Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Geoff, and others, I am not against sending people solo, or any other form of freedom in the air, but where would you set the bench mark?, any body else can answer this question aswell,I have an independant authority, amongst other things, so this doesnt really affect me, so would be genuinely interested as to what people think would be a fair thing to fly unsupervised. regards JR - Original Message - From: Geoff Kidd To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements JR Quote Perhaps those of you who think the independent operators authority is a little unfair, have never sent someone solo, or endorsed them into a new type, from my perspective, that would be a very difficult thing to do Unquote Pilots going solo is happening all over the country all the time in all types of aircraft, (not only sailplanes), and it works well + the sky hasn't fallen in. It is only the GFA that sees it's members as being unable to handle a similar scenario without detailed, ongoing and sometimes oppressive supervision ... just like at school during little lunch. In my view it is just one of the lines of thinking that is shrinking us. Re Mitchell's post where he speaks to the GFA Model and the RAA Model just look at which is growing like crazy and which is not. Soaring certainly has the extra demands of the need for a launch and the ever present chance of a retrieve but if you have that covered, why shouldn't you be able to march to your own tune and enjoy yourself like other pilots do? Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: JR To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements Jeez it must time to get serious, I must agree with Manuel, unless you are using a motor glider, there has to be at least two people at the flying site anyway.One to fly the sailplane, and the other to drive/fly the launch method. I am sure I read somewhere that it is in the first hundred hours or so that the bullet proofing is in place, and the nothing can happen to me syndrome is alive and well. It's hard to learn new stuff when you know it all already.But I guess when the shite hits the fan, with somebody that is under supervision, whom ever is the supervisor, must have dreadful feelings, regardless of the circumstances. So I can understand the reluctance to let some new chap or chapette, to having a few hours solo, and then letting them go off on their own. Perhaps those of you who think the independant operators aurthority is a little unfair, have never sent someone solo, or endorsed them into a new type, from my perspective, that would be a very difficult thing to do, I'm not an instructor, but I'm sure there must be anxious moments for all instructors. regards JR- Original Message - From: Mitchell Preston To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements Don't panic - no punctuation lesson in this message. I'd simply like to say that this thread perhaps has a unifying theme under it: the notion of individual liberty and the means to apply that liberty to activities that we pursue. What I see emerging here is a range of attitudes toward independent operator/operations (IO) classification, expressed via the discussion of the various GFA/RAA etc standard procedures. It's interesting to see how people react to a perceived threat to their personal freedoms. Some of us need the 'security blanket' of minimum hours and such, while others are desperate to throw off the apparent 'shackles' of supervision asap (that judgement is sometimes motivated by the perception of one's skills over the perception of those skills by others...). It's always going to be a challenge to have standard procedures in place that meet all requirements in this case. I'm not leaping to the defence of the GFA nor am I poo-pooing the RAA model; what I am saying is that ultimately it's a case of individuals accepting the responsibility of IO and making sure that they don't abuse the 'liberty' that comes with this status. It's a little bit like getting a car licence: the gummint says you have to meet minimum requirements to become a vehicle independent operator, however there are stages of supervision up until the time you apparently meet all requirements and can take the P plates off the car. At that stage the gummit has tacitly recognized your driving abilities and is happy for you to be out on the road completely unsupervised (yeah, I know - some are saying that starts at the
Re: [Aus-soaring] ultralight accidents
While on ultralight accidents, I ran across this the other day while looking for something else. http://members.optusnet.com.au/~slamble/Why_use_CAR.html The top item is of interest. I don't think gliding is a whole lot better on a deaths per 100,000 hours basis. Now the comparison with all of GA is a little unfair as he probably should have compared with GA single engine day VFR ops but the comparison with crop dusting seems fair. Recreational aviation of all types is unforgiving and dangerous to the participants(much, much less so to innocent third parties). This isn't a reason to restrict it but those taking it up have a right to be properly informed, consenting adults. They also should be trained by competent, properly trained, experienced and current instructors who will not only teach you the mechanics of flying but proper, sound theory and the judgement required to fly safely and manage the risks. Yes this will cost but what you get for free is generally worth what you paid for it. Supervision after training is like trying to inspect quality into a product. In the GFA case it is even more highly questionable as those charged with supervision seem to feature so highly in the accident stats. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Quote I don't remember ever doing a formal flight test to fly gliders. Unquote Al, surely you must be doing an annual check each year? The annual check, if conducted properly constitutes a formal flight test. In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. The instructor then checks off each item on a form as being satisfactory/competent and submits the completed form to the CFI . If any item was not satisfactory then the pilot is required to complete further instructional flights focusing on that item before being cleared for solo. In general I would say that a well managed gliding club will maintain the standard of pilot competency above that of other forms of GA John Parncutt Phone: 0418 966 087 Fax: 03 9885 1320 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Borowski Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2008 3:01 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements Hi Brian, These accidents have been terrible. The article is clearly going to make some people say we should just ban these dangerous things, I don't want one crashing into my house. The problem is, a lot of the points made in this beat-up apply to the GFA as well. Pilots can fly with a minimum 20 hours' experience and, according to Recreational Aviation Australia, which is responsible for matters relating to ultralight aircraft, students have to pass only two multiple-choice exams and a formal flight test before receiving an RAA Pilot Certificate. No medicals are conducted. As we all know, the GFA doesn't require medicals either. The multiple choice exams aren't rocket science but were much more difficult then the GFA's - the GFA even gives out the exam beforehand, so it's just a simple memory test. I don't remember ever doing a formal flight test to fly gliders. Several accidents are mentioned in the article. From memory, I think some of them involved (please don't sue me if I'm incorrect, I'm only going by what I've read on forums) *A private pilot, possibly with a medical condition, illegally taking up paying passengers *Illegal aerobatics in an ultralight *An unregistered, illegal, thirty year old ultralight whose pilot refused to disclose his identity *A birdstrike The Recreational Flying Forums, http://www.recreationalflying.com.au/forum/ , has a section on incidents and accidents that list many of the above tragedies. An easy way to minimise the number of ultralight accidents would be to require 200 hours of experience before granting a license. That way, most people would say bugger this and quit. Not a practical solution. More training could be put in the syllabus, but then you may as well get a PPL (aside from higher costs). Best regards, Al On 9/7/08, Brian Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an article in the Brisbane Sunday Mail today, titled Dice with Death and Thrill-seekers die as ultralight trend takes off, which cites seven ultralight accidents. It also talks about the recent YAK and the Motor Falke fatalities, but the emphasis is overwhelmingly on the minimal RAA pilot qualifications, and states that there have been 10 deaths in ultralight crashes in the last 16 months. Food for thought!!! Regards Brian Wade ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring image001.gif___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Statistically speaking, you are going to have more accidents in RAA as you have more aircraft being flown with more hours in the air than GA and GFA. When I refer to GA I am referring about recreational pilots, not the big commercial operations, this includes the joy flight industry as it is for recreation. A prime example. At my local strip today for 1.5 hours (I was there for maintenance of my motor glider and preparing for my trip to Burketown at the end of the month). 1 GA and 7 RAA aircraft took off and the GA aircraft was only in the air for half an hour, with odds like that you can see why RAA is leading the way. That said, I will always fly gliders as that's real flying :-) Barry Kruyssen ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
At 06:42 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: Statistically speaking, you are going to have more accidents in RAA as you have more aircraft being flown with more hours in the air than GA and GFA. Here's the exact quote from the article I linked to: Further, while Australian Transport Safety Bureau statistics indicate that agricultural flying is the most dangerous form of general aviation flying in Australia, it is still nearly three times less likely to result in a death per number of hours flown than ultralight flying. Note the per hours flown Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
At 06:56 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. Please tell us the club so those who like living can avoid this bunch of lunatics. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
It is indeed a very strange form of flight training, to simulate an emergency by deliberately creating a real one. Cheers Tim Mike Borgelt wrote: At 06:56 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. Please tell us the club so those who like living can avoid this bunch of lunatics. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Mike, If you want really disturbing statistics, check out the fatality rate on a per hours flown basis for aerotow glider launching. I did a rough calculation a few years ago and on the available statistics it appeared the fatality rate for tug pilots was about ten times higher than for agricultural flying, on a per hours flown basis. The GFA was not particularly interested in hearing about it and took little or no notice of theATSB recommendations to lessen the problem, Harry Medlicott - Original Message - From: Mike Borgelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements At 06:42 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: Statistically speaking, you are going to have more accidents in RAA as you have more aircraft being flown with more hours in the air than GA and GFA. Here's the exact quote from the article I linked to: Further, while Australian Transport Safety Bureau statistics indicate that agricultural flying is the most dangerous form of general aviation flying in Australia, it is still nearly three times less likely to result in a death per number of hours flown than ultralight flying. Note the per hours flown Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1650 - Release Date: 9/3/2008 4:13 PM ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Absolutely correct Jeff, It is essential that all pilots are trained to correctly react to any emergency situation that may arise. During all stages of the launch the pilot has to be taught what actions they should take should a Rope/cable break or tug engine failure etc. occur. The landing may be straight ahead if the failure is low enough and there is enough runway ahead, or it may be in a suitable paddock or if high enough on the cross strip. We deliberately release the rope at about 4 to 500 ft (having briefed the pilot on the reason and the nature of the exercise first) and then ensure that the pilot has to land on the airfield on an alternative strip. This exercise is of particular use in re-enforcing the point that it is acceptable to land anywhere on the aerodrome in an emergency. There is a common problem of pilots becoming focused on getting back to the launch