004 -#2331 "Yes indeed, another Fort Fumble screw up. The incompetence of these buffoons knows no bounds.
Phelan's article gets straight to the point - Fort Fumble incompetence or the systematic buggery of GA? Probably a bit of both I suspect."
It's not the cock up I mind, or the total incompetence on display; it's the purblind arrogance. Reading
Phelan and the valid comment in the CAO 100.5 thread makes me wonder, does anyone at FF have the first clue? If this is regulatory reform Australian style, it's time we had the Senate 'mini' inquiry into the costly, embarrassing reform program. Why is it that instead of refining the best systems available, we have this 'Wodgered' abomination; 'leaked', published then retracted without apology or explanation? The entire mess provides an accurate snapshot of just how truly dysfunctional this administration has become; and worse, how used to it Australian aviation has become. Good thing Amroba was on the ball, nice catch Ken. The least that the Sleepy Hollow mob could do now would be publish an explanation; CAO 100.5 alive or dead ???. I expect an apology is a bridge too far.
LS_ To make it easier, some years ago, the then "appropriate person" in CASA produced a Legislative Instrument to automatically make all FAA ACs and the equivalent from other countries, approved data for the continuing airworthiness of the relevant aircraft. This meant that ACs didn't, any longer, have to be approved individually for each maintenance organisation. i.e.
One smart bloke in CASA, with the right delegation, pulled the plug on the whole "approval" racket, including the costs, aggravation and delay inherent in almost any dealings with CASA.
His successor renewed the instrument several times. Now, under the present crew, the automatic approval of documents such as AC 43.13A & B is back to case by case approval ---- what a great make work exercise. $$$$$$
Leadie just about says it all. The conspiracy buffs could be forgiven a small dip into the theory bag; the cock-up team may have to dig deep to cover all the bets this time. Whoever is right I'm just glad that this farce has been exposed and someone, somewhere had the patience and skill to plough through the complex, confused offering and find the fatally flawed logic, presented to an apathetic industry.
004 -#2331 "CAO 100.5 and its replacement wording are close indeed. It would seem the 'massagers of all rules aviation' have excelled themselves yet again by creating confusion and uncertainty across the sector."
CP - # 9 "In any event, is anyone able to point to any airworthiness problem that has resulted from maintaining an aircraft in accordance the schedule of maintenance at Schedule 5 of the CARs?"
Creamy defines the deeper issues and asks why fix it if it ain't bust? Why, where there is no evidence was the excellent FAA system not adapted and refined to suit our unique Australian conditions. Unique, well I believe we are in this instance, the FAA wrote for a wide, vibrant industry with a lot more 'aviation' on a long week end than we have all year and yet the FAA system works fine. We perhaps need to adopt, adapt and refine the existing to our micro environment.
Oh, I forgot the Kiwi's did this, how many years and millions of dollars ago now ?