Positive no blame reporting culture

[Jim McDowall]

It is a bit unfair to blame the GFA for CASA actions, or the state of aircraft costs or the inequality in society we are seeing now.

You missed my point. If it cost $1million to run the GFA the cost per person if there are 4000 members is $250. If there are 1000 members the cost is $1000 per person. The GFA bears much of the responsibility for the decline in membership during which time RAAus has gone from zero to over 10,000 members so it is easy to see which model has more appeal in the recreation marketplace. A thinking person would probably conclude that their business model is not suited to the demands of the market.

[Jase T]

So what is the difference between "possible" and "practicable"? I read them as both being the same, but then I have only been using English for 80 years.

 

One definition I remember is land as soon as possible = land in the first available place that will cause minimal damage to the aircraft and minimal risk of injury to the crew. Land as soon as practicable = first suitable location that will result in no damage to aircraft no risk to crew and may allow access for repairs to be made.

 

Immediately = land immediately damage to aircraft is acceptable as a non controlled landing is eminent.

 

Immediately = fire light. 0 oil pressure and confirmed oil loss etc etc

 

Possible = 0 oil pressure no other confirmed problem, exceeding engine limitations by certain amount. Chip light and oil pressure. Engine fuel filter bypass and pressure fluctuations .

 

Practicable - cracked windscreen (not pressurised) or primary generator failure. Engine oil or fuel filter bypass with nonsecondary indications. Some are prac but if x happens it becomes poss etc

Edited August 4, 2020 by Jase T

[Bruce Tuncks]

I still think you are being too hard on the GFA Jim. It is not their fault that RAAus planes are now cheaper than gliding. These days I have a choice of the Libelle or the Jabiru, and it is easier ( and cheaper ) to fly the Jabiru. But the best flying is still gliding... you can be 100 km from home on a good gliding day and have final glide... no worries about where might I go if the engine stops.

Alas, there are not many such days in a year. The rest of the time, the Jabiru gets me flying just fine.

As I get older though, I am flying power more and gliding less. None of this is the fault of the GFA. The cheapest flying I can imagine would be to get an old wooden glider, like a Schneider Boomerang, ( 8000 dollars max ) and take it to a winch club. You could fly all day for a few dollars launch cost. And this would be under the GFA.

[Bruce Tuncks]

But the point about trying to maintain services with a dwindling membership is quite valid. GFA needs to wind back as their membership declines. This is a hard thing to ask them to do though.

[Jim McDowall]

And this would be under the GFA.

Wouldn't it be more practical to have a glider endorsement on an RAA certificate. Afterall, I can get a towing endorsement on a RAA aircraft. One membership fee, no club fees, no state association fee. If you closely examine the exemptions of 95.4 you are not really exempted from anything different than RAA except for ridge soaring and winch launches.

[Bruce Tuncks]

That would be great Jim. There are too many associations at the moment. I sure would like for the RAAus anf GFA to amalgamate.

[M61A1]

That would be great Jim. There are too many associations at the moment. I sure would like for the RAAus anf GFA to amalgamate.

There is good reason GFA membership is in decline and it's not about money. If GFA people got in RAAus I fear the result will be the same as GFA has. Mind you, RAAus may also be heading that way anyway.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Is it a single reason and something which can be fixed? I have blamed CASA , well not exactly them but the logic by which they operate, being held responsible for the safety of us fliers without regard to our general well-being. This well-being including financial and freedom aspects.

While I am skeptical, I have no personal reason to support the GFA right or wrong.

Even with CASA, when you come down to an individual, they can be nice blokes and I can imagine myself applying for that kind of job back then.

[Downunder]

Wouldn't it be more practical to have a glider endorsement on an RAA certificate. Afterall, I can get a towing endorsement on a RAA aircraft. One membership fee, no club fees, no state association fee. If you closely examine the exemptions of 95.4 you are not really exempted from anything different than RAA except for ridge soaring and winch launches.

And lets throw powered paragliders (PPG) into the RAA system as well.......no need for the HGFA to hog that.....

We already have powered parachute (PPC).....

How many roles and administration activities are duplicated in the organisations? Must be a few.

 

Does CASA not want one powerful organisation?

[facthunter]

I don't think they CARE. Originally the proposition was a parallel option. GA and RAAus. Bruce, your second sentence gets to the real problem. Safety Authority can make things safe by having people NOT FLY but it's an "AVIATION" Safety Authority. The fault has always been in the legislation by no reference to not harming "unnecessarily" the thing it uses it's authority over. As far as policy and future direction you don't get anything but white papers and "faint" hopes. THEY have been "all over the place" for 20 years . Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like the idea that CASA should not harm unnecessarily the aviation business. You would think that was an obvious thing to have spelled out.