An L2 independent operator is required to be "supervised" when club operations are in play and they are a member of that club. Particularly when a tow is required it is impossible to be independent by definition. In a self-launcher you could argue the case but you have to live in the club environment and courtesy is a valuable commodity. I believe the L2 IO was conceived for self launching and touring motorgliders operating remotely or when official ops were not taking place at a home airfield. Rob Izatt
On 02/09/2014, at 1:11 PM, Ulrich Stauss wrote: > Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion > should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless I > am in training). > > The current MOSP says: > “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR > Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility > of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2 > Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of > their operations when operating independently. This includes airways > clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident > reporting.” > > To my knowledge it has been like that for many years. > > I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but > in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince > the CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What > should the minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you set that it will > not be enough for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher > that number is. > > On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I’m also with you > although I would choose less GFA-bashing words. > > Ulrich > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07 > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes > > At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote: > > > Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does > that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than "in other parts of > the world". It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that. > > > No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked. > > 200 hours? You can get a PPL for powered aircraft in 60 to 70 hours from > scratch. > > You get a bi annual and a medical every two years. Apart from that you are > completely free to go wherever and whenever you like with as many people as > fit in the aircraft. > > > > > > A shame really that the GPL was not based on the L2 IO rating, perhaps with > the bar lowered a little (e.g. reducing the 200hrs requirement - the 100hrs > for an L2 instructors rating seem to be sufficient to allow the holder to be > responsible for OTHER peoples flying). At least we would not have the > current inconsistencies. I cannot imagine that negotiations with CASA would > have been any harder on that basis. > > > I consider giving anyone an instructor's rating of any sort with 100 hours an > act of gross irresponsibility. I wouldn't let anyone I cared about learn to > fly with somebody like that. > > > > It will be interesting to see whether the first GPL holder rocking up > somewhere in Europe will be allowed to fly without more hassles than > European license holders. > > > Maybe EASA will find out the GPL doesn't work back home. As I said before the > ICAO deal is that you get the foreign licence on the fact that it is valid at > home in your own country. > > The GFA negotiation with CASA was just a cosy deal to maintain the GFA > monopoly on gliding in Australia. "Umbrella" my arse, it is a boot heel. > > Mike > > > > > > Ulrich > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Future > Aviation > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08 > To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes > > Hi Simon > > You have raised a very valid point here! > > I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world > but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without > instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world > country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots, > parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted. > > Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I > have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs > exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been > standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite > understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to > operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate. > > I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent > operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to > fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified > glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly > to blame for our current woes. > When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class > aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their feet. > > Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like > glider pilots in other parts of the world? As long as our current system > denies responsibly acting glider pilots fully independent operations many of > them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation activities - far > too many, if you ask me. > > Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your > thinking, please? > > Kind regards > > Bernard > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [ mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Simon > Hackett > Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes > > Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had > confirmed separately. > > The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a > Glider in Australia. > > SRSLY? > > Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises) > Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders > with (including ... in Australia)? > > I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good > standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's > boat. > > Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing > everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot > licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider > Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually > work in the country of issue. > > I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots > license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping > the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. > > I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here. > > I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not* > to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely > issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to > be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they > achieve Silver C standard). > > Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to > 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it > shouldn't become the case? > > In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what, > precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider > here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? > > I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward > regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA > haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site > either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you > can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with? > > Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :) > > Regards, > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring > Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation > since 1978 > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > 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
