Meanwhile - beneath the Iceberg.
Non aviation folk (Muggles -
) particularly in Australia are well accustomed to ‘over regulation’; so it’s no surprise when aviation starts screaming about the same. Most folk would just point to their industry ‘manuals’, shrug and say ‘you are not Robinson Crusoe mate; look at this pile of guff”. This is a fair call; however, the thing that those who ‘rubber stamp’ aviation law fail to understand is just how ‘badly’ formed the underpinning for those regulations is. I intend to bang on about this, so bail out now if not interested. I might add this opinion is a summary (thumb nail in tar) of many hours of BRB discussion and PAIN research. Are you sitting comfortably – then I’ll begin.
The two posts by TB (above) introduce a sketch of just two examples. Part 61 is an appalling load of clap-trap; the following comparison between Australia 91, the USA and NZ versions are an easily understood example of differences between ‘professional/collaborative/practical‘ law and the Australian ‘gobbledygook’ version. The how; and, the why this is so is the subject topic.
TB – “The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of “amateurish regulatory framing.”
“Amateurish Regulatory Framing” jumps off the page and it is here, at the grass roots we must begin our journey in the not too plush offices of the Down Under Charter Kompany – trading as Duck Air (DA). The directors of DA have bought a new company – registered and badged up – nice and legal.(tick). Developed a business plan (tick) Thrown some money into a bank account (tick) Opened an office (tick) identified their aircraft (tick) now then: What’s next. Well, the will need a licence to operate – to wit – an Air Operators Certificate (AOC). To do this they must first engage a Chief Pilot (CP) A.K.A. the donkey on which the tail may be pinned. To this unfortunate falls the task of gaining the AOC; first step – produce a grandiosely titled ‘Exposition’ which is a flash expression for an Operation Manual (OM). Here begins a nightmare journey through the swamps and dark places of Sleepy Hollow.
Potted version – sincere apologies to the ‘experts’. ‘Tis but a twiddle to spark a light for the dim candle, not yet lit.
To begin with, nearly every CP on this planet has not ever had any ‘legal’ training, let alone completed a law degree. The CP may well be and most probably is an experienced pilot familiar with Air Law; and, in an operational sense have a good grasp of the requirements. So far, so good. So armed with quill, ink and candle the CP sits down to begin drafting ‘the Manual’. I’ll labour this point because it is important. It is not enough to simply state ‘we will comply with part XXX’. The ‘manual’ must define ‘how’ compliance will be achieved. Try an experiment – if you can bear it ( I have and the results were both hilarious and terrifying). Get half a dozen pilots to write a section of an OM related to a topic of choice – pick one. Turn ‘em loose, give ‘em a week, then collect every scrap of paper they’ve written – from the first to the last attempt. The pattern will be similar; the first attempt a sketch, the second will be ‘wordy’ using all manner of legalese, long winded and fanciful. The third, and possibly the last iteration will be so convoluted and confounded as to beggar imagination.
Therein, lays one of the many base line problems DUCK faces. It is from this basic problem that most of the current buggers muddle, we call ‘the Reg’s’ stems. Take part 61 as the quintessential example of an amateurs wet dream; their own inexperienced notions and attempts to impress writ large. This rule set has little bearing on providing safe, competent, properly trained pilots but did achieve the desired effect of ‘self promotion’. This, stand alone is not a good thing but when it hit the legal boys desks; like Topsy it grew to monster proportions. Then it all goes to yet another legal department to be drafted (as per instructions) into ‘law’. Then, like grass through a goose, the parliament approves the 'expert' thesis without question and the whole shemozzle is foisted onto the flying school industry. So the cycle begins the CP of DUCK now begins to expand the expansion; without any legal training to assist in actually understanding what the legal fraternity can do with one sentence, let alone thousands of pages. So the case against DUCK is aided and abetted by good intention, practical application and lay interpretation.
That is the problem aviation faces; the analysis of ‘why’ there must be a rule; followed by the manner in which that rule is presented; supporting reasoning for the rule being required and a clear understanding ‘how’ that rule is to be applied is lost in the thousands of pages produced to provide ‘safe prosecution’ – out of court, as far away from the rule of law as possible.
When you begin to understand the fundamental flaws in the system and the damage those flaws produce; perhaps the reason many cry out for real reform of CASA and the regulations will become clear (ish). An added bonus would be some form of accountability and control of the CASA; for at the moment there is none, there not even anyone in the parliament who will take the time; or even have enough knowledge of matters aeronautical to realise that their casual ‘rubber stamping’ of gobbledygook has almost destroyed an industry.
![[Image: 49642eb9c1760877a8592161bc4dea93--duck-t...ations.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/49/64/2e/49642eb9c1760877a8592161bc4dea93--duck-tape-art-illustrations.jpg)
Toot – toot..
