Twice now I have heard CASA reps say they will get rid of Schedule 5 as it is a liability to CASA. Last time was at a Engineers Safety seminar.
Hasherucf,
I to, have heard exactly the same thing, and sillier, and as I have said previously, it illustrates the complete loss of corporate memory in CASA, plus a large number of current employees that have embarrassingly limited knowledge of legislative history, not just nationally, but internationally. And, so clearly, any useful knowledge from outside the 12 mile limit.
That the certification basis of the bulk of our fleet is simply not understood within CASA is a very real problem, generated by the "iron ring in CASA. Dig up the available ICAO and FAA audit reports for a quite detailed exposition on the matter.
Eddie,
If the rules
that were ready to go in 1999/2000 hadn't been dumped by the "iron ring" when they regained the ascendency after the PAP was closed down, none of this would be a problem, because we would have had our own Parts 91/121/125/135/137, Part 43 and Part 145, plus Part 183, very similar to NZ and US, but simplified even more, and all such matters would have been quite clear.
Just one example, the "Authority of the pilot in command" in Part 91 would have been about 10 short lines, instead of something like 6 pages in the current draft Part 91. The whole CASR Part 137 would have been about six pages ---- how many page in the current Part 137 + MOS ++???
That could have all been in place by late 2001, and it would have been all so simple and straightforward that we would never have had all the implementation and other problems of CASR Parts 61/66/141/142/145 and so on.
Fourteen years later, and look at the unworkable rubbish emerging --- witness the Part 61 debacle --- a whole new benchmark in cost and contradictory complexity, even by CASA standards.
We would also have had a situation where all relevant ACs or similar from a aircraft's country of original certification NAA (not just FAA) would automatically be acceptable data.
For example, the FAA AC that is the internationally (except Australia, of course, where you need to hire a "consultant" to plagiarize it and have it "approved" by CASA each and every time, at around $100,000 plus total for a small airline) accepted bible on corrosion detection and control would have automatically have been "acceptable data" for anybody in Australia, along with the rest of the FAA AC library and the UK etc. equivalents --- and all without the cost of consultants and CASA at $190 per hour for as many hours as CASA want to charge for "approval".
Then the matter of engine TBOs, on condition, time life, SBs, how to treat components if the OEM has different recommendations to the airframe manufacturer etc. would have all been clear and simple, as it is, by and large, in US/CA/NZ/PNG and, indeed, most of SE Asia. Actually, it is also reasonably clear in the EASA rules, which, incidentally, are absolutely nothing like Australia's non-ICAO compliant "EASA like" rules for maintenance.
Sadly, as it is now, unless an Australian maintenance org. has FAA and/or EASA approvals as well, they are largely locked out of the export markets, and that includes the US, despite the US/AU Airworthiness Bi-lateral Agreement.
NZ has no such problems. Contract flying training and third party maintenance work, to name just two, are booming in NZ.
As some of you may know, the Victorian Government has just cut all funding for TAFE aeroskills courses, about 38 apprentices have been left swinging in the breeze, things are no better in NSW --- but Government resources for apprentice AME training in NZ has been more than trebled in the last eight years -- and in NZ they wind up getting internationally accepted (including EASA) licenses.
Re. the above funding, a Victorian Government "spokesperson" actually said that there was no more need for "aircraft engineers", because all future maintenance would be done off shore --- and this from a Labor government. Sadly, the off shore bit is all too accurate.
Well done Australia, and Government's of all persuasions are equally to blame for the steady destruction of aviation in Australia.
Tootle pip!!