[Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Gary Stevenson]

Hello Noel,
My, you ARE becoming vocal in your old age! Just joking: Thank you so much
for that valuable information. Quite fascinating!
 
I suspect that you are not quite right re CURRENT requirements for display
of rego on fin. Display on the fuse is now actually an alternative offered
by CASA. I have not checked recently, but from memory all the current guff
is (I think), set out in CASR 47.

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.

So I suggest, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, whilst you still can.

Regards,
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of Noel Roediger
Sent: Sunday, 24 April 2016 6:47 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Glider Registration

Further to Emilis' comments:

DCA did not require Australian gliders and sailplanes to be registered until
about 1954.

Until then - while GFA had to satisfy DCA particular type held a CofA, our
aircraft were  generally known by their colour. e.g. Golden Grunau, Blue
Grunau, Silver Olympia, Yellow Witch etc..

One of a type in Aus. were known by their factory designation - Gull,
Gull1V, Kranich etc..

The first sailplane I can remember with a DCA supplied fire-proof
registration plate was the ES 49b built by the ASC and that was in late
1955.

Similar plates were attached the clubs other aircraft - a Munn Falcon, Gull
and the Golden Grunau at that time.

No GFA aircraft was required to externally display it registration as other
powered types were.

Only a few months later SAGA held Australia's fixed site competition at
Wakerie and sailplanes were required to display a competition number which
was chosen or allocated.

This method of identification became the norm and continued until the late
60's after which it became necessary to display registration letters on the
fin and under-wing.

Those aircraft registered VH-G-- only needed to display the last two reg.
letters but when the VH-G ran out all other sailplanes had to display the
last three letters underwing and because they wouldn't fit at legal size on
most fin and rudders they are displayed on the rear fuselage.

People requiring a particular VH reg. can either reserve it in the event the
current owner cancelling it or making a financial offer to its holder.

Some years ago the ASC operated a Callair  tug - VH-MPA and a local
community wished to have that reg. and the reg. was sold for significant
$'s.

Anyone with a need to know can check VH-G-- on CASA's web site.

Noel.



-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of emillis prelgauskas
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: 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

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[emillis prelgauskas]

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

[James McDowall]

Emilis,
I understood what you wrote but did anyone else? After years of working in
the building industry and experiencing first hand post bushfire bureaucracy
I have come to the conclusion that "affordable housing" is a confusion in
terms. The stringencies of the ABCB, however well intentioned are driving
up building costs. There is a lesson here for all forms of recreational
aviation.
Jim

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:50 AM, emillis prelgauskas <
emi...@emilis.sa.on.net> wrote:

> 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
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Peter Champness]

James,

No I did not understand what Emilis wrote.  But I am interested!

Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE is always bad in my
philosophy.  It goes against the interests of the INDIVUAL which should be
the highest principle.  That takes us into  high level philosophy.

I hope that this will find some resonance with gliding people, who are very
likely independent thinkers.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:57 PM, James McDowall 
wrote:

> Emilis,
> I understood what you wrote but did anyone else? After years of working in
> the building industry and experiencing first hand post bushfire bureaucracy
> I have come to the conclusion that "affordable housing" is a confusion in
> terms. The stringencies of the ABCB, however well intentioned are driving
> up building costs. There is a lesson here for all forms of recreational
> aviation.
> Jim
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:50 AM, emillis prelgauskas <
> emi...@emilis.sa.on.net> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Colin Collum]

Let's see:

Seat belts

Traffic rules--drive on the left, .05 etc,

Roads

Footpaths

No shooting firearms in built-up areas

Laws in general

Need I go on?

We are a society [unless  you are in Margaret Thatcher's camp] and in society 
we consider individualS as well as the individual.

When does the interest of the individual overide the interest of the "others"?

"Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE is always bad" may be in itself 
a bad philosophy.

Almost all professions are more constrained than they have been in the 
past--possibly excepting those areas where supervision/enforcement has been 
privatised, yet less people die in car accidents [in part thanks to that 
terrible Do Gooder, Ralph Nader], operations are safer and dare I say it, 
flying is safer, and almost all due to the intervention by Do Gooders and 
Government.


Colin


From: Aus-soaring  on behalf of Peter 
Champness 
Sent: 25 April 2016 21:16:40
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

James,

No I did not understand what Emilis wrote.  But I am interested!

Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE is always bad in my philosophy.  
It goes against the interests of the INDIVUAL which should be the highest 
principle.  That takes us into  high level philosophy.

I hope that this will find some resonance with gliding people, who are very 
likely independent thinkers.

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:57 PM, James McDowall 
mailto:james.mcdowal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Emilis,
I understood what you wrote but did anyone else? After years of working in the 
building industry and experiencing first hand post bushfire bureaucracy I have 
come to the conclusion that "affordable housing" is a confusion in terms. The 
stringencies of the ABCB, however well intentioned are driving up building 
costs. There is a lesson here for all forms of recreational aviation.
Jim

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:50 AM, emillis prelgauskas 
mailto:emi...@emilis.sa.on.net>> wrote:
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 
mailto:gstev...@bigpond.com>> 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<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au<mailto: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

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Plchampness]

You win Colin
:-)

Yours
Peter Champness

On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Colin Collum  wrote:

