Airworthiness Notices and Directives - how do you stay informed?

[DonRamsay]

They were pretty dark days on a Board with some mega egos with scant regard to the constitution, good governance. Couldn't run a p??? up in a brewery. It wasn't hard to sound like a lone voice in the wilderness most of the time.

 

The contrast with the present Board is night and day and will be even stronger after the elections and retirements.

 

How good would it be to get some real talent out of Tasmania? I do hope Tasmanians are all voting - surely we don't have to put up with another 25 years of the same rep from Tassie?

 

 

[kgwilson]

Don't get me started on the the whole website thing however I will say that a couple of board members said to me afterwards that they should have accepted my $1 offer to do their site, wow what a website they would have had and being that they paid $1 meant a commercial agreement was entered into thus giving them FULL control...in fact I even offered them a 100% discount if paid within 7 days. In terms of having online forms, I could set them up here on Rec Fly within just a few hours giving everyone an online form experience however not being linked to their database they would be automatically emailed to them in an excel spreadsheet...in fact the online form software has already been installed here on Rec Fly but not used.Imagine giving aircraft manufacturers Australian agents/representatives the ability to automatically add an AD or AN into the website with an alert going to the Tech Mgr...saves the Tech Mgr time and puts the information release closer to the source i.e. the manufacturer.

How about renewing the offer Ian. The existing site has improved but it is clunky & some stuff is hard to find. This time though there should be a reasonable cost attached with no discount.

 

 

[Admin]

How about renewing the offer Ian. The existing site has improved but it is clunky & some stuff is hard to find. This time though there should be a reasonable cost attached with no discount.

Any cost would just simply be passed on to the membership so $1 would still stand (+ any software licensing costs if any)...The offer still stands if they want

 

 

[Oscar]

A major, major problem is that the aircraft information that RAA holds is not properly databased with appropriate field-level information that allows selection of information relevant to a specific aircraft to be identified, and the registered owner to be notified by means of the registered communication channel (email address, postal address).

 

By way of example: If a SB were to be issued for a 'Godwot Gadfly', the RAA database should allow the Tech. Manager to promulgate the A/D automatically, with the system picking up all registered owners of Godwot Gadflys and automatically sending the A/D by the nominated means for notification. At the moment, such promulgation is only possible by either: broadcast through the RAA website, or an RAA employee going through all the aircraft registrations to discover who owns a Godwot Gadfly and sending them a notice - having first also accessed their membership details to find their appropriate mechanism for notification.

 

The RAA administrative system is about 1995 vintage (to be generous).

 

 

[Guest john]

Any cost would just simply be passed on to the membership so $1 would still stand (+ any software licensing costs if any)...The offer still stands if they want

Ian,

Maybe before you ask RAA again if they want to reconsider your previous generous offer that was ignored, where the cost may have prohibitive for RAA to accept, you should consider a more cost effective offer which they cannot refuse this time, which would be a "PEPPERCORN' paid annually.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

so you don't like Eugene? I have met him a few times and he seemed like a nice bloke

Eugene is a very pleasant fellow - a gentleman in my experience - and I have nothing personal against him. He's been involved in RA-Aus for something like 25 years and much if not all of that at Board level. That represents a massive commitment of time to the betterment of RA-Aus. While I don't doubt that during that time he has had the best interests of RA-Aus at heart, the results have been regrettable.

An example of the sort of thing that convinced me that Tasmania could do a lot better for the Boardroom is the episode that resulted in Steve Tizzard being appointed to the role of CEO. Lee Ungermann gave substantial notice to the Board that he would be moving on and the Board, to their credit, undertook a formal search and recruitment exercise. Unanimous result of that was the appointment of Robbie Costmeyer to the role of CEO. Eugene is on record in the Recreational Aviation magazine as President of the time as saying there were a number of excellent candidates interviewed but Robbie Costmeyer was preferred. Within a few weeks, not even a month, Costmeyer was gone and Tizzard appointed. This was before my time on the Board but I did take the time to investigate to find out what went wrong. Seems Costmeyer was unhappy with the way the Board got involved in management activities effectively subverting management. Costmeyer judged, correctly in my view, that RA-Aus was doing a great deal of CASA's work with very poor monetary compensation for that work. He also disturbed a few of the old hands in the Office when he announced that a great deal had to change. None of these are valid reasons for him to move on.

 

Next thing that happened was that, without going back to the "excellent candidates" on the short list and choosing one of them, Tizzard was appointed by Eugene with, I believe some encouragement from Middleton. To my way of thinking this was nepotism, "jobs for the boys" and Eugene was at the heart of it. Subsequently the Board ratified the actions of Eugene something they should never have done when there was no due diligence nor proper process. And look how "well" that turned out.

