New Maintenance Regulations
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
New Maintenance Regulations
CASA has now released the new draft maintenance regulations.
This is very significant for all aircraft owners and operators.
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...D::pc=PC_93516
Take the time to have a look now - it is all too late after they are promulgated.
Comments are requested by 18 December 2009
This is very significant for all aircraft owners and operators.
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dl...D::pc=PC_93516
Take the time to have a look now - it is all too late after they are promulgated.
Comments are requested by 18 December 2009
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
From: on the edge
Part 42
I had a look at this and I don't like it.
It appears to me to be an attempt to align Australian Maintenance regulations with worlds best practice.
Cheers
Blackhand
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 56
From: Melbourne, Australia
First of all just generally. I'm only interested in the application to small GA aircraft. I attended a CASA presentation a few years ago when the outcome-based regulations a la EASA were promoted. At the time they said EASA didn't handle GA very well but they'd work on it. The draft regs and the MOS are not what I would call outcome-based - more prescriptive than currently, more effort required to comply so increased cost.
From friends who operate little aeroplanes in the UK, the more I hear of EASA the less I like it.
From friends who operate little aeroplanes in the UK, the more I hear of EASA the less I like it.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 85
Likes: 1
From: Brisbane,
Firstly I would be interested in why the statement has been made that they appear more prescriptive than the current rules.It seems to me that they allow a lot of latitude wrt pilot maintenance,and that is as it should be.Whilst EASA regs do not really take into account the GA ops,CASA has made a reasonable attempt to harmonise the regs within the ICAO framework while still maintaining our "Australian peculiar" requirements.If you think that the proposed regs are restrictive in respect of GA have a real close look at the impositions and responsibilities placed on AMO's.As a "responsible manager" within an AMO,I can tell you that I am less than delighted by some of the proposals,however,we need (from an MRO perspective) to align ourselves with the real world. What we should be worried about is the "dumbing down" of our maintenance staff,be they GA or Airline, to the point where everyone becomes a specialist,but no-one understands or sees the big picture in relation to maintenance.Whilst the academics tout "competency based" training,I can assure you that the reality is that those finishing an apprenticeship now,having all the required "competencies",are in reality not up to fixing your lawn mower!This is because of the incentives offered by Government to train people.As was said in an old TV show"never mind the quality,feel the width." Whilst ever incentives are offered to commercial organisations to produce people with qualifications we are on a slippery slope.Would you let a first year graduate accountant make final decisions binding your multi-million dollar business? I doubt it.Rant over,and would like to hear other perspectives.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,697
Likes: 9
From: Melbourne
This thread is slipping, and its too important for that. I haven't read the new regs because I don't have the time to face up to reading the thing. I'm sure most of us will be like this, which gives the document a free ride through the comment process.
I'm told the equivalent FAA regs are 30-odd pages, while the Australian equivalent is 160-odd pages. Why do we need this amount of added bureaucracy compared with the country where most of our aircraft were designed, certified, manufactured and indeed most are flown & maintained.
I contend that CASA's regulations are impeding safety, not enhancing it. We seem to be increasing regulation not decreasing it.
The more controlled & complex maintenance activities are, the more expensive they become. Higher levels of regulation & certification of maintenance organisations means less of them and less competition. The higher the part prices, the more we tend to rebuild components rather than replace them.
The higher the maintenance cost, the less maintenance that gets done, the more corners that get cut and the more the minimum requirements are met rather than doing what's best for the aircraft. For private owners, the more that is spent on maintenance, the less flying that gets done. The insurance companies will tell you that a pilot is only as good as his last flight.
The current regulatory structure is (at least in part) responsible for a shortage of GA maintenance organisations. Therefore there isn't much competition which in turns breeds poor work practices. You only have to look in a maintenance hangar door and compare it with your local dealer workshop.
Aircraft maintenance is time consuming. Why not facilitate owners to spend more of their time doing non critical, time consuming maintenance? Even if the intent of the new regs is not to do this, the size of them and subsequent lack of understanding of them will.
I'm told the equivalent FAA regs are 30-odd pages, while the Australian equivalent is 160-odd pages. Why do we need this amount of added bureaucracy compared with the country where most of our aircraft were designed, certified, manufactured and indeed most are flown & maintained.
I contend that CASA's regulations are impeding safety, not enhancing it. We seem to be increasing regulation not decreasing it.
The more controlled & complex maintenance activities are, the more expensive they become. Higher levels of regulation & certification of maintenance organisations means less of them and less competition. The higher the part prices, the more we tend to rebuild components rather than replace them.
The higher the maintenance cost, the less maintenance that gets done, the more corners that get cut and the more the minimum requirements are met rather than doing what's best for the aircraft. For private owners, the more that is spent on maintenance, the less flying that gets done. The insurance companies will tell you that a pilot is only as good as his last flight.
The current regulatory structure is (at least in part) responsible for a shortage of GA maintenance organisations. Therefore there isn't much competition which in turns breeds poor work practices. You only have to look in a maintenance hangar door and compare it with your local dealer workshop.
Aircraft maintenance is time consuming. Why not facilitate owners to spend more of their time doing non critical, time consuming maintenance? Even if the intent of the new regs is not to do this, the size of them and subsequent lack of understanding of them will.
