Expression of dissatisfaction to SAFA about specific rules and lack of member engagement

Comments

#2

I’m signing because I don’t think recent and some not recent SAFA rules will result in any measurable improvement in safety and will only limit us. I’d also like a more inclusive consultation process whenever new rules are considered.

Hammed Malik (Brighton, 2020-12-15)

#3

Some of the new regulations I feel discriminate against some of the SAFA membership base due to to their location/ability to chase certain flying conditions. I also feel better correspondence with members regarding regulation changes would be beneficial and give a better “free flight community”....

Roger Stanford (Naremburn, 2020-12-15)

#5

I agree with the views of this petition. These new rules are impractical and needlessly restrictive.

Chris Wolf (Helensburgh, 2020-12-15)

#6

Because I feel that the implementation of new restrictions without consultation is not only counter-productive... but sets a bad precedent.

This is particularly prevalent in Australia in all industries, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

I also feel that the more this occurs, the more people will go ahead and disregard all regulations and licencing anyway.

Furthermore, since I've joined the HGFA/SAFA, my goal was to fly unsupervised. Over the past few years, more and more limitations are being put in place on what I as a pilot can 'legally' do, and I'm paying an annual fee every year to keep the cycle going. Enough.

Tom Knock (Nambour, 2020-12-15)

#7

These rules do not increase safety.

Jonathan Bishop (Canberra, 2020-12-15)

#8

SAFA should be lobbying against bureaucratic restrictions on our behalf rather than preemptively enforcing new rules with an iron fist. Let's increase participation and enjoyment of our sport!

Sharm Khurana (Botany, 2020-12-15)

#15

Safa does not consult their members for changes and don’t base their changes on any evidence.

Marco Fritz (Sunshine Coast, 2020-12-15)

#20

SAFA is not representing the paragliding community.

Travis Holznagel (Mooloolah Valley, 2020-12-15)

#22

The sport would definitely be safer if pilots respected SAFA. Respect comes from real leadership and communication. Trying to force submission to blatantly ridiculous rules will have the opposite effect and will ultimately degrade the community, safety, and enjoyment of all. Let's all just try to be reasonable, paragliding is supposed to be fun!

Jindy Debney (Brisbane, 2020-12-15)

#23

Insufficient consultation appears to have taken place and safety or competence may not be being enhanced.

New PG4 to 5 rules are biased by the candidates location and safety and the degree of difficulty are not being considered.

Emma Barber (Brassall, 2020-12-15)

#24

I agree with the points raised

Ian Ladyman (Newcastle, 2020-12-15)

#40

Rule making in paragliding is increasing too much. I’m glad I learnt a long time ago when it was so much easier to progress. I think it’s unfair that today’s aspiring pilots have to jump through so many more hoops than I did. Flying today’s gliders with today’s knowledge is so much safer than flying in the past so it makes no sense to bring in more and more restrictions.

Allen Weynberg (Brisbane , 2020-12-15)

#48

Safa need to involve membership and consider the impacts of new rules.

Norbert Krause (Hawthorne , 2020-12-16)

#49

Other federations in Australia with similar member numbers consult with members 12 months prior to any Ops manual changes with a 3 month window for member input.
SAFA does not seem to employ good governance or consultation with members even though SAFA members pay significantly more for membership.

Kieren Gormley-Smith (Clontarf, 2020-12-16)

#50

I don't feel supported by my member organisation to provide sufficient evidence that backs up the decisions made when introducing regulations to the sport of paragliding.

Andrew Lightfoot (Coorparoo, 2020-12-16)

#52

I agree with it.

David Buzz (Brisbane , 2020-12-16)

#54

I don't see any benefit to these rules. Compliance will become impractical which will mean SAFA becomes distanced from its members.

Nick Neynens (Auchenflower, 2020-12-16)

#58

I do not agree with the recent lot of rulings that SAFA has brought in. Neither do I agree with the fact that there is no consultation with the pilot community in regards to these rules. If we had a clearer understanding of WHY these rules have been implemented then perhaps we could find a more amicable solution.

Jacqueline Robinson (BRIGHT, 2020-12-16)

#59

In the past few years far too many amended requirements & additional rules included into to the Ops Manual without any consultation with the members and hardly to non supporting evidences that such changes do/will improve the safety participating in our sport.

Nir Eshed (Baulkham Hills , 2020-12-16)

#63

I disagree that the latest rules will increase safety. Trying to force submission to blatantly ridiculous rules will have the opposite effect. It will drive normally law abiding members to just go underground. Such members are not likely to share experiences in the event of a near miss or a minor incident. This leads to a false sense of high safety statistics, just the opposite of what is actually wanted by all. The sport would definitely be safer if pilots respected SAFA. Respect comes from real leadership and communication.

