“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.”

Where does that fit with “Freedom of Association”?  Is that not why there is an 
‘alternative path’?  You cannot be forced to join an association generally 
speaking.

Chris


From: Mark Newton 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 11:57 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

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
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to