At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
annotation which grounds you. The grounding takes immediate effect,
and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
yourself. The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
could take months. Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
through the pages of your logbook.
That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
- mark
It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it
"insurance". I heard no more.
Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club
employee "piss off we don't need your kind around here". Charming. I
fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote
you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying bastard.
I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent past.
We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with
making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is
done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people
of Australia is to protect people on the ground from having
aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly
because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most
reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any problem with
that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt
cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and
numerous others over the years).
I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate
how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem
with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an
absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition,
particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately
mislead by GFA officials.
I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence discussion
paper before. Meertens and Hall and Middleton from RAAus went to the
Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusion of gliding and
ultralights excised whereupon there wasn't much point in it anymore
and the whole thing died. If instead the proposal had been supported
we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Back in the mid 1990s CAO 95.4 actually made it plain that the
exemption from the regulations regarding licensing was only there for
those who didn't hold a PPL or higher flight crew licence. There was
also none of the nonsense that a glider maintenance release was only
valid when the glider was flown by a paid up GFA member. An aircraft
is either airworthy or not. It can't tell who is flying it. You
could even operate a glider without a licence if you wrote the
Secretary of DoT and told them you would operate to GFA standards.
After 2003 GFA, in collusion with CASA employees, gradually re wrote
95.4 until we have the current situation. Until 2009 they actually
pretended that there would be a parallel path. They lied yet again,
aided by the appointment of the now thankfully departed McCormick and
with the acquiescence of the GFA Board including Anita Taylor.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
