JONATHAN ALECK: When we talk about outcome-based legislation
or outcome-based regulation, we're talking about
rules that focus on the outcome to be achieved,
rather than the specific way in which that's meant to be achieved.
The advantage of it is, of course,
is that it allows the person who's affected by the regulation
to largely define their own ways and means
of achieving the outcome that the regulation is designed to conduce to.
Creates a lot of freedom,
it's economically more advantageous, administratively easier
and oftentimes even results in a better safety outcome.
I think it's fair to say, though,
that like any situation that enhances freedom,
it brings with it certain responsibilities,
so that in the absence of a prescriptive requirement
that tells you exactly what to do and how to do it,
it's incumbent upon you to actually develop a means
that effectively brings you to the desired outcome.
But you've got to put the hard yards in there to get that result
and you've got to be able to show CASA that,
"I intend to achieve this outcome by doing this, this, this and this,"
and to be able to demonstrate that by doing these things,
I do actually get that safety outcome.
Actually, much of our legislation and many of our regulations
are outcome-based in that they say the objective to be achieved
is what's focused on,
rather than the ways and means of doing it.
So, for example, we have a provision in the...
..in the UAS or the RPAs legislation now
that says a person must not operate an unmanned aerial vehicle
in such a way as to cause a hazard
to people on the ground or other airspace users.
Doesn't specifically say how or what you should do,
just that the result you're trying to achieve
is to avoid creating a hazard.
But we have other legislation - in the same area, as it happens -
that says you must not operate a UAV over 400 feet
within three nautical miles of an aerodrome.
That's quite prescriptive.
When you see numbers in regulations, you know that's fairly prescriptive.
So those are two different kinds of regulations
attempting to do similar things in different circumstances.
And any good regulatory system
is not all outcome-based or all prescriptive but a healthy balance.
There's certain kinds of activities that are far better regulated
in an outcome-based way.
ROGER WEEKS: There's a number of benefits to that.
Firstly, we are in an evolving environment.
Technology is certainly on the increase.
If we have too prescriptive a rule set,
it makes it difficult for a regulator to stay up to date
or for the regulatory framework to stay up to date.
The benefit is that the operator knows how to manage their risk.
It allows them flexibility to build a business model
to achieve or to deliver what they want to achieve,
and it gives them the responsibility
to build a process, to build a system,
to build procedures,
that effectively manage their safety risks
and deliver the outcome that the regulation requires.
It's no longer a one-size-fits-all.
The benefit of performance-based regulation
is that it doesn't matter the size of the operator,
the complexity of what they do or the simplicity -
they can build their system
to deliver the outcome that the regulation requires.
And it seems, at least in the first instance, very attractive to say,
"Well, you can do pretty much what you like."
As long as what you like is calculated
and can demonstrably achieve what it is the regulation is going for.
That takes a little bit of time and effort and energy.
So there's quite an investment, or there can be quite an investment,
in achieving a meaningful outcome.
But it can sometimes lead to someone saying,
"Look, why don't you just tell me what it is you want me to do?"
But, actually, in most cases where we have an outcome-based requirement,
we have guidance material and advisory material
and acceptable means of compliance
and a range of approaches that have already been developed
that if you don't want to come up with your own approach,
here's one you can use.
So in many cases, you have the option of adopting an existing approach
or modifying an existing approach
or coming up with something completely new.
Outcome-based regulation
is very much built on that process of trust
and making sure that an operator understands that they are responsible
for the delivery of safe outcomes.
DANIEL ULLMER: You know, when we write a regulation,
it takes some time for it to actually be implemented,
and then we want it to be in for a long period of time,
so we don't need to keep changing the regulations
in 5 or 10 or 20 years.
Hopefully, they'll be consistent enough
that only minor amendments are made into the future,
but they will still work for industry,
they'll still work for CASA,
they'll still achieve a safe outcome.
No operator wants to increase the number of risks they have to face.
So they're in the best position, oftentimes,
to develop very effective, creative, economical responses
to the risks they face.
Why shouldn't that be the basis on which they're regulated?
It's building trust in the entire aviation community,
because in addition to the industry and CASA
needing to have a relationship that's based on trust,
with a bit of verification involved in that,
all of those who rely on the industry and CASA
to help to ensure the safety of that environment
are looking to us both for the same thing.
So we're all in this together.