L1 Maintenance Training

[jackc]

Any requirements to meet L1 certification now or in the future that increases the knowledge base of the aircraft owner has to be a bonus. IF it means increased theory and mandatory practical testing, so be it.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack

 

 

[frank marriott]

I have completed

 

1. Face to face RAA L1 course ($100.00) run by RAA & sponsored by CASA. - now not recognised by RAA & claimed by ex Tech Manager that there is no records?

 

2. Two online examinations.

 

3. Manufacturers engine course - also not recognised by RAA according to the ex Tech Manager.

 

4. Been maintaining my aircraft for the last 11 years (since joining RAA).

 

I tried reasoning with the now ex Tech Manager & President at the time of the introduction of the current Tech Manual - no interest in input, we know best attitude.

 

I am over the rubbish, not playing their game anymore. Maintain my aircraft in accordance with current law but more importantly in accordance with manufacturers specifications.

 

 

[robinsm]

Am I correct that the L1 is also required by those that built their own aircraft under 19 reg. If so then the system is a joke and a money making exercise. If you built it and got it inspected and passed then surely you can change a spark plug safely in the damned thing. Political correctness and empire building gone mad.

 

 

[jackc]

I have completed

 

1. Face to face RAA L1 course ($100.00) run by RAA & sponsored by CASA. - now not recognised by RAA & claimed by ex Tech Manager that there is no records?

 

2. Two online examinations.

 

3. Manufacturers engine course - also not recognised by RAA according to the ex Tech Manager.

 

4. Been maintaining my aircraft for the last 11 years (since joining RAA).

 

I tried reasoning with the now ex Tech Manager & President at the time of the introduction of the current Tech Manual - no interest in input, we know best attitude.

 

I am over the rubbish, not playing their game anymore. Maintain my aircraft in accordance with current law but more importantly in accordance with manufacturers specifications.

Got to say that does not make me feel warm and fuzzy, here I am trying my best in taking responsibility for my knowledge base and safety.

 

Do the current RAA administration feel the same way?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Am I correct that the L1 is also required by those that built their own aircraft under 19 reg. If so then the system is a joke and a money making exercise. If you built it and got it inspected and passed then surely you can change a spark plug safely in the damned thing. Political correctness and empire building gone mad.

I would agree with you except that of the 7 forced landings in 912 engined aircraft between May 2007 and March 2012, one was caused by a spark plug falling out.

 

Other maintenance failures in that time were:

 

Oil leakage around filter

 

Circlip incorrectly installed

 

Carburettor overflowing

 

 

[robinsm]

I would agree with you except that of the 7 forced landings in 912 engined aircraft between May 2007 and March 2012, one was caused by a spark plug falling out.

 

Other maintenance failures in that time were:

 

Oil leakage around filter

 

Circlip incorrectly installed

 

Carburettor overflowing

Were those on home built 19 reg aircraft, maintained by the builders, or were they for the whole fleet, no matter what rego type. No matter what quals a person has, things happen. I had an undercarriage failure on my aircraft through a fractured bolt. The fracture was hidden under the nut so would not have been seen on inspection. I agree that maintenance should be a part of the training process anyway, but hitting a home builder with extra dollars for something they are doing anyway is just a money grab. Charging for an L1 cert after basic training when that should have been taught as part of the certificate (daily walkaround and preflight checks) is just a blatant money grab and mini GA empire building when the L1 was always part of the training sylabus anyway, and granted as part of the Certificate. I do not feel that a certificate will make people more aware of how to chan ge a spark plug etc, no matter what npeice of expensive paper you have, human nature can intervene, and sometimes does. 7 forced landings in 912 powered aircraft in 5 years with a fleet in the thousands is statistically minimal and the L1 cert is a major knee jerk reaction that is not required. If the piece of paper is that good, how come we have forced landings in all forms of aviation. Mecanical failures are not subject to pieces of paper.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was a Savannah VG so probably owner maintained.

 

If an engine has an aluminium head, the spark plugs are usually a different thread design, require torquing correctly and required anti seize if you want to avoid twisting out a lump of thread in the future.

 

So even with spark plugs a beginner needs to be taught when a shifter can be used and when a precision procedure is required.

 

Another example of training is when a standard nut is OK, what a flange nut does, when a nyloc nut can be used and when a castellated nut is required.

 

Two flyers are dead because someone didn't know that. He may have built the aircraft, but he didn't know that.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

"turboplanner, post: 478580, member: 404"]

 

Cant speak for any other aircraft , engine or maintainer however in my case I follow the Rotax manual(s) and the aircraft manual TO THE LETTER.

 

The aircraft manual is very thin, reflecting its composite construction with the main inspection/checks being the very simple control systems.

 

The Rotax manuals are extraordinarily comprehensive and if confused, just Google it and more than likely there will be an explanation(s) out there.

