Frank,
Spot on.
If we are non- compliant, the non-compliance notification makes the non-compliance a compliance, which then is in compliance with the ICAO compliance section of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, that says we should be ICAO compliant. So notifying non-compliance makes us compliant, thereby meaning that the non-compliance with the Act is in fact, not a non-compliant, but a compliance.
All too easy and straightforward, just like the rest of the "rules".
A favorite example is how we have (unless you employer has another system, say QANTAS) screwed young pilots by not letting them log hours the same way as their competitors for jobs in international jobs market.
Specifically, current Australian "rules" on logging ICUS - In command under supervision. The filed Australian difference results in a system that is fundamentally different to ICAO Annex I. It was not always the case, but some bureaucrat could not leave it alone.
In the rest of the aviation universe, a co-pilot/First Officer can log ICUS (aka. P1 u/s. Command Practice, term of choice in a particular country) as per ICAO Annex 1.
Not so Australia, so a young Oz pilot doesn't have the same clear experience record as a Pom, Kiwi, Canuck or even a Singaporean, to quote a few. Needles to say, the US system is even more simple and straightforward.
Just another way that the Aviation( and Australian bureaucracy in general) bureaucracy makes Australia increasingly uncompetitive.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I have no way to verify, I don't have time to go through all the ICAO Docs., but I was recently told that Australia now has almost 2000 differences.
Last edited by LeadSled; 31st Mar 2011 at 06:41.