28th Amendment - fine structure

[lamercyfly]

----- Original Message -----
From: David Daniel
To: SAMicro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: 28th amendment - CAA


A reminder to those of you who are fence sitters, and have not added your voice of concern by registering and voting on www.microlighters.co.za. , take note.

The fine which CAA are now legally allowed (any field inspector can impose the fine) to give to you for flying a microlight which does not have a valild authority to fly is R10 000!!!

Yup! 10 grand. Check CAR part 185 (offences) 185.00.1 (1) (i) then read together with the 28th amendment to see what the fine is for that offence.........

The fine for false logbook entries, (maybe to get to 200hours so that you can get your Part 96 Authorization or your instructors rating etc.,) is R10 000 one time my china

And if you are hardegat to an inspector, ie you hinder him/her in the performance of their duty (and it is their word against yours) is first offence R5000 2nd offence R10 000 and 3rd offence R16 000 Aish....I'll have koeksister and Tea waiting for the darlings

Aish, I hope my predictions are wrong........CAA have been waiting a long time for these fines to be approved. This 28th Amendment is dated July 2007, with implementation date 30days after being gazetted. I've done enough, someone else can look up the gazetted date....But I know from the GM of Aero Club that it is law now.........

But in the meantime I am working full steam to sort Part 24 out before 1 Jan 08

Later,

[skybound®]

I support these fines otherwise what is the point of all this legislation if it aint going to be policed. Any form of policing has to be good.

Now watch - I will end up the first to be fined

So agreed - with income like this for the CAA, you can bet your last rand that they will be at our airfields performing inspections. In fact there have even been adverts running in the press over the last while looking for inspectors.

So help us make these regulations work for us - it could be worth R10k to you.

[ICEMAN]

Here are the new CAA camera traps for keeping the MPL`s in check with a zero tolerance attitude.......

[RV4ker (RIP)]

I disagree. I hope I am wrong, but I have little faith. I have heard some horror story's about inspectors grounding turbo props because they put in the wrong fuel (Jet A1). A prop aerie must run on Avgas only for eg.

Without going into politics or other area's I have found that many of the "new" inspectors working for govt have a chip on their shoulders and are either looking for a bribe or are so unsure of what they are doing and that they invent "problems" and will then "charge" you with getting hardegat to an inspector, ie you hinder him/her in the performance of their duty, when challenged (which is your right).

In my opinion far too much power to (possibly) inspectors who have limited understanding of what they are looking for. Case in point. When we flew air race couple years back we did not have the yellow CofA card, but we had the last years card (Expired) and proof of payment for that year. We were grounded along with half the field. Only after SAPFA and couple of the big boys in aviation circles convinced CAA inspectors that CAA needs to get invoices out and we can not be held accountable for procedural delays, were we allowed to continue. We had fulfilled our obligations and CAA had not. Can you imagine what will happen when you try to explain this to someone who has just been given a big stick and wants to use it. I fear if I am in this situation I will def be charged with getting hardegat. CAA staff (at CAA) not the inspectors put the fone down on me 3 times before I got an answer out of them and then it appared that it was an admin error where the payments were not allocated to the correct account. I was thus grounded for CAA inefficiency.
They had not sent invoice, but we paid in any case.
They had received payment, with confirmation and covering letter indicating aircraft reg but had not allocated the payment to the account.
The account reflected we owed CofA fees for some 7 years although all had been paid.
AND I WAS NOT ALONE. THIS WAS THE NORM AND NOT AN EXCEPTION. I think it is far better now, but my point is that errors do happen and if you house is in order it is not a guarantee that you will not be charged with getting hardegat. I have a huge problem with this "obstruction" clause.... Inspectors need to be protected, but we emain the client and CAA seen to keep forgetting this...

While I have no problem having policing, this IMHO is just opening it up to huge corruption and it is further going to widen the rift between CAA and GA (Us and them). Until CAA get their systems and communication up to scratch this is a recipe for disaster.... I am of the opinion that a hotline must be setup for inspectors to confirm current status of planes (ATF) and there needs to be a grievance procedure put in place. The requirements of what is legally required to be carried also needs to be communicated clearly - not a simple refer to the reg or you should know... (Again we are the clients - help us help you)

What is the situation regarding ATF? Is it same as car license. If you don't have one in the plane (lost, blown away), but you have a legal one, will you be fined for not having it on you (R100 for a car I think) or R10K for not having one at all? Me thinks it will be R10K and when you protest it will be another R5K and the hospital bill and legal fees for the inspector getting moer'd.

Again Cart before the horse mentality in my opinion. They are still too far behind the 8 ball to be implementing a system like this. I held on for 45 mins for switchboard only to be cut off and have to start again. Me thinks there gonna be some funny stories as long as you don't have the starring role....

[skybound®]

"The problem with pessimists is that they are right too often." - Anon

I hear you RV4ker.

I think that the CAA have made some progress on the type of issues that you have quoted. (Dont think for 1 minute that I am happy with the way in which CAA functions - in the last month I have had to put up with those phones of theirs and the hang ups too.)

There will probably be some problems with the implementation of the system. Being in IT, show me a single system that is installed without a hitch. I suppose it may be that we do this flying thing laregely for recreation and that does put a different level of tolerance into the equation.

I think initially it is going to be less technical issues that will be inspected - like paperwork. From our encounters so far with the border patrol okies that have performed the inspections on behalf of CAA - they have known their bit, been extremely polite and more so - very reasonable.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

I think initially it is going to be less technical issues that will be inspected - like paperwork. From our encounters so far with the border patrol okies that have performed the inspections on behalf of CAA - they have known their bit, been extremely polite and more so - very reasonable.

