[Aus-soaring] This list - Closed down. Use the aus-soaring google group

[Mark Newton]

This effort started six months ago. That's enough time :)

aus-soar...@base64.com.au will disappear very soon. It's quite likely 
that by the time you reply to this message, it'll be gone, and your 
reply will bounce.


The replacement for this list is aus-soar...@groups.google.com, which 
has a web interface you can use to sign up at 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/aus-soaring


Requires a google account. If you use gmail, that's all you need. If you 
don't use gmail, perhaps create a throwaway gmail account for this 
purpose; there's no need to fill it with personal data if you don't want 
to, and there's no need to link it to anything else you do online.


Email me directly (obviously not via this mailing list!) if you have any 
issues.


Safe soaring,


  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Fwd: Reminder: Mailing list relocation

[Mark Newton]

Last reminder. We’ll shut down the old list next week.

  - mark



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Mark Newton 
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Reminder: Mailing list relocation
> Date: 6 September 2018 at 3:40:54 AM GMT+10
> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> 
> Reply-To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> 
> 
> Reposting again, and observing that the spam load has been particularly high 
> for the last week for some reason. I think it’s the mailing list saying it’s 
> had enough :)
> 
> Let’s sunset this one: Middle of September makes it a month since i set up 
> the new Google Group. That’s probably an adequate time to start turning this 
> one off.
> 
> I had one person who couldn’t find the new list on the link below, but could 
> with this one:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/aus-soaring 
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/aus-soaring>
> No idea why one worked and the other didn’t, but I’m including it here for 
> completeness.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Mark Newton > <mailto:new...@atdot.dotat.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Reposting from last week:
>> 
>> Some of you might recall that this list was moved from Internode to Base64 
>> some time ago.
>> 
>> Well: It’s moving again.
>> 
>> The software which has been running the group is called Mailman, and it’s 
>> showing its age. In particular, its ability to handle escalating volumes of 
>> spam is somewhat compromised. The mailboxes of Simon and I fill up with vast 
>> quantities of the stuff, and “backscatter attacks” cause Mailman to suspend 
>> your subscriptions, causing us to field queries about unexpected 
>> unsubscriptions.
>> 
>> Simon and I had a quick chat about this last week, and decided to move it to 
>> a Google Group.
>> 
>> The group is called aus-soaring (naturally). You should be able to subscribe 
>> to it by navigating to https://groups.google.com/d/forum/aus-soaring 
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/forum/aus-soaring> and using the drop-down menu 
>> button near the top right corner.
>> 
> 
> 
>> Google Groups has far better spam protections, a good web interface, and you 
>> can still interact with it by email if you wish. Once you’re on board, you 
>> can email aus-soar...@googlegroups.com <mailto:aus-soar...@googlegroups.com> 
>> to make your voice heard.
>> 
>> For privacy reasons, I’m not going to force-subscribe anyone to the new 
>> Group, you’ll need to do it yourself. 
>> 
>> We’re going to keep this list running on Base64’s mail server for another 
>> month or so, but will eventually abandon it. There’ll be some more reminders 
>> before that happens.
>> 
>> Questions or comments? Fire away, happy to help.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>>   - mark
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Reminder: Mailing list relocation

[Mark Newton]

Reposting again, and observing that the spam load has been particularly high 
for the last week for some reason. I think it’s the mailing list saying it’s 
had enough :)

Let’s sunset this one: Middle of September makes it a month since i set up the 
new Google Group. That’s probably an adequate time to start turning this one 
off.

I had one person who couldn’t find the new list on the link below, but could 
with this one:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/aus-soaring 
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/aus-soaring>
No idea why one worked and the other didn’t, but I’m including it here for 
completeness.

Regards,

  - mark


> On Aug 26, 2018, at 3:21 AM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> Reposting from last week:
> 
> Some of you might recall that this list was moved from Internode to Base64 
> some time ago.
> 
> Well: It’s moving again.
> 
> The software which has been running the group is called Mailman, and it’s 
> showing its age. In particular, its ability to handle escalating volumes of 
> spam is somewhat compromised. The mailboxes of Simon and I fill up with vast 
> quantities of the stuff, and “backscatter attacks” cause Mailman to suspend 
> your subscriptions, causing us to field queries about unexpected 
> unsubscriptions.
> 
> Simon and I had a quick chat about this last week, and decided to move it to 
> a Google Group.
> 
> The group is called aus-soaring (naturally). You should be able to subscribe 
> to it by navigating to https://groups.google.com/d/forum/aus-soaring 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/forum/aus-soaring> and using the drop-down menu 
> button near the top right corner.
> 


> Google Groups has far better spam protections, a good web interface, and you 
> can still interact with it by email if you wish. Once you’re on board, you 
> can email aus-soar...@googlegroups.com to make your voice heard.
> 
> For privacy reasons, I’m not going to force-subscribe anyone to the new 
> Group, you’ll need to do it yourself. 
> 
> We’re going to keep this list running on Base64’s mail server for another 
> month or so, but will eventually abandon it. There’ll be some more reminders 
> before that happens.
> 
> Questions or comments? Fire away, happy to help.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>   - mark
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Reminder: Mailing list relocation

[Mark Newton]

Reposting from last week:

Some of you might recall that this list was moved from Internode to Base64 some 
time ago.

Well: It’s moving again.

The software which has been running the group is called Mailman, and it’s 
showing its age. In particular, its ability to handle escalating volumes of 
spam is somewhat compromised. The mailboxes of Simon and I fill up with vast 
quantities of the stuff, and “backscatter attacks” cause Mailman to suspend 
your subscriptions, causing us to field queries about unexpected 
unsubscriptions.

Simon and I had a quick chat about this last week, and decided to move it to a 
Google Group.

The group is called aus-soaring (naturally). You should be able to subscribe to 
it by navigating to https://groups.google.com/d/forum/aus-soaring and using the 
drop-down menu button near the top right corner.



Google Groups has far better spam protections, a good web interface, and you 
can still interact with it by email if you wish. Once you’re on board, you can 
email aus-soar...@googlegroups.com to make your voice heard.

For privacy reasons, I’m not going to force-subscribe anyone to the new Group, 
you’ll need to do it yourself. 

We’re going to keep this list running on Base64’s mail server for another month 
or so, but will eventually abandon it. There’ll be some more reminders before 
that happens.

Questions or comments? Fire away, happy to help.

Regards,

  - mark___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] List relocation

[Mark Newton]

Hi, folks.

Some of you might recall that this list was moved from Internode to Base64 some 
time ago.

Well: It’s moving again.

The software which has been running the group is called Mailman, and it’s 
showing its age. In particular, its ability to handle escalating volumes of 
spam is somewhat compromised. The mailboxes of Simon and I fill up with vast 
quantities of the stuff, and “backscatter attacks” cause Mailman to suspend 
your subscriptions, causing us to field queries about unexpected 
unsubscriptions.

Simon and I had a quick chat about this last week, and decided to move it to a 
Google Group.

The group is called aus-soaring (naturally). You should be able to subscribe to 
it by navigating to https://groups.google.com/d/forum/aus-soaring and using the 
drop-down menu button near the top right corner.



Google Groups has far better spam protections, a good web interface, and you 
can still interact with it by email if you wish. Once you’re on board, you can 
email aus-soar...@googlegroups.com to make your voice heard.

For privacy reasons, I’m not going to force-subscribe anyone to the new Group, 
you’ll need to do it yourself. 

We’re going to keep this list running on Base64’s mail server for another month 
or so, but will eventually abandon it. There’ll be some more reminders before 
that happens.

Questions or comments? Fire away, happy to help.

Regards,

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] ASIC and the USA alternative

[Mark Newton]

Between my visit to KPAO last year and my visit a few weeks ago, they've 
put in a fence and a gate.


The gate's electronic lock PIN-pad outside the terminal building has a 
scrap of PVC about the size of a business card attached to it with a 
cable tie. Label-maker tape says, "Gate code is CTAF."


Someone has helpfully written the CTAF on the other side of the sign 
with a Sharpie just in case you can't remember what it is.


To all appearances, it looks like the Feds have said they need a gate, 
but the locals haven't been hot on the idea and have sabotaged it. :-D


The other thing that's nice about it, which almost never happens on 
Australian airports, is that the gate code also works for the vehicle 
access gate. It's /normal/ to drive your car up to your plane and leave 
it on the ramp in your tie-down spot or hangar while you're gone. Can't 
happen in most of Australia, too unsafe. :)


  - mark



On 03/12/2018 10:12 AM, Ian Mc Phee wrote:
For those that read David Forsyth committee recommendations on 
aviation  to our government they recommended ASIC were not necessary 
in Australia and we revert to regulation "like the rest of world".


OK serious jet airports should still require ASIC I suggest but 
regional non screening prop jet airports it is a joke.


Thagarmindah  have sign that reads "HIVis beyond this point"  with 
zero mention od ASIC (have dash 8 service) Emerald have a white or 
yellow line for the RPT no go area but I like the USA (see photo) with 
big wide red line on pavement and I guess a fine if you go into the 
RPT area.  Else where guess secure gate and you can drive in to 
retrieve your glider.


There is yet another minister for aviation (infrastructure) so it is 
time to knock on the door yet again.  I think it is good that baggage 
handlers and refuelers must be scanned at city airports.  The one good 
thing coming from ASIC and secure airports is high kangaroos proof 
fences at most country airports so the RFDS king air can safely come 
in during the night and the RFDS continues to save lives.  In 
Australia kangaroo strikes with aircraft significant numbers but 
reducung, aircraft and pilot terrorist NIL


We all know certain airports have little Hitler's in charge of airport 
security and I always avoid these airports and never stay in those 
towns overnight


Let's get priorities for safety in aviation in correct order

Ian McPhee
0428847642
Box 657 Byron Bay NSW 2481








___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] (no subject)

[Mark Newton]

On Nov 27, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Nick Gilbert  wrote:
> 
> Sorry Jarek, it goes a bit too well for us. Maybe with some bugs on the 
> leading edge?

Run the comp in the rain, it’ll be fine :-)

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Looking for XCSoar 5.2.1 for the Altair

[Mark Newton]

Put it on Google Drive and email a link.

  - mark


> On Nov 9, 2017, at 9:39 PM, Chris Runeckles  wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert 
> 
> Is this the version of XC soar you are looking for
> 
> XCSoarAltair-522-CRC3E.exe
> 
> I am not sure howto send an .exe file because Gmail is blocking it for 
> security reasons
> 
> Chris Runeckles
> 
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Robert Hart  > wrote:
> Hi
> 
> In a moment of stupidity, I deleted the XCSoar.exe file from the front seat 
> Altair in Peter Griffiths' Nimbus 4DM.
> 
> I need a very specific version as this contains the "Big Text" feature that 
> Peter needs and also connects to the rear seat Altair - which v5.2.2 does not 
> do.
> 
> I have searched everywhere for this and have not found it. Does anyone have a 
> copy of this or can point me at it?
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> -- 
> Robert Hart
> +61 438 385 533 
> 
>  
> 
>  Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> 
>  
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] NOVEMBER ISSUE - GLIDING INTERNATIONAL

[Mark Newton]

> On 29 Oct 2017, at 3:33 PM, Gliding International 
>  wrote:
> 
> 10.  Are you worried about Drones?  You should be!  The conference in 
> Switzerland last month brought forth a paper that declared aviators can 
> expect to compete with seven million drones with seven metre wing spans by 
> 2030.  (400,00 will be commercial drones).  This is news but not good news!
> 


Is that a credible claim?

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Regular Car Reviews: A 1987 ASK-21 Sailplane

[Mark Newton]

On Oct 24, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Derek Ruddock  wrote:
> 
> A moron who loves the sound of his own voice.

It’s a youtube channel that does cars. I thought doing a glider was a bit of 
good fun.


> Notice the idiot in the towplane start the launch with a bloke standing next
> to the cockpit.


Didn’t seem to be any heightened risk associated with it. Why was it bad?

The Americans do things a bit differently. Surprised they had a dude on the 
wing waving his arm around at all, the launch commencement is usually signaled 
by the glider pilot wiggling the rudder.


  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Regular Car Reviews: A 1987 ASK-21 Sailplane

[Mark Newton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPlCf_flils

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Goondiwindi

[Mark Newton]

They might have trouble replying because mobile microwave signals propagate 
poorly through water.

  - mark



On Oct 17, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> 
> Anyone know what is happening at Goondiwindi? Is anyone still there?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Air Services removing ALAs from FAC, AIP and WAC charts

[Mark Newton]

https://aopa.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/a17-h29.pdf 


There are a bunch of gliding sites in this list.

Once they’re removed from Air Services’ database, they’ll no longer be depicted 
on charts.

If you know who the contact person or organization is for any of these, maybe 
draw their attention to this AIP/SUP and get them to get in touch with Air 
Services.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] RASP no longer updating/needed for SA

[Mark Newton]

On 7 Sep 2017, at 4:11 PM, Rob Wintulich  wrote:
> Yes, I care and I also love that particular RASP facility.
> My understanding is that someone appropriately informed and willing needs to 
> service an area to keep it up and running.  Mark Newton may be someone who 
> might be able to inform us better!?!

Nah, I’m the temp trace guy, not the RASP guy.

The temp trace site is still ingesting data, and still running. I haven’t 
looked at the logs recently to see how often it’s being used, but as long as 
data is available it’s still able to work.

Data is less available than it used to be. In 2004, Peter Temple organized a 
free account with the Bureau of Meteorology for the raw data on each of the 
temp trace sites. They shut that down a couple of years ago. We got ten years 
out of it for free, but they didn’t want to continue it without billing about 
$2500 per annum to keep it alive, and the availability of RASP and Matt 
Scutter’s experimentation with SkySight suggested to me that maybe that wasn’t 
a good investment.

Consequently, I switched the data ingestion back to University of Wyoming’s 
Upper Air Project, which gets the same BoM data I used to get, but with a delay 
of about an hour. That’s why the traces aren’t as early each morning as they 
used to be.

My site has stored every single sounding datapoint it has ingested for the last 
14 years. The sounding data table in the database has about 22 million rows. 
Nearly a decade and a half of several-times-per-day data for has proved to be a 
useful resource to some people: I’ve been asked to make extracts available to 
climate science departments at a couple of universities, and the data has 
informed some PhD projects.

I reckon the hang glider folks still use it too. I occasionally get questions 
or attaboys from them.