 

After I left the Board, Eugene campaigned to be elected to the Executive and was successful. I would judge him to be probably the second worst Treasurer RA-Aus has ever had. As I was departing, I had offered to Eugene to do the work of Treasurer for him and he could present it as his own but he caved in to Runciman who, Eugene told me at Queanbeyan, was instructed by Runciman not to accept my assistance.

 

Eugene's performance as President at the Meeting of Members at Temora a few years back was seen by many as just awful and embarrassing. His performance at the AGM in 2012 was equally embarrassing and failed dismally to meet the requirements put on the Treasurer by the Constitution. Next public appearance was at the extraordinary General Meeting held in Queanbeyan in 2013. At least after making a mess of the financial reports again he resigned from the Board Executive-.

 

Eugene would tell you that we all owe him a great debt for his part in getting altitude restrictions lifted and MTOW increases. That may well be the case, hard to know his part in it. But he is certainly responsible for the parlous state RA-Aus found itself in in 2013. This was due to, in my view, four years of his mate Tizzard at the helm and decades of poor management from the Board of which he was a leading member.

 

I could go on . . . but let's give Eugene the credit he deserves for the time, effort and goodwill but allow him to be part of the early days of RA-Aus and not part of the future. We really don't need the people who got us into this mess having any influence on the future of RA-Aus.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . The RAA administrative system is about 1995 vintage (to be generous).

Far too generous, Oscar. I couldn't go any better than at least a decade earlier than that.

 

 

[jetjr]

Seeing as 19 reg aircraft are not built by kit manufacturer, and following on from the CASA message Ian posted, why does maintenance need to follow guidelines from kit manufacturer?

 

They have no knowledge that owner built a J200 or and Avocet out of it or for that matter what powers it.

 

How can it then fall back to following kit manufacturers guidelines on maintenance when it is sold on? Much of it could be irrelevant

 

There surely can be a system to alert owners of engine/aircraft SB etc? - pleasant reminder to visit a website maybe

 

How about age/hour related replacements reminders? I get birthday emails from businesses I havent dealt with for 10 years

 

All this info is in database as its on the rego form submitted each year

 

Don you are lucky having the option and access to good L2, many dont have this option and with many needing further currency Id suggest regional areas will loose many more.

 

Regarding RAA input to Jabiru manual, your correct Darren may not have been involved but unlikely previous tech managers were not, and I apologise for indicating he was, however he has been talking to Jabiru on the issue.

 

The new ops manual process was started when?

 

 

[jetjr]

And in another memory flash, Rod just recently on record as saying any modifications from factory build to and engine makes it no longer a Jabiru........what is it then and which manual to follow, who can maintain it?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . .Don you are lucky having the option and access to good L2, many don't have this option and with many needing further currency Id suggest regional areas will loose many more.

Lucky indeed to have somebody of Keith Rule's capability and we would be stuffed if he were not around. The 2nd inspector does not have to be an L2 it can be a Pilot.

 

Regarding RAA input to Jabiru manual, your correct Darren may not have been involved but unlikely previous tech managers were not, and I apologise for indicating he was, however he has been talking to Jabiru on the issue.

I know Darren has talked to jabiru and that he has not always been happy with their responses but that is between those parties. Potentially, Jabiru has a lot to gain by requiring L2 maintainers especially if they believe that much of the unreliability attributed to their engines is due to poor maintenance - as they frequently argue.

 

The new ops manual process was started when?

Not sure exactly but Steve Tizzard was engaged by RAA to work on the rewrite some 5 or 6 years ago to my knowledge. He achieved very little and was then "too busy" once he was gifted the CEO position. Must be getting close to publication now.

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree Don, but Id say Jabiru have way more to loose if their aircraft are no longer able to be self maintained and others were.

 

Their intention is not to be L2 only maint but people authorized by the owner of builder (they see no difference in POH) discretion to do the work - which is actually what it says.

 

There is already a "spanner" rating on all tasks to help assess what skills needed

 

 

[Oscar]

I think we have already established that this is NOT a 'Jabiru' mandated regulation but one applicable to registration classes of aircraft. If you have a certificated engine (and your registration status and operational approvals is predicated on this), it appears that you will have to abide by the same restrictions. I can't see a 24-reg aircraft, no matter what it is powered by, being allowed to be maintained by anybody other than an 'authorised' person.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I'd agree with the "way more to loose if their aircraft are no longer able to be self maintained and others were".

 

There does seem to be an indication that L2 is required though from the Manual:

 

Inspections, maintenance, repairs and overhauls must only be carried out by an approved

 

person. Depending on the country and the category of the aircraft this may be a Licensed

 

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, an RA-Aus Level 2 or equivalent. The responsibility for

 

determining what qualifications are necessary to carry out an overhaul belongs to the person

 

carrying out the work.

 

Perhaps a customer of Jabiru could have a word to them and find out what exactly is their intention/requirement?

