On 21 Apr 2016, at 5:52 am, Justin Couch <jus...@vlc.com.au> wrote: > We don't get to pick and choose how we interpret "relevant" rules when we > don't like one that is not in our favour. I looked through at least another > dozen gliders of varying age. All state cloud flying permitted, none, other > than PZL require a T&B. Similarly, where specialised equipment for a task is > needed (think G-meters and Aerobatics), they are listed separately in the > TCDS - see the K21 as an example. PZL dropped that from the list in their > most recent models of the 55 and Perkoz. > > I agree that the requirement for T&B for the MEL is silly, that's why I felt > like it was worth sharing the story. Here's an example of some of the crazy > paperwork that does exist out there, and we managed to find a decent > workaround for it. It's also a cautionary tale about making sure that > inspectors _actually_ read their paperwork that they claim to be signing off, > rather than just waving their hands and saying "yeah I know what's written, > I've done this a hundred times" that can be applied in many different > situations.
Thank you Justin for sharing. I am however with Roger in this theme. There was a very good reason that gliding had ‘exemptions’ globally in the Regulations. To avoid this mismatch between commercial aviation and our sport specific needs. On my on-going theme - if the elder states people were drawn on by the federation - you would have had prior alert about your glider being illegal because it doesn’t carry the fire extinguisher, and in multi-seat ‘passenger’ capable airframe, the defibrillator. (Yes, this has actually been reasons for refusing certification during import ‘inspection’ - the standard paperwork insists on these). When we put a junior CASA officer and a junior (read - recently renewed) GFA ’system’ in the same place - all the 67 year history is lost and we go through the re-learning all over again from scratch. Including that the best results are achieved when GFA told CASA to stick it - that we are the experts in our sport, which needs to operate in specific ways in order to be safe. Remember the primacy - SAFETY. How does making the paper mound higher and in multiple mounds (the compliant, the interpreted work around, the reality) contribute positively to this? The argument that ‘society demands this’ is so hollow - as if the public bystander leaning on the aerodrome fence is able to tell the operator how to do things because of the unformed opinions - regulation by social media. Emilis _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
