|
Graeme
Your comments & accusations are
now more serious & nasty so I am compelled to reply.
1 We all have a right to raise issues
here. And while I am not as experienced or jaded as your earlier post makes
you appear,you are not (yet) the thought police.
You are also misguided or
wrong as set out below.
2 You said "Yes, you can.
An email to this news groups is not volunteering, it's just grandstanding.
Nobody in the GFA has heard from you."
And you said "If YOU want it fixed,
in a voluntary organisation, you need to do it yourself. But writing to
this list is just (as I said) grandstanding. If you're serious, you have
to talk to the responsible people in the GFA - privately."
Where do you get your info from
before you pen this attack? I made a written submission to the GFA Board on
this issue, which was considered at their last meeting, in which I volunteered
to get involved if that would assist them. Discussions have been ongoing since
that time with responsible people in the GFA and they are being very
professional and reasonable about all of the issues.
3 There is a difference between
"attacking the GFA" as you say, and urging for a degree of change on a couple of
issues, which is what I think I have done.
Go back and re-read the Flarm stuff
again. It commenced about July 4th last (before Nigel put OzFlarm on the market)
with the words ..... if the spectrum is available .."the GFA should consider
lobbying/acting to ensure that the system is picked up for OZ" ...........
Please tell me how that or anything else I have posted is attacking of the GFA.
It is good that the GFA has supported this development, but it has been the
competition and other interested pilots who have voted with the cheque books
which will make it a success.
Ditto with this Accident &
Incident Reporting stuff. All I have ever done here and in the submissions
direct to the GFA, and to others, is urge them to consider more expansive
reporting of Accidents and Incidents to the membership.
4 I also confess
..................... I made a written submission last year to the GFA's
M&D committee urging them to consider a couple of different marketing
initiatives. I guess you'll get up me about that as an attack on the GFA
too.
5 Please give me a quote of where
I've "attacked" the GFA.
6 Your said ..."But you'll have to
hang around aviation a bit longer before you really understand the wisdom of
it". It is certainly true that I am relatively new to the sport, but I'm a paid
up member and surely have the right to have a say on matters that I think are
important to the progress and future of the sport ......... and those
issues are Flarm/proximity warnings, Safety Reporting and Marketing, not
necessarily in that order.
7 But I have to say that I'm
getting a little tired of this "We are too busy to do a good job on
Safety as we are just volunteers" waffle that you espoused in
your first response. But I hasten to add that your attitude to this hasn't
raised itself from the real people that I have spoken to in the leadership
at the GFA.
8 There seems to be
a "thing" in this sport that some, like you, attack the man whenever
they make a suggestion or put a case that you don't like. Why
can't you play the ball and not the man?
Geoff
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:25
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring]
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005
>From: "Geoff Kidd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>G'day
Graeme,
>
> That's a good spray. Do you
feel better now?
Yes, I do, thank
you.
>
> 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.
That only shows how widespread is the interest in a good piece
of gossip. I
gave several arguments to back my claim that all you're
after is crash
comics but you seem to have ignored the hard
bits.
>
> "YOU WANT IT. YOU DO IT!!"
- Have volunteered to help. Can't do more
>than that.
Yes, you
can. An email to this news groups is not volunteering, it's just
grandstanding. Nobody in the GFA has heard from
you.
> "YOU WANT IT. YOU DO IT." - I
heard you the 1st time.
Actually, on this list it's about the tenth
time. It's my hobby horse. You
haven't heard it earlier so I
thought I should raise my voice a little.
Besides it's a serious
comment. YOU see this as a problem. I don't and a
lot of other
people don't. If YOU want it fixed, in a voluntary
organisation, you
need to do it yourself. But writing to this list is just
(as I said)
grandstanding. If you're serious, you have to talk to the
responsible people in the GFA -
privately.
>
> "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.
Yes, it is. But you'll have to hang
around aviation a bit longer before you
really understand the wisdom of
it. It was a bit extreme but I plead
provocation.
If you
haven't reported an Airmiss yourself, and I haven't, that's because
we
didn't have them. In fact, if only two reports were made, only two
occurred. If you think more occurred, who had them? I put it
that way
because you aren't interested in the facts, only in vivid stories
to
publish. Research like that done elsewhere on radar traces -
where neither
pilot knew what happened - won't satisfy you. You're
after reports.
Tabloid newspaper stuff. Crash
comics.
> "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.
I know it's unbelievable but,
yes. And I don't think I have the problem. I
don't think I'm
unique in finding the way you seem to regularly attack the
GFA as
distasteful. You want to do something, do it and more power to
you.
You want to attack people or expect other people to dedicate
their lives to
your private enthusiasms, I'll attack you. Even with
Flarm you kept
complaining about the GFA's lack of activity. As it
turns out, the GFA have
been in the project for some time and it's
flourishing. Back off the GFA.
>Best personal regards
Geoff
...And to you too,
Graeme
Cant
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: Graeme Cant
> To: [email protected]
>
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
>_______________________________________________
>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
|
