View Single Post
Old 22nd Nov 2014, 07:05
  #1484 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Leadslead, you can stick "advisory" material up the proverbial along with "accepted" operations manuals, "appropriate" procedures and "satisfactory" compliance.
CASA uses these meaningless words to screw all of us, all the time.
I normally agree with what you have to say, but in this case you are completely wrong.

Quite simply, it is impossible to render all the advisory material as regulation.
Advisory material (CAAPs or ACs - Australia) Acs (FAA) or AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance - EASA) all have one thing in common, they are "a way, but not the only way" to comply with a regulation.

US and EEC/EASA all run on ACs/AMCs with relatively brief regulations for aviation, the EASA rules are generally outcome or performance based rules, whilst FAA rules are generally prescriptive --- but not to the anal extent of Australia. You have worked elsewhere in Australian industry, which, by and large, runs on two tier legislation and advisory material --- acceptable means of compliance, going by many names -- AS/NZ Standards, just for one.

As I have previously, tackling polio by improving iron lungs is the wrong path, we need a cure for polio.

Trying with complete futility to turn CAAPs/ACs/AMCs into regulation will not work, we need a cure for the polio paralysis that CASA causes the aviation industry.

The real problem is CASA misbehavior, trying to use some CAAPS/ACs/AMCs to micromanage the whole industry, but the problem is not just "compliance", it is the fact that CASA gets itself involved in said micro management to a degree unknown elsewhere in aviation, even China.

As I said in a previous post, the answer to over regulation is not more regulation, a schizophrenic concept, if ever there was one, but a complete cultural shift in CASA.

Without that cultural shift, it doesn't matter what form "the regulations" take, Australian aviation is stuffed.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline