Public consultation weight increase

[Jim McDowall]

I didn't read anything in part 149 that would exclude ELAAA.

 

Even though the language of Part 149.060 would seem to indicate that CASA may approve ELAAA their prior statements in the Part 149 consultation papers and minutes of consultative committees indicate that CASA is keen to preserve the status quo. CASA has history on this. CAO 95.4 used to permit people to opt out of the GFA system and fly independently of GFA (the so called "parallel path"). Under pressure from GFA and their internal (to CASA) acolytes the parallel path was dispensed with without any evidence of a safety case.

 

 

[rick-p]

Even though the language of Part 149.060 would seem to indicate that CASA may approve ELAAA their prior statements in the Part 149 consultation papers and minutes of consultative committees indicate that CASA is keen to preserve the status quo. CASA has history on this. CAO 95.4 used to permit people to opt out of the GFA system and fly independently of GFA (the so called "parallel path"). Under pressure from GFA and their internal (to CASA) acolytes the parallel path was dispensed with without any evidence of a safety case.

 

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.

 

I do not want to cite details here as more likely than not all this will be at some time in the future the subject of Judicial consideration.

 

The Government and its delegated Authority are not above the law and there has been some very serious breaches by them in this area of Regulation.

 

It may well end up costing those responsible very dearly.

 

I would like to say this to those that decide to poohoo my comments please don't bother because you will only make an ass of yourselves.

 

I am the expert in this area and I am paid accordingly for my advice and Court attendances both at the Bar and as a solicitor, over the past 34 yrs.

 

I not attempting to blow my trumpet I'm saying what I have said as I am fed up to the back teeth with those few on this site who present themselves as nothing more than trolls with some of the replies that I have read on various posts on this site.

 

Please if you don't know the answer don't guess it because I can back up all that I say as I only base my statements on facts and circumstances not hearsay.

 

Jim this is not directed at you as for the most part when you comment it is factual and correct.