Here is a case of a Coroner finding “… apparent confusion among the members of the club about who was responsible for the different tasks involved in take-off and landing, and who, ultimately, was in charge of the entire activity.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/complacency-amateur-rules-contributed-to-fatal-glider-collision-coroner-finds-20141002-10peab.html <http://www.smh.com.au/national/complacency-amateur-rules-contributed-to-fatal-glider-collision-coroner-finds-20141002-10peab.html> For a takeoff: The pilot is supposed to be in charge of the entire activity. Other tasks are performed under the pilot’s delegation. The pilot knows he must give way to landing traffic, can’t see behind, delegates “all clear above and behind” to someone diligent and skillful enough to do it correctly. “Time and time again I heard evidence of confusion about ultimate responsibility,” the Coroner said. Of course she did: The GFA system creates that confusion. MOSP Pt 2 9.1.6: “The Duty Instructor is the person authorised to take complete charge of a gliding operation on any given day … and has responsibility for the safe and efficient conduct of all aspects of the operation.” What does that mean? I put it to you that nobody at any gliding club (much less the L2 Instructors who serve as duty instructor) can credibly answer that question. I also put it to you that people who have never experienced aviation life outside the GFA system can convince themselves that MOSP Pt2 9.1.6 is normal; and even feel a degree of discomfort when it’s suggested that pilots must be responsible for themselves. An instructor cannot possibly be “responsible” for all aspects of the operation because s/he can’t even see them, much less assert control over them. What happens when the instructor is off on a soaring flight? Who’s responsible for “all aspects of the operation” when s/he isn’t there? Does everyone stop the winch until the instructor lands? How does it make any realistic difference whether a duty instructor is absent by virtue of being in flight, or absent by virtue of being in bed, or on a golf course? At what point does responsibility transition from the duty instructor to the pilot when a glider departs on a downwind-dash cross-country flight, operating completely independently, without having qualified for an independent ops rating, with no intention of returning? If they crash during an outlanding, is it the duty instructor’s responsibility? What if they crash during a launch accident? Or have a mid-air during pre-departure thermalling? How is that “responsibility” realized? Is there some kind of inquiry into the duty instructor when some random visiting pilot splats into his operation by spinning-in on the final turn? Does the duty instructor get sued by relatives? Can they get arrested for criminal negligence if they know that a trainee isn’t ready to fly solo and fail to communicate it to anyone who could conceivably be involved in launching them? Or is “responsibility” just a word on a page that means nothing? “All aspects of the operation.” “Complete charge.” “Responsibility.” What do those phrases mean? Why did GFA specifically choose to employ those words to describe what the duty instructor is for? GFA created this problem. If Coroners are confused about who’s in charge, it’s because GFA’s MOSP has created a system in which someone who doesn’t even need to be there “takes complete charge of a gliding operation.” Club members get to refer to 9.1.6 to say the duty instructor is responsible for any screw-ups, and duty instructors get to say they can’t possibly be responsible for everything, and the end result is that Coroners get annoyed that nobody is responsible for anything at all. MOSP Pt 2 section 9 is all about establishing a chain of command, and it’s frankly a load of contemptible bullshit. It compromises safety by creating an unnecessary power gradient without effectively teaching pilots how to manage one; and it disempowers and infantalizes otherwise qualified pilots, while simultaneously enabling ops by people who have never been taught to be responsible for the operational decision making skills they need to maintain their own life and the lives of those around them. Then, at the end of the day, when a case makes it to that courtroom that everyone is so terrified of, the “responsibility” inherent in the chain of command turns out to be so meaningless that a Coroner can’t work out who’s in charge: “Surely when anything becomes the responsibility of all it is in fact the responsibility of none.” If I was taking off at Goulburn in my RV-6, and I didn’t make radio calls, didn’t check approach paths, and got myself killed by manoeuvring in front of someone else on late final, I can guarantee you that the Coroner investigating my death would not be in any doubt about who was responsible for what. What makes GFA operations so special? - mark > On 14 Feb 2017, at 8:09 PM, Richard Frawley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> On 14 Feb 2017, at 5:44 PM, Derek <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> > _______________________________________________ > 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
