Get with the 21st Century CASA
capt. Sherm, it is the alleged "professionals" in CASA and perhaps elsewhere who have given us the mess of regulation and procedures we now endure. it's time for new thinking, not more of the same bollocks purveyed by "professionals".
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And......CASA has introduced simple mandatory requirements for simulator training. And yep....lots of squeals from people who should know better saying "but it hasn't got the ACME glass cockpit" and "why can't we do it in the aeroplane like we always did?".
There have been some good points made in this thread. And they are in line with directions the industry (including sim manufacturers, CASA and training organisations) are moving toward. But if for example the use of some generic AATD was mandated as well as actual aircraft handling......be sure that you're not posting the next day about CASA over-regulating. Same if CASA said you had to use the simulator for a similar type. "Oh the cost!!!"
The problem lies in that fact, that you can use an AATD as much as you like to practice whatever procedure you want, but there is ZERO recognition, when it comes to meeting qualification opbligations. The current regulatory stance forces everyone into the aeroplane, unless in an approved sim.
As an example, when i did my initial Twin ticket, I came home and practised the routines on MS Flightsim. Sure the aeroplane didn't handle or feel like the real thing, but i got to practice (free of charge) the routines/habits that needed to be formed.....money saved for me, lower risk for myself and my instructor as I had the responses down to automatic and I only had to focus on controlling the real aeroplane rather than struggle to recall the next item on the list whilst it tried to roll onto its back.
Recognition of the value of fixed base simulators by CASA needs broadening and recognitioin in the regs.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
With all respect
CASA has already introduced mandatory simulator training requirements in CAO 82 and CASR Part 61. These mandate sim training for 9 seats and upwards.
The use of "lower level" devices to complement (not replace) on aeroplane training is the way the world is going now. I have colleagues in CASA working on how to approve credits for such devices.
Snide derogatory comments may make you feel good but they don't replace the patient hard work that's really needed.
You wouldn't be aware I suppose of the work done on LOC-I and UPRT. But clear clear findings that training for life threatening events by and under trainings instructor in a device being used beyond its limits is a very big threat. So don't expect CASA....or any regulator...to lightly approve credits in a training device. But there's no reason you can't practice procedures, checklists, scans etc in the devices at hand. Good pilots and schools have always done that.
But at the end of the day if you have a real EFTO it will be in a real aeroplane with live passengers and they will expect you to have a pretty good feel for how the aeroplane will behave and you can get that training in an aeroplane (with all the safety mitigators) or a full flight simulator.
CASA has already introduced mandatory simulator training requirements in CAO 82 and CASR Part 61. These mandate sim training for 9 seats and upwards.
The use of "lower level" devices to complement (not replace) on aeroplane training is the way the world is going now. I have colleagues in CASA working on how to approve credits for such devices.
Snide derogatory comments may make you feel good but they don't replace the patient hard work that's really needed.
You wouldn't be aware I suppose of the work done on LOC-I and UPRT. But clear clear findings that training for life threatening events by and under trainings instructor in a device being used beyond its limits is a very big threat. So don't expect CASA....or any regulator...to lightly approve credits in a training device. But there's no reason you can't practice procedures, checklists, scans etc in the devices at hand. Good pilots and schools have always done that.
But at the end of the day if you have a real EFTO it will be in a real aeroplane with live passengers and they will expect you to have a pretty good feel for how the aeroplane will behave and you can get that training in an aeroplane (with all the safety mitigators) or a full flight simulator.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The draft 82.0 requirements for mandatory sim use initially required the operators of 10-19 seaters to use sims overseas as well. It was industry who claimed it was too expensive during the NPRM process and had it wound back. Guess it doesn't look too expensive now
Observations on use of training devices.
I post this in order to provide some background on what can be done with regard to 'ATD's', with a modicum of work and cost, and to comment on their effectiveness in non-traditional roles.
Around ten years ago now I was involved with an organisation that had both a SE & ME training programme. Traditional techniques were used, and they actively developed and updated their methodology, but all flight training was conducted 'live' on real craft.
