Ten Commandments:-
Or: You - v - 'the Law'. Back in day, any one of the 'ten' rules, e.g 'Thou shalt not kill'; was simple, direct, crystal clear; a 'no-no'. End of? Well no, not quite. The 'spirit and 'intent' of that law is clear enough – however it fails to defeat the lawyers in its simplicity. Self defence for example; accidental, - even within those two simple tenets there is a mountain to climb to reach a 'fair judgment'- and even that can be questioned and tested. Even back in 'simpler' times legal matters were rarely 'cut and dried'.
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
Which, brings me to the 'Hitch' dribbling's and aviation law, Australian style.
Hitch - “Sometimes this will mean adhering to rules, but sometimes it will mean throwing the rules out the dicky window and doing whatever results in self-preservation. Rules don't permit flexibility; aviatorship does. And I have already pledged myself to good aviatorship; I did that in 1988 when I passed my restricted PPL test.”
BOLLOCKS! – in Spades. The purblind arrogance and unmitigated ignorance in that statement is staggering. For starters, try pleading 'aviatorship' - it ain't even a word let alone a defence in a tribunal, court, inquiry, or inquest. The lawyers would eat you alive, if the judge didn't sling you out. What Hitch (and many like him) fail, dismally to realise is that 'aviation law' is designed to ensure a 'safe conviction' and /or to protect the agency. Almost any case study clearly demonstrates this; any 'win' by industry is a hard fought, very, very expensive battle. Even then, as Granny used to say “if the fleas don't bite ya, the spiders will". This ludicrous posturing from someone who has probably never sweated through a freight run, on a hot day, in a C210 to a dirt strip in the middle of the GAFFA demands an apology.
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
IF, Hitch held a professional license and could find a first paying job 'in the bush' - how long do you think his 'aviatorship' would survive a Chief pilot and/or a CASA surveillance inspection at Kickinatinalong – a real one; where the operator was under the microscope? Not too long I would guess; 10 or even 20 'minor' breaches can be parlayed into the base of a 'rock solid' case; and the Court will be stacked against the defence. Pilot first, then the operator. “How did 'the operator' allow the breaches to be”? Chief pilot in the gun; the carnage inevitable. Hitch may be "blasé" and believe in 'aviatorship' but you can bet your balls, CASA don't.
“I have gained this by philosophy; I do without being ordered what some are constrained to do by their fear of the law.”
Take the C210 case for example. Second 'run' of the day; pilot, hot, probably slightly dehydrated and a little tired. Add in some turbulence, and cloud for icing on the cake. The day began at sparrow fart; the seats have be removed and put away; the load is dropped off, maybe someone to help loading the freight. How to set the load within the C of G from a piled high bogey is a tough puzzle, but one to be solved to remain not only 'safe' but legal. Then still sweating like a horse, the aircraft must be re-fueled; problem #2. Which brings in the quandary of 'how much' to load. Enough to stay 'weight' legal or enough to stay 'fuel safe'. So, in the burning heat, our pilot finds the step ladder, dips the tanks; and refuels, replacing the step ladder and hose. Should there be a 'push' on against the operator its about now the friendly CASA blokes (always two) step out of the air conditioning and say “Hi – we'd like to look at your paperwork”. Enter the dragon.
“Law applied to its extreme is the greatest injustice”
Simple math puts the aircraft overweight and out of 'strict' C of G limits. Maybe only 20 Kg, maybe a tick over the C of G margin; but 'illegal' nevertheless. Do you see how the Hitch 'aviationist' attitude may create the first hole in dyke? These small infractions, in the right hands, when there is an intent to show the difference between 'operational' and 'black letter' legal is a minefield. One cannot simply say “Oh, I relied on my own common sense M'Lud; I only infringed the law without intent, I took a reasonable amount of care”. Aye, that will get everyone off the hook; every time, no worries.
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” Churchill nailed it; it is almost impossible to operate in strict compliance within the aviation 'law' as writ. It was never written to ensure safety; not all of it anyway. It is a fine, (anorexic) line that you tread and 'ignorance' let alone a Cavalier 'attitude' toward your own 'interpretation' has never been, nor ever will be a 'safe' line of defence. Not when push comes to shove it ain't.
If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”
Call that a ramble rather than 'rant': but please don't take Hitch literally or seriously. Ego, arrogance and stupidity are up there with the top 10 self inflicted, often legal and/or physical injuries.
Right then; fury abated - I know, back to my knitting.
