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

[Christopher McDonnell]

Mark there has always been an alternative path and I am sure CASA counsel 
advise that there has to be and will continue to be.
Yes, academic, as it was only meant to be.

Chris

From: Mark Newton 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:22 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Christopher McDonnell <wommamuku...@bigpond.com> 
wrote:



  “I don’t think CASA cares a whole heap about that.”

  No they don’t Mark but I think the courts would if you had the money and 
inclination to take that path.

CASA has been requiring glider pilots to be GFA members for about 60 years, and 
nobody has had the money or inclination to check.

I think you’re right, but it’s a bit academic until someone presses the point.

  - mark




___
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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> that being the case, what is the point of making an enemy of the GFA when 
> befriending and making small changes over time seems like a higher potential 
> path for improvement

GFA has never made small changes over time to facilitate the things we’ve been 
talking about here.

They have invested significant effort into sabotaging efforts others have made 
which would have achieved at least some of what we’ve been talking about here.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/files/2012/07/lucyfootball.png 



> 
> So apart from the L2 ops changes I can see of value to those who own Self 
> Launchers, what would would make the top 10 ten items that need changing in 
> the MOSPs (they being the enforcement list per se)


This has been covered many times already.

GFA needs to change their syllabus to align it with the CASA RPL syllabus, so 
that converting from GPC to RPL is mostly a paperwork exercise, and so that a 
GPC automatically includes L2 Independent Ops.

GFA needs to advocate with CASA to agree that the glider pilot endorsement can 
be attached to an RPL.

GFA needs to amend the MOSP so that RPL holders with glider ratings have the 
same privileges as GFA members with L2 Independent Ops, so that clubs can opt 
to supply glider-related services (such as launches) to non-GFA members.

GFA needs to liaise with CASA to confirm that the GFA airworthiness system is 
at least as safe as the CASA airworthiness system, and that RPL holders can 
henceforth fly GFA-maintained gliders, and GPC holders can fly CASA-maintained 
gliders.

Make those changes, and non-GFA members will be able to fly GFA gliders and 
vice versa, and pilots won’t have to be in a chain of command if they don’t 
want to be.

  - mark


___
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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You also can’t be a GFA member without being a member of a GFA-affiliated 
>> club, so you actually need to be a member of TWO organizations to be 
>> compliant with the GFA operations manual.
>> 
> 
> I must admit that part never made any sense to me…..anyone have any idea why 
> it was set up that way?

Because if you’re not a member of a club, you’re not subordinate to a club’s 
CFI and duty instructor.

Everyone has to be in a club so that they can slot in to the chain of command.

   - mark

___
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

[Richard Frawley]

so unless the sky fall in, its looks like we are all stuck with the GFA if you 
want to fly gliders. 

that being the case, what is the point of making an enemy of the GFA when 
befriending and making small changes over time seems like a higher potential 
path for improvement

So apart from the L2 ops changes I can see of value to those who own Self 
Launchers, what would would make the top 10 ten items that need changing in the 
MOSPs (they being the enforcement list per se)

 


> On 7 Feb 2017, at 2:09 pm, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> Agree with most of what you wrote except that CASR 61.1515 does not say that 
> you have to be a member. It says that " (1)  The holder of a glider pilot 
> licence is authorised to conduct an activity in the exercise of the 
> privileges of the licence only if the activity is conducted in accordance 
> with: <>
>  <> (a)  the operations manual of a recreational aviation 
> administration organisation that administers glider activities;"
> 
> That is different to being a member. It is the ops regulations that mandate 
> membership.
> 
> CAO95.4 still permits the parallel path. I explored this a couple of years 
> ago but the conditions were impossible to comply with and CASA knew it!
> 
> Also I know of 2 LAMEs that are prepared to issue MR's on gliders.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Mark Newton  > wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, James McDowall  > wrote:
> 
>> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the 
>> GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations.
> 
> Good luck getting a glider in to Class A airspace.
> 
> I think you're misreading how the various rulesets interact with each other.
> 
> 0. The Civil Aviation Act is king. It enables the Parliament to make 
> regulations regarding civil aviation.
> 1. The Parliament has promulgated CARs and CASRs pursuant to the Act.
> 2. They permit CASA to issue CAOs.
> 3. One of the CAOs is 95.4, which creates the system of exemptions and 
> delegations needed to create GFA.
> 4. Subordinate to CAO 95.4 is the rest of the Operational Regulations.
> 5. The Operational Regulations say that certain things need to be done IAW 
> the MOSP.
> 
> The MOSP is at the bottom of the chain, not the top. It makes no difference 
> what mandates the MOSP makes if they’re overridden by CASR 61.145 and 61.1515 
> (or, for that matter, the Act).
> 
>> However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA as 
>> per CAO 95.4) say:
>> "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated 
>> except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which would 
>> seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say in the 
>> regulation "must be a member of the GFA”.
> 
> Part 61 post-dates CAO 95.4, which means Part 61 “wins” if they disagree.
> 
> They don’t disagree in this case: CAO 95.4 says pilots have to be GFA 
> members. Part 61 says glider pilots need to be members of an organization 
> authorized to administer gliders. There is only one such organization, the 
> GFA, so the two regulations are equivalent.
> 
> Part 61 doesn’t specifically mention GFA because it’s been written on the 
> understanding that Part 149 will be promulgated, which opens up territory for 
> new organizations to be authorized to administer aspects of sports aviation, 
> including gliders.
> 
> Part 149 should be opposed, it takes us in exactly the opposite direction to 
> where we should be going, by cementing the power and authority of 
> organizations like the GFA over “their” pilots, instead of leaving sports 
> pilots under their own regulatory recognizance like every other pilot in the 
> world.
> 
> GFA supports it.
> 
>> This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA 
>> Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path to 
>> glider opeartions?
> 
> The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion paper 
> on Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling "Parallel 
> Path” anymore. They view it as a failed experiment.
> 
> 
>> BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider 
>> maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided 
>> you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem to 
>> exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.
> 
> Yes — But converting an existing GFA-maintained glider to a LAME scheme of 
> maintenance will almost certainly cost more than the glider is worth, so 
> taking that path is really only practical for brand new imported gliders 
> which have never been maintained by the GFA form-2 system.
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:09 PM, James McDowall  wrote:
> Mark,
> Agree with most of what you wrote except that CASR 61.1515 does not say that 
> you have to be a member. It says that " (1)  The holder of a glider pilot 
> licence is authorised to conduct an activity in the exercise of the 
> privileges of the licence only if the activity is conducted in accordance 
> with: <>
>  <> (a)  the operations manual of a recreational aviation 
> administration organisation that administers glider activities;"
> 
> That is different to being a member. It is the ops regulations that mandate 
> membership.
> 

It isn’t the regulations, it’s the manual.

The GFA MOSP (“operations manual”) says you need to be a member.

The MOSP defines an “Authorised Inspector” as a GFA member holding an authority 
to perform sailplane airworthiness functions. You’ll need that to DI your 
aircraft before you fly it.

Then MOSP Pt 2 3.1.1 says, “An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must 
not be operated except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4).

MOSP Pt 2 3.1.2 enables people without pilot licenses to act as flight crew 
“providing he or she complies iwth the conditions set out in CAO 95.4, 
subsections 5 and 6.”  CAO 95.4 section 5 says you need to be a member of the 
GFA or someone who has been given written approval by CASA (which you can’t get 
anymore).

Given that the MOSP says in multiple locations, directly and by reference, that 
you can’t follow it unless you are a GFA member, you are self-evidently not 
conducting activities in accordance with the GFA MOSP if you are flying without 
being a GFA member.

You also can’t be a GFA member without being a member of a GFA-affiliated club, 
so you actually need to be a member of TWO organizations to be compliant with 
the GFA operations manual.

> CAO95.4 still permits the parallel path. I explored this a couple of years 
> ago but the conditions were impossible to comply with and CASA knew it!
> 

So it doesn’t actually permit the parallel path, then.

> Also I know of 2 LAMEs that are prepared to issue MR's on gliders.
> 

There’s no shortage of LAMEs who’ll issue CASA MRs on type certificated 
composite aircraft these days.

  - mark




___
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

[Christopher McDonnell]

“I don’t think CASA cares a whole heap about that.”

No they don’t Mark but I think the courts would if you had the money and 
inclination to take that path.

Chris

From: Mark Newton 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:24 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Christopher McDonnell <wommamuku...@bigpond.com> 
wrote: 

  Where does that fit with “Freedom of Association”?  Is that not why there is 
an ‘alternative path’?  You cannot be forced to join an association generally 
speaking.



I don’t think CASA cares a whole heap about that.

The various sports aviation orgs are struggling with this in their approach to 
Part 149 at the moment.

Part 149 formalizes and generalizes the RAAus/GFA approach, where CASA can 
carve-out sections of sports aviation and delegate them to membership-based 
organizations (“ASAOs”).

I think the existing orgs see this as a way to cement their membership: Formal 
generalized structure for them to hand out all manner of qualifications which 
collapse as soon as their recipients fail to renew their subscription.

SAAA is probably struggling the most: They see a path forward through Part 149 
for issuance of maintenance endorsements to operators of amateur-built 
aircraft, once appropriate training and testing has been developed. BUT their 
members have never received ratings which are contingent on SAAA membership; 
they’ve all joined because they want to join, not because they need to.

I don’t think Part 149 has merit. Its raison d’être is that the ASAOs can 
provide equivalent safety to each other and to CASA; so it seems to me that 
CASA should be issuing licenses and ratings. The Part 149 way is to have 6 
different ASAOs plus CASA all endorsing the same thing at the equivalent levels 
of safety, producing an aggregate cost to sports aviation potentially seven 
times higher than it would be if only one org was administering all of them; 
AND even though all the orgs are supposed to be delivering the same safety 
result, the endorsements they administer wouldn’t be portable between silos.

One silo: One set of regulations. One set of pilot qualifications. One 
airworthiness system. One regulator. One aircraft register. 

What are we gaining by having several?

  - mark









___
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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Christopher McDonnell  
wrote:
>  
> Where does that fit with “Freedom of Association”?  Is that not why there is 
> an ‘alternative path’?  You cannot be forced to join an association generally 
> speaking.
>  

I don’t think CASA cares a whole heap about that.

The various sports aviation orgs are struggling with this in their approach to 
Part 149 at the moment.

Part 149 formalizes and generalizes the RAAus/GFA approach, where CASA can 
carve-out sections of sports aviation and delegate them to membership-based 
organizations (“ASAOs”).

I think the existing orgs see this as a way to cement their membership: Formal 
generalized structure for them to hand out all manner of qualifications which 
collapse as soon as their recipients fail to renew their subscription.

SAAA is probably struggling the most: They see a path forward through Part 149 
for issuance of maintenance endorsements to operators of amateur-built 
aircraft, once appropriate training and testing has been developed. BUT their 
members have never received ratings which are contingent on SAAA membership; 
they’ve all joined because they want to join, not because they need to.

I don’t think Part 149 has merit. Its raison d’être is that the ASAOs can 
provide equivalent safety to each other and to CASA; so it seems to me that 
CASA should be issuing licenses and ratings. The Part 149 way is to have 6 
different ASAOs plus CASA all endorsing the same thing at the equivalent levels 
of safety, producing an aggregate cost to sports aviation potentially seven 
times higher than it would be if only one org was administering all of them; 
AND even though all the orgs are supposed to be delivering the same safety 
result, the endorsements they administer wouldn’t be portable between silos.

One silo: One set of regulations. One set of pilot qualifications. One 
airworthiness system. One regulator. One aircraft register. 

What are we gaining by having several?

  - mark





___
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

[James McDowall]

Mark,
Agree with most of what you wrote except that CASR 61.1515 does not say
that you have to be a member. It says that "* (1)  The holder of a glider
pilot licence is authorised to conduct an activity in the exercise of the
privileges of the licence only if the activity is conducted in accordance
with: *

* (a)  the operations manual of a recreational aviation
administration organisation that administers glider activities;"*

That is different to being a member. It is the ops regulations that mandate
membership.

CAO95.4 still permits the parallel path. I explored this a couple of years
ago but the conditions were impossible to comply with and CASA knew it!

Also I know of 2 LAMEs that are prepared to issue MR's on gliders.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, James McDowall 
> wrote:
>
> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the
> GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations.
>
>
> Good luck getting a glider in to Class A airspace.
>
> I think you're misreading how the various rulesets interact with each
> other.
>
> 0. The Civil Aviation Act is king. It enables the Parliament to make
> regulations regarding civil aviation.
> 1. The Parliament has promulgated CARs and CASRs pursuant to the Act.
> 2. They permit CASA to issue CAOs.
> 3. One of the CAOs is 95.4, which creates the system of exemptions and
> delegations needed to create GFA.
> 4. Subordinate to CAO 95.4 is the rest of the Operational Regulations.
> 5. The Operational Regulations say that certain things need to be done IAW
> the MOSP.
>
> The MOSP is at the bottom of the chain, not the top. It makes no
> difference what mandates the MOSP makes if they’re overridden by CASR
> 61.145 and 61.1515 (or, for that matter, the Act).
>
> However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA
> as per CAO 95.4) say:
>
> "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated
> except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which
> would seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say
> in the regulation "must be a member of the GFA”.
>
>
> Part 61 post-dates CAO 95.4, which means Part 61 “wins” if they disagree.
>
> They don’t disagree in this case: CAO 95.4 says pilots have to be GFA
> members. Part 61 says glider pilots need to be members of an organization
> authorized to administer gliders. There is only one such organization, the
> GFA, so the two regulations are equivalent.
>
> Part 61 doesn’t specifically mention GFA because it’s been written on the
> understanding that Part 149 will be promulgated, which opens up territory
> for new organizations to be authorized to administer aspects of sports
> aviation, including gliders.
>
> Part 149 should be opposed, it takes us in exactly the opposite direction
> to where we should be going, by cementing the power and authority of
> organizations like the GFA over “their” pilots, instead of leaving sports
> pilots under their own regulatory recognizance like every other pilot in
> the world.
>
> GFA supports it.
>
> This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA
> Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path
> to glider opeartions?
>
>
> The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion
> paper on Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling
> "Parallel Path” anymore. They view it as a failed experiment.
>
>
> BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider
> maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided
> you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem
> to exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.
>
>
> Yes — But converting an existing GFA-maintained glider to a LAME scheme of
> maintenance will almost certainly cost more than the glider is worth, so
> taking that path is really only practical for brand new imported gliders
> which have never been maintained by the GFA form-2 system.
>
>   - mark
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Christopher McDonnell]

“The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion paper on 
Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling "Parallel Path” 
anymore. They view it as a failed experiment.”

Where does that fit with “Freedom of Association”?  Is that not why there is an 
‘alternative path’?  You cannot be forced to join an association generally 
speaking.

Chris


From: Mark Newton 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 11:57 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, James McDowall <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> wrote: 

  My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the 
GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations. 

Good luck getting a glider in to Class A airspace.

I think you're misreading how the various rulesets interact with each other.

0. The Civil Aviation Act is king. It enables the Parliament to make 
regulations regarding civil aviation.
1. The Parliament has promulgated CARs and CASRs pursuant to the Act.
2. They permit CASA to issue CAOs.
3. One of the CAOs is 95.4, which creates the system of exemptions and 
delegations needed to create GFA.
4. Subordinate to CAO 95.4 is the rest of the Operational Regulations.
5. The Operational Regulations say that certain things need to be done IAW the 
MOSP.

The MOSP is at the bottom of the chain, not the top. It makes no difference 
what mandates the MOSP makes if they’re overridden by CASR 61.145 and 61.1515 
(or, for that matter, the Act).


  However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA as 
per CAO 95.4) say:
  "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated 
except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which would 
seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say in the 
regulation "must be a member of the GFA”.


Part 61 post-dates CAO 95.4, which means Part 61 “wins” if they disagree.

They don’t disagree in this case: CAO 95.4 says pilots have to be GFA members. 
Part 61 says glider pilots need to be members of an organization authorized to 
administer gliders. There is only one such organization, the GFA, so the two 
regulations are equivalent.

Part 61 doesn’t specifically mention GFA because it’s been written on the 
understanding that Part 149 will be promulgated, which opens up territory for 
new organizations to be authorized to administer aspects of sports aviation, 
including gliders.

Part 149 should be opposed, it takes us in exactly the opposite direction to 
where we should be going, by cementing the power and authority of organizations 
like the GFA over “their” pilots, instead of leaving sports pilots under their 
own regulatory recognizance like every other pilot in the world.

GFA supports it.


  This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA 
Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path to 
glider opeartions?


The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion paper on 
Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling "Parallel Path” 
anymore. They view it as a failed experiment.


  BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider 
maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided you 
do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem to 
exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.


Yes — But converting an existing GFA-maintained glider to a LAME scheme of 
maintenance will almost certainly cost more than the glider is worth, so taking 
that path is really only practical for brand new imported gliders which have 
never been maintained by the GFA form-2 system.

  - mark





___
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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, James McDowall  wrote:

> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the 
> GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations.

Good luck getting a glider in to Class A airspace.

I think you're misreading how the various rulesets interact with each other.

0. The Civil Aviation Act is king. It enables the Parliament to make 
regulations regarding civil aviation.
1. The Parliament has promulgated CARs and CASRs pursuant to the Act.
2. They permit CASA to issue CAOs.
3. One of the CAOs is 95.4, which creates the system of exemptions and 
delegations needed to create GFA.
4. Subordinate to CAO 95.4 is the rest of the Operational Regulations.
5. The Operational Regulations say that certain things need to be done IAW the 
MOSP.

The MOSP is at the bottom of the chain, not the top. It makes no difference 
what mandates the MOSP makes if they’re overridden by CASR 61.145 and 61.1515 
(or, for that matter, the Act).

> However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA as 
> per CAO 95.4) say:
> "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated 
> except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which would 
> seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say in the 
> regulation "must be a member of the GFA”.

Part 61 post-dates CAO 95.4, which means Part 61 “wins” if they disagree.

They don’t disagree in this case: CAO 95.4 says pilots have to be GFA members. 
Part 61 says glider pilots need to be members of an organization authorized to 
administer gliders. There is only one such organization, the GFA, so the two 
regulations are equivalent.

Part 61 doesn’t specifically mention GFA because it’s been written on the 
understanding that Part 149 will be promulgated, which opens up territory for 
new organizations to be authorized to administer aspects of sports aviation, 
including gliders.

Part 149 should be opposed, it takes us in exactly the opposite direction to 
where we should be going, by cementing the power and authority of organizations 
like the GFA over “their” pilots, instead of leaving sports pilots under their 
own regulatory recognizance like every other pilot in the world.

GFA supports it.

> This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA 
> Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path to 
> glider opeartions?

The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion paper on 
Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling "Parallel Path” 
anymore. They view it as a failed experiment.


> BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider 
> maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided 
> you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem to 
> exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.

Yes — But converting an existing GFA-maintained glider to a LAME scheme of 
maintenance will almost certainly cost more than the glider is worth, so taking 
that path is really only practical for brand new imported gliders which have 
never been maintained by the GFA form-2 system.

  - mark


___
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

[Richard Frawley]

Ok, I am curious

so a long, long time ago the GFA secured the exclusive rights to allow their 
members to fly gliders.

why should the GFA have exclusivity? 

is the below a loop hole to break that?

Has anyone tried to exploit it?




