"Woman" Pilots Association. What's the point???
PPRuNe Handmaiden
Along with the AWPA and the BWPA there is the 99's in the U.S.A.
They are not out to change the world or demand any thing. They just want to support women flyers every where.
One good thing that has benefitted all is their support of various "nervous flyers" programmes. They are run along side various airlines and they teach people who are nervous flyers that they needn't be scared of flying. That means a few more passengers and flights taken. Some successful canditates have gone on to learn to fly themselves.
They are not out to change the world or demand any thing. They just want to support women flyers every where.
One good thing that has benefitted all is their support of various "nervous flyers" programmes. They are run along side various airlines and they teach people who are nervous flyers that they needn't be scared of flying. That means a few more passengers and flights taken. Some successful canditates have gone on to learn to fly themselves.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoops, maybe a little research next time, Messiah? Let me guess....
"Well apart from those little exceptions of the UK and the USA, isn't Australia the only country with a women's pilot's association?"
Congratulations to the ladies for sticking to the facts, but really, why does anybody bother replying to him?
"Well apart from those little exceptions of the UK and the USA, isn't Australia the only country with a women's pilot's association?"
Congratulations to the ladies for sticking to the facts, but really, why does anybody bother replying to him?
Moderator
Hairy and Messiah, if your PPL test is done through GAAP and CTR/CTA you will have a licence with "no airspace restriction". However, as Stallie has already said, if you do your test in whoop-whoop, and many do, then you will be restricted to "outside controlled airspace only". To remove this restriction and fly in GAAP and/or CTR/CTA you need to do another flight test through said airspace with an ATO.
So no, a PPL isn't necessarily a licence to fly anywhere.
And maybe if all pilots were a bit more aware of their own limitations the sky would be a safer place.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
So no, a PPL isn't necessarily a licence to fly anywhere.
And maybe if all pilots were a bit more aware of their own limitations the sky would be a safer place.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the delay in replying girls, but have been away flying for a living. No not sitting around talking about it, but actually doing it!
Bino, just wanted to know if any other country had the same association, now I know.
My experience with the AWPA has been that they are 'aviation challenged' self appointed experts. Yes that is from my own experience girls.
It just puzzles me that an association under the guise of pilots can accept sheer incompetence among it's members. That fear of flying programme sounds as though it's needed more by the members than the public.
Bino, just wanted to know if any other country had the same association, now I know.
My experience with the AWPA has been that they are 'aviation challenged' self appointed experts. Yes that is from my own experience girls.
It just puzzles me that an association under the guise of pilots can accept sheer incompetence among it's members. That fear of flying programme sounds as though it's needed more by the members than the public.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Messiah (is that self appointed??)
Incompetence is not confined to organisations of like minded pilots be they women or men!!!! There are incidents of incompetence in (dare I say it REAL AIRLINES Gasp Shock Horror !!!) It is surely not the womens pilots organisations fault or responsibility to make sure all its members can fly in to or out of certain airports.
This is like saying that if you belong to a classic car club you must be able negotiate inner city Melbourne or Sydney traffic weather you want to or not!! Women and Men who join such organisations do so for a number of reasons. Often these reasons such as talking and attending meetings are what they joined them for. I sure would like to know what the benifit of PPRune is if it is not that.
Some of us do not have the bennifit or have had the opportunity to "fly for a living" and so are not able to sit around in the crew room at work and gossip about "the important flying issues" Are you seriously suggesting that people who have an interest in aviation can only participate in organisations such as this if they are qualified to a certain level, or that the organisation is responsble for making these people qualified (especialy when it appears that is not their aim)
As to the Womens Pilot Organisation being full of self appointed experts it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself
Trust me I'd like to see any organisation of pilots Men, Women, Black, White or Brindle that wasnt at least half full of self appointed experts and not just on flying either!!
