Originally Posted by de facto
The 'MAY BE REASONABLY be expected to adhere...' is leaving a lot on the unreasonable PICs out there...therefore maybe time for a review more strict FAR.
Originally Posted by de facto
FAA is all about Would/should/could.....maybe its time it uses SHALL NOT more often.....
Unfortunately, it would appear that this particular regulator is intent on using rather ambiguous terms out of fear of generating unintended consequences with more specifically worded regulations. When there is a misunderstanding
or there is reason to provide more specific justification for what has been included in the rules, this particular regulator likes relying on Advisory Circulars, Notices, Bulletins, etc. to effectively accomplish what they fear would be something that they had not intended primarily because they have a process that takes decades to effectively overhaul an existing regulation. This reminds me of the race car driver who loses control of his race car but continues in the race by bouncing off the walls and other cars in the race
and he continues because he believes no one can condemn him for giving up and leaving the race
no one can condemn him for not wanting to win the race
and no one can condemn him for forgetting to put a friggin steering wheel in his race car
because they will never know unless he stops!