Re: [Aus-soaring] [gfaforum] L2 Independent Ops

[Al Borowski]

>It does. It gives you level 1.

"The Club of a person exercising Level 1 Independent Operator privileges is
responsible for that person’s operations, even when the person is operating
independently"

That alone means it isn't in the same tier as a PPL / RAA cert /
Drivers license / Boating license etc.

"Before operating independently, a L1 Independent Operator must inform the CFI
or delegate (refer 13.1.2 below) and comply with any directions.
In the case of a L1 Independent Operator flying at a site which has a Level 2
Instructor present, L1 Independent Operator privileges do not apply
and the Level
2 Instructor's jurisdiction must prevail.
When operating from a site with a resident gliding club, Independent Operators
are subject to the requirements of the resident club."

So clearly is not a substitute for a "Glider License", more like a
provisional student license.

>Now as a low hour pilot you will build on your competencies with experience.

Sure but there is nowhere to go. There IS no "Glider License". There
should be a real license available a reasonable amount of time after
that, that is yours for life (unless you did something to lose it!).

Best regards,

Al

On 11/02/2017, Stuart Wolf  wrote:
>> seems that so far, we not found anyone one that can answer the key
>> questions below
>>
>> I'm not an instructor, but I would say to ensure that low hour pilots
> continue to demonstrate and develop the competencies required to fly a
> glider.
>
>
>
>> Are there any reasons why the GPC should not train pilots to the level
>> where they can fly fully independently?
>>
>
> It does. It gives you level 1. Now as a low hour pilot you will build on
> your competencies with experience.
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] [gfaforum] L2 Independent Ops

[Al Borowski]

I don't think this is strictly true, in Qld at least - "If you are
under 25 you will need to record at least 100 hours of supervised
driving ". Driving with a professional instructor counts for triple
for the first ten hours.

L2 requires 100 hours of /Command/ time, and power time only counts
for 10%. There is no age-related exemption.

I'm happy to be corrected, I didn't get my license under the current system.

Cheers,

Al

On 11/02/2017, Stuart Wolf <stuac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since people insist on making a car licence analogy, you require 20 hours
> MORE to be issued a car licence than an L2.
>
> On Saturday, February 11, 2017, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> as a holder of a PPL as well, I agree. If there is extra training needed
>> in the GPC syllabus then so be it.
>>
>> If on the annual check there are a few more things to tick off as well
>> that is also fine.
>>
>> I would be very interested to hear from any CFI's on the list as to what
>> are the risks being mitigated by having both L1 and L2 ops in place. How
>> does having a L2 instructor around help mitigate with those risks?
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 11 Feb 2017, at 12:55 AM, Al Borowski <al.borow...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd like to see the GPC give the same rights as L2 Independent Ops,
>> > but only require a checkride to maintain it (just like PPL/RAA)
>> > instead of being reliant on a CFI's annual blessing. If a GPC pilot
>> > isn't considered good enough to be responsible for their own actions,
>> > something is terribly wrong with the training system.
>> >
>> > A driver's license is yours until you do something silly to lose it,
>> > and you are responsible for your own driving. The same goes for
>> > PPL/RAA, boating, and a huge pile of other activities. Just like these
>> > activities, equipment owners/clubs are free to place whatever
>> > additional requirements they want on the use of their facilities.
>> >
>> > If a GPC holder can't be trusted to be responsible for their own
>> > operations then they should never have been given a GPC.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Al
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 10/02/2017, Simon Rammelt <monkeypaws...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>> >> please explain the changes you want to make.
>> >>
>> >>> On 10 Feb 2017 1:40 pm, "Richard Frawley" <rjfraw...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I have had an initial positive response from the GFA in terms of
>> >>> making
>> >>> changes to the L2 Indi Ops. To help get further traction i need a
>> >>> pilot
>> >>> from WA, TAS, Vic, NT and QLD to put a common request to their
>> >>> appropriate
>> >>> State Bodies. (such is the way things need to work).
>> >>>
>> >>> Bernard has already offered for  SA and I live in NSW.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am happy to host some Go To Meeting conference calls to kick things
>> off
>> >>> once we have a quorum. We can have more than one rep.
>> >>>
>> >>> Look forward to seeing if we make a positive outcome here.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please drop me an email if you are able to help.
>> >>>
>> >>> Richard
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> >>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <javascript:;>
>> >>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> > ___
>> > Aus-soaring mailing list
>> > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <javascript:;>
>> > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <javascript:;>
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Al Borowski]

