Dingo,
I agree with you to the extent that being flying in a compliant manner doesn't mean you are flying safely. My "choice lawyer statement" was in fact an attempt to make that point in plain english, as opposed to legal terms.
I think the link between regulation and safety is complex - perhaps more so than it should be. But it is not correct for you to say "Aviation Regulation in this country has nothing to do with safe flight operations, it's all to do with gaining a prosecution with punitive measures attached" - there are some regulations that do have an obvious safety purpose. There are also a large number of regulations that are administrative in nature that have little or nothing to do with safety.
I agree with you that airmanship and training should result in safe flight. The problem with relying on airmanship and training alone is those things are not universal - just read the pages of PPRUNE to see how many different and strongly held opinions there are on fundamental things. The other problem is there are people who, for whatever reason, will not do the correct thing even if it is safer.
I see training and airmanship as the carrot and regulation the stick. I think you need both a carrot and stick. At the moment there is too much of the stick and not enough of the carrot - if I speak with older pilots they talk of "the Department" (I assume the Department of Aviation) as being very helpful to pilots, adopting a brotherly rather than adversarial role.
I discussed these issues with a friend who has worked with CASA. He is a lawyer (I used to employ him) and a psychologist, and his interest is human factors in safety with a focus on avaiation (but also looking at the mining industry). He is much more up to date on this stuff than I am. His comment was regulation alone cannot guarantee safety.
The television comments are intended to bring a bit of light relief to an otherwise dry subject. If my reference to JAG offends, then I am sorry. I guess I am not as serious as others on this thread.
The driving comments are made to illustrate a point - that is, the role of SL in other areas that most people reading this thread would understand. Because the current and proposed regs are so complicated, it is easier to draw comparison to driving, where the rules are better understood (although the road rules themselves are less than perfect). I didn't see the comments as being off topic.
I forgot to comment about something you said in an earlier post. I agree 100% that CASA shouldn't be fufilling all the roles it is asked to fufil. At the risk of upsetting you further by mentioning driving again, we have the RTA to register vehicles and monitor licensing/training/vehicle design, and we have the police to enforce road rules. I would like to see the administrative, safety and enforcement aspects of CASA seperated. But that is an issue for a different forum.
Basically, and with respect (which is lawyer speak for I am about to say something you won't like), I think you have a number of good points but your position that regulations do nothing for safety is too simplistic.
But then again, I am a lawyer, not a normal person.
no time to proof read, so please ignore typos