The best bit is that it’s required almost no maintenance, so I’m happy to let 
it sit on my server more or less forever. I wrote the software in the first 
half of the last decade, and except for a few small updates to cope with data 
provider changes and a couple of week-long outages when I’ve moved house, it’s 
run on autopilot ever since. I wish every software project I did was as 
reliable as this one :-D

> For the real die-hards (or moneyed,) a lot of folk are migrating to 
> subscription services like Matthew Scutter’s SkySight which offer even more 
> than ‘common’ old RASP, but for old hacks like myself who just want to be 
> able to pick out the  regular good days each season, RASP is great.  If the 
> task of maintenance is not too onerous I’d be happy to keep an eye on it, but 
> I would need guidance and assistance initially to get me ‘installed’

Honestly, I’d recommend SkySight. Not just because it’s empirically excellent, 
but also because the gliding community is so small that useful facilities can 
only continue to be provided if people who need them support them.

Matthew’s trying to make a living out of SkySight.io <http://skysight.io/>. 
He’ll be motivated to keep it “good” as long as the money tap doesn’t dry up so 
much that he has to get a real job instead :-)

- mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] [gfaforum] RE: water bags and tanks

[Mark Newton]

On 28 Aug 2017, at 8:46 AM, DMcD  wrote:
> Yes, ballast is perhaps not basic but I've seen people with a handful
> of hours over a C cert. putting ballast in gliders almost as soon as
> they were endorsed for the type.

Why shouldn’t people who are endorsed on ballasted gliders put ballast in them?

(if it happens that they aren’t qualified, maybe whoever endorsed them made a 
mistake?)

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Benalla

[Mark Newton]

So based on the council’s proposed fee per square metre, how much is hangarage 
for a 15m glider expected to cost in the New World?

  - mark


> On Aug 6, 2017, at 10:28 AM, John Styles  wrote:
> 
> Ron,
> 
> Basically its a case of paying the council a lot and bit more more money or 
> go away, similar situation could be brewing at Bacchus Marsh. 
> 
> Just on my own calculations being involved in the Benalla World comps, the 
> competition brought in $3,500,000 in accommodation revenue alone to the local 
> economy.
> 
> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 1:45:14 PM UTC+10, Ron Sanders wrote:
> Can anyone elaborate on the situation there at the moment regards the club 
> being asked to leave the airfield??
> 
> Ron
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] anonymity

[Mark Newton]

On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:21 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> I'll stand behind what I write and the vast majority here use their real 
> names. It is plain rude and impolite not to do so here in a group which is of 
> very limited interest to the wider world and which deals with a very narrow 
> range of subject matter which  out of 10,000 Australians don't care 
> about. If you want "polite", make people stand behind what they write.

People can stand behind what they write without using their names.

What does a name give you that any other persistent label doesn’t?

> There is a BD-4 homebuilt aircraft group (recently resurrected) where I 
> haven't run across any anonymous posters.

Sure, but there’s also an RV forum where everyone makes up their own names. 
Potential for respectful engagement seems independent of whether a 
correspondent’s identifier matches what’s on their ASIC.


> There are other internet fora where anonymity is a good idea ( take a look at 
> the "robust" discussions at www.catallaxy  files.com  
> a politics/economics blog run by Judith Sloan, Sinclair Davidson and others)  
> but I can't think of any reason for that here.

It isn’t just what you think, though.

People can have reasons for obscuring their names that are meaningless to you 
but meaningful to them. Especially on publicly archived open internet groups.

What difference does it make to you if you’re ascribing an opinion to DMcD or 
Joe Bloggs from Katoomba? 

(And what value is there in dismissing someone as an anonymous troll when they 
post something that suggests using a handle from a ski stock because it's more 
fit for purpose than a wheelbarrow handle? The battles are so fierce because 
the stakes are so small…)


  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Air brake handles

[Mark Newton]

On 06/06/2017, DMcD and Mike Borgelt wrote:

Besides, you are a cowardly anonymous troll.

And you?



Please don't. Just... don't.

  - mark

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] High speed glider landing

[Mark Newton]

Might be fine for a booster, but not so good for an orbiter, where you’d need 
to take many expensive kilograms of landing fuel all the way into orbit and 
back.


  - mark


> On May 12, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Mike Borgelt  
> wrote:
> 
> About  how the Shuttle used to land except the vehicle is a lot smaller.
> 
> 
> 
> I think wings are the most useless things on spaceships though. Just land it 
> vertically on rocket thrust as SpaceX is now doing routinely.
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> At 09:54 AM 5/12/2017, you wrote:
>> https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/top-secret-air-force-spaceplane-lands-with-sonic-boom-after-two-years-in-orbit/
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/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.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Flarm mouse troubles

[Mark Newton]

On 19 Apr 2017, at 10:42 AM, Paul Bart  wrote:
> 
> Hmmm, and the incessant bashing of GFA and club structure does?

One’s oriented at an organization, with the intention of improving it.

One’s aimed personally, with the intention of publicly vilifying.

There’s a difference.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Flarm mouse troubles

[Mark Newton]

Can we not do this again, people?  Perhaps take it to private email, it’s not 
reflecting well on anyone in public.

  - mark


On 19 Apr 2017, at 4:07 AM, Nathan Frawley  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The unit was returned some time later after apparently being tested. "
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I find your implication that we would lie about testing and doing our due 
> diligence appallingly rude, unfounded, and ill-informed.


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Reminder: CASA : input on radio frequency in Class G airspace

[Mark Newton]

It’s not quite the same, though.

Over almost all of the United States, class G airspace has a 1200' AGL ceiling 
(700’ AGL near some untowered airports). The bit between 1200’ AGL and 18,000’ 
AMSL is class E.

When the new NAS was introduced in 2005-2007, the regional airlines cohort 
fought against that outcome in Australia, on the grounds that they didn’t want 
their IFR Saab turboprops mixing it up with VFR in places where radar coverage 
was low-to-nonexistent.

In my observation, most VFR pilots treat class E as equivalent to class G 
anyway, so I think it was a bit of a pyrrhic victory by the airlines: They 
still have VFR traffic in their class-E approach lanes to major regional 
airports.  Hooray for victory.

In the USA, it’s completely mundane for transponder-equipped aircraft to call 
up center and get a squawk code and flight following after takeoff, which gets 
them identified and enables ATC to deconflict them from IFR traffic in class E. 
 That’s never worked properly in Australia because our ATC surveillance radar 
coverage has been awful, almost entirely focussed on capital cities.

Now that virtually all of Australia has ADS-B coverage (literally all of it, 
once the satellites are airborne), maybe it’s time to start revisiting that, 
and replacing large chunks of class G with class E, and more strongly 
encouraging the use of flight following services. Seems to work okay in North 
America, yes?

  - mark


> On 3 Apr 2017, at 3:17 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
>   CASA claimed they would copy the FAA airspace system.
> Below is the text from the only page in the FAA Aeronautical Information 
> Manual on Class G Airspace.
> The key words are "see and avoid".
>   The link is to the current FAA AIM, a good reference. My copy/paste is page 
> 159 of the pdf.
> Jim
> 
> https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf 
> 
> 
> AIM
> 12/10/15
> 
> Class G Airspace
> Section 3.  Class G Airspace
> 
> 1.  General
> Class  G  airspace  (uncontrolled)  is  that  portion  of
> airspace  that  has  not  been  designated  as  Class  A,
> Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace.
> 
> 2.  VFR Requirements
> Rules  governing  VFR  flight  have  been  adopted  to
> assist the pilot in meeting the responsibility to see and
> avoid  other  aircraft.  Minimum  flight  visibility  and
> distance  from  clouds  required  for  VFR  flight  are
> contained in 14 CFR Section 91.155.
> (See TBL 3-3-1)
> 
> 3.   IFR Requirements
> a. Title  14  CFR  specifies  the  pilot  and  aircraft
> equipment  requirements  for  IFR  flight.  Pilots  are
> reminded  that  in  addition  to  altitude  or  flight  level
> requirements,  14  CFR  Section  91.177  includes  a
> requirement to remain at least 1,000 feet (2,000 feet
> in designated mountainous terrain) above the highest
> obstacle  within  a  horizontal  distance  of  4  nautical
> miles from the course to be flown.
> b.  IFR Altitudes. 
> (See TBL 3-3-1)
> 
> TBL 3-3-1
> 
> IFR Altitudes
> Class G Airspace
> If your magnetic course 
> (ground track) is:And you are below 18,000 feet MSL, fly:
> 
> 0 to 179   Odd thousands MSL, (3,000; 5,000; 7,000, 
> etc.)
> 180 to 359   Even thousands MSL, (2,000; 4,000; 6,000, 
> etc.)
> 
> Class G Airspace3-3-1
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> 
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March

[Mark Newton]

They are.

  - mark


On 30 Mar 2017, at 9:16 AM, Colin Collum  wrote:
> 
> Strictly speaking the tests involved in aviation medicals are screening 
> rather than diagnostic and as such should not be billed to the health system 
> but paid for directly by the recipient.
> Regards,
> Colin
> From: Aus-soaring  on behalf of Jo 
> Pocklington 
> Sent: 29 March 2017 16:15:35
> To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March
>  
> Not only the RAMPC, AvMed creates an impost on the Australian health system 
> with unnecessary tests in relation to Class 2 applications. Former CASA 
> Director of Aviation Medicine, from 1988 to 1997, Dr Robert Liddell stated in 
> his Aviation Safety Regulation Review Submission (Feb 2014) that:  "... When 
> their DAME and their specialist believe they meet the risk target for 
> certification without endless further testing demanded by CASA and the advice 
> of their own specialist is ignored by the regulator then pilots lose 
> confidence in the regulator...".  Regards Jo
>   <>
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Greg Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2017 3:58 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March
>  
> For those of you wishing to email your AVMED discussion response to the 
> minister, his email address is 
> 
> Darren Chester MP >
> 
> You may also like to ask the transport minister to ask the Health Minister 
> (Hon Greg Hunt MP – Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) about the 
> impact on testing for the onerous RAMPC on medical GPs.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Greg Wilson
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:30:37 +1100 Noel Roediger 
> mailto:roedi...@internode.on.net>> wrote 
> Dear Jo.
>  
> Sincere thanks from me – and I’m sure from all others re your advice on the 
> AVMed issue.
>  
> I’ve prepared a loaded  response that will put a bee up their bum but won’t 
> send until Bev wakes and vetts it tomorrow and then I’ll copy to this site.
>  
> Can you fwd. your private email address please so we can communicate off site.
>  
> Love
>  
> Noel.
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
> ] On Behalf Of Jo Pocklington
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:20 PM
> To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March
>  
> You could simply say something like "the AOPA proposal dated 23 August 2016 
> regarding Class 2 Medical reform is supported by me" – regards Jo
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
> ] On Behalf Of Peter Champness
> Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 6:17 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Is there a generic reply which I could copy? 
>  
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Jo Pocklington  > wrote:
> Hi Mike, deadline is Thursday 30 March.  SAAA & RA-Aus submissions are not 
> yet available.  AOPA put forward a proposal on 23 August 2016 (attached), 
> which many are supporting. 
> GFA tug pilots could be affected.  Even though they can operate on an RAMPC, 
> RAMPC requires fulfilling unconditional private driver licence requirements + 
> a visit to a Doctor + filling in a medical history form + only being eligible 
> in the absence of certain conditions - although these conditions do not 
> preclude an unconditional driver's licence. There are 53+ disqualifying 
> conditions for an RAMPC including a cancer in the last 5 years, angina, 
> coronary bypass surgery, ECG changes, insulin treated diabetes, sleep 
> apnoea...  RAMPC is therefore more restrictive than a Class 2 Medical, eg a 
> healthy private pilot with a recent history of prostate cancer is ineligible 
> to obtain a RAMPC, but that pilot is unlikely to have difficulty obtaining a 
> Class 2 Medical Certificate. 
> Submissions to avmed...@casa.gov.au  and should 
> include in the subject line:  'AvMed discussion paper' - regards Jo
>  <> 
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
> ] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 3:00 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion paper
> 
> OK how many have put in a submission to CASA Avmed re the current discussion 
> paper? You have until 31st March.(the end of this week).
> 
> If you don't, there is a possibility you will be required to have a RAMPC to 
> fly gliders. You can go torecreationalfly

Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March

[Mark Newton]

On 28 Mar 2017, at 4:45 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> Yeah Number 4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule 
> is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them 
> with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. 
> 
> Alinsky's Rules for radicals.

This is why when you’re writing a letter to a Minister about a Government 
policy you wish to delay or block, it’s good to ask how the policy affects 
other Ministers in other portfolios.

They can’t answer the question without forwarding your letter to the second 
Minister, so you end up doubling the amount of work they have to do to answer 
your letter. :-)

“Don’t waste your time, waste theirs.”
https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/
 


Thinking about this in the context of Part 149 :-)

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March

[Mark Newton]

I completely understand this.

But his advice to hold CASA’s feet to the fire about adherence to their own 
principles remains a good one.

  - mark

On Mar 28, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> Jonathan Aleck is the problem at CASA, not any kind of solution. Has been for 
> a long time. His nickname is "the witchdoctor". Skidmore managed to tell a 
> porkie at a Senate hearing into the Jabiru engine debacle. I wonder why? Left 
> soon after
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> At 01:04 PM 3/28/2017, you wrote:
>> I had a 1:1 meeting with Jonathan Aleck this morning, on the subject of 
>> their newly touted “Regulatory Philosophy.”
>> 
>> Aleck wrote the policy document, and says he’s quite proud of it:
>> https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standard-page/our-regulatory-philosophy 
>>  
>> 
>> (the meeting arose because I challenged CASA’s stakeholder engagement 
>> people about how item 8, “Just culture,” applied to CASA’s actions in 
>> relation to Fadlalla and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015] AATA 331 (15 
>> May 2015), in which a two judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal 
>> systematically eviscerated CASA for enforcement overreach, bad-faith heavy 
>> handedness, and outright fabricating allegations against a student pilot in 
>> an attempt to get his license cancelled after a mistake in his flight 
>> planning caused him to arrive at Jandakot 3 minutes after last light. If you 
>> have an hour to spare, have a read of the 107 paragraph decision, and marvel 
>> at how a judge can so comprehensively dismantle an out of control regulator: 
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2015/331.html 
>>  
>> )
>> 
>> Aleck's intention is that for each action CASA takes, whether it’s 
>> enforcement, regulatory drafting, or policymaking, the person within CASA 
>> who is implementing the action should be able to explain how it is 
>> consistent with the ten points laid out in the statement on their website. 
>> His staff are running internal training across the country for CASA 
>> employees. 
>> 
>> His expectation is that where that can’t or doesn’t happen, people like 
>> us will — and should — demand better. 
>> 
>> I don’t think it’s possible to defend the AVMed status quo against those 
>> ten principles. Specifically, class 2 medicals for private pilots offend 
>> items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; and since the UK and US liberalized their 
>> private medicals, there’s probably an argument to be had about item 4 too.
>> 
>> Have at it. Two days left.
>> 
>>   - mark
>> 
>>> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt < 
>>> mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com > 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Excellent. So send in your comments to CASA and also print out and send by 
>>> snail mail to the Minister.
>>> 
>>> Make a pile of paper on his mail room desk. More impressive than emails.
>>> 
>>> Here are his contact details: 
>>> http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/chester/contact.aspx 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At 11:02 AM 3/28/2017, you wrote:
 I support the AOPA proposal and the US treatment of Class 2 medicals.
 
