Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
If the courts "look at" the "further information" it will merely be to be observe that it contains someone's earnest hope as to what the law actually means. It would be no different than the courts "looking at" a lawyer's opinion as to what the law actually means.
The courts will then get on with the job of interpreting the law in accordance with the laws for interpreting laws.
It's why some CAAPs contain this statement:Atrociously worded - yes. But the gist is correct: The law means whatever the law means. This CAAP (or "information sheets" or whatever) contains the regulator's earnest hope as to what the law requires and permits.
What you appear to be suggesting is that if CASA changed its "information sheet" the requirements of Part 61 would change as a matter of law.
Let's think about that.
Let's assume an information sheet says:Someone in CASA wakes up tomorrow morning and decides that wasn't intended, and changes that information sheet to instead say
id that change in the information sheet change Part 61?
Let's see what comes out of the courts over the next year or so?