27/09,
You've got that in one.
While John McCormick in person and in CASA newsletters has been talking about simplified maintenance regulations based on the US system (which we sort of had here until 1992, and had in draft again in 1998) for smaller aircraft, Part 135 is quite clear --- all public transport aircraft have to be maintained in a Part 145 facility, despite the applicability statement in Part 145. As Mach E called for, let's get rid of these differences, let's maintain a C-172 with the same administrative overheads as a B747.
I wonder if John McCormick actually understands that his minions are doing the traditional CASA "thing", going their own way, despite the boss's policy.
As you may or may not know, Byron's intent was that Part 145 would be based on and harmonised with JAA/EASA Part 145, which is more or less harmonised with FAR 145.
As was entirely predictable, given the minions "policy" owed nothing to the boss's policy, Australian Part 145 looks like nothing else on earth, and is not harmonised with anything except CASA middle management policy. That is why the bigger organizations have got/are getting EASA and FAA part 145 approval, otherwise they are out of the export business.
This is a bit of thread drift, so I will leave it there, but what CASA has been coming up with to "complete the regulatory review" has received far too little attention.
Tootle pip!!
PS: This "Part 135" is really an outgrowth of a previous Executive Manager, Safety and Standards Part 121A, when that era of management decided that there would be no Part 135, it would all be Part 121 for "public transport", based on an, in my opinion, complete misinterpretation of the recommendations of the Seaview Inquiry.
Seaview DID NOT recommend one standard for all "public transport', if you think he did, please read the actual recommendations.
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Dec 2012 at 09:26.