The Problem with the Current Regulation

Most pilots assume that aviation regulations are written in a way that leaves little room for interpretation. After all, if a regulation creates a legal obligation, it should be clear enough that every pilot knows exactly what is required of them.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Part 94.04.1 currently contains a provision that attempts to regulate parachuting, hang gliding and paragliding using the same wording. While these activities all fall under Part 94, they operate very differently. The result is a regulation that is ambiguous, internally inconsistent and, in certain respects, impossible to comply with.

Where the Drafting Falls Short

One example is the phrase “shall preferably”. In law, an action is either mandatory or it is recommended. Combining the two creates uncertainty. Is a pilot breaking the law by not doing it, or is it merely guidance? The regulation provides no answer.

The regulation also places obligations on “persons involved” without defining who those people are. Does this refer to the pilot, the launch marshal, the organiser, the club or someone else? If a regulation does not identify who carries the legal responsibility, it becomes difficult to understand, teach and enforce.

Perhaps the greatest practical problem is that the regulation refers to an automatic transmission capability that simply does not exist for the overwhelming majority of hang gliders and paragliders. A law should never require compliance with equipment or technology that pilots cannot reasonably obtain or use.

What the Amendment Achieves

The proposed amendment does not weaken safety standards. On the contrary, it seeks to improve them by replacing vague language with clear, practical and enforceable requirements that reflect how each aviation discipline actually operates. It separates the obligations for parachuting from those for hang gliding and paragliding, assigns responsibility to clearly identified parties, and removes wording that has created uncertainty for many years.

Good regulation should be easy to understand, possible to comply with and capable of consistent enforcement. That is the objective of this amendment. It is not about reducing safety obligations; it is about ensuring that the law says what it means, and means what it says.

Why Regulatory Development Matters

Aviation regulations are not simply guidance – they create legal obligations. Every pilot has the right to know exactly what the law requires of them. If a regulation is ambiguous, fails to identify who is responsible, or requires something that is not practically possible, it becomes unfair to expect consistent compliance. It also becomes difficult for regulators to apply the law consistently and fairly.

Improving the drafting of a regulation benefits everyone. Pilots gain certainty about what they are expected to do before every flight, instructors can teach clear procedures, and regulators have rules that are capable of consistent interpretation and enforcement. Good safety depends on clear rules, not confusing ones.

One of the important roles of an Aviation Recreation Organisation is to identify regulations that are unclear or impractical and to work constructively with the South African Civil Aviation Authority to improve them. That is exactly what this amendment seeks to achieve. It does not lower the safety standard or remove accountability. It simply ensures that the law is written in a way that pilots can understand, comply with and trust.