Likewise, I would like to see GA thriving without undue restriction, but I don't see it being achieved with an adversarial 'get f@&#ed CASA' stance and prejudice against individuals because of perceptions of how their backgrounds mould them.
I don't actually believe that there is any prejudice.
what you see is a reaction to the enduring behaviour of CAsA.
If anyone thinks that strict liability and the move away from the assumption of innocence as underlying principles in our legal system is conducive to safety then they have rocks in their heads.
"Ramp Checks" under a system of draconian law is quite likely to get CAsA staff killed. That I think is an inevitable outcome.
The reality is that if you are 'one of us' then CAsA will deliver amazing rights.
If you have never been CAsA staff or in the RAAF then you are assumed to be a criminal deserving of punitive attention and endless threats. History shows this.
I know of a former CAsA staffer who owned a rutan homebuilt. without any training behind him, totally on the basis that he was 'once one of us' CAsA issued him with a LAME's licence limited to his homebuilt.
He could service and operate that aircraft as, in effect, a canadian owner maintainer.
Applications by other owners for a similar licence were met with a letter stating that they had no qualifications and CAsA could not possibly entertain the request until LAME theory and Schedule of experience requirements were met.
CAsA is rotten to the core. Rotten in thinking, Rotten in behaviour.
If you don't believe this then you were either "one of us" or you are ex-raaf.
If Skidmore wants to have the world behind him and CAsA then both of them need to start respecting the world outside their direct experience.
Unwind all the strict liability bull**** and introduce canadian owner maintenance would be two good starts to the changes.
The alternative is that we continue to pressure for the entire show to be lined up in the unemployment ranks behind the EASA clowns that they so admired.