Tim and others
My belief is that the requirement to have a
second inspection performed and signed for is a
consequence of an item in the Civil Aviation
Regulations requiring a duplicate inspection if,
in the course of maintenance, a control circuit
is disconnected in any aircraft. And that
duplicate inspection must be signed for by the person who does it.
In the case of gliders with automatic control
couplings there is a good argument that the rule
is not relevant to the rigging situation if
nothing else has been done to alter the control
circuits than to open up and re-close a joint in
the system that is designed for the purpose.
Of course that does not apply where a control
circuit has been dismantled and there is a
potential for mis-connection on reassembly (like
the Glasflugel aileron horns or the Blanik
elevator connection). Nor does it apply where a
turnbuckle has been disconnected - though
potentially a simple adjustment of a turnbuckle
may be interpreted by some maintenance inspectors
as needing a duplicate inspection to ensure it
has been properly secured afterwards.
In relation to legal action, the pilot in command
is still the ultimate authority as to whether or
not to go flying - and they must decide what
weight to give to the opinion, whether written
down or not, on official paperwork or not, of a
second person who has checked the aircraft. We
all know of cases where aircraft come out of
maintenance with a fault that was not present
when they went in, and the system of a duplicate
check is just one of the defences against that.
Sometimes faults are missed two or even more (up
to 4 reported in this thread) times - and the
propensity to make errors is human. It is the
legal process of "finding the guilty party" that
is flawed along with a common human desire to lay
blame for any oversight, regardless of how well
people intend to carry out the initial and subsequent checks of the hardware.
We are unlikely to change this by talking about
it - so can we please talk about something else now?
Wombat
At 13:30 17/05/2011, you wrote:
It could be inferred that MOSP 6.3 applies only
to control connections and not to other
connections. There is no explicit requirement
for an independent check of the wing and tailplane attachments.
Personally I think that an independent check is
a good idea when possible, particulary with
complex rigging, but making it a mandatory
requirement seems a bit odd. If you can get the
wings on my Discus without connecting the
controls positively and in the correct sense,
you will have pushed somewhat harder than I can
:) I have a one-person rigging system, but
apparently I can't go flying unless there is another DI rated person handy.
It seems to me that if you want to know who is
responsible for your safety, whether in aviation
or any other activity, look in a mirror.
"Takeoffs are optional. Landings are compulsory".
Cheers
Tim
tra dire e fare c'รจ mezzo il mare
On 17/05/2011 12:17, Matthew Gage wrote:
Tom, I was trying to find a way to say that
simply - you saved me the trouble.
However, looking at the MOSP, I don't see a
requirement for a signature for an Independent Inspection
6.2 DAILY INSPECTION
Before each days' operation and after each
rigging all sailplanes must receive a Daily
Inspection in accordance with the procedures in
the GFA Daily Inspector's Handbook. This
inspection may only be performed by persons who
are authorised as a Daily Inspector for that
particular construction category or in the case
of powered sailplanes, for that particular type.
When the Daily Inspection is completed the
Inspector certifies so in the Daily Inspection
Record (GFA Form 1) which is in the same booklet as the Maintenance Release.
6.3 INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS
An independent inspection is required each time
a control circuit is reconnected. When
performing the independent inspection, the
inspector must check that all parts are
correctly attached, that all controls have
correct safety locking, that the controls move
in the correct sense and that there is full and free movement.
The minimum qualification for performing
Independent Inspections is a Daily Inspector Authorisation.
Matt
On 17/05/2011, at 11:59 , tom claffey wrote:
Unfortunately logic does not always win in the law area.
Just ask Boonah club members what it cost the
club when the family of a tug pilot sued after the wings came off the tug!
They hadn't even rigged it and the dead pilot had DI'd it!
Tom
From: Peter F Bradshaw <<mailto:p...@exadios.com>p...@exadios.com>
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring
in Australia.
<<mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Foka incident
Hi Mike;
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Mike Borgelt wrote:
> At 10:16 PM 16/05/2011, you wrote:
> >Hi Ron;
> >
> >A lawsuit like what? You are responding to a mail that hypothesizes that
> >lawsuits are possible. There is no actual lawsuit.
>
> Read it again. He didn't say there was, just that there is the
> possibility in similar situations.
Hence my use of the word hypothesizes - a word that gives his argument
more dignity than it deserves.
>
> I sure wouldn't try your legal defence. "So are you telling the
> Court, Sir, that even though you knew there was no way of positively
> checking, you signed that the aircraft had been rigged correctly?".
The second signer is not signing that the aircraft has been rigged
correctly. The signer is stating that he or she has checked the rigging
in a competent and reasonable manner. This is a different proposition in
law and in fact.
I think the lesson to be learnt from this accident is that, as somebody
else here has noted, that DI tickets should be issued on a per aircraft
type basis. Plainly, in this case, neither the riggers nor the people
who checked the rigging knew how to rig or check this particular
aircraft type.
>
> It might even be worse than a civil suit which even if you win is
> going to cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to defend
> with the loss of time, stress, worry etc. You might run into a
> coroner or Public prosectuor who wants to make a name for him or
> herself and find yourself on a criminal charge.
What is this? Fear Mongering 101? How did we jump from civil lawsuits to
criminal proceedings?
The problem with your argument is that it is one best tailored to the
idea that the best way to live our lives is to enter a windowless room,
close and lock the door, and sit quietly in the dark.
The truth of the matter is that each of us perform actions and take
risks every day in order to live our lives. Any of us may be sued at
any time. How far the plaintiff gets is a function of the merit of their
case. The best defense is to perform in a competent and reasonable
manner.
Further the best way to operate our sport is to perform in a competent
and reasonable manner and cross checking is an important part of this
paradigm.
>
> Mike
> Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of
quality soaring instruments since 1978
> phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
> fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
> cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
>
>
email: <mailto:mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com
> website: <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com>www.borgeltinstruments.com
>
Cheers
--
Peter F Bradshaw:
<http://www.exadios.com/>http://www.exadios.com (public keys avaliable there).
Personal site: <http://personal.exadios.com/>http://personal.exadios.com
"I love truth, and the way the government still uses it occasionally to
keep us guessing." - Sam Kekovich.
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
<http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
<http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
<http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
