I just replied to a similar "if it aint broke, don't fix it" query from John Moller. What I said was:
The point to remember is that CASA are conducting a review by Govt direction. Part of that review involves a recreational license. So it is not as though we are initiating to fix something that we don't perceive to be broken, it is more a case of "change is in the wind, so let's do our best to influence that change in the most advantageous way". It is also relevant to point out that the present discussion paper includes the following: 5.13 Whether self-administering sport aviation organisations will adopt the recreational licence as their own form of certification will be at the option of the organisation concerned. CASA, however, believes there is merit in having a licensing system which provides for pilots in both sport and general aviation to have their competencies recognised so they can more easily transition from one segment of aviation to another. Part of the story appears in my message forwarded below - I probably should have shared that one with cgclist as well. Another aspect that you should be aware of is alluded to in the following msg to the aus-soaring list: All this chat about Licenses for Glider pilots is interesting stuff guys, BUT it is like chips being thrown to sea gulls in the park, there is a lot of noise and activity surrounding the tip bits while there is a real meal is on the table. What is on the table? Recreational aviation as an activity is facing some big changes. These changes are not a CASA conspiracy as some would like you to believe, they are a government directive. CASA are the managers and messengers. "The Regulator's Unhappy Lot" (Reason. J. 1997) What is happening?? CASA have been directed to rewrite the regulations, all of them, and there is a time table for its completion. The recreational flying community is caught up in this and will be regulated under what will be called Part 103 and Part 115. As part of this reform process the recreational aviation community are being given the opportunity to be part of the team that rewrites these regulations, and many within the recreational aviation community are playing an active part in this process. Are you happy with your representation on these committees?? Another issue I believe needs our immediate attention is the National Airspace System (NAS). Not to many nasties there? How about the lowering of the A Class airspace to Fl245 and in some areas Fl180. A Class airspace means NO VFR FLIGHTS ALLOWED. This will make Diamond Height gains in parts of our country either impossible very difficult. Rick your record will be yours for ever, protected by law. I have heard Dick Smith address the NAS, only after being asked the question and his answer was something along the lines of, ......the minister has signed off on it. My point - while the discussion about the Rec Pilots License is important to some of you, there are far more important issues that really do threaten our sport Let's get some focus on these bigger issues. ************************ In other words, it is not just licenses that are on the table! Then again: So having now had a long long weekend to read and digest the GFA's paper on this I am even more convinced that they have no justification for opposing it. Some notable quotes though.. "...Because of the nature of gliding, currency is a major component of that equation - more so than for other aviation disciplines, especially GA. " Well that's a very subjective statement and I'd bet there are a whole bunch of people who could argue the opposite, however in terms of the licencing issue it's irrelevant, the proposed RPL and PPL have currency requirements in any case. It's just that the pilot has to take responsibility for maintaining currency. Ah Ha you say they won't, Ah Ha I say, just proves you don't trust us. It's all about the beauracry retaining *control* over the individual. You'd be surprised how and individuals behaviour changes when they realise that they will be legally held responsible for their actions. " Any attempt to codify this individual decision will inevitably, either, increase unnecessary restriction - even if this is only the need to wait until the 'authority' is issued" Now that's really clutching at straws. I can't even think how anyone could provide a supporting argument for that statement. The proposed requirements for an RPL are clearly set out in the discussion paper. A student pilot would learn to fly under the direct supervision of the instructor, until solo and continue flying under supervision until the required number of solo hours and other requirement for the RPL had been achieved, then the license is applied for. Any delay in licence issue would just mean that the student would just remain flying under the supervision of the instructor of the day which is how about 90% of Australian glider pilots fly their whole lives! As for "increase unnecessary restriction", firstly the licence is optional and secondary, this assumes that the current system isn't restrictive which is not the case. I'm sure you've all got stories about flying lost because the Instructor of the day is unavailable. (I certainly have) "Also, any initiative, which dilutes control by the club panel puts this system at risk." Ah ha! now we are getting closer to the guts of the matter. This statement is quite possibly true, however, this is a good thing for gliding as has been written about any number of times on this list, how many people have stories about potential pilots put off by the boy scout mentality that this system propagates. (Mike B especilly I'm sure ;-) "any requirement for a centralised system must increase costs" Again a totally subjective statement, not necessarily true especially in todays computerised world. Oracle centralised it's world wide support network down to two major centres and claims to have saved over a billion dollars. (no I don't and never have worked for them). It doesn't automatically follow that centralisation increases costs. "It is interesting that even CASA officers - when they are prepared to be honest - admit that they are jealous of the level of control.." Well at last they have finally admitted it one bureaucracy to another, that's what it's all about folks, the bureaucracy retaining control (through it's agents the club panels) over the individual pilot. "We have looked at this [licence] approach and see no advantages." and "GFA will not see our current system of logbook endorsement diluted for the sake of 'uniformity' or the few who wish to fly internationally." So basically GFA admits that they have no vision. Firstly it's more than just a few who fly internationally, even if you