Sign in to follow this  
Guest Joe

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking...

Recommended Posts

The Feds just won't leave it alone!Want to keep us in a constant state of "Regulatory Vertigo".NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERALAVIATION REGULATION ACT1000.A No pilot or pilots, or person or persons acting on the direction orsuggestion or supervision of the pilot or pilots may try, or attempt to tryor make or make attempt to try to comprehend or understand any or all, inwhole or in part of the herein mentioned Federal Aviation Regulations,except as authorized by the Administrator or an agent appointed by, orinspected by the Administrator. 1000.B If the pilot, or group of associated pilots becomes aware of, orrealizes, or detects, or discovers or finds that he, or she, or they, are orhave been beginning to understand the Federal Aviation Regulations, theymust immediately, within three (3) days notify, in writing, theAdministrator. 1000.C Upon receipt of the above mentioned notice of impendingcomprehension, the Administrator will immediately rewrite the FederalAviation Regulations in such a manner as to eliminate any furthercomprehension hazards. 1000.D The Administrator may, at his or her option, require the offendingpilot, or pilots, to attend remedial instruction in Federal AviationRegulations until such time that the pilot is too confused to be capable ofunderstanding anything.http://myweb.cableone.net/joesumralliii/hook5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Joe,Your subtlety and skills are more than adequate. The craftsmanship shown in that composition are indeed the stuff of "Beltway Bureaucracy" to the highest order! I can see that you may never be able to get your tongue out of your cheek. Take a bow! BRAVO!!!Jerry K. Thorne ;-)East Ridge, TN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, it says a lot about the way we pilots have to run the gauntlet of legalese.Jerry K. ThorneEast Ridge, TN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not absolutely sure, but wasn't this already included in Parts 16, 24, 92, and 135? I must be totally confused!Darn F.A.A., making redundant regulations again.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luis,You have just proven the point made by the original writer of that blurb. Confusion runs rampant again!Jerry K. Thorne ;-)East Ridge, TN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The Feds just won't leave it alone!>Want to keep us in a constant state of "Regulatory Vertigo".Oh yes, memories of "Regs" and vertigo. And headaches.As you probably know, I spent 31 years in the auto safety business. My first job was conducting full-scale crash tests.In 1967 the regs on how to conduct a simple straight-in 30 mph barrier crash filled a BIG loose-leaf binder.The National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is under the Dept. of Transportation (DOT). The acronyms just go crazy from there.The director of our Safety Lab had all of the NHSTA regs in one place. The loose-leaf binders were lined up on a credenza on one wall of his secretary's office. By 1972 they stretched for about fifteen feet. OK, probably that included "our" EPA, OSHA, and EEO regs too. I don't remember. Every year was "more". But, actually it was needed for nation-wide consistency in testing and design.Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.I am going to take this down to the local office of the Department of Redundancy Department and see if they have a similar regulation on file.Doc Bryant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this