Mike Borgelt wrote:
> See above. Of course many glider pilots already do hold a PPL, CPL or
> ATPL. If there was a simple CASA recognised glider add on, some of
> the other PPL, CPL and ATPL people might want to do a little gliding.
> There are at least 10 times as many of them as there are glider
> pilots, they can already fly and are to some extent or other
> interested in aviation. One might think they would be a fertile
> recruiting ground for new glider pilots. I guess GFA would rather
> lock gliding up in their little (shrinking) hermit kingdom.
>
Mike
You are quite right that existing pilots should be a fertile recruiting
ground for new glider pilots - as should the yachting fraternity with
whom we share so much in terms of general outlook. However. there is
only so much time for the almost entirely voluntary 'GFA' (by which I
think you mean the GFA management - of which I am now part, btw) to do
things - and other resources (eg cash) are limited also. From an
analysis of the membership stats (now we have a reliable membership
database), it is clear that we don;t have a recruitment problem - what
we have is a retention problem. What is more there are things happening
from the 'management level' to address this. Once we are retaining a
reasonable number of the approx 1,000 people a year we attract to
gliding, then it would seem appropriate for us to start widening our net
usingthese constrained resources.
That said, there are already many glider pilots who hold CPL/ATPL
licences and there is absolutely nothing stoppoing them (or their club
or region) going out and doing something to attract such people to the
gliding side of flying.
This illustrates a very fundamental principal that we all (including in
the past me) forget:-
WE (the GFA membership) ARE THE GFA!
Irrespective of the 'GFA management', your club or your region is
perfectly free to go off and do a whole range of things without
reference to any higher authority. If it works - tell us all about it
(and if it doesn't tell us that too so we don't waste our time making
the same mistakes). In fact, from a 'GFA management' perspective it
would be really great to see this sort of thing going on!
Whilst I have to admit that the 'GFA management' is still not
sufficiently transparent, it is getting better and the message about
transparency does seem to be worming its way deeper into the
organisational culture. Despite set backs on this front (I am /*still*/
not able to discuss everyting that appears in briefing papers for a
Board/Exec meeting which makes doing my regional board member's job very
difficult at times), more information is coming out to the membership
/*before*/ decisions are being made by the board/exec so that the
memebrship's view can be canvassed and wound into the final decision.
This is a real improvement on the situation of even just a couple of
years ago (eg when the decision was taken to oppose the RPL).
All this said though, there is a parallel path and so you, Mike, do not
have to be a member of the GFA to fly. I wish you /*were*/ a member as
you have much to contribute (even if some of it has to be filtered
pretty heavily - but then the same could be said of me :-).
--
Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
