Flying Control System – Duplicate Inspection

[turboplanner]

I really don't think this one can be solved by a phone call to the tec man

In your case perhaps your son, or someone nearby could be trained?

 

 

[AVOCET]

 

In your case perhaps your son, or someone nearby could be trained?

I've been trying to get him to get his raa certificate .

Your right though , this is what I've been doing in situations like this ,

 

Nics been involved from the beginning , and is more than capable of trying to find DADS stuff ups ! He works with me full time now .

 

This is how I've been able to keep this project safe and albeit compliant .(maybe not compliant !)

 

Mike

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Is it not the case that a glider has a duplicate inspection every time the wings are put back on after being broken down to trailer???

Yes.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

So when does this AD start from ? I renewed control cables a year ago, following another AD. Been flying a bit since then, Who will meet me at my hangar and have a look at my work? I fly mostly weekdays, when NO-ONE is around, I checked with a LAME and he said " sure, no worries, not more than $200!" ....." Yeah right, in your dreams " was the reply......AS for the crossed control wires mentioned , how come the PIC didn't pick it up with his pre-flight check? or didn't he do that either?

 

 

[SDQDI]

So when does this AD start from ? I renewed control cables a year ago, following another AD. Been flying a bit since then, Who will meet me at my hangar and have a look at my work? I fly mostly weekdays, when NO-ONE is around, I checked with a LAME and he said " sure, no worries, not more than $200!" ....." Yeah right, in your dreams " was the reply......AS for the crossed control wires mentioned , how come the PIC didn't pick it up with his pre-flight check? or didn't he do that either?

We are talking about a AN not a AD and the difference is as RAA operators we can legally fly without implementing a AD but we are not exempt from AN's (yes ignoring a AD could be very foolish but that's not the point) the wording leaves a lot to be desired as there seems to be some confusion to what it means ie for all 19 reg before next flight and after every change/adjustment of primary controls thereafter, or for all 19reg that adjust/change primary flight controls from now or from build date. The way I read it was it was compulsory for all now and after any adjustments hereafter.

The crossed wires were on a trim tab I think? If that was the case you wouldn't notice until sufficient airflow over the controls most likely on takeoff which from memory was what was said.

 

 

[AVOCET]

No, it's the past that people have been ignoring.

Yes I get that , there's not much we can do about the past except learn from it .

I'm more interested in the future and how it impacts my business.

 

Mike .

 

 

[kaz3g]

Turboplanner are you actualy a member of the RAA? i wondered because you often mention YOUR asociation meaning ours and not youres

I don't really think it matters, Deborah. What matters is the quality of contributions that individuals make.

 

There are probably several well - qualified posters here who are not members of RAA...they are members here, however.

 

Kaz

 

Just in case you are wondering I hold a pilot certificate as well as a PPL but haven't exercised the RAA privilege for a few years. So I give something to "your" association without taking much out of it.

 

 

[Mriya]

Glad to see the conversation moving forward a little since I last commented. Lots of challenges for people and as always rules can make life more complicated for some people in unique circumstances. I would hope that in cases of genuine hardship level heads and calm conversations with those who can make a difference would result in acceptable outcomes to allow for continued innovation. It really sucks when red tape stifles creativity, so I really hope good pathways can be created to support the innovators.

 

I also see someone wondering about reversed trim tabs:

 

I obviously didn't give the whole story but was just focusing on the maintenance error. As I mentioned a whole series of factors combined and managed to breach every layer of defence (Textbook case of the James Reason Swiss cheese human factors model). In short the following factors combined, resulting in an aircraft taking off with reversed trim system:

 

Errors in manufacturers maintenance data.

 

Error in initial check following assembly per data.

 

Error in independant check following assembly.

 

Changes in key roles and certification responsibilities in maintenance organisation during aircraft maintenance visit.

 

Error missed by pilot during daily inspection.

 

The 4 LAME's involved had between 8 and 26 years of individual experience each and the two pilots involved were both CPL with +30 years full time flying experience each. I was the 26 year experience LAME.

 

I tell the story because I reject the notion that experienced people don't make mistakes. Fortunately 'by God's grace' the bulk of errors are found before we are left with a smoking pile of bits, however we must never allow complacency or pride to creep in and erode the primary defences that have been established to protect us. I would hope that solutions can be found were unique challenges lie, but I suspect that for some people the resistance to conducting independant inspections is not due to an inability to comply, but rather an attitude of I have never done it before so why start now.

