Doing Whats Needed
While I am sure that everything you say is true, it strongly suggests that the "system" which operated before was failing in safety terms. As far as I'm aware light aircraft were not falling out of the sky all over the UK due to poor or indeed lack of maintenance. CAA didn't think so either!
The "new" system, which is unarguably costing the industry a vast amount of money is predicated on safety grounds; this is and was self-evidently un-necessary as there was NO general safety problem with light aircraft due to maintenance failures.
What this was, is and will continue to be about is CONTROL; this is increasingly the major interest of Governments, both elected and in the cse of the EU unelected, and particularly the unelected and largely unaccountable organisations which they set up to CONTROL anything and everything they can! And that's what EASA is.
From this a vast bureaucratic machine is developed, "employing" large numbers of individuals who then become "dependent" on that system for their living, and who therefore have no interest in unscrambling the bureaucracy for something "lighter" and more efficient (and cheaper!)
That is the reason that the whole Part M debacle is causing maintenance organisations to charge for "contracts" (or in many cases quit the industry), which in turn is making aviation unaffordable.
There was never a "safety case" made for this system, because there wasn't one.
Sadly, EASA doesn't seem to have heard - "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
Last edited by rgsaero; 19th Aug 2009 at 08:05.