Originally Posted by
Horatio Leafblower
Grahame Crawford, according to his LinkedIn Profile, has been a Turbofan engineer in Scotland, then for GE, Rolls Royce, and QANTAS management amongst other roles. If someone can explain to me how he is qualified to decide what is and what isn't General Aviation, please go ahead.
Folks,
Put another way, he has nil regulatory background, and nil experience of any kind outside of engineering for HCRPT ---- and, I would guess about as much knowledge of FAA continuing airworthiness practices (outside of big engines) as most of the CASA airworthiness crowd, functionally nil.
The one thing that the Australian "one size fits all" process based approach can't get it collective mind around ( and this include many in the "industry") is that FAA takes a graduated approach to producing an airworthy aeroplane, the simplest being for Part 91 operations, ramping up through Part 135, to finally Part 121.
That is why the SIDS has not been the issue in US (and many other countries) that it has been in Australia.
Tootle pip!!