> On 7 Feb 2017, at 12:11 pm, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> That was my interpretation too, and I'm still not clear on why we made all 
> the foreign pilots attending the WGC in benalla join the GFA to operate their 
> foreign registered aircraft with their foreign licences. I appreciate the 
> process was streamlined but I don't see the legislative requirement anyway.
> The poms capitalized on this and are now saying - come fly the UK EGC, we 
> won't even make you join the BGA 
> 
> On 7 Feb 2017 12:00 PM, "James McDowall"  > wrote:
> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the 
> GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations. 
> However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA as 
> per CAO 95.4) say:
> "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated 
> except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which would 
> seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say in the 
> regulation "must be a member of the GFA".
> This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA 
> Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path to 
> glider opeartions?
> BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider 
> maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided 
> you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem to 
> exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Mark Newton  > wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 9:23 AM, James McDowall > > wrote:
>> 
>> Can anyone enlighten me as to which piece of legislation says a GPL has no 
>> validity in Australia?
> 
> CASR 61.145 permits flight in a glider without a glider pilot license under 
> stated conditions.
> 
> CASR 61.1515 limits exercise of the privileges of a glider pilot license to 
> activity “conducted in accordance with … the operations manual of a 
> recreational aviation administration organisation that administers glider 
> activities…”
> 
> The only such organization is the GFA.
> 
> The operations manual of the GFA requires pilots to be GFA members and submit 
> to the GFA instructional system, flying GFA-registered aircraft maintained 
> under the GFA airworthiness system.
> 
> If a pilot is a GFA member and has submitted to the GFA instructional system, 
> flying a GFA-registered aircraft maintained under the GFA airworthiness 
> system, they don’t actually need a glider pilot license in the first place.
> 
> Thus the glider pilot license is useless in Australia. The credential that 
> CASA recognizes as authority to fly a glider in Australia is the GFA-issued 
> GPC, not the one on your Part 61 license.
> 
> Here’s Simon Hackett’s account of what it takes to get one, by the way:
> https://simonhackett.com/2015/04/17/australian-to-usa-glider-pilot-license/ 
> 
> 
>> An Australian ‘GLIDER PILOT LICENSE’ (GPL) issued by CASA (the Australian 
>> version of the FAA) is not a license to fly gliders in Australia.
>> 
>> Instead, the GPL is it seems, merely an administrative construct ... that 
>> joins the dots between an international licensing system (that wants to see 
>> an ICAO compliant thing called a license) and the Australian glider flying 
>> environment administered by the GFA
>> 
> 
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

___
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

[Matthew Scutter]

That was my interpretation too, and I'm still not clear on why we made all
the foreign pilots attending the WGC in benalla join the GFA to operate
their foreign registered aircraft with their foreign licences. I appreciate
the process was streamlined but I don't see the legislative requirement
anyway.
The poms capitalized on this and are now saying - come fly the UK EGC, we
won't even make you join the BGA 

On 7 Feb 2017 12:00 PM, "James McDowall"  wrote:

> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the
> GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations.
> However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA
> as per CAO 95.4) say:
> "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated
> except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which
> would seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say
> in the regulation "must be a member of the GFA".
> This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA
> Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path
> to glider opeartions?
> BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider
> maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided
> you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem
> to exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Mark Newton 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 9:23 AM, James McDowall 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone enlighten me as to which piece of legislation says a GPL has
>> no validity in Australia?
>>
>>
>> CASR 61.145 permits flight in a glider without a glider pilot license
>> under stated conditions.
>>
>> CASR 61.1515 limits exercise of the privileges of a glider pilot license
>> to activity “conducted in accordance with … the operations manual of a
>> recreational aviation administration organisation that administers glider
>> activities…”
>>
>> The only such organization is the GFA.
>>
>> The operations manual of the GFA requires pilots to be GFA members and
>> submit to the GFA instructional system, flying GFA-registered aircraft
>> maintained under the GFA airworthiness system.
>>
>> If a pilot is a GFA member and has submitted to the GFA instructional
>> system, flying a GFA-registered aircraft maintained under the GFA
>> airworthiness system, they don’t actually need a glider pilot license in
>> the first place.
>>
>> Thus the glider pilot license is useless in Australia. The credential
>> that CASA recognizes as authority to fly a glider in Australia is the
>> GFA-issued GPC, not the one on your Part 61 license.
>>
>> Here’s Simon Hackett’s account of what it takes to get one, by the way:
>> https://simonhackett.com/2015/04/17/australian-to-usa-glider
>> -pilot-license/
>>
>> An Australian ‘GLIDER PILOT LICENSE’ (GPL) issued by CASA (the Australian
>> version of the FAA) is *not a license to fly gliders in Australia*.
>>
>> Instead, the GPL is it seems, merely an administrative construct ... that
>> joins the dots between an international licensing system (that wants to see
>> an ICAO compliant thing called a *license)* and the Australian glider
>> flying environment administered by the GFA
>>
>>
>>   - mark
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

> On 7 Feb 2017, at 9:23 AM, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> Can anyone enlighten me as to which piece of legislation says a GPL has no 
> validity in Australia?

CASR 61.145 permits flight in a glider without a glider pilot license under 
stated conditions.

CASR 61.1515 limits exercise of the privileges of a glider pilot license to 
activity “conducted in accordance with … the operations manual of a 
recreational aviation administration organisation that administers glider 
activities…”

The only such organization is the GFA.

The operations manual of the GFA requires pilots to be GFA members and submit 
to the GFA instructional system, flying GFA-registered aircraft maintained 
under the GFA airworthiness system.

If a pilot is a GFA member and has submitted to the GFA instructional system, 
flying a GFA-registered aircraft maintained under the GFA airworthiness system, 
they don’t actually need a glider pilot license in the first place.

Thus the glider pilot license is useless in Australia. The credential that CASA 
recognizes as authority to fly a glider in Australia is the GFA-issued GPC, not 
the one on your Part 61 license.

Here’s Simon Hackett’s account of what it takes to get one, by the way:
https://simonhackett.com/2015/04/17/australian-to-usa-glider-pilot-license/ 


> An Australian ‘GLIDER PILOT LICENSE’ (GPL) issued by CASA (the Australian 
> version of the FAA) is not a license to fly gliders in Australia.
> 
> Instead, the GPL is it seems, merely an administrative construct ... that 
> joins the dots between an international licensing system (that wants to see 
> an ICAO compliant thing called a license) and the Australian glider flying 
> environment administered by the GFA
> 


  - mark


___
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

[Christopher McDonnell]

Italy SNAFU LOL What more can you say. 

From: James McDowall 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 7:51 PM
To: steph...@internode.on.net ; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in 
Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

And I've flown in Italy and no-one even asked if I could fly!


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:05 PM, <steph...@internode.on.net> wrote:

  Yeah I sort of knew about the LAPL, but I didn't want to make my post any 
longer or more complex. 

  However, my understanding is the LAPL* is an EASA license (not British as 
such) and is a lower level sporting license somewhat like the Australian RPL. 
The LAPL is only required to fly British gliders which have had their paperwork 
moved into the EASA system. I believe some gliders in Britain, not yet covered 
by the EASA rules, those still purely in the old BGA system, can still be flown 
without a license. I don't know if that's still a lot or hardly any.



  I believe still all in transition, merging, but not yet merged. Hence why I 
don't think anyone can say what the outcome of brexit will be for the lower 
levels of aviation**. If your glider is a tatty old Skylark only flown for a 
few local flights in any year, why go to the bother of an international license 
and international registration (provided the BGA still has a finger in the 
pie). Its a manufacturer orphan, any maintenance data etc left is held by the 
BGA so EASA wont help at all. 

  Who knows what horse trading will happen in the leaving negotiations, either 
from any Brits who want "independence" or the Euros who will (probably) make 
life hard as possible for the Brits and similarly  who knows what inertia the 
whole EASA licensing thing has which might keep it going anyway.





  *I'm pretty sure this license or some sort of forerunner was given to all the 
German touring motor glider pilots back around 2005-6. IE a cut down PPL

  **Obviously EASA set in concrete for commercial aviation.



  SWK   


  







- Original Message -


From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

Cc:

Sent:
Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:51:38 +1100

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



That's correct Bernard but if you have a german licence already an 
Australian GPL will be an expensive waste of time and money for you. 

Stephen,
The BGA has now merged their system and they have proper licences now (LAPL 
S).
Brexit isn't likely to affect EASA it's fundamentally separate institution 
to the EU and many non EU countries are in EASA.




On 6 Feb 2017 6:43 PM, "Future Aviation Pty. Ltd." <ec...@internode.on.net> 
wrote:

  Hi Mathew 

  I seem to have missed something!
  Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a 
GPLicence in Australia.
  Is that correct and how would one go about it?

  Cheers

  Bernard 


On 6 Feb 2017, at 4:36 pm, Matthew Scutter <yellowplant...@gmail.com> 
wrote:


The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now It's a lot of 
expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd things, but they 
do an excellent job shielding us from CASA paperwork). 
Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that having a 
licence means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a glider and fly. 
It does nothing of the sort. You still need to validate your licence with the 
local authority, often at great time and expense. For my german validation for 
WGC last year, I had to pay hundreds of Euros and communicate via FAX (yes! 
really! they don't 'do' email) to get a 2 week validation. At the end of the 
process there was an error in their interpretation of my request and they 
issued me a single day validation Amending this error required paying the full 
fee again and starting from scratch.
The only difference now that we have the licence, is we actually have 
something to fax them other than our logbook, which gets over the very first 
hurdle of  "where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level footing with 
the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going to get short of 
CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of fasttrack validation 
agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).


>I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German (and 
most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white card were doing it 
strictly illegally, just no one asked 
Yes, this is my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing 
the right thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German 
glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost an

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

[stephenk]

Yeah I sort of knew about the LAPL, but I didn't want to make my post
any longer or more complex. 

However, my understanding is the LAPL* is an EASA license (not
British as such) and is a lower level sporting license somewhat like
the Australian RPL. The LAPL is only required to fly British
gliders which have had their paperwork moved into the EASA system. I
believe some gliders in Britain, not yet covered by the EASA rules,
those still purely in the old BGA system, can still be flown without a
license. I don't know if that's still a lot or hardly any.

I believe still all in transition, merging, but not yet merged.
Hence why I don't think anyone can say what the outcome of brexit will
be for the lower levels of aviation**. If your glider is a tatty
old Skylark only flown for a few local flights in any year, why go to
the bother of an international license and international registration
(provided the BGA still has a finger in the pie). Its a manufacturer
orphan, any maintenance data etc left is held by the BGA so EASA
wont help at all. 

Who knows what horse trading will happen in the leaving negotiations,
either from any Brits who want "independence" or the Euros who will
(probably) make life hard as possible for the Brits and similarly
 who knows what inertia the whole EASA licensing thing has which
might keep it going anyway.

*I'm pretty sure this license or some sort of forerunner was given
to all the German touring motor glider pilots back around 2005-6. IE a
cut down PPL

 **Obviously EASA set in concrete for commercial aviation.

SWK   

     

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:51:38 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

That's correct Bernard but if you have a german licence already an
Australian GPL will be an expensive waste of time and money for you.
 Stephen, The BGA has now merged their system and they have proper
licences now (LAPL S). Brexit isn't likely to affect EASA it's
fundamentally separate institution to the EU and many non EU countries
are in EASA. 

On 6 Feb 2017 6:43 PM, "Future Aviation Pty. Ltd."  wrote:
 Hi Mathew
 I seem to have missed something! Your reply seems to indicate that
the GPCertificate is upgradable to a GPLicence in Australia. Is that
correct and how would one go about it? 
 Cheers 
 Bernard   
  
 On 6 Feb 2017, at 4:36 pm, Matthew Scutter  wrote: 
 The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now. It's a lot
of expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd
things, but they do an excellent job shielding us from CASA
paperwork).Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that
having a licence means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a
glider and fly. It does nothing of the sort. You still need to
validate your licence with the local authority, often at great time
and expense. For my german validation for WGC last year, I had to pay
hundreds of Euros and communicate via FAX (yes! really! they don't
'do' email) to get a 2 week validation. At the end of the process
there was an error in their interpretation of my request and they
issued me a single day validation. Amending this error required paying
the full fee again and starting from scratch. The only difference now
that we have the licence, is we actually have something to fax them
other than our logbook, which gets over the very first hurdle of
 "where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level footing with
the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going to get
short of CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of fasttrack
validation agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).  

 >I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German
(and most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white
card were doing it strictly illegally, just no one asked  Yes, this is
my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing the right
thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German
glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost any
glider you rent for a foreign WGC will not come from the country
hosting the WGC - i.e. German glider taken to Poland.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.  wrote:
 Hi Ulrich
 One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our
(competition) pilots to fly in countries  that require a proper pilot
licence, However, after almost 10 years the GPC is still NOT
recognised  overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering
down of the original requirements has something  to do with it.  
 I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence
for self launching gliders and  for touring motor gliders - at very
considerable expense in time 

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

[Mark Newton]

On 6 Feb 2017, at 7:31 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:42 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.  > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mathew
>> 
>> I seem to have missed something!
>> Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a 
>> GPLicence in Australia.
>> Is that correct and how would one go about it?
> 
> If you have a part 61 CASA license (or if you’re one of the decreasing number 
> of people with a pre-Part 61 license ready for conversion) you can have a 
> glider endorsement attached to it.

Matthew has reminded me that you can commence this without a Part 61 license, 
in which case CASA issues you what is effectively a Part 61 license without any 
ratings on it except a glider rating.

The rest of my account remains accurate.

  - mark



___
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

[Mark Newton]

On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:42 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.  
wrote:
> 
> Hi Mathew
> 
> I seem to have missed something!
> Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a 
> GPLicence in Australia.
> Is that correct and how would one go about it?

If you have a part 61 CASA license (or if you’re one of the decreasing number 
of people with a pre-Part 61 license ready for conversion) you can have a 
glider endorsement attached to it.

The GPC is taken as evidence that you’re qualified to receive the endorsement.

The endorsement is an ICAO-compliant addition to your license which should be 
respected by other ICAO contracting States.

The endorsement is not accepted by CASA as a qualification to fly gliders in 
Australia. You need to maintain your GFA and club memberships to do that.

The endorsement isn’t available if you have a CASA Recreational Pilot License 
(RPL): The RPL isn’t an ICAO compliant license, so it isn’t valid outside 
Australian jurisdiction, so there’s no point adding a rating to it that’s only 
valid outside Australia.

At present, the only legal way to fly a GFA registered glider is to:

   - Be in Australia.
   - Complete maintenance on the glider sufficient to obtain a GFA maintenance 
release.
   - Validate the maintenance release by inspecting it with a GFA DI rating.
   - Be a member of the GFA in good standing.
   - Be a member of a GFA-affiliated gliding club in good standing.
   - Either:
   * Submit to the authority of a duty instructor,
   * Hold a Level 1 Independent Operator rating and submit to the authority 
of a CFI; or
   * Hold a Level 2 Independent Operator rating, and fly at a place that 
isn’t currently under
  the authority of a GFA duty instructor.

No amount of licensing from CASA can currently modify those requirements.

Technically you could import your own glider, get your own CofA and CofR nfrom 
CASA, get a LAME to issue maintenance releases every year, and fly it under the 
authority of your CASA RPL or PPL.

Transferring a GFA registered glider to the CASA register or vice versa will 
almost certainly be prohibitively expensive because GFA’s maintenance system 
isn’t the same as CASA’s, so it probably isn’t practical for an RPL or PPL 
holder to operate without the GFA.

You’d also technically need a CASA CPL holder with a glider endorsement to give 
you an Aeroplane Flight Review every two years, but I’m guessing Cathy could do 
that so that probably isn’t insurmountable.

  - mark


___
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

[Matthew Scutter]

That's correct Bernard but if you have a german licence already an
Australian GPL will be an expensive waste of time and money for you.

Stephen,
The BGA has now merged their system and they have proper licences now (LAPL
S).
Brexit isn't likely to affect EASA it's fundamentally separate institution
to the EU and many non EU countries are in EASA.



On 6 Feb 2017 6:43 PM, "Future Aviation Pty. Ltd." <ec...@internode.on.net>
wrote:

Hi Mathew

I seem to have missed something!
Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a
GPLicence in Australia.
Is that correct and how would one go about it?

Cheers

Bernard



On 6 Feb 2017, at 4:36 pm, Matthew Scutter <yellowplant...@gmail.com> wrote:

The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now. It's a lot of
expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd things, but
they do an excellent job shielding us from CASA paperwork).
Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that having a
licence means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a glider and
fly. It does nothing of the sort. You still need to validate your licence
with the local authority, often at great time and expense. For my german
validation for WGC last year, I had to pay hundreds of Euros and
communicate via FAX (yes! really! they don't 'do' email) to get a 2 week
validation. At the end of the process there was an error in their
interpretation of my request and they issued me a single day validation.
Amending this error required paying the full fee again and starting from
scratch.
The only difference now that we have the licence, is we actually have
something to fax them other than our logbook, which gets over the very
first hurdle of  "where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level
footing with the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going
to get short of CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of
fasttrack validation agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).


>I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German
(and most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white card were
doing it strictly illegally, just no one asked
Yes, this is my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing the
right thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German
glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost any
glider you rent for a foreign WGC will not come from the country hosting
the WGC - i.e. German glider taken to Poland.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. <
ec...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Hi Ulrich
>
> One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our (competition)
> pilots to fly in countries
> that require a proper pilot licence, However, after almost 10 years the
> GPC is still NOT recognised
> overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering down of the original
> requirements has something
> to do with it.
>
> I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence for
> self launching gliders and
> for touring motor gliders - at very considerable expense in time and
> money, I might add.
>
> A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome all these
> issues is to take the next
> step and upgrade the GPCertificate to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be
> keen to learn why this
> has not been progressed.
>
> Richard, can you find out and enlighten the rest of us, please?
>
> Many thanks and kind regards
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:00 pm, Ulrich Stauss <usta...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised
> overseas – was not achieved.
> The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly
> overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually
> done that yet?
>
> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher
> with a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the
> supervision of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the
> upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher
> automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who
> (want to) doctor around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to)
> understand it.
>
> Ulrich
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
> <aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au>] *On Behalf Of *Future Aviation
> Pty. Ltd.
> *Sent:* Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. <
> aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>
> Hi Richard
>
> Please count me in!
> I

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

[Future Aviation Pty . Ltd .]

Hi Mathew

I seem to have missed something!
Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a 
GPLicence in Australia.
Is that correct and how would one go about it?

Cheers

Bernard 

 
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 4:36 pm, Matthew Scutter <yellowplant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now. It's a lot of 
> expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd things, but 
> they do an excellent job shielding us from CASA paperwork).
> Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that having a licence 
> means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a glider and fly. It does 
> nothing of the sort. You still need to validate your licence with the local 
> authority, often at great time and expense. For my german validation for WGC 
> last year, I had to pay hundreds of Euros and communicate via FAX (yes! 
> really! they don't 'do' email) to get a 2 week validation. At the end of the 
> process there was an error in their interpretation of my request and they 
> issued me a single day validation. Amending this error required paying the 
> full fee again and starting from scratch.
> The only difference now that we have the licence, is we actually have 
> something to fax them other than our logbook, which gets over the very first 
> hurdle of  "where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level footing 
> with the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going to get 
> short of CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of fasttrack 
> validation agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).
> 
> 
> >I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German (and most 
> >other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white card were doing it 
> >strictly illegally, just no one asked
> Yes, this is my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing the 
> right thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German 
> glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost any glider 
> you rent for a foreign WGC will not come from the country hosting the WGC - 
> i.e. German glider taken to Poland.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. 
> <ec...@internode.on.net <mailto:ec...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
> Hi Ulrich
> 
> One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our (competition) 
> pilots to fly in countries 
> that require a proper pilot licence, However, after almost 10 years the GPC 
> is still NOT recognised 
> overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering down of the original 
> requirements has something 
> to do with it. 
> 
> I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence for 
> self launching gliders and 
> for touring motor gliders - at very considerable expense in time and money, I 
> might add. 
> 
> A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome all these 
> issues is to take the next 
> step and upgrade the GPCertificate to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be 
> keen to learn why this 
> has not been progressed.
> 
> Richard, can you find out and enlighten the rest of us, please?
> 
> Many thanks and kind regards
> 
> Bernard 
> 
>  
>  
>> On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:00 pm, Ulrich Stauss <usta...@internode.on.net 
>> <mailto:usta...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised 
>> overseas – was not achieved.
>> The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly 
>> overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually 
>> done that yet?
>>  
>> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with 
>> a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the 
>> supervision of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the 
>> upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher 
>> automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want 
>> to) doctor around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand 
>> it.
>>  
>> Ulrich
>>  
>> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
>> <mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au>] On Behalf Of Future 
>> Aviation Pty. Ltd.
>> Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
>> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
>> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>>
>> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>>  
>> Hi Richard
>>  
>&

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

[stephenk]

 Just to clarify, in case anyone misconstrued what I wrote Getting
a GPC/PPL endorsement does not allow a person to fly foreign
aircraft. It is, however, a necessary prerequisite to go through the
process of being allowed to fly a foreign state aircraft.   

The basic rule is this: 

If an aircraft is registered in a certain country, the _only_ people
who can fly it are people with a license from that country. 

This has always been the basic rule since forever.  

 Foreign states will allow a person to fly their registered aircraft
for a short time provided certain conditions are met. Usually with
conditions attached (like no flying for money). In the mid 2000s I
acquired a French validation of my license. I had to supply: 

-Photocopies of the license.
-A certificate from the country of issue confirming the authenticity
of the license and that the pilot is permitted to exercise the
privileges mentioned. 
-Photocopy of a recent medical aptitude certificate attached to the
valid license.
-Photocopy of the last page of the flight notebook certifying the
overall total of flying hours as well as those flown as captain /
pilot in command. 
-Photocopy of the passport or National identity Card.
-2 identity photographs .
-A letter requesting the validation of a foreign license including
both the home address and French address (if possible) of the
claimant. 

