Perspective,
What we are seeing here is what is wrong with aviation in Australia, commonly referred to as "rule by law", and not "rule of law".
To try and understand the difference, Google Robin Speed and the Rule of Law Institute of Australia, an organisation established by some leading lawyers in Sydney.
To be clear, SIDs are quite distinct to SBs or Sls. The Cessna SIDs are part of the Cessna MMs, making then mandatory under our law.
As for what the law actually says, I could quote a number of my colleagues of the ALAANZ, all of whom have forgotten more about aviation law than yr wotisname and all of his mates put together, and these colleagues have one thing in common, they have never produced a MR in their lives, most of them will have never put a spanner on an aircraft.
Having grease under your fingernails is no qualification to claim definitive expertise in Australia's convoluted, contradictory aviation law?I don't think so.
However, the sad matter is that the AWIs etc have mostly come from industry, and have the same confused idea of what the law actually is, as they have absorbed erroneous shibboleths since apprenticeship days, CASA in-service training doesn't help. Some of it is, legally, quite wrong, some just misleading. I know, I have sat in on some of it, induction training for new AWIs and recurrent for existing AWIs.
The further sad matter is that so many in the aviation field, or GA anyway, in recent years, have come to accept what you would never accept from the police if it was an automobile ---- the imposition of fines and license action ---- based on the opinion of the policeman as to what the law is, as opposed to being based on evidence and the actual law---- and the industry in general has been too spineless to stop what is going on.
Are some of you trying to say that the law, as it applies to SBs, says one thing for GA and another thing for airlines --- because, believe me, incorporation of SBs or SLs is the decision of the Registered Operator in the airline world, not a mandatory requirement. Legally it is the same for everybody.
Yr er er er,
I suggest you update on what "return to service" currently means -now, not what you thought it did, in the past. But you probably had it wrong then, too!!
Just to throw in a bit of burlie, there is a very strong legal case to say that the C.of A of most US made small aircraft on the Australian register are invalid, because they do not conform to their type design.
They are invalid, because the AU C.of A is dependent on the US C.of A being valid, thus the AU Type Acceptance being valid, and that is not the case, because these aircraft are not being maintained in accordance with the type design and manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness.
There is, actually, a way around this problem, how to conduct US acceptable continuing airworthiness programs under Australian regulations.
Just a hint:
"Schedule 5 is just a ‘shopping list’ of items, with no corresponding procedures, inspection techniques, limits, tolerances, or component overhaul limits. These specifics are found in the aircraft manufacturers maintenance data, which includes Service Bulletins, etc.."
If the above came from CASA, I am not surprised, because it, wherever it came from, reveals the lamentable ignorance, practical and legal, of whoever made it. Including the incorrect statement about SBs.
Schedule 5 is, in fact, an almost word for word copy of FAA FAR 43, Appendix D, this is a fact of great significance to having a valid AU C.of A., but it only works if you understand the whole picture.
A Chocolate Frog (figuratively speaking) to the first to figure out the answer.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
because what I'm being continually told by the guys who are the ones who write the regs and enforce them is it is part of the overall approved Data.
That is a widespread opinion in CASA, it is not the law, as enacted by Parliament. I am not exactly short on the experience of developing regulations in this field, perhaps that is why I understand it.