Perhaps we could hear about these positive results please?? Ron
On 3 September 2014 13:05, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Guys, > > Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason. > > I have witnessed positive results. > > If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly, please raise > it to the EO, it will be investigated. > > I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its purpose > or the powers that underpin it. > > Regards > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote: >> >> Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to >> aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes >> (Mike Borgelt) >> 2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes >> (Mike Borgelt) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000 >> From: Mike Borgelt <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no >> clothes >> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." >> <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net> >> Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" >> >> At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote: >> >> >In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of >> >your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook >> >annotation which grounds you. The grounding takes immediate effect, >> >and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in >> >other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own >> >yourself. The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA >> >MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which >> >could take months. Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or >> >erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will >> >always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip >> >through the pages of your logbook. >> > >> >That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system. >> > >> > - mark >> >> >> It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason >> whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee >> about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership >> year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my >> own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their >> Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it >> "insurance". I heard no more. >> Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club >> employee "piss off we don't need your kind around here". Charming. I >> fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote >> you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying >> bastard. >> >> I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent >> past. >> >> We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with >> making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is >> done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people >> of Australia is to protect people on the ground from having >> aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly >> because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most >> reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any problem with >> that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt >> cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and >> numerous others over the years). >> >> I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate >> how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem >> with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an >> absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition, >> particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately >> mislead by GFA officials. >> >> I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence discussion >> paper before. Meertens and Hall and Middleton from RAAus went to the >> Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusion of gliding and >> ultralights excised whereupon there wasn't much point in it anymore >> and the whole thing died. If instead the proposal had been supported >> we wouldn't be having this discussion. >> >> Back in the mid 1990s CAO 95.4 actually made it plain that the >> exemption from the regulations regarding licensing was only there for >> those who didn't hold a PPL or higher flight crew licence. There was >> also none of the nonsense that a glider maintenance release was only >> valid when the glider was flown by a paid up GFA member. An aircraft >> is either airworthy or not. It can't tell who is flying it. You >> could even operate a glider without a licence if you wrote the >> Secretary of DoT and told them you would operate to GFA standards. >> >> After 2003 GFA, in collusion with CASA employees, gradually re wrote >> 95.4 until we have the current situation. Until 2009 they actually >> pretended that there would be a parallel path. They lied yet again, >> aided by the appointment of the now thankfully departed McCormick and >> with the acquiescence of the GFA Board including Anita Taylor. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/private/aus-soaring/attachments/20140903/d9b96bd6/attachment.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:48:57 +1000 >> From: Mike Borgelt <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no >> clothes >> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." >> <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net> >> Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed" >> >> So only 23 years after the Gawler Gliding Club >> was formed the GFA gets around to enabling such clubs? >> So why should people who want to do this have any >> kind of club at all? Why not the scenario put forth by Al Borowski? >> >> How about a club of ONE member? >> >> It is hardly a radical concept as it is exactly >> what is done in the RAAus. There are RAAus >> members and they MAY form clubs. They aren't >> forced to.There are also commercially run flying >> schools and privately run airfields which provide a runway and hangarage. >> I'm not aware that anyone in RAAus finds this a problem at all. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> At 02:22 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote: >> >Hi all, >> > >> >I think that the last person to have any >> >interest in naked emperors was named Josephine, >> >before this thread exposed a whole new concept in glider pilot fetishes. >> > >> >But I digress. >> > >> >At its recent meeting in Adelaide, I understand >> >that the GFA Board approved a change that will >> >allow non-training clubs to form under the GFA system. >> > >> >This will mean (as I understand it) that a group >> >of suitably qualified members can form a club >> >that has no CFI, no 2 seater and no training operation.? >> > >> >The qualification requirement would be a GPC for each member. >> > >> >Pilots would still be responsible individually >> >for getting their annual check (somewhere else, >> >obviously) and maintaining their medical status. >> > >> >I don't know any other details, so no point in >> >asking.? But I do know it happened.? I expect >> >the official announcement won't be far away. >> > >> >Go for it, guys.? And girls. >> > >> >Disclaimer 1: I hold no official position in the >> >GFA apart from looking after some IT >> >systems.? This is, therefore, not an official >> >statement of any kind and may be complete bollocks. >> > >> >Disclaimer 2: No crickets were harmed in the >> >writing or sending of this email.? A large >> >number of electrons, however, were seriously inconvenienced. >> > >> >Cheers >> > >> >Tim Shirley >> > >> >tra dire ?? fare c' ?? mezzo il mare >> >On 3/09/2014 1:10 PM, Ron Sanders wrote: >> >> >> >>If I had a license for gliding just like my PPL I would probably (most >> >>likely) still join a club. I still like talking gliding at the end of >> >>the day, I still like comparing cross-country flights at the end of >> >>the day. >> >> >> >>At the end of the day, I still don't like being beholden to the duty >> >>pilot or the day instructor, when I am fitting in, just going about my >> >>business and enjoying the day. >> >> >> >>Nobody forces instructors to do what they do, so they must get some >> >>kind of reward out of it. >> >> >> >>Ron >> >> >> >>On 3 September 2014 10:35, Robert Izatt >> >><mailto:thebunyipboo...@gmail.com><thebunyipboo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>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 flyying >> >>> 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: >> >>><mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soaring-bo >> >>> un...@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: >> >>><mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soaring-bo >> >>> un...@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: >> >>><mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soaring-bo >> >>> un...@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 >> >>><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soar...@lists.inte >> >>> rnode.on.net >> >>>To check or change subscription details, >> >>>visit: >> >>><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http: >> >>> //lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >>>_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing >> >>> list >> >>><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soar...@lists.inte >> >>> rnode.on.net >> >>>To check or change subscription details, >> >>>visit: >> >>><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http: >> >>> //lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >>>_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing >> >>> list >> >>><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soar...@lists.inte >> >>> rnode.on.net >> >>>To check or change subscription details, >> >>>visit: >> >>><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http: >> >>> //lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >>> >> >>>Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring >> >>>instrumentation since 1978 >> >>><http://www.borgeltinstruments.com>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 >> >>><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soar...@lists.inte >> >>> rnode.on.net >> >>>To check or change subscription details, visit: >> >>><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http: >> >>> //lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >>> >> >>>Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring >> >>>instrumentation since 1978 >> >>><http://www.borgeltinstruments.com>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 >> >>><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soar...@lists.inte >> >>> rnode.on.net >> >>>To check or change subscription details, visit: >> >>><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http: >> >>> //lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >> >>>Aus-soaring mailing list >> >>><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>aus-soar...@lists.inte >> >>> rnode.on.net >> >>>To check or change subscription details, visit: >> >>><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>http: >> >>> //lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>Aus-soaring mailing list >> >><mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>Aus-soaring@lists.inter >> >> node.on.net >> >>To check or change subscription details, visit: >> >><http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring>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 >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/private/aus-soaring/attachments/20140903/548ca450/attachment.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aus-soaring mailing list >> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> End of Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32 >> ******************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
