Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission
This is indicative of the dilemma about corporate knowledge, as each generation succeeding the one before only knows what they know, and records that for posterity. Like the re-imagining of the history of the sport’s formation and early growth by the late Maurice Little when the current magazine replaced the several previous iterations; and was published there but which was so wildly wrong that re-writes and retractions were called for. The problem becomes that the record such as an award becomes the permanent record and is then repeated into the future. That is why correcting the historical record early in manifest ways is important. Emilis On 23 Jul 2016, at 9:06 pm, Harry wrote: > I truly believe that overlooking Nigel’s contribution was an unintentional > oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned > Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done. > I then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be > possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult > now but that the idea would be put to an subsequent GFA board meeting. For > the record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached > Nigel in the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the > work Nigel, whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding > movement, > > Bob, Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the > omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were introduced > into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect particularly when > they were not personally involved, ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] "Sully"
I saw it tonight. With my emergency management background I could see the continuous theme on human factors which culminate at the end. Told in a slightly subdued style to suit the general audience it is intended for. Length felt slightly short for someone in my mindset. On 13 Sep 2016, at 5:37 pm, Mike Borgelt wrote: > >> >>Well you may point out to your son the fact that Sully achieved the only >> >>successful ditching of a commercial airliner in the history of aviation >> >>where not one person was killed and only 5 were injured. >> >> Yes, but as he said, isn't that what they are paid for? But by the >> above accounts, that's not what the film is about. > > I saw the film on Sunday morning with Carol, a couple who are friends, their > 15 year old son and their son in law. > All thought it was a good movie. > > In the movie, the NTSB conflict wasn't actually emphasised too much and when > faced with the real evidence they readily backed down instead of ignoring it. > > My only criticism of the movie is that the timeline is a little disjointed. I > think it could have been told linearly. But that would be second guessing Mr > Eastwood and I'm not feeling that lucky. > > In the actual NTSB report note the slightly dissenting opinion on a couple of > points of the BEA (French equivalent of NTSB). One might almost think they > were trying to protect Airbus.:-) ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?
Thank you Richard, even though my contribution is spread over 50 years, I am still in there pitching for a future for gliding at the coal face. In the last 6 months I have - - contributed to a neighbouring club whose CFI ‘retired’ because of the ever increasing onerous impositions by GFA on these volunteer positions - I am organising a passenger day for non-gliding people on the ‘aerial excursion principle' (even though I will fork out $30 per person out of my own pocket to make it happen (yes the GFA AEF tax) - a few people know the museum and library which I run tours through for non-gliding people as a contact point for the sport (thank you Mandy for the offer of GFA assistance, but really, GFA is so far off the mark that I have to declare independence to get useful things done) and so on So, Richard, be happy in your ignorance of the real state of the sport, continue to believe that the faffing about by the GFA actually matters. Meanwhile real people during real things will just get on with it. And to Ulrich - your years of sacrifice for the sport are held in regard by some people, who know what is really going on. Emilis On 30 Jan 2017, at 6:29 am, Richard Frawley wrote: > i assume most people know that gliding requires a minimum membership size to > keep the cost and freedoms we enjoy possible. > > if you have not noticed we are actually under the minimum membership for > sustainability. > > This is a problem anyone who wants reasonable continuance needs to own and > assist with. > > The general lethargy towards this problem is significant. The GFA have very > limited means due in the main to budget constraints to do much about this > issue. John with just about no resource has been doing a great job as a > volunteer. He is however frustrated by the above lethargy after 3 years in > the role. > > So, what have YOU done to assist glidings future in the last 6 months??? ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] gliding the sport
