Originally Posted by
scavenger
There's no cause of action possible for defamatory publications about a dead person. So while it may be socially reprehensible to speak ill of the dead, it is not a tortious act.
A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.
I can't see any cause for concern there.
This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here. Road trauma costs a lot of money and the cost of solving the problem is too high. Let's treat aviation the same - maybe we could get the cost of aviation accidents somewhere up near $27B.
Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results
Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.
And there we have the regulation of aviation in Australia, writ large: We're going to make aviation accident free, at whatever cost.
Do you entertain the possibility that the ratio of the costs of "air trauma" compared with the benefits of aviation was already orders of magnitude lower than that of road trauma compared with the the benefits of the road transport system, and that further strangulation of aviation activity is having a net negative effect?
I do. But I'm dumb.
Tell me: How does CASA assess the costs of, say, banning 'community service flights' in private operations, and against what criteria does CASA decide whether that cost is worth paying?