So, to fly a German Aircraft you need a validation of your own
license (or get a German license*). To fly a French aircraft you need
a French validation... etc

I did consider (briefly) getting a German license by going through
the German exams. However, even though English is one of the two
recognised air traffic languages, they only did the exams in German.

What has made this a little more complex is that with EASA, there is
now the possibility to fly any European aircraft on an EASA license
(as well as the country specific option). But I believe the country
specific option will conk out  soon and who knows what brexit will do
to British EASA license holders.

And to add slight complication to the mix, the BGA don't have
licenses (same as GFA, and NZ too). The French cope with this because
they have seen it so many times and will accept evidence of membership
of the gliding organisation _and_ a check ride in France, in lieu of
the first dot point above (they still want all the rest as well). Most
other countries simply wont believe you can fly if you cant show a
license.

I will note that the Austrian club I flew at a few years ago had a
Pawnee for a tug which was an "N" reg. The instrument panel had
English placards, and I assume all the pilots had FAA licenses, though
I didn't ask.

For the record, I have flown 15 different aircraft with a mix
of German, French and Austrian registrations. 

SWK

- Original Message -
 From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
@lists.base64.com.au> 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc: 
Sent:Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:06:50 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now. It's a lot
of expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd
things, but they do an excellent job shielding us from CASA
paperwork).Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that
having a licence means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a
glider and fly. It does nothing of the sort. You still need to
validate your licence with the local authority, often at great time
and expense. For my german validation for WGC last year, I had to pay
hundreds of Euros and communicate via FAX (yes! really! they don't
'do' email) to get a 2 week validation. At the end of the process
there was an error in their interpretation of my request and they
issued me a single day validation. Amending this error required paying
the full fee again and starting from scratch. The only difference now
that we have the licence, is we actually have something to fax them
other than our logbook, which gets over the very first hurdle of
 "where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level footing with
the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going to get
short of CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of fasttrack
validation agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).  

 >I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German
(and most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white
card were doing it strictly illegally, just no one asked  Yes, this is
my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing the right
thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German
glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost any
glider you rent for a foreign WGC will not come from the country
hostin

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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:

> In theory the personal legal risk for a CFI should be lower from an L2 Ind Op.

Hang on.

Firstly: At best, the personal legal risk for a CFI is undefined (which is, 
itself, a personal legal risk)

Secondly: At worst, the personal legal risk for someone who issues a rating 
should be around the question of whether the training was IAW the syllabus, and 
whether the trainee performed well enough to demonstrate that they met the 
requirements for the issuance of the rating.

If Joe Bloggs comes to you and says they want an amphibious self-launch rating, 
and you’ve trained him against the amphibious self-launch syllabus, and he’s 
been tested against he conditions of the amphibious self-launch rating, and 
you’ve adequately recorded that those things have happened, then that’s where 
your liability begins and ends.

If he subsequently goes out and crashes himself into a lake, you can show the 
investigator your documentation and say, “He wasn’t broken when he walked out 
of here,” and they’ll express paroxysms of joy over the fact that someone has 
kept enough of a papertrail to make their jobs easy.

You’re not automatically on the hook just because some arseclown goes out and 
kills himself in a crash after you’ve signed them off, if you’ve signed them 
off properly.

If the systems of training, checking, and certification within GFA aren’t 
providing that surety, then they’re clearly and obviously deficient. At the 
very least, they’ll make it impossible for the GFA to tell the regulator that 
their system of training is equivalent to the systems of training provided by 
CASA instructors or other sports aviation systems.

Perhaps CFIs who recognize the existence of those deficiencies might want to 
improve them, or, alternatively, might assess their personal risks and decide 
that they don't want to be CFIs anymore.

   - mark


___
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

[stephenk]

 "A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome
all these issues is to take the next step and upgrade the
GPCertificate to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be keen to learn
why this has not been progressed."
Bernard, the answer is very simple.
Only a "state" can issue licenses. 
The only valid licenses which could be recognisable overseas are ICAO
compliant licenses which (in Australia) only CASA can issue. GFA can
do a lot of things. But issue a license recognised by foreign
governments is not one of them.
SWK
     

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:14:10 +1030
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

Hi Ulrich
 One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our
(competition) pilots to fly in countries  that require a proper pilot
licence, However, after almost 10 years the GPC is still NOT
recognised  overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering
down of the original requirements has something  to do with it.  
 I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence
for self launching gliders and  for touring motor gliders - at very
considerable expense in time and money, I might add.  
 A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome all
these issues is to take the next  step and upgrade the GPCertificate
to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be keen to learn why this  has
not been progressed. 
 Richard, can you find out and enlighten the rest of us, please? 
 Many thanks and kind regards 
 Bernard  
       On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:00 pm, Ulrich Stauss  wrote: 
  The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is
recognised overseas – was not achieved. The GPL, as I understand it,
is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly overseas (BUT not in
Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually done that yet?

   Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a
self-launcher with a C certificate (plus corresponding
training/endorsement) under the supervision of an instructor(?). And
now the call from someone within the upper rungs of the GFA that
“anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS
annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor
around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand it.

  Ulrich

   FROM: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
[2]] ON BEHALF OF Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.
SENT: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
TO: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
SUBJECT: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

   Hi Richard

  Please count me in!

  I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25
years and can operate without any restrictions or interference by
others.

  The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often
even hold a PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues
as 

  airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of
emergencies, air law etc. 

  Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised
operations. Why can't we do the same??? 

  Bernard  

   

On 5 Feb 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 HAPP

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

[Matthew Scutter]

The GPL exists and it is real. You can get one right now. It's a lot of
expensive CASA paperwork (I do begrudge the GFA for a few odd things, but
they do an excellent job shielding us from CASA paperwork).
Though there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that having a
licence means you can just go to a foreign country, jump in a glider and
fly. It does nothing of the sort. You still need to validate your licence
with the local authority, often at great time and expense. For my german
validation for WGC last year, I had to pay hundreds of Euros and
communicate via FAX (yes! really! they don't 'do' email) to get a 2 week
validation. At the end of the process there was an error in their
interpretation of my request and they issued me a single day validation.
Amending this error required paying the full fee again and starting from
scratch.
The only difference now that we have the licence, is we actually have
something to fax them other than our logbook, which gets over the very
first hurdle of  "where's your equivalent licence?". We are now on level
footing with the rest of the non-EASA world and it's as good as it's going
to get short of CASA joining EASA (GOD HELP US ALL) or some kind of
fasttrack validation agreement between CASA/GFA/EASA (plausible?).


>I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German
(and most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white card were
doing it strictly illegally, just no one asked
Yes, this is my understanding too. Even pilots who think they are doing the
right thing are often not. For example, a validation to fly a German
glider... only allows you to fly German gliders in Germany. Almost any
glider you rent for a foreign WGC will not come from the country hosting
the WGC - i.e. German glider taken to Poland.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. <
ec...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Hi Ulrich
>
> One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our (competition)
> pilots to fly in countries
> that require a proper pilot licence, However, after almost 10 years the
> GPC is still NOT recognised
> overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering down of the original
> requirements has something
> to do with it.
>
> I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence for
> self launching gliders and
> for touring motor gliders - at very considerable expense in time and
> money, I might add.
>
> A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome all these
> issues is to take the next
> step and upgrade the GPCertificate to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be
> keen to learn why this
> has not been progressed.
>
> Richard, can you find out and enlighten the rest of us, please?
>
> Many thanks and kind regards
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
>
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:00 pm, Ulrich Stauss <usta...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised
> overseas – was not achieved.
> The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly
> overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually
> done that yet?
>
> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher
> with a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the
> supervision of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the
> upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher
> automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who
> (want to) doctor around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to)
> understand it.
>
> Ulrich
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
> <aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au>] *On Behalf Of *Future Aviation
> Pty. Ltd.
> *Sent:* Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. <
> aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>
> Hi Richard
>
> Please count me in!
> I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years
> and can operate without any restrictions or interference by others.
> The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even
> hold a PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as
> airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies,
> air law etc.
>
> Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised
> operations. Why can't we do the same???
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> i put my hand up to take this to the exec. who else (must be GFA member) i
> can count on for support?
>

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

[Future Aviation Pty . Ltd .]

Hi Ulrich

One of the reasons for implementing the GPC was to allow our (competition) 
pilots to fly in countries 
that require a proper pilot licence, However, after almost 10 years the GPC is 
still NOT recognised 
overseas and I can’t help but feel that the watering down of the original 
requirements has something 
to do with it. 

I did not wait any longer and extended my German Glider Pilot Licence for self 
launching gliders and 
for touring motor gliders - at very considerable expense in time and money, I 
might add. 

A licence might be a dirty word for some but one way to overcome all these 
issues is to take the next 
step and upgrade the GPCertificate to a GPLicence. Like others, I would be keen 
to learn why this 
has not been progressed.

Richard, can you find out and enlighten the rest of us, please?

Many thanks and kind regards

Bernard 

 
 
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:00 pm, Ulrich Stauss <usta...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised 
> overseas – was not achieved.
> The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly 
> overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually 
> done that yet?
>  
> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with 
> a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the 
> supervision of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the 
> upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher 
> automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want 
> to) doctor around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand 
> it.
>  
> Ulrich
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.
> Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>  
> Hi Richard
>  
> Please count me in!
> I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years and 
> can operate without any restrictions or interference by others.
> The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even hold 
> a PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as 
> airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies, air 
> law etc. 
>  
> Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised operations. 
> Why can't we do the same??? 
>  
> Bernard  
>  
>  
>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>> 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 

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

[Ulrich Stauss]

“I think that the least risk approach is to ensure that if a pilot is cleared 
to fly a self launcher, then that process should also include tests to pass for 
L2 ops.”

 

See Mark Newton and SWK’s posts – even first solo’s can be in self-launchers. 
So before becoming active to change the MOSP I suggest to read and understand 
it first. Maybe what you really want is a (small?) change to the requirements 
for L2 Ind Op to make it more accessible?

In theory the personal legal risk for a CFI should be lower from an L2 Ind Op.

 

L1 Ind Op is a bit silly in my view – either you can be trusted to fly 
independently or you can’t and why should the club/CFI be held responsible for 
somebody else’s actions.

 

GFA and club office holders abusing their positions is something for the 
conflict resolution process to deal with (similar to how the social media 
issues that started the original thread which resulted in this discussion have 
been/are being dealt with).

 

Ulrich

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Richard Frawley
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 13:33
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 

Ulrich,

 

First thing, I am no longer on the exec. 

 

My observation over the last 10 years, is that several pilots I know have asked 
their CFI for L1 and L2 and have been refused, often without any reasons given.

 

This type of behaviour is inappropriate in my view, but it is made harder as is 
has been pointed out by others,  that training  isweakly documented (compared 
to a PPL syllabus) and therefore is open to interpretation and may I add abuse.

 

If a club wants to try and protect their assets by not issuing L1/l2, I guess 
they have the right to do so, but does that really reduce risk of operation or 
just the perceived personal risk of the CFI?

 

If a private operator wants L1/L2, then the route to that should not be 
subjective. If they pass publicly published knowledge tests then they should 
they not be issued?

 

I think that the least risk approach is to ensure that if a pilot is cleared to 
fly a self launcher, then that process should also include tests to pass for L2 
ops. 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 6 Feb 2017, at 1:30 pm, Ulrich Stauss <usta...@internode.on.net 
<mailto:usta...@internode.on.net> > wrote:

 

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the L2 Independent Operator endorsement has 
always allowed glider pilots to operate independently within Australia (at 
least as much as that is possible). The question is why don’t pilots take that 
route?

 

IIRC the GPC (or better GPL) initially was meant to be a “license equivalent” 
to be able to fly overseas. The (political?) process then gave us the GPC which 
was bolted into the MOSP in a fairly incomplete way and left clubs and 
instructors to implement the changed syllabus (which was given as a list of dot 
points) somehow on their own. As can be expected this resulted in any number of 
different interpretations the manifestations of which we are discussing here. 
The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised 
overseas – was not achieved.

The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly 
overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually done 
that yet?

 

Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with a 
C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the supervision 
of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the upper rungs of 
the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS 
annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor around with the 
MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand it.

 

Ulrich

 

From: Aus-soaring [ <mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au> 
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Future Aviation 
Pty. Ltd.
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. < 
<mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au> aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 

Hi Richard

 

Please count me in!

I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years and can 
operate without any restrictions or interference by others.

The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even hold a 
PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as 

airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies, air 
law etc. 

 

Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised operations. 
Why can't we do the same??? 

 

Bernard  

 

 

On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.

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

[stephenk]

I have considered getting the GPC/PPL endorsement for flying in
Europe (Austria) as I visit there every couple of years. But it was
all somewhat too hard (and when I visited this past Christmas, it
was winter and the local club wasn't flying anyway). 

If I ever retire to Europe for an extended period I _may_ get a bit
more serious about an endorsement on my PPL.  

 " ...whereas the traditional route of finding someone amenable
inside the LBA was ironically much more straightforward". 

I am pretty sure that up till the mid 2000s, people flying German
(and most other European countries) gliders on the old GFA white
card were doing it strictly illegally, just no one asked.  The
introduction of EASA licensing put the spotlight on the issue.

The only country at that time which had a formal method of dealing
with "non licensed" glider pilots was France, because of the number of
BGA pilots who spent time there. 

SWK

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 6 Feb 2017 14:10:41 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

>The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots
to fly overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has
anyone actually done that yet? 
Yes, I have an FAA licence issued on the back of my GPL. It wasn't too
painful, except for having to pickup the FAA licence in person(!) 
I also received a temporary German validation to fly based off it, but
the process was far more complex and expensive than it was without the
GPL - but I suspect this is because we're now going in the front door
of the LBA, whereas the traditional route of finding someone amenable
inside the LBA was ironically much more straightforward.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the L2 Independent Operator
endorsement has always allowed glider pilots to operate independently
within Australia (at least as much as that is possible). The question
is why don’t pilots take that route? 

  

IIRC the GPC (or better GPL) initially was meant to be a “license
equivalent” to be able to fly overseas. The (political?) process
then gave us the GPC which was bolted into the MOSP in a fairly
incomplete way and left clubs and instructors to implement the changed
syllabus (which was given as a list of dot points) somehow on their
own. As can be expected this resulted in any number of different
interpretations the manifestations of which we are discussing here.
The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is
recognised overseas – was not achieved. 

The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots
to fly overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has
anyone actually done that yet? 

  

Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a
self-launcher with a C certificate (plus corresponding
training/endorsement) under the supervision of an instructor(?). And
now the call from someone within the upper rungs of the GFA that
“anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS
annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor
around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand it. 

  

Ulrich 

 
  

Links:
--
[1] mailto:usta...@internode.on.net

___
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

[stephenk]

I've personally sent one person (first) solo in a G109 and also been
involved in sending a number of cadets (first) solo in Motor Falkes.

SWK 

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:51:45 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 On Feb 6, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:
 Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a
self-launcher with a C certificate (plus corresponding
training/endorsement) under the supervision of an instructor(?).  
You can do all of your ab initio training in a self-launcher,
including first solo. 
 Far from needing a C Certificate to fly in, you can use one to get
your C certificate.  
 And now the call from someone within the upper rungs of the GFA that
“anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS
annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor
around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand it.

 MOSP Pt 2 20.1.2 doesn’t require a C certificate. 
 It’d be a bit odd for an operational rating to need a sporting
qualification as a prerequisite. (notwithstanding that the MOSP has
maintained that oddness on many occasions in the past) 
 The “self-retrieving … [to] an alternative safe landing site”
purpose in 20.1.3 looks like a pretty stretchable loophole :-) 
   - mark 



Links:
--
[1] mailto:usta...@internode.on.net

___
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

[Matthew Scutter]

>The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly
overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually
done that yet?

Yes, I have an FAA licence issued on the back of my GPL. It wasn't too
painful, except for having to pickup the FAA licence in person(!)

I also received a temporary German validation to fly based off it, but the
process was far more complex and expensive than it was without the GPL -
but I suspect this is because we're now going in the front door of the LBA,
whereas the traditional route of finding someone amenable inside the LBA
was ironically much more straightforward.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Ulrich Stauss <usta...@internode.on.net>
wrote:

> Please correct me if I’m wrong but the L2 Independent Operator endorsement
> has always allowed glider pilots to operate independently within Australia
> (at least as much as that is possible). The question is why don’t pilots
> take that route?
>
>
>
> IIRC the GPC (or better GPL) initially was meant to be a “license
> equivalent” to be able to fly overseas. The (political?) process then gave
> us the GPC which was bolted into the MOSP in a fairly incomplete way and
> left clubs and instructors to implement the changed syllabus (which was
> given as a list of dot points) somehow on their own. As can be expected
> this resulted in any number of different interpretations the manifestations
> of which we are discussing here. The main aim – to provide a piece of paper
> or plastic that is recognised overseas – was not achieved.
>
> The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly
> overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually
> done that yet?
>
>
>
> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher
> with a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the
> supervision of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the
> upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher
> automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who
> (want to) doctor around with the MOSP should actually read and (try to)
> understand it.
>
>
>
> Ulrich
>
>
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] *On
> Behalf Of *Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.
> *Sent:* Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. <
> aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>
>
>
> Hi Richard
>
>
>
> Please count me in!
>
> I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years
> and can operate without any restrictions or interference by others.
>
> The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even
> hold a PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as
>
> airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies,
> air law etc.
>
>
>
> Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised
> operations. Why can't we do the same???
>
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>
> 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."
>
&

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

[Richard Frawley]

for a private owner with a SL, this has to be a nonsense rule and I suspect it 
gets broken a lot.

I really think its time for this rule to significantly modified.

John, Bernard, others…do you want your new owners of the shiny new SL aircraft 
you sell constrained by this?




> On 6 Feb 2017, at 2:02 pm, Al Borowski  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ulrich,
> 
> On 06/02/2017, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:
>> Please correct me if I’m wrong but the L2 Independent Operator endorsement
>> has always allowed glider pilots to operate independently within Australia
>> (at least as much as that is possible). The question is why don’t pilots
>> take that route?
>> 
> 
> I suspect the requirements may have something to do with it.
> 
> 100 hours command (>5x restricted RAA license, more than a level 1
> gliding instructor)
> Club committee approval
> Requires blessing of CFI every year
> 
> This still means you have to belong to a training club (else you would
> have no CFI), so scratch the "get a few qualified friends, buy a 2nd
> hand glider and launch from a winch" approach.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al
> ___
> 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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 6, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:
> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with 
> a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the 
> supervision of an instructor(?).

You can do all of your ab initio training in a self-launcher, including first 
solo.

Far from needing a C Certificate to fly in, you can use one to get your C 
certificate.

> And now the call from someone within the upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone 
> cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. 
> Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor around with the MOSP should 
> actually read and (try to) understand it.

MOSP Pt 2 20.1.2 doesn’t require a C certificate.

It’d be a bit odd for an operational rating to need a sporting qualification as 
a prerequisite. (notwithstanding that the MOSP has maintained that oddness on 
many occasions in the past)

The “self-retrieving … [to] an alternative safe landing site” purpose in 20.1.3 
looks like a pretty stretchable loophole :-)

  - mark


___
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

[Ulrich Stauss]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but the L2 Independent Operator endorsement has 
always allowed glider pilots to operate independently within Australia (at 
least as much as that is possible). The question is why don’t pilots take that 
route?

 

IIRC the GPC (or better GPL) initially was meant to be a “license equivalent” 
to be able to fly overseas. The (political?) process then gave us the GPC which 
was bolted into the MOSP in a fairly incomplete way and left clubs and 
instructors to implement the changed syllabus (which was given as a list of dot 
points) somehow on their own. As can be expected this resulted in any number of 
different interpretations the manifestations of which we are discussing here. 
The main aim – to provide a piece of paper or plastic that is recognised 
overseas – was not achieved.

The GPL, as I understand it, is now supposed to allow glider pilots to fly 
overseas (BUT not in Australia). Just out of interest, has anyone actually done 
that yet?

 

Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with a 
C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the supervision 
of an instructor(?). And now the call from someone within the upper rungs of 
the GFA that “anyone cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS 
annotated on GPC“. Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor around with the 
MOSP should actually read and (try to) understand it.

