To the esteemed Lovett. (AP worthy and mate).
Warning: six pints of very fine ale precede this offering and one (small) glass of a very rare – exquisite rum keeps me company as I write, – but my old wooden head has activated a safety valve, the need to think, out loud one. So: FWIW.
Those who travel – to earn a living will understand. Strange town, foreign language, rent-a-car, crappy road map, limited time and: having arrived in the dark and needing to leave early, the drive to the airport is a strange and often wonderful experience. Missing road signs, deceptive twists, subtle turns in the road, disorientation and traffic cops straight from Hell can and do really spoil your day. Which is why we use a taxi service of course – or a crew bus i.e. the driver is a local and understands these things. Part 61 is such a place, except, the crew bus is not available and we must travel, so it’s DIY, with only a mud map.
The first question is, where are we in area 61? We could be in anyone of a number of places. PPL wanting to fly a Mooney when they have been exclusively flying a C182; or, a long standing Bonanza owner needing to rent a C210. A Citation pilot asked to do a ‘quick’ job in the Chieftain. A 604 Captain wanting to fly his friends to Louth for the St Patricks day cup in a C421. Whatever: the tangible ‘start point’ and ‘destination’ must be clearly identified. Each journey is different and; in area 61, legally unique. Our map of area 61 is of poor quality but to understand the MoS map we must know and define exactly what we are and where we want to end up.
I have played with several scenario “FAQ” type scenario to explain ‘how to’ – but, as with E = mc2, the flaws inherent in the formula prevent progress beyond the barriers. So, how to define a pathway? Each individual case is, of itself, essentially different: and, some of the issues raised by area 61 are very valid.
For example: a 777 Captain (full bottle) who has not operated a C310 for five years, only had a paltry 30 hours on type, has not conducted a GPS arrival using a Garmin 430 for the same time period, into a ‘tight’ bush strip, in ‘weather’ with smoke, close to last light, single pilot, without a CFIT analysis, fatigue analysis and a ‘rough’ aircraft which may; or may not, present ‘unique’ problem at just the right time. Perhaps carnage and questions to be asked in parliament, perhaps not. Who would know? the gods? – perhaps, for they see the risks.
We must – seriously – re-examine the purpose of part 61. What is it trying so desperately to achieve? The answer is that the children who drafted it, under gods alone know what pressures failed to see the ‘variety’. The ‘old’ CAO were drafted by those who understood the infinite variety – the modern ethos will not allow for that element; for example.
Back in the day; I knew one Qantas 707 Skipper who could transition between a tail wheel B18, a C310 and a 707, seamlessly. I know a 777 Check captain who could not; not on his best day ‘manhandle’ a Be 76 to anywhere near an ‘acceptable’ tolerance.
Part 61 seems to have been drafted by those who cannot, or do not understand ‘matters aeronautical’. In the beginning YES it did. It started it’s miserable life that way - BUT; the original concept has been so terribly disturbed and affected by so many other matters, like the need to produce something – anything – to meet a political expediency and to suit the manic, micro management demands of the previous, black letter law lunacy of ‘He who may not be named’ we have the Part 61 Frankenstein (Cheers Creamy). Cobbled together from old bits of tat, this and that, make do and mend. Gods alone know what it cost.
Well, - Sorry. Just needed to clear the debris in my head, to think out loud and try to understand ‘why’ the industry is accepting being inflicted with and afflicted by half finished, half arsed, legally ‘binding’, micro management rules, which are – in no uncertain terms – an operational danger, legal liability and worse, of no practical value toward improved risk mitigation. I submit, the 'new' rules promote quite the reverse in some areas. Yet they seem to manage, almost, to remove the regulator further, if that is possible, from any form of ‘responsibility’, accountability; or even taking a hand in the game of overall well being of an industry which does, one way or the other pay them to do exactly that.
Selah.. With no apologies.
Warning: six pints of very fine ale precede this offering and one (small) glass of a very rare – exquisite rum keeps me company as I write, – but my old wooden head has activated a safety valve, the need to think, out loud one. So: FWIW.
Those who travel – to earn a living will understand. Strange town, foreign language, rent-a-car, crappy road map, limited time and: having arrived in the dark and needing to leave early, the drive to the airport is a strange and often wonderful experience. Missing road signs, deceptive twists, subtle turns in the road, disorientation and traffic cops straight from Hell can and do really spoil your day. Which is why we use a taxi service of course – or a crew bus i.e. the driver is a local and understands these things. Part 61 is such a place, except, the crew bus is not available and we must travel, so it’s DIY, with only a mud map.
The first question is, where are we in area 61? We could be in anyone of a number of places. PPL wanting to fly a Mooney when they have been exclusively flying a C182; or, a long standing Bonanza owner needing to rent a C210. A Citation pilot asked to do a ‘quick’ job in the Chieftain. A 604 Captain wanting to fly his friends to Louth for the St Patricks day cup in a C421. Whatever: the tangible ‘start point’ and ‘destination’ must be clearly identified. Each journey is different and; in area 61, legally unique. Our map of area 61 is of poor quality but to understand the MoS map we must know and define exactly what we are and where we want to end up.
I have played with several scenario “FAQ” type scenario to explain ‘how to’ – but, as with E = mc2, the flaws inherent in the formula prevent progress beyond the barriers. So, how to define a pathway? Each individual case is, of itself, essentially different: and, some of the issues raised by area 61 are very valid.
For example: a 777 Captain (full bottle) who has not operated a C310 for five years, only had a paltry 30 hours on type, has not conducted a GPS arrival using a Garmin 430 for the same time period, into a ‘tight’ bush strip, in ‘weather’ with smoke, close to last light, single pilot, without a CFIT analysis, fatigue analysis and a ‘rough’ aircraft which may; or may not, present ‘unique’ problem at just the right time. Perhaps carnage and questions to be asked in parliament, perhaps not. Who would know? the gods? – perhaps, for they see the risks.
We must – seriously – re-examine the purpose of part 61. What is it trying so desperately to achieve? The answer is that the children who drafted it, under gods alone know what pressures failed to see the ‘variety’. The ‘old’ CAO were drafted by those who understood the infinite variety – the modern ethos will not allow for that element; for example.
Back in the day; I knew one Qantas 707 Skipper who could transition between a tail wheel B18, a C310 and a 707, seamlessly. I know a 777 Check captain who could not; not on his best day ‘manhandle’ a Be 76 to anywhere near an ‘acceptable’ tolerance.
Part 61 seems to have been drafted by those who cannot, or do not understand ‘matters aeronautical’. In the beginning YES it did. It started it’s miserable life that way - BUT; the original concept has been so terribly disturbed and affected by so many other matters, like the need to produce something – anything – to meet a political expediency and to suit the manic, micro management demands of the previous, black letter law lunacy of ‘He who may not be named’ we have the Part 61 Frankenstein (Cheers Creamy). Cobbled together from old bits of tat, this and that, make do and mend. Gods alone know what it cost.
Well, - Sorry. Just needed to clear the debris in my head, to think out loud and try to understand ‘why’ the industry is accepting being inflicted with and afflicted by half finished, half arsed, legally ‘binding’, micro management rules, which are – in no uncertain terms – an operational danger, legal liability and worse, of no practical value toward improved risk mitigation. I submit, the 'new' rules promote quite the reverse in some areas. Yet they seem to manage, almost, to remove the regulator further, if that is possible, from any form of ‘responsibility’, accountability; or even taking a hand in the game of overall well being of an industry which does, one way or the other pay them to do exactly that.
Selah.. With no apologies.