----- then how is it that CASA can produce a scant document without any numerate analysis of accident rates and argue for increased regulation?
Guys and Girls,
You all have a very short memory, cast your minds back to the year of the CASA FLOP (sorry!! FLOT) Conference or thereabouts.
A draft version of a bunch of rules was circulated, with the concept of a "PRIVATE OPERATIONS AOC" ---- which was to apply to all operations previously classified as "private" --- with the narrow exception of a pilot flying his or her "immediate" family for recreational purposes only.
It is very hard to kill a really bad regulatory idea, particularly when it emanated from our dearly beloved CASA.
In a similar there is a DP canvassing the banning of carrying two kids on one seat --- something that was done on the very first Qantas (what became) RFDS flight in central Queensland.
So, in something like 85 years of this practice, we have never had an injury, much less a fatality, but what does that matter to CASA -- they have a theoretical study from the UK about what "might" happen, and it is being pushed by a cabin crew union.
Indeed, the FAA cost/benefit study on the subject, some years ago, canned the prohibition, they calculated there would be more accidents and injuries in auto accidents, where those killed or injured were using their car, because they could no longer afford the cost of flying a young family.
A really bad idea that will not be killed, as it is dear to the heart of somebody in CASA, regardless of the complete lack of justification.There is nothing new about CASA's (and predecessors) ability to think up really harebrained and stupid rules to "regulated" non-problems.
Tootle pip!!