The Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association (AMROBA) this week withdrew its support for the proposed CASR Part 43 regulations.
CASR Part 43 covers maintenance of general aviation aircraft used in private and aerial work operations, designed to simplify and remove some regulatory burden.
However, in a letter sent to CASA CEO Pip Spence on 27 May, AMROBA withdrew its support, saying the legislation will "further divide and devastate the aircraft maintenance sector."
Signed by AMROBA Executive Director ken Cannane, the letter states that CASA's proposal is at odds with FAR Part 43, on which the Australian regulations are theoretically based.
"How CASA now intends to apply CASR Part 43 in Australia is nothing like how FAR Part 43 is applied in the USA," Cannane said.
"CASR Part 43, as originally proposed based on FAR Part 43, covered all maintenance requirements (i.e. what must be done, recorded and by whom) for all maintenance on aircraft and aircraft components from individuals to organisations, approved or not.
"However, since then CASA introduced a CASR Part 42 that now applies different maintenance requirements for commercial passenger operations."
Cannane also said the the Part 43 proposal would create multiple levels of standards and training requirements for maintenance personnel despite working on similar aircraft flying in the same airspace, suggesting a solution that would see CASRs 42 and 43 merged.
"Unfortunately, CASR Part 42 and 43 must be merged into one Australian Part – preferably Part 43 to keep the regulatory structure based on the FAR system as originally politically and department/agency/industry supported ...
"The immediate and long-term effect that this change will have on our members will result in some current CAR 30 organisations closing their doors and others simply become more frustrated with an already disjointed red-tape focused regulatory system.
"This means CASA is implementing uniquely Australian regulations and requirements based partially on European and USA aviation regulatory maintenance requirements."
Cannane, who has been in the aviation sector for several decades including a stint within the regulator, said that he had never experienced regulatory issues to this extent in the past.
"In my 60 + years in aviation, this is the most disjointed, disharmonised, uniquely Australian, set of aviation regulations ever been proposed," he said in the letter.
"It continues to add red tape and confusion to regulatory maintenance requirements [with] no benefits for members.
"The regulatory reform process is no longer fit for purpose."