????
Thank god we have Paul Phelan writing in aviation newspapers and magazines. He is one of the few writers who is game to write about what he sees, and says what he thinks. Most of the other aviation stuff we read in Australia is just promotional rubbish. Nice warm and fuzzy stuff that will not upset anyone, or achieve anything.
Maybe the timing was unfortunate on this occasion, but the matter should be discussed and thoroughly investigated. It's starting to look as if there really is a problem.
I do not think Paul was saying that this aircraft was overloaded on the fatal flight, or that any particular operator was knowingly overloading them, beyond normal Australian flight manual limits.
But I think we should have a good look at the logic of what comes from our authorities.
I remember, a long time ago, when the coastwatch contract was awarded to a company that was not able to carry it out. The media told us that this company was not licenced to do the work, did not have aircraft, or crews. Other tenderers that did have these things were unsucessful. The sucessful tenderer started to operate, but could not meet the requirements and major changes were made. (another operator)
It would have been about this time that the STC for a 300 kg overload of shrikes surfaced.
Let's look at other aircraft.
The Piper PA32 aircraft has to have it's wing main spar "retired from service" at 11,000 hours because of an Australian airworthiness directive, unless it can be inspected by an inspection scheme "that is approved by CASA". There is no inspection scheme that is approved by CASA. This is not required in other countries. The aircraft manufacturer says the wing spar should be inspected at 70,000 hours (yes seventy thousand hours), and there is an inspection scheme for this. CASA will not accept it.
Last time I read the notice about the CESSNA SID program on the CASA web site it concluded by saying that this would give non cessna operators a commercial advantage, and they seemed to be trying to find a way to apply similar things to operators of other aircraft, purely for commercial reasons, to even things up.
I thank god for writers like Paul Phelan, who are game to challenge the integrity of some of the things our regulator does. Most people in aviation are afraid to upset our regulator, as they are mindful of their next renewal, and/or dispensation.
(Edited only to include para breaks.)