L1 Maintenance Training

[jackc]

Is there a list of upcoming L1 practical courses listed somewhere ?

Maybe contact RAA, I found my course in the RAA newsletter and they specified max number of 10 attendees, so I quickly registered.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Exactly right Kasper. A Jabiru can be put down anywhere a glider can. Even in a vineyard... there was one near Adelaide that did this and they both walked away. But it did rip the wings off. The instructor landed between rows and avoided striking wires with the fuselage. ( the student turned off the fuel while doing his pre-take off checks)

 

The only bad thing a Jabiru can do is flip upside down if the wheels dig in. There was one that happened like this near Bundaberg, and all they did was put it up the right way and clean out the sand and wheel it to firm sand to fly home.

 

It was that Bundaberg story which helped me decide to buy one.

 

 

[M61A1]

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.

What would be wrong with self education? Sure, have courses available for those who want them. Even have an exam if you must, ensuring that the "self educated" are adequately educated. Having mandatory training for all is not on.

 

 

[facthunter]

Mandating maintenance training buys into a lot of issues. Where do you start and where do you finish? What standard of quality are you achieving. Do we need an " approved workshop" as GA does? is your tooling good quality. Do YOU really know what you are doing? Not all GA shops are across ALL aspects of it either. Easy to bite off more than you can chew.

 

I'v e always pushed the tube, fabric and wood construction where there's lot of info about especially from the USA where they do it very well. It's relatively cheap and easy to maintain but does need a weight increase for a 2 seater to about 700Kgs for full strength and a reasonable payload..

 

WE like to have access to the full monty including carbon fibre where probably only the factory can repair the thing IF it can be repaired.. Same as a high performance glider. or an executive jet...

 

I'm very much for self maintenance and won't be there if it's curtailed. Lift the level of general awareness by education as the US does . Not by restriction and documentation and extra cost. IF you aren't capable fine It's not compulsory to do your own. Get some one good who will do it for you

 

WE are not an airline carrying passengers. Our restrictions (of privileges) allow for the extra latitude given. That is the essence of this pastime. You are responsible for YOUR welfare, and if you are a real dill you will stuff up even the best plane by not watching what you are doing or listening to advice. Nev

 

 

[jackc]

Mandating maintenance training buys into a lot of issues. Where do you start and where do you finish? What standard of quality are you achieving. Do we need an " approved workshop" as GA does? is your tooling good quality. Do YOU really know what you are doing? Not all GA shops are across ALL aspects of it either. Easy to bite off more than you can chew.

 

I'v e always pushed the tube, fabric and wood construction where there's lot of info about especially from the USA where they do it very well. It's relatively cheap and easy to maintain but does need a weight increase for a 2 seater to about 700Kgs for full strength and a reasonable payload..

 

WE like to have access to the full monty including carbon fibre where probably only the factory can repair the thing IF it can be repaired.. Same as a high performance glider. or an executive jet...

 

I'm very much for self maintenance and won't be there if it's curtailed. Lift the level of general awareness by education as the US does . Not by restriction and documentation and extra cost. IF you aren't capable fine It's not compulsory to do your own. Get some one good who will do it for you

 

WE are not an airline carrying passengers. Our restrictions (of privileges) allow for the extra latitude given. That is the essence of this pastime. You are responsible for YOUR welfare, and if you are a real dill you will stuff up even the best plane by not watching what you are doing or listening to advice. Nev

Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution......

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[turboplanner]

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).

2 outlanding: That's called a Precautionary Landing in GA with the procedure:

 

Pick wind direction

 

Field selection

 

Fuel/mixture/switches (abbreviated downwind)

 

PAN call giving aircraft ID, Location, Aircraft type, minutes endurance

 

Nature, intentions

 

set 1 stage flaps (slower than full cruise)

 

1st run along area selected for landing - 500'

 

• Set Directional gyro at 000
   
  
• Pick turning points
   
  
• Assess visibility
   
  

 

Second run - 300'

 

• Check under and overshoot
   
  
• Check general conditions
   
  

 

Third run - 200'

 

• Surface
   
  
• Obstructions
   
  
• touch down point
   
  

 

With the Met minimums we fly to there will be time to follow this procedure which avoids a lot of the dumps, twisted aircraft and injured pilots we see.

 

It's a far stretch from a glider's Outlanding where the tough down without hitting a stump etc will almost always just require trailering out

 

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

I spent some time explaining that the records in Australia don't support this as a practical divider a stall/spin from 1000' is not low energy. The only place this works is for a stall at about flaring height or less, where the low forward momentum gives you some advantage over a GA aircraft

 

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.

