Part 24 - What is happening? I need an update

[Morph]

What is the latest wrt part 24?

What are Misasa doing

What is Lamercyfly doing

I see Massimo posted something as well.

[Morph]

After a telephone call this morning I am feeling positive again. Sounds like the proposed amendments are nearing their completion and that if accepted we will be back to ops normal (pre 1 Jan). And then we can provide the answer to this topic - which will be a 'NO'

Apparently our Aero Club boss is meeting with the commish himself tomorrow.

skybound ® what happened? Any news

[lamercyfly]

Hi Morph.

I have and am supporting Fanie and Mervyn's initiative. They are driving just fine....

I encourage all members of this forum to make a donation to cover their expenses.

I know the advocate. He trained with Skyriders, and still is an active trike pilot at microland. We could not wish for better...

Regards.

[Morph]

I have and am supporting Fanie and Mervyn's initiative.

viewtopic.php?p=65518

Me too,

skybound ® any news?

[Gadget]

Morph. I think due to the urgency and serious nature of this topic it should be made a sticky in the main forum so that more people can see it.

[skybound®]

Does not sound like all good news. I do not want to pre-empt their press release that they are putting together so will keep mum for now.

I dont believe that we have much of a hope of resolving all the issues, until we place ourselves firmly in the CAA's shoes. Until we have done that, we will not be able to argue the case correctly to motivate reason for change.

My idea is a compromise, and I gather the feeling here is that compromise is not really welcome or an option, albeit I think in reality we need to begin preparing ourselves for such.

Court cases and the likes - sure we may need them, and will always bring the bad cop, good cop situation in to play, but perhaps there is still a route of diplomacy before we explore that route.

If I was taking the court route, I would take the stand that NTCA are being maintained in a better state than TCA that is not used for commercial purposes. I am sure even a judge would find that odd.

On the diplomacy side, if you were in the CAA's shoes and charged with safety, what would you be happy with - happhazzard maintenance or strict control? Those are the two extremes and I believe we need to make a sensible play as to how we can operate and maintain safety that must be manageable and measurable and most of all provide a level of satisfaction to the CAA in that they are still doing what they have been tasked with. It will not wash if we just go to them and say - well that was how it was done in the past. If we can convince them that it is an improvement - we could still get closer to our goal.

If we look at the USA and Austalia both countries have put some systems in place to allow owner maintenance.

Once someone told me that if both parties go away from a negotiation unhappy - then the correct decision was made. It means each party gave up something. Not all situations are a win win and smiles all around.

[skybound®]

If I was taking the court route, I would take the stand that NTCA are being maintained in a better state than TCA that is not used for commercial purposes. I am sure even a judge would find that odd.

Thought once again I better qualify my statement as I know I hate it when sweeping statements are made with nothing backing them up.

SA-CATS-GMR, Part 43.02.8, 3 (5) Associated documents

(a) The registered owner or operator shall ensure that a control system is in place ensuring that the requirements of all applicable ADs, as well as any SBs, SLs, SIs or other service information classified as mandatory, are complied with as specified in each directive before the aircraft is released to service.
(b) “Mandatory” in this context means:
(i) the airworthiness directive (AD) is issued by either the Commissioner or by the appropriate authority of the State of the type certificate holder;
(ii) the Commissioner instructs that a SB, SL, SI or other service information, issued by a manufacturer shall be complied with;
(iii) the Commissioner instructs that a SB, SL, SI or other service information, relating to the safety of the aircraft, shall be complied with in respect of an aircraft, including its components or parts, that is operated in terms of an air service licence or is utilised for the provision of flying training (other than the training of its registered owner).
(c) In respect of an aircraft that is not used for the provision of a commercial air transport operation or in flying training (other than for the training of its registered owner), compliance with any SB, SL, SI or other service information, issued by a manufacturer, shall be at the discretion of the aircraft’s owner, in which case he or she shall comply with the provisions of sub-regulation (d).
(d) Whenever an owner, referred to in subregulation (c), decides not to comply with a particular SB, SL, SI or other service information, issued by a manufacturer in respect of his or her aircraft, this shall be recorded in the appropriate logbook as “SB (etc.) No. ___ NOT COMPLIED WITH”.

