I've pointed it out on more that one occasion, along with other intersting points. Hence my previous question as to why the brunt of this discussion seems to be focussed on the RPL, when we should be looking at the PPL(G) and above
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/07/02 10:02:01 >>> All I would be interested to know what people think of some recent new additions to the GFA web site which appeared there on 2nd July See http://www.gfa.org.au/whatsnew.htm A. The latest response from Bob Hall re: the Recreational License proposal by CASA (under Recreational License Update). This seems to flesh out more than a few reasons why GFA are less than keen to move away from the current system. B. The proposed changes to VSA (see VSA v SERC document), and how this affects the GFA articles (also currently being determined) I'm still wading through the CASA documentation, but I'm sure I DO NOT want an RPL for gliding if my privileges are limited to: "Operations will be limited to a 20 nm radius of the departure aerodrome and the flying training areas associated with that aerodrome" (See section 2.1 on page 87 of the Working Draft of Part 61 at http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/download/CASRdocs/061/dp0202a.pdf) I'm sure all you people who fly at clubs with good cross country opportunities will just LOVE that part. Did anyone else pick up on this limitation of the RPL, or were we too busily involved in a slanging match to even notice ? What do others reckon ? Regards Jason Armistead -- * 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.
