Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 35

[Ron Sanders]

The lack of confidentiality might just cause those who wish to even
think about intimidation and harassment to think twice before they
embark on that path!

Ron

On 3 September 2014 13:35, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> I think you can appreciate the confidentially that is required for these
> things to work.
>
> If you have an issue, then I suggest you speak to the EO.
>
> I personally have experienced unwarranted bias and poor treatment and had I
> known about MP at the time, I would have invoked it as I have now seen the
> situation repeated.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 01:14 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
>> aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32 (Ron Sanders)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:14:04 +0800
>> From: Ron Sanders 
>> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32
>> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
>> 
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> Perhaps we could hear about these positive results please??
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 3 September 2014 13:05, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> > Guys,
>> >
>> > Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason.
>> >
>> > I have witnessed positive results.
>> >
>> > If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly, please
>> > raise
>> > it to the EO, it will be investigated.
>> >
>> > I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its
>> > purpose
>> > or the powers that underpin it.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Richard
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
>> >> aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
>> >>
>> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> >> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> >> aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net
>> >>
>> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> >> aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net
>> >>
>> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> >> than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Today's Topics:
>> >>
>> >>1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>> >>   (Mike Borgelt)
>> >>2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>> >>   (Mike Borgelt)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Message: 1
>> >> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000
>> >> From: Mike Borgelt 
>> >> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
>> >> clothes
>> >> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
>> >> 
>> >> Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net>
>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
>> >>
>> >> At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
>> >> >your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
>> >> >annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect,
>> >> >and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
>> >> >other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
>> >> >yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
>> >> >MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
>> >> >could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
>> >> >erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
>> >> >always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
>> >> >through the pages of your logbook.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
>> >> >
>> >> >- mark
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
>> >> whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
>> >> about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
>> >> year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
>> >> own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
>> >> Constitution strike a membership levy

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Christopher McDonnell]

Mike, other than your issue with nominations to the GFA Board below, I was 
recently informed that the GFA can comply with Rule 17(i) of the Articles by 
having an AGM within the numbers of, and only the Board members being present, 
on the basis that they are members. Other than the fact that GFA has never 
declared the regions as required by Rule 1.

Chris


From: Mike Borgelt 
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:49 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes


Ullrich,


Rob Izatt is correct.

"when operating independently" is the catch phrase. 

Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be renewed 
by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen  due to 
personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are naive. I 
know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and left the 
club because they had the temerity to call a special general meeting to get the 
club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a launch means  which it 
owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of the old guard which were 
only intermittently available and were restricting flying. The old guard called 
up people they knew whose membership had lapsed years ago, signed thm up with a 
current year's subs and won the vote by 3 votes whereupon the losers were 
grounded by the club. 

To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence (at 
least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a proper 
instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of flying and a 
similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as it was a while 
ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going through that. I'm sure 
the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a reasonable thing to me.

When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours required 
the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the gliding 
instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for instructors at the 
students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit at a fairly 
horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers of discouraged 
would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent glider pilots I'd 
say the system is very inefficient.

The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own the 
private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that gliding is 
in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything about this wants 
to change anything about the way business is done.

* Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA is 
not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need 
nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation only) 
are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even all the 
rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to exist without 
any members other than those on the board.

Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher Thorpe 
is the sound of crickets. 

Mike





  Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion 
should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless I 
am in training).
   
  The current MOSP says:
  “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR 
  Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility 
of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2 
Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of their 
operations when operating independently. This includes airways clearances, 
tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident reporting.”
   
  To my knowledge it has been like that for many years.
   
  I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but 
in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince the 
CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What should the 
minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you set that it will not be enough 
for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher that number is.
   
  On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I’m also with you 
although I would choose less GFA-bashing words.
   
  Ulrich
   
  From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
  Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07
  To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
  Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
   
  At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:


Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating 
does 
that and with less bureaucracy an

Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32

[Mike Borgelt]

As an Australian citizen I'd like protection from a group of private 
citizens who want to force me to pay money to join their organisation 
and agree to their rules in order to do a simple innocent thing like 
fly gliders when I already hold a government issued licence to fly 
powered aircraft and have 2700 hours in gliders and motor gliders.


No forced membership, no membership protection policy required. 
Anybody with a problem can then leave and still fly.


You surely are joking, right? The GFA will investigate your complaint 
against other members or GFA officers. I'm sure that will be impartial.




Mike





At 03:05 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Guys,

Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason.

I have witnessed positive results.

If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly, 
please raise it to the EO, it will be investigated.


I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its 
purpose or the powers that underpin it.


Regards

Richard










At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  (Mike Borgelt)
   2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  (Mike Borgelt)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000
From: Mike Borgelt 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
clothes
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."

Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

>In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
>your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
>annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect,
>and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
>other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
>yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
>MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
>could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
>erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
>always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
>through the pages of your logbook.
>
>That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
>
>- mark


It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it
"insurance". I heard no more.
Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club
employee "piss off we don't need your  kind around here". Charming. I
fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote
you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying bastard.

I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent past.

We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with
making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is
done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people
of  Australia is to protect people on the  ground from having
aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly
because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most
reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any  problem with
that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt
cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and
numerous others over the years).

I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate
how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem
with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an
absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition,
particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately
mislead by GFA officials.

I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence  discussion
paper before. Meertens and Hall  and Middleton from RAAus went to the
Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusio

Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 35

[Richard Frawley]

I think you can appreciate the confidentially that is required for 
these things to work.


If you have an issue, then I suggest you speak to the EO.

I personally have experienced unwarranted bias and poor treatment and 
had I known about MP at the time, I would have invoked it as I have 
now seen the situation repeated.


Richard






At 01:14 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32 (Ron Sanders)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:14:04 +0800
From: Ron Sanders 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."

Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Perhaps we could hear about these positive results please??

Ron

On 3 September 2014 13:05, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason.
>
> I have witnessed positive results.
>
> If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly, 
please raise

> it to the EO, it will be investigated.
>
> I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its purpose
> or the powers that underpin it.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
>> aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>>   (Mike Borgelt)
>>2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>>   (Mike Borgelt)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000
>> From: Mike Borgelt 
>> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
>> clothes
>> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
>> 
>> Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> >In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
>> >your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
>> >annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect,
>> >and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
>> >other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
>> >yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
>> >MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
>> >could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
>> >erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
>> >always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
>> >through the pages of your logbook.
>> >
>> >That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
>> >
>> >- mark
>>
>>
>> It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
>> whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
>> about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
>> year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
>> own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
>> Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it
>> "insurance". I heard no more.
>> Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club
>> employee "piss off we don't need your  kind around here". Charming. I
>> fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote
>> you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying
>> bastard.
>>
>> I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent
>> past.
>>
>> We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with
>> making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is
>> done 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32

[Ron Sanders]

Perhaps we could hear about these positive results please??

Ron

On 3 September 2014 13:05, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason.
>
> I have witnessed positive results.
>
> If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly, please raise
> it to the EO, it will be investigated.
>
> I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its purpose
> or the powers that underpin it.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
>> aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>>   (Mike Borgelt)
>>2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>>   (Mike Borgelt)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000
>> From: Mike Borgelt 
>> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
>> clothes
>> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
>> 
>> Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:
>>
>> >In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
>> >your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
>> >annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect,
>> >and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
>> >other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
>> >yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
>> >MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
>> >could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
>> >erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
>> >always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
>> >through the pages of your logbook.
>> >
>> >That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
>> >
>> >- mark
>>
>>
>> It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
>> whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
>> about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
>> year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
>> own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
>> Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it
>> "insurance". I heard no more.
>> Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club
>> employee "piss off we don't need your  kind around here". Charming. I
>> fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote
>> you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying
>> bastard.
>>
>> I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent
>> past.
>>
>> We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with
>> making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is
>> done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people
>> of  Australia is to protect people on the  ground from having
>> aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly
>> because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most
>> reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any  problem with
>> that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt
>> cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and
>> numerous others over the years).
>>
>> I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate
>> how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem
>> with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an
>> absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition,
>> particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately
>> mislead by GFA officials.
>>
>> I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence  discussion
>> paper before. Meertens and Hall  and Middleton from RAAus went to the
>> Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusion of gliding and
>> ultralights excised whereupon there wasn't much point in it anymore
>> and the whole thing died. If instead the proposal had been supported
>> we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>>
>> Back in the mid 1990s CAO 95.4 actually made 

Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32

[Christopher McDonnell]

I have used it Richard and it just frittered away to nothing with no real 
result.


