Re the legal stuff, I was thinking of the risk acceptance etc associated with Kiwi 'extreme tourism' type activities, which (I believe) reduces the issues their operators have with being sued as long as they take reasonable safety related steps. Dunno a lot about it, it's just what I've heard, so as always I'm happy to be corrected where I'm wrong.
Arm,
Actually, the legal framework here is, if anything, better than NZ, but the difference is marginal. Needless to say, I am not referring to aviation legislation.
We have quite a long list of court cases that have supported not paying damages when the person injured was one who voluntarily assumed a risk in a clearly risky enterprise.
Indeed, consumer law here fundamentally allows a business operator in a field of extreme sports or similar activities to contract out of what would otherwise been the normal responsibilities to the consumer.
In 1996, aviation wise, we tool a different tack to the NZers and their Swedavia-McGregor report:<http://www.caa.govt.nz/pubdocs/Swedavia-McGregor_Report.htm> and, as a result, the legal framework for the CASA Experimental and Limited Categories rejected an "equivalent safety" approach, in favor of the then Australian Government policy that people should be free to indulge in risky pursuits, but were personally responsible for the outcomes, not CASA.
This is reflected in the current legislation, but needless to say, CASA can't leave well enough alone, and the outcomes if Part 132 is enacted do not bode well for "Adventure Flying" in Australia, likewise recent CASA intrusion in to other air sports areas that have been successful for many years.
There is quite a regulatory empire being created in the CASA Sports Aviation office, all to address nil real problems, just imagined. Unfortunately, the resultant intrusions and $$$ costs are anything but imaginary.
In the case of Part 132, CASA has turned two (2) simple regulation, that have worked well since 1998 into several hundred pages of regulations and MOS (by the time they are finished) and needless to say, this all addresses no problems, but does it in a manner that provides for the usual costly micro-management and a considerable array of new offenses.
Again, needless to say, without the slightest attempt at justification, let alone cost/benefit justification, and in complete defiance of the present Government red tape cost reduction policy.
Tootle pip!!