To Hell With The Rules.
Thread Starter
To Hell With The Rules.
text of Phelans article.
...And you wonder why the industry is rooted?
This is not going to change until a very large number of people are killed in an aviation accident.
To Hell with the rules!
...And you wonder why the industry is rooted?
This is not going to change until a very large number of people are killed in an aviation accident.
To Hell with the rules!
“Shorter” regulations in particular remain a fantasy. We are told for example that the USA’s equivalent Part 91 is about 33 pages when reduced to standard legislative A5; that New Zealand’s equivalent is about 39 pages; but that Australia’s Part 91 is about 250 A4 pages, which will probably increase to something like 350 pages when in A5 format.
Why so much more paper? The reason for this has been a stated insistence within CASA’s legal staff that “the government requires” that Australian aviation regulations must be framed in a criminal law format, along with penalties.
Nobody understands where this claimed “requirement” originates,..........
Why so much more paper? The reason for this has been a stated insistence within CASA’s legal staff that “the government requires” that Australian aviation regulations must be framed in a criminal law format, along with penalties.
Nobody understands where this claimed “requirement” originates,..........
Last edited by Sunfish; 19th Oct 2010 at 17:58.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pretty good summary of the mess.
The penalty/legalese but arose from a Howard Gov't edict that all rules had to be capable of successful prosecution with penalties. CASA's OLC turned this into an art form!
G'day
PS If you've read the article, I'm with Bill Pike all the way!!
The penalty/legalese but arose from a Howard Gov't edict that all rules had to be capable of successful prosecution with penalties. CASA's OLC turned this into an art form!
G'day
PS If you've read the article, I'm with Bill Pike all the way!!
Paul suggests 21 years. If my memory is correct the process commenced in September 1988 - now 22 years.
This thread was commenced in February 2005 and is worth a read.
The only viable solution to regulatory reform in Australia now, would appear to be contracting the regulatory reform task to an external body, with limited time and funding.
CASA has certainly proven it is incapable of completing the task in an acceptable manner.
This thread was commenced in February 2005 and is worth a read.
The only viable solution to regulatory reform in Australia now, would appear to be contracting the regulatory reform task to an external body, with limited time and funding.
CASA has certainly proven it is incapable of completing the task in an acceptable manner.
The excess of rules is one of the main reasons I didn't get back into aviation after my last job finished - It was more difficult to punt a crappy little Metro up & down the east coast of Aus than to fly a 747 around the world.
Left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Left a very bad taste in my mouth.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew I would retire before the new rules ever saw the light of day. So it was that retirement has come to pass and still no new rules.
For those still actively working or having a business in the industry I feel very very sorry, your all f@#!$d.
How has it come to this? Phelan's article says it all.
Me I'm finally over it. Now to have a real life with no crew meals, crappy hotels and 4 am sign ons.
For those still actively working or having a business in the industry I feel very very sorry, your all f@#!$d.
How has it come to this? Phelan's article says it all.
Me I'm finally over it. Now to have a real life with no crew meals, crappy hotels and 4 am sign ons.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Gents. don't be too judgemental.
After all. it has only been 22 years.
The OLC has been extremely busy during this period, defending the honest, hard working FOI and AWI from being attacked by an industry, which is determined (hell bent) , without extreme adult supervision, to do nothing else but lure the poor old deluded public into a killing or maiming exercise, (at their expense) in their poorly maintained aircraft, flown by incompetent, unemployable drunken head cases. We all know this is a fact. Yes?..
We should all be gratefull for the money (from the tax payer of course) which allows 'them' to categorically define, in legal terms, that pilots and, regrettably even,engineers can't do paperwork for Jack@#$%. (surprise, surprise)
Repent all you hard working, incorrigible pilots. Recant all you toiling engineers.
All sins is forgiven (until proven innocent). Then, you get to be another safety managed assett of the great and wonderfull system. (Strict liabilty cases excluded).
All praise "Skull". (No he's not, he's a very naughty boy).