I'd like to see the GPC give the same rights as L2 Independent Ops,
but only require a checkride to maintain it (just like PPL/RAA)
instead of being reliant on a CFI's annual blessing. If a GPC pilot
isn't considered good enough to be responsible for their own actions,
something is terribly wrong with the training system.

A driver's license is yours until you do something silly to lose it,
and you are responsible for your own driving. The same goes for
PPL/RAA, boating, and a huge pile of other activities. Just like these
activities, equipment owners/clubs are free to place whatever
additional requirements they want on the use of their facilities.

If a GPC holder can't be trusted to be responsible for their own
operations then they should never have been given a GPC.

Cheers,

Al


On 10/02/2017, Simon Rammelt  wrote:
> please explain the changes you want to make.
>
> On 10 Feb 2017 1:40 pm, "Richard Frawley"  wrote:
>
>> I have had an initial positive response from the GFA in terms of making
>> changes to the L2 Indi Ops. To help get further traction i need a pilot
>> from WA, TAS, Vic, NT and QLD to put a common request to their
>> appropriate
>> State Bodies. (such is the way things need to work).
>>
>> Bernard has already offered for  SA and I live in NSW.
>>
>> I am happy to host some Go To Meeting conference calls to kick things off
>> once we have a quorum. We can have more than one rep.
>>
>> Look forward to seeing if we make a positive outcome here.
>>
>> Please drop me an email if you are able to help.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Al Borowski]

Sorry Noel - I'm confused as well. Is your point that too many people
in RAA or PPL are flying when they shouldn't be?

I'd assume the purpose of a successful Gliding Endorsement (or
whatever you want to call it) is that instructors consider that pilot
responsible enough to look after themselves. If they don't demonstrate
that level of skill/judgement they don't get the endorsement.

After I got my driving license I didn't need to go back to my driving
school each year and justify why my license should be extended for
another year.

Cheers,

Al



On 05/02/2017, Noel Roediger  wrote:
> Jim.
>
>
>
> I have personal knowledge and experience to back up my statement.
>
>
>
> Check accident / incident reports re. glider pilots and RAus. pilots up to
> CASA PPL’s.
>
>
>
> Noel.
>
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
> Of James McDowall
> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 8:38 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>
>
>
> Hi Noel,
>
> What is the basis of your reservation? It is worth remembering that there
> are many people deemed to be qualified in all sorts of endeavours that you
> and I would not regard as competent but the law and other conventions
> regards as qualified.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Noel Roediger 
> wrote:
>
> Jim.
>
>
>
> Your suggestion implies you think those pilots you refer to up to PPL are
> qualified to operate freely within Australian airspace.
>
>
>
> I assure you – unreservedly – many are not.
>
>
>
> For that reason your idea will not work.
>
>
>
> Noel.
>
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
> Of James McDowall
> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 5:10 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>
>
>
> What about anybody with a RA-Aus pilot certificate and anybody with a RPL,
> PPL, etc with an endorsement for self launcher?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Richard Frawley 
> wrote:
>
> i put my hand up to take this to the exec. who else (must be GFA member) i
> can count on for support?
>
>
>
> step 1: anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS
> annotated on GPC (will that work?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:10 pm, James McDowall 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Elsewhere in this discussion it was noted that the majority of GFA new
> registrations last year were powered. The interests of these people need to
> be accommodated NOW, not when the powerless gliders can't be launched
> because it is too expensive or I just cant move my zimmer frame fast enough
> to run a wing. This will encourage investment. Also GFA needs to develop a
> system of permitting retrofits of power systems (by using the experimental
> certificates provisions) to add value to un-powered gliders. Cutting loose
> independent operators (from clubs) will remove the liability that CFI's and
> RTO's fear. That is operators hold a GPL or GPC issued by GFA and simply
> agree to fly according to the operational arrangements approved by CASA
> under CAO 95.4.
>
> I am reminded of a couple of quotes attributed to Edmund Burke:
>
> "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
> nothing." and "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
> conscience to remain silent."
>
> but most all a common saying:
>
>
> “Some people make things happen. Some people watch things happen. And then
> there are those who wonder, 'What the hell just happened?”
>
>
> I think most of the gliding fraternity will wake up one day and "what the
> hell happened"?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Richard Frawley 
> wrote:
>
> It is well know that the biggest resistance by far to the current GPC change
> (which was a good step forward) was by instructors and especially CFI’S and
> RTO’s
>
>
>
> I would be more than happy to help champion the issuance of GPC as
> equivalent to Level 2 Independent ops, but I can tell you now it will the
> CFI’s and Panels that will resist the most
>
>
>
> Given however the small number of self launchers, this requirements is still
> moot.
>
>
>
> As long as you still need others (tugs, wing runners, ropes) there is no
> true independence and their in lies the root cause.
>
>
>
> Bring on the world of electric self launchers and true independence, the
> sooner the better and even then it only really comes if its private owner or
> small syndicate.
>
>
>
> Club aircraft will always be over protected. This is the nature of a shared
> asset. Shared asserts by human nature are never as well looked after as
> those owned. (rental cars + public transport vs the private car)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 2:28 pm, Future 

