subject:"\[Aus\-soaring\] Competition licenses \- the emperor has no clothes"

So we all know that the powers that beread 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
wommamuku...@bigpond.com 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 pb2...@gmail.com 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

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

2014-09-02 Thread 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, Im 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

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

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

On 3 September 2014 08:49, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com wrote:

 Ullrich,


  Rob Izatt is correct.

 when operating independently is the catch phrase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Mike




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

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

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

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

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

 Ulrich

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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 mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com 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

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

2014-09-02 Thread Robert Izatt

 that it will 
 not be enough for some and increasingly discouraging for others the higher 
 that number is.
  
 On the rest, including independent control checks for IOs, I’m also with you 
 although I would choose less GFA-bashing words.
  
 Ulrich
  
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [ 
 mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike Borgelt
 Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 11:07
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  
 At 11:02 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:
 
 Let's stick to the facts please. A Level 2 Independent Operators Rating does
 that and with less bureaucracy and overregulation than in other parts of
 the world. It is also a product of the GFA - let's acknowledge that.
 
 
 
 No, you are still under an instructor if one is present, last time I looked.
 
 200 hours? You can get a PPL for powered aircraft in 60 to 70 hours from 
 scratch.
 
 You get a bi annual and a medical every two years. Apart from that you are 
 completely free to go wherever and whenever you like with as many people as 
 fit in the aircraft.
 
 
 
 
 
 A shame really that the GPL was not based on the L2 IO rating, perhaps with
 the bar lowered a little (e.g. reducing the 200hrs requirement - the 100hrs
 for an L2 instructors rating seem to be sufficient to allow the holder to be
 responsible for OTHER peoples flying). At least we would not have the
 current inconsistencies. I cannot imagine that negotiations with CASA would
 have been any harder on that basis.
 
 
 
 I consider giving anyone an instructor's rating of any sort with 100 hours 
 an act of gross irresponsibility. I wouldn't let anyone I cared about learn 
 to fly with somebody like that.
 
 
 
 It will be interesting to see whether the first GPL holder rocking up
 somewhere in Europe will be allowed to fly without more hassles than
 European license holders.
 
 
 
 Maybe EASA will find out the GPL doesn't work back home. As I said before 
 the ICAO deal is that you get the foreign licence on the fact that it is 
 valid at home in your own country.
 
 The GFA negotiation with CASA was just a cosy deal to maintain the GFA 
 monopoly on gliding in Australia. Umbrella my arse, it is a boot heel.
 
 Mike
 
 
 
 
 
 Ulrich
 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
 Aviation
 Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08
 To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 Hi Simon
 You have raised a very valid point here! 
 I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
 but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
 instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
 country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
 parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted. 
 Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
 have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
 exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
 standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
 understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to
 operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate. 
 I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
 operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to
 fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified
 glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
 to blame for our current woes.
 When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
 aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their feet. 
 Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
 glider pilots in other parts of the world? As long as our current system
 denies responsibly acting glider pilots fully independent operations many of
 them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation activities - far
 too many, if you ask me. 
 Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
 thinking, please? 
 Kind regards
  
 Bernard 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
 Hackett
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
 confirmed separately.
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
 Glider in Australia.
 SRSLY?
 Its 2014. Why can't we live

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

2014-09-02 Thread 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
Independent

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

 when operating independently. This includes airways
 clearances, tower clearances, SAR notification and accident/incident
 reporting.”

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

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

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

 Ulrich

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

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

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



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

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

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





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



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



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



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

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

 Mike





 Ulrich -Original Message- From:
 aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [
 mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
 Aviation Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08 To: 'Discussion of issues
 relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition
 licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 Hi Simon
 You have raised a very valid point here!
 I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
 but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
 instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
 country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
 parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted.
 Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
 have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
 exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
 standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
 understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to
 operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate.
 I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
 operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to
 fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified
 glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
 to blame for our current woes. When our newcomers realise that they will
 always be treated as second class aviators we can't blame them when they
 vote with their feet.
 Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
 glider pilots in other parts of the world? As long as our current system
 denies responsibly acting glider pilots fully independent operations many of
 them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation activities - far
 too many, if you ask me.
 Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
 thinking, please?
 Kind regards   Bernard


 -Original Message- From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net

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

2014-09-02 Thread Mark Newton


On Sep 3, 2014, at 12:54 PM, Ulrich Stauss 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

2014-09-02 Thread Tim Shirley

 the people who own
the private non profit organisation known as the GFA)* recognises that
gliding is in a fragile state but nobody with the ability to do anything
about this wants to change anything about the way business is done.

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

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

Mike




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

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

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

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

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

Ulrich

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

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

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



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

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

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





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



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



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



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

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

Mike





Ulrich -Original Message- From:
aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
Aviation Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08 To: 'Discussion of issues
relating to Soaring in Australia.' Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition
licenses - the emperor has no clothes
Hi Simon
You have raised a very valid point here!
I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted.
Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite

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

2014-09-02 Thread 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

2014-09-02 Thread Mike Borgelt

 a couple of blokes were going
through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
reasonable thing to me.

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

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

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

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

Mike




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

The current MOSP says:
â13.2 LEVEL 2 âUNRESTRICTEDâ 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.â

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, Iâm also with you

although I would choose less GFA-bashing words.

Ulrich

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

mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
Aviation Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08 To: 'Discussion of issues
relating

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

2014-09-02 Thread 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 usta...@internode.on.net
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

2014-09-02 Thread Tim Shirley

 do it)
and a
proper instructor course which involves something like 30 to 40 hours of
flying and a similar amount of ground instruction. Don't hold me to that
as
it was a while ago at the aero club where a couple of blokes were going
through that. I'm sure the requirements haven't decreased. Seems a
reasonable thing to me.

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

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

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

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

Mike




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

The current MOSP says:
âEURoe13.2 LEVEL 2 âEUR~UNRESTRICTEDâEUR^(TM) 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.âEUR?

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, IâEUR^(TM)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  [

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

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

2014-09-02 Thread 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, Im 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

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

2014-09-01 Thread Michael Scutter

If you fly over seas you need a medical. If you have no desire to fly overseas, 
don't get a medical. 

I think there may be instances of GA pilots, can't pass their medical but the 
drivers licence bench mark allows them to fly/instruct. 

Michael

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 3:27 pm, Matt Gage m...@knightschallenge.com wrote:
 
 Simon,
 
 just guessing, but I suspect that if this license was to be used in 
 Australia, it would require  a class 2 medical. I suspect there is a fear 
 that having such a license valid in Australia would result in it becoming 
 compulsory and instantly grounding up to 1/2 our pilots. If there is any 
 reasonable possibility of that, then the current situation makes a lot of 
 sense.
 
 Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 On 1 Sep 2014, at 15:08 , Simon Hackett si...@base64.com.au wrote:
 
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had 
 confirmed separately.
 
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a 
 Glider in Australia.
 
 SRSLY?
 
 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises) 
 Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders 
 with (including ... in Australia)? 
 
 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good 
 standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's 
 boat. 
 
 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing 
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot 
 licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider 
 Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually 
 work in the country of issue.
 
 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots 
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping 
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 
 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.
 
 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not* 
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely 
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to 
 be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they 
 achieve Silver C standard). 
 
 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to 
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it 
 shouldn't become the case? 
 
