CASA, Coroner's Courts and the Ombudsman

[Creampuff]

The framework within which this discussion is happening is a manifestation of the problem: governments have abdicated responsbility to the regulator.

Every sector says coroners "don't understand".

Coroners may, if they wish, make a recommendation that, in the interests of safety, all aircraft be fitted with at least 5 engines.

The decision whether to implement that recommendation is not, or at least should not be in a functioning representative democracy, the regulator's. The decision should be the government's.

That's because all decisions about where to set regulatory standards are, ultimately, political decisions. That's because all decisions about where to set regulatory standards should require an assessment of all the risks and benefits to society, and decisions about what benefits are not worth the corresponding risks.

Regulators are not competent to do that, because regulators are not competent to assess or know all the potential risks and benefits to society of various levels at which standards could be set. All that regulators are competent to do is decide that one standard may result in higher levels of safey and cost than another, within the closed system of the sector being regulated.

CASA, for example, doesn't know or care about whether setting higher standards for, for example, aerial ambulance operations will result in an overall dis-benefit to society as a consequence of more deaths on the road or lack of treatment for people who would otherwise have been medivac'ed.

But governments these days want everything to be 'win/win', and don't want to take responsibility for any decision that might be electorally unpopular. Best to leave that to ever-keen to please patsies who are rewarded handsomely for appearing to be responsible.

The organ grinders have let the monkey loose.