Keith Page Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Can one of you learned gentlemen or ladies enlighten me as to where the term "Line maintenance" come from, and what does it mean as opposed other maintenance?.I fear for the reputations of Monck and Linke. They are going to be remembered for screwing up a good thing that had a "point of difference" from our GA brethren. All these GA flying Raa board members are blinkered into thinking the GA route is the right way and have failed to keep CASA at bay on behalf of the membership. The failures keep stacking up. They need to be reminded that RAA is about affordable flying with minimum regulation - is anyone listening?. Wake up before it's too late!. Bill, I will play a card which I have never played on this forum. I have tried other alternatives and I received the same response as Frank. What you have mentioned above, is why I am doing what I am doing now. That is how much I will reveal for the moment. You are so very accurate in saying that this is to affordable flying. The flying is getting further and further away from affordability and the actions are disguised as "it is for safety" and CASA is directing the move I say no it is an over kill by RAAus. I would not be able to live with myself if an organisation collapsed because of the incorrectly made decisions. Read what Frank has said "He tried but was ignored". Frank is vary astute when making decisions as he would had done some research into the subject. He dose not shoot from the hip. KP 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 All these GA flying Raa board members are blinkered into thinking the GA route is the right way and have failed to keep CASA at bay on behalf of the membership. The failures keep stacking up. I have no problem with GA flying board members as such, I have been flying GA for over 35 years myself, but there is NO justification for turning RAA into a mini CASA and GA style maintenance for RAA aircraft. Try raising the minimum day VFR PVT requirements for GA (& all RAA flying has this limit anyway) and you might be surprised with the result (including what is STATED in CAO 100.5). There is only a small number of individuals causing the current outputs but with the GREAT NEW BOARD setup they have effectively gained autocratic control. The supporters of this mess still support the change and only with time will they realise what is happening - hopefully before it is too late. I have given up! I suspect (without evidence) that there has been some 'back door' deals in order to secure CTA approval for certificate holders. This is misguided as (certified) RAA registered aircraft have been using CTA for years- before my involvement by virtue on CAO 95.55. The matter to be addressed is purely related to the extra training for a certificate holder to obtain a CTA endorsement. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 I've been wondering if anyone knows wether current L1 maintainers ie those who were given the right to maintain their aircraft when they received their pilot certificate are going to have to do a course to be able to continue to do maintain their aircraft or are they now deemed incompetent until upskilled. Surely those who have maintained their aircraft for years will be exempted from this. Bill as of 01/02/2017 our L1 endorsement will fall off our certificates and to get it back those who want it will have to do this on line questionnaire. I have grave doubts how good this course is, as there is no practical component. I am stuck here, how can a course which needs dexterity skills and none of these skills are being assessed. Stay posted as to the L2 outcome, could prove interesting. As for the L4 CASA has a big say in that one. See how RAAus gets on when they try and meddle with that one. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisag Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I am one of the biggest advocates of "why change something for the want of change". I have become very cynical of many of the changes happening in our once magnificent organization. To the L1 debate, I had a bit of a look at the online package and not being a teenager anymore, dislike the online learning. I then noticed that you have 3 attempts to pass the test. I gritted my teeth and went straight into the test. 30 minutes later and a phone call interruption completed the assessment and passed. Not overly well but ticked the box. I can say I learnt nothing from the process and cannot access my wrong answers to learn anything. I urge anyone just to have a go at the test just to tick the box and then go and get on with what we have been doing for years. Its a terrible shame there can't be some constructive knowledge gained from this. Rant over. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 chrisag... That is my case for a practical section and I have been yapping on about it for about 3 years, "That is a good idea I will look into it" That where it ends. It is proper debacle. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Just so you don't give the wrong impression about line maintenance, the facts are that you can indeed lift a spanner to change your spark plug. List of line maintenance items from the tech manual shown below (Section 12.7).