L1 Maintenance Training

[skippydiesel]

"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" my apologies in advance Yenn BUT Ya What!!!?? what makes you think your aircraft want run for years without an oil/plug/filter change ?? May not be good for it or ultimately safe but in that regard its no different to any other vehicle.

 

No one said that cars/motorbikes/tractors/trucks/boat are the same but they are all motivated by the good old internal combustion engine, usually have 12-36 volt electrical systems, batteries for starting, hydraulic brakes for stopping, air, oil.fuel filters, etc etc More similarities than difference. Maintaining the engine/electrical/braking systems uses common principals - nuff said??

 

 

[facthunter]

SD If that's meant to clear things up , I'm at a loss to see how. Yenn is pointing out differences and the need to take that into account and look after your aero engine, by perhaps even babying it somewhat and you suggest neglecting it probably won't make any difference because all engines have pistons that go up and down etc...

 

The big difference between a car engine and an aero engine is one is in a plane and when it stops you definitely don't get where you want to go that day . You will exit the sky whether you are ready for it or not . You only stay in the sky because your engine is working properly and has fuel, the source of it's energy. All the other situations you compare it with you just anchor or park it, lift the bonnet and play with it, though with any modern engine you probably won't be able to do anything and might as well just order the tilt tray.. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

SD If that's meant to clear things up , I'm at a loss to see how. Yenn is pointing out differences and the need to take that into account and look after your aero engine, by perhaps even babying it somewhat and you suggest neglecting it probably won't make any difference because all engines have pistons that go up and down etc...

 

The big difference between a car engine and an aero engine is one is in a plane and when it stops you definitely don't get where you want to go that day . You will exit the sky whether you are ready for it or not . You only stay in the sky because your engine is working properly and has fuel, the source of it's energy. All the other situations you compare it with you just anchor or park it, lift the bonnet and play with it, though with any modern engine you probably won't be able to do anything and might as well just order the tilt tray.. Nev

Come come I have NOT advocated maintaining an aircraft engine (or any engine for that matter) at anything less than the manufacturers recommended service interval/requirements. I am just pointing out that a piston engine (& many associated systems) in an aircraft is not much different to that in a land bound vehicle and as a logical extension the maintenance skills and requirements are much the same.

 

You may wish to elevate the maintenance of (small unsophisticated) aircraft engines to a higher "plane" but in my mind that is bordering on religion/faith that has little to do with fact (something I wont/cant comment on).

 

 

[M61A1]

Any time you fly an aircraft after maintenance, you become a "maintenance test pilot". I can tell you of two incidents close to me. one where a thorough understanding of the control system saved his life after someone kindly left some cockpit FOD under the control stick boot (in a glider), and another that was nearly killed because (in a Bell 206) when one of his hydraulic servos was motoring by itself, he turned the hyds off then pulled the breaker. He was unaware that the system is powered off and will remain on if power is cut. A radio call from someone who did know saved his life.

 

Fully understanding your fuel system may help you with a fuel starvation issue. Sometimes the knowledge of you systems may help you realise when something isn't right, but before it gets really bad.

 

All machines talk to you, whether or not you listen is up to you.

 

Skippy, I think Yenn's point was that modern machinery is more tolerant to neglect before it bites you, whereas your aircraft generally won't tolerate much, and generally are less forgiving when they do bite. I think we all (a generalization, I know) understand that they operate on the same principles.

 

 

[jetjr]

I also did the most recent L1 course, and although been maintaining for 500hrs plus, found it useful and open enough to share experiences of different types and methods.

 

Remember an L1 authority allows self maintenance on ALL aircraft not just the one you know or built.

 

Course exposed me to fabric repair, other braking systems, taildraggers, IO engines and other things I would have never dealt with otherwise - BUT technically had the rights to service and repair if required

 

If nothing else, it provided reality check on self abilities and the need to NOT repair something you don't understand or get help.

