At 06:19 PM 30/05/2008, you wrote:
Mike
You've nicely made my point. You are too close to the problem, you
operate quite happily within the GFA system and as far as I can see
the changes you want relate to administrative procedures inside the
current system. BTW when I hear management buzzwords like "world's
best practice" and "safety management system" I begin to worry.
It matters little whether you worry or not about "management
buzzwords", the reality is that the GFA safety management system is
patchy. We still have people who think because someone spun in that
"pilot error" is sufficient explanation. Modernising and improving
safety within the GFA is necessary - it will save lives. Using the
language in common use across all industries helps people understand
what we are proposing - unless people decide to be deliberately
obtuse when hearing those words.
Robert,
If you truly want to improve safety look no further than the
instructor training system. When you begin to demand a greater level
of experience before anyone can even begin to become an instructor
and a proper syllabus with real theory training and written
exams you might get somewhere.
A proper theory course for glider pilots with written exams wouldn't
go astray either. Then people might learn why gliders fly and stall
and spin and other things which may help prevent them from killing themselves.
You aren't going to "supervise" quality outcomes into a system that
is deficient to begin with. Pilots need to be armed with knowledge
through proper training,. After that, when they take off solo there
is nothing more you can do if they decide to be stupid or
irresponsible. There are Australian laws and regulations which cover
penalties for irresponsible behaviour but those of Sir Isaac Newton
are more likely to exact punishment first in aviation.
As to "being to close to the problem" - well, that may be true. It
doesn't feel like it since I seem almost always to be out of step
with the longer serving Board members. What I do know however, is
that I make significant efforts to determine the Qld membership's
views on issues before I attend a meeting - so when I am there it is
not just "Robert Hart"'s views that are presented - and I don't
think the Qld membership at large is too close to the problem.
You persist in suggesting that I am "happy" operating inside the GFA
admin system without reading what I write - I have problems at
almost every Board meeting. Please stop misrepresenting me on this issue.
I'm not referring to your political difficulties at board meetings.
I'm referring to your gliding operations. Last I heard you were even
an instructor in the current system.
I am totally confused as to why you say things like "the changes you
want relate to administrative procedures inside the current system".
Of course that is the case: I am a member of the GFA and, unlike you
who gave up and walked away, I am trying to change the system -
hopefully for the better. Just what is the problem with that? I
surely cannot change it from outside - which is where you are!
If you read my post you would know I've tried to change the system
too. On more than one occasion. Most of which are in my posts on the archive.
I left the GFA some years ago because they brought in the dual
signature after rigging. I've asked here and specifically asked you
about this and nobody seems to have come up with a sensible reason
why this was done. For me it was the last straw. Why should I
support an organisation which made it impossible, under their
rules, for me to take my motor glider out to the local airport, rig
it and go flying?
Yup you are right - I asked and there is not a sensible reason for
it as far as I can see either. It is however tied to regulations
regarding "major modification" into which (currently) de- and
re-rigging a glider fall. Once we in sport aviation have more
control over our own destiny in terms of regulations as is promised
by the upcoming changes, the GFA will (I believe) no longer be tied
by this requirement and change will be possible.
So the GFA was too powerless and/or lacking the will to resist this?
This isn't impressive for an organisation that was formed in order to
keep inappropriate regulation off the backs of glider pilots.
Our American friends in the FAA, recognising that gliders were
*designed* to be rigged and derigged simply issued a blanket waiver
against the regulation for gliders. It is a requirement to note each
rigging in the logbook (there's no such thing as a maintenance release).
Disassembly of major structural and control systems during
maintenance where the parts may get covered by several layers of
structure, access hatches and upholstery preventing inspection during
the DI are a completely different matter from rigging and de-rigging
a glider where the break points in the control system and structure
are known and designed for such duty.
Part 103 isn't going to change anything. Currently CASA approves the
MOSP. They will still have to approve any regulations. It's a worry
that someone on the GFA board doesn't understand this.
I've also not seen anyone try to justify the GFA's opposition to
the CASA RPPL proposal. We discussed that extensively here and
there was quite a lot of support for it. It wasn't even proposed to
be compulsory or the only way of doing things as GFA members or
RAAus members could elect to remain members of their organisations
and continue to operate the way they had been.
Don't ask me to justify it - because I cannot and will not. I happen
to believe that we would be well served by a Glider Pilot's Licence
of the right type (and I was not close enough to the RPPL detail to
say if that was or was not the case). The current changes from
instructing/coaching to training and the emphasis shift from solo to
somewhere close to Silver C (and the issuance of a glider pilot
certificate of some kind) is definitely a step in the right direction.
Maybe you'd like to offer a defence or have the board revisit the issue?
See above - and asking the Board to revisit a decision when the RPPL
is off the table is just plain ridiculous.
The RPPL wasn't off the table last time I looked. It just had a
greatly restricted scope and a greatly diminished political
constituency. We've got a new Minister who isn't emotionally invested
in the decisions of his predecessors and if you truly believe that a
glider pilot licence of the right type is a good idea, why not raise
the issue and find out why the GFA opposed the RPPL?
As for the rest of your post, it is just more "circle the wagons",
"shoot the messenger" stuff. Maybe you should actually read the
posts by Al Borowski, DMcD and Ben Jones. They and many others aren't
thinking so differently from me. Note that I didn't actually start this thread.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
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
