Eyrie,
I agree: the OZ rate is higher, by a margin, then the accident rate in the USA.
It is not three times higher in OZ as far as I can see and I do stand to be corrected.
Sunfish,
I guess we have to ask; who was the aviation advisor in Truss's office? Whoever it was, what were their understandings of this review and where it was to go?
We never got that part of the puzzle.
Looking closer at the report, I can see where Truss et al had trouble making either head or tail of some of this report.
E.g. Pick a recommendation at random and then read the commentary that led the Forsyth committee to make a recommendation in the first place and how did Forsyth expect his recommendation to be implemented?
There is little if any advice on this crucial, last point; how to implement.
I gave my challenge a go. At random:
Recommendation #34.
'CASA's Director of Aviation Safety meet with industry sector leaders to jointly develop a plan for renewing a collaborative and effective Standards Consultative Committee' (SCC).
But, at page 108, the committee states:
'The Panel reviewed the design of the SCC and and determined that it is fundamentally sound'
And at page 123:
'The current consultation program, centred on the SCC, is based on sound principles and is similar to the processes in other countries.'
The recommendation does not follow from the narrative. Academically when it comes to report writing, this is normally considered a 'crime'.
Now CASA and the industry may very well be 'fixing' the SCC but it is pretty easy to see that at first reading of Forsyth, the government and others would have struggled to make sense of the recommendation and would have been flummoxed as to how to progress it.
I guess this sort of conundrum is common amongst politicians when they promise to do something when in Opposition (i.e. hold a comprehensive review into aviation safety); actually do it and then try and workout what the hell they can do with the report without upsetting OZ's safety record or the apple cart.