SAGPA AGM 2010

[Condor]

Confirmed names for the AGM:

Gerrit Roux
Weidie Vorster
Leon de Lange
Eben Mocke SNr
EBen Mocke Jnr
Mark Bellingham
Len Klopper
Paul Roux
Malcolm Claase
Pieter Smith
Glen Dean
Jean-Pierre Duponsel
Braam hechter
Andre Swanepoel
Fanie Keyser
Daren


Looks promising, where are the rest?

[THI]

Would love to come, but a bit too far from the cape. Maybe next time.

[weedy]

I will attend.

regards

Claude Pullen

[Condor]

Would love to come, but a bit too far from the cape. Maybe next time.

Vra my broer (Jabi430) om saam te vlieg, dan is dit nie so alleen nie.

[Eggbeater]

Hi Condor

I will be back in the country then and will be there. I must just check to make sure my SAGPA membership is paid up. I don't recall receiving an invoice this year.

[THI]

Would love to come, but a bit too far from the cape. Maybe next time.

Vra my broer (Jabi430) om saam te vlieg, dan is dit nie so alleen nie.

Tyd is nie so seer die probleem nie. Dis die greenbacks wat pla.

Ek wil die vrou en laaitie saam bring en dan gaan ek uit "tyd" uit hardloop.

Volgende keer beslis!

[Steveh]

Gents

Please can someone explain to me why it is beneficial to belong to the Gyro Pilot Association?

From what I read, you want to create your own power kingdom to duplicate the tasks required by the regulator and RAASA, why on earth do you want to become involved in taking action against violators [the same people who enjoy the type of flying you do, not all violations occur through intent] - you're an association! If someone violates an association rule, yes then you have the power to do something, otherwise you should butt out. The determination of AP's and instructor hours - you've lost me, that's what RAASA does.

It's these little kingdoms that get created that give the industry a bad name. As an association why don't you stick to promoting the flying of gyro's, the positive aspects, as oppose to the policing - organise better insurance, fly-aways, just please promote this form of flying. Callie has a very valid point, please take note of it otherwise there won't be many attending the AGM and there's a good possibility that membership numbers may fall, that's if there is any benefit to belonging to the association at all.

Steve

[Condor]

Exactly why everybody flying and belonging to SAGPA should attend the meeting at Kitty Hawk.

As I have said to Callie, but will repeat: The 4 items are agenda points for discussion, NO DISSICION HAVE BEEN TAKEN.

We all want to promote Gyro flying. So please come and discuss, elect your SAGPA committee and PLEASE tell them what you expect of them.

Please add your name to the list and we look forward to see you in two weeks time.

[mak]

Condor

Tinkerbell and myself will try and make the long trip there. Please add our names to the list.

What time will the meeting start?

[Pieter Smith]

Is daar iemand hier in my omgewing wat 9 Oktober Kittyhawk toe vlieg? Dalk van Mesina, Louis Trichart, Pietersburg of Potgietersrus. Laat weet my asb, dan kan ons so saam ssam vlieg!
Ek hoor net van die Gyro's hier in die Limpopo, ek sien julle manne dan nooit nie!

[gyrosa]

Hello Callie
Your comment refers to:-

You need a proper legal person because most of the rules are open for interpretation – How about the flying over built up areas rule. No NTCA aircraft was permitted, but everybody flew over built up areas. Should we start with the “without causing a nuisance clause”? There is quite a few legal interpretations for when is it a nuisance.

At the beginning of the year we had an AP seminar with Colin Jordaan in attendance and one of the issues was the issue of flying over built up areas with an NTCA type of aircraft.
To answer this issue one must go back to the late 70's early 80's where microlights at the time were equipped with 18-35hp engines, (mostly snowmobile types) and had a shocking record for simply stopping/seizing etc for very little reason. Since then things have changed, and I for one will debate the reliability of a Rotax 912/914 against the standard Lycoming/Continetal anyday. For one the Rotax is far more advanced in design and reliability than most certified aircraft today.
So coming back to the issue again of built up areas. Colin did state that this was being looked at by the SACAA and that the legal implications need to be put into place first.
But we also need to consider the following. A certified aircraft goes through a rigorous certification program before finally being certified and the costs thereof are really sky high. The factory of this certified aircraft therefore needs to "build " in some form of insurance (which ultimately) affects the price. In South Africa, the Commissioner For Civil Aviation accepts the responsibility for the certification of NTCA types (hence the long drawn out process we need to go through now regarding any new NTCA type coming into the country.
RAASA has also been designated by the SACAA to perform certain functions for the SACAA but we as SAGPA must be seen not only as a member of the Aero Club of South Africa, but also as an extension to RAASA/Aero Club were we take charge and accept responsibility eg our SAGPA instructors train our gyro pilots through a law (and I might add) grace of SACAA. In the late 50's and early 60's you needed a PPL (aeroplane) with gyro endorsement to legally fly a gyro. This is where our responsibility comes in - if we (as SAGPA) choose to neglect that responsibility, the law can be reversed in a sense that the SACAA can make it difficult for us to obtain any NTCA lisence.
To sum it all up - the more responsibility we accept and manage, the more they (SACAA/RAASA) will leave us alone and hopefully we can (in the future) end up something like ASRA (Australian Rotor Assoc) who govern themselves in (almost) total. We need to think of those that come after us.
Finally, we all transgressed at some time or another. Maybe this AGM can be used as a watershed where we can say that what is passed is forgotten. The new starts here and start being responsible pilots/owners who can still legally enjoy their flying and pass this legacy to those that come after us.

