Originally Posted by
4 Holer
I can't see CASA allowing Chuck and Larry to pull up in the Ford F250 drop the tail gate and do the 100 hourly on the C310, Tiger moth or Lear 60 issue the maintenance release with their FAA Airframe and Powerplant generic license then drive away ? This what happens in USA with about 150,000 part 91 private aircraft each year nothing more nothing less.
4 holer,
You mean just like it used to be here, until a cable of industry heavyweights (only in the interests of safety, you understand) and a particular union (only in the interests of safety, you understand) with members inside DCA (as it probably was at the time) as well as Industry, all agreed that it would be "much safer" if the longstanding and effective procedures were curtailed, and all maintenance was in future carried out in "approved" premises by an "approved" organisation, like, for example, the facilities of the industry heavyweights, with their unionised employees.
No more "gumtree" annuals.
Some of you would certainly benefit from a greater or more in-depth understanding of US continuing airworthiness practices ( I use the words deliberately, "maintenance" as practiced in Australia is not in practice, or in legal terms, the same as "continuing airworthiness") . And it is far more simple and straightforward than here, and far more effective.
And, if you spent some time in the US ( and shed you "Australian exceptionalism" glasses) you would fine the "average" US GA aircraft in a substantially better state (ie: conform to its .Type Certificate) of airworthiness than is the case in Australia.
Clearly, too many of you believe that the greater the weight, complexity and prescriptiveness of the regulations, all with draconian criminal penalties for asserted non-compliance, the greater the "safety".
And the same principles apply to pilot training and licensing, stick and rudder skills are at the top of the requirements in US, not rote regurgitation of slabs of "procedures", so "they can't pingya"..
Tootle pip!!