The Kapo System Of Aviation Regulation and CASA
Barry Hempel was not subject to a self-administrative body (AWAL) and was directly matter for CASA. He had a long "history".
He was not a member of AWAL.
That he covered up medical deficiencies, and should not have held a license of any kind was, again, a CASA matter.
All a matter of record.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled, I'm not talking about instructor requirements for spin training, with which I agree, just what needs to be done by any ordinary glider pilot. The risk exposure of an annual check including spins with ill trained, inexperienced instructors in amateur maintained club gliders is greater than the rest of your flying. There is no need for actual dual checks anyway in a gliding club environment as every takeoff and landing is under observation by instructors and other pilots. Anyone with a problem will be talked to.
Not long ago I heard one gliding club CFI say that he had a bunch of new instructor candidates and was running a course for them the next week. As he had come up through GA he decided to compare the course with that for the GA instructor syllabus. He found that what he was about to do was minimal and sketchy with his 75 hour total experience "pilots" so having identified shortcomings, this CAPTAIN for a major airline was going to do it anyway.
Innocent members of the public who might want to go for a "trial instructional flight" in a glider (a thinly disguised commercial joyflight, the title is just to circumvent normal requirements for this sort of thing) are exposed to this.
CASA seems quite happy to let GFA get away with this, but then there have been at least several CASA employees over the years with input into sport aviation policy who have been active and enthusiastic GFA members at the time. This potential conflict of interest should not be permitted.
Not long ago I heard one gliding club CFI say that he had a bunch of new instructor candidates and was running a course for them the next week. As he had come up through GA he decided to compare the course with that for the GA instructor syllabus. He found that what he was about to do was minimal and sketchy with his 75 hour total experience "pilots" so having identified shortcomings, this CAPTAIN for a major airline was going to do it anyway.
Innocent members of the public who might want to go for a "trial instructional flight" in a glider (a thinly disguised commercial joyflight, the title is just to circumvent normal requirements for this sort of thing) are exposed to this.
CASA seems quite happy to let GFA get away with this, but then there have been at least several CASA employees over the years with input into sport aviation policy who have been active and enthusiastic GFA members at the time. This potential conflict of interest should not be permitted.
Eyrie,
One simple question, please: Where are your statistics to support your assertions about the dangers of spinning in gliders??
As a supplementary, where are your statistics, or even a record of incidents, to show that owner maintenance of gliders represents an increased risk, compared to "professional" (or, more properly, commercial) maintenance??
Tootle pip!!
One simple question, please: Where are your statistics to support your assertions about the dangers of spinning in gliders??
As a supplementary, where are your statistics, or even a record of incidents, to show that owner maintenance of gliders represents an increased risk, compared to "professional" (or, more properly, commercial) maintenance??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, Mostly personal contacts and experience over 51 years and the stuff quoted earlier. Do your own research.
Having retrieved loose objects out of club gliders over the years which could have and did cause control interference I don't want to fly in them. The Brits were having quite a few spin in accidents when training about 10 years ago. One bloke posted on a newsgroup his disgust at the stupidity. The accident that caused that had a 15 year old student killed. It was the fifth over a few years. There was also an extensive discussion about this on the r.a.s. newsgroup where it was revealed that the Brits were initiating spins off a winch launch at under 1000 feet AGL. The American respondents were horrified "what do you call that" " insanity, officially sanctioned of course". I believe the BGA pulled their heads in on that one.
Again do your own research.
The better question is : why should people be forced to do something they don't agree with? The GFA sure isn't going to pay your widow compensation because some obese effwit insisted that you do spins and one of the halfwit instructors caused a fatal problem.
The common response when an experienced glider pilot is asked how the glider he flys, spins and recovers is "I don't know, why would I do that?" ALL have done spin training but few that I have met want to routinely do spins. It is a question of personal boundaries and risk exposure.
The ones who do have enthusiasm for spins are mostly on my personal list of "people who I won't be surprised if they die in a aircraft". I've managed to cross off quite a few.
I have no problem with owner maintenance for a person's private flying. It is a great idea as our Canadian friends have shown. I have a problem with owner maintenance where the maintainer puts the risk on somebody else and isn't in the aircraft at the time the other people are.
Having retrieved loose objects out of club gliders over the years which could have and did cause control interference I don't want to fly in them. The Brits were having quite a few spin in accidents when training about 10 years ago. One bloke posted on a newsgroup his disgust at the stupidity. The accident that caused that had a 15 year old student killed. It was the fifth over a few years. There was also an extensive discussion about this on the r.a.s. newsgroup where it was revealed that the Brits were initiating spins off a winch launch at under 1000 feet AGL. The American respondents were horrified "what do you call that" " insanity, officially sanctioned of course". I believe the BGA pulled their heads in on that one.
Again do your own research.
The better question is : why should people be forced to do something they don't agree with? The GFA sure isn't going to pay your widow compensation because some obese effwit insisted that you do spins and one of the halfwit instructors caused a fatal problem.
The common response when an experienced glider pilot is asked how the glider he flys, spins and recovers is "I don't know, why would I do that?" ALL have done spin training but few that I have met want to routinely do spins. It is a question of personal boundaries and risk exposure.
The ones who do have enthusiasm for spins are mostly on my personal list of "people who I won't be surprised if they die in a aircraft". I've managed to cross off quite a few.