point and running out of height in the circuit, especially when under increased pressure due to an emergency. I well remember witnessing a low hours pilot in a Cirrus accidently spinning when joining circuit, and then attempting to do a normal circuit, he was lucky not to end up in the fence. John Parncutt Phone: 0418 966 087 Fax: 03 9885 1320 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Woodward Sent: Sunday, 7 September 2008 7:54 PM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements Simulated launch failures are a compulsory and essential part of the student/post solo training programme ( Instructors Manual P 55 ). Our club adopts the policy without fail. --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Received: Sunday, 7 September, 2008, 5:32 PM It is indeed a very strange form of flight training, to simulate an emergency by deliberately creating a real one. Cheers Tim Mike Borgelt wrote: At 06:56 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. Please tell us the club so those who like living can avoid this bunch of lunatics. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _ Win a MacBook Air or iPod touch with Yahoo!7- Find http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/y7mail/default/hpset/*http:/au.docs .yahoo.com/homepageset/?p1=otherp2=aup3=tagline out more. image002.gif___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:12:09 +0930, JR wrote: but where would you set the bench mark?, any body else can answer this question aswell, so would be genuinely interested as to what people think would be a fair thing to fly unsupervised. regards JR Drawing on my experience beyond the federation system alone, the checking pilot decision to issue authority for unsupervised operations can be very similar in approach to the normal decisionmaking authorising solo flight by the instructor in the earlier pilot experience era. At the IO experience level, the checking pilot asks a series of relevant questions - - what IO environment is the pilot intending to go to - what skill set does that need - what skill set does the pilot demonstrate - what support systems will be available If the pilot is operating in remote circumstance, there may be more emphasis on reinforcing the decisionmaking about seeking advice and support; while if the pilot is operating in a fraternal setting the advice and support structure can be more 2 way; and if the checking pilot is in that setting, the advice support options are observable on-going. What sort of sailplane, what launch form, what local unique challenges as well as check flight, conversation, canvassing the rules and mindset and capability and the reaction to to the statement 'you are responsible' all form part of the checking pilot decisionmaking The emphasis above is advice support whereas the prescriptive rules can inadvertently imply control and supervision. The advice and support approach has both the opportunity and the weakness that it is merit based. The checking pilot is thrown back on 'my judgement is that you need to come up to scratch in the following areas'; whereas 'you need x hours' is in some people's minds more defensible in a litigious society. (I don't agree, and am happy to stare down those who aren't up to scratch) but also offer interesting task oriented exercises that happen to have the further learning elements embedded. Example; another CFI refused a rating, the pilot came to me and I approved a rating - after we did several mutual cross countries together, and the associated 'chats' in the bar. All very quiet and non threatening, the pilot is now off in their own sailplane flying in varied places. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Thanks Emilis, that makes sense JR - Original Message - From: Emilis Prelgauskas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:12:09 +0930, JR wrote: but where would you set the bench mark?, any body else can answer this question aswell, so would be genuinely interested as to what people think would be a fair thing to fly unsupervised. regards JR Drawing on my experience beyond the federation system alone, the checking pilot decision to issue authority for unsupervised operations can be very similar in approach to the normal decisionmaking authorising solo flight by the instructor in the earlier pilot experience era. At the IO experience level, the checking pilot asks a series of relevant questions - - what IO environment is the pilot intending to go to - what skill set does that need - what skill set does the pilot demonstrate - what support systems will be available If the pilot is operating in remote circumstance, there may be more emphasis on reinforcing the decisionmaking about seeking advice and support; while if the pilot is operating in a fraternal setting the advice and support structure can be more 2 way; and if the checking pilot is in that setting, the advice support options are observable on-going. What sort of sailplane, what launch form, what local unique challenges as well as check flight, conversation, canvassing the rules and mindset and capability and the reaction to to the statement 'you are responsible' all form part of the checking pilot decisionmaking The emphasis above is advice support whereas the prescriptive rules can inadvertently imply control and supervision. The advice and support approach has both the opportunity and the weakness that it is merit based. The checking pilot is thrown back on 'my judgement is that you need to come up to scratch in the following areas'; whereas 'you need x hours' is in some people's minds more defensible in a litigious society. (I don't agree, and am happy to stare down those who aren't up to scratch) but also offer interesting task oriented exercises that happen to have the further learning elements embedded. Example; another CFI refused a rating, the pilot came to me and I approved a rating - after we did several mutual cross countries together, and the associated 'chats' in the bar. All very quiet and non threatening, the pilot is now off in their own sailplane flying in varied places. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10