 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what, 
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider 
 here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 
 
 I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward 
 regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA 
 haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site 
 either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you 
 can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  
 
 Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)
 
 Regards,
 Simon
 
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
 To check or change subscription details, visit:
 http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
 To check or change subscription details, visit:
 http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

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

Michael,

The Recreational Licence medical to which I think you refer is
actually a heavy vehicle driver's licence medical with some
additional CASA requirements. The actual medical standards are
EXACTLY the same as as a Class 2 medical. If you can honestly answer
the questions and come up to scratch in the medical exam you would
get a Class 2. The difference is that your GP, if he agrees, can do
the actual medical exam, not a DAME and you don't pay CASA to register it.
There are restrictions: single engine, day VFR, weight limits on the
aircraft and only one passenger.
The RAAus medical is a State Driver's licence for passenger cars with
no medical restrictions.

You tell me if any of this makes any sense.

I'm not sure if those commenting on the CASA Board appointments
realise the RAAA and RAAus are different organisations. The latter is
Recreational Aviation Australia (formerly the ultralight federation)
and the former is the Regional Aviation Association Australia
(basically regional airlines and charter).

Mike

At 04:31 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
If you fly over seas you need a medical. If you have no desire to
fly overseas, don't get a medical.

I think there may be instances of GA pilots, can't pass their
medical but the drivers licence bench mark allows them to fly/instruct.

Michael

On 1 Sep 2014, at 3:27 pm, Matt Gage
mailto:m...@knightschallenge.comm...@knightschallenge.com wrote:

Simon,

just guessing, but I suspect that if this license was to be used in
Australia, it would require a class 2 medical. I suspect there is
a fear that having such a license valid in Australia would result
in it becoming compulsory and instantly grounding up to 1/2 our
pilots. If there is any reasonable possibility of that, then the
current situation makes a lot of sense.

Matt

On 1 Sep 2014, at 15:08 , Simon Hackett
mailto:si...@base64.com.ausi...@base64.com.au wrote:

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have
just had confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to
fly a Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or
authorises) Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to
fly Australian Gliders with (including ... in Australia)?

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA
member in good standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA)
if that floats the GFA's boat.

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of
doing everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where
one can be a pilot licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly
a glider called a Glider Pilot License - and where such a thing
now exists but it doesn't actually work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US
pilots license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see
that cramping the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the
opposite, actually.

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today,
to *not* to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as
something routinely issued to Australians to let them fly gliders
in Australia - and for that to be the thing that people get issued
with routinely (when, for instance, they achieve Silver C standard).

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as
opposed to 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't
the case - or why it shouldn't become the case?

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License,
what, precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted
to fly a glider here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)?

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st
September-onward regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License
(and as already noted, CASA haven't yet actually published the
application form on their web site either). But do those legally
engaged regulations actually say that you can't use a Glider Pilot
License to... fly a glider with?

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon

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

___
Aus-soaring mailing list

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

2014-09-01 Thread Michael Scutter

Hnm! Bet that will draw blank  looks!!

Michael

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 3:58 pm, Matthew Scutter yellowplant...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I would be interested to learn if I can fly an Australian registered glider 
 overseas with an Australian Glider Pilot's licence...
 
 On 1 Sep 2014 16:17, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com wrote:
 Matt, 
 
 The USA Private Pilot Certificate(Glider) has a self certification medical 
 same as in Australia. Powered aircraft requires a Class 3 medical in the US. 
 I've been unable to figure how that differs from the Australian Class 2 
 medical. Most of the US glider pilots I've met have a power licence anyway 
 so presumably wouldn't have any trouble getting a licence overseas.
 
 I seem to remember posting here a while ago that, as all the regs were being 
 changed, the GFA should get onto the licence issue and back one with the 
 same medical requirement as the US before one with a more severe medical was 
 imposed.
 
 What a pity that the opportunity was wasted. 
 
 Mike
 
 
 
 At 03:57 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
 Simon,
 
 just guessing, but I suspect that if this license was to be used in 
 Australia, it would require  a class 2 medical. I suspect there is a fear 
 that having such a license valid in Australia would result in it becoming 
 compulsory and instantly grounding up to 1/2 our pilots. If there is any 
 reasonable possibility of that, then the current situation makes a lot of 
 sense.
 
 Matt
 
 
 
 
 
 On 1 Sep 2014, at 15:08 , Simon Hackett si...@base64.com.au wrote:
 
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had 
 confirmed separately.
 
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a 
 Glider in Australia.
 
 SRSLY?
 
 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or 
 authorises) Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly 
 Australian Gliders with (including ... in Australia)? 
 
 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in 
 good standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the 
 GFA's boat. 
 
 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing 
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a 
 pilot licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a 
 Glider Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't 
 actually work in the country of issue.
 
 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots 
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping 
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 
 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.
 
 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not* 
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely 
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that 
 to be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, 
 they achieve Silver C standard). 
 
 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to 
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it 
 shouldn't become the case? 
 
 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what, 
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a 
 glider here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 
 
 I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward 
 regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, 
 CASA haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site 
 either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you 
 can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  
 
 Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)
 
 Regards,
 Simon
 
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
 To check or change subscription details, visit:
 http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
 To check or change subscription details, visit:
 http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
 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

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

2014-09-01 Thread jim crowhurst

Alternatively if you want to fly in Europe, get a medical history letter from 
your Gp and you can fly to the UK and see an AME there and get a LAPL easa 
medical which is less stringent than a class 2.

A DAME here in Australia cannot issue this. With the LAPL medical you can then 
fly a glider anywhere in Europe.
However you may need an easa license..LAPL.
This whole thing is a mess and there is no easy way round it, particularly if 
you don't have/need a class 2 medical. I think that CASA is trying to keep up 
with Easa but Easa is still in a state of flux itself.

I contacted the UK CAA and Next time I go to the UK I will have to do the above 
to fly a glider solo.

Jim Crowhurst
0414643900

 Mike Borgelt wrote 

Michael,

The Recreational Licence medical to which I think you refer is
actually a heavy vehicle driver's licence medical with some
additional CASA requirements. The actual medical standards are
EXACTLY the same as as a Class 2 medical. If you can honestly answer
the questions and come up to scratch in the medical exam you would
get a Class 2. The difference is that your GP, if he agrees, can do
the actual medical exam, not a DAME and you don't pay CASA to register it.
There are restrictions: single engine, day VFR, weight limits on the
aircraft and only one passenger.
The RAAus medical is a State Driver's licence for passenger cars with
no medical restrictions.

You tell me if any of this makes any sense.

I'm not sure if those commenting on the CASA Board appointments
realise the RAAA and RAAus are different organisations. The latter is
Recreational Aviation Australia (formerly the ultralight federation)
and the former is the Regional Aviation Association Australia
(basically regional airlines and charter).

Mike


At 04:31 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
If you fly over seas you need a medical. If you have no desire to
fly overseas, don't get a medical.

I think there may be instances of GA pilots, can't pass their
medical but the drivers licence bench mark allows them to fly/instruct.

Michael

On 1 Sep 2014, at 3:27 pm, Matt Gage
mailto:m...@knightschallenge.comm...@knightschallenge.com wrote:

Simon,

just guessing, but I suspect that if this license was to be used in
Australia, it would require  a class 2 medical. I suspect there is
a fear that having such a license valid in Australia would result
in it becoming compulsory and instantly grounding up to 1/2 our
pilots. If there is any reasonable possibility of that, then the
current situation makes a lot of sense.

Matt





On 1 Sep 2014, at 15:08 , Simon Hackett
mailto:si...@base64.com.ausi...@base64.com.au wrote:

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have
just had confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to
fly a Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or
authorises) Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to
fly Australian Gliders with (including ... in Australia)?

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA
member in good standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA)
if that floats the GFA's boat.

