Originally Posted by
fly_inverted
the addition of
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
Folks,
This is a step back, not even a step sideways.
On further consideration (and consultation with an old mate in Canberra) this change allows CASA to use COST/EFFECTIVENESS justification, as some you will, but most won't know, is nothing like cost/benefit ratio..
The effective mandating of GNSS navigation indirectly, by the ADS-B mandate requiring upgrade to C-145/146 GPS, was highly cost effective ---- it enabled Airservices huge savings in new equipment, and scrapping large numbers of navaids, with most of the cost of new equipment shifted to industry -- the new avionics required.
In short, with COST/EFFECTIVENESS, you pay the costs, somebody else (here AsA/Government) gets the benefit. Very effective for money swallowing maws in Canberra.
In total contrast to the operation of cost/benefit (really Benefit/Cost ratio) principles used by the likes of the Productivity Commission and the Office of Best Practice Regulation/OBPR --- and which CASA has always been able to sidestep, and still will sidestep, thanks the S.9A(1).
Tootle pip!!