Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted and set up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains between CASA and the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase the GFA?
If anyone thinks that you can get a better deal from CASA in terms of the required process and structure, then you are most welcome to get on the GFA exec and give it a go. Given what CASA demanded in order that the community keep what freedom we have (ie not go to a GA style process), no one will will argue that what we have is not a compromise, but I can tell you that without the 2+ years lot of effort went into the last major round with CASA we would be a lot worse off. If you think that anyone in the last few series of GFA exec teams wanted to keep any of the current structure for their own personal empowerment, how wrong you are. It simply means you have not met or known the people involved nor being involved the activities that were required. The only abuse of ‘power’ I have personally observed has been at the CFI and associated Instructor Panel level. Unfortunately, in the current structure they are not actually accountable to anyone and can put rules and process in place as they wish. In this sadly, I have seen some club members treated quite badly and without justification. > On 5 Feb 2017, at 7:28 am, James McDowall <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nonsense, as the document says the parties to the agreement are the GFA and > CASA. Sure, I agree to the rules of the association which may include the > Operational regulations referred to in CAO 95.4 (which are different to GFA's > Operational regulations) but members are not party to the agreement entered > into by the incorporated separate legal entity that is the GFA. > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Richard Frawley <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Did you know that the Deed with Casa is between the glider pilot and CASA > > > > >> On 4 Feb 2017, at 11:06 pm, Mark Newton <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make >>> GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2 >>> instructor's presence at launch. >>> >>> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to >>> control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated >>> system to be relinquished. >> >> It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft. It >> evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations. >> >> GFA implements a chain of command: >> >> Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not meant >> to believe that) >> >> Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a "rank." >> Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of the >> layer above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is >> "responsible" for the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is >> "responsible" for the panel. And so on. >> >> Sitting at the middle of everything is GFA, HQ, setting policy centrally, >> implemented by the chain of command. >> >> It's all right there in the MOSP ("standing orders.") >> >> I speculated earlier that it happened like this in the 1950s because so many >> of the early GFA people had military aviation involvement, so setting up a >> command hierarchy would've been a natural way to approach civilian aviation. >> Society was a lot more hierarchical then too. >> >> It isn't anymore. >> >> >>> >>> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA. >>> What do you think? >>> >> >> Can't be here. GFA started their own website forums for members specifically >> so they wouldn't need to listen to this one. >> >> Members need to get upset about this. Get organised. >> >> - mark >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring > <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
