[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 

[Peetwo]

AMROBA 1st Newsletter for 2025 - 

Via the AP emails:

To all members,

All the issues we have today go back to the 1980s when political lobbying created the CAA.

Government had already decided to shut down the Department of Civil Aviation and move it into the DoT in Canberra.

In hindsight, it has not been positive for the civil aviation engineering fields of design, manufacture, maintenance, or maintenance training.

As one that lived through it all, especially within the government 20 years of Department/Agency reorganisation.

DCA were very active in promoting australia’s capabilities overseas and obtaining manufacturing projects in Australia.

Since the late 1990s, when the US/EU FAA/EASA have led the way globally, if not harmonised, a country has a global engineering market only. Harmonised, a governmentdepartment/agency can negotiate mutal recognition based on the current Australia/US Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement that should have included aircraft and component maintenance by now if a government department/agency had been made responsible to promote australian civil aviation engineering globally as DCA originally had this responsibility

“Building on the EU-US Agreement on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety, this Declaration of Intent will generate a new momentum in our EASA-FAA relationship, and allow for better alignment on the priorities voiced by the global aeronautical industry,”

Ken Cannane

Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.

Via amroba.org:









MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AMROBA February Newsletter -

Via the AP emails:

To all members,

1. February 2025 Newsletter subjects

The industry we have is exactly what the legislative/regulative system has generated.

One of the biggest drawback to GA is CASA’s vision of general aviation.

You would think a government agency vision would assist economic development of general aviation.

Ever since 1988 when an agency was created, there is no government legislative direction to grow civil aviation

What about recognizing Education qualification, in regulations or referred standards,  available for various maintenance personnel.

It is a disgrace we have not globally harmonized.

2. I have also attached some comparison with the NZ Civil Aviation Act.
I envy the Kiwis, a Minister is directly involved with NZ civil aviation.

NZ Director of Aviation has more functions and responsibilities than CASA.

On top of that, I included an ICAO chart of the Top 15 countries based on registered aircraft.

• Of course, if all aircraft were on CASA’s aircraft register, we would higher than our 5th ranking. ICAO recommended that Australian civil aviation participants would benefit if Annex standards, practices were properly implemented. 
  
• ICAO provides many training packages for government/agencies need to implement ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), across different projects, effectively.
  

Ken Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.

Plus KC on the effects of red tape...

Red tape not only affects civil aviation engineering businesses but also aerospace businesses.

Gilmour Space Technologies chief executive Adam Gilmour estimates that the company has taken “a $20 million hit to our capital” during its long wait for regulatory approval for the maiden launch of its Eris rocket.

Gilmour Space is waiting on a final permit from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which Adam Gilmour says is very close. But the final part of the regulatory journey has been a long one.

Regardless, there is no getting past the cash that’s been burnt in the past 10 months as the company has waited to light the rocket’s ignition.

Full story

https://www.innovationaus.com/countdown-gilmour-takes-20m-capital-hit-on-delays/

Ken Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AMROBA March Newsletter

Via the AP emails:

To all members and guests,
 
March Newsletter (ctrl & Click) now available on the AMROBA website – another election year.
 
As we move towards this election, one must ask what happened under this government to improve civil aviation engineering sectors:

1. Manufacturing – can manufacturers sell their products in foreign civil aviation markets?
   
   
   
   1. How many nations/regulators accept the government’s Authorised Release Certificate attached to manufactured products?
      
   
   

b.      How many mutual recognition agreements has the government signed with foreign nations to accept Australian manufacturers?

1. Maintenance – can maintenance organisations provide maintenance services for foreign aircraft and aircraft components?
   
   
   
   1. How many nations/regulators accept the government’s Authorised Release Certificate attached to maintained products?
      
   
   

b.      How many mutual recognition agreements has the government signed with foreign nations to accept Australian aircraft maintenance services?
3.      Shortage of engineering personnel
a.      CASRs/MOSs specifies personnel knowledge qualifications not linked to AQF qualifications.
b.      ASQF qualification not covering helicopter or small aeroplanes.

1. 1. No cooperation between CASA & ASQA to the detriment of employers.
      
2. Red Tape Reduction – it appears that this government action has been parked
   
   
   
   1. Within the newsletter I provide an example how red tape can be reduced.
      
   2. Devolve responsibility for expansion/retract a company’s capability to the company.
      
   
   

c.      Send copy of changes to CASA who provide regulatory oversight.

1. Did we gain simpler processes in all regulatory services?
   
   
   
   1. Still conflict between government regulations and standards
      
   2. Still duplication.
      
   
   

Some have been asking what’s has changed since the last election.

It has become harder to attract staff, that is for sure.

The Queensland government is looking at the shortage of personnel for the trades.