The OLC has been extremely busy during this period, defending the honest, hard working FOI and AWI from being attacked by an industry, which is determined (hell bent) , without extreme adult supervision, to do nothing else but lure the poor old deluded public into a killing or maiming exercise, (at their expense) in their poorly maintained aircraft, flown by incompetent, unemployable drunken head cases. We all know this is a fact. Yes?..
We should all be gratefull for the money (from the tax payer of course) which allows 'them' to categorically define, in legal terms, that pilots and, regrettably even,engineers can't do paperwork for Jack@#$%. (surprise, surprise)
Repent all you hard working, incorrigible pilots. Recant all you toiling engineers.
All sins is forgiven (until proven innocent). Then, you get to be another safety managed assett of the great and wonderfull system. (Strict liabilty cases excluded).
All praise "Skull". (No he's not, he's a very naughty boy).
Last edited by Kharon; 20th Oct 2010 at 11:14. Reason: Spelling, still can't get the hang of it.
Feather#3,
It all goes back long before Howard was even elected to Parliament. And the problem didn't arise from anything along the lines you suggest. Have a really good look at all the quotes in the Phelan article, and the OBPR came from a Howard initiative --- but CASA just ignores it.
In 1966 (when QF was taking delivery of its first B707-338Cs) the then Minister for Aviation (Yes!!, we had one) reported on a recommendation that we move to the US style of regulation, the recommendation of a study tour of US by sundry DCA people. All in the 1966 Minister's report to Parliament, Phelan has a copy.
The bureaucrats have been fighting it ever since.
Beazley was a reformer, Brereton made John Anderson look good,(don't even mention Charlie Jones) sadly John Sharp and Mark Vaile didn't stay in the Minister for Transport and Whatever Was Tacked On At The Time long enough, and here we are today.
If Leroy Keith and the PAP had had another year, 90% of the job would have been done.
With a new set of "maintenance" rules as bad as the lot withdrawn by Anderson in 2003, becasue he would not have got them through the Senate. That will be the fate of the latest lot.
Everybody, please read Phelan's paper --- then start writing to your local member.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Start banging on SA Senator Elect David Fawcett's door, he is an aviator of very considerable qualifications, and a bloody good bloke.
It all goes back long before Howard was even elected to Parliament. And the problem didn't arise from anything along the lines you suggest. Have a really good look at all the quotes in the Phelan article, and the OBPR came from a Howard initiative --- but CASA just ignores it.
In 1966 (when QF was taking delivery of its first B707-338Cs) the then Minister for Aviation (Yes!!, we had one) reported on a recommendation that we move to the US style of regulation, the recommendation of a study tour of US by sundry DCA people. All in the 1966 Minister's report to Parliament, Phelan has a copy.
The bureaucrats have been fighting it ever since.
Beazley was a reformer, Brereton made John Anderson look good,(don't even mention Charlie Jones) sadly John Sharp and Mark Vaile didn't stay in the Minister for Transport and Whatever Was Tacked On At The Time long enough, and here we are today.
If Leroy Keith and the PAP had had another year, 90% of the job would have been done.
With a new set of "maintenance" rules as bad as the lot withdrawn by Anderson in 2003, becasue he would not have got them through the Senate. That will be the fate of the latest lot.
Everybody, please read Phelan's paper --- then start writing to your local member.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Start banging on SA Senator Elect David Fawcett's door, he is an aviator of very considerable qualifications, and a bloody good bloke.
Last edited by LeadSled; 21st Oct 2010 at 11:47.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$240M on re-writing rules no one can understand into something only lawyers can understand...
for that $$ CASA could donate 120 brand new C208 Caravans to the industry and get rid of half their ageing aircraft problems right there....!
I know... lets have a parliamentary enquiry and blow another $10M.....
for that $$ CASA could donate 120 brand new C208 Caravans to the industry and get rid of half their ageing aircraft problems right there....!
I know... lets have a parliamentary enquiry and blow another $10M.....
Senate Hansard of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee hearings of 14 February 2005, pages 124/5:
Senator MARK BISHOP—When do you think those regulations will go to the minister?
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Mr Byron—I anticipate we would start sending some of them from about the middle of this year. I do not see this delaying the overall program excessively. We have an action item to develop a plan to forward to the minister about when we plan to have them to the minister, and I assume that plan would be done in the next couple of months. I would be hopeful that it would not be long after early 2006 that most of the draft rules are delivered to the minister.
