Phelan had a crack at it -
Start here:-
Reproduced by kind permission of – Pro Aviation
Author's note.
The Australian version, with exactly the same heading as the FAA uses, devotes the first 91 words to detailing some of the responsibilities of the operator – not the pilot in command. It then goes on to detail some (but not all) of the documents which CASA requires to be made available to the pilot in command during flight. These items are generally referred to as "shelf-ware"; a pilot’s description of in-flight documents that have no particular usefulness in flight.
Their principal purposes appear to be increasing the aircraft's operating empty weight, cluttering the cockpit floor and its limited storage spaces, and obstructing escape routes in an emergency while also adding fuel to any resulting fire.
Pilots are also warned that because of a common CASA practice of specifying the content of operations manuals, the aircraft flight manual doesn't always agree with the operations manual, and the AFM should be considered the overriding authority where there is a discrepancy. The preferred time to debate this is not when one is flying an aircraft.
The allocation of 50 penalty points for not having this library aboard is confusing as to who is committing the crime, because the heading of the paragraph conflicts with the duties attributed to the operator rather than the pilot.
The Australian version then goes on to detail a few (but again far from all) of the many responsibilities of a pilot in command, by referring to shelf-ware as listed.
From this example it is clear that far from putting the "finishing touches" on Part 91, the serious work of developing intelligible and effective legislation hasn't even started yet.
The US version says in 23 words, considerably more than CASR 91.060 does in its entirety, as well as adding a paragraph that intelligently permits pilots to deviate from the rules as necessary in an emergency, and a requirement to report the event if requested.
Like the USA, the NZ regulations empower the pilot in command to make necessary decisions, the only special reference being specific authority to deny boarding to drunks and dopers.
Literally hundreds of duties and responsibilities are rightfully assigned to the pilot in command, and they are spelled out in the appropriate sections of any competently-written rule set. They are and should not be used as padding to project a false impression of regulatory diligence.
Paul Phelan.
Yet they persist, despite free expert advice, peer examples and some very good models to work with..
