Part 103 NPRM differed somewhat from the final draft formulated by the TC6 sub committee that I chaired to draft the Part. I highlighted these anomalies and have been told by Mick Roberts in the CASA Review Office that my recommendations will all be included in the final NPRM. Hopefully this will be the case.
The proposed Part 47 (which relates to aircraft registration) conflicts with the proposed Part 103, as it requires that all aircraft be registered by CASA (other than hang gliders, paragliders and powered aircraft below an empty weight of 125 kg). I have been advised by the Review Office that they propose making the various sport aviation administrative bodies issuing agents for CASA registrations. Unfortunately CASA registration does not have an expiry date and would remove the need for the five-yearly inspection we have recently introduced (our system differs from the GA system - GA aircraft have a Maintenance Release system that is not linked to registration). All the ASAC organisations are united in fighting to retain the current system of registration by the various organisations.
I do not share the AUFs concerns with the proposed exemption from registration for aircraft with an empty weight less than 125 kg as included in the NPRM for Part 47. I see that this exemption is desirable to support our argument that there is no need to register a hang glider or paraglider once an auxiliary engine is fitted. I also see that with the advent of the minimum trike undercarriages for hang gliders and paragliders, it is desirable to have this exemption remain.
It appears that there is no one in the Review Office able to look at the big picture. What is required is a set of Regulations that are compatible with each other - a basic concept one would think. The Review Office appears to have lost sight of the premise agreed to at the outset of the review - that the administration of sport aviation in Australia is as good as, if not better than, anywhere else in the world. It appears that the Review Office has also lost sight of the policy touted throughout the review by the CASA Board, the PAP and the hierarchy of CASA management, namely that CASA must focus on the fare paying passenger and leave the administration of sport aviation to the sport aviation organisations.
I have sought the Boards guidance as to what policy we should adopt in regard to certification requirements applicable to commercially manufactured minimum trike bases designed to be fitted to standard hang gliders and paragliders. These bases are currently being manufactured in Europe and to my knowledge are not certified to any standard. I recommend that where a base is commercially manufactured it must meet the load requirements of a recognised standard prescribed for weightshift microlights. As an example, the German D.U.L.V. standard requires the undercarriage to withstand a static load test of 4g vertical, with lesser load requirements in sideways and horizontal directions.
Additionally,the manufacturers of these bases recommend that when a base is fitted to a hang glider with 7075 grade aluminium tubing, the keel needs to be strengthened to cope with the added stresses that may be applied via the trike base during take-off and landing. I suggest that this requirement may need to be extended to all keels, regardless of the type of tubing from which it is manufactured.
I have just completed the theory examination and a detailed training syllabus for the issue of the hang gliding motorised endorsement to complement the existing criteria for the paragliding motorised endorsement.
I am currently awaiting CASA approval of two amendments to the HGFA Operations Manual.
These are minor and may not require immediate distribution, specifically:
a change to Section 126.96.36.199 to remove reference to the 12 month validity of microlight registration; and
a change to 188.8.131.52 to allow apprentice hang gliding and paragliding instructors to train without the direct supervision of a CFI, in accordance with the Apprentice Training Syllabus.
Craig Worth, Operations Manager
HGFA BOARD MEETINGAugust 28-30, 1998
Embassy Motel, Hopetoun Crt, Deakin MINUTES
Attendees: Rohan Grant; Peta Roberts; Rob Woodward; Rohan Holtkamp; Mike Zupanc; Tim Cummings; Keith Lush; Ian Jarman (HGFA Exec. Dir.); and Craig Worth (Ops Mgr and Minutes Secretary).
Mick Roberts from CASA briefed the Board, giving a breif history of the Review and the latest developments in the Regulatory Review.
He stated that there are still NPRM 149 comments coming in. The Part is designed to ensure equality in the sport regulatory bodies. The number of the NPRM comments have reached record numbers, currently numbering 680 (most of these were related to funding and monopolies). Mick advised that the Part 149 will definately go ahead, regardless of the position of the ASAC organistaions.
A decision on the so called monopoly situation will be made by the CASA Board, the PAP and the Transport Minister. This will be a political decision and not necessarily made on the basis of rational argument.