That's not my argument. My argument is that if a person carries out maintenance on an aircraft they have not been trained to do, they have a public liability issue, and if RAA issues an authority to carry out maintenance on an aircraft to someone who is not qualified to do so, or that they haven't trained and assessed to do so, RAA and its employees have a public liability issue. Therefore because of that, RAA is required to train and assess for L1, and that includes assessing the on-hands/practical ability of the person to carry out maintenance., so nothing to do with GA, just the facts relating to RA today, which may not have applied in pas history.

 

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 !

There's no reason that shouldn't happen based on today's standards of duty of care. Under the present situation of lower numbers of people actually flying, so lower numbers of aircraft to maintain, LAMES are retiring faster than new ones are qualifying.

 

 

[turboplanner]

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

You can ask that question if you want. With Certificate IV training all round Australia, a self maintenance regime could be set up, and may be needed as LAMES become scarce.

 

However the same basic rules apply; you touch an aircraft, you need to be trained and certified competent.

 

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.

"Box ticking" is a favourite subject of yours based on the hundreds of times I've seen it, but the irony is that today if you just tick a box without doing what you are required to do, or without being authorised to do what you did and someone is hurt or killed, that means you knew that what you were doing was wrong, and that will probably get you a criminal charge as well as the PL lawsuit. You are responsible for what you do; things have changed.

 

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

There is no requirement for a "majority" to be obtained before taking action; just one will do if someone is injured or killed. RAA has published hundreds of crashes/incidents caused by maintenance issues over the years, so you can forget about that angle.

[turboplanner]

I'm very much for self maintenance and won't be there if it's curtailed.

What people are squealing about is having to do practical training as well as theory, that's all.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There seems to be no evidence that a forced landing in a "modern" LSA type is any safer than a GA type. In fact, a C172, PA28 etc are very strong and crashworthy at stall speed, almost certainly more survivable than a carbon fibre or aluminium LSA. There is a different argument for rag and tube STOL types with extremely low stall speeds whee you can alight in a paddock and wait for the weather to change.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

What people are squealing about is having to do practical training as well as theory, that's all.

Absolutely! - Those that are genuinely interested in doing their own maintenance should be presented with :

 

Option 1 - Pass the theory course, practical not required.

 

Option 2 - Unable to pass theory - do practical/theory course and then hopefully pass.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

There seems to be no evidence that a forced landing in a "modern" LSA type is any safer than a GA type. In fact, a C172, PA28 etc are very strong and crashworthy at stall speed, almost certainly more survivable than a carbon fibre or aluminium LSA. There is a different argument for rag and tube STOL types with extremely low stall speeds whee you can alight in a paddock and wait for the weather to change.

Surviving a sudden stop (crash) has a great deal (not everything) to do with how great the deceleration (G forces) is - the slower the stall speed the more likely you are to survive. It that simple !

 

A stall speed of 28-35 knots (my aircraft) compared with a Cessa 172 @ 47 knots is a far better option.

 

True there are other factors involved, like the structural integrity of the "role" cage/passenger compartment, fuel tanks, etc, etc but at the end of the day, your brain's deceleration in your own scull, will be the main point from which survivability is determined.

 

That is why you should always move to and stay in the left lane (In Au) when ever possible - a head on crash at 60 kph is likely to be a 120 kph deceleration.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Surviving a sudden stop (crash) has a great deal (not everything) to do with how great the deceleration (G forces) is - the slower the stall speed the more likely you are to survive. It that simple !

 

A stall speed of 28-35 knots (my aircraft) compared with a Cessa 172 @ 47 knots is a far better option.

 

True there are other factors involved, like the structural integrity of the "role" cage/passenger compartment, fuel tanks, etc, etc but at the end of the day, your brain's deceleration in your own scull, will be the main point from which survivability is determined.

 

That is why you should always move to and stay in the left lane (In Au) when ever possible - a head on crash at 60 kph is likely to be a 120 kph deceleration.

If that's what people were doing in RA we wouldn't be discussing it, but when the engine stops and someone blindly hauls the stick back and hangs on tight, he's going to get 32 feet per second per second less drag from as much as 1000' agl until he hits the ground and kills himself. The 28-35 knots is based on a theory that a pilot has enough presence of mind/training to put the aircraft into a glide when the engine stops, glide down to flare level (as against nose down/stick all the way back or in a spin), slow the aircraft to 28-35 and land it. If he does that he really had to hit a stump or tree dead centre to hurt himself.............................but that's not what they've been doing since around 2007 when I first started looking at the statistics.