 

I guess I am lucky or foolhardy - I have a long association with "things" mechanical and have built up a very useful "tool box" that I know how to use.

 

Applying ground based mechanical knowledge to aircraft systems is not the daunting leap that some would have you believe - its just the understanding that you MUST read the relevant sections in the engine/air-frame bibles BEFORE you start maintaining. I even do a "recap"with something as routine as a 50 hr oil change - just reading over what is required sort of "gets me in the zone man"

 

 

[M61A1]

As with pilots, drivers do not need to know the intricacies of the machine, to operate the vehicle safely.

While I strongly dislike anything being "mandatory", I have to also disagree very strongly with the above statement. A thorough understanding of your aircraft and it's systems can only benefit you. It can stop a minor problem becoming a major problem. (think 737 Max for a recent example)

 

But, as we're only recreational aviation, I don't have a problem with those that choose not to. Natural selection will sort them out.

 

 

[robinsm]

A piece of paper does not take the place of self preservation. Turbs...I would have assumed () that the inspection that was supervised by the L3 when the aircraft was being built would have bought up the nut problem. I stand by the statement that I believe the L1 training should be part of the training, not a $100 grab for money. Were the nut deaaths on owner built 19 aircrafts? No matterwhat courses etc you throw at people, you cannot legistlate against arrogance, know it all or stupidity.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Pull the other one!!! - Pre flight inspection, knowledge of operational systems (as in pilot activated) is all that is required for safe aircraft operation.

 

The 737 Max problems seem to be one the one hand poor software design and on the other deficiencies in pilot -systems training (what does this switch do?).

 

Further insights into maintenance & repair may benefit those so inclined (mechanical leaning/aptitude) but will not do anything for the disinterested and may actually turn people off.

 

A pilot has been adequately trained if he/she is capable of spotting an anomaly, making the appropriate decision(s)and bringing the matter to the attenuation of those trained in maintenance/repair.

 

 

[M61A1]

The 737 Max problems seem to be one the one hand poor software design and on the other deficiencies in pilot -systems training

In other words, heaps of people are dead because they pilots did not fully understand their systems. Whether that is their fault or not is irrelevant. If they understood, lots of people would still be alive.

 

Most of the well known test pilots like Yeager, Hoover and Eric Brown are quite adamant that they are alive because they made sure they thoroughly understood they systems of every aircraft they flew.

 

As I previously said, I really don't care if pilots don't want to know, and I'm not interested in forcing them, but in the long run it could very well cost you your life.

 

 

[Yenn]

Skippy. Spotting an anomaly is the start of the process, making the correct decision is easier if you understand what is happening. If all you know is that you have a problem by all means decide to bring it to the attention of a trained person. If you can. If it requires immediate action it is better to know what to do than to crash while going for help.

 

I am sometimes amazed at the lack of knowledge of what they are doing is sometimes displayed here.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I am one of the first to lament the lack of understanding/interest in the vehicles we drive/fly and like you Gentlemen think it would make for greater understanding, therefor safer driving/piloting if they only knew/understood the mechanical limitations/implications of their vehicle BUT that is not the real world we live in.

 

Most people are happy to delegate the responsibility for meaningful understanding/maintenance/repair to others. All they want to do is turn the key & squirt the gas.

 

Being a test pilot is nothing like being the driver of a tested/certified aircraft. Test pilots operate outside the cosy world of "know" aircraft behaviour, system interactions, etc, etc. . It behoves a test pilot to know all he/she can about the aircraft that they are being asked to take into unknown "territory" their life the survival of the aircraft are at stake. Test pilots are in effect real time development engineers, their observations/reports will impact on the design/fit out of the production aircraft. Test pilots are instrumental in "writing" the POH setting up the type familiarisation course that allows the future "bus driver" not to know all about their 737 Max.

 

I think its great that you and I are passionate enough to get involved with the repair & maintenance of our aircraft (& I hope it makes for better piloting) but most are just not that interested.

 

Forcing people to learn all about their land bound/air born vehicle is unlikely to produce any significant safety benefits, the best you can hope for is giving them the skills to spot anomalies and refer them for investigation/corrective action.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

About the only mission critical jobs on a car are ball joints and brakes. Quite a bit more on a plane.

 

 

[Keith Page]

From RAAus Technical Team....

 

"It is not mandatory to complete the L1 practical training component as long as you have completed the online L1 component."

 

Having said that, I would still like to do the practical.

That is a joke..so other words paper work is more important than nuts and bolts.

 

Hence that little story one can not fly the plane till it equal the weight of the paper work. That is quite apparent.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

About the only mission critical jobs on a car are ball joints and brakes. Quite a bit more on a plane.

That sums it up really.

 

There's nothing to stop you having a qualified person inspect/work on the aircraft.

