On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 08:43:41AM +1000, Brian Wade wrote:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"When operating independently" -- they're not operating independently if
they're part of an operation which is under the control of a duty
instructor.
> 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.
Forget whether it's draconian, think about whether any of the requirements
are arbitrary.
The ones which stand out like dog's balls to my mind are:
* Min 200 hours -- This flies in the face of the competency-based
thrust of the GFA's training system. A pilot who is competent
enough to handle L2 Ind Ops but who doesn't have 200 hours won't meet
the standard; If a pilot is incompetent but has more than 200 hours
then he may meet the standard (note that the rest of the standard
doesn't include -any- assessment of competency by an instructor: The
closest it comes to that is approval by the club's committee... which
theoretically means that you'll be fine if the president and treasurer
think you should have L2 Ind Ops, even if the entire instructor panel
thinks you're a dangerous menace!)
* Club committee approval -- Pilots will want L2 Ind Ops because they
own their own gliders. So what business does the club committee have
in telling them whether they can fly them?
It all comes back to the culture of management/control which the
regulatory scheme imposes. The GA regulatory scheme devolves control
to the pilot, who is expected to be a mature, rational and responsible
adult, capable of making his own decisions. The GFA regulatory scheme
keeps control in the hands of instructors and clubs, even when it makes
no rational sense to do so (if I don't want training today, I don't
need an instructor, thanks; If I don't want to use a club's aircraft,
I don't need anything to do with a club, thanks).
For the most part, the GFA system doesn't make any difference: *Most*
pilots fly club gliders, and the duty instructor's responsibility to
act as a representative of the club's management to protect the assets
of the club are perfectly valid (if the duty instructor didn't do it then
someone else would have to and the outcome would be the same anyway).
But for private owners there's *obviously* an issue: Don't try to tell
me that there isn't an issue, because it has been debated ad nauseaum
on this mailing list and elsewhere since long before I started flying.
The issue has never been satisfactorily addressed. The L2 Ind Ops
rating was a good effort, but the RPL proposal has highlighted some
of its deficiencies, as far as I'm concerned. The mere fact that the
L2 Ind Ops isn't a competency-based standard is, to my mind, enough to
accord a theoretical RPL holder with more respect and leeway than a
L2 Ind Ops holder: At least you'd know that the RPL holder has been
assessed by someone who is qualified to decide whether they're ready
for the responsibility.
My club has an ongoing problem which the RPL proposal also addresses:
We don't have enough instructors for the activity of the club. We have
enough pilots (mostly sub-200 hours) to run a day on all 104 weekend
days per year and lots of non-weekend days... yet we cancel at least
one weekend day every 3 or 4 weeks and almost never fly on weekdays
simply because all the instructors are too busy with their personal
lives to supervise an operation. This is plainly -stupid-: The fact
that the GFA regulatory scheme leads to occasions where *nobody* can
fly for no good reason whatsoever, even though the CFI trusts the
pilots involved to handle themselves adequately, is absolutely
contemptible. How on *earth* is a regulation which prevents any
gliding at all supposed to promote our sport?!
The RPL solves that: If anyone who is competent is capable of legally
flying, then we won't lose perfectly good flying days for boneheaded
reasons. Our members can obtain RPLs, and our club will benefit hugely
from hiring aircraft to people who wouldn't be airborne under the GFA
system.
- 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.
