Leadsled,
Many, of which I am very aware, would not appreciate my posting anything here that might otherwise identify.
Part of my point is that many CASA NCNs would never have occurred in the FAA (or NZ or Canadian) system, because NCN was based on the complex and prescriptive nature of Australian regulation, in the other jurisdictions, the matter would not arise.
Yes indeed, but I was in fact looking at cases where maintainers or AMOs had been taken to court by CASA over breaches.
I am well aware of the generation of multiple NCNs for a single breach, in fact had to deal with the drunkard from Darwine for several of my clients.
The most difficult part is answering the NCN - Root cause, corrective action and preventative action. Have had several responses to NCNs returned, as they didn't like my answer of root cause being CASA's interpretation of the regulation.
There is (maybe are?) two types of CASA maintenance data: Approved Data and then Acceptable Means of Compliance. In the case of AWBs, I view these as Acceptable Means of Compliance, which is probably along the lines of ConnedRod viewing them as LAW, the same as Approved data.