I have just skimmed through the NPA and am now more worried than ever.
I am a native English speaker, grammar school educated with 'O' Level passes in English Language and Engish Literature.
The 244 pages of gobbledygook including references make little sense.
I would have hoped for a simple side-by-side presentation of the current management orientated proposals versus the FAA rules, the exotically named "SubParaQ" rules and our own now alas woefully inadequate and much abused CAP371 regs.
Instead I am forced to trawl through a mass of acronyms and the occasional Latin phrase to find bits and pieces of various FTL schemes placed adjacent to each other presumably orientated to place the commercially driven NPA by our thieveing Brussels Louts in a more favourable light.
A pathetically low sample of surveyed aircrew and accidents have been quoted in support of this numbing turgid prose, some of which is plainly ungrammatical and a disgrace to the compilers.
Compared to the number of professional licence holders in the EU I am surprised they can use such limited data with the obvious arrogance and complacency we have come to tolerate from our rulemakers.
10 years of accident and ASR data excludes the numerous cries for help from the flight crew, cabin crew, engineers and ATC personnel voiced in such publications as "CHIRP" and through the medium of this forum.
I am glad I shall soon be hanging up my headset for good, but will board my flight as SLF with some more trepidation after 2012, unless we as a professional group can highlight this issue before the travelling public and maybe force our EU lords and masters into a rethink.
Does anyone know how many experienced Commercial Air Travel professionals were employed in the drafting of this ghastly publication? I hope they can sleep easy after the next fatigue-induced smoking hole!!!