> Let's see:
> 
> Seat belts
> 
> Traffic rules--drive on the left, .05 etc, 
> 
> Roads
> 
> Footpaths
> 
> No shooting firearms in built-up areas
> 
> Laws in general
> 
> Need I go on? 
> 
> We are a society [unless  you are in Margaret Thatcher's camp] and in society 
> we consider individualS as well as the individual.
> 
> When does the interest of the individual overide the interest of the "others"?
> 
> "Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE is always bad" may be in 
> itself a bad philosophy.
> Almost all professions are more constrained than they have been in the 
> past--possibly excepting those areas where supervision/enforcement has been 
> privatised, yet less people die in car accidents [in part thanks to that 
> terrible Do Gooder, Ralph Nader], operations are safer and dare I say it, 
> flying is safer, and almost all due to the intervention by Do Gooders and 
> Government.
> 
> 
> 
> Colin
> 
> From: Aus-soaring  on behalf of 
> Peter Champness 
> Sent: 25 April 2016 21:16:40
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
>  
> James,
> 
> No I did not understand what Emilis wrote.  But I am interested!
> 
> Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE is always bad in my 
> philosophy.  It goes against the interests of the INDIVUAL which should be 
> the highest principle.  That takes us into  high level philosophy.
> 
> I hope that this will find some resonance with gliding people, who are very 
> likely independent thinkers.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:57 PM, James McDowall  
> wrote:
> Emilis,
> I understood what you wrote but did anyone else? After years of working in 
> the building industry and experiencing first hand post bushfire bureaucracy I 
> have come to the conclusion that "affordable housing" is a confusion in 
> terms. The stringencies of the ABCB, however well intentioned are driving up 
> building costs. There is a lesson here for all forms of recreational aviation.
> Jim 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:50 AM, emillis prelgauskas 
>  wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[emillis prelgauskas]

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

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Mike Borgelt]

Thank you Emilis,

Very elegantly and eloquently put.

Peter Champness is correct that "Intervention by Government or DO 
GOODER PEOPLE is always bad in my philosophy"


Of course it is bad. It can only and MUST be justified by showing 
clearly that a greater harm is prevented.


I don't accept that I have any moral right to tell anyone how to 
operate a glider. I only ask that they don't injure or kill innocent 
third parties or cause economic damage to them.


Gliders crash frequently. How often is damage done as above to 
innocent third parties? Does the vast edifice of CASA/GFA rules 
actually prevent this? (I see somebody else has figured out that GFA IS CASA)


I'm also not prepared to hold gun to anybody's head to force them to 
join a private organisation.


Mike





At 09:47 AM 4/26/2016, you wrote:

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


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Mark Newton]

On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Peter Champness  wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> No I did not understand what Emilis wrote.  But I am interested!
> 
> Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE is always bad in my 
> philosophy.  It goes against the interests of the INDIVUAL which should be 
> the highest principle.  That takes us into  high level philosophy.
> 
> I hope that this will find some resonance with gliding people, who are very 
> likely independent thinkers.

It’s all very well to hold that belief, but the reality of civil aviation is 
that we have a prescriptive regulator.

Have a good read of the public submissions to the Forsyth Inquiry. It’s like 
they were all written by the same person.

From GFA’s submission, who outlined the issues with CASA as well as anyone else:
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/175_gliding_federation_of_australia_31_jan_2014.pdf
 


> Four principle areas of concern exist:
> 
> * CASA does not employ a transparent cost/benefit analysis of its risk 
> management approach justifying the cost impacts that regulation imposes on 
> the Australia’s aviation industry and its participants. 
> 
> * CASA’s recent resort to unilateral and unfair action against those having a 
> track record of worthy performance by suddenly and without recourse, 
> suspending critical delegations was not congruent with a just, cooperative 
> and properly risk assessed working association. 
> 
> * Inconsistency and contradictions exist within CASA in relation to the 
> meaning of rules and those applying the rules. 
> 
> * There is great disquiet for the criminal punitive approach CASA is 
> resorting to in enforcing compliance. An open, just and remediation based 
> culture underpins a functional and inclusive safety system. Focussing on the 
> documentation surrounding compliance, legal positions and administrative 
> processes in a punitive way undermines the progresses made with safety 
> management in Australian aviation.

The Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia’s submission is an entertaining 
read: 
https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/039__20_jan_2014_redacted.pdf
 

The section beginning on page 14 is pretty surgical.

That’s the environment that GFA needs to live within, no matter how much we 
might lionize individual endeavor.

Mark Skidmore is a bit over a year into his term. Whether or not he makes 
progress against his organizational headwinds (or even whether or not he wants 
to!) by the end of his term remains an open question. Given the last 20 years 
of regulatory misbehavior, skepticism is probably warranted.


   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Mike Borgelt]

Also look up AOPA's Eureka project.

I'm afraid the Forsyth enquiry is now ancient history. Dead, buried, gone.

For a while now I've thought that CASA simply has 
a large dart board with the names of every 
individual,and organisation that has any sort of 
licence, authority, approval etc. Every year they 
simply throw half a dozen darts at the board and harass someone whose name


has a dart in it.

I'm not sure Mark Skidmore has a clue but his 
performance in front of the Senate enquiry into 
what CASA have done to Jabiru was less than 
inspiring. You can find video on line. I think 
the real problem is his sidekick, Aleck.


Mike






At 11:30 AM 4/26/2016, you wrote:
On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Peter Champness 
<plchampn...@gmail.com> wrote:


James,

No I did not understand what Emilis wrote.  But I am interested!

Intervention by Government or DO GOODER PEOPLE 
is always bad in my philosophy.  It goes 
against the interests of the INDIVUAL which 
should be the highest principle.  That takes us into  high level philosophy.


I hope that this will find some resonance with 
gliding people, who are very likely independent thinkers.


It’s all very well to hold that belief, but 
the reality of civil aviation is that we have a prescriptive regulator.


Have a good read of the public submissions to 
the Forsyth Inquiry. It’s like they were all written by the same person.


From GFA’s submission, who outlined the 
issues with CASA as well as anyone else:

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/175_gliding_federation_of_australia_31_jan_2014.pdf


Four principle areas of concern exist:

* CASA does not employ a transparent 
cost/benefit analysis of its risk management 
approach justifying the cost impacts that 
regulation imposes on the Australia’s 
aviation industry and its participants.


* CASA’s recent resort to unilateral and 
unfair action against those having a track 
record of worthy performance by suddenly and 
without recourse, suspending critical 
delegations was not congruent with a just, 
cooperative and properly risk assessed working association.


* Inconsistency and contradictions exist within 
CASA in relation to the meaning of rules and those applying the rules.


* There is great disquiet for the criminal 
punitive approach CASA is resorting to in 
enforcing compliance. An open, just and 
remediation based culture underpins a 
functional and inclusive safety system. 
Focussing on the documentation surrounding 
compliance, legal positions and administrative 
processes in a punitive way undermines the 
progresses made with safety management in Australian aviation.


The Aerial Agriculture Association of 
Australia’s submission is an entertaining read:

https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/039__20_jan_2014_redacted.pdf
The section beginning on page 14 is pretty surgical.

That’s the environment that GFA needs to live 
within, no matter how much we might lionize individual endeavor.


Mark Skidmore is a bit over a year into his 
term. Whether or not he makes progress against 
his organizational headwinds (or even whether or 
not he wants to!) by the end of his term remains 
an open question. Given the last 20 years of 
regulatory misbehavior, skepticism is probably warranted.



   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Noel Roediger]

Gary.  

I am becoming aged - turned 70 a few weeks ago.

You're right. I've NFI what must be currently be displayed on sailplanes  to
meet regs.

Interestingly, I made a statement some time ago that some members of the ASC
and GFA considered the history of AG began when they first became associated
with our sport.

Seems it doesn't only apply to ASC.

If you are interested, source pre 1965 AG's and you'll see how our
sailplanes were recorded.

Regards

Noel.

-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of Gary Stevenson
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:12 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

Hello Noel,
My, you ARE becoming vocal in your old age! Just joking: Thank you so much
for that valuable information. Quite fascinating!
 
I suspect that you are not quite right re CURRENT requirements for display
of rego on fin. Display on the fuse is now actually an alternative offered
by CASA. I have not checked recently, but from memory all the current guff
is (I think), set out in CASR 47.

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.

So I suggest, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, whilst you still can.

Regards,
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of Noel Roediger
Sent: Sunday, 24 April 2016 6:47 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Glider Registration

Further to Emilis' comments:

DCA did not require Australian gliders and sailplanes to be registered until
about 1954.

Until then - while GFA had to satisfy DCA particular type held a CofA, our
aircraft were  generally known by their colour. e.g. Golden Grunau, Blue
Grunau, Silver Olympia, Yellow Witch etc..

One of a type in Aus. were known by their factory designation - Gull,
Gull1V, Kranich etc..

The first sailplane I can remember with a DCA supplied fire-proof
registration plate was the ES 49b built by the ASC and that was in late
1955.

Similar plates were attached the clubs other aircraft - a Munn Falcon, Gull
and the Golden Grunau at that time.

No GFA aircraft was required to externally display it registration as other
powered types were.

Only a few months later SAGA held Australia's fixed site competition at
Wakerie and sailplanes were required to display a competition number which
was chosen or allocated.

This method of identification became the norm and continued until the late
60's after which it became necessary to display registration letters on the
fin and under-wing.

Those aircraft registered VH-G-- only needed to display the last two reg.
letters but when the VH-G ran out all other sailplanes had to display the
last three letters underwing and because they wouldn't fit at legal size on
most fin and rudders they are displayed on the rear fuselage.

People requiring a particular VH reg. can either reserve it in the event the
current owner cancelling it or making a financial offer to its holder.

Some years ago the ASC operated a Callair  tug - VH-MPA and a local
community wished to have that reg. and the reg. was sold for significant
$'s.

Anyone with a need to know can check VH-G-- on CASA's web site.

Noel.



-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of emillis prelgauskas
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: 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 o

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[tom . wilksch]

 Very well said Gary! Nice to read something positive an uplifting on
this list. I don't often feel the need to reply to messages I read
here, but your email made me smile. Life is what you make of it, the
fact we are able to take part in this crazy sport of ours means we are
the lucky ones! We shouldn't forget it.
Time spent sitting in front of a keyboard talking about how good it
all used to be is time wasted. There's a weekend approaching. Get out
there and make the most of it. I certainly will be :-)
Best Regards to all
Tom W

 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.

 So I suggest, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, whilst you still can.

 Regards,
 Gary

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Mike Borgelt]

Very nice defence of never trying to make anything better.

There are people looking at gliding in Australia 
(for every participant there are approximately 
 non participants) trying to make it simpler, cheaper and more accessible.


Unfortunately the control group are doing their 
best to do the opposite. I've heard of one club 
actually buying a Puchacz to fulfill Chris Thorpe's stupid annual spin edict.


You would have to be utterly stupid or have no 
regard for your safety to spin one of those, 
especially under the circumstances in it will be 
done in the average gliding club.


For the other gliders which require whiskers or 
tail ballast to spin, what message do you think that subtly sends to people?


Mike


At 09:35 AM 5/6/2016, you wrote:

Â
Very well said Gary! Nice to read something 
positive an uplifting on this list. I don't 
often feel the need to reply to messages I read 
here, but your email made me smile. Life is 
what you make of it, the fact we are able to 
take part in this crazy sport of ours means we 
are the lucky ones! We shouldn't forget it.


