I operated under 95.4 for almost a decade with the support of a non GFA
affiliated gliding club.
Came into the “fold” again because of the move interstate and a new club.
But as you say James the hoops you would have to jump through now are difficult.
Chris
From: James McDowall
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:09 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
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
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
