I think it is most unfair to say it is 1954 in Queensland-It is in fact 1957 (25 years ago)(-:
Dav ----- Original Message ----- From: wendoure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 8:35 AM Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Restructuring GFA (was Gliding Joke) - warning LONG > Catherine, > > This is the second time (in 12 months) that I have had to suffer your little > ego trip about your forced landing training experience. > > It is in my opinion quite naughty for you to suggest that cross country > gliding experience makes you somehow bullet proof when it comes to forced > landing a powered aircraft. > Like you I have considerable experience in cross country gliding and real > and simulated outlandings. In fact over 5000 hours gliding time, and > probably more than 300 actual paddock landings, plus many others flying the > tug on retrieves. > > The last time that I was required to do a forced landing, at my biannual > flight review, I stuffed it up, albeit in an unfamiliar aircraft. > > I consider that powered aircraft forced landings and glider outlandings have > about as much in common as chalk and cheese. Certainly some of our gliding > experience translates to making us better power pilots, but epistles such as > yours are in my experience quite irresponsible. > > 1954 in Queensland ? Well perhaps we prefer it that way. We are the fastest > growing state. Our club does 400hours annually with each of its five club > aircraft, cross hires several more to share the load and supports about > twenty private owners who do thousands of hours annually. Doesn't really > leave much time for chat, a la SA style association meetings. Given the > choice, I prefer flying to chat every time. Most other Queenslanders do too! > > Have a good summer. > Kind regards > Bob Ward > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Catherine Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 10:41 PM > Subject: [aus-soaring] Restructuring GFA (was Gliding Joke) - warning LONG > > > > Hi all > > > > I can't resist telling a little story prompted by the lines below. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > >Finally I do not think a PPL pilot is as well qualified and tested as > > a > > > >glider pilot.Example:How many PPL pilots have ever done a full > > spin,or a > > > >real outlaanding in a strange field.Don't bring our standards down to > > the > > > >PPL level bring PPL up this will require ppl owners to remove head > > from > > > you > > > >know where! > > > > > > When you've done your GFPT and also unrestricted PPL test I'll listen > > to > > > you on this topic. > > > > ----- > > > > Years ago, when I went to get my PPL, I flew a little taildragger > > skyfox. One day I dropped in to the flying school to book my lesson (I > > worked near the airfield in those days) and there was a new instructor. > > He said the one I'd been flying with had been "promoted" to charter > > flying, and that he'd fly with me for my next lesson which would be > > Forced Landings. > > > > I commented that was fine and since he was new and young, asked him > > conversationally how long he'd been instructing. > > > > Now this was a Friday and my lesson was booked for the Tuesday. > > > > He looked sheepish and said "Ummm got my instructor rating this > > morning". > > > > The next Tuesday, he must have thought I was worried about it because > > while we DI'd the plane, he went into great detail about how many hours > > he had done to get his instructors rating - 350 so I shouldn't worry. > > This was significantly less than my gliding hours, and I'd been > > instructing for quite a while, including conducting outlanding training > > in a Falke. He then joked about my being a glider pilot and every > > landing being a forced one - ha ha. > > > > I got the lecture on high and low key points but since he didn't ask > > about my gliding/outlanding experience, I didn't say anything except > > join the above joke. After all, I didn't want to appear to be a > > smartarse and I wanted to learn how GA taught forced landings. > > > > I must admit I was a bit surprised that everything was taught with > > reference to height above the ground and flying the numbers. There was > > no mention of angles, flexibility of the circuit etc. > > > > So we went flying. > > > > He picked the paddock himself and demonstrated a forced landing. When > > we were still quite high and nowhere near the end fence, the power came > > on. I thought we had a slight undershoot. > > > > I commented on his early application of power (quite politely) and he > > got a little huffy and suggested I do the next one. > > > > So I did. > > > > No one told me I wasn't allowed lower than 200' so I ran the wheels > > through the grass before applying power. > > > > I think he expected me to stuff it up so he was still a little huffy. > > He suggested that the exercise was not very realistic because most > > engine failures occur on take-off below 500'. > > > > I offered to conduct that exercise and reached for the throttle. > > > > He grabbed his seat and started worrying that if we did, we might stall > > if we didn't get the nose down. > > > > I pulled the power and did a nice winch cable break recovery at 400' (he > > continued to hold onto the sides of his seat with both hands). > > > > He's a braver soul than me. He had no idea of my background apart from > > some gliding - but no idea how much. I think I might have taken control > > from a student like me that was doing weird stuff, rather than holding > > my seat. > > > > I guess at this point we had a little role reversal as I explained that > > there was insufficient length in this paddock to land but with a slight > > turn and sideslip we could go diagonally into another paddock, and that > > the diagonal track gave us more