BGA Strategic Plan.

Martin, this isn't aimed at you personally.....



Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:25:07 +0100, Jeremy Harris
wrote:


W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:

Where and when did you fly?

One of the major UK clubs, until the end of the 2003 season.


How far did you progress?

Early crosscountry.

None of which relates to my feelings, but yes, I feel
a little bitter.

- Jeremy


With regard to which change exactly? Please explain.

The only major change I can think of in the last season has been the
medicals requirement

Precisely.

to put gliding in line with the new NPPL license.

Irrelevant. What _benefit_ does it provide (or in
my case, would it have), and at what costs?



I liked gliding. I liked the freedom, the having
sole responsibility.

They took that away.



I regarded the imposition of the medicals requirement
as the first in a long series of "obvious" steps in the
name of "safety" and "security" which would soon be
introduced. I hadn't thought particularly of G- registrations
on gliders, but that's the sort of thing. I _had_ thought
of:
Photo-id - after all, you've got to prove that the
medical papers you're required to have on your person
on the airfied actually apply to you!
Transponder. Oh, and radio while we're at it. And
filing flight plans. Soon somone will suggest ATC,
no more than one aircraft in a thermal, and flying
straight-and-level, for gossakes.
Optician's certificate, with measurements. So you
can prove either you don't need glasses, or the two pairs
you're required to carry actually match your prescription.
Oh, the glasses had better have serial numbers, or be
microchipped too.
Oh, of course. A _license_.

I hear that in Oz you need two signatures every time you rig.


Faugh.

Personally, I don't wish to have to carry paperwork, id
or whatever to prove that I'm a human being. I don't
wish to spend time or money seeking out a GP to get that
medical. But, you say, "everyone _has_ a GP". Wrong.
I don't. I dont need a GP to be human, either.

Will this hassle for documentation put other British
glider pilots off?
Well. There's the competition pilots. They don't
care, they'll do anything because they love it. Good
on them.
There's those who are also power pilots. They don't
care, they need a medical already, it's "always" been
needed.
There's the committee people, those who put time and
effort, mostly unpaid, into running the sport, because
they love it. Well done, you're all needed. But
precisely because they love it, they'll spend the
extra time and the extra money.

But then there's those at the margin, for whom money
or time is tight. They can only just stay in the
sport. Extra hassle, eh? Hmm. Maybe they'll
stay home and watch the box instead. And they are
not the people getting the medals or sitting on the
committees. So they'll just drift away, unnoticed -
or never go further than that trial flight.



A few years back we applied to the Sports Council for
some lottery money to help fund a new hangar. One of
the reasons for being turned down was "Gliding is
percieved as a elitist sport". It is, in some ways.
Expensive, for a start - but it just got made worse.
Much worse. Contrast it with football. You don't
need to get a medical before you buy a football at
you local shop, and go for a kickabout with your mates.
You don't need to get a G- registration for that ball.
You don't need to call on the radio before you pull on
you boots and enter that recreation-ground. What did
the BGA (I suspect, without proof, forced by the CAA)
just do to Gliding?




I think that introduction was inevitable under outside pressure.

So, roll over and have your tummy tickled.



Oddly enough, it can even be beneficial: I did the group 2 medical for
a passenger rating this year and found it also made the Germans happy
when I boogied up to the Wasserkuppe to do a bit of flying. I'm
certain I'd not have been allowed to solo there if I didn't have the
medical certificate - and a British Glider Pilot's License.

To at least some extent, the same arguments apply.

Inhabitants of other countries, where medicals and licences have
"always" been required, probably don't see what my arguments are.
To them, I say: "Is the participation in soaring growing, by
headcount, in your country? What is the age profile?"



Jeremy