Consider that CASA disappears, all employees are paid out with lots of golden handshakes.
Yes of course some government agency has to provide ‘rules of the air.’ Aruba in the Caribbean has about 100 pages to deal with that and ICAO will provide lots of detail where needed particularly for international operations. Our current Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Act (thnx ref LS) with New Zealand (only covers airlines at present) could be expanded to cover GA and therefore there could be an option to take on board the NZ rules.
Or we could have rules of the air in a similar fashion to that of road rules. Common usage would in practice deal with the immediate needs of the industry. In other words the industry would continue in much the same way as now. All operators would need to follow equipment manufacturers recommendations or face common law sanction.
As one well known lawyer and pilot told me about aviation law is that criminal acts are across the board. I took his comments to mean that any obviously dangerous, wilful or negligent acts in any field are illegal and therefore most of the excruciatingly complex regulations that CASA has migrated, inappropriately, to the criminal code (strict liability, also inappropriate) are not necessary.
The insurance companies would fill in a lot of the gaps. In France much of the building code is provided by insurance companies which is logical because they have a vested interest in the safety of the buildings that they insure. Now I hear some saying that certain individuals and companies will go without insurance. My view is that its easy these days to enquire of any service providers, such as flying schools or airlines if they are insured. If there is no answer then your choice is informed.
What we could say, without a doubt, there would be an expansion in GA in most if its forms, particularly in training and aircraft building. New aircraft, with few exceptions, would only be successfull if they were safe, and meeting known standards for the obvious reasons, including the ability to be insured.
Finally I would contend, with benefit of many years of GA business, that the public are very much alive to the risks of GA flying and will choose very carefully. Today’s world is different, information is ubiquitous and available instantaneously.
As others have noted, CASA goes to inordinate lengths in it’s human factors instructor training, on pain of criminal charge (massive penalty) if not complied with, to emphasise open acknowledgement of mistakes in the laudable effort to create continued improvement. However, as is easy to see, this is a construct that cannot work. The fear of a criminal conviction which may cruel one’s career, and prevent travel to many countries, is virtually a guarantee that CASA’s intent is simply a torpedo with an irreversible hard wired navigation system to return it to the tube from whence it came.