Jump to content

rick-p

Members
  • Content Count

    605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About rick-p

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday February 25

Information

  • Aircraft
    Lambarda UFM 11
  • Location
    Central Queensland
  • Country
    Australia
  1. And now, news update. Is there any truth in the rumour doing the rounds that CASA has told RAA and The Parachute Federation that the Part 149 documents submitted by them are crap, get your act together now or there will be no Part 149 approval forthcoming. Further, the funding assistance for the Part 149 approval is going to dry up. The Bull Frog AKA Tony Stanton has been shifted sideways and there is now a new rooster in the hen house. Its interesting if it is true because one may just be vindicated by these turn of events.
  2. Pmccarthy yes I understand that. Even skin such as BCC'S can hold up your medical but if treatment is successful and a watch is kept on the offending type of cancer you can be cleared to fly. I was in fact referring to a terminal condition not treatable and responding type cancers. It great to know that there are a number of cancer survivors out there that are still flying. The real issue with most types of cancer is the psychological state of the sufferer. There have been in the past a number of serious cancer cases who have pulled the pin whilst flying. I had a mate recently
  3. Hi Matty. I really can't advise you as to which way you should go with this as it hasn't been tested as of yet. But if you are so minded not to renew your medical then your GA licence will endure as there would be no grounds under the Reg 269 (b) for CASA to cancel your licence. If you don't want to fly GA then there is no need for a medical and that is not a case of you not having satisfied a requirement. Bear in mind that the medical requirements will change in due course for both GA and Sport aviation in order to bring into existence a level playing field as opposed to the very unfair sy
  4. No actually the onus is on RAA to know this because of its position of strict liability so RAA must set up a cross checking process with CASA to ensure no one escapes the net.
  5. Sorry but you are wrong if you don't satisfy the medical CASA can cancel your licence. See CAR 269 (b) in brief, if unable to satisfy a requirement then CASA can cancel licence. Being unable to satisfy the medical because of a chronic condition which excludes one from exercising fly privledges in my view is sufficient ground for CASA to act and cancel their licence.
  6. One can see it that way if one can see the forest notwithstanding the trees.
  7. I can't believe that some of you can't see what is going on. CASA has already legislated to ensure that there is no bleed off from GA to RAA due to either misconduct or medical issues. The SAO being RAA in the case of this discussion already has strict liability in this regard through the introduction of Part 149 and the MOS to Part 149. Why do you think that apart from RAA all the other SAO's didn't want to go down the pathway of Part 149 because it boarders on being oppressive and illegal. Part 149 is a totally different animal to that which CASA initially advised was going to be
  8. Jim, initially despite what CASA was telling us we were excluded under 95.55 and it's answer to this was that CASA could with one brush stroke fix that, this was just BS. RAA were a protected entity against all others. We were advised to proceed under part 149 but that was at that time only just on the drawing board with some ideas that are nothing like what has finally come into force. It was the longest garden path that I have ever tried to negotiate. Yes maybe nothing specific that excludes us but the part 149 MOS when read as a whole along with Part 149 does basically exclude us.
  9. Sorry for the late reply. I did a while ago attempt to reply on my mobile phone but in the middle of replying Telstra had the all to frequent outage and I lost the post. Anyway, in a nutshell CASA have trivialized a very important process by basically restricting replies to the Public Consultation. You couldn't upload anything to the web site and therefore, straight away you were restricted in making any reasonably informed and supported by evidence response. The reason given was fear of the CASA computer being given a virus. It is good to see that they have good anti virus protection in ke
  10. Go to SAAA and get the Jab register VH. Do your self maintenance training and you will be laughing all the way to the bank.
  11. Bruce exactly thats our point all private aircraft should be governed by a simple set of regulations. For example we all only need one easy medical not class 2 or 3 or 4 whatever. One set of rules for GA private and Sport. Its just getting out of hand.
  12. I would just like to say to those keyboard warriors that if they feel the need to comment first, before making fools of themselves go and read the public consultation document on the subject and then the 6 questions that CASA has posted. This submission covers those matters so once you are aware of the process CASA has used to down play the importance of the issue the light may come on for you. This was not posted for those knockers in these forums but as an update for those that are aware of what is going on in aviation today. That is the discrimination by regulation as between one
  13. Thank you for your input much appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...