 I too recently did my Class 2 medical.
 
 I discussed with the DAME how the RAMPC requirements restrict to single 
 engine ops, less than 1,500kg, only 1 pax, and ops below 10,000’ 
 AMSL. He agrees that there is there is no science behind this.
 
 At least in the US the proposed Class 2  allows multi engine ops, IFR, 
 Night.
 
 I know that many DAMEs also want change.
 
 Regards
 
 Michael
 
 
 
 ___ Aus-soaring mailing list 
 Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
 http://lists.base64.com.au/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.base64.com.au 
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> Borgelt Instruments - 
>> des

Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March

[Mark Newton]

I had a 1:1 meeting with Jonathan Aleck this morning, on the subject of their 
newly touted “Regulatory Philosophy.”

Aleck wrote the policy document, and says he’s quite proud of it:
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/standard-page/our-regulatory-philosophy 


(the meeting arose because I challenged CASA’s stakeholder engagement people 
about how item 8, “Just culture,” applied to CASA’s actions in relation to 
Fadlalla and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2015] AATA 331 (15 May 2015), in 
which a two judge Administrative Appeals Tribunal systematically eviscerated 
CASA for enforcement overreach, bad-faith heavy handedness, and outright 
fabricating allegations against a student pilot in an attempt to get his 
license cancelled after a mistake in his flight planning caused him to arrive 
at Jandakot 3 minutes after last light. If you have an hour to spare, have a 
read of the 107 paragraph decision, and marvel at how a judge can so 
comprehensively dismantle an out of control regulator: 
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2015/331.html 
 )

Aleck's intention is that for each action CASA takes, whether it’s enforcement, 
regulatory drafting, or policymaking, the person within CASA who is 
implementing the action should be able to explain how it is consistent with the 
ten points laid out in the statement on their website. His staff are running 
internal training across the country for CASA employees. 

His expectation is that where that can’t or doesn’t happen, people like us will 
— and should — demand better. 

I don’t think it’s possible to defend the AVMed status quo against those ten 
principles. Specifically, class 2 medicals for private pilots offend items 2, 
3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; and since the UK and US liberalized their private 
medicals, there’s probably an argument to be had about item 4 too.

Have at it. Two days left.

  - mark

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt  
> wrote:
> 
> Excellent. So send in your comments to CASA and also print out and send by 
> snail mail to the Minister.
> 
> Make a pile of paper on his mail room desk. More impressive than emails.
> 
> Here are his contact details: 
> http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/chester/contact.aspx 
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:02 AM 3/28/2017, you wrote:
>> I support the AOPA proposal and the US treatment of Class 2 medicals.
>> 
>> I too recently did my Class 2 medical.
>> 
>> I discussed with the DAME how the RAMPC requirements restrict to single 
>> engine ops, less than 1,500kg, only 1 pax, and ops below 10,000’ AMSL. He 
>> agrees that there is there is no science behind this.
>> 
>> At least in the US the proposed Class 2  allows multi engine ops, IFR, Night.
>> 
>> I know that many DAMEs also want change.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___ Aus-soaring mailing list 
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/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.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion - due Thursday 30 March

[Mark Newton]

I submitted mine last week. Spiced and seasoned by a Class 2 medical 
examination the week before, accompanied by a small collection of avmed 
screwups which they still, 2 weeks after the exam, don’t appear to have 
rectified.

  - mark


> On Mar 27, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Jo Pocklington  wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike, deadline is Thursday 30 March.  SAAA & RA-Aus submissions are not 
> yet available.  AOPA put forward a proposal on 23 August 2016 (attached), 
> which many are supporting. 
> 
> GFA tug pilots could be affected.  Even though they can operate on an RAMPC, 
> RAMPC requires fulfilling unconditional private driver licence requirements + 
> a visit to a Doctor + filling in a medical history form + only being eligible 
> in the absence of certain conditions - although these conditions do not 
> preclude an unconditional driver's licence. There are 53+ disqualifying 
> conditions for an RAMPC including a cancer in the last 5 years, angina, 
> coronary bypass surgery, ECG changes, insulin treated diabetes, sleep 
> apnoea...  RAMPC is therefore more restrictive than a Class 2 Medical, eg a 
> healthy private pilot with a recent history of prostate cancer is ineligible 
> to obtain a RAMPC, but that pilot is unlikely to have difficulty obtaining a 
> Class 2 Medical Certificate. 
> 
> Submissions to avmed...@casa.gov.au  and should 
> include in the subject line:  'AvMed discussion paper' - regards Jo
> 
>  <> 
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
> ] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 3:00 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] CASA Avmed discussion paper
> 
> OK how many have put in a submission to CASA Avmed re the current discussion 
> paper? You have until 31st March.(the end of this week).
> 
> If you don't, there is a possibility you will be required to have a RAMPC to 
> fly gliders. You can go to recreationalflying.com 
>  to see the trouble that causes because if 
> you can't get one for a number of relatively trivial reasons you will be up 
> for a Class 2 medical with a DAME.
> 
> If you don't put in a submission, preferably in strong support of the AOPA 
> proposal which has been linked to here a while ago you get to lose all 
> bitching rights and sympathy when CASA AvMed screws you over.
> 
> Don't expect GFA to do anything sensible, do it yourself.
> 
> Mike
> 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
> 
>  recommendation.pdf>___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> 
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] TT21 Re: To PowerFlarm or not?

[Mark Newton]

On 27 Feb 2017, at 9:06 PM, Peter (PCS3)  wrote:
> 
> I purchased a TT21 and it did not include an altitude encoder for Mode S: had 
> to purchase and install it afterwards. :-(
> Was not advised by the salesperson of the TT21. :-(
> 

Huh?

It’s built-in to the TC20 display module that bolts into the instrument panel, 
which comes in the box with the transponder:
https://www.trig-avionics.com/products/tt21/ 


TT21 gets mounted on a sliding tray behind a bulkhead or under the panel 
somewhere, cabled to the TC20 in your panel, which also takes an input from 
your static system.

Are you sure it was a TT21 you bought? I don’t think you can buy them without 
the encoder.
(although you can configure them to use an external encoder if you have one, 
hilariously enough)


  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] To PowerFlarm or not?

[Mark Newton]

On 24 Feb 2017, at 8:41 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
>  Technically, the TT21 Class 2 is only "legal Mode-S" here to 15,000'. You 
> may have seen a video on Taylors gliding page of a thermal to 17,999' in my 
> glider. Believe there is nothing in the Mode-S string that indicates Class 1 
> or 2, but the difference in price is only US $250.

Sure, but for N-registered aircraft it isn't a regulatory-compliant install if 
it's class 1.

(mind you, FAA doesn't need one in a glider at all, so there's that)

>  Trig stuff at Craggy Aero:
> http://craggyaero.com/trig.htm

believe it or not (and it's crazy, I know!), I found Aircraft Spruce cheaper. 
TT21 in the post-Thanksgiving rush for US$1803, which, at the time, was about 
$300 cheaper than Craggy Aero.

Pays to shop around, anyway.

   - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] To PowerFlarm or not?

[Mark Newton]

> On 24 Feb 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
> Too many antennas!
>  I went with the Class 1 TXP for use at altitude and in case of the need to 
> ADS-B equip, but there is no GPS connected at the moment. The TT22 operates 
> purely as a Mode S transponder unless interrogated as Mode C, in which case 
> it responds as Mode C.

Y’ok, mode-S without ADS-B then. Meets expectations.

>  One GPS source possibility is the Trig TN70.

TN70 looks interesting. $3k for a GPS feels offensive, though :)

>  Added that the aircraft is an N-registered Experimental glider.

… and that explains why you went for the TT22 instead of the TT21, I take 
it? The US mandate requires a class 1 transponder.

AFAICT the only difference between class 1 and class 2 is transmit signal 
strength, and Australia’s regs specify no preference for one or the other, so I 
saved $500 and got a TT21 instead :-)


   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] To PowerFlarm or not?

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 23, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
>  Seems to me that Trig transponders are the easiest to install and keep 
> certified. I've installed two TT21s and the current TT22, also a couple of 
> Becker 4401s. Removed a Garmin and a couple of Terra(ble)s.

What are you using as a position source to get ADS-B out of the Trigs?

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] To PowerFlarm or not?

[Mark Newton]

On 22 Feb 2017, at 7:32 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:
> If we look at a 10 year lifespan for equipment, then the horizon of the 
> adoption of ADS-B is the interesting bit to us, rather than equipment cost.


As of the current date:

Any new aircraft placed on the Australian register which expects to fly in 
class E or class C airspace or in any class of airspace above 10,000' must have 
a mode-S transponder. 

(There are exemptions for aircraft which don’t have an electrical system 
capable of continuously powering a transponder. Given the power requirements of 
modern kit, it’s debatable whether a glider still qualifies for the exemption, 
but CASA are happy to let it slide for now)

Any new transponder fitted to an Australian aircraft which is intended to 
operate in class E or class C airspace must be mode-S.

Any aircraft which is flying IFR in any airspace must have a mode-S transponder 
which broadcasts ADS-B, unless they’re being used for private flight only, in 
which case there’s an extension. The extension came so late that much of the 
Australian IFR fleet was very likely converted over to ADS-B already before it 
was issued.

At the current time, it is still lawful to fit a mode-C transponder to aircraft 
which will never fly in class E or class C (e.g., aircraft that spend their 
whole lives in class G with the odd occasional foray into class D airports). 

I believe it’s foolish to fit new mode-C installations even in that case, 
though: Mode-S transponders with built-in digital altitude encoders which sip 
hardly any power are cheap, and mode-C transponders are getting harder and 
harder to find.

You’re only allowed to make ADS-B broadcasts with your mode-S transponder if 
you have a GNSS position source which meets the applicable TSOs. That adds 
considerably to the price of ADS-B unless you already have something like a 
Garmin GNS430W (unlikely in a glider) or if you’ve found a cheap transponder 
with a TSO GNSS hockey-puck built in (Garmin does one, but it isn’t 
attractively cheap IMHO)

So, to summarize:

1. For all intents and purposes, mode C probably won’t be fitted to aircraft 
anymore.

2. As existing mode-C devices in VFR aircraft develop faults, it’ll be cheaper 
to replace them with mode-S than to repair them.

3. Even when a considerable amount of VFR aircraft are converted to mode-S, 
most of them still won’t be broadcasting ADS-B.

4. Almost all IFR-capable aircraft will already be broadcasting ADS-B as of the 
beginning of this month.

I went through all this late last year: Had a Trig TT21 installed in the RV-6 
last month, connected up to the Garmin GNS430W navigator that I already owned, 
broadcasting ADS-B. I’m now so visible that I feel like I’m naked when I’m 
flying :-)

Cheers,

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Class 2 Medical Reform CASA - submissions due 30 March 17

[Mark Newton]

On 18 Feb 2017, at 11:28 AM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> 
> AOPA made their proposal last year to CASA and the Minister. The CASA paper 
> looks to me like a typical bureaucratic response when the intention is to do 
> nothing. Instead of simply discussing the AOPA proposal it puts ALL medical 
> certification on the table which is guaranteed to draw out the process ad 
> infinitum as people argue about minor details of everything.
> 

It's important to understand that the CASA discussion paper is a response to 
the AOPA proposal, not the other way around.

AOPA rattled chains and kicked over the bins outside the Minister's office in 
response to FAA third class medical reform: "You people are hopeless. Why are 
you insisting on this bureaucratic class 2 medical system for Australia when 
you could be pulling your heads out of your arses and doing what the Americans 
are doing?"

AOPA and SAAA wrote up a proposal. CASA wrote the DP to focus discussion on 
their options instead of the AOPA option.

CASA AVmed doesn't want to de-bureaucratise the system. They'll have to be 
dragged kicking and screaming into it, and whatever passes will probably be 
against their objections.

That's why it's important to have your say. A one line email to CASA will 
suffice; something more substantial in your own words will be even better.

   - mark




___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mark Newton]

- mark



> On 14 Feb 2017, at 8:09 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> 
> was not is the case recently where a coroner stated that responsibility must 
> be with the pilot and no other?
> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2017, at 7:33 PM, Mark Newton  <mailto:new...@atdot.dotat.org>> wrote:
> 
>> On 14 Feb 2017, at 5:44 PM, Derek > <mailto:drudd...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal 
>>> responsibility demonstrated?
>>> The pilot had already made a fist of the conditions, so why on earth get 
>>> into a single seater?
>>> 
>>> "The instructor MADE me do it yer honour”
>> 
>> The GFA system infantalizes pilots.
>> 
>> The law of primacy: if something is important, teach it first, correctly.
>> 
>> If quality of operational decision making is important, the GFA syllabus 
>> should be teaching it from lesson 1: What are your personal minimums? What 
>> are your go/no-go criteria? How do you manage authority gradients? How do 
>> you “step back” and create a bit of space for independent judgement when 
>> you’re confronted with an uncomfortable situation?
>> 
>> The GFA syllabus doesn’t teach that. Instead, right from lesson 1 it 
>> stresses that the instructor is the superior, and that the duty instructor 
>> will be running the day, and that everyone else on the field marches to that 
>> person’s tune. So much so that if the duty instructor doesn’t show up, 
>> everyone goes home.
>> 
>> Military-style chain of command.
>> 
>> In the PW5 accident, the pilot CLEARLY didn’t feel comfortable with the 
>> flight: He’d had previous experience from earlier in the day that the new 
>> instructor wasn’t familiar with; he knew there was a skill he needed to 
>> polish before he was safe for solo flight; And, being 69 years old, one can 
>> assume that he’d been around the traps enough to pick up enough life 
>> experience to know when he’s being sold a pup.
>> 
>> By any reasonable outside examination, those factors should have been a 
>> psychological defence against him accepting a launch.  “Nope, I’m out.”
>> 
>> And yet: A level-2 instructor completely disarmed him, and was able to talk 
>> him into a serious injury via precisely the failure-mode that he already 
>> knew he was vulnerable to.
>> 
>> From day one exposure to the GFA system, he should have been taught to 
>> politely tell instructors to go and get fornicated if they behave like that.
>> 
>> He wasn’t, and he suffered serious spinal injuries.
>> 
>> How has the syllabus been changed to prevent a recurrence of that accident?  
>> Ha-ha, oh look, it hasn’t changed at all: This is what we’re supposed to 
>> expect when it’s working correctly.
>> 
>> Despite that: The system wasn’t applied correctly anyway. The MOSP says the 
>> duty instructor is operationally responsible for all aspects of the day. Was 
>> the duty instructor sanctioned for this accident? Was there a disciplinary 
>> inquiry for letting the pilot launch? Or for letting the other instructor 
>> clear him to launch without observing his flying aptitude? What exactly does 
>> “responsibility” mean in the GFA system anyway?
>> 
>> We accommodate these issues in other aviation disciplines by making a very 
>> clear rule: The pilot is operationally responsible for all aspects of 
>> his/her flight. That’s what the law says. That’s what the GFA system 
>> subverts.
>> 
>>   - mark
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mark Newton]

On 14 Feb 2017, at 5:44 PM, Derek  wrote:
> 
> It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal 
> responsibility demonstrated?
> The pilot had already made a fist of the conditions, so why on earth get into 
> a single seater?
> 
> "The instructor MADE me do it yer honour”

The GFA system infantalizes pilots.

