Instruments of tortured schedules.
Best down load – HERE.
Part 61 : MoS: Vol 1 : Legislative Instrument.
Page 2 – Section 8 Units of competency. etc.
Sub section 8.1 [for] each of the following matters are as set out in the Appendix of a Section in Schedule 1.
Let’s have a shufti at 8.1.(a) as an example
To do this we need to have the appropriate ‘schedule’ open at the same time so Schedule 1 is mentioned in which are defined the required the ‘units of competency’.
WARNING - I am lucky, there are three screens on my desk – I can open Scheds 1 and 2 and keep this document visible; if you are trying to work on one small screen, get some anger management training.
Our example 8.1.(a) is ‘an appendix mentioned’ and 8.2 says that each unit of competency of the ‘practical’ standards is identified by a unique code. So switch to Sched 1 and find our 8.1 (a) in the index (aircraft category rating) – we want multi engine. Section 'L' looks promising; L4 - multi engine ‘class’ rating, go to page 36. You can see the table of ‘Practical flight standards’; in the left column ‘unit code’, in the right ‘unit of competency’. Unit code A1 has caught my attention, for a number of ‘practical’ reasons, which we will come back to later.
So, what does A1 involve, well its Control aeroplane on the ground. Now if you bring up Sched 2 (Competency standards) the index takes you Section 4, at page 110 the ‘elements’ and associated rubbish. Here is where the first of the wheels on your wagon falls off; to understand why, we must ‘park’ this exercise here as there is a long road to travel before we can examine the practical flaws and operational dangers inherent in the system. Before we get to them, there are other ‘Schedules’ we must consider.
Schedule 3 : Aeronautical knowledge. Maybe someone can assist, I cannot find a section which defines the ‘purpose of the schedules; 3 for example – are you expected to be able to answer questions on the units? are they part of an examination syllabus ?; or are they areas that must be known before the rating or licence may be issued - don’t know (yet), not with certainty – put that on hold; more head scratching required.
Schedule 4 : Flight Crew Licence. Etc.. At first meeting the ‘sched’ seems innocuous enough as it sets down the prescribed requirements for various licences; as there is some discussion, particularly relating to ATPL, we shall set this aside for the moment as it seems to reflect little or no change to ‘requirements’.
Schedule 5 : Flight test standards. Here again although ‘micro managed’, highly subjective and pedantic, essentially, without actual practical reporting on how it all pans out – in real life – we can set this aside for detailed examination later. (Won’t that be fun).
Schedule 6 : Proficiency check standards. Index of codes. I have, for my sins, read many manuals but I have never seen such a lazy, sloppy, presumptuous table such as the one presented. With a little effort we can discern than AA1 is found on page 634. Now I’ve just wasted a minute to scroll down to page 634 and discovered that AA1 is Aeroplane aerial application operation. I’m not going to do one – but a neat table with a hyperlink would have taken about 30 minutes to do. (Sorry - lost the grid lines).
Just looking at these schedules a master index would save hours and prevent inadvertent confusion within the document suite. An ‘Ag’ operator could discard a good portion of the ‘schedules’ and tailor make a Part 61 COM section for their particular operation. Take time and cost a few bucks, but the overall savings would justify the expenditure and avoid ‘inadvertent breech’.
Schedule 7: Flight review.
You can always tell a ‘badly’ written (nod to the gods of grammar), not thought through manual when you see phases like the one above; verbose is an understatement: “the applicant must demonstrate competency to the standard prescribed in MoS Schedule 8”. Click; Sched 7= waste of time, wind and dollars.
Schedule 8 : Tolerances. I have just ran out of tolerance and time – plus the coffee machine is singing it’s siren song.
We will eventually have to summarise these ‘Schedules’ in an elegant, concise manner. But on first meeting they have the feel and language of a project a bunch of university students trying to obtain graduation credits on a joint project would concoct. The schedules – at that level – are not a bad effort. The classic mistakes of ‘wannabe’ technical writers are there, as anticipated and expected. Had this ‘Schedule’ project not then been sent to the wannabe legal eagle department and forged into ‘law’, then it would have formed the base of a post graduate project and probably earned someone a degree. Alas, in reality, this project has been cast in stone, enacted as law and the poor aviation industry is saddled with a poorly structured, clumsy, ineffective pile of highly subjective opinion rather than a concise set of rules, made with 'ease of compliance' compliance in mind.
I had hoped to leave schedules behind today; but there are enough loose ends to hang a regiment, enough holes big enough to drive a horse and cart through and worst of all, IMO, there are areas which not only fail to minimise risk but actually amplify that risk.
Tempus fugit and coffee calls.
Toot toot..
...but only just.
Best down load – HERE.
Part 61 : MoS: Vol 1 : Legislative Instrument.
Page 2 – Section 8 Units of competency. etc.
Sub section 8.1 [for] each of the following matters are as set out in the Appendix of a Section in Schedule 1.
