Hi Tim, May I suggest a rethink of the minimum 200 gliding hours requirement to get Level 2 independent ops? Given it is possible to get a full-blown PPL in 1/4 of that time, it seems a tad high to me.
Another scenario: Tom, Frank, Bob and Harry are all qualified glider pilots with many years experience. Bob has a property where he can winch launch from. They decide to pool their money and buy a 2nd hand glider and a suitable winch. All are perfectly capable of turning up for a day, taking turns flying their glider and driving the winch. Why do they have to be members of a GFA affiliated club? They can't form their own club, because (as far as I know) each club must have at least one instructor. Being an instructor means that you must have so many instructing hours to keep current - and the group just want to fly for themselves, not worry about students. Since they don't want to be a training organization it isn't an option. If they had PPL's or RAA certificates it'd be a complete non-issue. Also, I still think there should be a bit of paper to shoot for after the C certificate. Something that says yes, this person is responsible enough to be a glider pilot. He is responsible enough to be Pilot In Command - if he buys his own glider, let him take passengers etc without instructor approval. If he does something stupid it's completley his fault; not an instructor 100km away. I honestly don't see how this would hurt, and I think it'd improve retention a lot. How many pilots would leave soon after Solo, when they almost have this certificate in their grasp? Clubs would, of course, be free to set additional restrictions on the use of their aircraft. Of course, the GFA could always do something radical and make an online questionnaire or something. Best regards, Al On 6/5/08, Tim Shirley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I must admit to being a tad underwhelmed. I was hoping for some more > fundamental changes in return for putting the current GFA Board against the > wall. > > One minor problem with democracy is that no matter who you vote for (or > how), you end up electing a politician. Perhaps Mike Borgelt is right to > have chosen a completely undemocratic regulator. > > Cheers > > Tim > > > Geoff Kidd wrote: > > Mark Newton wrote: > > > Sounds like much ado about process, and precious little consideration being > given to outcomes. > > > > Lets postulate that GFA is overcome by electoral nirvana, and the voting > system is reformed to complete perfection. > > > > What different decisions that affect real pilots would you see the board > making that they wouldn't make under the current electoral system? > > > > > > I'd like to have a crack at answering that Mark. > > > > Now I appreciate that this is supposition, however based on what I have > observed of the manner in which an equivalent sport aviation controlling > > body has acted proactively on issues effecting its members, and also having > seen them raised in this list, I believe a less stodgy and more > > attentive organisation would have been driven by its proactive and switched > on (truely) member elected Board to: > > > > 1 Lobby for and move to biennial flight reviews in line with most or all > equivalent bodies in Australia. > > > > This might be done with an understanding that Clubs or hirers of aircraft > may require annual or more flight check reviews for those hiring or > > using their aircraft. > > 2 Lobby for and move to a system that does not require dual signatures for > rigging of modern sailplanes fitted with automatic & foolproof > > control attachment systems. > > > > I know with mine that it is impossible to connect the controls > incorrectly ......... and then I still check them the same way that I do with > my > > powered aircraft ..... so why should the rigging of a modern sailplane be > considerd so fraught? Is it because the GFA still considers modern > > rigging requirements to be what they were in 1950? > > > > 3 Establish an addition & proactive consultative regime to obtain feedback > from members on general matters and from the competition > > pilots on competition rules issues. > > > > If all of the above is being done, perhaps a board that truely reflects the > grass roots members would move to see that these issues are > > being progressed better. > > > > > > Can anyone think of any more? > > > > Regards Geoff > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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