 

Fly safe,

 

Justin

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I really don't think this one can be solved by a phone call to the tec man

Mike, that is in fact the only way you will get a satisfactory solution to the difficulty in complying due to your remote location. Darren has been known to bite but it is rarely fatal. He is also very keen to help members sort their real problems and yours is very real.

A number of people expressed concern about whether the AN meant that both check inspections had to be done by people independent (i.e. not involved in doing the job). As a result of people talking to the Tech Manager, he has now released a slightly revised version of the AN that makes it crystal clear that the person who did the work plus one independent person who has at least L1 can be the two required inspections.

 

The AN requires that two inspections be done after assembly. As far as I know this is standard practice in signing off a construction or initial assembly. If the control systems have not been altered since original assembly they should not need inspecting now. Surely?

 

The AN then requires that subsequent to assembly, *if* the control system is altered it must be inspected by two people one of whom was not involved in doing the work.

 

To me this is just sensible safe work practice. If it creates problems for you, you must talk to Darren and get him to help you solve the issues.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

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.

So are you prepared to accept with all consequences and any repercussions the full implications that may occur as a result of flight in your 19 aircraft? Accepting that if any passenger or professional is to sit side by side with you that you accept full responsibility for any consequences directly attributable to your construction or maintenance actions in regard to your aircraft? Or are you happy for all amateur built aircraft to be limited to solo operations by builder only?

 

Are you prepared to accept all legal scrutiny and the consequences of such scrutiny if perhaps you may have any error in any part of your construction or operation of your aircraft?

 

And by way of representation, how many of your fellow amateur colleagues are also prepared to accept the above inherent responsibility and liability without any insurance coverage whatsoever? With freedom comes responsibility. What are amateur builders and operators prepared to accept?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I suggest you look at the thread on Recreational Airfield Safety Operations, in General Discussion, especially page 3 and on. This subject was discussed at some length there

 

 

[crashley]

Is the owner of a 24 rego plane that is not used for hire but just used for private use allowed to do their own maintenance (say change a control cable ) if so does this work need to also be checked by another l1 or l2

 

 

[Mriya]

Is the owner of a 24 rego plane that is not used for hire but just used for private use allowed to do their own maintenance (say change a control cable ) if so does this work need to also be checked by another l1 or l2

I will answer on the basis that this is a genuine query:

The short answer is that all maintenance on RAAUS aircraft must be done per the RAAUS Techincal Manual. Therefore a current L1 can perform maintenance on their own aircraft, HOWEVER in accordance with the Tech Manual any disturbance of flight control systems requires an independant inspection to confirm correct assembly/rigging/safety of the system. This requirement extends right across the aircraft maintenance industry regardless of whether it is a B747 or a single seat privately owned ultralight.

 

I would suggest that ANYONE who is considering exercising ANY RAAUS maintenance privileges that they may have should have a careful read of the RAAUS Technical Manual, because this is the document that defines how the work should be done.

 

On a really bad day when you need to answer a Coroner's questions about maintenance you did on a crashed aircraft, this is going to be one of the primary documents that will either send you to jail or allow you to walk free based on whether you followed it's rules. It therefore pays to have a good understanding of this document and allow it to guide your maintenance practices.

 

By the way, I don't claim to know it all either, and as a result of some of the discussions on this thread I now have a better understanding of how the CASR's and the RAAus Tech Manual fit together too.

 

Regards

 

Justin

 

 

[dlegg]

"The AN requires that two inspections be done after assembly. As far as I know this is standard practice in signing off a construction or initial assembly. If the control systems have not been altered since original assembly they should not need inspecting now. Surely?"

 

So, the million dollar question is are all 19 reg planes grounded until a duplicate inspection has been completed, regardless? Or only after next maintenance or adjustment? The way that I read the AN I would say not grounded...........

 

Date: 8

 

th

 

August 2014

 

RECREATIONAL AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS NOTICE

 

AIRWORTHINESS NOTICE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 08082014 rev1

 

To: All owners and operators of 19 AMATEUR BUILT and 95.10 aircraft operators.

 

Background: The RA -Aus Technical Manual Section 4.0 – para10 states: CRITICAL MAINTENANCE.

 

RA-Aus defect and incident reports indicate that engine controls, engine accessories, propellers

 

and flight controls deserve special maintenance attention. These components and systems should

 

all be secured by positive safety devices and should be checked by an independent person after

 

any maintenance.

 

Recent investigations have identified potential areas of concern relating to the integrity of primary

 

flight controls and with concerns that these areas are not being addressed. As a result Recreational

 

Aviation Australia Inc. has mandated this airworthiness notice.