The law of primacy: if something is important, teach it first, correctly.

If quality of operational decision making is important, the GFA syllabus should 
be teaching it from lesson 1: What are your personal minimums? What are your 
go/no-go criteria? How do you manage authority gradients? How do you “step 
back” and create a bit of space for independent judgement when you’re 
confronted with an uncomfortable situation?

The GFA syllabus doesn’t teach that. Instead, right from lesson 1 it stresses 
that the instructor is the superior, and that the duty instructor will be 
running the day, and that everyone else on the field marches to that person’s 
tune. So much so that if the duty instructor doesn’t show up, everyone goes 
home.

Military-style chain of command.

In the PW5 accident, the pilot CLEARLY didn’t feel comfortable with the flight: 
He’d had previous experience from earlier in the day that the new instructor 
wasn’t familiar with; he knew there was a skill he needed to polish before he 
was safe for solo flight; And, being 69 years old, one can assume that he’d 
been around the traps enough to pick up enough life experience to know when 
he’s being sold a pup.

By any reasonable outside examination, those factors should have been a 
psychological defence against him accepting a launch.  “Nope, I’m out.”

And yet: A level-2 instructor completely disarmed him, and was able to talk him 
into a serious injury via precisely the failure-mode that he already knew he 
was vulnerable to.

From day one exposure to the GFA system, he should have been taught to politely 
tell instructors to go and get fornicated if they behave like that.

He wasn’t, and he suffered serious spinal injuries.

How has the syllabus been changed to prevent a recurrence of that accident?  
Ha-ha, oh look, it hasn’t changed at all: This is what we’re supposed to expect 
when it’s working correctly.

Despite that: The system wasn’t applied correctly anyway. The MOSP says the 
duty instructor is operationally responsible for all aspects of the day. Was 
the duty instructor sanctioned for this accident? Was there a disciplinary 
inquiry for letting the pilot launch? Or for letting the other instructor clear 
him to launch without observing his flying aptitude? What exactly does 
“responsibility” mean in the GFA system anyway?

We accommodate these issues in other aviation disciplines by making a very 
clear rule: The pilot is operationally responsible for all aspects of his/her 
flight. That’s what the law says. That’s what the GFA system subverts.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] L2 Independent Ops

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Feb 2017, at 4:19 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
> Many of us thought that the GPC was going to give holders responsibility for 
> themselves.
> Perhaps some situations where people felt they were under an instructor's 
> "control" only happened because the instructor was concerned about legal 
> liability under the present rules. Seems an unnecessary burden on instructors.

Having control creates liability.

You can be liable for an act under a range of different constructions if you 
know something is happening, and you have the ability to prevent it from 
happening, and you fail to act.

Giving instructors the power to intervene in everyone’s operations (e.g., by 
giving them authority to checkfly or ground pilots) means they have the unique 
ability to know about and prevent virtually anything from happening. So they’re 
in the liability firing line.

The present rules place the duty instructor in charge of an operation. If they 
were redefined so that instructors were only in charge of the instructional 
aspects of the operation, with no authority over pilots who weren’t undergoing 
training, then their liability would likely be constrained.

Of course, this is all theorizing. We’ve had 70 years to find out: Have any GFA 
duty instructors been found liable for any glider accidents?

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> that being the case, what is the point of making an enemy of the GFA when 
> befriending and making small changes over time seems like a higher potential 
> path for improvement

GFA has never made small changes over time to facilitate the things we’ve been 
talking about here.

They have invested significant effort into sabotaging efforts others have made 
which would have achieved at least some of what we’ve been talking about here.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/files/2012/07/lucyfootball.png 



> 
> So apart from the L2 ops changes I can see of value to those who own Self 
> Launchers, what would would make the top 10 ten items that need changing in 
> the MOSPs (they being the enforcement list per se)


This has been covered many times already.

GFA needs to change their syllabus to align it with the CASA RPL syllabus, so 
that converting from GPC to RPL is mostly a paperwork exercise, and so that a 
GPC automatically includes L2 Independent Ops.

GFA needs to advocate with CASA to agree that the glider pilot endorsement can 
be attached to an RPL.

GFA needs to amend the MOSP so that RPL holders with glider ratings have the 
same privileges as GFA members with L2 Independent Ops, so that clubs can opt 
to supply glider-related services (such as launches) to non-GFA members.

GFA needs to liaise with CASA to confirm that the GFA airworthiness system is 
at least as safe as the CASA airworthiness system, and that RPL holders can 
henceforth fly GFA-maintained gliders, and GPC holders can fly CASA-maintained 
gliders.

Make those changes, and non-GFA members will be able to fly GFA gliders and 
vice versa, and pilots won’t have to be in a chain of command if they don’t 
want to be.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Christopher McDonnell  
wrote:
> 
> “I don’t think CASA cares a whole heap about that.”
>  
> No they don’t Mark but I think the courts would if you had the money and 
> inclination to take that path.

CASA has been requiring glider pilots to be GFA members for about 60 years, and 
nobody has had the money or inclination to check.

I think you’re right, but it’s a bit academic until someone presses the point.

  - mark

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You also can’t be a GFA member without being a member of a GFA-affiliated 
>> club, so you actually need to be a member of TWO organizations to be 
>> compliant with the GFA operations manual.
>> 
> 
> I must admit that part never made any sense to me…..anyone have any idea why 
> it was set up that way?

Because if you’re not a member of a club, you’re not subordinate to a club’s 
CFI and duty instructor.

Everyone has to be in a club so that they can slot in to the chain of command.

   - mark

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:09 PM, James McDowall  wrote:
> Mark,
> Agree with most of what you wrote except that CASR 61.1515 does not say that 
> you have to be a member. It says that " (1)  The holder of a glider pilot 
> licence is authorised to conduct an activity in the exercise of the 
> privileges of the licence only if the activity is conducted in accordance 
> with: <>
>  <> (a)  the operations manual of a recreational aviation 
> administration organisation that administers glider activities;"
> 
> That is different to being a member. It is the ops regulations that mandate 
> membership.
> 

It isn’t the regulations, it’s the manual.

The GFA MOSP (“operations manual”) says you need to be a member.

The MOSP defines an “Authorised Inspector” as a GFA member holding an authority 
to perform sailplane airworthiness functions. You’ll need that to DI your 
aircraft before you fly it.

Then MOSP Pt 2 3.1.1 says, “An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must 
not be operated except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4).

MOSP Pt 2 3.1.2 enables people without pilot licenses to act as flight crew 
“providing he or she complies iwth the conditions set out in CAO 95.4, 
subsections 5 and 6.”  CAO 95.4 section 5 says you need to be a member of the 
GFA or someone who has been given written approval by CASA (which you can’t get 
anymore).

Given that the MOSP says in multiple locations, directly and by reference, that 
you can’t follow it unless you are a GFA member, you are self-evidently not 
conducting activities in accordance with the GFA MOSP if you are flying without 
being a GFA member.

You also can’t be a GFA member without being a member of a GFA-affiliated club, 
so you actually need to be a member of TWO organizations to be compliant with 
the GFA operations manual.

> CAO95.4 still permits the parallel path. I explored this a couple of years 
> ago but the conditions were impossible to comply with and CASA knew it!
> 

So it doesn’t actually permit the parallel path, then.

> Also I know of 2 LAMEs that are prepared to issue MR's on gliders.
> 

There’s no shortage of LAMEs who’ll issue CASA MRs on type certificated 
composite aircraft these days.

  - mark




___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Christopher McDonnell  
wrote:
>  
> Where does that fit with “Freedom of Association”?  Is that not why there is 
> an ‘alternative path’?  You cannot be forced to join an association generally 
> speaking.
>  

I don’t think CASA cares a whole heap about that.

The various sports aviation orgs are struggling with this in their approach to 
Part 149 at the moment.

Part 149 formalizes and generalizes the RAAus/GFA approach, where CASA can 
carve-out sections of sports aviation and delegate them to membership-based 
organizations (“ASAOs”).

I think the existing orgs see this as a way to cement their membership: Formal 
generalized structure for them to hand out all manner of qualifications which 
collapse as soon as their recipients fail to renew their subscription.

SAAA is probably struggling the most: They see a path forward through Part 149 
for issuance of maintenance endorsements to operators of amateur-built 
aircraft, once appropriate training and testing has been developed. BUT their 
members have never received ratings which are contingent on SAAA membership; 
they’ve all joined because they want to join, not because they need to.

I don’t think Part 149 has merit. Its raison d’être is that the ASAOs can 
provide equivalent safety to each other and to CASA; so it seems to me that 
CASA should be issuing licenses and ratings. The Part 149 way is to have 6 
different ASAOs plus CASA all endorsing the same thing at the equivalent levels 
of safety, producing an aggregate cost to sports aviation potentially seven 
times higher than it would be if only one org was administering all of them; 
AND even though all the orgs are supposed to be delivering the same safety 
result, the endorsements they administer wouldn’t be portable between silos.

One silo: One set of regulations. One set of pilot qualifications. One 
airworthiness system. One regulator. One aircraft register. 

What are we gaining by having several?

  - mark





___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 7, 2017, at 12:00 PM, James McDowall  wrote:

> My reading of Mosp 2 (the GFA operations manual) is that membership of the 
> GFA is only mandated for foreign pilots and Class A airspace operations.

Good luck getting a glider in to Class A airspace.

I think you're misreading how the various rulesets interact with each other.

0. The Civil Aviation Act is king. It enables the Parliament to make 
regulations regarding civil aviation.
1. The Parliament has promulgated CARs and CASRs pursuant to the Act.
2. They permit CASA to issue CAOs.
3. One of the CAOs is 95.4, which creates the system of exemptions and 
delegations needed to create GFA.
4. Subordinate to CAO 95.4 is the rest of the Operational Regulations.
5. The Operational Regulations say that certain things need to be done IAW the 
MOSP.

The MOSP is at the bottom of the chain, not the top. It makes no difference 
what mandates the MOSP makes if they’re overridden by CASR 61.145 and 61.1515 
(or, for that matter, the Act).

> However, the GFA Operational Regulations (agreed between CASA and the GFA as 
> per CAO 95.4) say:
> "3.1.1. An aircraft to which these Regulations apply must not be operated 
> except by an individual who is a member of the GFA (CAO 95.4)." which would 
> seem to run counter to the intent of CASR 61.1515 for why not say in the 
> regulation "must be a member of the GFA”.

Part 61 post-dates CAO 95.4, which means Part 61 “wins” if they disagree.

They don’t disagree in this case: CAO 95.4 says pilots have to be GFA members. 
Part 61 says glider pilots need to be members of an organization authorized to 
administer gliders. There is only one such organization, the GFA, so the two 
regulations are equivalent.

Part 61 doesn’t specifically mention GFA because it’s been written on the 
understanding that Part 149 will be promulgated, which opens up territory for 
new organizations to be authorized to administer aspects of sports aviation, 
including gliders.

Part 149 should be opposed, it takes us in exactly the opposite direction to 
where we should be going, by cementing the power and authority of organizations 
like the GFA over “their” pilots, instead of leaving sports pilots under their 
own regulatory recognizance like every other pilot in the world.

GFA supports it.

> This question is did CASA exceed its authority to include this in the GFA 
> Operational Regulations when CAO 95.4 clearly defines an alternative path to 
> glider opeartions?

The alternative path is no longer supported by CASA: Their discussion paper on 
Part 149 specifically says they’re not interested in enabling "Parallel Path” 
anymore. They view it as a failed experiment.


> BTW reading Part 61 it would seem that a private operator of glider 
> maintained by a LAME and holding a PPL can legally fly the glider provided 
> you do not need the benefit of the exemptions of CAO 95.4 which only seem to 
> exclude slope soaring. Remember RA-Aus issues glider towing endorsements.

Yes — But converting an existing GFA-maintained glider to a LAME scheme of 
maintenance will almost certainly cost more than the glider is worth, so taking 
that path is really only practical for brand new imported gliders which have 
never been maintained by the GFA form-2 system.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

> On 7 Feb 2017, at 9:23 AM, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> Can anyone enlighten me as to which piece of legislation says a GPL has no 
> validity in Australia?

CASR 61.145 permits flight in a glider without a glider pilot license under 
stated conditions.

CASR 61.1515 limits exercise of the privileges of a glider pilot license to 
activity “conducted in accordance with … the operations manual of a 
recreational aviation administration organisation that administers glider 
activities…”

The only such organization is the GFA.

The operations manual of the GFA requires pilots to be GFA members and submit 
to the GFA instructional system, flying GFA-registered aircraft maintained 
under the GFA airworthiness system.

If a pilot is a GFA member and has submitted to the GFA instructional system, 
flying a GFA-registered aircraft maintained under the GFA airworthiness system, 
they don’t actually need a glider pilot license in the first place.

Thus the glider pilot license is useless in Australia. The credential that CASA 
recognizes as authority to fly a glider in Australia is the GFA-issued GPC, not 
the one on your Part 61 license.

Here’s Simon Hackett’s account of what it takes to get one, by the way:
https://simonhackett.com/2015/04/17/australian-to-usa-glider-pilot-license/ 


> An Australian ‘GLIDER PILOT LICENSE’ (GPL) issued by CASA (the Australian 
> version of the FAA) is not a license to fly gliders in Australia.
> 
> Instead, the GPL is it seems, merely an administrative construct ... that 
> joins the dots between an international licensing system (that wants to see 
> an ICAO compliant thing called a license) and the Australian glider flying 
> environment administered by the GFA
> 


  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On 7 Feb 2017, at 8:30 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> whats positive Mark is that it is recognised that most of the work that needs 
> to done has to be at grass roots level, nothing to do with the GFA at all.

Hahah yeah, bullshit.

You can’t do a grass-roots MOSP rewrite.

Grass roots won’t get a CASR amended to enable glider endorsements on RPLs.


