Air Ace
You raise some very interesting issues - with which I entirely agree.
Let me respond to some of them.
The QF prosecution is a good example (of QF's extraordinary power) - but you can't point the finger at CASA for what has happened here. CASA referred to matter to the DPP in a very timely manner (DPP are the only ones who can prosecute offences). QF is so powerful that it can stall a prosecution of its pilots for several years to the point that they can then apply to the Supreme Court for a permanent stay on the basis of undue delay (all caused by them). But you can't blame CASA for this as it is not responsible for prosecuting the case - if you want to blame anyone you need to blame the DPP and the Tasmanian legal system for allowing QF to delay the matter year after year.
QF has breached safety regulations on numerous occasions but the CASA approach is to let QF deal with the issue itself for fear of offending QF. Not even one infringement notice issued - whereas if the same contraventions had been committed by a smaller operator CASA would have thrown the book at them. This you can blame CASA for. It is the same mentality that has led to the recent US Congressional inquiry into the FAA
But to suggest that CASA has sytematically and methodically decimated the general aviation industry is a complete exaggeration. Perhaps economics, poor management, too many particiants chasing too few dollars has a lot to do with it.
According to the CASA Annual Report, Counsel Assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart inquest has a long and rewarding association with CASA. Whilst I accept he may be free to act in his private capacity, would not his acceptance of the appointment as Counsel Assisting be considered, ethically at least, a conflict of interest? Similarly, the consultant to that Inquest was a previous employee of both Transair and CASA, FNQ, surely a further conflict of interest?
I can't comment on this. That is really a matter for the coroner. But a perception of bias is certainly possible.
As for the regulatory reform program - I agree with you entirely. But the signifcant problem here was Minister Sharp discarding the regulatory rewrit program that was all but complete in 1996 because of pressure from various vocal sections of the industry. Since that time there has not been one government Minister with the guts to stand up and tell industry that it is the government's responsibility to regulate not industy's. Hence we have intractable never ending consulation trying to achieve consensus instead of the regulator and government doing what they should be doing ie governing and making decisions.
There was an interesting posting on the CASA website about this in 2005. It said amongst other things:
This is what gave rise to the Regulatory Structure and Validation Program (RSVP) ....... That Program was designed to restructure the existing regulations and Orders into a two-tier FAR format and numbering system. The exercise was about 90% completed when in 1996 the then newly created PAP managed to have the project disbanded. The then Minister formally dropped the RSVP project on 18 December 1996 when he advised the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances that “the draft regulations prepared for the RSVP will not be made into law”. Had the RSVP exercise been completed, I believe that many of the issues being encountered today would have been avoided.
While CASA has a large share of the blame for the failings of the regulatory reform program by its complete lack of fortitude (Byron's inane "directives" have certainly hindered the process), a large share of the criticims should also be borne by the vocal minority of bush lawyers in indstry who believe they have some expertise in the area but generally lack any understanding of regulatory development.