 

Ulrich

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.
Sent: Monday, 6 February 2017 09:57
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 

Hi Richard

 

Please count me in!

I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years and can 
operate without any restrictions or interference by others.

The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even hold a 
PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as 

airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies, air 
law etc. 

 

Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised operations. 
Why can't we do the same??? 

 

Bernard  

 

 

On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com> > 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> > 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com> > 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 

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

[emillis prelgauskas]

As occurs in other parts of gliding, the issue of pilot responsibility vs 
club/instructor ’supervision’ 
has many constituent parts.

- the existing fiction is that the national body ‘controls’ the sport
whereas a reality is that at each individual flying site the control/supervision
relies on local circumstance.

example from my own life: an individual chiding me for operating on a Council 
owned public aerodrome
and trying to exercise control by asserting a formal position within the 
national gliding hierarchy
when in that circumstance in law only an employee of the Council could do that.

- where a gliding club controls a flying site, by lease or ownership, their 
interest in ‘control’
is about maintaining their reputation in their community.
So that you as a visiting pilot don’t do something that puts their butt in a 
sling for the future.

- where you are intending to use a gliding club asset - glider or launch method 
- the club
has an interest in that asset being cared for; in many cases this ‘check’ is 
foisted onto the duty
instructor to achieve this

- where (motor)gliding is operating with other aviation forms, there is the 
constant baseline
of query (‘what, you switch the engine off?’) which puts the perception of 
gliding amongst
fellow (sport)aviators in the mix; necessitating an extra level of considerate 
collegiate behaviour;
again a club might place the onus for that behaviour compliance on the duty 
instructor

- beyond this are the more direct impositions on pilot and instructor: what are 
the local expectations
of capability. in some places airspace/radio monitoring is irrelevant, in some 
you can’t go cross country
because of terrain, in some local places special requirements apply (mountain 
sites with unique
wind and downdraught patterns, etc.)
let alone piloting skill norms - can (s)he fly the particular type, in what 
weather limits, is the flying
by rote or sensitive to the available soaring potential (lift lines, thermals, 
wave, slope, etc.)

A ‘certificate’, ‘license’, ‘rating’ is applied across these. Boring holes in 
the sky, steady speed, altitude
and awareness of procedure, radio, traffic is one thing.
Gliding is so much more; which is why people do it.

Thank you for the inputs.
Something to think about.

Emilis


 
On 6 Feb 2017, at 11:04 am, Greg Wilson  wrote:
> If we really want to stop the dwindling numbers in gliding, giving pilots 
> responsibility for their flying is a very good place to start as it increases 
> the likelihood of attracting other pilots into the sport.
___
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

[Greg Wilson]

Gliding is seen as a nanny state by other forms of aviation. This is one reason 
why many pilots from other genres leave gliding or are reluctant to try it - 
they refuse to accept ongoing supervision as the norm.

In any form of certification there will be always be those who excel and others 
who just meet the minimum requirements. As long as the process and requirements 
are well documented this is acceptable. If we're providing GPCs to glider 
pilots they're meaningless unless they allow those pilots to fly unsupervised.

In reality, a L2 instructor at launch has no control over any pilot who goes 
XC. Once they've left the airfield each pilot is responsible for their own 
flight and safety. To pretend otherwise is fantasy.

If we really want to stop the dwindling numbers in gliding, giving pilots 
responsibility for their flying is a very good place to start as it increases 
the likelihood of attracting other pilots into the sport.


Greg Wilson





 On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 10:57:18 +1100 Laurie 
Simpkinslahi...@hotmail.com wrote  

   Hi,
  While some PPL holders may be active pilots a lot aren't in my experience and 
keep current flying the tug. I had instances of pilots not being able to find 
the strip I landed on 30 klms away and another on a ferry flight having to ask 
me which way to head as he was lost.
  Possibly not their fault entirely as mostly go up and down at club, not 
current xc pilots and bi-annuals are often nothing more than a circuit in a 
familiar aerodrome. Usually doing all the tug pilots that day to keep the cost 
down.
 Maybe PPL need a currency rating ie no cross country in last 2 years (power or 
glider) you need to do a nav. I know the price of maintaining my PPL is one of 
the reasons I let it lapse. 
 I don't know if just having the piece of paper makes you a great pilot. I've 
seen some notable exceptions.
 
 
 cheers
 Laurie
 
 
 
 
 
 
   From: Future Aviation Pty.Ltd. ec...@internode.on.net
 Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2017 11:26 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW  
 
Hi Richard 
 
 Please count me in!
 I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years and 
can operate without any restrictions or interference by others.
 The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even hold 
a PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as 
 airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies, air 
law etc. 
 
 
 Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised operations. 
Why can't we do the same??? 
 
 
 Bernard  
 
 
  
On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley rjfraw...@gmail.com 
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 james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
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  rjfraw...@gmail.com 
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) 

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

[Laurie Simpkins]

Hi,

 While some PPL holders may be active pilots a lot aren't in my experience and 
keep current flying the tug. I had instances of pilots not being able to find 
the strip I landed on 30 klms away and another on a ferry flight having to ask 
me which way to head as he was lost.

 Possibly not their fault entirely as mostly go up and down at club, not 
current xc pilots and bi-annuals are often nothing more than a circuit in a 
familiar aerodrome. Usually doing all the tug pilots that day to keep the cost 
down.

Maybe PPL need a currency rating ie no cross country in last 2 years (power or 
glider) you need to do a nav. I know the price of maintaining my PPL is one of 
the reasons I let it lapse.

I don't know if just having the piece of paper makes you a great pilot. I've 
seen some notable exceptions.


cheers

Laurie





From: Future Aviation Pty.Ltd. <ec...@internode.on.net>
Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2017 11:26 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

Hi Richard

Please count me in!
I have held a L2 independent operator endorsement for the last 25 years and can 
operate without any restrictions or interference by others.
The same should apply for other suitably qualified pilots who often even hold a 
PPL. After all, they have been examined on such issues as
airspace, weather assessment, radio procedures, handling of emergencies, air 
law etc.

Obviously CASA saw fit to allow them independent and unsupervised operations. 
Why can't we do the same???

Bernard


On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:06 pm, Richard Frawley 
<rjfraw...@gmail.com<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> 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 
<james.mcdowal...@gmail.com<mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>> 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 
<rjfraw...@gmail.com<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> 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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. 
<ec...@internode.on.net<mailto:ec...@internode.on.net>> wrote:

Hi James, hello all

I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the head 
coach for SA.

Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued
for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
but I was told that only CASA has the authority
to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control a

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

[Future Aviation Pty . Ltd .]

Hi Richard 

When I was on the panel a set of rules was drafted which clearly defined the 
knowledge base and the necessary qualification for GPC holders. 
However, the panel was later overruled and the requirements were subsequently 
watered down. Since I have stepped back but it now seems 
to me that it is mainly up to CFIs to issue Glider Pilot Certificates without a 
formal exam or clearly defined prerequisites. Please correct me if 
I’m wrong! 
I agree, if we want to be taken seriously by the regulator (and by other 
aviation disciplines for that matter) we need to get our act together and 
get a formal system in place. Otherwise outsiders will always treat us with a 
high degree of suspicion. 

But that is only my opinion. 

Bernard  

> On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:10 am, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> guys
> 
> Like others i have a PPL (fixed and rotary). i never got my IFR.
> 
> the question I would like to know is what skills and knowledge are required 
> to attain L2 ops.
> 
> if this is just some subjective thing under some random control of a CFI, how 
> is that in anyway acceptable.
> 
> Having gained a PPL is was a very structured process. Its all layed out and 
> highly repeatable, why is gliding not the same. GPC seemed to have improved 
> that a bit, but still seems random in comparison. how is that good?
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 11:45 PM, Al Borowski <al.borow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net>
>>> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
>>> 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

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

[Robert Izatt]

I always thought it was kinda comical the concept of a glider pilot being 
“supervised" by an instructor on the ground. For example - the club president 
who got “lost” 6 kms from the home airfield and outlanded on a local flight. Or 
the pilot with a C certificate who passed 500ft above me and oblivious to me, 
who when asked for his position said he was at position X heading west when he 
was at position Y heading east and still hadn’t seen me. These were and are 
flaws in the training program and the issuing of quals where pilots are given a 
C cert without having done any XC training apart from a landing into what was 
little more than a mown cross strip. Is it any wonder CFI’s etc get nervous? 
Where is the XC training regime? As has been said you need to look at the 
system. I guess in many clubs, club two seaters aren’t available with a 
suitable person ( given lots of instructors haven’t been XC in ages) to coach 
and assess, to set a task and go XC for even an hour or two out of glide, have 
the student fly the aircraft the whole flight and not outland, so the glider is 
available for someone else that day.
Look at the GPC requirements 38. Demonstrated cross country capability; That’s 
it! What does it even mean and I know there are GPC’s issued where comments are 
made like “ we don’t do XC here so its not relevant” That’s the box to be 
ticked that says you are fit for a GPC. Nothing quantifiable as in a PPL or RA. 
Maybe a Silver C where it was a booming day and the pilot in a fast glass 
aircraft takes 5 hrs to go 50kms and back taking every 6kt thermal he 
accidentally bumps into . Again when unknown Fred comes to your club with a 
GPC, as CFI wouldn’t you be nervous?



> On 6 Feb. 2017, at 5:40 am, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> guys
> 
> Like others i have a PPL (fixed and rotary). i never got my IFR.
> 
> the question I would like to know is what skills and knowledge are required 
> to attain L2 ops.
> 
> if this is just some subjective thing under some random control of a CFI, how 
> is that in anyway acceptable.
> 
> Having gained a PPL is was a very structured process. Its all layed out and 
> highly repeatable, why is gliding not the same. GPC seemed to have improved 
> that a bit, but still seems random in comparison. how is that good?
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 11:45 PM, Al Borowski <al.borow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net>
>>> 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.
>>&g

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

[Richard Frawley]

guys

Like others i have a PPL (fixed and rotary). i never got my IFR.

the question I would like to know is what skills and knowledge are required to 
attain L2 ops.

if this is just some subjective thing under some random control of a CFI, how 
is that in anyway acceptable.

Having gained a PPL is was a very structured process. Its all layed out and 
highly repeatable, why is gliding not the same. GPC seemed to have improved 
that a bit, but still seems random in comparison. how is that good?



> On 5 Feb 2017, at 11:45 PM, Al Borowski <al.borow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net>
>> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>
>> 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 nec

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 <roedi...@internode.on.net> 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 <roedi...@internode.on.net>
> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>
> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
> 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 

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

[Damien Gates]

Hi Noel,

 

I don’t understand what you mean. Can you explain?

 

???  RAA can operate freely in Australian airspace except controlled airspace 
with appropriate endorsements (XC and Radio). You can fly a RAA registered 
aircraft at Archerfield. 

 

When it comes to PPL one of major credentials you need to fly CTA is... Radio 
(and of course a transponder equipped aircraft).

 

In RAA, get just get your XC rating and you are operating far more 
independently than the GFA model.

 

Tex

 

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Noel Roediger
Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2017 6:04 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 

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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com> > 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
<mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> > 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
<mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com> > 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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. <ec...@internode.on.net 
<mailto:ec...@internode.on.net> > wrote:

 

Hi James, hello all

 

I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the head 
coach for SA.

 

Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 

for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
but I was told that only CASA has the authority 

to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this reason 
we are now stuck with a certificate rather 

than a licence. 

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

[Noel Roediger]

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 <roedi...@internode.on.net> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. <ec...@internode.on.net> 
wrote:

 

Hi James, hello all

 

I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the head 
coach for SA.

 

Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 

for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
but I was told that only CASA has the authority 

to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this reason 
we are now stuck with a certificate rather 

than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies that 
you can operate free of interference by others.

 

For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that 

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

[Noel Roediger]

Matt.

 

You’ve basically answered your own question.

 

Re-read my response to Jim.

 

Noel.

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Matthew Scutter
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 7:37 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 

I found it thoroughly entertaining being required to do a site check, in order 
to fly my own glider, despite having just flown myself into that site in a 
powered aircraft.

 

I was for a while a member of Ziggy and Marta's 'Just Soaring' club while I was 
doing the competition circuit without a real base. They kindly waived the 5$/yr 
membership dues in exchange for putting my flights on the OLC in their club 
name. I never actually went to their site. Unfortunately no longer operating(?)

 

I was also confused as to who exactly Noel was referring to as not being 
qualified to fly in exactly what airspace. Do we actually have more privileges 
currently than RAAUS & RPL's? We can (occasionally) get clearances into 
controlled airspace, which I believe RAAUS & RPL's can't do without special 
additional endorsement? Not that they've ever given me my requests, but perhaps 
asking for FL180 through a 4500ft CTA step was a bridge too far

 

 

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:

On 5 Feb 2017, at 3:35 PM, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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

Needs to be equivalent to CASA RPL (plus or minus a short transition training 
course).

GPC should be the bridge between disciplines. In the same way that a qualified 
RAAus pilot can fill out a form and do a checkride to get an RPL, a qualified 
GFA pilot should be able to do likewise.

(If the GPC and RPL are equivalent, and a keen pilot can’t organize a crew, at 
they can go to their local GA or RAAus school and rent a Eurofox or something 
instead)


> 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.

The issue isn’t whether a pilot can be independent from anyone at all; it’s 
whether they can be independent of a club.

There are regularly aircraft listed in the classifieds section of Gliding 
Australia for less than $30k. Three mates should be able to tip in $10,000 
each, and own an aircraft cheaper than a jet-ski. Having bought it, there 
should be no reason why they need to get involved in any gliding clubs anymore, 
if they don’t want to.

In the same way that getting a launch at a comp is a simple commercial 
transaction, there should be no reason why syndicate pilots can’t front-up at 
any random gliding operation and say, “Here’s ten bucks, can you squeeze me 
into your winch launch queue?” without also submitting to club bylaws and the 
judgement of an instructor.

You don’t need to be a club member to operate a GA or RAAus aircraft out of 
Gawler. Why should you need to be a club member to operate a glider off the 
same runway?

(Some clubs insist on “site checks” before someone can soar there — Why? GA 
pilots don’t need site checks, why should glider pilots? Shouldn’t unique 
aspects of a site be documented in its ERSA entry, and shouldn’t a pilot's 
training and airmanship be adequate for them to judge their own operational 
risks? If a site’s complexities are treated as some kind of secret data that 
can only be disclosed during a site check, the system is failing)



  - mark


___
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

[Justin Couch]

On 5/02/2017 8:41 PM, Richard Frawley wrote:


i must look up the MOSPs and see what i have "to know/be skilled at" to attain 
L2 or is is at some mystical behest of a CFI.


In a nutshell, there isn't any requirements to be passed. It will be 
issued by the CFI and club, and reviewed/renewed annually.



I have heard of several clubs where the CFI will not issue L2 under any 
circumstance. why would they take that position?


Given the stats cited previously, I think that's the position of almost 
every club.



--
Justin
___
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

[Richard Frawley]

i must look up the MOSPs and see what i have "to know/be skilled at" to attain 
L2 or is is at some mystical behest of a CFI. 

I have heard of several clubs where the CFI will not issue L2 under any 
circumstance. why would they take that position?



 

> On 5 Feb 2017, at 5:52 PM, Greg Wilson  wrote:
> 
> I think this is a step in the right direction. Even better if L1 & L2 ops 
> were abolished altogether and all holders of GPC fly without supervision.
> 
> 
> Greg Wilson
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:36:06 +1100 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 Aviation Pty. Ltd.  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi James, hello all
> 
> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the 
> head coach for SA.
> 
> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 
> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
> but I was told that only CASA has the authority 
> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this 
> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather 
> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies 
> that you can operate free of interference by others.
> 
> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is 
> no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 
> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 
> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what 
> has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators to 
> join. This will continue until suitably qualified 
> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in 
> many cases have much less knowledge, less 
> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved.
> 
> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors 
> panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 
> this has occurred in other parts of the country. 

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

[Mark Newton]

Every GFA club gets audited by GFA every two years.

The audit is supposed to ensure that the club’s operation is safe, and that its 
instructional standards are consistent with GFA’s syllabus.

If every club in the nation is teaching faithfully to GFA’s syllabus, but 
churning out pilots who aren’t qualified to operate freely within Australian 
airspace, then the syllabus is broken, and the training system is a failure.

GFA officeholders should be absolutely horrified to hear that GFA-trainined 
pilots who pass GFA annual checkflights administered by GFA instructors audited 
against the GFA training syllabus by GFA level-3’s aren’t qualified to be 
operating in class G/E airspace.

The entire basis of GFA’s deed with CASA is predicated on the assertion that 
GFA’s training is equivalent to anyone else’s training. 

Which clubs are training these pilots? Which L3’s signed-off satisfactory 
biennial ops checks on them? Have you brought this to the GFA’s attention for 
rectification? Have you suggested to the pilots that they seek remedial 
training?

  - mark



On 5 Feb 2017, at 7:04 PM, Noel Roediger <roedi...@internode.on.net> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> 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.
>&g

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

[Mark Newton]

On 5 Feb 2017, at 3:35 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

Needs to be equivalent to CASA RPL (plus or minus a short transition training 
course).

GPC should be the bridge between disciplines. In the same way that a qualified 
RAAus pilot can fill out a form and do a checkride to get an RPL, a qualified 
GFA pilot should be able to do likewise.

(If the GPC and RPL are equivalent, and a keen pilot can’t organize a crew, at 
they can go to their local GA or RAAus school and rent a Eurofox or something 
instead)


> 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.

The issue isn’t whether a pilot can be independent from anyone at all; it’s 
whether they can be independent of a club.

There are regularly aircraft listed in the classifieds section of Gliding 
Australia for less than $30k. Three mates should be able to tip in $10,000 
each, and own an aircraft cheaper than a jet-ski. Having bought it, there 
should be no reason why they need to get involved in any gliding clubs anymore, 
if they don’t want to.

In the same way that getting a launch at a comp is a simple commercial 
transaction, there should be no reason why syndicate pilots can’t front-up at 
any random gliding operation and say, “Here’s ten bucks, can you squeeze me 
into your winch launch queue?” without also submitting to club bylaws and the 
judgement of an instructor.

You don’t need to be a club member to operate a GA or RAAus aircraft out of 
Gawler. Why should you need to be a club member to operate a glider off the 
same runway?

(Some clubs insist on “site checks” before someone can soar there — Why? GA 
pilots don’t need site checks, why should glider pilots? Shouldn’t unique 
aspects of a site be documented in its ERSA entry, and shouldn’t a pilot's 
training and airmanship be adequate for them to judge their own operational 
risks? If a site’s complexities are treated as some kind of secret data that 
can only be disclosed during a site check, the system is failing)


  - mark


___
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

[Noel Roediger]

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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com> 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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. <ec...@internode.on.net> 
wrote:

 

Hi James, hello all

 

I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the head 
coach for SA.

 

Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 

for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
but I was told that only CASA has the authority 

to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this reason 
we are now stuck with a certificate rather 

than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies that 
you can operate free of interference by others.

 

For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is no 
longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 

Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 

many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what 
has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding

over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators to 
join. This will continue until suitably qualified 

pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in many 
cases have much less knowledge, less 

know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved.

 

I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors 
panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 

this h

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

[stephenk]

 
 Why limit it to self launch?

Auto tow is a viable method of launching gliders and suitable cars
would be comparatively cheap.
There used to be at least 2 privately owned winches in South
Australia. 
Privately owned tugs in Australia. There would be a few. 

Would also alleviate the problem found in small clubs where every one
is fine with an operation, but the instructor simply cant get there.
(This was one of the issues I spoke to the GFA exec member about at
Waikerie, 20ish years ago, that I referred to earlier)

Regards
SWK

- Original Message -
From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:36:06 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 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?)   


___
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

[Greg Wilson]

I think this is a step in the right direction. Even better if L1  L2 ops 
were abolished altogether and all holders of GPC fly without supervision.


Greg Wilson





 On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:36:06 +1100 Richard Frawley 
rjfraw...@gmail.com 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 james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
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 rjfraw...@gmail.com 
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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. 
ec...@internode.on.net wrote:

Hi James, hello all

I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the head 
coach for SA.


Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 
for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
but I was told that only CASA has the authority 
to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this reason 
we are now stuck with a certificate rather 
than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies that 
you can operate free of interference by others.


For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is no 
longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 
Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 
many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what 
has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators to 
join. This will continue until suitably qualified 
pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in many 
cases have much less knowledge, less 
know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved.


