jas24zzk,
Well said.
Folks,
Just to attempt to clear something up --- whether it is a CAAP or an AC, it is an acceptable means of compliance, one way of putting it is that it is one way, but not the only way of complying with the regulation, to which it refers.
I find it very difficult to conceive of the situation where a LBS can make a CAAP L-A-W law, except in the opinion of bush lawyer AWIs and LAMEs.
After all, it is just an election as to which of the three possibilities to which a Class B aircraft can be maintained, and before yr rrrr wrong jumps on the bandwagon, the choice is the choice of the registered operator, not the LAME.
Still, not one of you has taken up the challenge of figuring out why many Australian C.of As may be invalid, because the airframe does not comply with the manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness --- how or why does this come about, and what can you do within Australian law to make certain that it does not apply to you aircraft. Not even yr rrr wrong has told me I am wrong about the C.of A matter!!
Don't wait until you are in court fighting an insurance company over a refused payout for a damaged aircraft.
Tootle pip!!