Sunfish,
Advisory material, whether it be ACs, CAAPs or AMCs are acceptable means of compliance --- a lot more than "recommendations".
The current very serious problem is some of the newer home grown material, all added to the horrendously voluminous MOS, on to of world leading ( by words or page count) ultra prescriptive regulations.
The intent of too many in CASA is to use advisory material to get around Parliamentary scrutiny and possible dissallowance --- a completely dishonest and unethical way of doing business.
Indeed, the situation, due to peculiarities of Australian legislation, means that AWIs, as delegates under Commonwealth legislation, are not bound by the CAAPs etc., but can impose and enforce their own "standards". Sadly, there is aviation legal precedence for this, but there is not time to go into detail now.
Dick,
The aircraft that have "owner maintenance" C.of As that I have seen in Canada, are like most Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, an extraordinary level of workmanship, because it is "no expense spared" in terms of hours devoted to the maintenance and general upkeep.
I have never seen any suggestion that the accident rate for these aircraft, particularly maintenance related incidents or accidents, is any different to any other production aircraft.
The chances of getting such a system in place in Australia now is as good as nil, because of the opposition, even more adamant about "safety" than in the mid- 1990s. I doubt that even the present AOPA would support it!
Like NAS, it may work "overseas", but it will never work in Australia is the mantra, just like independent instructor pilot training, the now neutered PIFR and so on. The net result here is a great deal of "owner maintenance" done behind closed doors. You would be amazed how extensive an "oil change" can be on some older aircraft, and how reliable these aircraft are, going from annual to annual without a single defect.
Tootle pip!!