The fact that this thread even exists is representative of the utter damnation that is Australian Aviation regulation, constructed and administered by CASA.
I spent good money on a maintenance regulation course which demonstrated conclusively to me that the regulations applying to maintenance have nothing whatsoever to do with safety. They are more akin to making obeisance to the flying spaghetti monster than attempting to give effect to the James Reason model of holes in cheese lining up.
Some may be surprised that the maintenance systems of airlines have nothing whatsoever to do with CASA, indeed CASA wouldn't even comprehend them (that from current players) and it wasn't much different in my day. CASA doesn't have the skills. experience or talent to regulate Qantas, etc. so they concentrate on easy low hanging fruit.
And CASA still get it wrong… In my opinion after seeing some structure of an aircraft I'd just spent touring for three weeks in…what a mess! And i'd been flying that! Where the f**k were you CASA?
What is wrong with using the FAA regs and removing this criminal liability bull****?
My aircraft is 90% complete, the barriers to first flight are regulatory and may well be insuperable. I have a veggie garden to build, overseas trips beckon and the thought of scenic flights around snowcapped mountains in my own aircraft is starting to drop in priority, in no small part thanks to Pprune.
I threaten my aircraft regularly with a chainsaw because I know that however hard I try to build it as a baby Boeing as I was taught, CASA can always find fault with it…. Fault with criminal penalties for the builder/maintainer.