Sam Slack (Sippy Downs, 2020-12-16)

#64

I don’t believe the rule changes are of a positive benefit for the paragliding community.

I have been a pilot for 24 years and have used hand held point and shoot, slr, harness and wing mounted cameras and helmet mounted cameras. In this time I have not experienced a time where a helmet camera has had an adverse effect on my piloting skills or safety. Conversely I believe being able to record and review footage which can provide a positive learning experience outweighs the risk of the camera.

I also believe Xc flight limitations should not be a consideration for a budding xc pilot. The mindset of an Xc pilot should be to have a plan but be flexible and assess and re assess the flight plan constantly. All xc flights are experiments to try and improve on previous experience and should not reflect a desire to stop based on a set distance. The relatonship between pilot experience and Xc flights is not linear and can be a complex mixture of flight time experience, age, location of launch, number of different locations flown before, weather and localised effects.

Tandem re certification is useful tool to remain current. However setting unrealistic targets for non commercial tandem pilots will have a detrimental effect of driving the sport underground or pushing pilots to complete check flights and log passenger flights in a bid to finalise the requirements. The targets you propose are too heavy to be useful in australia.

The current proposed change in tandem currency is an onerous limit which non commercial tandem pilots will struggle to complete.

Daron Brinsdon (Brisbane , 2020-12-16)

#65

The impact of new rules on SAFA members and instructors needs to be considered before implementation. If I was a new member, the thought of having to meet the new requirements for ratings and endorsements would probably be enough to put me off the sport.

Elissa Jack (The Gap, 2020-12-16)

#66

Hard rules with less practicality, no safety improvements or reasoning discourage respect and likelihood of compliance for not just the new rules, but all rules .

Molly M (Brisbane, 2020-12-16)

#67

I'm dissatisfied with the way there new regulations have been implemented, without any consultation of members. Further more, I find these regulations excessively restrictive without just cause.

Peter Kupsovsky (Latham, act, 2020-12-16)

#68

There seems to be a group of rules being made that will drive to sport into oblivion.

Wayne Smith (Brisbane, 2020-12-16)

#69

I agree with the statement made by Susy in this petition. I fly in many countries around the world. There is no precedent for this anywhere. Unenforceable and untenable rules will not be followed. Instead they will undermine SAFA and the existing goodwill in the free flight community.

David Flannery (Yeronga, 2020-12-16)

#70

I attended the latest SAFA AGM, and given the dismal turnout, I suspect there is a serious disconnect between the SAFA committee and the flying community over which they preside. I respect that purpose of SAFA, but I have higher hopes for the committee than the odd facebook post re-posting school photos. From reading Susy's petition, I am convinced that Susy has a point. Rather that rushing to heap on more stifling rules, perhaps a review of the current rules for legitimacy would be a sensible first step.

Neil Reynard (Brisbane, 2020-12-17)

#71

We need SAFA and SAFA needs its members and is we have a robust memeber consultation process we will all be better for it.

Rene Sedlmaier (Canberra, 2020-12-17)

#73

I use my camera to analyse my flights which has helped me to correct or improve my technique between each flight and also to understand those "what happened" moments better making it invaluable to me as no one else is watching that closely to help me improve. The camera is neither attached to my helmet, myself or my paraglider but to my cockpit sitting between the carbinas on my lap. I turn it on before launch and turn it off after I land and never even think about it the entire flight so is treated no different to my vario. In fact, I use my vario in flight and never the camera so in my case it cannot be called a distraction. So a blanket ban because of one example of a pilot not doing his preflights properly does not seem reasonable. I would suggest that the pilot mentioned as a reason for the ban does not put high enough priority on preflights and that is more the root issue rather than a convenient excuse of was distracted by the camera. While I can see the intent means well, they also seem like rules for the sake of it or even a bit of I just don't like it rather than direct safety. There needs to be a proper discussion that takes everyone into consideration as we all fly for different reasons rather than a, Well I fly like this so "bam" you can no longer fly like that just because as it currently feels.

John Petrak (Ormeau, 2020-12-17)

#75

SAFA making arbitrary decisions on behalf of members without consulting said members is unacceptable. What happened to our print copy of sky sailor?

Nigel Joyce (Kedron , 2020-12-17)

#76

Consultation in a rules based society enables the people who are expected to obey the rules understand the reasons behind said rules. If a rule does not make sense people are going to break the rules. This puts them in conflict with their clubs and the organisation who are supposed to implement the rules. This then puts club safety officers in a compromised position if they have to implement the rules. If the safety officer does not agree with the rule or does not implement the rule, due to the person not seeing any merit in the rule we then start compounding a problem. Suddenly everyone is in breach of a rule that nobody sees any merit in.