As an engineer (and CPL ME), and a person who had prior research knowledge of simulators (via a university - NASA funded course) I was interested in the use of simulators or 'advanced training devices' at ab-initio and mid-level stages of training. However they were, and are, an expensive unit for any organisation to purchase, and the strictures around their official use (ie. to be recognised and counted as part of training regime) made things difficult.
Not to be deterred I spend some time, and not a little money, developing a full-sized training device, in this instance based on a C-172 primarily because that was a machine this place used for SE training. This machine was 'IR-capable' and was used for initial IR training, but in several instances we also used it for ab-initio work with some students who were experiencing particular issues.
In all cases the students found this to be valuable to them, and their flying developed markedly as a result of the time they'd spent with the FTD/ATD or whatever you want to call it. In some cases this was procedural work, in others it was application of techniques such as cross-wind landing.
The marginal cost of this was negligible yet the students learnt a lot in a short [inexpensive] time, and a 'safe' environment that could be paused to explain certain issues or techniques pertinent to them. Although it is an entirely non-scientific observation, based on a small sample, in my view this machine proved itself as a tool that had a positive input to the training programme and ultimately to a prospective pilot's progress, even though the time spent on it couldn't be 'counted' in their logbook.
The principles used in the mechanics of the SE machine I produced could easily be used with a ME machine and I would be happy to pass those on to anyone interested. That said I would say that this is now ten years hence and technology has developed to a point whereby I'd probably do things a bit differently.
In terms of applicable software I used both MS Flight Sim, and X-plane as the primary basis. I know some people will groan about the use of such 'toys' in this context, but remember I have some real evidence that shows it to be of significant benefit to trainees. Moreover the procedures used, and the actual device itself (which indeed used many parts from a real machine) made it very clear that it was not a gaming machine - and it was never used as such.
To go one step further on this, and make a suggestion; it may be useful for organisations such as CASA, CAA or whoever to consider developing a software and/or hardware scenario that could assist trainees at various stages of their career (including EFATO actions etc). In this I say that my view of development would be to actually take a lead role in code development either of a whole new software engine, or with regard to the open-source components of X-plane, MS Flight-Sim, Flightgear or whatever. Production of standard componentry for a hardware solution is a comparatively simple task today and something that could be entrusted to a competent mechanical engineer to manage, preferably with some aviation experience.
A combined and determined approach by such authorities, who typically have more money and 'clout' than most, could well see a positive and practical outcome in terms of improving training effectiveness and reducing training injury and/or fatalities.
FP.
Around ten years ago now I was involved with an organisation that had both a SE & ME training programme. Traditional techniques were used, and they actively developed and updated their methodology, but all flight training was conducted 'live' on real craft.
As an engineer (and CPL ME), and a person who had prior research knowledge of simulators (via a university - NASA funded course) I was interested in the use of simulators or 'advanced training devices' at ab-initio and mid-level stages of training. However they were, and are, an expensive unit for any organisation to purchase, and the strictures around their official use (ie. to be recognised and counted as part of training regime) made things difficult.
Not to be deterred I spend some time, and not a little money, developing a full-sized training device, in this instance based on a C-172 primarily because that was a machine this place used for SE training. This machine was 'IR-capable' and was used for initial IR training, but in several instances we also used it for ab-initio work with some students who were experiencing particular issues.
In all cases the students found this to be valuable to them, and their flying developed markedly as a result of the time they'd spent with the FTD/ATD or whatever you want to call it. In some cases this was procedural work, in others it was application of techniques such as cross-wind landing.
The marginal cost of this was negligible yet the students learnt a lot in a short [inexpensive] time, and a 'safe' environment that could be paused to explain certain issues or techniques pertinent to them. Although it is an entirely non-scientific observation, based on a small sample, in my view this machine proved itself as a tool that had a positive input to the training programme and ultimately to a prospective pilot's progress, even though the time spent on it couldn't be 'counted' in their logbook.
The principles used in the mechanics of the SE machine I produced could easily be used with a ME machine and I would be happy to pass those on to anyone interested. That said I would say that this is now ten years hence and technology has developed to a point whereby I'd probably do things a bit differently.