> Unfortunately it is a growing weakness in our culture is to blame the 
> government (or any upstream authority) rather than assume personal 
> responsibility.

Unfortunately it is a growing weakness in GFA to blame the members (for not 
grass-rooting hard enough) rather than assume responsibility for their jobs and 
functions.

The literal point of the GFA is collective representation to the regulator.  
There is no other purpose to its existence. If we have a discussion about 
interactions with regulations, and GFA people say, “Your individual 
responsibility is deficient,” the mere existence of that conversation 
represents a total abysmal failure of the GFA to do what the GFA is designed to 
do.


> Its also clear that the GFA has little control over anything in all reality, 
> except to write documents put some polices in place and hope somebody enacts 
> them. Most everything else happens between members and the club management

Absolute unmitigated rolled-gold 24-carat bullshit.

The GFA writes regulations in a fee-for-service arrangement with CASA.

As an organization, it has near total power over every aspect of gliding in 
Australia. If it writes documents to promulgate some policy, it doesn’t need to 
“hope somebody enacts it,”it does biennial audits with the power to shut anyone 
down who doesn’t enact it.

To point at an organization with that much power and say it “has little control 
over anything in all reality” is the pinnacle of misguided victimhood.

If GFA officeholders really feel that way, they should grow the hell up and 
have a good hard look at the reality they’re inhabiting.


> The good news is that there are clubs that are operating differently and 
> showing great results.

No, there aren’t. 

There really aren’t.

The whole movement is in decline, has been for decades; and the clubs with 
“great results” will collapse faster than anyone realizes when the rest of the 
movement lacks the critical mass to sustain them.

(Where will the successful clubs get their form-2s done when the businesses 
providing glider airworthiness close their doors because there aren’t enough 
active gliders to make it worthwhile? What’ll they do instead, lean harder on 
volunteers, then sneer at them when they get jaded and leave? ‘Cos that’s been 
working well so far, hasn’t it?)

> And what is also clear its that just about nobody active on this list wants 
> to do anything other than whinge. As an example, only one person offered to 
> assist with the L2 ops change….(thanks Bernard)

… and, just like that, you get to dismiss everybody who isn’t down with the 
status quo.

Some of us spent a great deal of time and effort advocating for change from 
inside the system, and gave up in despair.

We shouldn’t need to expend even more effort and suffer even more despair to be 
taken seriously.


> Lets all  please remember that the GFA is just ordinary people doing 
> thankless volunteer jobs,

No it is not “just” that.

Some of it is that, yes.

But some of it is also a private organization which receives several hundred 
thousand dollars per year to act as an outsourced regulator.

You appear to be denying that that’s true, which is pretty weird, because GFA 
has over a million bucks in the bank, and it didn’t get that by publishing 
gliding magazines.


> As a pilot and aircraft owner, I find the whole GFA experience simple, easy 
> and painless, works well for me and many, many others I know.

> As I am getting a self launcher, I do want this L2 ops situation improved and 
> I will apply efforts towards that.

Translation: You’ll agitate for whatever change within GFA you need to make you 
happy, and not a skerrick more.

As you depicted above, anyone who agitates for change within GFA that you’re 
indifferent to is a whinger.

“Individual responsibility.”

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On 7 Feb 2017, at 7:34 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> 
> snarkiness???
> its that what exposing some reality is called?

He has a job to do.

He’s doing the opposite of the job.

> 
> john might not be very PC and the way he expressed things could have been a 
> little more sensitive,

“PC”?  “Sensitive”?  Turn it up, mate, nobody asked for those things.


> but there was also a lot of reality in what he imparted.  Looks to me like a 
> lot of healthy discussion as one result.

The same “healthy discussion” that’s been going on for at least 20 years.

It’ll peter out into nothingness in due course, and the GFA will decline to do 
anything about it.

Then something else will spark its resumption in a year or so, and the same 
points will be made again.

This isn’t new discussion with unique insights, it’s boring, repetitive, and 
demoralizing to cover the same territory over and over again for decades. There 
is clearly appetite within the GFA membership for the outcomes that have been 
discussed here, but no momentum whatsoever within the hierarchy to achieve them.

CFIT.

> I don't think he deserved such punitive and heavy handedness, and trying to 
> gag a marketing guy of all people has to be red rag to a bull.
> Shuttering a core social media channel does not look that clever either.

He’s a volunteer, doing a job he’s supposed to enjoy.

If he isn’t enjoying it, or isn’t doing a good job of it, he should stop 
volunteering and hand it over to someone else.

Using his platform to berate everyone else about how hopeless they are is not 
acceptable behavior.


  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 6 Feb 2017, at 7:31 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:42 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.  <mailto:ec...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mathew
>> 
>> I seem to have missed something!
>> Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a 
>> GPLicence in Australia.
>> Is that correct and how would one go about it?
> 
> If you have a part 61 CASA license (or if you’re one of the decreasing number 
> of people with a pre-Part 61 license ready for conversion) you can have a 
> glider endorsement attached to it.

Matthew has reminded me that you can commence this without a Part 61 license, 
in which case CASA issues you what is effectively a Part 61 license without any 
ratings on it except a glider rating.

The rest of my account remains accurate.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 6 Feb 2017, at 6:42 PM, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.  
wrote:
> 
> Hi Mathew
> 
> I seem to have missed something!
> Your reply seems to indicate that the GPCertificate is upgradable to a 
> GPLicence in Australia.
> Is that correct and how would one go about it?

If you have a part 61 CASA license (or if you’re one of the decreasing number 
of people with a pre-Part 61 license ready for conversion) you can have a 
glider endorsement attached to it.

The GPC is taken as evidence that you’re qualified to receive the endorsement.

The endorsement is an ICAO-compliant addition to your license which should be 
respected by other ICAO contracting States.

The endorsement is not accepted by CASA as a qualification to fly gliders in 
Australia. You need to maintain your GFA and club memberships to do that.

The endorsement isn’t available if you have a CASA Recreational Pilot License 
(RPL): The RPL isn’t an ICAO compliant license, so it isn’t valid outside 
Australian jurisdiction, so there’s no point adding a rating to it that’s only 
valid outside Australia.

At present, the only legal way to fly a GFA registered glider is to:

   - Be in Australia.
   - Complete maintenance on the glider sufficient to obtain a GFA maintenance 
release.
   - Validate the maintenance release by inspecting it with a GFA DI rating.
   - Be a member of the GFA in good standing.
   - Be a member of a GFA-affiliated gliding club in good standing.
   - Either:
   * Submit to the authority of a duty instructor,
   * Hold a Level 1 Independent Operator rating and submit to the authority 
of a CFI; or
   * Hold a Level 2 Independent Operator rating, and fly at a place that 
isn’t currently under
  the authority of a GFA duty instructor.

No amount of licensing from CASA can currently modify those requirements.

Technically you could import your own glider, get your own CofA and CofR nfrom 
CASA, get a LAME to issue maintenance releases every year, and fly it under the 
authority of your CASA RPL or PPL.

Transferring a GFA registered glider to the CASA register or vice versa will 
almost certainly be prohibitively expensive because GFA’s maintenance system 
isn’t the same as CASA’s, so it probably isn’t practical for an RPL or PPL 
holder to operate without the GFA.

You’d also technically need a CASA CPL holder with a glider endorsement to give 
you an Aeroplane Flight Review every two years, but I’m guessing Cathy could do 
that so that probably isn’t insurmountable.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 6, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:

> In theory the personal legal risk for a CFI should be lower from an L2 Ind Op.

Hang on.

Firstly: At best, the personal legal risk for a CFI is undefined (which is, 
itself, a personal legal risk)

Secondly: At worst, the personal legal risk for someone who issues a rating 
should be around the question of whether the training was IAW the syllabus, and 
whether the trainee performed well enough to demonstrate that they met the 
requirements for the issuance of the rating.

If Joe Bloggs comes to you and says they want an amphibious self-launch rating, 
and you’ve trained him against the amphibious self-launch syllabus, and he’s 
been tested against he conditions of the amphibious self-launch rating, and 
you’ve adequately recorded that those things have happened, then that’s where 
your liability begins and ends.

If he subsequently goes out and crashes himself into a lake, you can show the 
investigator your documentation and say, “He wasn’t broken when he walked out 
of here,” and they’ll express paroxysms of joy over the fact that someone has 
kept enough of a papertrail to make their jobs easy.

You’re not automatically on the hook just because some arseclown goes out and 
kills himself in a crash after you’ve signed them off, if you’ve signed them 
off properly.

If the systems of training, checking, and certification within GFA aren’t 
providing that surety, then they’re clearly and obviously deficient. At the 
very least, they’ll make it impossible for the GFA to tell the regulator that 
their system of training is equivalent to the systems of training provided by 
CASA instructors or other sports aviation systems.

Perhaps CFIs who recognize the existence of those deficiencies might want to 
improve them, or, alternatively, might assess their personal risks and decide 
that they don't want to be CFIs anymore.

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 6, 2017, at 1:30 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:
> Also, if my understanding is correct it is possible fly a self-launcher with 
> a C certificate (plus corresponding training/endorsement) under the 
> supervision of an instructor(?).

You can do all of your ab initio training in a self-launcher, including first 
solo.

Far from needing a C Certificate to fly in, you can use one to get your C 
certificate.

> And now the call from someone within the upper rungs of the GFA that “anyone 
> cleared to fly a Self Launcher automatically has L2 OPS annotated on GPC“. 
> Hmmm. Maybe the people who (want to) doctor around with the MOSP should 
> actually read and (try to) understand it.

MOSP Pt 2 20.1.2 doesn’t require a C certificate.

It’d be a bit odd for an operational rating to need a sporting qualification as 
a prerequisite. (notwithstanding that the MOSP has maintained that oddness on 
many occasions in the past)

The “self-retrieving … [to] an alternative safe landing site” purpose in 20.1.3 
looks like a pretty stretchable loophole :-)

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

t. Shared asserts by human nature are never as well looked after as 
>> those owned. (rental cars + public transport vs the private car)
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 2:28 pm, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. 
>>> mailto:ec...@internode.on.net>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Hi James, hello all
>>>  
>>> I have argued along exactly the same lines when I was on the panel as the 
>>> head coach for SA.
>>>  
>>> Coming from a different country I was bewildered that there is no formal 
>>> qualification for glider pilots in Australia. I argued 
>>> for a Glider Pilot Licence (GPL) instead of a Glider Pilot Certificate 
>>> (GPC) but I was told that only CASA has the authority 
>>> to issue licences. The GFA wanted to retain control and for mainly this 
>>> reason we are now stuck with a certificate rather 
>>> than a licence. A certificate is (almost) worthless but a licence implies 
>>> that you can operate free of interference by others.
>>>  
>>> For years (or should I say decades) I have argued that the current system 
>>> is no longer appropriate and need urgent fixing. 
>>> Please let me commend Mark Newton for articulating this major problem 
>>> accurately and publicly. He has expressed what 
>>> many disgruntled glider pilots have long complained about privately and 
>>> what has caused a lot of bad publicity for gliding
>>> over the years. I know that it has prevented many other potential aviators 
>>> to join. This will continue until suitably qualified 
>>> pilots can freely operate outside of the supervision of instructors who in 
>>> many cases have much less knowledge, less 
>>> know-how, less experience and far less competence than the pilot(s) 
>>> involved.
>>>  
>>> I hasten to add that I have not experienced an abuse of power by 
>>> instructors panels or CFIs but I’m aware of the fact that 
>>> this has occurred in other parts of the country. In too many cases the 
>>> affected individuals have left the sport or switched to 
>>> power flying where they were treated with the respect they deserve. Let’s 
>>> not forget that the power jockey's gain came at 
>>> our expense! Their member base is still increasing while our numbers are 
>>> largely on the decline.
>>>  
>>> I can’t help but feel that we have lived with the current system for such a 
>>> long time that many of us are unwilling to even 
>>> contemplate a system that makes for truly independent pilots. In the medium 
>>> term it will undoubtedly be another nail in the
>>> gliding coffin down under.
>>>  
>>> However, gliding is not yet in the coffin, and we should not lose hope 
>>> altogether. Some of you might recall my series of articles 
>>> with the title “Time for a change?”. These articles were published in 
>>> 'Gliding Australia’ and proved to be the trigger for the GFA 
>>> to implement the GPC. However, to my way of thinking this should have only 
>>> been the first step. The logical next step would 
>>> be to bring our system in line with best overseas practices. Unfortunately 
>>> it won’t happen if we don’t get organised and if we 
>>> don’t drive the necessary changes at grass root level. Only when we push 
>>> very hard and collectively will we stand a chance 
>>> to convince the GFA to act and that is time to act NOW.
>>>  
>>> Kind regards to all
>>>  
>>> Bernard 
>>>  
>>> PS: On request I will make my articles “Time for a change?” available to 
>>> members of this great forum. I just love it
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>> On 5 Feb 2017, at 9:13 am, James McDowall >>> <mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> CFI's (Cheif Flying Instructors) responsibility should end when you get a 
>>>> GPC (which really should be a GPL valid in Australia).
>>>>  
>>>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Richard Frawley >>> <mailto:rjfraw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the GFA has operational responsibility as that is what is imparted 
>>>> and set up to do, but the key and central relationship still remains 
>>>> between CASA and the Pilot. If you breach airspace are they going to chase 
>>>> the GFA?
>>>>  
>>>> If anyone thinks that you can g

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 5 Feb 2017, at 3:35 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> It is well know that the biggest resistance by far to the current GPC change 
> (which was a good step forward) was by instructors and especially CFI’S and 
> RTO’s
> 
> I would be more than happy to help champion the issuance of GPC as equivalent 
> to Level 2 Independent ops, but I can tell you now it will the CFI’s and 
> Panels that will resist the most

Needs to be equivalent to CASA RPL (plus or minus a short transition training 
course).

GPC should be the bridge between disciplines. In the same way that a qualified 
RAAus pilot can fill out a form and do a checkride to get an RPL, a qualified 
GFA pilot should be able to do likewise.

(If the GPC and RPL are equivalent, and a keen pilot can’t organize a crew, at 
they can go to their local GA or RAAus school and rent a Eurofox or something 
instead)


> Given however the small number of self launchers, this requirements is still 
> moot.
> As long as you still need others (tugs, wing runners, ropes) there is no true 
> independence and their in lies the root cause.

The issue isn’t whether a pilot can be independent from anyone at all; it’s 
whether they can be independent of a club.

There are regularly aircraft listed in the classifieds section of Gliding 
Australia for less than $30k. Three mates should be able to tip in $10,000 
each, and own an aircraft cheaper than a jet-ski. Having bought it, there 
should be no reason why they need to get involved in any gliding clubs anymore, 
if they don’t want to.

