4 ms·

>Not only do you have to comply with performing all airworthiness directives but you also have to perform all service bulletins. Again, just not true. CASA is

>Not only do you have to comply with performing all airworthiness directives but you also have to perform all service bulletins. Again, just not true. CASA is more aggressive than most other countries with maintenance requirements - their name (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) gives it away, their mandate is to increase safety and cost doesn't appear to factor into many of their decisions. I'm not defending that, but there is no requirement to apply all SB's. The particular gripe 99% of people are upset about is covered well by Mike Busch: https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2015/10/09/assault-on-ga-down-under/ https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2015/10/09/assault-on-ga-down-und...

paulgerhardt 6y ago
Thank you for clarifying. Requiring all SIB’s, alert SB’s, but not all other SB’s is both better and worse than I imagined. Better in that this is less of a problem for new aircraft but worse as this is the quickest way to kill your general aviation community by targeting the guys in Cessnas and Beechcraft. The recent part 149 fiasco [1] can only be justified by self serving behavior - in effect allowing CASA staff to self administer medicals but not extending the same privilege to the general aviation community. Between the two I can’t see it anything but a compromised institution. https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/ https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/
paulgerhardt 6y ago
Thank you for clarifying. Requiring all SIB’s, alert SB’s, but not all other SB’s is both better and worse than I imagined. Better in that this is less of a problem for new aircraft but worse as this is the quickest way to kill your general aviation community by targeting the guys in Cessnas and Beechcraft. The recent part 149 fiasco [1] can only be justified by self serving behavior - in effect not allowing the general aviation community to self administer medicals but allowing CASA staff to do so (in effect making themselves exempt) doesn’t sound like the actions of an organization which stands for Safety. Between the two I can’t see it anything but a compromised, self-dealing institution. [1] https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/ https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/

paulgerhardt 6y ago

Thank you for clarifying. Requiring all SIB’s, alert SB’s, but not all other SB’s is both better and worse than I imagined. Better in that this is less of a problem for new aircraft but worse as this is the quickest way to kill your general aviation community by targeting the guys in Cessnas and Beechcraft. The recent part 149 fiasco [1] can only be justified by self serving behavior - in effect allowing CASA staff to self administer medicals but not extending the same privilege to the general aviation community. Between the two I can’t see it anything but a compromised institution. https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/ https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/

paulgerhardt 6y ago

Thank you for clarifying. Requiring all SIB’s, alert SB’s, but not all other SB’s is both better and worse than I imagined. Better in that this is less of a problem for new aircraft but worse as this is the quickest way to kill your general aviation community by targeting the guys in Cessnas and Beechcraft. The recent part 149 fiasco [1] can only be justified by self serving behavior - in effect not allowing the general aviation community to self administer medicals but allowing CASA staff to do so (in effect making themselves exempt) doesn’t sound like the actions of an organization which stands for Safety. Between the two I can’t see it anything but a compromised, self-dealing institution. [1] https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/ https://aopa.com.au/part-149-a-corruption-of-casa-integrity/