New Tech. Manual

[Keith Page]

tk58 SAAA do not require stage inspections they are only reccommenfded, RAAus have made them mandatory and to be done by L2/L4

Good on you planesmaker, He is on the board and is coming up with those great statement "OR OR" Is that what the manual was supposed to say and is a mistake?

KP

 

 

[fly_tornado]

"Don't challenge the authority of the board"

 

 

[planesmaker]

read it in the manual.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So what happens if there is a dispute between owner and inspector?

 

 

[turboplanner]

tk58 SAAA do not require stage inspections they are only reccommenfded, RAAus have made them mandatory and to be done by L2/L4 thus adding cost and redtape to fix what problem?I do recommend having others look over your work as most would do, but it should be encouraged not forced upon us!

The SAAA way keeps them away from public liability, but obligates the builder to do them in the most powerfiul way possible - if he doesn't follow the recommendation he can lose his house if something fails.

The RAA in prescribing them to be mandatory is responsible (a) for what they prescribed and (b) is responsible for supervising a safe outcome - so if it doesn't happen and something fails, the builder can be sued, but RAA is likely to be right there beside him as a co-defendant, and with a higher level of liability because they are, or ought to be fully skilled.

 

Hard to believe this happened, although a pattern is definitely forming of isolationism.

 

Going to CASA before going to the members is not consulation, it's positioning - positioning members to follow a path which has already been laid out by a minority of people.

 

 

[01rmb]

...All that's required is to get another person with a L1 (i.e. an RAAus owner/maintainer authority) to look over the work. It is NOT a requirement to get an Amateur Built Inspector to do stage inspections...

Not quite true, since the technical manual states "...a minimum of three stage inspections must be carried out by an RAAus L1 (approved by the Technical Manager), L2 or L4". The key point being the Technical Manager needs to approve an L1 to be able to do stage inspections not just any L1, and, the criteria for the Technical Manager to approve an L1 to do a stage inspection has not been defined!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It won't be that hard to find L1s with relevant experience, you have major techniques

 

Composite, Aluminium, Tube and Fabric, Wood and Fabric.

 

But what happens when "Farmer Jones" puts his hand up to do L1 inspections, comes into inspect your plane and because he's only ever worked on Cessnas can't adequately assess your workmanship? You still have to pay him and he signs off and accepts responsibility for your workmanship?

 

 

[M61A1]

I think what the requirement is a very basic checklist type inspection, where it is just a second set of eyes to ensure that key items like control run locking and foreign object checks are ok. At least that is my understanding.

 

Will be very disappointed if it's more.

 

Standing by to be disappointed now......

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not quite true, since the technical manual states "...a minimum of three stage inspections must be carried out by an RAAus L1 (approved by the Technical Manager), L2 or L4". The key point being the Technical Manager needs to approve an L1 to be able to do stage inspections not just any L1, and, the criteria for the Technical Manager to approve an L1 to do a stage inspection has not been defined!

Oops!

 

 

[Keith Page]

It is past time to break the MONOPOLY!The argument against another registration and licencing organisation has always been that our membership will have less influence on the regulators and the minister if we divide our critical mass. Well that argument, usually spouted by people who went on the join the board, is total crap because the membership has NO INFUENCE ON OUR ASSOCIATION let alone anyone else so we now have everything to gain and bugger all to lose.

I think it about time another management organisation evolved. Because RAAus is no way a members organisation.

Pity the old style board did not live a bit longer, Frank would have done a great job for avaiation see how he is demonstrating the truth he one lier caught out. I really like the way he conducts himself. He actually quotes the regulation and mentions how all fits together. I see on this thread a board member saying Frank is not correct, my answer for that. What hope have we got. Frank is correct as he researched the issue and quoted how things fit together. See how 01rmb #56 has added his slant into thread a lot of people are putting thought into this. Planesmaker #50 he also has put some knowledge to work.

 

We are just getting wool pulled over our eyes.

 

Even turbo has twigged on even F_T is onside hence there is a lot of accuracy here.

 

KP

 

 

[frank marriott]

As for Frank's concers in relation to instrument calibration, the requirements haven't changed. All that's changed is the new Tech Manual is much clearer about what the requirements are

I have zero interest in debating the matter any longer, just read section 4.2.4 - 6 par 17 to 21, and then 12.4 of version 4 and make up your own mind if they are the same.

