Property rights

I find it bizarre that you can " own " a plane and yet you are not allowed to do your own maintenance and servicing of your own property.

 

Is this the nanny state gone mad or something worse where our basic rights ( in this case, to do what you like with an object you own ) are under a cunning attack?

 

Cunning, because the attack is disguised as " protecting us from ourselves", " for our own good".

 

If you think for just a few moments, you will see that there are many more ways that people can be protected from themselves.. choices of companions, food, weight, exercise and many other things. Most of these "protections" would be much more effective in disrupting lives than stopping some guy playing with his aeroplane.

 

Nothing bureaucratic is likely to save lives, because stopping people from pursuing their interests leads to inactivity, which is far more lethal than any pastime.

 

You have 4 times more mortality risk from inactivity as from flying.

 

 

Hi Bruce. I own my house, lock, stock and two smoking barrels but I cannot do any electrical work on it. The rules are there to protect others rather than the owners. It would scare the cr*p out of me if pilot/owners could do all the work they wanted because there are so many who 'think' they know what they are doing. One only has to read some of the posts on this forum to see what I mean. I dislike 'nanny' state situations but we see all the time that a few stupid people ruin things for the majority. Try working where I work, 1 day course to use the pencil sharpener and another to use the 'sharp' pencil...

 

 

I find it bizarre that you can " own " a plane and yet you are not allowed to do your own maintenance and servicing of your own property.

 

Is this the nanny state gone mad or something worse where our basic rights ( in this case, to do what you like with an object you own ) are under a cunning attack?

 

Cunning, because the attack is disguised as " protecting us from ourselves", " for our own good".

 

If you think for just a few moments, you will see that there are many more ways that people can be protected from themselves.. choices of companions, food, weight, exercise and many other things. Most of these "protections" would be much more effective in disrupting lives than stopping some guy playing with his aeroplane.

 

Nothing bureaucratic is likely to save lives, because stopping people from pursuing their interests leads to inactivity, which is far more lethal than any pastime.

 

You have 4 times more mortality risk from inactivity as from flying.

The law is vertically integrated with flying safety. No point in trying to stir up trouble.

 

 

But IF you have done your L1 exam and passed, you can service your own RAA aircraft?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

But IF you have done your L1 exam and passed, you can service your own RAA aircraft?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

Yes you can. Only you will know if you should, or will you?

 

 

Yes you can. Only you will know if you should, or will you?

In my case I should and I will, having done the L1 practical competency test, theory test to do. In addition will do the Rotax Level 3 maintenance course and any other course that will add to my knowledge base to more than meet the the requirements of L1 maintenance for my aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

My view is that the maintenance of the airframe is even more important than the maintenance of the engine. Despite popular opinion, aeroplanes generally do not stop flying unbidden if the engine stops.

 

Losing wings and control surfaces is generally terminal.

 

 

I find it all rather odd, I can fully maintain a car - even owned by friends, motorbikes, boats, with no qualifications.

 

I also do some part time work at a car repair shop. I'm yet to see a service manual, tool calibration sticker, operations manual. I also see LAMEs servicing aircraft in my travels. Never ever seen a Cessna service manual on the bench.

 

 

But IF you have done your L1 exam and passed, you can service your own RAA aircraft?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

That L1 is a joke.

 

The test is how good one can read the paper work but the important ones are missing (aircraft maintenance).

 

They even disregard maintenance course Jabiru run, come on I think Jabiru know a bit more than the test paper writers.

 

KP

 

 

What Bruce is talking about is a principle in his opinion which applies to aircraft where the owners can't maintain them.

 

That's not the case where people are allowed to maintain their aircraft with L1.

 

What it does include is all the recreational aircraft in GA.

 

No one in Government has said they are thinking of changing the law, no one in Government had said they are thinking of changing safety standards.

 

This is just pie in the sky from one individual.

 

 

What you haven't seen in in a aircraft maintenance facility are the hoops that the LAME has had to jump through to get the Certificate of Approval to maintain aircraft. Have a read of CAR 30 (2D) with special attention to CAR Part 4A, Division 2.

 

CAR 30 (2D) requires an operator to have a documented Manual of Procedures, while CAR Part 4A Division 2 Reg 42A says how work is to be done and records kept. All the technical data has to be available on the site where the Certificate of Approval permits maintenance to be carried out. Records of calibration of tooling, and records of every part that was used in maintenance have to be kept. Also, did you know that the service records for a VH-registered aircraft have to be retained for a minimum of 12 months after the aircraft has been deregistered?

 

So, you won't see a manufacturer's workshop manual with oil-stained edges to the pages in the workshop. Most work is repetitive. Once an apprentice has learned to correctly carry out a maintenance task, there is no need to refer to a service manual every time the same task is carried out.

 

 

That L1 is a joke.

 

The test is how good one can read the paper work but the important ones are missing (aircraft maintenance).

 

They even disregard maintenance course Jabiru run, come on I think Jabiru know a bit more than the test paper writers.

