Ruling by exemption – Still.
Reading Rob Lawrie’s letter is like watching a rally car trying to get to the finish line while ducking a weaving through the obstacles, tree stumps, holes and soft edges. It’s a master piece of ducking and weaving through the artificial ‘obstacles’ built in by the manic race organisers; designed to impede and penalise entrants. The argument ‘for’ is sound enough, but look at hoops and hurdles he needs to deal with before pleading and proving his way to a rational, risk based agreement, to become 'exempt'.
There should be no need for any of this, especially for ‘exemptions’ which oblige the receiver to ‘play nice’ with CASA: not if the rules were written sensibly. The letter provides a perfect example of why regulatory reform is desperately needed. The question we should be asking is why, despite the time, money and effort invested in the ‘new’ regulations does a respectable body, such as SAAA need to go to such extraordinary lengths to achieve ‘an exemption’.
Aside. This artificial ‘weight’ limitation on medicals intrigues me. I don’t get it. Same as the weight limitations imposed on building; what’s the point of it? Is 650 kg aircraft lobbing into a school yard going to do so much less damage than a 1000 kg aircraft? Why not provided an engineering based ‘range’ of acceptable weights, like between 550 and 880 kg. What’s the difference, apart from legal flexibility? Why should an aircraft weighing in at 605 kg be ‘illegal’ when the same thing at 600 kg is ‘legal’. Are CASA saying that if you get hit by a fully loaded petrol tanker it’s much better than being clouted by a train. Probably just me being thick, again; but it beats me hollow.
Aye well, good luck with it Rob; but remember what they say about making a deal with the devil and where the detail leads.
Toot toot.
Reading Rob Lawrie’s letter is like watching a rally car trying to get to the finish line while ducking a weaving through the obstacles, tree stumps, holes and soft edges. It’s a master piece of ducking and weaving through the artificial ‘obstacles’ built in by the manic race organisers; designed to impede and penalise entrants. The argument ‘for’ is sound enough, but look at hoops and hurdles he needs to deal with before pleading and proving his way to a rational, risk based agreement, to become 'exempt'.
There should be no need for any of this, especially for ‘exemptions’ which oblige the receiver to ‘play nice’ with CASA: not if the rules were written sensibly. The letter provides a perfect example of why regulatory reform is desperately needed. The question we should be asking is why, despite the time, money and effort invested in the ‘new’ regulations does a respectable body, such as SAAA need to go to such extraordinary lengths to achieve ‘an exemption’.
Aside. This artificial ‘weight’ limitation on medicals intrigues me. I don’t get it. Same as the weight limitations imposed on building; what’s the point of it? Is 650 kg aircraft lobbing into a school yard going to do so much less damage than a 1000 kg aircraft? Why not provided an engineering based ‘range’ of acceptable weights, like between 550 and 880 kg. What’s the difference, apart from legal flexibility? Why should an aircraft weighing in at 605 kg be ‘illegal’ when the same thing at 600 kg is ‘legal’. Are CASA saying that if you get hit by a fully loaded petrol tanker it’s much better than being clouted by a train. Probably just me being thick, again; but it beats me hollow.
Aye well, good luck with it Rob; but remember what they say about making a deal with the devil and where the detail leads.
Toot toot.