• Removal or installation of landing gear tyres • Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres • Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings • Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins • Replacement of side windows • Replacement of seats • Repairs to upholstery or decorative furnishings inside the cockpit • Replacement of seat belts or harnesses • Replacement or repair of signs and markings • Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses and lights • Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs • Replacement of batteries • Changing oil filters or air filters • Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel • Lubrication of components • Replenishment of hydraulic fluid • Application of preservative or protective materials • Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks • Carrying out a duplicate inspection of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced • Carrying out a daily inspection on an aircraft You can do any of the above tasks without doing the L1 online course. happyflyer.. "Line Maintenance" is for airlines not us fellows with our little planes. "Line Maintenance" is where if an airliner has some spare time between trips and little bits can serviced at that moment that is when it happens. So "Line Maintenance" has nothing to do with us. So how did "Line Maintenance" get into this equation? KP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 happyflyer.. "Line Maintenance" is for airlines not us fellows with our little planes."Line Maintenance" is where if an airliner has some spare time between trips and little bits can serviced at that moment that is when it happens. So "Line Maintenance" has nothing to do with us. So how did "Line Maintenance" get into this equation? KP. Line Maintenance - Flight Line Maintenance in Aviation DefinitionLine Maintenance generally refers to minor, unscheduled or scheduled maintenance carried out on aircraft that includes: Any unscheduled maintenance resulting from unforeseen events Scheduled checks that contain servicing and/or inspections that do not require specialized training, equipment, or facilities.In service; and that is preparing for its first flight in service Maintenance performed on aircraft after a period of being out of service (such as aircraft in storage) Maintenance on en route aircraft that are stopped before their next flight including Servicing or repair between successive flights Preparing and readying an aircraft for flight during a period of service Maintenance activities being performed to ensure that the aircraft is airworthy and fit for flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Definitions - do not teach people what to look for. What I am on about is our scheduled, programmed and routine maintenance for our small aircraft. What to look for at these service intervals what the pending failures look like. Definitions and reading are not a good guide, one has to have the basic knowledge in the first place. Got to teach this knowledge. The terms like "Line Maintenance" makes it all look and sound so fancy. KP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Keith, you have been advocating a centralised, face to face, hands-on course for L1 (as per MB's course). Frankly I wouldn't go as it would be too expensive to travel somewhere for 2 days to try to turn me into a mechanic, and my husband would be livid that someone tried to tell him what a spanner was. I did an Owner-Builder cert (to build your own house) - it taught where to look for rules, what you can do, can't do and an exercise in costing it out. It didn't teach you how to plaster, design a slab or construct purlins. The L1 is similar - it isn't designed to teach you to overhaul an engine but what you can do and where to find it. There will be people who don't work on their mower and wouldn't work on their plane - that's what an L2 is for. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Bit of news for you Sue I do not align myself with anyone I have been through a few mills. A bit of justification - the simple thing of removing and replacing spark plugs some people make a real meal of that, leaking O rings just a half a turn tighter will fix it get rid of that rot, changing a tyre-- I am onto about demonstrating those simple things. There are a lot of people who need that little help just to give then confidence yes there are a lot about. Being able to indentify different situations types of cracking, perishing, crystallising and oxidisation, what about the correct process of lock wiring. The other interesting point most of those people would only be phone call away to get help. A day at Goondiwindi could be arranged that will not be a days drive. I would like to know how this on line L1 will cover these dexterity subjects, just a demonstration would be good and I will shut up for ever so till then I will keep harping on. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 So you are against excess regulations but you want it to be mandatory to do a practical course for l1 recognition? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 SDQDI... How is good knowledge be called regulation? How can reading learning be substituted for good dexterity teaching. You will have to demonstrate that to me. Well it could be interpreted as regulation that a bolt is either left hand or right hand thread so in that mechanical regulation? KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 The knowledge side has nothing to do with regulation. Making it mandatory to do a practical course to gain your L1 is extra regulation. How many extra maintenance related incidents were caused by the L1 group over the other L groups that prove this is necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I must say though that I am not against voluntary practical courses being run but to make it an across the board thing seems very counter