On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, James McDowall <[email protected]> wrote:
> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the > GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations. Good luck getting a glider in to Class A airspace. I think you're misreading how the various rulesets interact with each other. 0. The Civil Aviation Act is king. It enables the Parliament to make regulations regarding civil aviation. 1. The Parliament has promulgated CARs and CASRs pursuant to the Act. 2. They permit CASA to issue CAOs. 3. One of the CAOs is 95.4, which creates the system of exemptions and delegations needed to create GFA. 4. Subordinate to CAO 95.4 is the rest of the Operational Regulations. 5. The Operational Regulations say that certain things need to be done IAW the MOSP. The MOSP is at the bottom of the chain, not the top. It makes no difference what mandates the MOSP makes if they’re overridden by CASR 61.145 and 61.1515 (or, for that matter, the Act). > However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA as > per CAO 95.4) say: > "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated > except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which would > seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say in the > regulation "must be a member of the GFA”. Part 61 post-dates CAO 95.4, which means Part 61 “wins” if they disagree. They don’t disagree in this case: CAO 95.4 says pilots have to be GFA members. Part 61 says glider pilots need to be members of an organization authorized to administer gliders. There is only one such organization, the GFA, so the two regulations are equivalent. Part 61 doesn’t specifically mention GFA because it’s been written on the understanding that Part 149 will be promulgated, which opens up territory for new organizations to be authorized to administer aspects of sports aviation, including gliders. Part 149 should be opposed, it takes us in exactly the opposite direction to where we should be going, by cementing the power and authority of organizations like the GFA over “their” pilots, instead of leaving sports pilots under their own regulatory recognizance like every other pilot in the world. GFA supports it. > This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA > Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path to > glider opeartions? The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion paper on Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling "Parallel Path” anymore. They view it as a failed experiment. > BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider > maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided > you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem to > exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements. Yes — But converting an existing GFA-maintained glider to a LAME scheme of maintenance will almost certainly cost more than the glider is worth, so taking that path is really only practical for brand new imported gliders which have never been maintained by the GFA form-2 system. - mark
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
