Re: [Aus-soaring] The Golden Age

[emillis prelgauskas]

Thank you Gary,
I fully concur that memory adds rose to the glasses.

I am drilling a bit deeper, based on my fire ground and court work.
In all fields of activity, there are prescriptive rules  and these are 
vehemently applied
and defended by some.
In many fields of activity it has since been demonstrated that ‘one size fits 
all’
creates more problems than it solves.
That doesn’t stop the ‘fixed rules’ crowd from trying to forget about alternate 
solutions.

fire ground example: “No, you can’t build a new replacement home where your 
existing home was burnt
down by the bushfire; because the rules have changed and we don’t permit that 
sort of thing now”.

In these fields the primacy of good human outcomes results in ‘alternate 
solutions’ which can then be applied:
“The new build will have a shelter to ABCB guidelines, fire resistant 
construction to AS3959 and siting
maintenance/fire fighting capability to Minister’s Spec SA78 - i.e. this is 
permitted.”

Gliding is still travelling down that path of recognising that better outcomes 
come from a baseline of
prescriptive ‘deemed-to-satisfy’ provisions with higher order alternate  
solutions above this.
(The Building Code of Australia categorises 3 such layers in its industry, with 
‘expert judgement’
at the top of the pyramid.)  

Emilis


On 24 Apr 2016, at 9:11 pm, Gary Stevenson  wrote:
> Emilis, on consideration, I do not entirely agree with your recent comments.
> Golden ages live in our memories, but (fortunately/unfortunately), memories
> are fallable. In any case, all that you refer has passed ..for ever. 
> 
> As always, NOW is the time to seize the moment 
> 
> Let me suggest to you and to everyone else who is a member of this forum,
> that the reality of gliding in Australia today  right now .. is that
> we are living in an era WHERE THIS IT IS AS GOOD AS IT IS EVER GOING TO GET.
> 
> THIS is the golden age.
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Glider Registration

[emillis prelgauskas]

A conversation that has never been formally had within the sport is the ‘value’ 
of an Australian registration.
>From my end, that registration held by an elderly airframe has meant that from 
>1949 onward it has been possible to trace the provenance (a la ‘Who do you 
>think you are’) until the late 1970s when we ran out of VH-G.. and began to 
>use a variety of intermediate prefixes.

For me it is sad to see an airframe returned to service after a hiatus, needing 
a new registration, thereby losing the continuity.
Others will pipe in for themselves, about the preference to have a VH-G.. 
reallocated ahead of a new intermediate prefix.
And those who favour monikers ahead of VH-… as their call sign, recognition, 
etc.

Emilis 


On 24 Apr 2016, at 8:28 am, Justin Sinclair  wrote:
> I probably should know this but how do we control registrations. 
> Hackett, Borgelt or Scutter will no how to calculate how many markings are 
> available starting with G but I suspect that there are many G _ _ that are 
> unflown.
> I guess my question is how many gliders are out there never to fly again and 
> do we actively control them. 
> I get that there are many aircraft that are capable of restoration however 
> surely things like Blaniks and other things hanging from hangar trusses that 
> will never be flown again can be de-registered back to their serial number so 
> that should a miracle happen they can be registered.
> Justin 
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] T as a mandated instrument

[emillis prelgauskas]

On 21 Apr 2016, at 5:52 am, Justin Couch  wrote:
> We don't get to pick and choose how we interpret "relevant" rules when we 
> don't like one that is not in our favour. I looked through at least another 
> dozen gliders of varying age. All state cloud flying permitted, none, other 
> than PZL require a T  Similarly, where specialised equipment for a task is 
> needed (think G-meters and Aerobatics), they are listed separately in the 
> TCDS - see the K21 as an example. PZL dropped that from the list in their 
> most recent models of the 55 and Perkoz.
> 
> I agree that the requirement for T for the MEL is silly, that's why I felt 
> like it was worth sharing the story. Here's an example of some of the crazy 
> paperwork that does exist out there, and we managed to find a decent 
> workaround for it. It's also a cautionary tale about making sure that 
> inspectors _actually_ read their paperwork that they claim to be signing off, 
> rather than just waving their hands and saying "yeah I know what's written, 
> I've done this a hundred times" that can be applied in many different 
> situations.


Thank you Justin for sharing.

I am however with Roger in this theme.

There was a very good reason that gliding had ‘exemptions’ globally in the 
Regulations. To avoid this mismatch between commercial aviation and our sport 
specific needs.
On my on-going theme - if the elder states people were drawn on by the 
federation - you would have had prior alert about your glider being illegal 
because it doesn’t carry the fire extinguisher, and in multi-seat ‘passenger’ 
capable airframe, the defibrillator.
(Yes, this has actually been reasons for refusing certification during import 
‘inspection’ - the standard paperwork insists on these). 