 

Then we can all stop guessing.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I think we have already established that this is NOT a 'Jabiru' mandated regulation but one applicable to registration classes of aircraft. If you have a certificated engine (and your registration status and operational approvals is predicated on this), it appears that you will have to abide by the same restrictions. I can't see a 24-reg aircraft, no matter what it is powered by, being allowed to be maintained by anybody other than an 'authorised' person.

For a 912ULS in a LSA not used for training, I'm guessing the only requirement is not to change it in any way - without the approval of the manufacturer. Can't think why you'd need an L2 to change, e.g. the spark plugs, oil or filters. An overhaul is a different matter altogether.

But, I'm way out of my depth here. I don't touch my aircraft (maintenance), all done by a L2 and we're very happy with that approach.

 

 

[Powerin]

I have a question and an observation....

 

Not owning an aircraft I'm wondering how ADs and ANs were promulgated before the rise of the Web for this and how can someone who is not "connected" now get ADs and ANs?

 

The observation is that, as I see it, RAAus and the former AUF came into being by allowing exemptions from certain aviation rules...maintenance being one of them. In return certain rules were put in place to reduce the risk that resulted from those exemptions. In other words our restrictions are designed to stop us killing too many people if we stuff up. So we are not allowed into CTA, we can only carry one passenger and we are limited in weight etc. I think that the ferris wheel incident is a good case in point. A heavier aircraft could have resulted in a tragedy in that situation.

 

My point is that one of our exemptions, maintenance, is being watered down. If this indeed actually increases the safety of our flying, should not our privileges (more weight for example) be increased to reflect the increased safety?

 

 

[AVOCET]

And in another memory flash, Rod just recently on record as saying any modifications from factory build to and engine makes it no longer a Jabiru........what is it then and which manual to follow, who can maintain it?

I've taken my " modified " jab engine to be 0 hrd. at the jab fac .

 

They worked on there bits & I worked on mine , no problem , no warranty ,

 

Rod , as interesting as ever , looking over your shoulder . Giving advice and asking questions .

 

He thinks it great what people can create from his products ,

 

Mike

 

 

[nong]

So the Tech Manager decides to destroy our well proven maintenance system and the board is too pissweak to reign him in. Lovely.

 

 

[AVOCET]

When you make things idiot proof ,

 

Ultimately you end up with less capable folk ,

 

Just another example of dictatorship ,

 

People in positions of authority thinking & believing they know better .

 

Mike

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . My point is that one of our exemptions, maintenance, is being watered down. If this indeed actually increases the safety of our flying, should not our privileges (more weight for example) be increased to reflect the increased safety?

The one law we are not exempt is gravity. Not trying to be a smart ass here (no need to try) but, if your flight controls fail in flight most of us would rapidly end our flying career, painfully. Having another pilot take at look at your work does not seem to me to be a big price to pay. I understand that that can be difficult for many RAA pilots who live remotely and/or are lucky enough to fly from home. It means that some prior planning may be required before attacking primary flight controls.

 

I know I haven't tried landing an aircraft with trim and rudder and I'm guessing few others of us who've only ever flown RA have either.

 

 

[jetjr]

My posts arent posting????

 

https://www.recreationalflying.com/xf2/uploads/emoticons/wtf.gif.98144920f830741b92569ef3d0e64f88.gif[/img]

As indicated previously I did........ their intention is to have L1 do all work on aircraft and engine unless in their opinion it requires someone more qualified

 

It says in some places and on some aircraft THIS MAY require a L2/LAME

 

I agree Mike, ive never had much but support for different props, mods and ideas ive had on cooling etc

[jetjr]

Having another pilot take at look at your work does not seem to me to be a big price to pay. I understand that that can be difficult for many RAA pilots who live remotely

Every 25 hours to fly 6 hours IS a big price to pay, plus time off work etc, etc. It isnt just finding an L2 but one you trust with your life. I dont live remote either.

How about a annual inspection by L2?

 

Not sure about your comments on flight controls........ We are talking schedules servicing arent we?

 

 

[Camel]

Eugene is a very pleasant fellow - a gentleman in my experience - and I have nothing personal against him. He's been involved in RA-Aus for something like 25 years and much if not all of that at Board level. That represents a massive commitment of time to the betterment of RA-Aus. While I don't doubt that during that time he has had the best interests of RA-Aus at heart, the results have been regrettable.An example of the sort of thing that convinced me that Tasmania could do a lot better for the Boardroom is the episode that resulted in Steve Tizzard being appointed to the role of CEO. Lee Ungermann gave substantial notice to the Board that he would be moving on and the Board, to their credit, undertook a formal search and recruitment exercise. Unanimous result of that was the appointment of Robbie Costmeyer to the role of CEO. Eugene is on record in the Recreational Aviation magazine as President of the time as saying there were a number of excellent candidates interviewed but Robbie Costmeyer was preferred. Within a few weeks, not even a month, Costmeyer was gone and Tizzard appointed. This was before my time on the Board but I did take the time to investigate to find out what went wrong. Seems Costmeyer was unhappy with the way the Board got involved in management activities effectively subverting management. Costmeyer judged, correctly in my view, that RA-Aus was doing a great deal of CASA's work with very poor monetary compensation for that work. He also disturbed a few of the old hands in the Office when he announced that a great deal had to change. None of these are valid reasons for him to move on.

