DT, You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I think it is always appropriate for the development of new standards/regulations to be continually questioned. I am not being condescending. Your opinion has been repeated by several members at the working group level many times, but eventually when determining standards there must be some tangible reason for doing things or imposing restrictions. Just because we used to do it that way in our military is not a reason to impose a restriction. It is a reason to very carefully examine why you would elect to remove such restrictions - and that is what happened. The result was a safety case in support of dissimilar goggles, and no case against. We are all ears to any case against, it's just that no one has presented a tangible reason - yet.
None of these rules, the pilot training, dissimilar goggles, weather mins, etc, etc have to be imposed on your particular organisation. The current CAAP proposal actually spells out that operators should build their own levels on top of the minimums published in the CAAP, and you are quite able to (indeed encouraged too) impose your opinions for training increases and dissimilar goggles onto your own organisation. It is just that we felt the industry needed a more substantive reason for the creation and imposition of a MINIMUM standard.
What I am really curious about is why you pooh pooh the idea because it
without even considering why Greg, Mike, Daff, Bails, Tony, and Dan may have come to a different conclusion - and I am not saying they all did. Then lastly, how did that position get ratified by the industry if it is so obviously wrong?
I will rise to your emotive bait of CRM and what is required up the front only if you make it juicier by explaining what you are on about. Slowly please.....I obviously dont understand the basics of CRM.