That may be with good reason, having met you. Interpret it as I in tended it¥•
Michael > On 3 Sep 2014, at 2:42 pm, Tim Shirley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > To quote Groucho Marx: "I would not join any club that would be willing to > have me as a member". > > Cheers > > Tim Shirley > > tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare > >> On 3/09/2014 2:48 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote: >> So only 23 years after the Gawler Gliding Club was formed the GFA gets >> around to enabling such clubs? >> So why should people who want to do this have any kind of club at all? Why >> not the scenario put forth by Al Borowski? >> >> How about a club of ONE member? >> >> It is hardly a radical concept as it is exactly what is done in the RAAus. >> There are RAAus members and they MAY form clubs. They aren't forced to.There >> are also commercially run flying schools and privately run airfields which >> provide a runway and hangarage. >> I'm not aware that anyone in RAAus finds this a problem at all. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> At 02:22 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I think that the last person to have any interest in naked emperors was >>> named Josephine, before this thread exposed a whole new concept in glider >>> pilot fetishes. >>> >>> But I digress. >>> >>> At its recent meeting in Adelaide, I understand that the GFA Board approved >>> a change that will allow non-training clubs to form under the GFA system. >>> >>> This will mean (as I understand it) that a group of suitably qualified >>> members can form a club that has no CFI, no 2 seater and no training >>> operation. >>> >>> The qualification requirement would be a GPC for each member. >>> >>> Pilots would still be responsible individually for getting their annual >>> check (somewhere else, obviously) and maintaining their medical status. >>> >>> I don't know any other details, so no point in asking. But I do know it >>> happened. I expect the official announcement won't be far away. >>> >>> Go for it, guys. And girls. >>> >>> Disclaimer 1: I hold no official position in the GFA apart from looking >>> after some IT systems. This is, therefore, not an official statement of >>> any kind and may be complete bollocks. >>> >>> Disclaimer 2: No crickets were harmed in the writing or sending of this >>> email. A large number of electrons, however, were seriously >>> inconvenienced. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tim Shirley >>> >>> tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare >>>> On 3/09/2014 1:10 PM, Ron Sanders wrote: >>>> >>>> If I had a license for gliding just like my PPL I would probably >>>> (most >>>> likely) still join a club. I still like talking gliding at the end of >>>> the day, I still like comparing cross-country flights at the end of >>>> the day. >>>> >>>> At the end of the day, I still don't like being beholden to the duty >>>> pilot or the day instructor, when I am fitting in, just going about my >>>> business and enjoying the day. >>>> >>>> Nobody forces instructors to do what they do, so they must get some >>>> kind of reward out of it. >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> On 3 September 2014 10:35, Robert Izatt >>>> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The salient point in Mike's comment is the GA Instructor/commercial >>>>> pilot >>>>> spends the cash or bums hours to get his rating because there is an >>>>> income >>>>> stream at the end - he/she hopes. But so does the swim coach at your >>>>> local >>>>> State School. Long gone are the days when any sort of quality coach or >>>>> instructor was a pure volunteer. Join a yacht club (similar >>>>> infrastructure >>>>> etc) and the sailing instructor and the club will give you a bill for >>>>> her >>>>> time and you are happy because you got value for your money. >>>>> Gliding instructors do spend big dollars getting a ticket and then >>>>> volunteer >>>>> a full day, drive 250kms at their own expense, on 40 degree days only to >>>>> be >>>>> told by some snot nose Treasurer, who couldn't find his way 10kms from >>>>> home >>>>> without a GPS and thinks that's OK, that instructors don't work hard >>>>> enough >>>>> for the club. >>>>> Club's are good things but this whole discussion revolves around an >>>>> antiquated volunteer system. Club's need volunteers to function but >>>>> gliding >>>>> holds up its most valuable resource - knowledge, skill and experience - >>>>> and >>>>> says or rather boasts that it has no dollar value and we all know the >>>>> world >>>>> ain't like that Toto. >>>>> Rob Izatt >>>>> >>>>> On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt 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 flyying >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
