ummmm may be but a court will not look at it like that. That is the problem.
The caap is written with definition's etc and so why did you not follow the caap. so what are you going to say
yr right,
Firstly, have a look at the preamble of a CAAP, then look at the "court" record.
LAMEs have been taken to the cleaners by CASA AWIs, even though the CAAP was followed.
In one case I know of, the LAME appealed the CASA "administrative action", on the basis that he had complied with the CAAP.
The appeal failed, complying with the CAAP (CASA's own document) was found to not be sufficient to defend a charge of incorrect or inadequate performance of a maintenance task.
Silly (or strange) as the above seems, (and in the above case, I am of the view the CAAP was adequate, and the AWI was very unreasonable, but the AWI position was upheld in the appeal) it is the regulations that count.
Previously, Creampuff has defined the standing of CAAPs, it is as well to understand what he is saying.
Maintenance must be accomplished per. what rules actually say, not what somebody "has been given to understand", "believes", "has been taught", or all the variations used to explain a "knowledge deficiency".
Of course, it doesn't need to be like this, and it is not like this in any other country, of which I have experience and/or knowledge. And that is quite a few.
This completely unreasonable expectation, placed on the the shoulders of people who are tradesmen, is a direct result of the CASA approach to aviation regulation, producing the well know complex, contradictory and impenetrable "law", where "compliance" is all , and confidence in being compliant, by the most conscientious person, just is not possible.
And, of course, "the Australian way" has nothing to do with air safety outcomes.
Tootle pip!!