> > NONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Translation: "I refuse to take responsibility for my own actions and expect, no demand, that somebody else should, at their own expense, train and maintain currency, and be present each and every weekend so that they can take responsibility for me (at no cost to me). Furthermore, I deny the rights of those that might accept responsibility for their own actions to be allowed to do so and demand that they too shall be subject to the same supervision as myself to ensure that there is sufficient demand for the said responsible individual to be present. Furthermore still, I demand that those who have already shown that they are willing to take responsibility for themselves by expending their own time and money to train to the level of PPL, CPL, ATL or better and undergo a medical examination (at their expense), be denied the right to accept responsibility for themselves and so too be forced to accept the supervision of said responsible individual"
If this is the one third of glider pilots who will leave the sport because of the introduction of an RPL, then Sayonara! How 'bout a little vision, An individual decides that they would like to fly gliders. (To answer the person who asked about the non-gender singular pro-noun, I just bend the pural and use it, sounds a bit off at first but after a while if flows ok). They seek out a suitable training organisation, be this a commercial operation or a small club that only flys Sundays, whatever best suits their requirements. They sign up and begin training under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified instructor. They, hopefully, subsequently solo and continue to fly under supervision achieving appropriate milestones, lets call them "A", "B" and "C" certificates shall we? At this point the individual can now fly gliders solo indefinitely under the supervision of an instructor. (I.E the current GFA system pre L2IO) However, should they *choose* to do so, they may qualify for the issue of a license by showing the necessary practical competency and experience, and undertaking and passing the appropriate theory rating (airspace and radio procedures). The training organisation would then submit the appropriate paperwork along with their training authorisation number to CASA. Subsequently the individuals license, with glider and airspace ratings, would arrive in the mail. In the mean time they would be able to continue to fly under the supervision of the instructor of the day. Now with shiny new RPL, they may wish to fly non-glider type aircraft (heaven forbid!) they again select suitable training organisation (eg Ulight) and repeat, skipping steps airspace and radio exam and allocation of license number. Alternatively swap order, Ulight first, glider second. Does GFA have a role to play in this? That's up to the GFA. Clearly training organisations need a sylybus, they need instructors and instructor training. CASA doesn't have a budget for this, if GFA said we want to continue to use our current system but with the addition of an airspace and practical component to our sylybus for the glider rating, why would CASA say no? CASA don't have to set aside any budget to handle the glider rating, all they have to do is say organisations can be approved to train for the glider rating if they are approved by the GFA. (The GFA could even have licence numbers in pre-allocated lots of 100 and clubs could submit the paperwork to the GFA). The only fly in the ointment is that without the burden of having to be a training organisation (caused by the need to have sufficient instructors for one to be present each and every weekend, and hence the need to have students to allow those instructors to remain current) some clubs might chose to have non-instructor flying days and individuals who have decided that they won't accept responsibility for their own actions might find that they can't fly on those days. Maybe that will give them the incentive to stop expecting others to carry the can for them and perhaps realise that they should be prepared to be responsible for themselves! If this is the scenario that GFA and it's pilots are saying NO to then they will simply fall by the wayside. If this is not the senario that is being proposed by CASA then the GFA's and the AUF's have only themselves to blame. They've had two years to be pro-active in defining how this legislation might work. If they haven't been able to see the future because of their idelogical opposition to the concept of a licence then they are well on the way to being irrelevant. The idea that GFA should come up with it's own alternate licence simply complicates the legal situation and denies the individual pilots who might choose to qualify for such a licence, a lot of the benefits that a single across the spectrum licence would provide. rgds Pete -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
