----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:46
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring]
ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS 2005
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
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing
list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription
details,
visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