Thank you all for the delightful conversation at ‘GFA negative advertising……' I thought I’d start fresh, on some items that move away from that thread above. It surprises me that the ‘but you are bashing the GFA’ legion didn’t pipe up. Perhaps it was because GFA are bashing themselves up in their Pravda list. There are diverse views across the glider pilot nation about what GFA is: - Some see GFA as being the whole of ’the sport'. - Some see GFA as an administrative benefit or necessity to the sport - Some (me) see this 67 year old organisation as having had its day and now being in its own generated death throes. For all the reasons already enunciated by others - self destructive, dictatorial, creating silos of irrelevant hierarchal positions which will never be filled because there aren’t enough volunteers left, and so on. The biggest hurdle for GFA is the loss within itself in its corporate knowledge - all the current incumbents came into a fully formed sport and try to re-imagine it in their own image without a skeric of understanding of how things came to be. (e.g. they don’t know what ‘the Valentine Curve’ is) ‘Those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it’. With the benefit of longevity and a curiosity to track things (yes, I am the dude who did the quantitative measuring of successful and defunct clubs for the whole of Australia in the 1970s) I advise - - In 1949 the GFA was formed to be the barrier between glider pilots and ‘the Department’ - where glider pilots said ‘WE are the people who know how gliders work, they are not power planes, so we set rules appropriate to us - helped by the proposition (a la ‘The Castle’) that the Australian Constitution does not regulate aviation (which didn’t exist when it was first written), hence aviation is regulated federally only by the consensus of the aviation community - That original bottom up driven model of regulation of the sport by the sport, in the best examples of participatory democracy, lasted until 1981 - By then the sport had grown to 100 clubs, about 5000 pilots, and enthusiasm and volunteer inputs to ‘our sport’ which got it there and was propelling it even higher - So GFA has never been ‘the sport’, it has always been the external peripheral administrative element that we ‘needed to have’, and was thus always kept as small as possible. - So in 1981 the world changed, yes Richard, you are right. The system was re-written and has been re-written several more times since, by incumbents of their day who saw a great sport, and thought re-imagining it in their own image would both serve the sport and themselves well. - So gliding the sport declined to 2000 pilots in 50 or so clubs, with the unstated direction being the demise of the small clubs (less than 20 members), leaving commercial servicing, schools and big clubs. We are indeed on track in that direction. The barriers to achieving the goals of that objective (a more ‘professional' sport) is that it is being pressed onto the old model of volunteer cadre to achieve. And people not being stupid, say things (as per the previous thread) ‘ ‘why would I work at making my kind of gliding fail or be inaccessible?’, and stuff like that. Gliding is not a franchise that GFA owns. So people choose to bale out when the onerous impositions exceed the benefit to them, assessed against their definition of ‘the sport’. With many then going to other sport aviation; a barrier to hoped-for flow the other way. (Their tales of woe unimpress aviators from other sport) GFA does not control gliding, despite continuous threats and intimidation issued by it/them. Glider pilots agree to follow rules that make sense because these keep us alive. GFA is overlaying this with rules addressing ‘fear of litigation’ against themselves, to be shifted onto the volunteers. The current conversation, either in its form today or some future time, will result in the demise of the GFA. Glider pilots will find their own way to fly the kind of sport each group within the sport wants. GFA doesn’t have the budget to follow through the promotion and support to create the sport in their image. All the attempts so far (since 1981 to date) have thoroughly failed as noted above, and will continue to fail. Pilots and clubs (particularly the small ones) are right now debating internally what sort of sport they want. Paying lip service to ‘the authority’ and getting on with flying safely is a reality since 1924 (the oldest glider I have in my 2 dozen collection). Some pilots and clubs will decide to be ‘mucking about in boats’ style volunteering, and will attract like minded people. Some pilots and clubs will go ‘hire & fly’ with commercial support; and ditto. And all the other variants between. And really few pilots will aspire to the GFA view of itself. Welcome to the real world folks. Emilis (turn rant mode off) ___ Aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] a thank you
To all contributors to the conversation on gliding the sport: a thank you. The conversation serves the same function as did the production in 1996 of the GFA Development Guide. It gets together the thinking across the breadth of issues:responses of the day. It helps people like me to cast my net wider in applying solutions. Most of us are reminded through the conversation about how broad the sport is, and how differently participants, and thus possible future participants view and aspire. You are welcome to continue to accuse me of my own sectoral myopia (vintage style gliding ;-) but I assure you I do have toes in other parts of the sport up to ‘hire&fly’ and more importantly I use my own money rather than sitting in committees and sucking on other peoples’. Emilis ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] definitions