I have no problem with the boarder patrol type oukes because they are used to handling things like this. My problem comes in when we get the dedicated "inspectors" who have to justify their position/salary.

Let me say again i have no problem with the process, I do however fear for the POWER (or perception thereof) that has been created by this legislation.... To date I have only ever been asked for any paperwork (license, reg's ATF etc) at the Air race... which we obviously prepare for to make sure all in order.

Would be nice to have a sticky done by one of the guys who have been "inspected" telling us what exactly to carry on board and if originals are required. (I have certified colour copies which seem to cause less confusion that black and white)....

[ICEMAN]

I have heard of "inspectors" grounding a tigermoth for not having brakes, and for props with the "q tips" being condemed as having had a "groundstrike on landing"...... and dont bother explaining that tigermoths never had brakes or that q-tip are actaully manufactured that way coz that makes you obstructive.

one coke and popcorn please.......

[Henni]

I find this so strange - not trying to be funny or offensive here.

No one cares two hoots for i.e. the unroadworthy taxis that cause many deaths and pose a serious threat on our roads. Plus they carry many passenger's live's in their hands and are being paid on a commercial basis for these "flips". Are they fined in such a way right on the spot? Bet not...

But now take the poor grass root aviation microlight guy - he bothers no one and the only threat he poses is to himself. We need inspectors to keep this fella at bay and to inflict upon him such a serious fine!

What's wrong with us?

Henni

[Tumbleweed]

Hope they don't recruit any of those overly friendly speed trap traffic cops.
It's more frustrating that they don't give you reason for slagging them off.

Now we know trafic cops don't pull off unroadworthy vehicles, patrol the taxi ranks for abvious fear of there own safety, but happily trap housewives doing the school run.

Is there not a lesson here? If they know there's no way they can get a bribe, but uphill, they're going to go else where.

By the way, whats the law regarding base radio licence when using a hand held in a trike again?

[skybound®]

But now take the poor grass root aviation microlight guy - he bothers no one and the only threat he poses is to himself. We need inspectors to keep this fella at bay and to inflict upon him such a serious fine!

Not quite so - he could endanger your life. Imagine he is an unlicenced pilot and he did not know circuit procedures and he flies into you. Since he shares the air with us - he is a risk to all of us.

Any policing in this country has to be a good thing. Yes, we all get frustrated about being softer targets, but I do not believe this should be used as an excuse not to comply with regulations .

If it does turn into harrasment and being grounded owing to the inspectors lack of knowledge then I will side with you. If these instances do happen, then I think the CAA must be prepared with a response. I believe the adverts for inspectors did include the requirement for good technical background. Time will tell.

[John Young]

Time will tell.

We had the DOL come in unannounced to audit out BBBEE yesterday.

As for your “good technical background” theory, time will certainly reveal all, or will it?

My 7-year old grandson is infinitely smarter than what visited us yesterday.

Regards
John ZU-CIB

[grostek]

Sheesh,

The fine structure is out of all proportion.

The proper way to do the policing bit is by training the inspectors, and not just 2 weeks of lectures to recieve an "MBA in Aviation Law Enforcement" or whatever it will be called.

You get my meaning,real training that will be of lasting value.

As a starting point how about everybody at CAA who has anything to do with aviation swotting , writing and passing the PPL sylabus as a minimum. Then upgrade exams, because the greater your responsibility the greater should be you knowledge.

In any organisation leadership should come from the top so it should be at the CAA in matters of training, the grootkoppe must be the most experienced IN MATTERS AVIATION.

Yes I know there are a few in CAA who pull more than twice their own weight, therefore all the more reason for the whole organisation to inspect itself and rectify internal deficiencies first.

Get its koppies op die rak so to speak then move out into the wide world where these "Dangerous Microlighters and other Aviation types are endangering all humanity"

Maybe even spend some time getting your whole organisation up to ICAO standards. By doing so you will gain respect of all in aviation and by that I mean worldwide.

No CAA, you as an organisation will not become more knowledable, nor more efficient, nor more practical and certainly nor any fairer by charging high fines dished out by unqualified field or office personel for "offences" that have been misconstrued by your personel.

The majority of pilots, aircraft owners/operators are exeedingly safety aware and the vast majority iare most certainly certainly law abiding.

They as a group do not deserve this.

Gunter Rostek

[ICEMAN]

The fines or sentences in SA are less for murder than for whats listed above.. so when a CAA eishspector gives you gas........ well you see where this is going ....... (same theory can be applied when a tv licence inspector knocks at your door...
)

I have no problem whatsoever having somone who is well qualified in the relevant field and particular type of a/c inspecting my toys, infact i would insist on it as the years of experience would be a weath of information to learn from......... but someone with a two week training course (and a new big stick) that i wouldnt trust to use my vacumn cleaner......

[skybound®]

My 7-year old grandson

Grandson! Okay so now I know where your wisdom comes from. Either that or an early start in making life

I think then that this discussion is heading more so toward the 'qualification' that the inspector has and not resistance to the policing issue.

Are there any recent occurences of poor knowledge being shown by an inspector and grouding or otherwise from a lack of understanding? Do you know if the persons/pilots affected engaged CAA over the issue and what the outcome was?

[DieselFan]

The fines or sentences in SA are less for murder than for whats listed above.. so when a CAA eishspector gives you gas........ well you see where this is going ....... (same theory can be applied when a tv licence inspector knocks at your door...
)

You ask him to turn the prop yet you have e-starter?

PS How they gonna police log books? Also whats the point, even to become an instructor any school has their own EXTRAS that whether you have 200 or 500 you'll need to pass before they trust you?