Their (the UK) regulator rose from the same roots as ours.
Errrr!, Yes and no.
Until it was subsumed into the then new CAA, the ARB Ltd. was an independent body setting airworthiness standards. In the G.O.Ds, the RAC did all the flight testing short of the CPL, GAPAN did all the GA instructor training and testing.
In my view, the military influence in the UK was/is less than here. Government policies in the UK, monopoly Government owned airlines, central government planning, whether the industry was nationalized of not, all played major parts in the downfall of UK manufacturing, post WW11, and a major Labour antipathy to private enterprise also played its part, a very big part, prior to Thatcher.
Although UK CAA can be difficult to work with at times (particularly in the JAA/EASA era) I have never found the same level of outright obstruction and hostility as is a common experience in dealing with CASA, and I certainly have not found the outright incompetence of operational staff, as is also common in CASA.
CAA UK have always attracted a fair proportion of experienced and qualified staff, compared to CASA in recent years. I find myself dealing with peers.
On the subject of "promote and foster" (long since removed from the remit of the FAA) the following is of note:
To further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services (s. 4 (1) Civil Aviation Act 1982) (UK).
Quite apart from the individual problems of CASA staff, perhaps the biggest single problem is the "risk averse to the extreme" culture that grew in the old CAA/AU and has amplified in CASA/AU.
We all know the difficulties of getting decisions out of CASA, because saying NO! is always easier, with fewer potential repercussions than saying YES. Saying Yes means making a decision, with the potential risks and repercussions.
This is probably the core reason for the ridiculously protracted nonsense that goes on with issuing almost any kind of approval. ( Sorry, "permission" --- as CASA emphasizes your position in the "command and control" structure)
As those of us who work with them know, Mr. McCormick, in my opinion, completely misrepresents the situation in NZ.
The "basket case" comment in a Government inquiry referred to some individuals, and that report made
NO REFERENCE AT ALL to the NZ Act and Regulations being a basket case. In fact, it made no significant reference to the NZ Act and Regulations, at all.
Tootle pip!!