It is great to see conversation in full flow. One issue confounding understanding in the conversation might be the quite different definitions being placed on elements of gliding, with different contributors coming at things from differing points of view. It is possibly a difficult ask, but it might be worth trying to get some common ground on what we mean by particularly topical words. Such as: ‘vintage' gliders The strict formal definition has been codified by Aust Gliding Museum and Vintage Gliders Australia to encompass the wood&string range of airframes. That definition is being tested by the early Phoenix brought into Australia. An earlier hope was that alloy and early production FRP airframes would end up with monikers of their own; and hopefully enthusiasts and advocates for each. ‘classic’ ‘heritage' ‘venerable’ ‘mature’ ‘prototypical’ are the kinds of words used in other fields of activity. The broader definition void is: what is ‘gliding’ - current generation sailplanes - pure, sustainer, motor gliders - the coming generation of electric, FES, etc. - launch by foot, winch, plane, self - hire&fly - individual operation vs structured club operation - traditional volunteer group based operation vs electronically enhanced pilot operation vs commercial operation If, as I interpret, we mean all these things, then common ground (and then a way forward) will be hard to find. Emilis ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
My understanding is that at present we have a Project beyond 3000 underway (encouraging clubs around Australia to have current members look to re-engage former members or engage friends). To be active in April 2017. This may sit within a business plan. As it seems similar to an Executive Officer initiative by a similar name several years ago. And has drivers similar to advocacy from the late Maurice Little to regions years prior. I am unsure about who the responsible officer in the current case is, or what enabling budget is allowed for. The detail appears to include GFA charging 50% national fee for people taking this up, with that money to then go to the engaging club 12 months later. I haven’t thought through what that incentive represents against the (student) pilot’s spend on going to the club, launching, flying, instruction costs for that year. >From each club’s viewpoint, the counterpart consideration is the available >resources to service incoming members, and hence to what extent to activate >the project within their own circumstance. Emilis On 2 Feb 2017, at 11:41 am, Peter Carey wrote: > We would get an organization to > 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for large, > medium and small Clubs) > 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media > campaign. > 3. Oversee the implementation of the above. > 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the GFA. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW
As occurs in other parts of gliding, the issue of pilot responsibility vs club/instructor ’supervision’ has many constituent parts. - the existing fiction is that the national body ‘controls’ the sport whereas a reality is that at each individual flying site the control/supervision relies on local circumstance. example from my own life: an individual chiding me for operating on a Council owned public aerodrome and trying to exercise control by asserting a formal position within the national gliding hierarchy when in that circumstance in law only an employee of the Council could do that. - where a gliding club controls a flying site, by lease or ownership, their interest in ‘control’ is about maintaining their reputation in their community. So that you as a visiting pilot don’t do something that puts their butt in a sling for the future. - where you are intending to use a gliding club asset - glider or launch method - the club has an interest in that asset being cared for; in many cases this ‘check’ is foisted onto the duty instructor to achieve this - where (motor)gliding is operating with other aviation forms, there is the constant baseline of query (‘what, you switch the engine off?’) which puts the perception of gliding amongst fellow (sport)aviators in the mix; necessitating an extra level of considerate collegiate behaviour; again a club might place the onus for that behaviour compliance on the duty instructor - beyond this are the more direct impositions on pilot and instructor: what are the local expectations of capability. in some places airspace/radio monitoring is irrelevant, in some you can’t go cross country because of terrain, in some local places special requirements apply (mountain sites with unique wind and downdraught patterns, etc.) let alone piloting skill norms - can (s)he fly the particular type, in what weather limits, is the flying by rote or sensitive to the available soaring potential (lift lines, thermals, wave, slope, etc.) A ‘certificate’, ‘license’, ‘rating’ is applied across these. Boring holes in the sky, steady speed, altitude and awareness of procedure, radio, traffic is one thing. Gliding is so much more; which is why people do it. Thank you for the inputs. Something to think about. Emilis On 6 Feb 2017, at 11:04 am, Greg Wilson wrote: > If we really want to stop the dwindling numbers in gliding, giving pilots > responsibility for their flying is a very good place to start as it increases > the likelihood of attracting other pilots into the sport. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] discussion wrt gliding competencies
