i must look up the MOSPs and see what i have "to know/be skilled at" to attain
L2 or is is at some mystical behest of a CFI.
I have heard of several clubs where the CFI will not issue L2 under any
circumstance. why would they take that position?
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 5:52 PM, Greg Wilson <g...@gregwilson.id.au> wrote:
>
> I think this is a step in the right direction. Even better if L1 & L2 ops
> were abolished altogether and all holders of GPC fly without supervision.
>
>
> Greg Wilson
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:36:06 +1100 Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
> wrote ----
> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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. <ec...@internode.on.net>
> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>
> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <g...@gregwilson.id.au> 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
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