The funding to sport administrative organisations issue is being revisited at the present by the new CASA Director and CASA Board. Dick Smith is also reconsidering his position. A decision will be made by the CASA Board. Mick said that all CASA sport aviation personnel support continuation of funding to sport aviation organisations.
CASA !03 was discussed breifly. Assurance was gained that the HGFA would be allowed further input into the process of drafting before the final Part 103 is gazetted.
Mick advised that he would be seeking input from interested parties for the proposed Part 115 apllicable to commercial activities.
CASR Part 47 was raised and it was estabished that the status quo would continue in regard to the registration of microlights under the proposed Part.
Mick advised that CASA is currently undergoing a major restructuring, under which all compliance matters will be carried out by the Compliance Branch. Self Adminstration Specialists will be appointed in the Branch to approve the various Manuals in the future.
The Board discussed HGFA policy in regard to pushing for administration of commercial operations in the future. The Board agreed that it is desirable that HGFA fill the role currently carried out by CASA in approval and supervision of operators carrying out activities under AOCs.
Part 149 Approval
It was agreed that the HGFA Management Procedures and all Manuals be appraised in light of the impending introduction of Part 149.
The revised Agenda presented by Ian Jarman was accepted. Craig Worth was appointed Minutes secretary.
Minutes last Board meeting -
Actions included in the previous Minutes were tabled.
Most Actions had been completed; Actions not completed included:
Craig Worth has just began drafting the list requested.
Not completed to date as the number of calls into the HGFA Office have not risen to warrant an additional telephone line.
Action: 98.14 Ongoing.
That the Minutes of the last meeting be accepted as read.
Rohan Grant provided a verbal report which included updates on ASAC matters, HGFA response to the Part 149 NPRM and other Regulatory Review matters.
The ramifications of other organisations setting up were discussed. A need to have HGFA Manuals copyrighted was identified.
Ian Jarman stated that the adverse ramifications of another organisation setting up would be most felt on site management. This could lead to loss of sites due to insurance issues where more than one body was issuing pilot certificates. He stated that there was a need to ensure that members are made aware of the role of the HGFA and the broad range of issues with which we deal.
It was agreed that more effort must be made in communication with members.
Discussion into the CASA funding and Safety Contract issues followed.
That HGFA send a letter to CASA informing them of our concern and our responses to the cancellation of the Safety Contract and Schedule A and B agreements..
Moved: Rohan Grant Seconded: Rohan Holtkamp
Rohan Grant to write to CASA.
Executive Directors Report
Ian Jarman highlighted several items in his report concentrating on membership and finacial trends
Business arising Trainee Pilot Membership
Discussion followed into the need for instructors to appreciate their Duty of Care in regard to signing up trainee members. It was pointed out that the current system is not working.
The proposal to extend the Trainee Membership category to include TIF and tandem flight participants was discussed and various options considered including incentives for the instructors who would be acting as HGFA agents. The extent of fraud or non compliance with the existing system was a major concern.
That the Trainee Pilot Membership system as proposed be introduced with the membership fee established at $15.
The HGFA office to introduce the system with a rebate on Instructor/Passenger Carrying Insurance fees already paid being provided in the form of Trainee Pilot Membership Cards. (See back page this issue L/D for more info) Non member operations
A list of un-financial members provided by Ian Jarman was reviewed. Ian pointed out that there are 2500 names on these lists. He stated that Clubs should be advised that the level of non-compliance will impact on membership fees and that their efforts in countering this trend would be beneficial.
Craig Worth asked the Board to recommend an appropriate course of action in light of a report received from the Northern Territory of an un-financial member flying another members microlight for a substantial period.
The Board agreed that there was no benefit in initiating Disciplinary Action against the pilot now that he had rejoined the HGFA.
Action 98.17: The Operations Manager to write to Mr Freeman and advise him of these breaches being reported. This should also warn Mr Freeman that any future breach to any of the HGFA rules or regulations will definitely lead to disciplinary action being taken, and this breach will be taken into account. Mr Langham should be advised of this action and thanked for reporting the matter.
Redundant due to subseuqent information being identified
Club and Instructor seminars
Ian Jarman proposed that the a series of seminars be held around the country as outlined in his report.
That the seminars be held as proposed in the Executive Directors report.
Moved: Mike Zupanc Seconded: Peta Roberts
Operations Managers Report
Craig Worth advised that since providing his report he had been able to bring the HGFA Accident Database up to date. He provided some statistics on reported accidents.
