And to Mr Paul Bart, I think that you need to talk to a few more of us that have been hanging around gliding for nearly 50 years or so and you will hear more stories like Mike's. And then even more if you get into the competition scene.
Ron On 3 September 2014 08:49, Mike Borgelt <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote: > > Ullrich, > > > Rob Izatt is correct. > > "when operating independently" is the catch phrase. > > Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be > renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen > due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are > naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and > left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general > meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a > launch means which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of > the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting > flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed > years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3 > votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club. > > To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence > (at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a > proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of > flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as > it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going > through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a > reasonable thing to me. > > When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours > required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the > gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for > instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit > at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers > of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent > glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient. > > The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own > the private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that > gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything > about this wants to change anything about the way business is done. > > * Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA > is not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need > nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation > only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even > all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to > exist without any members other than those on the board. > > Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher > Thorpe is the sound of crickets. > > Mike > > > > > Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion > should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless > I am in training). > > The current MOSP says: > “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR > Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility > of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2 > Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of > their operations when operating independently. This includes airways > clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident > reporting.” > > To my knowledge it has been like that for many years. > > I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but > in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince > the CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What > should the minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you set that it will > not be enough for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher > that number is. > > On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I’m also with you > although I would choose less GFA-bashing words. > > Ulrich > > From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [ > mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt > Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07 > To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. > Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes > > At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote: > > Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does > that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than "in other parts of > the world". It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that. > > > > No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked. > > 200 hours? You can get a PPL for powered aircraft in 60 to 70 hours from > scratch. > > You get a bi annual and a medical every two years. Apart from that you are > completely free to go wherever and whenever you like with as many people as > fit in the aircraft. > > > > > > A shame really that the GPL was not based on the L2 IO rating, perhaps with > the bar lowered a little (e.g. reducing the 200hrs requirement - the 100hrs > for an L2 instructors rating seem to be sufficient to allow the holder to be > responsible for OTHER peoples flying). At least we would not have the > current inconsistencies. I cannot imagine that negotiations with CASA would > have been any harder on that basis. > > > > I consider giving anyone an instructor's rating of any sort with 100 hours > an act of gross irresponsibility. I wouldn't let anyone I cared about learn > to fly with somebody like that. > > > > It will be interesting to see whether the first GPL holder rocking up > somewhere in Europe will be allowed to fly without more hassles than > European license holders. > > > > Maybe EASA will find out the GPL doesn't work back home. As I said before > the ICAO deal is that you get the foreign licence on the fact that it is > valid at home in your own country. > > The GFA negotiation with CASA was just a cosy deal to maintain the GFA > monopoly on gliding in Australia. "Umbrella" my arse, it is a boot heel. > > Mike > > > > > > Ulrich -----Original Message----- From: > aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [ > mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future > Aviation Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08 To: 'Discussion of issues > relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition > licenses - the emperor has no clothes > Hi Simon > You have raised a very valid point here! > I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world > but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without > instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world > country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots, > parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted. > Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I > have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs > exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been > standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite > understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to > operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate. > I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent > operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to > fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified > glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly > to blame for our current woes. When our newcomers realise that they will > always be treated as second class aviators we can't blame them when they > vote with their feet. > Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like > glider pilots in other parts of the world? As long as our current system > denies responsibly acting glider pilots fully independent operations many of > them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation activities - far > too many, if you ask me. > Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your > thinking, please? > Kind regards Bernard > > > -----Original Message----- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net > [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon > Hackett Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM To: Discussion of issues > relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition > licenses - the emperor has no clothes > Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had > confirmed separately. > The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a > Glider in Australia. > SRSLY? > Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises) > Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders > with (including ... in Australia)? > I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good > standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's > boat. > Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing > everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot > licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider > Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually > work in the country of issue. > I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots > license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping > the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. > I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here. > I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not* > to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely > issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to > be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they > achieve Silver C standard). > Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to > 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it > shouldn't become the case? > In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what, > precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider > here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? > I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward > regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA > haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site > either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you > can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with? > Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :) > Regards, Simon > > _______________________________________________ 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 > _______________________________________________ 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 > > Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring > instrumentation since 1978 > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring > instrumentation since 1978 > www.borgeltinstruments.com > tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784 > mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784 > P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
