Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Batfish said:In my opinion by Faaaaaar the best book out there for decoding regs is Everything Explained for the Professional Pilot by Richie Lengel. I think there is an ad for it on this site, usually on the left sidebar, or you can read a bunch of pages from it at the website www.aviation-press.com. He does a fantastic job of decoding the govt/lawyer jargon and spit it out in a readable form. He is even sarcastic and funny which makes reading the stuff much more bearable. That book and some aircraft specific stuff was ALL I used to study for and get my current job. I have become a big fan of the book. The price has been well worth it since it has replaced all of the crappy books I bought while I was in training. Can't say enough good things about it. -Batfish
Tinstaafl said:A small example: Compare a contract that uses multiple instances of 'the party of the first part' & 'the party of the second part' verses one that first defines the terms & then uses 'Us' or 'We' & 'You' as replacements.
Tinstaafl said:I didn't 'slip in an edit'. I nearly always edit my posts after submitting because I find it easier to proof read in the final display format AND because a period of time between initial composition & a subsequent reading often shows me a better way of composing my point.
Tinstaafl said:erm.... didn't I say that the contract types that I mentioned had a section with definitions? I thought I did.
Oh yes, here it is: "... one that first defines the terms..."
Tinstaafl said:That *doesn't* mean that the FARs are the raison detre of legislative composition.
Tinstaafl said:You seem to be saying that the FARs are the only form of legislative construction?
Tinstaafl said:Have you seen equivalents from elsewhere in the world?
Tinstaafl said:It *doesn't* have to be in legalese and Australian law demonstrates that to a reasonable extent.
Yes, I realize that. My comment was more of an aside. I can't think of anyplace where the FAA regulations say "the adminstrator must..." It hints at a fundamentally different philosophy regarding the relationship between the regulator and the regulated. But again, that is an aside.Tinstaafl said:I know what you mean about the imperative voice used in Oz rules but our discussion isn't about that.
Tinstaafl said:This thread resulted from people who had/have difficulty and they gave examples.
Not necessarily. They may simply =look= easier to understand. Interesting experience that a number of lawyers relate.Tinstaafl said:Plain english contracts are orders of magnitude easier to comprehend than legalese.
These are among the easiest to understand, and are quite plain.
igneousy2 said:I've found the regs to be pretty clear most of the time, the "gray" areas are usually created by pilots who are trying to test the limits of the regulations. Just do some research on this board to find out "if a flight is a charter or not". In reality it's a pretty simple matter to know if it is or it isn't. The only time it seems gray is if you're trying to make the shoe fit when it doesn't.
Later