L2 would be "suspended" in the mean time. A very poor choice of word I might add, since it implies a wrongdoing!!!! To become "unsuspended" perform the 4 annuals in a year, no problem submit for reassessment. I suggested that a suspended L2 would be in a catch 22 situation, not able to do any maintenance because I would be SUSPENDED. Not so, go thorough a process of contacting the techman, informing of the pending inspection, gain permission to carry out with another L2 or the owner. Have owner or L2 co-sign. Somehow I think this will still be open to dis-honesty if that is the concern with the current system. (L2s signing paperwork without doing the inspection) He also said that there were members crying out for L2's to do maintenance but couldn't find any, even though there are about 1000 on the books for 3500 aircraft.. (his numbers) something wasn't right and he needed to establish who was legitimate and who wasn't. I suspect the push is for commercial maintenance operators only and do away with guys like myself who really only do it for the challenge, stimulation and enjoyment of just being around aircraft and helping out other pilots. Oh yeah, forgot to add, he also wanted to weed out any LAMEs that had never lifted a spanner on a RAus registered aircraft.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_richo Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 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. Deadstick, Darren wrote in the recent mag, there are no unrestricted L2's or even LAMEs ! I did note in the letter I received, as you have posted.. he bullet points the requirements for an L4.. must be unrestricted L2! Does the left hand really know what the right hand is doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 So we could end up with ... Those who are unqualified but current Those who are suitably qualified but suspended 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadstick Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 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..... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stearman Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 With no statistical proof of maintenance being a factor in accidents, maybe our tech staff should be focusing on reducing the outrageous delays still going on with registrations. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 yes stearman their is statistical proof how many accidents in the last year never mind the rego crap we as an organization haft to start telling it as it is there is to many planes that do not comply with our regs notice I said our regs yes our regs what you are saying is pure guess work were are your stats to prove that lack off maintenance is not the problem I am lucky that I am not in a box 6 feet under ground through maintenance as one instructor said you either stupid or a good pilot rego delays also include maintenance that was in a lot cases involved weight and balance not done props not suited to plane neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stearman Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 yes stearmanwhat you are saying is pure guess work were are your stats to prove that lack off maintenance is not the problem neil What I am saying is not guess work, read the incident & accident reports recently added to the RAAUs website & you will see there is no indication of poor maintenance featuring as a cause of accidents. I know you have copped a raw deal with what has happened with your aircraft, but work that shoddy is very much the exception not the rule. I think RAAus should be sorting bigger problems that affect many members before creating more paperwork for those of us who work to keep aircraft flying. This new process is purely paperwork and will not reveal any substandard work. Sounds like the guy who did such a bad job on your aircraft will still have plenty of work to record in a diary to prove he is current under this new system, thus proving the worthlessness of this system. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Storchy Stearman is right in that if those in control argue that it is a factor, then its incumbent on them to provide the proof. Equally if there are others that can prove it isn't the case, then equally the provision of statistics goes a long way to proving their counter point. Without the provision of facts it become "yes it is!" "No it isn't!' ad infinitum. My gut tells me that poor maintenance is a factor, but what it doesn't tell me is whether its the No 1 factor or the No 100 factor.......If the latter then best we not be wasting time on it when there are 99 others that are more deserving of time......The problem we have is that most aviation incidents are created by the Swiss cheese principle when a whole lot of individual holes line up to allow a complete hole from one side to the other.....I see this as merely one hole. In your case it was big hole (based on your one side of the story we have seen) yet in others it would seem to be a much smaller part of the total. I agree with some of the points Deadstick makes, but I know that RAAus has trouble policing simple things let alone complex things and something like "have you done 4 annuals" is simple and something that replaces it with 250 acceptable permutations of work will be complex, ie one acceptable permutation might be "1 annual, 1 engine thru bolt replacement (can you do just one of those :<) ) 4 composite repairs and 3 brake pad replacements" will be damned hard to police...... In an ideal world perhaps we (RAAus) would have online maintenance reporting against RAAus tails and all the work done per year by LX's against RAAus registered aircraft is then reported directly against the RAAus maintenance software and the tech team can make a determination by reporting against each LX as to whether they are fairdinkum maintainers or pretenders..... But that requires a degree of compute maturity that we seem to be a long way short of at this point in time. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 What I am saying is not guess work, read the incident & accident reports recently added to the RAAUs website & you will see there is no indication of poor maintenance featuring as a cause of accidents.I know you have copped a raw deal with what has happened with your aircraft, but work that shoddy is very much the exception not the rule. I think RAAus should be sorting bigger problems that affect many members before creating more paperwork for those of us who work to keep aircraft flying. This new process is purely paperwork and will not reveal any substandard work. Sounds like the guy who did such a bad job on your aircraft will still have plenty of work to record in a diary to prove he is current under this new system, thus proving the worthlessness of this system. indeed......he may well be able to report multiple attempts at the same work....wouldn't that be ironic in the extreme...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 wording from insurance company email to me after repairs quote" you picked him as your repairer "unquote does the insure now of other botched jobs he has done like a sting repair neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadstick Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 He also said that there were members crying out for L2's to do maintenance but couldn't find any, even though there are about 1000 on the books for 3500 aircraft.. (his numbers) something wasn't right and he needed to establish who was legitimate and who wasn't. 