I have just caught up with this post and note that Creampuff expected an early response, however as Dingo84 said, I was “cruising” (in a ship) at the time and monitoring PP was not high on my list of things to do.. than spend US50cents a min on the internet!.. But the cruise was great and highly recommended
The real issue as I see it is “how” the regulations are written and what’s more how easy they are to understand. The insertion of strict liability on almost every page of the regs is a gross turn off to anyone reading them.
Unlike other industries, those in aviation work with the regs “in their face” so to speak. An example of this is that most of us drive a car but I suggest the only time we get involved in the motor car (or whatever) Act is when we have been a bad boy and have to enlist one of Creamy’s mates to help us out. When we learn to drive there is a choice of books we can obtain from the local newsagency which give us all the good gen and I suggest enough to make it very clear what is the lawful way to drive a car etc. In aviation however, we are in the regs from almost day one as there is no “inbetween” type publication to make it simple and easy to understand. And besides, many examinations are based on a knowledge of the regs etc which it would be difficult for a coverall publication to handle.
Having said that .. I suggest that if we had ….
Simple and easy to understand rules,
Then
Aviators would (a) read them, and (b) understand them..
That been the case then I would suggest that compliance would be very high and the need to have zillions of words including ‘strict liability within the regs would (in practical terms) be minimal, and of course if compliance is good, then the need to use is minimal.
Unless of course someone can publish an
“Idiots guide to the aviation regs”
At the bottom of all this is the fact that…..
Compliance does not necessarily mean SAFE
You can be compliant, but not SAFE
And
You can be SAFE but not necessarily compliant.
As one of the speakers at the FLOT conference held in Sydney in March said… the biggest risk to air safety was the Attorney’s General Department … for the way they wrote the regs (with obviously no interest or concern in the outcomes).
Fix that, and you fix most of the problems….regardless of SL.
As CASA is the "SAFETY" Authority and not the "REGULATORY" Authority, then they would be doing a better job promoting SAFETY if the regulations were drafted and worded with that in mind.... something wrong somewhere!