 

Action Required:

 

Mandatory Duplicate Inspection requirement before next flight:

 

1 Inspections required:

 

1.1 Following assembly of an aircraft and prior to flight, two inspections of the primary flying

 

control system shall be made to ensure correct assembly and operation.

 

1.2 Following adjustment, overhaul, repair or replacement of any part of the primary flying

 

control system of an aircraft, two inspections of affected systems shall be made prior to

 

next flight to ensure correct assembly and operation.

 

1.3 "Correct Assembly and Operation" means that the primary flight control systems and all

 

components and parts have been correctly assembled and adjusted and that locking

 

devices are made safe in accordance with approved procedures and accepted

 

practices. Additionally, inspection should confirm that the controls have full and free

 

movement in the correct sense throughout the specified operating range.

 

1.4 Each aircraft inspection shall be performed and certified by two individuals that must hold

 

one of the following accreditations: A Recreational Aviation L1Pilot Certificate or L2

 

Maintenance Privilege or Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. One of the inspectors

 

may have been involved in carrying out the work but at least one of the inspectors must

 

have been independent of the work.

 

1.5 During the inspections specified in this Airworthiness Notice, care should be exercised to

 

ensure no loose objects which could subsequently affect the operation of the primary flight

 

control system and the safety of the aircraft remain unaccounted for or uncontained in the

 

aircraft structure.

 

Reports and Recording.

 

2 On completion of the inspections if any issues are identified, a Recreational Aviation

 

Australia incident report is to be completed and sent to the Technical Manager. On

 

completion of the inspection, if nil defects are evident, a statement to that effect is to be

 

recorded in the aircrafts airframe log book citing 0882014 rev1.

 

Darren Barnfield

 

Technical Manager

 

Defect Reporting is one of the primary ways we have in ensuring continued safety

 

in our operations.

 

 

[Mriya]

""So, the million dollar question is are all 19 reg planes grounded until a duplicate inspection has been completed, regardless? Or only after next maintenance or adjustment? The way that I read the AN I would say not grounded...........

I'll claim the million dollars and answer that question.

Darren is simply highlighting that if you have done maintenance to your aircraft that requires an independant inspection, but that inspection has not been carried out your aircraft can't be considered airworthy until such time as you arrange for these required inspections to be done and documented.

 

If you have been doing maintenance per the Technical Manual (including independant inspection requirements) then you have already complied with his Airworthiness Notice and don't need to take any further action at this time.

 

Fly safe,

 

Justin

 

 

[SDQDI]

I'd hate to be in front of the coroner without that little AN number recorded in my logbook, seems to me that getting everything double checked (again) and recorded in the logbook can't do any harm even/especially if it has been a while since the build completion. And even if you are of the mind that it doesn't ground everyone why not get it looked at next time at a flyin or next service (if serviced by someone else) and record the AN number in your logbook after all it's all about covering ourselves and minimising the chances of us (or our family) losing everything we have ever worked for.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

It's been a requirement for damn nearly a century. People normally help one another by doing a dual inspection, without charging anything for it; anybody with a pilot licence can do one in GA. I've done hundreds of them. It's cheap insurance in my book; and likely culpable negligence if you don't.

 

 

[crashley]

My next question ( which is also genuine as I am trying to understand this correctly) is why doesn't the AN state all planes not just 19 rego

 

I have two mates that have identical planes but one is 24 and the other is 19 and there is confusion that the 19 needs two signatures and the 24 only needs one

 

I think they both need two but it reads as if only the 19 needs two

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

My next question ( which is also genuine as I am trying to understand this correctly) is why doesn't the AN state all planes not just 19 regoI have two mates that have identical planes but one is 24 and the other is 19 and there is confusion that the 19 needs two signatures and the 24 only needs one

I think they both need two but it reads as if only the 19 needs two

Is your aircraft controlled by weight shift? If not, you need to do the inspection. I'm not sure, in regard to weight-shift types.

 

 

[crashley]

So just to make sure I have it crystal clear the AN08082014 rev only applies to 19 and 95.10 aircraft but all aircraft must have a note in the maintenance log indicating that two independent inspections have been carried out

 

why doesn't the AN state that it is for all aircraft not specifically just for 19 and 95.10

 

 

[jetjr]

Doesnt make sense to me either

 

Guess the thinking is 24 have been serviced by L2 but surely there are plenty out there not used for training and being self maintained?

 

 

[SDQDI]

The original notice has just 19 registered but I agree with you on this one jetjr