Chris

-Original Message- 
From: Richard Frawley

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:05 PM
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32

Guys,

Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason.

I have witnessed positive results.

If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly,
please raise it to the EO, it will be investigated.

I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its
purpose or the powers that underpin it.

Regards

Richard










At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  (Mike Borgelt)
   2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  (Mike Borgelt)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000
From: Mike Borgelt 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
clothes
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."

Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

>In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
>your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
>annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect,
>and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
>other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
>yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
>MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
>could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
>erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
>always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
>through the pages of your logbook.
>
>That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
>
>- mark


It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it
"insurance". I heard no more.
Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club
employee "piss off we don't need your  kind around here". Charming. I
fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote
you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying bastard.

I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent 
past.


We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with
making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is
done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people
of  Australia is to protect people on the  ground from having
aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly
because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most
reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any  problem with
that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt
cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and
numerous others over the years).

I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate
how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem
with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an
absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition,
particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately
mislead by GFA officials.

I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence  discussion
paper before. Meertens and Hall  and Middleton from RAAus went to the
Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusion of gliding and
ultralights excised whereupon there wasn't much point in it anymore
and the whole thing died. If instead the proposal had been supported
we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Back in the mid 1990s CAO 95.4 actually made it plain that the
exemption from the regulations regarding licensing was only there for
those who didn't hold a PPL or higher fligh

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Tim Shirley]

To quote Groucho Marx:  "I would not join any club that would be willing 
to have me as a member".


Cheers

/Tim Shirley/

/tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare/

On 3/09/2014 2:48 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote:
So only 23 years after the Gawler Gliding Club was formed the GFA gets 
around to enabling such clubs?
So why should people who want to do this have any kind of club at all? 
Why not the scenario put forth by Al Borowski?


How about a club of ONE member?

It is hardly a radical concept as it is exactly what is done in the 
RAAus. There are RAAus members and they MAY form clubs. They aren't 
forced to.There are also commercially run flying schools and privately 
run airfields which provide a runway and hangarage.

I'm not aware that anyone in RAAus finds this a problem at all.

Mike




At 02:22 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Hi all,

I think that the last person to have any interest in naked emperors 
was named Josephine, before this thread exposed a whole new concept 
in glider pilot fetishes.


But I digress.

At its recent meeting in Adelaide, I understand that the GFA Board 
approved a change that will allow non-training clubs to form under 
the GFA system.


This will mean (as I understand it) that a group of suitably 
qualified members can form a club that has no CFI, no 2 seater and no 
training operation.Â


The qualification requirement would be a GPC for each member.

Pilots would still be responsible individually for getting their 
annual check (somewhere else, obviously) and maintaining their 
medical status.


I don't know any other details, so no point in asking.  But I do 
know it happened.  I expect the official announcement won't be far away.


Go for it, guys.  And girls.

Disclaimer 1: I hold no official position in the GFA apart from 
looking after some IT systems.  This is, therefore, not an official 
statement of any kind and may be complete bollocks.


Disclaimer 2: No crickets were harmed in the writing or sending of 
this email.  A large number of electrons, however, were seriously 
inconvenienced.


Cheers

/Tim Shirley
/
/tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare
/On 3/09/2014 1:10 PM, Ron Sanders wrote:


If I had a license for gliding just like my PPL I would probably
(most
likely) still join a club. I still like talking gliding at the end of
the day, I still like comparing cross-country flights at the end of
the day.

At the end of the day, I still don't like being beholden to the duty
pilot or the day instructor, when I am fitting in, just going about my
business and enjoying the day.

Nobody forces instructors to do what they do, so they must get some
kind of reward out of it.

Ron

On 3 September 2014 10:35, Robert Izatt

    wrote:


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

On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote:


Ullrich,


  Rob Izatt is correct.

"when operating independently" is the catch phrase.

Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you
are
naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded
and
left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a
syndicate of
the old guard which were only intermittently available and were
restricting
flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had
lapsed
years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by
3
votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club.

To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial
licence
(at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it)
and a
proper

Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 132, Issue 32

[Richard Frawley]

Guys,

Membership Protection exists as a process in the GFA for good reason.

I have witnessed positive results.

If you have a grievance or feel you have been treated unfairly, 
please raise it to the EO, it will be investigated.


I have this suspicion that not many people know that it exists, its 
purpose or the powers that underpin it.


Regards

Richard










At 12:49 AM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
aus-soaring-ow...@lists.internode.on.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  (Mike Borgelt)
   2. Re: Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  (Mike Borgelt)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:35:53 +1000
From: Mike Borgelt 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
clothes
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."

Message-ID: <83067c$5qe...@ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"

At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

>In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of
>your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook
>annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect,
>and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in
>other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own
>yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA
>MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which
>could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or
>erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will
>always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
>through the pages of your logbook.
>
>That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.
>
>- mark


It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason
whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee
about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership
year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my
own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their
Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it
"insurance". I heard no more.
Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club
employee "piss off we don't need your  kind around here". Charming. I
fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote
you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying bastard.

I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent past.

We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with
making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is
done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people
of  Australia is to protect people on the  ground from having
aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly
because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most
reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any  problem with
that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt
cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and
numerous others over the years).

I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate
how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem
with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an
absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition,
particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately
mislead by GFA officials.

I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence  discussion
paper before. Meertens and Hall  and Middleton from RAAus went to the
Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusion of gliding and
ultralights excised whereupon there wasn't much point in it anymore
and the whole thing died. If instead the proposal had been supported
we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Back in the mid 1990s CAO 95.4 actually made it plain that the
exemption from the regulations regarding licensing was only there for
those who didn't hold a PPL or higher flight crew licence. There was
also none of the nonsense that a glider maintenance release was only
valid when the glider was flown by a paid up GFA member. An aircraft
is either airworthy or not. It can't tell who is flying it.  You
could even operate a glider without a licence if you wrote t

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ulrich Stauss]

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough so you may have misunderstood.
I kind of meant to explicitly exclude the unrelated issues in far fewer
words than you kindly provided. Good lessons though.

 

You have a good point, however, about the log book entries in the GFA system
- there is a low threshold against misuse. I'm not sure how that is handled
in the GA world but I bet the commercial operators talk amongst each other
if there are serious issues with certain candidates.

 

I'll take my leave from this thread now.

 

Ulrich

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mark Newton
Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2014 12:55
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

 

 

On Sep 3, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Ulrich Stauss mailto:usta...@internode.on.net> > wrote:

* That is a very 'elastic' phrase (which should be better defined).
If you use club equipment or want to fly from a club owned airfield you are
of course dependent on their whims. Even the "proper" licensing overseas
does not change that. But if you operate at a location where neither the
aircraft/equipment nor the airfield are owned by the resident club (and all
else including the independent control check is in order) I can't see how it
would be *illegal* for you to choose to do so independently against the
screams of a red faced club CFI. I'm not saying there wouldn't be
ramifications.

 

 

Whoa, hang on.  There are a number of concepts wrapped up in there that are
independent from each other.

 

Use of a privately owned airfield: That's not an operational issue, that's a
property issue. If the property owner doesn't wish you to use their airfield
in the manner you wish, they can demand that you cease and desist and use
trespass law to gain satisfaction if you don't.  We've had private property
laws in our legal system since the Magna Carta, GFA isn't (or shouldn't be)
involved.

 

Use of a somebody else's aircraft/equipment: That's also not an operational
issue.  When you use someone else's aircraft, you enter into a hire
agreement with them where you gain access to certain goods and services in
exchange for some kind of consideration.  Maybe the hirer or their insurer
will place conditions on the hire, or maybe not.  That's not an operational
issue, it's a contract;  GFA isn't (or shouldn't be) involved.

