I have never worked for CASA, CAA or any other regulatory authority.
I am guilty of having some military time behind me. There we had much more say in the rules as we had a chance to write them.
With the civilian rules that we are supposed to abide by we really don't get so much of an opportunity there.
I didn't want to go into the Australian rules as I was aware things were under discussion there. I was also hoping that someone up with the play would chime in.
I referred to the FAA system for several reasons. Whether we like it or not much of how we all operate tends to go back to their system.
Most of the aircraft or engines originate from the States these days and we are often referred back to the Type Certificate Data Sheets and AD's and similar home based info.
With maintenance there are only really the three parts, 21, 43 and 91.
Part 91 is easy and many here already have exposure to it. Basically standard rules on the operation of aircraft. It is easy to draw parallels to the local rules.
Part 43 has much more variation between countries but again much of the intent is the same.
Part 21 is getting much more interesting with the wide variety of Airworthiness Certificates we are seeing these days.
Naturally the comments on this thread echoes real life in many respects.
Some find it easy to understand and follow the rules.
Others may find them awkward and would like to see them changed.
There would be a small portion that have never got on top of the rules and have their own ideas on how the whole shebang should work.
The rules as they stand have been around a long time.
They have been quite workable but we are seeing changes.
I guess from the bottom up in many respects at that.
The emergence of recreational aircraft, the internet forums like this and the prevalence of suppliers like Spruce may mean the currents rules have reached their use by date.
The thing is though that even two seat microlights are required to keep current logbooks. Those guys are actually very good at recording their maintenance activities.
What we are seeing with the GA fleet though is that some aircraft obviously have holes in their maintenance records. That makes it difficult at Inspection time.
I have not long ago had to deal with an aircraft that had flown 26 hours in the past year. All three wheels were assembled and installed incorrectly.
Even the Aviall catalogue would have been of some use but you have to imagine that whoever did it just bypassed a few steps.
Naturally there was no mention at all of who had been there. As it stands the chap who did the previous certification for the last inspection could be held accountable.
Pilot maintenance is not difficult at all.
I think the intent is clear to us all. To state that any owner can do a range of tasks is very misleading though.
When I ask the owners where they got their ideas about what they can and can't do to their machine. Legally I guess at that.
If you ask if it was a CASA or CAA website or from some bulletin board. - well again it is not difficult guess the answer there.
This thread would have hundreds of viewers. Only a small percentage will be adding their thoughts. Many will possibly be learning a thing or two at that.
We now some here are owners. Some may be pilots. Some may be much more active in the industry. The thing is that we never really do know the background and knowledge base of some of the members writing comments here.
One of the more vocal 'real life' characters I have met with strong ideas was indeed an owner. With a Student Pilot Licence though, he really did think his views reflected the way the system should work.
Needless to say his knowledge of the regs was superficial and that would be generous.
I have only seen a handful of aircraft that the 'gremlins' had visited. Possibly it was only the ones with the glaring issues that stood out.
Working in with the LAME seems a good way to go. I am sure the majority of owners here would have some kind of arrangement in place there.