Class wars.
Whoever wrote and whoever was paid to produce these ‘information’ sheets aught, in all good conscience, give the money back. The halfwit from CASA who approved these ‘sheets’ should be put back into the pencil sharpening cupboard. Why? You ask – well simply for failing to understand the topics and the questions pilots and those manage and train pilots would ask. The FAQ ‘style’ of delivery is a very blunt instrument when phrased correctly; but in its mangled form it is, at best confusing. So, the FAQ - HERE - “If I hold a class rating” etc. is pointless. Particularly when the answer is conflicted – “except and exception”.
So we begin page 1 of a tiny 4 page offering, and the first paragraph leads you straight down the garden path – ‘a flight crew qualification’ is it indeed? I would beg to differ. Think about it – you hold a licence, to gain that you must have flown an aircraft at some stage, therefore you hold a flight crew qualification and may operate within the constraints of that licence at least one aircraft. What you need to know is can I operate another type under my licence. Let’s keep it simple, you fly the 152 and have the hot’s for the Warrior parked next to it. Can you just jump in and tool off for a couple of circuits. No sir, you cannot, well you can, but. What is happening is that the affectionately named ‘Putt-putts’ have become the “But buts”
Click page 2:- Paints the picture using a little more contact with grim reality. ‘Training – on type” and a ‘flight review’ on type imply what was in the old money an endorsement. So we have a pointless complication of an ancient, time proven method of ensuring that the transition from a C 208 to a PC12 is done properly. Even if the regulations failed to spell it out, a sane operator (and insurance company) would make sure that no harm came to their million dollar babies; so why the obfuscation? And why is the wheel being reinvented, at great expense?
Click page 3:- Multi engine and once again the questions are neatly avoided; if for example you work for an operator with King 90, 100 and 200 series on line. Sensibly you have done the ground schools for each, completed your flight training program on each and have scraped a pass to go onto ICUS training, at the end of which you pass the proficiency required to clear you to independent line operations. Only now – each type requires a flight review – or does it? So far we have less idea than the tow rag writing this informative guide does.
Click page 4:- Rule 61.062 goes onto our reading list and with a sigh of relieve we leave this ‘information sheet’ behind.....
Fortified with a fresh coffee we open the ‘General Competency’ guide - HERE – for pilots. Page 1:- Where we add 61.385 to our reading list and yet another pointless picture; don’t see too many long sleeve shirts on the flight deck do you and those stripes are brand spanking new. I have previously mentioned these first paragraphs and flatly refuse to discuss them further (lest I bust something). There used to be a short, round fellah worked for CASA who talked the way this crap is written, high blown hyperbole and big words used just out of syntax with the message, I wonder if our work experience child writing these sheets has found one on that blokes old speeches to ATO and saved a few minutes. No more, I just can’t do it…thank the pagan gods there are only three more pages to wade through.
Click page 2:-What is the Manual of Standards (MoS)? they ask - bloody good question, I would also like to know which particular hell spawned it.
Click page 3:- Click page 4. Tilt, game over. I cannot read anymore of this twaddle, not and retain at least a semblance of sanity and tranquillity for this day....
Thankfully, the - MoS - 'guide' shows only 4 pages as I drag it onto my screen from the depths. Page 1 provides some interesting nuggets; like, it is a legislative instrument which makes it a very expensive toy, with sharp edges (talk to your local legal eagle). It also provides a clue as to why Part 61 is such a mess. IMO one of the main reasons for scrapping the entire thing is the failed attempt to roll the CAO and other legislative parts, instruments and exemptions into one 2200 page pie. The prescriptive conflicts which existed before Part 61 reared it’s misbegotten head were not understood, never addressed and never resolved. The ‘old’ system was a patchwork quilt made up of many small pieces and repaired with whatever was expedient or to hand, when repair was need. Part 61 as it stands not only embraces those ‘conflicts’ but amplifies them. The result is a truly awful hodgepodge pile of words which seeks to avoid and mute the existing problems, without addressing them – first. `However, we shall persist with the charade.
Click page 2:- introduces the dreaded schedules; which CASA happily acknowledge as ‘prescriptive’ and being contained within a legislative instrument makes it very difficult for anyone ‘responsible’ for anything to find a practical method of achieving a result without being trapped within an opportunity to use black letter law, should, for some reason that was desired by the ‘authority’ under a literal interpretation of a prescriptive ‘requirement’.
Click page 3:- You can see the train wreck coming, but are powerless to prevent it; nightmarish stuff, bands aid over bull pooh, words to expunge sins and a legal minefield through which you must trustingly walk, blindfold.
Click page 4:- and some more for our required reading list....
I have no idea the cost of producing these information sheets, non whatsoever; but someone should tell Skidmore to retrieve every single last copy and shred them, before the whole farcical waste of thousands of man hours and dollars is realised for the disgraceful waste it is.
Endit:- We are obliged now to tackle the MoS, but not today. If the educational information package has not scared you off to NZ or PNG and you have struggled manfully thus far through the ‘guidance material’ , have choc frog and fresh coffee then download the MoS and have a tinker. But do not be fooled by bland appearance and cosy, chatty feel good spin. You are about to meet the stone cold killer employed by the regulator to do all the dirty work at the coal face, while they sip tea, munch biccies and wallow in the air conditioned safe haven created by the law of abrogated responsibility. You do realise that you – one way or another have paid for this torment to be inflicted, don’t you; also that apathy will ensure that your time in legal purgatory will be eternal.
Selah.
