Robert,
I have no difficulty with your first three points - after all that is
the way GA has operated for ever, so there is no obvious reason why
gliding could not follow the same model. I would certainly support
anything that reduces the "nanny" approach which the current system
encourages.
I am always puzzled by the advocates of direct election though. Seems
to me that the one guaranteed result of voting is that you will elect a
politician, regardless of how you go about it. Further, the more
"popular" you make the election process, the more likely you are to
elect someone who is a politician first and whose other skills come a
distant second. Also, being directly elected will mean that they are
tempted to make populist, short-sighted decisions, rather than ones
which may be in the long term interest of the sport.
Where is the evidence that direct election leads to better candidates,
better selections and most importantly, better outcomes for the
organisation that adopts this procedure? The US president is (to a very
close approximation) popularly elected...:)
Cheers
Tim
Robert Hart wrote:
erich wittstock wrote:
Piloting skill and the sport itself are highly regarded.
The thing that gets a bagging is the ancient GFA system.
Even RA Aus left the GFA behind in the aspects of training /
licensing. Yes, it is debatable if someone with 30 hours flying
experience should hold a license equivalent in gliding - compared to
RA Aus.
Maybe GFA is smarter than we all think and just monitors what others
(RA-Aus) are doing and come up with an even better system in the not
so distant future... ;-)
So what modifications would you like to see to the GFA system?
The changes I personally see as beneficial to our future are:-
1. Instructors only being responsible for the operations of pilots
with less than the Glider Pilot Certificate. This would make the
GPC equivalent to what is currently the level 2 independent
operator rating. A satisfactory annual (?biennial?) check,
medical declaration, continued GFA membership plus say 10 hours
gliding per year would be all that is required to maintain that
status.
Clubs would however maintain control of the operation of their
fleet (tugs/gliders) and could require whatever hours, currency,
checks etc they felt necessary for flying their gliders, being
towed by their tugs etc.
2. Removal of the dual check/signature requirement for rigging of
all gliders that have self-connecting controls and for all
privately owned gliders flown only by the owner (which would
mean no passengers in such a two seater glider unless).
3. Removal of the requirement to be a member of a club to be a
member of the GFA. People choosing this path would however have
to make arrangements for their annual (?biennial?) check. Clubs
already have non-member rates if such people want/need to fly
their aircraft.
4. The direct, annual election by the membership of the President,
Vice President and Treasurer of the GFA.
--
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
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
