> > >I strongly disagree that the GFA is anything to do with pilots leaving >gliding > Then you need to get out more. Met yet another two ex-glider pilots on the weekend, same old story...
>I would doubt more than 10% left to take up another form of aviation. > No a whole bunch more of them have left aviation permanently because they were unable to find a satisfactory form of flying. Invariably most people who've tasted soaring, quote it as there prefered form, but GFA style gliding has far too much politics, and as you pointed out, with both parents working recreational time is precious and spending it at a GFA style gliding club is not high on the priority list. The 3000 pilots who have left the sport since the hey day of over 5000 is really mis- representing how bad the situation is. Consider that there are some 90 gliding clubs around Australia, if each of those clubs has trained just five people per year for the last 20 years and numbers have declined then that represents some 9000 glider pilots who have also left the sport. Add that to the 3000 loss in total numbers and we have some 12,000 people who have left in 20 years. 10% of that represents 1200 people or about half the current pilot population. Think about it, if changing the system stopped even as little as 10% of the pilots leaving... Also perhaps think about this, one of the major requirements and expenses to gliding is maintaining an airfield. Most airfields grow grass 5 days out of 7. Not a very good return on investment. Yet a mid-week operation could increase utilisation (even if it wasn't gliders) and spread the cost of mowing the grass over a larger number or users thus decreasing your costs when flying gliders in the good old traditional manner on the weekend..... >I seem to be under some misapprehension as regards the proposed change, I >was unaware that it was to be optional. > It has to be "optional" because part of the requirement for a licence is to fly a certain amount of hours solo (supervised). If the licence was compulsory then you have a real chicken and egg problem. If you chose to fly more than the required solo hours under instructional supervision then so be it. >Having rejoined a club in recent years I can definately say that the average >pilot is far more well off in respect to the average pilot 20 years ago.this >is not any form of communism just good old fact!(Just look around the >carpark!) > So perhaps your claim that money is the biggest problem isn't in fact true. >I was of the understanding that self launchers could be flown under GA >conditions or as Gliders under the GFA,, if so(And I stand to be corrected >on this) would that not be an answer for those who wish to operate >independantly? > No. The situation here is very very unclear. It seems that a pilot with a PPL *can't* fly a GFA system maintained glider using the PPL. However, if the motor glider is registered as an aeroplane and maintained by a LAME, then it can be flown by a PPL but *not* by a glider pilot with a motor glider endorsement. Bureaucracy gone mad! Furthermore you've been harping on about how expense is the number one issue putting people off gliding, yet you are quite happy to have this pilot suffer the considerable expense of having their aircraft maintained by a LAME. Selfish cuts both ways, by seeking to deny this pilot the new licencing system which, (as has been tirelessly pointed out, places no burden on you except to forego an idealogical position) you are being incredibly selfish. And yet again we see the current system being defended by trying to prove that it's ok if one can work it in some convulted manner. Following this logic to it's conclusion you'd suggest that as long as it's technically possible to do what is desired within the current system then the system is fine regardless of the fact that the number of hoops to be jumped through is so daughting as to stop most people. >It is all very well to go on about legal liability but that is not new the >instructors who taught and supervised most of us took that risk thats why >we can fly now! > Yes, but 20 years ago we didn't have people going horse riding, falling off, breaking their ring finger then suing the riding establishment for $1M, or diving into the surf, and suing the council for $4M. The litigatous nature of society has changed somewhat wouldn't you say? >The grumpy old men to whom refer have in my experience had a vast amount of >excellent knowledge and when approached respectfully have been more than >happy to help my flying in any way-perhaps these "Floppy flyers" to whom you >referer are the problem, > Yes, silly them they turned up at the club expecting to be treated like an adult (or at the very least a fellow pilot ;-). Instead they got lectured at by some old fart about how dangerous hang gliders are. >I am well aware of the coming trends in light weight/small sailplanes and >have been keeping an eye on sevearal interesting developments myself, but if >I decide to persue that I will not expect the GFA to change the rules to >suit me. > Why Not!!!!? Your position on this is truely unbelievable. You make claims that cost is what is driving people out of the sport, then you state that the GFA shouldn't be expected to adapt to support people developing lower cost gliders. Well I'm lost for words. You and the GFA truely are just dinosaurs, waiting for extinction. P. -- * 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.
