PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Maintenance Schedule
View Single Post
Old 24th Nov 2017, 09:44
  #30 (permalink)  
Connedrod
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LeadSled
Conned rod,
An AC is never L-A-W black letter law, in almost all cases it is exactly as I said, an acceptable means of compliance with a statutory requirement.
In any other case, it is just good advice, and should be heeded, if you are half-way smart.

I think I have got the AOPA bit now:
In the 1990s, AOPA campaigned to get rid of all of Australia's unique airworthiness standards, in favor of the US version of ICAO standards, we did not accept that Australian air was different to the rest of the world. We didn't believe in bureaucratic make-work programs funded by the aviation industry.

We did not accept that Australian aircraft owners should be saddled with often quite massive costs to put an aircraft on the Australian register, and this was not GA, but airlines, as well. Especially airlines, where the additional costs were in the tens of millions, not just tens of thousands.

We never found any of the AD/Gens under discussion with any justification: That is, the alleged risk to be mitigated was simply imagination, or otherwise not within a bull's roar of justifying the cost of mitigation, ie: miserably failed any benefit/ cost study.

The Howard Opposition took that to the 1996 elections, and policy implementation began in mid-1998. That was and is CASR Parts 21-35.

I can well imagine that you would not be happy, it cost you "money for nothing", but the greater good of ridding Australia of completely unjustified and and hugely costly unique airworthiness standards was the aim, and that was achieved, over huge opposition from within CASA ---- and a few people, presumably like you.

The changes, for just one example, transformed the available payload on a B767-238/338 on medium length runways. It eliminated "first of type" certification costs for all aircraft. There was lots more.

Sadly, far to many of what we got rid of are back, reintroduced by stealth as "additional airworthiness requirement", Australia is the loser, again both GA and airlines.

In the airline case, to the benefit of international competition, and to the cost of large number of jobs in Australia. Why is Padstow TAFE Aeroskils course finito, or almost so??

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ngar/97235004/

Why do you think Qantas has gone to this trouble??

Tootle pip!!
Once again your total lack of knowledge is self evidence of not knowing what you are talking about. An ac awb is considered law if there is not a higher document ie ad car etc. Please do some home work before you manage to place ypur litt,e fingers onto the key board.
AD Gens are still required in a CofA and requirements of a service.
Qantas is thhe main player in the degradation of the licence system we currently have. A lic which tells you more of what you cant do than what you can . Why arnt there any engineering niw is because you can make more money making ice creams and considerable more . So until you clowns wake up that your maintenance is to cheap for what you are getting the decline will continue.
And shen you read what is written on this site why would you wish to do all that training sudy. Oh wait its not uni so we cant call oursleves engineers.
Toot toot
Connedrod is offline