"So, CASA needs to get itself righted but they are light years ahead of many other nations and ICAO recognises that."
From your CV, outlined in your post Actus, there can be little doubt you are an expert in aviation regulation as no doubt is Arm out the window.
Perhaps the CAsA DAS is right when he claims half the world is beating a path to his door to adopt Australia's light years ahead regulations, though there seems very little evidence that anyone is actually doing it.
I am just a pilot, albeit a rather old and decrepit one, but I have a fair amount of experience piloting around the world. From my personal experiences only, I have never had much problem understanding the intent and requirements of other jurisdictions regulations. Maybe I'm just an uneducated dumbass but I have enormous difficulty, as much as I try, in trying to interpret what exactly the OZ version of Part 61 is intended to achieve.
Anecdotally, from other dumbasses I've talked to around the industry, including many CAsA FOI's if they are honest, there seems to me to be the similar problems of comprehension with quite a few people about the place.
Again purely from my own experience, and anecdotally from others, there would appear to be rather large cost burdens attached to compliance. For me about a third of my income has evaporated as the cost of compliance is unsustainable, purely on a cost/return basis.
The thing I find hard to fathom is, is this the intention of part 61 or is it to provide a framework for improved safety? From my experience, as a "framework", Australia's part 61 is very extensive and prescriptive.
Again purely from personal experience, micro-management can lead to unintended consequences, especially when embedded in criminal law. It’s difficult, especially in aviation, to micro-manage events where the environments they occur in are infinitely variable from behind a desk in Canberra.
There are bits and pieces contained in the MOS where to comply, in certain aircraft, would place the aircraft in jeopardy, not I suggest an intended consequence.
There was a recent TV program on the biggest accident in aviation history at Tenerife, where it was suggested a contributing factor was one crews actions may have been accredited to their concerns about breaching a prescriptive regulation regarding duty time.
An unintended consequence?
One could surmise a lot of people lost their lives through an unintended consequence.
I am aware of several instances here in Australia where fear of retribution has lead to what appears to me to be poor operational decisions that could have compromised safety, but then I'm not an expert, I just fly aircraft.
Your advice that ICAO is very happy with the way Australia is conducting its regulatory affairs is heartening news, especially viewed against the myriad differences Australia has posted against ICAO recommendations and the observations of an ICAO audit.
Time will tell I guess. I don’t think the full financial impact of Part 61 is yet apparent.
However from anecdotal evidence, as the industry continues to decline helped along by Part 61, safety statistics will improve as less and less aviating occurs, safety after all is the intended consequence.