[Peetwo]

AMROBA November Newsletter -

Via the AP emails:

To all members,

The November Newsletter is now on the AMROBA Website.

If we look back at civil aviation engineering benefits since the creation of agencies, 1988, then one has to question if the industry has benefitted from being “regulated” by government agencies.

The enthusiasm that engineering sectors participants had post CASR Parts 21-35 being made, has virtually disappeared since then.

Aviation is a global trading sector that has global design, manufacture, maintenance and personnel standards.

In engineering, to have the Australian regulatory system and government documentation (e.g. ARC) accepted/recognised by other aviation nations, the government, not businesses, has not eventuated.

Governments have to have mutually recognised trade agreements, similar to the USA-Australia Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement, BASA, so Australian engineering 9design, manufacture, maintenance and maintenance persnnel trainng and qualifications can participate in other nations civil aviation systems.

In addition, these agreements must also enable CASA approved organisations to provide maintenance services and sell CASA approved aircraft/parts (ASTC, APMA, ATSO).

Still hasn’t eventuated (1998 CASR amendments)
Without these agreements between nations we only have a domestic system.

In 2000, we were negotiating adding “maintenance” to the US-Australia BASA but that has obviously been shelved by government

Which nations recognise the Government’s Authorised Release Certificate

Lokk at maintenance personnel training qualifications that only exist for airline type aircraft maintenance.

The B1.2, 1.3, 1.4 trainin standards and qualifications still do not exist.

The B1.2, 1.3 & 1.4 are  not even aligned with the EASA system that was supposed to be adopted.

Why wasn’t the EASA B2 light and B3 adopted when it would have benefited the industry?
Civil aviation is over 100 year old but basic maintenance personnel, personnel training is worse now that it was before agencies were created in 1988.

There is so much data available from ICAO that should make it easy for government to stay compliant with the ICAO SARPs.

After 100 years, why isn’t Australia’s civil aviation engineering system harmonised with the USA in particular, and

Why aren’t our civil aviation engineering businesses capable of trading in other nations?

Has “red tape” red tape reduced since the ceation of agencies to regulate civil aviation? The simple answer is no, it has increased.

Lastly, many of our members have done deals with RAAus to maintain their aircraft.

Experimental aircraft are also turning up for maintenance.

In many cases, the owner-builder has now sold the aircraft and the pilots, with no owner/builder experience, are turning up at our members AMO to have their aircraft maintained.

Have discussed this with SAAA ..

If you are maintainng experimental/home-built aeroplanes, SAAA would like you to contact them as they want to create a list of AMOs to advise their members.

The regulatory system has not benefitted many aspects of the engineering sectors.

Regards

Ken Cannane,

Executive Director

AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715

Mobile: 0408029329

www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.

MTF...P2