Thread Starter
I had a chat with a pilot last night at a dinner who looked at importing an English kit built Two seat ultralight that was a pusher, something like a drifter. He found that Two were already flying in Australia.
At the time CASA was paranoid about Two seat ultralights, out of apparent concern for the hapless passenger. They were happy to see the pilot kill himself, but the legal implications of a grieving passengers family were upsetting for CASA.
Their solution to the "safety problem" created by the second seat was to require it be removed and the empty space placarded accordingly. He didn't bother continuing.
I told him what one of the former owners of Gippsland Aeronautics told me about the certification process for the GA8 Airvan; CASA did everything it possibly could to kill that project, and I expect that CASA's attitude was most probably one of the reasons the company has since been sold to Mahindra.
As for CASA having the slightest effect on Qantas, VB, et al, forget it. Ever since at least as early as the 1970's, CASA gets told what it will accept by the big boys, who have to pay for the education of CASA staff into the mysteries of Airbus, Boeing, etc.
That leaves CASA with nothing to do but make the lives of regional airline owners and GA operations as hellish as possible in order to justify their existence. The Benalla and Lockhart river accidents make it obvious that they can't even do that.
After my conversation last night, the chances of myself building an aircraft from a kit (The American CH750) have now diminished accordingly.....and the day before yesterday as the Australian dollar rose, I was itching to do something.
I think CASA must secretly be in league with property developers. I can't think of another reason they would try and kill Aviation.
Is it an RAAF thing? Has employing former RAAF staff done it to CASA? I had Two former RAAF bosses in my career, both of them were complete pricks.
At the time CASA was paranoid about Two seat ultralights, out of apparent concern for the hapless passenger. They were happy to see the pilot kill himself, but the legal implications of a grieving passengers family were upsetting for CASA.
Their solution to the "safety problem" created by the second seat was to require it be removed and the empty space placarded accordingly. He didn't bother continuing.
I told him what one of the former owners of Gippsland Aeronautics told me about the certification process for the GA8 Airvan; CASA did everything it possibly could to kill that project, and I expect that CASA's attitude was most probably one of the reasons the company has since been sold to Mahindra.
As for CASA having the slightest effect on Qantas, VB, et al, forget it. Ever since at least as early as the 1970's, CASA gets told what it will accept by the big boys, who have to pay for the education of CASA staff into the mysteries of Airbus, Boeing, etc.
That leaves CASA with nothing to do but make the lives of regional airline owners and GA operations as hellish as possible in order to justify their existence. The Benalla and Lockhart river accidents make it obvious that they can't even do that.
After my conversation last night, the chances of myself building an aircraft from a kit (The American CH750) have now diminished accordingly.....and the day before yesterday as the Australian dollar rose, I was itching to do something.
I think CASA must secretly be in league with property developers. I can't think of another reason they would try and kill Aviation.
Is it an RAAF thing? Has employing former RAAF staff done it to CASA? I had Two former RAAF bosses in my career, both of them were complete pricks.
Last edited by Sunfish; 20th Oct 2010 at 23:07.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't think it has anything to do with the RAAF. There are a mix of really good guys and not so good guys which come from there, like any organisation (born & bred QF managers are no different). The "complete pricks" I know who are ex-RAAF were also complete pricks when I knew them in the RAAF! The personalities don't change. Just the job.
If you can get a kit which can be built & certified under FAA regs (eg experimental or whatever) CASA are very likely to approve it here. Mine is coming with FAA paperwork already stamped, and I've had advice on multiple fronts that the CASA certificate won't be a problem at all.
If you can get a kit which can be built & certified under FAA regs (eg experimental or whatever) CASA are very likely to approve it here. Mine is coming with FAA paperwork already stamped, and I've had advice on multiple fronts that the CASA certificate won't be a problem at all.
Thread Starter
Dutchy:
Been through all that. The CH 750 is a 600kg American designed and approved LSA to ASTM standards which is approved as a 51% amateur build kit by the FAA. RAA is limited to 544 kg for kit built LSA. The Ch 750 is now uprated to 650 kg. It has to go the "Experimental" VH register route otherwise its payload is ridiculously limited.
