The Recreational Licence issue has raised considerable heat in this forum. I have been reading the various postings with interest, but without total understanding.
In order to engage brain before putting mouth in gear I have spent a winter's Sunday afternoon reading the CASA Part 61 Discussion paper, the GFA comment and a bunch of other related papers which turned up when I searched the CASA web site. Arguments abound both for and against moving to a Licence system. Having read all this paperwork and previous postings in this forum I would support moving to a licence scheme for aircraft category "Gliders" on the following basis: 1. All licences would be issued by CASA on recommendation from GFA, or be issued by GFA under delegation from CASA. 2. All training be competency based. 3. Current GFA medical requirements be retained. 4. GFA recommendation for Pilot Licence - Glider issue to be based on achievement of the requirements defined for the current "C" certificate. 5. A separate Rating be designated for each launch type, for High Altitude Soaring (wave) and Ridge Soaring. 6. GFA recommendation for "Flight Instructor" rating be based on the current Level 1 instructor endorsement requirements. 7. GFA recommendation for "Pilot Examiner" rating be based on the current Level 2 instructor endorsement requirements. 8. GFA recommendation for Instructor Training endorsement to be in accordance with current Level 3 instructor endorsement arrangements. 9. Licences to remain valid indefinitely, however Ratings endorsed on the licence will be subject to flight review in accordance with the GFA MOSP Operations section. The thoughts which brought me to the above concept are as follow: Item 1: It would be desirable to have a "Pilot Licence - Glider" in some circumstances. Allowing issue based on GFA recommendation ensures grand bureaucracy can be held at bay - While I dislike some aspects of the GFA system I believe it is a substantially better option than running directly under CASA. To make the licence useful overseas it would have to have "CASA" and a pilot mug shot printed on the front. I also subscribe with some anxiety to the concept that licences are coming regardless, and it would be better under our terms. Item 2: Part 61 and all the other CASA documents are big on Competency Based Training. The vast majority of GFA training is already laid out on this basis. Documented sign off of exercises would be required. Many clubs already do this by use of pilot training books they have developed. It would probably pay for GFA to gather up copies of these and distil a common document going through to "C" certificate (Licence). Item 3: A look through GFA accident reports doesn't highlight a significant contribution from pilot incapacitation. The cost of continuing medicals (whoever does them) would be better directed towards a continuing campaign of pilot harassment on Lookout and Stall Awareness. This would occasionally save a life. Item 4: Licence issue should be made when we believe the pilot is competent to fly cross country and carry a private passenger. I happen to disagree with the current arrangement where GFA Independent Operator authorisation requires a Silver badge. In particular I don't see what a 5 hour flight contributes to safety. All it proves is that the pilot is good at crossing his/her legs. No other form of aviation requires a 5 hour flight to get a licence. Item 5: The CASA licence proposals recognise "Ratings" for each licence category. For the Glider category I believe each launch type should be a separate rating (this follows current common sense practice). I believe High Altitude soaring (>FL120) is worthy of a separate Rating since it transgresses into Oxygen and Aviation Medical issues the average flat lands pilot never gets to deal with. Ridge Soaring is another area not regularly dealt with by many pilots and which requires a bit of education to ensure pilots stay alive. No separate Rating is required for Thermalling since the only safety issue particular to this activity is to join thermals in the same direction of rotation and I don't believe any Sports issues (more efficient climbing) should get tangled up in the Licence process. Items 6, 7 & 8: The current GFA endorsements work well, fit quite well to the CASA proposed licence scheme and should be retained. Item 9: Indefinite licences are recommended by the CASA documents, with Ratings subject to review. This is quite sensible since it minimises the bureaucracy associated with issuing licences and leaves the Rating review issue to a sensibly thought out document that can be modified over time. The current GFA practice of annual checks is valid for flying in general (and probably should be applied on a Launch Type basis). High Altitude Soaring and Ridge Flying could probably be reviewed less often (2 or 3 years). Redmond Quinn Adelaide University Gliding Club -- * 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.