Discussion moved to landing accident rates and it was suggested that a minimum of ten high flights be incorporated into the Restricted Certificate.
The requirements for issue of a hang gliding Restricted Certificate to be considered by instructors attending the National Instructor Conference in 1999. Business arising
Certification of minimum trikes
It was agreed that it is desirable to establish standards for these machines.
The Operations Manager to develop and implement appropriate standards similar to established undercarriage standards for ultralights and microlights. Compulsory carriage of reserve chutes in tandem operations
Discussion centred around the difference between mandatory vs recommended for tandem ops.
It was decided that carriage be recommended with an education process to inform the operators of what recommended means in a legal sense and when non carriage may be defendable.
The Operations Manager to:
advise instructors that the carriage of appropriate parachutes for all tandem operations is recommended;
advise all members via his Skysailor report of the legal ramifications of ignoring HGFA recommendations; and
investigate the feasibility of including a definition of recommendation in the Operations Manual. Pilot experience vs class of glider
A letter from the Byron Bay HGC was tabled. The Club suggests that novice pilots should be able to fly intermediate gliders and intermediate pilots be able to fly advanced gliders under instructor supervision. This suggestion was rejected by the Board in light of the HGFA policy that pilots fly gliders appropriate to their experience level.
The Operations Manager to respond to the Byron Bay HGC, reiterating the HGFA policy in regard to pilot certificate level vs class of glider. Craig Worth pointed out an anomaly in the Operations Manual regarding the pilot certificate level required to fly Moyes XT and Airborne Sting type gliders and recommended that the recommended certificate level be downgraded to Experienced Restricted rather than the current level of Intermediate. The term Experienced Restricted to be defined as a Restricted Certificated pilot who has been trained in the operations of the glider under the direct supervision of an appropriate HGFA Instructor.
The Operations Manager to pursue amendment of the HGFA Operations Manual to rectify the anomaly in regard to the pilot certificate level recommended for Moyes XT and Airborne Sting model gliders.Auditors Report
Ian Jarman provided the report and several items were discussed and clarified.
That the Auditors Report for the FY 97/98 be accepted and that it be signed by the President and Treasurer as required.
Moved: Rob Woodward Seconded: Rohan Holtkamp
(Projects from last meeting & reports)
Peta Roberts briefed the Board on two proposals that had been tabled at the last meeting. She had looked at each proposal and determined the performance of the two proposals. The Dicksons proposal would have led to assets dropping by 6 -7%. The Stephen Wood proposal would have returned a 0.6% increase on the original sum.
A Risk and return graph was provided which demonstrated that return will increase with added risk. Peta explained that the HGFA Board must decide on a level of risk that is appropriate to our needs; providing several examples. Peta suggested an Asset Allocation that will provide between 15 and 10% return. Her recommended Investment Proposal was tabled. Various options were discussed at length.
That $150,000 of HGFA funds be immediately invested with SBC Brinson and that the investment market be monitored for future investment of the remaining $ 150 000 previously earmarked for investment.
Moved: Peta Roberts Seconded: Tim Cummings
Ian Jarman summarised the contents of the Solicitors Report and explained the proposed legal mechanism for amalgamation. The Report recommends:
That the proposed new organisation be incorporated under the provisions of the Associations Incorporations Act (NSW) 1984;
That the GFA apply to become an incorporated body under S.48 of the AIA; and
That amalgamation of the GFA and the HGFA take place under S.46 AIA.
The program for amalgamation was tabled. Various aspects of the proposed structure of Gliding Australia were discussed, including the proposed Board structure.
That the HGFA Board reaffirms its support for the amalgamation process and the proposed schedule of amalgamation.
Moved: Rohan Grant Seconded: Tim Cummings
Joint Magazine Sub-Committee
The HGFA Board will need to be represented at the joint meeting proposed for October to address the proposed joint magazine.
Ian Jarman to finalise a date for the meeting with GFA representatives and work with Keith Lush to determine appropriate HGFA representation. Financial review
Brett Freebody provided what he termed a health assessment overview of the HGFAs finances. During this process he looked at the various aspects of the HGFAs income and expenditure and offered an incite into the impact of various changes to specific line items. The session reaffirmed that the direction that the Board is taking is economically sound.
