PIREP Forum Index
PIREP - OPINIONS ON AVIATION BY PILOTS.

The Truth Cessna SIDS

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PIREP Forum Index -> Oz & N.Z. General Aviation Forum - Flying Down Under
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Tunes
VIP Member
VIP Member


Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 948
Location: Australia

 PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 2:24 pm    Post subject: The Truth Cessna SIDS Reply with quote Back to top

Despite what Hannan may say as the AOPA Tech guru, this is as it stands today from the regulator as a result of my direct query:

Tony,
Sorry it has taken so long to get you an answer, but I have had to consult with a number of people to find out if any conflicting advice has been given.

As Steve Swift advised you in April, AWB 02-007 is still extant, and still provides the best advice we can offer. The interpretation of the law contained in the AWB still stands; current law does not draw distinctions based on the class of operations in which the aircraft is engaged. Hence, the appropriate SID applies to all aircraft of that model.

In one of you emails with Steve Swift you stated that the "only criteria being the traditional requirement for the aircraft to be maintained airworthy." That is true. However, you now have Cessna saying that the aircraft cannot be kept airworthy if the SID is not being applied. I, for one, would not like to have to stand in front of the coroner and explain why the SID had not been complied with.

Regards,
David Villiers
Manager, Airframes & Structures
Airworthiness Engineering Group
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
 
View user's profile Send private message
True Blue Vegemite
VIP Member
VIP Member


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 817
Location: Alice Springs

 PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

Therefore can we take it that this personal letter (presumably to you?), from David Villiers,

Tony,
Sorry it has taken so long to get you an answer, but I have had to consult with a number of people to find out if any conflicting advice has been given.

As Steve Swift advised you in April, AWB 02-007 is still extant, and still provides the best advice we can offer. The interpretation of the law contained in the AWB still stands; current law does not draw distinctions based on the class of operations in which the aircraft is engaged. Hence, the appropriate SID applies to all aircraft of that model.

In one of you emails with Steve Swift you stated that the "only criteria being the traditional requirement for the aircraft to be maintained airworthy." That is true. However, you now have Cessna saying that the aircraft cannot be kept airworthy if the SID is not being applied. I, for one, would not like to have to stand in front of the coroner and explain why the SID had not been complied with.

Regards,
David Villiers
Manager, Airframes & Structures
Airworthiness Engineering Group
Civil Aviation Safety Authority


is the official, CASA position, Tunes?
_________________
PROUDLY BANNED IN THE US of A - BUT STREET LEGAL in OZ!
 
View user's profile Send private message
Tunes
VIP Member
VIP Member


Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 948
Location: Australia

 PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

Absolutely the official position the supposed relief espoused by M'Seiu Hannan DOES NOT EXIST there is no legal change to the SIDS position, anyone who has relied on the Hannan advice is operating illegally.

Is this hard to understand ?????? AWB 02/007 has not been recinded, changed or otherwise dealt with by any legal Instrument Capish !!
 
View user's profile Send private message
brianh
PIREP Master Blaster
PIREP Master Blaster


Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 1224
Location: Victoria Australia

 PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

TBV

WOFTAS ALERT.

I cannot be held responsible for CASA internal communication breakdowns. Read the below and decide what you believe to be the official CASA position

This below formally to AOPA from the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner on 29 July 2008, CC to Greg Vaughan and George Dukats.

The CASA ICC reports directly to the CEO. David Villiers doesn't. I'll highlight several points. They remain exactly as I notified members in the Members Extra Magazine Wink

Thank you for this correspondence. Due to a major reorganisation of the Airworthiness and Engineering Branch and other issues I needed to withdraw my Cessna SID report and redraft some parts and the recommendations (The reorganisation is in line with some of my views). It will be about two weeks now before I can get this to the CEO again.

The CEO and I have spoken about the issues. I might add that there is more to this matter than simply the AWB and there are significant issues relating to current regulations and proposed regulations and the delays in having PART 91 et al on the books. I understand your concerns and appreciate your patience.

Herewith an acceptable interim solution for your members:

" I can advise that the CASA view is that if the aircraft is being maintained using Schedule 5 (only) then it is legally acceptable if the LAME who signs off the MR for the aircraft to certify that they are satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy even though the SID for the type may not yet have been done for the aircraft in question."

