Hi all, This was picked up on my SZD36A Cobra 15 late last year during an audit. There was some discussion at the time about the probability that all the polish gliders would have the same issue. I had a look at the SZD gliders TCDS and it almost looks like a cut and paste from one glider to the next. The inspector who did my audit had said that he had seen a newly imported SZD glider without the T&B installed and the TCDS stating it as mandatory and no indication that one had been installed during manufacture.
This has taken about 6 months work by the GFA team to sort this for us, job well done. At least now with the PU document having been amended to include the T&B we have a simple solution that enables us to be compliant. Phil On 21 April 2016 at 06:22, Justin Couch <jus...@vlc.com.au> wrote: > On 20/04/2016 10:23 PM, Roger.D wrote: > >> Dear Justin >> What a nonsense that the CASA inspector(s) foisted on you. >> > > That's an incorrect assumption that CASA were involved in this at any > point. > > If you read >> the TCDS for the Standard Jantar 2 and the TCDS for the Standard Jantar >> 3 then it is clear at point 8 "Operational Capability" that these >> sailplanes are rated for "VFR Day", and below that "Cloud flying" which >> is why a T&S (as a minimal capability piece of equipment for blind >> flying) has to be included in the standard equipment list. Since we are >> not permitted here to cloud fly and have such a placard in the cockpit, >> a T&S is not relevant to being mandatory standard equipment. >> > > We don't get to pick and choose how we interpret "relevant" rules when we > don't like one that is not in our favour. I looked through at least another > dozen gliders of varying age. All state cloud flying permitted, none, other > than PZL require a T&B. Similarly, where specialised equipment for a task > is needed (think G-meters and Aerobatics), they are listed separately in > the TCDS - see the K21 as an example. PZL dropped that from the list in > their most recent models of the 55 and Perkoz. > > I agree that the requirement for T&B for the MEL is silly, that's why I > felt like it was worth sharing the story. Here's an example of some of the > crazy paperwork that does exist out there, and we managed to find a decent > workaround for it. It's also a cautionary tale about making sure that > inspectors _actually_ read their paperwork that they claim to be signing > off, rather than just waving their hands and saying "yeah I know what's > written, I've done this a hundred times" that can be applied in many > different situations. > > -- > Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/ > Java 3D Graphics Information http://www.j3d.org/ > LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/ > G+ WetMorgoth > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights. > Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it > a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to > distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many > frames or one frame for many lights?" -Subcomandante Marcos > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > -- Phil
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
