Hi Ulrich One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our (competition) pilots to fly in countries that require a proper pilot licence, However, after almost 10 years the GPC is still NOT recognised overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering down of the original requirements has something to do with it.
I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence for self launching gliders and for touring motor gliders - at very considerable expense in time and money, I might add. A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome all these issues is to take the next step and upgrade the GPCertificate to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be keen to learn why this has not been progressed. Richard, can you find out and enlighten the rest of us, please? Many thanks and kind regards Bernard > On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:00 pm, Ulrich Stauss <[email protected]> wrote: > > The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised > overseas – was not achieved. > The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly > overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually > done that yet? > > Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with > a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the > supervision of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the > upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher > automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want > to) doctor around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand > it. > > Ulrich > > From: Aus-soaring [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. > Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57 > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW > > Hi Richard > > Please count me in! > I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years and > can operate without any restrictions or interference by others. > The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even hold > a PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as > airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies, air > law etc. > > Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised operations. > Why can't we do the same??? > > Bernard > > >> On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] <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
