Bugger, that link didn't work.
Here's a copy and paste
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Newton Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:41:54 -0700
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
View by thread
View by date
Next message
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Thompson
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Peter Rundle
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Mark Newton
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Brian Wade
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Mark Newton
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Simon Hackett
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Peter Rundle
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Mark Newton
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Peter Rundle
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Mike Borgelt
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Pete
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License John Giddy
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License Dav
RE: [aus-soaring] Rec License Cassy Major
Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License 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
[1]
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" [2] (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 [3]. 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] [6]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [7]
@lists.base64.com.au>
Links:
------
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02566html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology
[4] mailto:[email protected]
[5] mailto:[email protected]
[6] mailto:[email protected]
[7] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
