As an Australian who has not lived there for 12 years, I think the culture is somewhat between the US and Europe. Aviation is certainly a very bureaucratic area of government though. Australia wants to be like the US but probably can't overcome the inbuilt fear that people should be protected from themselves.
In my view the US system is superb, and should, in the majority of areas, be the global lead. However, the world is changing, with, certainly over the past decade, politicians keeping the general population 'in fear'. This, ultimately, has a negative effect, particularly in our pursuits and taken for granted freedoms. Aviation, has been hit hard, particularly in commercial operations, with the zealots pushing ever more weird and wonderful security at the travelling public, who lap this up, in true sheep fashion.
If political animals, out to make an ever growing name for themselves, catch a thread, then danger may well lurk to curb those well fought for freedoms.
Over the past months, there have been a number of well publicised GA crashes, each a tragedy, which involve 'new light jets'. This is precisely one of the areas that Hersman is highlighting, with a blur between possible commercial and GA areas of activity.
If ever the US needed AOPA, and other lobbyists, I feel it is now, and I am sure this is felt within the US itself
At the risk of sounding unAustralian, I mean the concept of allowing activities that only have the potential to harm ones self is unheard of in Australia....the culture is that if it sounds dangerous it should be illegal....even if it is only a theoretical risk....and make it so...with strict liability...complete with associated penalties and policing mechanisms...see my previous rants! I particularly like the US attitude of resisting regulation at every turn...(by a reducing majority of people at least)....Europeans (and Australians) tend to accept and actively encourage the government's right (and obligation) to impose regulation to cover every conceivable scenario....end of rant!
The current European aircraft regulatory changes are so bizarre and totalitarian that to be honest I think most parties in the US are motivated to be ever more vigilant, if not go in the opposite direction!
With a bit of luck, the current "European regulatory experiment", supplemented by the finger-up to the USA, will make Americans realise that they need to look after what they have.
but the more they got into it the more it became apparent that the default Autralian culture is the exact opposite of the US....
Do you mean Australians are risk averse?
I know virtually nothing about Australia but would have thought that they would have quite a gung-ho culture, a bit like the South Africans.
In aviation regulation, Australia can do a lot of what the USA does, without concern for unintended side effects, because in both cases the vast majority of based pilots never leave the country. In fact I think most GA planes cannot leave Australia without a ferry tank 
If you look at the FAA regs, you see they basically allow you to harm yourself as long as you don't harm others.
This is why Australia has taken well over ten years to bring in regulatory reform. The original idea was to parallel the FARs...they kept the same numbering at least....but the more they got into it the more it became apparent that the default Autralian culture is the exact opposite of the US....
Well, FWIW I see no indication of a change in 'regulatory tone' in the US. Any change to Experimental Amateur Built is supposed to be a careful realignment to make sure the high performance 'factory built with owner involvement' aircraft remain within the spirit of education and experimentation.
The current European aircraft regulatory changes are so bizarre and totalitarian that to be honest I think most parties in the US are motivated to be ever more vigilant, if not go in the opposite direction!
I think the issue now, is that others are now indeed being harmed, and the perception might, just be taking hold, that he concept of freedom, may come at a cost.
The other issue here, is that Debra, whilst not only being easy on the eye, is in fact a superb speaker, clear, concise and articulate. Obviously highly intelligent to boot. In political circles, this is dangerous, because where a male might not make much headway, a female with these attributes, might just change attitudes, and statute.
We also know that Mr Obama, has not exactly been a friend of GA, and the tides on both sides of the Atlantic might be turning.
It just ogres not that well for the future of GA as we know it. Hope I am totally wrong, but it would just spell disaster if the US model were to change to a more restrictive, regulatory role.
She continues on to say, “So much of general aviation is a world apart from air carriers, which have training departments, safety officers, and safety management systems. GA is essentially an airline or maintenance operation of one, which puts the responsibility for sound decision-making on one person’s shoulders.” – end quote.
My original flight instructor told me me much the same thing, except that he added "so one reason we fly is because flying is the last stand of ultimate life and death individual freedom under a Federal government that would if possible remove meaningful individual responsibility from our lives. Flying allows us to connect with reality and is the most American of activities"
If you look at the FAA regs, you see they basically allow you to harm yourself as long as you don't harm others. Other than Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, a good example is no ELT requirement for single seat aircraft.
The NTSB would have us live in cocoon to avoid risk, and their recommendations tend to be extreme. Luckily they have have no regulatory authority.
http://iflyblog.com/2013/03/17/ntsb-safety-alerts-general-aviation-is-on-the-radar-and-not-in-a-good-way/
Another view point on the original post. He is taking the view that over 30k aircraft are on experimental in the US, and views a potential interference from authority to impose more regulation in this sector.
The issue potentially is that EASA may use this to condone their take on more regulation in the sector, looking to the US to essentially sanctify.
Interesting also that Debra Hersman's view is-
She continues on to say, “So much of general aviation is a world apart from air carriers, which have training departments, safety officers, and safety management systems. GA is essentially an airline or maintenance operation of one, which puts the responsibility for sound decision-making on one person’s shoulders.” – end quote.
Maintenance induced failures are all too common. Replacing items based solely on time in service is not always the safest. Which aircraft would you prefer to fly over a body of water outside of gliding distance from land, one that just had its engine overhauled 75 hours ago or one that is 75 hours beyond TBO but has good compression, normal oil consumption, normal fuel consumption, and otherwise normal performance, One has proved itself the other hasn't. Often the most dangerous flight is just after major maintenance.