I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors 
panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 
this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the affected 
individuals have left the sport or switched to 
power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s not 
forget that the power jockey's gain came at 
our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are 
largely on the decline.


I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such a 
long time that many of us are unwilling to even 
contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the medium 
term it will undoubtedly be 

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

[James McDowall]

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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. <
>> ec...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi James, hello all
>>
>> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the
>> head coach for SA.
>>
>> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal
>> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued
>> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate
>> (GPC) but I was told that only CASA has the authority
>> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this
>> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather
>> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies
>> that you can operate free of interference by others.
>>
>> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system
>> is no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing.
>> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem
>> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what
>> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and
>> what has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
>> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential
>> aviators to join. This will continue until suitably qualified
>> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who
>> in many cases have much less knowledge, less
>> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s)
>> involved.
>>
>> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by
>> instructors panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that
>> this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the
>> affected individuals have left the sport or switched to
>> power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s
>> not forget that the power jockey's gain came at
>> our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are
>> largely on the decline.
>>
>> I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such
>> a long time that many 

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

[Richard Frawley]

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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi James, hello all
>> 
>> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the 
>> head coach for SA.
>> 
>> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
>> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 
>> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
>> but I was told that only CASA has the authority 
>> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this 
>> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather 
>> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies 
>> that you can operate free of interference by others.
>> 
>> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is 
>> no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 
>> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
>> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 
>> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what 
>> has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
>> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators 
>> to join. This will continue until suitably qualified 
>> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in 
>> many cases have much less knowledge, less 
>> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved.
>> 
>> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors 
>> panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 
>> this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the 
>> affected individuals have left the sport or switched to 
>> power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s 
>> not forget that the power jockey's gain came at 
>> our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are 
>> largely on the decline.
>> 
>> I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such a 
>> long time that many of us are unwilling to even 
>> contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the medium 
>> term it 

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

[James McDowall]

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 Aviation Pty. Ltd. <
> ec...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
> Hi James, hello all
>
> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the
> head coach for SA.
>
> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal
> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued
> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate
> (GPC) but I was told that only CASA has the authority
> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this
> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather
> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies
> that you can operate free of interference by others.
>
> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system
> is no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing.
> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem
> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what
> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and
> what has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators
> to join. This will continue until suitably qualified
> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in
> many cases have much less knowledge, less
> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s)
> involved.
>
> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by
> instructors panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that
> this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the
> affected individuals have left the sport or switched to
> power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s
> not forget that the power jockey's gain came at
> our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are
> largely on the decline.
>
> I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such
> a long time that many of us are unwilling to even
> contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the
> medium term it will undoubtedly be another nail in the
> gliding coffin down under.
>
> However, gliding is not yet in the coffin, and we should not lose hope
> altogether. Some of you might recall my series of articles
> with the title “Time for a change?”. These articles were published in
> 'Gliding Australia’ and proved to be the trigger for the GFA
> to implement the GPC. However, to my way of thinking this should have only
> been the first step. The logical next step would
> be to bring our system in line with best overseas 

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

[Richard Frawley]

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 Aviation Pty. Ltd.  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi James, hello all
> 
> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the 
> head coach for SA.
> 
> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 
> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
> but I was told that only CASA has the authority 
> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this 
> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather 
> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies 
> that you can operate free of interference by others.
> 
> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is 
> no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 
> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 
> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what 
> has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators to 
> join. This will continue until suitably qualified 
> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in 
> many cases have much less knowledge, less 
> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved.
> 
> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors 
> panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 
> this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the 
> affected individuals have left the sport or switched to 
> power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s not 
> forget that the power jockey's gain came at 
> our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are 
> largely on the decline.
> 
> I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such a 
> long time that many of us are unwilling to even 
> contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the medium 
> term it will undoubtedly be another nail in the
> gliding coffin down under.
> 
> However, gliding is not yet in the coffin, and we should not lose hope 
> altogether. Some of you might recall my series of articles 
> with the title “Time for a change?”. These articles were published in 
> 'Gliding Australia’ and proved to be the trigger for the GFA 
> to implement the GPC. However, to my way of thinking this should have only 
> been the first step. The logical next step would 
> be to bring our system in line with best overseas practices. Unfortunately it 
> won’t happen if we don’t get organised and if we 
> don’t drive the necessary changes at grass root level. Only when we push very 
> hard and collectively will we stand a chance 
> to convince the GFA to act and that is time to act NOW.
> 
> Kind regards to all
> 
> Bernard 
> 
> PS: On request I will make my articles “Time for a change?” available to 
> members of this great forum. I just love it
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 9:13 am, James McDowall > > wrote:
>> 
>> CFI's (Cheif Flying Instructors) responsibility should end when you get a 
>> GPC (which really should be a GPL valid in Australia).
>> 
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Richard Frawley > > wrote:
>> Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted and 
>> set up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains between 
>> CASA and the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase the GFA?
>> 
>> If anyone thinks that you can get a better deal from CASA in terms of the 
>> required process and structure, then you are most welcome to get on the GFA 
>> exec and give it a go.
>> 
>> Given what CASA demanded in order that the community keep what freedom we 
>> 

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

[Future Aviation Pty . Ltd .]

Hi James, hello all

I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the head 
coach for SA.

Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 
for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate (GPC) 
but I was told that only CASA has the authority 
to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this reason 
we are now stuck with a certificate rather 
than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies that 
you can operate free of interference by others.

For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system is no 
longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 
Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 
many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and what 
has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators to 
join. This will continue until suitably qualified 
pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in many 
cases have much less knowledge, less 
know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) involved.

I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by instructors 
panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 
this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the affected 
individuals have left the sport or switched to 
power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s not 
forget that the power jockey's gain came at 
our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are 
largely on the decline.

I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such a 
long time that many of us are unwilling to even 
contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the medium 
term it will undoubtedly be another nail in the
gliding coffin down under.

However, gliding is not yet in the coffin, and we should not lose hope 
altogether. Some of you might recall my series of articles 
with the title “Time for a change?”. These articles were published in 'Gliding 
Australia’ and proved to be the trigger for the GFA 
to implement the GPC. However, to my way of thinking this should have only been 
the first step. The logical next step would 
be to bring our system in line with best overseas practices. Unfortunately it 
won’t happen if we don’t get organised and if we 
don’t drive the necessary changes at grass root level. Only when we push very 
hard and collectively will we stand a chance 
to convince the GFA to act and that is time to act NOW.

Kind regards to all

Bernard 

PS: On request I will make my articles “Time for a change?” available to 
members of this great forum. I just love it



> On 5 Feb 2017, at 9:13 am, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> CFI's (Cheif Flying Instructors) responsibility should end when you get a GPC 
> (which really should be a GPL valid in Australia).
> 
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Richard Frawley  > wrote:
> Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted and 
> set up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains between CASA 
> and the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase the GFA?
> 
> If anyone thinks that you can get a better deal from CASA in terms of the 
> required process and structure, then you are most welcome to get on the GFA 
> exec and give it a go.
> 
> Given what CASA demanded in order that the community keep what freedom we 
> have (ie not go to a GA style process), no one will will argue that what we 
> have is not a compromise, but I can tell you that without the 2+ years lot of 
> effort went into the last major round with CASA we would be a lot worse off.
> 
> If you think that anyone in the last few series of GFA exec teams wanted to 
> keep any of the current structure for their own personal empowerment, how 
> wrong you are. It simply means you have not met or known the people involved 
> nor being involved the activities that were required.
> 
> The only abuse of ‘power’ I have personally observed has been at the CFI and 
> associated Instructor Panel level. Unfortunately, in the current structure 
> they are not actually accountable to anyone and can put rules and process in 
> place as they wish. In this sadly, I have seen some club members treated 
> quite badly and without justification.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 7:28 am, James McDowall > > wrote:
>> 
>> Nonsense, as the document says the parties to the agreement are the GFA and 
>> CASA. Sure, I agree to the rules of the association which may include the 
>> Operational regulations referred to in CAO 95.4 

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

[Richard Frawley]

never black and white is it…and all this subject to legal interpretation and 
testing in courts of law.

agree with the last point, but as owners of aircraft clubs can do whatever they 
want to protect their aircraft but there is also consequence in over stepping 
with too much restriction

private owners should be able to operate as they wish, but again the owner of a 
tug may request certain experiences and skills

self launchers can do as they like, as per RA, L2 should be part of GPC






> On 5 Feb 2017, at 9:43 am, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> The Deed between GFA and CASA has nothing to do with the GFA Operational 
> Regulations which are the agreed operational arrangements for gliding as 
> required by CAO 95.4. The Deed as it is titled is a funding agreement 
> (Funding for the self administering activities of the Gliding Federation of 
> Australia Inc.) and has a number of statement of expectations including:
> "6. In appropriate coordination with CASA, investigate alleged breaches of 
> the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR), the Civil Aviation Safety 
> Regulations 1998 (CASR) and the GFA Operational Regulations and other manuals 
> and directives of the GFA by member pilots of sailplanes, powered sailplanes 
> and power -assisted sailplanes; "
> The Deed may actually be in breach of S.97AB of the Act.
> CASA only delegates it powers - it still retains the responsibility and 
> cannot delegate its proprietorial powers so the role of the GFA is simply as 
> a reporter and behavioral modifier within its own rules. And then there is 
> ATSB but that is another story.
> It is not about "getting a better deal from CASA" it is about the gliding 
> community deciding which operational arrangements are best suited to promote 
> the activity into the future.  The current arrangements with CASA are not 
> iron clad and the real problem lays with the internal rule making - eg if 
> CASA is prepared to let RA-Aus pilots fly independently after say 20 hours of 
> supervision why should GFA pilots not have the same liberty?. Clubs may not 
> want this for their aircraft but this is for their own reasons and private 
> operators should have the liberty to operate independently.
> CFI's (Cheif Flying Instructors) responsibility should end when you get a GPC 
> (which really should be a GPL valid in Australia).
> 
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Richard Frawley  > wrote:
> Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted and 
> set up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains between CASA 
> and the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase the GFA?
> 
> If anyone thinks that you can get a better deal from CASA in terms of the 
> required process and structure, then you are most welcome to get on the GFA 
> exec and give it a go.
> 
> Given what CASA demanded in order that the community keep what freedom we 
> have (ie not go to a GA style process), no one will will argue that what we 
> have is not a compromise, but I can tell you that without the 2+ years lot of 
> effort went into the last major round with CASA we would be a lot worse off.
> 
> If you think that anyone in the last few series of GFA exec teams wanted to 
> keep any of the current structure for their own personal empowerment, how 
> wrong you are. It simply means you have not met or known the people involved 
> nor being involved the activities that were required.
> 
> The only abuse of ‘power’ I have personally observed has been at the CFI and 
> associated Instructor Panel level. Unfortunately, in the current structure 
> they are not actually accountable to anyone and can put rules and process in 
> place as they wish. In this sadly, I have seen some club members treated 
> quite badly and without justification.
> 
> 
> 
>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 7:28 am, James McDowall > > wrote:
>> 
>> Nonsense, as the document says the parties to the agreement are the GFA and 
>> CASA. Sure, I agree to the rules of the association which may include the 
>> Operational regulations referred to in CAO 95.4 (which are different to 
>> GFA's Operational regulations) but members are not party to the agreement 
>> entered into by the incorporated separate legal entity that is the GFA.
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Richard Frawley > > wrote:
>> 
>> Did you know that the Deed with Casa is between the glider pilot and CASA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 11:06 pm, Mark Newton >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson >> > wrote:
>>> 
 One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make 
 GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of 

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

[James McDowall]

The Deed between GFA and CASA has nothing to do with the GFA Operational
Regulations which are the agreed operational arrangements for gliding as
required by CAO 95.4. The Deed as it is titled is a funding agreement
(Funding for the self administering activities of the Gliding Federation of
Australia Inc.) and has a number of statement of expectations including:
"6. In appropriate coordination with CASA, investigate alleged breaches of
the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR), the Civil Aviation Safety
Regulations 1998 (CASR) and the GFA Operational Regulations and other
manuals and directives of the GFA by member pilots of sailplanes, powered
sailplanes and power -assisted sailplanes; "
The Deed may actually be in breach of S.97AB of the Act.
CASA only delegates it powers - it still retains the responsibility and
cannot delegate its proprietorial powers so the role of the GFA is simply
as a reporter and behavioral modifier within its own rules. And then there
is ATSB but that is another story.
It is not about "getting a better deal from CASA" it is about the gliding
community deciding which operational arrangements are best suited to
promote the activity into the future.  The current arrangements with CASA
are not iron clad and the real problem lays with the internal rule making -
eg if CASA is prepared to let RA-Aus pilots fly independently after say 20
hours of supervision why should GFA pilots not have the same liberty?.
Clubs may not want this for their aircraft but this is for their own
reasons and private operators should have the liberty to operate
independently.
CFI's (Cheif Flying Instructors) responsibility should end when you get a
GPC (which really should be a GPL valid in Australia).

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:

> Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted
> and set up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains
> between CASA and the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase
> the GFA?
>
> If anyone thinks that you can get a better deal from CASA in terms of the
> required process and structure, then you are most welcome to get on the GFA
> exec and give it a go.
>
> Given what CASA demanded in order that the community keep what freedom we
> have (ie not go to a GA style process), no one will will argue that what we
> have is not a compromise, but I can tell you that without the 2+ years lot
> of effort went into the last major round with CASA we would be a lot worse
> off.
>
> If you think that anyone in the last few series of GFA exec teams wanted
> to keep any of the current structure for their own personal empowerment,
> how wrong you are. It simply means you have not met or known the people
> involved nor being involved the activities that were required.
>
> The only abuse of ‘power’ I have personally observed has been at the CFI
> and associated Instructor Panel level. Unfortunately, in the current
> structure they are not actually accountable to anyone and can put rules and
> process in place as they wish. In this sadly, I have seen some club members
> treated quite badly and without justification.
>
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 7:28 am, James McDowall 
> wrote:
>
> Nonsense, as the document says the parties to the agreement are the GFA
> and CASA. Sure, I agree to the rules of the association which may include
> the Operational regulations referred to in CAO 95.4 (which are different to
> GFA's Operational regulations) but members are not party to the agreement
> entered into by the incorporated separate legal entity that is the GFA.
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Richard Frawley 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Did you know that the Deed with Casa is between the glider pilot and CASA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 11:06 pm, Mark Newton  wrote:
>>
>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson  wrote:
>>
>> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make
>> GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2
>> instructor's presence at launch.
>>
>> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to
>> control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated
>> system to be relinquished.
>>
>>
>> It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft.
>> It evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations.
>>
>> GFA implements a chain of command:
>>
>> Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not
>> meant to believe that)
>>
>> Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a
>> "rank." Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of
>> the layer above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is
>> "responsible" for the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is
>> "responsible" for the panel. And so on.
>>
>> Sitting at the 

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

[Richard Frawley]

Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted and set 
up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains between CASA and 
the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase the GFA?

If anyone thinks that you can get a better deal from CASA in terms of the 
required process and structure, then you are most welcome to get on the GFA 
exec and give it a go.

Given what CASA demanded in order that the community keep what freedom we have 
(ie not go to a GA style process), no one will will argue that what we have is 
not a compromise, but I can tell you that without the 2+ years lot of effort 
went into the last major round with CASA we would be a lot worse off.

If you think that anyone in the last few series of GFA exec teams wanted to 
keep any of the current structure for their own personal empowerment, how wrong 
you are. It simply means you have not met or known the people involved nor 
being involved the activities that were required.

The only abuse of ‘power’ I have personally observed has been at the CFI and 
associated Instructor Panel level. Unfortunately, in the current structure they 
are not actually accountable to anyone and can put rules and process in place 
as they wish. In this sadly, I have seen some club members treated quite badly 
and without justification.



> On 5 Feb 2017, at 7:28 am, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> Nonsense, as the document says the parties to the agreement are the GFA and 
> CASA. Sure, I agree to the rules of the association which may include the 
> Operational regulations referred to in CAO 95.4 (which are different to GFA's 
> Operational regulations) but members are not party to the agreement entered 
> into by the incorporated separate legal entity that is the GFA.
> 
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Richard Frawley  > wrote:
> 
> Did you know that the Deed with Casa is between the glider pilot and CASA
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 11:06 pm, Mark Newton > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson > > wrote:
>> 
>>> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make 
>>> GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2 
>>> instructor's presence at launch.
>>> 
>>> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to 
>>> control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated 
>>> system to be relinquished.
>> 
>> It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft. It 
>> evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations.
>> 
>> GFA implements a chain of command: 
>> 
>> Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not meant 
>> to believe that)
>> 
>> Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a "rank." 
>> Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of the 
>> layer above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is 
>> "responsible" for the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is 
>> "responsible" for the panel. And so on. 
>> 
>> Sitting at the middle of everything is GFA, HQ, setting policy centrally, 
>> implemented by the chain of command.
>> 
>> It's all right there in the MOSP ("standing orders.")
>> 
>> I speculated earlier that it happened like this in the 1950s because so many 
>> of the early GFA people had military aviation involvement, so setting up a 
>> command hierarchy would've been a natural way to approach civilian aviation. 
>> Society was a lot more hierarchical then too.
>> 
>> It isn't anymore.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA. 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>> 
>> Can't be here. GFA started their own website forums for members specifically 
>> so they wouldn't need to listen to this one.
>> 
>> Members need to get upset about this. Get organised.
>> 
>>  - mark
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

___
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

[James McDowall]

Nonsense, as the document says the parties to the agreement are the GFA and
CASA. Sure, I agree to the rules of the association which may include the
Operational regulations referred to in CAO 95.4 (which are different to
GFA's Operational regulations) but members are not party to the agreement
entered into by the incorporated separate legal entity that is the GFA.