Dusty Smith (Parrearra, 2020-12-17)

#78

I'm signing due to the large number of changes to the ops manual, poorly publicised and justified to membership, over the last years. Without justification, some changes, particularly around tandem ratings, are not viable when living in smaller states.
Please hold to your new promise of wider justification and consultation around changes.

David Schoemaker (Adelaide, 2020-12-17)

#79

More stakeholder consultation and improved communication is needed from our representative federation.

Andrew Tracey-Smith (Armidale, 2020-12-17)

#81

The recent rule changes show a disengaged SAFA admin and board, isolating themselves from the membership. There seems to be an attitude that the admin and board are SAFA, when in actual fact they are servants of the membership. It would do them well to remember they are all replacable. This will happen if the continued disengagement continues. The rule changes have not only not been discussed with the membership they have not been thought through logically. Lets take recreational tandem currency - if the required number of flights over 2 years have not been completed the pilot will need a check flight. But this is required anyway for a BFR, so why have a number of flights to complete? One rule inconsistent with another. Rule enforcement- you have got to be kidding if you think members will police your rules. There is too much at stake following your enforcement and data gathering recommendations. Individuals could place themselves in very precarious legal situations to supply you with evidence of ridiculous possible, rule breaches. And besides that, nobody wants to be seen as the police clown on the hill. To have pilots fly sensibly, invite them, and engage with them educate them and create a framework of "no fault" reporting. You will only alienate members continuing on your big stick approach, which is, anyway unpolicable. Stop showing your contempt of members by making changes to products and services pilots have already paid for. You made no announcement of stopping delivery of Sky Sailor to members that have already paid you for it. Under the previous organisational rules fair trading would have taken a very dim view if this. But realise this, members are taking a very dim view of this and will seek and create changes that stop the body doing this again. With onerous rules, unpolicable rules, you are simply driving the sport back to the old days where pilots fly as they will, without being obvious. This is not the fostering and promotion of the sport that SAFA is supposed to be doing. Take the feedback and learn from it, if you don't you risk driving the sport underground and the admin / board as being seen counter sports aviation devolpment and something to be circumvented rather than worked with. Note that not all admin staff and volunteers / board members are guilty of blindly making rules without thinking them through, not all are disengaged from the membership, but those that are, are drowning YOUR voice and actions, so speak up and engage with us! You'll be very welcome and supported if you communicate effectively.

Kevin White (WIDGEE, 2020-12-17)

#82

New tandem rules, new helmet mounting rules, new camera rules, potential new XC rules, the winiwing endorsement, all these rules are very challenging to comply with, especially as a pilot who leanrt to fly overseas I dont have an instructor here who is familiar with my skills and wanting to teach or endorse me. You are making it harder for us to continue flying, engaging the community on new and old rules would have potential to resolve this.

Harold Davies (Little Mountain, 2020-12-17)

#83

Good communication provides for inclusion and shared values.

John Mayes (Buderim, 2020-12-17)

#85

Because SAFA are changing rules that really make no sense. That clearly benefit CFI and not the flying public.

Because the members are not being consulted on these changes.

Thomas Ridgewsy (Benalla , 2020-12-17)

#86

I have no issue with SAFA making changes, but take issue with the lack of stakeholder engagement and consultation in ensuring proposed changes are appropriate and can be effectively operationalised.

Natalia Huber (2077, 2020-12-17)

#87

I’m signing because I disagree with the new rules, not just the ones on this petition but the ones requiring digital sign off by both parties of every pg2 flight, thanks for making it even harder to get airtime.

Steve Waters (Sydney, 2020-12-17)

#88

Education not legislation safety is a cultural attitude it needs to be fostered bullying by legislation only hurting the complient people.

Phil Robinson (Springrange NSW 2618, 2020-12-18)

#89

I want a say in the discussion about the rules and regulations that apply to me and the paragliding community

Michael Kelly (Toronto, 2020-12-18)

#92

I'll address all 3 points separately, but to note overall, I'm very disappointed in SAFA mandating these rules without consultation with their members.

We have all joined into these sports with the understanding of the risks, and a large part of these sports is risk management, as PIC we are often required to perform on the fly risk management, I believe by making a lot of mandated changes without allowing PICs to make their own choices is going to make the sport less safe not safer.