Whoever wrote and whoever was paid to produce these ‘information’ sheets aught, in all good conscience, give the money back. The halfwit from CASA who approved these ‘sheets’ should be put back into the pencil sharpening cupboard. Why? You ask – well simply for failing to understand the topics and the questions pilots and those manage and train pilots would ask. The FAQ ‘style’ of delivery is a very blunt instrument when phrased correctly; but in its mangled form it is, at best confusing. So, the FAQ - HERE - “If I hold a class rating” etc. is pointless. Particularly when the answer is conflicted – “except and exception”.
So we begin page 1 of a tiny 4 page offering, and the first paragraph leads you straight down the garden path – ‘a flight crew qualification’ is it indeed? I would beg to differ. Think about it – you hold a licence, to gain that you must have flown an aircraft at some stage, therefore you hold a flight crew qualification and may operate within the constraints of that licence at least one aircraft. What you need to know is can I operate another type under my licence. Let’s keep it simple, you fly the 152 and have the hot’s for the Warrior parked next to it. Can you just jump in and tool off for a couple of circuits. No sir, you cannot, well you can, but. What is happening is that the affectionately named ‘Putt-putts’ have become the “But buts”
Quote:…For some class-rated aircraft, you need to complete initial flight training and a flight review in that type of aircraft before you are authorised to conduct an operation in that type.
Click page 2:- Paints the picture using a little more contact with grim reality. ‘Training – on type” and a ‘flight review’ on type imply what was in the old money an endorsement. So we have a pointless complication of an ancient, time proven method of ensuring that the transition from a C 208 to a PC12 is done properly. Even if the regulations failed to spell it out, a sane operator (and insurance company) would make sure that no harm came to their million dollar babies; so why the obfuscation? And why is the wheel being reinvented, at great expense?
Click page 3:- Multi engine and once again the questions are neatly avoided; if for example you work for an operator with King 90, 100 and 200 series on line. Sensibly you have done the ground schools for each, completed your flight training program on each and have scraped a pass to go onto ICUS training, at the end of which you pass the proficiency required to clear you to independent line operations. Only now – each type requires a flight review – or does it? So far we have less idea than the tow rag writing this informative guide does.
Click page 4:- Rule 61.062 goes onto our reading list and with a sigh of relieve we leave this ‘information sheet’ behind.....
Fortified with a fresh coffee we open the ‘General Competency’ guide - HERE – for pilots. Page 1:- Where we add 61.385 to our reading list and yet another pointless picture; don’t see too many long sleeve shirts on the flight deck do you and those stripes are brand spanking new. I have previously mentioned these first paragraphs and flatly refuse to discuss them further (lest I bust something). There used to be a short, round fellah worked for CASA who talked the way this crap is written, high blown hyperbole and big words used just out of syntax with the message, I wonder if our work experience child writing these sheets has found one on that blokes old speeches to ATO and saved a few minutes. No more, I just can’t do it…thank the pagan gods there are only three more pages to wade through.
Click page 2:-What is the Manual of Standards (MoS)? they ask - bloody good question, I would also like to know which particular hell spawned it.
Click page 3:- Click page 4. Tilt, game over. I cannot read anymore of this twaddle, not and retain at least a semblance of sanity and tranquillity for this day....
Thankfully, the - MoS - 'guide' shows only 4 pages as I drag it onto my screen from the depths. Page 1 provides some interesting nuggets; like, it is a legislative instrument which makes it a very expensive toy, with sharp edges (talk to your local legal eagle). It also provides a clue as to why Part 61 is such a mess. IMO one of the main reasons for scrapping the entire thing is the failed attempt to roll the CAO and other legislative parts, instruments and exemptions into one 2200 page pie. The prescriptive conflicts which existed before Part 61 reared it’s misbegotten head were not understood, never addressed and never resolved. The ‘old’ system was a patchwork quilt made up of many small pieces and repaired with whatever was expedient or to hand, when repair was need. Part 61 as it stands not only embraces those ‘conflicts’ but amplifies them. The result is a truly awful hodgepodge pile of words which seeks to avoid and mute the existing problems, without addressing them – first. `However, we shall persist with the charade.
Click page 2:- introduces the dreaded schedules; which CASA happily acknowledge as ‘prescriptive’ and being contained within a legislative instrument makes it very difficult for anyone ‘responsible’ for anything to find a practical method of achieving a result without being trapped within an opportunity to use black letter law, should, for some reason that was desired by the ‘authority’ under a literal interpretation of a prescriptive ‘requirement’.
Click page 3:- You can see the train wreck coming, but are powerless to prevent it; nightmarish stuff, bands aid over bull pooh, words to expunge sins and a legal minefield through which you must trustingly walk, blindfold.
Click page 4:- and some more for our required reading list....
I have no idea the cost of producing these information sheets, non whatsoever; but someone should tell Skidmore to retrieve every single last copy and shred them, before the whole farcical waste of thousands of man hours and dollars is realised for the disgraceful waste it is.
Endit:- We are obliged now to tackle the MoS, but not today. If the educational information package has not scared you off to NZ or PNG and you have struggled manfully thus far through the ‘guidance material’ , have choc frog and fresh coffee then download the MoS and have a tinker. But do not be fooled by bland appearance and cosy, chatty feel good spin. You are about to meet the stone cold killer employed by the regulator to do all the dirty work at the coal face, while they sip tea, munch biccies and wallow in the air conditioned safe haven created by the law of abrogated responsibility. You do realise that you – one way or another have paid for this torment to be inflicted, don’t you; also that apathy will ensure that your time in legal purgatory will be eternal.
Selah.