Oh, It’s a long way to tip this rarey.
Cheeky old so and so; thank you Papa and yes, pints will do nicely. You could have tidied it up a bit, rough was right. I was going to put up a ‘long’ post but thought I’d said as much as needed saying about the 61 MoS, or as much as was worth the candle, pen and ink. I intend to leave it sit there, to be honest I can’t be bothered to keep ploughing through the wretched thing, if it were an animal you would, simply out of kindness, put it out of it’s misery.
If the MoS was presented as ‘guidance’, a road map to what the authority would like to see included it would, perhaps, as a crude basic tool be acceptable. But even then, it’s a sort of sycophantic expansion of someone’s ‘philosophy’, the sort of thing you would draft when you are ‘uncertain’ but want to impress; or trying to understand a subject before teaching it. Miles of notes and everything you can find piled in a heap, then the work starts, when you can reduce the subject to a couple of pages in note form, only then can you begin to write your ‘manual’. But whoever wrote the MoS has not, not really come to terms with the essence of the subject, manual writing or the practical realities of life; let alone aircraft operations. ‘We’ have just paid a small fortune to have someone write their first and probably only flight school operations manual as a university project; it needs to evaluated by the ‘professor’ and sent back for a reality check, much correction, miles of editing and at least 1000 paragraphs of refinement before being published for peer review.
But that’s not what has occurred, has it. It is now cast in stone; ‘law’ under the disallowable ‘instrument’ used by the late, unlamented TF to foist the crippled beast onto industry. What a parting gift, it just about defines the utter contempt TF and his mates hold for industry. Well, it’s a parliament job to get rid of it now, or even amend it (parliamentary approval required) – unless Skates bins it; but even then, there is still a hellish mess to clean up.
Going to have a quick scamper around the regulations next, see if we can get a better grip on them; but with the MoS active, for every clear cut ‘rule’ there is a part of the MoS which can and will be used to make a subjective ‘opinion’ enforceable under the regulation.
“Blunt instrument trauma for all”
Toot toot.
.
Cheeky old so and so; thank you Papa and yes, pints will do nicely. You could have tidied it up a bit, rough was right. I was going to put up a ‘long’ post but thought I’d said as much as needed saying about the 61 MoS, or as much as was worth the candle, pen and ink. I intend to leave it sit there, to be honest I can’t be bothered to keep ploughing through the wretched thing, if it were an animal you would, simply out of kindness, put it out of it’s misery.
If the MoS was presented as ‘guidance’, a road map to what the authority would like to see included it would, perhaps, as a crude basic tool be acceptable. But even then, it’s a sort of sycophantic expansion of someone’s ‘philosophy’, the sort of thing you would draft when you are ‘uncertain’ but want to impress; or trying to understand a subject before teaching it. Miles of notes and everything you can find piled in a heap, then the work starts, when you can reduce the subject to a couple of pages in note form, only then can you begin to write your ‘manual’. But whoever wrote the MoS has not, not really come to terms with the essence of the subject, manual writing or the practical realities of life; let alone aircraft operations. ‘We’ have just paid a small fortune to have someone write their first and probably only flight school operations manual as a university project; it needs to evaluated by the ‘professor’ and sent back for a reality check, much correction, miles of editing and at least 1000 paragraphs of refinement before being published for peer review.
But that’s not what has occurred, has it. It is now cast in stone; ‘law’ under the disallowable ‘instrument’ used by the late, unlamented TF to foist the crippled beast onto industry. What a parting gift, it just about defines the utter contempt TF and his mates hold for industry. Well, it’s a parliament job to get rid of it now, or even amend it (parliamentary approval required) – unless Skates bins it; but even then, there is still a hellish mess to clean up.
Going to have a quick scamper around the regulations next, see if we can get a better grip on them; but with the MoS active, for every clear cut ‘rule’ there is a part of the MoS which can and will be used to make a subjective ‘opinion’ enforceable under the regulation.
“Blunt instrument trauma for all”
Toot toot.
.