"Assurances of 'best efforts'."
Words used by a Snake oil salesman. With the road to Hell being paved with 'good-intentions'; the official directions assuring you that the 'best efforts' possible have been used to get you there. The fact that the map maker couldn't find a cat, in a cat house with a candle don't signify - he did his best - we assure you.
Master McKenzie's examination of some basic flaws in the latest 'best effort'- (with assurances) is well worth the time taken to read through (Choc Frog job) - and IMO he has only scraped the surface - HERE -. If you have the time, inclination and (importantly) the patience to listen to the circular waffle, excuses. platitudes, apologies and dissembling of the CASA representative, you finish up with strong sense of being 'handled' by a slick salesman only interested in the commission a sale will bring. Assurance, without written, legally binding guarantee? - No thanks.
Time, effort and lots of money being tipped into producing a unique version of the existing, gold standard, world wide accepted FAA/NZ regulatory approach has, once again, provided yet another justification for continuing 'big spend' and rules which provide for easy prosecution, which is NOT an unintended consequence.
If you remove the legal pony-pooh and claptrap; boil it down to basics it should be (at GA level) a simple, easily found one page epistle, framed by a chart, led by a question section. Example:-Q 1) Aircraft type ? 2) Proposed scope of operation?
A - Cessna 182. - Private operation, available for private hire and cross hire to flight school for cross country training.
From the chart:-
Minimum insurance required.
Maintenance schedule requirement category 'C' -
Maintenance provider category D.
Documentation as per appendix 3.
Simple - if the aircraft falls into an operational 'category' - then the rules applicable to that type (s) of operation apply - cash and no bullshit the only acceptable means of compliance.
Step it out; it ain't rocket science - if our humble 182 was to be used for say - scheduled services - then the requirements must change - across the board - to suit the 'operations' conducted. Then all that the regulator need do is clearly define the minimum requirement for maintenance schedule; which licence (if any) that work can be done by and approved by; paperwork as requested and required.
If a simple, clearly defined system don't suit the CASA inflated budgetary needs; or is beyond the institutional IQ level, then why not simply adopt a system proven to work, at a gold standard level- world wide.
I never thought to see the day when I felt any pity for CASA - but its fast approaching; indeed they are becoming pitiable at a rate of knots and almost beyond the help industry has tried, for three decades to provide.
Toot - toot.
Words used by a Snake oil salesman. With the road to Hell being paved with 'good-intentions'; the official directions assuring you that the 'best efforts' possible have been used to get you there. The fact that the map maker couldn't find a cat, in a cat house with a candle don't signify - he did his best - we assure you.
Master McKenzie's examination of some basic flaws in the latest 'best effort'- (with assurances) is well worth the time taken to read through (Choc Frog job) - and IMO he has only scraped the surface - HERE -. If you have the time, inclination and (importantly) the patience to listen to the circular waffle, excuses. platitudes, apologies and dissembling of the CASA representative, you finish up with strong sense of being 'handled' by a slick salesman only interested in the commission a sale will bring. Assurance, without written, legally binding guarantee? - No thanks.
Time, effort and lots of money being tipped into producing a unique version of the existing, gold standard, world wide accepted FAA/NZ regulatory approach has, once again, provided yet another justification for continuing 'big spend' and rules which provide for easy prosecution, which is NOT an unintended consequence.
If you remove the legal pony-pooh and claptrap; boil it down to basics it should be (at GA level) a simple, easily found one page epistle, framed by a chart, led by a question section. Example:-Q 1) Aircraft type ? 2) Proposed scope of operation?
A - Cessna 182. - Private operation, available for private hire and cross hire to flight school for cross country training.
From the chart:-
Minimum insurance required.
Maintenance schedule requirement category 'C' -
Maintenance provider category D.
Documentation as per appendix 3.
Simple - if the aircraft falls into an operational 'category' - then the rules applicable to that type (s) of operation apply - cash and no bullshit the only acceptable means of compliance.
Step it out; it ain't rocket science - if our humble 182 was to be used for say - scheduled services - then the requirements must change - across the board - to suit the 'operations' conducted. Then all that the regulator need do is clearly define the minimum requirement for maintenance schedule; which licence (if any) that work can be done by and approved by; paperwork as requested and required.
If a simple, clearly defined system don't suit the CASA inflated budgetary needs; or is beyond the institutional IQ level, then why not simply adopt a system proven to work, at a gold standard level- world wide.
I never thought to see the day when I felt any pity for CASA - but its fast approaching; indeed they are becoming pitiable at a rate of knots and almost beyond the help industry has tried, for three decades to provide.
Toot - toot.