don't intend to fly in a comps but happen to just be passing a glider field in a foreign country on holiday (gee I wonder how this keeps happening to me ;-) yet everytime it's the same story, check flight required (fair enough it's their glider) but no solo cause you don't have a licence. But if that is the only benefit that GFA can see then clearly they have no vision. What about all those motor glider pilots, increasingly this is they way of the future if the type of aircraft leaving the European factories is any guide, (L2 IO, don't even think about going there, that just proves my point, a GFA pusedo license, yet with none of the benefits that a cross-dicipline ICAO sanctioned license would bring). What about all those glider pilots who fly other diciplines, they would benefit from an RPL bringing a reduction in bureaucracy. Not to mention that other pilots might be inclined to try gliding if some of the bureaucractic hurdles were removed. Then there is the potential for club members to cross-train to fly the tug. Yes the 180hp limit is a problem and is exactly why GFA should be pro-active in working to get the RPL just right. Obviously only a "few" glider pilots would benefit from having more tug pilots in their club! NOT! And then there is potential pilots "do you have a licence" question and the subsequent negative reaction (as documented by others on this list). And finally there is the issue of legal liability of the instructor of the day. In todays litigatous climate you'd have to be mad to continue with a system that puts a gun to the head of one poor bunny! So I'm afraid that having read the GFA's position paper I'm now only more convinced that not only is the GFA's postion wrong, but they are taking that position for the reasons I suspected, protecting their own little patch of bureaucractic turf, to the detriment of gliding in Oz. ***************** And so it goes on! There will undoubtedly be lots more on the aus-soaring list in the months ahead! Cheers 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: "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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Kruyssen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Peter Stephenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "**CGC List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Soaring List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:25 PM Subject: RE: [CGCLIST] Fw: [aus-soaring] Rec License > I'm against more regulation of any type. > We are over governed in every aspect of life already. > > I haven't read all the info on this subject, so I expect this will draw some > flak. > 1. Is what we are doing now not working, if it's not broken, don't fix it. > > 2. What's the extra cost, direct fees and associated costs with jumping > through CASA hoops (our sport is already expessive enough) > > 3. Is any advantage worth having CASA involved (with all the red tape, etc). > > Barry Kruyssen > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Stephenson > Sent: Friday, 21 June 2002 11:35 > To: **CGC List > Cc: Soaring List > Subject: [CGCLIST] Fw: [aus-soaring] Rec License > > > Hi Caboolture Gliding Club listee, > > There is a spirited argument on the aus-soaring list alluded to by Brian > Wade. The question is: do we want a Recreation Licence (gliders) managed > by CASA (government) or keep the status quo?. The GFA Executive want to > keep the status quo. > > A majority of the Aus soaring list respondents want the new licence on a > straw poll conducted by our Ron Baker. I want the new licence except the > medicals should be performed by your family doctor and not a Designated > Aviation Medical Officer at $80+ a time. > > We need more feedback from our members (Caboolture Gliding Club) > > PeterS > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Graeme Cant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:18 AM > Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License > > > >From: Mike Borgelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >the question you should ask is: How is it that the GFA official response is > >so out of kilter with the opinions expressed here?(Rhetorical question, I > >know) > > No Mike! Really good question!. It's out of kilter because the GFA DOES > know what a lot of glider pilots think and genuinely tries to do what it > sees as best for them. The vocal members of this list are OTOH a tiny > minority whose views are quite unrepresentative - and that includes Mike and > myself. > > About 10% of glider pilots in this country are subscribed to the list. > About 20% of those subscribed contribute. About half that number have > "voted" with Ron. Representative? Democratic? Not worth the waste of > bandwidth. A simple example. Simon contributed but I bet he didn't vote. > I won't either. > > In a club of 80 members, I am one of four people who are subscribed to this > list. I know of nobody in our club who shares Peter Rundle's views (and he > was a popular member of it - they just don't share his views. Come back > Pete, the Mountain needs you!). I know of nobody with Mike Borgelt's views > in my club (Well, that's a tautology really. Mike's the only actual > exponent I know of the Groucho Marx idea that he won't be a member of any > gliding club that will have him!). There are a lot who share Simon's views > and a fair number would be very happy with Brian. > > I believe the majority of my fellow club-members would be very wary of the > idea of needing a licence to glide. We have a recreation we enjoy and have > no desire to have a closer brush with any bureaucracy. Decisions about our > flying are made by people who know us and our skill level intimately and > we're happy that way. We have grave doubts that an official licence would > make our sport any more attractive, cheaper or enjoyable. Yes, most of us > rarely go out of final glide distance from the field. But isn't that true > of 80% of glider pilots? > > It's a great discussion and thank you Mark, Simon, Brian, Peter, etc. But > it's not real and it's not representative. > > Graeme Cant > > _________________________________________________________________ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com > > > -- > * 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 cgclist mailing list. > To Unsubscribe: send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe cgclist in the body of the message > or with help in the body of the message for more information. > > > You are subscribed to the cgclist mailing list. > To Unsubscribe: send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with unsubscribe cgclist 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.