 

Separate from all of that is the set of air legislation in Australia, which
includes GFA's OpRegs and MOSP by delegation.  That legislation provides for
obligations on pilots which are utterly indifferent to notions about who
owns what.

 

In non-GFA regulatory systems, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms
of your hire, the hirer can refuse to hire to you any more and take their
aircraft back.  The civil aviation regulator is not involved, you can rush
out and hire another aircraft from someone else whenever you like.

 

In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of your
hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook annotation which
grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect, and applies to all of
your flying nationally, including flying in other peoples' aircraft,
including in aircraft you actually own yourself.  The grounding will
probably be maintained until the GFA MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have
run their course, which could take months.  Because logbook annotations
cannot be altered or erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the
future will always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip
through the pages of your logbook.

 

That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.

 

   - mark

 

 

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Mike Borgelt]

So only 23 years after the Gawler Gliding Club 
was formed the GFA gets around to enabling such clubs?
So why should people who want to do this have any 
kind of club at all? Why not the scenario put forth by Al Borowski?


How about a club of ONE member?

It is hardly a radical concept as it is exactly 
what is done in the RAAus. There are RAAus 
members and they MAY form clubs. They aren't 
forced to.There are also commercially run flying 
schools and privately run airfields which provide a runway and hangarage.

I'm not aware that anyone in RAAus finds this a problem at all.

Mike




At 02:22 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

Hi all,

I think that the last person to have any 
interest in naked emperors was named Josephine, 
before this thread exposed a whole new concept in glider pilot fetishes.


But I digress.

At its recent meeting in Adelaide, I understand 
that the GFA Board approved a change that will 
allow non-training clubs to form under the GFA system.


This will mean (as I understand it) that a group 
of suitably qualified members can form a club 
that has no CFI, no 2 seater and no training operation.Â


The qualification requirement would be a GPC for each member.

Pilots would still be responsible individually 
for getting their annual check (somewhere else, 
obviously) and maintaining their medical status.


I don't know any other details, so no point in 
asking.  But I do know it happened.  I expect 
the official announcement won't be far away.


Go for it, guys.  And girls.

Disclaimer 1: I hold no official position in the 
GFA apart from looking after some IT 
systems.  This is, therefore, not an official 
statement of any kind and may be complete bollocks.


Disclaimer 2: No crickets were harmed in the 
writing or sending of this email.  A large 
number of electrons, however, were seriously inconvenienced.


Cheers

Tim Shirley

tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare
On 3/09/2014 1:10 PM, Ron Sanders wrote:


If I had a license for gliding just like my PPL I would probably (most
likely) still join a club. I still like talking gliding at the end of
the day, I still like comparing cross-country flights at the end of
the day.

At the end of the day, I still don't like being beholden to the duty
pilot or the day instructor, when I am fitting in, just going about my
business and enjoying the day.

Nobody forces instructors to do what they do, so they must get some
kind of reward out of it.

Ron

On 3 September 2014 10:35, Robert Izatt 
 wrote:


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

On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote:


Ullrich,


 Rob Izatt is correct.

"when operating independently" is the catch phrase.

Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are
naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and
left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of
the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting
flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed
years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3
votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club.

To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence
(at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a
proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as
it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were goi

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Mike Borgelt]

At 01:24 PM 3/09/2014, you wrote:

In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of 
your hire, any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook 
annotation which grounds you.  The grounding takes immediate effect, 
and applies to all of your flying nationally, including flying in 
other peoples' aircraft, including in aircraft you actually own 
yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the GFA 
MOSP's pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which 
could take months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or 
erased, every club you ever choose to fly with in the future will 
always be able to see that you've been grounded when they flip 
through the pages of your logbook.


That's what "dependent on their whims" means in the GFA system.

   - mark



It is worse than that. The instructor can ground you for any reason 
whatsoever. Been there, done that, for writing to the club committee 
about an "insurance" levy they wanted to impose during the membership 
year. I was concerned that calling it "insurance" would compromise my 
own glider insurance and pointed out that the club could, under their 
Constitution strike a membership levy at any time, just don't call it 
"insurance". I heard no more.
Next time I turned up to fly I was very rudely told by the paid club 
employee "piss off we don't need your  kind around here". Charming. I 
fronted a committee member about this to be told "oh, but we wrote 
you a letter about this. It must have got lost in the mail". Lying bastard.


I know Mark has another GFA/Club horror story too from the more recent past.

We have the law of the land. CASA is charged by parliament with 
making regulations under the Civil Aviation Act to regulate what is 
done in civil aviation. Their primary duty to the people 
of  Australia is to protect people on the  ground from having 
aeroplanes fall on them and secondarily to protect people why fly 
because they wish to be transported from A to B and air is the most 
reasonable means for them to do so. I don't have any  problem with 
that concept, it is the execution that falls down in the corrupt 
cesspool of Australian aviation regulation (ask Kingsford Smith and 
numerous others over the years).


I don't even have a problem with the GFA being allowed to regulate 
how its members operate under a CASA delegation. I do have a problem 
with CASA and GFA having a cosy little arrangement where GFA has an 
absolute MONOPOLY and is allowed to prevent any possible competition, 
particularly when CASA and the Minister have been deliberately 
mislead by GFA officials.


I've written about the 2003 CASA Recreational Licence  discussion 
paper before. Meertens and Hall  and Middleton from RAAus went to the 
Minister (John Anderson) and had the inclusion of gliding and 
ultralights excised whereupon there wasn't much point in it anymore 
and the whole thing died. If instead the proposal had been supported 
we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Back in the mid 1990s CAO 95.4 actually made it plain that the 
exemption from the regulations regarding licensing was only there for 
those who didn't hold a PPL or higher flight crew licence. There was 
also none of the nonsense that a glider maintenance release was only 
valid when the glider was flown by a paid up GFA member. An aircraft 
is either airworthy or not. It can't tell who is flying it.  You 
could even operate a glider without a licence if you wrote the 
Secretary of DoT and told them you would operate to GFA standards.


After 2003 GFA, in collusion with CASA employees, gradually re wrote 
95.4 until we have the current situation. Until 2009 they actually 
pretended that there would be a parallel path. They lied yet again, 
aided by the appointment of the now thankfully departed McCormick and 
with the acquiescence of the GFA Board including Anita Taylor.


Mike






___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Tim Shirley]

Hi all,

I think that the last person to have any interest in naked emperors was 
named Josephine, before this thread exposed a whole new concept in 
glider pilot fetishes.


But I digress.

At its recent meeting in Adelaide, I understand that the GFA Board 
approved a change that will allow non-training clubs to form under the 
GFA system.


This will mean (as I understand it) that a group of suitably qualified 
members can form a club that has no CFI, no 2 seater and no training 
operation.


The qualification requirement would be a GPC for each member.

Pilots would still be responsible individually for getting their annual 
check (somewhere else, obviously) and maintaining their medical status.


I don't know any other details, so no point in asking.  But I do know it 
happened.  I expect the official announcement won't be far away.


Go for it, guys.  And girls.

Disclaimer 1: I hold no official position in the GFA apart from looking 
after some IT systems.  This is, therefore, not an official statement of 
any kind and may be complete bollocks.


Disclaimer 2: No crickets were harmed in the writing or sending of this 
email.  A large number of electrons, however, were seriously inconvenienced.


Cheers

/Tim Shirley/

/tra dire é fare c' é mezzo il mare/

On 3/09/2014 1:10 PM, Ron Sanders wrote:

If I had a license for gliding just like my PPL I would probably (most
likely) still join a club. I still like talking gliding at the end of
the day, I still like comparing cross-country flights at the end of
the day.

At the end of the day, I still don't like being beholden to the duty
pilot or the day instructor, when I am fitting in, just going about my
business and enjoying the day.

Nobody forces instructors to do what they do, so they must get some
kind of reward out of it.

Ron

On 3 September 2014 10:35, Robert Izatt  wrote:

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

On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote:


Ullrich,


  Rob Izatt is correct.

"when operating independently" is the catch phrase.

Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are
naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and
left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of
the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting
flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed
years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3
votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club.

