The comments on the
To hell with the rules articles are hard to find, so with your indulgence, I have copied and pasted the second comment.
>A much needed touch of reality in this article.
>
>In 1999 ICAO carried out a Universal Safety Oversight Program (USOP)
>audit of CASA's performance as an treaty bound International aviation law
>service provider and found Australia was a -'non compliant' ICAO treaty
>state'.
>Findings included non compliance with Annex 1,6, 8 ICAO USOP Standards
>and Recommended Practices (SARP's) and that CASA' administration employed
>AW inspectors who were sub ICAO/FAA standards.
>FAA law requires an AW inspector -inspect aerospace products for design
>conformity for return to service fit for flight-In lieue of inspecting the aerospace product for conformity CASA relies on 'ticking ' of boxes in CASA conformity check lists by unqualified AW inspectors as 'conformity' inspections.(heard described by FAA AWI's as CASA's 'tombstone' SOP).
>CASA's resources are not qualified to service an FAA regulated Safety Oversight Program.
>Making a 'tongue in cheek' promise to ICAO to bring CASA management and
>administration up to international standards by 2000 saw a swift shift
>to establish a CASA time warped' safety oversight program' regulating
>airworthiness to 'CASA's satisfaction-
>Once the PAP package was ready for the Minister signature - CASA
>management simply sat on it, developed their 'orphan Annie' rules until
>WC(ret) Bruce Byron illegally withdrew the PAP ICAO/FAR package in 2004
>and put in place a hybrid EASA AW agenda system to develop to 'CASA's
>'time warped 'satisfaction'.
>The national airworthiness regulations are crafted to employ those CASA
>airworthiness staff(ex ADF) unemployable under FAA law to inspect civil
>TC'd aircraft for design conformity fit to operate in a safe , efficient, reliable manner.
>Australia's national MRO industry is relegated to a 'banana republic
>status' as our licensed engineers are not internationally recognized (new
>licences are not Annex 1 endorsed)and as a result our CASA personnel
>certified aerospace products are often not internationally recognized and
>are often sold marked down as buyers re overhaul components etc.
>Liability is a new responsibility for ex ADF staff!
>Operating our aircraft to CASA's satisfaction-and not FAA satisfaction
>invalidates the US government design standard warranty, leaving CASA
>liable and responsible to uphold design conformity.
>Hence the prescriptive, convoluted, dysfunctional document system CASA
>requires for to cover its unqualified AW administrators liability with
>superfluous but lucrative cost recovery documentation- and pass the
>liability and responsibility for conformity certification to the
>operator!
Very costly, inefficient, and can only jeopardize safety!
>We can't boast' safer skies for all' as VH registered aircraft shouldn't
>fly too close to the sun.
I had trouble ( a lot of trouble) with the spacing, so slightly editied.