intuitive to 'affordable' flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 If the L1 dose not need a prac session so why have a L1 at all? The academic aspect of what we can and can not do, where is the documented evidence where it is demonstrated that we can do what we are allowed to do? (Manually) A great number of us received the L1 at the time we received our Pilot Certificate because we had gained maintenance experience. Then for the armature builders that is an absolute insult removing their L1. Some of these fellows need to be awarded an honours with some of these kits we are expected to complete, there is no doubt regarding the 51% rule. KP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 the L1 training is to raise the level of training......what you are asking for. its only a very basic standardised test to force people to read the rules, know what they are and are not allowed to do. Hopefully when to get help The real issue is people overstepping their ability in maintenance. Improve real ability with training by all means but if its going to be mandatory then its a very big and expensive job. Also not likely to be a one off 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 So what is the intention of the L1 rating? Answer that and agree on its intent and much of the division in this thread is removed. If its regulatory as part of a "I know where to go to find the regulations and what areas those regulations cover" (akin to the home builder courses that are compulsory) then the RAAus online solution would be a good delivery path. And if that is the case then the focus should be on the completeness and comprehensibility of the materials. If its about 'certifying' that the owner/pilot is competent to pick up the spanners and look after their airframes themselves then I would hold that an online course as RAAus have built it would not be the appropriate delivery path as it does not deliver the practical educational materials nor provide the assessment of competency in the skills. Online practical skills learning can work ... but the assessment online is not IMO valid and requires eyeballs on practical demonstration of what has been learned online. Horses for courses - define your intended outcome and then deliver to it. Now RAAus have defined theirs as a regulatory structures focus and are delivering to that. ELAAA through Keith appear to have a practical skills and competency assessment focus and appear to be aiming to deliver to that Neither are wrong in themselves as they are both aiming to deliver BUT TO DIFFERENT AND NOT ALIGNED OUTCOMES And as an 'old fart' in terms of AUF airframes and flying I am neither in 1 nor the other camp on this. The L1 as it was originally structured was a competency to look after your airframe approval - ie it was ELAAA like in permission - and it was intended (and was actually taught) as part of the pilot certificate course ... and it was pretty good in terms of getting people up to speed on knowing what to look for on a fleet of fairly simple owner maintained airframes where most primary structures were pinned tube constructs with dacron skins where composites were mostly secondary structures. This aligned with the L2-4 levels that are higher level of demonstrated training and skills in competency in airframe/engine/systems maintenance and overhaul. Time change and both the crop of airframes and owners move on ... its much harder to teach (and fewer people are capable of covering) all the airframes that are now using semi monocoque and primary composites (and sophisticated composites at that) to a group of pilots who to be blunt are not airframe enthusiasts but just pilots who want to go flying. Personally I thing there is a better path involving both the RAAus type training regulatory compliance and the ELAAA skills assessed training. As the RAAus type training is regulatory if it is to be included in my opinion it should be included as part of the actual pilots certificate ... if it is really necessary ... then the L1 area as a practical skills based area can be revisited to align it back to "how do I actually do this". So I would say that recognizing that the airframes and pilots have moved on the L1 area might benefit from a two staged approach ... "L1 lite" - for people who have had instructors as part of their certificate training demonstrate and walk through daily inspections and the like and this gives them the permissions to undertake tasks similar to what GA pilots can do on any spam can you like to hire 'L1 full" - for people who want to do their own mechanical activities on their plane - and this is granted to ALL certificate holders who built their own plane AND is a set skills course that can be delivered by any L2 or above. Deliver that sort of structure and you are realigning L1 to L2-4 (mechanical skills are the definition of L2-4 and RAAus L1 is not any more) AND you are demonstrating incorporation of the regulatory basis. But overall I am more interested in fact based risk addressing regulation and frankly the accident and incident statistics do not IMO point to this area being a root cause of problems so can;t see that this should be the first area any organisation turns to and changes ... and RAAus will not change it soon as they have been beating the drum on the changes they are just finalising. