Flying Control System – Duplicate Inspection

[Mriya]

A significant issue in private aviation is the restrictions continue to be placed on owners and pilots without much basis or risk analysis.This can mean the ones who always do the right thing continue however many just do whatever they like and hide it.

Dont assume further regs makes for compliance, in fact often goes the other way.

 

Why are these maintenance rules being made as if everyone has an L2 available?

 

Dont mention the trim tab or aileron adjustment, don reveal the head or heart issues suffered last week .......as either means your not flying.

I'm not sure how I can make it clearer, but let's have one more go:

1. INDEPENDANT INSPECTION REGULATIONS ARE NOT NEW! They were established at the dawn of aviation based on the VERY REAL RISK of maintenance errors compromising the safety of an aircraft, occupants, and people who happen to be on the ground under it.

 

2. The rules have NOT BEEN MADE ASSUMING ACCESS TO A L2. As a specific concession to this issue CASA pilots have always been authorised to perform independant inspections. For GA this means the LAME who must attend + a pilot can effect certification. The GA equivalent to the RAAUS problem that arises is how would a LAME who owns their aircraft at a remote location certify for flight control maintenance? Well guess what. They are legally required to get another LAME or pilot to do the independent inspection. The issue arises in RAAUS far more because we have been given a HUGE CONCESSION in being able to maintain our own aircraft, with very minimal training.

 

RAAus enjoys a level of freedom concerning maintenance that simply don't exist in other sectors of aviation. However we are not at liberty to ignore aviation regulations, even if we don't like them.

 

How do you think CASA will respond if they audit RAAus and see an organisation full of people who choose to 'flout' the rules that apply to them?

 

 

[Mriya]

I have no problem with the dual inspection requirements for significant works but as avocet said and myria too, it can easily mean simple safety works not being done till later on or not done at all.

I seem to have been misquoted:

I was in no way advocating ignoring safety issues. Tweaking a flight control to correct a minor trim issue (observing Service Manual limits of course) is elective maintenance that can be performed when the right tools and people are available. Similarly, at scheduled maintenance a number of flight control issues (ie: control cable / hinge replacements) can be anticipated and planned for.

 

However unscheduled repairs will create logistical challenges that must be dealt with legally and appropriately. This is no different for any other sector of aviation.

 

 

[M61A1]

I seem to have been misquoted:I was in no way advocating ignoring safety issues. Tweaking a flight control to correct a minor trim issue (observing Service Manual limits of course) is elective maintenance that can be performed when the right tools and people are available. Similarly, at scheduled maintenance a number of flight control issues (ie: control cable / hinge replacements) can be anticipated and planned for.

However unscheduled repairs will create logistical challenges that must be dealt with legally and appropriately. This is no different for any other sector of aviation.

I think that this is the issue here....this is recreational aviation, some of us have scratch built one off aircraft, we are not like any other sector of aviation. I am an AME, and I understand exactly where you are coming from, but I do think the requirement is a bit excessive. The original tech manual section states that it "should" be carried out not "must" or "shall", so, that makes it a new requirement. I'm not in any way suggesting that it isn't a good practice, but just impractical at times, when you consider, that our aircraft are not for hire or reward.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The original tech manual section states that it "should" be carried out not "must" or "shall", so, that makes it a new requirement. I'm not in any way suggesting that it isn't a good practice, but just impractical at times, when you consider, that our aircraft are not for hire or reward.

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines "should" as "see shall" and shall as expressing "command" , "obligation" "condition".

 

Hire or reward has nothing to do with it, killing a passenger could see you facing a criminal charge of culpable negligence.

 

 

[aro]

The requirement for a duplicate inspection is not new or controversial. However, I'm not sure whether people are reading the notice carefully? It lists: "Duplicate Inspection" and "Mandatory Inspection" and "Action Required: Mandatory Inspection requirement before next flight"

 

The mandatory inspection appears to ground all 19 reg aircraft immediately, until they are inspected. If the requirement was only for a duplicate inspection after maintenance, why would you single out 19 reg over other aircraft?

 

And it appears that every inspection needs to be reported to the tech manager ("On completion of the inspection, and if any issues are identified..." is different to "On completion of the inspection if any issues are identified...") so it wouldn't surprise me if this will be checked, at least on registration renewal if not earlier. Could it even be a test to see which owners read and take notice of airworthiness notices? Most should be carried out and reported fairly quickly, if they are done. Alternatively it could be an error and they are not ready for a deluge of reports with one for every aircraft...

 

 

[kaz3g]

Just to clear up any doubt, in a legal document, "shall" and "must" have the same meaning...they are simply applied to persons and inanimate objects, respectively.

 

This is because "shall" imposes a duty on a person and fairly obviously inanimate objects are not able to perform a duty; rather, they perform a purpose.

