The rule is not ambiguous. It states something quite different to what
is intended. The use of the word AND states that we must have both a
200 ft horizontal as well as a 200ft vertical separation when in fact we
are only required to have one or the other..
This list was not long ago discussing a court case from here in
Victoria where a Gliding club (I think it was Mt Beauty Gliding Club)
was held liable for full damages even though some badly written
Victorian Legislation was intended to stop this from occurring. The
judge seemed to know that the law was intended not to be taken in the
way he interpreted it but it was written in way he interpreted it..
Maybe this has been overturned or the law changed since we last talked
about it but if not, then due to this silly interpretation, all
Victorian gliding clubs (and probably power planes) are liable to full
damages in accidents in joy flights which return to the same field as
they started from. That is, due to an interpretation of a journey
having to go from one point to a different point. I can't remember the
actual words from this court case but I'm sure someone on this list can
post them to show how these things can have disastrous effects.
To say this serves no purpose is not to understand how important these
things can be. My email right from the first sentence made it clear
that I was referring to possible problems with the law courts. I also
changed the Subject as it was a change of subject.
Ken Dawber
John Parncutt wrote:
It does not matter whether it is "and" or "or" It is quite clear what the
intent of this regulation is, and that is the maintainance of 200ft
seperation between sailplanes IN ANY Direction. To make some argument of
ambiguity when the alternate understanding is clearly a nonsense serves no
purpose to this discusion.
Unfortunately, its not always the intent of a rule that is
taken when a
rule is looked at in a court of law. What the rule actually
says is
often given more weight.
With the current separation rule as shown below, ie. "200 feet
vertically AND horizontally" then we glider pilots are
required never to
fly at the same height as another aircraft, regardless of
horizontal
separation!!!!
Once one aircraft is up in the air, no other aircraft can
get higher
than that aircraft without breaking this rule!!
Shouldn't that 'and' be an 'or'. We only need to be
separated by the
vertical separation OR the horizontal separation, not by both.
Regards
Ken Dawber
Christopher H Thorpe wrote:
Mike's comment is correct and remains so. GFA Operational Regulations -
Section 9.22 states:-
"A sailplane shall not be flown so close to another aircraft as to
create a
collision hazard. GFA requires that a separation from other
sailplanes, and
tug aircraft towing sailplanes, of at least 200 feet vertically and
horizontally be maintained."
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
