Part 21

[djpil]

I happened to see this statement recently:
The Australian requirements for approval of design organisations and modifications and repairs are more onerous than those of Europe and the USA.

[LeadSled]

djpil,
In fact, the intent of the original Part 21 of 1998 has been substantially subverted by CASA, particularly in the last few years (since Byron) and the demise of the CAR 35 Engineer is a tragedy. Tracking the effect of the various amendments over the years makes sad reading.

In 1998, the intent was the we would maintains the position of "CAR 35" Engineers, they would have become "Part 183 Engineers" as per the FAA system.

This demise was quite intentional and deliberate, those in CASA who dealt with CAR 35 Engineers did not like dealing with highly competent and experienced people who didn't suffer fools gladly ---- people who would not grovel to CASA "masters".

Indeed, there was an almost successful push in CASA to require by regulation that all applications for modification or repair would have to be made to CASA --- CASA would have cut out all professional aeronautical engineers from dealing with their traditional clients --- and CASA planned to "farm out" the work, it was intended to be a substantial new income stream for CASA a bonus to CASA having complete control over all modifications and repairs.

The airlines/AATA killed that one, even they understood that they were in an H24/365 business, not 9 to 5, except weekends, public holidays etc., and a 3 week shutdown over Christmas.

The "approved design organisation" is another case of CASA micro management, a paperwork nightmare.

In my experience small engineering orders have trebled in cost.

I was recently quoted $5-6,000 for a simple electrical load analysis for a light twin that was DC only. Of that, $1,800 was quoted as the insurance component ---- I already had a load analysis, but according to the "rules", it was "out of date". All part of the cost of ADS-B --- the additional electrical load was negligible.

As part and parcel, the loss of CAAP Admin. 1 has seriously driven costs up, this was entirely ideological within CASA --- claims of CASA "subsidizing" industry by providing professional indemnity cover to all CASA delegates, not just CASA employees, cost not one brass razoo extra in insurance premiums born by CASA or the Commonwealth.

More onerous, prescriptively legalistic, restrictive and inflexible, of course, that is "The Australian Way".

Tootle pip!!

[djpil]

Interesting that the statement came from CASA. More in this recent document:
It has become apparent that whilst the new regulations do provide safety and cost benefits, in some cases, particularly for small organisations, simple designs and small general aviation aircraft, some of those benefits may not be realised in practice.
In addition to these issues, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has recently made significant changes to the European Implementing Rules and Certification Specifications for standard modifications and repairs. The European requirements are now similar to the requirements currently in place in the USA whereby certain kinds of simple or standard modifications and repairs do not require a design approval.
The Australian requirements for approval of design organisations and modifications and repairs are more onerous than those of Europe and the USA. CASA seeks to address this through regulatory amendment. This DP explains the considerations for selection of appropriate requirements and describes a number of potential options for changes to the regulations and the associated implementation plans.
CASA recognises the valuable contribution that industry consultation makes to the regulatory development process, and issues this DP as the next stage of development of the requirements for approval of design organisations and modifications and repairs for Australian aircraft.
I would like to thank you in advance for taking time to consider and respond to this DP.

I found this statement very interesting:
A conservative approach to these principles has been taken throughout the reform of the airworthiness regulations. However, given the longstanding requirements in the USA and in light of the recent developments in Europe, CASA is reconsidering its approach to some of these policies.

Refer DP 1518CS – August 2015

[OZBUSDRIVER]

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/dp1518cspdf

Hope this works

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Reading the DP. At any time in the past, were any Australian originated design changes...STCs and the like...within DCA/DOA/CAA/CASA regs ever recognised internationally?

[djpil]

Not until recently that I am aware of (by the USA FAA anyway). Some years ago I recall that STC's for FAR 23 were to be accepted by the FAA but of limited use as our PMAs were not. Not sure of the current situation.

[LeadSled]

Oz,
The AU-US Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement was our first, and for many years, only, bilateral airworthiness agreement. In 1996, John Sharp issued a directive to revamp it. How long did it take, 10-15 years??.

I would argue that it has never worked, and still doesn't, despite the re-negotiation in recent years, because CASA doesn't want it to work.

For example, it doesn't (or isn't allowed to) work like the NZ-US or NZ- Almost Anywhere arrangements (the real value of workable ICAO compliant rules) because of a CASA institutional unwillingness to take the risk of approving anything that might be exported, because any approval generates a potential liability for CASA.

Better to stifle the export of aviation goods and services, than cause CASA any discomfort. The almost destruction of large scale flying training in Australia is a good example, after what CASA did to China Southern.

The value of a properly working set of mutual airworthiness arrangements can be read from the NZ national accounts, you do not need to be an aviation person to see the massive financial benefit to NZ, benefits denied the Australian aviation sector and the Australian economy, an economy that desperately needs to expand exports of services.

Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks Leadie, I just found 8110.42C SUBJ PMA procedures and was reading exactly that part. Without the bilateral agreement, I take it you would never get an FAA approval to design and manufacture STC or TSO for anything originating from here.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Further, what I am saying...you could never set up a shop here to be fully FAA certified and bypass the CASA outright.

[LeadSled]

Oz,
Yes you could, and it has been and is being done, both FAA and EASA.

Of course, there is the maintenance example, if you don't have FAA and EASA approval, but only CASA, you are not serious about exporting MRO.

But this should not be the case, with a proper bi-lateral, any operation or product to "Australian" standards should automatically be accepted by, say, FAA in the AU-US case. In fact, until a few years ago, even without bi-laterals, Australian MRO services were accepted around the western Pacific and most of SE Asia just on Australian paper, but (unlike NZ) that is no longer the case, Australian "standards" are highly suspect.

An Australian STC should be accepted for an N- aircraft, just as an FAA STC is accepted here.

By the look of it, you are finding out that is not quite the case.

Indeed, as several Australian manufacturers have found out, it is better to set up shell company in the US, do all your business via FAA, at a fraction of the cost in time and $$$ of dealing with CASA, and then sell your "actually made in Australia" FAA STC'd products in Australia, fitted under your FAA STC.

Gippsland Aeronautics moved a lot of development work to US years ago, timescales measured in years by CASA work in months with FAA. What they still do here gets a terrible time from CASA.

Tootle pip!!

[john_tullamarine]

That's been the case for donkeys ... long ago, a client organisation elected to go the FAA way and we obtained a number of STC/TSO approvals for their products.

Sad, I guess, but djpil and I - we started off at adjacent desks at the Bend - are probably better off being old pharts at this end of the working life spectrum ...

[djpil]

You are probably right, John.

Regardless, this proposal in the DP makes a lot of sense so I ask people to support it please.
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/project-cs-1312-implementation-review-casr-subparts-21m-and-21j-and-associated?WCMS%3APWA%3A%3Apc=PC_101462

[LeadSled]

That's been the case for donkeys ... long ago, a client organisation elected to go the FAA way and we obtained a number of STC/TSO approvals for their products.

JT,
With the very greatest of respect (and I mean that) all that proves is that the "aviation regulator" by whatever name at the time, has had an adversarial position with the industry for as long as I can remember, where inhibiting the growth of the aviation industry was (and is) not a consideration for the bureaucrats of the day.

I am often accused of taking a jaundiced view of the aviation regulator, but that is just a product of long experience, my very first experience being DCA "deciding" that a major agricultural project would not proceed.

The outcome of that was a prime example of what a capable Minister can achieve, very smartly (only weeks) Sir Donald and DCA were left in no doubt that they would not be deciding that a major agricultural export advance (which required specialist air support) would not go ahead, because "DCA rules" did not permit such air support.

How I wish we had such a Minister today."Things" could and would be very different.

Tootle pip!!