Dines was never DSA.
nonosense,
Please read the Nov/Dec 2007 edition of "The Warbirds Flyer" to refresh you memory.
Kharon, I think you'll find the stories about rewriting the safety rules is actually BS
An assertion that completely ignores the initial dissection prepared by Stephen Dines, and based on the draft changes, both to Part 21 and the proposed Part 132, that were distributed by AWAL to selected members.
How about you tell us why Dines has got it wrong?? Have you actually read them yourself??
--- as a member of AWAL I have never seen anything from the board that "promoted" Part 132
Tell us who the CASA Project Manager for Part 132A was in 2008. Who delivered the briefing?? -- four years ago that you mention.
Whether we like it or not the regulator periodically changes the rules
No, CASA does NOT change the rules, only the Parliament can do that, there is a big difference between CASA proposing something and it becoming law.
As you might have noticed, another poster, Creampuff, does not believe these changes will make the statute books. He knows what he is talking about. I agree with him.
Some of Part 132 is good for us.
And most of it is extremely bad, and AWAL should be lobbying as hard as they can go against it, in the interests of members.
For the first time, private use will actually be legal. That's big!
Sadly, all this tells us that you don't understand the present law, there is nothing preventing you conducting private operations now, for the uses listed in Part 21.189, plus any recency flying is unrestricted.
The new private use provision, while welcome, is only a very minor addition to what you can do now. I suggest you read the actual draft legislation, rather than accept some other persons assurances. In fact the wording is quite "tricky" and really quite restrictive --- given the tricky bit, the opportunities for cost sharing are rather limited.
All the posts above re Part 132 are designed to instill the idea that the board is trying to push Part 132 on its members, and that Part 132 is bad.
No, they are not, they are all about members who haven't had any information from the AWAL management about Part 132 and the changes to Party 21.
It just isn't that simple! Old hatreds and vested interests at work.
If you want to believe that, that is your right, it's a free world (well, almost), so tell the other posters here why you are right, and they are wrong. The fact, just the facts.
If maintaining the rights and freedom we have had only since 1998, that the the US has had for decades, is a vested interest, I plead guilty
Start off with the safety case that demonstrates the need for all the changes, then the cost/benefit analysis that justifies the change (all part of the OBPR rules and the Legislative Instruments Act)
Finish of by explaining how the major change to Part 21, which is admitted to be for the purpose of bolstering AWAL revenue is not ultra vires the Civil Aviation Act, under which rules can only be made for safety purposes, CASA is a safety regulator, and cannot make rules for commercial purposes.
And by the way, I happen to know that the current president was all for Part 132 when first briefed about 4 years ago. Suits him now to switch camps.
Before
he had a briefing, and was told how good it all was. Who delivered the briefing??
The difference now is that the President has seen the actual draft proposals (only because another member showed them to him ) and now understands what they really mean, and is bound by his responsibilities as a director of a public company to only act in the best interests of the company,
--- here the members of AWAL.
Do you understand the responsibilities of such a director, the Corporations Act 2001 is all plain language, unlike most aviation legislation.
Who was the great man who said:
"When the facts change, I change my mind, What, Sir, do you do?"
Tootle pip!!
PS:
We don't like strict liability, but it is CASA policy,
Sorry, that's wrong as well, but this post is long enough, so I will just refer you to the ALRC, who have some excellent material on the subject.