[Kharon]

Change – ‘the Act’ or; ‘their act’.

It is a fair question and it was put the BRB – ‘the question’ created a not unexpected debate which centred on a which came first – ‘the chicken or the egg’ type of argument, before getting down to brass tacks. FWIW – you could throw a blanket over the votes – close enough to be called a dead heat. “Did the Act create the almost unbelievable present day CASA?” Or, is the ‘Act’ now a catspaw; used only to serve and support today’s CASA? Good points raised by both sides – in the end, agree to disagree was the safest road.

I mention it only to highlight the next part, which IMO was the interesting bit – ‘Will a change in the Act change the authority’? Short, swift and sweet came the unanimous response – No way. Not in a million years.

In a coconut shell – the Act, considered by many to be itself unconstitutional, has had the spirit and original intent progressively corrupted in order to justify past gross aberrations and the current lunacy. Cleverly utilized and manipulated by legal minds to suit purpose. This is an easily demonstrated claim; you do not need to travel far, nor go to any great expense to clearly see this demonstrated on every working day. Go to a courtroom, near you.

"Young man, let me remind you that this is a court of law and not a court of justice." - (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr).,

The legal profession earn their living by arguing points of law, exploiting any wriggle room afforded and either prosecuting or defending a case on very finely defined (thinly stretched) points of law, where the interpretation of ‘words’ within a law may be used to persuade a Judge or Jury that ‘their’ argument carries the most weight. In short; its called a trial. Exploitation and the ‘extremes’ of a law may be utilised to present and support the legal argument. At least, in court, there is a judge and often a jury to ‘balance’ the scales of extremes (so to speak). Right or wrong it is ‘our’ system, the law under which the case is being heard, is, in reality the only thing being considered.  

So, the question M’lud is a simple one – will changing the Act change CASA?

I could I expect provide a reply over a couple of pages, writ in colourful, robust Anglo –Saxon, all of which would say the same thing. The ‘Act’ has long been an excellent shield against ‘change’; not that the Act itself prevents change, it simply provides a lovely high, thick hedge surrounding the legal maze within.



That same Act, will just as easily lend itself to reform of regulation as it does to the creation of regulation – it is within the ‘interpretation’ of the words the devil resides. As it stands ‘the Act’ is presently being used to justify the many pages of counterproductive, subjective opinion and amateur foolishness passed off as 'safety-law' – all in the name of ‘safety’ – whatever that may be. Look no further than Part 61 – the sole purpose of the horrendous impositions that one rule inflicts only serves one purpose. “The safe conviction of (- - - - - - - ).” That rule set no more serves ‘operational safety’ than my cat serves the dog protection league.

Until CASA is brought to book and reformed there will be no way forward. Bring in the 'new' Act – watch and wait – nothing will change, except new ways to exploit the laws will be found and CASA will continue, unchanged, unchallenged and unaccountable.

BRB opinion - There is no bloody ‘mystique’ to aviation safety – despite the CASA foolishness and paperwork mountain our operating companies, engineers, pilots and operations staff will continue to do their work and maintain Australia’s safety record. Reform the regulations all you like – until CASA is completely reformed, they are just words on paper, open to subjective opinion.

Toot toot.