[Peetwo]

AMROBA December Newsletter

Via AP emails:

To all members,

December Newsletter – Link Included .

On behalf of AMROBA’s management, I wish you all a Merry Xmas and a prosperous New Year.

As I pack up records to move to Queensland, I have come to the conclusion that CASA has inherited this government’s “do nothing” approach to regulatory change.

Reading a number of past NPRMs that repeat the previous NPRM, has convinced me that government does not wanted change to happen.

Part 43 is a very good example; it has been proposed over and over again.

Government apparently has the same policy with anti-sematic actions, nothing happens.

Look what happened at Bondi.

With us, it a declining industry looking for qualified personnel.

The amount of time industry has wasted making submissions in the last 23 years is outstanding.

What for, nothing happens.

Maybe next year harmonised, non-duplicated regulations will be made?

A dream we all have each year.

See you all in January.

Ken Cannane
Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au
Safety All Around.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

February 2026 Newsletter

Via the AP emails:

To all members and associates,

February Newsletter – Duplicity and Stagnation

As I have been relocating AMROBA’s records to Qld, it has become obvious that regulatory reform has lost direction.

Only Australia’s government system cannot complete a reform that most other nations completed in 2-3 years.

The US obtains reform by placing government directions in the FAA Reauthorisation Act

The last government direction was late in 1990s.

It set up the CAA and original directions.

Now we get Minister Directions and DAS directions – a system that does complete the change other nations achieved.

There were numerous politicians from post war era that provided bipartisan support that has vanished.

The lack of political support means that the private industry is subject to public service directions that lacks the same vision for Australian aviation

Globally, most nations took 2-3 years to align their regulatory system with FAA or EASA.

Our alignment with global standards specified by ICAO SARPs is low.

The same problems exist now as it was a decade back.

If we had a political aviation astute government, maybe the direction could be corrected.

Where are the civil aviation engineering (design & maintenance) free trade agreements

Been wet most of the time since relocating

Ken Cannane

Executive Director
AMROBA
Phone: (02) 97592715
Mobile: 0408029329
www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Review of legacy airworthiness directives unique to Australia?? - 

Via Oz Flying:

CASA seeks feedback on scrapping legacy GA airworthiness directives



20 April 2026

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has opened public consultation on a proposal to repeal a number of legacy airworthiness directives affecting general aviation aircraft, as part of a broader push to modernise regulation.

The consultation centres on 18 uniquely Australian structural fatigue directives, many introduced before 2009 when Australia operated under the legacy Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) system and did not routinely accept airworthiness directives issued by the aircraft’s State of Design. As a result, CASA and its predecessors issued Australian directives across the board, creating a large number of requirements that were often unique to Australia or duplicated those already in place overseas.

CASA said many of these directives were developed using a precautionary approach based on limited fatigue data available at the time. Under today’s regulatory and risk framework, and with decades of global operational experience now available, many would be unlikely to be issued in their current form.

There are currently more than 150 legacy Australian ADs affecting GA aircraft under 5,700 kg that remain active. The regulator has developed a policy framework to assess whether these directives should be repealed, modified or retained, with the current consultation representing the first tranche of that review.

Industry feedback has already indicated that the structural fatigue ADs under consideration may no longer represent the most effective way of managing ageing aircraft. Concerns include their limited flexibility, failure to account for how individual aircraft are operated and maintained, and reliance on fixed life limits that in many cases can only be addressed through full aircraft retirement.

Many of the directives are also not supported by aircraft manufacturers or the State of Design, creating additional cost and uncertainty for Australian owners and operators, particularly where aircraft remain well-maintained but are approaching prescribed life limits.

CASA is proposing to repeal the 18 identified directives unless there is clear evidence supporting their retention. The regulator said doing so would help modernise the management of ageing aircraft, reduce regulatory duplication and better align Australia with contemporary international practice.
Alongside the proposed repeal, CASA is seeking feedback on the policy framework guiding the review, which is based on principles including alignment with current regulation, risk-proportionate decision-making and consideration of operational impacts. A proposed direction to formalise continuing airworthiness responsibilities for ageing aircraft used in air transport operations is also included.

