Flying Control System – Duplicate Inspection

[jetjr]

Done some reading already, good refresh on knowledge.

 

In certain situations loctite etc OK, not sure how you inspect this is done right.

 

Anyone on the liability questions?

 

Pretty sure jabiru throttle cables adjustment nuts not secured

 

Will keep reading thx

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I am happy to be corrected on this point if I am wrong however I see no exemption from CAR 42G for RAAus which means independant inspection regulations have always applied to RAAus.

CAO 95.55 para 3.1 section (a) exempts RAAus aircraft from Parts 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5 of CAR1988.

 

CAR 42G is in Part 4A therefore not applicable. CAO 95.10 and 95.32 have similar exemptions.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Mriya]

CAO 95.55 para 3.1 section (a) exempts RAAus aircraft from Parts 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5 of CAR1988.CAR 42G is in Part 4A therefore not applicable. CAO 95.10 and 95.32 have similar exemptions.

Cheers

 

John

Thanks John,

I had just done some more reading and came to the same conclusion. Therefore it is the Technical Manual that defines our responsibilities on this matter. Seeing as the Technical Manual define the same basic requirement for independant inspections it doesn't make any real difference anyway.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

suggest that you read USA FAA AC 23.607-1, Self-Locking Nuts on Bolts Subject to Rotation.

AMEN.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Part of the preflight check ,walk around on jabiru type rod end connections , is to physically move the rod end to make sure it's not seized up or stiff , which could , and probably will sheer the rod end . This has happened on flap rod ends and results in one flap operation !

 

Mike

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

For years we complained because after an accident there usually was no investigation and even if there was we had to wait yonks to find out what caused the prang. Now that problem has been largely fixed. Within a week or so of a crash we have been given some pretty useful feedback, but still we complain....

 

 

[AVOCET]

For years we complained because after an accident there usually was no investigation and even if there was we had to wait yonks to find out what caused the prang. Now that problem has been largely fixed. Within a week or so of a crash we have been given some pretty useful feedback, but still we complain....

It's great that the cause was identified and passed on , what eerks me is that knee jerk rule changes that don't take into account all the ramifications .

Is this the future ? , every times there's a accident !

 

 

[Mriya]

It's great that the cause was identified and passed on , what eerks me is that knee jerk rule changes that don't take into account all the ramifications .Is this the future ? , every times there's a accident !

Sorry AVOCET but you seem to be missing the fact that there have been NO RULE CHANGES. The AN simply highlights the rules that have always existed. The AN was issued at least in part because two well regarded and competant people would likely be alive if the existing rules had been followed. So it doesn't sound like a 'knee jerk reaction' to me. To answer your question 'Is this the future?' My response is 'I certainly hope so, in order to prevent similar tragedies from occuring in the future'

Regards,

 

Justin

 

 

[AVOCET]

Sorry AVOCET but you seem to be missing the fact that there have been NO RULE CHANGES. The AN simply highlights the rules that have always existed. The AN was issued at least in part because two well regarded and competant people would likely be alive if the existing rules had been followed. So it doesn't sound like a 'knee jerk reaction' to me. To answer your question 'Is this the future?' My response is 'I certainly hope so, in order to prevent similar tragedies from occuring in the future'Regards,

Justin

Well then , I stand corrected .

What's all the fuss been about then ?

 

Mike

 

 

[M61A1]

Sorry AVOCET but you seem to be missing the fact that there have been NO RULE CHANGES. The AN simply highlights the rules that have always existed. The AN was issued at least in part because two well regarded and competant people would likely be alive if the existing rules had been followed. So it doesn't sound like a 'knee jerk reaction' to me. To answer your question 'Is this the future?' My response is 'I certainly hope so, in order to prevent similar tragedies from occuring in the future'Regards,

Justin

I can't really agree with that, about no rule changes, the Tech Manual recommends it ( should), the AN, makes it mandatory. That would make it a change. For those who hangar their aircraft, and always have someone else about, it's no big deal, but for someone like myself, who puts the wing and horizontal stabilizer on the aircraft and connects the elevator pushrod and aileron horns every time I fly, and usually by myself, it's next to impossible.

 

 

[Mriya]

Well then , I stand corrected .What's all the fuss been about then ?

