Originally Posted by
Dexta
I think the point of the original post is to build a logical argument along the lines of;
The Act states that safety is the primary concern.
CASA therefore creates and enforces regulation without consideration of economical factors.
Thus the regulations concerning GA, CSF, SIDS etc. do not take into account economic factors.
BUT
CASA allows ETOPS
Statistically four engines are better than two
CASA has allowed regulations that take into account economic viability FOR AIRLINES
This is against the ACT
SO
Either change the Act to reflect that economic factors should be considered when making and enforcing regulation for ALL LEVELS OF AVIATION.
OR
Stop lying about "Safety comes first".
Dexta,
That is Dick's whole point ---- CASA are very selective in their interpretation of S.9A of the Act.
When it suits them,
CASA's interpretation of S.9A is that something called "safety" is THE ONLY CONSIDERATION.
This is the untruth that is peddled to the public, as most of us know, the reality is very different.
Otherwise, how can you have, say, an MEL, shouldn't everything be 100% serviceable?? Full stop!! For "safety".
Tootle pip!!