 

A PPL is not required to have a mechanical qualification to pre-flight an aircraft, but is not qualified to work on it.

 

If an RA pilot wants to work on his/her own aircraft there should be hands on training as well as theory tests.

 

Under RA Limited, that would be very expensive.

 

By returning to an Incorporated Association a volunteer structure could be used to cover the districts with Volunteer training for pilots or Volunteer maintenance qualifications.

 

I agree that making someone pay $100 per year for a written maintenance qualification if he sticks a spanner on the aircraft and strips a bolt.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That is a joke..so other words paper work is more important than nuts and bolts.

 

Hence that little story one can not fly the plane till it equal the weight of the paper work. That is quite apparent.

 

KP

That's the "tick the boxes" method which I'd suggest just about everyone here can see straight through.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Am I correct that the L1 is also required by those that built their own aircraft under 19 reg. If so then the system is a joke and a money making exercise. If you built it and got it inspected and passed then surely you can change a spark plug safely in the damned thing. Political correctness and empire building gone mad.

robinsm that is an absolute joke, building ones plane is a steep learning curve if one does not learn something with that exercise it is a sad world. Yep looks like a money making exercise. The acquired knowledge in aerodynamics, engines and propellers is colossal, I think the builders should be delivering the L1 course.

 

KP

 

 

[440032]

Back to the PPL for a moment for a comparison.... a PPL holder is authorised (not qualified) to work on aircraft to the items listed in Schedule 8 Pilot permitted maintenance (which includes doing a daily inspection) and training is not required, just that they be competent and use the approved maintenance data and suitable tools. There is no competency check system. Many PPLs are perfectly capable of doing the basic work, (oil changes, plugs, tyres, etc) but may have no clue where to write it up, or how. Flying schools do not teach maintenance tasks (other than daily inspection).

 

 

[turboplanner]

Back to the PPL for a moment for a comparison.... a PPL holder is authorised (not qualified) to work on aircraft to the items listed in Schedule 8 Pilot permitted maintenance (which includes doing a daily inspection) and training is not required, just that they be competent and use the approved maintenance data and suitable tools. There is no competency check system. Many PPLs are perfectly capable of doing the basic work, (oil changes, plugs, tyres, etc) but may have no clue where to write it up, or how. Flying schools do not teach maintenance tasks (other than daily inspection).

That's an opportunity for them; Cert IV training for their qualifications, then invoice the pilot for training. Would fit within the existing Company structure. Delete the RA $100.00, do it all through the FTF.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

About the only mission critical jobs on a car are ball joints and brakes. Quite a bit more on a plane.

There are probably millions of drivers out there every day who would not know what and where the boll joints on their vehicle are, or how their brakes work and surprise surprise accidents due to mechanical failure are few and far between - why ? because they pay others to know and maintain..

 

At least in aviation we train our pilots to do a pre flight inspection/check and for those not in a training environment trust them to perform this very important duty. so there is some hope of finding that electron that has been incorrectly rigged;

 

[TABLE]

 

[TR]

 

[TD][/TD]

 

[TD]Aileron reversal led to horror ride

 

by staff writers[/TD]

 

[/TR]

 

[/TABLE]

 

An aileron rigging error led to the extraordinary and frightening flight by an Embraer ERJ 190 over Portugal last November, Portugal’s Aviation Accidents Prevention and Investigation Department has said in a preliminary report. The single aisle 97-seat airliner encountered flight control difficulties soon after take-off at 1331, local time on 11 November 2018 and the […]

 

Read more of this post

 

 

[Yenn]

There is no similarity between cars and aircraft. Modern cars will run for years without being touched. Oil changes can be missed, plugs are ultra reliable. There is no similarity between todays cars and those I drove in the fifties and sixties. In the same way there is no similarity between cars and aircraft. Aircraft are run flat out for the first few minutes of every outing, the engines are built for light weight and have nowhere near the automation of a modern car.

 

The knowledge needed to run todays cars is way short of that required to look after an aircraft.

 

I have not passed any L1 or other maintenance course or exam. I have built an RAAus aircraft and also a GA aircraft.

 

I have done the maintenance course for looking after my GA plane and doing the annual inspection. There was very little practical work required, just knowing how to do the paperwork. The practical is part of the building process.

 

When I look at the accident occurrences listed by RAAus, there don't seem to be many caused by poor maintenance, most are pilot error or inability.

 

 

[robinsm]

Yep, paying money makes you safe, I note that as long as you do the online tick and flick you dont have to do the practical, makes sense...not.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

I think some folks interpret the technical manual different from others. Section 11.1-3 is relevant to me. I do what I'm confident in and get help with anything else. So, oil, oil filter, spark plugs, brakes and stuff I do but if a head has to come off or the ASI drops dead, it's off to see the wizard. But, I'm always learning, and with a head like a sift, I learn over and over again!!