[thorn bird]

Swiss cheese and the observance thereof.

Since its formation and I'm not sure if by accident or design, CASA has enacted regulation in an attempt to mitigate risk.
NOT risk attached to the safety of aviation, as it alludes is its primary function, but to mitigate its own risk from liability.

I suspect this was front of mind of the iron ring when CASA was reconstituted from the old DCA and CAA. CASA and its staff were no longer exempt from liability for their decisions or actions and could be sued individually or collectively. Therefore it is not surprising that senior management set out by regulation to mitigate as far as possible the risk of getting sued.

The result is the regulatory malaise the industry endures today and why the regulations are written in obtuse legalise and why CASA could never countenance adopting US FAR's or New Zealand regulations written in plain english, easy to understand and comply with. It also could explain why they chose to follow unproven EASA regulations that proved such a disaster for European GA.

One can hardly blame the development sharks, having been gifted prime real estate worth billions to the detriment of the Australian public and a monopoly position with no oversight, to get on with removing as much aviation as they could from the airports. This they did utilising their monopoly power and predatory behaviour. Then commence construction of massive industrial complexes, also with no oversight or safety management of the risks these structures posed to aviation.

CASA of course insured they bear no responsibility or liability.

When the inevitable happens, as I fear it will, just who ends up liable? Its going to make a lot of lawyers very wealthy finding out.