Centaurus - "You mean., for example in Flight Test Report Form 61-1512 for Instrument Proficiency Check (Instrument rating) at item 16 where it says "maintains effective look-out" In IMC? Under the hood? isn't that called cheating ?"
Big day for Choc frogs:.
. that's another one of a potential hundred, three in a row is wins the Tim Tam.
I have diligently been through the ATO – PDP and do so regularly, just for a laugh. Before anyone can sit down and 'write' a manual, such as this a UK IRE or FAA "check Airman' course and formal approval should be issued to the writer; and, before the first offering of 'system' is published, it should be scrutinised by qualified 'peers'. For it is indeed, an important document.
When I was younger and naive, I was stuck with the task of 'sorting out' the company 'manual'. It wasn't too long before I discovered that my enthusiasm, lack of practical operational experience, technical knowledge and understanding of the 'law' as writ, had caused me to pen (all handwritten) everything I knew about 'operating' and I had pontificated on how the operation – IMNSHO – should be run: all cast in stone and set to be technically 'law'. It was then, IMNSO a wondrous missive, chuffed to bits I was. Then I applied my limited common sense and asked some grown ups (thanks Russ). All I really had to do was ensure that company operations complied with and could be demonstrated as 'compliant' with the 'law'; as writ, not as I fancied it to be. I still have a copy of that first manual; I keep it to remind me of a time when, to my shame, I too believed that there was a need for complex prescription, articulate elegance, lots of pro-forma, an indexing system from Hells own gate and a penis to match the assembly (EKG). Subsequent 'manuals' were much more in keeping with sensible, humble missives which did not leave a hang-mans noose at the end of each paragraph, but simply 'did the job'; properly - as requested and required..
Ask any 'Junior', or even senior line pilot to complete the same task and the result will, predictably, be the same. The difference is that my first fumbling attempt was not passed into law and used to 'define' some fanciful standard of one mans version of 'excellence'; it was consigned to the bin, where it belonged. This is where I believe we are up to – solution: Part 61 first, closely followed by ATO-PDP into the bin; lets call in some professionals and re-write the things, I reckon a fortnight aught to do it; allowing for tea breaks and such.
Toot toot..
.