RAA Tech Manual issue 4

[kasper]

OK starting at the top from a structural point:

 

All owners who are not the original builder of the aircraft are SCREWED - you cannot modify your aircraft without reference to the RAA Tech

 

All 95.10 owners are SCREWED - we have now all be swept up into exactly the same scheme as the rest of the aircraft series

 

All builders of aircraft are SCREWED - we all now have a minimum of 4 inspections to have had and paid for at our cost during constructions

 

All owners who make any change to the aircraft that affect anything much are SCREWED - no further flight until you hear from RAA Tech on IF they accept the L4 inspection (you just paid for) are accepted.

 

So if you thought Lee Ungerman screwed RAAus members with his period in the tech office you are much mistaken - the current tech office have completely sold the concept of self design/build/owner responsibility off and GA Lite is our future.

 

Oh and the great fun of poorly structured wording try to understand how it is that a CRITICAL definition of major vs minor modification has the mixed wording of minor change included not actually sticking to actual operative wording.

 

And for those with the bent of 'guess the number of jelly beans in a jar' GUESS how many instance of should are included in the manual rather than must meaning that there is in fact no certainty as to what is a must and what is a would like to have ... great job RAAus Tech simply marvelous.

 

And now back to reading the two manuals and all the forms cover to cover and spotting new and interesting reasons to wish that there was an actual alternate to RAAus because this is just hideous.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Who is authorised to do the four inspections during the build?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Yes kasper you are on to it. That was supposed to out to the members before CASA gave it a tick of approval.

 

I feel like it is a case of sit down shut this is what you are going to get. Members organisation??????.

 

Now why would they be so big on getting deciplinary procedures through. I think there will be a lot of illegal flying going on if all that is part of RAAus.

 

Darren Barnfield the tech manager has a lot to answer for if all that gets up.

 

The idea of RAAus is recreational aviation. Just looks like a few want to be kings in cement castles.

 

How many L4s about?

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

So Keith, you've read the new V4 of the Tech Manual from beginning to end and formed a considered view have you?

 

 

[kasper]

Who is authorised to do the four inspections during the build?

That would be in the Tech Manual YOU as a council member of the Inc reviewed and signed off ...

Section 3.1

 

"2.4 STAGE INSPECTIONS

 

In order to provide assurance of appropriate processes and construction techniques during the build process, a minimum of three stage inspections must be carried out by an RAAus L1 (approved by the Technical Manager), L2 or L4. These stage inspections of the project should be conducted at key points of the construction of the aircraft, including, but not limited to, prior to closing of structures, engine installation, painting, rigging of primary flight controls and or wings, etc. Once each inspection is complete, advice of completion is to be supplied by the stage inspector to RAAus using Tech Form 002 - Stage Inspection Amateur Built Aircraft within 14 days. The form is retained in the aircraft file at RAAus.

 

The completion of this inspection does NOT guarantee the airworthiness or integrity of the aircraft, or its systems, but is simply an independent

 

inspection."

 

and the fourth inspection comes from section 3.1:

 

"3.3 PRE-FLIGHT FINAL INSPECTION

 

An RAAus L4 Amateur Built Inspector must supervise the owner’s thorough inspection of the aircraft prior to applying for a Permit to

 

Fly. If no L4 is available, an L2 may contact the Technical Manager for a one-off approval to supervise the inspection. This inspection

 

will include a basic review of the weighing and weight & balance calculations for the Centre of Gravity (CG) limits, general appearance

 

and quality of construction, compliance with all current and relevant Advisory Circulars, kit manufacturer’s Service Bulletins and any RAAus

 

Airworthiness Notices (ANs). The builder is required to check off all the applicable items listed in TECH FORM 007 - PRE FLIGHT FINAL

 

INSPECTION."

 

 

[DonRamsay]

As you would appreciate, I was not seeking an answer to inform myself but to point out that a L1 could do three inspections and that to me does not out all builders out of pocket in a big way and in the "screwed" category as you asserted. The final inspection by a L2 or L4 is surely a sound idea in the best interests of all?

 

 

[kasper]

As you would appreciate, I was not seeking an answer to inform myself but to point out that a L1 could do three inspections and that to me does not out all builders out of pocket in a big way and in the "screwed" category as you asserted. The final inspection by a L2 or L4 is surely a sound idea in the best interests of all?

