If CASA has gone beyond this, it is a tribute to the remarkable institutional stupidity of that organization, amply and vividly demonstrated by the Whyalla Report. It needs to be changed. How to change is above my pay grade.
So please, do what you must to satisfy the morons who work there, but DON'T make the mistake of thinking they are right, when they are most definitely not in suggesting the "How to fly" text in the POH came down from Mt Sinai, along with the Ten Commandments.
Folks,
I could not have said it better myself, Mr. John Deakin has very succinctly summarized CASA as an organisation. In my view, CASA's (and ATSB) technical competence has deteriorated since the era of the Whyalla accident.
yr right,
If you have any doubts about the accuracy of the above comments, I suggest you look at the last two ICAO audits of CASA, and their public results, or the results of the last two FAA audits. In polite language, they do tend to confirm Mr. Deakin's views.
I note you have still not answered very specific questions posed at post#315, as a result of your accusation. This being the case, I think we can safely assume no such regulations exist, despite your claims to the contrary.
The difference, legally, between you doing a Type course for an endorsement on your license being "CASA Approved" and the course under discussion here, is the latter does not result in any CASA action.
Obviously, you believe that "CASA Approved" is a bit like sprinkling holy water on the course, making the contents sacrosanct.. Some time ago, I attended part of a CASA Airworthiness Delegates Initial and Refresher, for both CASA AWIs and industry delegates. Some aspects of the course were staggeringly legally incorrect, particularly pertaining to the requirements of various airworthiness (C.of A.) categories.
How many aeroplanes have I "put" on the Australian register, I guess over the years I have been involved in a dozen or more. A fact that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
As to the LAME being "the last line of defense", you speak in jest, surely.
I have lost count of the number of aircraft, over the years, I have knocked back, as a result of defects found after the aeroplane has been presented to me for service, with an MR signed by a LAME.
When I sign a CAR 233 certificate, or otherwise accept an aeroplane for service, I am signing for far more that just the LAME's opinion of serviceability of the aircraft.
yr right, if you doubt this, just read CAR 233.
The LAME as the "last line of defense" --- I think not.
With reference to CAR 138, and a POH/FCOM/whatever name used, and the reference to the C-207, I would suggest that the application of CAR 138 is limited by the definitions of the contents of a POH, as detailed in the TCDS, and FAA advisory material on the subject, plus GAMA guidelines, for GAMA members.
If the restriction on LOP is in the airworthiness limitations, you have two choices:
(1) Comply, or;
(2) Negotiate a variation with the Type Certificate Holder, if this is successful, this will carry FAA (if it is a US built aircraft) approval of the variation.
In my view, given the legal mechanism for issuing a Certificate of Airworthiness in Australia (since 1998), CAR 138 cannot impose a greater limitation than presented in the original POH, just by the fact that something is printed in the POH. However, if CASA so chooses, it has other regulatory provisions to impose changes to a POH, usually in my experience, to the detriment of safe operation of the aircraft. And further, in my opinion, many such CASA directions are beyond power, in that CASA have no power to amend the certification status on an aircraft not originally certified in Australia.
Finally, I must say that, despite the length of this thread, I still have not decided whether yr right's "contributions" are for real, or just a bleeding long windup.
Tootle pip!!
PS: In the UK, in the 1960s, we were operating IO-540 for over 3000h TBO, low rpm, high boost and LOP. Never had a cylinder failure, only scheduled maintenance, with close trend monitoring, all to an approved program.