Compulsory registration of airfields

Discussion of all official legislative, legal, licencing and operating matters

Moderator: John Boucher

User avatar
RV4ker (RIP)
The Big Four K
The Big Four K
Posts: 5386
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: The Coves & FAVB

Re: Compulsory registration of airfields

Postby RV4ker (RIP) » Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:51 pm

The following says it far more elequently that I would - which would be along the lines of "DIS A KLOMP K@K DIE..."
Gents,

There's a few things that need to be remembered.

1. Louie has been given the task of getting the idea that unregistered strips should be regulated past us (and the rest of the SA public). A large portion, then, of him putting food on his table is his success in getting us to "buy" that regulation is necessary or desirable. That is his mission, and his self interest (no matter how nice a chap he may be) dictates that he will not "buy" that it is unnecessary or undesirable. So does he "sell" us that it is necessary, or do we "sell" those who control him that it is unnecessary or undesirable? Last night, quite a few of you were buying (while saying you were not!)

2. What Louie tells us about his subjective intentions is:
2.1 Not stated on oath;
2.2 Inadmissable in interpreting the final law (if we are dumb enough to let it become law);
2.3 Not necessarily the views of management!

3. Even if Louie and the current management of CAA truly have our best interests at heart, its a bit like losing your virginity - there is no going back. Once there is a law in place, we will never get back to happy non-regulation. Changing a regulation once it is in place, is a whole lot easier than getting a regulation into place in the first instance. This government has complete contempt for those who disagree with it and it changes laws, without consultation, on a whim. How would you like someone like our old buddy Andy Mamba to have this weapon to wield?

4. It is naive to say that CAA will not be able to police this, just because they currently do not have the personnel. Do you really think that there will not be a fee for registration, a fee for appointing a "responsible person", a larger fee for a "Reporting Officer", a fee for inspecting the equipment, and a fee for submitting each report? All of these things will need to be inspected, processed, reviewed, objected to, notified to the public - useful jobs for what? 50 people? 100? More? Who will pay them? No, it will not be government - CAA has to be self funding, n'est ce pas? RA and RAN fields are of no worth to the big boys like airlines, so they will not be paying - we will. GA. ["Those spoilt brats who think it is OK to indulge themselves in the luxury of flight and complain about people who cannot afford houses encroaching on the extravagant temples of their rich man's sport. Who make noise and get in the way of their betters." That's how a whole lot of our countrymen think of us.] Sure the fees will be small to start with, and we will rationalise acceptance with 'well it won't cost much and CAA won't do much enforcement". Then they will simply go up, and up, and up ( well we need all these people to service you* properly, and the fees are insufficient to pay them"). There will also be a whole new range of people who can stop you flying, if you do not satiate them. Remember how toll roads started and when levies at sectional title complexes were small? Mao tse- Tung's or Zedong's little red book sets out how to subjugate resistance by the principle of small degrees and rationalisation - and he knew a thing or two! If anyone does not know the story of the frog and the boiling water, let me know and I'll repeat it.

5. The justification trotted out last night, for this whole little exercise, is that fine old coconut: "safety". The Commissioner has wide power to do what he deems necessary in the interests of "safety". This word is a thing of beauty for those who love doublethink and basically bamoozling the masses with hot bubbling bull droppings. Mauler had done some preparation and whipped out the killer blow - from the CAA's own statistics there is NO PROBLEM of SAFETY. In other words, CAA's "reason" is NOT the reason for this move. It has no rational credibility. The reaction - "Thanks Chris for pointing that out! How silly of us not to see it before, I will go back to the Commissioner and tell him and I am quite sure he will see reason and cancel this exercise immediately"? In a pig's eye! No, no, no. The reaction is to smile, talk about something else for a bit, then repeat its about "safety". It was Goebbels who said if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth. REALITY CHECK: I am, most of the time, an adult. Part of being an adult in a free society is taking responsibility for one's own actions. As a pilot, that means, among many other things, not landing where it is - in your considered opinion - unsafe to land. Get it wrong and you are responsible for the consequences. Even good pilots with huge experience get it wrong sometimes. Get it wrong a lot and the Commissioner may be justified in doubting your ability and relieving you of your licence. It is NOT reasonable to assume that all pilots are irresponsible and underskilled, especially when the evidence indicates the contrary.