Mrs Wheelbarrow ( stick that in yer pipe and smoke it
)
Incompetence is not confined to organisations of like minded pilots be they women or men!!!! There are incidents of incompetence in (dare I say it REAL AIRLINES Gasp Shock Horror !!!) It is surely not the womens pilots organisations fault or responsibility to make sure all its members can fly in to or out of certain airports.
This is like saying that if you belong to a classic car club you must be able negotiate inner city Melbourne or Sydney traffic weather you want to or not!! Women and Men who join such organisations do so for a number of reasons. Often these reasons such as talking and attending meetings are what they joined them for. I sure would like to know what the benifit of PPRune is if it is not that.
Some of us do not have the bennifit or have had the opportunity to "fly for a living" and so are not able to sit around in the crew room at work and gossip about "the important flying issues" Are you seriously suggesting that people who have an interest in aviation can only participate in organisations such as this if they are qualified to a certain level, or that the organisation is responsble for making these people qualified (especialy when it appears that is not their aim)
As to the Womens Pilot Organisation being full of self appointed experts it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself
Trust me I'd like to see any organisation of pilots Men, Women, Black, White or Brindle that wasnt at least half full of self appointed experts and not just on flying either!!
Mrs Wheelbarrow ( stick that in yer pipe and smoke it
)
Moderator
This was a nice thread until the misogynists came along. Pity. But inevitable I suppose.
I personally can think of a well known pilots association where incompetance and self appointed experts abound...And it aint run by women.
I personally can think of a well known pilots association where incompetance and self appointed experts abound...And it aint run by women.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Messiah,
I too, have been out flying. Or did you think that just because I'm an AWPA member that I usually spend my time sitting on my "aviation challenged" "incompetent" b@tt?
You've accused the AWPA of promoting incompetence by failing to "correct" their members for not wanting to push beyond their experience. But really, the only thing I've heard you cite to prove your point is that the AWPA allegedly changed the venue of a conference away from Bankstown solely to somehow avoid the airport (and to my knowledge there have actually been two AWPA meetings at Bankstown this year).
It strikes me that there is a bit of a logical problem here. Simply because it actually doesn't matter whether or not the conference was at Bankstown or elsewhere, because the attendees would still have to arrive in Sydney somehow. And even if the conference was at Banktown, nobody took away their option to fly into Camden, Hoxton Park - or KSA if they so desired.
As I and everyone else has said here ad nauseum:
AWPA = encouragement
Flying schools = training
Messiah = don't join if you don't want to.
___________________________________________
Q: - What's the difference between God and some pilots?
A: - God doesn't think he's a pilot.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Foyl ]
I too, have been out flying. Or did you think that just because I'm an AWPA member that I usually spend my time sitting on my "aviation challenged" "incompetent" b@tt?
You've accused the AWPA of promoting incompetence by failing to "correct" their members for not wanting to push beyond their experience. But really, the only thing I've heard you cite to prove your point is that the AWPA allegedly changed the venue of a conference away from Bankstown solely to somehow avoid the airport (and to my knowledge there have actually been two AWPA meetings at Bankstown this year).
It strikes me that there is a bit of a logical problem here. Simply because it actually doesn't matter whether or not the conference was at Bankstown or elsewhere, because the attendees would still have to arrive in Sydney somehow. And even if the conference was at Banktown, nobody took away their option to fly into Camden, Hoxton Park - or KSA if they so desired.
As I and everyone else has said here ad nauseum:
AWPA = encouragement
Flying schools = training
Messiah = don't join if you don't want to.
___________________________________________
Q: - What's the difference between God and some pilots?
A: - God doesn't think he's a pilot.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Foyl ]
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad i didn't train at CFIs school where ATOs are called in to do the work of flight instructors......how many other times have you cost your students an extra coupla hundred eh??
can't really see the big fuss about AWPA, if they don't feel their members are fit to fly to a GAAP then they took the appropriate action holding the meeting elsewhere
good luck to em
can't really see the big fuss about AWPA, if they don't feel their members are fit to fly to a GAAP then they took the appropriate action holding the meeting elsewhere
good luck to em
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the defence rests with......'but we're not the only ones'. Well birds of a feather I guess.
