RA Aus Maintainers Authority

[Oscar]

People making these sort of claims should be talking to one or more Area Reps, have you actually done that? Making unsubstantiated claims on a public forum will only bring the RAA into disrepute and at the end of the day serve to work against you. Do you really want a situation where only a lame can work on your plane?

We submitted a very complete and photo-documented condition report to the RAA Tech Manager of the time (Dean Tompkins - after having discussed with Steve Bell what would be required, but he left RAA while we were in the process of assembling the report) as required to change over the registration (which is, obviously, in abeyance until the aircraft is back to full airworthiness); we have also subsequently submitted a defect report for a specific item which we felt deserved special attention. Obviously the aircraft will receive a complete L4 inspection before being allowed to fly again, and all work has been done to an EO either by /under the supervision of an L2.

 

I don't see how 'these sort of claims' can bring RAA into disrepute, surely stating that it is desirable for the dissemination of useful safety information is doing nothing more than suggesting that safety can be improved. I can assure you that we will be discussing some of the things we have found and photo-documented - with reference to the relevant log-book entries - with the Tech. Manager when we have completed assembling the documentation. As for the claims being 'unsubstantiated' - I used to hold a Dept. of Transport C of A inspection authorisation for gliders a long time ago, and while that obviously doesn't cover powerplant installation, I believe I have a reasonable grasp of general basic airframe matters. I believe that the proper way to handle these sort of concerns is through the Tech. Manager in the first instance, and that is how we intend to continue to proceed.

 

 

[John Nooyen]

Education is the answer.

 

I did a basic maintenance course at Boonah a few years ago. (It was basic), but covered some useful stuff..

 

If more local training was available I'm sure most L1 would be glad to go along and learn something, without being prodded.

 

I'm not sure an online test is the answer.

 

 

[David Gillieson]

I think that some local training would be ideal, and agree that a test alone (although expedient for RAA) is not the best solution. In my experience the level of maintenance training provided by CFIs is very variable. I have learnt more by watching my L2 doing maintenance and asking questions. Maybe this is something that could be coordinated through the regional Board members.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When the raaus moves out of Canberra to a facility that is more easily accessible by members and has good training facilities and teachers that can train everyone to the same high standard be it maintainence or flight instruction this poor situation will continue.

 

 

[farri]

I'm not sure an online test is the answer.

I`m pretty sure it`s not!

 

Frank.

 

Ps, I hold a L2 with no restrictions, to maintain my own aircraft.

 

 

[M61A1]

Not sure what you are saying there.

I think I was saying that I think you may be right.

 

 

[Teckair]

tecair my full name neil Bradley 7 stevens crs Mooroopna vic phone number 0419202665 ring me and I will send you the photosOscar you are right on the ball bloody basic things that l2 l3 lame should pick up and yet they are not accountable for not finding the stuff ups on the plane that you own you are

as I am not a l2 l3 or lame how in the hell can I find problems with the plane read the manual

 

raa cannot and don't do a bloody thing about l2 l3 lame that don't find defects in your plane as I have found out

 

the l2 l3 lame that found major defects on my plane had all the manuals and got all the specs for the maker before he would touch the plane neil

OK Neil I have got the photos and there are some problems there but I don't know the specific circumstances of what happened and what the L2 was supposed to have done. I do agree any L2 should be accountable for their actions and there should be away of making this happen.

Richard.

 

 

[storchy neil]

tecair more on their way neil

 

 

[robinsm]

tried to find the maintainers thingy on the Ra-aaus website, got a message I was looking for something that wasn't there?

 

 

[DCM]

Spoke to R A Aus on Wednesday and it appears that an online exam is not sufficient in CASAs eyes and a practical component may be needed as well so the link has been removed from the website

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Another $50 donation to your local RAA school. Pointless exercise

 

 

[Teckair]

Another $50 donation to your local RAA school. Pointless exercise

Mmmm better make that $500.

 

 

[Oscar]

That's the stuff to give the troops, Turbs. Why would anyone want to spend $50 to improve their knowledge of good and effective maintenance for their $50 - $100k investment? Far more reasonable to save that cash and bumble along; you'll probably need every cent you can scrape together when something breaks and causes many $k's of damage, not just to pay the insurance excess but the additional premium you're probably going to cop in future. And your fellow Godwot owners will understand when their premiums increase too, because of the actuarial calculation of the risk factor to that airframe.

 

And let's all band together and fight any notion that a small-fee practical class experience should become mandated lest the idea that we should all be free to endanger the safety of others (let alone ourselves) through our lack of knowledge and experience be challenged. It's our damn right to continue to fly in blissful ignorance of risks, and those who fly with us - well, they can read the placard that says 'at your own risk' - right? Why should they be given a bit more confidence that just perhaps the owner / pilot has at least some understanding of what is needed to make the old kite reasonably reliable. After all, everybody who does their own maintenance is going to be completely upfront and tell anybody who steps in to fly with them that 'hey, I actually don't have a clue about how to maintain this thing, but I do that anyway - just thought you would like to know that'. And, for those who don't know how much they don't know (because they've never been exposed to any instruction or useful information), well, it's hardly their fault for not knowing, is it? Let's all pull together to keep the terror in leaving terra firma for our passengers. If they don't embrace the idea of flying in something where they can realistically have zero expectation of the competence of the owner / pilot to maintain it, well, they just don't appreciate the lottery of life.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

So who teaches the teachers?

