I think that part of CASA's problem is their schedule 5 maintenance schedule, which is disgraceful.
CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonable
Old Akro,
Schedule 5 is a copy, almost word for word, FAR 43, Appendix D.
Is Appendix D, the heart of all FAA maintenance, disgraceful??
In fact, Schedule 5 has suffered,in part, because of the CASA (and predecessors) approach to "Approve data", and what has been taught (or not taught), right back to TAFE.
For a good proportion of FAR 23 light aircraft, the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual is only part of the data needed to accomplish the maintenance as required by Part 91, 135 (or other operating part) via FAR Part 43, and that MM is not comprehensive, you also need the suite of relevant ACs, starting with AC43.13A and .13B.
To try and make Schedule 5 work as it should, shortly after Bruce Byron became CASA CEO, an instrument was published, making the whole FAA AC library "acceptable data" ) ie: approved, plus equivalent data from other NAA, for aircraft type certified in their respective countries. Schedule 5 does not stand alone, you must have the data to accomplish each inspection. You can't make it up as you go along.
This eliminated the "maintenance data approval industry", but many LAME, who had grown up with the "Australia" system, were not happy. They wanted CASA to tell them what data to use, by "approval", not have to decide what data to use. Needles to say, the people Mr. McCormick promoted to positions of power in CASA ( who, in a number of cases, had been consigned to backroom jobs by Byron) have 100% reversed the Byron instrument, and the "approval industry", largely made up of ex-AWIs, is back in full swing.
The answer to proper continuing airworthiness of the Australian light aircraft fleet, is to emulate the FAA approach to maintenance. The cost savings would be very substantial, and we would have aeroplanes in a lot better conditions.
Tootle pip!!