The salient point in Mike's comment is the GA Instructor/commercial pilot
spends the cash or bums hours to get his rating because there is an income
stream at the end - he/she hopes. But so does the swim coach at your local
State School. Long gone are the days when any sort of quality coach or
instructor was a pure volunteer. Join a yacht club (similar infrastructure
etc) and the sailing instructor and the club will give you a bill for her
time and you are happy because you got value for your money.
Gliding instructors do spend big dollars getting a ticket and then volunteer
a full day, drive 250kms at their own expense, on 40 degree days only to be
told by some snot nose Treasurer, who couldn't find his way 10kms from home
without a GPS and thinks that's OK, that instructors don't work hard enough
for the club.
Club's are good things but this whole discussion revolves around an
antiquated volunteer system. Club's need volunteers to function but gliding
holds up its most valuable resource - knowledge, skill and experience - and
says or rather boasts that it has no dollar value and we all know the world
ain't like that Toto.
Rob Izatt
On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt 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
