On Feb 7, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Richard Frawley <[email protected]> wrote: > > that being the case, what is the point of making an enemy of the GFA when > befriending and making small changes over time seems like a higher potential > path for improvement
GFA has never made small changes over time to facilitate the things we’ve been talking about here. They have invested significant effort into sabotaging efforts others have made which would have achieved at least some of what we’ve been talking about here. http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/files/2012/07/lucyfootball.png <http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/files/2012/07/lucyfootball.png> > > So apart from the L2 ops changes I can see of value to those who own Self > Launchers, what would would make the top 10 ten items that need changing in > the MOSPs (they being the enforcement list per se) This has been covered many times already. GFA needs to change their syllabus to align it with the CASA RPL syllabus, so that converting from GPC to RPL is mostly a paperwork exercise, and so that a GPC automatically includes L2 Independent Ops. GFA needs to advocate with CASA to agree that the glider pilot endorsement can be attached to an RPL. GFA needs to amend the MOSP so that RPL holders with glider ratings have the same privileges as GFA members with L2 Independent Ops, so that clubs can opt to supply glider-related services (such as launches) to non-GFA members. GFA needs to liaise with CASA to confirm that the GFA airworthiness system is at least as safe as the CASA airworthiness system, and that RPL holders can henceforth fly GFA-maintained gliders, and GPC holders can fly CASA-maintained gliders. Make those changes, and non-GFA members will be able to fly GFA gliders and vice versa, and pilots won’t have to be in a chain of command if they don’t want to be. - mark
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
