Hi Mark Thank you for a detailed and logical post. Frankly I do not think I would take issue with most points you make. I simply think my personal experience is different. I am not a member of any other flying organisation so I cannot compare.
The fact is that I do not see that GFA impedes what I want to do, nor what a majority of glider pilots I personally know (a limited sample) do. Does a level 2 instructor impedes my flying, not in the least, do I feel in any way "supervised"? Not in the least. When it is my turn to run the day, do I interfere with any of the solo pilots? No. So the only time I feel as a second-class aviator is when i hook into a 6 kt thermal and I know that Alan Barnes would be doing 8 :). Cheers Paul On 2 September 2014 12:30, Mark Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Paul Bart <[email protected]> wrote: > > You say "When our newcomers realise that they will always be treated as > second class aviators we can't blame them when they vote with their > feet." Well I have been involved in gliding for some fourteen years now, > with a reasonably sized club and I am yet to encounter any pilot being too > worried about being classed as "second class aviator”. > > > <puts hand up> > > Hi, I’m Mark. > > I’m another 14 year glider pilot, just like you. In addition to a GPC > with an L2 instructor rating and a D1109 airworthiness cert, I also have an > RAAus pilot certificate, and a CASA PPL(A). > > During my time in the GFA system, I’ve spent 3 years as a club CFI. I > know all about GFA’s attitude towards personal responsibility. > > I’m yet to encounter *any* other form of aviation in any other > jurisdiction where a trained pilot is not considered responsible for their > own actions; or where an instructor is expected to assume some kind of > poorly defined “responsibility” for what other trained pilots do, simply by > virtue of being present at the time of their launch. > > … except the military, which is, I believe, where the GFA’s system and > attitude originates. > > There was a time when I didn’t care about any of this: I was a GFA > member, a glider pilot, and that’s simply the system, take it or leave it. > So I totally understand why it doesn’t matter to some (most) glider pilots. > > But after exposure to the CASA and RAAus systems, my attitude has changed. > > The Commonwealth of Australia considers me competent to make and be > responsible for all my own decisions relating to my operations and the > airworthiness of my aircraft. > > The GFA does not. > > That paternalism grates. At each membership renewal since I gained my > PPL, I’ve thought a little bit harder about whether I’m prepared to accept > the GFA’s increasing tendency to centralize, to oversee, to diminish the > responsibility that each pilot has to maintain their own safety. I’ve also > thought about the responsibility of instructing, and “taking charge” of an > operation that can only be influenced, not controlled, and whether that’s > something I want to expose myself to. > > I’m also increasingly of the view that some of that philosophy reduces > safety. There are so many things that GFA pilots can convince themselves > they never need to worry about because someone else will second-guess the > decision for them. > > My membership is currently overdue. I’m still thinking. > > Last weekend I was going to fly my RV out to a gliding club to try them on > for size, to have an annual check and see if we we’re a good fit for each > other, and see if there are any openings in that I might be able to > contribute to. I would have renewed my membership to make that happen, but > I had a bad night’s sleep on Saturday night and didn’t assess myself as > passing an IMSAFE check for that kind of operation, so I stayed home > instead. Now I have some more work travel coming up and it’ll probably be > at least a month before I get another opportunity, so maybe I’ll keep > thinking about whether GFA’s philosophy is compatible with me until October > or November. > > Here’s something that’s important, which I think is frequently lost: > > Aviation is a technical discipline, but it has a strong emotional > dimension as well. We fly because we get some kind of high out of it: We > *love* it, otherwise we wouldn’t put ourselves through the time and money > and setbacks and heartache needed to enjoy it. > > Different people find that emotional response in different ways. > > For some people, it’s about flying higher or further or faster or longer > than anyone else. For those people, the philosophy of the GFA is utterly > irrelevant: As long as they can get into a glider, who cares, right? > These are the people the GFA serves the best, in my opinion. > > For others, emotional reward comes from making contributions. We’re the > people who instruct or serve on committees or get airworthiness > credentials. For us, the philosophy of the GFA *does* matter, a bit, > because it defines the framework those contributions are made in: It’s > unlikely, for instance, that someone will find reward in instructing if > they believe GFA’s syllabus provides bad safety outcomes. > > Then, there’s at least one other group: Entire libraries of books have > been written about the gut emotional appeal that the *freedom* of human > flight satisfies. That isn’t just the ability to soar with the birds, it’s > also tied up with the fact that it’s one of the few pursuits left where an > individual can assume “command responsibility” and make decisions without > being second-guessed by a bureaucrat, and be wholly responsible for the > outcome of those decisions. > > For that group, GFA’s philosophy of *never* yielding control and > responsibility to pilots is utterly toxic, and incredibly patronizing. No > matter how much training we do, we can never be trusted to assume command > of an aircraft under our own recognizance, we’re always being “supervised” > by someone else. > > So the FAA system, where you have a PPL(G) and fly gliders without being > forced to be a member of a private association, is incredibly attractive. > That’s what we expected from the CASA GPL, and the fact that its design > has been sabotaged to *specifically* to exclude that outcome is the > source of much bitterness and negativity among some of us. > > I don’t want to be “supervised” by someone else. I’m not if I fly as an > RAAus member, or as a CASA license holder. I’m only a second-class aviator > not trusted to make my own decisions independently if I fly with GFA. > > In literally every other aviation discipline, I can front up to an > aircraft owner, flash a pilot’s certificate, hire an aircraft, and be 100% > responsible for my actions. Under the GFA system, I can’t. That’s been a > common complaint about the GFA for as long as I can remember, and it’s > immensely disappointing that there is no apparent intention to address it > at all. Membership-based organization not responding to members’ issues. > > I’ve had a lot of emotional reward from GFA over the last 14 years, do I > want to abandon it? I really enjoy flying gliders, but this stuff is > important to me even if you don’t understand it and it isn’t important to > you, and GFA makes it so freakin’ hard to extract pleasure from flying when > this ridiculous, unnecessary paternalism overshadows everything. > > So I’m still thinking… > > > - mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