Mike

My hope is that we have all been able to better appreciate the independant inspection requirements as they stand. I think it is fair to say that based on various comments there are plenty of 'knowledge gaps' that exist amongst our community. Debate that causes us to all go back and read the regulations is a good thing. I know I've now got a better understanding of how the various CAR's interact with the RAAus Technical Manual. I hope that for everyone who has participated, that they too can now claim to better understand the regulations and how to apply them in their circumstances. Fly safe (and legal) everyone.

 

 

[Mriya]

I can't really agree with that, about no rule changes, the Tech Manual recommends it ( should), the AN, makes it mandatory. That would make it a change. For those who hangar their aircraft, and always have someone else about, it's no big deal, but for someone like myself, who puts the wing and horizontal stabilizer on the aircraft and connects the elevator pushrod and aileron horns every time I fly, and usually by myself, it's next to impossible.

I think Kaz (as a lawyer) explained that your interpretation of 'should' would be unlikely to stand up in court.

I appreciate your frustration and dilemma. Maybe the real question you are asking is whether there are any allowances possible for the circumstances you describe. I honestly don't know the answer, but the question probably needs to be asked. Some aircraft are designed with systems that allow transport disassembly without the need to interfere with flight control systems. If no concessions are available in the regs I guess the only legal option for sole pilots in isolated areas is to select an aircraft that can be derigged for transport without the need to disturb flight controls. I hope my posts haven't sounded too harsh. Expression and intent are hard to gauge and communicate effectively. My hope in participating is that people (including myself) come to a better understanding of the regulations that govern us. I am not saying I always like or agree with them, but ultimately my feelings make no difference. I (and all of us) am/are obliged to observe them regardless of whether we agree with them. If a rule is genuinely unworkable then it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authority as it is their job to ensure the regulations and rules work.

 

Regards,

 

Justin

 

 

[AVOCET]

My hope is that we have all been able to better appreciate the independant inspection requirements as they stand. I think it is fair to say that based on various comments there are plenty of 'knowledge gaps' that exist amongst our community. Debate that causes us to all go back and read the regulations is a good thing. I know I've now got a better understanding of how the various CAR's interact with the RAAus Technical Manual. I hope that for everyone who has participated, that they too can now claim to better understand the regulations and how to apply them in their circumstances. Fly safe (and legal) everyone.

Easy for most to comply ,

Harder for some ,

 

For me , I'm developing & testing a prototype , that can and does require many adjustments to control surfaces

 

At any time ; I've spent the last 6 months changing the v / fin , major work , ( I don't class it as a mod )

 

The only pilot for at least 120 kls,

 

If I had to pay for assistance to remain legal, ide be out of pocket big time , so if this new or not so new rule makes me a criminal, what am I supposed to do ? Shut up shop , move , or complain ?

 

Or just ignore .?you tell me .

 

It's easy for some to sit back and judge ,

 

I moved out here 10 years ago from bundaberg mainly for the privacy so we can develop new ideas without the prying , and spying eyes , and having been close to the early years of jabiru ,

 

I know how frustrating and time wasting people can be .

 

Mike

 

 

[jetjr]

What would the process be to complain about the AN?..........that would be taken seriously.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Perhaps a calm, rational discussion with the Tech Manager to raise the special circumstances of people who fly trailerable aircraft or who are remote from any assistance might provide an acceptable solution for those very few who find compliance a major challenge?

 

Before speaking to him, give some careful thought about how you might take alternative steps to double check the safety aspects in the absence of a second authorised person.

 

Kaz

 

 

[aro]

Sorry AVOCET but you seem to be missing the fact that there have been NO RULE CHANGES. The AN simply highlights the rules that have always existed.

The AN requires a mandatory inspection before next flight. This grounds all 19 reg aircraft, where ever they are, until the inspection can be carried out. A quick look at the RAA registration list suggests that is about 1500 aircraft grounded without warning.

 

You might think that is no big deal - some might see that as a little extreme.

 

Maybe that is not what the RAA intended, but that is how I read the "Action required: Mandatory inspection requirement before next flight"

 

 

[aro]

I think Kaz (as a lawyer) explained that your interpretation of 'should' would be unlikely to stand up in court.

Kaz was explaining the meaning of "shall" not "should". The question was is "should" the same as "shall" and the answer still seems to be no.

 

 

[bushcaddy105]

Am I reading it correctly that the mandatory inspection is only required after maintenance as described has been carried out, and not required for an aircraft which, after the original inspection and sign-off, has not required dismantling of any control mechanisms? I'll get mine checked anyway, but the intent of the notice isn't clear to me.