Misogynist? Don't be so defensive ladies. Women are in my top 3 interests, I can't be.
Wheelbarrow you're obviously not a Monty Python fan.
How was the training area Ms Foyl?
Misogynist? Don't be so defensive ladies. Women are in my top 3 interests, I can't be.
Wheelbarrow you're obviously not a Monty Python fan.
How was the training area Ms Foyl?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Victoria/Aus
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm, this story about the GAAP is really wearing thin. I don't think this one incident at YSBK has anything to do with the validity of the AWPA, or whether one has a penis or a vagina!!! I think the "point" has been made about the AWPA as per my original question. The AWPA seems to have evolved from what was once a "union" of individuals who were once discriminated against because of their sex, to one that is simply a good place for (as has already been stated a few times in this thread) like-minded fanatics to get together.
However, aren't there potentially just as many financially underprivileged males who need help as there are females? Is there any opportunity in Australia for males to be given a scholarship for flight training? Foyl, you did mention that the AWPA offer schollarships to males as well. Are the schollarships open to both sexes, or are selected shcollarships only offered to females?
Byt he way, thanks heaps for all your contributions. It's, at the very least, been fascinating reading............H.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Highbypass ]
However, aren't there potentially just as many financially underprivileged males who need help as there are females? Is there any opportunity in Australia for males to be given a scholarship for flight training? Foyl, you did mention that the AWPA offer schollarships to males as well. Are the schollarships open to both sexes, or are selected shcollarships only offered to females?
Byt he way, thanks heaps for all your contributions. It's, at the very least, been fascinating reading............H.
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Highbypass ]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for asking Messiah. The training area was looking quite nice - when I flew over it.
Highbypass, I can't remember which scholarships are open to guys, but I know for a fact a couple of them are - suggest you have a look at the AWPA website for further info.
AWPA website
Highbypass, I can't remember which scholarships are open to guys, but I know for a fact a couple of them are - suggest you have a look at the AWPA website for further info.
AWPA website
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAAPs are not CTA although they are definately controlled airspace. Messiah, I can't believe you're knocking AWPA for not flying there when you don't even know what sort of airspace it is. 
Obviously you don't know the difference between CTA and CTR.
They are General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures Control Zones. Like Class D airspace, it is controlled airspace although usually without radar. (I believe BK has a radar display provided by SY).
Holders of PPLs only are restricted to airspace which is not:
a) a control area; or
b) a control zone for which there is a radar service; or
c) a control zone for which there is no radar service; or
d) a control zone at an aerodrome that operates under general aviation aerodrome procedures,
unless they have been authorised (via logbook entry) to do so by CASA or a Grade 1 or 2 flight instructor.
Obviously you don't know the difference between CTA and CTR.
They are General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures Control Zones. Like Class D airspace, it is controlled airspace although usually without radar. (I believe BK has a radar display provided by SY).
Holders of PPLs only are restricted to airspace which is not:
a) a control area; or
b) a control zone for which there is a radar service; or
c) a control zone for which there is no radar service; or
d) a control zone at an aerodrome that operates under general aviation aerodrome procedures,
unless they have been authorised (via logbook entry) to do so by CASA or a Grade 1 or 2 flight instructor.
Moderator
Trine, I resent your implication that my students are being ripped off. Or did you not realise that CFIs hold certain CASA delegations including ATO. No need to "call anyone in" or charge 200 bucks!
If you could give me the reference to your above post I would be interested, because according to the Flight Crew Licencing Industry Delegates Handbook and our local FOI this constitutes removal of an area restriction in the same way as is done for holders of the old RPPL, and requires 24 hours notice to CASA, a flight test number and ticks in the appropriate airspace boxes on the flight test form. This is then sent to CASA who will issue a new licence to the holder with the restrictions removed. There is no log book endorsement for licence flight tests.
