Mark Newton said "My favourite stupid example of this is the case of a L2 Ind Ops holder who flies his self-launcher from a paddock somewhere and lands at an airfield which, unknown to him, happens to be playing host to a GFA club operation. At some undefined point during that flight, control over his operation has transferred from him to the duty instructor at his destination airfield! And, once landed, he might not necessarily be able to legally take-off again to fly home, if that duty instructor doesn't approve. I think everyone will agree that that's an absurd outcome."
I don't know what reference is used to underpin that statement - a statement that has previousely been made in a post to this list by Mike B, I seem to recall. Ops Dir 1/97, issued to introduce the Ind Op Level 2, included the following: "While the privilege of operating entirely independently is granted to L2 Ind Op pilots, it is expected that the normal courtesies will apply when operating in conjunction with other operators, either at the pilot's own club base or as a visitor to other sites". Then the current MOSP Part 2 includes the following: Level 2 Independent Operator 19.2.1 Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2 Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of their operations when operating independently. Requirements for initial issue of Level 2 Independent Operator authority are :- . FAI Silver or higher badge; . Flight Radiotelephone Operator Licence or GFA Radio Operator logbook endorsement; . A minimum of 200 hours command time in gliders, which may include powered sailplanes and power-assisted sailplanes. 10% of powered aircraft command time may be counted towards this requirement; . Club committee approval; . Oral examination on airways and radio procedures, SAR requirements and accident/incident reporting procedures; . Be in possession of GFA Airways and Radio Procedures for Glider Pilots and all relevant current aeronautical charts and documentation (e.g. ERSA). I don't see anything draconian in any of that. Brian -- 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 1:12 AM Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 06:13:58PM +1000, Peter Rundle wrote: > > > > In view of the controversy over the proposed Recreational License > > > I would like to suggest that individual pilots contact me directly > > > with a simple Yes or No as to whether they agree or disagree. > > > > Are asking if "Yes" I agree that the Rec license is good or "Yes" the > > GFA's position is correct? > > (or just "Yes" there is a controversy ;-) ? > > :-) > > As usual, both sides have valid points: I sympathize with the GFA's > idea that maintaining our own standards is important, and that AOPA > has hardly had a stellar record with CASA when it comes to representing > the interests of their members on licensing issues. GFA obviously > doesn't want to become another AOPA, and keeping control over training > and operational aspects of gliding is the best way that they can > think of to avoid that. > > The Mike Borgelts of the world also have a valid point: it's positively > bizarre that the mere presence of a GFA-approved Level 2 Instructor can > remove operational responsibility from the hands of an independent > operator. My favourite stupid example of this is the case of a L2 > Ind Ops holder who flies his self-launcher from a paddock somewhere and > lands at an airfield which, unknown to him, happens to be playing host > to a GFA club operation. At some undefined point during that flight, > control over his operation has transferred from him to the duty instructor > at his destination airfield! And, once landed, he might not necessarily > be able to legally take-off again to fly home, if that duty instructor > doesn't approve. I think everyone will agree that that's an absurd > outcome. > > If the same pilot had a GA license, and launched in the same aircraft > (on the GA register instead of the gliding register) from the same > paddock and landed at the same airfield and encountered the same > duty instructor, that duty instructor would exert exactly *zero* > control over the pilot's operations, and any attempt to prevent him > from taking off again would be met with a blank look and a brush-off. > The fact that qualified glider pilots don't have the same abilities > is a travesty. > > The RPL proposal is appealing, in that it addresses that concern nicely > by providing gliding with a GA-like vesting of responsibility in the > hands of qualified pilots. As an adult, I agree with that sentiment > at a very deep level. > > The GFA points to the duty instructor's non-operational responsiblities > too: she's a representative of the club's exec committee, and oversight > can partly be justified by a need to protect the club's assets (the > gliders). But that justification is misplaced: If a club doesn't > want a pilot flying one of their gliders, its refusal -should- be > communicated by means of denying the request to hire their aircraft. > The decision on whether to hire or not to hire is not an operational > issue which the instructor should be concerned with, it's an administrative > due-diligence issue. > > Unfortunately, we have a paternalistic system whereby a club can prevent > a pilot from flying *at all* if they don't want that pilot flying the > club's aircraft. It's that usurping of personal responsibility from the > hands of the pilot which grates. In GA, if you come up against a > control-freak instructor who wants to ruin your day, you ignore him and > fly anyway; In gliding, the same person can actually *ground* you. > And we've all seen control-freak instructors who have gone out of their > way to call someone to account for some insignificant deviation from > common practice... yet nobody can tell someone like that to pull their > head in and f**k-off (like