Feedback

The EE508 usage instructions within the AFCAMAN requires updating to represent the changes to the form.

Flowchart needs review

BLUF: Change the AFCAMAN definition for Warning, add the definition for Caution and reformat and reorder the Note definition in AFCAMAN—Warning first, Caution second, Note last—consistent with DEF(AUST) 5629. Background See the attached document for a full background, which distils to: definition for a Warning and the precedence and formatting of a Note in AFCAMAN does not conform to the technical publications specifications in DEF(AUST) 5629 and the EASA, FAA, US military, et al, aviation contexts.

The paragraph (and previous) details the issuance of CRS within the scope of the MAML holder. The example provided in para 1.37 then details that results of specialist task will be assessed by a B1 MAML holder with an exclusion for the task. This example contradicts all previous statements. Should the example not state that the MAML holder requires an inclusion for the task in order to operate within the scope of their B1 MAML?

Request the definition for the purpose of this chapter be extended to include consumables such as rags etc to ensure that maintainers are aware that they are responsible to control all types of equipment utilised throughout the course of maintenance. Example of what paragraph 1.2 may read like: Tool control is an essential component in maintaining flight safety by minimising the possibility of tools being left in an aircraft and/or within components. It also ensures that only approved and authorised tools are used for aviation activities. The use of tools , support equipment, rags and consumables (referred to as tools for the rest of this instruction) on aircraft, components and parts are required to be controlled.

Book IV Chapter 2 para 1.27 states; Where the removal of a component is required during the course of a rectification, the entry shall detail the component removed, the reason for removal and refer to the original defect, e.g. ‘No 1 hydraulic pump cover removed for access (or ‘RFA’) in accordance with (or ‘IAW’) (enter details), refer serial number of work (or ‘RSN’) 123456’. While this process documents the removal of the component and the current state of the aircraft it does not enable the requirement for all trades persons to endorse all maintenance carried out (para 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6), neither does it record who carried out the supervision of the maintenance. We now have maintenance conducted on the aircraft and can’t identify who carried it out. If the defect read, ‘No 1 hydraulic pump cover to be removed and installed to facilitate work at refer serial number of work (or ‘RSN’) 123456’. A Sub US would be raised for the removal and one for the installation; thus meeting the requirements at paras 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6. Or change 1.27 to read ‘1.27 Where the removal of a component is required during the course of a rectification, and the installation is to be carried out by a different trades persons, two defects are to be raised one for the removal and one for installation. The certification of the removal of the item cannot be conducted unless the installation defect is raised, as a CRS cannot be issued with a known defect endangering flight safety; thus meeting the requirements at paras 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6.

ARMY tile in the diagram from Book 1 Chapter 1 requires a change, and SI reference in Book 3 Chapter 9 is incorrect.

After several queries from various stakeholders, review of this chapter is recommended. Having the 48 hour rest period defined in the paragraph and not in Table 1 gives the impression there is no flexibility in reducing the required time. Para 1.6 states CAMO's are to develop a process to extend/reduce work/rest periods in Table 1. This should include the 48 hour requirement after 5 days. Recommend moving this from the paragraph into the table.

email address to be updated

Introducing CRS as a discriminator as to when a ‘Reportable Occurrence’ has occurred does not align with the BR and confuses Figure 1 (para 1.10). It has also resulted in some ‘Pre CRS’ ‘Reportable Occurrences’ not being reported (or not in a timely manner). Suggest that the paragraphs 1.4 to 1.5 are rewritten as shown in attached Word Doc and PDF. Recommend that Figure 1 is adjusted to remove the ‘Post CRS Issuance’ decision box.

Current paragraph contains: Marshalling signals used in the ADF are in accordance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Standardisation Agreement (STANAG) No. 3117—Aircraft Marshalling Signals or where there is no NATO designated signal, Air and Space Interoperability Council (ASIC) Air Standard (AIR STD) 25/52A—Marshalling Signals for Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Aircraft Proposed paragraph: Marshalling signals used in the ADF are in accordance with Air Force Interoperability Council (AFIC) AIR STD ACS 4062—Aircraft Marshalling Signal, which includes ADF specific and NATO standardised marshalling signals promulgated in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Standardisation Agreement (STANAG) No. 3117 (AFSP-2(A)(1)) — Aircraft Marshalling Signals.

A list of abbreviations should be included in the AFCAMAN. Some chapters do not define the meaning of all abbreviations, and some abbreviations cannot be found using the search functions. For example, Book IV, Chapter 11, Paragraph 1.8 uses the abbreviation "MAI" without defining it beforehand. That abbreviation cannot be found using the search function due to the frequency of the word "maintenance" and "remain" in the AFCAMAN.

Specialist services relate to tasks on the aircraft that are not included as DASR 66 competencies. The accountability and responsibilities for these tasks are different to aircraft maintenance covered by DASR 66 competencies. Trades relate to how organisations (Like Air Force, Army and Navy) train individuals for organisational needs and is not regulatory

Contradiction between chapters. From Book IV Chapter 2 Para 1.15: Tradespersons are responsible for the work they perform and are required to endorse all maintenance and GAT completed in the aircraft continuing airworthiness record system. From Book IV Chapter 3 Para 1.9: GAT do not require certification.

The terms "Task Sign-off" and "Certifying Staff" throughout the AFCAMAN are not consistent in terms of punctuation and spelling. Standardise the spelling of "Task Sign-off' and "Certifying Staff"