"What I do care about is the very serious misrepresentation of fact, in this case as it applies to "the law" and aviation maintenance of small aircraft in Australia, whether by CASA AWIs or people like Conned Rod.
The outcome is expense and inconvenience that all helps to drive what was once a thriving part of aviation into the dust of history"
It has nothing to do with CAsA AWI'sor people like Conned Rod - it is all to do with what are written or more importantly how it is written in the Regulations.
There is no misrepresentation - simply show me in the Regulation/s 1988 or 1998 where is says owners/operators may decide (use any other word that means optional) what maintenance they wish to do other than AD's.
If it is in either of the regulations then other approved data takes second fiddle - but it is not.
If we go back to the TBO for both TCM and Lycomming the TBO's are "recommended" by the manufactures and in the form of a service letter. But we all know with the exception of private these are deemed mandatory by CAsA.
So as the regs don't say any maintenance is optional, but they say maintenance must be done I.A.W Manufactures schedules, a SOM or CAsA Schedule 5. SOM's are approved when compared against the manufactures manuals/data. And Schedule 5 clearly states manufactures time/limits are to be carried out + any special inspections.
So while I don't agree with the system we have and yes lots of waisted money, I don't see there is much wriggle room to get out of any of the maintenance tasks given by all the entities listed in 2A of the 1988 regs.
From memory the REGS say - Maintenance will be carried out I.A.W Approved Data.
No before you respond, remember approved data is not the actual maintenance manual (but often is some of the approved data).
Another way it could be put is - Maintenance from sources of approved data, will be carried out in the correct seniority of the data. Unless clearly stated the maintenance is optional.