they could in GA), even if they're dead wrong, > because something like that will virtually guarantee a grounding. > > So both sides have their benefits; despite some of the forthright > discussion on this list, it's nowhere near a clear-cut issue. So what > should be done? > > I think the GFA needs to take the initiative on this: they need to > come up with a counter-proposal. At the moment, the only thing we've > seen from them is a defense of the status-quo, but that simply isn't > good enough: the RPL proposal *will* become law, whether the GFA likes > it or not (CASA hasn't opened it up for discussion just to waste > everyone's time, they've opened it for discussion because they intend > to push it through), and one of the side effects of the RPL will almost > certainly be to make GFA membership non-compulsory: If you don't need > to be a GFA member to be able to fly, why would you be a GFA member? > > So, defense of the status quo isn't going to serve GFA's interests; > the end result will be an RPL, a mass-exodus from the GFA membership > list, and much cackling from Toowoomba. > > ... which isn't necessarily the best outcome, because the GFA's opposition > to the RPL proposal has some (small amount of) merit. > > In my opinion, the best outcome can be arrived at by overhauling the > Independent Ops system. The L1 / L2 Ind. Ops ratings need to be replaced > by a single authorization (let's call it "Private Operator", to > distinguish it from the status quo). A Private Operator rating > needs to be accessible (perhaps with C or Silver Badge and an Instructor's > endorsement as a prerequisite, but nothing more onerous than that), and > it needs to carry all the privileges which have been discussed under > the RPL proposal. > > In particular, a Private Operator must *not* fall under the jurisdiction > of a duty instructor. A GA pilot (including an RPL pilot) wouldn't, and > I can't see any legitimate reason why a qualified pilot shouldn't be > responsible for themselves. Granting a pilot a Private Operator > authorization would effectively be saying, "Yup, you're good enough to > handle this responsibility for yourself from now on," in the same vein > as sending someone on their first solo indicates that they're ready > for -that- amount of responsibility. > > This will probably rock the GFA's world a bit, because they've never > invested that much responsibility in a pilot before (remember: Level-2 > independent ops means *NOTHING* if there's a duty instructor nearby - > the GFA has *always* emphasised the primacy of the instructor, and has > *never* granted complete self-responsibility to any non-instructor > pilot, ever -- And even level-2 instructors are subordinate to the > appointed duty instructor of the day). Yes, this undermines a lot > of the day-to-day control that a duty instructor has. But that control > will be eroded anyway, because in a couple of years we'll have pilots > turning up at our airfields with RPLs, and they won't give a rat's > arse about the responsibilities of the nearest duty instructor. It's > not like it's going to make any difference to anything if the GFA > opposes it, so they'd be better off investing their effort in > *countering* it. > > Commensurate with this proposal is the idea that the lead-up to a > Private Operator authorization (i.e., the time spent between solo and > C or Silver) should be supplemented with post-solo training. There's > basically no emphasis at all on post-solo training in the GFA system > at the moment, and it's a yawning gulf which needs to be filled. > The stated aim of the GFA training system is to produce competent > competition pilots, but it fails to do that: It just produces competent > solo pilots, and the work of getting from solo to competition standard > is "somebody else's problem." Lots of observers in this forum have > identified this as a problem over the years, and it sounds like now is > a perfect opportunity to start the work needed to fix it (because if > the entire GFA training system becomes obselete when pilots can get > their RPL glider rating at a non-GFA training centre, then GFA will > have lost its opportunity to make a difference here). > > This is a turning point for the GFA. There is a serious proposal from > the aviation regulator on the table which renders the GFA obselete... > Unless they do something about it. The big reason why most people are > entheusiastic about the RPL is because it addresses the problems which > a lot of pilots have been grumbling about for years and which the > GFA has never adequately addressed. So now there's a bit more > urgency: Adapt and address the problems or become an anachronism. > > Frankly, if I'm faced with a choice between an RPL and a carbon-copy > GFA-produced equivalent, then to my mind the GFA version would "win" > for the reasons onlined in the GFA's position statement: the Gliding > fraternity would be maintaining control of training and accreditation, > which is almost certainly better than CASA swapping their current > passive role for a more active (but ham-fisted) one. > > For people who fly club gliders, very little of this whole issue makes > any difference at all. But one day I'll own a glider, and at that point > the question of who takes responsiblity for my operations will become > more important. And if I'm then presented with a choice between a > CASA-authorized RPL which says that *I* am responsible, or a GFA- > authorized system which says that someone else who I don't even know > and who is probably less current than I am anyway is responsible, I > probably won't have to exert much effort to come to a decision :-) > > - mark > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton > ----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 ----- > > -- > * 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.