 

KP

Hopefully the L1 practical competency module becomes more complex as time goes on, to give more credibility to the L1

 

qualification. Maybe include engine and airframe modules, too.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

Hopefully the L1 practical competency module becomes more complex as time goes on, to give more credibility to the L1

 

qualification. Maybe include engine and airframe modules, too.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

In any current fatality the L1 standard is going to be judged by what it is now, who taught the person who failed, and why the person made the mistake.

 

You can't say, "we'll just wait until we have time, a few more people might be killed but sh!t happpens."

 

 

They shouldn't take on something they can't actually do properly. They "assume" the liability with taking on the job. There's no way they can control/ supervise servicing and build/design standards across the vast subject and conditions without making the courses almost equal to a medical degree. Look how they "did" the human factors matter. How many in the management are capable of what they want /require the members to have? Few (if any) I would suggest. No one would be across dealing with all the "properties"of materials suitable for aircraft construction, and /or suitable means of testing and repair of such structures. Nev

 

 

I built my MiniMax from drawings. I modified the design in several areas: I replaced the elevator & aileron Teleflex cable system with push rods & torque tubes; incorporated flaps; altered the empennage profile (but not the tail volume); installed an engine that has never been fitted to a Max previously; and made my own propellor.

 

But I am not allowed to maintain my aircraft as I am "not qualified".

 

Bruce

 

 

I hope that you have provided your maintenance person with a detailed manufacturer's maintenance schedule.

 

 

I built my MiniMax from drawings. I modified the design in several areas: I replaced the elevator & aileron Teleflex cable system with push rods & torque tubes; incorporated flaps; altered the empennage profile (but not the tail volume); installed an engine that has never been fitted to a Max previously; and made my own propellor.

 

But I am not allowed to maintain my aircraft as I am "not qualified".

 

Bruce

What's stopping you getting an L1?

 

 

But IF you have done your L1 exam and passed, you can service your own RAA aircraft?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

I am pretty sure the L1 wasnt to be based for the person that actually builds the aircraft...not for a factory built or hire and reward. When they bought the L1 in as I had already built and service my aircraft I supposedly automatically had the L1 then they came up with a date that I had to have done the course..think it was some date in Feb last year or the year before. I did the L1 course and passed fine although I must admit there wasnt what I thought in the online course I would have thought it would have been more comprehensive.

 

I do believe though that there should be some sort of course available like the SAAA have or well used to have that is a lot more technical to be done by those who build their own. Doesnt have to be L2 level but the main issues etc that are required to do the maintenence and also some repairs etc.

 

Having built my own to what I consider to be a reasonably high standard and now rebuilding one that was built by L2 's and it was terribly built so bad that I have pulled it apart to literally every single part back into a complete kit again and have rebuilt way too many parts that had been either wrongly done or misaligned and not to mention some of the savannahs that I have seen built by non aircraft guys that were just beautiful builds and others that were terrible builds there is a lot of inconsistancy in quality. There does need to be some sort of course or at least overview or even a pool of people that the builder needs to get to come and look over their build. Yes the new tech manual does this but I think it needs to be maybe a bit more often that a eye or two needs to be cst over some of these builds long before they get too far along.

 

I think I have a lot of experience in a lot of fields and building and doing a good job is easy and nutting out issues I do enjoy but for others it may or may not be and a little guidance is required to make sure the end product is not a dog and then that dog gets passed onto someone else who may not know any better

 

Just my opinion :)

 

Then again I do agree that there is way too much interference by govt departments in that they want to control everything. Oversight can be a good thing if it is done right...currently it is NOT done right in my opinion

 

 

What's stopping you getting an L1?

Nothing. That is not my point.

 

 

Here's the thing. You can build an aircraft, VH reg it as "experimental", do the SAAA MCP which is mostly about getting the paperwork right and do your own maintenance. And we all know there are many RV's are supposedly built by the people who are recorded as the builder, but in reality the watched it being built by contractors. It would seem that the real distinction in owner maintencance is the paperwork not the competentcy.

 

The Canadian experience is that owner maintained aircraft are at least as safe as traditionally maintained aircraft - this was confirmed by the FAA. Most people are smart enough to know where capacity ends and foolhardiness begins. The level of education of the population is generally much better than regulators give people credit for.

 

In addition if it (owner maintenance) is lawful, practitioners will be more open to seek support and advice.

 

 

Hey Turbs, do you know what a “motorized attendance module” is?

 

 

What is the definition of a builder? Say I import something like this in a transport cradle, assemble it and do the paperwork and get any inspections required as builder. How is this situation treated? What am I?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

 

What is the definition of a builder?

The general idea is that you have to have built 51% of the aircraft. What you are talking about is assembling, not building.

 

Approved kits have been assessed to ensure that they meet this requirement.

 

 

Hey Turbs, do you know what a “motorized attendance module” is?

Yes, what's your point?

 

 

The wheels on the motorized attendance module go round and round, round and round

 

The people on the motorized attendance module go up and down, up and down.