A new years resolution- broken.
There are 134 pages of the AMROBA Part 61, which is an excellent start as it is well within the reading, comprehension and absorbance levels of most. Moreover, it frames the ASRR opinion. - HERE -
Only had time for a quick skip through; but, I have downloaded the text and will study it further. It may not appeal to the pedantic, there are some rough patches and occasional ‘clumsy’ adaptations- however, in the main, it makes a whole lot more sense than the heavily patched up existing monster CASA keep trying to fix.
It is high time 61 was put out of it’s misery. As it stand now it’s almost nugatory anyway. Seriously, how can we have allowed a thing like that to exist, even more of a mystery is the collective minds that drafted it; what a tangled mess that must be: I digress. Part 61 now has so many necessary exemptions as to render it farcical, it is no longer a law, but a crippled vehicle which the owners must keep repairing to salve their egos.
OST bleats on about it be a ‘complex’ situation and how we could not possibly understand the delicacy and deep legal tenets involved; there is also the huge, insurmountable problem of English ‘law’ v American 'law' to consider. Etc. Then there’s ‘constitutional’ matters to ponder.
BOLLOCKS – the ducking Act is ‘unconstitutional’: this is a known fact; the other known fact is no one could afford to test that in court and so it stands as a testament to the base intent of those who manipulated it, to suit. Bit like the ‘airports’ imbroglio, where fast and loose interpretations allowed the current travesties to persist.
AMROBA’s Part 61 could be fine tuned, in short order by a couple of half smart legal types; hells bells I’d bet someone like Creampuff could knock it into shape between first and second coffee on a Sunday morning before doing the Times crossword.
It’s a risible notion that a ‘law’ can only be made to work by a constant stream of exemption to that law; how can that be ‘safely’ enforced. I’d pay to watch a trial where someone not exempt was prosecuted while others, who are ‘exempt’ continued on their merry way.
Will I stop there? I think so, I’m never quite sure if I’ll break out in hysterical laughter or start tearing the limbs off fluffy toys whenever I touch on 61. So, kettle on, breathe and endit.
Toot toot.
There are 134 pages of the AMROBA Part 61, which is an excellent start as it is well within the reading, comprehension and absorbance levels of most. Moreover, it frames the ASRR opinion. - HERE -
Quote:The following converts FAR Part 61 into high level CASR Part 61 and all the detail promulgated in Sec 9(1)(c ) Aviation Safety Standards as per the ASRR Report.
Only had time for a quick skip through; but, I have downloaded the text and will study it further. It may not appeal to the pedantic, there are some rough patches and occasional ‘clumsy’ adaptations- however, in the main, it makes a whole lot more sense than the heavily patched up existing monster CASA keep trying to fix.
It is high time 61 was put out of it’s misery. As it stand now it’s almost nugatory anyway. Seriously, how can we have allowed a thing like that to exist, even more of a mystery is the collective minds that drafted it; what a tangled mess that must be: I digress. Part 61 now has so many necessary exemptions as to render it farcical, it is no longer a law, but a crippled vehicle which the owners must keep repairing to salve their egos.
OST bleats on about it be a ‘complex’ situation and how we could not possibly understand the delicacy and deep legal tenets involved; there is also the huge, insurmountable problem of English ‘law’ v American 'law' to consider. Etc. Then there’s ‘constitutional’ matters to ponder.
BOLLOCKS – the ducking Act is ‘unconstitutional’: this is a known fact; the other known fact is no one could afford to test that in court and so it stands as a testament to the base intent of those who manipulated it, to suit. Bit like the ‘airports’ imbroglio, where fast and loose interpretations allowed the current travesties to persist.
AMROBA’s Part 61 could be fine tuned, in short order by a couple of half smart legal types; hells bells I’d bet someone like Creampuff could knock it into shape between first and second coffee on a Sunday morning before doing the Times crossword.
It’s a risible notion that a ‘law’ can only be made to work by a constant stream of exemption to that law; how can that be ‘safely’ enforced. I’d pay to watch a trial where someone not exempt was prosecuted while others, who are ‘exempt’ continued on their merry way.
Will I stop there? I think so, I’m never quite sure if I’ll break out in hysterical laughter or start tearing the limbs off fluffy toys whenever I touch on 61. So, kettle on, breathe and endit.
Toot toot.