Folks,
You seem to searching for roadblocks, consistent with the behaviour you so readily accuse your regulator of demonstrating.
CAR 138 says comply with the AFM. No sweat, my FAR/JAR 25 AFMs contain Operating Procedures included in accordance with Section 25-1581
et seq. I note that AC 25-1581-1 includes generic guidance about Operating Procedures (beginning on page 8):
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C25-1581-1.pdf
which results in the Disclaimer referred to by my good friend Bloggs. It is an explicit permission to vary the "guidance" when and if appropriate.
If I was to develop my own procedures in the light of operational experience, I would be complying with the AFM and certainly not in any way interfering with the certification basis of the aircraft. The regulations recognise that there is some risk in me doing things on my own, so CAR 232 regulates my activity in that regard (as do FARs 121-141 and 121-315 in the US).
The Australian Regulator regulates the use of Australian aircraft in accordance with Australian law. What it takes to convince the regulator to approve the necessary changes is a function of the extant institutional timidity. There is no regulatory requirement for NTOs - they are merely means of transferring the risk back to the manufacturer.
And the OEM just has deeper pockets - not necessarily more or better knowledge - just ask Bloggs about MDD/Boeing and his beloved B717!
Stay Alive,