On 18/10/2008, at 10:29 AM, Mike Borgelt wrote:
At 01:12 AM 17/10/2008, you wrote:
the GFA's traditional and historic sense of instructor
responsibility) -
Pity they keep killing and injuring people at the rate they do.
Ok, Mike, so here's the problem:
I'm a GFA instructor. I like to think that I have a credibly high
level of knowledge, demonstrate the appropriate level of airmanship
skills, understand failure modes and fault-tolerance, I spend a lot
more time than a lot of other instructors on theory in addition to
skills training, I'm widely read, I have the interpersonal skills
needed to impart skills and awareness to others, and I've always
tried to remain on a self-improvement regime to identify my own faults
in all of those areas and work to make them better over time.
All in all, my belief is that I do a pretty good job. I've certainly
never killed or injured anyone.
So I could easily take some of your less constructive bashing
personally,
but I have a pretty thick skin so I'll refrain from that.
But I'll ask you these two questions:
1. Is it your belief that the mere fact that I'm involved in the GFA
system means that I'm worthless as an instructor?
and:
2. How would an instructor who is involved in the GFA system need
to conduct themselves in order to meet with your approval?
I know you have problems with the GFA. I'm pretty sure you recognize
that you're not alone in expressing a lot of those criticisms.
But statements like the one you just cavalierly tossed out aren't
criticizing the organization, they're aimed at people within it. And
I'd like to understand whether you think that someone's involvement
with the GFA makes it prima-facie impossible for them to act safely.
Because if you actually believe that, you'd have to admit that it's a
bit extreme, wouldn't you? How can one's membership in an
administrative
organization automatically generate an inferior instructional result?
I like reading your stuff. I find it thought provoking, I agree with
a lot of it, and where I disagree I find that addressing your points
deepens my understanding of _why_ I disagree. So I find you an
insightful commentator on the kinds of things that get discussed
around here.
But I find it hard to take your criticism of GFA instructing
seriously when you present it with a reflexive, "GFA! BAD!" kind
of mantra, because I can't reconcile it with my own experience
of the way I, personally, approach instructing under the GFA system.
I'd find you more credible if you instead said, "GFA instructors
who conduct themselves in a certain way are BAD!" and went on to
expand on what that way is, what alternative ways would be better.
... and I'd probably agree with you there. I've seen bad instructors
too, we all have.
Switching from one administrative system to another _can't_
automatically make someone a better instructor. What, in your
opinion, _does_ make someone better? What avenues do you see to
improve instructing _without_ switching from a GFA administrative
system to a CASA administrative system?
(particularly given that on the parallel path, gliding instructors
under the non-GFA system will be drawn from GFA ranks anyway! we're
kinda at the point in Australian gliding's evolution where these
are important questions to answer...)
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 -----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
