Hi All, Ken Dawber's post is very interesting, it has changed my view on this matter, I was once against the licence concept, but I now support it.
>The GFA can to some degree circumvent the government's requirement in >their setting of the minimum requirements to be allowed to fly a glider >outside of the control of a club. The GFA set the requirements of a >minimum 200 hours experience plus the requirement that you need to be >approved by a meeting of your clubs instructor panel before you can fly >outside the club. As an example of how this works, over xmas I was talking to a pilot who will remain nameless who has 2000hrs + and is a very competent and safety conscious, who was refused his independent ops level 2 by his club, and dare not get it from another club (Which was offered) as he might loose an important facility he enjoys at his club's pleasure right now (regrettably a quite justified fear in this case). Whilst I have some doubts about a CASA involvement, this sort of scenario tends to back up Kens comments. I see no justification for an instructor panel having this authority without a strict set of guidelines, at least specifying the grounds which are acceptable for refusal, and having to tell the applicant why their L2 Ind ops Is not granted, and to refuse they MUST have a valid reason from the guidelines. This only seems fair. Personally I have no interest in or ability to operate outside the GFA/club system, however the current system seems deliberate monopolistic behaviour on the part of the GFA. Club fees and GFA at my current club are $450/yr before you even get to fly, that's nearly $10/wk. The GFA includes a magazine (Well a pale imitation of the magazine we once had) and some personal injury insurance. Even with $250/yr my club still has a $1500 hull insurance excess, so all one gets for $250 is the totally non guaranteed right to fly the gliders (at ones own cost) and use of facilities(at a cost in the good season). By non guaranteed I mean the club reserves the right to NOT allow you to fly at any time, without giving any reason or refunding any fees. I recently considered joining a second club and they had this same inequitable clause on the membership form! I find this kind of thing particularly offensive, especially as my club once had a clause in its constitution specifically banning this kind of draconian condition. This frankly stinks. Why is this necessary, at least the no reason/no refund part? To be a fair system it should be either: refund fees and/or give a reason. No wonder some people operate outside the GFA/club structure and go to RAA etc. Some even operate outside all of it! I suspect that as Ken says, in the light of the oil situation if we don't fix this we will end up losing (monopoly) control to CASA of gliding training. I am appalled the GFA moved against such licences without consulting the membership in general. Regards All Dave L _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
