And I've flown in Italy and no-one even asked if I could fly! On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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." < > [email protected]> > > To: > "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." < > [email protected]> > 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." <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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. < > [email protected]> 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 <[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] >> <[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]> 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.base64com.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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.base64com.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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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-soarin > <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
