Ramble On,
I borrowed "tootle pip" from one of my favourite characters in Biggles, which seems appropriate all too often, with some of the fiction on pprune pages.
It was an expression widely used in my youth. Sorry if upsets you, certainly not intended.
Lightseer,
Maybe you've been blinded by the light.
If CASA grants an MA, by definition (in law, at least) the person holding the MA IS qualified in terms of the limits to the MA. By signing an MA the Director or his delegate is finding that the MA holder is qualified.
Believe me, in the EASA system, an apprenticeship (or equivalent) is not the only way to an A&P. Maybe the most common, but not the only way.
Nor should it be in Australia, the ONLY criteria should be demonstrated competence. However you have gained and demonstrated the competence, you should be entitled to an MA on application. Remember Father Joe in PNG !!
CASA is strictly a safety regulator only ( have a close look at the Civil Aviation Act 1988) and any regulation or action by CASA that might be a restraint of trade, or overt commercial regulation by decision ( or lack of requested decision) making, (notwithstanding some incomplete transition provisions in the CARs, cf: CAR 206) is ultra vires the CAA 1988.
Aviation is very slow in catching up with what has been the norm in many other trades, often far more technically challenging that any work carried out by the average LAME. Applying 18th Century traditions to the 21st Century doesn't have much going for it.
Indeed, Mr. Green will tell you (on very good grounds) that the reason he did all the personal qualifications he did, and sought the necessary MA, is because of demonstrated incompetence (in at least one case, seriously life threatening --- and all documented for CASA's benefit) of theoretically qualified persons, by virtue of the traditional apprenticeship, experiences and LAME licenses --- and shortcomings thereof.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have been long amused by the problem of maintenance of some amateur built aircraft, the owner/builder can be "qualified" to build and certify the the aircraft, but can be "incompetent" to maintain the aircraft once it is certificated, a problem only partially dealt with so far.
I await a set of GA maintenance rules, to see what happens next ---- the signs are not promising ---- with the latest requirement for what is, effectively, an Airworthiness Administration basic course being required, despite the fact that there has been no demonstrated safety case to justify same ---- just lobbying by conflicted groups.
Quite what the safety benefit to Experimental Amateur Built aircraft is, from acquiring a working knowledge of the Chicago Convention, and Annex 8 in particular, is totally lost on me.