landing room and options for crosswinds. > > > > We pulled out of the sideslip and ran the wheels through the grass > > again. He was still holding his seat until well into the power-on and > > climb-out. > > > > He didn't want to do any more forced landings. > > > > But he made me fly back under the hood so he got his own back :-) > > (We also had a constructive chat about it afterwards. You should have > > seen his face at the thought of how many times I'd really landed in a > > paddock.) > > > > A few lessons later, the tower asked us to turn early and do a close in > > circuit to get on the ground as quickly as we could. He commented that > > we were a little high for this change in plan. I said I thought I could > > fix that and he said "Oh no, I know what you're going to do" as he > > grabbed his seat again. Poor boy really didn't like sideslips! > > > > ---------- > > > > So my comment from all of this? > > > > I'm not impressed with the GA level of instructors. If this 18yr old > > kid is an example of forced landing training, no wonder we see splatted > > GA planes in the middle of perfectly landable paddocks on the TV news. > > > > I was also really surprised that I could take my shiny new PPL and fly a > > little, needing only 3 take-off and landings in the last 90 days to > > carry passengers, and that I'd be check-flown only every 2 years. I'm > > surprised the accident rate isn't higher. Then again, maybe they are. > > I know there are a lot of accidents in GA (harder to find out about them > > in the absence of the old BASI crash-comic). But there are also a lot > > more light aircraft movements. > > > > So percentage-wise? I don't know. I do think I'd have more chance of > > surviving a prang in a glider. > > > > > > > > Now my comments on the GFA > > > > Tricky > > > > There are merits in both types of operation I feel. > > > > There is a place for club's, but I understand that there are lots of > > different types of clubs and they don't service all demographics in > > gliding. > > > > Particularly the experienced private owner that has spent many years > > contributing to a club and now just wants to be left alone to fly. > > > > I don't think we have the population base for too much commercial > > activity as they do in the USA. > > > > I do feel we have a lot of inertia in GFA that causes problems. > > > > I recognise that much of GFA is run by volunteers and most of these do > > their best to do the right thing. > > > > Here in SA we have a really good state association. The meetings are > > well attended and some very good suggestions come out of our meetings. > > > > This is not the same in other states. QLD and NSW in particular. Maybe > > SA is simply behind? (Nah - SA couldn't possibly be behind QLD - it's > > 1954 there isn't is?) > > > > But I'm really not sure that some of the decisions out of GFA have been > > for the best. The magazine is an example. I don't know if that was > > politically driven, financial driven or done for warm fuzzies. > > Certainly the finances don't seem to add up as well as they used to. > > > > But having flown a little bit in the US (and the UK), and having dealt > > with CASA with the plane, I'm not sure I want to go that way either. I > > feel I have more chance of convincing an officer of GFA to see sense > > than a bureaucrat. > > > > > > What we need is an organisation or organisations that can do the > > following > > > > 1. Provide an operational and airworthiness framework for all types of > > glider pilots to enable us to fly as much as possible with as little > > cr*p as possible to deal with. > > > > 2. Represent us to and fend off the external forces that try to > > threaten #1 above. > > > > I'm sure any officer of GFA will tell you that the GFA is already doing > > that which leads to the question > > > > "Why then so much disgruntlement?" > > > > We need to go back to square #1 and refine the objectives of our GFA to > > suit the modern world. > > > > We then need agreement on those objectives. Much harder. Just look at > > the efforts to reach agreement on restructure currently within the GFA. > > > > There must be points awarded to those doing that work for recognising > > that something had to happen but I feel they need to take it further - > > right back to basics. > > > > This exercise can only succeed if the people conducting it are centred > > on the good of the organisation and have no personal goals/ambitions. > > > > I already said tricky. > > > > So is the GFA at fault or are we at fault for not getting in there to > > effect the change? > > > > I know I grumble and then say I'm too busy to get involved. I also know > > that grumbling on this news group is useful because it makes me feel > > better (or worse - depending on how scorched I get when the flaming > > starts), because I can bounce ideas off other glider pilots. > > > > But we are not all here unfortunately. > > > > But what I'd like to see is us try to develop our own framework on how > > we think the new GFA should look. > > > > You never know - it might help the current efforts and we might actually > > cause something wonderful to happen. Then instead of us sniping at each > > other about what it should be, we can have some input into how it will > > be. > > > > OK > > > > Who's going to start? (I'm too busy ;-) > > > > <ziiippp> flame suit on > > > > -Cath > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. > > * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message > > * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. > > > > > > > -- > * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. > * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message > * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information. > > -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
