"hence their newfound interest in going after private owners (operators) for non-compliance with CAR 232,"
Or could it be more about revenue raising?
I know of one operator who was charged 16 hours@$190 an hour for an FOI to check the manufacturer supplied, FAA approved QRH, exactly matched the Manufacturer supplied, FAA approved AFM.
The big problems occur when the procedure lists contained in the AFM built on 1970'ies philosophy and product liability are considered as checklists, leading to pages and pages of entirely dicretionary stuff like Air Conditioning.............AS REQUIRED,
without stating the obvious, if its bleeding hot turn it on, if it aint leave it off. This leads to forty fifty item taxi checklists with both pilots head in instead of head out which if anyone did a risk analysis it would perhaps indicate that this is not a real good idea as someone might happen to taxi into someone else, or worse enter a runway while an A380 is taking off because they are too busy checking stuff that has nothing to do with the safe operation of the aircraft.
In the end its all about liability, they really should take safety out of CAsA's title.
Last edited by thorn bird; 30th Aug 2015 at 23:31.