Peter, Why do you feel that the medical requirements for passenger carrying in a glider should be less than that for a PPL?
There is no medical requirement for the proposed RPL (unless you wish to fly over populous areas...) Presumably from the lack of debate, everyone is happy with the proposed new licencing agreements (according to the Wombat school of democracy ;-) ) No comments on the hire or reward restriction? ie need CPL (glider) for AEF flights? Everyone happy with the requirement to hold ANTA Certificate 4 modules to meet the requirements of the next flight review ? >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/02 18:11:50 >>> What Brian has written sounds good to me too. However, the one problem which needs to be opposed by GFA is the requirement to have DAME (Designated Aviation Medical Examiners) carrying out the medicals for passenger carrying which is in the proposed licence. I am a non-DAME medico (family doctor) and feel that the family doctor is more than adequate to carry them out. DAME's are a restricted breed of medico and their charge of $75 + GST (could be more now) is set by the Department (?CASA). I have a power licence as well as an AEI, and have to see one every two years. PeterS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:34 PM Subject: [aus-soaring] Recreatoinal Licenses > I have just sent the following to the GFA Feedback Forum, and repeat it here > for information: > > A group of Caboolture Gliding Club members recently discussed the issue of > RPL at some length. Those involved included several instructors, tug pilots > and GA pilots as well as some relatively new glider pilots. > > No one could come up with anything against the proposal to have a RPL with a > gliding endorsement. Indeed much of the discussion was concerned with the > benefits that would result. > > The GFA concern about currency and dilution of control by the club panel was > discussed at length and the consensus was that there would be absolutely no > change in current club practices were a license to replace a series of log > book endorsements. Central to this discussion was the fact that it is the > club panel that now determines the currency requirements to fly each of the > aircraft operated by the club and nothing would change should a licensing > system be introduced. A direct comparison was made with the GA where, > despite a pilot holding a valid license, an aero club will look at currency > (log book) and competency (check flight) before entrusting one of their > aircraft to an unknown pilot. > > The GFA contention that the issue of a license would increase complexity and > cost, reduce safety and dilute club control was simply not understood. > Perhaps those concerns result from a quite different scenario to that which > we visualise. Given that CASA delegated the licensing arrangements to GFA > who in turn decentralised it to clubs, with the possible exception of > complexity, these concerns appeared to us to be groundless. > > In regard to complexity, there would clearly be a need to administer a > license test and a decision would have to be made as to what level of > performance would be required. But remember that we now have numerous tests > (oral and flight) which lead to badges and authorisations of various sorts. > If the license replaced a number of these, then perhaps there would be an > overall reduction in administrative complexity. > > The GFA paper concluded with a statement that "unless there are much more > compelling reasons ..GFA will not see our current system of logbook > endorsement diluted for the sake of 'uniformity' or the few who wish to fly > internationally". > > Our consensus was that "compelling reasons" do exist and include the > following: > > 1.A license would provide a much needed focus for post solo training. At > present there is a series of somewhat confusing goals and achievements > beyond solo, many of which (A and B Certificate in particular) have little > or no significance, but tie up resources to administer. > 2. Club administration and statistical reporting would be simplified by > having an established demarcation between students and pilots. > 3. We would meet the public's expectation that pilots are licensed, > particularly those involved in AEFs. > 4, Clubs would be able to provide a sensible answer to questions about the > cost etc of obtaining a license. > > Obviously there are many details that would have to be worked through with > CASA to come up with a simple system that would benefit Australian glider > pilots. But for GFA not to enthusiastically and positively enter into such > a dialogue would be a mistake as far as the Caboolture "discussion group" is > concerned. > > > -- > Brian Wade > > Personal Computer Concepts > > Uniform Time > http://www.uniformtime.com.au > > PO Box 114 INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068 > Ph: 07 3371 2944 Fax: 07 3870 4103 > > > -- > * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. > * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message > * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. > -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
