Hi Richard and Bob,

Just want to confirm your understanding of the Minimum level of "Authorised Person" who can sign a maintenance release, and how this scale is worked out, in terms of order of precedence.

I am having trouble identifying all of the Authorised Person types as well between CAR43 and CAAP43, it would also appear there is a grey area where a body corporate can be appointed.

Both Docs are attached.

Thanks

Brook


[attachment:1]CAAP43.pdf[/attachment

Found some interesting stuff as per another post of yours Richard

Interesting its not in anything to do with Maintenance release and not available during the exam, but rather to do with CAAP and one on the CAA Maintenance SCHEDULE (man where does CASA get off on poor quality indexing and labling). Also very interesting they have a new draft available which I will also upload.

So which person is the least qualified as per CASA exam?


The current verson is as stands:

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY — AUSTRALIA
CIVIL AVIATION
ADVISORY PUBLICATION
Date: 1 March 1992 No: 42B-1(0)
SUBJECT: CAA MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

This was the definitions:

1.3 The person performing the daily inspection
must be an appropriate person
authorised to do so and must certify, in
accordance with the approved system of
certification, on the aircraft's maintenance
release for the completion of this
inspection. Appropriate persons for daily
inspections are:
(a) the pilot-in-command;
(b) a person holding a valid pilot licence
endorsed for the aircraft
type;
(c) the holder of a valid appropriate
aircraft maintenance engineer licence;
(d) the holder of a valid appropriate
maintenance authority covering
the aircraft being inspected; or
(e) provided that person has sufficient
knowledge and experience
to carry out the inspection, the
holder of an AME licence in either
the airframe or engine category
but not necessarily rated for
the aircraft or engine type or
group, in respect to all AME licence
categories.

Yes I see how one (anyone) could get this wrong, given what CASA asked for in the real exam was the least important and didnt present all the options.

1) Firstly the CAAP's are not allowed in the exam
2) This CAAP is not specifically related to Maintenance Releases but rather Maintenance Schedule document which is poorly written, addresses the CAA instead of CASA so FINDING that specific piece of data ever again without electronic indexing over all CASA's documents is unlikely (ie dont try searching for maintenance release or you won't find it within CASA's system).
3) the question in the real exam related to the least qualified person in the above list
4) there is considerable ambiguity within option C) the holder of a valid appropriate aircraft maintenance engineer and D) the holder of a valid appropriate maintenance authority covering the aircraft being inspected surely it would have to be a C that signed on behalf of a D, otherwise the cleaner or receptionist at a D (maintenance authority) could sign the MR for you.

It's an area that is in strong need of ammendment, even with the new draft coming out the information is not at all well organised, indexed or presented.

So anyone know an answer? I've got the exam tomorrow...

My guess would be an endorsed pilot...

My logic being:

The lowest level that can sign the MR is a private pilot, this excludes SPL/GFPT holders from signing the MR. A SPL can act as the PIC however my understanding is that a student pilot can't hold an endorsement/design feature for an aircraft ie manual propeller, retract ect. Therefore the answer that excludes the SPL would be an endorsed pilot.

A student pilot can hold a special feature endorsement. I have taught lots of people to fly in their own constant speed retractable aircraft - even a twin from day one. However, they can't hold an aerobatic, night VFR, IFR or low flying endorsement unless they hold a PPL.

Hi Shiellsy,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't believe there IS an answer. As far as I can make out from CAAP42B they all have the SAME rights as each other.

It would however pay to read the second page of CAAP 42B and also have a read of the new draft CAAP 42B as well in the same section. If you go through the rest of my posts it will probably serve you better with the time you have.

Really keen to know how you go and what you thought

Good Luck!

Brook

the threads (posts) I am referring to are under the topic on my initial fail and pass on the second attempt and exam debrief...

That explains why I can't find the reference! I was thinking back to my experience getting my licence.
When I did my GFPT/PPL back in 98 I remember not being allowed to get my CSU/Retract until I had my PPL. Could have been a flying school thing. (Your answer makes sense as we go solo in the CT4 with a CSU).

