At 07:53 PM 10/11/2009, you wrote:
Could not agree more with below, it's a increasingly international world,
many pilots want to experience flying overseas, it was dead easy to get my
Aussie PPL recognized by the USA FAA and have a USA PPL issued at no cost
and no flight test based on my Aussie qualifications. When I tried the same
with my glider ratings, forget it they said as they don't recognize them.
Why is there such resistance by the GFA to having an internationally
recognized glider licence (ICAO) as many other countries do including the
USA? My preference would be to have CASA administer Glider licences the same
as occurs in the USA and many other countries and as far as I can see with
no more hassle or cost then through the GFA system, probably less in fact.
Might even raise the standard of flying and also make some sense to
potential glider pilots who at the moment have trouble understanding how it
all is supposed to work.
Regards
Mark
Mark,
The resistance by the GFA is based on mindless adherence to the
historical order of things.
If we had a CASA licence good for use overseas it would have to be
good for use in Australia. Imagine a CASA PPL(G) stamped NOT FOR USE
IN AUSTRALIA. I'm sure that would impress the hell out of another
ICAO contracting state who would quite reasonably say "if you won't
honour it in your own country why should we?"
We are only having this thread because back in 2002/3 Bob Hall and
Henk Meertens went to the then Minister, John Anderson and killed the
CASA proposed Recreational Private Pilot Licence for gliding. Aided
and abetted by Paul Middleton of the RAAus who did the same for
ultralights. Thanks guys. It was probably the single greatest act of
bastardry in the history of sport aviation in Australia. You're
champions at it.
The proposed RPPL would have had ratings which could be added to and
if you had a PPL or higher those ratings would have carried over. The
RPPL wasn't an ICAO licence but the CASA PPL is and to fly O/S you
would have had to upgrade to the PPl although in the case of the US
you could probably argue that the medical standard for the RPPL(G)
was the same as for the US PPL(G) although note the US doesn't have
licences, they have pilot certificates.
Now, I have it on good authority that the RPPL proposal is still on
the table. If the GFA really wants to help Australian pilots fly O/S
and isn't just blowing smoke, they could go to CASA, withdraw their
objection and ask CASA to fast track the process. I really don't care
what the dimwits in the RAAus do but as you say Mark, a CASA licence
might actually improve the standard there too.
Of course once you have a CASA PPL(G) then you wouldn't be required
to be a member of GFA and a club (just as when you have a PPL you
don't have to join AOPA or an aero club although you may choose to do
so if you want to) and we couldn't have that could we? Heavens the
parasites running the GFA might have to justify their existence by
actually selling their services to the "members" on the open market
instead of, fascist like, using the power of the state to enforce
"membership" in a private company.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments since 1978
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 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
