[Peetwo]

On edit- to add a thought: If there was ever a shred of doubt the CASA world is totally insane, this should remove it. :-

 
Pythagoras' Theorem: .......................................24 words
Lord's Prayer: .................................................. 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: ..................................67 words
Ten Commandments: ......................................179 words
Gettysburg Address: ........................................286 words
US Declaration of Independence: ..................1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: ......7,818 words
EU Regulations on the Sale of CABBAGES: ...26,911 words
Part 61  REFORM............................................Have a guess....you know you want to...... .
 
Steam on, later perhaps id the 145 MoS survives.  61 Next.

CAsA hasn’t turned thirty yet?

This one post was looking a bit lonesome, so I thought I'd liven it up with another point of comparison on Part 61, courtesy of Stan the Man...    

Canadian CAR,s  Part 400 is the equivalent to Australian CAsR Part 61  -  Canadian equals  115 pages covering both English and French vs Aus circa 2200 is it any wonder that Australia is such a safe aviation nation compared to Canada.  The URL for the total of all the Canadian CARs is http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-96-433.pdf   For those willing to wade through the whole document approx. 1,000 pages or 500 if you consider one language the relevant Section 400 is from Pg 283 to 398.


Another example would be Aruba (Caribbean) also ICAO compliant with less than 100 pages. We certainly lead the world.

Ps. Reminds me of my then young son, about 6 or 7 in his first ski competition in Switzerland where he took a wrong turn and finished last (in a blizzard) but was called out first at the presentation. It wasn’t until he turned thirty that I had the heart to tell him. (we were looking at some old slides) CAsA hasn’t turned thirty yet?
 

While we are on the basket case (more like container load.. ) that is our regs, one of the other problems with ill thought out, undecipherable regulations, now rears it's ugly head in Part66...

Courtesy Hitch Oz Flying - AMROBA comments on Part 66 in practice:

A Beech A36 Bonanza in the maintenance hangar. (Steve Hitchen)



Part 66 Training not up to Scratch: AMROBA
10 Aug 2015

The Aviation Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) has blamed Part 66 Maintenance Training Organisations (MTO) for the poor hand skills of trainees coming into the aircraft maintenance industry.

Candidates for licensing are divided between those trained at Part 66 MTOs, and those trained at state-approved Registered Training Organisations, such as TAFE colleges.

According to AMROBA's Ken Cannane, the system of CASA Part 66 MTOs is too theoretical, meaning apprentice engineers are reaching the workforce without the necessary skills to perform even some basic maintenance for which CASA has qualified them.

"Those attending State RTOs seem to get better hand-skills than those attending CASA MTOs that lack hand-skill training," he told Australian Flying.

"The CASA training approach to support Part 66 licences has seen once-large apprentice training RTOs, such as Kangan-Batman in Victoria, Milperra TAFE in NSW and Queensland Institute of Engineering, closing.

"They no longer provide apprentice or CASA Part 66 licencing training. It has been a disaster – low practical skill training."

Part of the issue seems to be one of government funding. Part 66 effectively changed the RTO courses from training for a working environment to training to obtain a licence. As government funding is not available for licence training, many of the RTOs elected to shut down their aircraft maintenance programs, leaving the bulk of the training to MTOs.

"CASA's training is all about knowledge and [has] little practical skill training," Cannane laments.

Larger maintenance companies are often forced to further train people who are theoretically qualified, but the cost of doing so is prohibitive for smaller maintenance, repair and overhaul companies.

"Before a person (apprentice) performs maintenance tasks on an aircraft or aircraft component, the person should have the practical skills to perform the particular task," Cannane reckons.

"An employer cannot let a person learn basic skills on a customer’s aircraft or component.

"Customers expect quality workmanship."

  
So yet another cost impost to industry through crappy, bloated regulations that require a law degree to decipher - FFS!

Here's an idea, let's have a reg burning protest in front of Aviation House...



Then we can get stuck into the shelfware in the basement...



I know..I know back in my box..