I’m agreeing with Bernard. Quick call the doctor. LOL
> On 6 Feb. 2017, at 9:03 am, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Richard > > When I was on the panel a set of rules was drafted which clearly defined the > knowledge base and the necessary qualification for GPC holders. > However, the panel was later overruled and the requirements were subsequently > watered down. Since I have stepped back but it now seems > to me that it is mainly up to CFIs to issue Glider Pilot Certificates without > a formal exam or clearly defined prerequisites. Please correct me if > I’m wrong! > I agree, if we want to be taken seriously by the regulator (and by other > aviation disciplines for that matter) we need to get our act together and > get a formal system in place. Otherwise outsiders will always treat us with a > high degree of suspicion. > > But that is only my opinion. > > Bernard > >> On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:10 am, Richard Frawley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> guys >> >> Like others i have a PPL (fixed and rotary). i never got my IFR. >> >> the question I would like to know is what skills and knowledge are required >> to attain L2 ops. >> >> if this is just some subjective thing under some random control of a CFI, >> how is that in anyway acceptable. >> >> Having gained a PPL is was a very structured process. Its all layed out and >> highly repeatable, why is gliding not the same. GPC seemed to have improved >> that a bit, but still seems random in comparison. how is that good? >> >> >> >>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 11:45 PM, Al Borowski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[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]> >>>> 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]> 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]> >>>> 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]> >>>> 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]> >>>> 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]> >>>> 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]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <[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] >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
