Proposed L2 changes

[Spriteah]

Spoke with him today and he says that's is not the case.

 

Jim.

 

Jim - "Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals"Yes he is. Unless anything changes from here, that is exactly what he told me when I rang him.[/Q

[Camel]

Spoke with him today and he says that's is not the case.Jim.

I was told the same as aj_richo last week.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I think Darren is out to assess your activity fairly...that's what it is all about....

 

 

[Spriteah]

Hello all, I'm guessing most here are L2's. I just want to place my personal view point on this issue. Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals. The letter specifically mentions "Exemptions may be approved via agreement". If you send your office copy of work performed in I am sure it would be reviewed and if it demonstrates currency then presto you have a renewed L2.

 

I spoke to Darren yesterday and today and he re-in force the above. If you are active I see no obstacle to getting l2 renewed via agreement with tech.

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[nong]

Hello all, I'm guessing most here are L2's. I just want to place my personal view point on this issue. Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals. The letter specifically mentions "Exemptions may be approved via agreement". If you send your office copy of work performed in I am sure it would be reviewed and if it demonstrates currency then presto you have a renewed L2.I spoke to Darren yesterday and today and he re-in force the above. If you are active I see no obstacle to getting l2 renewed via agreement with tech.

 

Jim Tatlock.

So then. It still amounts to an attack on our maintenance people.

Active or inactive. Who cares!

 

RAAus should not be threatening members.

 

One doesn't forget how to twirl a spanner or to locate and read the applicable technical publication.

 

It is OK, is it, that our Tech Manager is doling out renewals only to those who reach an "agreement" with him?

 

RAAus to out-CASA, CASA? Odds on.

 

 

[flyerme]

Just curious and confused! What about new lvl 2 holders going out on there own? New business and all ,they may not have the customers initially , do they loose there entitlement/privalage? And then when a customer does come how do they go about getting it back? to do there work?

 

Also what about the rural or remote lvl 2's? If business is slow do they get punished by suspending there privalage?I'm a bit confused?

 

No worries Thanks guys

 

 

[Camel]

Hello all, I'm guessing most here are L2's. I just want to place my personal view point on this issue. Firstly I don't believe Darren Tech Manager will insist you perform 4 x annuals. The letter specifically mentions "Exemptions may be approved via agreement". If you send your office copy of work performed in I am sure it would be reviewed and if it demonstrates currency then presto you have a renewed L2.I spoke to Darren yesterday and today and he re-in force the above. If you are active I see no obstacle to getting l2 renewed via agreement with tech.

 

Jim Tatlock.

I'm afraid you take for granted he will be fair, I have already seen examples of unfairness and making people suffer. Eg registration delays, and more than once. Not right or fair. He has made assumptions that people don't comply and made them prove they do. This tech manager is more about Casa and not about RAA. Seems he is doing this so he can get a job a CASA.

I'm fly RAA so I can maintain my own aircraft, I have owned GA and will not deal with LAME's again. They think you are their prisoner and rip you off, after every annual I had found faulty workmanship. They would invent new problems. Bunch of opportunist. I am a Motor Mechanic or for a better word an Automotive Engineer, and a L2 , The Tech manager said to me that 4 annual inspections in two years or no level two. Only exemptions is for LAME's, I personally have dealt with 2 good LAME the rest were rough and pathetic as well as expensive and opportunistic, ready to rip someone off.

 

I have NO FAITH in LAME's and a lot of faith in motor mechanics, home builders and restorers.

 

If the RAA allow this Tech manager to implement his pro LAME attitude I will be angry ( ANGRIER )

 

RAA is not about protecting CASA endorsed people but endorsing its own.

 

 

[Camel]

[

 

I think Darren is out to assess your activity fairly...that's what it is all about....

There is plenty of evidence that a lot of Rego renewals have been unfairly treated and I know of a very unfair treatment of a member prior to the appointment as Tech manager.

 

 

[John Nooyen]

The way I read it.

 

You are all very naughty.

 

Planes have been falling down due to bad maintenance.(A little birdy told us).

 

We won't tell you which ones, or why, or how many, so just (Trust us).

