I don't see at as nitpicking to point out that Dick's methods are often unproductive and, in some cases, counterproductive.
So Dick thinks CASA's completely hopeless at bringing about any substantial improvements in the regulatory regime. Well ... durr. We got that 3 decades ago, and on pprune he's pretty much preaching to the converted on that point.
But in this particular case he seems to be labouring under two misconceptions:
1. That CASA is preventing people from setting up webcams at aerodromes, and
2. That CASA could choose to set up those webcams itself.
If that's what he thinks, he's wrong on both counts. CAR 120 doesn't prevent anyone from setting up webcams anywhere they like. And CASA doesn't 'do' infrastructure.
What, then, is to be achieved by writing to CASA about the subject then bagging CASA for not doing something it cannot do?