[t-bird]

Flying over built up areas was an example to explain the grey areas.
IT IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE ATF
“unless unavoidable will not be undertaken over built up areas and open air assembles “

But let’s use this example to also explain why RAASA should handle the issue:

RAASA has strength in numbers – It is not just Gyros that have this restriction but all the other LSA aircraft , Sambas, Foxbat,Cheetha’s , RV’s with certified engines etc.
We will have more funds available
There could be dedicated people working on it.
We could go the legal route due to the funds available.

Colin Jordaan also said the RAASA should run with the process quoted from AVCOM
“new Recreational Aviation Administration of South Africa (RAASA) will be tasked with making recommendations in this regard after safety studies have been completed.
I will not be taking any further correspondnece on this matter until further notice.”
Re: NTCA - no flight over built up areas
by Colin Jordaan » Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:31 pm

My suggestion on this issue is to write a formal letter from SAGPA to Colin Jordaan and RAASA and enquire about the progress and what SAGPA can do to help.

ASRA (Australian Rotor Assoc) is governing themselves but does not have strength in numbers and you would definitely not be allowed to fly over built up areas in a Gyro. You would also not be allowed to land at an international airport.

RA-Aus are miles ahead of ASRA (Australian Rotor Assoc) due to the fact the they have proper training standards and documents and a good standing with CASA.


I sincerely hope that it is not SAGPA’s intent to become a ASRA (Australian Rotor Assoc).

[gyrosa]

I simply used ASRA as an example without trying to go into too much depth.
I have to agree with the statement that SAGPA can write to Colin Jordaan/RAASA and ask how we may be able to assist in the idea of overflying built up areas, however, having said that, I know of no account where any NTCA aircraft, warbirds included, have been taken to task on this issue yet. I know that, even though the SACAA cannot condone the idea just yet, they do tend to "look the other way" PROVIDED that the aircraft stays within stipulated heights (ie not low flying and "buzzing").
We must also take the issue into account as stated earlier that the Commissioner for Civil Aviation (Colin Jordaan) is finally accountable for NTCA type aircraft and NOT the factory as in the case of certified aircraft. His head is on the block for NTCA. His term of office is also due to expire shortly and the rule may change yet again!!!!
Again having said that, if we as operators of NTCA types start acting with responsibility, advise where possible and take charge (in a joint venture with SACAA/RAASA/Aero Club) it will make SAGPA more meaningful, gain the respect of the powers that be and when critical issues do come up, we can be called in for discussion - which is not really the case at the moment.
To look at the overall picture. Way back in the early 80's MISASA could train it's own AP's and instructors after they had applied to MISASA for such training. SAGPA had the same rule in it's MOP. These rules worked extremely well and the original AP training received, I believe, was excellent where we had Anton Manneschjin lecturing us on key issue such as material strength and properties, fixing and securing materials and techniques, composites, engines and airframes (which included quite a large variety of engines), props and rotors, mass and balance, etc. Not much of this is taught anymore. In addition when the whole AP scheme was changed, we had chancers who NEVER had gyro experience suddenly being gyro AP's simply because they did not really have to provided sufficient proof of experience. We lost out here because it was easier to sit back and keep quite and those who did try and speak up were told to "shut up, it cannot be reversed".
Similar things happened with our instructors. At or around 2003 I personally caught out a guy who applied through SAGPA to become an instructor. He had the required 200 hours on his logbook. After checking with the owners of the aircraft that he had booked his hours on I found that in most cases the hours turned out to be "Parker Pen Hours" and were not valid at all. Today anybody can go to a school and with real or parker hours and he/she can become an instructor.
We in SAGPA, need to take our section back, and go and revisit some of the old rules that worked. In the 90's and early 20's we had a firm grip on things, and it is this grip that we need to get back and work for our members again.

[t-bird]

RAASA is busy addressing the flying over build up areas and night rating.

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic ... 3&start=45


Regarding instructors

How is this for a recent contravention of the law.

An instructor was giving instruction without carry his license and proper papers and was caught out by CAA. Who only gave him a verbal warning.

What should the consequence be for the instructor ?

[gyrosa]

T-bird,
Your comment refers:-

"Regarding instructors
How is this for a recent contravention of the law.
An instructor was giving instruction without carry his license and proper papers and was caught out by CAA. Who only gave him a verbal warning.
What should the consequence be for the instructor ?"

I do not think we should be nitpicking on what SACAA is doing (in this case) or what the consequence to the instructor should be, but rather see it as a warning from the SACAA that the guy should have had his license with him. We are all human and do forget from time to time.

If we go back about 12-18 months where we had to carry a whole bundle of papers and equipment with us and got the big hefty eyebrow (and more) from the SACAA inspector/official. The above incident tells me they are toning down a bit and allowing a little more leeway.

Why don't we simply work with the SACAA instead of nitpicking!!!! If this is the trend we want to go (nitpicking), we are no better that a naughty kid who has to stand in the corner and blaming everyone else for our own inefficiencies.

Why not change things to become positive and safe and everyone is happy.
People who read these comments (and not part of the gyro fraternity) simply become very negative about gyro's AND the people that fly them, and start thinking (and talking) about the negative manner we view things and argue like a bunch of kids.
I do not think that this forum was designed for this. It was to pass on constructive ideas etc, and not to nitpick and make endless play on issues either out of our control OR pending OR to goad people into an argument.
Asking a question is fine, but if the forum cannot answer it then let's investigate other avenues that can.

Finally, this thread was about the AGM that is coming up where the members need to notify the incoming committee what they would like to see taking place, and place a mandate on the new committee do start and work on the new mandate.