Originally Posted by
outnabout
.... Airservices have agreed to re-draft the AIC so be more consistent with the intent and requirement of the CASR Part 175....
The requirements and effects of Part 175 seem to me to be quite clear. For example:
An ADO provides information and the information is published in the AIP. 367 days later the ADO has yet to do a review of that information. The ADO is a criminal, even if the published information remains complete and accurate in fact.
An ADO provides information and the information is published in the AIP. During the following year the ADO does a review of that information, but does not record the fact that the review happened, or its results. The ADO is a criminal, even if the published information remains complete and accurate in fact.
An ADO provides information and the information is published in the AIP. During the following year the ADO does a review of that information, and makes and keeps a record of the fact that the review happened and its results. During the second year the ADO does a second review and makes and keeps a record of the fact that the second review happened and its results, but throws the record of the first review in the bin. The ADO is a criminal, even if the published information remains complete and accurate in fact.
What’s not clear to me is how criminalising the ADO in these cases improves ‘safety’.