Not much, still plenty of red tape, etc.

Makes on wonder what the next government’s policy will provide.

Ken Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AMROBA April Newsletter

Via the AP emails:

April Newsletter loaded on the AMROBA website

https://amroba.org.au/wp-content/uploads...ssue-4.pdf

Your latest Newsletter explains why we have so much bureaucracy and red tape and why we no longer have flight training schools scattered across Australia, especially our regional communities supported by directly supervised small maintenance businesses.

Pre the transfer of department functions and responsibilities to agencies, the Regulations and Orders provided general aviation, aerial work, manufacture, maintenance and training requirements were based on Convention’s Annexes SARPs.

Because of the Air Navigation Act provisions for creating regulations, civil aviation participants really benefited from being compliant with the SARPs.

The problem was many Orders did not a regulatory head of power but were SARP compliant.

Instead of creating heads of power, new civilian experienced senior management cancelled many of the Orders that left us lowering compliance with the SARPs.

Australia’s highly respected Department Training School, ICAO supported, was also closed.

The Newsletter looks at Who is Responsible –

• Bureaucracy or industry participants for safety
  
• Cost Savings – Government – Industry, and
  
• Legislative/Regulatory Changes
  

If government red tape policies were followed some red tape would be reduced but, if the Department’s regulatory provisions for creating regulations were applied to all agencies, then we would have less differences lodged with the SARPs and benefit by giving effect to the SARPs.

ICAO’s last audit highlighted this, but no department/agencies plans to properly give effect to the Annexes’ SARPs.

The Newsletter amplifies these points.

No real regulatory reform will be completed until these provisions are applied.


Ken Cannane

Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

LMH catching up on:- AMROBA election and aviation policy?? - 

Via Oz Flying:

Policy Papers fail Aviation Industry: AMROBA
25 April 2025


The Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has slammed the system of political policy papers as failing industry participants.

In a communique posted to the AMROBA website, Executive Director Ken Cannane said that many policy papers are either not supported by the aviation community, or are not implemented effectively.

"Ever since government agencies were created (1988) we have seen political parties develop aviation policy papers stating the political party’s aviation policy that they take to an election," Cannane said. "We have seen White Papers, Green Papers, and many other party papers promising all sorts of changes and conclusions for the civil aviation sectors. Some supported, some not.

"Politically, these papers sometime get an aviation sector or two support but it is unusual to have all sectors fully support these proposals, nor do we see the bureaucracy fully enact what are in these political proposals in the following years.

"Since 1988, we have seen multiple political civil aviation policy papers proposing changes, many supported by industry participants, that have not come to fruition for civil aviation participants.

According to Cannane, the problem lies in a discord between political direction and what the bureaucracies make of them.

"These political party civil aviation papers rely on the Minister giving directions to government departments and/or agencies and hoping the bureaucracy makes changes to their systems and recommending regulation changes in accordance with those directions," he believes.

"Over the years, minister after minister has provided directions to the bureaucracy to implement their policies only to see partial implementation of these policies during an election cycle.

"This system has failed aviation participants over the years."

Cannane believes a similar issue doesn't occur in the USA, and changes need to be made here in Australia to make the system work.

"In the US, government pass bills directing the FAA to cancel, amend or make regulations to implement the subject of the bill," he says. "Instead of the Minister’s direction we use, they have bills passed in [congress] directing the FAA to change their regulations and/or processes.

"These changes must happen within the timeframe normally contained in the bill."

Cannane believes that the system in Australia could be fixed by amending the Civil Aviation Act to implement a party’s civil
aviation policies, and converting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) into a non-corporate Commonwealth entity more directly responsible to the department.

With a week to run until Australia goes to the polls in the 2025 Federal Election, aviation policy is still unclear, particularly from the Coalition, which has not made public any policy relating to aviation.

Repeated approaches to Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development Bridget McKenzie from this masthead have not drawn any replies to date.

Predictably, the ALP government is allowing the 2024 Aviation White Paper to stand as policy going forward.

Hmmm...KC issued that policy paper well over a month ago, so what rock has LMH been hiding under since that excellent paper was published?? - 

 MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AMROBA May Newsletter

Via the AP emails:

To all members,

Virtually no policies on general aviation and civil aviation manufacturing has been spoken about..

The only thing that is certain after the election is that Agencies will continue with their policies irrespective who wins.

Aviation policies are well down the pecking order politically.

When I started in civil aviation, I was lucky that I had the experience of talking with Sir Donald Anderson on one of his visits to the hangar floor.

A true visionary who supported the growth of civil aviation manufacturing and general aviation sectors, especially pilot training.

From a department in1938 absorbed by another Department in1973 then hived off as an Agency in 1988.