 

 

[M61A1]

If that's what people were doing in RA we wouldn't be discussing it,

Finally... there's something we can agree on.

 

AUF incident pages used to often feature "engine failure, uneventful forced landing carried out", or words to that effect. It was noted at the time (there was even an article about it) , GA incidents reports featuring and engine failure often had fatalities or injuries. Now it appears that many of the engine failures in rec aircraft result in serious damage at the very least. This is not a maintenance problem.

 

Is it poor training or is it because we now have lots of ex-GA pilots flying rec aircraft?

 

"Box ticking" is a favourite subject of yours based on the hundreds of times I've seen it, but the irony is that today if you just tick a box without doing what you are required to do, or without being authorised to do what you did and someone is hurt or killed, that means you knew that what you were doing was wrong, and that will probably get you a criminal charge as well as the PL lawsuit. You are responsible for what you do; things have changed.

Yes it's a favourite subject of mine. I see it daily. What you need to get your head a round it is that any process that involves filling a form and ticking boxes, is "box ticking". I consider the value of such things to be legal only. Ticking the box only ensures that you have followed the laid down process, nothing more. Basically it will cover your arxe in court, but has little value in actually providing anything more. All it does is cover your arxe and by default, your employer.

 

This is pretty much how I see a mandatory L1 training process and even more so for your CertIV. I have enough CertIVs and I consider them generally worthless, and I can tell you from experience that they do not produce better tradespeople, only people with a form full of ticked boxes. When you get a CertIV, in ten minutes time it will be useless, because the the training body will change the the names of the modules then demand money for RPL or more training from someone who has never done the work in their life. It's a rort.

 

 

[spacesailor]

". Same as a high performance glider."In Sydney the cost of glider repairs was, hours+parts AND 50% of aircraft.

 

"What people are squealing about is having to do practical training as well as theory, that's all. Or is it the cost & bureaucracy. Not all our member's are high achievers, and wealthy.

 

My grandson is /Has built a Drift car, but Not a mechanic, ( Now the council is going to close their track. putting more hoons onto streets.)

 

Back yard mechanics are still here & will outlast most Certified people, because its not just a job.

 

If I cut two cylinders off a six pot Lycoming O-540 engine, (timed out), to use as a four pot. Why should a certified person have to check that I torqued the plugs correctly ?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

IF the RAAus organisation take on the responsibility for the training of people they open up themselves to a situation that they must get right or must not do it at all.

 

DCA , DoT , CASA set theory exams for licences and keep records and promulgate aviation regulations that apply to particular operations. and audit operators and pilots for standards and compliance with rules.

 

Taking responsibility for the planes condition and your skill level is YOUR (the pilot's) responsibility. That was the emphasis in AUF It's the responsibility of the Owner /operator in GA (not your LAME ) to ensure your plane is compliant with all rules AD's etc and YOU as the PIC must ensure you are qualified to operate and fit to fly also.. Various other organisations provided the training. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Finally... there's something we can agree on.

 

AUF incident pages used to often feature "engine failure, uneventful forced landing carried out", or words to that effect. It was noted at the time (there was even an article about it) , GA incidents reports featuring and engine failure often had fatalities or injuries. Now it appears that many of the engine failures in rec aircraft result in serious damage at the very least. This is not a maintenance problem.

 

Is it poor training or is it because we now have lots of ex-GA pilots flying rec aircraft?

Handling the aircraft after something fails is another subject for another day. This subject is applicable to failures which occurred due to maintenance errors

 

Yes it's a favourite subject of mine. I see it daily. What you need to get your head a round it is that any process that involves filling a form and ticking boxes, is "box ticking". I consider the value of such things to be legal only. Ticking the box only ensures that you have followed the laid down process, nothing more. Basically it will cover your arxe in court, but has little value in actually providing anything more. All it does is cover your arxe and by default, your employer.

Nobody says you have to tick boxes. What happens is if you carry out maintenance work on an aircraft, and there is a failure which injured or kills someone the plaintiff is going to come knocking on your door wanting to know three things: 1. Did you work on that component. 2. Were you qualified to work on that component. 3. How did you ensure the xxx was safe and secure. If you can provide proof of those three things the enquires most likely will continue until another cause is found. Some people tick boxes, operating theatres and police record all critical actions, etc.