Let’s have a shufti at 8.1.(a) as an example
Quote:(a) a flight crew licence with an aircraft category rating, a flight crew rating on a licence, or an endorsement on a rating; etc.
To do this we need to have the appropriate ‘schedule’ open at the same time so Schedule 1 is mentioned in which are defined the required the ‘units of competency’.
WARNING - I am lucky, there are three screens on my desk – I can open Scheds 1 and 2 and keep this document visible; if you are trying to work on one small screen, get some anger management training.
Our example 8.1.(a) is ‘an appendix mentioned’ and 8.2 says that each unit of competency of the ‘practical’ standards is identified by a unique code. So switch to Sched 1 and find our 8.1 (a) in the index (aircraft category rating) – we want multi engine. Section 'L' looks promising; L4 - multi engine ‘class’ rating, go to page 36. You can see the table of ‘Practical flight standards’; in the left column ‘unit code’, in the right ‘unit of competency’. Unit code A1 has caught my attention, for a number of ‘practical’ reasons, which we will come back to later.
So, what does A1 involve, well its Control aeroplane on the ground. Now if you bring up Sched 2 (Competency standards) the index takes you Section 4, at page 110 the ‘elements’ and associated rubbish. Here is where the first of the wheels on your wagon falls off; to understand why, we must ‘park’ this exercise here as there is a long road to travel before we can examine the practical flaws and operational dangers inherent in the system. Before we get to them, there are other ‘Schedules’ we must consider.
Schedule 3 : Aeronautical knowledge. Maybe someone can assist, I cannot find a section which defines the ‘purpose of the schedules; 3 for example – are you expected to be able to answer questions on the units? are they part of an examination syllabus ?; or are they areas that must be known before the rating or licence may be issued - don’t know (yet), not with certainty – put that on hold; more head scratching required.
Schedule 4 : Flight Crew Licence. Etc.. At first meeting the ‘sched’ seems innocuous enough as it sets down the prescribed requirements for various licences; as there is some discussion, particularly relating to ATPL, we shall set this aside for the moment as it seems to reflect little or no change to ‘requirements’.
Schedule 5 : Flight test standards. Here again although ‘micro managed’, highly subjective and pedantic, essentially, without actual practical reporting on how it all pans out – in real life – we can set this aside for detailed examination later. (Won’t that be fun).
Schedule 6 : Proficiency check standards. Index of codes. I have, for my sins, read many manuals but I have never seen such a lazy, sloppy, presumptuous table such as the one presented. With a little effort we can discern than AA1 is found on page 634. Now I’ve just wasted a minute to scroll down to page 634 and discovered that AA1 is Aeroplane aerial application operation. I’m not going to do one – but a neat table with a hyperlink would have taken about 30 minutes to do. (Sorry - lost the grid lines).
Quote:Unit of Competency – Proficiency checks :: Unit code :: Schedule 6 :: Page (s)
Aeroplane aerial application operation :: AAI :: Appendix 4 :: 633 – 635 (inc.)
Just looking at these schedules a master index would save hours and prevent inadvertent confusion within the document suite. An ‘Ag’ operator could discard a good portion of the ‘schedules’ and tailor make a Part 61 COM section for their particular operation. Take time and cost a few bucks, but the overall savings would justify the expenditure and avoid ‘inadvertent breech’.
Schedule 7: Flight review.
Quote:For sub clause 1.1 the applicant must demonstrate her or his competency, in the units of competency mentioned in clause 3, by doing the following:
You can always tell a ‘badly’ written (nod to the gods of grammar), not thought through manual when you see phases like the one above; verbose is an understatement: “the applicant must demonstrate competency to the standard prescribed in MoS Schedule 8”. Click; Sched 7= waste of time, wind and dollars.
Schedule 8 : Tolerances. I have just ran out of tolerance and time – plus the coffee machine is singing it’s siren song.
We will eventually have to summarise these ‘Schedules’ in an elegant, concise manner. But on first meeting they have the feel and language of a project a bunch of university students trying to obtain graduation credits on a joint project would concoct. The schedules – at that level – are not a bad effort. The classic mistakes of ‘wannabe’ technical writers are there, as anticipated and expected. Had this ‘Schedule’ project not then been sent to the wannabe legal eagle department and forged into ‘law’, then it would have formed the base of a post graduate project and probably earned someone a degree. Alas, in reality, this project has been cast in stone, enacted as law and the poor aviation industry is saddled with a poorly structured, clumsy, ineffective pile of highly subjective opinion rather than a concise set of rules, made with 'ease of compliance' compliance in mind.
I had hoped to leave schedules behind today; but there are enough loose ends to hang a regiment, enough holes big enough to drive a horse and cart through and worst of all, IMO, there are areas which not only fail to minimise risk but actually amplify that risk.
Tempus fugit and coffee calls.
Toot toot..
...but only just.