 

It is specious and a poor understanding of both the English language and legislative drafting to suggest that the use of "shall" provides the person any option other than to comply with the requirement.

 

The person carrying out maintenance/making adjustments to control systems shall ensure all control rod adjustments are lock-wired...(is a mandatory requirement)

 

Lock wire must be used to secure the adjustable fitting on the control rod end ...(is similarly a mandatory requirement).

 

Kaz

 

 

[aro]

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines "should" as "see shall" and shall as expressing "command" , "obligation" "condition".

The difference between should and must/shall is fairly well accepted. Should is a strong recommendation. Ignoring it may be unwise, but is not prohibited. Must/shall does not give an option.

 

e.g. You must obey the speed limit. You should slow down when it is raining.

 

In one case you can be charged if you ignore it. In the other you cannot, although it could be used as evidence to support other charges e.g. negligence.

 

 

[SDQDI]

That was the way I read it aro and even if we are wrong it's not too hard to invite a pilot friend around for a cuppa and get it signed off.

 

T Has an accident report been released?

Jet we have been arguing for ages that we need to know the causes of accidents ASAP and with this one they obviously have results which they have deemed important enough to let us know. Remember they have their hands tied in regards to releasing reports because of litigation ( I know that is silly but it is how it is) so I think we are lucky to be given as much info as we have been.

Yes it is a pain and by all means if you are still confident in your machine keep flying but IF something does fail (and it doesn't have to be a primary control) or go wrong and you hurt someone you will get a first hand look at how litigation lawyers work. My advice is to catch up with a pilot friend ASAP and record it and be done with it.

 

Obviously if something is found that is a problem it needs to be reported not to dob in your mate but incase someone with a similar type has the same issue which goes unnoticed and causes another tragedy.

 

Edit this was in regards to aro's post 58

 

 

[kaz3g]

The difference between should and must/shall is fairly well accepted. Should is a strong recommendation. Ignoring it may be unwise, but is not prohibited. Must/shall does not give an option.e.g. You must obey the speed limit. You should slow down when it is raining.

In one case you can be charged if you ignore it. In the other you cannot, although it could be used as evidence to support other charges e.g. negligence.

The discussion is about the respective meanings of "shall" and "must", not "should" and "must".

 

There is no wriggle room, I assure you.they are mandatory requirements.

 

Aro has correctly pointed out what I also believe is a source of misunderstanding in the last para of the Directive and perhaps Maj could ask Darren for an urgent clarification?

 

My view is that the inspection should be recorded in the airframe log and, only if there are issues detected, should an incident report be filed. But Darren should be asked for the definitive statement on this.

 

Kaz

 

 

[SDQDI]

The discussion is about the respective meanings of "shall" and "must", not "should" and "must".There is no wriggle room, I assure you.they are mandatory requirements.

 

Aro has correctly pointed out what I also believe is a source of misunderstanding in the last para of the Directive and perhaps Maj could ask Darren for an urgent clarification?

 

My view is that the inspection should be recorded in the airframe log and, only if there are issues detected, should an incident report be filed. But Darren should be asked for the definitive statement on this.

 

Kaz

Kaz M6 in post 56 said the tech manual had 'should' as the wording not shall or will. Otherwise I totally agree

 

 

[robinsm]

Seeing we are getting into semantics, does the two independent inspections mean you and one other, or you and 2 independent persons (making 3 in total?)

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

A significant issue in private aviation is the restrictions continue to be placed on owners and pilots without much basis or risk analysis.I would consider the untimely and totally avoidable deaths of two fine airman sufficient 'risk analysis' wouldn't you ???....

Why are these maintenance rules being made as if everyone has an L2 available.

 

Read it a bit closer mate...they are not. Darren in this case has allowed any certificate holder with a Level 1 to carry out the duplicate insp sign off. If that's not being flexible for the membership than I don't know what is !.....

I am always impressed by the amount of unecessary negativity expressed at times on this forum.....Darwins theory at work here.....be carefull , it may be your scrawny arse Jetjr that we are attempting to save here........

 

I went out of my way yesterday to see that two 19 aircraft operators in my area could keep flying at no cost to them...in fact it cost me as I flew to where they were...............Maj.....

 

 

[SDQDI]

Seeing we are getting into semantics, does the two independent inspections mean you and one other, or you and 2 independent persons (making 3 in total?)

In regards to this AN it is you and one other

 

 

[kaz3g]

Kaz M6 in post 56 said the tech manual had 'should' as the wording not shall or will. Otherwise I totally agree

Yes, mate...But the Compulsory Inspection Notice says "SHALL".

 

If it gets down to the stage where a court is interpreting the contents of the technical manual, they will look at the intent of the relevant provision, then any legal significance given to particular words, then the plain meaning of them.