David Lawley wrote: Well said Barry, problem is the GFA has its fingers in it's ears and is saying "lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you". Only a change to the board electoral system is going to save gliding, but the electoral system is rigged so that cannot happen. Pity eh? Which is exactly why it's not going to happen until the membership gets off it's collective rear end!!! The GFA is the members' organisation and if enough members get up and say "change" then it will happen. Whilst people sit around doing nothing, nothing will change. In the lead up to the GFA AGM this weekend, I wrote to the other regional Board members asking them to raise the issue of direct elections by the membership to the positions of President, Treasurer and Vice President - would they support changes to the articles that would give effect to this? This was after discussion in Gliding Queensland, in which we decided that we were prepared to push the barrow on this issue provided at least one other region was prepared to come on board and help. Guess what - no other region was prepared to do so. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Emilis, This is classic stuff, and you are to be congratulated on putting together so succinctly in your post, all the elements that need to be considered. I loved the bit towards the end, where you noted 'we did several mutual cross countries together ' Assuming several means more than 2, and cross country (here), means 1-3 hours per flight, we might assume you did somewhere between 3 and 9 hours flying. Herein lies the nub of what has not been considered by any previous postees, and that is the AMOUNT OF FLYING DONE by any pilot in a given time frame. I cannot recall - it is so depressing - the reported average hours done per annum by glider pilots: However it is miniscule by any reasonable reckoning, and this is well known to anybody who has looked at the matter. Doing something positive about addressing the issue has (to date), eluded the best minds in the movement! JR has asked for a number; you have enumerated the elements. Never the less, currency and hours is what IO and safe gliding is almost entirely about! Perhaps it is getting a little off the topic, but it is worth noting here, that in the past (and maybe now too), there were far too many instructors who never ventured away from the field. These days, I think that the role of the coach is fairly well established/recognised, and some of the instructional shortcomings of earlier days have been overcome. As you well know, in recent days the GFA has made a major effort to integrate the pre and post solo training into a seamless curve, and has also offered instructors (of the old school?) the chance to upgrade their skills to instruct past the solo stage- i.e. in X-country. As I understand it, the latter has met with limited success to date. That latter paragraph of yours also contained mention of associated chats in the bar. In the past this was an integral - and in my opinion - an absolutely essential part of gliding. This is a fact very well known to Mike Borgelt, (a veteran pilot), who I am sure will freely acknowledge the comment. Sadly, in the current environment, bar talk is an element of gliding that is disappearing/has already disappeared from the scene. Perhaps this is a new thread that could be looked at in this forum? Gary - Original Message - From: Emilis Prelgauskas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:12:09 +0930, JR wrote: but where would you set the bench mark?, any body else can answer this question aswell, so would be genuinely interested as to what people think would be a fair thing to fly unsupervised. regards JR Drawing on my experience beyond the federation system alone, the checking pilot decision to issue authority for unsupervised operations can be very similar in approach to the normal decisionmaking authorising solo flight by the instructor in the earlier pilot experience era. At the IO experience level, the checking pilot asks a series of relevant questions - - what IO environment is the pilot intending to go to - what skill set does that need - what skill set does the pilot demonstrate - what support systems will be available If the pilot is operating in remote circumstance, there may be more emphasis on reinforcing the decisionmaking about seeking advice and support; while if the pilot is operating in a fraternal setting the advice and support structure can be more 2 way; and if the checking pilot is in that setting, the advice support options are observable on-going. What sort of sailplane, what launch form, what local unique challenges as well as check flight, conversation, canvassing the rules and mindset and capability and the reaction to to the statement 'you are responsible' all form part of the checking pilot decisionmaking The emphasis above is advice support whereas the prescriptive rules can inadvertently imply control and supervision. The advice and support approach has both the opportunity and the weakness that it is merit based. The checking pilot is thrown back on 'my judgement is that you need to come up to scratch in the following areas'; whereas 'you need x hours' is in some people's minds more defensible in a litigious society. (I don't agree, and am happy to stare down those who aren't up to scratch) but also offer interesting task oriented exercises that happen to have the further learning elements embedded. Example; another CFI refused a rating, the pilot came to me and I approved a rating - after we did several mutual cross countries together, and the associated 'chats' in the bar. All very quiet and non threatening, the pilot is now off in their own sailplane flying in varied places. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change
Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10
Robert, As you have always been a advocate of free sharing of information with the GFA membership, can you please fairly summarise the for and against reasons that were considered by the Board, and why there was no support for this proposal? Gary - Original Message - From: Robert Hart To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10 David Lawley wrote: Well said Barry, problem is the GFA has its fingers in it's ears and is saying lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you. Only a change to the board electoral system is going to save gliding, but the electoral system is rigged so that cannot happen. Pity eh? Which is exactly why it's not going to happen until the membership gets off it's collective rear end!!! The GFA is the members' organisation and if enough members get up and say change then it will happen. Whilst people sit around doing nothing, nothing will change. In the lead up to the GFA AGM this weekend, I wrote to the other regional Board members asking them to raise the issue of direct elections by the membership to the positions of President, Treasurer and Vice President - would they support changes to the articles that would give effect to this? This was after discussion in Gliding Queensland, in which we decided that we were prepared to push the barrow on this issue provided at least one other region was prepared to come on board and help. Guess what - no other region was prepared to do so. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au -- ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.17/1657 - Release Date: 9/6/2008 8:07 PM ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
