However I suspect some aviators in the West Island are so used to very prescriptive rules they wouldn't understand
Actually, it is much worse than that, enough aviation industry people demanded, via the Forsyth inquiry, a third tier of prescriptive regulation ----- all part of the "pingya" syndrome.
Spell it all out in fine detail, then do exactly what the "law" requires, no more, no less, then "they can't pingya".
This is probably the worst recommendation of the Forsyth report, which reversed the Howard government policy of 1996, that gave us two tier legislation plus Advisory Circulars, acceptable means of compliance ----
JUST LIKE NZ, US, EASA and many more.
A giant leap backwards, demanded by the industry!!
It is a condemnation of the CASA (and predecessors) approach to enforcement, combined with the lack of nous of large slabs of the industry, that we are in this situation.
Yet another case of what was described by Bob Hawke as:
"Instead of finding a cure for polio, all we do is want to improve the iron lung**".
Actus,
Just accept that what the new CASA board is doing is holding a (long announced) combined meeting with their NZ counterparts, and doing it in good faith. The CASA board (or, more particularly, Skidmore) might learn something useful.
Even a decision to level the very lopsided AU approach to the TTMRA would be an improvement ---- just have a look at the Civil Aviation Act 1998 (Cth) versus the NZ equivalent, it fundamentally shows that CASA does not accept the terms, let alone the spirit, of the TTMRA.
They could look at why industry consultation is effective in NZ, versus Australia, and they could learn why any resulting NZ rules developed are "reasonable", as opposed to what gets churned out here --- but that would also require fundamental amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 2001, which, unfortunately, the Forsyth inquiry recommended against.
Without amendments to the Act, we cannot have genuine cost benefit justified risk based performance/outcome based rules ---- the kind that most of rest of Australian industry already has!!
They could also look at how NZ (very successfully) "promotes and fosters" aviation --- as a Ministerial responsibility, which is where the responsibility should be --- not with an administrative enforcement body.
I could go on, but that is enough for now.
Tootle pip!!
** Don't take me to task on the accuracy of the quote, but you get the general idea.