The lack of confidentiality might just cause those who wish to even think about intimidation and harassment to think twice before they embark on that path!
Ron On 3 September 2014 13:35, Richard Frawley <rjfraw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you can appreciate the confidentially that is required for these > things to work. > > If you have an issue, then I suggest you speak to the EO. > > I personally have experienced unwarranted bias and poor treatment and had I > known about MP at the time, I would have invoked it as I have now seen the > situation repeated. > > Richard > > > > > > > At 01:14 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: Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32 (Ron Sanders) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:14:04 +0800 >> From: Ron Sanders <resand...@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32 >> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." >> <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net> >> Message-ID: >> >> <CAPs+aLyWF=gevnjaxlntsye0mdspfhoe1nngpnjrfhjjlvj...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> 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 >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >> >> End of Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 35 >> ******************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