I don't see why. The instructor is obviously fully prepared monitoring the P1's performance closely so they can intervene if necessary. If done in a controlled manner it hardly has the same risk as a 'real' emergency, and it's a bloody good way of ensuring people really do know what they are doing. Certainly not the actions of a lunatic Mike - I find that statement just a tad ridiculous. Cheers, Richard --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Received: Sunday, 7 September, 2008, 5:32 PM It is indeed a very strange form of flight training, to simulate an emergency by deliberately creating a real one. Cheers Tim Mike Borgelt wrote: At 06:56 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. Please tell us the club so those who like living can avoid this bunch of lunatics. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Win a MacBook Air or iPod touch with Yahoo!7. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Most if not all forms of aviation do it , Stink wing guy's call it E.F.A.T.O, Glider pilots call it Cable Breaks, and Student s call it AHH F*** !! Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McLean Richard Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:04 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements I don't see why. The instructor is obviously fully prepared monitoring the P1's performance closely so they can intervene if necessary. If done in a controlled manner it hardly has the same risk as a 'real' emergency, and it's a bloody good way of ensuring people really do know what they are doing. Certainly not the actions of a lunatic Mike - I find that statement just a tad ridiculous. Cheers, Richard --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Received: Sunday, 7 September, 2008, 5:32 PM It is indeed a very strange form of flight training, to simulate an emergency by deliberately creating a real one. Cheers Tim Mike Borgelt wrote: At 06:56 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. Please tell us the club so those who like living can avoid this bunch of lunatics. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Win a MacBook Air or iPod touch with Yahoo!7. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/homepageset ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10
Gary Stevenson wrote: Robert, As you have always been a advocate of free sharing of information with the GFA membership, can you please fairly summarise the for and against reasons that were considered by the Board, and why there was no support for this proposal? Sorry - you must have misunderstood me. I asked the other regional representatives to discuss possible article changes in their region - and the answers all came back unsupportive of a change. As we were not prepared to go it alone (yet again), there was no proposal put to the AGM to change the articles. You would need to ask you regional representatives why their region decided the way it did. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10
In my opinion Robert and the Gliding Qld are to be congratulated for their attempt to prompt some change. (Not without considerable risk, I reckon, of being overtly or covertly attacked by a dinosaur or two down the track). It is however clear that the other States have opted to maintain the status quo as is their right. So the sport of Soaring (or probably more correctly termed under it's main activity of club based local gliding) will continue on the same way it has for years, asking itself the same old questions and kidding itself that it is addressing the key issues . just like a tired old company that has run out of ideas and is going out backwards. However if the membership do want to make the changes mentioned in previous posts, then this needs to be started immediately at Club State levels, then taken to a future AGM. BUT can anyone here give me some convincing reasons why the President, Treasurer and VP (as a minimum) should not be subjected to direct election from the membership? Regards Geoff - Original Message - From: Robert Hart To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10 David Lawley wrote: Well said Barry, problem is the GFA has its fingers in it's ears and is saying lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you. Only a change to the board electoral system is going to save gliding, but the electoral system is rigged so that cannot happen. Pity eh? Which is exactly why it's not going to happen until the membership gets off it's collective rear end!!! The GFA is the members' organisation and if enough members get up and say change then it will happen. Whilst people sit around doing nothing, nothing will change. In the lead up to the GFA AGM this weekend, I wrote to the other regional Board members asking them to raise the issue of direct elections by the membership to the positions of President, Treasurer and Vice President - would they support changes to the articles that would give effect to this? This was after discussion in Gliding Queensland, in which we decided that we were prepared to push the barrow on this issue provided at least one other region was prepared to come on board and help. Guess what - no other region was prepared to do so. -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au -- ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independant operator requirements