In terms of applicable software I used both MS Flight Sim, and X-plane as the primary basis. I know some people will groan about the use of such 'toys' in this context, but remember I have some real evidence that shows it to be of significant benefit to trainees. Moreover the procedures used, and the actual device itself (which indeed used many parts from a real machine) made it very clear that it was not a gaming machine - and it was never used as such.
To go one step further on this, and make a suggestion; it may be useful for organisations such as CASA, CAA or whoever to consider developing a software and/or hardware scenario that could assist trainees at various stages of their career (including EFATO actions etc). In this I say that my view of development would be to actually take a lead role in code development either of a whole new software engine, or with regard to the open-source components of X-plane, MS Flight-Sim, Flightgear or whatever. Production of standard componentry for a hardware solution is a comparatively simple task today and something that could be entrusted to a competent mechanical engineer to manage, preferably with some aviation experience.
A combined and determined approach by such authorities, who typically have more money and 'clout' than most, could well see a positive and practical outcome in terms of improving training effectiveness and reducing training injury and/or fatalities.
FP.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually CASA and its regulatory predecessors all have blood on their hands. I know Leadsled claims the US GA accident rate is something like half of what ours is so we really should just adopt the US regs and operating doctrines forthwith before we kill any more people unnecessarily.
Also remember the whole ultralight thing that started south west of Sydney in the mid 1970s? The Regulator didn't enforce the law but neither did it bring those folks into the aviation community by promulgating some simpler regulation for basic pilot licences and US style Experimental category where bitter lessons that had been written in blood over the last 70 years at the time could be passed on. How many did they kill?
Also remember the whole ultralight thing that started south west of Sydney in the mid 1970s? The Regulator didn't enforce the law but neither did it bring those folks into the aviation community by promulgating some simpler regulation for basic pilot licences and US style Experimental category where bitter lessons that had been written in blood over the last 70 years at the time could be passed on. How many did they kill?
LeadSled claims a lot of things - 99% of which is rubbish. A quick search of Aust V US general aviation accident statistics show Australia, the USA and Canada have similar accident rates with Australia's rates slightly better overall...
Beware false gods...
From the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development's website:
Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate has declined from 1.41 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 1990 to 1.00 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 2000.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours for the year 2000 was the lowest of the three countries reported.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1994 and 1998.Australia’s general aviation fatality rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1990 and 1999.
In recent years the Canadian and US rates have improved and are closer to Australia’s rates.
Beware false gods...
From the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development's website:
Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate has declined from 1.41 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 1990 to 1.00 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 2000.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours for the year 2000 was the lowest of the three countries reported.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1994 and 1998.Australia’s general aviation fatality rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1990 and 1999.
In recent years the Canadian and US rates have improved and are closer to Australia’s rates.
Last edited by VH-MLE; 6th Jun 2017 at 08:17. Reason: Dot points wouldn't display.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled claims a lot of things - 99% of which is rubbish. A quick search of Aust V US general aviation accident statistics show Australia, the USA and Canada have similar accident rates with Australia's rates slightly better overall...
Beware false gods...
From the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development's website:
Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate has declined from 1.41 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 1990 to 1.00 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 2000.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours for the year 2000 was the lowest of the three countries reported.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1994 and 1998.Australia’s general aviation fatality rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1990 and 1999.
In recent years the Canadian and US rates have improved and are closer to Australia’s rates.
Beware false gods...
From the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development's website:
Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate has declined from 1.41 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 1990 to 1.00 fatal accidents per 100 000 flight hours in 2000.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours for the year 2000 was the lowest of the three countries reported.Australia’s general aviation fatal accident rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1994 and 1998.Australia’s general aviation fatality rate per 100 000 flight hours has been below the Canadian and US rate for all years except for 1990 and 1999.
In recent years the Canadian and US rates have improved and are closer to Australia’s rates.
And it's important to know the definition of "GA" and "accident" and "incident" in the different countries over the period covered by the statistics.
Given the USA's topography and meteorological conditions compared with Australia, and given that a PPL in the USA includes night VFR authorisation with nowhere near the training required for a night VFR rating in Australia, one wonders why the rate of "GA" "accidents" and "incidents" is not much higher in the USA compared with Australia.
