Scudrunners

[quote]about the people enforcing the rules[/quote]

Obscure and weighty regulations provide a marvellous
smoke-screen for those assholes.  Because they're so
complicated, no one knows what they are, which allows
the assholes to make all sorts of nonsense up.

If the regulations were simple, you could quickly
catch the assholes on their lies.

[quote]He determines airworthiness more by his general mechanical knowledge than he does the CARs regulations regarding them[/quote]

Any pilot dumb enough to do that, is dead meat
for Enforcement.  Paper is what matters - you
know that.

You didn't bother reading the above, but according
to a PE, a moving alternator needle after starts
makes an airplane unairworthy.

Now, I just have a fucking engineering degree,
so I know that's bullshit.  And, you probably do,
too.

Paper is what matters.

There, Shiny, I fixed it for you...

But it doesn't affect his actual flying of the airplane. Again, we're talking about his ability to deal with an unlawful regulator as opposed to fly the airplane safely. We probably agree here, but like TC, people on this forum never like to admit I may be correct about anything.


And , as an aside, there seems to be at least one person on this forum who never admits to not being correct about anything...a "shining" example of pot calling the kettle...black...

Well, it is a difficult decision, I grant you that.
Is there a reason why I can not do both?

My initial topic was posted simply to facilitate discussion.
Do I have a worthwhile opinion as to specifics.  In some instances yes, but I like to read what others have to say, to become a bit more familiar with the CARs as I do not fly in this jurisdiction anymore.

The challenge is when someone comes out and makes comments about the educational level of others, or others refusal to consider points of debate.  Changes the direction of the discussion.

So for now, I am quite content to learn from others.  Not pontificate my opinions.

The humour to dark or subtle for you?  If you cant see what I fixed ignore it...hint...I changed one word.

I really just wondered why you proposed an either/or choice.

I have never claimed anyones' educational level makes a difference. 
You did that..reread your posts...though in fairness younweasel worded it with maybe.

In any event I am no longer in the mood to battle wits with someone who is unarmed so will bow out of the forum for awhile....

Regarding reducing the number of regulations, I am all for it as well. One of my favourite ones as an instructor is the Recency Requirements. I bet you that this is one of the most violated regulations from what I have seen. This is especially true regarding the 24 month recency. I find so many people fly without being recent as per the 24 month rule, it is a joke. Sure, TC tried to make life simpler by giving not one but 7 ways to achieve this goal. The FAA has it simpler with the BFR.


Agree with one of the posters here, a LOT of the regulations look like they came about because of some jackass tried to weasel a friggin' rope through the eye of a sewing needle and ended up inflicting injury upon self and others. They are definitely reactionary regulations. Having a 'No Smoking' sign next to a fuel tank is a sad sign of the times that we are in! Before it happens, let me tell you that you shouldn't go about blaming millennials for this. I am a millennial myself and I find a lot of these should really be common sense and it is insulting of the human brain that we have to write these down for it to make sense.


As for the 300 NM cross country, there must be some really sad TC personnel in your part of the country, Colonel. I did my own 300 x-country spread over 2 days, part of which was also at night. I never heard anything from TC about this. I have since had a few CPL students do 300 NM trips over 2 days and never heard from TC in this regard either and I am referring to TC both in the Prairie (MB) region as well as the Pacific region. Maybe if the instructor were to open up the CAR to the inspector and show it to him/her that there is no mention of a time frame to complete the trip, the inspector would have seen reason? I don't know enough detail to debate this. Also, like I said somewhere before, TC inspectors are human too and prone to err and one should be able to reason with them. I've personally had to reason with a TC inspector who gracefully accepted my argument when I referred to the appropriate CAR.


Colonel, I have followed a lot of what you have said over the last few years over the different fora that you post regularly on and I understand that you have been greatly wronged by TC, but I would request that you be able to look past the incompetence of one or two TC inspectors who have hung you out to dry. There are a plenty of good inspectors out there too, doing honest work in whatever capacity that they can afford. Also, we need knowledgeable pilots like you to pass on your teachings but without the bitterness as it can sometimes feel a little onerous to separate your advise from the complaining and have probably led to a lot of people misunderstanding your intentions. I mean this respectfully and I hope you can understand.