Promulgation of Airworthiness Directives.
Or...you could just read what the law says, Bend.
The foreign state of design ADs that fall within the scope of para (a) or (b) of the definition of “airworthiness directive” are, by definition, an AD covered by CASR 39.003. CASA doesn’t have to issue sh*t.
That said, I’m making the assumption that CASA isn’t doing the usual and regulating by exemption. That is - I admit - a very naive assumption.
The foreign state of design ADs that fall within the scope of para (a) or (b) of the definition of “airworthiness directive” are, by definition, an AD covered by CASR 39.003. CASA doesn’t have to issue sh*t.
That said, I’m making the assumption that CASA isn’t doing the usual and regulating by exemption. That is - I admit - a very naive assumption.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The forgien ad Must be on the Australian listing before it can be done. Please show where it states agaist that. A forgien ad has nothing in law in australia till its on our listing.
so leadie when was the last time you had to do an ad list for an aircraft service and release that that aircraft after the service.
IAW. A forgien ad is not iaw.
It dose not say anything in what you have posted that it must be done before it is on our list.
at the end of the day you do what you wish ill do what i wish. And seaming i have already taken casa to task on this and won well ......
and leadie to use your words wtf would you know about maintenance your not even a bus driver. So humpty back to you.
so leadie when was the last time you had to do an ad list for an aircraft service and release that that aircraft after the service.
IAW. A forgien ad is not iaw.
It dose not say anything in what you have posted that it must be done before it is on our list.
at the end of the day you do what you wish ill do what i wish. And seaming i have already taken casa to task on this and won well ......
and leadie to use your words wtf would you know about maintenance your not even a bus driver. So humpty back to you.
Or...you could just read what the law says, Bend.
The foreign state of design ADs that fall within the scope of para (a) or (b) of the definition of “airworthiness directive” are, by definition, an AD covered by CASR 39.003. CASA doesn’t have to issue sh*t.
That said, I’m making the assumption that CASA isn’t doing the usual and regulating by exemption. That is - I admit - a very naive assumption.
The foreign state of design ADs that fall within the scope of para (a) or (b) of the definition of “airworthiness directive” are, by definition, an AD covered by CASR 39.003. CASA doesn’t have to issue sh*t.
That said, I’m making the assumption that CASA isn’t doing the usual and regulating by exemption. That is - I admit - a very naive assumption.
I said with out checking that CAsA would only try capture the Country of Origin AD's but it was the owner/operator that must make sure country of manufacturer AD's are carried out.
Actually I did check and this is what I said!!
I ask this as I recall CAsA when stating the Country of Origin AD's must be carried out, there was also the comment that CAsA would do attempt to capture the relevant AD's but it was up to the registered operator to ensure all AD's required to be done are done (If we miss a few cant blame us).
So Lead can you explain your last post starting with this "Or...you could just read what the law says, Bend.
The forgien ad Must be on the Australian listing before it can be done. Please show where it states agaist that. A forgien ad has nothing in law in australia till its on our listing.
so leadie when was the last time you had to do an ad list for an aircraft service and release that that aircraft after the service.
IAW. A forgien ad is not iaw.
It dose not say anything in what you have posted that it must be done before it is on our list.
at the end of the day you do what you wish ill do what i wish. And seaming i have already taken casa to task on this and won well ......
and leadie to use your words wtf would you know about maintenance your not even a bus driver. So humpty back to you.
so leadie when was the last time you had to do an ad list for an aircraft service and release that that aircraft after the service.
IAW. A forgien ad is not iaw.
It dose not say anything in what you have posted that it must be done before it is on our list.
at the end of the day you do what you wish ill do what i wish. And seaming i have already taken casa to task on this and won well ......
and leadie to use your words wtf would you know about maintenance your not even a bus driver. So humpty back to you.
We have and it all says your statements are not correct - so just post links to CAsA or other legal documents in relation to AD's - You are wrong on this.
The Regulations are top of the food chain, then AD's and then following are other CAsA documents and documents accepted by CAsA.
So unless the document you are reading from is part of the regulations, it is overruled by that posted reg.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Regulation was posted a few posts ago, also I posted the Advisory Circular - you have posted nothing of any CAsA documents to support your claim/s - NOTHING!!
We have and it all says your statements are not correct - so just post links to CAsA or other legal documents in relation to AD's - You are wrong on this.
