There has been an important change to the aviation regulations that most SAHPA members are probably not aware of. Until recently, Part 94 required recreational pilots flying non-type certificated aircraft to be members of an applicable Aviation Recreation Organisation (ARO). For paragliding and hang-gliding, that meant SAHPA.
The 33rd Amendment changed the wording from “shall” to “may”. In practical terms, Part 94 no longer makes membership of SAHPA compulsory for recreational paragliding and hang-gliding.
That is a significant change, and it is one of the reasons SAHPA, together with a broad group of other recreational aviation organisations, is proposing amendments to Parts 1 and 94.
What changed?
During the CARCom process that preceded the 33rd Amendment, the agreed position was that the relationship between recreational pilots and an applicable ARO would remain mandatory. The regulation that was eventually published was different: the word “shall” became “may”, making that relationship optional. Industry was not consulted on that change before it was published.
There is, however, a reasonable concern behind the wider debate. Should the law force somebody to become a member of a private organisation simply because they participate in a particular form of aviation? We think there is a better way of achieving the necessary regulatory relationship without requiring compulsory membership.
Membership and affiliation are not the same thing
We are proposing the concept of affiliation. The idea is fairly simple: if you participate in recreational aviation, you should have a formal relationship with an approved ARO, but that relationship does not necessarily have to make you a legal member of that organisation. It could be membership, registration or another form of agreement.
The proposal also deliberately says “an ARO”, not “the ARO”. This allows for more than one ARO to operate within the same recreational aviation discipline if SACAA approves them. The proposal is therefore not about giving SAHPA a monopoly or simply restoring compulsory SAHPA membership. It is about ensuring that recreational aviation takes place within an organised framework.
Why have an ARO at all?
This is probably the more important question. SAHPA is not simply a club that collects an annual membership fee. As an ARO, it provides an organisational layer between individual recreational pilots and the broader aviation system.
That includes maintaining records, administering approved procedures, supporting safety activities, dealing with operational issues, engaging with SACAA and other authorities, and representing the interests of our disciplines. There is a practical problem if participation in that framework becomes entirely optional: an organisation cannot reasonably be expected to administer a recreational aviation framework for pilots who have no relationship with it at all.
That is the main problem the Part 94 proposal is intended to address.
We are also proposing some clearer definitions
A separate proposal deals with definitions in Part 1. Most obviously, we propose replacing the rather awkward regulatory term “aviation recreation” with “recreational aviation”.
There is a more substantive change behind the wording. The current definition largely defines recreational aviation according to the type of aircraft being flown. We think it makes more sense to define recreational aviation by the activity or aviation discipline. The proposal also introduces the new concept of “affiliated” and simplifies the definition of “non-type certificated aircraft” (NTCA) by linking it directly to Part 24.
These changes have deliberately been separated into individual schedules so that CARCom can consider each one independently. A disagreement about one definition therefore does not have to prevent the other changes from progressing.
So, do I still need to belong to SAHPA?
Under the current wording of Part 94, SAHPA membership is no longer compulsory simply because you fly a paraglider or hang-glider recreationally. We think members deserve a clear answer on that rather than discovering it through rumours or regulatory debate.
But there is a separate question about why somebody would choose to remain a SAHPA member. We believe SAHPA should earn its place in our flying community through the value it provides, rather than relying on a regulation that simply says pilots have to join.
The regulatory question we are trying to resolve is different: should recreational aviation take place completely outside an organised aviation framework, or should pilots at least have a formal relationship with an approved organisation? Our proposal says there should be an organised framework, while recognising that affiliation does not have to mean compulsory membership of one particular organisation.
The proposals will now go through the CARCom process. Nothing changes simply because they have been submitted, and members do not need to take any action. We will publish both proposals in full for anyone who would like to understand the detail behind the proposed changes.