Three subjects:
To be fair, for once, to Mr. Arm Out The Window he does have a point; constructive engagement with the regulator is the usual way of achieving progress in its widest sense, but what he is missing is that constructive engagement - sweet reason, has been tried by an alphabet soup of organisations for a very long time with no results.
The culmination of the failure of the engagement process was the Forsyth review - and its conclusion was that CASA had lost the trust of the industry. Since the publication of the findings of the review nothing has happened. One is therefore left to conclude that those in charge do not accept that change is either necessary or desirable.
Given that there appears no willingness to change, and the fact that industry has already engaged with CASA for Ten plus years in dialogue, could we be forgiven for believing that there is no point in wasting our time with any more consultation?
Furthermore, all that anyone is doing in bringing anything to CASAs attention, is to risk the possibility of victimisation and persecution in future - as evidenced by the number of confidential submissions to the Forsyth Review and the committees warnings to CASA regarding this subject.
With knowledge of that past history, why would anyone want to give AVM. Skidmore "full and frank" feedback? Especially with his senior management in attendance and taking notes???? At the risks of invoking Godwins law, its a little like Himmler asking inmates at Dachau for "feedback". The ball is in the Governments court. Feedback has been given. Mountains of it. Some at great cost. No upside and plenty of downside by feeding back.
The second matter I want to raise is "The Vision Thing". I was transfixed by what I saw on the South Island of New Zealand in the way of aviation in GA. The place was buzzing. Virtually every town had a strip with (turbine!) helicopters operating scenic or hunting and fishing operations. I stopped at Milford Sound on a sunny day(!) and the airstrip was literally buzzing with operations, fixed wing and helicopters. If you go to YouTube you can see some of the back country STOL stuff New Zealanders engage in -- landing on river banks to fish, flying to remote beaches, even landing on mountain tops. Can anyone not imagine the jobs, investment and economic growth this aviation regulatory environment provides????
Can anyone not understand the economic opportunity costs of an Australian regulatory environment that virtually prohibits us from having an aviation sector as vibrant as New Zealand??? Then of course there is the USA…
To put that another way; aviation camping tours? Landing aircraft in national parks, let alone river banks and beaches? Back country grass airstrips and camping? Forget it in Australia except by stealth. In my own region and for example; where is the floatplane service on Lake Eildon? Where are the helicopter scenic tours and transfers to the snow country? Where are the high country airstrips for summer camping? Why are our airstrips always under threat of closure and housing development? Why can't we have a vibrant, growing, employing, GA sector? Because the dead hand of CASA imposes almost impossible regulatory costs and burdens on the industry and furthermore CASA has no duty towards that sector at all.
To put that another way; we fly "in spite of CASA", not with CASAs blessing.
The final matter is the RAAF mindset and how it interacts with "The Vision Thing". I would have thought that "vision" is not encouraged in the services, nor is independent action well regarded in relation to operating or maintaining Government aircraft. I suspect , but cannot confirm, that a career spent in a rigid hierarchy does not make for free thinking and a light approach to regulation, but I'd love to be proved wrong.