What did your grounding cost you?

[king_daniels]

The big boys have them so why not us?

 

We are not the big boys.

 

Daniel

 

 

[alf jessup]

I did

 

About the reason I would agree with an annual , is that if you consider it necessary to traverse controlled airspace, then maybe, your aircraft should be inspected by a LAME to make sure all your nav, comms and indicators meet the standard.I have no problem affording my aircraft maintenance, but I would have a problem affording someone else to do my maintenance.

The attitude that "if you can't afford to pay someone to do your maintenance, then you can't afford the aircraft", has no place in recreational flying.

 

I don't know why you would suggest that no-one here carefully carries out all necessary maintenance, but I find it utterly offensive.

M61A1 ,

 

I did not say that no one here doesn't carry out all the neccassary maintenance (so I don't know where you pulled that one from and why your offended, so if your still offended that is your problem not mine) I said or I meant to say/mean atleast with annual registration we all have to have a yearly or 100 hourly to renew it so maintenance is being done and tracked.

 

If we didn't have yearly renewals there would be no way of knowing for sure if it was carried out.

 

If your a LAME or a RAA L2 by all means do it yourself and sign it off, if you a joe blow that doesn't know the difference between a spark plug and a sump plug (and there are people out there) pay someone to check it over.

 

I do a lot of my maintenance myself (oilchanges, plugs filters ect) but when it comes to annuals, I take all the inspection covers off the aircraft to reduce the cost under the supervision of my RAA L3 and he does the inspection and the sign off as he is also a CAR 35 design engineer and knows a far lot more than me about aircraft components & systems.

 

The bottom line is, it is your butt in the seat and if someone wants to skip maintenance (not saying they will) they will be the ones to pay as long as they don't take others with them.

 

Alf

 

 

[alf jessup]

The big boys have them so why not us?We are not the big boys.

 

Daniel

Daniel,

But we share the exact same airspace with the big boys, not Jet airliners, GA are big boys too my friend and they do IFR under 10000 feet and we can go to 9500. we have regional airlines operating out of the same country airports as we do all over our great country, so just because we don't go into controlled airspace doesn't mean squat.

 

We are not big boys but we mix it with them on a daily basis.

 

Alf

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

In the begining there was no aviation authorities and over time GA ended up as it is today. Their growth rates (or declining rates) are a function of what they are and how they are regulated. RAAus on the otherhand had the benefit of starting afresh and doing its own thing or it could have chose the rinse and repeat and been GA MkII with all that entails.

 

A previous poster accurately said almost all accidents are pilot error and others inferred that if we dont move to lock in, more checks and balances, more so than we already have, then somehow that will change......I dont follow that logic myself, and I dont see what problem or emerging problem we are trying to solve. It seems in Western society that we have a schism at work, on the one hand we want more legislation and cotton wool, and on the other we rebel against the constant cotton wool brigade.

 

So, if we wind back all the emotion charged posts back to zero, can someone please have a go at telling me what problem we have today that needs to be fixed remembering that the posters comment that almost all accidents were a case of pilot error in flight not aircraft failure. Please dont use the Goulbourn sting accident/coroners report as your example, as MOST qualified pilots dont see that the main issue was the quality/appropriatness of the maintenance performed but rather the inability of the pilot to land the aircraft when the engine failed, engine failures being an expected event that are supposed to be trained and practiced for on a regular basis. It is true that if the engine didnt stop the crew would have survived and so there is a causal link, but not strong enough in my mind to override the failure after the engine failure.

 

It is true that we share airspace....just as we have done for as long as RAAus and AUF existed......Im not sure that the risk profile has changed at all, nor that someone has demanded a reduction in risk from what it was. If Im wrong in that assumption happy to be put right. TP has often posted, and correctly in my view, that the day that an RAAus pilot hits an RPT under the current management and insurance regeme is the day we can all watch change start to take place at a rate we would prefer not to believe, but Im not aware of anything even close to a close miss so I wonder if we are worrying about a risk that on balance of probabilities is very unlikely to eventuate.

 

Andy

 

 

[flyhi]

I jus got my renewal by email. Yippee! My file is in order and all is right with the world. My thanks to the renewal team, I hope the backlog goes away soon.

That is good news pmcc. I think I am around similar times to you so here is hoping mine is not far away.

 

 

[boingk]

Andy, we're not saying we need *more* checks and balances, we're (meaning alf and myself) just saying that we think our annual check is adequate and should not be stripped. Regardless of the almost nigh certainty that it would not be stripped, I think it wise to keep it.

 

We are not looking here at negating any particular problems, just keeping the fleet in a good and sound condition with an annual check. Its a simple but thorough affair that can be done by the majority with their L2, as I'm sure you are well aware. Checks include (for the uninitiated) things like spar condition, condition of any repairs, condition of BRS if any, condition and lockwiring of exposed nuts, etc. Things you may not see at any other time, in other words.

