Proposal to develop a tailored set of maintenance regulations for general aviation - (DP 1809SS)

The principal purpose of GA is to provide flexible operations, but this is impacted by onerous maintenance requirements that do not improve safety but create a lot of work. The age, condition, utilisation and types of operations flown by GA aircraft vary enormously. No regulatory maintenance regime, however onerous, can provide an assurance that all GA aircraft will always be airworthy and arguments that such a regime could do so are actually counter-productive, since they create the impression that someone other than the owner or operator has assessed the need for aircraft maintenance and is so responsible. It would be far better to simplify the requirements to a minimum standard, with an increment for aircraft used for a training, hire scenic and freight-only charter, and clearly set industry, community and legislature expectations accordingly. In particular, this means educating GA owners that the minimum standards are probably not sufficient for their aircraft, and that it is their responsibility, not government’s, to identify what additional maintenance may be required and ensure it is carried out. A classic example is the rule for approval of maintenance schedules. A private GA small aircraft owner should be able to construct their own schedule of maintenance, containing at least an annual inspection, at least equivalent to the existing CASA Schedule 5, with additional items specified by an owner if desired. An owner of a small private GA aircraft should be easily able to specify additional maintenance items, including special inspections, life-limited parts replacements, and more frequent regular service and inspections within an aircraft’s maintenance schedule, without aeronautical engineering (Part 21) approval, provided Airworthiness Limitations (including ADs) are satisfied. GA aircraft used for any commercial purpose (training, scenic flights, freight-only charter) should be required to undergo at least annual and 100-hourly inspections. As an alternative, a GA aircraft should be able to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s schedule, or another approved schedule, including a schedule of progressive inspections. Aircraft manufacturers’ schedules frequently do not offer a satisfactory solution for GA aircraft, because they are: a. Usually based on the rules of the country of certification, which for the vast majority of the Australian GA fleet, is the USA. Private GA aircraft in that country are typically maintained to annual inspections with on-condition maintenance and 100-hourly inspections for aircraft used for a commercial purpose. Cessna and other manufacturers acknowledge this in their maintenance manuals, and there is no expectation that a private GA aircraft would be maintained only in accordance with the manufacturer’s schedule. b. Are predicated on that country’s regulatory requirements, which distinguish between Airworthiness Limitations and various component and inspection time limits specified by the manufacturer, but which are not legally mandatory under Part 91. c. Typically assume annual utilisation of 200 or more flight hours, well more than double that flown by a typical private aeroplane. Some of our current rules are incomprehensible and nonsensical. For example, an electrical and instrument LAME with 20+ years experience could not sign off on a duplicate inspection for the reinstallation of two elevator bolts on a Cessna 182, which were removed to permit the replacement of a static braid, but a 60 hour private pilot who first saw a GA aeroplane just months ago can. Another is CAO 100.5, which was made without any apparent reference to existing requirements for a radio and E&I periodic inspection, creating the need for multiple shop visits for work on exactly the same systems, when the two requirements could have been combined. Australia allows no latitude on minor (less than 10%) time over-runs against maintenance release requirements, when the USA and other countries do, which requires individual approvals for little or no safety advantage.

Being able to incorporate the requirements of CAO 100.5 in an owner-prepared maintenance schedule based on, at minimum, Schedule 5 is one. More generally, where a small GA piston aeroplane is used only privately, and not for hire, training, scenic or freight-only charter flight, an owner should be able to construct their own maintenance schedule, including at minimum an annual inspection in accordance with the contents of Schedule 5, and adding special inspections such as SIDs and 50 and 100-hourlies at their own option consistent with the use the aircraft is receiving. A risk-based approach might see 100 hourly inspections mandatory for hire, training, scenic or freight-only charter flight as they are in the United States. Another is when an IFR avionics component is replaced in a rack by mechanical means, without any wiring work, as is the case for most GA radios and navigation systems. This work can be performed safely by any B1 or B2 LAME (at their option) if the part to be installed is properly documented, such as after a repair. The required functional check in most cases could be better performed by an instrument-rated pilot. This would avoid the need for a rural-based aircraft to need to remain, or be returned to one of the scarce number of places where an avionics facility is located.

In my view, the FAA model should be preferred for GA. There seems little reason why those rules could not be adopted with only minor modification. For example, differences between the role of an IA and a current CAR 35 organisation's Chief Engineer or coordinating LAME, or the manner in which certifications must be made, could be easily resolved if there was willingness to do so. CASA Schedule 5 is already widely used as the basis for an annual inspection by many private aircraft. Areas of concern, for example training for pilot maintenance, could be individually addressed without detracting from the simplicity of the US system. The full intent of 14CFR 91.409 should be adopted, including FAA's distinction between aircraft used for hire for the purposes of flight instruction, which could also apply to small GA aircraft used in scenic flights, private hire and freight-only charter.

