This is true because CASA is incapable of producing, let alone finishing a rational and fit for purpose set of rules or administering same.

The reason being that the model and legislative structure is wrong. Thirty one years of abject failure is proof enough. The all too numerous clashes, the universal distrust, the examples legion of CASA errors, waste and mismanagement and it’s hubris are historical facts. It seemed like a good idea at the time to create the independent corporate regulator outside the APS, and remote from the Minister, and it still does, for those that the system benefits. Namely for the feather bedded bureaucracy and, crucially, for the Minister by relieving him of direct responsibility. It is Parliament that can and should effect change.

We have to persuade MPs that change is required. Lambasting and calling out the leadership of CASA is legitimate where they have not served well but they are not the main game. Ring write or otherwise contact your federal MP and State Senators for action to stimulate jobs and growth. Join a political party and put in the hard yards. Channeling the anger and frustration into political action can produce results, even MacDonaught is making a small amendment to the Act which would not have happened without Ben Morgan and AOPA’s Tamworth and Wagga Wagga GA meetings.

In the same vein most people have no cause to know the criminal code or all the remainder of the whole body of law. Cap’nM is quite right, you learn the basics and expect to stay within the law by behaving in a responsible manner. Flying or otherwise. Changing attitudes and changing practices for betterment can meet resistance but if properly explained and with education then we can maintain a happy and productive society. Unfortunately CASA has seen fit to continually push well past the practical, prudent, safe or efficient means to accomplish the aims of the Act. This flies in the face of the reasonable aspirations and freedoms we expect to enjoy as Australians.

This is the message that that must be conveyed to our MPs.

Dexta is right. The Minister needs to say “I am inclined towards a rewrite of the Act along New Zealand lines together with a requirement to apply evidenced based risk management and the fostering of the aviation industry’. “By the way, I am under pressure from Cabinet to require the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit of your activities.”

Possibly no immediate need for action on the part of Australian legislation to change if the TTMRT was used for GA because there would probably be a pretty quick migration to the NZ regime.
In the same manner when Joh Bjelke-Petersen Premier of QLD did away with death duties all the other States followed suite with alacrity, for the obvious reasons.
Although I hear that there are a GA group in NZ by the initials of GAA who aren’t too happy with their CAA. Something to study but I’m sure they are having a much better time than our GA industry.
As the saying goes; “ The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. “

For those who have given a genuine vote that the current aviation safety standards are “clear and concise”, I genuinely fret for you.

For those who’ve compared other complex legislative regimes with those of the aviation regulatory regime, I’d like to know what those other regimes are. There are, of course, many complex legislative regimes, but I’m not aware of any that have two sets of regulations spaced over a decade that have no coherent or logical explanation as to why one subject matter is dealt with in one set of regulations than the other (because the explanation is that there is no coherent or logical explanation other than incompetence), the amalgamation of which does not provide a complete insight into what the rules are, because the only way to obtain a complete insight is to refer to thousands of pages of CAOs, exemptions, directions, approvals, permissions, manuals of standards and other forests of paper.

I’d also note that the existence of other, more complex, regulatory regimes may be an indication of a systemic malaise rather than a reasonable excuse for the complexity of the aviation regulatory regime. The empty rhetoric of governments is simplification; the actions are ever-more complexity.

Let’s not lose sight of the real issue - aviation safety. The current Act and rules, in my opinion, work against the achievement of good safety outcomes because the underlying assumption is wrong. That assumption is that LEGAL compliance = safety. This is false because rules and regulations, written by humans, naturally contain errors and cannot possibly cater by definition with all circumstances that can give rise to an accident. This truism however, is anamantha to lawyers.

The result is a confusing mish mash of draconian and contradictory regulation, capriciously enforced. The outcome is pilots and engineers focused on doing what is legal, not what is right and totally failing to create a safe flying environment.

By way of example, In the Three incidents I participated in as a student, all of which have worthwhile (but not new) safety lessons*, not one of them was written up, as far as I can tell, as a cautionary tale. the focus instead was on ensuring that CASA either didn’t find out or was put off the scent in order to ensure that the school wasn’t penalized for “something”. Multiply this by the thousands and you have an unsafe culture.