This change was based on political reasons not for the benefit of civil aviation itself.

Every change since then has not simplified civil aviation.

The latest Newsletter highlights why we have a lack of pilots and maintenance personnel.

The result of the current regulatory system.

Ever since harmonisation has been shelved, the industry has globally suffered.

DCA proved it is not hard to give effect to the ICAO SARPs and still have growing industry.

Participants back then, some are still around, experienced a growing industry.

Too many versions of the regulator has concentrated on classification of operations instead of the classification of activities.

What has dried up is the transfer of regulatory functions to the industry.

This is one aspect that Donald Anderson was doing correctly before DCA was absorbed into Transport and HO was eventually moved to Canberra.

Loss of expertise every time they made changes to the regulator.

We now are out f step with mature aviation countries and the Annexes standards.

Nothing changes with the direction of a government department or agency unless the Act they work under is changed.

So, the big question is, will the new government amend the Civil Aviation Act to redirect reform?

Ken Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Courtesy KC - 

Via the AP emails:

To all members,

Some of our members have reported that CASA AWIs, during audits, are stating that a tool or equipment calibration interval is what the manufacturer states and cannot be varied.

This approach would be unique to Australia and is not inline with decades of global safety standards.

CASA’s AC21-35 states as a reference the International Organisation of Legal Metrology which in turn produces specific ILAC guidelines regarding the interval between calibration intervals from a safety viewpoint but also taking into consideration business economics.

The ILAC Guidance Series including ILAC-G24 - Guidelines for the determination of calibration intervals of measuring instruments.

Civil aviation usage of calibrated tooling/equipment is high into comparison with some production line businesses.

Because of that, the ILAC guideline is very applicable to our manufacturing and maintenance industries.

Monitoring calibration certificates and adjusting the intervals based on the reports is the safest and most economical approach.

The cost of calibration is high and can be reduced safely as detailed in ILAC guidelines.

This matter has been brought to CASA’s notice

Ken Cannane

Executive Director

AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715

Mobile: 0408029329

www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.

2025 - Measurement - Calibration Issues.pdf Size: 285.58 KB  Downloads: 1

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Courtesy Oz Flying:

AMROBA puts Weight behind Foreign Engineers



13 May 2025

The Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has put its weight behind CASA's proposal to recognise the qualifications of foreign aircraft engineers.

CASA last week opened for consultation a proposal to recognise aviation engineer qualifications issued by a formally recognised foreign state as equivalent to CASR Part 66. Initially, only the UK, Singapore and the USA would be assessed and approved.

The move is designed to tackle a critical shortage of engineers, which has the support of AMROBA Executive Director Ken Cannane.
"AMROBA proposed and supports the import of foreign LAMEs, as was available pre-CAA,  especially from those nations that have adopted the EASR Part 66 licence system," he told Australian Flying this week.

"These foreign LAMEs will work in an MRO and comply with the company’s paperwork to perform maintenance and certify maintenance.
"MROs provide induction training – safety is maintained and, in many cases, enhanced knowledge and experience from these LAMEs, many with more experience than currently available, will address the retiring experience."

Although recognising foreign qualifications is expected to help with the shortage, AMROBA still believes that training home-grown engineers is the best solution, and proposes some changes to the current system that is seen as inadequate.

"Other nations training and qualifications are mostly conducted by the nation’s education system that currently exceeds the lack of the Australian NVET training courses to support each CASR Part 66 licence," Cannane says.

"For example, B1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 licences do not have dedicated VET courses.  Australia’s current NVET training courses are based on supporting the airline level B1 and B2 AME licences.

"The critical shortage of LAMEs in Australia and the inability of CASA to work with the Australian Skills Qualification Authority  (ASQA) to provide NVET training courses to underpin each of the Part 66 licences they introduced in 2007, has meant that the industry has a costly training system that has led to a critical shortage of LAMEs."

According to AMROBA, some of the shortage problem has been caused by the advent of CASR Part 66. Many mechanical LAMEs that were qualified under the old CAR 31 to also work on electrical, instrument and radio systems under CASR Pat 66B are now retiring from the industry.

The current Part 66 B1 licences do not have these privileges, forcing MROs to employ both a B1 mechanical and a B2 avionics engineer to do the maintenance that one person under CAR 31.

"This is adding to the costs that an MRO has to charge the operator, especially in rural Australia, and will force more private operators into RAAus."

Even though they have expressed support for the foreign recognition proposal, AMROBA believes it doesn't go far enough. CASR Part 66 was based on EASR Part 66, which should open up recognition also to European qualifications.

"We support a broader approach than currently proposed by CASA," Cannane said, "more nations need to be added to the current list.
"Without these foreign LAME, many organisations will close."

MTF...P2