To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence
(at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a
proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as
it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going
through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
reasonable thing to me.

When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours
required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the
gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for
instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit
at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers
of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent
glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient.

The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own
the p

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Mark Newton]

On Sep 3, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Ulrich Stauss  wrote:
> · That is a very ‘elastic’ phrase (which should be better defined). 
> If you use club equipment or want to fly from a club owned airfield you are 
> of course dependent on their whims. Even the “proper” licensing overseas does 
> not change that. But if you operate at a location where neither the 
> aircraft/equipment nor the airfield are owned by the resident club (and all 
> else including the independent control check is in order) I can’t see how it 
> would be *illegal* for you to choose to do so independently against the 
> screams of a red faced club CFI. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be 
> ramifications…
>  

Whoa, hang on.  There are a number of concepts wrapped up in there that are 
independent from each other.

Use of a privately owned airfield: That’s not an operational issue, that’s a 
property issue. If the property owner doesn’t wish you to use their airfield in 
the manner you wish, they can demand that you cease and desist and use trespass 
law to gain satisfaction if you don’t.  We’ve had private property laws in our 
legal system since the Magna Carta, GFA isn’t (or shouldn’t be) involved.

Use of a somebody else’s aircraft/equipment: That’s also not an operational 
issue.  When you use someone else’s aircraft, you enter into a hire agreement 
with them where you gain access to certain goods and services in exchange for 
some kind of consideration.  Maybe the hirer or their insurer will place 
conditions on the hire, or maybe not.  That’s not an operational issue, it’s a 
contract;  GFA isn’t (or shouldn’t be) involved.

Separate from all of that is the set of air legislation in Australia, which 
includes GFA’s OpRegs and MOSP by delegation.  That legislation provides for 
obligations on pilots which are utterly indifferent to notions about who owns 
what.

In non-GFA regulatory systems, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of 
your hire, the hirer can refuse to hire to you any more and take their aircraft 
back.  The civil aviation regulator is not involved, you can rush out and hire 
another aircraft from someone else whenever you like.

In the GFA system, if you hire an aircraft and violate the terms of your hire, 
any instructor can, at their option, write a logbook annotation which grounds 
you.  The grounding takes immediate effect, and applies to all of your flying 
nationally, including flying in other peoples’ aircraft, including in aircraft 
you actually own yourself.  The grounding will probably be maintained until the 
GFA MOSP’s pilot discipline procedures have run their course, which could take 
months.  Because logbook annotations cannot be altered or erased, every club 
you ever choose to fly with in the future will always be able to see that 
you’ve been grounded when they flip through the pages of your logbook.

That’s what “dependent on their whims” means in the GFA system.

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ron Sanders]

If I had a license for gliding just like my PPL I would probably (most
likely) still join a club. I still like talking gliding at the end of
the day, I still like comparing cross-country flights at the end of
the day.

At the end of the day, I still don't like being beholden to the duty
pilot or the day instructor, when I am fitting in, just going about my
business and enjoying the day.

Nobody forces instructors to do what they do, so they must get some
kind of reward out of it.

Ron

On 3 September 2014 10:35, Robert Izatt  wrote:
> The salient point in Mike's comment is the GA Instructor/commercial pilot
> spends the cash or bums hours to get his rating because there is an income
> stream at the end - he/she hopes. But so does the swim coach at your local
> State School. Long gone are the days when any sort of quality coach or
> instructor was a pure volunteer. Join a yacht club (similar infrastructure
> etc) and the sailing instructor and the club will give you a bill for her
> time and you are happy because you got value for your money.
> Gliding instructors do spend big dollars getting a ticket and then volunteer
> a full day, drive 250kms at their own expense, on 40 degree days only to be
> told by some snot nose Treasurer, who couldn't find his way 10kms from home
> without a GPS and thinks that's OK, that instructors don't work hard enough
> for the club.
> Club's are good things but this whole discussion revolves around an
> antiquated volunteer system. Club's need volunteers to function but gliding
> holds up its most valuable resource - knowledge, skill and experience - and
> says or rather boasts that it has no dollar value and we all know the world
> ain't like that Toto.
> Rob Izatt
>
> On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote:
>
>
> Ullrich,
>
>
>  Rob Izatt is correct.
>
> "when operating independently" is the catch phrase.
>
> Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
> renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
> due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are
> naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and
> left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
> meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
> launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of
> the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting
> flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed
> years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3
> votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club.
>
> To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence
> (at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a
> proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
> flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as
> it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going
> through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
> reasonable thing to me.
>
> When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours
> required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the
> gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for
> instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit
> at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers
> of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent
> glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient.
>
> The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own
> the private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that
> gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything
> about this wants to change anything about the way business is done.
>
> * Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA
> is not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need
> nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation
> only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even
> all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to
> exist without any members other than those on the board.
>
> Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher
> Thorpe is the sound of crickets.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion
> should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless
> I am in training).
>
> The current MOSP says:
> “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR
> Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility
> of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2
> Independent Operator authori

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ulrich Stauss]

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike
Borgelt
Sent: Wednesday, 3 September 2014 10:19
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes


Ullrich,

 Rob Izatt is correct.

"when operating independently" is the catch phrase. 



* That is a very 'elastic' phrase (which should be better defined).
If you use club equipment or want to fly from a club owned airfield you are
of course dependent on their whims. Even the "proper" licensing overseas
does not change that. But if you operate at a location where neither the
aircraft/equipment nor the airfield are owned by the resident club (and all
else including the independent control check is in order) I can't see how it
would be *illegal* for you to choose to do so independently against the
screams of a red faced club CFI. I'm not saying there wouldn't be
ramifications.

 

Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are
naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and
left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of
the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting
flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed
years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3
votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club. 



* There probably always have been and always will be club politics
and/or individuals overstepping the mark. Welcome to humanity. But I agree
that the "parallel path" should be an option for those who have the means if
that is what you were trying to get at.


To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence
(at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a
proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as
it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going
through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
reasonable thing to me.

 

* Sure, so add a few more hours - sensible minima should be roughly
in line with what it takes in a competency-based system anyway. Any more and
it becomes increasingly a waste of effort.

 

* Beyond here you also raise some valid points as usual. Certainly a
discussion that needs to be had but it is going far off my original topic
and I don't want to get drawn further into swallowing the entire elephant in
one piece. I had not intended to kick off a mega-thread but if it helped to
get the various issues to the attention of our GFA officials (as Chris'
participation here indicates) and they constructively act on it I'm glad I
did. If not I regret having wasted my and all the list members' time.


When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours
required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the
gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for
instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit
at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers
of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent
glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient.

The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own
the private "non-profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that
gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything
about this wants to change anything about the way business is done.

* Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA
is not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need
nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation
only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even
all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to
exist without any members other than those on the board.

Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher
Thorpe is the sound of crickets. 

Mike







Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion
should be abolished - why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless
I am in training).
 
The current MOSP says:
"13.2 LEVEL 2 'UNRESTRICTED' INDEPENDENT OPERATOR 
Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility
of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2
Indep

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Robert Izatt]

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

On 03/09/2014, at 10:49 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote:

> 
> Ullrich,
> 
> 
>  Rob Izatt is correct.
> 
> "when operating independently" is the catch phrase. 
> 
> Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be 
> renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen  due 
> to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are 
> naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and 
> left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general meeting 
> to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a launch means  
> which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of the old guard 
> which were only intermittently available and were restricting flying. The old 
> guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed years ago, 
> signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3 votes 
> whereupon the losers were grounded by the club. 
> 
> To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence 
> (at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a 
> proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of 
> flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as 
> it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going 
> through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a reasonable 
> thing to me.
> 
> When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours required 
> the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the gliding 
> instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for instructors at 
> the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit at a fairly 
> horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers of discouraged 
> would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent glider pilots I'd 
> say the system is very inefficient.
> 
> The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own 
> the private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that 
> gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything 
> about this wants to change anything about the way business is done.
> 
> * Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA is 
> not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need 
> nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation 
> only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even 
> all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to exist 
> without any members other than those on the board.
> 
> Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher 
> Thorpe is the sound of crickets. 
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion 
>> should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless 
>> I am in training).
>>  
>> The current MOSP says:
>> “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR 
>> Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility 
>> of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2 
>> Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of 
>> their operations when operating independently. This includes airways 
>> clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident 
>> reporting.”
>>  
>> To my knowledge it has been like that for many years.
>>  
>> I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but 
>> in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince 
>> the CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 ra

[Aus-soaring] Who needs supervision?