OK so on what basis is the Tech Manager to approve an L1? Nothing in the tech manual on what is required or how that is to be achieved ... and my nearest L2 is 3 hours drive away and my nearest L4 is 4 hours away ... nice and simple.

and Don I am sick to the eye teeth of hearing what is effectively a motherhood statement of a little more oversight and regulation si good or you ... in WHOSE best interest is it to have a 95,10 1 off self design inspected by anyone other than me as the owner/designer/builder? I do discuss my design choices with people I respect and frankly the RAAus Tech Manager is someone I would NEVER discuss anything with except as required by law as he has proven to me directly and repeatedly his fundamental lack of understanding of basic design of weightshift aircraft - why talk to someone who does not understand the basic operating limits and structures let alone give him the absolute authority to say yeah/nay on something he knows nothing about?

 

 

[Downunder]

OK so on what basis is the Tech Manager to approve an L1?

It is a concern that a builder may be a victim of the foibles of an RAA manager and that the requirements are not set out in black and white.

 

 

[planesmaker]

I am quite disappointed if this is so. I wrote to the CEO, tech manager, and all board members about the multi inspections. Only reply was a phone call from the tech manager. Could not believe no one else even acknowledged my emails. Hello is any one home? Is it not important? VH experimental got rid of all those stage inspections, why reintroduce, on what safety grounds? This is not right.

 

Darren admitted to me that rarely accidents are caused by construction errors.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

in WHOSE best interest is it to have a 95,10 1 off self design inspected by anyone other than me as the owner/designer/builder?

Kasper, I have been a builder for 35 years and although I don't and have never built an aircraft I have built untold houses and multi story buildings in my career, when you build a house you have at least 3 inspections by an engineer and normally a final inspection by the certifier and all of these inspections cost around the $160 mark, these inspections are not only for my benefit but the owners peace of mind and the assurance that they are getting a safe and structurally sound building, the same could be said for building an aircraft, we know that you can build an aircraft but these are just the checks and balances they want you to do to ensure yours and potentially the next person safety that may buy this aircraft off you to down the track.

Kasper I don't like paying for inspections either but unfortunately these days these need to be done and we need the funds to pay for these just like you need the funds for a engine and materials.

 

I would suggest that before you start your next project do up a budget and include these costs and if your budget exceeds your funds then you may have to delay the start or shelve it for a while until you save some more money in this way you know you have all the funds to build your aircraft including all of these painful inspections, personally I find it reassuring to have some else throw an eye over what I have built and find things that I may have missed after all we are just human and sometimes prone to mistakes.... inspections are just a part of the building things these days...it is just the way it is...

 

David

 

 

[planesmaker]

David, these inspections are unnecessary, about 20 years without mandatory inspections has proved that, why introduce more regulation and cost? Ok they sound like a good idea and I am certainly not against others looking over my aircraft projects, in fact I invite them, however mandating such is only adding burdensome paperwork and cost unnecessarily. For what good reason to add more regulation? There is no proven safety issue! So why more regulation? In kasper's case nearest L2 3 hrs away, eg if that is 200km that would total about $400 x3 just to cover travel plus the inspection itself, and that is a significant cost burden, quite a lot more than your $160 x 3 for a building worth hundreds of thousands, compare to aircraft worth only tens of thousands if that.

 

It is not a CASA requirement!

 

 

[Keith Page]

I am quite disappointed if this is so. I wrote to the CEO, tech manager, and all board members about the multi inspections. Only reply was a phone call from the tech manager. Could not believe no one else even acknowledged my emails. Hello is any one home? Is it not important? VH experimental got rid of all those stage inspections, why reintroduce, on what safety grounds? This is not right.Darren admitted to me that rarely accidents are caused by construction errors.

What concerns me here, "What is being hidden?".

A trip is always planned - all maps, fuel and plans are in place then off we go if things have to change so be it we do the change. None of this - We know we are wrong but start the trip we will fix it on the trip. My problem with this plan which way will the fix go most likely be not what the members want. We are stuck as we have said yes to the plan with all its warts.

 

Where is all this going first the constitution now the opps and tech manuals.

