VOCA

An aviation researcher, writer, aviation participant, pilot & agricultural researcher. Author of over 35 scientific publications world wide.

Categories

Good reads

Oil Prices

#ozaviation

#casa has another problem with regulation accuracy

The following appeared in my e-mail today [10/12/2015], with an effective time for comment of less than 14-days, due to most people either having a Xmas break or the general unavailability of staff to comment.

A quick read of this, particularly at para. 7 “….casa believes…” is nonsensical, as a corporate body has no way to “believe”, but a particular staff member may have a “belief”.

Good and clear English, this is not. This is not a pre-cursor to a good NPRM either.

The number of changes also, with the complexity (Part 61 is a good example), with over 2000 pages of poorly structured and micro-managed “words” ensures industry non-compliance.

The ASRR called for clear English in the regulations as one of it’s objectives.


NPRM 1528SS – Correction

CASA wishes to advise that the subscribers email previously sent had the incorrect title and comment closing year date.

Correct title is: NPRM 1528SS – Completion of maintenance by a Part 145 AMO conducting maintenance processes (Form 2 proposal) and the closing date for comment is: 29 January 2016.

CASA apologises for any inconvenience caused.

When a Part 145 Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO) holds a D rating, it has been approved to provide one of the specialist maintenance processes or techniques that may be applied to an aircraft or aeronautical product. Such an approval is not subject to limitations by aircraft and aeronautical product type. Examples of the specialist maintenance approval class include non-destructive testing, welding and other specialist maintenance functions such as composite repairs and painting.

A D-rated AMO may carry out specialist maintenance on a wide range of type-rated aircraft types. In some cases this situation (e.g. multiple different type-rated aircraft being painted) can become problematic as the D-rated AMO would need appropriate Part 66 licence holder(s) for each aircraft to be issued with a Certificate of Release to Service (CRS).

The civil aviation legislation does not allow an AMO to release an aircraft post-maintenance unless a CRS has been issued. For a D-rated AMO, the CRS issue would require the employment of individuals who are not only competent to carry out the maintenance for which the AMO is approved, but also qualified under paragraph 145.A.30 (k) of CASR for each and every type-rated aircraft type for which the AMO might provide the maintenance service.

CASA believes that, where a D-rated AMO has been engaged by an A-rated AMO (an AMO approved for the maintenance of the particular type-rated aircraft type), a CRS in relation to the specialist maintenance is not necessary. Given that a maintenance certification for the specialist maintenance would already have been made by the D-rated organisation at the completion of the specialist maintenance, the final aircraft CRS can safely be provided by the A-rated AMO controlling the overall aircraft maintenance event.

Please forward your response to the Project Leader David Skeoch, by close of business 29 January 2016.

View this NPRM on the CASA website at www.casa.gov.au/consultationopen

1 comment to #casa has another problem with regulation accuracy

  • Concerned Aviator

    From AMROBA:

    Rule-making is still failing
    Mar 19 2015
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has this week published proposals for a modernised rule-making strategy based on slashing regulatory red tape and adopting modern outcome-based risk assessment principles. EASA’s name for this is “performance-based rule-making” (PBR).
    As a transnational regulator EASA is the centrepiece of the European Union’s strategy for aviation safety, says it’s Executive Director, Patrick Ky:
    “EASA – that means the Agency and its sister national authorities – need to be prepared for the challenges ahead. With these changes, we will be more proportional, flexible and proactive to increase the level of safety in European aviation. I believe that although our proposals are ambitious they are also reasonable. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious about safety.”
    Mr Ky was appointed in September 2013, and closed the organisation’s rule-making office a year later. Ky’s explanation for the new strategy:

    “If you have a rule-making directorate,” he explains, the director is judged on how many rules he makes, or how many existing rules he ‘improves’.” The result, he says, is ever-fatter rulebooks, the contents of which nobody could possibly retain, and the complexity of which becomes “impossible to work with”.

    “If you have a rule making directorate, the director is judged on how many rules he makes.”
    CASA has achieved the 2nd highest in Australia behind Taxation.
    Excerpt from Australian Constitution Overview: “The High Court has also recognised some implied restrictions on legislative power derived from the fundamental system of government established by the Constitution. For example, because of the separation of powers effected by the Constitution, only a court may exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, a law of the Commonwealth Parliament cannot provide for criminal conviction by anybody other than a court.”
    Many in industry that have been prosecuted by CASA wonder about this.
    The current regulatory system is not inductive to GA aviation growth.
    Look at any secondary airport in Australia and the decline in aviation activities is obvious. Add many country centres and the decline confirms a serious situation.
    Why? Unworkable regulatory requirements.
    The CASA Board must bring to a close this unfortunate chapter in Australian aviation.
    Aviation is and has been a complete failure in Australia because the original outcome, once supported by the industry, the public and politically, has been totally forgotten.

    What is the future vision for Australian aviation participants?