It is pleasurable to see aus-soaring delivering a broad range of thoughts on serious gliding core subjects. Contributing elements to the diverse breadth of commentary are both the diversity of ‘gliding’ styles (as previously listed) and the variety of attitudes brought by individual pilots to gliding. >From ‘pilot-in-command’ self-responsibility at one end of the spectrum through to ‘flying-to-the-rules’ satisfaction that doing what the control agency says by rote is the way. The latter may work in a world where boring holes in the sky is aviation, but gliding in all its forms, even when motors are involved, is more complex. Where complexity includes giving more focus on thinking ahead about possible actions needed with regard to change of aircraft state (engine on to engine off and vice versa), varying flight path to suit weather (lift lines) and proximity of other traffic (gliders circling); which don’t occur in other flight forms. Thus gliding appears to require a much higher order of independent thinking, together with action at closer time frames than does ‘regulated flying’ at constant heights, speeds and straight line ‘go to’. Instructing has traditionally focused first on pilot skills, then pilot decisions regarding weather interaction, and seems yet to need to get to the ‘human factors’ stuff in terms of individual pilot psychological make up. Several decades of the impression that the sport is ‘controlled’ top down seems to have created generations of pilots happy to bumble along in contrast to the primacy of the pilot at the pointy end needing to make decisions and act. Emilis ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Training booking system and process
Some use http://www.aircraftbookingsystem.com/default.aspx On 17 Feb 2017, at 11:16 am, Ben Coleman wrote: > Hi all, > > Are there any gliding clubs using a booking system of some sort to organise > training activities? This may be as simple as who is turning up and who is > instructing or a complete system allocating student, instructor, aircraft and > timeslot. > If you have experience of such a system please get in touch either here or > via email. I would love to hear the pros and cons. > > (Sorry if this is a double post, sent to old aus soaring address) > > Thanks, Ben Coleman > President, Hunter Valley Gliding Club ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Membership- GFA- clubs future survival
The point that has been made in other forums is that - the gain of a new member does not equal - the loss of an existing member. Because the former needs support, mentoring and encouragement whereas the latter needs respect and encouragement but delivers knowledge and competencies. Hence I suspect the emphasis on getting past pilots to re-engage. If we aim at all new ab initios, the workload will kill off the last of the competency resources, particularly in small clubs, thereby hastening their demise. Emilis On 27 Feb 2017, at 11:02 am, Peter Brookman wrote: > > This is more a statement of situation that I would feel there are other clubs > in similar situation. > > Peter B ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Aircraft plywood
try SA Plywood on Magill Rd they have been able to provide aircraft grade ply in some circumstances Emilis On 20 Jan 2016, at 3:28 pm, Future Aviation Pty. Ltd. wrote: > Good morning all > > Nowadays most aircraft are made of composite materials and therefore I find > it > very difficult to obtain some 6 mm thick aircraft plywood. > > For a special project I require six (6) small pieces of about 250mm x 100 mm. > Can anyone help by making some off-cuts available or by selling me some big > enough left overs? > > Kind regards to all > > Bernard Eckey > ec...@internode.on.net > Ph. 08 8449 2871 > Mob. 0412 981 204 > > PS: I could glue two sheets of 3mm thick aircraft plywood together if someone > can make some 3 mm plywood available. > > ___ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] petty criticisms
Thanks to Bob Ward for the reminder about the open nature of the aus-soaring list. My input for the day is my reflection on how we rework our memory as time goes on. Recent instances I noted in passing: - the last national magazine editorial noted the passing of senior participants in our sport. The next sentence referred to Harry Schneider; and it took me a moment to realise I had made the link between the 2 sentences, which might not have been intended by the writer. - In the same editorial, the induction to the aviation hall of fame is noted. I remember it differently from what was said there. I thought bringing the Schneiders to Australia was a private initiative amongst some of the leading lights of the sport in the 1940s including the Iggulden family; where the work opportunities (Vic Aero Club and then starting in Adelaide in John Wotherspoon’s shed which evolved into Edmund Schneider Ltd as we came to know it). In contrast to any initiative by government. My reverie was triggered again by February Mande-news where a comparison of membership numbers then and now is made. My memory is that ‘then’ we measured only full glider pilot numbers; whereas later we started adding short term members and some proportion of TIFs/9 day wonders to make up the grand total. I have no idea what ‘membership numbers’ today means, the diatribe doesn’t make it clear; and it certainly doesn’t match the ‘feel’ in clubs where I am invited to participate - where there is a palpable shortage of ‘members’ to get all the jobs done that impinge on us in this modern world. Emilis ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] BSE Update now published
