|
G'day Graeme,
That's a good spray. Do you feel
better now?
Herewith a couple of
replies:
"Your
reason is plain, vulgar curiosity" - That is too easy to say in order to dismiss
this issue. I don't believe you are right. I think it would help our pilots and
have given the result of a survey on this in the past where other have
agreed.
"YOU WANT
IT. YOU DO IT!!" - Have volunteered to help. Can't do more than
that.
"YOU WANT
IT. YOU DO IT." - I heard you the 1st time.
"If more
near misses were reported and publicised as you apparently wish ......" - I just
asked a question. Your logic is understood - don't report them so CASA
won't know. That's good stuff.
"Weren't
we having a discussion about why people leave gliding?" - Can't you handle more
than one topic? Or surely you aren't hinting that my post might cause
others to leave the sport. If the latter is your position you have a bit of a
problem, so keep taking the pills.
Best personal regards Geoff
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:32
AM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring]
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005
>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
|
