At the risk of repeating myself.... well... yes I am!
I think the issues here are really about "how" the rules are written.
Firstly the rules must be clear and easy to understand. They must reflect established practice and be soundly based to reflect industry expectations. If this is done, then the chances that the aviation community will understand and whats more comply with the rules are significantly increased. That been the case, perhaps all the penalty stuff need not be highlighted they way it is.
The new rules and the old rules may have similar application of strict liability, but the new rules have it at the bottom of almost every individual rule with a penalty points included. The message that this sends out is that is what it is going to "cost" you should you cross the line and be caught.
Every safety management system has as its core the facility to have open reporting without fear of penalty unless the occurrence was the result of a deliberate or malicious act.
If there is even a remote chance that the reporting culture within the aviation industry will chance for the worse as a result of these rules and how they are written then it is clearly WRONG and what more as highlighted at the FLOT conference a risk to air safety due to the potential for the "drying up" of reporting.
It is another issue altogether to talk about immunity as we have seen in years gone by under DCA etc. The decision to prosecute is one that usually rests with CASA and the DPP however there are cases (I understand) where the DPP has gone against a CASA recommendation. Certainly there is need for some clarification of policy in this area.
The whole issue of how the rules may effect safety reporting, safety management systems and safety culture must be closely examined at the highest level removed from the AGs Dept and the CASA Legal people who obviously by default now run CASA.
If this needs to go public and to the Minister, then that is where it will have to go.
Last edited by triadic; 16th Mar 2003 at 21:23.