6. If "safety" is not the reason driving this intiative, what is the real reason? It is quite possible that Louie, personally, does not know. Equally, he might, but like a guy trying to sell a particularly dodgy insurance policy, he has no incentive to discuss things we are not meant to know - things that might prompt us not to buy! We are told that this first draft was prepared by "consultants" and what it contains is "not what was intended". Must be those dorf consultants off on a frolic of their own. Do any of us really believe that, if we think it through? Who are these consultants and what was their brief? I speculate that they are lawyers - generally, if you want to write a new law, you get lawyers to write it. Getting non lawyers to draft law is a bit like asking your AMO to remove your appendix; its not likely to be successful. So, let's accept it was lawyers. Did they dream up the content? No, they were told what CAA wanted to achieve - probably in point form - and told to draft language that would achieve the purpose. When they finished, they would have given the draft back to their client and asked the client if the language met the purpose - i.e. accurately reflects the brief. Evidently it did, or the client would not have accepted it and paid for it. I for one would RELISH seeing that brief! Totalitarians are obsessed with control, they want to control every facet of life of the masses - look at Nazi Germany, Communist China and Zimbabwe. As a drone in the machine you are not allowed to think for yourself, thinking is for your betters, the enlightened ones who know better than you do what is good for you.

7. The law concerning delictual liability for accidents on unregistered airfields is currently very clear. It part of our common law that has developed over more than two thousand years and is unmatched in its wisdom. Now a small collection of people want to change it, for reasons they are not telling us. Here is the rub and it is the best reason from the CAA's perspective NOT to do this. By choosing to regulate what happens on private property and interfere in something that has never concerned them, they make themselves responsible and, therefore, liable. Unless you and I indemnify them with large insurance policies. Who gets to pay for those? Why, us of course. They can then set an arbitrary amount - say, R 50 million - and we must grin and pay whatever the insurabce companies think would be appropriate. The joke is that CAA may still be liable, notwithstanding any indemnity.

8. To summarise, then:
8.1 There is a new proposed law to fix a non-existent problem;
8.2 The justification is a blatant lie;
8.3 It does not say what it is meant to mean;
8.3 It will need a new administrative frame work which we will have to pay for;
8.4 It will necessitate extra insurance that we will need to pay for;
8.5 It will undermine certain businesses that pay certain of us;
8.6 It will make airstrip ownership a pain in the proverbial.
* I just love the way people now talk about "servicing" clients. It used to be we wanted to "serve" our clients better and the motto of the US police "To Protect and Serve" is not to protect and service. "Service" is what a bull does to a cow and can be well replaced with the well known "f" word without which most people cannot actually express themselves. Every time you hear anyone talk about "servicing" you, mentally substitute that "f" word - I'll bet you are closer to the truth!

Rocket

'There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty".
Margaret Thatcher
4 Sale (will trade)
P166S, Jodel, hangar and other odds and sods
Radial - http://tiny.cc/eppqp
Still @ The Coves (Harties) but dream has died
User avatar
lamercyfly
Top Gun
Top Gun
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:56 am
Location: Durban
Contact:

Re: Compulsory registration of airfields

Postby lamercyfly » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:16 am

Thanks for posting Rockets letter..

Ja, it's kinda like one of those ideas that sounds good at the time...... like Outcome Based Education and BEE and...... The SACAA are fitting into that mould rather grandly with their latest round of nonsense.......

I will be making contact with the association and definately support the movement to halt this 'in it's tracks' .....

Cheers.
David Daniel
Email: lamercyfly@gmail.com
Mobile: +27 (0)746495744

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests