Bookworm only that the probability of entropy (read cock up) dominates that of conspiracy, at least in the world of physics.
Ironically career earnings (speech writer, financial PR, policy wonk) for an arts graduate with an undergraduate understanding of Foucauldian deconstruction, dominate that of the poor statistician designing the polls. Which might be interpreted as a conspiracy in itself.
While I understand the conjunction fallacy, I don’t follow how it applies here. Could you elaborate please?
Cock up trumps conspiracy is one of the more endearing philosophies from the UK: Karl Popper, Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman and others would approve.
I think Tversky and Kahneman’s framing example of Linda the Bankteller applies. I don’t know how to do one of those cool links in the text which Peter manages to do, but hopefully the usual search engines will help out.
On the subject of operating tips for the site if you want to add a comment and not logged in, logging in takes you back to the home page and not the thread you were reading?
Peter wrote:
I am sure EASA is not short of people who can type
You are indeed fortunate, @Peter, to have never worked in sausage* factory. You’d be surprised how everything gets bottlenecked at the mincers.
* “Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.” (John Godfrey Saxe, 1869)
Most of what you call “conspiracy” (well, excluding the criminal portion of the definition) is just everyday behaviour of business and other bodies which have an interest in something.
You are indeed fortunate, @bookworm, to have never worked in an organisation which wishes to safeguard it’s future.
If this stuff is “too hard”, why is that? Obviously, it’s because some % of those affected don’t want it. I am sure EASA is not short of people who can type 
Peter wrote:
I know people love to accuse me of liking conspiracy theories but business is always business and the results usually speak for themselves
Your ability to read conspiracy into cock-up is indeed legendary, Peter. There’s no one working against the changes in the NPA, but it’s big and complicated and not seen as a priority, so has been dumped in the “too hard” pile for some time.
There are very relevant posts here on this topic.
AIUI, currently:
Accordingly I have stopped revalidating my UK IR. My plan is to do the check flight when actually required (currently before April 2017).
Presumably CPL or ATPL theory used for the purpose of compliance with something* will still never expire.
* an FI being able to teach the EASA PPL (needs EASA CPL theory) or avoiding the HPA course (needs ICAO ATPL theory)
RobertL18C wrote:
Peter with 61.31 e f and g and 100 hours on an SET (presumably g does not apply for a Caravan) you get an automatic SET class rating?
That is an interesting question and I wouldn’t mind hearing what @bookworm thinks about it. I wouldn’t think so since ASEL doesn’t have a direct counterpart under EASA. However, I can imagine it – do it based on experience in that class (e.g. give you TBM SET based on experience in TBMs). You would still have to comply with (a) and (b). It just sounds a bit too good so I remain skeptical.
As for the original post, the first quote (if I call it that) is from subpart G (IR), the second one is from subpart H (type and class ratings). You can’t mix those things together. As for the question of training after you let your EASA IR lapse but keep foreign IR alive, my interpretation is that you would have to go through renewal – this change would protect you from having to do the theory again, which is what the (d) is about, but it won’t prevent the IR from expiring so you still have to comply with (c). And renewal means refresher training to reach the proficiency required to pass the skill test.
It just occurred to me that it might be an interesting question what would happen to your ATPL theory. That is also kept alive by revalidating/ renewing IR and is valid for 7 years. I thought the NPA might contain a change there as well but it doesn’t, at least I don’t see it.
Only the first two quotes contain real changes, third is just reworded/ restructured (the (1)(i) gets incorporated directly into (1)) and the only change in the last one is the numbering (crossed bits get deleted, grey bits get added). Well, there is a change in the third one, the wording went from provided in an ATO located outside the territory of the MS to instruction provided outside the territory of the MS in an ATO; this relocation makes a difference.
Clearly there is a huge number of political toes which are being stepped on with this proposal.
Most of the vested interests are fairly obvious – starting with FTOs/ATOs and working on from there.
I know people love to accuse me of liking conspiracy theories but business is always business and the results usually speak for themselves
Jacko wrote:
Does anyone know what became of this NPA?
Hard to believe that the first meeting of that rulemaking group was 7 Sep 2011. Last I heard was that an Opinion is expected in Q4 this year. Some of the content has been implemented in dribs and drabs along with other changes.
