Ramble warning:-
All of us - in Blunder Land....
"Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice “without pictures or conversations?”
So she was considering in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.
There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself, “Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be late!” (when she thought it over afterwards, it occurred to her that she ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed quite natural); but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.
"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again."
These days, whenever I get coerced into or obliged to read through (and sort) any of the 'stuff' CASA is shovelling out; my mind always turns to that last paragraph of Alice's tale of woe ":
"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again".
That one sentence, more than any other, is a reminder of 'what' exactly is within that particular rabbit hole; and, how will you emerge after the experience. I always thought that Alice should emerge, like so many of us do after a stint in the CASA rabbit warren,- with a case of the screaming memie's after the experience.
One sensible option to take before leaping blindly down any rabbit hole is to consult an expert - one with coal face time and if not legal training, then one who is 'familiar' with the workings of the strange world into which you have landed yourself. If you thought Alice's world was 'peculiar' - well, you ain't seen nothing yet. I asked an acknowledged expert to explain the proposed new (reformed) maintenance rule set; it took a morning's worth of patience on his part. Mind you, most of that time was used in total condemnation of the thing and those who dreamed it all up. The final words were - "read the FAR and see what you make of it". I did, and, despite an acknowledged ignorance of the 'finer' detail I did manage to arrive at a point where, if pushed, I could sort out the requirements imposed on most operations. One of the 'stand out' featured differences is the lack of built in 'complexity' within the FAR.
To explain - many, many, many years ago my boss was 'asked' by the then DCA to align a section of the Ops Manual to the latest 'Order' - being the lowest on the totem pole, I got the gig. Manfully did I toil; much midnight oil (and foolscap) was burned before I managed to produce a scrawled draft. I suffered the abuse of our wonder woman who did the typing and dropped it off to the 'Inspector'. "Sit" said he as he lit his pipe, I obliged. There followed a period of silence while 'the man' read it through. He then selected a red pencil and put a line across every page, put the pencil back in it's place and returned the paperwork to me. I looked askance at this cavalier treatment of my labours. "You have done well" he began "but, we ain't lawyers, nor are we dealing with those who are comfortable dealing with fine legal points of compliance". "Operationally, any rule needs to be refined to ensure that compliance is a default setting; so, your manual needs to take out the 'fluff' and provide crew with a means of compliance - not a potential breach through too many words and options which create a hanging noose for the unwary; you cannot beat the lawyers in the game of words, so don't try". "Ask yourself 'what' is this rule trying to do - in essence, over seven paragraphs". I thought for while and answered - "correct" said the man - "now go away and draft the piece along those lines". A week later I was offered coffee and a well done; the typing lady even smiled and the short narrative presented and the new 'bit' was stuffed into the manual, never to be seen again. Which, IMO is only right and proper.
The point - well it seems that much like my first attempt the simple 'point' of a rule should not be hidden, nor presented in a way which leaves the door open for unintended breach; more words, unnecessary complexity and fine points which can, and often are designed to favour the prosecution do little to enhance 'safety', indeed it could be argued that they are counterproductive and unfit for purpose.
In short, the FAR tell you what you cannot do; the CAR happily set out to tell you what you can do - maybe- (unless with legal advice) - except for - etc.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
Aye well - Ramble over; twiddle complete, one last coffee before I see if the glue did it's job on yesterdays repair.....
Toot - toot.
All of us - in Blunder Land....
"Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice “without pictures or conversations?”
So she was considering in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.
There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself, “Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be late!” (when she thought it over afterwards, it occurred to her that she ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed quite natural); but when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and fortunately was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.
"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again."
These days, whenever I get coerced into or obliged to read through (and sort) any of the 'stuff' CASA is shovelling out; my mind always turns to that last paragraph of Alice's tale of woe ":
"In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again".
That one sentence, more than any other, is a reminder of 'what' exactly is within that particular rabbit hole; and, how will you emerge after the experience. I always thought that Alice should emerge, like so many of us do after a stint in the CASA rabbit warren,- with a case of the screaming memie's after the experience.
One sensible option to take before leaping blindly down any rabbit hole is to consult an expert - one with coal face time and if not legal training, then one who is 'familiar' with the workings of the strange world into which you have landed yourself. If you thought Alice's world was 'peculiar' - well, you ain't seen nothing yet. I asked an acknowledged expert to explain the proposed new (reformed) maintenance rule set; it took a morning's worth of patience on his part. Mind you, most of that time was used in total condemnation of the thing and those who dreamed it all up. The final words were - "read the FAR and see what you make of it". I did, and, despite an acknowledged ignorance of the 'finer' detail I did manage to arrive at a point where, if pushed, I could sort out the requirements imposed on most operations. One of the 'stand out' featured differences is the lack of built in 'complexity' within the FAR.
To explain - many, many, many years ago my boss was 'asked' by the then DCA to align a section of the Ops Manual to the latest 'Order' - being the lowest on the totem pole, I got the gig. Manfully did I toil; much midnight oil (and foolscap) was burned before I managed to produce a scrawled draft. I suffered the abuse of our wonder woman who did the typing and dropped it off to the 'Inspector'. "Sit" said he as he lit his pipe, I obliged. There followed a period of silence while 'the man' read it through. He then selected a red pencil and put a line across every page, put the pencil back in it's place and returned the paperwork to me. I looked askance at this cavalier treatment of my labours. "You have done well" he began "but, we ain't lawyers, nor are we dealing with those who are comfortable dealing with fine legal points of compliance". "Operationally, any rule needs to be refined to ensure that compliance is a default setting; so, your manual needs to take out the 'fluff' and provide crew with a means of compliance - not a potential breach through too many words and options which create a hanging noose for the unwary; you cannot beat the lawyers in the game of words, so don't try". "Ask yourself 'what' is this rule trying to do - in essence, over seven paragraphs". I thought for while and answered - "correct" said the man - "now go away and draft the piece along those lines". A week later I was offered coffee and a well done; the typing lady even smiled and the short narrative presented and the new 'bit' was stuffed into the manual, never to be seen again. Which, IMO is only right and proper.
The point - well it seems that much like my first attempt the simple 'point' of a rule should not be hidden, nor presented in a way which leaves the door open for unintended breach; more words, unnecessary complexity and fine points which can, and often are designed to favour the prosecution do little to enhance 'safety', indeed it could be argued that they are counterproductive and unfit for purpose.
In short, the FAR tell you what you cannot do; the CAR happily set out to tell you what you can do - maybe- (unless with legal advice) - except for - etc.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
Aye well - Ramble over; twiddle complete, one last coffee before I see if the glue did it's job on yesterdays repair.....
Toot - toot.