On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:55 PM, Greg Wilson <g...@gregwilson.id.au> wrote:
>
> One low cost step toward improving the gliding "product" would be to make GPC
> holders responsible for their own flying instead of relying on a L2
> instructor's presence at launch.
>
> I can understand how the current system evolved from clubs wanting to control
> pilots in their aircraft but surely it's time for this outdated system to be
> relinquished.
It didn't evolve from clubs wanting to control pilots in their aircraft. It
evolved from GFA wanting to control club operations.
GFA implements a chain of command:
Pilot -> Duty Instructor -> CFI -> RTO -> CTO -> (CASA, but we're not meant to
believe that)
Each link in the chain is, as previously observed, equivalent to a "rank."
Authority flows downwards, with each layer following the command of the layer
above. Responsibility flows upwards: The duty instructor is "responsible" for
the operation (how? never really defined). The CFI is "responsible" for the
panel. And so on.
Sitting at the middle of everything is GFA, HQ, setting policy centrally,
implemented by the chain of command.
It's all right there in the MOSP ("standing orders.")
I speculated earlier that it happened like this in the 1950s because so many of
the early GFA people had military aviation involvement, so setting up a command
hierarchy would've been a natural way to approach civilian aviation. Society
was a lot more hierarchical then too.
It isn't anymore.
>
> Enough discussion here may even start movement in that direction from GFA.
> What do you think?
>
Can't be here. GFA started their own website forums for members specifically so
they wouldn't need to listen to this one.
Members need to get upset about this. Get organised.
- mark
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