 

If you reckon any std CFI is up to this level of training think again. Goes well beyond daily checks.

 

More people no longer maintain cars and less frequently see problems so assuming they can look after an aircraft properly or know what a healthy engine sounds like is unrealistic. For many it would be the first carb fed engine they have ever started.

 

Yes a bit of it is about responsibilities and the required paperwork but rest was practical and hands on. Nice book on it all too.

 

The current situation with the online course being adequate is temporary until many more courses have been done and framework out there to conduct training.

 

In time, to maintain your own aircraft you will need BOTH online and practical courses. Likely also to need currency or upskilling records too. As per many other competency based training.

 

There was apparently promised, to CASA, in writing, from a way former RAA chief that RAA would conduct practical training to keep the LAME maintenance exemption going.

 

It hadn't been doing any seriously, no records (and no one knew about it) so pressure is there to do it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Back quite a few years I approached RAAus to get an L2 issued which at that time I would have easily qualified for. Unless I agreed to do quite a large number of inspections etc I was told I would not be enabled to obtain the L2 qualification. It was also not clear whether I could exercise my right to not do inspections for some individuals.( Not identified) if they approached me. When ones house is on the line, I believe one should have a right to choose just who you trust with your signature enabling them to operate. The low level instruction qualification which I have had endorsed in my logbooks several times over an extensive period also was not permitted. to remain on my "endorsements" unless I was involved with Mustering etc.. Pretty obvious micro managing even under the old regime. . Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Any time you fly an aircraft OR DRIVE after maintenance, you become a "maintenance test pilot".

 

Fully understanding your fuel system may help you with a fuel starvation issue. Sometimes the knowledge of you systems may help you realise when something isn't right, but before it gets really bad.

 

All machines talk to you, whether or not you listen is up to you. IF YOUR AIRCRAFT IS NOT PERFORMING/BEHAVING AS NORMAL/EXPECTED - DO NOT TAKEOFF OR LAND IMMEDIATELY (sometimes its just a little inner voice be sure to listen and take action)

 

Skippy, I think Yenn's point was that modern machinery is more tolerant to neglect before it bites you, whereas your aircraft generally won't tolerate much, MOST PILOTS ARE , UNDERSTANDABLY, UNWILLING TO EXPLORE THE NEGLECT ENVELOP (I certainly wont) SO YOU ARE NOW IN THE RELHM OF SPECULATION and generally are less forgiving when they do bite. NO ARGUMENT I think we all (a generalisation, I know) understand that they operate on the same principles. CAREFUL, I URGE EXTREME CAUTION - NEV MAY BE READING THIS

[jackc]

Back quite a few years I approached RAAus to get an L2 issued which at that time I would have easily qualified for. Unless I agreed to do quite a large number of inspections etc I was told I would not be enabled to obtain the L2 qualification. It was also not clear whether I could exercise my right to not do inspections for some individuals.( Not identified) if they approached me. When ones house is on the line, I believe one should have a right to choose just who you trust with your signature enabling them to operate. The low level instruction qualification which I have had endorsed in my logbooks several times over an extensive period also was not permitted. to remain on my "endorsements" unless I was involved with Mustering etc.. Pretty obvious micro managing even under the old regime. . Nev

