Too true Gobbles although the same bit of 'spin' and 'bureacratic wankery' (i.e. CASR proposed 91) seems to have created a degree of 'angst' and confusion within Fort Fumble ranks, see here their response to question 159:
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Budget Estimates May 2011
Infrastructure and Transport
Question no.: 159
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: (CASA) Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Part 91
Proof Hansard Page/s: Written
Senator Heffernan asked:
Part 91 of the proposed Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 2011 aims effect a number of regulations in the aviation industry. The first discussion paper was published by CASA in 1999. It has been followed at various times by a NPRM in 2001 and several subsequent industry reviews. The existing draft of Part 91 was prepared after those reviews were “frozen” in 2006.
1) How does CASA justify leaving the industry in limbo for 11 years? Has CASA
provided explanations to the industry and a proposed timeline so that the industry can prepare and plan for changes to its regulations?
2) How much has this lengthy review process cost?
3) What is the estimated cost of implementing these changes?
Answer:
1) CASA has kept the industry informed of progress with Part 91 on an on-going basis.
In addition to postings on the CASA website, updates are given regularly at meetings of the Standards Consultative Committee and its sub-committees. Pilots and operators will be given sufficient time to prepare for the new regulations before they enter into force. Training and education publications will be developed and briefings given to the industry to prepare them for the introduction of the regulations.
2) CASA does not itemise costs for individual parts or development of individual pieces of legislation.
3) In accordance with established procedure, the estimated cost to implement the Part 91 changes will be made public in a Regulation Impact Statement.
Note: The bureaucratic keywords and abbreviations are: informed, on-going, prepare, SCC (and its sub-committees) and RIS.
So did they ATFQ(s)?