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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com>
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 <new...@atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>
> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <g...@gregwilson.id.au> 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 control pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated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
