Glider Day 2012
Published: Tuesday, 21 February 2012 07:45 | 
| 
| 
MOP019 - "ensure" and "insurance"
Published: Monday, 20 February 2012 08:22 | |
| The following is the content of a document recieved from MASNSW and may be of interest to anyone who still "shines a light" for the great MOP019 debate:
MOP019 and ‘ENSURE’
Mike Close, MAAA President, and Rob Veale, Managing Director Corporate Australasia Willis Group, were
invited to attend the Monthly Meeting of MASNSW on 10th February to present information relative to
MOP019. This document contains the information on the word ‘ensure’ and some of the information
presented on insurance, including the response to some of the relevant questions from the Delegates of the
many Clubs that were present. The background to the recent change to the MOP was previously provided in
AUSTRALIAN MODEL AIRCRAFT FLYING DISPLAY REQUIREMENTS dated 17th January 2012.
The word ‘ensure’ or ‘ensuring’ is used in many places in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
Regulations for Australian aviation safety. These documents are Federal Legislation and apply to all civil
aviation including the flying of model aircraft. This includes the Federal Regulations covering Model Aircraft
Flying Displays, Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998 Subpart 101.G Regulation 101.410.
MOP019 ‘Displays’ includes the display requirements of Part 101 but put into the context of MAAA operations.
This cannot be to a lower standard than required by CASA, as these are Federal Legislation. It has to use
compatible terminology including the use of the word ‘ensure’.
Some MAAA Members have used a dictionary definition of the word ‘ensure’ as meaning ‘guarantee’ and ‘at
all times’. If this interpretation is used then it is claimed that MOP019 cannot be complied with. With this
interpretation it can also be argued that neither Part101 nor any alternate words that have been suggested for
MOP019 are reasonable.
CASA has provided the following written interpretation of the use of the word ‘ensure’ in the context of model
aircraft displays and so it applies to MOP019 as well as to Part 101.
CASA’s interpretation of the term ‘ensure’ in the context of a model aircraft display does not require
the Display Director to guarantee the competence of the pilots in question.
CASA’s interpretation however is for the Display Director to take all reasonable and prudent steps to
ascertain whether the pilot appears to have the necessary competencies to safely perform the
manoeuvres/operations in question.
This may involve the Display Director making appropriate enquires and taking appropriate steps to
satisfy himself that the pilots have the necessary licences, certificates and the like to safely attempt
the manoeuvres/operations in question.
It may also involve the Display Director in taking precautions, or making inquiries which are specified
in the legislation (Part 101) or in the relevant MAAA procedures manuals.
Ultimately, no one can guarantee that even an apparently qualified and experienced pilot will not
make an error that leads to an incident or accident and therefore the requirement to ‘ensure’
competence and safety does not rise to this level.
This confirms the verbal advice that the MAAA was given on ‘ensure’ and also the advice that there are
hundreds of legal precedents where Courts have not upheld a claim based on a requirement or interpretation
that was impossible to comply with. The normal test applied is what a reasonable person would do.
With this interpretation of the word ‘ensure’ and confirmation that it does not mean ‘guarantee’ or ‘at all times’,
the requirements of MOP019 are reasonable. Indeed it can be cogently argued that most other interpretations
of the requirements of MOP019, but which are different to those intended, are also reasonable.
The MAAA Public Liability insurance policy provides indemnity for insured persons/entities that are held liable
for a negligent act whilst involved in sanctioned activities as per the MAAA Manual of Procedures, and result
in property damage or bodily injury. MOP019 clearly states that without the MAAA, through the State
Associations, having the opportunity to assess the insurance risks for a Display and without the Display being
approved in accordance with the MOP then the Display is not a sanctioned event. In this latter case neither
the organisers nor the participants are covered by this or any other of the suite of MAAA Insurance Policies.
Can you please pass this advice to your Clubs and Members as you see fit.
© MAAA
Gosford Club - new web address
Published: Thursday, 16 February 2012 07:51 | |
| Here's the new link ot the Gosford Club website - well worth a visit:
Clive
Glider competition - rules readjusted
Published: Monday, 06 February 2012 08:21 | |
| See the glider event for details of the rules for this year. Rules adjusted following club meeting on 14th Feb.
Clive
MOP019 - clarification
Published: Friday, 03 February 2012 12:42 | |
| Folks
There has been quite a bun-fight over the last few weeks over a rewording of MOP019 from MAAA. Many people have read the revised wording and drawn a number of (widely different) interpretations from it, which has resulted in numerous individual questions, submissions, and probably the best example of "send three and fourpence..." that has been seen for many a year.
The following correspondence has been received from MASNSW and the attachments can be opened from the links below it:
"The attached correspondence has been received from the MAAA President with the request that it be circulated as a matter of urgency. It is a matter that should be bought to attention of all club members, especially those with an interest in public flying displays.
The MAAA release will be discussed at the next MAS NSW Business Meeting to be held at “Workers”, Parramatta on the 10 February 2012, starting at 8pm. At this time the executive will table all items of correspondence in relation to this matter and it will be open for discussion, review and subsequent inclusion in the minutes."
As a club, WRCS should present a common view on this issue to MASNSW and MAAA, leaving individuals to represent their personal views and ideas, separately and as individuals only, if they wish. Several submissions, of varying degrees of heat, were received by the committee and the MAAA MOP and CASA documents relating to this issue have been studied in detail. As a result, the committee has submitted the following letter to MASNSW.
|
To: Tim Nolan Secretary MAS This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
|
From : Brian Porman Hon. Secretary, |
31 January 2011
Dear Tim
RE: WRCS submission in the matter of the wording of MOP 019
Arising from our committee meeting last night you are advised:
The WRCS committee is ambivalent about the wording of MOP 019, but in the knowledge that a considerable number of member submissions have been received by MAS/MAAA, the committee has the utmost confidence that the MAS/MAAA executives will reach a final wording of MOP 019 that will remove any perceived difficulties.
The meeting unanimously expressed their admiration for the executive of MAAA and MAS for the amount of time they have had to devote to issues raised as a result of an application for a public air display.
Arising out of our debate the WRCS committee also expressed an opinion that the MAS/MAAA ought to mandate that at every public display:
‘ Every aircraft, regardless of weight, must be MOP’d’
Best wishes
Brian Porman
Secretary
To expand, briefly:
- We have confirmation, in writing, that MOP019 does nothing to affect the events that WRCS runs at Belrose. These are not public displays despite the fact that members of the public are welcome to attend
- Despite several interpretations that MOP019 was requiring a contest director and flight line director to ensure that all flights were safely completed, the actual obligation is about using reasonable judgement to satisfy themself on competence. At WRCS, our contest director and flight line director already do this and are always aware of their obligation. That's why the flight line director has absolute authority to ground pilots or insist that someone changes their flight path, for example
- The words in the letter, above, were carefully chosen after very careful analysis of the documents. There is clearly some ambiguity which MAAA and MAS will be addressing, but the committee is satisfied that the changes don't affect our club events, don't place any further obligation on our contest and flight line directors, and that there is an appropriate governance programme in place to make sure that the comments and future changes will be considered
- Finally, there is currently a requirement to MOP any model over 7kg and, in so doing, the pilot has to demonstrate their skill and competence and be signed off, as the model is, through the full flight pattern. The committee reached the view that doing the same (for public display purposes) with smaller models would assist in assuring pilot competence and model integrity.
That's where we are. I think that most people are also genuinely hoping that the energy expended on this issue can now be redirected. That said, the topic is almost certain to get an airing at the Club Meeting on 14th February so, if you do have strong views, still, then there's a perfect forum for them.
Clive