Part 24 is active. Is you Authority to fly still valid?

[Bacardi]

Oops, the generator af the reply was Mr Roger Thomas.



Obviously a person wide awake

[skybound®]

Possibly some good, actually great news

It has been suggested that an entire section of Part 24 has been omitted. What we have seen promulgated is for commercial operation of a NTCA. The omitted part of the reg, is the operation of a recreational NTCA.

It is to be raised at next weeks CAA Industry Liaison meeting.

[Morph]

This is indeed good news. Lets see what happens next week

[justin.schoeman]

Possibly some good, actually great news

It has been suggested that an entire section of Part 24 has been omitted. What we have seen promulgated is for commercial operation of a NTCA. The omitted part of the reg, is the operation of a recreational NTCA.

It is to be raised at next weeks CAA Industry Liaison meeting.

That doesn't make any sense? Part 96 is for the commercial operation of NTCA - why would it be in part 24? Or am I misunderstanding your statement?

-justin

[Morph]

Part 24 covers the airworthiness of NTCA and is referred to from part 96. It details the required maintenance schedule which is what this whole thread is about. I basically states that your authority to fly is only valid if your aircraft has been maintained according to the manufacturers specifications and periods and only by AMO's or AP's. Read the whole thread.

[lamercyfly]

Hi Justin.

When part 24 was first discussed, back in 2000, it was agreed that there would be two parts to part 24. Part 24 deals with the maintenance of NTCA. One part would be for part 96 NTCA (ie commercially operated) and the other part would be for part 94 NTCA (ie private ownership used not for gain).

Somewhere during the many draft copies, and things being sent backwards and forwards between different sections, it appears that this critical flaw of forgetting the above, occurred.

What has happened now, is that only the stringent maintenance, which was required for part 96 (commercial NTCA) has been gazetted. This means that private use is lumped together with the above.

This is NOT what was supposed to happen.

Yesterday I personally spoke to Mr. Cor Beek, the gentleman responsible for all the new CAA legislation, who was present at the meeting in 2000, and he confirmed the above.

Part 24 has been gazetted for promulation. Gov Gaz 30062 dated 13 July 2007. The implementation date is however only 1 January 2008.

So, we have 5 months in which to urgently make sure part 24 dealing with maintenance for part 94 NTCA (private use) is written and sorted out.

I trust this answers your and other folks questions with regard to the thread.

Regards,

[justin.schoeman]

OK - That makes sense, sort-of. They have a really interesting way of documenting things though. Create a separate part on commercial ops, but then refer everything back to the part on standard ops... Takes an exceptional mind to come up with documentation like this.



Hope MISASA and co manage to get this # up sorted out before 01/01/08...

-justin

[skybound®]

Justin - it is a problem that is quite common. It would be nice if a computerised legal system could be developed which would enable you to see the links between all the parts of the regulations.

Quite often we miss the real nuggets of information as we may limit our reading (or interest) to one individual part of the CARS. Problem is many of the CARS regulate the way in which we operate, and some that may not even cross reference the part of your interest directly.

Case in point - it is not really Part 24 that limits as to who/whom may do maintenance but a section in Part 43. Worse is that Part 43 does not even reference 24 directly - but they get it right with words such as 'Applicability - All SA registered aircraft'. So that then includes a Part 24 aircraft.

Makes the whole thing extremely challenging to get and fully understand the big picture. Knowing things like this, and having an understanding as to the lengthy process of draft following draft our representatives have been through, I can really appreciate why we find ourselves in the situation we are now - with the possibility of an entire section missing in a promulgated regulation.

[Arnulf]

Now you know why lawers are doing so well.

[Angus]

Guys-
I've followed this thread with trepidation thinking that I would have to pay R350 an hour for an AP to change my sparkplugs - & thus give up my hobby.

Thank God for Dave Daniels and contributors such as Iceman who put the whole thing into a reasoned perspective.

And I'm still asking what MISASA did to alert members about the pending firestorm.....?

Angus, Howick, KZN

[skybound®]

And I'm still asking what MISASA did to alert members about the pending firestorm.....?

It is the good old adage that Everybody's business is nobody's business.

Firstly it is not a pending firestorm - the legislation has been in place in it's current state since 2002. It has just not been policed.

MISASA is busy with submissions from what I understand and hoping for some feedback in time to come.

With any committee based operation, continuity is a serious problem, and that may have been where part of the problem lies. With seven committees having come and gone, I doubt there are many that are still actively involved protecting the sport that were involved in the original documentation.

Also need to remember that other AeCSA sections do have some interest in NTCA too and also had some input.