I don't know what I'm buying into here, but I'll play a while until I get bored.
If I give you my Maule for an annual inspection I expect that aircraft will be fit to fly and indeed, it may be argued, fit for the next 12 months or 100 hours.
Notwithstanding I have a signed letter from The Deputy Prime Minister/ Transport Minister of the day to say a maintenance release cannot be relied upon to attest to the airworthiness of an aircraft, I maintain it satisfies the requirements of the FOI who may ramp check me to see if in fact I have signed the daily inspection on that document that tells me it is fit to fly... with me so far? Well, I fly off and a hose bursts, oil goes everywhere and... just say, the engine seizes and is a write off... Who am I going to sue?
Correct, the bloke I paid the money to. You as the servant have a duty of care to me to make sure you don't put my life at risk. You carry the can. You are liable. You are the bloke who has this duty, not because CAsA or some other school kid with a Lexus who wrote some laws as to what you can't do instead of what you can do... You mate, buddy... old chap.
Because it's not writ large what you may do, do you assume you don't have to do it?
AD's for hoses in absentia do not an inspection for Mrs Arouets little boy make. It's common law in which court you will find yourself justly explaining things, not the AAT, (which appears to be the only court CAsA practice ((pric-tease)) in).
CAsA have absolved themselves from liability old chap. Nobody can write as many words as that mob and not be free of any liability.
This free advice given by Frank Arouet, Bush Lawyer, CAsA victim, Political Urger and part time Roo shooter and Choko grower.
Use it wisely before the real lawyers stick it up both of us.