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

CAR 42B needs to be removed. Review the number of major defect reports received over many years by CASA, where aircraft have been maintained under Schedule 5. Examine the likelihood that these defects would have been found and dealt with in a more timely manner, if the aircraft were to be inspected and maintained under CAR 42 A or CAR 42C. Additionally, retain the CAR 30 system for private operations and allow for independent LAMEs. Allow experienced LAMEs (yet to be defined) to approve minor repairs, modifications, using a scaled philosophy of MITCOM and FITCOM.

Inappropriate maintenance instructions leading to decreasing reliability and aircraft availability. The eventual cost of repair compared to preventative maintenance costs. There is an increasing number of MROs citing increasing red tape for closing, particularly in rural and remote locations.

Remove CAR 42B. Retain CAR 42A or CAR 42C Alternatively, adopt the tried and proven FARs. These have been refined over the years by the FAA who are charged with the oversight of the airworthiness of the vast majority of the US manufactured aircraft types we operate in Australia. However, please don't create another unique Australian hybrid. Adopt the FARS, but don't adapt them!

Review provides summary of FAA system that is basically correct. The FAR rules in Part 43 are all the scattered regulations, instruments, CAOs and other means used by CASA to state who and what is to be done. The Operations FAR parts detail when an approved AMO is required. The FAR fixed based maintenance organisations are our approved CAR 30 GA maintenance organisation. Unless you want GA maintenance to collapse by deleting AMOs, we should adopt the FARs maintenance and maintain a CAR 30 GA aspects only AMOs Adoption of the FAR based regulations, including introducing the Inspection Authorisation is highly beneficial to GA. The FAR terminology is compatible with flight and technical documents promulgated by US manufacturers.

New Zealand adopted the FAR system when CASA’s predecessors were doing the same. However, they did not implement the USA Fixed Based Operator system because they, like Australia, don’t have Federal control over aerodrome to specify the standards that the FBO system has in the USA. Adopting USA system, including the FBO system, is preferable to NZ with an end result of having harmonised regulatory system

Should be totally rejected. They are still coming to terms with GA as most GA aircraft are still controlled under each member state of the EU. Their first attempt devastated their own industry. Too far behind the USA system.

The Canadian system is highly supported as its structure has standards as applied under the CASRs. However, like the CARs, are not in the FAR format. Bureaucracy costs to convert would prevent recommending. However, the GA concepts are fully supported o Owner maintenance o Canadian Pilot licencing and standards for all levels of GA. o Approval and delegation of licencing functions to approved GA associations The rest is just individual inputs Adoption of the FAR system will improve safety and reduce costs but also needs the FAR operational regulations for GA to complete the efficiency of the maintenance regulations.