The old Department of Civil Aviation was far from perfect, but it was a darn sight more user friendly than it's successors, the CAA and CASA!
Eeeeeeeaaaahhhhhh--- sort of, maybe??? Like the Curate's Egg, good in parts.
My very first job in aviation was trying to get DCA "approvals" for inter-capital air freight ----- the DCA answer was "No, there is no market demand" ----- remember that, in those days, DCA was also an economic regulator.
The argument that we were the biggest parcel express operator in the country, we knew the market, cut no ice with DCA. We were forced to continue to use a fleet ot trucks, when using DC-4 freighters would have saved us linehaul cost.
Remember the IPEC High Court case, IPEC won, but lost, the "Commonwealth" power to economically regulate aviation was found to be unconstitutional, but IPEC could not import their freighters (again, DC-4) because the Commonwealth had the power to refuse import licenses.
Ask Keith Hilder (founder of Aeropelican) about Dear Old Sir Donald, nobody could get a Flying School License in NW NSW, it was all RNAC "territory", whose Patron was --- Sir Donald.
"Dear Old Sir Donald" announced there would be no cotton industry in Australia ---- actually what he said was that "Australian Rules" (and not that funny Victorian game) did not permit VFR by night, (long before NVFR) and certainly DCA would not countenance night spraying.
Shortly thereafter, Sir Donald was "advised" (by Senator Cotton, no less) that he, Sir Donald, would not be setting Australian agricultural development policy, particularly cotton. Very shortly thereafter, Col Pay and one other operator were up and running with night spraying.
Australia's "unique" certification rules (all established in the days of DCA) used to cost a fortune in "first of type" testing for any new model aircraft. Remember the cost of modifying every aircraft to come into Australia, to meet "DCA Rules".
Australia's "unique design and performance rules" cost Qantas a fortune in lost payload over the years, compared to competitors, that was only rectified with CASRs 21-35 in 1998. Big twins, like the B767 were really screwed, but the reasons are too technical for here. Ansett and TAA didn't care, because the "two airline" policy meant domestic operations were "cost plus", so excess operating costs made no difference.
The bureaucracy of the day, by whatever name it went under at the time, has always been a huge drag on any local aviation development, compared to just about any other comparable country, except UK.
The aviation bureaucracy in UK destroyed the industry hopes after WW 11, then far too many of the drones migrated to Australia, and guess what, got jobs in DCA.
The aviation sector is in for a rough ride, again, in the next few years.
Won't it be interesting, if Mahindra (a very smart company) shift Gippsland Aero to US (for regulatory purposes) with airframe manufacturing elsewhere, and India is not the only choice.
Tootle pip!!