Bugger, that link didn't work.
here's a cut and paste:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mark Newton [1] Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:41:54 -0700 [2]
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 08:43:41AM +1000, Brian Wade wrote: > Then
the current MOSP Part 2 includes the following: > > Level 2
Independent Operator > 19.2.1 Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator
authority, where > club responsibility of independent operations is of
primary importance, > holders of Level 2 Independent Operator
authority are solely > responsible for all aspects of their operations
when operating independently. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "When
operating independently" -- they're not operating independently if
they're part of an operation which is under the control of a duty
instructor. > Requirements for initial issue of Level 2 Independent
Operator authority are > :- > . FAI Silver or higher badge; > . Flight
Radiotelephone Operator Licence or GFA Radio Operator logbook >
endorsement; > . A minimum of 200 hours command time in gliders, which
may include > powered sailplanes and power-assisted sailplanes. 10% of
powered aircraft > command time may be counted towards this
requirement; > . Club committee approval; > . Oral examination on
airways and radio procedures, SAR requirements and > accident/incident
reporting procedures; > . Be in possession of GFA Airways and Radio
Procedures for Glider Pilots and > all relevant current aeronautical
charts and documentation (e.g. ERSA). > > I don't see anything
draconian in any of that.
Forget whether it's draconian, think about whether any of the
requirements are arbitrary. The ones which stand out like dog's balls
to my mind are: * Min 200 hours -- This flies in the face of the
competency-based thrust of the GFA's training system. A pilot who is
competent enough to handle L2 Ind Ops but who doesn't have 200 hours
won't meet the standard; If a pilot is incompetent but has more than
200 hours then he may meet the standard (note that the rest of the
standard doesn't include -any- assessment of competency by an
instructor: The closest it comes to that is approval by the club's
committee... which theoretically means that you'll be fine if the
president and treasurer think you should have L2 Ind Ops, even if the
entire instructor panel thinks you're a dangerous menace!) * Club
committee approval -- Pilots will want L2 Ind Ops because they own
their own gliders. So what business does the club committee have in
telling them whether they can fly them? It all comes back to the
culture of management/control which the regulatory scheme imposes. The
GA regulatory scheme devolves control to the pilot, who is expected to
be a mature, rational and responsible adult, capable of making his own
decisions. The GFA regulatory scheme keeps control in the hands of
instructors and clubs, even when it makes no rational sense to do so
(if I don't want training today, I don't need an instructor, thanks;
If I don't want to use a club's aircraft, I don't need anything to do
with a club, thanks). For the most part, the GFA system doesn't make
any difference: *Most* pilots fly club gliders, and the duty
instructor's responsibility to act as a representative of the club's
management to protect the assets of the club are perfectly valid (if
the duty instructor didn't do it then someone else would have to and
the outcome would be the same anyway). But for private owners there's
*obviously* an issue: Don't try to tell me that there isn't an issue,
because it has been debated ad nauseaum on this mailing list and
elsewhere since long before I started flying. The issue has never been
satisfactorily addressed. The L2 Ind Ops rating was a good effort, but
the RPL proposal has highlighted some of its deficiencies, as far as
I'm concerned. The mere fact that the L2 Ind Ops isn't a
competency-based standard is, to my mind, enough to accord a
theoretical RPL holder with more respect and leeway than a L2 Ind Ops
holder: At least you'd know that the RPL holder has been assessed by
someone who is qualified to decide whether they're ready for the
responsibility. My club has an ongoing problem which the RPL proposal
also addresses: We don't have enough instructors for the activity of
the club. We have enough pilots (mostly sub-200 hours) to run a day on
all 104 weekend days per year and lots of non-weekend days... yet we
cancel at least one weekend day every 3 or 4 weeks and almost never
fly on weekdays simply because all the instructors are too busy with
their personal lives to supervise an operation. This is plainly
-stupid-: The fact that the GFA regulatory scheme leads to occasions
where *nobody* can fly for no good reason whatsoever, even though the
CFI trusts the pilots involved to handle themselves adequately, is
absolutely contemptible. How on *earth* is a regulation which prevents
any gliding at all supposed to promote our sport?! The RPL solves
that: If anyone who is competent is capable of legally flying, then we
won't lose perfectly good flying days for boneheaded reasons. Our
members can obtain RPLs, and our club will benefit hugely from hiring
aircraft to people who wouldn't be airborne under the GFA system. -
mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------- I
tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] but it hurt when I walked.
Mark Newton ----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax:
+61-8-82231777 ----- -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring
mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with
"unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help"
in the body of the message for more information.
* Previous message [3]
* View by thread [4]
* View by date [5]
* Next message [6]
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [7] Thompson
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [8] Peter Rundle
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [9] Mark Newton
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [10] Brian Wade
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [11] Mark Newton
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [12] Simon Hackett
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [13] Peter Rundle
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [14] Mark Newton
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [15] Peter Rundle
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [16] Mike Borgelt
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [17] Pete
*
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [18] John Giddy
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [19] Dav
* RE: [aus-soaring] Rec License [20] Cassy Major
* Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License [21] John . Ashford
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected] "Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia"
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:25:55 +1030
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport
" nope, we haven't :-)
...
Without the initial comment on facebook we would have never had a
discussion like this or re-opened a discussion so easily. The list
server allows sharing of ideas - easily."
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02566.html
[22]
Oo, look, there's Mark (and me and others) on aus-soaring in 2002. I
wonder what ideas we were sharing...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
@lists.base64.com.au>
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Cc:
Sent:Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:35:40 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport
nope, we haven't :-)
"The Facebook website was launched on February 4, 2004" [23] (and the
internet never lies)
GFA only created a mailing list in May 2015.
By the way, when was this aus-soaring list started? And was it Simon
who did it?
Can't recall when I joined the list - 'tis been almost 10 years ago.
I started gliding 30 years ago.
Let me re-phrase then:
Without the initial comment on facebook we would have never had a
discussion like this or re-opened a discussion so easily. The list
server allows sharing of ideas - easily.It's not just a brainstorm
session - it's a brainmonsoon. It is seasonal and facets will reappear
from time to time.
I don't know if I would have ever heard all the ideas that have been
thrown around without subscribing to this list. I bet that one outcome
is that some people are contacted off-list because of their ideas /
experiences.
The cycle of ongoing improvement. If we do not question, we will
never have to change. If we do not change / adapt - we will go
extinct. (note: meteor strikes are not covered in this policy until
interplanetary travel is possible)
There is something like on-line etiquette [24]. Even some people
in high political positions don't know or choose to ignore the rulz
of on-line etiquette. (some bullies don't like being bullied?)
Again: I missed the facebook comment. Maybe there was some truth in
that comment. Just the packaging was most likely non-recyclable - in
other words: maybe politically incorrect. Typing an e-mail is
different to a face-to-face conversation. I am not sure if "that
comment" would have been made face-to-face. Maybe it was not meant to
offend the way it did. Electronic media is a strange thing. Facebook
is more public in comparison to this list. Maybe a moderator could
have just been contacted. This list had a bit of a shake-up not long
ago and the tone has definitely changed.
OK, here is a direct attack: In my view, the good people in the GFA
are doing a fine job. Every member of the GFA is included in that
attack - so feel offended! (bummer, even in electronic media not
everyone can read between the lines)
And here is a challenge: Anyone making a comment here should be
prepared to put the required effort and action behind their
suggestions.
We are not in a position where we can just delegate by stating a
sentence. That goes right down to the "lowest level". "you should be
doing this" - heard that one before? I charge $11 / hour (that's
inclusive of GST) to listen to good advise - a real bargain. Some
people are even too stingy to pay this little fee.
Here is one from way back: "ask not what a club can do for you; ask
what..." you know the rest.. Constructive suggestion: When was the
last time you thanked your club for supporting your special interest
for running a comp, weekend operation etc. When was the last time you
were a duty pilot or pushed a club glider? _Disclaimer: If you are a
tow pilot and actually do full days of towing: you fall under the rare
species category and are naturally exempt from having to do anything
else! We do look after minority groups!_ You can plan ahead to be a
duty pilot (I know that's the unthinkable! But some survived this time
in their life and come back for more.) You can plan to bring a
non-aviation infected person along and let them get a feel for what we
are doing. A flight line can be as interesting and exiting as a
carrier operation. You have the chance to do some explaining (and
bragging) whilst being a duty pilot That is more important than just
prancing.. Maybe you get them hooked. You'd be their mentor if they
are thinking of starting. Gliding is not for everyone. But it is for
some. Erich
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
On Jan 31, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Erich Wittstock wrote:
> Without the initial comment on facebook we would have never had a
discussion like this.
We’ve been having discussions like this for 20 years.
- mark
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [27]
http://lists.base64.comau/listinfo/aus-soaring [28]
@lists.base64.com.au>
Links:
------
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22Mark+Newton%22
[2]
https://wwwmail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20020618
[3]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02563.html
[4]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/index.html#02566
[5]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html#02566
[6]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02567.html
[7]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02556.html
[8]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02557.html
[9]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02561.html
[10]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02563.html
[11]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02567.html
[12]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02567.html
[13]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02568.html
[14]
https://www.mail-archivecom/[email protected]/msg02574.html
[15]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02580.html
[16]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02587.html
[17]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02570.html
[18]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02572.html
[19]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02610.html
[20]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02560.html
[21]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02564.html
[22]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02566html
[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology
[25] mailto:[email protected]
[26] mailto:[email protected]
[27] mailto:[email protected]
[28] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