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Richard Frawley 
wrote:

>
> Did you know that the Deed with Casa is between the glider pilot and CASA
>
>
>
>
> On 4 Feb 2017, at 11:06 pm, Mark Newton  wrote:
>
> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson  wrote:
>
> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make
> GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2
> instructor's presence at launch.
>
> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to
> control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated
> system to be relinquished.
>
>
> It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft.
> It evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations.
>
> GFA implements a chain of command:
>
> Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not
> meant to believe that)
>
> Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a "rank."
> Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of the
> layer above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is
> "responsible" for the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is
> "responsible" for the panel. And so on.
>
> Sitting at the middle of everything is GFA, HQ, setting policy centrally,
> implemented by the chain of command.
>
> It's all right there in the MOSP ("standing orders.")
>
> I speculated earlier that it happened like this in the 1950s because so
> many of the early GFA people had military aviation involvement, so setting
> up a command hierarchy would've been a natural way to approach civilian
> aviation. Society was a lot more hierarchical then too.
>
> It isn't anymore.
>
>
>
> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA.
> What do you think?
>
>
> Can't be here. GFA started their own website forums for members
> specifically so they wouldn't need to listen to this one.
>
> Members need to get upset about this. Get organised.
>
>  - mark
>
>
> ___
> 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] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Richard Frawley]

Did you know that the Deed with Casa is between the glider pilot and CASA




> On 4 Feb 2017, at 11:06 pm, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson  > wrote:
> 
>> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make 
>> GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2 
>> instructor's presence at launch.
>> 
>> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to 
>> control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated 
>> system to be relinquished.
> 
> It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft. It 
> evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations.
> 
> GFA implements a chain of command: 
> 
> Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not meant 
> to believe that)
> 
> Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a "rank." 
> Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of the layer 
> above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is "responsible" for 
> the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is "responsible" for the 
> panel. And so on. 
> 
> Sitting at the middle of everything is GFA, HQ, setting policy centrally, 
> implemented by the chain of command.
> 
> It's all right there in the MOSP ("standing orders.")
> 
> I speculated earlier that it happened like this in the 1950s because so many 
> of the early GFA people had military aviation involvement, so setting up a 
> command hierarchy would've been a natural way to approach civilian aviation. 
> Society was a lot more hierarchical then too.
> 
> It isn't anymore.
> 
> 
>> 
>> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA. 
>> What do you think?
>> 
> 
> Can't be here. GFA started their own website forums for members specifically 
> so they wouldn't need to listen to this one.
> 
> Members need to get upset about this. Get organised.
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[Richard Frawley]

yes, what value does the L2 actually provide and what knowledge gap exists

> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson  wrote:
> 
> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make GPC 
> holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2 
> instructor's presence at launch.
> 
> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to control 
> pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated system to be 
> relinquished.
> 
> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA. 
> What do you think?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Greg Wilson
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 11:13:37 +1100 James 
> McDowall wrote 
> 
> Before it is worth spending another cent on marketing gliding, it is 
> essential to get the product right. After 30 years of flogging the current 
> model all that has been achieved is a 50% reduction in membership. In the 
> same period the population of Australia increased by 50% so the market 
> penetration of the product has fallen by two thirds. Any commercial product 
> manager who did not address the product deficiencies in this situation who 
> most certainly end up unemployed.
> 
> The fundamental problem is that the core membership have a propensity to say 
> “I bought the product and it works for me so it is a good product.” This 
> illusory logic is what has caused some notable marketing failures from the 
> Ford Edsel to Kodak to Blackberry and Nokia.
> 
> The problem is illustrated in this forum where many experienced and 
> passionate glider pilots, many of them not currently involved in the activity 
> (is it really a sport?), have identified that the product is wrong for the 
> current marketplace.
> 
> Over the decades GFA and others have sought to “market” the product ie join a 
> club, be a volunteer, get fried in the sun and always be under the control of 
> a CFI even if he/she is not even near the airfield.
> 
> Gliding is not really a cheap alternative to RA_Aus. You and a couple of 
> mates can buy a Jab for $25K and have a heap of fun. Registration and 
> membership cost are lower and maintenance costs are similar until the donk 
> spits a dummy in which case there of plenty of secondhand motors around. In 
> the meantime many flyng hours on your terms.
> 
> Gliding needs to get closer to the GA / RA-Aus model. The days of primary 
> gliders on the Wussekrappe are well gone. Independent operation of gliders 
> needs to be encouraged not seen as a distant goal for a newbie. Self 
> launchers should be mandatory for training (GFA could use its millions to 
> help out here), commercial training operations encouraged to unload clubs of 
> the responsibility and GFA should get out of the rule writing business.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Stuart Wolf  wrote:
> It would be interesting to get a survey to that effect. I have found that 
> with the people I have tried to recruit. Those who show an interest see it as 
> a high performance sport.
> 
> Aside from the sporting aspect, what does gliding hope to offer a new member?
> Cheap flying? Prices are compatible to RA-Aus.
> Convenient flying? No matter about procedural changes at the club level 
> powered will always have the upper hand.
> Professional opportunities? Again, RA aus can be converted to GA and 
> commercial much easier
> Cost of ownership? I have much more options in Ra Australia, especially at 
> the lower end of the market. 
> 
> Instead of trying to copy RA aus's attraction (on which gliding will always 
> be on the back foot) we should be chasing the people who want what Ra Aus 
> doesnt offer.
> 
> I've found that sharing tasks and talking about performance of people at 
> comps has attracted more follow up and continuing engagement on the topic 
> than the flying aspect. 
> 
> The people who I have got interested in the flying have moved on to RA Aus 
> for the exact reasons I've stated
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, February 3, 2017, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> Regarding the competition pilot vs. non-competition pilot debate, I don't 
> think I've met a junior that hasn't been, or doesn't want to go to Joeyglide. 
> Perhaps in the broader population competition pilots are under represented, 
> but amongst younger pilots (fresh blood) it seems to swing the other way.
> 
> On 3 Feb 2017 2:56 PM, "Greg Wilson"  wrote:
> In an attempt to get a worthwhile discussion get back on track. Not my ideas 
> but a brief summary of this conversation so far.
> 
> Perceived problems:
> 
> GFA administration
> Overly focused on competition carried out by a tiny minority of pilots
> Resistant to change
> Minimum required to deal with CASA
> 
> Clubs  
> Membership declining
> 
> Training
> Volunteer based - not providing scheduled and efficient training expected by 
> younger people
> Instructors need to be paid

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

[Greg Wilson]

One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be 
to make GPC holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2 
instructor's presence at launch.I can understand how the current system evolved 
from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for 
this outdated system to be relinquished.Enough discussion here may even start 
movement in that direction from GFA. What do you think?Regards,Greg Wilson 
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 11:13:37 +1100  James McDowall 
wrote  Before it is worth spending another cent on marketing gliding, it is 
essential to get the product right. After 30 years of flogging the current 
model all that has been achieved is a 50% reduction in membership. In the same 
period the population of Australia increased by 50% so the market penetration 
of the product has fallen by two thirds. Any commercial product manager who did 
not address the product deficiencies in this situation who most certainly end 
up unemployed.The fundamental problem is that the core membership have a 
propensity to say “I bought the product and it works for me so it is a good 
product.” This illusory logic is what has caused some notable marketing 
failures from the Ford Edsel to Kodak to Blackberry and Nokia.The problem 
is illustrated in this forum where many experienced and passionate glider 
pilots, many of them not currently involved in the activity (is it really a 
sport?), have identified that the product is wrong for the current marketplace. 
   Over the decades GFA and others have sought to “market” the product ie join 
a club, be a volunteer, get fried in the sun and always be under the control of 
a CFI even if he/she is not even near the airfield.  Gliding is not really 
a cheap alternative to RA_Aus. You and a couple of mates can buy a Jab for $25K 
and have a heap of fun. Registration and membership cost are lower and 
maintenance costs are similar until the donk spits a dummy in which case there 
of plenty of secondhand motors around. In the meantime many flyng hours on your 
terms.Gliding needs to get closer to the GA / RA-Aus model. The days of 
primary gliders on the Wussekrappe are well gone. Independent operation of 
gliders needs to be encouraged not seen as a distant goal for a newbie. Self 
launchers should be mandatory for training (GFA could use its millions to help 
out here), commercial training operations encouraged to unload clubs of the 
responsibility and GFA should get out of the rule writing business.   On Fri, 
Feb 3, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Stuart Wolf  wrote:It would be 
interesting to get a survey to that effect. I have found that with the people I 
have tried to recruit. Those who show an interest see it as a high performance 
sport.Aside from the sporting aspect, what does gliding hope to offer a new 
member?Cheap flying? Prices are compatible to RA-Aus.Convenient flying? No 
matter about procedural changes at the club level powered will always have the 
upper hand.Professional opportunities? Again, RA aus can be converted to GA and 
commercial much easierCost of ownership? I have much more options in Ra 
Australia, especially at the lower end of the market. Instead of trying to copy 
RA aus's attraction (on which gliding will always be on the back foot) we 
should be chasing the people who want what Ra Aus doesnt offer.I've found that 
sharing tasks and talking about performance of people at comps has attracted 
more follow up and continuing engagement on the topic than the flying aspect. 
The people who I have got interested in the flying have moved on to RA Aus for 
the exact reasons I've statedOn Friday, February 3, 2017, Matthew Scutter 
 wrote:Regarding the competition pilot vs. 
non-competition pilot debate, I don't think I've met a junior that hasn't been, 
or doesn't want to go to Joeyglide. Perhaps in the broader population 
competition pilots are under represented, but amongst younger pilots (fresh 
blood) it seems to swing the other way.On 3 Feb 2017 2:56 PM, "Greg Wilson" 
 wrote:In an attempt to get a worthwhile discussion get 
back on track. Not my ideas but a brief summary of this conversation so 
far.Perceived problems:GFA administrationOverly focused on competition carried 
out by a tiny minority of pilotsResistant to changeMinimum required to deal 
with CASAClubs  Membership decliningTrainingVolunteer based - not providing 
scheduled and efficient training expected by younger peopleInstructors need to 
be paidPilotsVery few given L2 independent ops so vast majority permanently 
operating under supervision of instructorsGliding responsibility needs to be in 
the hands of the pilot, not club or CFIAging pilotsAircraftMany aging 
glidersmany out of service yet still on registerSolutions??Greg Wilson On 
Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:40:18 +1100 Robert 

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

[Laurie Simpkins]

I have a problem with ever converting to GA or RA-Aus as they don't fly 
gliders. I'm in a gliding club for that reason. I had a PPL but only used it 
for towing ( one of those dumb volunteers I know) but don't have the time or 
money to maintain it.

I enjoyed your post Erich and was suitable insulted as a current GFA 
volunteer[].

I do wonder who we are trying to attract and how these ideas of spending vast 
amount in marketing are going to keep the price down.


Unless we are planning to become a bunch of elitist pilots IMHO we need to 
encourage the average person in to the sport and that in my eyes meaning 
keeping the price down so possibly some one with a wife ,husband, girlfriend, 
boyfriend, cat , dog, family and mortgage can still afford it. (politically 
correct I hope). The wealthier end of market will probably just buy their own 
self launcher anyway, but can still be great club members.

The people I have introduced that where keen only had one issue and that was 
the amount of spare income they had to play with.

 All loved it and couldn't tell the difference between a flying a 40 grand twin 
or a much more expensive duo. Even flew some in the T53 and a Blanik and all 
had a great time so maybe you don't need to learn to drive in the Ferrari as 
some people I have dealt with would have you believe.


The club environment/structure  is set up for looking after members as opposed 
to turning the whole sport commercial.

Nothing against commercial operations and I wish them all the best but many 
have tried before and unless you can afford to be a private owner/ motorglider 
where do you go after learning to fly. A club I assume.


I don't see anybody  addressing the non owner club population or the more 
remote clubs in these solutions.

I doubt the guys in my state at Townsville, Bundy,  Central Qld, Gympie will 
want to travel to some commercial /super club to do their gliding so I wont be 
surprised if the smaller clubs are more resilient than some think. Maybe spend 
some marketing money there except I think a some of the punters hope they die 
out.

As for the ex members who have left the sport ( and still trying to run it or 
criticize it) maybe you need to find a club that suits you and try it again. 
The GFA may not be perfect but has a lot of average members trying their best 
in their spare time as well.

But then my love of gliding prevents me from leaving so maybe im blind to the 
imperfections.


Looking forward to gliding this weekend, and for the others I hope you enjoy 
what ever form of aviation you have chosen.


Laurie









From: Stuart Wolf <stuac...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2017 5:42 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

It would be interesting to get a survey to that effect. I have found that with 
the people I have tried to recruit. Those who show an interest see it as a high 
performance sport.

Aside from the sporting aspect, what does gliding hope to offer a new member?
Cheap flying? Prices are compatible to RA-Aus.
Convenient flying? No matter about procedural changes at the club level powered 
will always have the upper hand.
Professional opportunities? Again, RA aus can be converted to GA and commercial 
much easier
Cost of ownership? I have much more options in Ra Australia, especially at the 
lower end of the market.

Instead of trying to copy RA aus's attraction (on which gliding will always be 
on the back foot) we should be chasing the people who want what Ra Aus doesnt 
offer.

I've found that sharing tasks and talking about performance of people at comps 
has attracted more follow up and continuing engagement on the topic than the 
flying aspect.

The people who I have got interested in the flying have moved on to RA Aus for 
the exact reasons I've stated



On Friday, February 3, 2017, Matthew Scutter 
<yellowplant...@gmail.com<mailto:yellowplant...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Regarding the competition pilot vs. non-competition pilot debate, I don't think 
I've met a junior that hasn't been, or doesn't want to go to Joeyglide. Perhaps 
in the broader population competition pilots are under represented, but amongst 
younger pilots (fresh blood) it seems to swing the other way.

On 3 Feb 2017 2:56 PM, "Greg Wilson" <g...@gregwilson.id.au> wrote:
In an attempt to get a worthwhile discussion get back on track. Not my ideas 
but a brief summary of this conversation so far.

Perceived problems:

GFA administration
Overly focused on competition carried out by a tiny minority of pilots
Resistant to change
Minimum required to deal with CASA

Clubs
Membership declining

Training
Volunteer based - not providing scheduled and efficient training expected by 
younger people
Instructors need to be paid

Pilots
Very few given L2 independent ops so vast majority permanently operating under 
supervision of instru

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

[Stuart Wolf]

It would be interesting to get a survey to that effect. I have found that
with the people I have tried to recruit. Those who show an interest see it
as a high performance sport.

Aside from the sporting aspect, what does gliding hope to offer a new
member?
Cheap flying? Prices are compatible to RA-Aus.
Convenient flying? No matter about procedural changes at the club level
powered will always have the upper hand.
Professional opportunities? Again, RA aus can be converted to GA and
commercial much easier
Cost of ownership? I have much more options in Ra Australia, especially at
the lower end of the market.

Instead of trying to copy RA aus's attraction (on which gliding will always
be on the back foot) we should be chasing the people who want what Ra Aus
doesnt offer.

I've found that sharing tasks and talking about performance of people at
comps has attracted more follow up and continuing engagement on the topic
than the flying aspect.

The people who I have got interested in the flying have moved on to RA Aus
for the exact reasons I've stated



On Friday, February 3, 2017, Matthew Scutter 
wrote:

> Regarding the competition pilot vs. non-competition pilot debate, I don't
> think I've met a junior that hasn't been, or doesn't want to go to
> Joeyglide. Perhaps in the broader population competition pilots are under
> represented, but amongst younger pilots (fresh blood) it seems to swing the
> other way.
>
> On 3 Feb 2017 2:56 PM, "Greg Wilson"  > wrote:
>
>> In an attempt to get a worthwhile discussion get back on track. Not my
>> ideas but a brief summary of this conversation so far.
>>
>> Perceived problems:
>>
>> GFA administration
>> Overly focused on competition carried out by a tiny minority of pilots
>> Resistant to change
>> Minimum required to deal with CASA
>>
>> Clubs
>> Membership declining
>>
>> Training
>> Volunteer based - not providing scheduled and efficient training expected
>> by younger people
>> Instructors need to be paid
>>
>> Pilots
>> Very few given L2 independent ops so vast majority permanently operating
>> under supervision of instructors
>> Gliding responsibility needs to be in the hands of the pilot, not club or
>> CFI
>> Aging pilots
>>
>> Aircraft
>> Many aging gliders
>> many out of service yet still on register
>>
>> Solutions??
>>
>>
>> Greg Wilson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:40:18 +1100 *Robert
>> Izatt> >* wrote 
>>
>> Not entirely true. Many have indicated a direction.
>> Your problem is, for 1 through 4 you have to have willingness and
>> co-operation from the clubs and the management skills at the club level.
>> Most members of a club want to enjoy the activity without having to run a
>> business. You need special or stupid people who are happy to devote
>> countless hours to this when really the club (or some members) doesn’t want
>> to deal with all the hassles of larger numbers, less access to equipment
>> (glider/tug), bigger queues at the flight line etc etc etc. I have been
>> there.
>> And that’s their right and good luck to them.
>>
>>
>> On 2 Feb. 2017, at 11:11 am, Peter Carey > > wrote:
>>
>> This has been a very deep and meaningful discussion and, to me, it was
>> enlightening and educational. Most of the contributions were well thought
>> out and clearly expressed.
>> My only problem is that the conversation was confined to defining the
>> problem and, what we should be concentrating is a solution.
>> We have done the talk, now, let's try to do the walk.
>> I am new to the game (been gliding for 40 years) and a bloody foreigner
>> (living here for 60 years) so, you have to forgive me if I am on the wrong
>> path.
>> We won't be able to solve the membership decline issue with volunteer,
>> amateur way so, we need to look for an alternative and here is one of many.
>>
>> For years the GFA has been sitting on well over a million dollars. I
>> suggest that we spend half of it on professional planning and marketing.
>> We would get an organization to
>> 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for
>> large, medium and small Clubs)
>> 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media
>> campaign.
>> 3. Oversee the implementation of the above.
>> 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the
>> GFA.
>>
>> This is my crude attempt to invite praise, abuse and expansion to the
>> above.
>>
>> “Beside the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of
>> leaving things undone.”
>> ― lin yu tang 
>>
>> Peter Carey
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Erich Wittstock > 

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

[Matthew Scutter]

Regarding the competition pilot vs. non-competition pilot debate, I don't
think I've met a junior that hasn't been, or doesn't want to go to
Joeyglide. Perhaps in the broader population competition pilots are under
represented, but amongst younger pilots (fresh blood) it seems to swing the
other way.

On 3 Feb 2017 2:56 PM, "Greg Wilson"  wrote:

> In an attempt to get a worthwhile discussion get back on track. Not my
> ideas but a brief summary of this conversation so far.
>
> Perceived problems:
>
> GFA administration
> Overly focused on competition carried out by a tiny minority of pilots
> Resistant to change
> Minimum required to deal with CASA
>
> Clubs
> Membership declining
>
> Training
> Volunteer based - not providing scheduled and efficient training expected
> by younger people
> Instructors need to be paid
>
> Pilots
> Very few given L2 independent ops so vast majority permanently operating
> under supervision of instructors
> Gliding responsibility needs to be in the hands of the pilot, not club or
> CFI
> Aging pilots
>
> Aircraft
> Many aging gliders
> many out of service yet still on register
>
> Solutions??
>
>
> Greg Wilson
>
>
>
>
>  On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:40:18 +1100 *Robert
> Izatt>* wrote 
>
> Not entirely true. Many have indicated a direction.
> Your problem is, for 1 through 4 you have to have willingness and
> co-operation from the clubs and the management skills at the club level.
> Most members of a club want to enjoy the activity without having to run a
> business. You need special or stupid people who are happy to devote
> countless hours to this when really the club (or some members) doesn’t want
> to deal with all the hassles of larger numbers, less access to equipment
> (glider/tug), bigger queues at the flight line etc etc etc. I have been
> there.
> And that’s their right and good luck to them.
>
>
> On 2 Feb. 2017, at 11:11 am, Peter Carey  wrote:
>
> This has been a very deep and meaningful discussion and, to me, it was
> enlightening and educational. Most of the contributions were well thought
> out and clearly expressed.
> My only problem is that the conversation was confined to defining the
> problem and, what we should be concentrating is a solution.
> We have done the talk, now, let's try to do the walk.
> I am new to the game (been gliding for 40 years) and a bloody foreigner
> (living here for 60 years) so, you have to forgive me if I am on the wrong
> path.
> We won't be able to solve the membership decline issue with volunteer,
> amateur way so, we need to look for an alternative and here is one of many.
>
> For years the GFA has been sitting on well over a million dollars. I
> suggest that we spend half of it on professional planning and marketing.
> We would get an organization to
> 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for
> large, medium and small Clubs)
> 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media
> campaign.
> 3. Oversee the implementation of the above.
> 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the
> GFA.
>
> This is my crude attempt to invite praise, abuse and expansion to the
> above.
>
> “Beside the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of
> leaving things undone.”
> ― lin yu tang 
>
> Peter Carey
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Erich Wittstock 
> wrote:
>
> ..ahh..the sweet sound of jealousy! ;-)
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mark Newton 
> wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>
> > If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut off
> year for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low performance
> stuff" would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos, Astir
> CS/CS77s and Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s.
>
>
>
> The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.
>
> Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)
>
>- mark
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> *PETER CAREY*
> Executive Member
> The Victorian Vernier Society
> The  Society for People with a Passion for Manufacturing
>
> *'sharing experience - building a better future'*www.vernier.org.au
> 0412464340 <0412%20464%20340>
>
> ___
> 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

[Greg Wilson]

In an attempt to get a worthwhile discussion get back on track. Not my ideas 
but a brief summary of this conversation so far.

Perceived problems:

GFA administration
Overly focused on competition carried out by a tiny minority of pilots
Resistant to change
Minimum required to deal with CASA

Clubs  
Membership declining

Training
Volunteer based - not providing scheduled and efficient training expected by 
younger people
Instructors need to be paid

Pilots
Very few given L2 independent ops so vast majority permanently operating under 
supervision of instructors
Gliding responsibility needs to be in the hands of the pilot, not club or CFI
Aging pilots

Aircraft
Many aging gliders
many out of service yet still on register

Solutions??


Greg Wilson





 On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:40:18 +1100 Robert 
Izattthebunyipboo...@gmail.com wrote  

Not entirely true. Many have indicated a direction.Your problem is, for 1 
through 4 you have to have willingness and co-operation from the clubs and the 
management skills at the club level. Most members of a club want to enjoy the 
activity without having to run a business. You need special or stupid people 
who are happy to devote countless hours to this when really the club (or some 
members) doesn’t want to deal with all the hassles of larger numbers, less 
access to equipment (glider/tug), bigger queues at the flight line etc etc etc. 
I have been there. 
And that’s their right and good luck to them.



On 2 Feb. 2017, at 11:11 am, Peter Carey ca...@ericorp.com.au wrote:

This has been a very deep and meaningful discussion and, to me, it was 
enlightening and educational. Most of the contributions were well thought out 
and clearly expressed.My only problem is that the conversation was confined to 
defining the problem and, what we should be concentrating is a solution.
We have done the talk, now, let's try to do the walk.
I am new to the game (been gliding for 40 years) and a bloody foreigner (living 
here for 60 years) so, you have to forgive me if I am on the wrong path.
We won't be able to solve the membership decline issue with volunteer, amateur 
way so, we need to look for an alternative and here is one of many.


