[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