Creampuff
I agree with Bill, we know the rules we want. They are called (Oz modified) FARs.
An interesting aside. The advisor who got Part 47 disallowed is Jane Errey. She is now on the Board and is still very much in touch with those who moved the disallowance.
Now Mr Gemmell said he doesn't want to see the milloins spent wasted (and perhaps if he'd listened in the first place they wouldn't have been), but now I'd say he has a far greater reason to listen and work with AOPA.
Disallowance isn't a tool to be used lightly, but it is an effective tool against a regulator who thinks they don't have to listen before making rules.
The new Board will be powerful. It will be powerful because it isn't split. I fully expect debate (and for Pikey to call me a d1ckhead) but that is all par for the course. At the end of the day, this Board will quickly dispense with housekeeping and become a formiddable political lobbyist. All Mick Toller et al have to do is decide to either work with us to achieve joint aims or to establish a sub-department to explain all the disallowance motions to the Minister. I personally would much prefer the former and have confidence that Toller and Gemmel would to.
AK