When we put a junior CASA officer and a junior (read - recently renewed) GFA 
’system’ in the same place - all the 67 year history is lost and we go through 
the re-learning all over again from scratch.

Including that the best results are achieved when GFA told CASA to stick it - 
that we are the experts in our sport, which needs to operate in specific ways 
in order to be safe.
Remember the primacy - SAFETY.

How does making the paper mound higher and in multiple mounds (the compliant, 
the interpreted work around, the reality) contribute positively to this?
The argument that ‘society demands this’ is so hollow - as if the public 
bystander leaning on the aerodrome fence is able to tell the operator how to do 
things because of the unformed opinions - regulation by social media.

Emilis
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Fw: Nigel's omission

[emillis prelgauskas]

This is indicative of the dilemma about corporate knowledge, as each generation 
succeeding the one before
only knows what they know, and records that for posterity.
Like the re-imagining of the history of the sport’s formation and early growth 
by the late Maurice Little when the current magazine replaced
the several previous iterations; and was published there but which was so 
wildly wrong that re-writes and retractions were called for.

The problem becomes that the record such as an award becomes the permanent 
record and is then repeated into the future.
That is why correcting the historical record early in manifest ways is 
important.

Emilis

 
On 23 Jul 2016, at 9:06 pm, Harry  wrote:
> I truly believe that overlooking Nigel’s contribution was an unintentional 
> oversight. The first I heard of the award was today and I immediately phoned 
> Nigel with my concern as to him not being given credit for what he had done. 
> I then also emailed an appropriate GFA official suggesting that it might be 
> possible to give the award on a joint basis. Was told it might be difficult 
> now but that the idea would be put to an subsequent  GFA board meeting. For 
> the record I investigated the use of Flarms overseas and then approached 
> Nigel in the hope he could manufacture them. As much as anyone I respect the 
> work Nigel, whom I count upon as a friend, contributes to the gliding 
> movement,
>  
> Bob,  Your concern and support of Nigel is justified and I truly hope the 
> omission can be rectified. It is about ten years since Flarms were introduced 
> into Australia and peoples memories are not always perfect particularly when 
> they were not personally involved,
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] definitions

[emillis prelgauskas]

It is great to see conversation in full flow.
One issue confounding understanding in the conversation might be the quite 
different definitions being placed on elements of gliding, with different 
contributors coming at things from differing points of view.
It is possibly a difficult ask, but it might be worth trying to get some common 
ground on what we mean by particularly topical words.

Such as:
‘vintage' gliders
The strict formal definition has been codified by Aust Gliding Museum and 
Vintage Gliders Australia to encompass the wood range of airframes.
That definition is being tested by the early Phoenix brought into Australia.

An earlier hope was that alloy and early production FRP airframes would end up 
with monikers of their own; and hopefully enthusiasts and advocates for each.
‘classic’ 
‘heritage'
‘venerable’
‘mature’
‘prototypical’
are the kinds of words used in other fields of activity.

The broader definition void is:
what is ‘gliding’
- current generation sailplanes
- pure, sustainer, motor gliders
- the coming generation of electric, FES, etc.
- launch by foot, winch, plane, self
- hire
- individual operation vs structured club operation
- traditional volunteer group based operation vs electronically enhanced pilot 
operation vs commercial operation

If, as I interpret, we mean all these things, then common ground (and then a 
way forward) will be hard to find.

Emilis


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[emillis prelgauskas]

My understanding is that at present we have a
Project beyond 3000 underway
(encouraging clubs around Australia to have current members look to re-engage 
former members or engage friends).
To be active in April 2017.

This may sit within a business plan. As it seems similar to an Executive 
Officer initiative by a similar name several years ago. And has drivers similar 
to advocacy from the late Maurice Little to regions years prior.
I am unsure about who the responsible officer in the current case is, or what 
enabling budget is allowed for.

The detail appears to include GFA charging 50% national fee for people taking 
this up, with that money to then go to the engaging club 12 months later.
I haven’t thought through what that incentive represents against the (student) 
pilot’s spend on going to the club, launching, flying, instruction costs for 
that year.

>From each club’s viewpoint, the counterpart consideration is the available 
>resources to service incoming members, and hence to what extent to activate 
>the project within their own circumstance.

