Mike
You've nicely made my point. You are too close to the problem, you
operate quite happily within the GFA system and as far as I can see
the changes you want relate to administrative procedures inside the
current system. BTW when I hear management buzzwords like "world's
best practice" and "safety management system" I begin to worry.
It matters little whether you worry or not about "management buzzwords",
the reality is that the GFA safety management system is patchy. We still
have people who think because someone spun in that "pilot error" is
sufficient explanation. Modernising and improving safety within the GFA
is necessary - it will save lives. Using the language in common use
across all industries helps people understand what we are proposing -
unless people decide to be deliberately obtuse when hearing those words.
As to "being to close to the problem" - well, that may be true. It
doesn't feel like it since I seem almost always to be out of step with
the longer serving Board members. What I do know however, is that I make
significant efforts to determine the Qld membership's views on issues
before I attend a meeting - so when I am there it is not just "Robert
Hart"'s views that are presented - and I don't think the Qld membership
at large is too close to the problem.
You persist in suggesting that I am "happy" operating inside the GFA
admin system without reading what I write - I have problems at almost
every Board meeting. Please stop misrepresenting me on this issue.
I am totally confused as to why you say things like "the changes you
want relate to administrative procedures inside the current system". Of
course that is the case: I am a member of the GFA and, unlike you who
gave up and walked away, I am trying to change the system - hopefully
for the better. Just what is the problem with that? I surely cannot
change it from outside - which is where you are!
I left the GFA some years ago because they brought in the dual
signature after rigging. I've asked here and specifically asked you
about this and nobody seems to have come up with a sensible reason why
this was done. For me it was the last straw. Why should I support an
organisation which made it impossible, under their rules, for me to
take my motor glider out to the local airport, rig it and go flying?
Yup you are right - I asked and there is not a sensible reason for it as
far as I can see either. It is however tied to regulations regarding
"major modification" into which (currently) de- and re-rigging a glider
fall. Once we in sport aviation have more control over our own destiny
in terms of regulations as is promised by the upcoming changes, the GFA
will (I believe) no longer be tied by this requirement and change will
be possible.
I've also not seen anyone try to justify the GFA's opposition to the
CASA RPPL proposal. We discussed that extensively here and there was
quite a lot of support for it. It wasn't even proposed to be
compulsory or the only way of doing things as GFA members or RAAus
members could elect to remain members of their organisations and
continue to operate the way they had been.
Don't ask me to justify it - because I cannot and will not. I happen to
believe that we would be well served by a Glider Pilot's Licence of the
right type (and I was not close enough to the RPPL detail to say if that
was or was not the case). The current changes from instructing/coaching
to training and the emphasis shift from solo to somewhere close to
Silver C (and the issuance of a glider pilot certificate of some kind)
is definitely a step in the right direction.
Maybe you'd like to offer a defence or have the board revisit the issue?
See above - and asking the Board to revisit a decision when the RPPL is
off the table is just plain ridiculous.
As for being on the outside, I've been a gliding club treasurer, club
delegate to SAGA, a vice president of SAGA (even got to run an SAGA
AGM and the organisation survived that) and was SAGA Airfields and
Airspace Officer for several years(RAPAC meetings). I wish I could say
that any of the time spent at any of those meetings wasn't wasted.
I really don't care what you /*have*/ done - what specifically are you
doing /*now*/ to improve the GFA? All I can see is carping and criticism
- including bloody stupid attacks on people who are trying to do what
you have chosen to withdraw from.
I came to the conclusion that life was too short to spend it on futile
lost causes, however I will not put myself in the situation where the
powers that be, when faced with disasters of their own making, can say
"why didn't you tell us?" Hence my comments here. I also make
submissions to CASA when comment is called for through the formal CASA
consultation system.
Fine - if the GFA is indeed a "futile lost cause" then just please shut
up about it. You have a parallel path that allows you to glide outside
the GFA (a right that I believe is very important). Go ahead and glide.
Maybe if the GFA was more competent or organised differently there
would be more Australian glider pilots.
Precisely - and that is why I and others GFA members on Aus Soaring keep
working to help make the GFA more competent and better organised.
Mike, I have huge respect for you technical knowledge and value the
advice you have given me on technical matters - but you are really not
serving yourself well in this discussion.
--
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
