From: "Geoff Kidd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
However I would still recommend and lobby for the GFA to further
expand on many or all of those, to allow members to gain a further
appreciation of the circumstances of each or most of them. The reason being
that the membership can learn from the mistakes of others and will give
actual factual data more weight.
No. Your reason is plain, vulgar curiosity.
What use is it to new and older members to read that description from
29.12.04 or the description of the accident on 13 May 2005 which states
"Loss of control while landing"? Other than the motherhood lesson "Don't
lose control while landing" & "Don't let your wingtip touch the ground
while turning onto final".
More details are surely (or sorely) needed, and would benefit all
members. If the reason for this brevity should be that the GFA don't have
more details, then the reporting system needs to be expanded.
Well, I for one won't be joining in that expansion. Gliding is not my whole
life and I spend more than enough time doing administrative stuff that other
people think is needed but which benfits neither gliding as a whole or my
club. Even where there is some benefit, the time required to collect data
is grossly out of proportion to the benefit gained.
In the case of accident and incident reporting, I believe large slabs of
many other people's time would be used largely for your personal
titillation. You just want a crash comic gossip column.
YOU WANT IT. YOU DO IT!!
Nobody gets paid for this stuff. I know of NO RTO/Ops who has the time to
do it. I know of nobody with genuine qualifications in the area (and I know
quite a number) who has the time or inclination to do it. Do you have the
faintest idea how many man-days work are involved in investigating the cause
of even a "simple" accident if the report is to have any sort of
credibility? That's why I say all you want is crash comics. The GFA hasn't
anywhere near the resources to produce anything more respectable.
You began by saying you would "...lobby for the GFA to...". If you have the
energy to lobby, you have the time and energy to do the reporting yourself.
YOU WANT IT. YOU DO IT.
Send out the forms to all the clubs. Email them every month to make sure
they know they should be sending in reports. Keep up the address changes of
secretaries so the emails don't go astray. Collate all the reports you get
and when you know of incidents you didn't get a report on, phone them and
castigate them for laziness! Phone them again two weeks later when they've
ignored you. After you've read the reports, send back to the clubs for more
information the ones that said "wingtip hit ground in turn onto final" and
make them smarten up their reporting and amplify the cause. When (if) you
get some better reports back, prepare all the reports for publication and
then send them to the magazine on time. Remember it's important that all
this is timely. We don't want 3 month old stuff published. Then do it all
again. Do it for 10 or 20 years because you think it's important and nobody
would take it off you after the 2 years it took you to get sick of doing it.
(2) Am I correct in the reading of these reports of occurrences between
13 Nov 2004 & 19 Nov 2005 that, perhaps with the exception of the "Canopy
opening in flight" incident(s) that none of our Accidents or Incidents was
due to a structural of other failure of an aircraft?
Yes. Should we abolish Form 2s?
(3) There are two "Near Miss" incidents that have been reported. Do you
think there might actually be more than that?
Yes, I do. Because a fair amount has been published on that precise topic
and that's what the research shows. Why don't you Google a few of the
papers, read them, collate them into a form suitable for publishing in SA,
get the authors' permission for your abridgement of their work, ask the GFA
for money to pay the copyright fees and then publish a brilliant article in
SA. I'm sure you've got more in you than just whinging in email groups.
By the way:
If more near misses were reported and publicised as you apparently wish, all
that would happen would be that CASA would drastically curtail our operating
areas (small glider danger areas would be declared in about a dozen
locations and gliding anywhere else would be prohibited). CASA would not
accept the risk we pose to other traffic in the way we currently operate if
they really understood what goes on.
Weren't we having a discussion about why people leave gliding?
Graeme Cant
Regards Geoff
_______________________________________________
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
