andrewr,
As I said, compliance with the AFM/POH/whatever presupposes you understand which parts of the AFM/POH are mandatory, and which are advisory, in the original certification. That can only be determined by understanding the original certification basis of the aircraft. For a US certified aircraft that is reasonably easy, not so elsewhere.
Make no mistake, the AFM/POH forms an essential part of the certification documentation of an aircraft, just as much as Continuing Airworthiness requirements, Weight and Balance etc., and is listed in the Type Certificate Data Sheet or equivalent.
That is not determined by CASA, or even properly understood by many on the CASA payroll, as evidenced by the continual demands for modifications to AFM/POH mandated procedures, without having the legal power, so to do. In my opinion, invariably increasing the risk (or “less safe”, if you insist on using that particularly useless term) to the operation, usually by intolerably increasing the flightdeck workload at critical phases of flight.
Not having the power doesn’t fazed the average enforcement minded CASA employee one little bit --- “they” well understand that “you” can’t afford a High Court case to prove them wrong.**
However, major airlines can afford said HCA case, and they do understand the limitation of CASA power to “order” AFM changes. ie: nil. All airlines of my experience are very careful to go through a comprehensive and legal process, if they want to modify, in ANY way, an AFM mandated procedure. They end up with a quite legal AFM that meets their needs.
The legal and reputational consequences to airlines, of not going through that procedure are to expensive to risk.
What is done is to negotiate any desired change with the Type Certificate holder and the state that issued the Type Certificate, only with the express approval of both is any operator’s change to an AFM “legal”. What said airline has, is an amended Type Certificate.
I suppose CASA could always raise a Legislative Instrument to mandate advisory sections of an AFM, but that would be very legally dodgy, if it was to be challenged.
All the above remarks specifically relates to the Australian legislative framework, not any other country.
Tootle pip!!
** CASA will "get" you some other way, if you do not obediently fall into line ---- like refusing to issue/reissue your AOC.
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Apr 2017 at 01:52.