So it is possible to not comply with a manufacturers recomendation for a TCA operated in the private category.

[Wargames]

So it is possible to not comply with a manufacturers recomendation for a TCA operated in the private category.

What is the legal point from insurance etc whenever the aircraft was in accident, and accident was as result of owner descretion not to comply with manufacturer service??

We are talking TCA now!!

[skybound®]

Well since you did nothing illegal, would hazard they would find it difficult to repudiate a claim.

[flying-i]

Skybound, is it not possible for the manufacturer in their operating manual to state that they RECOMMEND following the rotax service manual. Also seeing as it NTCA the manufacturer could point out to owners that these engines are subject to sudden stoppages as is detailed on the box and in the manual and we could sign an acknowledgement of such information with the manufacturer and accept full responsibility as owner. This responsibility can transfer with change of ownership.

Surely there must be a legal mind out there that can scribe some words that will allow the CAA to rest easy and not worry about liability.

If that sorts out the liability issue/ worry with CAA then we could sort out safety worries with some training.. a basic AP course allowing routine maintenance by the owner/ certificate holder.

We can only take a solution to CAA if their problem/ concern is defined and so far I am not sure that they have defined their concern - they have simply said that they are enforcing the law, which does not amount to concern in my book.

It does seem as though solutions that have been put forward to CAA have been turned down due to concern for safety and liability.

[skybound®]

Flying-i, the problem or disparity is that section 24 is more restrictive than part 43. It is the way in which it is worded in Part 24 that makes recommendations mandatory.

Almost comes down to the point that those owners who moved their TCA aircraft into NTCA, would now in many cases be better off having left them in TCA.

The more important point you mention is the CAA's concern for safety and liability. There in lies the approach we need to take.

[RudiGreyling]

What is the latest wrt part 24?

What are Misasa doing

What is Lamercyfly doing

I see Massimo posted something as well.

I believe Aerolcub is prepping a statement on their meeting, Missasa too, becuase it is a released statement I ams sure they want to ensure they get it just right. I don't have a clue to the content, would like to read it myself ASAP.

Regards
Rudi

[skybound®]

Skybound, is it not possible for the manufacturer in their operating manual to state that they RECOMMEND following the rotax service manual. Also seeing as it NTCA the manufacturer could point out to owners that these engines are subject to sudden stoppages as is detailed on the box and in the manual and we could sign an acknowledgement of such information with the manufacturer and accept full responsibility as owner. This responsibility can transfer with change of ownership.

After speaking with John, perhaps I missed your question.

You are suggesting the aircraft manufacturer of the aircraft puts the engine schedule into his maintenance documentation in such a way that would make the maintenance less onerous and more sensible.

I know Rainier (Jora man) was doing some research on that - not sure how far that came.

Will see what I can find out.

[gertcoetzee]

What is the legal point from insurance etc whenever the aircraft was in accident, and accident was as result of owner descretion not to comply with manufacturer service??

You are not covered at all, and whilst they will be taking your monthly premium, the moment you have a mishap they will throw the invalid ATF at you. I took this up with Dennis Jankelow and as a result cancelled my insurance. So far the new "kid on the block" has not come back to me regarding insurance with a lapsed ATF

[skybound®]

What is the legal point from insurance etc whenever the aircraft was in accident, and accident was as result of owner descretion not to comply with manufacturer service??

You are not covered at all, and whilst they will be taking your monthly premium, the moment you have a mishap they will throw the invalid ATF at you. I took this up with Dennis Jankelow and as a result cancelled my insurance. So far the new "kid on the block" has not come back to me regarding insurance with a lapsed ATF

Gert did they say that you are not covered if:
- you do not follow maunfacturers maintenance recomendations
or
- your ATF is invalid?