Horne and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[2007] AATA 1125

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1125

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q 200600179

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		GRAHAM HORNE

Applicant

And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC

Date13 March 2007

PlaceBrisbane

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

.................Signed................

Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

CIVIL AVIATION – renewal of aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence - duties and privileges of aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence not undertaken -  requirement of comparable work not satisfied - decision under review affirmed

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 – regs 32B, 42ZC
Civil Aviation Orders – s100.90 (7.3 (a), (b))

Baker and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] AATA 1117

REASONS FOR DECISION

13 March 2007 Deputy President P E Hack SC    

1.The applicant, Mr Graham Horne, has been an aircraft mechanic for nearly 50 years.  So far as I can ascertain from the material before me his career in aviation commenced in 1955 when he began an apprenticeship as an engine fitter with the Royal Australian Air Force.

2.In 1972 the applicant was licensed in Australia as an aircraft maintenance engineer by the then Department of Civil Aviation[1]. That licence has been renewed on many occasions since then including, most recently, on 4 February 2004. On that occasion the licence granted to the applicant authorised him to certify for the complements of maintenance of aircraft in the following categories:

[1]        The predecessor to the present respondent, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Airframe category

Group 1         aeroplane airframe systems

Group 3         wooden structures

Group 5         power driven fluid systems

Group 6         airconditioning systems

Group 10      pressurisation systems

Group 20      Boeing 707-300

Group 20      Boeing 727-100/200

Group 20      DC-9-30

Engine category

Group 1         piston engines and systems

Group 3         supercharging systems

Group 21      Pratt and Whitney JT3D Series (B707)

Group 21      Pratt and Whitney JT8D Series (B727)

Group 21      Pratt and Whitney JT8D Series (DC9)

3.As a consequence of the applicant holding a licence in those terms he was, by virtue of regulation 42ZC of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, entitled to carry out maintenance on aircraft and engines within the specified categories and was entitled to certify for the completion of work within those categories.  Despite this the applicant acknowledged that he had not undertaken any type of aircraft maintenance work other than in Groups 1, 3 and 4 in airframes and group 1 in engines for many years and has no desire to do so now.

4.In January 2006 the applicant applied to the respondent for a renewal of his aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence by completing an application form printed by the respondent. Paragraph 6 of the form invited the applicant to choose which of the following statements were true in his case:

“(a)     I have exercised the privileges of my licence on Australian registered aircraft for periods totalling not less than 6 months in the preceding 24 months and have provided the above details of employment for these periods.

(b)I have been engaged in work which I consider to be comparable to the duties and privileges of an AME [aircraft maintenance engineer] licence and have attached supporting details.”

5.The applicant did not select either of those statements but instead attached a letter to his application form which said, in part:

“I am exercising the privileges of this licence on a regular basis without full-time paid employment, in the on-going maintenance and servicing of [general aviation] aircraft for which I am the Registered Operator under a scheme of arrangement with an approved workshop.”

The letter went on to set out details of the continuing connections that the applicant had with the aviation industry.

6.The respondent was not satisfied that the application for renewal sufficiently demonstrated the matters that the applicant was required to establish in order for his aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence to be renewed. A letter was sent to the applicant on 30 January 2006 requesting further evidence of those matters.

7.Thereafter the applicant forwarded to the respondent copies of aircraft maintenance worksheets that indicated the level of his involvement in the maintenance and servicing of one particular aircraft. The respondent was not satisfied that the applicant’s material demonstrated compliance with paragraph 7.3(b) of s 100.90 of the Civil Aviation Orders. On 20 February 2006 the respondent refused to renew the applicant’s aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence.

8.The applicant now seeks a review of that decision in this Tribunal. Whilst I have considerable sympathy for the position of the applicant, as it seems to me I am obliged on the evidence to affirm the decision of the respondent.

9.The requirements for renewal of an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence are set out in paragraph 7.3 of s 100.90 of the Civil Aviation Orders in the following terms:

“A licence may be renewed if the holder:

(a) in the preceding 24 months has exercised the privileges of the licence for not less than 6 months; or

(b)has been engaged in work which may be considered by CASA as comparable with the duties and privileges pertaining to his or her licence.”

These requirements are founded in Regulation 32B(b) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 which requires an applicant for renewal of an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence to, amongst other things, “produce the evidence of his or her practical experience and qualifications” that the respondent directs in Civil Aviation Orders or otherwise in writing.

10.In Baker and Civil Aviation Safety Authority[2] Member Fice said of these requirements:

“…I accept that the intention underlying the requirements established by reg 32B and paragraph 7.3 of s100.90 of the CAO is that applicants for the renewal of an AME licence are required to demonstrate that they are current and proficient in the areas covered by the privileges of their respective licences and not merely one privilege which may also be exercised by a pilot who has no engineering qualifications whatsoever.”

[2] [2004] AATA 1117 at par [29]

11.I entirely agree.  The evident intent of paragraph 7.3 of the Civil Aviation Orders, and other analogous requirements for other categories of licence holders, is to ensure that the skills and competencies required by, in the applicant’s case, an aircraft maintenance engineer, are constantly kept up to date by exposure to the ordinary work, or comparable work, of a licence holder.

12.Mr Anastasi, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that the requirements in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 7.3 were exclusive; that an application for renewal of a licence could not combine experience in each of those subparagraphs in order to satisfy the requirements for renewal. I have some doubt about the correctness of that submission. It seems to me, contrary to the respondent’s submission, not to be supported by the decision in Baker and Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

13.In any event it is unnecessary to decide that issue in the present circumstances because in my view the applicant does not satisfy the requirements however the matter may be interpreted.

14.The evidence of the applicant, which I have no hesitation in accepting, was that he had undertaken very limited work that would amount to exercising the privileges of the licence. As high as the matter could be put was that in the two years prior to January 2006 he had supervised the servicing of his own aircraft on two occasions involving, at best, work on a few days.

15.His principle reliance was placed upon subparagraph (b) of paragraph 7.3, that is, that he had been engaged in comparable work.

16.Although subparagraph (b) does not contain any quantitative requirement for the performance of comparable work it seems to me that if the work involved is truly comparable then the quantity of the work required would need also to be comparable. In my view the applicant’s evidence does not satisfy the requirement for comparable work nor does it satisfy the quantitative element involved. His evidence was that he had on a number of occasions travelled overseas and undertaken inspections of aircraft works and of aviation facilities. I entirely accept that someone with the applicant’s background will draw from those experiences much more than would someone without those qualifications. I am unable to accept however that merely inspecting, and not performing any work, could be regarded as being comparable to undertaking the duties and privileges of a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer’s.

17.Moreover, even on the view most favourable to the applicant, his involvement in this other work (which he contends is comparable) is limited to a matter of days rather than months.

18.Therefore I would affirm the decision under review.

19.However I should add that I have some considerable sympathy for the applicant. He undoubtedly has a great attachment to the licence that he held for in excess of 30 years and there is no doubt in my mind that he has made a significant contribution over a great number of years to the aviation industry. He ought not regard the respondent’s decision, or mine, as reflecting adversely upon his character or his ability. The decisions that have been made do no more than reflect the practical reality that the work of aircraft maintenance engineers is complex and important and the requirements and skill levels need to be maintained by constant exposure to the work within the aviation industry.

I certify that the 19 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P E Hack SC

Signed:         .......................Signed...............................................
  Associate, Eleanor O’Gorman

Date of Hearing  28 February 2007
Date of Decision  13 March 2007
The Applicant appeared in person     
Solicitor for the Respondent       Civil Aviation Safety Authority