There isn't any doubt that the stupidity of the proposed regulations is what makes Strict Liability such an evil more than the concept itself. (F/O goes supersonic in a supersonic airliner without ATC permission, Capt asleep in the bunk is guilty of an offence.) The difference, as you know Creamy, is at present the Court determines whether or not an offence should be Strict Liability. CASA propose that they decide, and that all offencesl should be. Creamy, all b/s aside, it is easier to get a conviction under SL and that is all CASA is about. Safety? Don't make me laugh, why is a farmer flying across to his neighbours property any safer if he carries his licence? I agree with you though, the Govt moved this legislation despite all of AOPA's opposition. I was at a meeting when the objections to SL were raised by AOPA to the Minister and his Chief of Staff, yet it has been tabled nevertheless. Gaunty is in my opinion off with the fairies if he believes that now that they have it they will hand it back, mebbe a token here and there at best. (Wonder if this was a "core" or "non core" undertaking?) AIPA and AFAP have been disturbingly silent on the issue.