 

We have employed people to draw pictures and graphs to show how naughty you are.

 

We are withdrawing all your L1 maintanence because you are not fit to hold a screwdriver.

 

you will need a L4 to sign off your maintenence before you can fly.

 

You have to do a course before you can add oil to your aircraft.

 

We will make it so difficult and expensive to fill out all the forms so you will give up and go away.

 

It will all be GA soon anyway.

 

==========================================================================================

 

The way it should read.

 

We have noticed a trend of engine failures in types XXX, YYYY.

 

Many XXX and YYYY failures had broken part ABCD.

 

Manufacturers indicates this is due to poor maintenance, and step abcd

 

in the engine service manual is not being done correctly.

 

Manufacturer XXX has supplied a video of how to do this step correctly, and what to look for.

 

If you are not comfortable, or able to do this, get someone to help who is, then send the

 

engine away to a repair facility.

 

RAAUS is providing maintenance courses for interested people on brand XXXX DD/M/YYYY at ???? for nominal fee $???

 

We will not take away your screwdrivers or threaten to ground you.

 

We understand that most members want to improve their skills and abilities, and do not need a cattle prod or

 

threats of grounding.

 

 

[dazza 38]

The way I read it.You are all very naughty.

 

Planes have been falling down due to bad maintenance.(A little birdy told us).

 

We won't tell you which ones, or why, or how many, so just (Trust us).

 

We have employed people to draw pictures and graphs to show how naughty you are.

 

We are withdrawing all your L1 maintanence because you are not fit to hold a screwdriver.

 

you will need a L4 to sign off your maintenence before you can fly.

 

You have to do a course before you can add oil to your aircraft.

 

We will make it so difficult and expensive to fill out all the forms so you will give up and go away.

 

It will all be GA soon anyway.

 

==========================================================================================

 

The way it should read.

 

We have noticed a trend of engine failures in types XXX, YYYY.

 

Many XXX and YYYY failures had broken part ABCD.

 

Manufacturers indicates this is due to poor maintenance, and step abcd

 

in the engine service manual is not being done correctly.

 

Manufacturer XXX has supplied a video of how to do this step correctly, and what to look for.

 

If you are not comfortable, or able to do this, get someone to help who is, then send the

 

engine away to a repair facility.

 

RAAUS is providing maintenance courses for interested people on brand XXXX DD/M/YYYY at ???? for nominal fee $???

 

We will not take away your screwdrivers or threaten to ground you.

 

We understand that most members want to improve their skills and abilities, and do not need a cattle prod or

 

threats of grounding.

Trouble is , manufacture XXXX says their engines are failing because of poor maintenance, but really it is simply because manufacture XXXX uses a $hit engine.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Maybe time manufacturers offered courses on maintaining their products

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Have you considered standing for election John? This sort of clear insight coupled with positive solutions is what we need on our board.

 

 

[John Nooyen]

Unfortunately we don't see the stats.

 

You also cannot legislate safety. The only way to be perfectly safe is not to do the activity.

 

Take calculated risks, as we do with flying. Just don't take stupid ones.

 

The world is a dangerous place, You will never get out of it alive.

 

Paper trails are only a accomplish nothing.

 

We will problably need to do Journey management plans soon.

 

 

[John Nooyen]

Ozzie I agree.

 

RAAUS and CASA need to understand that 99.999% of pilots want to learn and are very safe and responsible pilots.

 

Give us the information, and we will learn from it and act.

 

There needs to be more voluntary courses organized.

 

 

[facthunter]

By people who know what they are talking about. I hear more BS about engines around the world than ever before. They have turned a discipline into something like witchcraft. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

I stopped test flying aircraft because of the standard of maintenance that was evident on L1 maintained aircraft. The system where someone buys an aircraft and automatically becomes an L1 and can take unsuspecting people flying in their aircraft is not good or sustainable in my opinion. I am not aware of problems with L2s but there will be some as storchy can verify and that one is a lame as well. I spoke to Darren Barnfield about this and got the impression that the 4x 100 hourlies/annuls per 2 years was a guide and could be replaced by other work. The message I got was RAAus maintenance has to be seen to be of a certain standard or we have a problem, which is hard to argue with.

