CASA CAR 1988 CAR 41
(1) The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft's maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person must not use a class B aircraft in an operation if there is not a maintenance schedule for the aircraft that includes provision for the maintenance of all aircraft components from time to time included in, or fitted to, the aircraft.
Folks,
See above, that does NOT make a OEM SB on a Class B aircraft component mandatory.
yr er er er, wrong,
I beg to differ. For one we are no the USA.
You can beg all you like, not only did I not say we were the same as the US, I made it very clear that (sadly) we are not.
Second o/h periods are set by an Australian ad.
I assume you are referring to piston engines. That AD is ONLY applicable to engines where "on condition" AD/ENG/4 is NOT applicable, or where engines are NOT on an engine life extension program.
I repeat, the US engine manufacturer's TBOs are ONLY recommended.
Next I challenge you to get a diffintion (sic) for the word "recommended " from Casa.
And what answer to you think I would get --- only an answer with the force of law, because CASA does not have the legal power to declare a "dead parrot" a "resting parrot", much less a "live parrot".
As a definition of "recommended" is not (as far as I can find) in the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Dictionary, the CASA definition will be the Macquarie Dictionary definition. "Recommended" does not mean mandatory or any variation to that meaning. Strangely enough, it means just what it says. Every part of the definition in the Macquarie falls far short (unsurprisingly) of "mandatory".
In the eyes of the court recommend means you must do. Only option is given by Casa as being an option.
If by that incoherent sentence you mean that a Court decision has said that recommended means mandatory, tell us all what the case was, and we can have a look to see if you (or any CASA AWIs) are interpreting it correctly. As for the second sentence, it doesn't make sense, even by your usual standards.
Next your example of what an issue of a M/R is also wrong.
Again, incoherent, what was "wrong". Being wrong in your opinion, and actually being wrong in the legal sense are two very different things.
It was a civil court that said it was different to what the Car states. In fact Casa told the court what the law was in this regard. But the CIVIL court said that a M/R meant that at issue the aircraft should not break down or have any defects for the issue of the M/R.
What are you actually trying to say here, that a Court found that the CASA evidence was not upheld. A Court cannot decided that a statute is "wrong" and substitute something else, but it can certainly find that CASA (or anybody else) has not interpreted the statute correctly.
As to the value of a Court decision as a precedent, that entirely depends in which Court the judgement was delivered, as CASA Legal Services Branch well knows.
And just in passing how many have you issued.
The (apparent) fact that you hold an aviation authorization to produce a form of return to service document does not particularly qualify you as a regulatory expert on the subject, as is continually obvious.
As to my generalized comments about operational life of large turbines, they were correct, if I was to go into detail, it would be quite a large book, and irrelevant to this discussion.
So, you changed a couple of hydraulic pumps, one had an FAA 8130.3, the other had the EASA Form 1 --- BFD, and absolutely nothing to do with the price of eggs, let alone an Australian regulation that decrees that OEM SBs are mandatory for either Class A or B or both, aircraft.
Tootle pip!!