"considerable discretion in regard to the intent of the regulations and what is acceptable for compliance"
Ah, but Sunny my dear fellow, CAsA deliberately writes the rules this way.
So, let me get this straight.
The CAA 88 and the CAR 88 were considered to be too prescriptive, thus creating a rigidity that prevented adaptation with industry changes and prevented discretionary interpretation to further commercial outcomes without compromising safety.
The alternative, much touted, is "outcomes-based legislation" that does away with the prescription and, for those who have sniffed avgas the longest, creates a commercial advantage engendering regulatory world that is agile and flexible enough to keep pace with industry change but with far less compliance complexity.
As an aside, nobody has ever published a compelling case for achieving standardisation in an outcomes-based world in which safety cases become the new field of entrepreneurial endeavour. But, let's not bother with such trivia and just get back to the subject...
We are slowly getting the new rules, but surprisingly they are not what I envisaged "outcomes-based legislation" would look like and all I hear is that they are even more prescriptive than the rules they will eventually replace. Unlike some others, I read the McComic statements as being anti-outcomes-based and being pro-prescription, perhaps because he has comprehensibly failed to standardise his inspectors and decision-makers.
But, bugga me dead, Torn Bird falls out of his tree whinging about CASA deliberately attempting more discretion despite greater prescription...
So what the p
k do you really want out of your rule set and how do you propose to make it sensibly work?