On 16 Apr 2016, at 8:54 am, Justin Couch wrote: > The whole reason I'm getting involved in this is to get the government out of > the sport as much as possible. > We have a choice: we can either sit back in our rocking chairs on the porch > and complain about it, or get off our arses and make sure the rules get bent > in a way that works for our benefit rather than having rules imposed on us > that we don't like. I'm in the second camp The third element worth including with the 2 processes above, is for the current generation of administrators to go the extra mile to bring on-board the elder-statespeople of the sport. After 67 years the organisation has gone through enough cycles of ‘do it our own way’/‘do it the regulator’s way’ to have evidence from the past to help us understand which bits of each serve us best. The limitation is that the current administrators haven’t been around long enough to hold that corporate memory; hence the tendency to try to re-learn old gains/losses by doing it all over again themselves. I mentioned the Valentine Cycle to Drew in the Ops context and he seemed to have a vague idea about it (but he didn’t incorporate it into the Safety Seminar as a result of which it lacked some of the punch that it could have had) and this has just as much impact in the admin, a/w, sports and development streams. ‘If you don’t know where you’ve come from, you are unlikely to have any idea where you might be heading or how to get there; let alone any real certainty about where you are right now’. The evidence from the past is that when you can demonstrate that the sport knows and applies the stuff suited to its unique needs, the hierarchy both relies on the sport as the source of standards and gives freedom of processes to apply them. That at least is how I got piece of paper out of CASA 15 years ago. And my experience in the mainstream working world as a Commissioner of the Court holds the same to be true. Emilis. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] T&S as a mandated instrument
On 21 Apr 2016, at 5:52 am, Justin Couch wrote: > We don't get to pick and choose how we interpret "relevant" rules when we > don't like one that is not in our favour. I looked through at least another > dozen gliders of varying age. All state cloud flying permitted, none, other > than PZL require a T&B. Similarly, where specialised equipment for a task is > needed (think G-meters and Aerobatics), they are listed separately in the > TCDS - see the K21 as an example. PZL dropped that from the list in their > most recent models of the 55 and Perkoz. > > I agree that the requirement for T&B for the MEL is silly, that's why I felt > like it was worth sharing the story. Here's an example of some of the crazy > paperwork that does exist out there, and we managed to find a decent > workaround for it. It's also a cautionary tale about making sure that > inspectors _actually_ read their paperwork that they claim to be signing off, > rather than just waving their hands and saying "yeah I know what's written, > I've done this a hundred times" that can be applied in many different > situations. Thank you Justin for sharing. I am however with Roger in this theme. There was a very good reason that gliding had ‘exemptions’ globally in the Regulations. To avoid this mismatch between commercial aviation and our sport specific needs. On my on-going theme - if the elder states people were drawn on by the federation - you would have had prior alert about your glider being illegal because it doesn’t carry the fire extinguisher, and in multi-seat ‘passenger’ capable airframe, the defibrillator. (Yes, this has actually been reasons for refusing certification during import ‘inspection’ - the standard paperwork insists on these). When we put a junior CASA officer and a junior (read - recently renewed) GFA ’system’ in the same place - all the 67 year history is lost and we go through the re-learning all over again from scratch. Including that the best results are achieved when GFA told CASA to stick it - that we are the experts in our sport, which needs to operate in specific ways in order to be safe. Remember the primacy - SAFETY. How does making the paper mound higher and in multiple mounds (the compliant, the interpreted work around, the reality) contribute positively to this? The argument that ‘society demands this’ is so hollow - as if the public bystander leaning on the aerodrome fence is able to tell the operator how to do things because of the unformed opinions - regulation by social media. Emilis ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Glider Registration
A conversation that has never been formally had within the sport is the ‘value’ of an Australian registration. >From my end, that registration held by an elderly airframe has meant that from >1949 onward it has been possible to trace the provenance (a la ‘Who do you >think you are’) until the late 1970s when we ran out of VH-G.. and began to >use a variety of intermediate prefixes. For me it is sad to see an airframe returned to service after a hiatus, needing a new registration, thereby losing the continuity. Others will pipe in for themselves, about the preference to have a VH-G.. reallocated ahead of a new intermediate prefix. And those who favour monikers ahead of VH-… as their call sign, recognition, etc. Emilis On 24 Apr 2016, at 8:28 am, Justin Sinclair wrote: > I probably should know this but how do we control registrations. > Hackett, Borgelt or Scutter will no how to calculate how many markings are > available starting with G but I suspect that there are many G _ _ that are > unflown. > I guess my question is how many gliders are out there never to fly again and > do we actively control them. > I get that there are many aircraft that are capable of restoration however > surely things like Blaniks and other things hanging from hangar trusses that > will never be flown again can be de-registered back to their serial number so > that should a miracle happen they can be registered. > Justin ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
