IO540
2nd Dec 2007, 07:14
Under this Euro-wide legislation, the objector has to justify that his requirement is reasonable.
So, arbitrary requirements can be overturned.
In Australia, Pape (http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/topicdocuments/colourvision.pdf) used a related approach to show that the colour vision requirements are bogus.
This could be used to overturn things like the JAA audiogram. The USA does not have this for their ATPLs, but in Europe it is required for any IR even a PPL/IR. There is a bunch of other stuff which seems objectively pointless.
Has anybody tried this?
With EASA taking over FCL in a few years' time, one would have to do this in the European Court.
So, arbitrary requirements can be overturned.
In Australia, Pape (http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/topicdocuments/colourvision.pdf) used a related approach to show that the colour vision requirements are bogus.
This could be used to overturn things like the JAA audiogram. The USA does not have this for their ATPLs, but in Europe it is required for any IR even a PPL/IR. There is a bunch of other stuff which seems objectively pointless.
Has anybody tried this?
With EASA taking over FCL in a few years' time, one would have to do this in the European Court.