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of
doing everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where
one can be a pilot licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly
a glider called a Glider Pilot License - and where such a thing
now exists but it doesn't actually work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US
pilots license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see
that cramping the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the
opposite, actually.

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today,
to *not* to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as
something routinely issued to Australians to let them fly gliders
in Australia - and for that to be the thing that people get issued
with routinely (when, for instance, they achieve Silver C standard).

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as
opposed to 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't
the case - or why it shouldn't become the case?

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License,
what, precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted
to fly a glider here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)?

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st
September-onward regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License
(and as already noted, CASA haven't yet actually published the
application form on their web site either). But do those legally
engaged regulations actually say that you can't use a Glider Pilot
License to... fly a glider with?

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon


___
Aus-soaring

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher Thorpe

There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!

To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
privileges allowed to GPC holders.

For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).

The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  

The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 

The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
many of our pilots.

Regards

Christopher Thorpe
Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
www.glidingaustralia.org

This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
email is strictly prohibited.



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)? 

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat. 

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard). 

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case? 

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon


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


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

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


I think there are two issues here.

There are people who may wish to travel OS and fly gliders solo for 
their own pleasure. They will need some temporary or permanent 
validation or recognition of their home country qualifications.


Then there are competitors in recognised, sanctioned, international 
or national with invited guests, competitions. It speaks ill of the 
European and other gliding bodies that the second category at least 
cannot have an exemption from the regulations to compete in and 
practise for such competitions when they will simply fly in a limited 
area for a limited time essentially under contest rules and briefings.


Next time I see him I'll ask one of the guys at the local smallbore 
rifle club who has just been to France and placed second in a 
competition, what he had to do to be able to shoot in France (his 
compatriot BTW placed first and he's 75)


Aviation sure has become a plaything for bureacrats. How ever did 
Orville and Wilbur manage without all those people telling them what 
to do? Or those guys on the Wasserkuppe in the early 1920s?


Mike



At 06:14 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:

Alternatively if you want to fly in Europe, get a medical history 
letter from your Gp and you can fly to the UK and see an AME there 
and get a LAPL easa medical which is less stringent than a class 2.


A DAME here in Australia cannot issue this. With the LAPL medical 
you can then fly a glider anywhere in Europe.

However you may need an easa license..LAPL.
This whole thing is a mess and there is no easy way round it, 
particularly if you don't have/need a class 2 medical. I think that 
CASA is trying to keep up with Easa but Easa is still in a state of 
flux itself.


I contacted the UK CAA and Next time I go to the UK I will have to 
do the above to fly a glider solo.


Jim Crowhurst
0414643900


 Mike Borgelt wrote 

Michael,

The Recreational Licence medical to which I think you refer is 
actually a heavy vehicle driver's licence medical with some 
additional CASA requirements. The actual medical standards are 
EXACTLY the same as as a Class 2 medical. If you can honestly answer 
the questions and come up to scratch in the medical exam you would 
get a Class 2. The difference is that your GP, if he agrees, can do 
the actual medical exam, not a DAME and you don't pay CASA to register it.
There are restrictions: single engine, day VFR, weight limits on the 
aircraft and only one passenger.
The RAAus medical is a State Driver's licence for passenger cars 
with no medical restrictions.


You tell me if any of this makes any sense.

I'm not sure if those commenting on the CASA Board appointments 
realise the RAAA and RAAus are different organisations. The latter 
is Recreational Aviation Australia (formerly the ultralight 
federation) and the former is the Regional Aviation Association 
Australia (basically regional airlines and charter).


Mike


At 04:31 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
If you fly over seas you need a medical. If you have no desire to 
fly overseas, don't get a medical.


I think there may be instances of GA pilots, can't pass their 
medical but the drivers licence bench mark allows them to fly/instruct.


Michael

On 1 Sep 2014, at 3:27 pm, Matt Gage 
mailto:m...@knightschallenge.com m...@knightschallenge.com wrote:



Simon,

just guessing, but I suspect that if this license was to be used 
in Australia, it would require  a class 2 medical. I suspect there 
is a fear that having such a license valid in Australia would 
result in it becoming compulsory and instantly grounding up to 1/2 
our pilots. If there is any reasonable possibility of that, then 
the current situation makes a lot of sense.


Matt





On 1 Sep 2014, at 15:08 , Simon Hackett 
mailto:si...@base64.com.ausi...@base64.com.au wrote:


Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have 
just had confirmed separately.


The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to 
fly a Glider in Australia.


SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or 
authorises) Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to 
fly Australian Gliders with (including ... in Australia)?


I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA 
member in good standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) 
if that floats the GFA's boat.


Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of 
doing everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where 
one can be a pilot licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly 
a glider called a Glider Pilot License - and where such a thing 
now exists but it doesn't actually work in the country of issue.


I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a 
US pilots license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't 
see that cramping the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite 
the opposite, actually.


I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what

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


Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?

Mike




At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:

There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!

To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
privileges allowed to GPC holders.

For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).

The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.

The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states.

The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
many of our pilots.

Regards

Christopher Thorpe
Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
www.glidingaustralia.org

This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
email is strictly prohibited.



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)?

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat.

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually.

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard).

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case?

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)?

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon


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


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


Borgelt Instruments - design  manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher McDonnelll

Last para.
.obtain overseas qualifications
I thought an Australian AGL would/should allow me to fly a glider in the UK, 
just as my Australian drivers licence allowed me to use and operate a vehicle 
there during a visit.

Pythonish? They admitted that a lot of their ideas came from The Goon Show.

Chris

Sent from my iPad

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 6:40 pm, Christopher Thorpe ctho...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
 There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!
 
 To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
 members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
 You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
 privileges allowed to GPC holders.
 
 For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
 95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).
 
 The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
 facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
 GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  
 
 The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
 as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
 GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
 only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 
 
 The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
 obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
 many of our pilots.
 
 Regards
 
 Christopher Thorpe
 Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
 264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
 M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
 www.glidingaustralia.org
 
 This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
 that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
 address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
 disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
 email is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
 Hackett
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
 confirmed separately.
 
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
 Glider in Australia.
 
 SRSLY?
 
 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
 Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
 with (including ... in Australia)? 
 
 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
 standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
 boat. 
 
 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
 licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
 Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
 work in the country of issue.
 
 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 
 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.
 
 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
 be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
 achieve Silver C standard). 
 
 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
 shouldn't become the case? 
 
 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
 here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 
 
 I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
 regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
 haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
 either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
 can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  
 
 Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)
 
 Regards,
 Simon
 
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
 To check or change subscription details, visit:
 http

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher McDonnelll

Yes, Christopher.
What is the agenda/reasoning? GFA's or CASA's.

Chris

Sent from my iPad

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 7:02 pm, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com 
 wrote:
 
 Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?
 
 Mike
 
 
 
 
 At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
 There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!
 
 To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
 members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
 You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
 privileges allowed to GPC holders.
 
 For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
 95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).
 
 The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
 facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
 GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  
 
 The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
 as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
 GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
 only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 
 
 The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
 obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
 many of our pilots.
 
 Regards
 
 Christopher Thorpe
 Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
 264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
 M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
 www.glidingaustralia.org
 
 This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
 that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
 address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
 disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
 email is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
 Hackett
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
 confirmed separately.
 
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
 Glider in Australia.
 
 SRSLY?
 
 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
 Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
 with (including ... in Australia)? 
 
 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
 standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
 boat. 
 
 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
 licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
 Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
 work in the country of issue.
 
 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 
 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.
 
 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
 be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
 achieve Silver C standard). 
 
 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
 shouldn't become the case? 
 
