Culture of Fear, Maintenance release entries or lack there of, and MEL's / PUS's
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why an LAME owning his own aircraft on line with an operator can simply sign off a valid defect with the words "Entered in error" and the aircraft continues to fly and earn money. A few months later when said aircraft reaches the next 100 hourly, the defect can be ignored or rectified. Very convenient and keeps CASA happy if they ever happen to find out - which is doubtful as their accent is on RPT big boys. It has been done and I have seen it done.
"No fault found" is another popular one.
520.
Ya gotta love CASA. Instead of amending the CAO, they produce a ‘ruling’ that pretends the CAO does not mean what it says. 
The ‘ruling’ may give CASA an excuse for its corporate slackness in not enforcing or amending the CAO, but the ruling is not binding on your insurers folks.
I’d get either:
- a PUS under 37; or
- a letter from my insurer that it agrees with CASA’s ‘ruling’, and that the insurance will respond notwithstanding that the aircraft had an unserviceability that fell within the plain words of CAO 20.18 and CAR 207.
The ‘ruling’ may give CASA an excuse for its corporate slackness in not enforcing or amending the CAO, but the ruling is not binding on your insurers folks.
I’d get either:
- a PUS under 37; or
- a letter from my insurer that it agrees with CASA’s ‘ruling’, and that the insurance will respond notwithstanding that the aircraft had an unserviceability that fell within the plain words of CAO 20.18 and CAR 207.
Moderator
A couple of observations ..
(a) re MEL, the basic philosophy is that the aircraft is certificated for a given operational environment and the kit which is given the blessing during certification is required .. ergo, if not fitted/functional, the aircraft doesn't meet the Type Standard or CofA requirements, as appropriate, and is unairworthy.
This, of course, is a silly situation as the commercial aviation world would shut down as a consequence. Thus, the PUS/MEL etc systems look at the intent of the certification standard and set out to provide short term permissions for continued operation .. but with whatever restrictions etc are considered appropriate for the deficient aircraft to maintain a notionally similar level of risk as for the serviceable aircraft.
(b) re CAOs and the like .. keep in mind that there is an hierarchy of regulatory requirements .. Act, Regs, Orders, etc. and it is entirely appropriate for a relevantly delegated CASA officer to provide the odd concession by whatever Instrument against this requirement or that. Concessions against Orders is not such an unusual thing ?
(a) re MEL, the basic philosophy is that the aircraft is certificated for a given operational environment and the kit which is given the blessing during certification is required .. ergo, if not fitted/functional, the aircraft doesn't meet the Type Standard or CofA requirements, as appropriate, and is unairworthy.
This, of course, is a silly situation as the commercial aviation world would shut down as a consequence. Thus, the PUS/MEL etc systems look at the intent of the certification standard and set out to provide short term permissions for continued operation .. but with whatever restrictions etc are considered appropriate for the deficient aircraft to maintain a notionally similar level of risk as for the serviceable aircraft.
(b) re CAOs and the like .. keep in mind that there is an hierarchy of regulatory requirements .. Act, Regs, Orders, etc. and it is entirely appropriate for a relevantly delegated CASA officer to provide the odd concession by whatever Instrument against this requirement or that. Concessions against Orders is not such an unusual thing ?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
continental
the fact there is an open endorsement on an MR definitely does not ground the aircraft unless, as you quite rightly point out, it was an endorsement entered by virtue of CAR 47.
CAR 47 covers four items:
a busted COM is not a major defect and is not major damage and therefore is not covered by CAR 47. CAR 48 does not apply so the MR so endorsed, remains in force.
in other words, an endorsement made under CAR 50 does not cause the MR to cease to be in force.
your other question about why MELs cover more than the minimum requirements in the CAOs is easy to answer - safety!
any responsibile operator would seek to have a safety level above the absolute minimum required, wouldn't they?
the fact there is an open endorsement on an MR definitely does not ground the aircraft unless, as you quite rightly point out, it was an endorsement entered by virtue of CAR 47.