 

 

[aro]

Am I reading it correctly that the mandatory inspection is only required after maintenance as described has been carried out, and not required for an aircraft which, after the original inspection and sign-off, has not required dismantling of any control mechanisms? I'll get mine checked anyway, but the intent of the notice isn't clear to me.

Good question. It appears to me that the mandatory inspection is required immediately, with further duplicate inspections required after maintenance on the control system. If it was only required after maintenance, why would you specify only 19 reg aircraft but not all other RAA aircraft? The duplicate inspection after maintenance would apply equally to all.

 

The only logic I can see is that the inspection is to detect cases where control system problems have existed since initial assembly, and this is only considered a likely problem for 19 reg aircraft.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I can't really agree with that, about no rule changes, the Tech Manual recommends it ( should), the AN, makes it mandatory. That would make it a change. For those who hangar their aircraft, and always have someone else about, it's no big deal, but for someone like myself, who puts the wing and horizontal stabilizer on the aircraft and connects the elevator pushrod and aileron horns every time I fly, and usually by myself, it's next to impossible.

Is it not the case that a glider has a duplicate inspection every time the wings are put back on after being broken down to trailer???

[M61A1]

I think Kaz (as a lawyer) explained that your interpretation of 'should' would be unlikely to stand up in court.I appreciate your frustration and dilemma. Maybe the real question you are asking is whether there are any allowances possible for the circumstances you describe. I honestly don't know the answer, but the question probably needs to be asked. Some aircraft are designed with systems that allow transport disassembly without the need to interfere with flight control systems. If no concessions are available in the regs I guess the only legal option for sole pilots in isolated areas is to select an aircraft that can be derigged for transport without the need to disturb flight controls. I hope my posts haven't sounded too harsh. Expression and intent are hard to gauge and communicate effectively. My hope in participating is that people (including myself) come to a better understanding of the regulations that govern us. I am not saying I always like or agree with them, but ultimately my feelings make no difference. I (and all of us) am/are obliged to observe them regardless of whether we agree with them. If a rule is genuinely unworkable then it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authority as it is their job to ensure the regulations and rules work.

Regards,

 

Justin

Don't get me wrong, I don't that independent inspections are a bad idea. I am not a LAME, but an AME. I work on military helicopters for a living, as a trade supervisor, where they require three levels of certification. After rebuilding my aircraft, I used one my independent inspector workmates to carry out a full inspection of the whole airframe, not RAA legal, but I know who I'd rather use. As far as "shall/must" and "should", any maintenance manual I have ever used, clearly outlines those definitions in relation to maintenance in the front pages.Kaz in post 59, said that shall and must are the same. Yes I do understand that if a document says you "should" do something, and you came unstuck because you didn't, you may well be up the creek. I think however, that the tech manual was perfectly adequate using the term "should". I have no problem with extra inspections and have done so where possible. When the "where possible" is replaced with "must", it's unworkable.

Even the overly stringent military system has provision for a SCM (self certifying maintainer) in certain situations, such as limited personnel on a recovery. I can tell you, when you sign in that SCM box, you tend to go over the work EXTRA carefully (several times).

 

The nearest person that qualifies for me is 52 miles away (3 days a week) and charges $100/hr including travel time.

 

 

[M61A1]

Is it not the case that a glider has a duplicate inspection every time the wings are put back on after being broken down to trailer???

Quite probably.....however gliders are usually assembled/disassembled by several people, and not on a regular basis.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

It's great that the cause was identified and passed on , what eerks me is that knee jerk rule changes that don't take into account all the ramifications .Is this the future ? , every times there's a accident !

No, it's the past that people have been ignoring.

 

 

[AVOCET]

What would the process be to complain about the AN?..........that would be taken seriously.

I really don't think this one can be solved by a phone call to the tec man

 

 

[turboplanner]

Kaz was explaining the meaning of "shall" not "should". The question was is "should" the same as "shall" and the answer still seems to be no.

The answer is not "No" Ari, I gave a dictionary reference, and someone just asserted his own interpretation; later discussion showed it was a dead issue anyway.

 

I find it very strange that one week people are remorseful and writing RIPs and a few days later couldn't give a stuff about the loss of those lives, and will try anything to get out of their obligations.

 

Just remember that RAA employees, board members and members have a duty of care to ensure safe operations, and a quick way to fix the recalcitrants is to boot them out.