Oakdale NSW crash - One Dead

[M61A1]

Dual inspection is not only to verify that the control system is connected correctly but also that the methods of security of any connectections are correct IAW manufactures instructions. Skyranger in the UK have a sticker showing the aileron wire run as needing to cross above the panel. That would have been due to some unfortunate connection of the wires in parallel which meant the ailerons moved in the opposite sense. Therefore I support fully the requirement of a second set of eyes. I for instance always have after rigging, gone away done something else had a drink etc then come back and re check my fitup. Then get the dual inspection done. Just my way. Cheers Mike

I have to ask.....do you have to rig your aircraft every time you go flying? And do you usually fly by yourself?

How effective are these rules if you answer yes to both?

 

 

[kasper]

I have to ask.....do you have to rig your aircraft every time you go flying? And do you usually fly by yourself?How effective are these rules if you answer yes to both?

Yes to both

And all 95.32 reg aircraft have the issue and a heap of 95.10 and given the manufacturer of all 95.10 and 19 reg aircraft is the owner (on a legal sense) the duplicate inspection crap is just that.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

I have to ask.....do you have to rig your aircraft every time you go flying? And do you usually fly by yourself?How effective are these rules if you answer yes to both?

No not rigged each flight. However any time the wings are off any aircraft i work on or assist with or the primary control systems are disassembled for maintenance or replacement then reassembled the dual check / inspection is done. Even whenever I do a first flight solo after some maintenance there is usually another pilot around our airfield or I arrange for a mate / pilot to let me know when they have time to be on the airfield and do the dual check. Also a flowon from my Gliding days and maintenance form 2 inspections over the years when you get others to formally sign off the dual inspection or I do the dual inspection for them and sign the form. I have one mate who test flew and landed an RAA (many years ago - AUF) with incorrect aileron connection many years ago and two other mates who looked over the aircraft before that flight and ever since are person enough to admit they missed it. Very lucky and fortunate the skill of the pilot who did the flight and recognised the situation was able to get back onto the ground. Best wishes MIke

 

 

[spacesailor]

what do the people out in the country do, Have a couple of the right "stuff" people, fly in on a daily schedule, to remove & attach their wings.

 

A lot of aircraft are made to be derigged to fit into a (smaller than a hanger) shed.

 

Lots of new rules to push the originals out & make more room on the RAA register for the sudo GA brigade to get in!.

 

Or am I being paranoid?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[coljones]

what do the people out in the country do, Have a couple of the right "stuff" people, fly in on a daily schedule, to remove & attach their wings.A lot of aircraft are made to be derigged to fit into a (smaller than a hanger) shed.

Lots of new rules to push the originals out & make more room on the RAA register for the sudo GA brigade to get in!.

 

Or am I being paranoid?.

 

spacesailor

Paranoid:cheers:

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes to bothAnd all 95.32 reg aircraft have the issue and a heap of 95.10 and given the manufacturer of all 95.10 and 19 reg aircraft is the owner (on a legal sense) the duplicate inspection crap is just that.

Same here. As well intentioned and ideal as the requirement may be, it's not practical.

While the duplicate inspection is ideal, making it mandatory doesn't work for many people..

 

 

[spacesailor]

If you can't service your aircraft, you'll have to purchase a new fangled model that doesn't need the double inspection.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Same here. As well intentioned and ideal as the requirement may be, it's not practical.While the duplicate inspection is ideal, making it mandatory doesn't work for many people..

I think you guys are missing the point, I think we all know that most of the time you guys come to the field alone to rig up and then go flying, I think Mike is right, rig your aircraft but walk away and have a coffee for 15 min and come back and check it again, I would have a written check list to go through just to make sure everything has been hooked up before you start rolling..It's not about big brother telling what to do it is to remind pilots that ultimately you are responsible for you own safety and no matter how well you know your aircraft you can still miss doing a critical task which can kill you..we all want is to come back safely home each day.

