On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:14:07 +0930, Dave wrote:
>Mike how would going your way to flying gliders save me (NO PPL)
>Money? It
>wouldn't-oh what a surprise. I am no fan of the GFA myself, and this
>is
>Mike's pet subject, neatly of course, as usual ignoring the fact
>that most
>glider pilots don't have a PPL and see no relevance to us in flying
>under
>CASA.
>
>So Mike how do you get a check flight? At what cost? How much does
>your form
>2 cost at LAME rates? Tell me again how this is cheaper/better than
>the GFA
>for the average (non PPL) glider pilot?
Thank you all for asking the question.
I suspect many list lurkers have misunderstood the parallel paths thread.
The coming world will not have 2 paths for glider pilots in it; it will have many; all parallel.
Promulgation of Parts 103 and then 149 as I understand the world, will clearly state what is currently evolving organically in various streams of aviation already.
(HGFA has similar discussions)
To stick with gliding , as this is this list's core, the existing parallel paths that are already operating will grow further paths in time.
Currently available -
- the traditional path, administered by GFA as a delegate to the regulator (CASA)
- glider pilot operating sort of GA (ie with a PPL base etc.)
- glider pilots behaving as glider pilots administered direct by CASA
(no doubt coming, either other 'delegates' eg RAA/SAAA, etc. taking on these functions also; or an entirely new organisation(s) forming from a customer base).
Why would/ is already this happen/ing.
Different glider pilots want different things for the sport.
The traditional path suits some and doesn't suit others.
At the same time from the regulator's point of view -
- monopoly delegates is illegal
- CASA has funded delegates for many decades, so the evolved processes and paperwork are as much CASA documents as the delegates'
- the market has told CASA that there should be parallel paths (as already enshrined - eg CAR 95.4 (a)
So I'll speak personally for the moment
(at this point be aware that there is an Emilis Prelgauskas GFA member out there - and he is not writing this email)
Emilis Prelgauskas private citizen is writing this email, and he happens to have been audited by CASA to provide gliding certification services to glider pilots in the third parallel path above.
Using accrediations provided through the regulator audit process.
(Emilis Prelgauskas GFA member of course does no such thing in accordance with GFA Board directive)
ie no GFA ratings are called up.
The parallel paths all have access to the same standards and processes direct from the regulator.
(Remember that is CASA)
The glider pilot desiring operating within that parallel path writes the declaration to the regulator and is allocated agreed checking procedures (there are various individuals around Australia audited for this purpose or base qualified to be so audited if they wished.)
In my case 'was known to the regulator' because of my decades as a volunteer writing draft processes at club and national levels (in case you ever wondered who to blame for the current format of Form 1, now renamed Maintenance Release, and some people recognise some of the wording in the late Mike Valentine's winch manual, and so on )
The allocated 'examiner' undertakes as part of the audit process to do the job to those standards.
Why would people want other paths.
The traditional gliding processes are based on expectations of clubs, ab-initio training, and a raft of supervisory standards.
Some liken this to the driving instructor following you around in another car after you've got your license.
As other threads have already set out - the fluctuation in accident numbers isn't necessarily stopped or moderated by the traditional structure per se.
Some pilots would like to be treated like adults, and be given a rating that actually means something - like - you are declaring your willingness to be responsible for your own actions in the scope as determined to fit your current skills.
The 'supervision' in parallel path then moves from kindergarten in the traditional structure to an adult:adult mentoring one.
This email is clearly very superficial, and can be fleshed out much more as this list's readers say they are interested.
And to answer the original question right up top -
- no, it is not about cheaper
- it is about a different way of looking at the mutual responsibility between glider pilots
rather than the traditional structure focused on edicts from on high dragooning the individual glider pilot into a 'one size fits all' process.
For some glider pilots this fits the 'better suited' category.
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
