My advice on "strict liability", and we have two barristers on the board, is that the regulator has a choice as to which offences should be strict liability, and they should be minor or administrative offences, ie parking fines, size of registration markings and other mind numbing stuff. The CASA interpretation of the Attorney Generals guidelines is such that they want all sorts of regulations strict liability using the excuse that "they made us do it". I believe that this excuse is dishonest, be I right or wrong. If I am wrong then the fight is with the AG's Department, but fight we should, wherever the battle field. It is to my mind absurd that a pilot should be required to defend himself if cabin crew don't stow baggage. Should the Captain of a supersonic airliner, asleep in the bunk, be guilty of an offence if the F/O goes supersonic without a clearance? Should a pilot be guilty of an offence for not obeying an ATC instruction he did not see or hear? I don't believe so, and I assume that the "majority" agree with this? The only safety involved here is safe convictions.
As for Poofcream's insulting question
"are you capable of abiding by that view if elected?"
All who vote for me should know how I think, and I would therefore continue on my established track. If that is not the wishes of the "majority" I will be happily unelected. I am do work as part of a team, provided I am not the only one working. I am not good at taking orders from the drone board members. Bill Hamiliton is a good worker and I agree with most of what he does, but he would not, whatever I said, report to the Board on his activities, and that has caused great, and unnecessary, unrest.