Given the USA's topography and meteorological conditions compared with Australia, and given that a PPL in the USA includes night VFR authorisation with nowhere near the training required for a night VFR rating in Australia, one wonders why the rate of "GA" "accidents" and "incidents" is not much higher in the USA compared with Australia.
And it's important to know the definition of "GA" and "accident" and "incident" in the different countries over the period covered by the statistics.
Lead Balloon has nailed it.
My "claims" are based on a study for AOPA/AU, conducted by a professional researcher, with the results peer reviewed by a rather well qualified chap in the NSW Public Service, who was head statistician (with two PhD in the subject, no less) of a major department.
The then Minister, John Anderson was so upset at the figures, because they were so at variance with his "official" advice, that he sent them off to NTSB/USA for review and confirmation or damnation, preferably the latter.
The NTSB report in reply, in short summary said: " Of course they are correct, they are just a list of accidents from publicly available sources, using ICAO definitions, assembled as a comparison of national air safety outcomes.
Although I have not updated the detailed comparison recently, the raw data suggests that little or no real improvement has been made in Australia, some apparent improvements have come about through other reasons (downturn in air ag. hours, and improved ag. aircraft --- all nothing to do with CASA, or Australia "envy of the rest of the world" regulation), or the severe downturn of some sectors of GA aviation activity in Australia.
Empty skies are safe skies.
You can believe the above or not, depending on your prejudice or predilection, as many of you clearly find the facts most inconvenient, when they clash with your long held "rose tinted glasses" view of Australian aviation.
There has been no improvement in the Australian airline accident record, vs-a-vie USA, either --- once again, using ICAO definitions, not Australia's self-serving definitions of choice.
Tootle pip!!
PS1: Not forgetting 100% of aviation accidents are investigated in the US, unlike here, very little "slips through the gaps". The AOPA/AU study did not include a number of aviation accidents in Australia, known to AOPA, that never made it into "official" (BASI/ATSB/CAA/CASA/whatever) figures.
PS2: I don't have a selective memory, I didn't say there were zero in service, but the record is clear. I have personally been present in the immediate aftermath of five twin training accidents, four of which were in Australia, one which killed a very close friend, not a nice memory, it fell to me to tell his mother he was dead. I had a very acrimonious discussion with Morris on the subject, about two weeks before the Camden crash, sadly he proved me right. And in that case, the other pilot was highly experienced, and it still went all horribly wrong.
PS: I was in Tamworth the day after the Metro went in on training, and that was even an aircraft certified to the "Commuter" amendments to FAr 23.
Last edited by LeadSled; 6th Jun 2017 at 15:12. Reason: Further recollections
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget to add in the RAAus (ultralight) accidents for Australia as well as the gliding accidents. The latter are almost certainly 2 to 4 times worse than reported per 100,000 hours due to grossly exaggerated flying hours per year being reported.
So LeadSled, how do we conduct any training in multi-engine aircraft without access to simulators?
How did Hazeltons survive over many years with a fleet of PA-39's, C310's, PA-31's, B200's, EMB110's, B1900, Metro 23, Shorts SD360 and Saab 340, or did Max have a sim at Cudal?
Most of the regional airlines seem to survive through the 80's growing from piston twins to turboprops, without sims etc. From memory Sunstate did all their initial Dash 8 endorsements in the aircraft?
How did Hazeltons survive over many years with a fleet of PA-39's, C310's, PA-31's, B200's, EMB110's, B1900, Metro 23, Shorts SD360 and Saab 340, or did Max have a sim at Cudal?
Most of the regional airlines seem to survive through the 80's growing from piston twins to turboprops, without sims etc. From memory Sunstate did all their initial Dash 8 endorsements in the aircraft?
I see in today's Australian ( Aviation Section ) a article by Byron Bailey re Renmark. Last para suggests a C441 operator can use a B200 sim for emergency practice with Casa approval. A good idea but is that true.
