Hello William
Firstly I will give you my serious answers;
1. Unlikely but possible,
CASA is always looking for ways to reduce its costs, maybe they see this a viable method. If so then it may well get a go. I know that there has been murmors about certian sections of GA going this way for a few years now.
2. I do not think it would be a good idea,
The regulatory body (CASA) has enough problems controlling some parts (persons) within GA as it is. Even though there are many respected people out there who could take on the task of administering and controlling GA, there are twice as many who will take advantage of it.
3. GA as whole, I don't belive it would work. BUT parts of GA may well be able to run as "Self regulated". For instance Flying training and Engineering services may well be able to be self regulated along the lines of thier own professional associations.
The real problem is that the term "GA" simply covers too broad a spectrum of aviation. Just to list a few:
Flying Instruction/training
Commercial Airwork operators (fire spotters/bombers, crop spraying, etc)
Private airwork operators (photo, sales etc)
Charter operators
Private company operations (company jet)
Closed charter (FIFO, mining, etc)
Engineering (Maint. and design/EO, etc)
Really I could not imagine a FIFO operator using 30/50 seat regional turbo props bieng treated any different from RPT (Transport) operations, but the fiights are technicaly Charter and therefore GA.
Who would run "GA Self Regulation" as I have said before there are some good guys out there, but could you imagine just one of the dodgey brothers getting in there. Please don't say thats not likely, just have a look at some of the guys who have made it onto CASA pannels and boards over the last few years.
richo