Correct Translation for ya (TAFE do very good ESL courses) Well could you jump to a more ridiculous conclusion PR?-I for one would be more than happy when the time comes to volunteer my time to instruct -in fact it is my main aim in gliding, as for me long cross country flights are 1)unaffordable.2)physically difficult(I have a slight disability in my right arm,not affecting strength but limiting endurance due to the onset of pain.)
At the moment to join a club would cost me nearly 2 weeks income and should a license be inroduced it certainly wont be cheaper.Any increase would mean another exit from the sport-and even the residents of magic lala land should understand that! These so called people who accept responsibility should remember the responsibility to an organisation that probably provided the infrastructure for them to learn to fly in the first place. After all when YOU learnt to fly it was because of past instructors efforts and sacrifice exactly that which you whinge about now. We all owe our predecessors the honour of continuing their good work, even if that means giving up the odd opportunity to fly to REPAY A DEBT to those who came before. As for comments regarding the number of pilots leaving the sport that is simply a reflection of the fact that gliding is not an option financially for 80% of people, if they can't afford it they can't fly. Whether not not someone wishes to fly any other kind of aircraft is their own business but is totally irrelevant to this issue- the issue here is the future of gliding and whether or not gliding counts towards other forms of flight is simply a matter of convenience for a very limited number of people-if they want other licenses they are quite welcome- I would not dream of objecting, however what you do in your non gliding activities ie ppl etc is totally unimportant to this discussion.You may spend your money on any other form of flight but that is YOUR choice and of no relevance to gliding or this issue. The one third that leave will be those unable to afford additional expense both those generous with their time and those not. If my club is not flying on a particular day I accept that, and wait for another day what is so difficult about that? I guess some are too important to not do what they want, when they want. Perhaps instead of leaping to erroneous twaddle you could at least get your facts straight Peter-I would like to be in the instructing area, and one day will, how dare you make such an uninformed summation of who and what I am, what real grounds do you have against my objection to this change? I will fulfill my percieved responsibility to our sport-as soon as I can. I will not dwell on the delights of 1/3 of pilots leaving the sport as you state you are hoping will happen. No part of gliding should be sacrificed for the convenience of those who wish to fly other aircraft of any form. Despite their rantings of benefits-to them. My apologies to those of you that do not own motor gliders-but did you notice that there were only 2 people in that category who have brought that to my attention-embarassed silence from the rest? Regards Dav ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Rundle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Rec License > > > > NONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > Translation: > > "I refuse to take responsibility for my own actions and expect, no > demand, that somebody else should, at their own expense, train and > maintain currency, and be present each and every weekend so that they > can take responsibility for me (at no cost to me). Furthermore, I deny > the rights of those that might accept responsibility for their own > actions to be allowed to do so and demand that they too shall be subject > to the same supervision as myself to ensure that there is sufficient > demand for the said responsible individual to be present. Furthermore > still, I demand that those who have already shown that they are willing > to take responsibility for themselves by expending their own time and > money to train to the level of PPL, CPL, ATL or better and undergo a > medical examination (at their expense), be denied the right to accept > responsibility for themselves and so too be forced to accept the > supervision of said responsible individual" > > If this is the one third of glider pilots who will leave the sport > because of the introduction of an RPL, then Sayonara! > > How 'bout a little vision, > > An individual decides that they would like to fly gliders. (To answer > the person who asked about the non-gender singular pro-noun, I just bend > the pural and use it, sounds a bit off at first but after a while if > flows ok). They seek out a suitable training organisation, be this a > commercial operation or a small club that only flys Sundays, whatever > best suits their requirements. They sign up and begin training under the > direct supervision of a suitably qualified instructor. They, hopefully, > subsequently solo and continue to fly under supervision achieving > appropriate milestones, lets call them "A", "B" and "C" certificates > shall we? At this point the individual can now fly gliders solo > indefinitely under the supervision of an instructor. (I.E the current > GFA system pre L2IO) > > However, should they *choose* to do so, they may qualify for the issue > of a license by showing the necessary practical competency and > experience, and undertaking and passing the appropriate theory rating > (airspace and radio procedures). The training organisation would then > submit the appropriate paperwork along with their training authorisation > number to CASA. Subsequently the individuals license, with glider and > airspace ratings, would arrive in the mail. In the mean time they would > be able to continue to fly under the supervision of the instructor of > the day. > > Now with shiny new RPL, they may wish to fly non-glider type aircraft > (heaven forbid!) they again select suitable training organisation (eg > Ulight) and repeat, skipping steps airspace and radio exam and > allocation of license number. Alternatively swap order, Ulight first, > glider second. > > Does GFA have a role to play in this? That's up to the GFA. Clearly > training organisations need a sylybus, they need instructors and > instructor training. CASA doesn't have a budget for this, if GFA said we > want to continue to use our current system but with the addition of an > airspace and practical component to our sylybus for the glider rating, > why would CASA say no? CASA don't have to set aside any budget to handle > the glider rating, all they have to do is say organisations can be > approved to train for the glider rating if they are approved by the GFA. > (The GFA could even have licence numbers in pre-allocated lots of 100 > and clubs could submit the paperwork to the GFA). > > The only fly in the ointment is that without the burden of having to be > a training organisation (caused by the need to have sufficient > instructors for one to be present each and every weekend, and hence the > need to have students to allow those instructors to remain current) some > clubs might chose to have non-instructor flying days and individuals who > have decided that they won't accept responsibility for their own actions > might find that they can't fly on those days. Maybe that will give them > the incentive to stop expecting others to carry the can for them and > perhaps realise that they should be prepared to be responsible for > themselves! > > If this is the scenario that GFA and it's pilots are saying NO to then > they will simply fall by the wayside. If this is not the senario that is > being proposed by CASA then the GFA's and the AUF's have only themselves > to blame. They've had two years to be pro-active in defining how this > legislation might work. If they haven't been able to see the future > because of their idelogical opposition to the concept of a licence then > they are well on the way to being irrelevant. > > The idea that GFA should come up with it's own alternate licence simply > complicates the legal situation and denies the individual pilots who > might choose to qualify for such a licence, a lot of the benefits that a > single across the spectrum licence would provide. > > rgds > > Pete > > > -- > * 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.
