Much to digest in the Examiner of Airman’s explanations of the current woeful state of affairs in the government administration and regulation of aviation. However, and respecting the carefully made points and sincerity of the author, there are areas with which to disagree.
The first is that our government is the people, the Parliament, the judiciary and the regulator. To include the regulator as an equal part of government is arguable. The regulator is a function of, and only exists by virtue of, the Parliament. Following that is the claim that CASA’s role is that of policeman.
Herein lies a fundamental problem, a problem that stems well before the date of 1974, and a problem of mindset that has pervaded our aviation regulation to my certain personal knowledge from the sixties. From a practical standpoint some policing by the regulator is probably going to happen but this should not mean it is desirable, and certainly not be the prime function which is of regulating aviation in the public interest. A much better and universally accepted scheme is in place with regulating road use. Governments make road use laws and Departmental regulations are approved then policed separately by Police forces. This avoids the conflicts of interests that so obviously flow through the many circumstances described in the previous post.
Where one can agree wholeheartedly is the abrogation of Ministerial responsibility, but the more so not so much by appointing from outside as creating a separate corporate entity. The almost complete lack of political input leaves the governance issue lacking the principle that the people’s Representatives should be wielding the power.
The first is that our government is the people, the Parliament, the judiciary and the regulator. To include the regulator as an equal part of government is arguable. The regulator is a function of, and only exists by virtue of, the Parliament. Following that is the claim that CASA’s role is that of policeman.
Herein lies a fundamental problem, a problem that stems well before the date of 1974, and a problem of mindset that has pervaded our aviation regulation to my certain personal knowledge from the sixties. From a practical standpoint some policing by the regulator is probably going to happen but this should not mean it is desirable, and certainly not be the prime function which is of regulating aviation in the public interest. A much better and universally accepted scheme is in place with regulating road use. Governments make road use laws and Departmental regulations are approved then policed separately by Police forces. This avoids the conflicts of interests that so obviously flow through the many circumstances described in the previous post.
Where one can agree wholeheartedly is the abrogation of Ministerial responsibility, but the more so not so much by appointing from outside as creating a separate corporate entity. The almost complete lack of political input leaves the governance issue lacking the principle that the people’s Representatives should be wielding the power.