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Al Borowski]

On 30/01/2017, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> Why do you want ranks?
>
>   - mark

Because an untrained beginner with 2 hours experience should be given
different privileges and responsibilities to a trained pilot with
2000?

I learned how to drive on a Student license, and stopped progressing
through the licensing system once I received my Open. I don't need to
I had no need or desire to be a Driving Instructor myself.

Under the GFA system an Open license wouldn't exist. You'd need the
blessing of the driving school to continue to drive anywhere. If you
had an accident it would be the responsibility of the driving school.
If you drove somewhere where an existing driving school was located,
you'd suddenly fall under that school's control - even if they had no
idea about your history or personal vehicle.

Cheers,

Al


>
>
>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Peter Brookman <peter.brook...@bigpond.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think the rank between Student & Instructor would be referred to as Solo
>> Pilot or Level (1 or 2) Independent operator.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Al Borowski
>> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 12:50 PM
>> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
>> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?
>>
>> On 30/01/2017, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> i assume most people know that gliding requires a minimum membership size
>>> to
>>> keep the cost and freedoms we enjoy possible.
>>>
>>> if you have not noticed we are actually under the minimum membership for
>>> sustainability.
>>>
>>> This is a problem anyone who wants reasonable continuance needs to own
>>> and
>>> assist with.
>>
>> I haven't checked in a few years, is it still impossible for a few
>> likeminded qualified pilots to form their own informal "club", buy a
>> 2nd hand glider and just fly it & pay to get it maintained, without
>> needing to bother with setting up a formal club with instructors etc
>> (unlike almost every other sport in existence)?
>>
>> Is it still impossible to buy a motorglider and fly it like an RAA or
>> PPL would fly their power plane?
>>
>> The GFA club model always struck me as missing a "qualified pilot"
>> rank between "Student" and "Instructor" - which is weird as it should
>> be the biggest group.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Al
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Update from Flarm on Unsolicited Email Circulation

[Al Borowski]

On 08/03/2016, Andres Miramontes  wrote:
> After been reading all the comments on this subject  I am really surprised
> to find  we have around so many capable professionals on the topic and I
> wonder why nobody has came up yet with a more profitable and affordable
> solution to this issue to compite with companies that invest millions of
> dollars in research and development ?
[...]
> If you have a better idea just do it. It is easy to criticise others for
> what the have already done or achieved.

Because in this case, a competing product has to be compatible with
those already on the market or it is useless. FLARM have taken steps
to prevent this. Short of paying to replace every FLARM already out
there competition is now impossible.

Imagine if Apple made computers that could only connect to
Apple-hosted websites, or if Holdens could only drive on Holden
licensed roads. It'd be an unworkable mess.

Cheers,

Al
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring