Nice to cross paths again, Mr Smith.
First, you are absolutely correct in your contention that safety arguments should be open and transparent. That is the best basis on which to found a safety management system, and is an exceptional defence when incidents occur.
Our original post, however, was aimed at distinguishing between the publishing of that safety argument for transparency, and the publishing of that safety argument for mischevious interventions.
What we have said is that only appropriately qualified persons - the so-called "reasonable man" or " professional person" are truly entitled to contribute to a safety case .
That is not a criticism of you or your associates in other GA type organisations. It is simply a statement that from a legal and technical standpoint, the average person that you represent would not be a factor in legal procedings.
You yourself through countless postings have demonstrated yourself to be the "average Joe" in Australia - not a technical expert. You admit that on your own website.
You are no doubt a good Australian, a quinessential Australian, a representative of the average Australian and a role model Australian - but you are not the legally defined "reasonable Australian".
You are also not a professional aviator, nor a technical expert. At best, we might grudgingly call you the "general practitioner". You are not the qualified specialist required to comment in or on a safety case. In fact, legally, should you offer a professional opinion that was accepted, or which influenced a safety decision, you may find yourself at risk of prosecution should an incident or accident occur. Look at the statements in our first post. "Would a REASONABLE MAN have done this?".
No, we are not associated with Airservices, CASA, Qantas, Virgin Blue or Dick Smith Foods. We do not have a "snout in the trough" because we have absolutely no connection - financial or otherwise - with your Australian aviation industry.
We act only for aviation safety - clearly you do not.