Valid argument.
Second the Sarcs motion – IF our regulator was transparent, honest and a straight shooter; the conversation on Pprune may be a little different. There are those who 'bark' about "dodgy" operators not being closed down, then there are those who complain about decent companies being hammered out of existence.
The truth, I believe, lays somewhere in between, the problem is that where we should be able to unanimously applaud a 'sound' decision and a safe verdict – at appeal – 'we' cannot. There are far too many inconsistencies. Pel-Air is a classic, as is Airtex and Barrier. Any reasonable comparison of NCN (RCA in old money) and the CASA response to the noted, audited and published results indicates only one thing – the regulator plays with a seriously stacked deck.
This is no position to start to build 'trust'; not where it can be proven that the regulator lied – 'through it's teeth'. It may well be painful, but publish the CASA audit, plus both the company and CASA response to 'NCN'. Publishing the follow up action from both parties may go some way toward clarity, transparency, probity and the prevention of repeated breaches and incidents which are 'borderline' or 'accidental'. The more complex the regulation, the more chance of breach. Closed loop, open system - Hell, it may even improve safety – who knows: lest we tries it.
Ask the FAA if you can't take my word. The FAA will decimate – completely – an operation that, after a reasonable warning of NC, fail to 'fix it'. But the chance to fix up proven breaches of regulation, with expert support is always the first option. Which beats the CASA lottery system (Rafferty's rules) into a cocked hat.
Aye, it's a wicked old world...
Last edited by Kharon; 19th Oct 2014 at 21:17.
Reason: Ed: the ed.