At least if its on the VH register, and has a certified engine, it might be allowed to operate over built up areas.
However, if I lose my medical the aircraft will have to go on the RAA register, lose 50 kg MTOW (or 100kg if the supposedly long awaited RAA kit built MTOW limit is not upgraded to 600kg).
The first Australian CH750 is being built at the moment (Rotax 912), but then has to go through a "first of type" evaluation by CASA.
What the "first of type" process will probably do, given CASA's reputation, is freeze the only allowable configuration for the Australian built kit aircraft without getting a variation or exemption from CASA, and that both costs money and has an uncertain outcome. For example, I've seen an aircraft grounded over a missing un-vented fuel cap after CASA refused to accept the simple expedient of applying a blanking plate held down with six screws to the full tank was deemed unacceptable.
Yet in America this aircraft is being built with Rotax, Jabiru, Lycoming and Continental engines and is fitted with whatever avionics the builder decides on, let alone fuel systems, autopilots and God knows what changes.
It took me about Six weeks of trying to reconcile the regs with CASA's rules with no success. I eventually was put on to the RAA who gave me about half the answer. The distributor was more enlightening, but the overall level of risk associated with a lack of plain English regulations including what will be allowed and what will not, and the capriciousness of CASA as evidenced by numerous PPrune threads, leads me the decision not to commit $50,000 to a project that may end up "sitting on a pole".
...And yes, I have been told "if you live in outback Queensland no one will bother you", but I don't live in outback Queensland, I live in Melbourne. I've also been told "She'll be right", and that there are various "work arounds" but the regulations don't say that, and no CASA inspector would either.
I want it in black and white in plain English, but of course CASA can't and won't provide that, and neither can anyone else.
To put it another way: You said your kit is "very likely" to be approved.
I have found the hard way in fields outside aviation that "very likely" is not something to base a business decision on. I also sadly note that the "advice" has a nasty habit of not being correct, at which time the advisers melt away like snow in the sun.
I've asked for certainty. I haven't found it, and no one will give it to me. I know I could buy a Foxbat or something else factory built at twice the price of a kit, but that's above my budget so forget it.
Capricious behaviour by public servants is unacceptable. It's killing aviation.
If you can get a kit which can be built & certified under FAA regs (eg experimental or whatever) CASA are very likely to approve it here. Mine is coming with FAA paperwork already stamped, and I've had advice on multiple fronts that the CASA certificate won't be a problem at all.
At least if its on the VH register, and has a certified engine, it might be allowed to operate over built up areas.
However, if I lose my medical the aircraft will have to go on the RAA register, lose 50 kg MTOW (or 100kg if the supposedly long awaited RAA kit built MTOW limit is not upgraded to 600kg).
The first Australian CH750 is being built at the moment (Rotax 912), but then has to go through a "first of type" evaluation by CASA.
What the "first of type" process will probably do, given CASA's reputation, is freeze the only allowable configuration for the Australian built kit aircraft without getting a variation or exemption from CASA, and that both costs money and has an uncertain outcome. For example, I've seen an aircraft grounded over a missing un-vented fuel cap after CASA refused to accept the simple expedient of applying a blanking plate held down with six screws to the full tank was deemed unacceptable.
Yet in America this aircraft is being built with Rotax, Jabiru, Lycoming and Continental engines and is fitted with whatever avionics the builder decides on, let alone fuel systems, autopilots and God knows what changes.
It took me about Six weeks of trying to reconcile the regs with CASA's rules with no success. I eventually was put on to the RAA who gave me about half the answer. The distributor was more enlightening, but the overall level of risk associated with a lack of plain English regulations including what will be allowed and what will not, and the capriciousness of CASA as evidenced by numerous PPrune threads, leads me the decision not to commit $50,000 to a project that may end up "sitting on a pole".
...And yes, I have been told "if you live in outback Queensland no one will bother you", but I don't live in outback Queensland, I live in Melbourne. I've also been told "She'll be right", and that there are various "work arounds" but the regulations don't say that, and no CASA inspector would either.
