PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Regulator management of the CASR's
View Single Post
Old 14th Dec 2021, 11:02
  #25 (permalink)  
Geoff Fairless
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
No, I mean that there's a definition of AIP and AIP means what the Air Services Regulations 2019 (specifically reg 14) says AIP means.

Assuming I'm wrong, we should be seeing some SUP/AIC/NOTAM every time there's a change to VFG (and CAAPs and....) shouldn't we?

By definition, the regulatory regime is always up to date. What it says and means and does today is what it says and means and does today. The regulatory regime includes exemptions and NOTAMs and other mechanisms to deal with 'short term' things (or at least what should be 'short term' things).

If someone thinks it should say and mean and do something different, then that someone can organise for it to say and mean and do that different thing.

I don't think 'translation' is the correct adjective to describe the process through which 200 pages of CARs 1988 have more than doubled in size and the CASR 1998 are thousands of pages long and growing. Then add MOSs.

This isn't a translation process. It's a complexification process. Complicators can't resist creating more complication. It's in their DNA. The 'over-worked and under-staffed Standards Branch' is suffering a self-inflicted wound - a chargeable offence in the ADF. I'm sure the reliable six figure salary year after year after year helps to ease the pain though.
Oh Dear, Lead—you have fallen into the definition trap. Just because something is defined as something does not mean it is actually what it is defined to be! (I am channelling Yes Minister here)
I can assure you that from personal experience, the CASR Part 172 MOS is not “up-to-date”. I can therefore assume that many other CASRs are not “up to date”, a logical conclusion, I think so. Most exemptions are not as you say “short term” things, but if they were, I would expect the next iteration of the CASR/MOS would include the exemption. Clearly, it was deemed to be safe, otherwise an exemption would not have been issued. Or am I missing something?)

I think we are wildly agreeing about the problem here, just using different language. Pax aviationus?

Last edited by Geoff Fairless; 14th Dec 2021 at 11:04. Reason: Puctuation
Geoff Fairless is offline