Ga Maintenance Community Ready To Quit In Face Of New Regulations

[mnewbery]

http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/news/ga-maintenance-community-ready-to-quit-in-face-of-new-regulations

 

And the CASA terms of reference for the GATF

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_100705

 

A small quote:

 

4. Functions of the GATF—Responsible Engagement

 

4.1 The primary function of the GATF is to engage with representatives of, and participants in, the GA sector of the Australian civil aviation industry, to canvass their views on the approach CASA is taking or proposes to take, to the regulation of aspects of the activities in which they are engaged, or would like to engage. Generally speaking, this contemplates a process whereby the GATF will seek to ascertain and understand:

 

what things the persons with whom the GATF engages want to see done differently;

 

they way in which they believe those things ought to be done;

 

why they believe those things should be done in the way they propose; and

 

why they believe it is to CASA that they should properly look for that outcome.

 

End quote

 

So in this instance, GATF went to the maintainers with

 

CASR Part 42

 

Continuing airworthiness requirements for aircraft and aeronautical products

 

and

 

CASR Part 145

 

Continuing airworthiness — Part 145 approved maintenance organisations

 

which to my understanding were copied from the regulations for airlines. They didn't come up with the idea of forcing airline style maintenance on GA, only sought comment on it. Here is the request for comment:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/145/download/draftac145-1-0.pdf

 

DRAFT AC 145-1(0) – Safety management systems for approved maintenance organisations

 

Comment period extended until Friday 27 July 2012. All comments should be sent to the Project Leader Mike Broom ([email protected]).

 

I now ask the forum, will adoption of an airline style safety managmement and maintenance system result in one less reportable incident? Alternatively, will the effective de-skilling of the piston maintenance industry result in fewer GA hours flown thereby reducing the number of hours flown to maintain competency in the conduction of safe flight?

 

Will these hours just be converted to RA hours, with cheaper but equally safe maintenance?

 

I'm only half joking when I ask under what circumstances this sillyness will stop.

 

 

[mnewbery]

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/maintenance-industry-angry-over-proposed-legislation