Ah sychronicity As a soon to be owner of a self launcher, (but not intending to be L2 Ind. Op) I've been reading what I can to improve my knowledge of the dangers of this mode of gliding. Only this morning?while eating my porridge I was reading about an incident involving a G109 in Longreach almost exactly described by Mike's hypothetical scenario. The article?may be found in A.G. May 1997. The outcome was not good. Its worth a read. Grant Harper -Original Message- From: Mike Borgelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 12:33 pm Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independant operator requirements ? The present GFA Level 2 Independent Operator leads to the following kind of absurdities: Take a bloke at say Longreach with a sheep station and he owns a C182 and has a PPL and 500 hours . He then buys a tricycle Katana motorglider and suddenly he is incapable of operating unsupervised as only 50 hours of his 500 power hours count for his GFA Level 2 independent Operator rating. Even if he buys a V2CM do you really think that after doing a say 20 hour course with someone like Ingo Renner he is incapable of operating safely on his own?? Sheer madness!? ? It is very difficult to shake the belief that the reason for the rule is to actually mostly prevent independent ops as those believers in the GFA religion clearly get very upset at the idea that someone, somewhere in Australia might be having fun in a sailplane without their knowledge and permission.? ? Mike? ? Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments? phone Int'l + 61 746 355784? fax Int'l + 61 746 358796? cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784? ? Int'l + 61 429 355784? email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com? ? ___? 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 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] GFA AGM/Seminar/ABM report
Hi folks Well, last weekend was the GFA AGM/ABM and Gliding Seminar. I attended as Gliding Queensland Board representative and the following is a quick outline which I will expand on at the next GQ meeting. Saturday 6 September *GFA AGM* Nothing to report really - as the membership doesn't get to vote on the GFA officers under the current constitution the meeting was completely focussed on dotting the i's and crossing the t's for the annual return to the corporations authority under which the GFA is incorporated. Gliding Seminar There was much interesting content here, including two presentations on simulators currently being built in Adelaide, using the Condor software at their core. Both of these simulators are some distance from completion but they were interesting as a technology demonstration. We were also treated to a close up of a ASW20 tri-jet conversion - the fuselage complete with three mounted jet engines was on display. Australia has had its most successful year in international competitions for over 15 years - with our team placing 6th in the world and our first podium finish in ages by Peter Temple. The Luesse and Rietti teams gave an interesting presentation on how they achieved this - and what we might do in the future to improve on this performance. For those who doubt the value of international success, one of the side effects of the success was significant media coverage (print, tv and radio) which will have helped the profile of our sport at all levels. We were also treated to a talk on the Perlan project. This is the project to soar the stratospheric wave to 100,000ft. Backed by Steve Fosset, they have proven that it is possible to do this - gaining the absolute gliding altitude record of over 50,000ft in the process - before Steve's death last year. Perlan is now designing and constructing a special purpose glider with the aim of increasing the altitude record to 90,000ft - but following Steve's death is now looking for a new backer. So - if you have a spare US$1.5 million around you could join this project and follow on from Steve! In the evening, the awards dinner speaker was Gavin Wills from Omarama, who gave us an interesting historical perspective of finding and soaring the mountain wave in NZ. All the presentations were videoed - but I don't know if/how these are going to be available. SAGA is to be congratulated on a very interesting and informative program. I understand that the 2009 AGM/ABM and seminar will be held in Sydney. Sunday 7 September Annual Board Meeting This is a special Board meeting at which the Board gets to elect the officers of the GFA as per the GFA Articles of Association. However, there was no election as the positions of President, Treasurer and Vice President received only a single nomination each (the current incumbents) - so they were duly re-elected. The rest of the meeting was a normal Board meeting. Here are my brief notes on the key issues as I saw them for Qld. /*Please note that these do NOT constitute official minutes (these will be posted to the GFA web site) and I may have misunderstood or mis-recorded things - if you have any questions, please contact me!*/ 1. I raised the issue of the change from instructing/coaching to integrated training. After discussion, the Board noted that this project was taking some time and requested that the steering group meet as soon as possible to move this forward. I think they will be meeting in October. 2. Membership -- we need to chase up what has happened to the Griffiths University members as they don't seem that to be included in the Qld membership statistics. Short term memberships are /not/ included in the figures, which show a slight decrease in Qld over the last twelve months - so it is possible that the 50 or so Griffiths Uni members are all short term (3 month or less) members. 3. Responsibility for the Radio officer has been merged with the Airfields and Airspace Officer for most (non-technical) issues. 4. The current Annual Financial Report will be put up on the web site. In future years, the AFR will be put up on the web site as soon as it is released from the auditors. The delay in getting this out this year was due to a combination of circumstances - the new auditors and the absence of the GFA president overseas. 5. There is a proposal to use some of the GFA reserves to fund some special projects for 2009/10 (up to $50,000 deficit agreed in principal -- I noted the GQ direction that a draw down of our reserves would require regional discussion). The final decision has not been made but is going to be discussed. The exec is working on these proposals further and fully detailed proposals will come to the Feb Board meeting for consideration. 6. The recent
Re: [Aus-soaring] Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 60, Issue 10