In the same way that getting a launch at a comp is a simple commercial 
transaction, there should be no reason why syndicate pilots can’t front-up at 
any random gliding operation and say, “Here’s ten bucks, can you squeeze me 
into your winch launch queue?” without also submitting to club bylaws and the 
judgement of an instructor.

You don’t need to be a club member to operate a GA or RAAus aircraft out of 
Gawler. Why should you need to be a club member to operate a glider off the 
same runway?

(Some clubs insist on “site checks” before someone can soar there — Why? GA 
pilots don’t need site checks, why should glider pilots? Shouldn’t unique 
aspects of a site be documented in its ERSA entry, and shouldn’t a pilot's 
training and airmanship be adequate for them to judge their own operational 
risks? If a site’s complexities are treated as some kind of secret data that 
can only be disclosed during a site check, the system is failing)


  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson  wrote:
> 
> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make GPC 
> holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2 
> instructor's presence at launch.
> 
> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to control 
> pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated system to be 
> relinquished.

It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft. It 
evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations.

GFA implements a chain of command: 

Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not meant to 
believe that)

Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a "rank." 
Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of the layer 
above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is "responsible" for 
the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is "responsible" for the 
panel. And so on. 

Sitting at the middle of everything is GFA, HQ, setting policy centrally, 
implemented by the chain of command.

It's all right there in the MOSP ("standing orders.")

I speculated earlier that it happened like this in the 1950s because so many of 
the early GFA people had military aviation involvement, so setting up a command 
hierarchy would've been a natural way to approach civilian aviation. Society 
was a lot more hierarchical then too.

It isn't anymore.


> 
> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA. 
> What do you think?
> 

Can't be here. GFA started their own website forums for members specifically so 
they wouldn't need to listen to this one.

Members need to get upset about this. Get organised.

 - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] more light hearted WAS: MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

> get grief, go get a life […]


How about y’all just chill out a bit.


   - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Bathurst 1000k

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
> 
> Nice one Matthew.
> Seems a bit out of the ordinary... How many thousands have been done out of 
> Bathurst?

At least one! :-)

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:24 AM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:

> If we assume it is only age related, the register shows that the cut off year 
> for the 600 oldest gliders is 1978. So all that "old low performance stuff" 
> would include all the LS1s, Cirrus, Libelles, Mosquitos, Astir CS/CS77s and 
> Hornets and some of the Jantars, PIK20s, ASW20s and LS3s. 



The ASH-25 first flew in 1987. That makes it a 30 year old aircraft.

Won’t be too long before it’s classified as a vintage sailplane :-)

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

> On 2 Feb 2017, at 12:26 AM, Paul Bart  wrote:
> 
>> Mark Newton wrote:
>> nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get an instructor 
>> rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to get a crew 
>> organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.
>> 
>> That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t 
>> be that way?
> 
> 
> Well not really, at best it is a perverse supposition you have made. 
> Potentially there may be some other explanations.



Such as?

What other aviation discipline has more than a quarter of its adherents with 
instructor ratings?

It’s a perverse outcome regardless of why it’s happened.  We can debate the ins 
and outs of what’s driving it, sure. But once we’ve agreed on causes, there’s 
still this elephant in the room…

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 2 Feb 2017, at 9:11 AM, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> It doesnt really matter how many gliders are on the register as the real 
> question is how many are active ie airworthy. This can be extrapolated from 
> the financial accounts and budgets which would indicate that approximately 
> 660 form 2's are purchased each year. Assuming all the club gliders are 
> airworthy that leaves just over 360 private aircraft are actually flown. 
> Maintainers will tell you that the majority of these fly less than 50 hours.

And yet the fleet average, according to data extracted from form-2 
applications, is over 150 hours per hull.

Go figure.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On 2 Feb 2017, at 4:29 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> is there a population age cliff we are fall off?

Yes. 


   - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

Registration doesn’t expire, so an aircraft stays on the register even if it’s 
wrecked in a blown-over trailer in a corner of a gliding field that its 
deceased owner hasn’t visited for ten years.

The real point of interest is the number of form-2 kits the GFA sells each year.

Mandy Temple’s “Mande-news” on June 10 last year included an extract from the 
GFA’s Salesforce database, which said there were 738 gliders with a current 
form-2 as of that date.

So - slightly over half of the total number of registered gliders are airworthy.

The same extract said 2584 members flew GFA aircraft for 115,100 hours from 
68,200 launches in 2015-16 (based on form-2 returns).  That means every 
airworthy GFA aircraft averaged 156 hours and 92 launches, making the average 
GFA aircraft flight 102 minutes long.

Not sure what to make of that. Must be some absolute bladder-buster long 
endurance flights to compensate for the thousands of 6 minute circuits all the 
winch clubs spend most of the winter flying.

Also means the average GFA member logs about 45 hours per year. Once again, 
some pilots must be absolutely cranking out the hours to make up for the 
trainees who only log between 5 and 20 hours per year.

The other weird numbers worth noting: GFA had issued 932 GPCs, and had 189 
AEIs, 97 Level 1 instructors, 306 Level 2 instructors, and 97 Level 3 
instructors. That’s 689 members with instructor ratings (out of 2584 total — 
over a quarter of GFA’s membership base), and each Level 3 having their very 
own personal Level 1 to train. 

Let me put it another way: There’s an instructor for every three non-instructor 
GFA members.

The ratio is even stranger if you compare instructor headcount to GPC holders, 
and observe that 689 of those 932 GPCs are actually supposed to be instructors.

I reckon GFA members get instructor ratings instead of Level-2 Independent Ops. 
 If you want to fly club aircraft whenever you want without needing anyone’s 
permission, nearly 700 members have worked out that it’s easier to get an 
instructor rating than a Level 2 Independent Operator rating. Also easier to 
get a crew organized if you’re an instructor and you offer to run a day.

That’s a perverse outcome, isn't it?  I mean, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be 
that way?

  - mark



> On 1 Feb 2017, at 6:04 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the aircraft register of  2013
> 
> 1220 gliders and motor gliders
> 
> 950 privately owned
> 
> 270 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc.
> 
> 
> 
> last year
> 
> 1276 gliders and motor gliders (+4.6%, 56 actual)
> 
> 981 privately owned (+3.3%, 31 actual)
> 
> 295 owned by clubs/cadets/societies etc. (+9.3%, 25 actual)
> 
> 
> 
> Only about 3 years difference, I'd be reluctant to say too much about trends, 
> have to go back and dig up a really old one. But private ownership (in 
> absolute terms) increasing more than club ownership (and as others will point 
> out, only about half of the gliders in Australia are given an annual in any 
> one year, so it all may be moot anyway).
> 
> gliders on the register newer than 3 years old in 2016 - (64 total)
> 
> 36 private
> 
> 28 club
> 
> Of those 64 new gliders 18 "pure" (mostly DG1000s, and 10 of them air 
> cadets), 46 with some sort of motor. That's a clue to the future right there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For pilot flying times, much more difficult to get a handle on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." @lists.base64.com.au>
> 
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:36:35 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
> 
> 
> to put a different spin on it, how about asking some different questions
> 
> 1) how many gliders are there now?
> 
> 2) how many are privately owned (percentage change)?
> 
> 3) have the annual flown hours per pilot gone up or down?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @johnroake.com>@lists.base64.com.au>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[Mark Newton]

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:58 PM, DMcD  wrote:
> I have to say, I'd love those who are not involved actively in gliding
> to remove themselves from discussions related to soaring in Australia.


That’s what the GFA website forums are for.

I haven’t been actively involved in gliding for three and a half years. I 
haven’t removed myself from discussions related to it because I’m still 
passionate about it, I still want it to succeed, and it’s heartbreaking to see 
the whole movement on a trajectory towards a CFIT and not pulling up.

If I didn’t care about it, why would I bother saying anything?

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 31, 2017, at 7:01 PM, steph...@internode.on.net wrote:
> 
>  Bugger, that link didn't work. 
> 
> here's a cut and paste:
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> Mark Newton 
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=aus-soar...@lists.internode.on.net&q=from:%22Mark+Newton%22>
>  Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:41:54 -0700 
> <https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=aus-soar...@lists.internode.on.net&q=date:20020618>
Yep: 15 years ago. 

Still making the same points now, never addressed, nothing’s changed.

The culture of management/control I mentioned in that email 15 years ago is the 
actual reason I’m not a GFA member now.

I had an opportunity to buy a glider. I bought a GA aircraft instead, and 
haven’t looked back.

I feel a bit sorry for the members who don’t have CASA licenses, who have no 
direct experience of taking responsibility for their own operational 
decision-making, and therefore have literally no idea why it’s so offensive for 
GFA to carry on like a parent of a bunch of rowdy children. But that’s what 
they do.

I can’t find anyone in GFA who agrees that a training system which doesn’t turn 
everyone into L2 Independent Operators, like every other aviation training 
system in Australia, is an intrinsic failure. The end-point of GFA’s training 
syllabus is a pilot who is cosseted and babied by instructor panels, never able 
to take responsibility for themselves, where every cross-country flight is a 
navex under an Instructor’s supervision just like a pre-license student pilot 
everywhere else. And you people think that’s normal.

I used to be pretty active: Instructor, CFI, club committee member. I wrote 
software for my club, did lots of airworthiness work, advocated for gliding, 
convinced a lot of initiates to join up.

I’m sure gliding could do with lots of enthusiastic volunteers. I’m not one 
anymore, due to the consequences of choices the GFA has made.

And is still making, a decade and a half later.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 31, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Erich Wittstock  wrote:
> Without the initial comment on facebook we would have never had a discussion 
> like this.

We’ve been having discussions like this for 20 years.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 31, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Derek  wrote:
> 
> Until envy raises its ugly head: I push and shove/ do the log/ tow the 
> gliders all day & I don’t get paid!... 
> The fact of the matter is that gliding (except self launchers) requires a 
> team of people to operate, unlike powered flight. It would not be cost 
> effective.

Seems to be in other countries.

It’s reasonably normal in Germany to have professional winch drivers.

Tug pilots in the US are FAA CPL holders who are effectively acting as charter 
pilots. 

If you’re doing work, why shouldn’t you get paid?

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 31, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Mark Fisher  wrote:
> 
> If we made one small change, i.e. pay instructors, the flow on from that 
> would self organise.
> There is nothing like a paying consumer to figure out what is value and what 
> is not.
> Natural selection in play.

That’s certainly part of it, but I don’t think it’s enough.

Also need to make sure that the qualification the customer pays for is 
portable: Needs to be usable outside the GFA system, otherwise they’ll have to 
pay for pilot credentials all over again when they try a different shape of 
flying vehicle.

I think GPC needs to be equivalent to RPL. The CASA RPL is effectively the 
“bridge” between different aviation disciplines. RPL holders coming in to 
gliders or vice versa should need little more than a transition training 
syllabus.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] gliding the sport

[Mark Newton]

A lot of the comments below are platitudes that boil down to, "I was born in 
the 1950s and don't understand young people anymore".

This is my surprised face.

Sneering about planned leisure, social media, careful time management, lack of 
appreciation for a circuit after sitting on the fence for hours on a rainy day. 
It all just means that society has moved on to the point where YOU don't get it 
anymore. None of it means people don't appreciate new experiences or 
self-betterment, it just means you don't know how to cater to the ones who do.

"Even bowls clubs are closing!" Hahaah Well, yes, they've been outstandingly 
amazing at attracting a young crowd, haven't they? They're closing because most 
of their members are dead. 

If your reasoning for GFA's shrinkage was accurate, RAAus wouldn't be going 
great guns.

For all their faults, I reckon half of their membership is sourced from ex PPL 
holders who want something cheaper or without a medical, and the other half is 
from new entrants who can engage with RAAus in a way that they can't elsewhere. 

Book lessons at agreed times with a professional instructor, end up with 
qualifications which transfer over to other forms of aviation when they're 
ready for bigger and better things, and airplanes that cost less than gliders, 
which they can enjoy with their mates at a time and manner of their choosing. 
If they don't want to stay under the RAAus system, they can convert to RPL and 
fly similar aircraft under VH registration with a CASA license. No mess, no 
fuss.

That's essentially the entirety of RAAus' success story.

In its present form, gliding in Australia offers none of those things. Even if 
kids these days didn't spend their time on risk-free non-competitive sports and 
Playstations, it'd STILL offer none of it.

I tweeted a Lycoming engine oil change over the weekend. Posted commentary and 
photos of procedures, tools, technical tips, and airworthiness paperwork to 
social media. As a result, I have another person who found enough interest in 
the material to want to experience a first flight in my RV, another person to 
whom I say, "Sure! We'll fly to the Hunter Valley for lunch. It's free, no 
charge, just promise me you'll take a TIF at one of the Bankstown or Camden 
flying schools and we'll call it even."

So far, most of these "free" flights have been pleasant weekends, nothing more, 
minimal followup. But they've also generated a PPL and two RAAus pilot 
certificates since 2012, and another dude who already had a license convinced 
himself to buy his own plane instead of renting. There's also one on the boil 
in Adelaide who's half way through training but sunk his money into house 
renovations; he'll be another PPL when he's cashed up again.

Easy, isn't it?

But hey, times have changed. Social media is a waste of time, all that tapping 
on phones instead of enjoying the real world. Can't get people excited about 
flying anymore anyway. Flying's like a bus trip, with no benefit to anyone, no 
sense of achievement.

Yeah, nah. Just have to identify and target the people who have it in their 
blood, in their imagination, who want to do it, instead of randomly shooting 
AEFs out of a cannon at all-comers with gay abandon; and then, having given 
them a taste to get them started, give them what they want. 

When I finally hang up the silk scarf and flying goggles, I'll do it with the 
satisfaction that I've replaced myself, that my retirement hasn't detracted 
from pilot numbers. Betcha I personally have a better 
first-flight-to-training-complete ratio than any gliding club in Australia. It 
ain't that hard.

   - mark 

--
Tiny screen, imaginary keyboard.


> On 30 Jan 2017, at 21:10, James McDowall  wrote:
> 
> I first came into contact with gliding in the early 1960's when my father 
> took up gliding to satisfy an itch dating back to the late 1940's when he 
> helped build a glider that ultimately ended up with the fledgling ASC.
> In those days, many people would spend their weekends (or perhaps do a two 
> week course) sitting on the side of the airfield in all sorts of weather 
> waiting for the chance to do a few circuits or if they were really lucky a 
> soaring flight. Time wasn't an issue and no one thought too much about 
> spending their Saturday nights in primitive accommodation.
> Fifty plus years later society has changed and flying for most is regarded in 
> the same as taking a bus trip. The wonder of flying has been lost on most. 
> Our WW2 pilots who formed the backbone of post war GA and recreational flying 
> are gone as is the connection with their exploits - how many kids today will 
> rub shoulders with a RAAF pilot, let alone one who has seen active service?
> Many sports are struggling to attract newcomers - especially in country areas 
> which were the backbone of gliding. Tennis courts are ploughed under, 
> football clubs merging to stay afloat and even bowls clubs closing.
> Whilst there are many reasons 

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

> On 30 Jan 2017, at 18:08, Al Borowski  wrote:
> 
>> On 30/01/2017, Mark Newton  wrote:
>> Why do you want ranks?
>> 
>>  - mark
> 
> Because an untrained beginner with 2 hours experience should be given
> different privileges and responsibilities to a trained pilot with
> 2000?
> 

But they aren't "ranks."