 

I wouldn't be keen on trying to mount a defence for an aircraft pilot/owner who didn't do those things that the tech manual said they SHOULD have done if serious injury or death resulted from the omission. But, for the sake of clarity it seems to me that the manual should wherever appropriate use "shall" or "must" as the verb.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

In regards to this AN it is you and one other

Standard duplicate inspection criteria SDQDI .....you and one other ...two in total not three..........Maj......

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yes, mate...But the Compulsory Inspection Notice says "SHALL".If it gets down to the stage where a court is interpreting the contents of the technical manual, they will look at the intent of the relevant provision, then any legal significance given to particular words, then the plain meaning of them.

 

I wouldn't be keen on trying to mount a defence for an aircraft pilot/owner who didn't do those things that the tech manual said they SHOULD have done if serious injury or death resulted from the omission. But, for the sake of clarity it seems to me that the manual should wherever appropriate use "shall" or "must" as the verb.

 

Kaz

I can't agree with you more Kaz and as I said earlier I agree with aro in regards to this notice involving all 19 reg aircraft even if we haven't touched or changed things since build completion. The wording could be made a little better just to clear that up but I for one will be getting someone to check and recording it in the logbook with the relevant AN number after all what harm can that do?

 

 

[M61A1]

The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines "should" as "see shall" and shall as expressing "command" , "obligation" "condition".Hire or reward has nothing to do with it, killing a passenger could see you facing a criminal charge of culpable negligence.

In the RAA regs, aircraft used for hire and or reward, have different maintenance requirements in regard to the qualification of those carrying it out. There is a significant difference between paying students and hirers and taking your well informed mate for a flight.

In regard to the difference between shall/must and should, yes the AN is mandatory, but the original reg uses the term "should", so in effect, the AN is new regulation.

 

 

[Mriya]

I am happy to be corrected on this point if I am wrong however I see no exemption from CAR 42G for RAAus which means independant inspection regulations have always applied to RAAus. In this case any argument over our TM wording is irrelevant as 42G sets out requirements clearly.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s42g.html

 

 

[AVOCET]

W

 

I am always impressed by the amount of unecessary negativity expressed at times on this forum.....Darwins theory at work here.....be carefull , it may be your scrawny **** Jetjr that we are attempting to save here........I went out of my way yesterday to see that two 19 aircraft operators in my area could keep flying at no cost to them...in fact it cost me as I flew to where they were...............Maj.....

will you do the same for me maj .

I'm only " t(to quote those who eventually fly to d/vale ,)

 

It's in the middle of nowhere!!

 

Cheers ,

 

 

[M61A1]

I am happy to be corrected on this point if I am wrong however I see no exemption from CAR 42G for RAAus which means independant inspection regulations have always applied to RAAus. In this case any argument over our TM wording is irrelevant as 42G sets out requirements clearly.http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s42g.html

Perhaps CAO 95.55 para 6.1

(e) the aeroplane must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual

 

 

[jetjr]

A few questions

 

What liability am i up for if providing second inspection for someone and subsequently goes wrong?

 

What sort or checks are required?

 

Plenty of non cert Raa aircraft do not have "postive locking system" on prop, primary controls and engine accessories? Thats how they were designed, and produced from factory. And in some cases is serious upgrades to allow this id say.

 

Who can a simple farmer turn to for clarification of the shalls, shoulds and maybes?

 

Great your helping guys for free maj, can you pop over and do mine? No rush its has rego being renewed, expect another 3 weeks grounded.

 

 

[M61A1]

A few questionsWhat liability am i up for if providing second inspection for someone and subsequently goes wrong?

What sort or checks are required?

 

Plenty of non cert Raa aircraft do not have "postive locking system" on prop, primary controls and engine accessories? Thats how they were designed, and produced from factory. And in some cases is serious upgrades to allow this id say.

 

Who can a simple farmer turn to for clarification of the shalls, shoulds and maybes?

 

Great your helping guys for free maj, can you pop over and do mine? No rush its has rego being renewed, expect another 3 weeks grounded.

If you've seen any aircraft without a positive lock on any movable flight control fastener, we have a problem right there.

 

 

[jetjr]

Ok, fair enough, probably shall learn what exactly constitutes positive locking system.

 

If it includes nylocs and loctite. Im happily wrong

 

 

[M61A1]

Ok, fair enough, probably shall learn what exactly constitutes positive locking system.If it includes nylocs and loctite. Im happily wrong

No, I'm talking split pins or lockwire on any bolt that goes through a pivot point of a control run. Nylocs or loctite are ok for static things. A prop flange is a static joint, because although the flange is spinning, the joint itself does not move, a rod end or hinge on the other hand, can undo with movement as it rotates through it's normal arc or travel.(especially if the rod end should seize) Edit: I should have mentioned tab washers too.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... probably shall learn what exactly constitutes positive locking system. ...

suggest that you read USA FAA AC 23.607-1, Self-Locking Nuts on Bolts Subject to Rotation.