The fundamental and chronic structural problem here is that CASA is simply not competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.
How many lives are saved by Angel Flight and lost by Angel Flight, operating in accordance with the current rules? Where is the proof of a causal link between changing the rules and changing the lives saved and lost?
If the rules were changed so as to prevent Angel Flights that would otherwise have been permitted under the current rules, how many lives will be lost that would otherwise have been saved, and how many lives will be saved that would otherwise have been lost? What would the cost be to continue the same number of Angel Flights but at a different standard?
What is the cost of transport, by road, of persons who would otherwise have been carried on Angel Flights? Is that cost in excess of the cost of carrying those persons on Angel Flights? Would it be more cost effective to carry medical experts to the patient? Would it be more cost effective to build more hospitals?
CASA is simply not competent to assess or decide the relevant risks, costs or benefits, and is not competent to decide where to set the balance.
It’s like making the police responsible for the road toll and giving them power to determine the speed limit. The police don’t have the power or budget to build better roads, so what response would we expect to road accidents.
That’s one of the reasons Australia has the ever-growing regulatory Frankenstein it has in aviation.
(Notice I didn’t say “incompetent”: I said “not competent”. There is an important difference. It wouldn’t matter who CASA employed: CASA will never be competent to make the decisions that have to be made in order to build a coherent classification of operations scheme.)
Last edited by Creampuff; 20th Aug 2014 at 08:17.