Brian A & Siuya,
You have indeed got it right.
Along with a good slice of CASA FOIs, the full ramifications of the legislative changes in mid-1998 still have not filtered through our old mate Bloggs cranium, and he is far from alone. In his defense, individual pilots should not need to know about this sort of stuff, you "should" be able to depend on CASA to get it right ---- and company manuals being "legal".
As is traditional, when CASRs 21 to 35 were put in place, the necessary transitional amendments to existing CARs were either incomplete, incorrect or non-existent.
Large slabs of the CASA AOCM make interesting reading, the many inconsistencies (not limited to CAR 138 v 215 v 232) are clear, if, and only if, you understand the significance of the 1998 changes.
The Australian arrogance shines through in the said AOCM. Of course we know better than the manufacturers. I love the bit that says words to the effect that changes should not be made to CASA approved flight check systems ( the manufacturers --- [they really mean TC holder] ) on a new type until "---- adequate experience has been gained - for example, the aircraft has been in service for 300-400 hours".
So, we are so smart that after 3-400 hours, we know better than a TC holder, whose accumulated fleet experience is in the thousands, or tens of thousands of hours, not forgetting all the development, experience and test work that formed the basis of the aircraft certification, including the AFM, in the first place.
Bloggs, my dear fellow, I know the legal requirements for processing a change to an AFM all too well.
Boeing's "no technical objection" is but a small part of the story ----- and if you understand the implication of the Australian aviation law framework, as it is, and not how you (and many others) think it is, you would understand the "nto" is not sufficient, any longer.
This is not necessarily so in other countries --- it all depends on the legal framework under which the NAA works.
In my personal opinion, as a pilot, the A320 matter was not caused by the procedural change, but non-the-less a change was made to the G/A procedure without the approval of the TC holder -- not legally possible under current Australian law.
And not very smart.
Tootle pip!!