At 08:14 PM 2/14/2017, you wrote:
Firstly that "The GFA" teaches this. It doesn't. Individual
instructors do, because they like to be The Boss and control others.
In my club I'd say it is a 50/50 split (typically along the lines of
those that are still active X/C pilots). Some are pushing pilots to
think, some push them to be conservative.
Really? The GFA system is set up like this by design. The instructors
aren't the only ones who like to be boss. The CFI, RTO, CTO and GFA
Board all do.
From the teaching perspective, many students don't have enough self
confidence and it is the job of the teacher to push them student
outside of the student's comfort zone in order for them to advance.
These students, if left to their own devices, will seek comfort
only in the areas that they know already and won't want to push it.
For some, that means more than gentle nudges are sometimes needed.
Fine when solving mathematics problems. I have a problem with the
whole going solo before reaching a licence test standard. Like
sending a 17 year old kid around the block in the $70,000 Mercedes
after just enough instruction to steer, accelerate and stop. Fine
until you have an emergency.
I can't comment specifically about the surroundings of the PW-5
student and that situation. But to point to this as a failing of the
GFA training and structure is, to me, a leap too far.
First you need to acknowledge the problem before you can fix it. If
this wasn't a problem of a system based on supervision in a heirarchy
what was it?
What I think is wrong is not the hierarchy, but how instructors are
selected and trained. Only works if you're a buddy of the CFI, and
that there is no teaching on how to teach. Our instructors are
basically expert pilots, but they are not expert educators. Fix the
training of instructors and the rest of the system issues disappear
into the background.
That is correct. Now we are getting somewhere. So the problem is how
the SYSTEM selects and trains(or rather doesn't really) instructors.
This is NOT a SYSTEM problem?
So let's have proper CASA licences and instructors who are DIRECTLY
responsible to CASA.
The USA system is that there is only ONE level of instructor, CFI
(Certified Flight Instructor). This rating is obtainable if you are a
COMMERCIAL pilot, pass written exams and receive flight instruction
and pass a test by someone approved by the FAA to train and certify
instructors. Means you can charge for your time.
A student finds a CFI who agrees to teach him or her to fly. When the
instructor thinks the student is ready to pass a licence checkride
they organise an examiner to come and fly with the student (in
gliders this will involve more than one flight usually). If the
student passes a licence (certificate in the US) is issued. If not,
further training before another try.
If a CFI puts up 3 students in a row who don't pass, the CFI loses
the rating until further training and checking is done. Further up
the line I'm sure that if somebody issuing CFI tickets is found to be
turning out dud CFIs action will be taken.
Simple and self correcting.
Flight reviews (every two years) can be done in a single engine
landplane or a glider for both ratings. Not silly when a single
engine aircraft can turn into a glider at any time.
This does not seem to cause problems and the US GA accident rate is
around half or less than ours. Do people still do stupid things? Of
course. USA glider/motorglider medical is same as GFA. Self declaration.
(FWIW, catching up on other parts - yes I agree that L2 Ind Ops and
how it is issued is not right and I really don't see why we have L1
and L2 as L1 is basically useless since you can't actually operate
independently)
So what are we saving by running a unique system different from the
rest of Australian aviation? CASA has a licensing system (I'm sure
they'll get it right one day - maybe) which can be used. There is
already provision in Part 61 for Glider pilot licences. All it takes
is for the GFA Board to go to CASA and say they were wrong about
wanting this licence to not be valid inside Australia.
Then CASA just nominates some examiners (could be past instructors
although I think experienced pilots would be fine (>say 1000 hours in
command) and some CFI trainers (experienced instructors (>500 hours
in command, >500 hours instructing).
Once licenced, a pilot is responsible for him or her self. In a club
situation the instructors can then be responsible for their students.
Organising who gets launched first is a totally separate issue. This
limits liability and makes it quite clear where responsibility lies.
A whole lot of volunteers will have their workloads reduced and they
may even be able to go solo gliding themselves.
Running to the GFA Board with half a dozen people saying that there
need to be minor changes to the L2 system isn't going to achieve
anything. Never confuse activity with achievement.
Mike
--
Justin
_______________________________________________
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
