Originally Posted by
CayleysCoachman
Reading that amendment as an ex-controller, it seems to me it only states something which was OK to do anyway, but someone has decided should be in black and white, and I’m generally against that kind of thing. Reading it in ‘lawyer mode’, it’s appallingly badly written, with the term, ‘landing aircraft’ in particular being roundly abused by way of a missing, ‘previously’, and there being a glaring, ‘and shall not’ missing after ‘is not’ in the final sub-para. 3/10 must try harder to the editor of MATS Pt 1 from me (a shame, as I always thought it was very well written).
It's ok, given the recent consultation, MATS Part 1, which I agree has deteriorated over the years, will disappear within a year or so to be replaced by a basic set of rules, AMC and GM a la EASA/SERA, obviously accompanied by a massive expansion in everyone's MATS Part 2s as they scramble to incorporate basic stuff that was previosuly in MATS part 1.