At 08:40 AM 8/09/2008, you wrote: BUT can anyone here give me some convincing reasons why the President, Treasurer and VP (as a minimum) should not be subjected to direct election from the membership? Regards Geoff Because the membership might elect the wrong people. As told by a former GFA pres ident to a friend of mine a few years ago. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Richard, It is called risk management, a concept you seem to be unfamiliar with. Aerotow low altitude launch failures are mercifully quite rare. The aim of risk management is to make sure the overall risk from the actual emergencies and the simulation thereof is the lowest it can be. I've had one low altitude aerotow emergency in 42 years. I've seen one other. No doubt there are more. They are still relatively rare. Exposing everyone to the real risks of a real low altitude release every year for something that may happen once in a gliding lifetime seems excessive. Even if not practiced, if the pilot has been trained to keep flying the glider he or she should survive and in most cases be able to use the glider again, even if not that day. Now let's see what else the practice as outlined by John Parncutt may do. It is done all the time, so there is the expectation that you WILL get back to the other strip. So when conditions are such that this isn't possible what happens? Another site? A glide stretch, stall and spin in? I suspect there is some negative training value here. There are sites where a low altitude release WILL result in an outlanding. You want to practice those too? The BGA used to do spin entries with students down to 700 feet AGL until a few years ago after a nasty accident where the 15 year old student died. After some discussion on r.a.s. they changed their instructor handbook a few months later.(one point made was - if the student stuffs it up what are you going to do?) During my power training a low altitude engine failure after takeoff was demonstrated just once. The instructor briefed it and at the time of his choosing pulled back the power. I lowered the nose, got the picture , he restored full power and I completed the checks WITHOUT actually turning the fuel and ignition and master switch off. The reason it was done just once? It was recognised as a hazardous procedure. The RAAF a few years ago lost a Boeing 707 and a trained crew by doing two engines out on one side asymmetric training at low altitude. It seems they were the only organisation in the civilised world still doing this in the real aircraft instead of the simulator where this sort of thing belongs. I expect both the pilots under training and the instructors had more hours/recency/better training than most GFA instructors. As for The instructor is obviously fully prepared monitoring the P1's performance closely so they can intervene if necessary , this would be more convincing if the accident rate amongst instructors was a lot better than it is. Have we forgotten the last case of an instructor killing a student already? It is pretty obvious what the GFA safety problem is - failure to think and unwarranted faith in the system and its instructors. I think GFA instructors are incredibly brave. They certainly are braver than I am and I avoid flying in the same cockpit as people braver than I am.(the quote is from Richard Herman.) Mike At 01:03 AM 8/09/2008, you wrote: I don't see why. The instructor is obviously fully prepared monitoring the P1's performance closely so they can intervene if necessary. If done in a controlled manner it hardly has the same risk as a 'real' emergency, and it's a bloody good way of ensuring people really do know what they are doing. Certainly not the actions of a lunatic Mike - I find that statement just a tad ridiculous. Cheers, Richard --- On Sun, 7/9/08, Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Tim Shirley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Received: Sunday, 7 September, 2008, 5:32 PM It is indeed a very strange form of flight training, to simulate an emergency by deliberately creating a real one. Cheers Tim Mike Borgelt wrote: At 06:56 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: In our club the annual check consists of two flights covering all key aspects of flight competency including emergency procedures such as an actual low release forcing the pilot to land on an alternative runway. Please tell us the club so those who like living can avoid this bunch of lunatics. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit:
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independant operator requirements
At 09:14 AM 8/09/2008, you wrote: Ah sychronicity As a soon to be owner of a self launcher, (but not intending to be L2 Ind. Op) I've been reading what I can to improve my knowledge of the dangers of this mode of gliding. Only this morning while eating my porridge I was reading about an incident involving a G109 in Longreach almost exactly described by Mike's hypothetical scenario. The article may be found in A.G. May 1997. The outcome was not good. Its worth a read. Grant Harper As I don't have a copy you'd better tell us about it. Was the problem incompetence, lack of tailwheel time, disregard of normal airmanship or what? Note I said a tricycle Katana and if the aircraft was V2CM 20 hours with a competent instructor. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
At 07:53 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: Simulated launch failures are a compulsory and essential part of the student/post solo training programme ( Instructors Manual P 55 ). Our club adopts the policy without fail. - As I said in my other post, unthinking adherence to the published procedures. Are you sure the procedure requires you to actually release at low altitude?. Next question is: How low? Didn't your club put a Blanik through the powerline to the club a few years ago after a low altitude release during a training flight ? Wasn't there an instructor on board? I agree it is necessary for students to learn to handle an aircraft at low altitude. A carefully structured flight in a travelling type motorglider should be able to accomplish this at far less risk to all concerned. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
