News story: Contacting the MAA

The regulated community should direct all Requests for Change (RFC), proposals for Alternative Acceptable Means of Compliance (AAMC), Waivers, Exemptions, and general MRP enquiries to DSA-MAA-MRPEnquiries@mod.uk.

All other enquiries relating to MAA business should be directed to DSA-MAA-EnquiriesMailbox@mod.uk as stated in MAA03: MAA regulatory processes.

Useful links

• MAA RFC form
• MOD form 765: report unsatisfactory feature in aircraft documents
• Notice of authorised amendments (NAA) reference table
• Notice of proposed amendments (NPA) reference table

Continue reading...

 

The Joss is not going to be happy!

 

Nor will Leading Regulated Plod.

"Oh I wonder, yes I wonder, did the Jossman make a blunder......"

But it looks much more in line with JSP 101.

 

I'm not entirely sure, judging by the majority of posts, that there are too many Duty Holders or Accountable Managers on Rumration who would look at this post and go, "Ah, excellent."

But then I might be wrong, which would be scary.

 

You may well be right, Monty, re the "Ah, excellent" bit.
But it is bonkers that people should be obliged in all situations to follow such a form of written communication as dictated by JSP 101. It might well suit some scenarios - but not others. And certainly not news releases.

 

I think you're getting confused as to what this is for....

 

I have to admit I'm a bit confused by MLP's last post; does "what this is for" refer to Rum Ration or MoD news releases?
If it's Rum Ration, I admit to being confused - it's far too early for me to be tired and emotional.
If it's MoD news releases, I'm not confused - they should contain news, not gobbledegook, and be clearly understandable to the reader.

 

What do you think the MAA is out of curiosity? Not a dig at all, just interested in the possible confusion.

 

Well I read it as the SOP for formal Comms with the Military Aviation Authority but reference to the Jossman then
confused the hell out of me.

 

MLP.

OK, not a dig - but the confusion?

I assumed that this news release's use of MAA referred to the Military Aviation Authority and not Master-At-Arms, although naval readers could have been puzzled - especially as the word "regulated" is not far removed from "regulator".

But as I posted earlier, news releases should contain news, not gobbledegook, and be clearly understandable to the reader.

News releases are usually aimed at journalists, who will hopefully then translate them into pieces for the general public or readers/listeners/viewers of specialist magazines/radio/TV.

If the writer of a news release assumes that the journalist reading it understands abbreviations or acronyms (without explanation) then they are running the risk that the news release will not be understood and thus not used.

In which case, why issue it in such a way?

 

Ah righto. Gotcha.

The Jossman and leading reg comment had me thinking you thought it was about Minor Administrative Action or Master-At-Arms. My bad.

As stated, I also don't get who this particular post is aimed at. If people are looking on here for information about things like this, there's something badly wrong.

 

MLP said - If people are looking on here for information about things like this, there's something badly wrong.

I agree. Proper news releases might well be of interest to users of Rum Ration, and indeed this one might be of interest to those in the aviation world. Even so, it should still be written in a clearer style.

But why is it posted here anyway?

I suspect the clue is in the otherwise greyed-out words after the original post:

"This is an automated RSS Feed from the Ministry of Defence Website".