Below an example of how the USA are tackling a perceived problem. Having operated under FARs for 2 decades I found them perfect !! compared to the Australian excuse for so called
safety regulations
A Report from the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation ARC to the FAA
Executive Summary Page iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 30, 2012, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation (CRI) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in order to satisfy the requirements of section 313 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) (the ¡§Act¡¨). In the Act, Congress directed the Administrator to establish an advisory panel to review the October 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on certification and approval processes (GAO-11-14) and develop recommendations to address the findings in the report. In completing its study, the ARC determined root causes of inconsistent interpretation of regulations by the FAA¡¦s Flight Standards Service (AFS) and Aircraft Certification Service (AIR). The ARC also developed recommendations to address inconsistencies by and between AFS and AIR. The ARC submits this report for consideration by the Administrator in the preparation of the FAA Report to Congress required by the Act.
Methodology
At the outset of its study, the ARC identified sources and methods for collecting objective data through case studies submitted by the industry members, survey results, and an inventory of existing regulatory and guidance documents.
Classifications for Inconsistent Application of Regulations
The members developed a series of five classifications to categorize issues of inconsistent application:
„h Rulemaking
„h Application
„h Issue Resolution
„h Training/Lack of Information
„h Culture/Organization
Case Studies
The ARC compiled case studies, submitted by its industry members, involving issues of regulatory application. The ARC reviewed and classified these case studies and decided to seek additional data.
A Report from the Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation ARC to the FAA
Executive Summary Page v
Industry Stakeholder Survey
To involve other aviation stakeholders in its review, the industry members of the ARC developed and distributed an Industry Stakeholder Survey (¡§Survey¡¨). The ARC reviewed responses from 437 participants. The Survey included:
„h Questions mirroring those asked of the expert panel in GAO-11-14;
„h Questions relating to the consistency of regulatory application at the local/field office level;
„h Questions specific to jurisdictional oversight; and
„h An opportunity to provide additional information/specific examples.
Regulatory Guidance Material Inventory
The ARC also conducted a review of FAA regulatory guidance material to explore issues involving inconsistencies further. The ARC identified different types of guidance material, how the documents are organized, and the scope of effort involved in developing a master single-source database for FAA regulatory guidance documents.
Identification of Root Causes
The members reviewed GAO-11-14 and discussed case studies and Survey results to determine root causes. The ARC identified three root causes for the ongoing inconsistencies by and between AFS and AIR:
„h Need for Clear Regulatory Requirements: Unclear regulatory language contributes to inconsistent application. When a regulation is unclear, its application varies from one inspector to another and compliance differs among certificate holders. Over time, better analytical tools, new technologies and best practices change compliance techniques, creating further ambiguity.
„h Regulatory Application Training: Inadequate and nonstandard FAA and industry training is an early cause of inconsistent regulatory application. Training in regulatory development methodology and standard application and resolution protocols have not kept pace with changes either at FAA or the stakeholder community.
„h Culture: There is a general reluctance and/or failure by both industry and the FAA to work issues of inconsistent regulatory application through to a final resolution. Timeliness of decisions and a ¡§fear of retribution¡¨ contribute to an acceptance of inconsistent regulatory application.
The full text can be found at
Not saying I agree with the whole concept, but at least someone had the foresight(?) to admit to the existence of A PROBLEM. In Oz we leave the interpretation to the legal system. Heaven forbid that a pilot should be able to have an interpretation. Most can't even fly an aircraft without the benefit of an AOC. Once convicts, always convicts !!!!! lets hear it for APATHY.
EMPTY SKIES ARE SAFE SKIES!