[Greg Wilson]

Hi All,

I'd like to congratulate Mark on his well crafted letter expressing views that 
I'm sure are shared by many of us:

Quote:-I don’t want to be “supervised” by someone else.  I’m not if 
I fly as an RAAus member, or as a CASA license holder. I’m only a second-class 
aviator not trusted to make my own decisions independently if I fly with GFA.


In literally every other aviation discipline, I can front up to an aircraft 
owner, flash a pilot’s certificate, hire an aircraft, and be 100% responsible 
for my actions.  Under the GFA system, I can’t.  That’s been a common complaint 
about the GFA for as long as I can remember, and it’s immensely disappointing 
that there is no apparent intention to address it at all.  Membership-based 
organization not responding to members’ issues.

 End Quote

I can fully understand the need for pilots flying club gliders to be supervised 
by instructors. I can't see any reason that that should include pilots flying 
their own aircraft. While that supervision is seldom onerous, it still exists 
and in most cases achieves little.

Many smaller clubs have difficulty finding instructors. It's likely that the 
requirement for instructors to be responsible for the flying of pilots flying 
their own aircraft contributes to people's reluctance to take on the role.

Could someone from the GFA please reply explaining what's required to remove 
this supervision requirement?

Cheers,

Greg.





 On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:30:31 +1000 Mark Newton 
 wrote  



On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Paul Bart  wrote:

You say "When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second 
class aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their feet." Well I have 
been involved in gliding for some fourteen years now, with a reasonably sized 
club and I am yet to encounter any pilot being too worried about being classed 
as "second class aviator”. 
 






Hi, I’m Mark.


I’m another 14 year glider pilot, just like you.  In addition to a GPC with an 
L2 instructor rating and a D1109 airworthiness cert, I also have an RAAus pilot 
certificate, and a CASA PPL(A).


During my time in the GFA system, I’ve spent 3 years as a club CFI.  I know all 
about GFA’s attitude towards personal responsibility.


I’m yet to encounter any other form of aviation in any other jurisdiction where 
a trained pilot is not considered responsible for their own actions; or where 
an instructor is expected to assume some kind of poorly defined 
“responsibility” for what other trained pilots do, simply by virtue of being 
present at the time of their launch.


… except the military, which is, I believe, where the GFA’s system and attitude 
originates.


There was a time when I didn’t care about any of this:  I was a GFA member, a 
glider pilot, and that’s simply the system, take it or leave it. So I totally 
understand why it doesn’t matter to some (most) glider pilots.


But after exposure to the CASA and RAAus systems, my attitude has changed.


The Commonwealth of Australia considers me competent to make and be responsible 
for all my own decisions relating to my operations and the airworthiness of my 
aircraft.


The GFA does not.


That paternalism grates.  At each membership renewal since I gained my PPL, 
I’ve thought a little bit harder about whether I’m prepared to accept the GFA’s 
increasing tendency to centralize, to oversee, to diminish the responsibility 
that each pilot has to maintain their own safety.  I’ve also thought about the 
responsibility of instructing, and “taking charge” of an operation that can 
only be influenced, not controlled, and whether that’s something I want to 
expose myself to.


I’m also increasingly of the view that some of that philosophy reduces safety. 
There are so many things that GFA pilots can convince themselves they never 
need to worry about because someone else will second-guess the decision for 
them.


My membership is currently overdue.  I’m still thinking.


Last weekend I was going to fly my RV out to a gliding club to try them on for 
size, to have an annual check and see if we we’re a good fit for each other, 
and see if there are any openings in that I might be able to contribute to. I 
would have renewed my membership to make that happen, but I had a bad night’s 
sleep on Saturday night and didn’t assess myself as passing an IMSAFE check for 
that kind of operation, so I stayed home instead.  Now I have some more work 
travel coming up and it’ll probably be at least a month before I get another 
opportunity, so maybe I’ll keep thinking about whether GFA’s philosophy is 
compatible with me until October or November.


Here’s something that’s important, which I think is frequently lost:


Aviation is a technical discipline, but it has a strong emotional dimension as 
well.  We fly because we get some kind of high out of it:  We love it, 
otherwise we wouldn’t put oursel

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ron Sanders]

And to Mr Paul Bart, I think that you need to talk to a few more of us
that have been hanging around gliding for nearly 50 years or so and
you will hear more stories like Mike's. And then even more if you get
into the competition scene.

Ron

On 3 September 2014 08:49, Mike Borgelt  wrote:
>
> Ullrich,
>
>
>  Rob Izatt is correct.
>
> "when operating independently" is the catch phrase.
>
> Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
> renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
> due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are
> naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and
> left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
> meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
> launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of
> the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting
> flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed
> years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3
> votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club.
>
> To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence
> (at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a
> proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
> flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as
> it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going
> through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
> reasonable thing to me.
>
> When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours
> required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the
> gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for
> instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit
> at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers
> of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent
> glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient.
>
> The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own
> the private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that
> gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything
> about this wants to change anything about the way business is done.
>
> * Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA
> is not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need
> nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation
> only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even
> all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to
> exist without any members other than those on the board.
>
> Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher
> Thorpe is the sound of crickets.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion
> should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless
> I am in training).
>
> The current MOSP says:
> “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR
> Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility
> of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2
> Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of
> their operations when operating independently. This includes airways
> clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident
> reporting.”
>
> To my knowledge it has been like that for many years.
>
> I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but
> in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince
> the CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What
> should the minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you set that it will
> not be enough for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher
> that number is.
>
> On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I’m also with you
> although I would choose less GFA-bashing words.
>
> Ulrich
>
> From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [
> mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>
> At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:
>
> Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does
> that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than "in other parts of
> the world". It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that.
>
>
>
> No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked.
>
> 200 hours? You

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ron Sanders]

like i said Mike, any body wanna bet as to what we will hear??
Ron

On 3 September 2014 08:49, Mike Borgelt  wrote:
>
> Ullrich,
>
>
>  Rob Izatt is correct.
>
> "when operating independently" is the catch phrase.
>
> Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator rating can fail to be
> renewed by a club at a whim. If you don't believe that this can't happen
> due to personal feuds and vendettas or political differences I think you are
> naive. I know of one club where nearly half the membership was grounded and
> left the club because they had the temerity to call a special general
> meeting to get the club to buy its own tug so that the club would own a
> launch means  which it owned instead relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of
> the old guard which were only intermittently available and were restricting
> flying. The old guard called up people they knew whose membership had lapsed
> years ago, signed thm up with a current year's subs and won the vote by 3
> votes whereupon the losers were grounded by the club.
>
> To get any kind of instructor rating in power you need a commercial licence
> (at least 150 maybe 200 hours or so depending how and where you do it) and a
> proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
> flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that as
> it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going
> through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
> reasonable thing to me.
>
> When you talk of discouraging people by raising the instructor hours
> required the question arises - what problem are we trying to solve with the
> gliding instruction system? Are we trying to provide free flying for
> instructors at the students' expense? If so, the system is successful albeit
> at a fairly horrendous cost in dead and injured students and large numbers
> of discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying to turn out competent
> glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient.
>
> The pity is that just about everyone (including I'm sure the people who own
> the private "non profit" organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that
> gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything
> about this wants to change anything about the way business is done.
>
> * Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise excellent post - the GFA
> is not membership based. Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need
> nomination by existing Board members. The Board (membership by invitation
> only) are the effective owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or even
> all the rest of the membership can do about it. The GFA can continue to
> exist without any members other than those on the board.
>
> Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the direction of Christopher
> Thorpe is the sound of crickets.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion
> should be abolished – why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless
> I am in training).
>
> The current MOSP says:
> “13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR
> Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility
> of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2
> Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of
> their operations when operating independently. This includes airways
> clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident
> reporting.”
>
> To my knowledge it has been like that for many years.
>
> I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but
> in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince
> the CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What
> should the minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you set that it will
> not be enough for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher
> that number is.
>
> On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I’m also with you
> although I would choose less GFA-bashing words.
>
> Ulrich
>
> From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [
> mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>
> At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:
>
> Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does
> that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than "in other parts of
> the world". It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that.
>
>
>
> No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked.
>
> 200 hours? You can get a PPL for powered aircraft in 60 to 70 hours from
> scratch.
>
> You get a bi annual and a medical every two years. Apart from that you are
> completely free to go wh

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Mike Borgelt]

Ullrich,


 Rob Izatt is correct.

