Leadie; Agreed, medicals and other matters were of concern to the BRB with regard to the NZ 'suite'. But the real head scratcher was our lack of 'working' familiarity with EASA, FAA and the NZ rule set, in practical, day to day use, for comparison sense. I'm certain there are folks operating under those rule sets who daily curse the daemon who drafted a rule, just as there must be those who revel in the better rules. What beats me (and others) is why Australia seems hell bent on adopting the worst bits of everyone's rules instead of the 'good' bits, then adding more.
Part 61 for example has to be the most ridiculous aviation rule ever written; bar none, add that to the farcical CAAP 215 and the need for regulatory reform immediately becomes apparent. The completely amateur approach to both defines those within the rule making 'team' -
- as the quintessence of NFI – at all; whatsoever. That's in both legal and operational terms. Want reg reform?, sack the egotistical fools who believe that they, and only they have the answer to a maidens prayer....
Waste of time and money reforming the regulations until you reform the mind set of the administrator; or, at very least try and hire those with a basic working knowledge of industry. The clown driving part 61 is simply a wannabe wordsmith, wallowing in an egocentric puddle, confused, lost in the wonder of grandiose point scoring dribble, which will impress those with even less idea of what's needed and what's not. Part 61 – where the sun don't shine and CAAP 215 is too ridiculous to contemplate; I'm certain we could find a suitable receptacle for that as well.
Strewth and stone the bloody crows. etc. etc. etc....