Rank denotes hierarchy. 

In the ranked GFA world you've asked about, where you've proposed that a 
qualified pilot sits between a trainee and an instructor, the instructor is a 
higher "rank" than the trained pilot with 2000 hours. Even if the instructor 
only has 200 hours.

I don't think you get rank in any other non-military form of aviation in 
Australia.

Hierarchy is one of GFA's problems, IMHO. Shouldn't be encouraged. 


> Under the GFA system an Open license wouldn't exist. You'd need the
> blessing of the driving school to continue to drive anywhere. If you
> had an accident it would be the responsibility of the driving school.
> If you drove somewhere where an existing driving school was located,
> you'd suddenly fall under that school's control - even if they had no
> idea about your history or personal vehicle.

Pretty much.

I reckon GFAs systems had military influences after WW2 due to the origins of 
the founders and initial intake of members. Chain of command, rank, hierarchies 
of control over subordinates, doctrine issued from HQ with distributed 
implementation. Authority filtering downwards, responsibility filtering 
upwards. All very comfortable to 1940s ex-Army Air Force pilots, they'd slot 
right in.

The rest of civil aviation moved on from that. GFA never did.

   - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

I’m alright Jack, too.

Not exactly to the collective benefit of glider pilots though, is it?

  - mark


> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> lucky i have a PPL... i guess i have options 
> 
>> On 30 Jan 2017, at 3:26 PM, Mark Newton  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>>> 
>>> why register it [an electric self-launcher] as a glider?
>> 
>> Because the GFA system only authorizes pilots trained by GFA to fly 
>> GFA-registered gliders that have been maintained under the GFA airworthiness 
>> system.
>> 
>> So if you register it as a light aircraft, you can’t fly it until you make 
>> it airworthy to GA standards, and acquire (at least) an RPL.
>> 
>> The GFA syllabus is not aligned with the RPL syllabus, so that means you 
>> have to pay a CASA school to be trained all over again to legally fly the 
>> aircraft that you would be able to fly if you were under the control of a 
>> GFA CFI as a member of a GFA club (typical cost for a GA RPL syllabus is 
>> about $7000, plus whatever you need to pay to get a cross-country 
>> endorsement). 
>> 
>> If you already have a pilot license and you’ve never encountered GFA before, 
>> you might be able to buy an electric self-launcher, register it GA, and fly 
>> it under an RPL. 
>> 
>> But only if it’s brand new. If it has previously been maintained under the 
>> GFA form-2 system, it won’t be airworthy to GA standards, and probably 
>> couldn’t be flown at all by anyone regardless of their license status. You’d 
>> have to pay a LAME a considerable amount of money to bring it under the GA 
>> maintenance umbrella and issue it with a GA maintenance release.
>> 
>> And once you’ve done that, GFA pilots without CASA licenses wouldn’t be able 
>> to fly it anymore, so you’d have extreme difficulty ever selling it again 
>> afterwards.
>> 
>>> Is there a choice?
>> 
>> In practical terms: No.
>> 
>> 
>>> its has over 200Klm battery range and it takes off from the ground, sounds 
>>> like a light aircraft to me
>> 
>> Then only a tiny minority of GFA members (who have RPL or PPL CASA licenses) 
>> can fly it.
>> 
>> That doesn’t sound like a particularly sustainable outcome for gliding, does 
>> it?
>> 
>> It’s certainly not the kind of thing that half a dozen qualified glider 
>> pilots who aren’t club members are going to form a syndicate around.
>> 
>> - mark
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

Why do you want ranks?

  - mark


> On Jan 30, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Peter Brookman  
> wrote:
> 
> I think the rank between Student & Instructor would be referred to as Solo 
> Pilot or Level (1 or 2) Independent operator.
> 
> -Original Message- From: Al Borowski
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 12:50 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?
> 
> On 30/01/2017, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> i assume most people know that gliding requires a minimum membership size to
>> keep the cost and freedoms we enjoy possible.
>> 
>> if you have not noticed we are actually under the minimum membership for
>> sustainability.
>> 
>> This is a problem anyone who wants reasonable continuance needs to own and
>> assist with.
> 
> I haven't checked in a few years, is it still impossible for a few
> likeminded qualified pilots to form their own informal "club", buy a
> 2nd hand glider and just fly it & pay to get it maintained, without
> needing to bother with setting up a formal club with instructors etc
> (unlike almost every other sport in existence)?
> 
> Is it still impossible to buy a motorglider and fly it like an RAA or
> PPL would fly their power plane?
> 
> The GFA club model always struck me as missing a "qualified pilot"
> rank between "Student" and "Instructor" - which is weird as it should
> be the biggest group.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Al
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Christopher McDonnell  
wrote:
> 
> I spent some time outside the GFA until the hoops were made nearly impossible 
> to jump through.

Well, of course the hoops were nearly impossible to jump through:  GFA lobbied 
against the regulatory reforms that’d have made it easy.

(if I get a glider rating on my CASA Part 61 license, why isn’t it valid in 
Australia? You don’t think GFA had anything to do with that little bit of 
regulatory bastardry?)

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> why register it [an electric self-launcher] as a glider? 

Because the GFA system only authorizes pilots trained by GFA to fly 
GFA-registered gliders that have been maintained under the GFA airworthiness 
system.

So if you register it as a light aircraft, you can’t fly it until you make it 
airworthy to GA standards, and acquire (at least) an RPL.

The GFA syllabus is not aligned with the RPL syllabus, so that means you have 
to pay a CASA school to be trained all over again to legally fly the aircraft 
that you would be able to fly if you were under the control of a GFA CFI as a 
member of a GFA club (typical cost for a GA RPL syllabus is about $7000, plus 
whatever you need to pay to get a cross-country endorsement). 

If you already have a pilot license and you’ve never encountered GFA before, 
you might be able to buy an electric self-launcher, register it GA, and fly it 
under an RPL. 

But only if it’s brand new. If it has previously been maintained under the GFA 
form-2 system, it won’t be airworthy to GA standards, and probably couldn’t be 
flown at all by anyone regardless of their license status. You’d have to pay a 
LAME a considerable amount of money to bring it under the GA maintenance 
umbrella and issue it with a GA maintenance release.

And once you’ve done that, GFA pilots without CASA licenses wouldn’t be able to 
fly it anymore, so you’d have extreme difficulty ever selling it again 
afterwards.

> Is there a choice?

In practical terms: No.


> its has over 200Klm battery range and it takes off from the ground, sounds 
> like a light aircraft to me

Then only a tiny minority of GFA members (who have RPL or PPL CASA licenses) 
can fly it.

That doesn’t sound like a particularly sustainable outcome for gliding, does it?

It’s certainly not the kind of thing that half a dozen qualified glider pilots 
who aren’t club members are going to form a syndicate around.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

Yes. We did that at AUGC every year for the Flinders Ranges trip at Rawnsley 
Park.

  - mark


> On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Mike Borgelt  wrote:
> 
> Isn't a proposed gliding site also meant to be approved by an RTO Ops?



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 30, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> its a wonderful country that we have so much choice

For gliders? How? Where? It’s GFA or nothing.


> in 20 years time, gliding will not be what it is today.
> Those that want to soar and not be in ‘club’ will be able to do so. 

People have been calling for that since at least 1999. GFA has actively stood 
in the way of it happening. If you can send up a flare when they change their 
mind and start supporting it, that’d be great.

> Why put a GP15 into glider category, why not have it as light aircraft?

CASA gets upset if you deliberately turn off the only running engine in a light 
aircraft.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> in time my view is the sport will change. electric self launchers and more 
> ownership will be the norm. small clubs will die. big clubs will go 
> commercial. it will take 15 years to migrate to a new model.

In my direct observation, people who are exposed (particularly early in their 
flying career) to the command-and-control mentality of gliding don’t buy 
$200,000 electric self-launch gliders. They join RAAus instead, where the basic 
pilot certificate is equivalent to a GFA Level 2 Independent Operator rating 
which almost nobody in gliding holds, and buy Kitfoxes or Jabirus or SportStars.

Of all the trainees I had as a GFA L2 instructor, and all the AEFs I introduced 
to the sport, far more of them have gone on to PPL, RPL and RAAus than GPC. 
I’ve notched up 3 PPL and RAAus pilot certificates in the last five years by 
giving people first flights in my RV-6, which fills me with immense 
satisfaction; In contrast, I feel like I busted my guts out for a decade in GFA 
to simply maintain the status quo. 

So I’m not a member anymore. Too hard, too many alternatives.

(maybe, as someone who has drifted away, it’d be worth GFA’s while to consult 
with people like me: I’m clearly a person who’s been prepared to invest 
significant effort in the past, and now I’m not, maybe they’d like to 
understand why)

Anyway:

My view of 2017 GFA is that it’s a top-heavy organization whose primary purpose 
is to distribute the cost of training, regulation and administration for a very 
small number of aircraft owners and competition pilots across a larger number 
of members. If you’re not an aircraft owner or competition pilot, your duty and 
function as a GFA member is little more than to pay your membership fees, so 
that they can be used to subsidize those who are aircraft owners or competition 
pilots, so they can keep doing what they enjoy doing.

Which is fine, as far as it goes — There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as 
it’s transparent, and the people involved in it aren’t in denial about it.



I think it’s prudent to view the future of gliding and the future of GFA as two 
independent concepts.

The largest aviation marketplace on the planet has six decades of demonstrated 
track record to show that you don’t need a national private quasi-regulator to 
tell everyone how to fly gliders: The real regulator already does that job at 
least as well.

Richard is speculating about a future in which the club scene changes and GFA 
remains roughly the same. A more realistic alternative, in my view, is a future 
in which the GFA shrinks to become a membership-optional FAI-sanctioned 
competition administration body like the SSA, and much of the rest of their 
day-to-day functions are overseen by CASA. Give it another decade worth of 
retirements and membership shrinkage, and GFA simply won’t have the manpower to 
be effective or safe for many of the functions that it fulfills right now even 
if it still has a million bucks in the bank, and the regulator will simply take 
them off GFA’s plate.

It may very well be that the most important work the GFA could be doing is to 
influence CASA to make that almost inevitable transition agreeable to GFA 
members.

Working with CASA to make sure that the GPC syllabus is a qualification for a 
CASA RPL (in the same way that an RAAus certificate is) would be an excellent 
first step. At present, if GFA collapses, so do all the pilot credentials it 
has issued, and nobody will be able to legally fly the electric self-launchers 
you’re envisaging as the future of gliding. If GFA members qualified for an RPL 
with a glider endorsement, at least there’d be a path forward for them to fly 
domestically under the CASA system when the GFA system stops working.

Regards,

  -  mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

Independent ops ratings are issued by club CFIs.

They require clubs to have training panels and chief flying instructors, which 
is the absolute opposite of what Al was asking about.

It remains impossible in the GFA system for a bunch of qualified pilots who 
aren’t gliding club members to form a syndicate for a glider which they can 
operate under their own recognizance. 

It is possible in literally every other form of Aviation in Australia. In most 
forms of aviation, it’s the only way to form a syndicate.

  - mark


> On Jan 30, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> Thats what the GPC is…..have you not been exposed to that by your club?
> 
> Anyone can buy a self launcher and with the right Independant Ops rating you 
> can fly it without anyone else needed.
> 
> I strongly suspect that as self launch electrics in particular become more 
> common (see GPGliders.com - GP15 as what is now possible), independent 
> operations will become far more common (or group independent….go flying with 
> a few mates anywhere).
> 
> I also suspect that this will be be the long term future of the sport (say 15 
> - 20 years from now).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 Jan 2017, at 1:20 pm, Al Borowski  wrote:
>> 
>> On 30/01/2017, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>>> i assume most people know that gliding requires a minimum membership size to
>>> keep the cost and freedoms we enjoy possible.
>>> 
>>> if you have not noticed we are actually under the minimum membership for
>>> sustainability.
>>> 
>>> This is a problem anyone who wants reasonable continuance needs to own and
>>> assist with.
>> 
>> I haven't checked in a few years, is it still impossible for a few
>> likeminded qualified pilots to form their own informal "club", buy a
>> 2nd hand glider and just fly it & pay to get it maintained, without
>> needing to bother with setting up a formal club with instructors etc
>> (unlike almost every other sport in existence)?
>> 
>> Is it still impossible to buy a motorglider and fly it like an RAA or
>> PPL would fly their power plane?
>> 
>> The GFA club model always struck me as missing a "qualified pilot"
>> rank between "Student" and "Instructor" - which is weird as it should
>> be the biggest group.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Al
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[Mark Newton]

On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> after 3 years of trying the positive path and not seeing engagement, he has 
> just got the shits with the whole thing and feels like giving the community a 
> wake up call. i doubt there is much viewing of any of the social pages beyond 
> existing community and in any case no one externally would give a crap.

Seems like the existing community gives a crap and finds it a bit demotivating.

I don’t think that kind of behavior is defensible in a volunteer organization.

Nobody’s forcing him to do the job; if he isn’t finding it rewarding, he should 
relinquish it and let the organization see if someone else can have a better go 
at it.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 8:00 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> Or text while driving like the idiot I followed for a while coming back from 
> the airfield this afternoon (at a safe distance).
> 
> The US limitations are up to 6000 pounds, can be IFR and up to 18,000 feet 
> below 250 knots.

Note that 18,000’ is the US’s transition altitude (i.e., FL170 doesn’t exist, 
they have 17,000' instead).

The rough analog here (and, obviously, in the UK) would be 10,000’.

I don’t think CASA is currently considering private IFR without a medical. That 
seems like a defect to me, given that the FAA has already decided that IFR 
private pilots don’t need them.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 3:22 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> 
> Everyone should download the CASA discussion paper and put in a submission. 
> I'll publish some more links later. You have until end of March. 

Note that the CASA discussion paper presents six regulatory model options and 
asks you to comment on them.

The obvious 7th option, one which says, “Do what the Americans are doing, you 
bunch of flaming incandescently incompetent arseclowns!” is conspicuous by its 
absence.

Maybe write that one in.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 7:01 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> The medical for private pilots is mere CYA and virtue signalling by 
> bureaucrats and vested interests.
> 

Ha-ha-ha, it’s stupider than that.