No link, apologies
No link, apologies
Well, it certainly is not a false statement to say that the B200 simulator could be used for asymmetric practice by a Conquest pilot. Or a pilot of any light twin (except MU2) for that matter.
Because Part 61 dropped the 'endorsement' system for twin engine aircraft and now bundles most light twins together under MEA there would be no reason not to write something in an Operations Manual to say that this is how it will be done.
The initial differences/familiarisation required under Part 61 for these complex types could pose a problem if no asymmetric at all was conducted, but if I was the Operator I would certainly be pushing the case to do no more than a shut-down and relight at safe altitude to cover off procedures unique to the type. Use a simulator for the low level asymmetric. Handling is much the same across light turboprops. The IPC is just an IPC in any MEA, so why not take advantage of the simulator for this to make it worth the travel and cost, further reducing risky activity in the air? Seek relief on insurance premiums.
CASA would need to find strong legal grounds to force an Operator to do otherwise; any MEA theoretically being as good as any other MEA. But in turn the Operator would need to write suitable words into the Check & Training Manual to cover their backsides in the event that some smart-arse FOI decided to challenge.
Because Part 61 dropped the 'endorsement' system for twin engine aircraft and now bundles most light twins together under MEA there would be no reason not to write something in an Operations Manual to say that this is how it will be done.
The initial differences/familiarisation required under Part 61 for these complex types could pose a problem if no asymmetric at all was conducted, but if I was the Operator I would certainly be pushing the case to do no more than a shut-down and relight at safe altitude to cover off procedures unique to the type. Use a simulator for the low level asymmetric. Handling is much the same across light turboprops. The IPC is just an IPC in any MEA, so why not take advantage of the simulator for this to make it worth the travel and cost, further reducing risky activity in the air? Seek relief on insurance premiums.
CASA would need to find strong legal grounds to force an Operator to do otherwise; any MEA theoretically being as good as any other MEA. But in turn the Operator would need to write suitable words into the Check & Training Manual to cover their backsides in the event that some smart-arse FOI decided to challenge.
(Gliders) The latter are almost certainly 2 to 4 times worse than reported per 100,000 hours due to grossly exaggerated flying hours per year being reported.
What is the factual basis for the above assertion on the records of the Gliding Federation of Australia??
Tootle pip!!
To quote LeadSled, "My "claims" are based on a study for AOPA/AU, conducted by a professional researcher, with the results peer reviewed by a rather well qualified chap in the NSW Public Service, who was head statistician (with two PhD in the subject, no less) of a major department.
The then Minister, John Anderson was so upset at the figures, because they were so at variance with his "official" advice, that he sent them off to NTSB/USA for review and confirmation or damnation, preferably the latter.
The NTSB report in reply, in short summary said: " Of course they are correct, they are just a list of accidents from publicly available sources, using ICAO definitions, assembled as a comparison of national air safety outcomes."
Could you provide copies of the AOPA/AU study + the NTSB report please.
Also, I didn't understand the relevance of your comment that "I was in Tamworth the day after the Metro went in on training, and that was even an aircraft certified to the "Commuter" amendments to FAr 23" - please explain...
The then Minister, John Anderson was so upset at the figures, because they were so at variance with his "official" advice, that he sent them off to NTSB/USA for review and confirmation or damnation, preferably the latter.
The NTSB report in reply, in short summary said: " Of course they are correct, they are just a list of accidents from publicly available sources, using ICAO definitions, assembled as a comparison of national air safety outcomes."
Could you provide copies of the AOPA/AU study + the NTSB report please.
Also, I didn't understand the relevance of your comment that "I was in Tamworth the day after the Metro went in on training, and that was even an aircraft certified to the "Commuter" amendments to FAr 23" - please explain...
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, personal experience plus a critical look at how many airworthy gliders are active in Australia each year which is around 700 or a few fewer out of the 1170 or so on the register (from GFA airworthiness income figures). There is no way 700 gliders flew 116,000 hours or so which would imply 165 hours per glider per year.