We have and it all says your statements are not correct - so just post links to CAsA or other legal documents in relation to AD's - You are wrong on this.
sorry im not wrong on this.
an ad must be passed from parliament. You will notice that a foreign ad there is a delay before it goes on the Aust listing. Why because it has to be made into law.
a foriegn state can not make a law in australia. An ad is law.
like i said you do what you wish. I really dont care.
Looks like two villages are short of idiots this evening.
Rod: Lake justice pimula armistice.
Yes, Bend. I’ll try it in words of one sill-ah-bull: Stop blab-ing ah-bout what CAR-SAH says and pub-lish-ez.
Just read what the law says
Rod: Lake justice pimula armistice.
So Lead can you explain your last post
starting with this "Or...you could just read what the law says, Bend.
Just read what the law says
The law leady as I said all along is that all AD's from country of origin AND Australian AD's MUST be carried out.
I just did not quote it, only said that is what I recall.
What I recalled was fairly close to what is law.
Condrod does not agree and has some completely wrong statements - and not backed by anything than his comment/s.
So Leady the legend - how do we sign off such AD's in the Log Books?
That has been my question as a document AD/CESSNA 210/ 2012 - (what ever it was) does not exist? (but the AD regardless of being listed with the Australian AD's or not is required to be done).
I just did not quote it, only said that is what I recall.
What I recalled was fairly close to what is law.
Condrod does not agree and has some completely wrong statements - and not backed by anything than his comment/s.
So Leady the legend - how do we sign off such AD's in the Log Books?
That has been my question as a document AD/CESSNA 210/ 2012 - (what ever it was) does not exist? (but the AD regardless of being listed with the Australian AD's or not is required to be done).
I’d be signing off using a signature. Foreign NAA’s ADs include descriptions of stuff that has to be done. Just like in Australian ADs. Once that stuff has been done, you can lawfully certify that the stuff has been done. Write out the reference number of the foreign NAA’s AD and explain the stuff you did, and sign away. Job done!
You and Rod keep getting bent out of shape about what’s “listed”. Stop doing that. Forget lists. Start working out what ADs fall with the scope of the definition of “airworthiness directive”, in the law, that apply to the aircraft you’re working on. That’s your job. Some of those ADs may be issued by CASA and some may be issued by a foreign NAA. Deal with it.
You and Rod keep getting bent out of shape about what’s “listed”. Stop doing that. Forget lists. Start working out what ADs fall with the scope of the definition of “airworthiness directive”, in the law, that apply to the aircraft you’re working on. That’s your job. Some of those ADs may be issued by CASA and some may be issued by a foreign NAA. Deal with it.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie the info posted by Lead apply to all Australian registered aircraft and they were the regulations.
The Regulations are top of the food chain, then AD's and then following are other CAsA documents and documents accepted by CAsA.
So unless the document you are reading from is part of the regulations, it is overruled by that posted reg.
The Regulations are top of the food chain, then AD's and then following are other CAsA documents and documents accepted by CAsA.
So unless the document you are reading from is part of the regulations, it is overruled by that posted reg.
Apologies for a 2 year thread bump folks, but I'd like to see what the brains trust here thinks about this foreign AD compliance thing, and this was the most appropriate thread I found...
The background is I'm considering buying a Comanche to step up from the RV-9, and there are 20 'current' AD's listed by CAsA for the PA-24 in Australia, however a very well-known (but often not as carefully done) AD for the PA24 series in FAA-land is AD 77-13-21 Prevent Landing Gear Collapse issued 16/12/77, which details repetitive inspection of the landing gear components and 3-yearly replacing of the gear bungees, per a Piper SB, in order to avoid becoming a statistic. Australia has an AD detailing inspection of the landing gear side brace, but not the rest of the system, as detailed in the FAA AD.
The actual AD itself isn't particularly relevant, it's just the most well known repetitive one that would apply, so don't put too much thought into the specifics of it...but...
CAsA says that if the aircraft type was on their register prior to 01 October 2009, then the registered operator must comply with State of Design AD's issued from that date. But if the type was not on the CAsA register, then you have to go back and comply with all FAA AD's (CAsA AC 39-01 refers). Now, obviously the Comanche has been here for decades, and the FAA gear AD itself is over 40 years old, but still relevant, so my question is:
"What have I overlooked that means CAsA hasn't issued it as an Australian AD with which I must comply, or conversely, what have I overlooked about complying with older FAA AD's?"
