AFM not FCOM
Flexible Response,
You are correct that the Go-Around SOP is in the FCOM. My statement was that it was not in the AFM. This is exactly as EASA, the cerifying authority, wants it. (See the extract from CS-25 above).
I agree with your view about the wisdom of the change as opposed to the legality.
Leadsled,
Where in the ATSB report does it say that the change to the Go-Around SOP is illegal?
Airbus may not endorse a particular change to procedures but as discussed above that does not necessarily mean an operator cannot change as desired. Whether that is wise or not is up for debate. I don't think the legality of it is.
There has been a campaign in certain sections of the media that Jetstar acted illegally on the basis that it changed the AFM. It did not act illegally because the SOP in question is in the FCOM not the AFM. The FCOM is considered part of the Operations Manual an operator is required to provide under CAR 215. Changes of the OM are not required to be approved by CASA and/or the OEM and/or the Certifying Authority.
At the time Jetstar was not regulatorily compelled to have a Safety Managment System in place. It did, but the SMS did not require any appropriate process around an SOP change. Once again, perhaps unwise but not illegal.
I actually agree with your general thrust that the Regulatory structure surrounding this is too complex. The Jetstar A320 case would be the perfect example. CASA should not be regulating the final operating procedures that operators use, rather the process that is followed to derive them.