CAR 47 covers four items:
- requirements or conditions imposed under the regs have not been complied with - someone forgot to do the 100 hrly
- aircraft has suffered major damage or a major defect (other than a PUS)
- abnormal flight or ground loads have been imposed
- maintenance that has been carried out has adversley affected the aircraft
a busted COM is not a major defect and is not major damage and therefore is not covered by CAR 47. CAR 48 does not apply so the MR so endorsed, remains in force.
in other words, an endorsement made under CAR 50 does not cause the MR to cease to be in force.
your other question about why MELs cover more than the minimum requirements in the CAOs is easy to answer - safety!
any responsibile operator would seek to have a safety level above the absolute minimum required, wouldn't they?
JT: If someone with the power to grant a 'concession' from a rule does so, that's obviously OK. I also note that the 95 series of CAOs are simply standing 'concessions' – the 95 series of CAOs are just CAR 308 conditional exemptions from the requirements of specified CARs.
All: Read the fine print in the ruling:
Let's read what 20.18 subsection 10.1 actually says:
Beware: there is a risk that 10.1 could be interpreted by your insurer and a court to mean what it says, not what CASA hopes it means. And why on earth CASA doesn't just amend the CAO so that it clearly says what CASA hopes it currently means, is beyond me. It’s just a stroke of the CEO’s pen, after all.
All: Read the fine print in the ruling:
A user of aviation rulings should also be aware that a ruling is only a statement of CASA’s policy. It is not a restatement of the law. Accordingly, while rulings are drafted to be consistent with the law referred to in the ruling as understood by CASA from time to time, they cannot displace any inconsistent legal requirements.
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly these days it is all about how your insurance agency interprets your policy. There was a time when the hirer/LAME was considered to be the expert in a court of law but......I am distraught to say that it is no longer the case and sadly.....the only loser is us.......the paying public.
I do not disagree with other viewpoints........mine is just slightly different sometimes, and discussion used to be considered as healthy......what happened? Please? Please?
I do not disagree with other viewpoints........mine is just slightly different sometimes, and discussion used to be considered as healthy......what happened? Please? Please?
Last edited by The Messiah; 7th Jul 2006 at 11:20.
Messiah.
You are probably right on that point. However, I once attended a Coronial inquest into an aircraft accident. The pilot and his only passenger were killed when the aircraft hit a hill in IMC. During the inquest an LAME was questioned on the serviceability of various systems of the aircraft. A witness who had been flying in the same aircraft before the accident gave credible and detailed evidence on clear unserviceabilities observed. The LAME then admitted there may have been a problem although nothing was logged on the MR. naturally...
There was little doubt the LAME had avoided being pinned on a couple of specific defects that he knew were present. In his Findings the Coroner stated he had decided against accepting the evidence of the witness as the witness was not an expert. He stated that in his opinion, an LAME is an expert in his trade and therefore his evidence was to be accepted as correct.
There was a time when the hirer/LAME was considered to be the expert in a court of law but......I am distraught to say that it is no longer the case
There was little doubt the LAME had avoided being pinned on a couple of specific defects that he knew were present. In his Findings the Coroner stated he had decided against accepting the evidence of the witness as the witness was not an expert. He stated that in his opinion, an LAME is an expert in his trade and therefore his evidence was to be accepted as correct.
Let’s not confuse the questions whether:
- an item of equipment is serviceable (LAMEs are experts)
- the rules require the equipment to be serviceable (LAMEs aren’t experts)
- an unserviceability has been accurately described (LAMEs are experts)
- the rules require an unserviceabilty to be endorsed on the MR (there is no doubt).
- an item of equipment is serviceable (LAMEs are experts)
- the rules require the equipment to be serviceable (LAMEs aren’t experts)
- an unserviceability has been accurately described (LAMEs are experts)
- the rules require an unserviceabilty to be endorsed on the MR (there is no doubt).
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately I have always believed and still do that the buck stops with the guy/gal in the left seat. I do not believe in commercial pressure and never have. I have seen operators attempt to exert commercial pressure on me in my days in GA but I always knew they needed me more than I needed them otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, they would just get someone else.
Anyone who says 'I had to or I would lose my job', makes me sick and I have seen plenty of that pathetic excuse.
To depart in an a/c that you do not consider to be safe is simply stupid and nobody has ever put a gun to a pilots head to fly one.
The buck stops with the guy in the left seat.....end of story.
Anyone who says 'I had to or I would lose my job', makes me sick and I have seen plenty of that pathetic excuse.
To depart in an a/c that you do not consider to be safe is simply stupid and nobody has ever put a gun to a pilots head to fly one.
