nicely put, a 2 bob cheque in the mail
> On 21 Apr 2016, at 4:09 PM, Mike Cleaver <womba...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
