Just re-read you post again....
You are either of CASA, or have their genetic disposition... to attempt to bring in issues to make a "safety" case..
You say..Re AWK.. a different airworthiness standard, differrent licence
category and different fuel requirements.
I say .. rubbish.
You say, blatant disregard of the "rules" for economic gain..!!
Wohooa.. capitalism?.. is that a strict liabilty "crime" as well. ?
So I say.. rubbish.
Because on the CASA web site then, and for many years after I got done, there were changes mooted there.. that what was "illegal" today would have been "legal" tomorrow.
If it ever was "legally" illegal in the first place..!!
SO... where was the fn Safety case.! There isnt one and there never was.!
And under the dead hand of a truly bereft bureaucrazy...Alas, the changes never came to pass.
And top marks for your "safety" "CASAerism"... re "potentially putting populated areas when flying over at risk." ( Cry Wolf, wolf... unsafe, unsafe!)
Well, bugger me... one would have thought EVERY aeroplane passing over any built up area presents a risk, however great or slight... whether flown by a PPL, CPL or ATPL. PVT, AWK, CHTR, RPT... the lot.
So, by definition, your implication is rubbish..conforming to CASA type.
IT IS CASA'S IMPERATIVE, BY WHATEVER MEANS OR STATEMENTS, TO IMPLY/ DEFAME/LIE ABOUT ANY ISSUE THAT THEY ARE CONFRONFRONTED WITH, THAT IT IS "UNSAFE".
