"Appear" being the operative word, over the long period of time between the DR - NPRM and then drafting. Laws change and so does international policy, how we adapt to the changes determines a satisfactory outcome. It gets positively disheartening when the goal posts just keep moving, doesn't help when you cant explain due to fluidity.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2006 8:13 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] The GFA and the RPPL At 11:24 PM 11/07/2006, you wrote: >Mike that's bollocks. What exactly is bollocks? The DP's and the NPRM are a matter of record. As too is the meeting of the GFA, RAAus and the Minister. We appear to have a case of a GFA board member being misled, either deliberately or through incompetence. >Regs take time to write and you portray a very limited view of the big >picture. I know this to be incorrect. You do know stuff. >Of course the final intent cannot be published due to outside forces i.e. >(9/11) >Please stop throwing rocks from the sideline and put you efforts where your >mouth is. You actually have the ability to make a positive difference, or is >it beneath you? I got put on the distribution list for the RRP and have bothered to comment in writing. Did you ever do this before getting a job at CASA? I thought the original CASA discussion paper proposals had the potential to greatly enhance sport aviation in Australia and I suspect the CASA people responsible for them thought they were doing us a favour also. Instead of grabbing these very liberal and rational proposals, wholehearted endorsing them and getting them implemented GFA and RAAus' first instinct was to protect "their" turf. Most people would complain if there was one oil company, one car company or one supermarket chain but the sport aviation organisations want a monopoly. No consideration of the greater good of sport aviation generally or the beneficial effect of having an example of rational rule making in place. The organisations might actually have had to work to get members of course and that seems to be that last thing they want. I suspect that they might even have risen to the challenge or been replaced by organisations that did. Most of the gliding people I talked to at the time would have been happy to have a CASA licence. Most of them had never even heard of the CASA discussion papers. If they had there might have been individual responses at odds with the GFA official position. Can't have that, can we? Given the revolutionary nature of the proposal it was clearly a case to inform the members and ask them if they wanted this. Instead they were kept in the dark and the GFA exec and RAAus went outside the CASA public comment procedure and went directly to the Minister. Now that CASA will charge to file PPL medicals we are being asked to complain about this. It could have been made irrelevant. >Believe me it's not for the money people work for the regulator or the GFA. >In fact I am struggling with just that issue right now. Why bother. I don't often feel sorry for CASA people but the guys who wrote the original discussion papers must have been bashing their heads against the wall in frustration when the GFA and RAAus opposed them. The sentiment must have been " just what the hell do these people want?" >If the GFA stopped tomorrow the ripple effect would actually now be felt >globally, all sport and rec aviation would suffer at a minimum. Some would >completely fail. Really? I suspect the rest of the world wouldn't notice. I bet the EAA doesn't even know(or care) there is a GFA, the SSA likewise. >It's harder to support something than tear it apart. Personally I want to >put my finger in the dyke. >How about the rest of you. Stop bitching and do something about it. If by supporting you mean " this isn't working so lets do more of it even harder", I've got better things to do. The tragedy in all this is that we may have missed the chance for a long, long time to have a rational, relatively simple and liberal sports aviation system in this country. Maybe even coherent. The current system of exemptions, "representative" bodies, numerous categories of aircraft etc is a shambles. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