Thank you Gary, I fully concur that memory adds rose to the glasses. I am drilling a bit deeper, based on my fire ground and court work. In all fields of activity, there are prescriptive rules and these are vehemently applied and defended by some. In many fields of activity it has since been demonstrated that ‘one size fits all’ creates more problems than it solves. That doesn’t stop the ‘fixed rules’ crowd from trying to forget about alternate solutions. fire ground example: “No, you can’t build a new replacement home where your existing home was burnt down by the bushfire; because the rules have changed and we don’t permit that sort of thing now”. In these fields the primacy of good human outcomes results in ‘alternate solutions’ which can then be applied: “The new build will have a shelter to ABCB guidelines, fire resistant construction to AS3959 and siting maintenance/fire fighting capability to Minister’s Spec SA78 - i.e. this is permitted.” Gliding is still travelling down that path of recognising that better outcomes come from a baseline of prescriptive ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ provisions with higher order alternate solutions above this. (The Building Code of Australia categorises 3 such layers in its industry, with ‘expert judgement’ at the top of the pyramid.) Emilis On 24 Apr 2016, at 9:11 pm, Gary Stevenson wrote: > Emilis, on consideration, I do not entirely agree with your recent comments. > Golden ages live in our memories, but (fortunately/unfortunately), memories > are fallable. In any case, all that you refer has passed ..for ever. > > As always, NOW is the time to seize the moment > > Let me suggest to you and to everyone else who is a member of this forum, > that the reality of gliding in Australia today right now .. is that > we are living in an era WHERE THIS IT IS AS GOOD AS IT IS EVER GOING TO GET. > > THIS is the golden age. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
What I write about is about best outcomes. This is not capable of being categorised into slogans. It doesn’t bother itself with simple divisions (white hats and black hats). It accepts the way the world works, and looks to how to harness every element/path to best overall outcomes. My earlier point was that while aviation at one point led the pack (CRM, Reason accident model, etc.), aviation has now fallen behind (other industry sectors have adopted those 1970s principles and have since built further on them (to the examples given previously); while aviation has regressed to a ‘dominate and control’ model. Which has been demonstrated over & over the decades to lead to poor outcomes. So my writing says: - if you are happy in the herd, and find it easier to have prescriptive rules to follow - fine, do that; but don’t suggest you are aiming at anything better than average. - if your focus is on excellence, be alert to the opportunities to advance the art, innovate and your wish to exercise personal responsibility; then the structures society puts in place work best when those avenues are equally in place at policy/principles level. A lifetime in the building industry means that I am familiar with Code which starts at Principles/Objectives, has Functional Statement, and follows this up with ‘compliance’ via a diversity of paths - ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ (the herd answer), mandated assessment (software in my field), individual assessment (where a new system is being introduced to the industry and needs external verifications), and 'expert judgement' where these earlier options are in competition with one another and need to be authoritatively sorted. The two paras above are proven up in the difference in accident rates recorded over the last 15 years between the ‘here are the rules’ model and the ‘I accept responsibility for my own actions’ model in aviation. People being people, and collectively we need that diversity of methods to be able to encapsulate everyone, for the best outcomes (i.e. safety) benefit of both the individual and the whole (be that gliding fraternity or society more broadly). The extreme example (which may yet come to pass) is that society in the broad gets an advocate (Donald, Clive, whoever) who says ‘in the interests of society I have decided that sport aviation is a hazard, and in order to protect in particular the participants themselves, I will ban it all’. Most citizens will sagely nod their heads and say ‘seems plausible to me’. What has already happened is that the structures within aviation are already saying something along these lines, only couched in less direct terms by saying ‘these are the only rules’. Decline in aviation sectors is in line with the effects you would expect from that. Meanwhile ‘seems plausible to me’ is the majority reaction not just on this mail list but in the ‘corridors of power’ of the aviation sports themselves. I could go on about how this comes about because it is massaging the egos of the revolving deck chairs there; but I suspect what I write is dense enough to have lost most of the readership by now. Enjoy Emilis On 25 Apr 2016, at 8:46 pm, Peter Champness wrote: > James, > > No I did not understand what Emilis wrote. But I am interested! ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
