Fuji wrote:
"It is precisely for this reason that the way in which FCL008 has conducted itself is a disgrace. It is important to open government that the committee stage is open to public scrutiny."
No it is not (on both counts). The process is well publicised and established, and is common to all other EASA working groups. Experts are appointed, the group does its work behind closed doors and then an NPA is published for public scrutiny and comment. The comments are then reviewed by EASA and a newly formed review group including user reps and a CRD published for further public scrutiny. Then EASA publishes its Opinion on the proposals to the Commission at which point final representations are made through the channels open to the pan-EU representative bodies (that's what we do, not petitions to No 10 which is waste of time IMHO) ahead of political discussions by member states' representatives. That's pretty open government compared to many alternatives I can quote, even in the UK.
If you want a committee rule-drafting system that is open to thousands of participants and commentators then life is far too short and we would never get any proposals. It would be chaos. The answer lies in getting 'your people' on the committee in the first place, through the appropriate representative body. Even as long ago as the Greeks and the Romans they had worked that one out. Its called politics.
Whilst I can of course criticise much of what EASA is doing, why it is doing it, and often we do through the appropriate channels, at the same time I respect the process that is in place and the officials who implement the process. We work with it to get results, not against it.
Please get real, Fuji.