So as for RAPAC back in 1980 it wouldn't have made a rats ar#e difference to you blokes whether or not gliders gave full position reports so why mention it
Don D,
Why, because it was an example of the OSB, ie: Qantas pilots, giving a rats about GA and other light aviation, when the domestic "airline" pilots didn't and mostly still don't give a damn for rational risk management, only their own immediate "perceived" risks and interests and anybody else is supposed to lump it.
One thing I mentioned in an early post was all the all the impediments to progress that was AFAP "policy", go back and have a look at what I actually said there. In this day and age, can you imagine still having only "steam driven" instruments, because of the AFAP "ban" on "glass', because it was going to make us all epileptics because of something called flicker.
The OSB certainly did object to our funds being spent on anti-technological progress fights that were directly contrary to our interests, like demanding Flight Engineers on B767. (or three pilot B737).
Not to spending funds on GA matters, GA got short shrift from Ansett/TAA.
As I said in the same post, I supported a US ALPA like structure, not a split, but no way the domestics were going to have that, the "two airline" cost plus technically regressive mentality was all pervading.
Fundamentally, I don't see that the AFAP has changed, deep down, despite any apparent structural changes, the underlying Australian aviation Galapagos mindset is still very evident.
P.S. you can only be had up for libel if what you are stating is incorrect, so aren't you so sure now??
You are obviously not an expert in libel, either??
Tootle pip!!