Sorry Noel - I'm confused as well. Is your point that too many people in RAA or PPL are flying when they shouldn't be?
I'd assume the purpose of a successful Gliding Endorsement (or whatever you want to call it) is that instructors consider that pilot responsible enough to look after themselves. If they don't demonstrate that level of skill/judgement they don't get the endorsement. After I got my driving license I didn't need to go back to my driving school each year and justify why my license should be extended for another year. Cheers, Al On 05/02/2017, Noel Roediger <roedi...@internode.on.net> wrote: > Jim. > > > > I have personal knowledge and experience to back up my statement. > > > > Check accident / incident reports re. glider pilots and RAus. pilots up to > CASA PPL’s. > > > > Noel. > > From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf > Of James McDowall > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:38 PM > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW > > > > Hi Noel, > > What is the basis of your reservation? It is worth remembering that there > are many people deemed to be qualified in all sorts of endeavours that you > and I would not regard as competent but the law and other conventions > regards as qualified. > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Noel Roediger <roedi...@internode.on.net> > wrote: > > Jim. > > > > Your suggestion implies you think those pilots you refer to up to PPL are > qualified to operate freely within Australian airspace. > > > > I assure you – unreservedly – many are not. > > > > For that reason your idea will not work. > > > > Noel. > > From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf > Of James McDowall > Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 5:10 PM > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW > > > > What about anybody with a RA-Aus pilot certificate and anybody with a RPL, > PPL, etc with an endorsement for self launcher? > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:06 PM, 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