CASA is prepared to accept for the time being that if the LAME is satisfied that the aircraft is airworthy in its current state and this advice has been passed to a number of owners already, then CASA will accept that certification by the LAME. The advice has the approval of Mr Greg Vaughan GGM GAOG and has come from Mr George Dukats who is working with Mr Vaughan at the moment. Should a CASA AWI or other CASA officer dispute this advice then advise your members to contact either myself or Mr Dukats about the situation. I do not think this should happen however.

The above situation however does not apply to aircraft operating in the commercial category as charter or RPT operations and which are maintained using the manufacturers approved maintenance systems (which required SID compliance) nor a CASA approved maintenance system (again such systems are based on manufacturers data and require full compliance).

As for where this will go if the CEO accepts my recommendations and report then I can advise I am in support of the FAA AD which bases the SID on TIS not dates and restricts this to commercially operated aircraft not private operations. I am also recommending a regulatory exemption to provide an interim PART 91 style airworthiness coverage until PART 91 and the new maintenance rules are introduced but only for private aircraft below 5700 kg.

I will be in a position to provide a more comprehensive response once the completed ICC report goes back to the CEO in a week or two.

I hope this assists. If you have any issues please do not hesitate to call me.

Regards

Michael Hart
Industry Complaints Commissioner.


CONTINUING THIS, The next members Extra Magazine will contain the final (long) formal reply from Mike Hart of 29 January 2009. Let me extract several points:

- I am of the view that on the basis of the information I have and my investigation that your complaint concerning CASAís handling and implementation of the Cessna SID is sustained.

- c) That all future ADís be subjected to the processes of other regulatory proposals, namely a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) be issued for all non urgent or immediate action ADís as a matter of routine policy action sufficient to obtain input and or feedback from industry before any AD is issued by CASA.

- g) That AWB 02-007 be withdrawn.

- j) That CASA give due consideration to issuing an interim General Exemption to provide for discretion when certifying the airworthiness for any aircraft below 5700kg operated in the private or aerial work category in line with proposed regulatory changes to PART 91 .

I am of the view if adopted these recommendations will go a long way to aligning CASAís current regulatory approach to the maintenance of aircraft particularly private aircraft to that envisaged under the rules but also that all future regulatory action and advice be properly research and discussed with industry and that any future AD be the subject of appropriate industry discussion using the NPRM process.

- Finally whilst my office has made a number of recommendations for change and the CEO has accepted my report the outcome is the responsibility of the GGM AEG and my office is unable to advise when these recommendations will be implemented.


It is probably this last paragraph that explains the misunderstanding by David Villiers. I have yesterday acquainted him with the above in detail.

I am pleased that this long saga has not only achieved for Cessna owners but for the other aircraft that the AWB was intended to flow onto (i.e. everything else).

Of course, you cannot keep everyone happy. In January 2008 a non member email was sent to the AOPA President criticising my involvement in the Cessna SID in an attempt to stop achieving a result for members. Fortunately for Cessna owners, the email was ignored.

As an aside, it is now two and a half years since I pursued the Piper AD affecting PA32 and 32R and it is hopefully close to conclusion. A member in central Australia is keen to see the outcome. That AD was issued DESPITE the manufacturer and it is laughable that our member could export his aircraft to fly anywhere in the world but Australia.

AD and SID are necessary - no argument. It is when CASA decides they want more than the FAA or manufacturer requires that AOPA must ask "WHY". Wink
 
View user's profile Send private message
CrAShA



Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 51

 PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

The information posted by brianh seems to formally indicate the CASA stance on the Cessna SID more substantively than a personal Dear Tony.

Incidentally, is Mr Villiers aware that his personal communication has been posted on a public website as a reference guide to official CASA policy?
Does Mr Villiers have the authority to speak on behalf of CASA?
 
View user's profile Send private message
cracked pot



Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 71
Location: Darwin NT

 PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Back to top

I am never sure whether the truth is eminating from that Conspiracy Against Sustainable Aviation.

However given his past record here and elsewhere under various aliasses, I have formed the view that one must always suspect a Tunes utterance as being far from the truth.
_________________
Just fly it!!!
 
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PIREP Forum Index -> Oz & N.Z. General Aviation Forum - Flying Down Under All times are GMT + 10 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum