Airworthiness discrepancies.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by corethatthermal » Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:40 pm

After listening to a video by Mike Busch A/P IA from the USA. The mechanic is able to sign off an annual - with discrepancies ( An actual statement ) ( We basically do the same but add the snags AFTER the Canadian maintenance release statement. ) In the CARS, the AME is to record ALL defects/discrepancies/snags whether or not they are of an airworthiness nature, that are not corrected, to be determined by the owner. As is the norm, most owners consult with the AME in their determination as to what defects are airworthy in nature, what are presently safe and deferrable and legal to fly with. There is only 1 company in Canada that i know of that adheres to this law. Do YOU know of any others?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Pacqing
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by Pacqing » Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:05 pm

You know first hand the actions of ALL the AMO's in all of Canada? You are well travelled for sure. I have an AMO and I don;t recall doing business with you.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by PilotDAR » Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:10 pm

Well, as I can think of several organizations who record all snags, and discuss them with the owner, I guess I must know of "others". My experience has been good with AME's recording defects, and any (or none) rectification. I bought a flying 172, which at the time I bought it, had had a prop strike which was declared. The prop had been repaired, but the owner had declined an engine tear down inspection. The AME correctly recorded the work he had accomplished, and was very clear in the airframe and engine logs that there had been a prop strike, and the owner had declined an inspection. The logs were all completed correctly, and the aircraft had flown since the repair.

As I intended to correctly determine the condition of the engine, I trucked the plane home rather than flying it. I removed the engine, and tore it down. The first thing I did after that was to send the crankshaft away for MPI. The flange was cracked halfway around. The previous owner had flown the plane that way a number of times (I saw it flying). It was just a matter of time..... Happily for him, I bought the plane before it shed the crankshaft flange and prop. I have since sold the plane airframe only, and still have the engine disassembled. It will never be reassembled. ('Got a nearly zero time Sensenich prop I'll not need either!)

The logs were fine, I knew what I was buying, and took my chances. Happily when I "lost" the crankshaft, it was during inspection, rather than flight!

An uninformed owner is on thin ice declining or deferring the rectification of a defect on a light GA plane for which there is no approved minimum equipment list - there's not much data to go on to justify how the plane remains airworthy with some defects. It is always best just to have the required maintenance accomplished. It's fine for an AME/AMO to record that work was not accomplished at the owner's request, but I would rather not have clients who approach airworthiness that way.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by corethatthermal » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:42 pm

You know first hand the actions of ALL the AMO's in all of Canada? You are well travelled for sure. I have an AMO and I don;t recall doing business with you.
There is only 1 company in Canada that i know of that adheres to this law.
What I know i know what i dont know I dont know !!!
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by corethatthermal » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:59 pm

In a perfect world, all airworthiness defects would be rectified, NO question,,,,, I do NOT like to do maintenance with unrectified airworthiness related "snags" I have worked for companies that had heavies crossing the atlantic with MANY multiple MEL deferred unserviceabilities. In retrospect, The CARS appendix G on prop strikes is inadequate just as the punch test on J-3 struts has been (easily) found to be wholly inadequate !
---------- ADS -----------
  

Hornblower
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by Hornblower » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:44 am

corethatthermal wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:40 pm
In the CARS, the AME is to record ALL defects/discrepancies/snags whether or not they are of an airworthiness nature,
Which CAR is that?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by Heliian » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:42 am

Hornblower wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:44 am
corethatthermal wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:40 pm
In the CARS, the AME is to record ALL defects/discrepancies/snags whether or not they are of an airworthiness nature,
Which CAR is that?
The one that says that any defects must be noted by the person that discovers them. If an AME is doing an inspection and finds defects, they must be entered.

605.94 schedule 1
---------- ADS -----------
  

Hornblower
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by Hornblower » Tue Aug 27, 2019 9:08 am

Heliian wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:42 am
The one that says that any defects must be noted by the person that discovers them. If an AME is doing an inspection and finds defects, they must be entered.

605.94 schedule 1
CAR 605.01 ...?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by YYZSaabGuy » Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:01 am

corethatthermal wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:59 pm
In a perfect world, all airworthiness defects would be rectified, NO question,,,,, I do NOT like to do maintenance with unrectified airworthiness related "snags" I have worked for companies that had heavies crossing the atlantic with MANY multiple MEL deferred unserviceabilities.
Aircraft manufacturers are required to prepare and obtain regulatory approval of a type-specific Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) during aircraft certification. Operators in turn prepare their own Minimum Equipment List (MEL), which is based on the MMEL and which is required to be at least as restrictive as the MMEL. For 705 operators in Canada, the MEL is reviewed and approved by Transport Canada in issuing an Air Operator Certificate under the CARS. MEL policies and procedures are set out here https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... u-1045.htm.

The process is intended to preserve flight safety by ensuring that dispatched aircraft are airworthy notwithstanding that certain equipment, systems, or functionality may be temporarily unavailable or inoperative pending maintenance. The process applies to both "heavies crossing the atlantic" and to narrowbodies on domestic flights. I'm not sure why you would find any of this problematic.
---------- ADS -----------
  

iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7870
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by iflyforpie » Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:58 am

Because there are literally tens of thousands of aircraft flying that don’t have a MMEL.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by YYZSaabGuy » Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:45 am

Not in 705 operations, there aren't. Nor in heavies crossing the Atlantic, as was claimed above.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:04 pm

My intent with the post was to refer to A/C that did not have an MMEL and also to give an example of some airlines who abuse the MMEL.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by YYZSaabGuy » Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:43 pm

corethatthermal wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:04 pm
My intent with the post was to refer to A/C that did not have an MMEL and also to give an example of some airlines who abuse the MMEL.
Terrific, except that you haven't actually provided any examples of airlines that misuse the MMEL process - you've just made a fairly serious but completely unsubstantiated allegation. Care to back it up with names, dates, examples, logbook entries, falsified maintenance and/or dispatch releases, whistleblower reports, or anything like that?
---------- ADS -----------
  

boeingboy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1111
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: West coast

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by boeingboy » Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:40 pm

It's pretty simple....if there is no MMEL - you have to abide by CARS.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1384
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by cncpc » Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:44 pm

corethatthermal wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:42 pm
You know first hand the actions of ALL the AMO's in all of Canada? You are well travelled for sure. I have an AMO and I don;t recall doing business with you.
There is only 1 company in Canada that i know of that adheres to this law.
What I know i know what i dont know I dont know !!!
It's what comes out of your arse that leads to people who do know putting you in the cracker category. That ridiculous and dangerous bullshit about deliberately getting behind the curve puts you in the corner, on the stool, wearing the pointy hat.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

gustind
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 8:16 am
Location: YYZ207/10.8 DME
Contact:

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by gustind » Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:14 pm

boeingboy wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 4:40 pm
It's pretty simple....if there is no MMEL - you have to abide by CARS.
I get what you're trying to say, in any case the CARs must always be adhered to.

______

To go along with the main topic of the thread, there are rumours of the owner deferring maintenance items in his 8KCAB in the following accident report in which he passed away.

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... O0096.html
---------- ADS -----------
  
Daniel Gustin

corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:00 pm

Saab guy, I don't need to give you examples since it was just my observation while being employed in the industry with many companies and on contract and seeing how some companies defer often, have multiple ( many) U/S systems on overwater flights, recurring snags that are continually signed off as gnd checked serviceable etc etc etc
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:03 pm

ridiculous and dangerous bullshit about deliberately getting behind the curve
There is nothing ridiculous or inherently "dangerous" about being behind the power curve in CERTAIN called for situations ( like a carrier landing etc ) What is dangerous are ignorant folks like you who cry wolf when they don't understand something and are fearful of the unknown !
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3076
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by PilotDAR » Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:58 am

What is dangerous are ignorant folks like you who cry wolf when they don't understand something and are fearful of the unknown !
And, our industry, and this forum, have knowledgeable folks who do understand things, and are fearful of the known! I trust that some readers here will consider their posts too.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
YYZSaabGuy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
Location: On glideslope.

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by YYZSaabGuy » Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:00 am

corethatthermal wrote:
Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:00 pm
Saab guy, I don't need to give you examples since it was just my observation while being employed in the industry with many companies and on contract and seeing how some companies defer often, have multiple ( many) U/S systems on overwater flights, recurring snags that are continually signed off as gnd checked serviceable etc etc etc
Fair enough. But in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to back your statements, we'll just take it as a given that the deferrals were normal-course and undertaken per the applicable MELs, since that's the manufacturers' requirement, the regulators' requirement, standard operator practice, and very definitely in the self-interest of the folks up front.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1384
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by cncpc » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:40 am

PilotDAR wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:58 am
What is dangerous are ignorant folks like you who cry wolf when they don't understand something and are fearful of the unknown !
And, our industry, and this forum, have knowledgeable folks who do understand things, and are fearful of the known! I trust that some readers here will consider their posts too.
Beat me to it. I'm fearful of the known, and of known clowns who don't know they're the circus.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by C.W.E. » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:56 am

There is nothing ridiculous or inherently "dangerous" about being behind the power curve in CERTAIN called for situations
Exactly, being behind the power curve is not dangerous, unless you allow it to get out of control then in the wrong circumstances it can be dangerous.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1384
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by cncpc » Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:09 pm

C.W.E. wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:56 am
There is nothing ridiculous or inherently "dangerous" about being behind the power curve in CERTAIN called for situations
Exactly, being behind the power curve is not dangerous, unless you allow it to get out of control then in the wrong circumstances it can be dangerous.
What are the wrong circumstances?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.

Post by C.W.E. » Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:19 pm

What are the wrong circumstances?
A circumstance where you can hurt yourself.

I never got into a circumstance that hurt me or an aircraft, so maybe you can relate some for me.

But I have flown in every corner of the flight envelope and got paid to do it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”