I do not think this article gives a good representation of the official Norwegian view. What has been said earlier is just that CAA-Norway does not agree 100% with everything in the report. And that the actions and recommendations need to be reviewed before a decision is made on what to do.
The apparent lack of full support and enthusiasm for the actions may be because:
- some have already been implemented or tried before
- some are not relevant
- some are probably too complicated/huge for a small authority like the Norwegian to take on
- slightly different views with respect to where the highest risks are and how to treat them
- last but not least, there is no feeling of urgency on the Norwegian side. Could it be that the lack of accidents has given us a (false) sense of safety - and that a touch of complacency has set in?