was not is the case recently where a coroner stated that responsibility must be with the pilot and no other?
> On 14 Feb 2017, at 7:33 PM, Mark Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 14 Feb 2017, at 5:44 PM, Derek <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's easy to blame the instructor in this, but where is the personal >> responsibility demonstrated? >> The pilot had already made a fist of the conditions, so why on earth get >> into a single seater? >> >> "The instructor MADE me do it yer honour” > > The GFA system infantalizes pilots. > > The law of primacy: if something is important, teach it first, correctly. > > If quality of operational decision making is important, the GFA syllabus > should be teaching it from lesson 1: What are your personal minimums? What > are your go/no-go criteria? How do you manage authority gradients? How do you > “step back” and create a bit of space for independent judgement when you’re > confronted with an uncomfortable situation? > > The GFA syllabus doesn’t teach that. Instead, right from lesson 1 it stresses > that the instructor is the superior, and that the duty instructor will be > running the day, and that everyone else on the field marches to that person’s > tune. So much so that if the duty instructor doesn’t show up, everyone goes > home. > > Military-style chain of command. > > In the PW5 accident, the pilot CLEARLY didn’t feel comfortable with the > flight: He’d had previous experience from earlier in the day that the new > instructor wasn’t familiar with; he knew there was a skill he needed to > polish before he was safe for solo flight; And, being 69 years old, one can > assume that he’d been around the traps enough to pick up enough life > experience to know when he’s being sold a pup. > > By any reasonable outside examination, those factors should have been a > psychological defence against him accepting a launch. “Nope, I’m out.” > > And yet: A level-2 instructor completely disarmed him, and was able to talk > him into a serious injury via precisely the failure-mode that he already knew > he was vulnerable to. > > From day one exposure to the GFA system, he should have been taught to > politely tell instructors to go and get fornicated if they behave like that. > > He wasn’t, and he suffered serious spinal injuries. > > How has the syllabus been changed to prevent a recurrence of that accident? > Ha-ha, oh look, it hasn’t changed at all: This is what we’re supposed to > expect when it’s working correctly. > > Despite that: The system wasn’t applied correctly anyway. The MOSP says the > duty instructor is operationally responsible for all aspects of the day. Was > the duty instructor sanctioned for this accident? Was there a disciplinary > inquiry for letting the pilot launch? Or for letting the other instructor > clear him to launch without observing his flying aptitude? What exactly does > “responsibility” mean in the GFA system anyway? > > We accommodate these issues in other aviation disciplines by making a very > clear rule: The pilot is operationally responsible for all aspects of his/her > flight. That’s what the law says. That’s what the GFA system subverts. > > - mark > > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