I also believe behavior like this is causing people to lose respect with the organisation as a result of doing changes like this with no consultation with the members.

remember that we can educate people with the risks of the activities without having them mandated, letting people make their decisions based on these risks will improve the relationship and respect with the organisation.

now to the points

1: this is utterly ridiculous, technically attaching the safa sticker onto our helmets (as we were instructed to do) is an unauthorised modification. when companies make and test their helmets they certify it for as it was during the tests, yes they can't test for infinite modifications. but they are not saying that adding a sticker will cause the helmet to fail, just that they have not (and will not) test for this. We all understand that adding things to the helmet can cause a snag hazard (like a top mounted camera) and we all make these decisions based on the situation (I personally don't fly with a top mounted camera as I don't like the risk, but PICs should be able to make their own choices regarding this). that said I often use a boom microphone to ensure that our communications are clear and concise, thus improving safety. We all have had bad communications which can be distracting and potentially dangerous. and under these rules such a microphone would be banned. I have mounted in such a way that is more than a couple kilos of force(kgf) is applied that the mic would rip off as part of my snag / risk management as PIC. Not to mention that I would not have to take my hand off the controls to move the mic close to my mouth to talk rather than press my push to talk button on my brake handles.

2: Again in term of safety, what is being achieved by limiting the pilots to between 40-46.3km from launch? this will mean that pilots are going to be looking at their instruments more and not concentrating about what they should be doing. I'm not aware of any SSO, FI, or CFI who can keep an eye on a pilot from 40km away so what value is this adding? how are the SSO, FI, or CFI supposed to approve the flight plan, we are not running motors, nor can we at launch predict where the thermals are going to be and we are trained to make judgements and decisions based on many different factors while in flight, being forced to stay with the flight plan could have an increased risk if pilots make decisions to follow the flight path even though they see it is not the safest option based on the conditions.

3: I agree that there should be a certain number of flights logged as part of tandem currency, this is pretty standard, like PGs having to log 10 hrs per year to maintain licensing. I can even understand having tighter controls on commercial operations (such as mandating insurance and such), but having to do a new flight check and exams is just going to far, what is the ideas behind this? what consultation has been done regarding this, if there are concerns with safety where is this being drawn to the attention of members before going down the mandate of enforcement?

Overall I feel that SAFA are not doing their job of representing there member base, it feels to me that they are very out of touch with the member base. And need to start looking at the member base's best interest.

Christian Garcia (Albany Creek, 2020-12-18)

#93

Over-regulation is counter-productive to the sport, especially when new rules are not fully thought out and are seemingly arbitrary.

Jason Fletcher (Arundel, Queensland, 2020-12-18)

#94

I'm signing because I believe these limitations will not make the sport safer - in fact, in the case of the PG4 limitations I think it could result in dangerous landings to stay within the 25nm limit in fear of insurance not covering a longer flight or not counting the flight towards XC requirements for PG5.

Carol Liang (Brisbane, 2020-12-19)

#101

I Disagree with some of the changes.

Phillip Turnbull (Brisbane , 2020-12-22)

#103

There is a clear disconnect between the governing body and the flying community. Only a handful of people are making arbitrary decisions that piss off the rest of the community (and with out consultation). SAFA should act in the best interest of the flying community, not an institution for arbitrary rules that no-one wanted or will follow

Erik Dahl (Sydney, 2020-12-22)

#104

The changes lack clear logical decision making.
Of note the camera mount rule change lacks understanding of real safety management options
In addition to problems with administrative controls that have been noted my multiple members why are there no engineering control options for helmet mounts this logic is already applied in paragliding boots. Where hooks have been replaced with rulers or covers. The same logic can be applied to helmets with either rip away mounts eg velcro attachment or looking forward to in helmet cameras. These helmets have been experimented with in other fields.

Ryan Castel (Brisbane , 2020-12-23)

#105

I regularly fly with a helmet mounted camera and use it post-flight analyse launch, landing and any in-flight incidents. This also includes recording other pilots activities and sharing footage with them.

Mick Kennish (Ottawa, 2020-12-23)

#106

Because that there is a gross disparity between was is said / espoused and what is actioned.
Why has it taken this action to get them to respond?

Royce Allenson (Tuggerah , 2020-12-24)

#107

Regarding tandem passenger rating.

Ben Clark (maleny, 2020-12-24)

#113

Thus has been happening for years with implementation of things like the mini wing endorsement previously.

A Tighe (LANDSBOROUGH, 2020-12-24)

#116

Members need to consulted and actively participate in any changes to regulations. There also needs to widespread discussion and education before regulation is considered.

Jason McLeod (Inala, 2020-12-24)

#117

I TOTALLY disagree with PG4 XC flight distance limitations , I do not believe this will improve safety and it is a logistical nightmare

Simon Hong (Merrimac, 2020-12-24)

#118

I believe member consultation (including justifications) is required for changes to the ops manual.

Richard Binstead (Port Kembla , 2020-12-24)

#119

Slowly choking the sport especially for new members, people will start flaunting the rules and leave the SAFA at this rate

Lucas Torr (Adamstown Heights, 2020-12-24)

#122

Requirements for tandem recertification is inconsistent with other rating or for general requirements for any licence with similar risk.

Phillip Searle (Grafton, 2021-12-08)



Paid advertising

We will advertise this petition to 3000 people.

Learn more...