 

This is pretty much how I see a mandatory L1 training process and even more so for your CertIV. I have enough CertIVs and I consider them generally worthless, and I can tell you from experience that they do not produce better tradespeople, only people with a form full of ticked boxes. When you get a CertIV, in ten minutes time it will be useless, because the the training body will change the the names of the modules then demand money for RPL or more training from someone who has never done the work in their life. It's a rort.

Same as the last comment, you can use anything you like but the evidence must be acceptable to a Court or you’re headed down the sewer. It will be Your Case so yours to win or lose. Of course where you have no acceptable qualifications you’re in the same position as a quack.

 

 

[turboplanner]

". Same as a high performance glider."In Sydney the cost of glider repairs was, hours+parts AND 50% of aircraft.

 

"What people are squealing about is having to do practical training as well as theory, that's all. Or is it the cost & bureaucracy. Not all our member's are high achievers, and wealthy.

 

My grandson is /Has built a Drift car, but Not a mechanic, ( Now the council is going to close their track. putting more hoons onto streets.)

 

Back yard mechanics are still here & will outlast most Certified people, because its not just a job.

 

If I cut two cylinders off a six pot Lycoming O-540 engine, (timed out), to use as a four pot. Why should a certified person have to check that I torqued the plugs correctly ?.

 

spacesailor

Same answer as I gave M. You can do what you like, but when your work has hurt someone and you are standing there in Court accuses of negligence what is your proof of qualification to do the job, and how you ensured the job was completed correctly.

 

 

[jackc]

Same answer as I gave M. You can do what you like, but when your work has hurt someone and you are standing there in Court accuses of negligence what is your proof of qualification to do the job, and how you ensured the job was completed correctly.

A dated events description diary is gold plated in a court of law, documented information done properly on every thing you do or have done beats quoting from memory any day.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[M61A1]

A dated events description diary is gold plated in a court of law, documented information done properly on every thing you do or have done beats quoting from memory any day.

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

That’s pretty much all I have been trying to get across. It’s about covering your arxe, and very little to do with actual safety.

 

Same as the last comment, you can use anything you like but the evidence must be acceptable to a Court or you’re headed down the sewer. It will be Your Case so yours to win or lose. Of course where you have no acceptable qualifications you’re in the same position as a quack.

Exactly, you lose if the box wasn’t ticked. How many times do I have say it? I get it, I know how it works. Except now we have a system is more focused on arxe covering in court that it is producing decent qualified people or safety. It’s far from ideal.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I profess to having NO qualifications.

 

As my education didn't start until late, & have learning dificaulty.

 

Tried Ham radio, untill they wanted "paper-work"

 

BUT

 

I make the things I want.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Ham radio has been dumbed down so much, anybody can get a ticket.

 

 

[jackc]

Ham radio has been dumbed down so much, anybody can get a ticket.

Mmmmmm.........you need some serious study for the advanced ticket?

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

If that's what people were doing in RA we wouldn't be discussing it, but when the engine stops and someone blindly hauls the stick back and hangs on tight, he's going to get 32 feet per second per second less drag from as much as 1000' agl until he hits the ground and kills himself. The 28-35 knots is based on a theory that a pilot has enough presence of mind/training to put the aircraft into a glide when the engine stops, glide down to flare level (as against nose down/stick all the way back or in a spin), slow the aircraft to 28-35 and land it. If he does that he really had to hit a stump or tree dead centre to hurt himself.............................but that's not what they've been doing since around 2007 when I first started looking at the statistics.

Every pilot in a difficult (life threatening) situation will react differently - that has nothing to do with the simple physics of acceleration/deceleration of the body/brain.

 

You can certainly train people to improve their chances of reacting in the most appropriate/life saving way but there is no guarantee they will follow their training when the" noise stops"

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Same answer as I gave M. You can do what you like, but when your work has hurt someone and you are standing there in Court accuses of negligence what is your proof of qualification to do the job, and how you ensured the job was completed correctly.

You may bee right but I say Lord Save Us From This Sort o Attitude, which to me is all part of the risk avers , cotton wool society that we seem to be morphing into.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You may bee right but I say Lord Save Us From This Sort o Attitude, which to me is all part of the risk avers , cotton wool society that we seem to be morphing into.

We’re not morphing into a cotton wool society, just a few cowboys who don’t know their legal obligations.