Views on CASA Schedule 5

[stevo200]

Hi all,

 

New to the page and I am currently completing my University thesis on an evaluation of the maintenance schedules and regulations within Australia. I'm fairly new to the light aircraft scene so please excuse my somewhat lack of expertise on the topic, but I am here to learn!

 

Back to my question, I was wondering what everyone's opinions were on the current regulations and any current issues, especially regarding Schedule 5 and they way maintenance is managed and enforced.

 

Feel free to write as long as a response as you like, the more information the better as I am interested to hear your views and reasoning in detail.

 

Thanks you in advance for you help and i look forward to hearing from you all!

 

Steven.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Schedule 5 was written as the default G.A. major inspection standard (i.e. required every third year) because there were a lot of aircraft around for which the makers' maintenance system was considered to be inadequate. If you dig around on the CASA website, you can still find that list of aircraft whose manufacturer's system was declared unacceptable. One could opt to use Schedule 5 in preference to the manufacturer's maintenance system, and the majority of GA aircraft importers did just that; the maintenance system for a GA aircraft is in the Log Book Statement, right at the start of the airframe log book.

 

Since it was originally written in the 1950s, it was appropriate to the sorts of aircraft that existed back then - Austers, Chipmunks, DH Dragons, Beech 17s etcetera.

 

It remained pretty suitable for aircraft that were certificated under either the American Civil Aircraft Regulations Part 3 (CAR 3) or under the British Civil Aviation Regulations (BCAR Section D and later BCAR Section K); and they were also pressed into use for oddball European aircraft of that era, such as the Aero 145, Meta-Sokol, etc.

 

In general, those certification standards pre-dated any fatigue life requirements; and although Australia was the first country to apply fatigue life requirements to GA aeroplanes, it did so by the use of Airworthiness Directives - which were all listed in Air navigation Orders Part 105, so that system was still compatible with Schedule 5 as the basic aircraft maintenance system.

 

This remained the case when CAR 3 was superseded by FAR Part 23, because Part 23 did not introduce fatigue life considerations when it was first introduced; and also FAR Part 21.100 (The "Grandfather clause") allowed manufacturers like Cessna, Piper and Beech to continue to use CAR 3 for updates to existing models - so CAR 3 remained in force - e.g. for Cessna 172s, up to the 172Q.

 

However the FAA finally got around to addressing fatigue issues, and when it did, Schedule 5 was no longer adequate. The FAA is now introducing retro-active fatigue requirements, in the form of SIDS, and it will get even more complicated when GA aircraft start to be designed with fail-safe or damage-tolerant structures. For those aircraft, the maintenance system is part of the Type certification process; and Schedule 5 is simply out of the picture.

 

 

[Yenn]

I am using schedule 5 for my experimental homebuilt RV4 and consider it acceptable. there is a lot included which doesn't apply, but all it require is a log book entry to state what has been done and what is not applicable. I have also adopted the same system for my Corby which is RAAus registered and previously had no official schedule. I was not aware that it was 3 years for a major GA inspection, as far as I am concerned it comes up at 100 hours or annually and that is what I have on my maintenence release.

 

To use it for RAAus would in my opinion be a good thing unless there is a better manufacturers maintenance schedule.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You are quite correct, and my memory was faulty. Schedule 5 as it currently appears contains two parts - the daily inspection and the Periodic (yearly or 100 - hourly, whichever comes first) inspection. There's no mention of the 3 - yearly major inspection. Back in the 1980s, the 100-hourly and 3-yearly inspections were separately specified; the 100 - hourly was a bit simpler, I think, and the 3-yearly inspection involved greater depth. For RAA - type aircraft, it may be worth while looking at the earlier version. I'm not, myself, a LAME so I'd have to see if my archives contain the earlier version.

 

 

[kaz3g]

AOPA has certainly come out strongly for change across the whole spectrum of aviation regulation...

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/smaller-players-warn-of-oblivion/story-e6frg95x-1226919236103#mm-premium

 

Kaz