 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
 here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 
 
 I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
 regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
 haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
 either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
 can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  
 
 Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)
 
 Regards,
 Simon
 
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
 To check or change subscription details, visit:
 http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
 
 
 ___
 Aus-soaring mailing list
 Aus-soaring

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher Thorpe

I'm sure Simon will be happy to confirm that he and I corresponded on this
issue yesterday.

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Mike
Borgelt
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 7:03 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?

Mike

At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:

There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!

To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
privileges allowed to GPC holders.

For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).

The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  

The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 

The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
many of our pilots.

Regards

Christopher Thorpe
Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
www.glidingaustralia.org http://www.glidingaustralia.org/ 

This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
email is strictly prohibited.

-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net ] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)? 

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat. 

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard). 

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case? 

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher Thorpe

Chris, GFA wanted a way to make it easy for its members to get their Australian 
qualifications recognised overseas.  It has achieved this with the assistance 
of CASA.

 

 

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Christopher 
McDonnelll
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 7:52 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

 

Yes, Christopher.

What is the agenda/reasoning? GFA's or CASA's.

 

Chris

Sent from my iPad


On 1 Sep 2014, at 7:02 pm, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com wrote:

Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?

Mike




At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:



There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!

To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
privileges allowed to GPC holders.

For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).

The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  

The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 

The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
many of our pilots.

Regards

Christopher Thorpe
Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
www.glidingaustralia.org http://www.glidingaustralia.org/ 

This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
email is strictly prohibited.



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net ] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)? 

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat. 

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard). 

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case? 

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher McDonnelll

And  ..obtain overseas qualifications..
Did you mean have an Australian Licence recognised overseas unreservedly?
Otherwise it is not worth much.

Chris


Sent from my iPad

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 8:44 pm, Christopher Thorpe ctho...@bigpond.com wrote:
 
 Chris, GFA wanted a way to make it easy for its members to get their 
 Australian qualifications recognised overseas.  It has achieved this with the 
 assistance of CASA.
  
  
  
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
 [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Christopher 
 McDonnelll
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 7:52 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
  
 Yes, Christopher.
 What is the agenda/reasoning? GFA's or CASA's.
  
 Chris
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
 On 1 Sep 2014, at 7:02 pm, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com 
 wrote:
 
 Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?
 
 Mike
 
 
 
 
 At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
 
 There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!
 
 To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
 members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
 You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
 privileges allowed to GPC holders.
 
 For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
 95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).
 
 The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
 facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
 GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  
 
 The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
 as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
 GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
 only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 
 
 The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
 obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
 many of our pilots.
 
 Regards
 
 Christopher Thorpe
 Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
 264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
 M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
 www.glidingaustralia.org
 
 This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
 that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
 address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
 disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
 email is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
 Hackett
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
 confirmed separately.
 
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
 Glider in Australia.
 
 SRSLY?
 
 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
 Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
 with (including ... in Australia)? 
 
 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
 standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
 boat. 
 
 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
 licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
 Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
 work in the country of issue.
 
 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 
 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.
 
 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
 be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
 achieve Silver C standard). 
 
 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
 shouldn't become the case? 
 
 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
 here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review

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

2014-09-01 Thread Ron

Regards the UK medical for the LAPL, are you sure you can not do it here? I can 
do my UK ATPL medical here with a UK approved Australian DAME?
Otherwise the contributor who said it was all a crock of shit scored a bullseye.
RS

 

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 17:52, Christopher McDonnelll wommamuku...@bigpond.com 
 wrote:
 
 Yes, Christopher.
 What is the agenda/reasoning? GFA's or CASA's.
 
 Chris
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
 On 1 Sep 2014, at 7:02 pm, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com 
 wrote:
 
 Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?
 
 Mike
 
 
 
 
 At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
 There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!
 
 To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
 members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
 You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
 privileges allowed to GPC holders.
 
 For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
 95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).
 
 The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
 facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
 GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.  
 
 The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
 as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
 GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
 only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states. 
 
 The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
 obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
 many of our pilots.
 
 Regards
 
 Christopher Thorpe
 Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
 264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
 M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
 www.glidingaustralia.org
 
 This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
 that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
 address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
 disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
 email is strictly prohibited.
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
 Hackett
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 
 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
 confirmed separately.
 
 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
 Glider in Australia.
 
 SRSLY?
 
 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
 Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
 with (including ... in Australia)? 
 
 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
 standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
 boat. 
 
 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
 licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
 Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
 work in the country of issue.
 
 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 
 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.
 
 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
 be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
 achieve Silver C standard). 
 
 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
 shouldn't become the case? 
 
 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
 here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 
 
 I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
 regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
 haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
 either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
 can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  
 
 Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)
 
 Regards

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

2014-09-01 Thread jim crowhurst

They sent me a list of approved DAME and the nearest one was in Auckland.
Bullseye.

Jim Crowhurst

 Ron wrote 

Regards the UK medical for the LAPL, are you sure you can not do it here? I can 
do my UK ATPL medical here with a UK approved Australian DAME?
Otherwise the contributor who said it was all a crock of shit scored a bullseye.
RS



 On 1 Sep 2014, at 17:52, Christopher McDonnelll wommamuku...@bigpond.com 
 wrote:

 Yes, Christopher.
 What is the agenda/reasoning? GFA's or CASA's.

 Chris

 Sent from my iPad

 On 1 Sep 2014, at 7:02 pm, Mike Borgelt mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com 
 wrote:

 Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?

 Mike




 At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:
 There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!

 To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
 members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
 You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
 privileges allowed to GPC holders.

 For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
 95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).

 The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
 facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
 GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.

 The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
 as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
 GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
 only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states.

 The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
 obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
 many of our pilots.

 Regards

 Christopher Thorpe
 Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
 264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
 M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: e...@glidingaustralia.org | w:
 www.glidingaustralia.org

 This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
 that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
 address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
 disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
 email is strictly prohibited.



 -Original Message-
 From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
 Hackett
 Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

 Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
 confirmed separately.

 The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
 Glider in Australia.

 SRSLY?

 Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
 Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
 with (including ... in Australia)?

 I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
 standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
 boat.

 Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
 everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
 licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
 Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
 work in the country of issue.

 I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
 license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
 the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually.

 I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

 I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
 to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
 issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
 be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
 achieve Silver C standard).

 Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
 'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
 shouldn't become the case?

 In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
 precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
 here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)?

 I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
 regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
 haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
 either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
 can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?

 Coming

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

2014-09-01 Thread Future Aviation

Hi Simon

You have raised a very valid point here! 

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in 
Australia independently and without instructor oversight. As far as I know
Australia is the only first 
world country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or 
other aviators rightly take for granted. 

Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason 
as to why the current state of affairs exists. Gliding operations based on
instructor oversight has now been 
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
understandable that allowing a competent and 
responsible glider pilot to operate without oversight has become a bit too
foreign to even contemplate. 

I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
operations (or even a licence) and I 
understand that they can continue to fly as usual. However, I firmly believe
that denying suitably qualified 
glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
to blame for our current woes. 
When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
aviators we can't blame them 
when they vote with their feet. 

Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
glider pilots in other parts of 
the world? As long as our current system denies responsibly acting glider
pilots fully independent operations 
many of them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation
activities - far too many, if you ask 
me. 

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please? 

Kind regards
 
Bernard 



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)? 

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat. 

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard). 

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case? 

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon


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

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

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher McDonnell

-Original Message- 
From: Future Aviation 
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 7:38 AM 
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes 

Hi Simon

You have raised a very valid point here! 

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in 
Australia independently and without instructor oversight. As far as I know
Australia is the only first 
world country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or 
other aviators rightly take for granted. 

Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason 
as to why the current state of affairs exists. Gliding operations based on
instructor oversight has now been 
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
understandable that allowing a competent and 
responsible glider pilot to operate without oversight has become a bit too
foreign to even contemplate. 

I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
operations (or even a licence) and I 
understand that they can continue to fly as usual. However, I firmly believe
that denying suitably qualified 
glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
to blame for our current woes. 
When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
aviators we can't blame them 
when they vote with their feet. 

Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
glider pilots in other parts of 
the world? As long as our current system denies responsibly acting glider
pilots fully independent operations 
many of them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation
activities - far too many, if you ask 
me. 

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please? 

Kind regards

Bernard 

-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)? 

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat. 

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard). 

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case? 

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?  

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon

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

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details

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

So why didn't you publicly reply to Simon's PUBLIC question on this 
forum? There is clearly public interest in the topic.


As you seem keen to obfuscate by answering other questions I'll copy 
Simon's question here:


I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard).

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case?

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)? 

So what have you got to hide?



Mike



At 08:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary==_NextPart_000_00F7_01CFC625.04E6FC10
Content-Language: en-au

I'm sure Simon will be happy to confirm that he and I corresponded 
on this issue yesterday.


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

Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 7:03 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Very nice, now why don't you answer Simon's question?

Mike




At 06:40 PM 1/09/2014, you wrote:

There is no conspiracy here but I admit it is a bit Pythonish!

To fly gliders in Australia one only needs to comply with CAO 95.4. For GFA
members, there is no requirement to hold a licence in order to fly gliders.
You don't even need a GPC to fly gliders unless you want to exercise the
privileges allowed to GPC holders.

For non GFA-member pilots, all they need to do is apply to CASA as per CAO
95.4, paragraph 5.1(a)(ii).

The CASA Glider pilot licence introduced by Part 61 is solely designed to
facilitate the recognition of Australian glider pilots wishing to have their
GFA GPC qualification recognised overseas.

The GFA GPC is the only certificate issued by GFA that is recognised by CASA
as compliant with ICAO Annex 1 and is the minimum requirement to get a CASA
GPL.  Currently most National Aviation Administration Authorities (NAAAs)
only recognise licences issued by the NAAA of ICAO member states.

The new CASA GPL is expected to make it easier for Australian pilots to
obtain overseas qualifications and overcome past difficulties experienced by
many of our pilots.

Regards

Christopher Thorpe
Executive Manager, Operations | Gliding Federation of Australia (ABN 82 433
264 489) | Level 1, 34 Somerton Road | Somerton | Victoria 3062
M: +61 4 1447 6151 | E: 
mailto:e...@glidingaustralia.orge...@glidingaustralia.org | w:

http://www.glidingaustralia.org/www.glidingaustralia.org

This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information
that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the email
address.  If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this
email is strictly prohibited.



-Original Message-
From: 
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.netaus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net

[ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 3:09 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)?

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat.

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually.

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot

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


Bernard,

How's the dual control check after rigging thing going? Get rid of 
that and have a PPL(G) and you might even get to sell a few more self 
launchers.


Mike




At 07:38 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:

Hi Simon

You have raised a very valid point here!

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in
Australia independently and without instructor oversight. As far as I know
Australia is the only first
world country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or
other aviators rightly take for granted.

Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason
as to why the current state of affairs exists. Gliding operations based on
instructor oversight has now been
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
understandable that allowing a competent and
responsible glider pilot to operate without oversight has become a bit too
foreign to even contemplate.

I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
operations (or even a licence) and I
understand that they can continue to fly as usual. However, I firmly believe
that denying suitably qualified
glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
to blame for our current woes.
When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
aviators we can't blame them
when they vote with their feet.

Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
glider pilots in other parts of
the world? As long as our current system denies responsibly acting glider
pilots fully independent operations
many of them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation
activities - far too many, if you ask
me.

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please?

Kind regards

Bernard



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)?

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat.

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually.

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard).

Is there actually a valid reason for this state of affairs (as opposed to
'thats just not how we roll, son...') why this isn't the case - or why it
shouldn't become the case?

In other words, if I have a CASA issued Glider Pilot License, what,
precisely, makes it unable to be sufficient to be permitted to fly a glider
here (assuming one has a valid and current flight review)?

I apologise for not having (yet) dug up the shiny new 1st September-onward
regulations that govern the Glider Pilot License (and as already noted, CASA
haven't yet actually published the application form on their web site
either). But do those legally engaged regulations actually say that you
can't use a Glider Pilot License to... fly a glider with?

Coming at this cold, honestly, this reads like a Monty Python script :)

Regards,
Simon


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

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

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

On 2 September 2014 07:38, Future Aviation ec...@internode.on.net wrote:


Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
 thinking, please?


Bernard

There were about 80 emails written on this topic over the last few days all
saying about the same thing, all written by the same few contributors. It
would seem to me that if you need them to let you know their thinking
once again, then perhaps you have not read their contribution carefully
enough.

Frankly, I am more interested in maintaining a simple and inexpensive
system to fly gliders in Australia. Given the fragile state of of
participation in gliding I fear that any rise in complexity and / or cost
will simply drive more people away. 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.


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

2014-09-01 Thread Ulrich Stauss

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the
world but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
instructor oversight.
  [...]
Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just
like glider pilots in other parts of the world?

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.

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.

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.

Ulrich
-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
Aviation
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Hi Simon

You have raised a very valid point here! 

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted. 

Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to
operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate. 

I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to
fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified
glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
to blame for our current woes. 
When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their feet. 

Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
glider pilots in other parts of the world? As long as our current system
denies responsibly acting glider pilots fully independent operations many of
them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation activities - far
too many, if you ask me. 

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please? 

Kind regards
 
Bernard 



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)? 

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat. 

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue.

I actually *have* a US glider license of precisely that form (a US pilots
license with 'Glider' as an endorsement on it). I don't see that cramping
the style of glider pilots in the USA. Quite the opposite, actually. 

I'm not really interested in how we got precisely here.

I'm interested in what possible reason the GFA would have, today, to *not*
to support the notion of a Glider Pilot License as something routinely
issued to Australians to let them fly gliders in Australia - and for that to
be the thing that people get issued with routinely (when, for instance, they
achieve Silver C standard

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

I haven't seen a reason given yet. I've seen 
evasion, obfuscation, less than the whole truth and stonewalling.


I've met and done business with quite a few 
people who are PPLs or higher who have 
contemplated going gliding. Some own several 
powered aircraft and their own airfields even but 
when told they have to join a club  and have 200 
hours under supervision (enough for a 
commercial licence in the power world) they 
instantly lose interest. In most cases they've 
already visited gliding clubs and aren't 
impressed by what they see. Ask Eddie Madden at 
Tocumwal. He runs an RAAus school as well as a 
gliding operation. He keeps getting asked by the 
RAAus students about gliding. Some have expressed 
an interest in buying a self launcher and taking 
it home to the farm. When told about the GFA 
system, they buy an ultralight. Eddie sees them 
every 2 years for a bi annual check.


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.


Hardly surprising when you think about it.

THE PEOPLE WHO *ARE* WORRIED AREN'T FLYING GLIDERS.

They either never started for the reasons above or have been driven away.

Which if you think about it some more is one of 
the reasons for the fragile state of participation in gliding.


Mike





At 10:50 AM 2/09/2014, you wrote:

On 2 September 2014 07:38, Future Aviation 
mailto:ec...@internode.on.netec...@internode.on.net wrote:



Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please?


