This
proposal is merely and attempt to codify into regulation what is already "good safe flying practices", which we all do.
Only it goes too far.
It is not designed for pilots, it is designed for the regulatory enforcement body and its agents. Just as road regulations are not really designed for drivers, they are designed for use by police/enforcement agencies.
The draft's particular use of "Strict Liability" is of concern. You were there, you did it, hence you are guilty! This also allows for the use of electronic and camera based prosecutions... Look out for those speed cameras on the LJR's???
What will make this difficult for most of us it the use of "its all an offence" followed by specific exceptions. This is a lazy and imprecise method of enacting laws/regulations, and broadens the allowable scope for prosecution. It's alot easier to prove "you don't fit the exceptions, therefore you broke the regulation"
It also makes innovative changes far more difficult to implement. What if someone comes up with a portable electronic device (mobile phone) that is proven to not affect aircraft instruments? Every time there is an appropriate innovation the regulations must be re-written to allow the new.
Again, I would compare it to road regulations: Only if they were written as this is then it would be "Illegal to start a car if you don't know which way you are going" except (ia) if you had an approved Melways / UBD and (ib) you were endorsed on the Melways / UBD or (ii) it was Sunday.
What about if you have a GPS? Well, wait while we re-write the regulation, wont be long, just a consultation process and we'll be done.... At least as a regulation it doesn't have to go through parliamentary approval!
I have many issues with what is proposed, this is just a brief rant because I didn't see this proposal till after close of submissions..... I have such alot of catching up to do.....
When you take good practices and turn them into regulation/law, the only thing you risk is the original good practices.