Time spent sitting in front of a keyboard 
talking about how good it all used to be is time 
wasted. There's a weekend approaching. Get out 
there and make the most of it. I certainly will be :-)


Best Regards to all

Tom W




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.

So I suggest, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, whilst you still can.

Regards,
Gary

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Mike Borgelt]

Here you go Noel. Regulation on registration markings.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00418/Html/Volume_2#_Toc450031105

Mike





At 08:59 PM 5/5/2016, you wrote:

Gary.

I am becoming aged - turned 70 a few weeks ago.

You're right. I've NFI what must be currently be displayed on sailplanes  to
meet regs.

Interestingly, I made a statement some time ago that some members of the ASC
and GFA considered the history of AG began when they first became associated
with our sport.

Seems it doesn't only apply to ASC.

If you are interested, source pre 1965 AG's and you'll see how our
sailplanes were recorded.

Regards

Noel.

-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of Gary Stevenson
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:12 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

Hello Noel,
My, you ARE becoming vocal in your old age! Just joking: Thank you so much
for that valuable information. Quite fascinating!

I suspect that you are not quite right re CURRENT requirements for display
of rego on fin. Display on the fuse is now actually an alternative offered
by CASA. I have not checked recently, but from memory all the current guff
is (I think), set out in CASR 47.

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.

So I suggest, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, whilst you still can.

Regards,
Gary

-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of Noel Roediger
Sent: Sunday, 24 April 2016 6:47 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Glider Registration

Further to Emilis' comments:

DCA did not require Australian gliders and sailplanes to be registered until
about 1954.

Until then - while GFA had to satisfy DCA particular type held a CofA, our
aircraft were  generally known by their colour. e.g. Golden Grunau, Blue
Grunau, Silver Olympia, Yellow Witch etc..

One of a type in Aus. were known by their factory designation - Gull,
Gull1V, Kranich etc..

The first sailplane I can remember with a DCA supplied fire-proof
registration plate was the ES 49b built by the ASC and that was in late
1955.

Similar plates were attached the clubs other aircraft - a Munn Falcon, Gull
and the Golden Grunau at that time.

No GFA aircraft was required to externally display it registration as other
powered types were.

Only a few months later SAGA held Australia's fixed site competition at
Wakerie and sailplanes were required to display a competition number which
was chosen or allocated.

This method of identification became the norm and continued until the late
60's after which it became necessary to display registration letters on the
fin and under-wing.

Those aircraft registered VH-G-- only needed to display the last two reg.
letters but when the VH-G ran out all other sailplanes had to display the
last three letters underwing and because they wouldn't fit at legal size on
most fin and rudders they are displayed on the rear fuselage.

People requiring a particular VH reg. can either reserve it in the event the
current owner cancelling it or making a financial offer to its holder.

Some years ago the ASC operated a Callair  tug - VH-MPA and a local
community wished to have that reg. and the reg. was sold for significant
$'s.

Anyone with a need to know can check VH-G-- on CASA's web site.

Noel.



-Original Message-
From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of emillis prelgauskas
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: 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, reco

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Peter Champness]

As I understand it, Chris Thorpe's annual spin edict is based on accident
stats indicating stall spin at low altitude is the cause of many fatal
accidents.  Almost all such incidents result in impact with the ground.

The Level One instructor refresher course spent some time on the spin entry
and recovery.  The spin entry is designed to show how a spin can occur from
an apparently almost normal attitude, hence the importance of *Safe Speed
Near the Ground*.  Spin recovery is to practice recognition of the spin
onset and rapid recovery using correct technique.

That seems like a prudent policy.  The more practice at a safe altitude the
better.

A club should not have to buy a Puchacz, just to do annual spin checks.
Plenty of clubs have spinable gliders.  Pilots could travel to a suitable
club to get their spin training and annual spin check

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

> Very nice defence of never trying to make anything better.
>
> There are people looking at gliding in Australia (for every participant
> there are approximately  non participants) trying to make it simpler,
> cheaper and more accessible.
>
> Unfortunately the control group are doing their best to do the opposite.
> I've heard of one club actually buying a Puchacz to fulfill Chris Thorpe's
> stupid annual spin edict.
>
> You would have to be utterly stupid or have no regard for your safety to
> spin one of those, especially under the circumstances in it will be done in
> the average gliding club.
>
> For the other gliders which require whiskers or tail ballast to spin, what
> message do you think that subtly sends to people?
>
> Mike
>
>
> At 09:35 AM 5/6/2016, you wrote:
>
> Â
> Very well said Gary! Nice to read something positive an uplifting on this
> list. I don't often feel the need to reply to messages I read here, but
> your email made me smile. Life is what you make of it, the fact we are
> able to take part in this crazy sport of ours means we are the lucky ones!
> We shouldn't forget it.
>
> Time spent sitting in front of a keyboard talking about how good it all
> used to be is time wasted. There's a weekend approaching. Get out there and
> make the most of it. I certainly will be :-)
>
> Best Regards to all
>
> Tom W
>
>
> 
>
> 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.
>
> So I suggest, ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY, whilst you still can.
>
> Regards,
> Gary
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> *Borgelt Instruments* -
> *design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978 *
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
> tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Peter Brookman]

I notice the reference to a club that bought a Puchacz, would be our club, 
BKGC, that bought the Puchacz from DDSC , so we could conform with GFA 
requirement for fully developed spins and recovery as part of the AFR. We have 
tried to have club members travel to another club for spin checks, while a few 
did it was not a workable solution for our members. We have a Twin Astir which 
is very difficult to get to spin (only if pilot weights as correct), and I 
don’t see how we are expected to add things to the aircraft to make it do 
manoeuvres it was designed not to do. Also if you do get the Twin to spin which 
we have on odd occasions, it can get quite violent when rotating and I don’t 
think a good idea for students and others to have to experience.
I don’t see the merit of doing fully developed spins on a regular basis (apart 
from the increased risk of accident or structural failure), we should be 
teaching the importance of safe speed near the ground, recognise the onset of a 
stall or spin and recover. As we know a fully developed spin ( not taking 
action at the signs of a spin developing) any thing below 500 ft will probably 
end in disaster. I know for the AFR these spins will usually be done at 3,000 
ft or more, in our club with winch launching and typical launch heights of 
1,000 – 1,200 ft its not always easy to get away with the intention of getting 
high enough to complete the spin checks during the cooler months of the year.
I do believe that all students or early solo pilots should have experienced 
some aerobatics (inc Spins) with a suitably qualified instructor to experience 
unusual attitudes an aircraft can get into and out of.
Having bought the Puchacz so we can comply with GFA , the 2 x2 seaters in our 
club has proved to be a great asset as these are the most flown aircraft 
especially during the cooler months, one for instructing the other for 
passengers of members flying together.

From: Peter Champness
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 6:43 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

As I understand it, Chris Thorpe's annual spin edict is based on accident stats 
indicating stall spin at low altitude is the cause of many fatal accidents.  
Almost all such incidents result in impact with the ground.

The Level One instructor refresher course spent some time on the spin entry and 
recovery.  The spin entry is designed to show how a spin can occur from an 
apparently almost normal attitude, hence the importance of Safe Speed Near the 
Ground.  Spin recovery is to practice recognition of the spin onset and rapid 
recovery using correct technique.

That seems like a prudent policy.  The more practice at a safe altitude the 
better.

A club should not have to buy a Puchacz, just to do annual spin checks.  Plenty 
of clubs have spinable gliders.  Pilots could travel to a suitable club to get 
their spin training and annual spin check

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:

  Very nice defence of never trying to make anything better.

  There are people looking at gliding in Australia (for every participant there 
are approximately  non participants) trying to make it simpler, cheaper and 
more accessible.

  Unfortunately the control group are doing their best to do the opposite. I've 
heard of one club actually buying a Puchacz to fulfill Chris Thorpe's stupid 
annual spin edict.

  You would have to be utterly stupid or have no regard for your safety to spin 
one of those, especially under the circumstances in it will be done in the 
average gliding club.

  For the other gliders which require whiskers or tail ballast to spin, what 
message do you think that subtly sends to people?

  Mike


  At 09:35 AM 5/6/2016, you wrote:

Â
Very well said Gary! Nice to read something positive an uplifting on this 
list. I don't often feel the need to reply to messages I read here, but your 
email made me smile. Life is what you make of it, the fact we are able to take 
part in this crazy sport of ours means we are the lucky ones! We shouldn't 
forget it.

Time spent sitting in front of a keyboard talking about how good it all 
used to be is time wasted. There's a weekend approaching. Get out there and 
make the most of it. I certainly will be :-)

Best Regards to all

Tom W




  


  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 

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Harry]

Hi All,
A few comments to add to Peter Brockman’s  thoughtful contribution.

My first experience as an instructor in relation to spin training was at a 
winch launch club  which on a yearly basis brought in a tug and training 
involved a 3,000 ft. launch. No problem with spin recovery with trainees or 
those seeking a yearly revalidation. It was done correctly. My next experience 
was at a winch launch club where aerotow was unavailable and for some of the 
year difficult to  climb away after a winch launch. After personal 
experimentation I was able, using a Blanik which has benign spin training 
characteristics, to enter a spin at 1,300 ft, execute one turn and recover by 
the mandated 1,000 ft. However the student response was quite different. 
Despite very careful preflight briefing the student, as soon as he saw the 
ground directly underneath him, would pull the control column backwards and 
also away from the downgoing wing. Just what you would do to keep a glider in a 
spin. Pilots need to told of this automatic reaction, even though training is 
done at a high altitude. I also used to say to nervous pilots, (most of them), 
that what we were doing was spin avoidance training. First item was to fly the 
glider at safe speed near the ground and invite them to fly the glider in as an 
unbalanced way as possible and attempt to induce a stall or spin. The other 
item I considered important was that on every training flight, from the very 
first, was to to positively emphasise that when we were below the height from 
which spin recovery was doubtful, to consciously select safe speed near the 
ground. On early winch training flights, to maximise time available, I would 
waffle along downwind leg training as we went. What I was teaching them 
subliminally was that I myself was happy to break the safe speed near the 
ground rule. 

Harry Medlicott



From: Peter Brookman 
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:25 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

I notice the reference to a club that bought a Puchacz, would be our club, 
BKGC, that bought the Puchacz from DDSC , so we could conform with GFA 
requirement for fully developed spins and recovery as part of the AFR. We have 
tried to have club members travel to another club for spin checks, while a few 
did it was not a workable solution for our members. We have a Twin Astir which 
is very difficult to get to spin (only if pilot weights as correct), and I 
don’t see how we are expected to add things to the aircraft to make it do 
manoeuvres it was designed not to do. Also if you do get the Twin to spin which 
we have on odd occasions, it can get quite violent when rotating and I don’t 
think a good idea for students and others to have to experience.
I don’t see the merit of doing fully developed spins on a regular basis (apart 
from the increased risk of accident or structural failure), we should be 
teaching the importance of safe speed near the ground, recognise the onset of a 
stall or spin and recover. As we know a fully developed spin ( not taking 
action at the signs of a spin developing) any thing below 500 ft will probably 
end in disaster. I know for the AFR these spins will usually be done at 3,000 
ft or more, in our club with winch launching and typical launch heights of 
1,000 – 1,200 ft its not always easy to get away with the intention of getting 
high enough to complete the spin checks during the cooler months of the year.
I do believe that all students or early solo pilots should have experienced 
some aerobatics (inc Spins) with a suitably qualified instructor to experience 
unusual attitudes an aircraft can get into and out of. 
Having bought the Puchacz so we can comply with GFA , the 2 x2 seaters in our 
club has proved to be a great asset as these are the most flown aircraft 
especially during the cooler months, one for instructing the other for 
passengers of members flying together.

From: Peter Champness 
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 6:43 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

As I understand it, Chris Thorpe's annual spin edict is based on accident stats 
indicating stall spin at low altitude is the cause of many fatal accidents.  
Almost all such incidents result in impact with the ground.

The Level One instructor refresher course spent some time on the spin entry and 
recovery.  The spin entry is designed to show how a spin can occur from an 
apparently almost normal attitude, hence the importance of Safe Speed Near the 
Ground.  Spin recovery is to practice recognition of the spin onset and rapid 
recovery using correct technique.  

That seems like a prudent policy.  The more practice at a safe altitude the 
better.

A club should not have to buy a Puchacz, just to do annual spin checks.  Plenty 
of clubs have spinable gliders.  Pilots could travel to a suitable club to get 
their spin trainin

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Richard Frawley]

even teaching students to fly RC aircraft, its take some time until they have 
internalised that airspeed is your friend. Overcoming the naturally ingrained 
‘if in doubt pull back’ syndrome. 





> On 8 May 2016, at 12:54 PM, Harry  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> A few comments to add to Peter Brockman’s  thoughtful contribution.
>  
> My first experience as an instructor in relation to spin training was at a 
> winch launch club  which on a yearly basis brought in a tug and training 
> involved a 3,000 ft. launch. No problem with spin recovery with trainees or 
> those seeking a yearly revalidation. It was done correctly. My next 
> experience was at a winch launch club where aerotow was unavailable and for 
> some of the year difficult to  climb away after a winch launch. After 
> personal experimentation I was able, using a Blanik which has benign spin 
> training characteristics, to enter a spin at 1,300 ft, execute one turn and 
> recover by the mandated 1,000 ft. However the student response was quite 
> different. Despite very careful preflight briefing the student, as soon as he 
> saw the ground directly underneath him, would pull the control column 
> backwards and also away from the downgoing wing. Just what you would do to 
> keep a glider in a spin. Pilots need to told of this automatic reaction, even 
> though training is done at a high altitude. I also used to say to nervous 
> pilots, (most of them), that what we were doing was spin avoidance training. 
> First item was to fly the glider at safe speed near the ground and invite 
> them to fly the glider in as an unbalanced way as possible and attempt to 
> induce a stall or spin. The other item I considered important was that on 
> every training flight, from the very first, was to to positively emphasise 
> that when we were below the height from which spin recovery was doubtful, to 
> consciously select safe speed near the ground. On early winch training 
> flights, to maximise time available, I would waffle along downwind leg 
> training as we went. What I was teaching them subliminally was that I myself 
> was happy to break the safe speed near the ground rule.
>  
> Harry Medlicott
>  
>  
>  
> From: Peter Brookman <mailto:peter.brook...@bigpond.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:25 AM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
> <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
>  
> I notice the reference to a club that bought a Puchacz, would be our club, 
> BKGC, that bought the Puchacz from DDSC , so we could conform with GFA 
> requirement for fully developed spins and recovery as part of the AFR. We 
> have tried to have club members travel to another club for spin checks, while 
> a few did it was not a workable solution for our members. We have a Twin 
> Astir which is very difficult to get to spin (only if pilot weights as 
> correct), and I don’t see how we are expected to add things to the aircraft 
> to make it do manoeuvres it was designed not to do. Also if you do get the 
> Twin to spin which we have on odd occasions, it can get quite violent when 
> rotating and I don’t think a good idea for students and others to have to 
> experience.
> I don’t see the merit of doing fully developed spins on a regular basis 
> (apart from the increased risk of accident or structural failure), we should 
> be teaching the importance of safe speed near the ground, recognise the onset 
> of a stall or spin and recover. As we know a fully developed spin ( not 
> taking action at the signs of a spin developing) any thing below 500 ft will 
> probably end in disaster. I know for the AFR these spins will usually be done 
> at 3,000 ft or more, in our club with winch launching and typical launch 
> heights of 1,000 – 1,200 ft its not always easy to get away with the 
> intention of getting high enough to complete the spin checks during the 
> cooler months of the year.
> I do believe that all students or early solo pilots should have experienced 
> some aerobatics (inc Spins) with a suitably qualified instructor to 
> experience unusual attitudes an aircraft can get into and out of.
> Having bought the Puchacz so we can comply with GFA , the 2 x2 seaters in our 
> club has proved to be a great asset as these are the most flown aircraft 
> especially during the cooler months, one for instructing the other for 
> passengers of members flying together.
>  
> From: Peter Champness <mailto:plchampn...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 6:43 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
> <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
>  
> As I understand it, Chris Thorpe's annual

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Derek Ruddock]

My spin training was just as Harry described below, in a K7 at Dunstable. Talk 
about ground rush…

 

I would never, ever get into a Puchacz to spin it, especially off a winch 
launch. We need to retain all the pilots we have.

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Harry 
Sent: Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:54 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

 

Hi All,

A few comments to add to Peter Brockman’s  thoughtful contribution.

