Yeah I sort of knew about the LAPL, but I didn't want to make my post
any longer or more complex.
However, my understanding is the LAPL* is an EASA license (not
British as such) and is a lower level sporting license somewhat like
the Australian RPL. The LAPL is only required to fly British
gliders which have had their paperwork moved into the EASA system. I
believe some gliders in Britain, not yet covered by the EASA rules,
those still purely in the old BGA system, can still be flown without a
license. I don't know if that's still a lot or hardly any.
I believe still all in transition, merging, but not yet merged.
Hence why I don't think anyone can say what the outcome of brexit will
be for the lower levels of aviation**. If your glider is a tatty
old Skylark only flown for a few local flights in any year, why go to
the bother of an international license and international registration
(provided the BGA still has a finger in the pie). Its a manufacturer
orphan, any maintenance data etc left is held by the BGA so EASA
wont help at all.
Who knows what horse trading will happen in the leaving negotiations,
either from any Brits who want "independence" or the Euros who will
(probably) make life hard as possible for the Brits and similarly
who knows what inertia the whole EASA licensing thing has which
might keep it going anyway.
*I'm pretty sure this license or some sort of forerunner was given
to all the German touring motor glider pilots back around 2005-6. IE a
cut down PPL
**Obviously EASA set in concrete for commercial aviation.
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 18:51:38 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
That's correct Bernard but if you have a german licence already an
Australian GPL will be an expensive waste of time and money for you.
Stephen, The BGA has now merged their system and they have proper
licences now (LAPL S). Brexit isn't likely to affect EASA it's
fundamentally separate institution to the EU and many non EU countries
are in EASA.
On 6 Feb 2017 6:43 PM, "Future Aviation Pty. Ltd." wrote:
Hi Mathew
I seem to have missed something! Your reply seems to indicate that
the GPCertificate is upgradable to a GPLicence in Australia. Is that
correct and how would one go about it?
Cheers
Bernard
On 6 Feb 2017, at 4:36 pm, Matthew Scutter wrote:
The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now. It's a lot
of expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd
things, but they do an excellent job shielding us from CASA
paperwork).Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that
having a licence means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a
glider and fly. It does nothing of the sort. You still need to
validate your licence with the local authority, often at great time
and expense. For my german validation for WGC last year, I had to pay
hundreds of Euros and communicate via FAX (yes! really! they don't
'do' email) to get a 2 week validation. At the end of the process
there was an error in their interpretation of my request and they
issued me a single day validation. Amending this error required paying
the full fee again and starting from scratch. The only difference now
that we have the licence, is we actually have something to fax them
other than our logbook, which gets over the very first hurdle of
"where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level footing with
the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going to get
short of CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of fasttrack
validation agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).
>I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German
(and most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white
card were doing it strictly illegally, just no one asked Yes, this is
my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing the right
thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German
glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost any
glider you rent for a foreign WGC will not come from the country
hosting the WGC - i.e. German glider taken to Poland.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. wrote:
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:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au [5]] 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
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [17]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [18]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [19]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [20]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [21]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [22]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [23]
http://lists.base64com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [24]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [25]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [26]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [27]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [28]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [29]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [30]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [31]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [32]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [33]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [34]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [35]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [36]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [37]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [38]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [39]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [40]
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [41]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soarin [42]
Links:
------
[1] mailto:ec...@internode.on.net
[2] mailto:yellowplant...@gmail.com
[3] mailto:ec...@internode.on.net
[4] mailto:usta...@internode.on.net
[5] mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
[6] mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[7] mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com
[8] mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com
[9] mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com
[10] http://webmail.internode.on.net/MAILTO:ec...@internode.on.net
[11] mailto:james.mcdowall17@gmailcom
[12] mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com
[13] mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com
[14] mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com
[15] mailto:new...@atdot.dotat.org
[16] mailto:g...@gregwilson.id.au
[17] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[18] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[19] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[20] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[21] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.comau
[22] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[23] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[24] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[25] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[26] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[27] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[28] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[29] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[30] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[31] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[32] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[33] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[34] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[35] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[36] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[37] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[38] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[39] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[40] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[41] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[42] 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
