At 12:55 PM 13/06/2007, you wrote:
>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.
My point is that when CASA proposed the RPPL, if the GFA had strongly
endorsed the proposal, instead of going outside the consultation
process to the Minister to have it canned, this would likely already
have happened, with by now a bunch of glider ratings on the various
CASA licences with very little effort on the part of anyone in the
GFA and probably substantial progress on the RPPL which proposal was
going to be of benefit to many others than just glider pilots. Did
you ever read it?
This would probably mean that certain GFA instructors would be
delegated by CASA as "airman examiners" (assuming CASA could find
suitably qualified and experienced people) and CASA licence holders
doing glider conversions and being signed off in their logbooks.
This does of course mean that the GFA would have to want to do this
but clubs already fly paying passengers either overtly or in the
thinly disguised "trial instruction flight" format so why not offer
glider conversions to CASA licence holders? Some may even decide to
join the GFA. Some may just want the rating in their logbooks but
it's a fairly safe bet that you would get customers you wouldn't get
by insisting they join the GFA first. If the insurance company won't
cover this it is time for a new one. Exactly like the APF and
parachute packing.
CASA licence holders have to do bi-annual flight reviews. Getting a
new rating can substitute. Sounds like a great source of potential
glider pilots to me. I really don't care if they are GFA members or
not because I care about the future of gliding, not the GFA.
> 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.
Dear god, I've been saying this for ten years here (more elsewhere).
While it is nice to have reliable stats, blind Freddy can see that.
There are always new faces at gliding clubs. Trouble is they are
*new* new faces every few months. There will always be high
attrition. Some get sick, some don't like the perceived risk(and it's
real), some probably leave because their imagined activity of freedom
floating amongst the clouds doesn't match the reality of finding
oneself in a poorly run bureaucracy that wants to closely regulate
the activity at every turn.
It's the *product* they aren't buying, after taking a good look at it.
Now lets take your stats below and go back 22 years and multiply 1000
by 22(this is conservative). This now means that there are TEN times
as many people in Australia who have tried gliding in the last 22
years as are in it now. I find this disturbing.
> 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.
The fundamental problem is most of them would rather get the rating,
then decide if they want to continue gliding and maybe join the GFA.
To hold the CASA licence they don't need to be a member of any
organisation and lots like it that way. I've talked to many of these
people. They would go gliding but their idea is buy a self launcher
and operate from their farm airstrip or local council aerodrome. Once
trained they neither want or need a gliding club.
>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!
Simply not so.
You cannot have a gliding club under GFA that isn't a training
organisation. GFA won't let a club provide glider ratings to people
who aren't GFA members, citing "insurance" issues. This is *exactly*
the parachute repacking excuse.
What GFA wants is for clubs to be successful doing things in the
traditional straitjacketed GFA way. I'd say that by now, after 22
years of decline, that the evidence is that this won't work.
It is also apparent that enthusiastic GFA members like yourself are
simply incapable of standing back far enough to look at the GFA
gliding movement and see what outsiders see, hence your efforts are
doomed to failure.
----------------------
What to do?
First, go back to the Minister (it's a new one) and request the
provision of the RPPL and glider ratings on existing CASA licences
forthwith. Demand the removal of any CASA staff standing in the way of this.
Offer glider ratings to licence holders at any gliding club with
airmen examiners (probably won't be all clubs). Fix the insurance
"problem". Once the examiner infrastructure is in place, use GFA
resources to advertise this in the GA/sport aviation media.
Stop demanding that GFA members belong to gliding clubs. A few
licensed pilots operating their own gliders from council aerodromes
either self launching or by aerotow by arrangement with a local
aircraft owner may neither want nor need a club structure. It is too
much hassle.
Start promoting glider ownership and the ability to operate
independently as above.
Give the instructional system 12 months to come up to a reasonable
standard so that students and low hours pilots aren't getting killed
and injured at quite the rate they are now.
Instructors should pass written and flight tests equivalent to a CPL
and CASA instructor rating. It is only fair to the students and does
work in GA where training is a very safe activity.
Institute a "licence" test for glider pilots. Two levels, local and
cross country. Competition endorsement in log book after gold C, one
diamond and at least five other cross country flights over 200km.
Written knowledge and theory tests.
Make it quite clear to anyone that once they have a licence they are
in charge of their own fate as pilot in command. There is no dilution
of responsibility, no instructor, RTO, etc required to exercise this
responsibility.
---------------------------------------------
These are all things that need to be done at the national level by
the GFA. Individual clubs cannot do this.
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