I enquiries about L2 recently and was told had to be part of a flying school. Another question I will have for a forum meeting to seek clarification.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably the most widely used , reliable and accepted engine is the I0 360 Lycoming whether you like to believe that or not. Don't just take my word for it.. But it looks like a pre war engine so must Be Bad?. I don't believe any piston engine is THAT reliable BUT YOU affect how safe they are by the way YOU operate and how fast your plane glides. One (Lycoming) usually comes with the average RV.. It's easy to make a good engine unreliable though... and if you have no engine Feel at all you must trust the figures and gauges. As M61A1 points out you need to be aware that it's NOT right. Any "cooked " engine is unairworthy same as one that has been overspeeded. or run with too low oil even though it might still SEEM OK. It's something of a time bomb after abuse. .Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Right again Nev. There is a saying among winemakers -"you can't make good wine from bad grapes, but you sure can muck up good grapes" and the same is true of aircraft engines. You sure can muck up a good one.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Probably the most widely used , reliable and accepted engine is the I0 360 Lycoming whether you like to believe that or not. Don't just take my word for it.. But it looks like a pre war engine so must Be Bad?. I don't believe any piston engine is THAT reliable BUT YOU affect how safe they are by the way YOU operate and how fast your plane glides. One (Lycoming) usually comes with the average RV.. It's easy to make a good engine unreliable though... and if you have no engine Feel at all you must trust the figures and gauges. As M61A1 points out you need to be aware that it's NOT right. Any "cooked " engine is unairworthy same as one that has been overspeeded. or run with too low oil even though it might still SEEM OK. It's something of a time bomb after abuse. .Nev

Nev - this conversation is supposed to be centred around/about maintenance - specifically L1 endorsement to conduct the same. Not about your pet obsession "the LyCon never ending story" .

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm just encouraging you to look up some facts on your "pet hate" rather than just continuing to rat on about your choice of engine. Nice to have different opinions . Mines based on facts anyone can check. when a better one is out there I will not be denying it You are well aware of my attitude to piston engines. They are all miles behind turboprop and bypass fan jet engines. for reliability and that's what I'm talking about.

 

I welcome the advent of electric powered aircraft, to the scene and I totally deny your assertion of the current best motor as having anything to do with an outdated belief, some religion or not being with progress as you keep asserting just to muddy the waters. Don't shoot me . I'm just the messenger. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

This thread is not about Messengers or fetishes it’s about RAA authorizing people to work on their aircraft without demonstration of practical skills. We’ve just seen how difficult it is for people to stay on this simple subject without getting confused. Maintenance is different to building where you are usually adding assemblies to the base frame. Anyone can pull an engine out of a crate sand bolt it into place, but maintenance starts from there, and this thread shows a lot of examples of why the L1 should be suspended until a workable training and assessment regime is put in place.

 

 

[Yenn]

electric powered aircraft have just had a lowering of their reliability rating. There are I think about 16 electric powered gliders of one make in the USA and one of them crashed yesterday. Lost power during the take off and went through the roof of a house. Pilot reported to have to refused to leave the attic until he had found his glasses. Nobody injured, but the glider looks a mess, as does the house roof.

 

 

[kasper]

This thread is not about Messengers or fetishes it’s about RAA authorizing people to work on their aircraft without demonstration of practical skills. We’ve just seen how difficult it is for people to stay on this simple subject without getting confused. Maintenance is different to building where you are usually adding assemblies to the base frame. Anyone can pull an engine out of a crate sand bolt it into place, but maintenance starts from there, and this thread shows a lot of examples of why the L1 should be suspended until a workable training and assessment regime is put in place.

Only if you want to be regulated and GA. Where is the evidence that in practice the owners out there are getting it so wrong that they are dangerous to themselves or others ? Adults will tend to self select - I’m not comfortable with doing this/I have no interest = engaging an L2 or LAME or a trusted friend.

 

And a point that keeps coming up is engine failing and not being cars able to coast to a roadside. The reason RAAus reg aircraft exist seperate fro GA regulation was that they are low energy and are expected to be able to Outland at lower risk to people that are in a recreational aviation that is NOT supposed to be as controlled as GA.

 

Do not get me wrong. I think offering practical L1 courses is a very good benefit to members who want it. But requiring it to exist to do your own maintenance is not on my opinion alighting with the fundamental reason RAAus exists seperate from GA

 

 

[Kenlsa]

Initially I was sceptical of the L1 theory session but learnt a few things,it just wasnt compatible with iPad, (that pissed me off)

 

So all up ---I have built my own jab, maintained it for 13 years, now done the L1 theory and L1 practice, the Jab factory course and help out our level 4 from time to time to keep my skills up. I have got something from every course and session I have attended. It has all been worth it.