If you've had Grade Twos signing people off for CTR/CTA then those people are acting outside the privileges of their licence.
Edited for typos
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
If you could give me the reference to your above post I would be interested, because according to the Flight Crew Licencing Industry Delegates Handbook and our local FOI this constitutes removal of an area restriction in the same way as is done for holders of the old RPPL, and requires 24 hours notice to CASA, a flight test number and ticks in the appropriate airspace boxes on the flight test form. This is then sent to CASA who will issue a new licence to the holder with the restrictions removed. There is no log book endorsement for licence flight tests.
If you've had Grade Twos signing people off for CTR/CTA then those people are acting outside the privileges of their licence.
Edited for typos
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
Moderator
There are all sorts of flying scholarships around for all sorts of people run by all sorts of organisations. Ask around.
If someone wishes to use their money to set up a trust fund or bequest for a scholarship, then surely they have a right to specify the group of people they would like to benefit from the scholarship, and who they chose to administer it? Or is that discrimination
If someone wishes to use their money to set up a trust fund or bequest for a scholarship, then surely they have a right to specify the group of people they would like to benefit from the scholarship, and who they chose to administer it? Or is that discrimination
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFI,
I'm sure you know that not all CFIs have ATO status for all flight tests, for example, the CFI where I trained only had approval to conduct GFPT, PPL and NVFR tests. Additionally, not all "roving" ATOs are approved to conduct all tests, one ATO that I know cannot give initial issue DGA in the sim, only in flight. Another lost her approval to conduct instructor rating upgrades while retaining the approval to issue initial Grade 3 ratings. There's CASA for you......
Hence my assumption that you were calling someone in.
Just a small point, Grade 2s would be exercising their instructor rating not licence.......there is no such thing as an instructor licence.
I wouldn't put too much stock into a handbook or an FOI when the regs are written for all to see.
Check out CAO 40.1.7 para 9.2
Who cares if there are no logbook endorsements for licence flight tests (wrong anyway - how about GFPT?), the approval to fly into CTA/CTR is not a licence.It is acondition of PPLs that the holder not fly into the airspace previously listed, unless otherwise approved.
The reference for the logbook entry is CAO 40.0 para 3.2(g).
BTW, I don't believe I was implying anything, I came right out and said it, and IMHO with justification given your ignorance of the regulations.
I'm sure you know that not all CFIs have ATO status for all flight tests, for example, the CFI where I trained only had approval to conduct GFPT, PPL and NVFR tests. Additionally, not all "roving" ATOs are approved to conduct all tests, one ATO that I know cannot give initial issue DGA in the sim, only in flight. Another lost her approval to conduct instructor rating upgrades while retaining the approval to issue initial Grade 3 ratings. There's CASA for you......
Hence my assumption that you were calling someone in.
Just a small point, Grade 2s would be exercising their instructor rating not licence.......there is no such thing as an instructor licence.
I wouldn't put too much stock into a handbook or an FOI when the regs are written for all to see.
Check out CAO 40.1.7 para 9.2
A Grade Two flight instructor may:
a).......
d)approve the holder of a private pilot licence to fly an aircraft in controlled airspace.
a).......
d)approve the holder of a private pilot licence to fly an aircraft in controlled airspace.
The reference for the logbook entry is CAO 40.0 para 3.2(g).
BTW, I don't believe I was implying anything, I came right out and said it, and IMHO with justification given your ignorance of the regulations.
Moderator
OK Trine thank you for the references.
