On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:30:03 +1030, Mark Newton wrote: >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...)
This is the current situation, with the CASA system having access to the most experienced spectrum of individuals with a GFA background. When the new rules are in place, this may expand to draw from RAAus, GA? as well. (in the same way this worked in reverse across aviation sports a decade ago as the newer sport forms were evolving). One noticeable difference between the administrative streams is that in one the goal is to 'solo' the pilot (be that at 'first solo' or GPC levels); whereas in the other the goal is to ready the pilot for 'you take responsibility for your own actions'. The latter sits slightly beyond IO level 2 or GPC standard and more closely aligns with what HG & PG (& possibly RAAus) need to do. A useful action GFA might contemplate is evolving an emphasis on empowering pilots through the training process (initial and coach based) to create pilots capable of being responsible for themselves. A barrier to this is the traditions of club control of / responsibility for the pilot rather than emphasis on that control being toward use of club assets. _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