 

Next thing that happened was that, without going back to the "excellent candidates" on the short list and choosing one of them, Tizzard was appointed by Eugene with, I believe some encouragement from Middleton. To my way of thinking this was nepotism, "jobs for the boys" and Eugene was at the heart of it. Subsequently the Board ratified the actions of Eugene something they should never have done when there was no due diligence nor proper process. And look how "well" that turned out.

 

After I left the Board, Eugene campaigned to be elected to the Executive and was successful. I would judge him to be probably the second worst Treasurer RA-Aus has ever had. As I was departing, I had offered to Eugene to do the work of Treasurer for him and he could present it as his own but he caved in to Runciman who, Eugene told me at Queanbeyan, was instructed by Runciman not to accept my assistance.

 

Eugene's performance as President at the Meeting of Members at Temora a few years back was seen by many as just awful and embarrassing. His performance at the AGM in 2012 was equally embarrassing and failed dismally to meet the requirements put on the Treasurer by the Constitution. Next public appearance was at the extraordinary General Meeting held in Queanbeyan in 2013. At least after making a mess of the financial reports again he resigned from the Board Executive-.

 

Eugene would tell you that we all owe him a great debt for his part in getting altitude restrictions lifted and MTOW increases. That may well be the case, hard to know his part in it. But he is certainly responsible for the parlous state RA-Aus found itself in in 2013. This was due to, in my view, four years of his mate Tizzard at the helm and decades of poor management from the Board of which he was a leading member.

 

I could go on . . . but let's give Eugene the credit he deserves for the time, effort and goodwill but allow him to be part of the early days of RA-Aus and not part of the future. We really don't need the people who got us into this mess having any influence on the future of RA-Aus.

Thankyou Don for pointing this out. I believe Steve Tizzard did a lot of damage. I hope all our future board members and staff are passionate about recreational aviation and not just power hungry fools.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Every 25 hours to fly 6 hours IS a big price to pay, plus time off work etc, etc. It isnt just finding an L2 but one you trust with your life. I dont live remote either. How about a annual inspection by L2?Not sure about your comments on flight controls........ We are talking schedules servicing arent we?

I think we are at cross purposes. The requirement for a second inspection by a pilot or more qualified relates to work on primary controls. If that is a problem for any RAA aircraft owner, they should let RAA know the issues that they have and see what can be worked out. It seems highly likely to me that the AN was prompted by things Darren saw in recent fatal accident investigation.

 

The impression I gleaned from the Jab Manual that they required a L2 to work on their engines is a separate matter. If what Jabiru have told you is what they want maintainers to do, they need, I think to make their manual say that.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Gees , just because 1 nut comes loose & kills 2 people , my condolences by the way , doesn't mean it will happen again any time soon , sure ,AD THE ISSUE , but knee jerk reactions from a change the rules set , is just plain ignorance , and from people that are supposed to be able . & know better .

 

I am constantly trying to develop a product here , and change and try different things , including contol surfaces , so you are now saying that one can't do his own thing , by himself ,

 

not able to cunjer up a spare pilot or l2

 

without a large , large , cost .

 

I for one cannot comply with knee jerk rules that financially burden my business

 

unrealistically.

 

Any way the rate of turnover in raa tec man job , means let's see in 6/12 months .??

 

And please don't say ring the man and talk . Tried that , it took 3 weeks to get a one on one , and tec man on the other end was so stressed , & talking that fast , I thought to my self , stress burns people out , and that's not good for any one , May be that's why we are going through so many well intentioned folk.

 

And don't tell me he can handle it . No one can , medical fact .

 

Mike

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Mike, I don't know what contact you've had with Darren Barnfield yet but if it is none as it seems from your post then you can't judge him by his predecessors. The situation Adam Finn faced and that faced by Darren Barnfield are very different particularly with regard to the CEO and the Board Executive.

 

Things really have changed a lot even if it is not readily obvious to all just yet. Darren and his predecessor made huge inroads into the mess generated well before their time and Darren is getting much better support from the current Board Executive than was available to Adam or Wayne and CASA are listening to him and agreeing with him - the benefit of which we will see in the new Tech Manual.

 

Rules are made to cover all and can't take into account every individual's particular personal circumstances. If you want to work within RAA rules, then please do talk to Darren when he's back in Australia. Even Tech Managers get a week or two leave each year.

 

Don