Is CAR 206 invalid?
This is a great decision but it doesn't go far enough..... In the "Changes to the ACT 1998" Anderson made no mistake when, in his second reading speech, (which sets the intent of any Bill in the lower house) removed the word COMMERCIAL from the Act and explained it with these words...Quote "IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE SEFETY REGULATION OF AVIATION ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE BASED FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF AN ACTIVITY, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE TERM COMMERCIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE ACT BY REPLACING 'DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL FLIGHT' WITH 'REGULATED DOMESTIC FLIGHT."
I was a around when Leroy Keith, as the director, made this happen and have tried( along with several others) unsuccessfully to influence CASA to obey the parliamentary directions in this Bill and stop using commercial as a direct lever to regulate safety. Bruce Byron( give him his due) attempted to do this and consulting with many people from all avenues of aviation brought in a policy document called "CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIVITIES" which, if followed, would have done just that....... Unfortunately, we lost him and now have the ceo from hell who has decided he knows best and the past isn't relevant and all of the work done in the Byron years has seemed to have disappeared...... CASA has, not only disobeyed(and is still disobeying) the government's directive to stop using hire and reward or payment of any kind to regulate aviation safety but has cleverly changed CAR 206 to remove mention of commercial in the body of the rule although it's still in the heading but has inserted "functions" in their place. Somewhere between there and the coalface dollars rear their ugly head....... My whole point is this...... For 13 years there has been no "Head of Power" in the Act to allow CASA to use commercial means to regulate safety...... Yet they have continued, by fair means or foul, to do so at your's and my expense....... NOT ONLY IS CAR 206 INVALID FOR HAVING THE WORDS "COMMERCIAL PURPOSES" in it's heading but every other regulation which refers to commercial can also be said to be invalid..
How much longer do we have to wait for CASA to get a little honesty into it's operation and rewrite the regulations using a risk-based platform to regulate safety instead of commercial?