Any one got a copy of rule 1 and rule 17(1) hand so I can light my cigar? Michael
> On 3 Sep 2014, at 3:11 pm, "Christopher McDonnell" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Mike, other than your issue with nominations to the GFA Board below, I was > recently informed that the GFA can comply with Rule 17(i) of the Articles by > having an AGM within the numbers of, and only the Board members being > present, on the basis that they are members. Other than the fact that GFA has > never declared the regions as required by Rule 1. > > Chris > > > From: Mike Borgelt > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:49 AM > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes > > > 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
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