The buck stops with the guy in the left seat.....end of story.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messiah
You are correct in that the buck stops with the guy/gal in the left seat however your lack of belief in "commercial pressures" is a little surprising. The reality for a lot of people is that they are introduced early in their career to a culture of letting snags go unwritten until the 100 hourly. I have also seen subtle pressure applied when a pilot wants to write up a snag that in the mind of other 'more experienced' aviators, is not deemed critical.
This creates an uncertainty for the newby pilot as he/she is concerned about the reaction of the owner/operator if they write something up, particularly if it will stop the aircraft from earning revenue.
Personnaly I think it is wrong and we need to get away from this culture but I have seen enough evidence over the years to know it exists.
Cheers
TH
You are correct in that the buck stops with the guy/gal in the left seat however your lack of belief in "commercial pressures" is a little surprising. The reality for a lot of people is that they are introduced early in their career to a culture of letting snags go unwritten until the 100 hourly. I have also seen subtle pressure applied when a pilot wants to write up a snag that in the mind of other 'more experienced' aviators, is not deemed critical.
This creates an uncertainty for the newby pilot as he/she is concerned about the reaction of the owner/operator if they write something up, particularly if it will stop the aircraft from earning revenue.
Personnaly I think it is wrong and we need to get away from this culture but I have seen enough evidence over the years to know it exists.
Cheers
TH
To depart in an a/c that you do not consider to be safe is simply stupid
The point is whether a minor item being U/S and then is entered on the MR actually grounds the aircraft.
There are many, many things that can be broken or as is common intermittent that certainly do not render the aircraft unsafe. For example is an attitude indicator really required in a C172 for a session of circuits? Is a navigation light really required for a Day VFR flight?
I2: Given that neither an attitude indicator nor nav lights are mandated for day VFR private or aerial work ops, US’ing them won’t ground the aircraft for those ops. The nav lights would obviously be a problem for night ops.
20.18 subsection 10.1 is expressed to apply only to charter and RPT ops.
20.18 subsection 10.1 is expressed to apply only to charter and RPT ops.
Thank you for making my point Creampuff. There seem to be those suggesting otherwise. Or the intriguing variation that if the aircraft is in the CHTR category then all defects ground the aircraft even for PVT operations, when the item in question is not required for PVT operations.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selective dispensations
For decades, our regulator has appeared to be "regulating" by giving selective dispensations.
You start with some rules (or an interpretation of those rules) that are not appropriate and just do not work. Then you give dispensations to your favourites.
Law, made by Parliament is hard to change, and it is easy to give dispensations to some, and not to others. Particularly when you are the sole source of services. (a monopoly situation). A complex system of legal gobbledegook exists.
We do not have one set of rules, we have many books of rules, which often seem to contradict.And we have different interpretations from time to time, and from one place to another. Generally, our GA industry does not have the trust in the regulator that is really needed for the system to work properly.
People just do not seem to know what the rules are this week.
If you doubt that, just look at this thread. You will see that people who should know, have greatly differing opinions about just what unserviceabilities an aircraft can carry, if any.
For decades it was considered ok to fly aircraft as long as the equipment required by CAO 20.18 was fitted, and serviceable. Most aircraft carried more equipment than 20.18 required, and often had u/s equipment on board.
Today it appears that you cannot fly the aircraft if the clock stops.
MEL's are great, but difficult to get organised, and it is good to see that CASA are doing something to help. I hope it works.
Our nearest avionics LAME is 1500 km away. Can you understand an operator being annoyed if he has to have a vfr aircraft sit on the tarmac doing nothing for a week because number two VOR does not work? And there are only two VOR ground stations within a 300nm radius.
With the present system, what DO you do. Often the aircraft is safe, but the system is broken!!! Pilots and operators alike are not really sure what the requirements are. Sometimes operators misuse the system, and sometimes pilots do. I have seen a pilot enter about 25 items on the MR,after a flight, all of which became evident on the 40 minute flight home. Seems he had a "bad hair day". The problem really was with the duty roster.
For the system to work properly, it is necessary to operate as a team- operators, pilots, lame's CASA. Each depends on the others. There are a lot of good FOI's in CASA these days, but they can only tick boxes.
I think there are some underarm bowlers at the higher levels.