 

 

[facthunter]

"Got to be seen" may result in using procedures that "appear" to be doing something, without really assessing their effectiveness. With access to the net we have a great way of getting good information to most. Self testing could alert people to the inadequate state of their knowledge. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

Of course the maintenance should be of an appropriate standard, unfortunately it is also important that it is seen that way. On these forums there have been plenty of people ready to bag our L2s, comments like 'you can get a L2 rating by doing a 2 day course' have been made.

 

 

[John Nooyen]

If someone sees an aircraft that is obviously dodgy, then they should tell the pilot, and inform RAAUS and something done about it. (Duty of care).

 

If Brand XXX engine is a P.O.S. then the stats will show it. Also how many LAME maintained brand XXX have failed, and why?

 

 

[storchy neil]

. Also how many LAME maintained brand XXX have failed, and why? answer in short if I report a defect in any aircraft that is going to cost owner I wont get any work duty off care sucks it is not there

 

how about lame l2 sighned out aircraft for four years with leaking fuel tank neil

 

 

[deadstick]

Gents, in any industry there are terrible examples of bad and abismal workmanship, I know of a LAME that was shut down recently because CASA caught him just signing the maint release and saying he did the work! He got caught due to someone speaking up and not excepting his poor standard! I for one am the first on the phone if I see something that is not up to the standard I expect from a fellow aviator or engineer.

 

Storchy I really feel for you and wish I could help in some way!

 

I joined RAA as an L2 because I wanted to help friends and others afford an aeroplane and to keep it affordable, I dont make much money over what it costs me, but I do make friends and get a buz when I help someone.

 

However, any error of judgement, accidental damage, caused by me or happens under my care has the potential to cost me a fortune, my career, house and ultimately my freedom if bad enough.

 

I am seriously thinking that its not worth it, particularly when needless shackles are placed upon me for no decernable reason and we have a legislative requirement thrown at us without any consultation. It is now time to talk about this and get it sorted, but scarily enough there has been zero consultation just mandated requirements which, as we speak is in the new tech manual sitting with CASA, such a shame that we are not allowed to contribute to the direction of our group.

 

once it is legislated you cant go back!

 

 

[storchy neil]

yes deastick there are a lot of bloody good lame"s l2 l3 l4 who are being brought down by some dipsticks that were not brought to account by past regulators off our office

 

you are not the only one thinking is it worth it being an l2

 

deastick said such a shame that we are not allowed to contribute to the direction of our group

 

i totally agree with you but some off what daren is doing is already in our rules not all but some

 

I have been in personal contact with quite a few and like you they are astounded at what and how the repairs to my aircraft were carried out

 

what has got to me is the fact that I have all the evidence off none compliance off the lame l2 l3 that did the work and nobody from casa raa will look at it

 

if it is to big for RAA why have they not put it to casa

 

I did send a lot of paper work to raa photos included why have they not passed this on to casa neil

 

 

[kaz3g]

dipsticks that were not brought to account by past regulators off our officeyes

Were you ever investigated by RAA us or charged by CASA over the collision with the wire that removed the nose gear of your aeroplane, Neil?

 

Was that the only prang you had in it or did anyone else have a prang in it?

 

Just that I note that the CAR seems to encompass your experience and contemplate significant penalties as follows:

 

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 92

 

Use of aerodromes

 

(1) A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:

 

(a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;

 

(b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a certificate granted, or registration, under Part 139 of CASR;

 

© the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraftengaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;

 

(d) the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ©) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft;

 

and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(2) CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation.

 

(3) A person must not contravene a direction.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

 

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

 

There are only two defences to a strict liability offence I can think of: necessity; and honest and reasonable mistake.

 

Kaz

 

 

[aro]

and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.

If you are suggesting that an accident shows that the aircraft cannot land at or takeoff from the place in safety, I don't know whether it is that black and white. Is there a difference between "did not" and "can not" in the law? Does "did not" prove "can not"?

 

If so, basically every takeoff or landing accident would appear to contravene CAR92.

 

 

[storchy neil]

insinuations by you kaz will not do any good i there for will treat your remarks in contempt neil