David

 

 

[kasper]

I think you guys are missing the point, I think we all know that most of the time you guys come to the field alone to rig up and then go flying, I think Mike is right, rig your aircraft but walk away and have a coffee for 15 min and come back and check it again, I would have a written check list to go through just to make sure everything has been hooked up before you start rolling..It's not about big brother telling what to do it is to remind pilots that ultimately you are responsible for you own safety and no matter how well you know your aircraft you can still miss doing a critical task which can kill you..we all want is to come back safely home each day.David

Only problem is that it's compulsory to have a seperate set of eyes under the RAAus requirements. Granted it does not apply to most weightshift and ppc and of course unless your factory manual or directives makes dual a requirement then they too are exempt. It's only the home built 55 and 10 the requirement applies to ... the ones where the owner is the design holder and responsible ... just very odd and unworkable.

 

 

[M61A1]

Only problem is that it's compulsory to have a seperate set of eyes under the RAAus requirements. Granted it does not apply to most weightshift and ppc and of course unless your factory manual or directives makes dual a requirement then they too are exempt. It's only the home built 55 and 10 the requirement applies to ... the ones where the owner is the design holder and responsible ... just very odd and unworkable.

Oh , all good then, mine's a 25 reg factory built. No problem.

I completely accept that it's good practice, but they've gone and made it mandatory, and in doing so, have made it either difficult or illegal for some of us to fly.

 

 

[bull]

Oh , all good then, mine's a 25 reg factory built. No problem.I completely accept that it's good practice, but they've gone and made it mandatory, and in doing so, have made it either difficult or illegal for some of us to fly.

Fuck em ,,,just fly,,,,,as some of us have been safely doing for over 40 years

 

 

[Geoff13]

And the fact that they have highlighted this requirement just after a fatality sadly tells us that it could be a valid requirement and a fellow aviator could be still with us had it been followed.

 

 

[M61A1]

And the fact that they have highlighted this requirement just after a fatality sadly tells us that it could be a valid requirement and a fellow aviator could be still with us had it been followed.

You could also argue that the fact that someone was still killed after making it a requirement demonstrates how effective it isn't....

 

 

[Icarus]

Only problem is that it's compulsory to have a seperate set of eyes under the RAAus requirements. Granted it does not apply to most weightshift and ppc and of course unless your factory manual or directives makes dual a requirement then they too are exempt. It's only the home built 55 and 10 the requirement applies to ... the ones where the owner is the design holder and responsible ... just very odd and unworkable

If your aircraft normally and routinely has some degree of assembly prior to daily flying then you are exempt from Section 12.2.2 due to being not Applicable.

 

For example. you trailer your Jabiru J230 to the airfield to attach the wings and flight test. you need a duplicate inspection as set out below as jabiru is not normally and routinely reassembled before flight.

 

Your kitfox ss7 however is normally reassembled before flight after trailering to airport so is exempt from the duplicate inspection rule.

 

Note that if your brand new Kitfox is trailered to the airport you will need the duplicate check

 

Not the best bit of writing in the manual.

 

SECTION 12.2

 

INSPECTION AFTER RE-ASSEMBLY

 

1 APPLICABILITY 1.1 This section applies to all aircraft that have been re-assembled after: (a) purchase from new (including LSA and factory built) (b) road or other transport © a period of disassembly

 

Note: (b) and © do not apply to aircraft that normally and routinely have some degree of assembly prior to daily flying.

 

2 PRIVATELY OPERATED AIRCRAFT 2.1 Disassembly of an aircraft must be performed by a Level 1 or higher Maintenance Authority holder to ensure no damage occurs.

 

2.2 The Disassembly is to be recorded in an aircraft log book.

 

2.3 Re-assembly of an aircraft must be performed by a Level 1 or higher Maintenance Authority holder.

 

2.4 An independent post assembly inspection should be conducted to ensure that all assemblies and associated systems have been correctly fitted, connected and routed. The independent inspection is to be conducted by a Level 1 or higher Maintenance Authority holder.

 

2.5 An independent duplicate inspection of flight controls must be conducted by a Level 1 or higher Maintenance Authority holder.

 

2.6 The re-assembly must be recorded in an aircraft log book.

 

2.7 The independent duplicate inspection of flight controls must be recorded in the aircraft log book, detailing who conducted that inspection.

 

 

[Icarus]

For those that are struggling with the Legalese speak above it works like this.

