Creamy, I haven't decided 'strict liability' or any other components are good or bad thing. I included the term 'strict liaibility' not as a single or only cause affecting open reporting, but as part the total effect of any legislation/reg/rule has on that reporting.
Talking to CASA can, as you describe be "like pissing into the wind", but it can sometimes be fruitfull. CASA are the people we must deal with in aviation, if they have a problem (identified by us in the industry) with the AG's ideas, then that problem is between CASA & the AG. We can of course help CASA in their 'discussions' with the AG by making our views very clear to CASA. It has worked this way previously and I see no reason why it can't again work in the future.
The most important part of a Safety Management System is as I pointed out earlier, the free and open flow of information to allow all of us to learn from mistakes made in the past so as to design systems and practices to avoid repeating those mistakes in the future.
Why would anybody willingly contribute to a reporting system that then turned around and shafted them for the report ?
When was the last time you, me or anyone we know conducted a totally 100% compliant flight ?
If you are normal like me and pretty well most aircrew I know the honest answer is never!
Be assured I am not flaming you, just asking you the same questions I have asked myself.
I am not aware of Reason or Hudson advocating 'pissing into the wind'. Far from it, I interpet both advocate systems that encourage open & frank reporting so as to enhance safety across the board whether it be in aviation, petroleum or any number of other industries that have benefited from their great work.
Any impediment to such a reporting system (culture) demands our attention.
Disco Stu