Regulators: Removing useful information for what benefit
So in the past two months or so I have seen two examples now of removing useful operational information for NO benefit at all of the flying community, so one wonders, is this just to cover the regulators arse for some perceived liability?
Exhibit A: Removal of OnTrack by CASA. I have used this several times during flight training for gaining an appreciation of entry procedures to Class D aerodromes. It was announced CASA were removing this resource as they were struggling to keep it up-to-date, potentially having out of date information in it. So I read that as, if it is wrong, CASA are liable, so instead of committing resources to maintaining a very valuable service, just remove it altogether. Think about it, the resource called out runway incursion or apron incursion hotspots, proper arrival or departure points and techniques, unique hazards etc. How can anyone justifying removing this. Simple solution, fund a way to quickly put a note on it flagging out of date areas being worked on, but leave the rest.
Exhibit B: Today's AIC announcing changes to NAIPS briefings. No longer with the GAF and GPWT be included directly in the briefing, you now need to click a hyperlink to view those charts separate. So we have gone from getting a briefing, printing it in full with ALL useful information, and taking it to the field with you to study. Now if I forget to click one of the links to get the separate charts, and don't have Internet at the field, I have lost a critical part of the briefing? The only well done in the AIC was adding the ability to get the Aus wide GPWT in the briefing, not just region.
What is going on. I can only think the cover your arse mentality that has affected so much of the medical and licensing areas has now infected the practical provision of information to pilots. Not just CASA, but now AirServices.
Icing on the cake was my trying to send them an email to the email address given in the AIC to provide some feedback, for their server to reject the email address as invalid... sigh
This really is a race to the bottom.