For years the GFA has been sitting on well over a million dollars. I suggest 
that we spend half of it on professional planning and marketing.
We would get an organization to
1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for large, 
medium and small Clubs)
2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media campaign.
3. Oversee the implementation of the above. 
4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the GFA.


This is my crude attempt to invite praise, abuse and expansion to the above.


“Beside the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving 
things undone.” 
― lin yu tang



Peter Carey




On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Erich Wittstock deepb...@gmail.com 
wrote:
..ahh..the sweet sound of jealousy! ;-)

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mark Newton new...@atdot.dotat.org 
wrote:
On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
 
  If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut off 
year for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low performance 
stuff" would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos, Astir CS/CS77s 
and Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s.
 
 
 
 The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.
 
 Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)
 
- mark
 
 
 ___
 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
 





-- 
PETER CAREY
Executive Member
The Victorian Vernier Society
The  Society for People with a Passion for Manufacturing
'sharing experience - building a better future'
www.vernier.org.au
0412464340
 




 
 ___
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] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Robert Izatt]

Not entirely true. Many have indicated a direction.
Your problem is, for 1 through 4 you have to have willingness and co-operation 
from the clubs and the management skills at the club level. Most members of a 
club want to enjoy the activity without having to run a business. You need 
special or stupid people who are happy to devote countless hours to this when 
really the club (or some members) doesn’t want to deal with all the hassles of 
larger numbers, less access to equipment (glider/tug), bigger queues at the 
flight line etc etc etc. I have been there. 
And that’s their right and good luck to them.


> On 2 Feb. 2017, at 11:11 am, Peter Carey  wrote:
> 
> This has been a very deep and meaningful discussion and, to me, it was 
> enlightening and educational. Most of the contributions were well thought out 
> and clearly expressed.
> My only problem is that the conversation was confined to defining the problem 
> and, what we should be concentrating is a solution.
> We have done the talk, now, let's try to do the walk.
> I am new to the game (been gliding for 40 years) and a bloody foreigner 
> (living here for 60 years) so, you have to forgive me if I am on the wrong 
> path.
> We won't be able to solve the membership decline issue with volunteer, 
> amateur way so, we need to look for an alternative and here is one of many.
> 
> For years the GFA has been sitting on well over a million dollars. I suggest 
> that we spend half of it on professional planning and marketing.
> We would get an organization to
> 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for large, 
> medium and small Clubs)
> 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media 
> campaign.
> 3. Oversee the implementation of the above. 
> 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the GFA.
> 
> This is my crude attempt to invite praise, abuse and expansion to the above.
> 
> “Beside the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of 
> leaving things undone.” 
> ― lin yu tang 
> 
> Peter Carey
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Erich Wittstock  > wrote:
> ..ahh..the sweet sound of jealousy! ;-)
> 
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mark Newton  > wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net 
>  wrote:
> 
> > If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut off 
> > year for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low performance 
> > stuff" would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos, Astir 
> > CS/CS77s and Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s.
> 
> 
> 
> The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.
> 
> Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)
> 
>- mark
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PETER CAREY
> Executive Member
> The Victorian Vernier Society
> The  Society for People with a Passion for Manufacturing
> 'sharing experience - building a better future'
> www.vernier.org.au 
> 0412464340
>  
> ___
> 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

[emillis prelgauskas]

My understanding is that at present we have a
Project beyond 3000 underway
(encouraging clubs around Australia to have current members look to re-engage 
former members or engage friends).
To be active in April 2017.

This may sit within a business plan. As it seems similar to an Executive 
Officer initiative by a similar name several years ago. And has drivers similar 
to advocacy from the late Maurice Little to regions years prior.
I am unsure about who the responsible officer in the current case is, or what 
enabling budget is allowed for.

The detail appears to include GFA charging 50% national fee for people taking 
this up, with that money to then go to the engaging club 12 months later.
I haven’t thought through what that incentive represents against the (student) 
pilot’s spend on going to the club, launching, flying, instruction costs for 
that year.

>From each club’s viewpoint, the counterpart consideration is the available 
>resources to service incoming members, and hence to what extent to activate 
>the project within their own circumstance.

Emilis


On 2 Feb 2017, at 11:41 am, Peter Carey  wrote:
> We would get an organization to
> 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for large, 
> medium and small Clubs)
> 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media 
> campaign.
> 3. Oversee the implementation of the above. 
> 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the GFA.
___
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

[Richard Frawley]

peter

I am sure you remember we spoke about creating a centralised marketing budget 
when we were on the exec together.

the challenge is that for mass marketing $500k is insufficient. done properly 
around $2m would be needed to span over a 3 year period.

As a collective, its possible to raise the amount. The challenge however is to 
do primarily with the make up of our community, it being heavily weighted to 
technical and engineering orientations, which in themselves are characterised 
by risk averse natures.

Marketing from the outside appears as very much as an inexact science, but 
watching Gruen (all variants) can however, lead one to the conclusion that this 
is not so much the case after all, but getting a conservative group such as 
gliding is to commit to a $2m spend would simply never happen in my view, 
unless a rich benefactor falls our way.







> On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:11 PM, Peter Carey  wrote:
> 
> This has been a very deep and meaningful discussion and, to me, it was 
> enlightening and educational. Most of the contributions were well thought out 
> and clearly expressed.
> My only problem is that the conversation was confined to defining the problem 
> and, what we should be concentrating is a solution.
> We have done the talk, now, let's try to do the walk.
> I am new to the game (been gliding for 40 years) and a bloody foreigner 
> (living here for 60 years) so, you have to forgive me if I am on the wrong 
> path.
> We won't be able to solve the membership decline issue with volunteer, 
> amateur way so, we need to look for an alternative and here is one of many.
> 
> For years the GFA has been sitting on well over a million dollars. I suggest 
> that we spend half of it on professional planning and marketing.
> We would get an organization to
> 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for large, 
> medium and small Clubs)
> 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media 
> campaign.
> 3. Oversee the implementation of the above. 
> 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the GFA.
> 
> This is my crude attempt to invite praise, abuse and expansion to the above.
> 
> “Beside the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of 
> leaving things undone.” 
> ― lin yu tang
> 
> Peter Carey
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Erich Wittstock  wrote:
>> ..ahh..the sweet sound of jealousy! ;-)
>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mark Newton  wrote:
>>> On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>>> 
>>> > If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut off 
>>> > year for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low performance 
>>> > stuff" would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos, Astir 
>>> > CS/CS77s and Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.
>>> 
>>> Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)
>>> 
>>>- mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PETER CAREY
> Executive Member
> The Victorian Vernier Society
> The  Society for People with a Passion for Manufacturing
> 'sharing experience - building a better future'
> www.vernier.org.au
> 0412464340
>  
> ___
> 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

[Peter Carey]

This has been a very deep and meaningful discussion and, to me, it was
enlightening and educational. Most of the contributions were well thought
out and clearly expressed.
My only problem is that the conversation was confined to defining the
problem and, what we should be concentrating is a solution.
We have done the talk, now, let's try to do the walk.
I am new to the game (been gliding for 40 years) and a bloody foreigner
(living here for 60 years) so, you have to forgive me if I am on the wrong
path.
We won't be able to solve the membership decline issue with volunteer,
amateur way so, we need to look for an alternative and here is one of many.

For years the GFA has been sitting on well over a million dollars. I
suggest that we spend half of it on professional planning and marketing.
We would get an organization to
1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for
large, medium and small Clubs)
2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media
campaign.
3. Oversee the implementation of the above.
4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the
GFA.

This is my crude attempt to invite praise, abuse and expansion to the above.

“Beside the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of
leaving things undone.”
― lin yu tang 

Peter Carey


On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Erich Wittstock  wrote:

> ..ahh..the sweet sound of jealousy! ;-)
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mark Newton 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>>
>> > If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut
>> off year for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low
>> performance stuff" would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos,
>> Astir CS/CS77s and Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.
>>
>> Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)
>>
>>- mark
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>


-- 
*PETER CAREY*
Executive Member
The Victorian Vernier Society
The  Society for People with a Passion for Manufacturing

*'sharing experience - building a better future'*www.vernier.org.au
0412464340
___
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

[Justin Sinclair]

What's shorthand ?



Justin Sinclair
17 Queen st
Scarborough
Qld 4020

Mob 0421061811
Hm 07 3885 8949

Sent from iPhone



On 2 Feb 2017, at 10:07, Mike Borgelt 
<mborg...@internode.on.net<mailto:mborg...@internode.on.net>> wrote:

Oh fer chrissakes !

BTW is web shorthand for "by the way"

The Kookaburra IIRC ( if I remember correctly ) was VH-GHS blown over and then 
de rigged and stored in the open a year or more ago when I saw it. This would 
have been in the 1980s and the reason I was interested is that I was getting a 
new glider and GFA couldn't be bothered getting any decent non awkward regos 
from CASA. Another fine example of GFA "service".
The next glider I put on the register, I went to the CASA register people who 
very helpfully faxed me all the available ones and told me to choose one I 
liked and they would assign it to the GFA which I did and they did.

Mike



On 2 Feb 2017, at 7:46 AM, Peter Brookman 
<peter.brook...@bigpond.com<mailto:peter.brook...@bigpond.com>> wrote:

BTW
Manufacturer:
PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP
Model:
PA-34-200
Serial number:
34-7450107
Engine type:
Piston
No of engines:
2
Aircraft first registered in Australia:
3 June 1974
Year of manufacture:
1974
Registration holder:
TISDALL BTW PTY LTD U 2 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
Registration holder commencement date:
9 May 2016
Registered operator:
FLIGHT ONE (SERVICES) PTY LTD 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
Registered operator commencement date:
9 May 2016

From: Mike Borgelt
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

That was an hour or two after finding one that had been blown over out the back 
of a hangar a couple of years before. It was still on the register. A 
Kookaburra BTW.

Mike

On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:07 PM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@internode.on.net> wrote:

I've pushed a hangar door open and had pieces of a glider still on the register 
fall out of the rafters

Mike

On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:02 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:

Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if it’s 
wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.

The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each year.

Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from the 
GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
form-2 as of that date.

So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are airworthy.

The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.

Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all the 
winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.

Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.

The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
own personal Level 1 to train.

Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three non-instructor 
GFA members.

The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC holders, 
and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be instructors.

I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent Ops. 
 If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing anyone’s 
permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get an 
instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to 
get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be 
that way?

  - mark



On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:






>From the aircraft register of  2013

1220 gliders and motor gliders

950 privately owned

270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.



last year

1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)

981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)

295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)



Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about trends, 
have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in absolute

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

[Mike Borgelt]

Oh fer chrissakes !

BTW is web shorthand for "by the way"

The Kookaburra IIRC ( if I remember correctly ) was VH-GHS blown over and then 
de rigged and stored in the open a year or more ago when I saw it. This would 
have been in the 1980s and the reason I was interested is that I was getting a 
new glider and GFA couldn't be bothered getting any decent non awkward regos 
from CASA. Another fine example of GFA "service".
The next glider I put on the register, I went to the CASA register people who 
very helpfully faxed me all the available ones and told me to choose one I 
liked and they would assign it to the GFA which I did and they did.

Mike



> On 2 Feb 2017, at 7:46 AM, Peter Brookman <peter.brook...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> BTW
> 
> Manufacturer:
> PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP
> Model:
> PA-34-200
> Serial number:
> 34-7450107
> Engine type:
> Piston
> No of engines:
> 2
> Aircraft first registered in Australia:
> 3 June 1974
> Year of manufacture:
> 1974
> Registration holder:
> TISDALL BTW PTY LTD U 2 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
> Registration holder commencement date:
> 9 May 2016
> Registered operator:
> FLIGHT ONE (SERVICES) PTY LTD 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
> Registered operator commencement date:
> 9 May 2016
>  
> From: Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:39 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>  
> That was an hour or two after finding one that had been blown over out the 
> back of a hangar a couple of years before. It was still on the register. A 
> Kookaburra BTW.
>  
> Mike
> 
>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:07 PM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I've pushed a hangar door open and had pieces of a glider still on the 
>> register fall out of the rafters
>>  
>> Mike
>> 
>>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:02 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
>>> it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that 
>>> its deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.
>>>  
>>> The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
>>> year.
>>>  
>>> Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from 
>>> the GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a 
>>> current form-2 as of that date.
>>>  
>>> So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
>>> airworthy.
>>>  
>>> The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
>>> 68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
>>> airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the 
>>> average GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.
>>>  
>>> Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
>>> endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all 
>>> the winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.
>>>  
>>> Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
>>> some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
>>> trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.
>>>  
>>> The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
>>> AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
>>> instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total 
>>> — over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their 
>>> very own personal Level 1 to train.
>>>  
>>> Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
>>> non-instructor GFA members.
>>>  
>>> The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
>>> holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
>>> instructors.
>>>  
>>> I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
>>> Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
>>> anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to 
>>> get an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also 
>>> easier to get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run 
>>> a day.
>>>  
>>> That

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

[Rob Wintulich]

BTW  --By The Way

Not VH registration!

From: Peter Brookman 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:16 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

BTW
Manufacturer: 
PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP
Model: 
PA-34-200
Serial number: 
34-7450107
Engine type: 
Piston
No of engines: 
2
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 
3 June 1974
Year of manufacture: 
1974
Registration holder: 
TISDALL BTW PTY LTD U 2 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
Registration holder commencement date: 
9 May 2016
Registered operator: 
FLIGHT ONE (SERVICES) PTY LTD 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
Registered operator commencement date: 
9 May 2016

From: Mike Borgelt 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

That was an hour or two after finding one that had been blown over out the back 
of a hangar a couple of years before. It was still on the register. A 
Kookaburra BTW.

Mike

On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:07 PM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@internode.on.net> wrote:


  I've pushed a hangar door open and had pieces of a glider still on the 
register fall out of the rafters

  Mike

  On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:02 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:


Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years. 

The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
year. 

Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from 
the GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
form-2 as of that date.

So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
airworthy.

The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.

Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all the 
winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.

Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.

The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
own personal Level 1 to train. 

Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
non-instructor GFA members.

The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
instructors.

I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get 
an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to 
get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it 
wouldn’t be that way?

  - mark



  On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:





  From the aircraft register of  2013

  1220 gliders and motor gliders

  950 privately owned

  270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.



  last year

  1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)

  981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)

  295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)



  Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about 
trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in 
absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point 
out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any one 
year, so it all may be moot anyway).

  gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total) 

  36 private

  28 club

  Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.





  For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on. 








- Original Message -
From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
@lists.base64.com.au&g

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

[Peter Brookman]

BTW
Manufacturer:
PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP
Model:
PA-34-200
Serial number:
34-7450107
Engine type:
Piston
No of engines:
2
Aircraft first registered in Australia:
3 June 1974
Year of manufacture:
1974
Registration holder:
TISDALL BTW PTY LTD U 2 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
Registration holder commencement date:
9 May 2016
Registered operator:
FLIGHT ONE (SERVICES) PTY LTD 224 Qantas Ave ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108 Australia
Registered operator commencement date:
9 May 2016

From: Mike Borgelt
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

That was an hour or two after finding one that had been blown over out the back 
of a hangar a couple of years before. It was still on the register. A 
Kookaburra BTW.

Mike

On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:07 PM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@internode.on.net> wrote:


  I've pushed a hangar door open and had pieces of a glider still on the 
register fall out of the rafters

  Mike

  On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:02 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:


Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.

The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
year.

Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from 
the GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
form-2 as of that date.

So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
airworthy.

The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.

Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all the 
winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.

Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.

The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
own personal Level 1 to train.

Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
non-instructor GFA members.

The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
instructors.

I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get 
an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to 
get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it 
wouldn’t be that way?

  - mark



  On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:





  From the aircraft register of  2013

  1220 gliders and motor gliders

  950 privately owned

  270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.



  last year

  1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)

  981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)

  295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)



  Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about 
trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in 
absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point 
out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any one 
year, so it all may be moot anyway).

  gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)

  36 private

  28 club

  Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.





  For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.








- Original Message -
From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
@lists.base64.com.au>

To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."

Cc:

Sent:
Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100

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


to

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

[Mark Newton]

On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:

> If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut off year 
> for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low performance stuff" 
> would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos, Astir CS/CS77s and 
> Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s. 



The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.

Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)

   - mark


___
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

[stephenk]

That is so James. It is why I said the register numbers are somewhat
moot. 
 I'll add, I think there are probably more private owners flying than
360, because I don't believe all club aircraft are flying either (Back
in the day when I was CFI of a small club, we had 2 two seaters which
we would alternate for various reasons).
Also for smaller/winch clubs, would be surprised if their gliders did
more than some 10s of hours a year either (our club singles used to do
30-50 and our two seaters around 70, and that was a fairly consistent
one day a week operation).

But in any case the "limbo pool" of inactive aircraft (I just had a
look this morning) is large and must contain some comparatively modern
types. That is a big problem.

SWK   

- Original Message -
From: "James McDowall" 
To:, "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc:
Sent:Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:41:52 +1030
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

It doesnt really matter how many gliders are on the register as the
real question is how many are active ie airworthy. This can be
extrapolated from the financial accounts and budgets which would
indicate that approximately 660 form 2's are purchased each year.
Assuming all the club gliders are airworthy that leaves just over 360
private aircraft are actually flown. Maintainers will tell you that
the majority of these fly less than 50 hours.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:34 PM,  wrote:

From the aircraft register of  2013 

1220 gliders and motor gliders 

950 privately owned 

270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. 

last year 

1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual) 

981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual) 

295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual) 

Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about
trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private
ownership (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and
as others will point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia
are given an annual in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway). 

gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total) 


36 private 

28 club 

Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air
cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right
there. 

For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.  

- Original Message -
 From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
@lists.base64.com.au [2]> 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc: 
Sent:Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different
questions

 1) how many gliders are there now?

 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?

 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?

@johnroake.com [3]>@lists.base64.com.au [4]>  
___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [5]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring [6]

 

Links:
--
[1] mailto:steph...@internode.on.net
[2] http://lists.base64.com.au
[3] http://johnroake.com
[4] http://lists.base64.com.au
[5] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[6] 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

[Mark Newton]

On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:11 AM, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> It doesnt really matter how many gliders are on the register as the real 
> question is how many are active ie airworthy. This can be extrapolated from 
> the financial accounts and budgets which would indicate that approximately 
> 660 form 2's are purchased each year. Assuming all the club gliders are 
> airworthy that leaves just over 360 private aircraft are actually flown. 
> Maintainers will tell you that the majority of these fly less than 50 hours.

And yet the fleet average, according to data extracted from form-2 
applications, is over 150 hours per hull.

Go figure.

  - mark


___
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

[Mark Newton]

On 2 Feb 2017, at 4:29 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> is there a population age cliff we are fall off?

Yes. 


   - mark



___
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

[James McDowall]

It doesnt really matter how many gliders are on the register as the real
question is how many are active ie airworthy. This can be extrapolated from
the financial accounts and budgets which would indicate that approximately
660 form 2's are purchased each year. Assuming all the club gliders are
airworthy that leaves just over 360 private aircraft are actually flown.
Maintainers will tell you that the majority of these fly less than 50 hours.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:34 PM, <steph...@internode.on.net> wrote:

>
>
> From the aircraft register of  2013
>
> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
>
> 950 privately owned
>
> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
>
>
> last year
>
> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
>
> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
>
> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
>
>
> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about
> trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership
> (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will
> point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an
> annual in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
>
> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
>
> 36 private
>
> 28 club
>
> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air
> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right
> there.
>
>
>
> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." @
> lists.base64.com.au>
>
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
> Cc:
>
> Sent:
> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>
>
> to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions
>
> 1) how many gliders are there now?
>
> 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?
>
> 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> @johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Richard Frawley]

well, when i membership sec of Southern Cross more than 1/3 of members had 
instructor ratings. mind you only a fraction of that were active. many were 
over 70 years old, i dont remember but maybe half?

what percentage of australian members are over 75 now?

is there a population age cliff we are fall off?