After the earliest days of aviation, when passenger carrying was starting to 
pick up steam and governments worked out they wanted to regulate it, they 
looked around to find the easiest, simplest, least-effort system of regulation 
they could find: Armed services.

Most of the new influx of pilots were ex-military anyway, so lining up civil 
aviation regs with the services meant they had pilots, instructors, and brass 
already trained. Sideways shift from military to civilian life at every level 
in the hierarchy.

Along the way, they worked out that every serviceman had a medical (“turn your 
head and cough”), so civilian pilots needed medicals too. 

From that harmonious observation, bureaucracies flourished all around the 
world, adding tests, procedures and complexity on an almost completely 
arbitrary basis. We now know it was arbitrary from the statistical analyses 
that have been done in various parts of the world regarding medical 
incapacitation among pilots with and without medicals.

(kinda similar to the way GFA was loosely modelled on military structures: 
GFA’s CTOs, RTOs, CFIs, Instructors, Duty Pilots form a chain of command. The 
training system and the way that responsibility for operations was carried by 
“superiors” draws from that model, in the same way that the General is 
responsible for the war crimes carried out by his Privates.

There’s never really been any justification for pilot medicals, and even the 
people who practice and administer avmed can’t honestly describe why they do 
it, with safety cases and measurable statistics. It’s mostly just one of those 
“we’ve always done it that way” things that grew from the fact that the 
military had always done it too, coupled with a goodly dose of superstition and 
make-believe.

The sooner it’s flushed away, the better.

There are some people who want to fly, and who are genuinely unhealthy and 
shouldn’t be doing it. Currently, some of these people get class-2 medicals. 
Those people should be removed from the pilot population, but the global avmed 
bureaucracy empirically isn’t the best way to do it.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Because it doesn't seem to have been posted here...

[Mark Newton]

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=5504459

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] FAA withdraws proposed rule for glider transponders

[Mark Newton]

EAA says the FAA has withdrawn its glider transponder NPRM.

http://bit.ly/2hVEglI

- mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] accommodation available Benalla for World Comps

[Mark Newton]

Could attendees save a lot of fuss and bother by just printing their own?

  - mark


> On 4 Jan 2017, at 9:13 AM, Adam Woolley  wrote:
> 
> Security passes, it's pretty standard at a WGC - I've been to three & have 
> three at home. Naturally helps with many things, more so for the gliding 
> people & the locals (police too) - there's a lot of strange people in town, 
> allows others to identify who's there for the gliding & who's there for what 
> ever other reason..!
> 
> Good for the local businesses too to see that the WGC people are spending in 
> their town & being rewarded for their possible sponsorship. 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> WPP
> 
> 
> 
> On 4 Jan. 2017, at 06:59, Mike Borgelt  > wrote:
> 
>> What's the story on security passes?
>> 
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> At 07:36 AM 1/4/2017, you wrote:
>>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>>>  boundary="=_NextPart_000_000A_01D26665.B275CB80"
>>> Content-Language: en-au
>>> 
>>> Hi Jo
>>> We plan to arrive about 6 or 7pm Friday after landing at Wangaratta and 
>>> getting a rental car.
>>> We are staying at the Comfort Inn.
>>> I am not sure about the evening dinner, so we?ll see when we get there.
>>> Hope that our security passes will be ready. I got the automatic email 
>>> response, but have heard nothing more.
>>> Regards
>>> Pam
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Aus-soaring [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au 
>>> ] On Behalf Of Jo 
>>> Pocklington
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2017 7:47 AM
>>> To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' 
>>> mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>>
>>> Subject: [Aus-soaring] accommodation available Benalla for World Comps
>>>  
>>> Anyone needing accommodation during the World Comps at Benalla, contact 
>>> Jane Rushworth   janerushwo...@westnet.com 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ___
>>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
>>> http://lists.base64.com.au/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.base64.com.au 
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
>> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] accommodation available Benalla for World Comps

[Mark Newton]

On 4 Jan 2017, at 8:36 AM, pam  wrote:
> 
> Hope that our security passes will be ready. I got the automatic email 
> response, but have heard nothing more.

Security passes?

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] SkySight on YouTube: Episode 1 - Weather forecasting and task planning

[Mark Newton]

On 1 Nov 2016, at 5:31 PM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> If people find the first episode valuable, I'll continue with more advanced 
> topics.
> Direct queries/suggestions/requests to matt...@skysight.io 
> .

With winds northerly until cloudbase, then a sudden swing to stronger westerly, 
do you think there’s any indication of thermal wave in that forecast?

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Microair servicing - Is it still a thing?

[Mark Newton]

> On 24 Oct 2016, at 8:59 PM, Colin Collum  wrote:
> 
> Now it looks like I can't read a dictionary properly. I got it arse-about. 
> Skeptical is the US version. 

Color me surprised.

If we’re going to get technical, I’ll point out that the Macquarie Dictionary 
advises that US and British spelling conventions are both fine for Australian 
English.

Then, if that doesn’t end the conversation, I’ll point out that I use American 
spellings all the time specifically to annoy people who claim to be pedants.

Also: The Americans invented it, if they want to call it an “airplane” instead 
of an “aeroplane,” that’s fine by me. If the Brits think they know better, 
maybe they should have thought about that when they were losing the War of 
Independence. :-)


  - mark




___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Microair servicing - Is it still a thing?

[Mark Newton]

On Oct 24, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Casey Jay Lewis  wrote:
> 
> If there's a better radio than the Trig, I haven't found it.  Very happy with 
> it. 

Funnily enough, that’s also my backup plan for the transponder. 

Trig TT21 is low-power, fits into a 57mm hole, includes a built-in altitude 
encoder, and is about US$1800 and falling.

I want to see if I can make the in-place one work first before I shell out for 
a replacement, though.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Microair servicing - Is it still a thing?

[Mark Newton]

Back in April, with an intermittent fault on an Microair T2000SFL transponder, 
I contacted Microair and Scott told me that he was expecting new main boards in 
about six weeks.

Contacting them again now, I’m informed that they’ll have upgrade kids in 
February 2017.

Color me skeptical.

Does anyone know if Microair still retain the capability to maintain any of the 
products they’ve sold?

Thanks,

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Eagle attacks

[Mark Newton]

On 13 Oct 2016, at 11:51 AM, Angus Stewart  wrote:
> 
> Anyone else got some interesting eagle attack stories?

I heard a radio call from a bird-struck glider at Whyalla while I was soaring 
near Lochiel many years ago.

A wedgie attacked one of AUGC’s gliders a long time ago (before my time). It 
was a known offender, and the club spent the rest of the day with the entire 
fleet swooping repeatedly over its nesting tree on the ridge while it looked on 
indignantly and, I supposed, occasionally ducked.

I’m guessing we’ve all been dive-bombed during nesting season heaps of times. 
They usually come out of the sun, so you don’t see them until you catch them 
flashing past in the corner of your eye.

I gather they think we’re birds, and they aim for the eyes (cockpit) or wingtip 
feathers, just like they do when they’re attacking other avians. I doubt their 
sense of scale is very well developed, and I reckon they almost always miss 
because they break off at the last second in surprise at the fact that we’re 
bigger than they are.

I’ve always kept an eagle eye (heh) on them when thermalling, and never trust 
them when they’re above me.

One of my best experiences in my life, though, was watching a wedgie playing in 
my wingtip vortices while I was turning in lift, slowly move up the span of the 
wing towards the fuselage, and look at me. Close enough that I could see the 
feathers around its eyes rustling in the wind. 

You really know you’ve been looked at when you’ve been looked at by an eagle in 
flight.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] New weather website...?

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Oct 2016, at 1:29 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> Very nice. Thanks!   Gives you a choice of 3 models. Seems like windyty but 
> better.
> 

windyty gives two models. Meh.

I can’t get enough of windyty’s (well - Meteoblue’s) Meteograms and Airgrams. 
Most of what I want for flight planning, all in one spot. Lovely.


  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Ventus cM: Ib Braes

[Mark Newton]

On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:

> Oh, yes,  they are just machines. Inanimate objects.

When I acquired the RV, my partner almost immediately anthropomorphized it: Its 
rego is SOL, so, of course, its name needs to be “Solly.” The fairings on the 
wheels (spats or pants, depending on whether you’re anglo or American) became 
Solly’s shoes. Everyone gets upset if you stand on his shoes.

When I installed the autopilot a couple of years ago, she christened it, 
“Barry.”

So now we climb aboard Solly and let Barry do the flying.

Traditionally boats and airplanes have been feminine, but she went in a 
different direction, which I thought was a bit interesting.

   - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Aerofly 2 in VR

[Mark Newton]

On 10 Sep 2016, at 7:02 PM, Tom Wilksch  wrote:

> Unfortunately there are no glider specific launch options as yet, so you have 
> to start in the air. This is still a pre-release sim though, so that may well 
> change.


If you have no glider-specific launch methods and you’re starting in the air, 
it’s post-release.


:-)

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Loss of control accidents

[Mark Newton]

On Jul 18, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> Same for landing piston engine aircraft on carriers.

And virtually all military arrivals, which use overhead break approaches.

(want to see an argument that leaves aus-soaring in the shade? Start a thread 
at Vans Airforce about whether Overhead Breaks should be allowed :-)

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Loss of control accidents

[Mark Newton]

On Jul 18, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Jim Staniforth  wrote:
>   In other FAA news, the third class medical is slated to go away!
>   Presidential signature was on the 15th. The FAA now has a year to put it 
> into the regulations.

Not quite that simple.

The legislation stipulates a “default” regulatory stance that’ll be adopted if 
the FAA doesn’t promulgate alternative overriding regulations that take effect 
within two years from now.

From this time next year, pilots who fly on the assumption that they never will 
(i.e., fly on a lapsed medical using a drivers license as evidence of medical 
fitness) cannot be prosecuted.

FAA can still, theoretically, define and issue regulations which continue to 
require medical standards similar to what are in force now. Once those 
hypothetical regulations take effect, they’ll override the fallback position in 
the legislation signed last week.

Whether FAA will or not depends on how obstructive and control-freaky they’ll 
get. I suspect they won’t bother,  the time for this has well and truly arrived.

>   Wonder if a CASA Special Pilot Licence based on an FAA Private will remain 
> valid.

Why wouldn’t it?

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] [gfaforum] Re: Wave flying

[Mark Newton]

On Jul 14, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Catherine Conway  wrote:
> We’ve been getting strong winds this year.  The green number in the top left 
> is the wind.  We were at FL140 (because winds higher were stronger).

I saw a photo from a mate who flies Boeing 737s showing his PFD on a MEL-SYD 
sector the day before yesterday indicating a Westerly wind at 210 knots.

Topped the other one I saw with an ADL-PER sector penetrating a 175 knot 
headwind. I hope the caterers loaded extra drinks onto that one, it would have 
been a long flight.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] California Ridge run

[Mark Newton]

On Jul 14, 2016, at 9:05 AM, Peter Armstrong  
wrote:
> Sure, the pilot has a lot of kinetic energy up his sleeve, but I can’t say 
> I’d be happy with the level of risk, especially with a pax along for the 
> ride. It wouldn’t have taken much for things to go pear shaped. 

It looked like a totally stock-standard ridge run on a strongly performing 
ridge. Has probably been done millions of times around the world over the 
years, very little risk if you’re familiar with how ridges work.

Regarding your question earlier about max rough air: If the air was rough, the 
camera (and, no doubt, everything else) would be shaking a lot more than it was 
in the video. Looked like a pretty smooth ridge in most places, the wind over 
it was probably pretty laminar.

The video looked brilliant. Made me pine for the good ridge days at Lochiel. 
Spending half a day hooning around the ridge in a Pik20d at 120 knots, chasing 
sheep down gullies, big procedure-turn pullups at each end of the ridge. Stacks 
of fun, if you haven’t tried it you’re really missing out.

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] spinning

[Mark Newton]

On May 10, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> Your answer is 100% correct and utterly useless but now I know this is the 
> CASA building.

They’re often not 100% correct.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Stitching together small waves to go XC

[Mark Newton]

> On 4 May 2016, at 9:05 AM, Matthew Scutter  wrote:
> 
> Careful what you wish for - from my reading of Dick Smiths qualms with the 
> current airspace on pprune (no ATC separation of his IFR aircraft with VFR 
> aircraft in class E), his reforms could be very hostile to gliding.
> 

He’s having a fly-in BBQ at his house on May 22. Maybe show up and ask him?
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ogsm2f0rvf24971/AABHSLfA-hKH3q9bz0-4AI25a?dl=0 


  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Skyboard

[Mark Newton]

On May 1, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Greg Wilson  wrote:
> I've been thinking of the complexity of low level air traffic control if 
> these deuces became consumer items.

I’m wondering who will be able to fly them without multiengine rotorcraft 
licenses.

  - mark 



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Skyboard

[Mark Newton]

On May 1, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Leigh Bunting  wrote:
> Are you becoming a curmudgeon? When did any non-thoughts of efficiency ever 
> stop ppl from doing something - just because they can?

If efficiency isn’t an issue…

I hereby present to you: THE TURBOJET BARBECUE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxpHJipB67g 


(he has some other videos showing how he built it. It has an afterburner)

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] IS-28 life extensions starting to happen

[Mark Newton]

On 26 Apr 2016, at 8:38 PM, Justin Couch  wrote:

> The reason I'm asking is that I know of a couple of IS-28 fuselages that are 
> about to be sacrificed to the simulator gods. It might not be such a good 
> idea to cut up a now perfectly serviceable aircraft!

There are plenty of Blanik carcasses stuffed in the back of hangars that'd rise 
to that challenge, surely? :)

   - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Glider Registration

[Mark Newton]

On Apr 26, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:

> That is probably highly classified.

They’re a sold commodity. I’d have thought there’d be a revenue line-item in 
the annual financial report.

http://www.glidingaustralia.org/Admin/financial_report_2012.pdf 


2011/12 airworthiness revenue was $133,302 (page 11, repeated on page 20). If 
all of that was accumulated by selling form-2 kits @ $200 ea, that’s 666 form-2 
kits. 

The airworthiness section of the GFA site also sells other products though, so 
some of that revenue probably came from selling repair manuals, DI handbooks, 
design approval management services, $950 “initial packages” for imported 
gliders, etc.

Maybe a finger-in-the-air estimate band of 500 - 650 airworthy gliders in 
Australia in 2012?

My not-very-diligent, possibly-miscounted tally of icons on the map here: 
http://www.admin.glidingaustralia.org/index.php?option=com_googlemaplocator&view=location&Itemid=132
 

 yields 48 gliding sites in Australia, so that’s maybe a bit over ten gliders 
per site. Does that sound about right as an average? Dunno: There are a lot of 
small clubs, but there are some pretty big ones too which might even out the 
numbers.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring