The current maintenance system, including Schedule 5, was, introduced around 1991/1992 and removed the 3 year major. This was introduced by the regulator in response to lobbying by certain operators, and owner groups. Those that remember the Major should be able to remember that it was far more "in depth" and if it had continued, the condition of the Australian fleet would be far better.
It is unfortunate that since this change the standard of aircraft in this country had dropped dramatically.
Most GA aircraft in Australia are maintained to Schedule 5 (Sched 5 is a “minimum” standard), and without the “Major Inspection” aircraft standards have decreased dramatically.
If we imagined for a moment, that the SID was not “mandated” as it has been through Aviation Ruling 01/2014, how many Registered Operators (Owners) would request that the inspections prescribed in the SID document for their aircraft be carried out, or even taken into account during a 100 Hr or Annual inspection?
In fact how many Owners currently request any additional inspections above and beyond the minimum standard required now ? My guess is very few. All we see on here is constant winging and sookin about the cost of aircraft ownership ! Its hard to believe that anyone with that attitude is going to do anything that is not required off their own back.
If a SE Cessna is taken into maintenance to have the initial SID compliance carried out, it would be fair to say that All of the defects that that SID will or should uncover in that airframe already exist prior to the inspection, and in most cases probably have existed for considerable time, and those defects would still exist if the SID was mandated or not.
From what I have seen physically and in photographs, of dozens of SID inspections the biggest cost is not the actual inspections, but the repairs required because of what is found. The faults being found as a direct result of the lower standard of maintenance that was lobbied for in the early nineties.
Extensive corrosion seems to be the biggest finding, which is time consuming to repair, and unfortunately time is money.
Stating that the SID has devalued aircraft seems non sensical, it is the fact that it is probably carrying defects that devalues the aircraft.
I agree that many owners of aircraft cannot afford the cost of SID compliance, I have seen this, and sometimes the cost of compliance may be equal to or greater than the value of the aircraft, I also see that many owners struggle with the cost of the minimum maintenance standard without SID inspections. surely this argument can't be used to lower standards further, simply put, aircraft are expensive, learn this before you buy one, if you don't you will lean soon after your purchase. It is terrible seeing people buy an old aircraft only to sell it a couple of years later for a fraction of what they paid for it and leave the industry with a bad taste in their mouth, but it is a regular occurrence.
There is a solution but who knows what it is ?