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! A better solution surley would be to check the background of the 1000 L2's from their original files. Make 2 piles: 1st pile: Those that have formal training 2nd pile: Those that haven't. Then go through the 2nd list and find out if they received any hands-on training Should narrow down the number of L2's that have appeared without any training and start with those. That seems to be what they want as per aj_richo's post above. The statement is 4 x 100 hourly. Doesn't say 4 x 100 hourly/Annual or equivalent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Gentlemen, if you have any opposition to the tech managers proposals.....don't only voice it here........direct your complaints directly to the tech man himself either via Email or phone...that is your option as a member....I don't know if Darren views this site or even has the time to, so voicing your concerns here may only fall on deaf ears.......Maj....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 bloody crap and corruption when I wanted a lame aero nautical engineer to examine my plane "quote to hard I wont get any work or that means casa will have to be involved cant go against others unquote know saying that my case is very rare is may be right but you wont hear about others as some people don't have the balls to do any thing and that is a fact both casa and raa failed in duty of care one big time lame quote "just forget it fix the plane and fly away "unquote now for some it may be no problem for him but for me it is as should the person kill some one personally known to me or some other pilot from woop woop this affects me the lack off reporting and the don't tell anyone i want to sell my plane if no one knows the spar is broken if know one knows the tank leeks if no one knows that lame l2 l3 fixed it on the quite now the not investigating complaints about work carried out not to the satisfaction of P I C just plane sucks to me apparently duty of care does not apply to aviation now I have looked both persons in the eye that have a near imposible job of steering us as in you and I to a path of peace a quite from casa by abiding by our rules and regs and said quote "I don't want your job that has been forced upon you by educated imbersiles before you " unquote so what if we that is you and I have to pay more for a leader that is accountable and can get us on a path of stability where we don't have the shxx hitting those that do not deserve it as is the case with some of our lame l2 l3 l4 now with out good l2 l3 l4 we don't fly neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spriteah Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Hello all, I'm guessing most here are L2's. I just want to place my personal view point on this issue. Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals. The letter specifically mentions "Exemptions may be approved via agreement". If you send your office copy of work performed in I am sure it would be reviewed and if it demonstrates currency then presto you have a renewed L2. This whole process is not new. It has been in the tech manual for ages. It just has never had a Tech Manager ensuring the Tech Manual is followed as per their employment requirement. As an active restricted L2 I can personally say I have seen work performed by other L2's that has far from impressed me. I have been involved in several repairs as the second person and there is nothing worse! I have met some members with a 'I'll give it a go" attitude. Thats ok for working on a go-kart but a plane! In the past Courts of Law have also questioned the maintenance practices of RAAus. I anticipate we will have between 4-6 Coronial enquiries in the next 2 years looking at all aspects of RAAus, including maintenance. If any of those enquiries lay blame on RAAus then a civil matter seeking compensation is likely to follow. If hypothetically that civil matter is successful and there was a finding in relation to L2 maintenance failure, then upon further discovery it is shown that RAAus does not even follow its own rules ie tech manual then that could very well be the end of our great organisation. We have improved dramatically in the last 12 months, we need to continue down that road. Sometimes a little pain now is better than a lot forced on you later on. As to the L2 I have been told there are about 900 on the books. However when you try to find them they are scarce. Many I believe have been on the books from the two stroke days, all you needed was two buddies to sign you are awsome and L2 you become. In my view it makes sense to establish exactly who out there is skilled and available to perform the duties. I would like to see those who really want to perform the work have the opportunity to improve such as running Jab and Rotex courses for the active L2's. As stated the above is MY view. Look forward to hearing more. There is nothing sinister going on, were just trying to get things running as they were designed to run. Regards, Jim Tatlock Restricted L2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I hope they run a Rotax course instead of a rotex course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spriteah Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 You say tomato I say potatoe.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 hold the bloody boat spriteah you cant be cant be right:roflmao:spot on saying that neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 this could end very badly if it In the past Courts of Law have also questioned the maintenance practices of RAAus. I anticipate we will have between 4-6 Coronial enquiries in the next 2 years looking at all aspects of RAAus, including maintenance. If any of those enquiries lay blame on RAAus then a civil matter seeking compensation is likely to follow. If hypothetically that civil matter is successful and there was a finding in relation to L2 maintenance failure, then upon further discovery it is shown that RAAus does not even follow its own rules ie tech manual then that could very well be the end of our great organisation. We have improved dramatically in the last 12 months, we need to continue down that road. Sometimes a little pain now is better than a lot forced on you later on. one would have jumped on me for what I have written about work done by lame l2 l3 so why have you not bounced me out off raa This whole process is not new. It has been in the tech manual for ages. It just has never had a Tech Manager ensuring the Tech Manual is followed as per their employment requirement. As an active restricted L2 I can personally say I have seen work performed by other L2's that has far from impressed me. I have been involved in several repairs as the second person and there is nothing worse! I have met some members with a 'I'll give it a go" attitude. Thats ok for working on a go-kart but a plane! yes spriteah that is the reason failure to abide by our rules is going to bite us at some point opps it already has had I been tec manager for raa when i first got wind of a situation like mine where bad publicity was not doing my organization any good at all I would got it out off the publics eyes very quickly I am not blaming anybody as the problem was systemic years ago when raa started handing out l2 licences to people that could not read our rules neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_richo Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Jim - "Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals" Yes he is. Unless anything changes from here, that is exactly what he told me when I rang him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now