Quote:
Originally Posted by jas24zzk View Post
I always understood CAAP's to be an advisory publication. You should consider it, but you don't HAVE to comply
Well jaz you a quite correct.
Its Jas....as in Jason...no Z in that name.
Yes a caap is not law. But couple that with the LBS and it is. If you elect to do shedule 5 it will be on your log book statement which now you have to do it IAW. This now makes the caap a legal document. As the caap state how to do shed 5. I would like to see anyone try and make a defense against that in a court.
I have spent more than enough time in court, on both sides of the fence.... The fact that the CAAP is what it is, and ADVISORY PUBLICATION, means it cannot be enforced in a court of law. It is a dumb lawyer that loses a case where a CAAP is attempted to be enforced.
As an example, CAAP 92-1 deals with ALA's. Try to find an ALA that complies with it in its whole......NONE do. If it was enforcable in a court of law, then CASA would have closed most airfields in Oz.
Coupling Sched 5 to a CAAP means that your 'lack of maintenance' is only restricted by CASA AD's and the manufacturers Publications.
Someone earlier said on how the judge feels on the day. Wrong. They have rules as well. And as for the word recommend as I've said before in court that means you have to do it. Why because it's already gone to court and that's what was determined
Wrong. The Judge see's it as reccomend. He/she realises there are valid reasons not to do the reccomendation. You only need show cause as to why that recomendation was not followed. It does come down to quality of lawyer.
The bigger problem, is that CASA takes such matters to the AAT, rather than the courts, where normal rules of evidence and prudence do not apply.
-----------------------
A small rule change would ruin CASA in the AAT. Simply forbid the AAT from reviewing matters that have Strict Liability applied. That'll knuck em.