Emilis


On 2 Feb 2017, at 11:41 am, Peter Carey  wrote:
> We would get an organization to
> 1. Draw up a business plan for the GFA and for the Clubs (one each for large, 
> medium and small Clubs)
> 2. Draw up a plan and budget for effective publicity and social media 
> campaign.
> 3. Oversee the implementation of the above. 
> 4. The implementation should be carried out by the staff employed by the GFA.
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] MEMBERSHIP AND A WORLD REVIEW

[emillis prelgauskas]

As occurs in other parts of gliding, the issue of pilot responsibility vs 
club/instructor ’supervision’ 
has many constituent parts.

- the existing fiction is that the national body ‘controls’ the sport
whereas a reality is that at each individual flying site the control/supervision
relies on local circumstance.

example from my own life: an individual chiding me for operating on a Council 
owned public aerodrome
and trying to exercise control by asserting a formal position within the 
national gliding hierarchy
when in that circumstance in law only an employee of the Council could do that.

- where a gliding club controls a flying site, by lease or ownership, their 
interest in ‘control’
is about maintaining their reputation in their community.
So that you as a visiting pilot don’t do something that puts their butt in a 
sling for the future.

- where you are intending to use a gliding club asset - glider or launch method 
- the club
has an interest in that asset being cared for; in many cases this ‘check’ is 
foisted onto the duty
instructor to achieve this

- where (motor)gliding is operating with other aviation forms, there is the 
constant baseline
of query (‘what, you switch the engine off?’) which puts the perception of 
gliding amongst
fellow (sport)aviators in the mix; necessitating an extra level of considerate 
collegiate behaviour;
again a club might place the onus for that behaviour compliance on the duty 
instructor

- beyond this are the more direct impositions on pilot and instructor: what are 
the local expectations
of capability. in some places airspace/radio monitoring is irrelevant, in some 
you can’t go cross country
because of terrain, in some local places special requirements apply (mountain 
sites with unique
wind and downdraught patterns, etc.)
let alone piloting skill norms - can (s)he fly the particular type, in what 
weather limits, is the flying
by rote or sensitive to the available soaring potential (lift lines, thermals, 
wave, slope, etc.)

A ‘certificate’, ‘license’, ‘rating’ is applied across these. Boring holes in 
the sky, steady speed, altitude
and awareness of procedure, radio, traffic is one thing.
Gliding is so much more; which is why people do it.

Thank you for the inputs.
Something to think about.

Emilis


 
On 6 Feb 2017, at 11:04 am, Greg Wilson  wrote:
> If we really want to stop the dwindling numbers in gliding, giving pilots 
> responsibility for their flying is a very good place to start as it increases 
> the likelihood of attracting other pilots into the sport.
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] a thank you

[emillis prelgauskas]

To all contributors to the conversation on gliding the sport:
a thank you.

The conversation serves the same function as did the production in 
1996 of the GFA Development Guide.
It gets together the thinking across the breadth of issues:responses
of the day.

It helps people like me to cast my net wider in applying solutions.
Most of us are reminded through the conversation about how broad
the sport is, and how differently participants, and thus possible future
participants view and aspire.

You are welcome to continue to accuse me of my own sectoral myopia
(vintage style gliding ;-)
but I assure you I do have toes in other parts of the sport
up to ‘hire’
and more importantly I use my own money
rather than sitting in committees and sucking on other peoples’.

Emilis
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] GFA Negative Advertising and Censorship?

[emillis prelgauskas]

Thank you Richard,

even though my contribution is spread over 50 years, I am still in there 
pitching for a future for gliding at the coal face. In the last 6 months I have 
-
- contributed to a neighbouring club whose CFI ‘retired’ because of the ever 
increasing onerous impositions by GFA on these volunteer positions
- I am organising a passenger day for non-gliding people on the ‘aerial 
excursion principle' (even though I will fork out $30 per person out of my own 
pocket to make it happen (yes the GFA AEF tax)
- a few people know the museum and library which I run tours through for 
non-gliding people as a contact point for the sport (thank you Mandy for the 
offer of GFA assistance, but really, GFA is so far off the mark that I have to 
declare independence to get useful things done)
and so on

So, Richard, be happy in your ignorance of the real state of the sport, 
continue to believe that the faffing about by the GFA actually matters. 
Meanwhile real people during real things will just get on with it.
And to Ulrich - your years of sacrifice for the sport are held in regard by 
some people, who know what is really going on.