The biggest issue would be educating industry. There would be push-back from many on questions of responsibility and allowing owners to exercise any discretion. Australian aviation has a long history of doing things its own prescriptive way, and then expecting the regulator to be responsible for the adequacy of aircraft maintenance standards. These expectations are unreasonable and should be clearly and firmly reset. Primary responsibility for the airworthiness of a GA aircraft should be specifically assigned by law to the aircraft’s owner, or where legally delegated by the owner, to the registered operator. GA aircraft owners should be under no doubt that this is their responsibility. CASA should regulate to ensure that this principle is unambiguously stated in law, and in advisory communications. In particular, it should be made very clear that CASA (the regulator) is not primarily responsible for the airworthiness or condition of any aircraft. By default, LAMEs and GA maintenance organisations should be responsible only for: a. The completion of maintenance tasks specified by the owner or operator; b. Certifications for airworthiness at the time that maintenance is completed, without legal requirements for maintenance beyond that time, or to make forward-looking projections, or to determine future maintenance requirements in any legal sense unless specifically contracted to do so.

The New Zealand rules are certainly better structured, easier to read and better expressed in regulatory documents than those that apply in Australia.

Not stated in the summary above are New Zealand's onerous requirements for adherence to manufacturers' schedules, even when they are clearly not suitable for the type of operations being conducted by the aircraft. New Zealand’s rules do not offer sufficient flexibility from manufacturers’ schedules without expensive and unjustified aeronautical engineering services to re-factor manufacturers’ schedules. They do not afford the same flexibility and advantages to GA as the FAA rules. New Zealand continues to insist on unique local approvals for new avionics products that are widely accepted elsewhere.

The new EASA regulations are, thankfully, a major improvement over the onerous previous rules that attempted to force even the smallest GA aircraft to be maintained to the same standards as an airliner and largely the result of widespread complaints by almost everyone involved in European GA, including IAOPA-Europe, DGAC and several aircraft manufacturers. Even the most conservative views in the Australian GA sector have recognised that these rules would be undesirable, as did CASA itself by deciding not to implement Part 145 for GA. I do not see any benefits in implementing the European model in Australia and expect that even in its revised form, it would only add to costs and greater inefficiency.

Please see above. For example, the EASA GA Roadmap "Minimum Inspection Programme", which must (at minimum) be adopted by an owner includes "inspect all components of the wing and centre section assembly" every 100 hours, which is uselessly non-specific and for anything but the simplest sport aircraft (thereby excluding Cessna, Piper or Cirrus single engine aeroplanes) would require so much unnecessary cost that either the manufacturer's schedule, or custom one requiring aeronautical engineering approval would be required (refer to various parts of M.A.302). European GA is very different to Australia and there are no identifiable synergies between the two jurisdictions. Further, as the vast majority of Australian GA aircraft were and are manufactured in the USA, and not in Europe, the application of EASA rules would step outside the regulatory framework for which the manufacturer's maintenance documentation is being prepared.

I see no advantages in adopting the Canadian model over that which applies in the USA, however the Canadian regulations are certainly easier to understand than Australia's and Europe's, and would be my second preference after the FAA rules.

Canada's requirements for the collection of annual aircraft reports of GA aircraft condition is unnecessary and bureaucratic and brings potential legal issues for no safety advantage. The vast majority of Australian GA aircraft were and are manufactured in the USA, and not in Canada, and the Canadian rules offer no advantage to a private owner from those of the FAA, which are the rules for which the manufacturer's maintenance documentation was and is being prepared.

CASA's willingness to consult and obtain this feedback is commendable and very welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Overall, the new GA maintenance regime must be risk-based; that is, it should: a. Be based on the presumption that persons on-board a private aircraft are there by choice, and not for public transport; b. Satisfy a minimum standard for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground; c. Take account of the lesser complexity of GA aircraft, especially piston-engine, unpressurised aeroplanes; d. Accept that airline standards of despatch and flight reliability need not apply to every aircraft and so accommodate some degree of latitude so that owners and operators may structure a maintenance schedule that suits their operations. The preferred model is that based on FAA regulations. It would be highly important to ensure that all aspects of the FAA rules are considered, for example, the manner in which a LAME or maintenance organisation may decline to sign off on an annual inspection. I have owned and operated two of my own GA aircraft in Australia continuously since 1989 and (the first one) in the United States prior to that. I would be happy to assist further if CASA desires.

Private aircraft owner and pilot used for a mix of personal and business travel purposes. I have also been involved in general aviation technical representation for a number of years.