>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." > > 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 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 <james.mcdowal...@gmail.com> > 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 <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> > 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> > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