âBernard

There were about 80 emails written on this topic 
over the last few days all saying about the same 
thing, all written by the same few contributors. 
It would seem to me that if you need them to 
let you know their thinking once again, then 
perhaps you have not read their contribution carefully enough.


Frankly, I am more interested in maintaining a 
simple and inexpensive system to fly gliders in 
Australia. Given the fragile state of of 
participation in gliding I fear that any rise in 
complexity and / or cost will simply drive more 
people away. You say When our newcomers realise 
that they will always be treated as second 
classÂ 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.Â



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


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

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


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


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



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

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


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






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



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




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



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


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


Mike





Ulrich
-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
Aviation
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Hi Simon

You have raised a very valid point here!

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted.

Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to
operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate.

I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to
fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified
glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
to blame for our current woes.
When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their feet.

Isn't it time that suitably qualified glider pilots are treated just like
glider pilots in other parts of the world? As long as our current system
denies responsibly acting glider pilots fully independent operations many of
them will find less restrictive and more rewarding aviation activities - far
too many, if you ask me.

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please?

Kind regards

Bernard



-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Simon
Hackett
Sent: Monday, 1 September 2014 2:39 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Just want to call out one other thing from the thread that I have just had
confirmed separately.

The Australian CASA Glider Pilot License doesn't allow a pilot to fly a
Glider in Australia.

SRSLY?

Its 2014. Why can't we live in a place where the GFA issues (or authorises)
Glider Pilot Licenses for Australian glider pilots to fly Australian Gliders
with (including ... in Australia)?

I'm not bothered about an underlying requirement to be a GFA member in good
standing (or to be separately authorised by CASA) if that floats the GFA's
boat.

Rather, I'm talking about the crazy notion that the outcome of doing
everything right in the GFA system isn't an outcome where one can be a pilot
licensed to fly a glider with a license to fly a glider called a Glider
Pilot License - and where such a thing now exists but it doesn't actually
work in the country of issue

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


On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com 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”. 

puts hand up

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 ourselves through the time and money and setbacks and 
heartache needed to enjoy it.

Different people find that emotional response in different ways.  

For some people, it’s about flying higher or further or faster or longer than 
anyone else.  For those people, the philosophy of the GFA is utterly 
irrelevant:  As long as they can get into a glider, who cares, right?  These 
are the people the GFA serves the best, in my opinion.

For others, emotional reward comes from making contributions.  We’re the people 
who instruct or serve on committees or get airworthiness credentials.  For us, 
the philosophy of the GFA does matter, a bit, because it defines the framework 
those contributions are made in:  It’s unlikely, for instance, that someone 
will find reward in instructing if they believe GFA’s syllabus provides bad 
safety outcomes.

Then, there’s at least one other group:  Entire libraries of books have been 
written about the gut emotional appeal that the freedom of human flight 
satisfies.  That isn’t just the ability to soar with the birds, it’s also tied 
up with the fact that it’s one of the few pursuits left where an individual can 
assume “command responsibility” and make decisions without being second-guessed 
by a bureaucrat, and be wholly responsible for the outcome of those decisions.

For that group, GFA’s philosophy of never yielding control and responsibility 
to pilots is utterly toxic, and incredibly patronizing.  No matter how much 
training we do, we can never be trusted to assume command of an aircraft under 
our own recognizance, we’re

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

2014-09-01 Thread Christopher McDonnell

Thanks Mark.
Best post so far or at least the one that agrees with my thinking.
My fit is:

For others, emotional reward comes from making contributions.  We’re the people 
who instruct or serve on committees or get airworthiness credentials.  For us, 
the philosophy of the GFA does matter, a bit, because it defines the framework 
those contributions are made in:  It’s unlikely, for instance, that someone 
will find reward in instructing if they believe GFA’s syllabus provides bad 
safety outcomes.

I migrated across the country and the friends I made in my new club are 
important to me and are about the only thing that makes me ‘hang on’ in the 
face of the frustrations I encounter in the areas above.
“.but everyone is doing their best and from best intentions.” is 
beginning to wear a bit thin.

Cheers

Chris




From: Mark Newton 
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:30 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 10:50 AM, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com 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”. 



puts hand up

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 ourselves through the time and money and setbacks and 
heartache needed to enjoy it.

Different people find that emotional response in different ways.  

For some people, it’s about flying higher or further or faster or longer than 
anyone else.  For those people, the philosophy of the GFA is utterly 
irrelevant:  As long as they can get into a glider, who cares, right?  These 
are the people the GFA serves the best, in my opinion.

For others, emotional reward comes from making contributions.  We’re the people 
who instruct or serve

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

2014-09-01 Thread Ulrich Stauss

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

 

The current MOSP says:

13.2 LEVEL 2 'UNRESTRICTED' INDEPENDENT OPERATOR 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ulrich

 

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

 

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




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



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

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

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







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



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





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



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

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

Mike







Ulrich
-Original Message-
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net ] On Behalf Of Future
Aviation
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Hi Simon

You have raised a very valid point here! 

I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted. 

Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider pilot to
operate without oversight has become a bit too foreign to even contemplate. 

I'm the first to acknowledge that not everyone aspires to independent
operations (or even a licence) and I understand that they can continue to
fly as usual. However, I firmly believe that denying suitably qualified
glider pilots the right to operate without interference by others is partly
to blame for our current woes. 
When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as second class
aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their feet. 

Isn't it time

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

2014-09-01 Thread Robert Izatt

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.internode.on.net
 [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Future
 Aviation
 Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 07:08
 To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
 Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes
 
 Hi Simon
 
 You have raised a very valid point here! 
 
 I have often wondered why one can have all the qualifications in the world
 but cannot operate a glider in Australia independently and without
 instructor oversight. As far as I know Australia is the only first world
 country that denies their glider pilots privileges that power pilots,
 parachutists, balloonists or other aviators rightly take for granted. 
 
 Over the years I have discussed this issue with several GFA officials but I
 have never been given any reason as to why the current state of affairs
 exists. Gliding operations based on instructor oversight has now been
 standard GFA procedure for many decades. Therefore it is quite
 understandable that allowing a competent and responsible glider

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

2014-09-01 Thread Future Aviation

Hello Paul

 

Thank you! This is the sort of feedback I was hoping for.

If my interpretation of this tread is correct previous discussions revolved 
mainly about competition licences and not 

about operations of competent glider pilots without instructor oversight.

 

Let’s put this side issue aside and focus on your concerns about a “rise in 
complexity and/or cost” for now. This is quite 
simply unfounded as it was made very clear that glider pilots not aspiring to a 
licence can continue to operate as usual 
and without an additional cost burden. 

 

The real issue is bringing gliding in line with international standards and 
long established practices of other Australian 
aviation bodies. The question remains, why can’t properly licensed glider 
pilots be treated exactly like fully licensed 

power pilots? Can you imagine a power pilot being asked for a check flight on 
landing at another airfield? 

 

Can you see my point now?

 

Kind regards

 

Bernard  

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Paul Bart
Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 10:20 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

 

 

On 2 September 2014 07:38, Future Aviation ec...@internode.on.net wrote:

 

 

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please?

 

Bernard

 

There were about 80 emails written on this topic over the last few days all 
saying about the same thing, all written by the same few contributors. It would 
seem to me that if you need them to let you know their thinking once again, 
then perhaps you have not read their contribution carefully enough.

 

Frankly, I am more interested in maintaining a simple and inexpensive system to 
fly gliders in Australia. Given the fragile state of of participation in 
gliding I fear that any rise in complexity and / or cost will simply drive more 
people away. 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. 

