mjbow2,
You've just about covered all the bases on this one.
Far more troubling to every pilot and industry professional is the way in which CASA has ignored the Aviation Policy Statement, CASA’s CEO Directives, the NAS (2c) Post Implementation Review and the Ambidji report findings.
And I could add a few other studies, Government policies, OBPR etc., that all support the above, but since when (sadly) was evidence based, risk management justified rule making ever acceptable to a particular (not all pilot unions) pilot union, or several middle management identities in Regionals, and their sundry fellow travelers, to whom such evidence based rule making is anathema ---- particularly if the US is mentioned.
Who have demonstrated, over many years, that they are totally unmoved by anything that is contrary to their long standing beliefs that, unless the magic incantation "mandatory" was included, bodies would rain from the sky. Further, only "prescriptive" rules "work", under no circumstances are pilots to be allowed judgment calls, when it comes to "radio procedures".
In fact it has been clearly stated by this group, and past CASA legal counsel, that this group does not consider Australian pilots sufficiently mature to handle "outcome based rules" ( as do their peers elsewhere) , but must be bound by rigid criminal law based prescriptive and strict liability regulation ---- thereby making safe conviction so much easier to achieve ---- and if anybody wants to argue the toss about the existence of this view on the "maturity" issue, it's all in CASA records.
The last CASA CEO put in place a number of good programs, but in this area, unfortunately, it seem he always caved into to this small group.
Indeed, for those who have been actively involved in (long term) research into "what works" to reduce risk, ie make it safer, all research results illustrate that prescriptive rules are the wrong way to go. This not only aviation, but across the industrial safety spectrum.
Safety management in Australian (and elsewhere) has largely long since abandoned the legalistic prescriptive approach, for far more effective risk minimization strategies ---- and the results show ----- but not in Australian aviation, as is so clearly demonstrated in the whole CTAF saga.
Interestingly enough, this whole CTAF running sore is so clearly contrary to much other work that CASA, itself, is doing in promoting safety management systems, to name one program, amongst some very commendable current safety promotion programs.
There is a Senior Counsel's opinion re. the draft NFRM floating around, this really
legally picks apart the draft CAR 166, and that is how you will be picked apart in court,
by what the words legally say, not what bush lawyers think they say. The SC puts together a startling and frightening detailed picture, if you are the poor sodding PIC trying to "stay legal", where the "the letter of the law" makes it impossible to "comply".
Tootle pip!!