Here is a ‘good’ example of what is so wrong with the thinking of the aviation ‘safety’ rule makers:
175.465 Aeronautical data originators—annual review of aeronautical data and aeronautical information
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if the originator contravenes subregulation (2).
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) For subregulation (1), the originator must:
(a) review, at least annually, the aeronautical data and aeronautical information in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (other than in NOTAMS), and on aeronautical charts, for which the originator is responsible; and
(b) keep a record of a review mentioned in paragraph (a) for at least 3 years; and
(c) if CASA requests a copy of a record mentioned in paragraph (b)—comply with the request.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(3) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
I note that there is no element of the offence requiring that the data or information is
actually inaccurate. Nor is there an element of the offence requiring that any actual inaccuracies have any substantial effect on safety. (The structure of the regulation is also ridiculous.)
This regulation is not about safety.
It’s about bureaucracy.
The data originator is a criminal simply for failing to be a good bureaucrat. Whether that failure has any substantial impact on safety is
completely irrelevant.