Employment Report& Contract review
Ian Jarman provided a verbal employment report, detailing the current status of HGFA employees leave and long service accruals.
The Executive Director and Operations Manager contracts were briefly discussed. It was identified that there is approximately $25,000 in leave entitlements outstanding at the present time.
Other Major Projects - Reports & issues arising
Skysailor (and other communications tools) Philosophy, direction and formats
Keith Lush provided an outline of the various issues raised by members regarding Skysailor, including alternatives, justifications and assumptions. After considerable debate and discussion it was agreed that the current Skysailor Magazine is already committed to becoming a joint bi-monthly magazine of the GFA and the HGFA, then becoming the masthead of the proposed Gliding Australia (if amalgamation occurs), and eventualy being made available on newstands. The GFA and the HGFA have agreed that whether amalgamation occurs or not, a combined newstand magazine should be trialled.
Discussion led to the possibility of introducing a newsletter carrying Club News, Safety Notices, etc. Two problems were identified: finding someone to edit and distribute the newsletter, and finding the money to fund it. It was agreed that a working party be formed to investigate issues of a monthly communications media.
The working party should address:
the method of distribution, whether it be via a web page, an indivual mail-out, as an insert in Skysailor, or a combination of all three;
A working group be formed and address the monthly newsletter concept. The working group to be made up of Keith Lush (Chair), Mike Zupanc, Rob Woodward & Tim Cummings. It was identifed that there was a need to respond to the members concerns and suggestions in regard to Skysailor to explain the rationale behind the current situation.
Keith Lush and Rohan Holtkamp to draft a respoinse to the members lodging the complaints. Training Issue
Peta Roberts provided an update on progress to date on the proposed Training Issue of Skysailor. It was agreed that the February/ March issue of Skysailor be a Training Issue.
Peta Roberts to contact Suzy Gniest re the Training Issue and review advertising rates.
Site Development investments NSAC Wangaratta
Rob Woodward briefed the Board on the current status of the National Sport Aviation Centre. The option to purchase land at the NCAS has been supported by the APF, the ABF and the HGFA. If the MAAA fails to support the purchase the HGFA and the APF may need to invest more money in the project to maximise the likelihood of any return on investments to date.
That in the event that the MAAA does not contribute additional funds to the project, the HGFA commit further funds up to a maximum of 50% of the balance of shares on offer.
This added investment shall be conditional on all current share holdings being downgraded to reflect the current estimated value of NSAC at $25,000.
Moved: Rob Woodward Seconded: Keith Lush
Carried - 6 for 1 against.
Mt Tamborine-Canungra Loan
Tim Cummings brought the Board up to date on developments with the Tamborine site. A parcel of land has been permanently dedicated as a bottom landing paddock, which is owned by the Beaudesert Shire. The first loan repayment is now due.
Discussion of the Boards policy with regard to lending money led to the following motion.
That an interest rate comparable to or slightly greater than that gained from current HGFA term deposit investments should be applied to future loans to Clubs or Associations for site acquisition or retention. Moved: Rohan Holtkamp Seconded: Mike Zupanc
Carried - 6 for 1 against.
Mystic Bowl - NE Club Loan
Ian Jarman advised that the loan for the Mystic site is being repaid as required.
Ian Jarman tabled a Marketing Report from Sports Momentum. Discussion followed on the benefits of the Series to the HGFA. Ian advised that his Annual Report to the AGM addressed promotional matters and various participation proposals.
Ongoing TV exposure / Media Liaison Contract with Momentum
Ian Jarman briefed the Board on the current arrangement with Sport Momentum. This is in the form of a Media Liaison agreement that costs the HGFA approximately $15,000 per annum. Discussion followed into the amount of exposure gained, the nature of the agreement, the level of Momentums performance and the amount of reporting they provide.Various issues were considered, including: the sale of the Grand Prix Series video; pursuit of sponsorship; the public image of hang gliding; and Momentums expectations for the future. Peta Roberts suggested that she could assist with developing the relationship between the HGFA and Momentum. Ian sought direction from the Board as to the level of HGFA involvement that should be provided in the event that sponsorship be found to host a similar series over the next season. The Board agreed that should a future series be filmed it should have no adverse economic impact on the HGFA. It was also pointed out that future promotional projects should not ignore other HGFA disciplines.