 

Could be a case for an Extra Special General meeting.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[Riley]

Kasper, I have been a builder for 35 years and although I don't and have never built an aircraft I have built untold houses and multi story buildings in my career, when you build a house you have at least 3 inspections by an engineer and normally a final inspection by the certifier and all of these inspections cost around the $160 mark, these inspections are not only for my benefit but the owners peace of mind and the assurance that they are getting a safe and structurally sound building, the same could be said for building an aircraft, we know that you can build an aircraft but these are just the checks and balances they want you to do to ensure yours and potentially the next person safety that may buy this aircraft off you to down the track.Kasper I don't like paying for inspections either but unfortunately these days these need to be done and we need the funds to pay for these just like you need the funds for a engine and materials.

 

I would suggest that before you start your next project do up a budget and include these costs and if your budget exceeds your funds then you may have to delay the start or shelve it for a while until you save some more money in this way you know you have all the funds to build your aircraft including all of these painful inspections, personally I find it reassuring to have some else throw an eye over what I have built and find things that I may have missed after all we are just human and sometimes prone to mistakes.... inspections are just a part of the building things these days...it is just the way it is...

 

David

Any builder would be a damn fool not to accept constructive comment from an observer during a build but you're comparing apples to oranges David. Note that Kasper is referring to 95-10 single seat category of homebuilts where there never has been accomodation for protection of anyone excepting the owner/pilot. Houses aren't airplanes and sub 300 kg experimentals have always comprised of "build and do what you are prepared to prove will work with no risk to others" For the higher-paid help to now require four staged inspections for this category by some third party who has had no involvement in the planning & building of the machine has little merit and must certainly curtail innovation. More unnecesary regulation - More "GA, here we come"? Greyhound racing is currently on the nose but it may have more future than recreational avaition. Rgds Riley

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Id be curious to learn what liability an L4 (or any other accepted person) would carry should an aircraft crash on a test flight? If the inspector has given the thumbs up, surely they are saying this thing is good to fly? The statement in the tech manual indicating the inspector is simply completing an independent inspection and not guaranteeing airworthiness would be dubious defence in court?

 

Scenario:

 

Ralph builds an aeroplane for the purpose of learning to fly. His aircraft has the appropriate progress inspections and gets his RPC holder mate George to "test fly" it. Aeroplane has a failure of some sort resulting in a prang, George is permanently incapacitated, George takes Ralph to court to sue for damages.

 

Ralph tells the court he just built the aircraft to the best of his ability, it had four inspections by an RAAus expert and here are copies of the forms proving it was inspected. The forms include an extensive checklist and all items are marked satisfactory and signed by the expert.

 

George says the inspector said it was safe, I just built it so sue him.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Time for a name change for the company..??Recreational Aviation Safety Authority

Seems the process is adopting the CASA pricipal of 'the safest plane is the one locked in the hangar '

We hear Safety, Safery, Safety,Safety.

Safety is only a byproduct, yes only a byproduct not a primary result.

 

Good honest precise education which develops a culture will get there and the results...safety procedures.

 

Happens naturally. No stress no roaring.

 

Ramming safety down everyone's necks will result in resentment and apprehension.

 

When they wake up to that we will keep on arguing and yelling.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[fly_tornado]

This will be another added expense to the cost of building a plane. Is using an L1 the only way to make this scheme is viable? How many L1s are really qualified to pass judgement on an incomplete aircraft? What happens when the L1s approve the first 3 stages and the L4 rejects it because the L1 has overlooked some aspect of the build?

 

Inspection via posting CAD drawings and photos online seems far more appropriate than paying an L1 to poke around at bits and pieces of plane parts.

 

 

[jetjr]

"L1s approve the first 3 stages and the L4 rejects it because the L1 has overlooked some aspect of the build? "

 

Then Id say the L4 maybe saved your life.

 

Id have thought the L1 checks are there to see areas not able to be inspected when completed. L1 allowed to keep it cheap and easy as possible.

 

Would expect an authorized L1 would need to understand what they are doing and whats required.

 

Id bet SSAO was behind some/many of these requirements - simply put "unless more thorough inspections stipulated we wont accept it"

 

 

[facthunter]

The further we get away from the Owner having the responsibility predominately, the more we will lose the plot in this game we are in. You decide to participate and IF you want extra supervision/opinion, you should get it, or you are a dope. The earlier types particularly don't FIT the "inspections at many stages will ensure a certain outcome" formula . There's less and less people understand them anyhow.