 

My first experience as an instructor in relation to spin training was at a 
winch launch club  which on a yearly basis brought in a tug and training 
involved a 3,000 ft. launch. No problem with spin recovery with trainees or 
those seeking a yearly revalidation. It was done correctly. My next experience 
was at a winch launch club where aerotow was unavailable and for some of the 
year difficult to  climb away after a winch launch. After personal 
experimentation I was able, using a Blanik which has benign spin training 
characteristics, to enter a spin at 1,300 ft, execute one turn and recover by 
the mandated 1,000 ft. However the student response was quite different. 
Despite very careful preflight briefing the student, as soon as he saw the 
ground directly underneath him, would pull the control column backwards and 
also away from the downgoing wing. Just what you would do to keep a glider in a 
spin. Pilots need to told of this automatic reaction, even though training is 
done at a high altitude. I also used to say to nervous pilots, (most of them), 
that what we were doing was spin avoidance training. First item was to fly the 
glider at safe speed near the ground and invite them to fly the glider in as an 
unbalanced way as possible and attempt to induce a stall or spin. The other 
item I considered important was that on every training flight, from the very 
first, was to to positively emphasise that when we were below the height from 
which spin recovery was doubtful, to consciously select safe speed near the 
ground. On early winch training flights, to maximise time available, I would 
waffle along downwind leg training as we went. What I was teaching them 
subliminally was that I myself was happy to break the safe speed near the 
ground rule. 

 

Harry Medlicott

 

 

 

From: Peter Brookman <mailto:peter.brook...@bigpond.com>  

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:25 AM

To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>  

Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

 

I notice the reference to a club that bought a Puchacz, would be our club, 
BKGC, that bought the Puchacz from DDSC , so we could conform with GFA 
requirement for fully developed spins and recovery as part of the AFR. We have 
tried to have club members travel to another club for spin checks, while a few 
did it was not a workable solution for our members. We have a Twin Astir which 
is very difficult to get to spin (only if pilot weights as correct), and I 
don’t see how we are expected to add things to the aircraft to make it do 
manoeuvres it was designed not to do. Also if you do get the Twin to spin which 
we have on odd occasions, it can get quite violent when rotating and I don’t 
think a good idea for students and others to have to experience.

I don’t see the merit of doing fully developed spins on a regular basis (apart 
from the increased risk of accident or structural failure), we should be 
teaching the importance of safe speed near the ground, recognise the onset of a 
stall or spin and recover. As we know a fully developed spin ( not taking 
action at the signs of a spin developing) any thing below 500 ft will probably 
end in disaster. I know for the AFR these spins will usually be done at 3,000 
ft or more, in our club with winch launching and typical launch heights of 
1,000 – 1,200 ft its not always easy to get away with the intention of getting 
high enough to complete the spin checks during the cooler months of the year.

I do believe that all students or early solo pilots should have experienced 
some aerobatics (inc Spins) with a suitably qualified instructor to experience 
unusual attitudes an aircraft can get into and out of. 

Having bought the Puchacz so we can comply with GFA , the 2 x2 seaters in our 
club has proved to be a great asset as these are the most flown aircraft 
especially during the cooler months, one for instructing the other for 
passengers of members flying together.

 

From: Peter Champness <mailto:plchampn...@gmail.com>  

Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 6:43 PM

To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>  

Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

 

As I understand it, Chris Thorpe's annual spin edict is based on accident stats 
indicating stall spin at low altitude is the cause of many fatal accidents.  
Almost all su

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[Paul Bart]

"I would never, ever get into a Puchacz to spin it, especially off a winch
launch. We need to retain all the pilots we have."

Here we go again, lets get into the the Puch, to be honest I would not get
into a Puch and spin of a 900 ft winch either, but that does not mean I
would not do it at an altitude that allows me to recover by 1000 ft.

Does anyone has any stats on how many fatalities there were in Australia in
Puch spin training accidents? It would be nice to have some data before we
go and sully the Puch reputation.

Personally I am much happier spinning Puch than K21 with 12 KG of lead
attached to its tail.



Cheers

Paul

On 9 May 2016 at 12:07, Derek Ruddock  wrote:

