Flying Control System – Duplicate Inspection

[Admin]

[robinsm]

doesn't a 19 registered aircraft have a sticker that you fly in it at your own risk? All of a sudden I am not to be trusted to maintain the aircraft I built, have flown and maintained for 400 odd hours. Damned if I am paying a L2 or someone else to maintain/check my work. If I wanted to throw money at this sport/activity I would have bought5 a 24 registered aircraft and asked for a bank loan for the maintenance. The best check of my work I can have is the fact that if I stuff it up, I die. Why have a 19 category if they want to do this cr..p.

 

 

[robinsm]

Do we not do this as part of our days walk around any way?

 

 

[Keenaviator]

When I recently finished my 19 registered Jabiru UL 450 there was absolutely no way I was going to fly, or allow anybody else fly the aircraft without a full dual inspection. Laurie

 

 

[SDQDI]

It doesn't have to be a L2 it says L1 as well so I guess an appropriate pilot (one who wouldn't benefit from your death) could double check your work, I don't see the problem with that if its a one off thing but how do those go who trailer their planes if they're disconnecting controls do they have to do this each time?

 

 

[robinsm]

When the Xair was completed, it was, as required, inspected by me under the auspices of an L2 (I got him to check the progress

 

at least twice during the build process and then after the initial 25 had been flown off it was checked again. . I don't have a problem with getting my work checked, I just have a problem with RAA Aus trying to boost costs when there is no reason. A 19 Reg aircraft is one that is built, flown and maintained by the builder at his/her own risk. I am not flush with funds, I chose 19 reg because of the cost, the fact I could maintain it myself and therefore keep the quality of the work up to the standard I require and the fact that I was relatively independent in what I did and flew. I am not stupid, I double check everything I do, I religiously do my daily checks before flying and if I don't know, I ask. Its called being responsible and self reliant.

 

 

[SDQDI]

In ga experimental course they teach that you must do this where another ppl must enspect the controls when assembeled or modifyedit is not new

I understand that it isn't a new thing and I think all of us would've done that upon completing the build but as I understand this seems to be worded that another inspection needs to be done before our next flight if 19 rego accompanied by an appropriate maintenance log entry or am I reading that wrong?

 

 

[geoffreywh]

Doing up nuts and bolts properly is not only confined to flying surfaces............... what do you want?......................................... Another L1/L2 to check every single connection on the aircraft ? Every time you fly. Or Assume from historical fact ( you didn't crash on the last flight) that everything is "done up" properly plus tell the passenger he flies at his own risk? ( Like he always has done) Just do your walk around plus your inspections as normal.................I, personally, believe that once a fastener has been "done up" , loctited, wired, cinched ect., it will tend to stay that way until some other force acts upon it....at least until the next inspection, That's what I have found in the last one thousand hours anyway...

 

 

[geoffreywh]

Dear SDQDI. I think you are wrong . the directive says " after assembly " ( god help those folding wing/.trike people) or "after overhaul, repair or replacement. " The only thing is, I wonder since when? I had my engine out 100 hours ago, should I get a L1/L2 to check if it's still there?

 

 

[facthunter]

Quite a few have reported their engines missing, over the years. Nev

 

 

[geoffreywh]

None of mine! The only way engine would go missing was if someone pinched it!

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Darren's reminders and warnings are no doubt well-meant and may promote safety, but mandating this always has side-effects. If your maintenance and record-keeping are not meticulous and you have an accident, the insurers have one more reason to refuse a claim.

