I'll concede the the point with the observation that "if capable" is subjective and determined by the pilot.
A Squared,
You will find that Australia's favorite aviation word, "mandatory" is largely absent from the US aviation lexicon. As is "strict liability blah blah blah ----" although FAA has quite adequate enforcement powers and penalties.
Many years ago, then FAA Administrator Donald Engen (USN R-Admiral, Retired) paid a brief visit to Australia, about four days. In that time he picked up "the vibe".
On the way home, he said to us:
" You know, in US, if a person is a pilot, we trust them, in Australia, if a person is a pilot, you mistrust them".
There is something very sick in Australian aviation, the current nonsense with CTAFs and frequencies is a good example, it just wouldn't have happened in US.
For starters, FAA would not. out of the blue, suddenly, without consultation , have "clarified" frequency usage, which is where this present nonsense started. If FAA had identified a possible risk (there is and was no new risk, just a brainfart somehwere in CASA) they would have started with a cost/benefit analysis, which is where any change would have died.
Here we have months (years??) of discussions, with almost every aviation group against (except RAAA, which is currying favor with CASA for other reasons, and need to demonstrate their multi-lingual expertise, and practice their arselikan) and instead of CASA dropping the whole thing, we get this nonsense process, with "out of nowhere" semi-giant CTAFs based on what analysis --- precisely none.
A further prime example of the CASA KULTCHA at work, and to hell with the interests of the aviation community.
Tootle pip!!