"when operating independently" is the catch phrase.

Don't forget also that an L2 independent operator 
rating can fail to be renewed by a club at a 
whim. If you don't believe that this can't 
happen  due to personal feuds and vendettas or 
political differences I think you are naive. I 
know of one club where nearly half the membership 
was grounded and left the club because they had 
the temerity to call a special general meeting to 
get the club to buy its own tug so that the club 
would own a launch means  which it owned instead 
relying on tugs owned by a syndicate of the old 
guard which were only intermittently available 
and were restricting flying. The old guard called 
up people they knew whose membership had lapsed 
years ago, signed thm up with a current year's 
subs and won the vote by 3 votes whereupon the 
losers were grounded by the club.


To get any kind of instructor rating in power you 
need a commercial licence (at least 150 maybe 200 
hours or so depending how and where you do it) 
and a proper instructor course which involves 
something like 30 to 40 hours of flying and a 
similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold 
me to that as it was a while ago at the aero club 
where a couple of blokes were going through that. 
I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a reasonable thing to me.


When you talk of discouraging people by raising 
the instructor hours required the question arises 
- what problem are we trying to solve with the 
gliding instruction system? Are we trying to 
provide free flying for instructors at the 
students' expense? If so, the system is 
successful albeit at a fairly horrendous cost in 
dead and injured students and large numbers of 
discouraged would glider pilots. If we are trying 
to turn out competent glider pilots I'd say the system is very inefficient.


The pity is that just about everyone (including 
I'm sure the people who own the private "non 
profit" organisation known as the GFA)* 
recognises that gliding is in a fragile state but 
nobody with the ability to do anything about this 
wants to change anything about the way business is done.


* Mark is wrong about one thing in his other wise 
excellent post - the GFA is not membership based. 
Take a look at how to get on the Board. You need 
nomination by existing Board members. The Board 
(membership by invitation only) are the effective 
owners of the GFA and there is NOTHING you or 
even all the rest of the membership can do about 
it. The GFA can continue to exist without any 
members other than those on the board.


Which, Ron, is why all you are hearing from the 
direction of Christopher Thorpe is the sound of crickets.


Mike




Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO 
rating (which in my opinion should be abolished 
– why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless I am in training).


The current MOSP says:
“13.2 LEVEL 2 ‘UNRESTRICTED’ INDEPENDENT OPERATOR
Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator 
authority, where club responsibility of 
independent operations is of primary importance, 
holders of Level 2 Independent Operator 
authority are solely responsible for all aspects 
of their operations when operating 
independently. This includes airways clearances, 
tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident reporting.”


To my knowledge it has been like that for many years.

I agree with you that the minimum hours for 
instructor ratings seem low but in practice it 
requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities 
and convince the CFIs and L3 instructors to give 
you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What should the 
minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you 
set that it will not be enough for some and 
increasingly discouraging for others the higher that number is.


On the rest, including independent control 
checks for IOs, I’m also with you although I 
would choose less GFA-bashing words.


Ulrich

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt

Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:

Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does
that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than "in other parts of
the world". It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that.



No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked.

200 hours? You can get a PPL for powered 
aircraft in 60 to 70 hours from scratch.


You get a bi annual and a medical every two 
years. Apart from that you are completely free 
to go wherever and whenever you like with as 
many people as fit in the aircraft.






A shame really that the GPL was not based on the L2 IO rating, perhaps with
the bar lowered a little (e.g. reducing the 200hrs require

Re: [Aus-soaring] Hand held radios

[Don Woodward]

Thanks  John. 

DW. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Sep 2014, at 12:05 am, "John Parncutt"  wrote:
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> I think your answer is in this web page from ICOM:
> 
> http://www.icom-australia.com/products/airband/airband.html
> 
> My take on this would be that ACMA (Australian Communications and Media
> Authority) probably has had an issue with the certification of the Icom
> handhelds and until this is resolved they have had to withdraw them from the
> market.
> 
> Perhaps Vertex standard VXA-220 airband radio (made by Yaesu) would be a
> suitable alternative brand for you.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> John Parncutt
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
> [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Don
> Woodward
> Sent: 02 September, 2014 22:12
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: [Aus-soaring] Hand held radios
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm chasing a new icom hand held radio but apparently you cannot buy a new
> one in Australia at the moment. Does anybody know why?
> 
> Don Woodward
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> 
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4745 / Virus Database: 4007/8141 - Release Date: 09/02/14
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Hand held radios

[John Parncutt]

Hi Don,

I think your answer is in this web page from ICOM:

http://www.icom-australia.com/products/airband/airband.html

My take on this would be that ACMA (Australian Communications and Media
Authority) probably has had an issue with the certification of the Icom
handhelds and until this is resolved they have had to withdraw them from the
market.

Perhaps Vertex standard VXA-220 airband radio (made by Yaesu) would be a
suitable alternative brand for you.

Cheers,


John Parncutt

-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Don
Woodward
Sent: 02 September, 2014 22:12
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: [Aus-soaring] Hand held radios

Hi all,

I'm chasing a new icom hand held radio but apparently you cannot buy a new
one in Australia at the moment. Does anybody know why?

Don Woodward

Sent from my iPhone
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4745 / Virus Database: 4007/8141 - Release Date: 09/02/14

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ron Sanders]

So we all know that the "powers that be"read this list and of course
they should respond to the very fair questions asked here in.
Anybody wanna wager?? There will be cold silence from the powers that
be on the premise that it will all go away soon enough.

Ron S

On 2 September 2014 17:24, Christopher McDonnell
 wrote:
> Mark said:
>
> 14 years later, nothing has changed.
>
> There are other essential non ops/airworthiness things that have never been
> done in the same timeframe also.
> My little hobby horse and specialty, won’t bore the list.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> From: Mark Newton
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:06 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Paul Bart  wrote:
>
> Thank you for a detailed and logical post. Frankly I do not think I would
> take issue with most points you make. I simply think my personal experience
> is different. I am not a member of any other flying organisation so I cannot
> compare.
>
>
>
> That’s fine, we all come from different backgrounds, and different things
> are important to all of us.  That’s one of the points I was making.
>
> For those of us for whom “the freedom of flight” is important in the manner
> I described, GFA has literally nothing to offer us - indeed, its very
> existence is an impediment (the CASA GPL would likely be very different if
> GFA had not been involved in it)
>
> The fact is that I do not see that GFA impedes what I want to do, nor what a
> majority of glider pilots I personally know (a limited sample) do. Does a
> level 2 instructor impedes my flying, not in the least, do I feel in any way
> "supervised"? Not in the least. When it is my turn to run the day, do I
> interfere with any of the solo pilots? No.
>
>
> It’s not a question of interference, that isn’t the point.
>
> You cannot take responsibility for rigging a glider, because GFA seems to be
> saying that its trained certificate holders lack the alacrity to perform
> that task without someone else looking over their shoulder and
> countersigning.
>
> When you are running a day, you are on an undefined, open-ended legal
> liability hook for any accidents or injuries they suffer.  Could you have
> prevented an actionable event by preventing a launch?  Even if you couldn’t,
> could an insurance company’s lawyer paint a picture that says you could?
> You might not even know those other pilots, but you’ve “taken charge” of
> their operation.  Do you know what that means?
>
> And anyone who isn’t an instructor should feel “in any way supervised”
> because that’s what the instructor’s actual job is. Everyone is under
> supervision.  All the time.
>
> I don’t know how to describe how oppressive that is for the group of pilots
> for whom “freedom of flight” is important; how much the knowledge that you
> can never be so well trained or well skilled that you can be trusted to
> command your own aircraft can suck the enjoyment out of the sport — When
> that’s precisely the expectation held by pilots in literally every other
> aviation discipline I’ve ever come into contact with.
>
> I can remember 14 years ago, one of the very first aus-soaring messages I
> ever read was Mike Borgelt making the entirely reasonable observation that
> it is impossible for a L2 Independent Operator to legally fly his own
> self-launching glider out of his own private airfield, because the act of
> rigging it requires another GFA member to be physically present to
> countersign the maintenance release.
>
> 14 years later, nothing has changed.
>
> How is that possible?  That renders the entire L2 Independent Operator
> rating worthless.  How pathetic is it that so much time can pass without
> such an obvious regulatory defect being closed?
>
>
> So  the only time I feel as a second-class aviator is when i hook into a 6
> kt thermal and I know that Alan Barnes would be doing 8 :).
>
>
> That’s just Imposter Syndrome.  Alan Barnes knows Ingo would be doing 12. :)
>
>   - mark
>
>
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] Hand held radios

