----- because then the law means what he says it means.
Sunny,
If you haven't already done so, google Robin Speed and the difference between the "Rule of Law" and "rule by law".
CAR Schedule 5 are clarified in relation to the incorporation of all relevant supplemental inspections specified for the aircraft type.
If a proper inspection is carried out using Schedule 5 (aka FAR 43, appendix D) and the proper advisory material used, such gross defects as revealed in the C210 would have been revealed without the need for an SID type document.
In fact, if a light aircraft is subject to what FAA classify as a "severe" operating environment (look it up, you might be surprised) such defects as described by ATSB in this case will happen long before any SID hours or calender limits are reached.
----- is that there is no standardization within the regulator as to what the the correct interpretation is, witnessed by the various interpretations of various AWI's and FOI's.
If only it was that easy, but it ain't. If battalions of high priced lawyers cannot agree on interpretations that have long been acknowledged as "complex, convoluted or contradictory", how is pilot or mechanic, employed as an FOI or AWI going to cope.
Incidentally, some attempts at "standardization" of regulatory interpretation, such as by way of "policy" documents, has been found to be unlawful --- ie: the chosen agreed CASA interpretation has been found to be contrary to law by the courts.
Our so called "reformed" regulations are anything but, if anything they are worse than the regulations being repealed, this is certainly so for the maintenance of light aircraft, based on the present drafts.
As has already been covered elsewhere, some provisions of draft CASR Part 91 defy legal compliance by pilots,
so incompetent is the drafting ---- to CASA drafting instructions.
Why is there not some action being planned? Squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc!
Spot on, but unfortunately almost all the alphabet soup organisations receive CASA funding to some degree, plus there is a seriously misguided view that, with sucking up the CASA, the outcomes will be less worse than they would be by taking serious political action ---- despite the fact that the only real aviation "reform" in the last almost 20 years has come from direct political action.
The triumph of naive hope over hard won experience.
Tootle pip!!