CASA emphasised that safety remains the priority and that repealing the directives would not reduce owner and operator responsibilities. Aircraft must still comply with manufacturer instructions, applicable State of Design ADs and CASA maintenance and operational requirements.
Submissions are open via CASA’s consultation hub until 14 May 2026, with further consultations expected as additional categories of legacy directives are reviewed.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

AMROBA Newsletter, plus Breaking News - 

Courtesy AMROBA, via the AP emails:

To all members and associates.

With the political scene changing so much, it is hard to see a prosperous future pathway considering that a 2-year regulatory reform program carried out in many nations in the 1990s still hasn’t been completed in Australia.  Ministers have directed regulations to be adopted and made years ago.  It is 2026 and still hasn’t been done.

The reform project entered the big hangar in Cbr and has been become a hangar queen seeming never to be completed.

If you review Sect 98 of the Civil Aviation Act, there is no direction to provide harmonised ICAO SARP based regulations, nor is there a direction to give effect to ICAO SARPs unless CASA determines they affect safety.

Apolitical Action:

Have had a couple of conversations with Ben Morgan recently, Ben has spoken with One Nation re their civil aviation policy, especially with her new Cirrus SR22 G7.

One nation looks like becoming a real political force, so we need to know their policies.

AMROBA is willing to join forces with AOPA, SAAA and other associations to have another summit in Wagga Wagga and invite the local Member McCormack, One Nation, current  Minister, other parties, if interested, using a similar format to our last summit

Proposed date August 8th (Saturday):

In accordance with our last summit, can members input with the major points they want correct industry can prosper.

April-May Newsletter Articles

• Government without vision or care - Only Australia has been able to stretch basic regulatory reform/harmonisation over 3 decades. Every other country completed within 5 years.What basically started as adopting the FARs, Australianised to align with other Australian legislation/regulation, has become a yearly review.
  

• Sec 98 of the Act is included to show it lacks direction that will achieve harmonisation as it limits CASA to safety matters that excludes the efficiencies of SARPs. The requirement to promote civil aviation and attain agreements with other nations is missing. A copy of the US legislation that requires to FAA to promote aspects of civil is needed in Australia.
  

• Even the Department’s assignment of responsibility of the Annexes too different Department shows how hard to coordinate when CASA shares responsibilities with, for example. Look at Annex 1, for example. CASA shares this with Defence but the national trade educator, DEWR, is not included.
  

The process used to make CASR Part 21 needs to be applied to Part 43 asap

Ken Cannane

Executive Director

AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715

Mobile: 0408029329

www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.

---

Plus 'Breaking News':

To all members and associates,

Breaking News – Proposed Aircraft Registration Fee

1. This government has had aircraft registration fee in their policy document for some 30 years.
We are now advised CASA will start consultation next year to introduce these fees.

CASA CEO extended contract will probably cover the making of legislation for the fee to start.

Some 30 years back, the ALP decided aircraft owners who didn't pay a passenger levy were to pay a registration fee for their aircraft.

NZ has a registration fee for this purpose and it is based on size and weight of the aircraft.

NZ includes sport and recreational aircraft.

It is used as part of the funds for the CAA(NZ) to operate.

It doesn’t take much to realise government sees this as a way to fund CASA.

The problem is, we are already talking of exempting RAAus registered aircraft.

Previously, AOPA argued for a fuel tax in lieu of a registration fee.

So the tax will stay on fuel, and add the registration fee.

2. CASA is once again consulting on deleting a number of “legacy ADs” that no longer has a regulatory head of power to support them.

With the introduction of CASR Part 21 in 1998, several aircraft certification CAOs were repealed.

One of these CAOs required Part 23 aircraft to be fatigue assessed. This was unique to Australia.

Post making Part 21, an internal working group that later included some experienced industry reps, were tasked with identifying ADs to be repealed and ones to be added to CASR Part 90.

Other NAAs have already cancelled their ADs based on Australian ADs that were never supported by the NAAs responsible to aircraft type design and manufacture.
The purpose of CASR Part 21, especially TACs, was to rely on the NAA responsible for design/manufacture to issue mandatory requirements at certification and ongoing continuing airworthiness.
We have had previous CASA CEOs agreed to cancel these ADs.
Maybe it will happen post this consultation.

Ken Cannane

Executive Director

AMROBA

Phone: (02) 97592715

Mobile: 0408029329

www.amroba.org.au

Safety All Around.

 
MTF...P2