 

Now I am about to restore a Colt for the 760kg limit but looks like I won't be able to maintain it........Back to square on again as it will have to be Lame maintained.

 

I do worry about Casa though as I filled out a transfer form of 6 pages that needed an 8 page explanation document to complete the 6 page rego form, go figure!!!!

 

Hopefully I will eventually be able to maintain it as it is as simple as my Jabby.

 

Ken

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I am all for an L1 practical - as long as I dont have to pay for it.

 

I learnt a long time ago, that even those with high skill/knowledge on the topic at hand, will learn something new. Even doing the L1 theory on line revitalises long "forgotten" knowledge and corrects the odd misunderstanding that has crept in over time.

 

 

[jackc]

I am all for an L1 practical - as long as I dont have to pay for it.

 

I learnt a long time ago, that even those with high skill/knowledge on the topic at hand, will learn something new. Even doing the L1 theory on line revitalises long "forgotten" knowledge and corrects the odd misunderstanding that has crept in over time.

No free lunch on this one! I happily paid $199 for my L1 practical course over 2 day’s, lunch and nibbles provided. Hosted by a Flying School with an RAA tech guru attending. Practical competency testing to gain certificate. Was worth every cent for me :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[facthunter]

What is their definition of a practical course? Normally that would entail you doing things like riveting or folding bending and welding etc No? People would be at vastly different stages of background knowledge. I confess I'm nowhere near stitching fabric to ribs and I've been to a few demo's. I'd need to work somewhere where it's being done. I've been to many courses and forked out quite a bit of money and generally not terribly impressed especially with many of the courses on Jabiru's. Their website by contrast is quite adequate I feel . I think we are all of vastly different backgrounds and less people these days get what would have been called a technical education involving workshop drawing, metals and wood. and science, materials and structures .Nev.

 

 

[frank marriott]

RAA tech guru attending

Those four words really have a much greater meaning then you intended I would suggest.

 

 

[jackc]

Those four words really have a much greater meaning then you intended I would suggest.

Well I have to say he did a great job! During course breaks he fielded many questions from attendees on a broad range of subjects, many relating to RAA. 8 out of our 10 attendees were current aircraft owners. He will be responsible for including more subjects etc for the L1 practical course over time. In this case, I give the RAA credit for going down this training path.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Only if you want to be regulated and GA. Where is the evidence that in practice the owners out there are getting it so wrong that they are dangerous to themselves or others ? Adults will tend to self select - I’m not comfortable with doing this/I have no interest = engaging an L2 or LAME or a trusted friend.

GA requires LAME maintenance, and some of the older GA aircraft are a lot simpler than modern RA, so that introduces the basics question of why allow RA pilots to do their own maintenance at all?

 

Several people have said the intent with RA was to have a low cost flying alternative. If you go back to the AUF days before Jabiru and the imported kits, right back to Bill Moyes being towed by a boat strapped to a kite, and the derivatives of that which became trikes and the very simple rag and tube aircraft, self maintenance probably fitted in with the policy of flying away from airports and under 300 feet.

 

Over the years they have virtually reached the sophistication of GA aircraft in both engines and airframes.

 

There's still no reason that self-maintenance can't work, but it has to meet the duty of care test, and to do that the pilot has to have practical training and assessment, and that will take a lot more time than a 1 hour lesson.

 

There's no way around that today.

 

Given that several people on this thread and a couple on another thread have casually mentioned actually doing practical maintenance training in recent days, that raises the question of whether this thread has it wrong with the assertion that the only RAA maintenance test is a written one. That needs to be put to rest or we are just wasting our time.

 

And a point that keeps coming up is engine failing and not being cars able to coast to a roadside. The reason RAAus reg aircraft exist seperate fro GA regulation was that they are low energy and are expected to be able to Outland at lower risk to people.