 

 

[jetjr]

So whats stopping you Keith?

 

 

[Admin]

Why don't the RAA have a forum so member can speak there mind and maybe get some feedback on the Inquiries or concerns ?

I hope you are kidding Doug...can you imagine the outcome of that...

1. RAAus will make you use or know your real identity

 

2. We see here the way discussions go about RAAus so imagine what a dogs breakfast it would be

 

3. RAAus could not stop a member from using it, banning or suspending a member they don't like without legal challenge

 

4. RAAus board would have to answer everything which would destroy each one's reputation because they would be judged on every single word

 

5. RAAus members would go on the attack

 

6. The amount of time required to manage it would be overwhelming

 

7. They could not be considered as official if they got non board members to manage and moderate it

 

Further more if we take the EAA forums as an example, EAA has a membership 10 times that of RAAus yet if we compare their usage to this site who has a 1/10th potential userbase, their forums are not really used as they have slightly less users than Recreational Flying (.com).

 

Can you imagine RAAus being forced into answering every question about them that has been posted on this site and then being subjected to further questioning on their answer because if they didn't they would be doomed, they would also be doomed if they did.

 

Basically it would be a disaster for RAAus and the membership...and money

 

 

[Doug Evans]

I hope you are kidding Doug...can you imagine the outcome of that...1. RAAus will make you use or know your real identity

2. We see here the way discussions go about RAAus so imagine what a dogs breakfast it would be

 

3. RAAus could not stop a member from using it, banning or suspending a member they don't like without legal challenge

 

4. RAAus board would have to answer everything which would destroy each one's reputation because they would be judged on every single word

 

5. RAAus members would go on the attack

 

6. The amount of time required to manage it would be overwhelming

 

7. They could not be considered as official if they got non board members to manage and moderate it

 

Further more if we take the EAA forums as an example, EAA has a membership 10 times that of RAAus yet if we compare their usage to this site who has a 1/10th potential userbase, their forums are not really used as they have slightly less users than Recreational Flying (.com).

 

Can you imagine RAAus being forced into answering every question about them that has been posted on this site and then being subjected to further questioning on their answer because if they didn't they would be doomed, they would also be doomed if they did.

 

Basically it would be a disaster for RAAus and the membership...and money

Sorry I don't agree I for one don't hide behind a user name or would be concerned if they new who I was,

 

We need too have commutation if this is too work as I have said I feel this hole system that that are using now is in my option heading in the wrong direction but we as a group need too voice what it is that is concerning us all and I feel it would be an improvement for most too be able to chat about the strength and downfalls that this leadership is trying too achieve . We have gone away from the hard copy's that we all enjoyed reading and relied on too relay our thoughts through the letter too editors I know myself that us in the north have little or no commutation or seem too have little say in the directions that we are being lead ,

 

As for all the forum side of thing u seem too run this system pretty well why can t we invite the people in the top seats to be a part of your forum to relay our thoughts too one and other as we do now ?

 

Just my too bob worth cheers Doug Evans.

 

 

[jetjr]

they are here, just get sick of the constant complaining Id guess

 

When one raises their head they get pasted by angry people.......some who arent even members

 

If you want to be heard contact your board member or the office.

 

 

[Admin]

I completely agree with you Doug, however I was stating why the RAAus will not create their own forums, not whether they should. In respect of inviting them here, that is a given however we have seen them come here in the past and be given a raw deal by the members by way of grueling which is the very reason why they don't come here and the fact why RAAus won't create their own forums...every board member be subjected to interrogation of the 3rd degree...a modern day version of a Spanish Inquisition. The biggest thing we have here is FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the hope of without being ridiculed by the personal vendettas of a small group of individuals that influence and control our own personal joys of flying. In the past certain Board members have requested the identities of some members of this site for speaking out against them to which I refused, and I am continually having to pay that price on behalf of providing this resource to all...under FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!

 

However many are here under pseudo names protecting their anonymity, the very thing they would be asking members to forego if they had their own forums...seems funny doesn't it?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

80% of members dropped the magazine given the option, even if the RAA had a forum most wouldn't use it, much like the Facebook page.