I'd rather continue this discussion by email than hijack the thread, but as your email address is unavailable here's my response: I have checked this reference 40.0 para 3.2 (g)with CASA in the past and been advised that what we are discussing actually constitutes the removal of an area restriction on the licence, which requires reissue of the licence, which can only be done by CASA following a flight test by an ATO. As I understand it you can't have a restricted licence overridden by a stamp in a logbook. (BTW where is that stamp in CAO 40.1.7 App. III?) Maybe you are right and we are all wrong, and this is another case of varying interpretations, but for now I'll stick to what I'm told by the people who issue my ATO delegations, and continue to conduct flight tests in accordance with the FCLIDH. If that constitutes "ignorance of the regulations" then so be it!
BTW I was referring to the licence of the person supposedly being signed off, not that of the instructor doing the signing. I do know the difference between a licence and a rating. However it seems I need to explain to you the difference between a licence and a GFPT.
A GFPT is not a "licence" it is permissions under CAR 5.68, 5.70, 5.71 and 5.72 for holders of a STUDENT pilot licence, and an LBE ("sticky label") under "Flight checks and approvals" is issued by the ATO to that effect. No new licence is issued. Therefore it is not a licence flight test.
I'm told the reason that there is no longer an LBE for licence flight tests is because some people mistakenly thought the LBE meant they could exercise the privileges of that licence immediately following the test, before the actual licence was issued. ATOs do not issue licences, CASA do.
If you want to discuss this further, come on over to the flying instructors forum. I'm interested to know what CASA delegations you hold.
Now, back to the thread....
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
I'd rather continue this discussion by email than hijack the thread, but as your email address is unavailable here's my response: I have checked this reference 40.0 para 3.2 (g)with CASA in the past and been advised that what we are discussing actually constitutes the removal of an area restriction on the licence, which requires reissue of the licence, which can only be done by CASA following a flight test by an ATO. As I understand it you can't have a restricted licence overridden by a stamp in a logbook. (BTW where is that stamp in CAO 40.1.7 App. III?) Maybe you are right and we are all wrong, and this is another case of varying interpretations, but for now I'll stick to what I'm told by the people who issue my ATO delegations, and continue to conduct flight tests in accordance with the FCLIDH. If that constitutes "ignorance of the regulations" then so be it!
BTW I was referring to the licence of the person supposedly being signed off, not that of the instructor doing the signing. I do know the difference between a licence and a rating. However it seems I need to explain to you the difference between a licence and a GFPT.
A GFPT is not a "licence" it is permissions under CAR 5.68, 5.70, 5.71 and 5.72 for holders of a STUDENT pilot licence, and an LBE ("sticky label") under "Flight checks and approvals" is issued by the ATO to that effect. No new licence is issued. Therefore it is not a licence flight test.
I'm told the reason that there is no longer an LBE for licence flight tests is because some people mistakenly thought the LBE meant they could exercise the privileges of that licence immediately following the test, before the actual licence was issued. ATOs do not issue licences, CASA do.
If you want to discuss this further, come on over to the flying instructors forum. I'm interested to know what CASA delegations you hold.
Now, back to the thread....
[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: Charlie Foxtrot India ]
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trine,
Was'nt Class D airspace scrapped the 2nd day after it was implemented?
Correct- a GFPT is not a licence, while at a GAAP you are issued with circuit entry instructions, not an 'airways clearance'.
The licence restrictions you speak of are exactly that, restrictions prior to the issue of an 'unrestricted PPL'.
This is all from memory and purely my interpretation at that time, which by the way was a few years ago, and I don't sleep with Oz CAO's under my pillow.
Oh and by the way, I do know what sort of airspace it is, it's a GAAP control zone, totally unique to OZ.
Was'nt Class D airspace scrapped the 2nd day after it was implemented?
Correct- a GFPT is not a licence, while at a GAAP you are issued with circuit entry instructions, not an 'airways clearance'.
The licence restrictions you speak of are exactly that, restrictions prior to the issue of an 'unrestricted PPL'.
This is all from memory and purely my interpretation at that time, which by the way was a few years ago, and I don't sleep with Oz CAO's under my pillow.
Oh and by the way, I do know what sort of airspace it is, it's a GAAP control zone, totally unique to OZ.