[Don Woodward]

Hi all,

I'm chasing a new icom hand held radio but apparently you cannot buy a new one 
in Australia at the moment. Does anybody know why?

Don Woodward

Sent from my iPhone
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Christopher McDonnell]

Mark said:

14 years later, nothing has changed.

There are other essential non ops/airworthiness things that have never been 
done in the same timeframe also.
My little hobby horse and specialty, won’t bore the list.

Chris



From: Mark Newton 
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:06 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes


On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Paul Bart  wrote:


  Thank you for a detailed and logical post. Frankly I do not think I would 
take issue with most points you make. I simply think my personal experience is 
different. I am not a member of any other flying organisation so I cannot 
compare. 


That’s fine, we all come from different backgrounds, and different things are 
important to all of us.  That’s one of the points I was making.

For those of us for whom “the freedom of flight” is important in the manner I 
described, GFA has literally nothing to offer us - indeed, its very existence 
is an impediment (the CASA GPL would likely be very different if GFA had not 
been involved in it)


  The fact is that I do not see that GFA impedes what I want to do, nor what a 
majority of glider pilots I personally know (a limited sample) do. Does a level 
2 instructor impedes my flying, not in the least, do I feel in any way 
"supervised"? Not in the least. When it is my turn to run the day, do I 
interfere with any of the solo pilots? No.

It’s not a question of interference, that isn’t the point.

You cannot take responsibility for rigging a glider, because GFA seems to be 
saying that its trained certificate holders lack the alacrity to perform that 
task without someone else looking over their shoulder and countersigning.

When you are running a day, you are on an undefined, open-ended legal liability 
hook for any accidents or injuries they suffer.  Could you have prevented an 
actionable event by preventing a launch?  Even if you couldn’t, could an 
insurance company’s lawyer paint a picture that says you could?  You might not 
even know those other pilots, but you’ve “taken charge” of their operation.  Do 
you know what that means?

And anyone who isn’t an instructor should feel “in any way supervised” because 
that’s what the instructor’s actual job is. Everyone is under supervision.  All 
the time.

I don’t know how to describe how oppressive that is for the group of pilots for 
whom “freedom of flight” is important; how much the knowledge that you can 
never be so well trained or well skilled that you can be trusted to command 
your own aircraft can suck the enjoyment out of the sport — When that’s 
precisely the expectation held by pilots in literally every other aviation 
discipline I’ve ever come into contact with.

I can remember 14 years ago, one of the very first aus-soaring messages I ever 
read was Mike Borgelt making the entirely reasonable observation that it is 
impossible for a L2 Independent Operator to legally fly his own self-launching 
glider out of his own private airfield, because the act of rigging it requires 
another GFA member to be physically present to countersign the maintenance 
release.

14 years later, nothing has changed.

How is that possible?  That renders the entire L2 Independent Operator rating 
worthless.  How pathetic is it that so much time can pass without such an 
obvious regulatory defect being closed? 

  So  the only time I feel as a second-class aviator is when i hook into a 6 kt 
thermal and I know that Alan Barnes would be doing 8 :).


That’s just Imposter Syndrome.  Alan Barnes knows Ingo would be doing 12. :)

  - mark






___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Batteries

[Peter Champness]

Interesting question.

I am looking at the feasibility of an electric powered glider, either
sustainer or launch.

There are a number of electric powered aircraft flying now and a lot of
cars on the road.  Plus very large numbers of model airplanes, cars etc.

While I would not deny that battery fires can occur, and have occurred, the
number seem to be remarkably few,  especially given that a lot of model
flyers push their batteries very hard.

Improvements in charging technology most likely has been a factor.
Overcharging seems to be a very bad thing to do.

I think that the risk of a fire can be managed.  I hope that the GFA agrees.




On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

>  Adam,
>
> It looks to be a motorcycle/race car starting battery. Different duty
> cycle from glider batteries.
>
> The lithium technology is unmentioned. Anything that isn't LiFePO4
> (lithium iron phosphate) probably shouldn't be used in aircraft. Ask
> Boeing. The subcontractor for the 787 battery management system managed to
> burn down their building during testing.
>
> Even with LiFePO4 you'll need the right charger and a monitoring system.
>
> I've got a couple of 4 cell packs of these:
> http://www.all-battery.com/Tenergy3.2V15Ah40152SLiFePO4EnergyCellRechargeableBattery-30078.aspx
> for 30 A-h at 13 volts for 4KG mass.
>
> Diode connected MOSFETS to put the packs in parallel (I have some spare
> circuit boards to make those. Only 3 components per board). That way if you
> lose or have a weak cell in one pack that pack will go offline
> automatically.
>
> Underwriter Labs tested - the test schedule is on the website if you look
> around. Quite impressive
>
> A friend of mine is successfully using a pack of four for starting a half
> VW engine in an ultralight.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  At 10:48 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> Found these while looking for replacement batteries. Pictured here is a G7
> (7ah), but they have it in G9 too.
>
> The sales person tells me that the G9 is equivalent to a 6AH regular
> glider battery. Weight only 0.9kg!
>
> What are peoples thoughts that are in the know?
>
> $399 + a $217 charger. An expensive investment, but would go ahead with it
> if I knew it was the goods I was looking for.
>
> Info here:
> http://www.braillebattery.com/index.php/braille/product_batteries/g9
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> WPP
>
> Found at shop: www.allstarbatteries.com.au ; Brendale, QLD
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
>  http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>  *Borgelt Instruments* -
> *design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 *
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
> tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Paul Bart]

On 2 September 2014 18:06, Mark Newton  wrote:

> What’s with that?


​As I do not know I'll withdraw


Cheers

Paul
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Paul Bart]

"That’s just Imposter Syndrome.  Alan Barnes knows Ingo would be doing 12.
:)"


​Bugger, suddenly I am third-class :)

Cheers

Paul


On 2 September 2014 16:06, Mark Newton  wrote:

