Mike B, Mark N and others I have been reading this thread with interest whilst I have been overseas and not easily able to respond. As the coordinator for the CASR Part 103 project there are a few things I would like - ON A PERSONAL BASIS - to clarify.
The first of these is that I am a GFA member in my spare time, at my own expense, and that this is not something that I or anyone else allows to affect my performance of my job. Any suggestion to the contrary would be dangerously close to libel. The second is that I have worked very hard to ensure that there is a viable "parallel path" available under the proposed CASR rules, available for those who choose it to have ALL the personal flying privileges open to them. However, there are other people who make decisions in CASA (I am not one of the 'decision makers') and my preference does not always prevail within CASA. Also, I must point out that carrying out Air Experience operations and Instructing functions are outside of the scope of these PERSONAL operations and will not be available through the Part 103 "CASA parallel path". Third, that I engage (not infrequently) in "robust discussions" with GFA representatives - as I do also with the representatives of other organisations who are represented on the steering committees and working groups for this and related projects (and at times with CASA managers). I have a responsibility to the Australian public which I will not compromise by doing a lesser job to achieve a fair outcome for the Australian public, regardless of whether or what they choose to fly. At the same time, I am very concerned at the prospect that some quasi-legal commentators might attempt to restrict or curtail the freedom of our community to fly responsibly and with regard for the public on the ground and other airspace users. [And the actions of some people to try and defend the actions of pilots who are irresponsible and inconsiderate.] Finally, I am disappointed that some people have made claims about the proposed rules that are based on mischievous interpretations of past events that have been applied as constraints to an ideal system, and that represent temporary rather than permanent impediments to the progress we intend to achieve. Primary among these is the suggestion that CASA does not intend to have a state-issued licence (or endorsement) that will be valid for holders to fly gliders - just because work to write these into the relevant CASR Part was suspended during a period of uncertainty about them some years ago. However, this is not the forum (and I am not the person) to identify possible future developments at this time. At some time in the future, hopefully when my present project tasks in CASA are completed, I will separate from that organisation and be available on a freelance basis to whomever I choose to work for (on mutually agreeable terms). At least until then, it is not wise to make all of my private opinions on aviation matters public, and I will not do so. Finally, I would remind people that there is a current pathway for a pilot to fly gliders outside of the GFA (even without operating overseas!) but this involves giving certain undertakings to CASA and submitting to certain CASA requirements, none of which involves holding a licence to fly aeroplanes. Those who have chosen this path have good reason for their choice, and know who they are. They are entitled to their privacy for that, and I will respect the same. For myself, I do not have those reasons to opt out of the 'standard' system, and therefore am happy to operate gliders as a GFA member - but I am NOT a GFA 'stooge' and hope that the historical record will bear this out in the fullness of time. Fly responsibly, fly safely, fly well. Mike Cleaver (Wombat) At 13:02 7/06/2007, you wrote: >At 11:19 AM 7/06/2007, you wrote: > > >In your view, what impediments is the GFA raising to prevent people > >who dislike the GFA from following the same path you've followed? > >Is there an actual problem here? > > > > - mark > > > > >It isn't quite that simple as there is no add on to a PPL.(or CPL or >ATPL) It is all a most unsatisfactory grey area that would have been >rectified by the CASA RPPL proposal which the GFA had killed when it >would not have prevented the GFA or anyone in it from operating the >way they do now. The GFA just didn't like the idea of any competition >or a clear legislative path for those who don't join. >You obviously haven't read the Part 103 NPRM either. The clear >intention(it was written by a GFA member in consultation with the >GFA) is to hand an effective monopoly to the GFA. Particularly on >training/checking which the GFA has just stated they will not do for >non members so there would be no way for people to comply with the >proposed CASA regs without being GFA members(the excuse is >insurance). Like the APF and parachute packing actually. BTW there >doesn't seem to be a resolution of that yet. > >Even the GFA mission statement makes the GFA's monopolistic intentions clear. > >To unite and protect the interests of all glider pilots and to foster >excellence in safe, accessible and enjoyable soaring" > > >I repeat: > > We still haven't seen a defence of the GFA position of "our way or no > way" when it comes to the *option* of a state issued licence to fly > gliders. > >It is historic fact that the GFA went to Minister to have the CASA >RPPL proposal killed for glider pilots even though there was no >intention of eliminating the GFA option. Whether there were people in >this country flying gliders under a CASA licence and not the GFA was >properly none of the GFA's business as lomg as the GFA option was >still available. >It was also bleeding obvious that once the CASA option available that >numbers of pilots might not want to be GFA members. They might even >want to form clubs that weren't training organisations, a requirement >that BTW the last CASA bloke I talked to found somewhat bizarre. >Obviously the GFA position was based on sheer greed and protecting >the revenue, bit like trade unions, student unions etc which we've >thankfully stopped. > >Mike > >Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments >phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 >fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 >cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 > Int'l + 61 429 355784 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >website: www.borgeltinstruments.com >_______________________________________________ >Aus-soaring mailing list >[email protected] >To check or change subscription details, visit: >http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
