I see.
So if an individual in CASA with subjective opinions about the extent of a risk and how to mitigate that risk decides to issue an AD imposing that subjective opinion and consequent costs on aircraft owners, on pain of criminal conviction, despite the NAA responsible for the largest GA fleet on the planet not having done the same, aircraft owners should just STFU and pay.
If the proposed amendments to the AD come into effect, something that would have been criminally dangerous on 1 January 2018 will magically become acceptably safe until 1 September 2018, on which date it will magically become criminally dangerous. And aircraft owners should just STFU and not point out the nonsense.
Compliance with the inspection procedures in the proposed amended AD are more expensive than the current mandated replacement for many aircraft, and aircraft owners should thank CASA for its wonderful beneficence in proposing the amendment.
Meanwhile, on whatever planet AOPA and the CEO of CASA happen to be dwelling at the moment, the AD has been "rescinded". I suppose aircraft owners should just shrug and laugh it off as the usual dumb and dumber farce.
If the government issued a 'roadworthiness directive' requiring car owners to have the car's airbags inspected and replaced, at the owner's expense and on pain of criminal conviction, there would be riots until the government was tossed out on its ear. The different treatment of aircraft owners is about politics - plain and simple politics - not safety, but aircraft owners should just STFU and pay.