 

 

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

2014-09-01 Thread Al Borowski

Hi Paul,


On 02/09/2014, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com wrote:


 Frankly, I am more interested in maintaining a simple and inexpensive
 system to fly gliders in Australia. Given the fragile state of of
 participation in gliding I fear that any rise in complexity and / or cost
 will simply drive more people away. 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.

Maybe I'm just unusual, but that's how I felt under the GFA system. I
started off flying at Caboolture with some great people. I then moved
to the RAA world and loved the ability to say Next weekend I'm going
for a two hour flight -  which in decent weather was pretty
realistic. At Caboolture, at least with my skills, this would be very,
very unlikely on most days.

After exposure to the RAA I found it ridiculous that, unless I wanted
to be a gliding instructor, the GFA insisted I was a student who
needed to be supervised forever.  Even after getting an L1 independent
operator cert for motorgliders (great fun!), a club would still be
responsible for my actions. Why should they be? If I do something
dumb, it's my fault, not theirs.

I don't understand why a few friends can't get gliding licenses, buy a
low-performance 2nd hand glider, and winch launch from a paddock
somewhere. You don't need to have an instructor present to have fun in
a boat or an ultralight. You don't even need to be in a formal club.
It'd be as lost-cost and low-effort as you could get.

If we had a real CASA issued gliding license I'd knock the dust off my
logbook tomorrow.

cheers,

Al
___
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


On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Robert Izatt thebunyipboo...@gmail.com wrote:

 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.

Interesting point of view.

Why do you need to be supervised to get a tow?  In the US you just pay the tow 
pilot to launch you:  Chartered flight, fee for service, independent operation.

Why do you have to live in a club environment?  It might be beneficial in some, 
or even most, cases;  but what is the rationale for it being mandatory?  If 
someone doesn’t want to participate in a club, shouldn’t that option be 
available to them? Why is it optional for every Australian pilot except glider 
pilots?

These are assumptions people make about the GFA system because they’ve never 
experienced any other ways of doing things.  It doesn’t need to be that way.  
It doesn’t even need to be difficult for it to be a different way.

  - 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

2014-09-01 Thread Robert Izatt

You don't need to be supervised to get a tow but you can't be independent if 
the tow pilot is part of a club operation and the L2 Instructor says so. I am 
presuming the why was rhetorical. I haven't flown for two years as the club 
which I joined 12 years ago when it was insolvent and in debt with no where to 
go is inhabited by a couple of particularly nasty souls. Those  of us who 
rebuilt the mess have left  - some fly  some don't.

On 02/09/2014, at 1:44 PM, Mark Newton wrote:

 
 On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:31 PM, Robert Izatt thebunyipboo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 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.
 
 Interesting point of view.
 
 Why do you need to be supervised to get a tow?  In the US you just pay the 
 tow pilot to launch you:  Chartered flight, fee for service, independent 
 operation.
 
 Why do you have to live in a club environment?  It might be beneficial in 
 some, or even most, cases;  but what is the rationale for it being mandatory? 
  If someone doesn’t want to participate in a club, shouldn’t that option be 
 available to them? Why is it optional for every Australian pilot except 
 glider pilots?
 
 These are assumptions people make about the GFA system because they’ve never 
 experienced any other ways of doing things.  It doesn’t need to be that way.  
 It doesn’t even need to be difficult for it to be a different way.
 
  - 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

Hi Bernard

No I do not.

Firstly, the issue of a check flight. I do not see that the two situations
are analogous. Generally, but granted not exclusively, the check flight is
for pilots wishing to fly a club aircraft. I think that every club has the
right to protect their equipment. Secondly, a pilot landing at an airfield
is no different to a motorist on a road. If you have the appropriate
qualifications, you can enjoy the rights that those qualifications entitle
you to. Launching from a club airfield, you are joining an operation. I
think that the operation, read club, has rights, that are et least equal to
yours.

As for the costs, I am simply in no position to support mine or refute your
arguments. However I do know that there is an entire industry in Europe to
help individuals / companies to deal with the regulation bloat, at a
considerable cost. Equally, an increase in regulation also leads to an
increase in corruption. I do not see either as desirable.

Finally a number of posters indicated that we may be losing potential
glider pilots, because the GFA rules, yet I see people turning their backs
on power flying, often citing cost (medicals etc.) and complexity as a
reason. I do not know how the numbers stack up, but chances are that
neither do you. So it is just a speculation used to prop someones point of
view.

Frankly I have seen no empirical data to support any point of view, or to
make conclusions about the detrimental or beneficial influence on glider
pilot retention / loss from the current rules.




Cheers

Paul


On 2 September 2014 13:43, Future Aviation ec...@internode.on.net wrote:

 Hello Paul



 Thank you! This is the sort of feedback I was hoping for.

 If my interpretation of this tread is correct previous discussions
 revolved mainly about competition licences and not

 about operations of competent glider pilots without instructor oversight.



 Let’s put this side issue aside and focus on your concerns about a “rise
 in complexity and/or cost” for now. This is quite
 simply unfounded as it was made very clear that glider pilots not aspiring
 to a licence can continue to operate as usual
 and without an additional cost burden.



 The real issue is bringing gliding in line with international standards
 and long established practices of other Australian
 aviation bodies. The question remains, why can’t properly licensed glider
 pilots be treated exactly like fully licensed

 power pilots? Can you imagine a power pilot being asked for a check flight
 on landing at another airfield?



 Can you see my point now?



 Kind regards



 Bernard













 *From:* aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [
 mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
 aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] *On Behalf Of *Paul Bart
 *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 September 2014 10:20 AM

 *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
 *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no
 clothes





 On 2 September 2014 07:38, Future Aviation ec...@internode.on.net wrote:





 Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
 thinking, please?



 Bernard



 There were about 80 emails written on this topic over the last few days
 all saying about the same thing, all written by the same few contributors.
 It would seem to me that if you need them to let you know their thinking
 once again, then perhaps you have not read their contribution carefully
 enough.



 Frankly, I am more interested in maintaining a simple and inexpensive
 system to fly gliders in Australia. Given the fragile state of of
 participation in gliding I fear that any rise in complexity and / or cost
 will simply drive more people away. 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.





 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

___
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


At 01:44 PM 2/09/2014, you wrote:



I don't understand why a few friends can't get gliding licenses, buy a
low-performance 2nd hand glider, and winch launch from a paddock
somewhere. You don't need to have an instructor present to have fun in
a boat or an ultralight. You don't even need to be in a formal club.
It'd be as lost-cost and low-effort as you could get.



Yep. Or even a nice ASG32Mi , Bernard?

Mike




Borgelt Instruments - design  manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.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

Nobody is proposing that the gliding 
communes/collectives be banned. I couldn't care 
less what they do.  Good luck to them. They do 
have a certain rustic charm as living museums.


I do, however, object  to them being made 
compulsory and having the powers of the State 
behind them to prohibit any alternative 
organisations or non organisations for that matter.


The people turning their backs on GA power flying 
have the RAAus to go to. Gliding people fed up 
with the GFA system have nowhere to go.


You've just heard from a few people who used to 
fly gliders who don't any more or are thinking seriously of giving up.


If these people got gliding licences and their 
operations show up the legacy system in a bad 
light that is a problem for the supporters of the 
legacy system to worry about and to fix their own operation.


