Justin and others
One of the benefits of simple regulations is that they will inherently
contain less internal conflicts. In this case the conflict is between
the norms for aircraft certification and the operational rules.
"Everyone" in Certification knows that the TCDS (Type Certificate Data
Sheet) is sacrosanct and only an amendment to the type certificate (STC
or supplemental type certificate) can override it.
However, particularly something that was type certificated several
decades ago in a country that at the time was not fully aligned with the
more modern (and lesser in number) "international' standards may have
items included that are relevant to the operating rules of the country
of origin rather than design integrity. Cloud flying in glider was not
only permitted, but regularly encouraged, in eastern Europe post WW2, so
including the T&S or an AH in the TCDS rather than the operational
equipment list was not considered wrong. Hopefully the current FAR and
EASA certification standards are sufficiently clear to distinguish
between operational role integrity equipment and basic design integrity
requirements.
However, when the Poles brought their gliders here for the 1974 and 1987
Worlds, they had a competition rule that prohibited all blind-flying
instruments, and knowing this, they removed them from the gliders. So
the SP-registered PZL gliders that entered those comps were in breach of
their TCDS and you can bet the Polish airworthiness authority did not
think to issue an STC to allow them to fly clear of cloud without a T&S!
For many years the GFA has had exemptions against the standard schedules
of instrument requirements for powered aeroplanes granted by CAO 95.4 to
vary CAO 100.18 - but as an appropriate operating rule, nobody thought
(and I was one of them at the time) to go into details of type
certification for foreign gliders, particularly when the old Department
had agreed that the GFA was capable of managing its own affairs, and the
intention of the rule was rarely defeated by someone reading the literal
content out of context. Not so any longer - particularly in a litigious
society where everybody wants to admit no blame and obtain a legal
ruling supporting their interpretation of a poorly-written old rule.
Such is the problem of a society where every rule has to be written with
no room for interpretation, no legislator has room for any discretion
lest they run foul of someone's view of "fairness" and gross-scale bias
verging on corruption (think banks, tax havens and the construction
industry) is ignored by the "ruling classes" whilst people faff around
the edges worrying about whether a T&S is necessary for safe operation
of a Jantar but not of a Janus; whether a yaw string satisfies an
operational requirement for a slip indicator; not to mention whether GPS
has made the magnetic compass redundant (there are serious international
musings on whether to base global navigation on true north by satellite
data in lieu of the old Greek lodestone).
My two bob's worth on this!
Wombat
On 21/04/2016 9:55 AM, Justin Couch wrote:
On 21/04/2016 8:40 AM, emillis prelgauskas wrote:
There was a very good reason that gliding had ‘exemptions’ globally
in the Regulations. To avoid this mismatch between commercial
aviation and our sport specific needs.
It's probably worth some time to chat with you privately to get some
details on where these can be found. Unfortunately I am now far more
intimate with both Oz and international airworthiness regulations than
I really would like to be. If these exemptions do exist written down
that you are claiming, I cannot find them, nor can anyone else at the
GFA - perhaps they went up in smoke with the rest of our paperwork a
few years ago?
The regulatory framework that existed in the utopian past has changed,
rather dramatically on us, so things that may have been in place
before just don't work any more - if we can find the documentation of
them at all. I see a lot of what is happening now as no different to
then - someone finds yet another stupid rule, everyone mulls it over
for a time, an exemption gets made according to the paperwork
framework of the day, everyone shakes hands and moves on.
I'd like to understand how you find this particular issue (T&B on MEL)
any different to the fire-extinguisher example you cite. Both seem to
involve a silly rule that doesn't apply to us, someone working out a
way to get an exemption within the rules of the day, and everyone just
moves on (and then 30 years down the track someone recounts it as a
funny story of "Kids these days! Back in my day....").
Including that the best results are achieved when GFA told CASA to
stick it - that we are the experts in our sport, which needs to
operate in specific ways in order to be safe.
Remember the primacy - SAFETY.
And, they in turn can tell us the same and stop gliding in it's tracks
completely, or make it so financially uncomfortable for us to have the
same effect. Neither is a good outcome for us. So, work out when to
bend with the wind, and when to stand firm against it. Everyone has a
different interpretation of that point.
We, luckily, have some very good people on the GFA side that know the
system inside and out as they deal with it professionally every day.
So, when weird stuff like this happens, they already know what to do
and slip in that extra one sentence into our paperwork so that the
guys on the ground like you and I can continue to operate mostly
unaffected.
How does making the paper mound higher and in multiple mounds (the
compliant, the interpreted work around, the reality) contribute
positively to this?
The argument that ‘society demands this’ is so hollow - as if the
public bystander leaning on the aerodrome fence is able to tell the
operator how to do things because of the unformed opinions -
regulation by social media.
The utopia of the good old days no longer exists and we do have to put
up with this stuff whether we like it or not. I bet 40 years ago the
elders of the time were decrying "adding more mounds of paperwork"
too, comparing it to pre-WWII gliding. The more things change, the
more they stay the same.
Yes the world is getting more litigious (specially insurance
companies!). On top of that, we now have a bunch of know-it-alls on
social media condemning everything that can gut something almost
instantaneously regardless of good intentions or not of the target. We
can't live in a vacuum and pretend the world doesn't exist around us.
If genetics have much to say, I have at least another 40 years of
enjoying this sport - I'd like to still be able to have that option
should I, and all the younger guys I'm trying to mentor, be interested.
Anyway, I'll shoot you (emillis) a private email to see what we can
dig up from historical paperwork and get into electronic form and
weave into the current reality.
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
