The Australian Regulations for maintenance are not that difficult to interpret,
Eddie,
If that is the case, given the length and breadth of enforcement actions here, by CASA, and the number off, versus the relative US situation, where formal enforcement action is rare, one must conclude that a large proportion of LAMEs in Australia either:
(a) do not have a Grade 9 standard of reading and comprehension, or;
(b) are incompetent, compared with their US counterparts, or;
(c) are crooks.
I don't believe any of the above is true, and with some very, very rare and startling exceptions that are or were (b) and/or (c) the very great majority are competent, and do their very best in a very bad system.
A system that has no international counterpart for prescriptive, complex, convoluted and contradictory regulation, that allows the universally acknowledged plague where no two FOI or AWI can agree on what the rules mean. There is simply not rational (and certainly not air safety) reason for the Australian system, vis a vie literally rest of the world.
This is what "Rule by Law" means, instead of "Rule of Law". In Australia, it is "Rule by Law", in the USA it is "Rule of law".
The structure and character of the US rules (or NZ, or Canada) simply do not make room for the employees of CASA to do what they do, do what they like.
There is nothing that stops you having a N- or ZK- aircraft in Australia, but there are a few wrinkles, such as domicile of the Certificate of Registration holder, not hard to arrange. Re. maintenance, ZK- is the easiest, thanks to the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Treaty, it is easy for an Australian LAME to be registered, for an IA, a short course of several days at Lower Hutt is required, but the number of NZ IAs in AU is increasing. NZ do not require any specific foreign workshop approval, with a minor caviat, the workshop must be approved by an ICAO state, if a workshop approval is required.
But, why is a workshop approval required here?? It wasn't always, the change was driven by commercial self-interest --- with a PR gloss of "improving safety". Ain't required in US, within the limits I have already outlined.
Re. McDermotts, CASA haven't "allowed" them to do anything, but the thinking that "all is prohibited unless permitted by CASA" is alive and well, clearly.
As the law stands, including operating a foreign registered aircraft on an Australian AOC (the Heavy Lift Helicopter case) CASA can't stop them. This was a case with a major constitutional element, there is no way any Australian Government is going to introduce a referendum to amend the constitution of Australia, just to give more power to CASA. And not just because a referendum would cost several hundred million $$$.
The legal precedent was firmly established by the Hawke government during the 1989 pilot dispute.
All of this should not be necessary, the whole buggers muddle of Australian regulation, with huge negative economic impact, across the board, is an utter disgrace.
It is political cowardice and opportunism, and an industry collectively without enough backbone to defend itself, and the blatant and ruthless exploitation of the "mystique of aviation safety" by the bureaucracy, that have allowed the situation.
It is far from clear that the capacity exists to do anything about it.
Few maintenance orgs. are members of AMROBA --- why not all !!
Few pilots and owners are members of AOPA --- Why not most !!
For those of you here calling for AOPA action --- are you members of AOPA??
In one of my posts, I put a link to a USA Today article, with pictures, of the huge maintenance facility QANTAS has built in US at KLAX (instead of somewhere in Australia) --- why do you think they have done that?? But there was not one single comment. It sure ain't just for
PR.
Tootle pip!!