PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Liability to remain strict under civil aviation regulations
Old 31st Oct 2003, 12:37
  #45 (permalink)  
snarek
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Political reality.

A little exam on politics for you all.

1. Do we have a viable opposition.

If you want to vote against a 'user pays' system you vote for
a) Liberal
b) Labor
c) none of the above.

The Dems didn't have Labor support because Labor doesn't understand the issues. You can't just move a disallowance, it goes to a vote. If LabLib don't support it (Libs supported the Part 47 Disallowance to teach CASA a lesson) it don't get up.

AOPA (Jane Errey) nearly got the support, but we ran out of time. The lack of support had more to do with how things looked than reality. But that's life.

But we do have a WRITTEN guarantee that the Minister will look at the issues we flagged and amend them. (This guarantee was another reason Lab wouldn't support).

Creampuff is right, strict liability exists now. What we are doing is making sure it is only applied where warranted. We are also making sure CASA can no longer be judge jury and executioner by supporting a demerit based system.

Mind you, getting political support is as easy as buying an ice cream if you read some posts on the 'other' forum, and all this is an AOPA conspiracy because Gary Gaunt wants to be the Prince of Wales.

Pity 'that mob' wouldn't know a disallowance if it bit them on the bum, and the only one that ever did bite them on the bum wasn't achieved by them but by astute AOPA members and actually overturned a comfy deal they had made with CASA (Part 47).

Perhaps that's what all the whinging is about

AK
snarek is offline