Creamie, old mate,
Perhaps I should have phrased it a little more accurately:
Schedule 5 is and was based on and closely aligned with FAR 43, Appendix D.
Appendix D to Part 43—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections
Plus the Australianisms, including the nonsense of para; 2.7.
Our yank mates have always managed to be more economical with words, and strangely enough their aeroplanes don't seem to fall out of the sky any more often than in Australia., indeed the opposite is the case --- have a close look at the raw NTSB v. ATSB data, and compare like with like.
Indeed, unbiased comparisons of the statistics suggests there is no correlation that suggests "more regulation = more safety"..
Although I must say, sitting through some of the consultative meeting, one could be forgiven for thinking that even those in sectors of industry are wedded to the idea that:" The greater the cubic volume of regulation, the greater the cubic volume of air safety". This notion is closely allied to the often voiced demand that we formulate regulations to control "perceived safety problems", even when the most diligent research can not show any link between the "perception of a safety problem" and the real world existence of the claimed critical aviation safety problem.
See the PCR Report and recommendations for regulatory change to address a "safety perception".
But!, Hey, "It stands to reason that more regulations will increase safety", a statement actually made in public, with many witnesses, within the last 21 days.
As the common CASA press release so often says :" More safety for xxxxxxxxx", fill in the name of the next place for safety seminar, and I keep having this crazy vision of somebody marching in with a whole bunch of boxes of "more safety".
Where, in these "more safety seminars" you can learn that you can "repair" a tyre's tube under Schedule 8, but not replace it with a new tube.
To avoid committing a serious strict liability offence, a breach of the Act, even, you should probably clean and repack the wheel bearing blindfold, to avoid looking at the condition of the bearings --- because that's an inspection, not authorized by Schedule 8 --- inspection is secret LAME business.
The one that always grabs me is:13. Replacement of batteries., which, to a simple fella, seems to suggest that Schedule 8 allows replacement of a battery. But as our ever diligent protectors of us from ourselves, and purveyors of "more safety" so carefully and condescendingly explain, this piece of rocket science requires, as do all maintenance tasks, CASA approved/approved/acceptable (take your pick) data.
Low and behold, all is revealed, every aeroplane battery manufacturer's data requires the battery to be "fully charged" before installation, and that requires a CAR 30 approved workshop plus "approved charger".
As for that hardened criminal element in aviation, who use solar powered trickle chargers on parked aircraft, cease and desist, unless the said charger is "approved" and is only being used pursuant to a CAR 30 approval. You wouldn't be so criminally inclined as to use on of those dinky little solar charges available in most pilot shops, would you?? You know the ones, they plug into the cigarette (sorry, Power Receptacle) lighter plug.
All you blokes and blokesses who routinely cleaned fouled plugs (a common enough byproduct of using 100LL in engines designed for 80/87) don't let me catch you using a Torque Wrench that doesn't have a current calibration test certificate ---- you all do use a torque wrench don't you? Just like your friendly family LAME, when he, she or it (my best non-discriminatory, non-sexist style) replaces a spark plug??
So, all you cowcockies who have a flat tyre or flat battery on the C-206, out the back of the machinery shed at Upper Binglebunglebone Station, your nearest LAME is only 500km away, resist the temptation to commit another blatant criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!