>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Paul Bart  wrote:
>
> Thank you for a detailed and logical post. Frankly I do not think I would
> take issue with most points you make. I simply think my personal experience
> is different. I am not a member of any other flying organisation so I
> cannot compare.
>
>
>
> That’s fine, we all come from different backgrounds, and different things
> are important to all of us.  That’s one of the points I was making.
>
> For those of us for whom “the freedom of flight” is important in the
> manner I described, GFA has literally nothing to offer us - indeed, its
> very existence is an impediment (the CASA GPL would likely be very
> different if GFA had not been involved in it)
>
> The fact is that I do not see that GFA impedes what I want to do, nor what
> a majority of glider pilots I personally know (a limited sample) do. Does a
> level 2 instructor impedes my flying, not in the least, do I feel in any
> way "supervised"? Not in the least. When it is my turn to run the day, do I
> interfere with any of the solo pilots? No.
>
>
> It’s not a question of interference, that isn’t the point.
>
> You cannot take responsibility for rigging a glider, because GFA seems to
> be saying that its trained certificate holders lack the alacrity to perform
> that task without someone else looking over their shoulder and
> countersigning.
>
> When you are running a day, you are on an undefined, open-ended legal
> liability hook for any accidents or injuries they suffer.  Could you have
> prevented an actionable event by preventing a launch?  Even if you
> couldn’t, could an insurance company’s lawyer paint a picture that says you
> could?  You might not even know those other pilots, but you’ve “taken
> charge” of their operation.  Do you know what that means?
>
> And anyone who isn’t an instructor *should* feel “in any way supervised”
> because that’s what the instructor’s actual job is. Everyone is under
> supervision.  All the time.
>
> I don’t know how to describe how oppressive that is for the group of
> pilots for whom “freedom of flight” is important; how much the knowledge
> that you can never be so well trained or well skilled that you can be
> trusted to command your own aircraft can suck the enjoyment out of the
> sport — When that’s precisely the expectation held by pilots in literally
> every other aviation discipline I’ve ever come into contact with.
>
> I can remember 14 years ago, one of the very first aus-soaring messages I
> ever read was Mike Borgelt making the entirely reasonable observation that
> it is impossible for a L2 Independent Operator to legally fly his own
> self-launching glider out of his own private airfield, because the act of
> rigging it requires another GFA member to be physically present to
> countersign the maintenance release.
>
> 14 years later, *nothing has changed.*
>
> How is that possible?  That renders the entire L2 Independent Operator
> rating worthless.  How pathetic is it that so much time can pass without
> such an obvious regulatory defect being closed?
>
> So  the only time I feel as a second-class aviator is when i hook into a 6
> kt thermal and I know that Alan Barnes would be doing 8 :).
>
>
> That’s just Imposter Syndrome.  Alan Barnes knows Ingo would be doing 12.
> :)
>
>   - mark
>
>
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Mark Newton]

On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Paul Bart  wrote:

>> " For most members, it’s either get behind GFA or be grounded."
> 
> 
> But "most members" just may be happy with that. And that is my point, there 
> is no evidence, besides quoting few individual cases, to suggest that it is 
> GFA that is causing causing all the problems in the gliding land.


Nobody has made the claim that GFA is causing all the problems in the gliding 
land.

Some of us are making the claim that GFA is causing all of the problems with 
GFA rules about the independence of pilots, and that those rules cause some of 
the problems in gliding land.

I reckon evidence “quoting a few individual cases” should be sufficient in a 
member-driven organization to get those few individual cases dealt with. GFA 
isn’t a government department or a multinational company:  It’s a small org 
with a mere handful of members, there’s no reason why they can’t be responsive 
about things like this.  

Especially given a decade and a half, three redraftings of the independent 
operator rules, a draft OD about instructorless clubs, and at least two 
attempts at getting a CASA GPL off the ground:  There have been countless 
opportunities to address these issues, so why is it so hard?  A tiny community 
of overseas competition pilots get their gift-wrapped ICAO license, but it’s 
sabotaged so that another tiny community of people who want to operate under a 
license domestically don’t? What’s with that?

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Ulrich Stauss]

I can't see a requirement in the regulations for an *L2* IO to be
*supervised* (L1 IO - yes). If you are using club equipment and/or operate
on a club owned airfield I can't see how you would get around any
restrictions they may choose to impose irrespective of any ratings,
certificates or licenses you may hold. It is their property. That is no
different overseas.

 

At our club I can remember the odd independent operators' day during the
week where we just went for a fly - no duty instructor or any kind of
supervision, just a winch driver and someone to help with the last launch.
(Ok some of those involved also held instructor ratings but that is beside
the point for this discussion.) I don't understand why that doesn't happen
more often.

 

Ulrich

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Robert
Izatt
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 13:02
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

 

An L2 independent operator is required to be "supervised" when club
operations are in play and they are a member of that club. Particularly when
a tow is required it is impossible to be independent by definition. In a
self-launcher you could argue the case but you have to live in the club
environment and courtesy is a valuable commodity. I believe the L2 IO was
conceived for self launching and touring motorgliders operating remotely or
when official ops were not taking place at a home airfield.

Rob Izatt

 

On 02/09/2014, at 1:11 PM, Ulrich Stauss wrote:





Mike, you are probably referring to the L1 IO rating (which in my opinion
should be abolished - why should anyone be responsible for my flying unless
I am in training).

 

The current MOSP says:

"13.2 LEVEL 2 'UNRESTRICTED' INDEPENDENT OPERATOR

Unlike the Level 1 Independent Operator authority, where club responsibility
of independent operations is of primary importance, holders of Level 2
Independent Operator authority are solely responsible for all aspects of
their operations when operating independently. This includes airways
clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident
reporting."

 

To my knowledge it has been like that for many years.

 

I agree with you that the minimum hours for instructor ratings seem low but
in practice it requires a lot more hours to gain the abilities and convince
the CFIs and L3 instructors to give you an L1 let alone L2 rating. What
should the minimum be in your opinion? No matter where you set that it will
not be enough for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher
that number is.

 

On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I'm also with you
although I would choose less GFA-bashing words.

 

Ulrich

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net

[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike
Borgelt
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

 

At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:





Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does
that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than "in other parts of
the world". It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that.



No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked.

200 hours? You can get a PPL for powered aircraft in 60 to 70 hours from
scratch.

You get a bi annual and a medical every two years. Apart from that you are
completely free to go wherever and whenever you like with as many people as
fit in the aircraft.








A shame really that the GPL was not based on the L2 IO rating, perhaps with
the bar lowered a little (e.g. reducing the 200hrs requirement - the 100hrs
for an L2 instructors rating seem to be sufficient to allow the holder to be
responsible for OTHER peoples flying). At least we would not have the
current inconsistencies. I cannot imagine that negotiations with CASA would
have been any harder on that basis.



I consider giving anyone an instructor's rating of any sort with 100 hours
an act of gross irresponsibility. I wouldn't let anyone I cared about learn
to fly with somebody like that.






It will be interesting to see whether the first GPL holder rocking up
somewhere in Europe will be allowed to fly without more hassles than
European license holders.



Maybe EASA will find out the GPL doesn't work back home. As I said before
the ICAO deal is that you get the foreign licence on the fact that it is
valid at home in your own country.

The GFA negotiation with CASA was just a cosy deal to maintain the GFA
monopoly on gliding in Australia. "Umbrella" my arse, it is a boot heel.

Mike








Ulrich
-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.inter

[Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

[Casey Jay Lewis]

And the dichotomous ironies continue….

Justification for self-regulation/administration and lowered medical standards 
for gliders have been won using the low mass, low speed and low passenger 
capacity arguments.  

Perversely, suggest that a glider pilot should be able to be responsible for 
his or her own safety, making their own determination of weather, location, ATC 
and SAR requirements and suddenly the aforementioned arguments are happily 
forgotten.  So you have a private pilot (powered) operating his personal PCXII 
(4,740kg, 440kts, 6POB) operating unsupervised into the flight levels in all 
weather conditions and responsible for his/her own destiny.  But should that 
same pilot trailer his LS4 (650kg, 120kts, 1POB) down to the local gliderport 
he’s only permitted to fly at the pleasure of a duty instructor.

To avoid ambiguity:
I have no problem the GFA administering gliding operations in Australia.
I have no problem with the GFA setting a standard of competency via the GPC 
which results in an ICAO compliant licence (GPL) to aid licence recognition 
overseas.

I do however, have a problem with having excessive oversight forced upon me and 
having privileges I enjoy from powered qualifications in far more complex 
aircraft taken from me for daring to enjoy unpowered flight.

Casey Lewis


On 2 Sep 2014, at 13:50 , aus-soaring-requ...@lists.internode.on.net wrote:


> From: DMcD


> Please? fully licensed SAILPLANE pilots!
> 
> Hang glider and paraglider pilots having passed the novice stage can
> turn up at a take off, assess the weather and if they consider
> conditions suitable, launch.

> It's almost as if the hardware is more valuable than the software? a
> hang over from the days of small clubs and wooden gliders when a
> damaged glider might shut the club down for months or for ever.
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring