i put my hand up to take this to the exec. who else (must be GFA member) i can count on for support?
step 1: anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC (will that work?) > On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:10 pm, James McDowall <[email protected]> wrote: > > Elsewhere in this discussion it was noted that the majority of GFA new > registrations last year were powered. The interests of these people need to > be accommodated NOW, not when the powerless gliders can't be launched because > it is too expensive or I just cant move my zimmer frame fast enough to run a > wing. This will encourage investment. Also GFA needs to develop a system of > permitting retrofits of power systems (by using the experimental certificates > provisions) to add value to un-powered gliders. Cutting loose independent > operators (from clubs) will remove the liability that CFI's and RTO's fear. > That is operators hold a GPL or GPC issued by GFA and simply agree to fly > according to the operational arrangements approved by CASA under CAO 95.4. > I am reminded of a couple of quotes attributed to Edmund Burke: > "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do > nothing." and "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good > conscience to remain silent." > but most all a common saying: > “Some people make things happen. Some people watch things happen. And then > there are those who wonder, 'What the hell just happened?” > > I think most of the gliding fraternity will wake up one day and "what the > hell happened"? > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Richard Frawley <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > It is well know that the biggest resistance by far to the current GPC change > (which was a good step forward) was by instructors and especially CFI’S and > RTO’s > > I would be more than happy to help champion the issuance of GPC as equivalent > to Level 2 Independent ops, but I can tell you now it will the CFI’s and > Panels that will resist the most > > Given however the small number of self launchers, this requirements is still > moot. > > As long as you still need others (tugs, wing runners, ropes) there is no true > independence and their in lies the root cause. > > Bring on the world of electric self launchers and true independence, the > sooner the better and even then it only really comes if its private owner or > small syndicate. > > Club aircraft will always be over protected. This is the nature of a shared > asset. Shared asserts by human nature are never as well looked after as those > owned. (rental cars + public transport vs the private car) > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 5 Feb 2017, at 2:28 pm, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi James, hello all >> >> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the >> head coach for SA. >> >> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal >> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued >> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) >> but I was told that only CASA has the authority >> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this >> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather >> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies >> that you can operate free of interference by others. >> >> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is >> no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. >> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem >> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what >> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what >> has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding >> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators >> to join. This will continue until suitably qualified >> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in >> many cases have much less knowledge, less >> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved. >> >> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors >> panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that >> this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the >> affected individuals have left the sport or switched to >> power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s >> not forget that the power jockey's gain came at >> our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are >> largely on the decline. >> >> I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such a >> long time that many of us are unwilling to even >> contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the medium >> term it will undoubtedly be another nail in the >> gliding coffin down under. >> >> However, gliding is not yet in the coffin, and we should not lose hope >> altogether. Some of you might recall my series of articles >> with the title “Time for a change?”. These articles were published in >> 'Gliding Australia’ and proved to be the trigger for the GFA >> to implement the GPC. However, to my way of thinking this should have only >> been the first step. The logical next step would >> be to bring our system in line with best overseas practices. Unfortunately >> it won’t happen if we don’t get organised and if we >> don’t drive the necessary changes at grass root level. Only when we push >> very hard and collectively will we stand a chance >> to convince the GFA to act and that is time to act NOW. >> >> Kind regards to all >> >> Bernard >> >> PS: On request I will make my articles “Time for a change?” available to >> members of this great forum. I just love it!!!! >> >> >> >>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 9:13 am, James McDowall <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> CFI's (Cheif Flying Instructors) responsibility should end when you get a >>> GPC (which really should be a GPL valid in Australia). >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Richard Frawley <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> 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] >>>> <mailto:[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] <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] <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] <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