 

 

[frank marriott]

This new twist has the potential to exceed the registration delays. Get everyone tested/qualified in 6 months - yeh, right.

 

What then - LAME exams for L2s?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Frank, I am making a proposal to the board shorty in respect to local L2 s conducting seminars similar to what took place with the HF sign offs. A lecture on the basics, including the need to have the required maintenance data, or where to find it, regular scheduled maintenance and inspection practise etc.....you knowledge the basic day to day stuff to keep the aircraft safe.

 

The L2 then could then sign off the participants, perhaps after some additional discussion about there personal maintenance history. Most areas coud be covered adequetly in one to two well attended sessions . Additionally I'm sure some individuals would learn heaps by a practical demonstration.........Please bear on mind at this point theses are only my ideas, and do not represent anything the Board may decide to do in the near future ..................Maj.....

 

 

[frank marriott]

Frank, I am making a proposal to the board shorty in respect to local L2 s conducting seminars similar to what took place with the HF sign offs. A lecture on the basics, including the need to have the required maintenance data, or where to find it, regular scheduled maintenance and inspection practise etc.....you knowledge the basic day to day stuff to keep the aircraft safe.The L2 then could then sign off the participants, perhaps after some additional discussion about there personal maintenance history. Most areas coud be covered adequetly in one to two well attended sessions . Additionally I'm sure some individuals would learn heaps by a practical demonstration............................Maj.....

A repeat of the L1 course already held at that time? Remember the Saturday was L1 training and the Sunday (the one you attended) was HF. I hope my impression of where this is heading is wrong.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Stay positive here Frank...this is not something that the RAAus or your board is coming up with, but rather the bear with bad breath that is imposing this stuff on our organisation, in the name of safety of course ................Maj......

 

 

[Bandit12]

If that is the way that it is going Maj, L2s better check their liability insurance covers training, because when someone goes down and maintenance is identified as a factor, the next person to get sued might well be the one who signed them off as being competent to maintain......

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

If that is the way that it is going Maj, L2s better check their liability insurance covers training, because when someone goes down and maintenance is identified as a factor, the next person to get sued might well be the one who signed them off as being competent to maintain......

If the L2 s involved conduct the course per CASA stated instructions, and by their approved checklists, then they'll have company in court won't they .......................Maj........

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So is this going to be mandatory for anyone with an RAA cert? I mean anyone can borrow your drifter and crash it due to not checking the two stroke oil tank for oil...

 

 

[ahlocks]

So who teaches the teachers?

'spurts off interweb forums....

 

 

[Oscar]

Be very wary of the liability issue. Nobody should 'sign-off' that someone who has attended the course is judged 'competent' - merely that they have attended the course and completed satisfactorily any practical exercises / theoretical knowledge examination that may be entailed. Particularly in any group training environment, it is for all practical purposes impossible for a course deliverer to be able to make an accurate judgement as to how much an individual recipient of the course has 'observed, learned, and inwardly digested' (as the old military training mantra used to put it) any information to which they may have been exposed. The assessment of individual retention of learning and the ability to reliably put that into practice in the field is very much at the core of apprenticeship training - and that methodology works for everything from basic manual trades through to qualification as a surgeon.

 

The Maj's concept is one I thoroughly support; an aircraft is a highly-complex set of interdependent systems and far more optimised on the continued performance of all of those systems for its safety than just about any other we encounter in daily life. Frankly, if just one person from every course becomes aware that failing to rectify a problem / potential problem in their aircraft is dangerous and DOES SOMETHING ABOUT IT - the whole effort will have been worth it. You cannot teach 'mechanical sympathy' - those almost intuitive feelings that something isn't right and needs to be rectified - but at least one can teach the basics of looking, recognising and understanding the importance of rectifying out-of-standard issues.

 

There is a good reason that commercial aviation is moving rapidly to adopting 'fail-safe' airframe/system standards. RAA-class aircraft (due in no small part to the fairly arbitrary imposition of MTOW as the limiting factor) simply cannot have 'fail-safe' airframes/systems. Every damn bolt, nut, piece of lock-wire and a substantial number of the rivets in our aircraft is/are (in all likelihood) essential for its continued safe operation. We don't have the luxury of redundancy of components or structures - the only margin of safety we have is that imposed by design standards that (mostly) ensure that components and structures aren't used to their fail loads in normal service. Without doing an inventory, I reckon I could very quickly identify possibly 20+ bolts in my own aircraft, the failure on any one of which to continue to do its task would be almost certainly major if not catastrophic in effect. 8 of those hold the wings in place... add aileron circuits, rudder and elevator, (don't even count flaps) and we're up to at least 16 already, and I haven't even thought about the bolts that keep the motive force working!

 

We can thank design standards for the fact that very few of our aircraft flutter to earth in a shower of pieces while we make a dull red splash on the ground - and maintenance is the activity that keeps our aircraft abreast of the design standards. To me, it's a no-brainer that knowledge of how to do that is essential for survival in the air. We should embrace enthusiastically anything that can keep us and those who fly with us as safe as we can manage.

 

 

[Oscar]

So is this going to be mandatory for anyone with an RAA cert? I mean anyone can borrow your drifter and crash it due to not checking the two stroke oil tank for oil...

You'd lend your Drifter to someone too damn stupid / uninformed / careless to not check it? You deserve to lose your aircraft.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Anyone converting from GA won't have used two stroke oil