 

 

[Mriya]

It would seem that a number of people commenting here are not familiar with very long standing aviation regulations that mandate independent inspections whenever flight control systems are disturbed in maintenance. The requirement has also been in our Technical Manual and there is nothing new about it. It is nothing to do with adding costs and everything to do with keeping people alive. We are all human and make mistakes. History tells us that maintenance errors on flight control systems can easily end in a fatality, thus the need for double checks regardless of how good you may think you are. The regs allow for pilot to do the independent check. The simple fact is that if you ignore the legal requirement to do these safety checks you are removing a layer of safety which is intended to keep you alive by obliging a second inspection of a system which is critical to safe flight. The aircraft maintenance industry has long recognised the need for this check and none of us LAME's see it as an insult to our intelligence. In fact every so often it does the very thing it was designed to do when a 'fresh set of eyes' detects a problem that the main person doing the job has overlooked. As for keeping on top of your maintenance records, well guess what! As owner and maintenance controller it is required and expected of you to to properly record all maintenance work and ensure the correct maintenance schedule is observed. This has always been the case. If we expect to be able to continue to do our own maintenance and enjoy the autonomy that comes with RAAus we need to demonstrate an ability to comply with the rules that have always existed. There is no point in whinging about 'Big Brother' CASA interfering when so many of these fundamentals are being missed, misunderstood or worse still ignored.

 

In short I see no excuse for people ignoring such a fundamental safety procedure (and legal obligation).

 

 

[dazza 38]

Just to add on to what Mriya has said. In the RAAF and also when I worked for BAE systems in Saudi. When we carried out maintenance on critical systems. Example- flight controls. We had 3 inspections. 1- the technician doing the task 2- progressive inspector and 3- independent inspector. We had that luxury due to having a big crew on jets.

 

 

[deadstick]

Mriya :- spot on.

 

As a rule You can use a dual inspection anywhere you like, for instance if you are performing a task for the first time, are tired or have other things stressing your life self regulate and just write the job up for a dual inspection. Depending on the task you can be specific for example on a flight control surface or cable adjustment I write the following as an open entry after I sign for the Job:- Dual/ independant inspection to be carried out on elevator assembly and control rods post installation, for correct assembly and locking, range and freedom of movement and operation in the correct sense. Its generally not hard to find a competant person( could be the pilot) in most cases.

 

Things to apply a second inspection to are listed in the ops manual, but a general rule of thumb is, would it be catestrophic if this item, were to fail and over the years I have seen some near misses due to someone not writing a second inspection up.

 

I beleive the Tech manager is being Pro active and tackling issues before they become one, however it appears the crash at Moruya may have been a defining case for improved understanding of this requirment that applies to all categories of aircraft.

 

 

[robinsm]

Robinsm what about the fact that your plane has two seats of wich one will have a pasenger that is relying on you doing up the nuts and bolts properly?

That's why we do daily inspections, put warning placards in the aircraft. A responsible pilot will always rely on themselves to check the aircraft properly. How many aircraft have fallen apart in the air because a L2 or another pilot hasn't checked work done on a 19 aircraft? I tend to fly during the week, and if I do work on the aircraft then there is normally no one around to double check things. Speaking to a local L2 about similar things has produced horror stories of slack workmanship in some cases. I rely on me so I know it is done correctly. At least then I know my passengers/myself are safe and everything is done correctly. Relying on other people to keep me safe in this case worries the hell out of me. As I said before, if I don't know I ask,

 

 

[deadstick]

Hi Robinsm,

 

I understand what you are saying and yes basic maintenance is a given in those circustances however the dual/independant inspection is there as a last line defence to the human condition. no need to use it on everything however if you changed an elevator for example I would think you'd get a mate or other pilot to check it out. Dont think your personal standards are being attacked and from what you say are quite high, but see it for what it is a barrier against finding out you missed something once your in the air. I am constantly amazed at what can be picked up, once I certified an aircraft ready for flight after working on an engine just basic stuff, but due to stressfull cercumstances in my life at the time I had told myself that I will place a second on almost everything, anyway I get this phone call asking weather I was testing the airflow under the cowl as I had left all the baffles off, massive forehead slap and then realisation that I am human like all the stories CASA and any other human factor agency had passed on.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Darren's reminders and warnings are no doubt well-meant and may promote safety, but mandating this always has side-effects. If your maintenance and record-keeping are not meticulous and you have an accident, the insurers have one more reason to refuse a claim.