Selah...
Or: You - v - 'the Law'. Back in day, any one of the 'ten' rules, e.g 'Thou shalt not kill'; was simple, direct, crystal clear; a 'no-no'. End of? Well no, not quite. The 'spirit and 'intent' of that law is clear enough – however it fails to defeat the lawyers in its simplicity. Self defence for example; accidental, - even within those two simple tenets there is a mountain to climb to reach a 'fair judgment'- and even that can be questioned and tested. Even back in 'simpler' times legal matters were rarely 'cut and dried'.
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
Which, brings me to the 'Hitch' dribbling's and aviation law, Australian style.
Hitch - “Sometimes this will mean adhering to rules, but sometimes it will mean throwing the rules out the dicky window and doing whatever results in self-preservation. Rules don't permit flexibility; aviatorship does. And I have already pledged myself to good aviatorship; I did that in 1988 when I passed my restricted PPL test.”
BOLLOCKS! – in Spades. The purblind arrogance and unmitigated ignorance in that statement is staggering. For starters, try pleading 'aviatorship' - it ain't even a word let alone a defence in a tribunal, court, inquiry, or inquest. The lawyers would eat you alive, if the judge didn't sling you out. What Hitch (and many like him) fail, dismally to realise is that 'aviation law' is designed to ensure a 'safe conviction' and /or to protect the agency. Almost any case study clearly demonstrates this; any 'win' by industry is a hard fought, very, very expensive battle. Even then, as Granny used to say “if the fleas don't bite ya, the spiders will". This ludicrous posturing from someone who has probably never sweated through a freight run, on a hot day, in a C210 to a dirt strip in the middle of the GAFFA demands an apology.
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
IF, Hitch held a professional license and could find a first paying job 'in the bush' - how long do you think his 'aviatorship' would survive a Chief pilot and/or a CASA surveillance inspection at Kickinatinalong – a real one; where the operator was under the microscope? Not too long I would guess; 10 or even 20 'minor' breaches can be parlayed into the base of a 'rock solid' case; and the Court will be stacked against the defence. Pilot first, then the operator. “How did 'the operator' allow the breaches to be”? Chief pilot in the gun; the carnage inevitable. Hitch may be "blasé" and believe in 'aviatorship' but you can bet your balls, CASA don't.
“I have gained this by philosophy; I do without being ordered what some are constrained to do by their fear of the law.”
Take the C210 case for example. Second 'run' of the day; pilot, hot, probably slightly dehydrated and a little tired. Add in some turbulence, and cloud for icing on the cake. The day began at sparrow fart; the seats have be removed and put away; the load is dropped off, maybe someone to help loading the freight. How to set the load within the C of G from a piled high bogey is a tough puzzle, but one to be solved to remain not only 'safe' but legal. Then still sweating like a horse, the aircraft must be re-fueled; problem #2. Which brings in the quandary of 'how much' to load. Enough to stay 'weight' legal or enough to stay 'fuel safe'. So, in the burning heat, our pilot finds the step ladder, dips the tanks; and refuels, replacing the step ladder and hose. Should there be a 'push' on against the operator its about now the friendly CASA blokes (always two) step out of the air conditioning and say “Hi – we'd like to look at your paperwork”. Enter the dragon.
“Law applied to its extreme is the greatest injustice”
Simple math puts the aircraft overweight and out of 'strict' C of G limits. Maybe only 20 Kg, maybe a tick over the C of G margin; but 'illegal' nevertheless. Do you see how the Hitch 'aviationist' attitude may create the first hole in dyke? These small infractions, in the right hands, when there is an intent to show the difference between 'operational' and 'black letter' legal is a minefield. One cannot simply say “Oh, I relied on my own common sense M'Lud; I only infringed the law without intent, I took a reasonable amount of care”. Aye, that will get everyone off the hook; every time, no worries.
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” Churchill nailed it; it is almost impossible to operate in strict compliance within the aviation 'law' as writ. It was never written to ensure safety; not all of it anyway. It is a fine, (anorexic) line that you tread and 'ignorance' let alone a Cavalier 'attitude' toward your own 'interpretation' has never been, nor ever will be a 'safe' line of defence. Not when push comes to shove it ain't.
If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”
Call that a ramble rather than 'rant': but please don't take Hitch literally or seriously. Ego, arrogance and stupidity are up there with the top 10 self inflicted, often legal and/or physical injuries.
Right then; fury abated - I know, back to my knitting.
Selah...