Hi Mathew Many thanks for putting me straight. All of that must have fallen through the cracks during my lengthy overseas stay.
Kind regards Bernard > On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:21 pm, Matthew Scutter <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <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] <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[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] >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Aus-soaring mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[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
