beeza,
If you have a look at the proposed CASA draft rules for maintenance, they depart completely from the general rules as embodied in FAR 43, 91,121,125, 135 etc.
Given that about 90% of aircraft in Australia have US type certificates, proposing a continuing airworthiness system that fundamentally ignores the origin of the aircraft is (in Yes, Minister terms) "a courageous decision", that is going to cost VH- aircraft owners and operators dearly.
Every survey of owner/operators in Australia in the last 25 years has said we should be using the US system, and, indeed, apart from the inept bureaucratic intrusions, there were many similarities, up until now.
For example, our current Schedule 5 is FAR 43, Appendix D, modified to almost completely render it useless by calling it a "maintenance system", when it is an inspection schedule --- and adding the nonsense that says such maintenance must ensure that the aircraft remains serviceable until the next scheduled inspection - how do you do that?? (Schedule 5, para. 2.7: Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.)
If anything like the present proposed rules goes into place, we are in big trouble.
What amazes me is that the CASA CEO/DAS, John McCormick is on the record (more or less) as saying the FAA system works, and that is the way to go ---- and almost all of us agree ---- but that is not what is proposed.
Tootle pip!!