Originally Posted by
jonkster
Sorry - just had a few beers and wine but I get tired of hearing about how bad CASA is why they are the baddies but seriously - whinge as much as you want - talk is cheap, it has been going on for ages and nothing changes.
Their mandate is safety, not sustainability. That is what they were tasked to do, it is in their mission statement.
Given that, they do what they are tasked to do.
Sustainability of the industry is *not* what they are asked to support. Why do we expect them to somehow look for sustainability and growth? Why are we surprised that they don't?
What we need is not to whinge about them for doing what they were tasked to do, what we need to do is lobby the government to change their mandate!
We need a governing body whose mandate is explicitly to support aviation. Whinging about them doing their job might feel good but changes nothing. We need to change their job.
We need to have a body whose mandate is not just industry safety but also industry sustainability.
That will happen when we push that with politicians through industry bodies and through representations to our local members and senators.
A safe AND viable industry will be good for our economy. Change the CASA mission rather than ask why they work to uphold their mission rather than expect them to just decide to do what we want. They are doing their job. It is the job requested that is wrong.
Going to bed now... probably will regret posting tomorrow... 
Not arguing with the need for a pro-aviation body, but unless you subscribe to the "
only empty* skies are safe skies for all" mantra, then the "safety" mandate of CASA
is still an issue ... because its the
administration and implementation of the system that is the problem.
A giant taxpayer-(over)-funded organisation, dedicated in the first instance to itself, and a distant third to safety, will neither advance safety nor aviation.
CASA's principle aim - "
safe jobs (for life) for all" (as well as its secondary aim - "
well paid jobs for all") requires that it constantly make increasing amounts of work for itself.
There's no point in operational efficiency.
And by making sure of overpaid lifetime jobs at all levels of a self-sustaining bureaucracy, the ultimate imperative is making work ...
Therefore, if one rule makes you safe - a hundred rules are preferred (with commensurate administrative requirements).
And if jumping through one hoop keeps you on your toes, jumping through a hundred keeps CASA in clover.
As far as CSFCWA, I wouldn't be surprised if, in addition to the usual absurd level of interference, "oversight" and paperwork, CASA decided that it might try an toss in a shed-load of ambit requirements, conditions and charges to the potential money cow. Typical CASA, however, to kill the golden goose!
NB: In relation to the police analogy ... thankfully, I've never met a cop so much more petty-minded than a parking inspector, yet who not only personally creates the law, also enforces it, and keeps the revenue for himself! Even the caricature small-town, backwoods, "broken tail-light" sheriff is less vindictive and more honest than the CASA collective!
____________
*Empty, aside from a million unregulated drones...