like i said Mike, any body wanna bet as to what we will hear?? Ron On 3 September 2014 08:49, Mike Borgelt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ullrich, > > > Rob Izatt is correct. > > "when operating independently" is the catch phrase. > > Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be > renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen > due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are > naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and > left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general > meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a > launch means which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of > the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting > flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed > years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3 > votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club. > > To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence > (at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a > proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of > flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as > it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going > through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a > reasonable thing to me. > > When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours > required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the > gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for > instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit > at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers > of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent > glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient. > > The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own > the private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that > gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything > about this wants to change anything about the way business is done. > > * Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA > is not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need > nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation > only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even > all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to > exist without any members other than those on the board. > > Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher > Thorpe is the sound of crickets. > > Mike > > > > > 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 > > 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
