Posted On: 11/04/2015 2:02:37 PM
Post# of 41414
I'm hoping that's the case as well. What worries me is that over that time frame, it seemed that the conclusion came that they should just back away and ignore it, removing "approved" everywhere. The solid addition was the whole grounds for redoing it for accidental something or other (I forget what already), but I hope that was in response to the R1 door. Didn't really understand the terminology there.
It still concerns me that, like I said, if you simply remove pages 3, 5, 6 and 7 from the original and replace it with the new 3, 5, 6, and 7, this document doesn't come anywhere near reading coherently. Obviously, when you package the whole new one together it reads fine, but they reworked the whole AC! I just hope RE-revising this doesn't drag it out further. Seemed like a half-hearted effort they put into the revision was my take.
I do hope you're right though, but it almost comes off as "yup, this is an issue and we don't know what to do." I hope that equates to a pass and not a stonewall until they figure it out some more.
It still concerns me that, like I said, if you simply remove pages 3, 5, 6 and 7 from the original and replace it with the new 3, 5, 6, and 7, this document doesn't come anywhere near reading coherently. Obviously, when you package the whole new one together it reads fine, but they reworked the whole AC! I just hope RE-revising this doesn't drag it out further. Seemed like a half-hearted effort they put into the revision was my take.
I do hope you're right though, but it almost comes off as "yup, this is an issue and we don't know what to do." I hope that equates to a pass and not a stonewall until they figure it out some more.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
