“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.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. 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 <mailto: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 <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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
