Remove philosophical thumb from fundamental operational orifice.
IT IS NOT the Reg's that create the problem, antiquated and contradictory though they be.
The problem; free ranging interpretation by 'bar room barristers' applied, as and when required to operational matters, very definitely is.
No one (very few) set out to be deliberately 'in breach'.
Conflict arises when; just for example: A Manufacturer flight manual states “this” (whatever it be) is not a recommended procedure, and a better result can be achieved – by the following AFM procedure (etc.). So far so good.
Say, the Company Operations Manual reflects this. Still all good,
Then; some half-wit decides that despite an AFM prohibition, manufacturer stated (written), best advice and recommended procedure “this” has to be done to comply with the letter of the law. One man's opinion against the spirit and intent of the 'Order', the manufacturer manual and experienced crew good sense.
We all know it's daft to do it, but now we are obliged to “comply” with a Worthless judgement, based against an agenda, not a rule.
The rules are old and based against 'the way it was' 30 years ago, not as the 'experts' now see them. (Back then DCA/ CAA had experts).
When this is then 'transmogrified' to policy, driven by bull**** through a Tribunal it becomes anarchy. Created by a half-wit, supported by an idiot and backed up by the full weight of the Commonwealth coffers, all in the disguise of air safety.
The lunatics are indeed running the asylum.
PLEASE. Give us set of rules which can be translated (by a Chief Pilot) into operational compliance and become a legend, instead of the hack lawyer hired to sink the concept of regulatory reform in it's infancy.
Well the body count will continue to rise, ask the Braz crew, sorry they have departed the fix.
Selah.
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Sep 2011 at 11:42.
Reason: The usual