I want it in black and white in plain English, but of course CASA can't and won't provide that, and neither can anyone else.
To put it another way: You said your kit is "very likely" to be approved.
I have found the hard way in fields outside aviation that "very likely" is not something to base a business decision on. I also sadly note that the "advice" has a nasty habit of not being correct, at which time the advisers melt away like snow in the sun.
I've asked for certainty. I haven't found it, and no one will give it to me. I know I could buy a Foxbat or something else factory built at twice the price of a kit, but that's above my budget so forget it.
Capricious behaviour by public servants is unacceptable. It's killing aviation.
Last edited by Sunfish; 20th Oct 2010 at 23:18.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, when I retired I'd planned to buy an aircraft. The state of regulation meant we bought a boat!
However, although I still hold a Class 1 Medical and ME[A]-CIR while flying a variety of aircraft, it's not getting any easier!
G'day
However, although I still hold a Class 1 Medical and ME[A]-CIR while flying a variety of aircraft, it's not getting any easier!
G'day
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 2003 at the CASA sponsored FLOT Conference in Sydney, one of the recommendations that came out of the 2 day event was....
the greatest hazard to flight safety in Australia was the Attorney's General Department.
Rules written by people that did not understand the industry and conditions of strict liability peppered thru the documents. What a way to scare people away from the industry!
I believe it was true then and certainly true now. Sad part is that nobody in Government or CASA gives a hoot! Just protecting their rear ends.
the greatest hazard to flight safety in Australia was the Attorney's General Department.
Rules written by people that did not understand the industry and conditions of strict liability peppered thru the documents. What a way to scare people away from the industry!
I believe it was true then and certainly true now. Sad part is that nobody in Government or CASA gives a hoot! Just protecting their rear ends.
Thread Starter
Leadsled, according to the Distributor of the CH750, the RAA can register a factory built LSA with MTOW of 600kg.
The RAA can only register the same kit built LSA at 544kg.
Then there is the question of configuration. You cannot change anything at all on a factory built LSA without the manufacturers approval, which they may or may not, decide to give for purely commercial reasons. There is no onus on them to do anything at all. I doubt that a pilot can even maintain a factory built LSA.
As to what configurations are allowable in a kit built aircraft for registration in the experimental category, that is anyone's guess, but my assumption from reading Pprune and the total lack of hard facts available anywhere on the web, combined with CASA impenetrable regulations, leads me to suspect the worst.
The "worst" is that "It depends" on the individual CASA official involved, and that any determination is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. More importantly, it would involve considerable investment in nervous energy in interacting with the powers that be.
To put it another way; the total lack of clear concise guidelines and the absolute lack of any authoritative voice willing to put their names to anything on this subject tells me everything I want to know.
To put it another way "ring XXXXXXXX at YYYYY and he'll put you right" is not an answer because it ain't official and of course it ain't in writing.
To put it yet another way. If I built a CH 750 with a Jabiru 3300, the larger Dynon EFIS plus Autopilot, shove an Airmaster Constant speed prop on it, do the fuel lines behind the firewall in metal to aircraft standards instead of rubber with a Three position fuel cock and fit a BRS chute, is CASA going to say "No worries Mate! Your good to go!"?
The RAA can only register the same kit built LSA at 544kg.
Then there is the question of configuration. You cannot change anything at all on a factory built LSA without the manufacturers approval, which they may or may not, decide to give for purely commercial reasons. There is no onus on them to do anything at all. I doubt that a pilot can even maintain a factory built LSA.
As to what configurations are allowable in a kit built aircraft for registration in the experimental category, that is anyone's guess, but my assumption from reading Pprune and the total lack of hard facts available anywhere on the web, combined with CASA impenetrable regulations, leads me to suspect the worst.
The "worst" is that "It depends" on the individual CASA official involved, and that any determination is going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. More importantly, it would involve considerable investment in nervous energy in interacting with the powers that be.
To put it another way; the total lack of clear concise guidelines and the absolute lack of any authoritative voice willing to put their names to anything on this subject tells me everything I want to know.