The background is I'm considering buying a Comanche to step up from the RV-9, and there are 20 'current' AD's listed by CAsA for the PA-24 in Australia, however a very well-known (but often not as carefully done) AD for the PA24 series in FAA-land is AD 77-13-21 Prevent Landing Gear Collapse issued 16/12/77, which details repetitive inspection of the landing gear components and 3-yearly replacing of the gear bungees, per a Piper SB, in order to avoid becoming a statistic. Australia has an AD detailing inspection of the landing gear side brace, but not the rest of the system, as detailed in the FAA AD.
The actual AD itself isn't particularly relevant, it's just the most well known repetitive one that would apply, so don't put too much thought into the specifics of it...but...
CAsA says that if the aircraft type was on their register prior to 01 October 2009, then the registered operator must comply with State of Design AD's issued from that date. But if the type was not on the CAsA register, then you have to go back and comply with all FAA AD's (CAsA AC 39-01 refers). Now, obviously the Comanche has been here for decades, and the FAA gear AD itself is over 40 years old, but still relevant, so my question is:
"What have I overlooked that means CAsA hasn't issued it as an Australian AD with which I must comply, or conversely, what have I overlooked about complying with older FAA AD's?"
Just read CASR Part 39 twice, and assume it means what it says.
Note that there’s a difference between an aircraft “type” and an aircraft “model”.
All of that said: Pick the brains of the Comanche Society. Their collective wisdom is what will help you keep a Comanche airworthy in fact.
The 260C is a nice aircraft....
Note that there’s a difference between an aircraft “type” and an aircraft “model”.
All of that said: Pick the brains of the Comanche Society. Their collective wisdom is what will help you keep a Comanche airworthy in fact.
The 260C is a nice aircraft....
Originally Posted by LB
All of that said: Pick the brains of the Comanche Society. Their collective wisdom is what will help you keep a Comanche airworthy in fact.
The 260C is a nice aircraft....
The 260C is a nice aircraft....
Re the 2009 'cut off', bear in mind that, for a very long time CASA, CAA, DCA, and whatever else the Australian civil aviation regulator happens to have been constituted and called over the years, considered itself competent to 'second guess' the decisions of other national airworthiness authorities that happened to be the issuers of the type certificates of many of the aircraft that were imported to Australia. Once the aircraft was registered in Australia, the entirety of the regulatory requirements for continuing airworthiness were decided by the Australian regulator.
Most of those requirements were, of course, 'automatically picked up' as a consequence of the definition of approved data, but AD requirements weren't. They arose only through ADs issued by the Australian regulator. Now, as you've seen, some ADs issued by foreign NAAs have 'automatic' effect in Australia as a consequence of the contemporary definition of AD. (That concept seems to have been mind-bogglingly confusing to some, as can be seen in the earlier discussion in this thread.)
Re the FAA AD 77-13-21 Prevent Landing Gear Collapse issued 16/12/77, it is perfectly possible that the Australian regulator took the view that Australian LAMEs were more competent and capable of detecting potential landing gear defects than their US counterparts. Bear in mind that the 'brains trust' in the Australian regulator would have comprised mainly Australian LAMEs...
(Another, out of many, interesting quirks of this situation is that in the US the regulator would never allow patch repairs of magnesium ruddervators on V-tailed Bonanzas, but I've seen a few patch repairs on them in Australia.)
It is of course open to you to ask a friendly LAME to perform the AD, as if it were mandatory, just like Service Bulletins and other things that are not mandated from a regulatory perspective. That's where the wisdom of the Comanche 'tribe' comes in.
Most of those requirements were, of course, 'automatically picked up' as a consequence of the definition of approved data, but AD requirements weren't. They arose only through ADs issued by the Australian regulator. Now, as you've seen, some ADs issued by foreign NAAs have 'automatic' effect in Australia as a consequence of the contemporary definition of AD. (That concept seems to have been mind-bogglingly confusing to some, as can be seen in the earlier discussion in this thread.)
Re the FAA AD 77-13-21 Prevent Landing Gear Collapse issued 16/12/77, it is perfectly possible that the Australian regulator took the view that Australian LAMEs were more competent and capable of detecting potential landing gear defects than their US counterparts. Bear in mind that the 'brains trust' in the Australian regulator would have comprised mainly Australian LAMEs...
(Another, out of many, interesting quirks of this situation is that in the US the regulator would never allow patch repairs of magnesium ruddervators on V-tailed Bonanzas, but I've seen a few patch repairs on them in Australia.)
It is of course open to you to ask a friendly LAME to perform the AD, as if it were mandatory, just like Service Bulletins and other things that are not mandated from a regulatory perspective. That's where the wisdom of the Comanche 'tribe' comes in.
