Leadsled, There are very few actions taken by CASA against maintainers, that I know of. Perhaps you can expand further on any vexatious actions taken by CASA, against maintainers, that I may be unaware of.
The recent cases I have knowledge about, were indeed warranted, although I perhaps would have gone about it slightly differently.
I am perplexed by your continuous reference to different interpretations by various CASA regions, having worked in all but taswegia, which I think comes under the southern office anyway. I have found them all to have similar interpretations of the maintenance regs, perhaps the FOIs are a different kettle of wombats?
If I have doubts about any maintenance issues, I have found a quick phone all to any of the three AWIs, that I maintain a professional relationship with, quickly solves the problem.
We LAMEs are still working our way through the new regulations, and appreciate the input from old hands such as yourself and Gerry, but perhaps cut the emotion a bit mate, it is making it hard to hear what you are saying.
Sunfish, What CASA does:
- produces no measurable gain in safety for the RPT travelling public. CASA can't regulate Qantas, they dont have the capability. As for second and Third tier operators, CASA admits in their response to the NGA ditching that they cannot detect safety errors.
- saddles industry with major compliance costs for no safety benefit.
- increases commercial risk through capricious behaviour.
What utter unsubstantiated bullsh1t. Go home and fix your ultralight.
To put that another way, when has the calibration of a torque wrench used to tighten a tyre valve cap saved us from a major air disaster?
There is no torque on valve caps, and if you can't see the reason for calibrating torque wrenches, as well as keeping a track of component maintenance using each torquewrench, I also call bulsh1t on your supposed history as an engineer.