Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Whop Whop

What Is Transport Canada Thinking?

Recommended Posts

The "pilot" part does not require the use of anything other than a set of eyes to do the daily check, it is "if" as crack is suspect then indepth checking is involved,,,,kinda like if you find a crack on any part of the machine,,,,other than the crack of dawn.

 

Not sure who are where there is a problem with tailrotor of astar, have not heard of a crack and the 30 hour spar crack is equally stupid, the only one have seen cracked since 1985 was do to a ham handed pilot pushing on the tail rotor blade as hard as he could going " hear that, hear that!!!" He misunderstood the MAX 10 cm deflection to be MIN 10 cm deflection,,, :shock:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier. This is a rehash.

 

As Skully mentioned, IAW the AWD, the only visual aid required is a MKI Eyeball.

 

The AWD actually states that the pilot can carry out this inspection.

 

The information note that was attached to the original AD is just that. An information note. It has no bearing on who can perform the inspection. It has no legal or regulatory weight to it.

 

TC has not issued a CF AWD to supersede and/or add to the inspection. The body of the AWD as published by the manufacture must be the followed in order to comply with the requirements of the aircraft type certificate, to keep the CofA in force.

 

Once again...an information note doesn't hold regulatory power.

 

RTR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wiggins, i totally agree, why even have a discussion about who is more important? I could propose that as a solution we get rid of all the engineers and just fly the machine until they break down. :up: Then we just get the boss to buy a brand new one and off we go! Simple, and no more silly arguments about who is more important. We all know that one can not exist with out the other so why even talk about it.

 

play safe. L3driver. :)

 

L3driver,

Maybe you where born the day before yesterday and did not understand my post. The regulatory world is changing rather quickly. EASA,FAA and TCA are aligning requirments for all forms of maintenance tasks. If you follow the letter of the law a pilot cannot perform an inspection. He can simply perform a visual check. A visual check does not include the use of a 3X glass or any other aids. The AD in question and the NOTE is currently contradictory in its requirements. Do you really think we should challenge or persue this? Sometimes sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly will delay the inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time maintainer of Helicopters I would like to weigh in with the intent of providing clarity.

 

Some important facts should be considered as to why we are sometimes faced with new or additional requirements around safe maintenance and operation of the many types of aircraft we deal with. We are end users and maintainers of products that have been developed by manufacturers that have compiled through extensive research and development, knowledge of what the product they are selling and supporting is capable of, with respect to operation/maintenance limitations and requirements. Our experience and capability alone is insufficient to “second-guess” such seemingly redundant and “pain in the butt” requests for compliance. I would like to suggest when second-guessing or trying to find ways around these regulated requirements please keep in mind the following considerations as to why we may not be privy to all the facts:

 

· The database of information used to produce ongoing changes is from a worldwide spectrum of product use both civil and military.

· Much of the gathered data is proprietary due to liability concerns, protection of patents, and on going research thus we are not always aware of underlying reasons for changes.

· No matter how old the aircraft, they are all a “work in progress”; meaning as they age and total hours on type increase so does the base of knowledge.

 

If we are asked to carry out AD compliance with a work aid such as a magnifying glass, it is a request made of engineers specifically because of our reliable ability (due to training and experience beyond the simple use of the tool) to determine what is a crack in the underlying component or defect in the paint or need for further investigation. As a result the ongoing input we provide through Service Difficulty Reporting, liaison with manufactures and pilots addition to the accumulated time to the type ensures the expanded knowledge of the possibilities for changing requirements helps to reduce the incidents and accidents we lament at every occurrence. The additional work may add to the time it takes to complete a DI or inspection or even affect operations. When the paper work is completed and the A/C has departed we would like to have confidence that all has been done to ensure safety and fulfillment of the privilege of responsibility afforded us by Transport Canada. Keeping an open mind to the possibilities of the unknown and a positive attitude to compliance makes everyone’s job safer and easier despite the increased workload.

 

As to the compliance requirements of an AD, that determination is the responsibility of the Person Responsible for Maintenance as indicated by the affected operators Maintenance Control Manual. Engineers with ACA authority issued by an Aircraft Maintenance Organization in accordance with their Maintenance Policy Manual will comply as requested pending a review for accuracy by the AME as the final signatory for maintenance.

 

Thank you and please be safe

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a long time maintainer of Helicopters I would like to weigh in with the intent of providing clarity.

 

Some important facts should be considered as to why we are sometimes faced with new or additional requirements around safe maintenance and operation of the many types of aircraft we deal with. We are end users and maintainers of products that have been developed by manufacturers that have compiled through extensive research and development, knowledge of what the product they are selling and supporting is capable of, with respect to operation/maintenance limitations and requirements. Our experience and capability alone is insufficient to “second-guess” such seemingly redundant and “pain in the butt” requests for compliance. I would like to suggest when second-guessing or trying to find ways around these regulated requirements please keep in mind the following considerations as to why we may not be privy to all the facts:

 

· The database of information used to produce ongoing changes is from a worldwide spectrum of product use both civil and military.

· Much of the gathered data is proprietary due to liability concerns, protection of patents, and on going research thus we are not always aware of underlying reasons for changes.

· No matter how old the aircraft, they are all a “work in progress”; meaning as they age and total hours on type increase so does the base of knowledge.

 

If we are asked to carry out AD compliance with a work aid such as a magnifying glass, it is a request made of engineers specifically because of our reliable ability (due to training and experience beyond the simple use of the tool) to determine what is a crack in the underlying component or defect in the paint or need for further investigation. As a result the ongoing input we provide through Service Difficulty Reporting, liaison with manufactures and pilots addition to the accumulated time to the type ensures the expanded knowledge of the possibilities for changing requirements helps to reduce the incidents and accidents we lament at every occurrence. The additional work may add to the time it takes to complete a DI or inspection or even affect operations. When the paper work is completed and the A/C has departed we would like to have confidence that all has been done to ensure safety and fulfillment of the privilege of responsibility afforded us by Transport Canada. Keeping an open mind to the possibilities of the unknown and a positive attitude to compliance makes everyone’s job safer and easier despite the increased workload.

 

As to the compliance requirements of an AD, that determination is the responsibility of the Person Responsible for Maintenance as indicated by the affected operators Maintenance Control Manual. Engineers with ACA authority issued by an Aircraft Maintenance Organization in accordance with their Maintenance Policy Manual will comply as requested pending a review for accuracy by the AME as the final signatory for maintenance.

 

Thank you and please be safe

 

A well written, concise, and appreciated disertation. This should be included in any company ops manual/ SOP as to explaining how these things work and CARS being what they are...especially to pilots during recurrent training and the new up and coming ideals of "Self Regulation".

 

Thankyou and Regards

 

Zazu

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...