Spot on.
Wombat - "I am therefore sensitive to the way the regulations are crafted, especially the over use of nominatives like “sufficient”, “acceptable”, “appropriate”, “satisfied”, etc. that infest them. Each and every use of each of these words is an open invitation to bias, stupidity and even corruption".
Particularly when the 'context' is supported by words like "must be" or; (my pet hate) 'deemed' etc. I could go on (and on) - relax; not when there is a little more to consider. We need to take a look at the 'philosophy' supporting the use of those words. The determination to 'write' rules which ensure a 99.9% 'safe conviction' rate; for that is the 'design' function. There is a substantive argument against this approach, indeed many wise heads have counselled against it- the FAA and EASA both - for example.
Should the rate be dropped to say 96% then we head into 'risk based' legislation, underpinning that is notion is a 'philosophy' which argues that; OK, the odd villain or even two may 'escape' the noose; maybe - if industry don't squawk - but the vast majority of 'errors' are a civil matter, not criminal. In the USA system, there is a very clear definition of what is a 'criminal act'; the FAA use this template. Now, if you are proven, in law, to have busted that code - the Golden Gate bridge will land on your head; on the civil law side, infractions are deemed much less heinous. But, the FAA regulations are plain words, risk based, with the onus being firmly on the risk taker. It is not perfect; but the approach is much more democratic, even handed and should you be proven to have deliberately set out - with intent - if you will then - well; let's just say you will need expert professional help of the expensive kind.
The 'secret' is in the avoidance of drafting another 'criminal code' and providing risk based, clearly defined regulation. Our Australian aviation regulations are almost diametrically opposed to this approach, with all power of law acting in defence nullified with the simple words - Strict Liability. I'll tell you this - CASA take up more time and cause more aggravation to the drafters of 'rules than any two other 'agencies'. "They're a royal pain in the butt" as one legal draughtsman expressed it one night over an ale (or was it two, I forget)
Only my opinion - but I reckon several departments and Com Care would breathe a huge sigh of relief if the 'philosophy' of the administration could be moderated a tad.
I shall now attend the dart board and my Ale; been a long weary wait for this simple pleasure - best step up - the opposition have clearly been practising at home.
![[Image: single-frothy-pint-beer-burning-600w-483277990.jpg]](https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/single-frothy-pint-beer-burning-600w-483277990.jpg)
Wombat - "I am therefore sensitive to the way the regulations are crafted, especially the over use of nominatives like “sufficient”, “acceptable”, “appropriate”, “satisfied”, etc. that infest them. Each and every use of each of these words is an open invitation to bias, stupidity and even corruption".
Particularly when the 'context' is supported by words like "must be" or; (my pet hate) 'deemed' etc. I could go on (and on) - relax; not when there is a little more to consider. We need to take a look at the 'philosophy' supporting the use of those words. The determination to 'write' rules which ensure a 99.9% 'safe conviction' rate; for that is the 'design' function. There is a substantive argument against this approach, indeed many wise heads have counselled against it- the FAA and EASA both - for example.
Should the rate be dropped to say 96% then we head into 'risk based' legislation, underpinning that is notion is a 'philosophy' which argues that; OK, the odd villain or even two may 'escape' the noose; maybe - if industry don't squawk - but the vast majority of 'errors' are a civil matter, not criminal. In the USA system, there is a very clear definition of what is a 'criminal act'; the FAA use this template. Now, if you are proven, in law, to have busted that code - the Golden Gate bridge will land on your head; on the civil law side, infractions are deemed much less heinous. But, the FAA regulations are plain words, risk based, with the onus being firmly on the risk taker. It is not perfect; but the approach is much more democratic, even handed and should you be proven to have deliberately set out - with intent - if you will then - well; let's just say you will need expert professional help of the expensive kind.
The 'secret' is in the avoidance of drafting another 'criminal code' and providing risk based, clearly defined regulation. Our Australian aviation regulations are almost diametrically opposed to this approach, with all power of law acting in defence nullified with the simple words - Strict Liability. I'll tell you this - CASA take up more time and cause more aggravation to the drafters of 'rules than any two other 'agencies'. "They're a royal pain in the butt" as one legal draughtsman expressed it one night over an ale (or was it two, I forget)
Only my opinion - but I reckon several departments and Com Care would breathe a huge sigh of relief if the 'philosophy' of the administration could be moderated a tad.
I shall now attend the dart board and my Ale; been a long weary wait for this simple pleasure - best step up - the opposition have clearly been practising at home.