Emilis

On 30 Jan 2017, at 6:29 am, Richard Frawley  wrote:

> i assume most people know that gliding requires a minimum membership size to 
> keep the cost and freedoms we enjoy possible.
> 
> if you have not noticed we are actually under the minimum membership for 
> sustainability.
> 
> This is a problem anyone who wants reasonable continuance needs to own and 
> assist with.
> 
> The general lethargy towards this problem is significant. The GFA have very 
> limited means due in the main to budget constraints to do much about this 
> issue. John with just about no resource has been doing a great job as a 
> volunteer. He is however frustrated by the above lethargy after 3 years in 
> the role.
> 
> So, what have YOU done to assist glidings future in the last 6 months???
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

[Aus-soaring] discussion wrt gliding competencies

[emillis prelgauskas]

It is pleasurable to see aus-soaring delivering a broad range of thoughts on 
serious gliding core subjects.


Contributing elements to the diverse breadth of commentary are both
the diversity of ‘gliding’ styles (as previously listed)   and 
the variety of attitudes brought by individual pilots to gliding.

>From ‘pilot-in-command’ self-responsibility at one end of the spectrum
through to ‘flying-to-the-rules’ satisfaction that doing what the 
control agency says by rote is the way.

The latter may work in a world where boring holes in the sky is aviation,
but gliding in all its forms, even when motors are involved,
is more complex.
Where complexity includes giving more focus on thinking ahead about
possible actions needed with regard to change of aircraft state
(engine on to engine off and vice versa), varying flight path
to suit weather (lift lines) and proximity of other traffic (gliders
circling); which don’t occur in other flight forms.

Thus gliding appears to require a much higher order of 
independent thinking, together with action at closer time frames 
than does ‘regulated flying’ at constant heights, speeds and 
straight line ‘go to’.

Instructing has traditionally focused first on pilot skills, 
then pilot decisions regarding weather interaction,
and seems yet to need to get to the ‘human factors’ stuff in terms of
individual pilot psychological make up. 

Several decades of the impression that the sport is ‘controlled’ top down
seems to have created generations of pilots happy to bumble along
in contrast to the primacy of the pilot at the pointy end 
needing to make decisions and act.

Emilis
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Training booking system and process

[emillis prelgauskas]

Some use
 http://www.aircraftbookingsystem.com/default.aspx



On 17 Feb 2017, at 11:16 am, Ben Coleman  wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> Are there any gliding clubs using a booking system of some sort to organise 
> training activities?  This may be as simple as who is turning up and who is 
> instructing or a complete system allocating student, instructor, aircraft and 
> timeslot.
> If you have experience of such a system please get in touch either here or 
> via email.  I would love to hear the pros and cons.
> 
> (Sorry if this is a double post, sent to old aus soaring address)
> 
> Thanks, Ben Coleman 
> President, Hunter Valley Gliding Club
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Membership- GFA- clubs future survival

[emillis prelgauskas]

The point that has been made in other forums is that
- the gain of a new member
does not equal
- the loss of an existing member.
Because the former needs support, mentoring and encouragement
whereas
the latter needs respect and encouragement but delivers knowledge and 
competencies.

Hence I suspect the emphasis on getting past pilots to re-engage.

If we aim at all new ab initios, the workload will kill off the last of the 
competency resources, particularly in small clubs, thereby hastening their 
demise.

Emilis 

On 27 Feb 2017, at 11:02 am, Peter Brookman  wrote:
> 
> This is more a statement of situation that I would feel there are other clubs 
> in similar situation.
> 
> Peter B 
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] "Sully"

[emillis prelgauskas]

I saw it tonight.
With my emergency management background
I could see the continuous theme on human factors which culminate at the end.
Told in a slightly subdued style to suit the general audience it is intended 
for.
Length felt slightly short for someone in my mindset. 



On 13 Sep 2016, at 5:37 pm, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
>> >>Well you may point out to your son the fact that Sully achieved the only 
>> >>successful ditching of a commercial airliner in the history of aviation 
>> >>where not one person was killed and only 5 were injured.
>> 
>> Yes, but as he said, isn't that what they are paid for? But by the
>> above accounts, that's not what the film is about.
> 
> I saw the film on Sunday morning with Carol,  a couple who are friends, their 
> 15 year old son and their son in law.
> All thought it was a good movie.
> 
> In the movie, the NTSB conflict wasn't actually emphasised too much and when 
> faced with the real evidence they readily backed down instead of ignoring it.
> 
> My only criticism of the movie is that the timeline is a little disjointed. I 
> think it could have been told linearly. But that would be second guessing Mr 
> Eastwood and I'm not feeling that lucky.
> 
> In the actual NTSB report note the slightly dissenting opinion on a couple of 
> points of the BEA (French equivalent of NTSB). One might almost think they 
> were trying to protect Airbus.:-)
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring