Italy SNAFU LOL What more can you say. From: James McDowall Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 7:51 PM To: [email protected] ; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
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]] 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
