Stokes and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[2001] AATA 877

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 877

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No V01/414

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION       )          
           Re      FREDERICK STOKES     
  Applicant
           And    CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY          
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal       Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member Mr A Argent, Member        

Date12 October 2001

PlaceMelbourne

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
  (Sgd)  Joan Dwyer
  Senior Member

CIVIL AVIATION – renewal of aircraft maintenance engineer licence – whether applicant has been engaged in work considered comparable with duties and privileges of his licence – decision affirmed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – suggestion of requirement of consideration of possible amendment to Regulation or Civil Aviation Orders as to licence renewal
Civil Aviation Act 1988 s 98(3)(c)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 32, 32A and 32B
Civil Aviation Order 100.90.7.3

REASONS FOR DECISION

12 October 2001     Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member Mr A Argent, Member                    

1. This is an application for a review of a decision made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA") on 21 March 2001 which refused Mr Stokes' application for renewal of his aircraft maintenance engineer licence. 

2. Mr Stokes appeared and gave evidence. Mr Anastasi of CASA appeared for the respondent. Mr Anastasi called Mr Wilson who was the decision maker and is himself a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer ("LAME"). The Tribunal had before it the documents ("the T documents") lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 together with the exhibits tendered at the hearing.

3. Mr Stokes has spent his career as a LAME.  He was first licensed in that role in 1950 and worked as a LAME until his retirement approximately eight years ago.  Since then he has continued to perform some work as a LAME, but in recent years he has devoted his energies to the drawing and designing of a new aircraft which he believes will suit Australian needs.  The provisions as to renewal of licenses under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 ("the Act") are set out in the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 ("the Regulations").

4. The Regulations are made pursuant to a regulation making power in s 98 of the Act. The specific regulation making power of relevance to this application is that in s 98(3)(c) of the Act. The relevant regulations are 32, 32A and 32B. They provide for licences to be issued for a limited period, and for renewal of licences on expiry of that period. Regulation 32B which is in issue in these proceedings provides:

   An application for renewal of an aircraft maintenance engineer licence must, before the licence is renewed,

   (a) pass the examinations and

   (b) produce the evidence of his or her practical experience and qualifications;

   that CASA directs in civil aviation orders or otherwise in writing.

5. From the evidence as to how regulation 32B is applied, it appears that CASA treats it as if paragraphs (a) and (b) were alternatives rather than each being a requirement.  This is apparent from the T documents and from the extract from the manual (R3) as well as from the relevant Civil Aviation Orders.  We suggest that this may require consideration and possible amendment of the regulation or the Civil Aviation Orders.

6. CASA has directed as to renewal of aircraft maintenance engineer licences in Civil Aviation Order 100.90.7.3 (T docs pp18-19).  Those provisions read:

   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 six months; 

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

   (c)in the preceding 24 months has passed the Airworthiness Administration (AA) examination. 

7. On the CASA pro-forma Mr Stokes, on 1 March 2001, based his application for a renewal of his licence on paragraph (b):

   I have been engaged in work I consider to be comparable to the duties and privileges of the Aircraft Mechanical Engineer Licence . . ..

Where requested to provide supporting details Mr Stokes stated:

The comparable duties were design drafting Airmission project.

1. In the documents and in his evidence Mr Stokes said the Airmission project was the design and eventual manufacture of a 10 seat single turbine engine of 700 shaft horsepower aircraft.  He explained in evidence that he and others have been working on this project for a number of years.  Some of his drawings were submitted as exhibits. 

2. The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether, over the two year period ending 31 March 2001, Mr Stokes' production of drawings connected with the design of this proposed aircraft was comparable with the duties and privileges of an aircraft maintenance engineer licence.

3. Mr Stokes submitted that drawing and designing are part of the work of a LAME.  Mr Anastasi, on the basis of Mr Wilson's evidence, submitted that no licence is required for drawing and design for a proposed new aircraft, and that the duties of a LAME are the modification, repair and maintenance of aircraft registered in Australia, that is with a VH registration. 

4. Mr Stokes said that from his lifetime of experience in the industry he can say that many LAMES do not do hands on maintenance of aircraft, but work as he did on production of new aircraft and certify work carried out under their supervision.  He also produced evidence that LAMES are required to study design drawing as part of their curriculum, and that in order to have a proposed repair or modification approved, a LAME may be required to produce drawings showing the proposed repair or modification.

5. Mr Wilson accepted that evidence, but he said that the preparation of drawings related to the modification and repair of existing aircraft is quite different from the preparation of drawings related to the early design stage of a proposed new aircraft. 

6. Mr Stokes did not claim to have done any drawings related to current maintenance of existing aircraft, or even to factory production of aircraft of types currently flying, during the relevant two years.  Nor did he claim to have done any hands-on maintenance or repair or modification in that period. 

7. Of course, as Mr Wilson said, safety of aircraft is the paramount concern of CASA.  We consider it is the role of CASA rather than of this Tribunal to consider the requirements of practical experience and qualifications for renewal of licences.  We cannot say that Mr Stokes' experience over the last two years is such that CASA should have been satisfied that he had been engaged in work comparable with the duties and privileges pertaining to his licence.

8. The drawing and design work Mr Stokes has done does not require a person to be the holder of an aircraft maintenance engineer licence.  No doubt Mr Stokes' many years of experience as a LAME equip him well for the design work, but it is not work comparable to the duties of a LAME. 

9. The decision under review will be affirmed.  CASA has invited Mr Stokes to sit the Airworthiness Administration examination but he has so far chosen not to do so.  That of course is a decision for Mr Stokes.

   I certify that the 16 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs Joan Dwyer, Senior Member and Mr A Argent, Member

   Signed:         Grace Carney
     Associate

   Date/s of Hearing  12 October 2001
   Date of Decision  12 October 2001
   Counsel for the Applicant        Nil
   Solicitor for the Applicant         Self Represented
   Counsel for the Respondent    Nil
   Solicitor for the Respondent    Mr A Anastasi