You start with some rules (or an interpretation of those rules) that are not appropriate and just do not work. Then you give dispensations to your favourites.
Law, made by Parliament is hard to change, and it is easy to give dispensations to some, and not to others. Particularly when you are the sole source of services. (a monopoly situation). A complex system of legal gobbledegook exists.
We do not have one set of rules, we have many books of rules, which often seem to contradict.And we have different interpretations from time to time, and from one place to another. Generally, our GA industry does not have the trust in the regulator that is really needed for the system to work properly.
People just do not seem to know what the rules are this week.
If you doubt that, just look at this thread. You will see that people who should know, have greatly differing opinions about just what unserviceabilities an aircraft can carry, if any.
For decades it was considered ok to fly aircraft as long as the equipment required by CAO 20.18 was fitted, and serviceable. Most aircraft carried more equipment than 20.18 required, and often had u/s equipment on board.
Today it appears that you cannot fly the aircraft if the clock stops.
MEL's are great, but difficult to get organised, and it is good to see that CASA are doing something to help. I hope it works.
Our nearest avionics LAME is 1500 km away. Can you understand an operator being annoyed if he has to have a vfr aircraft sit on the tarmac doing nothing for a week because number two VOR does not work? And there are only two VOR ground stations within a 300nm radius.
With the present system, what DO you do. Often the aircraft is safe, but the system is broken!!! Pilots and operators alike are not really sure what the requirements are. Sometimes operators misuse the system, and sometimes pilots do. I have seen a pilot enter about 25 items on the MR,after a flight, all of which became evident on the 40 minute flight home. Seems he had a "bad hair day". The problem really was with the duty roster.
For the system to work properly, it is necessary to operate as a team- operators, pilots, lame's CASA. Each depends on the others. There are a lot of good FOI's in CASA these days, but they can only tick boxes.
I think there are some underarm bowlers at the higher levels.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Messiah....a very valid point,and agree totally,...some of us learn the hard way....
Back in 1981,taxied out of Anchorage,a C-402,Sschedulred flight to Valdez,...noticed a shimmy in the left main landing gear...it had been written up 2x...refused to take the flight and was informed by the manager that he would get someone else to take the flight and we would talk about my employment in the morning.....they signed it off,.....I took the flight.....on landing (can you believe it) the left main collapsed...no injuries,7 on board....
Turns out they had used the wrong part...at NTSB hearing the company got fined,$5000,the LAME was disqualified for 2 years .aand I got 14 days off to think about my stupidity......pathetic on my part for sure,stupid to say the least.....did I learn a lesson ...for sure.
Real easy boys for you to say youll never do it,the culture doesnt exist,,..Ill always say NO....I have the balls to stand up to the boss......it happens because people get pressured into situations they normally reckon they wont.........the reason they write rules and regulations is so that people can break them....
Messiah ...you say it with such ease.....ie do not bow to their pressures....as a young fella,trying to build time and feed a cloth myself,the presures were intense....it was a means to an ends...very stupid indeed,I have no excuse for that frame of thinking..........now I just walk off the A/C....amazing what many years experience will teach you....PB
Back in 1981,taxied out of Anchorage,a C-402,Sschedulred flight to Valdez,...noticed a shimmy in the left main landing gear...it had been written up 2x...refused to take the flight and was informed by the manager that he would get someone else to take the flight and we would talk about my employment in the morning.....they signed it off,.....I took the flight.....on landing (can you believe it) the left main collapsed...no injuries,7 on board....
Turns out they had used the wrong part...at NTSB hearing the company got fined,$5000,the LAME was disqualified for 2 years .aand I got 14 days off to think about my stupidity......pathetic on my part for sure,stupid to say the least.....did I learn a lesson ...for sure.
Real easy boys for you to say youll never do it,the culture doesnt exist,,..Ill always say NO....I have the balls to stand up to the boss......it happens because people get pressured into situations they normally reckon they wont.........the reason they write rules and regulations is so that people can break them....
Messiah ...you say it with such ease.....ie do not bow to their pressures....as a young fella,trying to build time and feed a cloth myself,the presures were intense....it was a means to an ends...very stupid indeed,I have no excuse for that frame of thinking..........now I just walk off the A/C....amazing what many years experience will teach you....PB
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 9th Jul 2006 at 17:39.
