Creampuff;
My hard copy at hand of Commonwealth Ombudsman report into matter CASA and Murphie following complaint to CASA dated 7 October 1996 and investigation started 17 May 1999 states in concurrence with you;
"The COR holder may elect whether the maintenance is done in accordance with the aircraft manufacturers schedule or Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) Schedule 5 unless there is an approved system of maintenance in force".
"on completion of the work, a LAME issues a maintenance release which is in effect certifying that those parts of the aircraft inspected will remain airworthy for the next 12 months or 100 flying hours, whichever comes first.
As previously mentioned I did a rewrite of schedule 5 (note amendments to prior posts which mentioned in typo schedule 4), which was commissioned after urging by the then Chairman of the CASA Board of Directors.
It was never published by CASA because of an obvious admission of liability on their part. It was passed onto AOPA.
Nowhere however, does schedule 5, as it's alternative to the manufacturers schedule, mention extending aircraft engines on a conditional report.
This is the function of the AD/ENG/4.
Prior to ED/ENG/4 amendment 7 there were NO on condition piston engines. All were specified in ANO's as hard time overhauls.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman report concluded in recommendation 3: "CASA to consider the accuracy of its advice about the suitability of CAR Schedule 5 and:
(i) Take any necessary appropriate action and,
(ii) advise Mr Murphie of its final position in regard to CAR Schedule 5.
Except for a "lame duck apology from the then Director of Aviation Safety, a thorough ringout by various Parliamentary Secretary's, I have had no further personal advice of definitive statements of changes.
It's been a long time between beers Creamy.
Last edited by Bob Murphie; 2nd Apr 2008 at 05:48.