If we bring back Flight Engineers and Radio Operators
Sherm,
And where, my dear chap, has Dick Smith suggested that, or any other silly regression.
What is absolutely vital is that CASA be forced to illustrated the "safety issue" any proposed change is designed to address, and be required to benefit/cost justify (not cost/effectiveness justify) the proposed change.
Or, put another way, make the relevant Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation Guidelines mandatory by amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
In late 1996, we conducted a major study on a section of the engineering "rules", within CASA, and with the very reluctant forced participation of the Airworthiness Branch. For risk assessment, the basis was the then current AS/NZ 4360 standard for Risk Management, and the then Productivity Commission framework for benefit/cos analysis and determination.
The outcome,
about 80% of those "rules" should not have been regulation at all, but just outcome based advisory documents.
The great majority of Part 61/141/142, that has imposed huge initial and ongoing costs on the aviation industry, have any basis beyond bureaucratic micro-management. None, and I do mean none, of these additional "requirements" imposed have been the answer to a "safety" ( ie: a real and identified and quantified risk) problem, much less the benefit/cost justified answer.
Dick wants to simplify and reduce cost and complexity --- do you disagree with that aim??
Tootle pip!!