> On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:02 AM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
> Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
> it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
> deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.
> 
> The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
> year.
> 
> Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from the 
> GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
> form-2 as of that date.
> 
> So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
> airworthy.
> 
> The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
> 68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
> airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
> GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.
> 
> Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
> endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all 
> the winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.
> 
> Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
> some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
> trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.
> 
> The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
> AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
> instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
> over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
> own personal Level 1 to train. 
> 
> Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
> non-instructor GFA members.
> 
> The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
> holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
> instructors.
> 
> I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
> Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
> anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to 
> get an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also 
> easier to get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a 
> day.
> 
> That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t 
> be that way?
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From the aircraft register of  2013
>> 
>> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
>> 
>> 950 privately owned
>> 
>> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> last year
>> 
>> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
>> 
>> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
>> 
>> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about 
>> trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership 
>> (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will 
>> point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual 
>> in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
>> 
>> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
>> 
>> 36 private
>> 
>> 28 club
>> 
>> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
>> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From:
>> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
>> @lists.base64.com.au>
>> 
>> To:
>> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
>> Cc:
>> 
>> Sent:
>> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
>> Subject:
>> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>> 
>> 
>> to put a differ

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

[Richard Frawley]

would it be true to say in most clubs there is not a dearth of instructors 
hanging around waiting to fly students?  generally its marginal isn't it?

> On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:26 AM, Paul Bart <pb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mark Newton wrote:
> nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get an instructor 
> rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to get a crew 
> organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.
> 
> That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t 
> be that way?
> 
> 
> Well not really, at best it is a perverse supposition you have made. 
> Potentially there may be some other explanations.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 1 Feb. 2017 23:02, "Mark Newton" <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
> it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
> deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.
> 
> The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
> year.
> 
> Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from the 
> GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
> form-2 as of that date.
> 
> So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
> airworthy.
> 
> The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
> 68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
> airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
> GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.
> 
> Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
> endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all 
> the winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.
> 
> Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
> some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
> trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.
> 
> The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
> AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
> instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
> over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
> own personal Level 1 to train. 
> 
> Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
> non-instructor GFA members.
> 
> The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
> holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
> instructors.
> 
> I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
> Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
> anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to 
> get an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also 
> easier to get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a 
> day.
> 
> That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t 
> be that way?
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From the aircraft register of  2013
>> 
>> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
>> 
>> 950 privately owned
>> 
>> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> last year
>> 
>> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
>> 
>> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
>> 
>> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about 
>> trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership 
>> (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will 
>> point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual 
>> in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
>> 
>> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
>> 
>> 36 private
>> 
>> 28 club
>> 
>> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
>> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

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

[Paul Bart]

Mark Newton wrote:
nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get an instructor
rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to get a
crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it
wouldn’t be that way?


Well not really, at best it is a perverse supposition you have made.
Potentially there may be some other explanations.


Cheers


Paul

On 1 Feb. 2017 23:02, "Mark Newton" <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:

Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if
it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that
its deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.

The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each
year.

Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from
the GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a
current form-2 as of that date.

So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are
airworthy.

The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from
68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every
airworthy GFA aircraft *averaged* 156 hours and 92 launches, making
the *average
*GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.

Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long
endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all
the winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.

Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again,
some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the
trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.

The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189
AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3
instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total
— over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their
very own personal Level 1 to train.

Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three
non-instructor GFA members.

The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC
holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be
instructors.

I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent
Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing
anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to
get an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also
easier to get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run
a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it
wouldn’t be that way?

  - mark



On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:



>From the aircraft register of  2013

1220 gliders and motor gliders

950 privately owned

270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.


last year

1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)

981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)

295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)


Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about
trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership
(in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will
point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an
annual in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).

gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)

36 private

28 club

Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air
cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right
there.



For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.





- Original Message -
From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." @
lists.base64.com.au>

To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Cc:

Sent:
Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
Subject:
Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW


to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions

1) how many gliders are there now?

2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?

3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?







@johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>

___

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] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mike Borgelt]

That was an hour or two after finding one that had been blown over out the back 
of a hangar a couple of years before. It was still on the register. A 
Kookaburra BTW.

Mike

> On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:07 PM, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
> I've pushed a hangar door open and had pieces of a glider still on the 
> register fall out of the rafters
> 
> Mike
> 
>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:02 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
>> it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
>> deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.
>> 
>> The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
>> year.
>> 
>> Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from 
>> the GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a 
>> current form-2 as of that date.
>> 
>> So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
>> airworthy.
>> 
>> The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
>> 68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
>> airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the 
>> average GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.
>> 
>> Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
>> endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all 
>> the winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.
>> 
>> Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
>> some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
>> trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.
>> 
>> The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
>> AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
>> instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
>> over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
>> own personal Level 1 to train. 
>> 
>> Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
>> non-instructor GFA members.
>> 
>> The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
>> holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
>> instructors.
>> 
>> I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
>> Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
>> anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to 
>> get an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also 
>> easier to get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run 
>> a day.
>> 
>> That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t 
>> be that way?
>> 
>>   - mark
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From the aircraft register of  2013
>>> 
>>> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
>>> 
>>> 950 privately owned
>>> 
>>> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> last year
>>> 
>>> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
>>> 
>>> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
>>> 
>>> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about 
>>> trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership 
>>> (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will 
>>> point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual 
>>> in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
>>> 
>>> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
>>> 
>>> 36 private
>>> 
>>> 28 club
>>> 
>>> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
>>> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right 
>>> there.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
&g

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

[Mike Borgelt]

I've pushed a hangar door open and had pieces of a glider still on the register 
fall out of the rafters

Mike

> On 1 Feb 2017, at 9:02 PM, Mark Newton <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
> 
> Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if 
> it’s wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
> deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.
> 
> The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each 
> year.
> 
> Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from the 
> GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
> form-2 as of that date.
> 
> So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are 
> airworthy.
> 
> The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
> 68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
> airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
> GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.
> 
> Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
> endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all 
> the winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.
> 
> Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
> some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
> trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.
> 
> The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
> AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
> instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
> over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
> own personal Level 1 to train. 
> 
> Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three 
> non-instructor GFA members.
> 
> The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC 
> holders, and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be 
> instructors.
> 
> I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent 
> Ops.  If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing 
> anyone’s permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to 
> get an instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also 
> easier to get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a 
> day.
> 
> That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t 
> be that way?
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From the aircraft register of  2013
>> 
>> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
>> 
>> 950 privately owned
>> 
>> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> last year
>> 
>> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
>> 
>> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
>> 
>> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about 
>> trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership 
>> (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will 
>> point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual 
>> in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
>> 
>> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
>> 
>> 36 private
>> 
>> 28 club
>> 
>> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
>> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>> From:
>> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
>> @lists.base64.com.au>
>> 
>> To:
>> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
>> Cc:
>> 
>> Sent:
>> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
>> Subject:
>> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>> 
>> 
>> to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions
>> 
>> 1) how many gliders are there now?
>> 
>> 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?
>> 
>> 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> @johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
>> ___
>> 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] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if it’s 
wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.

The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each year.

Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from the 
GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
form-2 as of that date.

So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are airworthy.

The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.

Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all the 
winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.

Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.

The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
own personal Level 1 to train. 

Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three non-instructor 
GFA members.

The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC holders, 
and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be instructors.

I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent Ops. 
 If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing anyone’s 
permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get an 
instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to 
get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be 
that way?

  - mark



> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the aircraft register of  2013
> 
> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
> 
> 950 privately owned
> 
> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
> 
> 
> 
> last year
> 
> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
> 
> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
> 
> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about trends, 
> have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in 
> absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point 
> out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any 
> one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
> 
> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
> 
> 36 private
> 
> 28 club
> 
> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." @lists.base64.com.au>
> 
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
> 
> 
> to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions
> 
> 1) how many gliders are there now?
> 
> 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?
> 
> 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
> ___
> 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

[Christopher McDonnell]

So! And does anybody check?

From: Richard Frawley 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 6:18 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

someone can correct me but isnt it a valid rego number that counts in this case 
as that happens when it comes into the country,  its easy to see in the GFA 
system if a form 2 has been ordered for any given rego/owner on a given year. 





On 1 Feb 2017, at 7:11 PM, Christopher McDonnell <wommamuku...@bigpond.com> 
wrote:


  (and as others will point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia 
are given an annual in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).

  Gee that’s a worry Stephen.

  Chris

  From: steph...@internode.on.net 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 5:04 PM
  To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
  Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW





  From the aircraft register of  2013

  1220 gliders and motor gliders

  950 privately owned

  270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.



  last year

  1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)

  981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)

  295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)



  Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about trends, 
have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in absolute 
terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point out, only 
about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any one year, so 
it all may be moot anyway).

  gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total) 

  36 private

  28 club

  Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.





  For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on. 








- Original Message -
From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
@lists.base64.com.au>

To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 

Cc:

Sent:
Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100

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


to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions

1) how many gliders are there now?

2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?

3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?







@johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>

--
  ___
  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
___
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

[Richard Frawley]

someone can correct me but isnt it a valid rego number that counts in this case 
as that happens when it comes into the country,  its easy to see in the GFA 
system if a form 2 has been ordered for any given rego/owner on a given year. 





> On 1 Feb 2017, at 7:11 PM, Christopher McDonnell <wommamuku...@bigpond.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> (and as others will point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia 
> are given an annual in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
>  
> Gee that’s a worry Stephen.
>  
> Chris
>  
> From: steph...@internode.on.net
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 5:04 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From the aircraft register of  2013
> 
> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
> 
> 950 privately owned
> 
> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
> 
>  
> 
> last year
> 
> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
> 
> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
> 
> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
> 
>  
> 
> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about trends, 
> have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in 
> absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point 
> out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any 
> one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
> 
> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
> 
> 36 private
> 
> 28 club
> 
> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." @lists.base64.com.au>
>  
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> Cc:
>  
> Sent:
> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
> 
> 
> to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions
> 
> 1) how many gliders are there now?
> 
> 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?
> 
> 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
> ___
> 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] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Richard Frawley]

some good news then. i suspect private ownership will increase for a while yet



> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From the aircraft register of  2013
> 
> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
> 
> 950 privately owned
> 
> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
> 
> 
> 
> last year
> 
> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
> 
> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
> 
> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about trends, 
> have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in 
> absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point 
> out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any 
> one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
> 
> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
> 
> 36 private
> 
> 28 club
> 
> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." @lists.base64.com.au>
> 
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
> 
> 
> to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions
> 
> 1) how many gliders are there now?
> 
> 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?
> 
> 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
> ___
> 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

[stephenk]

From the aircraft register of  2013

1220 gliders and motor gliders

950 privately owned

270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.

last year 

1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual) 

981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual) 

295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual) 

Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about
trends, have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private
ownership (in absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and
as others will point out, only about half of the gliders in Australia
are given an annual in any one year, so it all may be moot anyway).

gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total) 

36 private

28 club

Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air
cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right
there.

For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on. 

- Original Message -
 From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
@lists.base64.com.au> 
To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
Cc: 
Sent:Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

 to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different
questions

 1) how many gliders are there now?

 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?

 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?

@johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
___
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

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:58 PM, DMcD  wrote:
> I have to say, I'd love those who are not involved actively in gliding
> to remove themselves from discussions related to soaring in Australia.


That’s what the GFA website forums are for.

I haven’t been actively involved in gliding for three and a half years. I 
haven’t removed myself from discussions related to it because I’m still 
passionate about it, I still want it to succeed, and it’s heartbreaking to see 
the whole movement on a trajectory towards a CFIT and not pulling up.

If I didn’t care about it, why would I bother saying anything?

  - mark


___
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

[DMcD]

>>as it is seen by what must be a representative cross section of the 
>>Australian gliding movement.

It's not a representative cross section of anything but
disenfranchised grumblers. It would be interesting if posters noted
their (unsuccessful) clubs so we don't visit.

>>(Not just the 2% competition pilots that absorbs their total being).

I'm no comp pilot but I believe if you deducted all the non-current or
inactive flyers, this figure of 2% would climb to something which
represented a fairly significant number of active pilots… say at least
as significant as Trump's supporter numbers.

I have been involved in gliding for only a decade but I'm not aware of
the IGC doing anything to stop or dissuade me from gliding.

If you want to see something positive, have a look at the situation in
the UK where the junior numbers are impressive. Do what they are doing
and the future of gliding will be reasonably assured… as long as the
poor buggers don't come into contact with too many miserable, grumpy
old men.

I have to say, I'd love those who are not involved actively in gliding
to remove themselves from discussions related to soaring in Australia.

D
___
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

[Richard Frawley]

to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions

1) how many gliders are there now?

2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?

3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?







> On 1 Feb 2017, at 2:22 pm, John Roake  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Aussies
> 
> I have been intrigued to read all the copy about your membership problem,
> as it is seen by what must be a representative cross section of the
> Australian gliding movement.
> 
> We have been conducting a one-man war on the same subject against the
> International Gliding Commission, supposedly our leaders of the sport that
> are supposed to be administering it for every soaring pilot world wide
> (Not just the 2% competition pilots that absorbs their total being).
> 
> For those whop haven't read the January issue of Gliding International, I
> thought they might be interested in reading what we feel about the falling
> membership.
> 
> I personally used to keep the membership records for IGC for over 20 years
> and during that time I saw the world population decrease from 130,000 down
> to less than 100,000 now.
> 
> We are interested in any constructive comments.
> ===
> 
> 
> FROM OUR JANUARY 2017 ISSUE
> 
> 
> NEW LEADERSHIP NECESSARY
> WORLD MEMBERSHIP LOWEST EVER
> 
> There isn't a gliding country in the world that
> can claim a sustained or an increasing membership
> over the past 25 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The earliest authentic world survey report on flying members is the one
> published in 1990 where it was claimed that the total of soaring pilots
> (world wide) amounted to 130,000. Now 27 years later there is a reasonable
> estimate (in lieu of any published data) that the current total is
> approaching 100,000 or less. Whether this 2017 figure is correct or not,
> it is well known that the average gliding club membership has fallen by
> 30% or more over the last 25 years which is nothing less than an appalling
> situation. The consensus of opinion is that our sport is going backwards
> at an alarming rate.
> 
> Regrettably, our controlling body, the International Gliding Commission,
> an FAI arm, seems to be totally oblivious to the situation which they will
> deny. So lets be more specific. A review of the annual meeting decisions
> for the:
> 
> 2014 A.G.M. meeting  shows that motions passed were:
> Records: 3 Decisions,
> I.G.C. Ranking list: - 1 Decision,
> Championships: 25 Decisions,
> Sporting Code : 6 Decisions,
> Awards: 1 Decision 
> Next Meeting: 1 Decision.
> Matters relating to membership: NIL
> 
> 
> 2015 A.G.M. meeting records shows that motions passed were:
> Records: 3 Decisions,
> I.G.C. Ranking list: - 3 Decision,
> Championships: 17 Decisions,
> Sporting Code :11 Decisions,
> Awards: 3 Decisions,
> Next Meeting: 1 Decision.
> IGC Meeting format: 1 Decision,
> World Championships: 1 Decision.
> Matters relating to membership: NIL
> 
> 2016 A.G.M. meeting records shows that motions passed were:
> I.G.C. Ranking list: - 3 Decisions,
> Championships: 10 Decisions,
> Sporting Code : 3 Decisions,
> Awards:  3 Decisions,
> Next Meeting: 1 Decision,
> IGC Meeting format: 3 Decisions,
> World Championships: 16 Decisions.
> Matters relating to membership: NIL
> 
> 
> It is obviously clear that our I.G.C. delegates to a man/women are
> obsessed with competition matters with the future of the sport being left
> to decay - whatever. Is this probability what delegates (who are selected
> by national associations) have been instructed to let happen? That is
> doubtful! I.G.C. is obviously dedicated to administrating the sport, for
> less than 2% of the glider-pilot population.
> 
> The time has arrived to give membership degradation I.G.C.'s top priority.
> It should be pointed out that I.G.C. several years ago passed membership
> responsibility to a group in Greece. Out of sight, out of mind!  Little or
> nothing has been heard from the group who have tabled one report showing
> membership totals by country. It only confirmed already known declines -
> nothing else.
> 
> There is an aviation body that has successfully challenged the falling
> membership problem - the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) of
> Oshkosh fame. The Experimental Aircraft Association and Sportyąs Pilot
> Shop report that more than 40,000 young people have enrolled in Sportyąs
> Learn to Fly online course as a follow-up to their flights in the EAA
> Young Eagles program. The Sportyąs course, which was first offered to all
> Young Eagles in 2009, allows young people to take the FAA sport,
> recreational, and private pilot ground school courses at no charge. Their
> courses are the next step for the approximately 70,000 Young Eagles flown
> each year by volunteer pilots, according to EAA officials. Since the Young
> Eagles program launched in July 1992, more than 2 million young people
> have been flown by 

[Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[John Roake]

Hi Aussies

I have been intrigued to read all the copy about your membership problem,
as it is seen by what must be a representative cross section of the
Australian gliding movement.

We have been conducting a one-man war on the same subject against the
International Gliding Commission, supposedly our leaders of the sport that
are supposed to be administering it for every soaring pilot world wide
(Not just the 2% competition pilots that absorbs their total being).

For those whop haven't read the January issue of Gliding International, I
thought they might be interested in reading what we feel about the falling
membership.

I personally used to keep the membership records for IGC for over 20 years
and during that time I saw the world population decrease from 130,000 down
to less than 100,000 now.

We are interested in any constructive comments.
===


FROM OUR JANUARY 2017 ISSUE


NEW LEADERSHIP NECESSARY
WORLD MEMBERSHIP LOWEST EVER

There isn't a gliding country in the world that
can claim a sustained or an increasing membership
over the past 25 years





The earliest authentic world survey report on flying members is the one
published in 1990 where it was claimed that the total of soaring pilots
(world wide) amounted to 130,000. Now 27 years later there is a reasonable
estimate (in lieu of any published data) that the current total is
approaching 100,000 or less. Whether this 2017 figure is correct or not,
it is well known that the average gliding club membership has fallen by
30% or more over the last 25 years which is nothing less than an appalling
situation. The consensus of opinion is that our sport is going backwards
at an alarming rate.

Regrettably, our controlling body, the International Gliding Commission,
an FAI arm, seems to be totally oblivious to the situation which they will
deny. So lets be more specific. A review of the annual meeting decisions
for the:

 2014 A.G.M. meeting  shows that motions passed were:
Records: 3 Decisions,
I.G.C. Ranking list: - 1 Decision,
Championships: 25 Decisions,
Sporting Code : 6 Decisions,
Awards: 1 Decision 
Next Meeting: 1 Decision.
Matters relating to membership: NIL


2015 A.G.M. meeting records shows that motions passed were:
Records: 3 Decisions,
I.G.C. Ranking list: - 3 Decision,
Championships: 17 Decisions,
Sporting Code :11 Decisions,
Awards: 3 Decisions,
Next Meeting: 1 Decision.
IGC Meeting format: 1 Decision,
World Championships: 1 Decision.
Matters relating to membership: NIL

2016 A.G.M. meeting records shows that motions passed were:
I.G.C. Ranking list: - 3 Decisions,
Championships: 10 Decisions,
Sporting Code : 3 Decisions,
Awards:  3 Decisions,
Next Meeting: 1 Decision,
IGC Meeting format: 3 Decisions,
World Championships: 16 Decisions.
Matters relating to membership: NIL


It is obviously clear that our I.G.C. delegates to a man/women are
obsessed with competition matters with the future of the sport being left
to decay - whatever. Is this probability what delegates (who are selected
by national associations) have been instructed to let happen? That is
doubtful! I.G.C. is obviously dedicated to administrating the sport, for
less than 2% of the glider-pilot population.

The time has arrived to give membership degradation I.G.C.'s top priority.
It should be pointed out that I.G.C. several years ago passed membership
responsibility to a group in Greece. Out of sight, out of mind!  Little or
nothing has been heard from the group who have tabled one report showing
membership totals by country. It only confirmed already known declines -
nothing else.

There is an aviation body that has successfully challenged the falling
membership problem - the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) of
Oshkosh fame. The Experimental Aircraft Association and Sporty¹s Pilot
Shop report that more than 40,000 young people have enrolled in Sporty¹s
Learn to Fly online course as a follow-up to their flights in the EAA
Young Eagles program. The Sporty¹s course, which was first offered to all
Young Eagles in 2009, allows young people to take the FAA sport,
recreational, and private pilot ground school courses at no charge. Their
courses are the next step for the approximately 70,000 Young Eagles flown
each year by volunteer pilots, according to EAA officials. Since the Young
Eagles program launched in July 1992, more than 2 million young people
have been flown by 50,000 pilots.

³Sporty¹s long term support for the Young Eagles program is truly
outstanding,² said Brian O¹Lena, EAA Manager of Young Eagles. ³Sporty
understands the Young Eagles mission and provides a way for kids and teens
to explore aviation using the most up to date training technologies
available today. This means that more than 40,000 young people have had
the opportunity to pursue their dreams of flight.² The concept for the
free online courses was developed with input from EAA pilots who had been
flying