BIK_116.80
Thanks mate.
You identify exactly the confusion that exists in the
two cultures separated by a common language
Your succint definitions of the difference in common usage and meanings between cultures both local regulatory and profession specific was indeed in that instance the cause for some confusion until we sorted out between us the concept being conveyed.
As you point out a C152 and a Concorde both in that instance carry the "public transport" category tag whilst requiring quite different "performance" requirements.
You might agree that this was one of the factors that had led some to ascribe the same "performance" to the Titan that they were used to in their daily "transport category" lives.
I also think you would agree that the career path to most European airlines is quite different than Oz with a relatively few pilots being exposed to GA in the same way that we are here, hence the understandable confusion.
I have a great respect for the British CAA certification standards, that has seen some of my least favourite types refused certification by them on their dodgy performance.
Perhaps I caused you to misread my post to
bushy by my laziness in trying to compress the "public use and "transport category " concepts into a catchall phrase.
No matter you have now made it all the clearer for us all.
And that raises another subject altogether.
In the UK "public transport" roughly equates to what we in Australia would call "RPT" and also "passenger charter" (and to a lesser extent airwork as well).
Which of the two methods UK v Oz conveys the more "honest", description for the want of a better word, of the service and level of safety provided with out a
further qualification to the public.
Perhaps neither, both methods of description studiously avoid the "type certification" monster and all that it brings.
In Oz we perpetuate this matter in the promotion of Part 121B as bringing the little uns to the same standard of "operational" and "maintenance" requirements as the biguns. Whilst I am ecstatic about the removal of the distinctions that existed between charter and LCRPT, I am very uncomfortable with the surrounding regulatory hype, that suggests at least to the public mind, that all is now "equal" between the little uns and the big uns in OZ, because "now the operational and maintenance requirements are the same", when it cannot by definition insofar as type certification be so.
If you and I are having an etymological struggle sorting this out, what chance the Kylie Minogue fans.?
Does this mean that I have to supress these concerns lest I put some AOPA voters offside by trying to protect them from the 21st Century.
I dont think so, I think the more honest view is that it should at least be on the agenda, in the knowledge that there will be positive change and upgrade with the rapid evolution of the new technologies and that they should be prepared for its introduction or become irrelevant.
AOPA should be leading this argument and therefore "controlling or setting the pace" at which this occurs for any given state of evolution. We have some catching up to do as at the moment we have slipped from "proactive" into "reactive" mode.
In my view whilst AOPA
must have its members concerns at the forefront, the public and their perception of AOPA as their defacto representative to Government and Regultor will not be served if we are seen to be fighting to preserve "the old ways" at their expense.
It is ever thus, if the public are educated to properly understand the benefits of a new technology or "way" they will pay the money. That cannot be unhealthy for anyone in the industry.
They may grumble a bit but once they get the hang of it they usually can't get enough.
I have said elsewhere here, that I believe the AUF and AOPA are natural allies, both in their respective roles serve the whole community for their different and global interests.
Maybe we need to rethink the whole Regulatory concept between the FAR23 and 25 types and the constituencies they were designed to address rather than try and cobble up regs to make em do things for which they were not intended for a small section of the aviation population which "catches" the larger rest, in a system they neither need nor want.
This is a legitimate role for AOPA and can serve both constituencies (different subgroups here) of its membership in its positive and "proactive" leadership of this debate.
At the very least AOPA must use its resources to frame up the concepts and arguments and then ask the membership where they want us to go, rather than be told what is good for them.
It seems
bushy would rather I use the "garlic, cross, wooden stake and burning witches" routine.
Bargger and I promised myself I would be brief
barleyhi
Thank you for that, I enjoyed it and the lesson immensely.