 

.It's not an airline where you are rostered to do a flight at an exact time, (schedule) on a plane you may never have seen before, with crew you have never flown with before, and you don't know any of the people who worked on it. This situation CAN happen.. In those circumstances, you need a pile of rules, and you are signing stuff off, before EACH flight. Horses for Courses. Beware of doing things just to make it look as if everything's right. Where are you going to get people silly enough to sign it off anyhow . Lawyer's field day follows..Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

And for those with the bent of 'guess the number of jelly beans in a jar' GUESS how many instance of should are included in the manual rather than must meaning that there is in fact no certainty as to what is a must and what is a would like to have

 

It beggars belief that a blunder like this was made; one of the most fundamental when it comes to regulations or specifications, because it can't be enforce, and it leads to endless case by case debates over what was meant.

 

Out State Tribunals are full to the brim with cases caused by this unsound wording.

 

Unless its describing a required safety action, and then public liability law kicks in. Unfortunately in that case the "defendant" as he then is thought somkethingt was voluntary due to the wording, and didn't realise he had an over-riding duty of care requirement.

[turboplanner]

Id be curious to learn what liability an L4 (or any other accepted person) would carry should an aircraft crash on a test flight? If the inspector has given the thumbs up, surely they are saying this thing is good to fly? The statement in the tech manual indicating the inspector is simply completing an independent inspection and not guaranteeing airworthiness would be dubious defence in court?

If you take a frequent explanation that:

 

"A duty of care must be owed" and "a person must breach that duty of care", I'd agree.

 

 

[jetjr]

All correct but attempting to micromanage regulations to suit all things is the way of AU government and safety even outside it.

 

Ends up with larger number ignoring it and risking problems rather than try to be fully compliant - because odds are you wont be somehow

 

 

[turboplanner]

All correct but attempting to micromanage regulations to suit all things is the way of AU government and safety even outside it.Ends up with larger number ignoring it and risking problems rather than try to be fully compliant - because odds are you wont be somehow

If the subject is micromanaging or unimportant to the pint of giving the person a free choice it shouldn't be in there, it's just waste paper.

 

If the subject is important to the point of being required, the correct word is "must"

 

I don't doubt that some people ignore their obligations; they frequently show their fingerprints on this site. When a regulation says you cannot fly below 500 feet, there are always a few disagreeing, but we now clearly know from recent events that if you contravene that regulation and crash and kill someone you are likely to be facing a Manslaughter charge - self enforcement.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Building an aircraft has been the responsibility of the builder as far as airworthiness goes, CASA do not require these inspections it is imposed on builders by RAAus. The system worked well without these extra regulations. By all means encourage people to look over builders projects but to make it mandatory is treating us like little children and is counterproductive in my opinion.

 

At the final inspection it has been the builder who signs that they are responsible for the airworthiness, the L4 supervises the inspection. Does the L2/4 now carry responsibility for the airworthiness? I certainly hope not.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

"L1s approve the first 3 stages and the L4 rejects it because the L1 has overlooked some aspect of the build? "Then Id say the L4 maybe saved your life.

 

Id have thought the L1 checks are there to see areas not able to be inspected when completed. L1 allowed to keep it cheap and easy as possible.

 

Would expect an authorized L1 would need to understand what they are doing and whats required.

 

Id bet SSAO was behind some/many of these requirements - simply put "unless more thorough inspections stipulated we wont accept it"

The problem isn't with the L4 but with the L1s,the skill necessary to get an L1 is minimal

 

 

[M61A1]

Building an aircraft has been the responsibility of the builder as far as airworthiness goes, CASA do not require these inspections it is imposed on builders by RAAus. The system worked well without these extra regulations. By all means encourage people to look over builders projects but to make it mandatory is treating us like little children and is counterproductive in my opinion.At the final inspection it has been the builder who signs that they are responsible for the airworthiness, the L4 supervises the inspection. Does the L2/4 now carry responsibility for the airworthiness? I certainly hope not.

I refer you to Kasper's post #5... the L4 still supervises the builder doing their final inspection.

 

The problem isn't with the L4 but with the L1s,the skill necessary to get an L1 is minimal

Although I completely disagree with the new regs, I think the idea is just to have another set of eyes, check key items, like control attachments and locking. It wouldn't surprise me though to see them completely bugger that up.