 

Imagine explaining to your typical RAA member how to use a forum, that would be the help desk from hell.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

I completely agree with you Doug, however I was stating why the RAAus will not create their own forums, not whether they should. In respect of inviting them here, that is a given however we have seen them come here in the past and be given a raw deal by the members by way of grueling which is the very reason why they don't come here and the fact why RAAus won't create their own forums...every board member be subjected to interrogation of the 3rd degree...a modern day version of a Spanish Inquisition. The biggest thing we have here is FREEDOM OF SPEECH in the hope of without being ridiculed by the personal vendettas of a small group of individuals that influence and control our own personal joys of flying. In the past certain Board members have requested the identities of some members of this site for speaking out against them to which I refused, and I am continually having to pay that price on behalf of providing this resource to all...under FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!However many are here under pseudo names protecting their anonymity, the very thing they would be asking members to forego if they had their own forums...seems funny doesn't it?

It's a shame that thing can't be said in a way that people don't take it personally but talk about the problem in a positive and constructive way too achieve a outcome that would benefit the hole group ?

 

Thank you for alouding me too think aloud

 

Doug

 

 

[fly_tornado]

(Post deleted as not adding any value at all - Mod)

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Getting back to the stage inspections discussion, I have some sympathy for the requirement. As my Jabiru was nearing completion, most visitors to my workshop were asked to do an inspection, and one of the least likely guys noticed something.

 

I don't like it becoming formalized, but I do like the concept. The second pair of eyes can see new things.

 

With maintenance, I would like to try out a "voluntary peer inspection" trial.

 

Here's the idea:

 

A checklist which takes about 2 hours to work through (this 2 hours may not be enough ) and is not too invasive is developed with official input. The club members who are interested attend a training day, after which they become qualified to do these inspections. (Yes I know that some things can't be inspected in this time-frame as it does not allow for dismantling. And some things like weight and balance would probably be restricted to checking the paperwork and the effect of recent changes)

 

Aircraft-owning club members who would like the free inspection put their planes on a list.

 

If this worked like I would hope, it would be good fun and I am pretty sure it would result in better reliability for those who took part. And I hope it would provide an alternative to the professional maintenance which I fear is coming one day.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Voluntary inspections are a better idea, the problem with mandatory ones is that it will end up as a cash cow for the inspectors.

 

 

[facthunter]

And doesn't guarantee perfection either. To err is human and it err.. goes on from there. IF YOU fly in the thing you're a dope if that doesn't motivate you to do a careful job, you must have a death wish. Nev

 

 

[octave]

And doesn't guarantee perfection either. To err is human and it err.. goes on from there. IF YOU fly in the thing you're a dope if that doesn't motivate you to do a careful job and you must have a death wish. Nev

I can see that for the builder/pilot there is a huge motivation to get the build right. I do have some concerns though. A CFI that I did a lot of flying with was killed in a 19 reg plane whilst conducting BFR for a pilot in the pilots plane. The cause was mechanical and led to urgent inspections of other aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

That is unfortunate and not the only instance but we don't want to see the end of homebuilts do we? It's the maintenance as well. I've seen crook maintenance with professional and self maintained. and been exposed to serious situations which impress me not. I have a pretty short tolerance of shoddy careless work on planes. As I've said before. There's enough unknown hazards in aviation with taking KNOWN hazards into the air with you. Nev

 

 

[Blueadventures]

I can see that for the builder/pilot there is a huge motivation to get the build right. I do have some concerns though. A CFI that I did a lot of flying with was killed in a 19 reg plane whilst conducting BFR for a pilot in the pilots plane. The cause was mechanical and led to urgent inspections of other aircraft.

Agree. The chap that did my L4 inspection put off my inspection for a couple of weeks as he had another to do. It turned out during that test flight the engine developed a miss and he had trouble getting back on the ground. Turned out the builder deviated from the plans and reduced the size of the tail feather area, also reduced the size of some pieces of the box spar. On landing the wheels ripped out. Imagine if the engine did not play up the aircraft may have been subjected to some maneauvres that stressed the wings to failure due to the lighter construction materials of the spar. I had a total of three inspections for mine. Luckly he was then around to do my inspection. I support progressive inspections and reading that inaddition to the precribed maintainer levels other individuals can apply for approval to do these progressive during build inspections. What I believe RAA needs is a better structured maintainer training course program to allow members to enhance thier skills. RAA did run one L2 course at Clifton a number of years back and cancelled the next 3 that were planned. Would be good to getr this happening again so people can progress thier knowledge and abilities in this area as that will contribute to safer flying. Regards

Mike