 

If your aircraft normally and routinely requires assembly before flight then put a line through road or other transport [c] period of disassembly

 

It will then just read

 

1 APPLICABILITY 1.1 This section applies to all aircraft that have been re-assembled after: (a) purchase from new (including LSA and factory built

 

 

 

meaning all the stuff at 12.2.2 PRIVATELY OPERATED AIRCRAFT is only applicable to [a] all aircraft that have been re-assembled after purchase from new

 

clear as mud?

 

 

[kasper]

For anyone wanting to quote the tech manual to avoid the stupidity of dual inspection on assembly from frailer/shed I'd ask them to explain how a mandatory AN that directs it and was issued more than a year after the last revision to the tech manual is not trumping the tech manual ...

 

 

[Happyflyer]

You could also argue that the fact that someone was still killed after making it a requirement demonstrates how effective it isn't....

It's a requirement to stop at a stop sign. If someone doesn't stop and is killed doesn't mean the stop sign is ineffective and should be removed. You publicise the event so others are reminded of the consequences of not stopping I would have thought.

 

 

[Icarus]

For anyone wanting to quote the tech manual to avoid the stupidity of dual inspection on assembly from frailer/shed I'd ask them to explain how a mandatory AN that directs it and was issued more than a year after the last revision to the tech manual is not trumping the tech manual ...

The Last revision of the tech manual was August 4 2016 ........ 7.5 months ago

 

I suppose that trumps the previous AN ?

 

 

[kasper]

The Last revision of the tech manual was August 4 2016 ........ 7.5 months agoI suppose that trumps the previous AN ?

Except rev 2 of the AN was issued 14 March 2017 ...

 

 

[Icarus]

Except rev 2 of the AN was issued 14 March 2017 ...

Can you post a copy please . I cant find it

 

 

[dutchroll]

You could also argue that the fact that someone was still killed after making it a requirement demonstrates how effective it isn't....

So.....people are still killed in car accidents through not wearing a seatbelt, therefore seatbelt laws are ineffective?

By logical extension, does it mean that anyone killed disobeying a law or rule demonstrates the ineffectivity of that law or rule? My head is spinning....

 

 

[kasper]

Can you post a copy please . I cant find it

Page 5 of this thread by site admin already has the link.

 

 

[Icarus]

Page 5 of this thread by site admin already has the link.

Thanks .

For those that missed it.

 

https://members.raa.asn.au/storage/08082014-duplicate-inspection-an.pdf

 

from the AN Background:

 

The RAAus Technical Manual states that if any maintenance is carried out on primary flight control systems involving disconnection, adjustment or modification, a duplicate inspection of primary flight control systems or items is mandatory before the aircraft is used

 

They failed to point out the exceptions to the application as I posted above:

 

It really needs to be clarified if this AN also affects wing folding aircraft etc after the first duplicate inspection is complete. ie on subsequent re- assembly

 

 

[spacesailor]

Does it mean,

 

" 2.3 Re-assembly of an aircraft must be performed by a (X)Level 1 or higher Maintenance Authority holder.

 

2.4 An independent post assembly inspection should be conducted to ensure that all assemblies and associated systems

 

have been correctly fitted, connected and routed.

 

The (X)independent inspection is to be conducted by a Level 1 or higher Maintenance Authority holder."

 

That I would need two L1 inspectors, to put the wings on the HummelBird, & then again to remove them ?.

 

One to inspect the other's inspection of MY reassembly.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[M61A1]

So.....people are still killed in car accidents through not wearing a seatbelt, therefore seatbelt laws are ineffective?By logical extension, does it mean that anyone killed disobeying a law or rule demonstrates the ineffectivity of that law or rule? My head is spinning....

While I certainly could have worded my post better, I think that making inflexible regulation as a knee jerk for every occurrence will never stop the occurrences. The requirements come straight out of the ADF maintenance requirements, where they have an almost bottomless pit of money and personnel.

Most of this style of regulation is little more than an arxe covering exercise, being seen to have done something to address a perceived problem, and in doing so, protect someone from being sued.

 

I am of the opinion that if you need a law to ensure that you use your own safety equipment (seatbelt or helmet) or processes ( double and triple checking, then not much is going to help you.