Folks,
Following Lead Balloon's recent point: In the "reformed" certification regulations in 1998, great care was taken to exclude CASA "decision making".
The "rules" were written in "black and white", ie: Do A, B,C & D and you will get Certificate E, NOT the previous form of: Do A, B, C, and D, and CASA IS SATISFIED, , only then do you get the certificate E being applied for. Of course, there was no enforceable standard of "CASA is satisfied".
The reason for the "black and white" rules for design, certification and manufacturing was to eliminate CASA liability, or the perceived liability of CASA individual employees, a major factor in CASA (none or negative) decision making. Needless to say, we were much criticised at the time, and not just by CASA persons. And, needless to say, it has crept back in, and in recent " regulation development" the policy has been ignored.
As to why we do not have "binding aviation rulings" ------ because there is no legal capacity to make one.
Should CASA have such delegated law making power, without the scrutiny of parliament ( that is, CASA making legal instruments that are not disallowable) ---- my view is absolutely and definitely not ----- and there is a history, CAA tried this on years ago, having received legal advice that "Orders" could be legally enforceable, but be isolated from parliamentary scrutiny.
I even still have my "free" A4 binder that CAA gave to all license holders to file the forecast avalanche of "new" Orders, in lieu of "regulations".
Some smart footwork by several, again opposed by many in industry, not just CAA, challenged to legal advice as being unconstitutional, and the brave new world of rule by CAO without parliamentary disallowance fell over .
Aviation rules can be understandable, there are plenty of examples. However, when the criteria is: "Aviation law if for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers", and not the operating and airworthiness of aircraft, it ain't going to happen.
In one exercise in CASA, years ago during the currency of the PAP/CASA Review, a Canadian lawyer presented a paper on how rules could be written if the design prosecution conviction rate of 99% was reduced to "just" 95%.
All of a sudden, "plain English" regulations.
Another exercise, at the same time, was to remove from the regulations as criminal law all matters that were just administrative/procedural ---- in a section of maintenance ------ the result was to reduce the relevant MRO rules with criminal penalties by about 70+%.
Almost everything the bulk of industry wants is not just possible, but required in this day and age, and has been tried and proven before ----- but the bureaucracy (aka. CASA the iron ring) doesn't want it, so reforms forever slip backwards.
For a full non-aviation exposition of the "how and why", known as Hewart's Law, I can recommend reading "The New Despotism", by Lord Hewart of Bury, Lord Chief Justice of the UK during a period in the 1920's.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I always have a bit of a giggle when anyone comes up with the hoary old nonsense that we can't emulate US, because we have "The Westminster System" ---- izzatso ??
Folks, have a close look, the Australian Commonwealth (unlike CA or NZ) is closely modeled on the US, with a House of Representatives (not "Commons") and a state based Senate, and all our legal systems (AU, USA,CA, NZ etc) all drive from the Blackstone Commentaries, as opposed to Europeans (and Scottish) Roman law.
Indeed, on of the first things the brand new Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia did was legislate by reference --- by importing as Australian law large slabs of US Federal Law ---- the US Sherman Anti-Trust Act 1890, only a couple of words were changed. But that is another story.
Last edited by LeadSled; 11th Aug 2019 at 08:31.