Mike



At 02:29 PM 2/09/2014, you wrote:

Hi Bernard

No I do not.Â

Firstly, the issue of a check flight. I do not 
see that the two situations are analogous. 
Generally, but granted not exclusively, the 
check flight is for pilots wishing to fly a club 
aircraft. I think that every club has the right 
to protect their equipment. Secondly, a pilot 
landing at an airfield is no different to a 
motorist on a road. If you have the appropriate 
qualifications, you can enjoy the rights that 
those qualifications entitle you to. Launching 
from a club airfield, you are joining an 
operation. I think that the operation, read 
club, has rights, that are et least equal to yours.Â


As for the costs, I am simply in no position to 
support mine or refute your arguments. However I 
do know that there is an entire industry in 
Europe to help individuals / companies to deal 
with the regulation bloat, at a considerable 
cost. Equally, an increase in regulation also 
leads to an increase in corruption. I do not see either as desirable.


Finally a number of posters indicated that we 
may be losing potential glider pilots, because 
the GFA rules, yet I see people turning their 
backs on power flying, often citing cost 
(medicals etc.) and complexity as a reason. I do 
not know how the numbers stack up, but chances 
are that neither do you. So it is just a 
speculation used to prop someones point of view.


Frankly I have seen no empirical data to support 
any point of view, or to make conclusions about 
the detrimental or beneficial influence on 
glider pilot retention / loss from the current rules.Â





Cheers

Paul


On 2 September 2014 13:43, Future Aviation 
mailto:ec...@internode.on.netec...@internode.on.net wrote:


Hello Paul

Â

Thank you! This is the sort of feedback I was hoping for.

If my interpretation of this tread is correct 
previous discussions revolved mainly about competition licences and not


about operations of competent glider pilots without instructor oversight.

Â

Letâs put this side issue aside and focus on 
your concerns about a ârise in complexity 
and/or costâ for now. This is quite
simply unfounded as it was made very clear that 
glider pilots not aspiring to a licence can continue to operate as usual

and without an additional cost burden.

Â

The real issue is bringing gliding in line with 
international standards and long established practices of other Australian
aviation bodies. The question remains, why 
canât properly licensed glider pilots be treated exactly like fully licensed


power pilots? Can you imagine a power pilot 
being asked for a check flight on landing at another airfield?


Â

Can you see my point now?

Â

Kind regards

Â

BernardÂ

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

From: 
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.netaus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net 
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Paul Bart

Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 10:20 AM

To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Competition licenses - the emperor has no clothes

Â

Â

On 2 September 2014 07:38, Future Aviation 
mailto:ec...@internode.on.netec...@internode.on.net wrote:


Â

Â

Simon, can you (and other members of this newsgroup) let me in on your
thinking, please?

Â

âBernard

Â

There were about 80 emails written on this topic 
over the last few days all saying about the same 
thing, all written by the same few contributors. 
It would seem to me that if you need them to 
let you know their thinking once again, then 
perhaps you have not read their contribution carefully enough.


Â

Frankly, I am more interested in maintaining a 
simple and inexpensive system to fly gliders in 
Australia. Given the fragile state of of 
participation in gliding I fear that any rise in 
complexity and / or cost will simply drive more 
people away. You say When our newcomers realise 
that they will always be treated as second 
classÂ 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

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


On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com wrote:
 Finally a number of posters indicated that we may be losing potential glider 
 pilots, because the GFA rules, yet I see people turning their backs on power 
 flying, often citing cost (medicals etc.) and complexity as a reason. I do 
 not know how the numbers stack up, but chances are that neither do you. So it 
 is just a speculation used to prop someones point of view.

I know how the numbers stack up, because I do both.

A CASA Class-2 medical from a DAME costs $80 plus GST.  It is one of the most 
trivial expenses it’s possible to accrue in aviation, excepting perhaps the $6 
it costs to land a GA light aircraft at an AVdata country airport.

And as of yesterday, under Part 61 you don’t need one anyway. Switch to a 
drivers license medical from your GP, fly up to 1500kg MTOW with 1 passenger, 
fixed pitch, fixed gear, no aerobatics, day VFR.  Sold.

Anyone who says they’re giving up flying due to the cost of a medical probably 
flunked theirs because they were on hallucinogenic drugs.

  - 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

Hi Mark

I was not referring to the actual cost of a medical. That can easily be
sourced, and you have provided it here. My point referred to what people
leave and why.

Cheers

Paul


On 2 September 2014 15:00, Mark Newton new...@atdot.dotat.org wrote:


 On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com wrote:

 Finally a number of posters indicated that we may be losing potential
 glider pilots, because the GFA rules, yet I see people turning their backs
 on power flying, often citing cost (medicals etc.) and complexity as a
 reason. I do not know how the numbers stack up, but chances are that
 neither do you. So it is just a speculation used to prop someones point of
 view.


 I know how the numbers stack up, because I do both.

 A CASA Class-2 medical from a DAME costs $80 plus GST.  It is one of the
 most trivial expenses it’s possible to accrue in aviation, excepting
 perhaps the $6 it costs to land a GA light aircraft at an AVdata country
 airport.

 And as of yesterday, under Part 61 you don’t need one anyway. Switch to a
 drivers license medical from your GP, fly up to 1500kg MTOW with 1
 passenger, fixed pitch, fixed gear, no aerobatics, day VFR.  Sold.

 Anyone who says they’re giving up flying due to the cost of a medical
 probably flunked theirs because they were on hallucinogenic drugs.

   - 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

2014-09-01 Thread DMcD

The question remains, why can’t properly licensed glider pilots be treated 
exactly like fully licensed power pilots?

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.

I remember a sailplane pilot asking me in horror… So you can just
turn up at a hill somewhere and jump off??  The answer is more or
less, yes. If your rating doesn't restrict you to novice hills, it's
up to you.

There's a strange dichotomy here though… after a handful of flights, a
sailplane pilot can take a passenger up for a flight. So you are
considered safe enough to risk someone else's life but not safe enough
to risk your own, taking off solo from an airstrip outside the view of
the duty instructor.

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.

D

On 02/09/2014, Mark Newton new...@atdot.dotat.org wrote:

 On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:29 PM, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com wrote:
 Finally a number of posters indicated that we may be losing potential
 glider pilots, because the GFA rules, yet I see people turning their backs
 on power flying, often citing cost (medicals etc.) and complexity as a
 reason. I do not know how the numbers stack up, but chances are that
 neither do you. So it is just a speculation used to prop someones point of
 view.

 I know how the numbers stack up, because I do both.

 A CASA Class-2 medical from a DAME costs $80 plus GST.  It is one of the
 most trivial expenses it’s possible to accrue in aviation, excepting perhaps
 the $6 it costs to land a GA light aircraft at an AVdata country airport.

 And as of yesterday, under Part 61 you don’t need one anyway. Switch to a
 drivers license medical from your GP, fly up to 1500kg MTOW with 1
 passenger, fixed pitch, fixed gear, no aerobatics, day VFR.  Sold.

 Anyone who says they’re giving up flying due to the cost of a medical
 probably flunked theirs because they were on hallucinogenic drugs.

   - 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

Hi Mark

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.

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.

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 :).






Cheers

Paul


On 2 September 2014 12:30, Mark Newton new...@atdot.dotat.org wrote:


 On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Paul Bart pb2...@gmail.com 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”.


 puts hand up

 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 ourselves through the time and money
 and setbacks and heartache needed to enjoy it.

 Different people find that emotional response in different ways.

 For some people, it’s about flying higher or further or faster or longer
 than anyone else.  For those people, the philosophy of the GFA is utterly
 irrelevant:  As long as they can get into a glider, who cares, right?
  These are the people the GFA serves the best, in my opinion.

 For others, emotional reward comes from making contributions.  We’re the
 people who instruct or serve on committees or get airworthiness
 credentials.  For us, the philosophy of the GFA *does* matter, a bit,
 because it defines the framework those contributions are made in:  It’s
 unlikely, for instance, that

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