>
> I thought I was alone when my LAME refused to continue doing annual
> signoffs. I've recently found that lots of private owners are finding
> that LAME's are just refusing to do signoffs on privately owned
> aircraft. Even on aircraft where the owner never touches a spanner the
> LAME's are refusing to do signoffs.
>
> It would appear that in the west at least the companies that employ
> LAME's are putting the screws into them to work only on the company
> aircraft and not use their tickets for the great sea of private
> aircraft around.
>
> What gives???
>
> It is an old aphorism that what goes around comes around in aviation.
> This is going to cost these businesses a lot of grief as we dry up
> their business in other areas in response.
> ...

>
> I thought I was alone when my LAME refused to continue doing annual
> signoffs. I've recently found that lots of private owners are finding
> that LAME's are just refusing to do signoffs on privately owned
> aircraft. Even on aircraft where the owner never touches a spanner the
> LAME's are refusing to do signoffs.

>
>"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>news:pnu7e3ha0su9erepd1ujtie0aa41ta3637@4ax.com...

>>
>> I thought I was alone when my LAME refused to continue doing annual
>> signoffs. I've recently found that lots of private owners are finding
>> that LAME's are just refusing to do signoffs on privately owned
>> aircraft. Even on aircraft where the owner never touches a spanner the
>> LAME's are refusing to do signoffs.

>
>Then who is turning the spanner?
>

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:08:11 +0930, "ric" business.com> wrote:
>

>>
>>"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:pnu7e3ha0su9erepd1ujtie0aa41ta3637@4ax.com...

>>>
>>> I thought I was alone when my LAME refused to continue doing annual
>>> signoffs. I've recently found that lots of private owners are finding
>>> that LAME's are just refusing to do signoffs on privately owned
>>> aircraft. Even on aircraft where the owner never touches a spanner the
>>> LAME's are refusing to do signoffs.

>>
>>Then who is turning the spanner?
>>

> the LAME's themselves who now refuse to even look at the aircraft.
> the aircraft have no airworthiness issues. it seems that the companies
> they work for are all putting the kybosh on annuals for aircraft not
> owned by the companies. ...

>
>"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4edae35e6rdcs265uj53p6qbgn738vgs8i@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:08:11 +0930, "ric" business.com> wrote:
>>
>>...

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:34:26 +1000, "RT" nowhere.com.au>
>wrote:
>

>>
>>"Stealth Pilot" aeroplanes.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:4edae35e6rdcs265uj53p6qbgn738vgs8i@4ax.com...

> the scenario I had described to me was more related to CASA's
> behaviour. When they ping a LAME for some irritation they suspend his
> ticket amid some fanfare. All of his current signoffs are cancelled
> and then CASA investigates all of the signoffs for competence and
> resigns each it deems competent.
> the problem is the delay.

> the company employing the LAME I used evidently did a risks to the
> business analysis and realised that with tight financials such a ping
> could send them bankrupt. they have prohibited him doing work that was
> beyond their direct control for quality so that he could never get
> pinged.

> regarding the mining boom. there should be more of it!!!
> bring on the 'newcular' reactors as well. I want to build myself one
> of them there 'newcular' reactor control systems. actually I'd like to
> build all of them in the new power stations.

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:10:33 +0800, Stealth Pilot
>aeroplanes.com.au> wrote:
>

>
>Coop
>(PS: How goes the restoration?)

>On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:16:12 +0930, Coop
>chariotnose.netwheel.au> wrote:
>

>>On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:10:33 +0800, Stealth Pilot
>>aeroplanes.com.au> wrote:
>>

>

>>
>>Coop
>>(PS:...