To put it another way "ring XXXXXXXX at YYYYY and he'll put you right" is not an answer because it ain't official and of course it ain't in writing.
To put it yet another way. If I built a CH 750 with a Jabiru 3300, the larger Dynon EFIS plus Autopilot, shove an Airmaster Constant speed prop on it, do the fuel lines behind the firewall in metal to aircraft standards instead of rubber with a Three position fuel cock and fit a BRS chute, is CASA going to say "No worries Mate! Your good to go!"?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it didn't weigh any more than 544 and stalls at less than 45Kts you can. RA-Aus register this A/C amateur built experimental, plans/scratch/kit built. (19 catagory, I think).
If it is built in a factory it can weigh 600KG and is LSA.
It is possible to have two identical Jabiru aircraft, both registered by RA-Aus, one 600KG factory built (LSA),and the other 544KG experimental/ kit owner built (UL). It is also possible to have a third identical jabiru factory built with VH registration with a factory desigated weight. All have different maintenance schedules, the VH and LSA more closely linked to the factory.
What LeadSled said.
If it is built in a factory it can weigh 600KG and is LSA.
It is possible to have two identical Jabiru aircraft, both registered by RA-Aus, one 600KG factory built (LSA),and the other 544KG experimental/ kit owner built (UL). It is also possible to have a third identical jabiru factory built with VH registration with a factory desigated weight. All have different maintenance schedules, the VH and LSA more closely linked to the factory.
What LeadSled said.
According to the article:
I get it: Our big bwave bosses have been wattelled by a wowdy wabble of wascally woyers and webbel workers, for a vewwy wong time.
'I twied vewwy, vewwy hard to pwogwess this pwoject. I even issued some diwectives and held my bweff until my face turned bwue, but some of those scairwee woyers and public servants disagweed wiff me! Those woyers and public servants are vewwy, vewwy scairwee. They used words! [Resumes sucking thumb.]
If the various people who have been nominally in charge of this process over recent decades actually disagreed with the "former and present CASA lawyers" and the "'resistance movement' of officials", but have been too p*ssweak or incompetent to take charge and finish the job despite them, well boo bloody hoo princesses. If they can't find someone with the resolve to act contrary to the advice of lawyers, as well as tell the members of this 'resistance movement' to shut up and do what they're told to do or move aside, where else would you expect to be by now?
If it's true that this increasingly costly fiasco is almost solely the work of former and present CASA lawyers, supported by a “resistance movement” of officials, all it means is that no one has actually been in charge.
The reason regulatory 'reform' has become a perpetual inertia machine is that lots of patsies continue to focus and expend their energy on blaming the wrong people, which is precisely what the people who are actually responsible for this fiasco intend. Lawyers' advice can be ignored; 'resistance movements' can be crushed or by-passed. Ask yourselves this: why hasn't that happened?
This increasingly costly fiasco appears to be almost solely the work of former and present CASA lawyers, supported by a “resistance movement” of officials in airworthiness, flight operations and administration.
'I twied vewwy, vewwy hard to pwogwess this pwoject. I even issued some diwectives and held my bweff until my face turned bwue, but some of those scairwee woyers and public servants disagweed wiff me! Those woyers and public servants are vewwy, vewwy scairwee. They used words! [Resumes sucking thumb.]
If the various people who have been nominally in charge of this process over recent decades actually disagreed with the "former and present CASA lawyers" and the "'resistance movement' of officials", but have been too p*ssweak or incompetent to take charge and finish the job despite them, well boo bloody hoo princesses. If they can't find someone with the resolve to act contrary to the advice of lawyers, as well as tell the members of this 'resistance movement' to shut up and do what they're told to do or move aside, where else would you expect to be by now?
If it's true that this increasingly costly fiasco is almost solely the work of former and present CASA lawyers, supported by a “resistance movement” of officials, all it means is that no one has actually been in charge.
The reason regulatory 'reform' has become a perpetual inertia machine is that lots of patsies continue to focus and expend their energy on blaming the wrong people, which is precisely what the people who are actually responsible for this fiasco intend. Lawyers' advice can be ignored; 'resistance movements' can be crushed or by-passed. Ask yourselves this: why hasn't that happened?