[Peetwo]

KC on a mission?? - 

Ref:

AMROBA newsletter; Part 43 & Air Taxi regulation concern - 

Via AMROBA: Volume 19 Issue 2 (February 2022) 

And via the AP email chains:

To all members

With so much talk about regarding Air Taxi services by Drones and other new ideas it is a wonder why CASA won’t adopt the term “Air Taxi” like the FAA.

Association News 3-22 covers this subject and lists FAA, Canada & Australia (2004) figure of Air Taxi involvement

There is almost a fixation within CASA to not get with the future and accept globally accepted terms.

We know this won’t happen until Sect 98 of the Civil Aviation Act is amended to adopt the words from the Air Navigation Act that developed the regulations up to the creation of the CAA/CASA.

Civil Aviation Act Section 98 – Amend to include Air Navigation Act Section 26

“(b) for the purpose of carrying out and giving effect to the Chicago Convention, as amended by the Protocols referred to in subsection 3A(2), any Annex to the Convention relating to international standards and recommended practices (being an Annex adopted in accordance with the Convention) and the Air Transit Agreement”.

Only the government can fix

Regards

Via the AP email chains yesterday...

To all members.

What does it take to get Government/Infrastructure/CASA to adopt requirements from another legal system without ‘CASAerising’ the regulations so they fail to adopt the other legal system and its benefits. CASA failed to exactly adopt EASR Parts 42/66/147/145 and now CASA is proposing to once again fail to adopt FAR Part 43 and associated FAR provisions. When will CASA stop bastardising adopted aviation regulations and harmonise? 

The Federal Government’s House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Chapter 2, Basis and mechanisms for the harmonisation of Legal Systems provides all the reasons and justifications that supports adoption of aviation regulations, not ‘CASAerising’ regulations of an adopted legal system for aviation.

How hard is it to adopt FAR Part 43 and associated FAR provisions following the Government’s own guidance above. When adopting, other CASR Parts have to be amended to include the FAR Part 43 associated FAR provisions. To make the foreign adopted regulation work as intended, CASA also has to adopt supporting documents promulgated by the regulator, like FAA ‘Orders’ and ‘ACs’ associated with FAR Part 43. The FAA is quite happy for CASA to top & tail their Orders and ACs.

Maybe we should simply have a regulation accepting all FAA Orders & ACs and require any referral to the Administrator/FAA to read refer to CASA.

Why does CASA change the terminology (e.g. Repairman) of the foreign regulations it states they are adopting so they create confusion to Australia and foreign countries with their unique CASA twists made to foreign adopted regulations that actually adds costs and lessens harmonisation with the aviation markets, including the biggest market, the USA? 

Many members have approvals from foreign Authorities and enjoy their interpretations of their regulations, not CASA’s unique interpretations.

The original adoption of FAR Part 21 demonstrated how simple it was to adopt another legal system regulations BUT they must stay harmonised, that is the biggest on-going challenge to CASA’s staff. When an adopted legal system regulations are adopted, they need to be remain harmonised by automatically adopting amendments of the foreign regulations.  Those major aviation countries mainly change their own regulations to clarify the intent and CASA should follow and adopt.

We know and have witnessed the changes made to FAR Part 21 and EASR Parts 42/66/147/145 by their regulators but sadly they have  not been made to CASR Parts 21/42/66/147/145.

Have our members lost the chance to have harmonised regulations with the FARs & EASRs under this CASA management?

If that is the case, the Board will never meet the government expectations to have Australian aviation designs and manufactured products accepted by other nations starting with the USA, Canada, UK, NZ and other Asia Pacific Region nations.

Regards

Plus: ref - https://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/...Skills.pdf

Aircraft Maintenance Personnel Skills
CASA Adds New Part 43 Personnel

It is now apparent that CASA is ushering in a maintenance personnel skill future that could provide a divided skill base to support the maintenance sectors of civil aviation.

There is no evidence of CASA harmonising globally with maintenance personnel skills and licencing – factors that will probably affect future global maintenance agreements.

We now have part Europe, part USA and unique Australian:
• CASR Part 66 licencing system – applicable to CASR & CAR (EASA). +
• Part 43 proposed aircraft maintenance technicians/inspection authorisation system.
• Self-Administration Organisation approved maintenance personnel.

Adding the FAA Repairman system to the Australian European based licencing system is supported but at no time was the EASA Part 66 “L” maintenance certificate system consulted as an alternative approach. This is the norm for CASA consultation, they make up their own mind and then consult (tell) on its implementation. This is a reversal of CASA AME licencing policy to move away from EASA back to the FAA system.

The FAA Repairman and EASA “L” maintenance certificate systems cover the same sectors of maintenance and both are linked back into their respective licencing regulations; EASR Part 66 and FAR Part 65. This is not clear in CASA’s proposal. Will the FAA Repairman regulations be added to the CASR Part 66?

AMROBA supports the adoption of the FAR Repairman system because the utilisation under the FAR system will match the Australian GA/Sports sectors but it must include adopting FAR Part 65 Repairman requirements into the CASR Part 66 AME licencing system. CASA has opted to intermix these systems and AMROBA does not see this intermix causing any confusion or restriction on implementation if it includes Part 65. provisions

MTF...P2