"Outland" is a gliding term, for an aircraft with an immensely better glide ratio flown by pilots who only ever do powerless landings. For powered landings the term is "Forced Landing" which denotes a much more aggressive and faster action required for a successful outcome.

 

Yes RA are low energy, and yes they have low stall speed, so yes they should be able to force land at lower risk to people, but over the years this has proven to be an academic opinion only. I practice we have seen pilots still in from over 1000 feet with smooth ground below them, many killed by trying to extend a glide to get to an airfield where soft landings were available, turn backs at airfields with airfields surrounded by perfectly good paddocks and so on. There seem to have been less of these since about 2012, but, if somehow you could take this block out by perhaps more emphasis on forced landing and EFATO in training it wouldn't surprise me if the death tol went down by about 30%.

 

So the potential is there for greater safety, but the pilots, in stalling and spinning haven't been taking advantage of it.

 

in a recreational aviation that is NOT supposed to be as controlled as GA.

You're now controlled by public liability; you can hide from CASA, and get away with dodgy actions, but the minute you do something wrong, such as not tensioning a bolt correctly, or not using the correct bolt, and someone gets hurt of killed, the responsibility sheets home to you. If you did something you were not qualified and certified to do you pay.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think offering practical L1 courses is a very good benefit to members who want it. But requiring it to exist to do your own maintenance is not on my opinion alighting with the fundamental reason RAAus exists seperate from GA

RAA also has a duty of care to ensure no one flying or maintaining under its certification is unqualified to do the tasks it certifies them to do. Hence there has to be hands on practical training to the point where someone can actually maintain the engine and airframe.

 

 

[kasper]

Turbo.

 

Outlanding was and in my opinion should still be considered with RAAus aircraft.

 

I’ve been flying from rag n tube stall close to 20knts through to jabirus. All are RAAus eligible and whilst I do not look forward to it I have by what you might consider

 

1 crash - airframe failed on landing off airfield after engine and airframe in air failure

 

3 forced - airframe fine after landing but engine/fuel issues meant I was coming down without a choice or power

 

2 outlanding - I chose to land off airfield with power due to unexpected met.

 

And dozens of off airfield landings where I decided the paddock looked good and generally I wanted to take a break.

 

All of these I was trained for in my initial training in RAAus in jabirus. I was retained/tested in the Uk for my NPPL(m).

 

The reason / justification for the RAAus aircraft outside GA is the low energy low stall. Keep that and demand to keep the distinction.

 

And an area you touch on that boils me every time is what I would call levelling up.

 

If RAAus don’t have something - medical - extensive training to be allowed to use a spammer in an engine - and another area doesn’t that is not a justification to introduce the higher level to RAAus to level the operations.

 

The logic as I see it is that unless there is demonstrable evidence based need to change the OTHER area of aviation should be using the RAAus evidence of safe ops to reduce and remove their requirements !

 

 

[M61A1]

GA requires LAME maintenance, and some of the older GA aircraft are a lot simpler than modern RA, so that introduces the basics question of why allow RA pilots to do their own maintenance at all?

Actually , the question it raises is, "Why do we need LAME maintenance on such aircraft?"

 

There's still no reason that self-maintenance can't work, but it has to meet the duty of care test, and to do that the pilot has to have practical training and assessment, and that will take a lot more time than a 1 hour lesson.

That's exactly what "box ticking" is. They endeavour to absolve themselves of responsibility by ticking a box that says we gave them competency training. All they've done is made themselves a target for litigation when some dill decides his mistake is due to their lack of training.

 

The more they interfere the more responsibility they carry.

 

There is zero evidence that poor maintenance practice is the cause of the majority of crashes/incidents.

 

 

[jetjr]

So who should pay for your training, ....the government?

 

As has been discused at length, Raa has exemptions from LME maint due to reduced risk and restrictions on operations

 

The whole point of training such as this IS to level out basic knowledge and understanding of what responsibilities, restrictions and exemptions are.