Whats worse is RPT. CASA have no ability to regulate the major airlines. The size and scope of the technology was beyond then by the early 1980’s in my memory. We are thus reliant for RPT safety on the common sense and good intentions of the airlines and manufacturers because the combination : Modern technology + complex and contradictory and capricious CASA rules cannot possibly produce a safe outcome.

To put that another way, there is nothing in CASA, not people, rules or enforcement that could have stopped the Lion Air or Ethiopian accidents from happening right here.

The real defences against accidents are common sense and experience, two things CASA seems at pains to destroy.

* Lessons:

- don’t use rags to block holes in aircraft engines during maintenance.
- don’t do touch and go STOL training, make each STOL landing a full stop.
- Teach students what “pilot induced oscillation” means, how it happens and what it does.

Sunfish, quote:-

- don’t use rags to block holes in aircraft engines during maintenance.
- don’t do touch and go STOL training, make each STOL landing a full stop.
- Teach students what “pilot induced oscillation” means, how it happens and what it does.

Very good examples of practices that could lead to an a accident or unsafe condition, and clear examples of the futility of CASA’s regime of criminal acts of strict liability.

What CASA and government have missed by a mile is just that none of such ill advised actions (in context) as Sunfish has illustrated here were wilful or otherwise with criminal intent. This is obvious, take the ‘rag in engine hole,’ this would be to prevent something from entering unseen, perhaps during some considerable time lapse (waiting for parts?) between closely working on that aircraft. The answer to that one could be that it becomes a practice to tie a string from the rag to the prop. In the same vein I learnt to loop a cord around my props from each nacelle plug, those plugs to prevent birds from nesting over the back cylinders. These days of instant communication means that there’s the possibility of exchange of information between aviation personnel. This is not possible with the present CASA regime and therefore Sunfish’s contention about CASA and it’s unsafe methodology is timely and more appropriate than ever before.

This leads conclusively to the understanding that CASA is not conforming to the Act in regard to it’s obligations to promoting safety of flight, it’s regulation of the industry is unsafe.

With reference to the Forsyth review and the general feeling that there is no progress towards coherent safety culture in Australia the next stages of decline are:

1. Official corruption appears - the ideal breeding ground for corruption is a complex contradictory regulatory environment with onerous and expensive compliance costs and draconian penalties for non compliance, including loss of investment.

The corruption first appears as offers solicited or unsolicited, by an official to “help” by doing something as simple as filling in a form. I still recall my bewilderement in Germany when customs officers recoiled in horror when I asked them to do this for me - anti corruption rules were the reason.

Pretty soon the lower levels are “helping” smooth the way for “friends”. The level of “help” gradually increases as the “helpers” are seen to get away with it.

The next stage is when the kickbacks up the tree start. At this point we find that getting “help” from”friends” is no longer optional. Unless you pay, you get nothing. The boss is watching and wants his cut.

2. Return on investment is required. Now that the industry, or some of it, is paying, two things happen. Those with morals ethics and standards leave the industry. Those left - willing to pay for play, demand some return on their investment. This takes the form of relaxation of technical standards and other cost saving measures. Maintenance suffers for example but the regulator does nothing. Whistleblowers get fired because the regulator rats on them.

3. At some point we have a major accident. The regulator and company conspire to deflect responsibility elsewhere. Finally there is one too many accidents. The public demand accountability they get a royal commission. We go back to square 1. and the process starts again.

Sunfish, right on the money and why the law should not be easily interpreted in a myriad different ways. Much like land zoning which is based on opinions, changeable opinions. So called ‘planning’ encourages corruption of which there have been plenty of examples in Australia. For anyone interested in this area Australia was possibly the richest country in the world before this new level of government control over private land use. For interest sake there is one modern first world city that has no land zoning. Its grown from four million to six million in the last twenty or so years and residential housing is half price, or better, than Melb or SY. Mortgage load is of course way lower, this is a rich city that was Earth base to put people on the moon. Just one example of a society that finds success without our idea that Government knows best. It called free enterprise but surprisingly many Australians don’t seem to understand the mechanism of free market economics, coupled with laws that protect fair exchange. This might seem like banging a different drum but the principles are the same; just look at the consequences of rule by opinion and subjective judgment by those who stand to gain by the system.