Abbreviated & Expanded Checklists Multi Crew Environment
After all, that's what a checklist is for; to check that the things that need to be done have indeed been done.
Add "vital" to things that need to be done, and I will agree.
Long before "modern systems", I operated various B707 that were G and N registered, as well as VH-.
The AFM (almost) checklists were used in the N-registered aircraft (ex-PanAm), long by present day standards, but brief and to the point, versus the QF normal checklists of the day, the G- aircraft operating on a UK AOC were somewhere in between. The shortest B707/720 checklists I ever used were for an ex-TWA Boeing 720.
I really don't think many people have come to terms with the full meaning of the Australian 1998 changes, particularly their impact on "the old ways of doing things". When Australia (prior 1998) had Australian certification standards, and created Australian AFMs (or equivalent --- and remember the "Black Book" Operations Manuals for small aircraft) for all Australian registered aircraft, DCA/DoT-ATG/CAA/CASA could "approve" amendments to Australian documentation, and imposed all sorts of Australian unique certification standards, most of them adding cost and complexity and some serious commercial disadvantages, for no demonstrated risk reduction benefit ----- there was no "increase in safety", whatever that means.
All those Australian AFMs (by whatever name) ceased to have any force with the repeal of the Australian legislation that gave rise to them in the first place.
That all changed in 1998, and most of what is on this thread demonstrates that many of you haven't appreciated the real ramifications of the changes. They are not some unintended outcome of the implementation of government policy, they are entirely the intended outcomes, despite the stout and persistent resistance of CASA's "iron ring".
Australian aviation at all levels has benefited by the adoption of the FAA certification standards (Parts 23-35) but the benefits to GA have not been all they could be and should be.
The CASA imposts on the small jet/turbo-jet operators is proof of that!!
Once again, I put the proposition that CASA has no power to amend a foreign Type Certificate, in any way, and CAR 138 means what it says.
Tootle pip!!
CASA may not have power to amend a foreign Type Certificate, but CASA does have power to impose conditions on the type acceptance certificate CASA issues off the back of the foreign type certificate or equivalent document issued by the NAA of a recognised country: CASRs 21.029A and 21.029B.
CASRs 21.005, 21.006 and 21.006A are probably relevant too, but I haven’t worked out what they mean.
CASRs 21.005, 21.006 and 21.006A are probably relevant too, but I haven’t worked out what they mean.
CAR 232, which requires CASA to approve check 'systems', is open to interpretation.
One version is that it means every item on the checklist, the sequence, who does what and when etc must be approved.
Another interpretation is that it means whether a laminated card, book, roller blind or the mechanical 'flip' type can be used; i.e. the 'system'.
And yet another interpretation is that it means all of the above.
I have had some CAR 232 approvals issued that pinned us down to the actual version number and issue date. CASA would then want to charge us big bucks to assess any amendment that may have become necessary as a result of either operational experience or manufacturer's changes. Yeah, right, a small cash-strapped, resources-thin Company will comply religiously with THAT crock. If they did not pick up any subtle changes at audit time (and they never did) that was due to their lack of attention to detail.
In a more favourable light, I have had much more co-operative and practical CASA people simply issue an approval of the 'system', with a tacit understanding that we did not have to go back to them to make any minor changes, just so long as they also got the amendment and reason for that amendment. Which guaranteed co-operation.
One version is that it means every item on the checklist, the sequence, who does what and when etc must be approved.
Another interpretation is that it means whether a laminated card, book, roller blind or the mechanical 'flip' type can be used; i.e. the 'system'.
And yet another interpretation is that it means all of the above.
I have had some CAR 232 approvals issued that pinned us down to the actual version number and issue date. CASA would then want to charge us big bucks to assess any amendment that may have become necessary as a result of either operational experience or manufacturer's changes. Yeah, right, a small cash-strapped, resources-thin Company will comply religiously with THAT crock. If they did not pick up any subtle changes at audit time (and they never did) that was due to their lack of attention to detail.
In a more favourable light, I have had much more co-operative and practical CASA people simply issue an approval of the 'system', with a tacit understanding that we did not have to go back to them to make any minor changes, just so long as they also got the amendment and reason for that amendment. Which guaranteed co-operation.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach E,
what you describe is exactly the problem, lack of consistency. What is approved here, aint there. What is approved here may not be approved if there is a change in FOI, how the hell does someone run a business when the goal posts are continually changing, remember here we are talking about "COMPLIANCE".
You are in compliance based on the opinion of the FOI of the day which may not necessarily be in "COMPLIANCE" with the FOI of tomorow. This thread perhaps illustrates the diversity of "Opinion" across the aviation spectrum, which is fine,everyone is entitled to an opinion, except where it comes to "COMPLIANCE" because compliance means you are a "CRIMINAL" or not, and that proposition is based on an everchanging playing field where you have no control of exactly where the goal posts are.
It is no wonder it is getting harder and harder to get anyone to take on a chief pilots role. Why would anyone risk their reputation, and a possible criminal record trying to comply with regulations not even the regulator understands, where the meaning or intent of those regulations can change on a daily basis, where to comply with an unqualified, inexperienced and often completely incompetent FOI you are left with a choice of compromising your own professional integrity, or accept what you know is unsafe. Australia is now a complete regulatory madhouse, that smoking hole is only a matter of time, god help us. The lunatics really are in control of the asylum.
what you describe is exactly the problem, lack of consistency. What is approved here, aint there. What is approved here may not be approved if there is a change in FOI, how the hell does someone run a business when the goal posts are continually changing, remember here we are talking about "COMPLIANCE".
You are in compliance based on the opinion of the FOI of the day which may not necessarily be in "COMPLIANCE" with the FOI of tomorow. This thread perhaps illustrates the diversity of "Opinion" across the aviation spectrum, which is fine,everyone is entitled to an opinion, except where it comes to "COMPLIANCE" because compliance means you are a "CRIMINAL" or not, and that proposition is based on an everchanging playing field where you have no control of exactly where the goal posts are.
It is no wonder it is getting harder and harder to get anyone to take on a chief pilots role. Why would anyone risk their reputation, and a possible criminal record trying to comply with regulations not even the regulator understands, where the meaning or intent of those regulations can change on a daily basis, where to comply with an unqualified, inexperienced and often completely incompetent FOI you are left with a choice of compromising your own professional integrity, or accept what you know is unsafe. Australia is now a complete regulatory madhouse, that smoking hole is only a matter of time, god help us. The lunatics really are in control of the asylum.
All those Australian AFMs (by whatever name) ceased to have any force with the repeal of the Australian legislation that gave rise to them in the first place.
What is approved here may not be approved if there is a change in FOI, how the hell does someone run a business when the goal posts are continually changing, remember here we are talking about "COMPLIANCE".
This caused a flurry of activity until CASA released that they would not have the time and resources to approve all of these outstanding non-compliances.
On 14 October 2004 up came Exemption Number CASA EX38/2004 giving blanket exemption against the requirement for an approval under CAR 232(2) and compliance with 232(5).
But this did not cover multi-engine helicopters or turbine aeroplanes among other kinds of aircraft.
So CAR 232 is still alive and well today.
If you have an electronic check system within a FMS, this will require a letter from the aircraft manufacturer confirming that the system has been developed and approved by the applicable NAA and replicated in the electronic checklist.
