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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>> 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 <rjfraw...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto: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 
>>> <mailto:new...@atdot.dotat.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <g...@gregwilson.id.au 
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> <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

Reply via email to