 

I really still can't believe that people think there is no need for a mandated annual check - how many of you have had the mechanic give you your rego inspection slip for your car and say something like 'Shes all good to go, just had to replace a rear blinker bulb and grease your front wheel bearings, though,' hey? Finding small things through mandated checks before they cause an incident is what this kind of legislation is all about.

 

Again, I'm not trying to say that what we have isn't enough... I just think it would be unwise to dispense with a relatively basic and necessary procedure.

 

- boingk

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

how many of you have had the mechanic give you your rego inspection slip for your car and say something like 'Shes all good to go, just had to replace a rear blinker bulb and grease your front wheel bearings, though,' hey? Finding small things through mandated checks before they cause an incident is what this kind of legislation is all about.

Over here there is no annual inspection of cars for registration. And guess how many more accidents there are caused by defective cars? None.

 

As Andy said, when it comes to safety pilot error is the issue.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Old cars = no airbags + questionable seatbelts + non collapsing steering columns.

I know a bloke who reckons the most effective road safety device would be a sharp steel spike protruding back from the centre of the steering column. Wise.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Over here there is no annual inspection of cars for registration. And guess how many more accidents there are caused by defective cars? ....

Wearing my VRA hat I have attended road accidents for thirty years and a few probably were due to defects.

 

One fatal smash involved an old Qld car with the brake lines to three wheels nipped off. Yes, one rear wheel brake only.

 

Killed his mum. No annual rego check in Qld.

 

The most defective part of any vehicle (including aircraft) is the driver...

 

 

[johnm]

Summarising ................................. ??:

 

annually we have birthdays - this is a good idea ............. when we get older it reminds us we are getting older - when we are getting close to 104 we know time is running short

 

annually we do our aircraft maintenance (or at 100 hours) - this is also a good idea and does not seem to be a contentious rule / idea (not too many people disagreeing here)

 

annually we register out planes with RAAI - this is probably not a good idea and this is probably a contentious issue. An aircraft owner probably needs to annually report the hours their plane has flown and landings (and maybe other data) - but not this current tedious system - every 12 months (annually) !

 

 

[68volksy]

So, if we wind back all the emotion charged posts back to zero, can someone please have a go at telling me what problem we have today that needs to be fixed remembering that the posters comment that almost all accidents were a case of pilot error in flight not aircraft failure. Please dont use the Goulbourn sting accident/coroners report as your example, as MOST qualified pilots dont see that the main issue was the quality/appropriatness of the maintenance performed but rather the inability of the pilot to land the aircraft when the engine failed, engine failures being an expected event that are supposed to be trained and practiced for on a regular basis. It is true that if the engine didnt stop the crew would have survived and so there is a causal link, but not strong enough in my mind to override the failure after the engine failure.

In my opinion Andy you're way off the mark in this post. The Sting had two pilots on board who were both highly qualified and who both owned and were experienced on Sting aircraft. The engine failure was a catastrophic failure that sent parts of the crankshaft through the crankcase, ripping pistons apart in the process. The field they chose is considered suitable for the situation by all who've seen it. It came out in the Coroners report that the maintenance records were at most farcical and Mr Coates is not painted in a pretty light in the report. I highly recommend a reading of the report by anyone looking to purchase an aircraft.

 

It's evident to anyone who has actually read the reports and knew the quality of the pilots and their training that the engine failure must have caused other issues. They didn't just trip over a rock on landing or hit some trees - the crater from the impact tells the biggest story in my opinion. This would lead to the opinion that the engine failure or the manner in which it failed was a direct cause of the deaths. This is the only time such a failure has ever occurred with a Rotax engine. The records indicated only 450 hours on the engine however no reliance could be placed on that figure. The reasons for the engine failure will never truly be known as the maintenance records for the engine were almost entirely fictional. Two experienced guys with 60-odd years of flying experience between them could have made a simple error in the approach or flare but i honestly believe there was more going on.

 

Do we need greater accountability or greater transparency in RA-Aus? Ten years too late is my answer but better late than never.

 

 

[boingk]

Over here there is no annual inspection of cars for registration. And guess how many more accidents there are caused by defective cars? None.

We do not fly cars. Cars are also engineered with a lot more safety margin than aeroplanes.

 

Again, we do not fly cars.

 

- boingk

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The problem is boingk, you don't want the liability of paying for killing a passenger or a 3rd party if you crash your plane, so you have to play by the rules. Regardless of what those rules are. Maybe you should move to a 3rd world country where this won't be such an issue?

 

 

[boingk]

What??? I'm *for* annual inspections.

