Compulsory Registration of Aerodromes

[justin.schoeman]

t is back! As usual, it is a total stuff up. The Gazette refers to the CAA web site. The CAA website only has a tiny portion (and probably the least offensive portion at that) of the proposals listed.

Would recommend that everybody read the Gazette (attached) and follow the instructions at the end to request a full version of all the changes.

First one to get a reply, please post them here!

Although not published, the licensing bit is laughable, and will genuinely destroy recreational aviation in South Africa. All airfields within 1nm of the footprint of a TMA to be licensed, with full fire fighting and rescue services. The same for all training and tourist airfields.

Everybody, get to your representative bodies, and start fighting for the life of GA in South Africa!

http://www.gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gaz ... nsport.pdf

http://www.caa.co.za/Legal%20Documents/ ... ipads).pdf

[justin.schoeman]

Dear Mr Schoeman

Please note that there 16 items published on the Government Gazette for inputs and comments. However, some items were erroneously published as CARCom has only approved for publication 6 items instead of 16 items. The following items were approved by CARCom for publication:

Schedule 1:Part 67 (Visual Standards)
Schedule 2:Part 92 (Conveyance of Dangerous Goods)
Schedule 3:Part 139 (Aerodromes and Helipads)
Schedule 4:Part 177 (Aeronautical Charts)
Schedule 5:SA CATS 67 (Lasik Protocol)
Schedule 6: SA CATS 92 (Conveyance of Dangerous Goods)

Furthermore, the aforesaid items approved for publication for inputs and comments are available on our website and are hereby attached for your convenience.

Kind regards

Adv Sipho Skosana
Legal Advisor: Regulation Development
Legal and Aviation Compliance

Guys, pay attention to this one. In its current form, this tiny change will effectively double or triple the hangarage costs at almost all microlight airfields. I certainly hope MISASA is joining the fight.

[coline]

Please go look here http://avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php ... 0#p1772832
and respond by signing the petition and responding to CAA

Colin

[FO Gyro]

Here's the direct link to the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obje ... o-proposal

[Bundy]

Signed and commented on the Petition Link.

Please everyone, don't stand back and do nothing....this WILL destroy all General Aviation if passed!

[Tumbleweed]

Has Misasa through Aeroclub made representation? Surely all members of Aeroclub would be a an automatic significant number?

[justin.schoeman]

Has Misasa through Aeroclub made representation? Surely all members of Aeroclub would be a an automatic significant number?

Aeroclub itself ceased to truly represent pilots when they became a CAA clearing house for managing AROs. They depend too much on the income generated by CAA enforced membership to ever kick the apple cart too hard.

Right now it is up to the individual AROs to represent their member's interests. Not sure if anything is happening from MISASA's side. Nothing has come down to us from the EAA brass, so not sure what is happening on this side. I hope the various representative bodies will put up a good show.

[Tumbleweed]

Thanks Justin. This puts the moans and bitches of compulsory membership into perspective. I thought only Raasa subcontracted CAA duties and the Aeroclub represented pilots.

Maybe the Aeroclub should communicate their stance and progress to the collective10 000 plus membership on how they are opposing this.

the following is a copy of communication I received from the Commercial Aviation Association of SA, representing among others, crop sprayers and charter businesses.

"Good day CAASA Members

As of late there has been some confusion in the industry with some petitions sent around by members and others. This methodology does not seem fair or in the spirit of partnership that at this stage of the development of Part 139.

CAASA is steadfastly focused on working with the Sacaa to bring about the best and most workable regulations.

This email is specifically aimed at bringing clarity regarding part 139.

There are many challenges facing the regulators and industry with regard to the loss of airfields, building of obstacles /towers etc on approach paths and importantly security issues facing the county due to misuse of airstrips for "illegal operations" (cigarette/currency smuggling, human trafficking, rhino poaching, wildlife smuggling etc) to name merely a few.

To this end part 139 has to evolve to help protect our National aviation assets be they in public or private hands and assist in the security issues our country faces.

PART 139 proposed ammendments IS IN A "STATE OF CONSULTATION".

Due process works and should be followed rather than prematurely petitioning and raising unnesscessary speculation.

For clarity purposes.

SUB PART 1 & 2 are at the ASI sub-committee and interested parties are welcome to comment, as well as attend the meetings when they commence again and give input. CAASA will advise on these dates when they are received.

CAASA is colating comments from our members and will be discussing and negotiating in the normal ASI forum.
This is both successful and beneficial to industry and the aviation authority.

Sub-parts 5 and 6 were withdrawn for resubmission as agreed at the past CARCom meeting.

It was further agreed that these would be re-submitted with their associated CATS for further comment.

These need substantial work and are about to be placed into the comment stages so that proper discussion and development can take place. It seems the industry is jumping the gun. This form of consultation is normal and necessary.

Sub-part 6 was resubmitted for comments but unfortunately the CATS were left out. SACAA has noted this omission and is resubmitting them for further comment allowing 30 days for these comments.

Sub-part 5 still to be resubmitted

BOTH Part 139 sub-part 5 & sub-part 6 will then follow the normal route to go to the sub committee for full consultation with the comments and development.

This route affords all sufficient input and a constructive an open platform to make an amended Part 139,that is both workable and will make provision for all.

CAASA IS COMMITTED TO THIS PROCESS AND WORKING WITH ALL PARTIES BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL TO ARRIVE AT THE INTENDED REGULATION"

[justin.schoeman]

Sub-parts 5 and 6 were withdrawn for resubmission as agreed at the past CARCom meeting.

It was further agreed that these would be re-submitted with their associated CATS for further comment.

Unfortunately, the CAA has declined to publish a notice to this effect (although this may have been discussed internally at carcom). Without the proposal being officially withdrawn, it is still eligible for promulgation - so we have no choice but to submit objections.

[John Boucher]

Sorry chaps for only responding now ...

Aeroclub SA indeed has taken a stance and aligned itself with CAASA at this moment.

Before my unnecessary resignation, I had embarked on a process to get a seat on CARCOM for MISASA as ARO. Obviously this was put on the back burner. I had notified the board members in an AeroclubSA board meeting of our intentions of obtaining a seat. My reasoning was simple - if other persons that claim to represent the aviation industry without substantiated membership, it only fitting that we as one of the major ARO's within Aeroclub also get a seat / representation. Aeroclub's representation is diluted to a single vote and with successful admission to CARCOM, better representation for us. This process of getting our own representation will thus again be pursued by MISASA and back on track.

Just a note of interest... Kev Storie is now active at CAASA and that assists us greatly with the way forward.

CARCOM is meeting on the 26th October and it is more than likely, apart from AeroclubSA, also have MISASA representation present.

All this lets me think of the Eagles hit - Hotel California!

[Jean Crous]

John, I hope it works out in our (read all pilots) favour ! Thank you to all those men and women that work behind the scenes to make aviation enjoyable for all of us
Jean.

[Boet]

OK. So now we all protested, and said hoono goggo waggebietjie waitabit ons stem nie saam nie. Nottedem. So what`s going down? Any news about this BS??

[John Boucher]

All on ice, sent back and withdrawn

[nicow]

All on ice, sent back and withdrawn

[KFA]

All on ice, sent back and withdrawn