Googled "CASA CD 18122SS" and found this "
Policy Decision Summary" for regs that were supposed to be drafted and consulted upon in 2020. This passage in the document shows why these things always descend into a complex farce:
In August 2018, CASA consulted with industry on which international rule set should be used as the basis for the new Australian regulations. Responses to that consultation showed a strong preference for a ruleset based on the US-FARs with minimal changes. This preference was supported by the Part 43 Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).
CASA analysed the US-FARs and found that it would be a suitable regulatory system, with appropriate safety outcomes and adequate compatibility with the various other elements of the Australian regulatory framework. CASA then developed a detailed policy proposal that would integrate the relevant provisions of the US-FARs (primarily FAR Part 43 and some provisions of
FAR Parts 65 and 91) into the Australian regulatory system.
The FAA must be so relieved that CASA analysed the US-FARs and found them to be "a suitable regulatory system, with appropriate safety outcomes and adequate compatibility with the various other elements of the Australian regulatory framework". Champagne glasses must have been clinking in FAA HQ when CASA came to that conclusion.
"Hey Bob, the Aussies say we got it right in Part 43!"
"Didn't we fight them in world war two?"
"Not the Austrians Bob; the Aussies."
"How many aircraft type certificates have the Aussies issued?"
"I reckon at least three or four, Bob."
"Thousand?"
"Nope, just around three or four."
"Well I'm sure as heck happy those guys have condescended to analyse our regulations and have judged them "suitable" and "appropriate" and "adequate". I'll alert the President."
Instead of adopting Part 43 of the US-FARs with minimal changes, CASA decides to "integrate the relevant provisions ... into the Australian regulatory system." What could possibly go wrong?