......and as CASA exercised on GFA some years back when it was felt that that GFA wasn't exercising its obligations, thus rescinded its delegations for a period. Life was a lot simpler when GFA represented glider pilots as a proactive advocate in favour of bottom up responsibility from the individual pilot upward via uniformly agreed principles; The current situation of GFA being a 'co-regulator' with/to/for CASA creates that confusion of - - are we operating gliders to gliding needs or - are we trying to operate gliders to power plane <5700kg needs (as per the erosion of exemptions)
Emilis On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 6:46 AM James McDowall <[email protected]> wrote: > In 2010 the GFA issued an Operations Advice Notice which included the > following: > > *Each pilot must accept it is their responsibility to operate a sailplane > within its certified limitations and the operation of a sailplane with a > cockpit load in excess of the certified limit is not sanctioned by GFA. It > is entirely the responsibility of the person acting as the pilot in command > of a flight to ensure compliance with the certified maximum cockpit load > requirement. * > > *GFA understands that an increasing number of pilots are experiencing > difficulty meeting the maximum cockpit load requirement of sailplanes. > Pilots in this situation are encouraged to seek gliders which accommodate > their needs within their placard limits or to seek advice from the > manufacturers or suitably qualified engineers about possible engineering > solutions. * > > The contest rules provide for penalties for operation of a glider outside > of its certified limits: > > *Dangerous or hazardous flying including flying outside the glider’s > Certificate of Airworthiness or Permit to Fly – minimum penalty 100 points > – maximum penalty loss of all points for the day* > > So not only is it not lawful to fly with an overweight cockpit load it is > against the GFA rules and the contest rules. This is a GFA issue primarily > and it is not a CASA issue except if CASA decides that the GFA is knowing > allowing aircraft to be flown outside its certified limitations and decides > to act in some manner perhaps to jeopardise all GFA operations such as the > did some time ago with RAAus. > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Matthew Scutter <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Thursday, 6 December 2018 9:04 PM > *To: *Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Aus-soaring] Who is ultimately responsible... > > > > So make a complaint to the GFA then about whoever it is you're concerned > about. Don't conflate sports with airworthiness. Scales are for checking > weight relative to handicap, not some mobile enforcement arm of CASA. > Competition directors have enough to worry about already. > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, 10:17 am James McDowall <[email protected] > wrote: > > The Self Administering Organisation model seeks to make the SAO > responsible for ensuring that the laws are obeyed. Under the Part 149 > arrangements CASA will only act at the request or report of the SAO. CASA > relies on this concept so leaves these sort of issues to the relevant body > so in this case if there is doubt that the law (or rules) are not complied > with the GFA is obliged to act – at least to investigate. It is as easy as > a set of scales at the launch pad. > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Robert Izatt <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Thursday, 6 December 2018 5:41 PM > *To: *Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Aus-soaring] Who is ultimately responsible... > > > > That said if CASA was aware or believed or was provided information that > an aircraft was being operated outside its limits or the pilot was unfit to > operate said aircraft they would be proactive. The bigger the aircraft the > more so but the principle still applies. > > If even just a rumour exists in V8 Supercars or F1 that the rules are > being broken....... > > Rob > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 6 Dec 2018, at 1:28 PM, Texler, Michael < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Season’s Greetings to all, > > > > Who is ultimately responsible? > > > > The answer is in your mirror > > > > From GFA Operational Regulations Issue 7, October 2014 > > Page 13 > > 4. CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS > > 4.1. General > > 4.1.3. A pilot shall at all times operate a sailplane within the limits of > its cockpit placards and shall not exceed the privileges of their > authorisation(s). > > 4.1.4. Before each flight the pilot in command shall ensure that: > > (a) The sailplane is loaded within permitted limits and that any ballast > required is adequately secured; > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
