Again you resort to character assignation rather than debating the man.
Oh, stop it.
because CASA defines all “Broken Items” for want of a better term as defects, period
You are just not listening are you ?.
Not all observations are defects.
For another example, did you read the couple of posts about the oil consumption of 1.5 qts per hour ? (posts 168, 170, 174 and 176 ).
Normally the pilot observes oil consumption of less than 1 qts per hour.
This particular aircraft is noted to be consuming around 1.5 qts per hour.
The limit in the engine or aircraft manual is 2 qts per hour.
If this 1.5 qts is written on an MR, even though it is below the limit in the aircraft / maintenance manual, it will be deemed unservicable and defective as it is not in the MEL as it is not a "broken" piece of equipment.
If the 1.5 qts per hour observation is not passed on to the maintenance controller, it will not be programmed to be investigated until it is a real defect, i.e. 2 qts per hour or greater oil consumption.
If you respond with the " you can write the 1.5 qts per hour on an MR and have it as an open item and you will be OK", I will respond no further.
What I and others are trying to tell you is that a properly set up and approved MEL/DDG/CDL will essentially allow what is done unofficially and illegally now with a “Snag Log” by some operators to be done legally.
That is partially true, but I say again, I am not talking about genuine defects, there are issues other than defects.
Snags are not defects, so they are not covered by legislation one way or the other.
Forrest for the trees.
Snags are not defects, but will need attention.
A defect is a defect, so what if a "snag" is not in the base legislation.
I wish I could see things as simply as you do, black and white.