Day one in a twin must be a steep learning curve! (Not to mention financially steep!)



Thanks Brook, I'll let you know how I travel!

It's my last exam so I'm keen to get a good result to finish on a high....(A pass will do though!)

Passed air law this arvo (pretty stressful exam - some very, very grey areas), had the same question you had Brook, it asked for the minimum level of qualification that can sign for your flight with the following options:

CPL endorsed on aircraft
SPL endorsed on aircraft
the pilot in command of the last flight
Someone delegated by the operator
PPL endorsed on type.

The answer I gave (correct) was the PPL.

I had one question I disagreed with, I have written to CASA about it, would be interested in your take Bob, you have. Similar question in your book - however it doesn't list you as a CPL being paid to fly the aircraft:

You are a CPL employed by a company as the pilot of its 6 seat aircraft. You transfer people for the company between two sites. The passengers do not pay for this service.

In accordance with CAR 2 para (7) this meets the criteria for a private flight. However CAR 2 para (7A) subsection (c) indicates that the flight doesn't meet the criteria to be conducted as a private flight if any member of the operating crew is paid for the services. As they stated in the the question that you are employed for the purpose of flying their aircraft the flight can't be classified as a private flight as you have been financially rewarded to act as their pilot. The question does not resolve this ambiguity by stating if the pilot is on a salary (like I am when I fly) or paid per hour.


Not too stressed about it thought - CPL theory credit completed ATPL air law on Tuesday....

Hi Shiellsy,

Congratulations! You must be pleased, and great work on the pass on first go! Thanks for a clarification on this question, I think this must be like the year 12 maths requirement qantas used to raise the bar on experienced Ansett pilots after the collapse, it would stop most overseas candidates in their tracks as they arrive here...

Yes it was a stressful exam because of the very grey areas, and good on you for writing to CASA, I dont find they reply in an effective nor timely manner, so I dont bother these days. And having to pay them per questionin case a question is wrong is supreme arrogance in my view. The last time I checked it was about $150 per question, and if you were correct you got your money back.

I got the same question on the PPL vs CPL privileges, I guess to be fair it would appear to be related to the TYPE of job you are paid to do (eg as a miner you are paid as a miner, but the flight can be done on a class 2 medical as a private flight CO-INCIDENTAL with your employment unless your DUTIES of your employment REQUIRE you to fly, then you would be in fact being paid to fly, and a close look at an employees job description would not go astray here, nor would an examination for the advert for the position initially (eg require pilots licence etc).

My question on that would be what kind of responsible company would put the lives of their staff regularly in the hands of a PPL from an OH and S perspective, not to mention any legal fall out if anything happened.

Also the other issue I can see for pilots put in this position is DUTY time. I know of a technology company that employs private pilots with technology qualifications to fly their staff around, but then once getting to site the private pilot who is also staff commences technology work. So the other risk is relative to common sense, the duty times of the pilots are blown out of the window, since their "flying rest" is actually considerably different to their ACTUAL rest. And acting in a private capacity the requirements are much more lenient.

I believe the PPL becomes a fall back position requiring less responsibility legally, a bit like falling back from a CIR to a PIFR rating - there may be times to use this from what I understand, but to do so with employees etc and mixed into an existing work schedule, you have to ask the question....

Having worked long hours up North myself, I would have to say to add flying on top of that even within shift would have not been a good mix, as to be honest you are pretty well knackered and would realistically end up falling foul of "flying with a physical or mental impairment"

But just on that alone, it appeared to me that by the letter of the law, a pilot should not smoke either, as he / she has an immediate physical impairment at altitude, and lets face it the EPT would be less for a smoker too.

I shall take that exam philosophically and hopefully with some more time and input CASA can focus on what really matters, and take on board ATSB and NTSB feedback in training their pilots.

Brook