There are plenty of axe grinders out there LookLeft and I guess you would agree that there are a few in CASA as well. However that doesn't change the fact that the main conclusion of the Forsyth review was that CASA has lost the trust of the industry. That is a totally damning criticism* as you must know, working for CASA as you seem to do.
*Actually organisationally fatal to a government agency.
P.S. As for the "legal requirements" excuse given by CASA and presumably swallowed by AHIA. I think I may have a little more experience dealing with Lawyers than you (including being sued by the AFL of all people which is an entertaining story). I spent upwards of $200,000 per year with law firms for a whole slew of contracts and advice. Lawyers fall into two categories; the average - who complexify things as much as possible in order to garner as much power, control and money as possible and who obviously infest CASA, and the true legal geniuses who can cut through an argument like a knife, can reduce difficult concepts to a few words and write simple concise english rules and regulations. Plain English law and regulations like the FAA's are eminently achievable in Australia. It just requires the will to implement them.
Here is a hint; a well written rule or regulation will explain how to comply and what will happen to you if you don't comply. So much for CASA use of weasel words like 'appropriate', "acceptable", "sufficient" and of course "fit and proper".
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Jun 2018 at 03:26.