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I hate this awful compulsion stuff. If you are going to use compulsion to save people from themselves, you should start with food police. The danger from wrong food makes flying risks pale into insignificance. Then you need tooth-brushing police. My dentist told me yesterday that lack of brushing was a serious heart-attack risk. He recently lost a patient from this. Then you need sex police, to make sure we pilots are getting enough for our health. Aircraft maintenance police? We actually have them and what a waste of money they are. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 But overall I am more interested in fact based risk addressing regulation and frankly the accident and incident statistics do not IMO point to this area being a root cause of problems so can;t see that this should be the first area any organisation turns to and changes ... and RAAus will not change it soon as they have been beating the drum on the changes they are just finalising. I would have to say this is where I am at. If there are not more incidents caused by dodgy L1s than the other L groups then why does the system need changing at all? If it is a tick box exercise required by casa then I think a dodgy online test is a good idea rather than requiring everyone to attend a practical course. (Especially if the stats don't indicate an excess of incidents) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 probably is a tick box test , and its an efficient way to deliver it. At the least its more than the old system may have presented Id like to see hands on training available all the way from introduction to "builder" status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 probably is a tick box test , and its an efficient way to deliver it.At the least its more than the old system may have presented Id like to see hands on training available all the way from introduction to "builder" status. NO!!!!! The whole concept of an experimental/kit regime is that its FREE to do what you like ... risk based management is already incorporated in the 19 reg series with the final overview inspection and the operational limits for test hours and then limits on operations. If you are looking at a precondition to build being a skills test then you are really aiming at killing off experimental and we may as well just pack up and turn off the lights because you are looking at even MORE regulation than the GA homebuilt experimental builders have ... and I guess you like the 4 stage inspections as well eh?. Am totally over this belt and braces lets regulate every single step of the possible creation and operation of an aircraft that is RECREATIONAL in nature and EXPERIMENTAL in design. Rant over. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Lol Kasper I would say at a guess that jet was saying it would be nice if it was 'available' not 'mandatory' I do think it would be nice if maintence courses were available in more places and more regularly BUT it isn't really financially viable to do that as numbers are not huge. Also I definitely do NOT think they should be made mandatory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Lol KasperI would say at a guess that jet was saying it would be nice if it was 'available' not 'mandatory' I do think it would be nice if maintence courses were available in more places and more regularly BUT it isn't really financially viable to do that as numbers are not huge. Also I definitely do NOT think they should be made mandatory. I'd love to offer maintenance and skills courses on RAAus aircraft ... but I cannot wrap my head around the current Tech office personnel and behavior/knowledge/practices to get my L2 up to date again ... and as you note there are not a lot of people around to make it viable ... esp. as am living on top of a mountain right between two regional airports with RPT its hard to get visitors by air when my runway (paddock) limits are 100m takeoff/landing available ... self selects most aircraft and pilots out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerochute Kev Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 When I got my pilot certificate the CFI covered very well maintenance on the Aerochute. Which is really just a pile of tubes bolted together with an engine. I also attended a level one workshop some time later at Serpentine run by Carol Richards (I think, it was a while ago) even had an RAAus certificate issued. Of course that will not be recognised. The course was pretty much useless to me as it centred around fixed wings and things i will never use. I did learn how to strip and re-build the Bing carby, so not a total waste of time. RAAus will continue to introduce crazy stuff until Members stop complying. I can see it now... Come February...... Look!! 95% of our members have complied. aren't we doing well!! ....BUT... If 95% of the members refused to do it, there would probably be some serious backpedaling at RAAus HQ if suddenly they had made 95% of their pilots non-compliant and unable to do what they had already been doing for years! As long as we keep going along with their crazy schemes, they will continue, and keep telling themselves how great they are doing. They won't listen when being told they got things wrong, maybe they need to be shown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Yeah you missed my point Kasper, I did try to edit to make clearer but too slow Im keen on ALSO being able to achieve "builder" status by training rather than having to build under 51% rule Ive seen some builders with no idea and some exceptional maintainers who dont have time to complete a build. I see that current situation is we have L1 - most basic knowledge and maybe no skills Big gap L2 conducting Maint for payment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts