Airworthiness discrepancies.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Airworthiness discrepancies.
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?
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.
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.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.
What I know i know what i dont know I dont know !!!There is only 1 company in Canada that i know of that adheres to this law.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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 !
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
Which CAR is that?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,
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.Hornblower wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:44 amWhich CAR is that?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,
605.94 schedule 1
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
- YYZSaabGuy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
- Location: On glideslope.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.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.
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.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
Because there are literally tens of thousands of aircraft flying that don’t have a MMEL.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
- YYZSaabGuy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
- Location: On glideslope.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
Not in 705 operations, there aren't. Nor in heavies crossing the Atlantic, as was claimed above.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.
- YYZSaabGuy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
- Location: On glideslope.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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?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.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
It's pretty simple....if there is no MMEL - you have to abide by CARS.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.corethatthermal wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:42 pmYou 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.What I know i know what i dont know I dont know !!!There is only 1 company in Canada that i know of that adheres to this law.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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
Daniel Gustin
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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 !ridiculous and dangerous bullshit about deliberately getting behind the curve
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.What is dangerous are ignorant folks like you who cry wolf when they don't understand something and are fearful of the unknown !
- YYZSaabGuy
- Rank 8
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:32 am
- Location: On glideslope.
Re: Airworthiness discrepancies.
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.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