REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"
Sorry, bush lawyers all, but that doesn’t mean what you obviously think it means. It does not give somebody from CASA or an “authorised person” (authorised to do what?) the authority to make things up on the run.
Conned Rod,
Might I suggest it is your apparent inability to read, and fully comprehend, that is part of the problem --- go back and read what I have actually written.
Just because you believe you have signed off pilots to do Schedule 8 maintenance does not make that proof that what you did has any legal standing.
Do you have a detailed written and lawful direction from CASA, if you do, why not post it here? What legal instrument do you hold to deliver such courses?
No such requirements are mentioned in the CAAP covering Schedule 8 maintenance.
Nowhere in the CASA documents, that I have ever seen, does it lay down a process for delivering a course of training, to achieve prescribed competency standards, how those competency standards will be examined, and what form of “authority to conduct Schedule 8 maintenance” will flow to candidates meeting the prescribed competency standards on completion of the prescribed course.
If you do find one, in a MOS or wherever, please let us all know.
As for moves to remove Schedule 8 entirely, a certain brand of LAME and a union has been on about that for years, fortunately the tide is in the opposite direction.
But it does raise a very interesting issue, the matter of
“rule of law” versus
“rule by law”, and if you do not understand the difference, please do some homework:<
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/>
Because aviation law in Australia is all too well recognised as prescriptive in the extreme, complex, convoluted and contradictory, “rule by law” is the order of the day, with “an officer of CASA” all too often "laying down the law", when what is forthcoming is his or her version of what the law should be, but isn’t, a view generated by personal prejudices, but dressed up as “the law”, “CASA requires ------“ etc.
Or, even worse, for years CASA initial training of AWIs in Canberra taught material that was completely contrary to what the law actually said, in quite basic ways, in that case a bit hard to blame individual AWIs. How do I know, because I have sat in and looked and listened.
And the poor sod on the receiving end of this treatment often has little option by to comply, they don't know what "the law" is, and because of the “asymmetric power imbalance”, ie; vague or so not so vague threats of what will happen in the event of non-compliance ----- generally a livelihood threatened by an “aggressive audit” or something similar. And, sadly, these threats are very real.
Or there is the one who is all too happy to comply, such is their jaundiced view of "owner or registered operators" who are actually responsible for completion of maintenance, not the LAME. That is where I expect to hear " CASA requires ----" or "CASA does not permit owners to supply their own parts".
Interestingly, it was at this time that the CAA legal department had come up with the concept that an aircraft release to service (Maintenance Release in Australia) would deem an aircraft serviceable for the period of such release, they were told in no uncertain terms that we would no longer release aircraft if that was to be the ruling.
Eddie Dean,
2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.
Para: 2.7 of Schedule 5 is a timebomb, always has been, but LAMEs have worn it, because we have so little tradition of fighting iniquitous regulation --- fighting city hall.
Sadly, there have been some significant prosecutions of LAMEs based on 2.7, the worst (to my knowledge) involving a fatal some 80 hours into the “new” MR.
You will not find anything like that in FAR 43 Appendix D, from which Schedule 5 was copied, that is an added “Australianism”.
Lead Balloon, I believe you are correct about AMROBA, such is the memory of a senile old man. But I do remember being at a CAA(prior to CASA) conference in Darwine in 1992 ish when the "new" regulations, at that time, were being discussed. Amongst these was the removal of LAME privileges to carry out 100 hour/annual under the auspices of their own licence. It was told at the time this was as a direct input from the maintenance organisations.
That is certainly how I remember it, the push coming from the larger unionised organisations, and the members of the same union, working in CASA, were only too receptive to the “safety” message, but it was only about safety, you understand, not (perish the thought) naked self interest.
Few things better demonstrate the need for the proper "rules" for regulatory development to be enforced on CASA. These, in brief, require a proper definition of the risk to be mitigated, why a rule, as a last resort is necessary, and proper and genuine benefit/cost justification of the proposed rule.
If you want all the details of how to do it, the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) is the place to start, it just that CASA ignores these guidelines, claiming the Civil Aviation Act effectively prohibits their application.
Tootle pip!!