Originally Posted by
Clinton McKenzie
The way ‘out of the mire’ is as you’ve suggested: The safety regulatory regime should result in, for example, the least competent posing the least risk to others. But given that the regulatory regime allows RPT jets full of passengers to mix it in uncontrolled airspace with pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA and who could be the least experienced people in the air, flying aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified as airworthy by any NAA, something else must be at play.
Clinton, I believe the example you've given demonstrates 'least (ie. non-zero) risk' already: CASA already requires RPT jets full of passengers to operate in controlled airspace wherever possible, usually Class C or above, where transponder-less experimental pilots simply can't reach them without a serious slap on the wrist.
Sure, there are a few spots around the traps where the two might meet (like on an ILS approach to an out-of-the way regional center) but I'm guessing the CASA risk calculation might go something like (a) if the airport is remote, the traffic density will be low and (b) if the airport is remote enough, the RPT will mostly likely be a small slow turbo-prop (not a large fast jet) due lack of funding for a well-maintained long runway and (c) RPT aircraft are usually equipped with the latest TCAS tech anyway = there's a good chance nothing will happen. Of course, to lower the risk further still, they could simply ban GA from operating at or anywhere near RPT airports.. so be careful what you wish for!