Back in 2009 Dept of Transport put out a little card with the aircraft owner survey where it was reported that gliders flew 160,000 hours in 2008. I showed this to a couple of friends who do glider maintenance and after they did the mental arithmetic, both burst out laughing because they get to see the annual inspection logbooks. They said private gliders typically fly round 40 to 60 hours a year. Some of them more, some less. There are also far fewer full time mid week gliding operations than there were 20 years ago when the hours claimed were around 90,000 which in itself was likely an exaggeration as in the mid 80s the claim was 50,000 hours or so on 650 airworthy gliders with several very active full time operations included.
The hours exaggeration enables the claim that gliding is no more dangerous than the rest of GA. GFA is also the model for the ridiculous "self administration" model of private aviation regulation in Australia (aka a separate bureaucracy for each branch of the lower end of aviation which makes participation in more than one branch needlessly expensive) and the safety of the model appears to be based on a false claim.
PM me if you want.
Back in 2009 Dept of Transport put out a little card with the aircraft owner survey where it was reported that gliders flew 160,000 hours in 2008. I showed this to a couple of friends who do glider maintenance and after they did the mental arithmetic, both burst out laughing because they get to see the annual inspection logbooks. They said private gliders typically fly round 40 to 60 hours a year. Some of them more, some less. There are also far fewer full time mid week gliding operations than there were 20 years ago when the hours claimed were around 90,000 which in itself was likely an exaggeration as in the mid 80s the claim was 50,000 hours or so on 650 airworthy gliders with several very active full time operations included.
The hours exaggeration enables the claim that gliding is no more dangerous than the rest of GA. GFA is also the model for the ridiculous "self administration" model of private aviation regulation in Australia (aka a separate bureaucracy for each branch of the lower end of aviation which makes participation in more than one branch needlessly expensive) and the safety of the model appears to be based on a false claim.
PM me if you want.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: South Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyrie in support of your argument, the GFA Instructors Bulletin 1/2014 says:
"Some years ago the GFA stopped collecting member hours and flight numbers at membership renewal time. The rationale for such was that most members did not record the information and therefore it proved to be of little value collating same. This was somewhat unfortunate, as member flight time, and in particular flying activity, can provide a useful insight into currency and proficiency aspects of occurrences. It is also useful for demonstrating the intensity of gliding operations when dealing with the Regulator or other interested parties." and further proposed that:
"It is against this background that I would like to again collect hours and flight data, but I am also looking for 100% compliance. The only way I can see this happening is to ask all CFIs to collate the information. "
The next instructors bulletin contained the following:
"In the previous bulletin I canvassed the idea of CFIs collating member flight information at a particular date each year. I subsequently received correspondence from several CFIs opposed to this on the basis of increasing their workload. Interestingly, one of these CFIs subsequently informed me that he had a change of position, and recognised that the only way to achieve accuracy and compliance was via the CFI network. Anyway, I have decided not to pursue this further at this time and will look at other ways in which this information could be obtained."
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the statistics supplied to BITRE by GFA are at best fictional and at worst potentially fraudulent.
"Some years ago the GFA stopped collecting member hours and flight numbers at membership renewal time. The rationale for such was that most members did not record the information and therefore it proved to be of little value collating same. This was somewhat unfortunate, as member flight time, and in particular flying activity, can provide a useful insight into currency and proficiency aspects of occurrences. It is also useful for demonstrating the intensity of gliding operations when dealing with the Regulator or other interested parties." and further proposed that:
"It is against this background that I would like to again collect hours and flight data, but I am also looking for 100% compliance. The only way I can see this happening is to ask all CFIs to collate the information. "
The next instructors bulletin contained the following:
"In the previous bulletin I canvassed the idea of CFIs collating member flight information at a particular date each year. I subsequently received correspondence from several CFIs opposed to this on the basis of increasing their workload. Interestingly, one of these CFIs subsequently informed me that he had a change of position, and recognised that the only way to achieve accuracy and compliance was via the CFI network. Anyway, I have decided not to pursue this further at this time and will look at other ways in which this information could be obtained."
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the statistics supplied to BITRE by GFA are at best fictional and at worst potentially fraudulent.
Last edited by GolfGolfCharlie; 13th Jun 2017 at 01:24. Reason: extraneous characters
