Is it any wonder that the GA industry is in such a state in Australia?
Reading through all the "Opinions" expressed on this thread one could come to the conclusion that the greatest "risk" when committing aviation is the risk of prosecution.
Fifty years or so ago, as part of what we called then a "Navex", I flew a tiger moth across bass strait, instructor in the back, no room for a raft, and EPERBS hadn't been invented then and we had no radio.
"Risky"? I was sucking up leather the whole way, but it was a hell of an experience for a young aspiring pilot, but in todays risk free environment I'd be branded as reckless.
Consider another ditching off Norfolk Island
I'm lead to believe as part of CAsA's investigation FOI's were asked to examine which regulations the pilot had breached, apparently the majority answer was NONE, a majority decision. The fact that some said he did indicates just how screwed up our regulations are, completely lacking clarity, even the "Experts" can't agree on interpretation.
Didn't much matter that they didn't prosecute, they still managed to destroy the pilots career "administratively".
Then there's the guy who got hauled into court for not providing his log book in a timely manner, he was interstate at the time working, his logbook at his place of residence.
The attempt to give someone a criminal record,the ramification of which, could have severely impacted on his career thereafter for such a trivial breach boggles the mind. CAsA's band of QC lawyers ranged against a bloke defending himself, tried to paint him as a risk to air safety, fortunately the judge saw through the boondoggle and threw it out.
It is not possible to regulate risk away, yet CAsA continues to try, tens of thousands of pages of gobbledegook regulation expressly designed to be obtuse,confusing, and wide open to interpretation, it would be far less costly to just ban aviation altogether, save us all from ourselves, but then think of all the other "risky" leasure activities that carry "risk", ban them as well? or just legislate to censure anyone who pushes the "Risk" past certain boundaries, the limits of those boundaries decided by committees of "experts", the title "Expert" given because of their employment in the bureaucracy, rather than any experience, knowledge or competency in the field of risk, hell why bother with courts at all, just deal with everything "administratively", save a lot of money on bottom feeding lawyers.
Last edited by thorn bird; 6th May 2017 at 22:40.