Mark, Agree with most of what you wrote except that CASR 61.1515 does not say that you have to be a member. It says that "* (1) The holder of a glider pilot licence is authorised to conduct an activity in the exercise of the privileges of the licence only if the activity is conducted in accordance with: *
* (a) the operations manual of a recreational aviation administration organisation that administers glider activities;"* That is different to being a member. It is the ops regulations that mandate membership. CAO95.4 still permits the parallel path. I explored this a couple of years ago but the conditions were impossible to comply with and CASA knew it! Also I know of 2 LAMEs that are prepared to issue MR's on gliders. On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Mark Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
