|
GFA Log Book One - May '60. No Rules
GFA Log Book Two - Feb 98 - Rules on back page.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:59
PM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] What do I
do?
Pretty sure my first
GFA logbook (circa 1974) had the rules of the air, I'll
have to dig it out
of storage to check. My second and third (current) GFA
log books have the
rules of the air on the last page.
Perhaps someone with older GFA
logbooks would like to comment?
Probably a good argument to standardise
on the GFA book rather than getting
other club based ones printed which
seems to be a waste of resources.
John Parncutt
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Peter
Creswick
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2005 8:38 PM
To:
Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re:
[Aus-soaring] What do I do?
Not in mine John.
It's a SCGC Camden
log book, probably produced in the early 70's, at the
latest, (fist logged
flight 2/12/75) probably before the "GFA" log book
even existed, perhaps
?
Inside back cover is History / Ratings, but opposite page does
have
"General Information" which includes checks, Chaotic, Chob, Fust
and
Hhellt, and rules of the air (4) - head on, converging, overtaking
and
landing, AND rules in thermals (3) highest, first and joining.
No
200 feet there either !!!
John Parncutt wrote:
> By the
way, anybody who hasn't seen the rules of the air, including
> the 200
ft rule might like to look at the back inside page of a GFA
> logbook,
its all there!
>
> John
Parncutt
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of
> *Terry
Neumann
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 June 2005 2:25
PM
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.
> *Subject:* Re:
[Aus-soaring] What do I do?
>
>
> It
is written:
>
>>One could surmise that the author hadn't heard
of the 200 foot
rule
either.
>>LOL!
>>
>>
>
One could, but one would probably also be
wrong....
>
> Mike Valentine, being the
practical and thinking person he was,
> probably
foresaw that to lay great stress on an arbitrary
figure
> would possible cause most people to
miss the point entirely -
> something which many
of the well intentioned contributors to this
>
discussion have demonstrated with exceptional
skill.
>
> This 200 foot rule is a classic
example of the old adage that
> "Rules are made
for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience
of
>
fools".
>
> Wombat and a couple of others
in this discussion, notably Kevin
> Roden, have
more correctly pointed out that notwithstanding
the
> 200 foot rule, sensible, and therefore
safe flying in shared
> thermals is essentially
a product of airmanship. Indeed I will
>
suggest that it is one of the most crucial and important
aspects
> of true airmanship. If your
technique in sharing thermals keeps
> you at all
times no closer that 200 feet and six inches
from
> others, but causes those in other gliders
concern, fear, or sheer
> terror, you have a
long way to go in this area.
>
> Leigh
touched on a very interesting point when he reflected on
the
> thermalling parameters of his Super
Grunau. Allow me to
expand.
> How should everyone
behave in a thermal which contains (say)
> his
Grunau, Bernard's ASH-25, and a club ASK-21 on
passenger
> flight, all with different flying
speeds and pilot aspirations?
> This is quite
possible at my home club. The only thing which
we
> might not expect is someone in a hang
glider to be part of the
> equation. Lets
throw one of those in too. Suddenly the
magic
> 200 foot rule gets pretty low on the
list of priorities does it
>
not?
>
> Which is where it should have
been right at the start. There is
> much
more to safe and considerate thermal sharing than
a
> concentration on an an arbitrary
measure of distance dreamed up
> somewhere
by a doubtless well intentioned committee. For
mine,
> the concept of "see and _be seen_"
carries much more weight.
>
> Finally,
since the name of Mike Valentine has been mentioned
in
> this discussion, perhaps I can relate
a story which he told me
> once about the
judging of distance.
>
> Mike, in one of
his earlier lives was enjoying the more
>
pleasurable aspects of his then job as a supervisor training
air
> traffic controllers. At the
time he was flying circuits at an
> airfield
somewhere in (probably) some superannuated military
jet
> with an Indian co-pilot (It would be
wouldn't it). Mike
> commented at
the time on the fact that his Indian friend seemed
to
> judge his round out and landings very well.
The reply? (In
> Mike's best Indian
accent) "Oh yes - my instructor always told
me
> to start the round out when at the height
of two elephants!"
>
> Which raises the
question as to whether Indian glider pilots
might
> measure their separation in thermals by
"x" elephants?
>
> I hope not. A
thermal filled with imaginary elephants is not
a
> comfortable
thought.
>
>
Regards,
> Terry
;-)
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Aus-soaring
mailing list
>[email protected]
>To check or
change subscription details,
visit:
>http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
--
Peter
Creswick
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Land Line
02 9718 4841
Mobile/SMS 0401 758
025
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring
mailing list
[email protected]
To
check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring
mailing list
[email protected]
To
check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
|
