Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
Plovett.
I think what is important is what happens in practice. Over the last decade CASA appears to have been responsible for a one way ratchet in increasing costs on GA.
The unique ADSB mandate is just one example. And also part 61.
I have been told many times by CASA people that they do not have any legislative requirement to promote a profitable industry or get more people flying so they can benefit from a safer form of travel.
Seems strange to me that you say they will have to be forced to change. Why would they not want to change and get more people flying.?
What is important is what is argued in court. I have no dispute with you over the ever-increasing costs imposed on GA in the supposed name of safety.
The requirement to consider the industry was removed from the legislation following the Monarch and Seaview airlines crashes. We now have what we have because it was argued that the then CAA (I think) was too close to the industry.
I have long thought that CASA does not want more people flying unless it is in a proper high-capacity airliner. Something they can understand - they have no hope of understanding GA so they would rather it didn't exist. They will have to be forced to change, I see no other way. The industry cannot agree on what day it is let alone come together for a concerted attack on CASA. The pressure must come though the politicians and the only way they will move is if they think they will lose votes. As you might have guessed I don't hold out high hopes for a long-lived GA sector.