I have no problem with owner maintenance for a person's private flying. It is a great idea as our Canadian friends have shown. I have a problem with owner maintenance where the maintainer puts the risk on somebody else and isn't in the aircraft at the time the other people are.
I, or more properly we, have done, and come to a completely different answer. That any losses have occurred anywhere in recent years is more reasonably attributed to growing deficiencies in competencies, the answer to that is more and better training and checking, not less.
QUOTE:The GFA sure isn't going to pay your widow compensation because some obese effwit insisted that you do spins and one of the halfwit instructors caused a fatal problem.
I gather that your general view is that anybody who disagrees with you, or doesn't fit your preferred body type, is seriously mentally deficient.
QUOTE: The ones who do have enthusiasm for spins are mostly on my personal list of "people who I won't be surprised if they die in a aircraft". I've managed to cross off quite a few.
In my opinion that tells us more about your attitude that anything useful, aviation wise. I presume that view of yours means that my deficiency re. spin training means I am also likely to be a high probability candidate to write myself off in other examples of aeronautical incompetence.
Needless to say, I disagree, and have some 25,000 hours so far of having avoided same, including years as an instructor on aircraft of various sizes.
QUOTE:I have no problem with owner maintenance for a person's private flying. It is a great idea as our Canadian friends have shown. I have a problem with owner maintenance where the maintainer puts the risk on somebody else and isn't in the aircraft at the time the other people are.
The question I asked you, was to show why owner maintenance was of a lesser standard, and now you are saying it is to the degree that anybody else being carried in the owner maintained aircraft is at unacceptable risk.
Where is your data. In my experience owner maintained aircraft, whether here or in US or Canada, are in better condition than "hourly rate labor maintained" light aircraft. Indeed, year after year I come across shocking examples of shortcomings in "professionally maintained" aircraft. The data supports my experience.
Nobody begrudges you your opinion, you are fully entitled to be wrong, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Another matter that I regard as fact, based on statistics: across the board flying standards have deteriorated, more training, not less, and requiring higher levels of competency is the answer. That "loss of control" is close to the top of the list of aircraft safety problems, from airlines to ultra-lites, is the bottom line for the deterioration in flying standards.
As long as I have been flying, there has always been a small group passionately opposed to spin training, their fears have never been backed by data, but that, and "fear" of low speed flight in general and now absence of adequate training in the area, is, in my opinion, at the heart of the "loss of control" problem.
Tootle pip!!
QUOTE:The GFA sure isn't going to pay your widow compensation because some obese effwit insisted that you do spins and one of the halfwit instructors caused a fatal problem.
I gather that your general view is that anybody who disagrees with you, or doesn't fit your preferred body type, is seriously mentally deficient.
QUOTE: The ones who do have enthusiasm for spins are mostly on my personal list of "people who I won't be surprised if they die in a aircraft". I've managed to cross off quite a few.
In my opinion that tells us more about your attitude that anything useful, aviation wise. I presume that view of yours means that my deficiency re. spin training means I am also likely to be a high probability candidate to write myself off in other examples of aeronautical incompetence.
Needless to say, I disagree, and have some 25,000 hours so far of having avoided same, including years as an instructor on aircraft of various sizes.
QUOTE:I have no problem with owner maintenance for a person's private flying. It is a great idea as our Canadian friends have shown. I have a problem with owner maintenance where the maintainer puts the risk on somebody else and isn't in the aircraft at the time the other people are.
The question I asked you, was to show why owner maintenance was of a lesser standard, and now you are saying it is to the degree that anybody else being carried in the owner maintained aircraft is at unacceptable risk.
Where is your data. In my experience owner maintained aircraft, whether here or in US or Canada, are in better condition than "hourly rate labor maintained" light aircraft. Indeed, year after year I come across shocking examples of shortcomings in "professionally maintained" aircraft. The data supports my experience.
Nobody begrudges you your opinion, you are fully entitled to be wrong, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Another matter that I regard as fact, based on statistics: across the board flying standards have deteriorated, more training, not less, and requiring higher levels of competency is the answer. That "loss of control" is close to the top of the list of aircraft safety problems, from airlines to ultra-lites, is the bottom line for the deterioration in flying standards.
As long as I have been flying, there has always been a small group passionately opposed to spin training, their fears have never been backed by data, but that, and "fear" of low speed flight in general and now absence of adequate training in the area, is, in my opinion, at the heart of the "loss of control" problem.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eyrie has a problem with anything to do with GFA, whether operational or airworthiness related. One wonders what his thoughts would be on someone arrogant enough to put multiple non certified jet engines into a heavily (non commercially) modified glider with no oversight despite knowing of a fatal accident already ocurred with a jet fire here in Australia?
Of course it might have “experimental” written on it.
Then again, he justs knows better!
Of course it might have “experimental” written on it.
Then again, he justs knows better!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knew him for over 25 years, as you say - a terrible day. My point was not actually about him but another machine further North, lessons need to be learned.
Unfortunately fires are a part of engined flight, mitigated by design and engineering.
My view is that the model aircraft style jets in use are not up to the task, the certified MDM ones as in the JS gliders are considerably more robust. The certification process, whilst extremely onerous, does weed out some problems.