 

Am I seriously one of perhaps 3 people on here who think annual inspections are a good idea?

 

Gee whiz...

 

- boingk

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think annual inspections will end up creating a layer of bureaucracy without making anyone any safer. Taking money away from your maintenance budget and into the RAA coffers.

 

 

[boingk]

Alight, let me try a different track... just in case I'm being misunderstood:

 

Do you think it a necessary inclusion in the ops manual to have a mandated 100 hourly / 12 monthly maintenance check? As distinct from the yearly 'rego check'?

 

- boingk

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Do we need greater accountability or greater transparency in RA-Aus? Ten years too late is my answer but better late than never.

And I find myself in total agreement with that statement!

 

I have read the coroners report, a couple of times actually and as is often the case IMHO there is a mixed bag of goodies in that report. Some are right and proper and some to me show a very poor understanding of subject matter.

 

I agree that there may well have been things that occured in that specific accident that we dont know about and which may well have led to the poor outcome.

 

Pperhaps if I was to change the statement to one of generalities and ignore this specific accident altogether "A fatality(s) that results from a failed force landing should not generally be blamed directly on the failed motor but moreso the pilot who having been trained to expect engine failure did not cope with it when it inevitably occured. The fact that the engine did fail obviously contributed, but not exclusively"

 

I should have known better than to draw on a specific occurence where I wasnt aware of every nuance. Apologies to anyone I offended.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Alight, let me try a different track... just in case I'm being misunderstood:Do you think it a necessary inclusion in the ops manual to have a mandated 100 hourly / 12 monthly maintenance check? As distinct from the yearly 'rego check'?

 

- boingk

Done by the owner or the pilot or both?

 

 

[alf jessup]

Done by the owner or the pilot or both?

FT,

 

Done by somebody that actually knows what to look for whether that be the pilot or the owner or by a trained LAME or L2 up.

 

Like I said in an earlier post there are actually people out there who don't know.

 

One does get a safer ride in a certified aircraft (you would think) if it is maintained to standard and flown by a disciplined trained pilot.

 

Alf

 

 

[M61A1]

I did

 

M61A1 ,

 

I did not say that no one here doesn't carry out all the neccassary maintenance (so I don't know where you pulled that one from and why your offended, so if your still offended that is your problem not mine)

 

Alf

"I agree that most accidents are pilot error in most parts but if no one ever inspects or maintains their aircraft to factory standards we might see the trend increasing from our aircraft actually start falling out of the sky."

Sorry, I was a bit touchy last night, but the above post from yourself was taken to mean that none of us do our necessary inspections, therefore we must pay someone else to do them.

 

 

[M61A1]

Alight, let me try a different track... just in case I'm being misunderstood:Do you think it a necessary inclusion in the ops manual to have a mandated 100 hourly / 12 monthly maintenance check? As distinct from the yearly 'rego check'?

 

- boingk

The ops manual already specifies more regular maintenance than annual. After reading some of your other posts, I'm not quite sure what it is you want. I'm happy doing my usual stuff at 25, 50 and 100 hrs, like I'm supposed to be doing. As has been pointed out, it's my butt in the seat.

I was under the impression you were campaigning for enforced 100 hr/annual inspections done by a third party and paid for by the owner.

 

 

[boingk]

Not paid for if you are the owner/constructor and/or hold an LAME or L2 cert... that would be ridiculous.

 

Proper checks at 25, 50, 100 etc are fine and dandy by me. If you happen to fly less than 100 hours a year then I think an annual in place of a 100 hourly isn't the worst of ideas but, again, it should be able to be carried out by the owner (if properly certified).

 

Glad we're on the same page.

 

- boink

 

 

[dazza 38]

Ultralights have been maintained by their owners for 30 odd years and there has never been a trend of them falling out of the sky due to owner maintenance . If owners are not competent in carrying out their own maintenance, no problem get somebody who is. If they are competent , great continue carrying out your own maintenance.

 

 

[alf jessup]

"I agree that most accidents are pilot error in most parts but:wave: ( if ) no one ever inspects or maintains their aircraft to factory standards we might see the trend increasing from our aircraft actually start falling out of the sky."Sorry, I was a bit touchy last night, but the above post from yourself was taken to mean that none of us do our necessary inspections, therefore we must pay someone else to do them.

No probs M61A1,

 

you might have missed the if

 

Glad your feeling better mate.

 

Great these forums I think as we all have different opinions and thats all they are opinons, if we all agreed on everything it would be boring to say the least.

 

Cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

We do not fly cars. Cars are also engineered with a lot more safety margin than aeroplanes. Again, we do not fly cars.

So please tell why you used in #81 annual inspections on cars as an example boink? Now your own example is no longer applicable a day later?