Old K, If you have an accident due to faulty flight controls, chances are the insurer will be less of a concern than being refused entry at the Pearly Gates by St Peter.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just tell St Peter you are an airline pilot.( IF you know the old joke) Nev.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I just have a problem with RAA Aus trying to boost costs when there is no reason. . . . I am not stupid, I double check everything I do, I religiously do my daily checks before flying and if I don't know, I ask. Its called being responsible and self reliant.

There is no additional cost imposed here if you can find a L1 Pilot who is prepared to have a look at your flight controls if you have done work on them and then sign off the work as OK.

 

What is being advocated is a safe system of work and I can't see it as overkill (perhaps not the best choice of words) or demeaning - just good practice.

 

Robinsm, can you really say you could never make a mistake that somebody else would pick up? If the answer to that is "true"then you are, in my experience, unique. This instruction is clearly directed at the rest of us who can and do make mistakes despite being meticulously careful.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

That's why we . . . put warning placards in the aircraft.

Perhaps your placard should be expanded by the addition of words like "I refuse to have anyone check my work on critical flight controls" just before "you fly at your own risk".

 

Seriously though, imagine your public statements here being presented in a court case against your estate? I say "your estate" because few people survive a controls failure in flight. Your insurer may well have been placed in a very handy position to deny cover - leaving your estate to cough up. It would also be handy evidence for any plaintiff(s) to claim large sums for negligence.

 

Robinsm, If I were you, I would be asking ADMIN to delete all your posts on this matter.

 

A responsible pilot will always rely on themselves to check the aircraft properly.

I agree 100%

 

How many aircraft have fallen apart in the air because a L2 or another pilot hasn't checked work done on a 19 aircraft?

Perhaps the one that prompted this reminder of the Regs to be published by RAA?

 

. . . Speaking to a local L2 about similar things has produced horror stories of slack workmanship in some cases.

And in those cases perhaps the pilot and his passenger were saved by the second inspection?

 

. . . Relying on other people to keep me safe in this case worries the hell out of me.

On the contrary, what is being asked is that you don't just rely on one person to get everything perfect. Surely, a second set of eyes will increase level of safety for you, your passengers and anyone you overfly? How can that be a bad thing?

 

 

[AVOCET]

I agree 100% that a two part inspection is a good safety culture , in my case the closest pilot or l2 is at least $ 120.00 ie. 250 kls round trip away , and working & testing a new design means remove & replace of control surfaces . Often .

 

So I use the next best thing , my wife , who hasn't got a licence , but is pretty handy as an assistant , she pulls the toilet bowl off once a year and cleans the roots out !

 

She's more than smart enough to check my work as I explain it ,

 

Legal ???? I don't know . Safer ? Yes .

 

Mike

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Just a clarification . . . the AN reads like you need "two independent inspectors" whereas in fact Darren has confirmed to me that the intent is the person who did the work as one inspector and an independent "approved" person as the other. "Approved" means an L2 or better or a pilot with an L1 (in future all pilots will not be gifted an L1 but have to earn it as an endorsement).

 

 

[SDQDI]

I agree 100% that a two part inspection is a good safety culture , in my case the closest pilot or l2 is at least $ 120.00 ie. 250 kls round trip away , and working & testing a new design means remove & replace of control surfaces . Often .So I use the next best thing , my wife , who hasn't got a licence , but is pretty handy as an assistant , she pulls the toilet bowl off once a year and cleans the roots out !

She's more than smart enough to check my work as I explain it ,

 

Legal ???? I don't know . Safer ? Yes .

 

Mike

I'd argue that it wouldn't be safer, I'd reckon more people have been killed by their spouses than by control failure:sad angel:

You could do a few things to lesson the risk like cancel your life insurance and let her go shopping:nod:

 

 

[David Isaac]

... "Approved" means an L2 or better or a pilot with an L1 (in future all pilots will not be gifted an L1 but have to earn it as an endorsement).

In GA land the second independent verifying person can be a PPL. I have done the task and signed off many times as a PPL for several LAMEs. So if RA Aus is going to put requirements beyond the Pilot Certificate they are requiring more than GA does.