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

As an aircraft owner and operator, my greatest concern is CASA’s recent tendency to create additional maintenance requirements for private GA aircraft that are not evidence based and, in most cases, uniquely Australian. In the past decade, CASA have mandated Cessna SIDS and have indicated that they would like to mandate similar supplemental inspections for other aircraft types. They have also pursued projects that would require engines and propellers in private GA aircraft be overhauled based on manufacturers recommended time limits of 12 years for engines (Project CS 12/04) and typically 6-7 years for propellers (Amendment 3 to AD/PROP/1). In all of these cases, there has been no proper analysis of the cost, the risk or the benefit. The Australian maintenance regulations contain many other requirements that are unique to Australia (e.g. CAO100.5 requirement to drain fuel tanks and refill to check panel gauges, maintenance releases, etc). The subtle difference that exist between Australian and FAA regulations often impose additional unnecessary costs of private GA owners. For many years, Australian GA maintenance regulations did not include the distinction that has long existed in FAA regulations between major and minor modifications. The consequence was that, under Australian regulations, Engineering Orders (EOs) were required to authorise trivial work. Often the EO cost much more than the work. In 2015, CASA published an Advisory Circular (AC 21-12) that introduced this distinction but many LAMEs are unaware of it and still insist on EOs for work that is clearly a minor modification. These additional maintenance requirements create additional costs for owners and threaten the financial viability of private flying without any demonstrable safety benefit.

There are about 9,000 single engine fixed wing GA aircraft in Australia, of which about a quarter reported nil flying hour in the 2015 BITRE survey, so the active fleet is now around 6,500. There are about 1,800 fixed wing GA aircraft in New Zealand, 28,000 in Europe and 155,000 in the USA. The vast majority of the worldwide GA aircraft fleet was built in the USA and resides there. The USA aircraft maintenance regulatory system was designed around maintaining such aircraft and was the blueprint for the development of maintenance systems in other countries, including Australia. There is no evidence that GA aircraft safety is any better in Australia than in the USA despite the many uniquely Australian regulations that apply here. Given this background, it is self-evident that Australia should align its GA maintenance regulations with those of the USA. Rather than tinker with the Australian regulations to create marginal improvements it would be better to simply incorporate by reference into Australian law the relevant regulations that apply to maintaining private GA aircraft in the USA. Changes to USA maintenance regulations should then apply automatically to Australian private GA aircraft. To do otherwise, will perpetuate the current system where Australian GA maintenance regulations differ in many confusing respects from USA regulations. It is a waste of public money for CASA to attempt to maintain a body of law that applies specifically to the maintenance of only 6,500 aircraft when there is a viable alternative that would cost virtually nothing. Since the risk posed to the general public from private GA operations is very low, CASA should scale down its GA maintenance regulatory functions and concentrate its resources on protecting the fare paying public.

Moving to adopt FAA regulations for private GA aircraft in Australia would eliminate much of the confusion that currently exists around what maintenance is, and is not, mandatory under Australian regulations. Under FAA regs it is clear that owners are required to maintain their aircraft in accordance with the type certificate and the flight manual (the version that applied when the aircraft came into service) and to carry out any ADs applicable to that aircraft. Private owners in the USA are not required to other manufacturer recommendations unless they become subject to an AD. The current Australian regulations have confused this by making some manufacturer recommendations (e.g. Cessna SIDS) mandatory. Other Australian regulations (e.g. AD PROP/1) create uniquely Australian requirements for prop overhauls that DIFFER from the manufacturer recommendations. What is the sense of that?

The main consequence of aligning Australian GA maintenance regulations with those of the FAA would be the need to explain the changes to CASA staff and to Australian LAMEs. This cost is more than offset by eliminating the many sources of confusion that exist for LAMEs (and indeed CASA staff!) in the Australian regulations. Some aspects of Australian regulations such as the use of Maintenance Releases (MR) might appear to have advantages over FAA regulations which require only logbook entries. But it would be wrong for Australia to try to “cherry pick” and to thereby perpetuate a uniquely Australian set of regulations. If there are advantages to having something like an MR (for example in flight schools) then there is nothing stopping such operators requiring their use as part of their Operating Manual. Similarly, the logbooks required to be kept under Australian regulations are much more detailed and voluminous than those required by the FAA. When introduced they were guided by lofty aspirations of enabling better tracking of required maintenance. But their complexity means that they are much more difficult to maintain that the simpler FAA logbook and actually contribute very little to effective GA maintenance.

The preferred approach to improving the Australian GA maintenance regulations should be to incorporate by reference into Australian law the relevant FAA regulations. Attempting to “cherry pick” other regulatory systems will result in another never-ending regulatory re-write and perpetuate the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in having a uniquely Australian set of regulations.

It makes no sense for Australia to be adopting the maintenance regulations of a country with a small GA aircraft fleet when we have the opportunity to adopt USA regulations.

There is no apparent benefit from adopting the European regulations

There is no apparent benefit from adopting the European regulations

The preferred approach to improving the Australian GA maintenance regulations should be to incorporate by reference into Australian law the relevant FAA regulations. Attempting to “cherry pick” other regulatory systems will result in another never-ending regulatory re-write and perpetuate the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in having a uniquely Australian set of regulations.

It makes no sense for Australia to be adopting the maintenance regulations of another country when we have the opportunity to adopt USA regulations.

Owned and operated the same aircraft in private operations under FAA and VH registrations. Operated aircraft in Qatar and UAE in private operations under the EASA regulatory model.

The FAA have a comprehensive and coherent set of maintenance regulations that are actively maintained and applied by the vast majority of GA aircraft in the world. Why would you bother looking elsewhere?

The effectiveness of any system of maintenance regulation depends on education and enforcement. Regardless of whatever changes are made to the Australian GA maintenance regulations, CASA should put less effort into inventing new regulations and instead focus their resources on EDUCATING LAMEs and aircraft operators on their obligations and then ENFORCING those regulations.