Gary, I didn't ask for a number, I asked for a fair thing, and I think Emilis's answer is a fair thing, it is competentcy based, numbers don't mean much, unless they are at the bottom of an account !! regards JR - Original Message - From: Gary Stevenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements Emilis, This is classic stuff, and you are to be congratulated on putting together so succinctly in your post, all the elements that need to be considered. I loved the bit towards the end, where you noted 'we did several mutual cross countries together ' Assuming several means more than 2, and cross country (here), means 1-3 hours per flight, we might assume you did somewhere between 3 and 9 hours flying. Herein lies the nub of what has not been considered by any previous postees, and that is the AMOUNT OF FLYING DONE by any pilot in a given time frame. I cannot recall - it is so depressing - the reported average hours done per annum by glider pilots: However it is miniscule by any reasonable reckoning, and this is well known to anybody who has looked at the matter. Doing something positive about addressing the issue has (to date), eluded the best minds in the movement! JR has asked for a number; you have enumerated the elements. Never the less, currency and hours is what IO and safe gliding is almost entirely about! Perhaps it is getting a little off the topic, but it is worth noting here, that in the past (and maybe now too), there were far too many instructors who never ventured away from the field. These days, I think that the role of the coach is fairly well established/recognised, and some of the instructional shortcomings of earlier days have been overcome. As you well know, in recent days the GFA has made a major effort to integrate the pre and post solo training into a seamless curve, and has also offered instructors (of the old school?) the chance to upgrade their skills to instruct past the solo stage- i.e. in X-country. As I understand it, the latter has met with limited success to date. That latter paragraph of yours also contained mention of associated chats in the bar. In the past this was an integral - and in my opinion - an absolutely essential part of gliding. This is a fact very well known to Mike Borgelt, (a veteran pilot), who I am sure will freely acknowledge the comment. Sadly, in the current environment, bar talk is an element of gliding that is disappearing/has already disappeared from the scene. Perhaps this is a new thread that could be looked at in this forum? Gary - Original Message - From: Emilis Prelgauskas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:12:09 +0930, JR wrote: but where would you set the bench mark?, any body else can answer this question aswell, so would be genuinely interested as to what people think would be a fair thing to fly unsupervised. regards JR Drawing on my experience beyond the federation system alone, the checking pilot decision to issue authority for unsupervised operations can be very similar in approach to the normal decisionmaking authorising solo flight by the instructor in the earlier pilot experience era. At the IO experience level, the checking pilot asks a series of relevant questions - - what IO environment is the pilot intending to go to - what skill set does that need - what skill set does the pilot demonstrate - what support systems will be available If the pilot is operating in remote circumstance, there may be more emphasis on reinforcing the decisionmaking about seeking advice and support; while if the pilot is operating in a fraternal setting the advice and support structure can be more 2 way; and if the checking pilot is in that setting, the advice support options are observable on-going. What sort of sailplane, what launch form, what local unique challenges as well as check flight, conversation, canvassing the rules and mindset and capability and the reaction to to the statement 'you are responsible' all form part of the checking pilot decisionmaking The emphasis above is advice support whereas the prescriptive rules can inadvertently imply control and supervision. The advice and support approach has both the opportunity and the weakness that it is merit based. The checking pilot is thrown back on 'my judgement is that you need to come up to scratch in the following areas'; whereas 'you need x hours' is in some people's minds more defensible in a litigious society. (I don't agree, and
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independent operator requirements
At 08:53 PM 7/09/2008, you wrote: We deliberately release the rope at about 4 to 500 ft (having briefed the pilot on the reason and the nature of the exercise first) and then ensure that the pilot has to land on the airfield on an alternative strip. I thought you were talking about low altitude releases. I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. Sounds like a bit of tick the box, CYA, revenue raising. I well remember witnessing a low hours pilot in a Cirrus accidently spinning when joining circuit, and then attempting to do a normal circuit, he was lucky not to end up in the fence. So who trained him? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] Independant operator requirements
Definitely incompetence! He thought it was ok to do some stupid stuff because he was flying a glider, like trying to reduce a crosswind during take-off by rolling diagonally across the end of two rwys. The a/c was out of form two also. The pilot held a private pilot's ticket as well. ?- ?some people are just stupid no matter who trains them. GH -Original Message- From: Mike Borgelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:48 am Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Independant operator requirements At 09:14 AM 8/09/2008, you wrote:? Ah sychronicity? ? As a soon to be owner of a self launcher, (but not intending to be L2 Ind. Op) I've been reading what I can to improve my knowledge of the dangers of this mode of gliding.? Only this morning while eating my porridge I was reading about an incident involving a G109 in Longreach almost exactly described by Mike's hypothetical scenario.? The article may be found in A.G. May 1997. The outcome was not good. Its worth a read.? ? Grant Harper? ? As I don't have a copy you'd better tell us about it. Was the problem incompetence, lack of tailwheel time, disregard of normal airmanship or what? Note I said a tricycle Katana and if the aircraft was V2CM 20 hours with a competent instructor.? ? Mike? Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments? phone Int'l + 61 746 355784? fax Int'l + 61 746 358796? cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784? ? Int'l + 61 429 355784? email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com? ? ___? 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 Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
[Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. I believe that there is some training value in such a flight: The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe landing on field after a rope break, that would my first option). Also low level flight is experience with ridge flying too. Also in still wind conditions, a 180 degree turn can be considered. Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Obviously needs to be done with a proper briefing, exercise at altitude, exercise at 400' to 500' AGL, post flight de-brief. The plane doesn't know how far it is above the ground. My 2.2c worth ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
