"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."
Bernard, the answer is very simple.
Only a "state" can issue licenses.
The only valid licenses which could be recognisable overseas are ICAO
compliant licenses which (in Australia) only CASA can issue. GFA can
do a lot of things. But issue a license recognised by foreign
governments is not one of them.
SWK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:14:10 +1030
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
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 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]
[2]] ON BEHALF OF Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.
SENT: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
TO: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 wrote:
On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson 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] [14]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [15]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [16]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [17]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [18]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [19]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [20]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [21]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [22]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [23]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [24]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [25]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [26]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [27]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [28]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [29]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [30]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [31]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected] [32]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Links:
------
[1] mailto:[email protected]
[2] mailto:[email protected]
[3] mailto:[email protected]
[4] mailto:[email protected]
[5] mailto:[email protected]
[6] mailto:[email protected]
[7] mailto:[email protected]
[8] mailto:[email protected]
[9] mailto:[email protected]
[10] mailto:[email protected]
[11] mailto:[email protected]
[12] mailto:[email protected]
[13] mailto:[email protected]
[14] mailto:[email protected]
[15] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[16] mailto:[email protected]
[17] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[18] mailto:[email protected]
[19] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[20] mailto:[email protected]
[21] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[22] mailto:[email protected]
[23] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[24] mailto:[email protected]
[25] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[26] mailto:[email protected]
[27] http://listsbase64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[28] mailto:[email protected]
[29] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[30] mailto:[email protected]
[31] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[32] mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