> My spin training was just as Harry described below, in a K7 at Dunstable.
> Talk about ground rush…
>
>
>
> I would never, ever get into a Puchacz to spin it, especially off a winch
> launch. We need to retain all the pilots we have.
>
>
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] *On
> Behalf Of *Harry
> *Sent:* Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:54 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> A few comments to add to Peter Brockman’s  thoughtful contribution.
>
>
>
> My first experience as an instructor in relation to spin training was at a
> winch launch club  which on a yearly basis brought in a tug and training
> involved a 3,000 ft. launch. No problem with spin recovery with trainees or
> those seeking a yearly revalidation. It was done correctly. My next
> experience was at a winch launch club where aerotow was unavailable and for
> some of the year difficult to  climb away after a winch launch. After
> personal experimentation I was able, using a Blanik which has benign spin
> training characteristics, to enter a spin at 1,300 ft, execute one turn and
> recover by the mandated 1,000 ft. However the student response was quite
> different. Despite very careful preflight briefing the student, as soon as
> he saw the ground directly underneath him, would pull the control column
> backwards and also away from the downgoing wing. Just what you would do to
> keep a glider in a spin. Pilots need to told of this automatic reaction,
> even though training is done at a high altitude. I also used to say to
> nervous pilots, (most of them), that what we were doing was spin avoidance
> training. First item was to fly the glider at safe speed near the ground
> and invite them to fly the glider in as an unbalanced way as possible and
> attempt to induce a stall or spin. The other item I considered important
> was that on every training flight, from the very first, was to to
> positively emphasise that when we were below the height from which spin
> recovery was doubtful, to consciously select safe speed near the ground. On
> early winch training flights, to maximise time available, I would waffle
> along downwind leg training as we went. What I was teaching them
> subliminally was that I myself was happy to break the safe speed near the
> ground rule.
>
>
>
> Harry Medlicott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Brookman 
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:25 AM
>
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> 
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age
>
>
>
> I notice the reference to a club that bought a Puchacz, would be our club,
> BKGC, that bought the Puchacz from DDSC , so we could conform with GFA
> requirement for fully developed spins and recovery as part of the AFR. We
> have tried to have club members travel to another club for spin checks,
> while a few did it was not a workable solution for our members. We have a
> Twin Astir which is very difficult to get to spin (only if pilot weights as
> correct), and I don’t see how we are expected to add things to the aircraft
> to make it do manoeuvres it was designed not to do. Also if you do get the
> Twin to spin which we have on odd occasions, it can get quite violent when
> rotating and I don’t think a good idea for students and others to have to
> experience.
>
> I don’t see the merit of doing fully developed spins on a regular basis
> (apart from the increased risk of accident or structural failure), we
> should be teaching the importance of safe speed near the ground, recognise
> the onset of a stall or spin and recover. As we know a fully developed spin
> ( not taking action at the signs of a spin developing) any thing below 500
> ft will probably end in disaster. I know for the AFR these spins will
> usually be done at 3,000 ft or more, in our club with winch launching and
> typical launch heights of 1,000 – 1,200 ft its not always easy to get away
> with the intentio

Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[John Parncutt]

Our club (Melbourne Gliding club/VMFG) operated a Puchacz for over ten years as 
our main trainer. It would have been spun on average at least two or three 
times a week – never had a problem. Its spin characteristics where both 
predictable and docile. It would seem that the reason for it gaining an unfair 
reputation regarding spin characteristics was its average loss of height in a 
full spin was greater than that of a K13.  British winch clubs were 
deliberately teaching spins from the top of the launch which in a K13 you could 
get away with. I personally never teach or demonstrate spinning unless normal 
recovery will be at least 1,500 ft AGL no matter what glider I am using.

 

Our club has now upgraded to two DG1001’s which can be easily ballasted to 
allow for aft pilot weight, which also have excellent spin characteristics. 

 

John Parncutt (Melbourne Gliding Club)

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Paul Bart
Sent: Monday, 9 May 2016 1:53 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

 

"I would never, ever get into a Puchacz to spin it, especially off a winch 
launch. We need to retain all the pilots we have."

 

Here we go again, lets get into the the Puch, to be honest I would not get into 
a Puch and spin of a 900 ft winch either, but that does not mean I would not do 
it at an altitude that allows me to recover by 1000 ft. 

 

Does anyone has any stats on how many fatalities there were in Australia in 
Puch spin training accidents? It would be nice to have some data before we go 
and sully the Puch reputation.

 

Personally I am much happier spinning Puch than K21 with 12 KG of lead attached 
to its tail.

 

 




Cheers

Paul

 

On 9 May 2016 at 12:07, Derek Ruddock  wrote:

My spin training was just as Harry described below, in a K7 at Dunstable. Talk 
about ground rush…

 

I would never, ever get into a Puchacz to spin it, especially off a winch 
launch. We need to retain all the pilots we have.

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Harry 
Sent: Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:54 PM


To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

 

Hi All,

A few comments to add to Peter Brockman’s  thoughtful contribution.

 

My first experience as an instructor in relation to spin training was at a 
winch launch club  which on a yearly basis brought in a tug and training 
involved a 3,000 ft. launch. No problem with spin recovery with trainees or 
those seeking a yearly revalidation. It was done correctly. My next experience 
was at a winch launch club where aerotow was unavailable and for some of the 
year difficult to  climb away after a winch launch. After personal 
experimentation I was able, using a Blanik which has benign spin training 
characteristics, to enter a spin at 1,300 ft, execute one turn and recover by 
the mandated 1,000 ft. However the student response was quite different. 
Despite very careful preflight briefing the student, as soon as he saw the 
ground directly underneath him, would pull the control column backwards and 
also away from the downgoing wing. Just what you would do to keep a glider in a 
spin. Pilots need to told of this automatic reaction, even though training is 
done at a high altitude. I also used to say to nervous pilots, (most of them), 
that what we were doing was spin avoidance training. First item was to fly the 
glider at safe speed near the ground and invite them to fly the glider in as an 
unbalanced way as possible and attempt to induce a stall or spin. The other 
item I considered important was that on every training flight, from the very 
first, was to to positively emphasise that when we were below the height from 
which spin recovery was doubtful, to consciously select safe speed near the 
ground. On early winch training flights, to maximise time available, I would 
waffle along downwind leg training as we went. What I was teaching them 
subliminally was that I myself was happy to break the safe speed near the 
ground rule. 

 

Harry Medlicott

 

 

 

From: Peter Brookman <mailto:peter.brook...@bigpond.com>  

Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2016 10:25 AM

To: Discussion of issues relating to <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>  
Soaring in Australia. 

Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

 

I notice the reference to a club that bought a Puchacz, would be our club, 
BKGC, that bought the Puchacz from DDSC , so we could conform with GFA 
requirement for fully developed spins and recovery as part of the AFR. We have 
tried to have club members travel to another club for spin checks, while a few 
did it was not a workable solution for our members. We have a Twin Astir which 
is very difficult to get to spin (only if pilot weights as correct), and I 
don’t see how we are expected to add things to the aircraft to mak