Non aviation folk (Muggles -
) particularly in Australia are well accustomed to ‘over regulation’; so it’s no surprise when aviation starts screaming about the same. Most folk would just point to their industry ‘manuals’, shrug and say ‘you are not Robinson Crusoe mate; look at this pile of guff”. This is a fair call; however, the thing that those who ‘rubber stamp’ aviation law fail to understand is just how ‘badly’ formed the underpinning for those regulations is. I intend to bang on about this, so bail out now if not interested. I might add this opinion is a summary (thumb nail in tar) of many hours of BRB discussion and PAIN research. Are you sitting comfortably – then I’ll begin.The two posts by TB (above) introduce a sketch of just two examples. Part 61 is an appalling load of clap-trap; the following comparison between Australia 91, the USA and NZ versions are an easily understood example of differences between ‘professional/collaborative/practical‘ law and the Australian ‘gobbledygook’ version. The how; and, the why this is so is the subject topic.
TB – “The new Australian regulations are rich in similar examples of “amateurish regulatory framing.”
“Amateurish Regulatory Framing” jumps off the page and it is here, at the grass roots we must begin our journey in the not too plush offices of the Down Under Charter Kompany – trading as Duck Air (DA). The directors of DA have bought a new company – registered and badged up – nice and legal.(tick). Developed a business plan (tick) Thrown some money into a bank account (tick) Opened an office (tick) identified their aircraft (tick) now then: What’s next. Well, the will need a licence to operate – to wit – an Air Operators Certificate (AOC). To do this they must first engage a Chief Pilot (CP) A.K.A. the donkey on which the tail may be pinned. To this unfortunate falls the task of gaining the AOC; first step – produce a grandiosely titled ‘Exposition’ which is a flash expression for an Operation Manual (OM). Here begins a nightmare journey through the swamps and dark places of Sleepy Hollow.
Potted version – sincere apologies to the ‘experts’. ‘Tis but a twiddle to spark a light for the dim candle, not yet lit.
To begin with, nearly every CP on this planet has not ever had any ‘legal’ training, let alone completed a law degree. The CP may well be and most probably is an experienced pilot familiar with Air Law; and, in an operational sense have a good grasp of the requirements. So far, so good. So armed with quill, ink and candle the CP sits down to begin drafting ‘the Manual’. I’ll labour this point because it is important. It is not enough to simply state ‘we will comply with part XXX’. The ‘manual’ must define ‘how’ compliance will be achieved. Try an experiment – if you can bear it ( I have and the results were both hilarious and terrifying). Get half a dozen pilots to write a section of an OM related to a topic of choice – pick one. Turn ‘em loose, give ‘em a week, then collect every scrap of paper they’ve written – from the first to the last attempt. The pattern will be similar; the first attempt a sketch, the second will be ‘wordy’ using all manner of legalese, long winded and fanciful. The third, and possibly the last iteration will be so convoluted and confounded as to beggar imagination.
Therein, lays one of the many base line problems DUCK faces. It is from this basic problem that most of the current buggers muddle, we call ‘the Reg’s’ stems. Take part 61 as the quintessential example of an amateurs wet dream; their own inexperienced notions and attempts to impress writ large. This rule set has little bearing on providing safe, competent, properly trained pilots but did achieve the desired effect of ‘self promotion’. This, stand alone is not a good thing but when it hit the legal boys desks; like Topsy it grew to monster proportions. Then it all goes to yet another legal department to be drafted (as per instructions) into ‘law’. Then, like grass through a goose, the parliament approves the 'expert' thesis without question and the whole shemozzle is foisted onto the flying school industry. So the cycle begins the CP of DUCK now begins to expand the expansion; without any legal training to assist in actually understanding what the legal fraternity can do with one sentence, let alone thousands of pages. So the case against DUCK is aided and abetted by good intention, practical application and lay interpretation.
That is the problem aviation faces; the analysis of ‘why’ there must be a rule; followed by the manner in which that rule is presented; supporting reasoning for the rule being required and a clear understanding ‘how’ that rule is to be applied is lost in the thousands of pages produced to provide ‘safe prosecution’ – out of court, as far away from the rule of law as possible.
When you begin to understand the fundamental flaws in the system and the damage those flaws produce; perhaps the reason many cry out for real reform of CASA and the regulations will become clear (ish). An added bonus would be some form of accountability and control of the CASA; for at the moment there is none, there not even anyone in the parliament who will take the time; or even have enough knowledge of matters aeronautical to realise that their casual ‘rubber stamping’ of gobbledygook has almost destroyed an industry.
Toot – toot..