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 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 always being “supervised” by someone else.
So the FAA system, where you have a PPL(G) and fly gliders without being forced
to be a member of a private association, is incredibly attractive. That’s what
we expected from the CASA GPL, and the fact that its design has been sabotaged
to specifically to exclude that outcome is the source of much bitterness and
negativity among some of us.
I don’t want to be “supervised” by someone else. I’m not if I fly as an RAAus
member, or as a CASA license holder. I’m only a second-class aviator not
trusted to make my own decisions independently if I fly with GFA.
In literally every other aviation discipline, I can front up to an aircraft
owner, flash a pilot’s certificate, hire an aircraft, and be 100% responsible
for my actions. Under the GFA system, I can’t. That’s been a common complaint
about the GFA for as long as I can remember, and it’s immensely disappointing
that there is no apparent intention to address it at all. Membership-based
organization not responding to members’ issues.
I’ve had a lot of emotional reward from GFA over the last 14 years, do I want
to abandon it? I really enjoy flying gliders, but this stuff is important to
me even if you don’t understand it and it isn’t important to you, and GFA makes
it so freakin’ hard to extract pleasure from flying when this ridiculous,
unnecessary paternalism overshadows everything.
So I’m still thinking…
- 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
