Glider Safety

[Tom[_9_]]

The following is the first of a series of newsletters to be sent to
subscribers to my popular newsletter.
It is a topic I presented at the FAA Safety Center in Lakeland
Florida.

If this is of any interest to you, please go to our web site www.eglider.org
and click on the link on the right side of the home page to subscribe.

Tom Knauff

A TEN-YEAR REVIEW OF GLIDER ACCIDENTS

You will find information about glider accidents on the following web
site:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Aviation.htm

This series of newsletters will review:
Accident causes.
Where they are happening.
What you can do.

Glider pilots are generally:
Intelligent
Educated
Mature
Financially well off

You would expect glider flying to be safer than most other activities.

Which is more dangerous?
Flying Gliders?
Driving Automobiles?

A common statement is: “Driving to the gliderport is more dangerous
than flying in a glider.” Unfortunately, this is not true.

Common Automobile Accident Factors
Night driving.
Alcohol, drugs.
Minimal training.
Distractions.
Speeding.
Heavy, close traffic.
Young/old drivers


Flying gliders has very few of these accident-causing factors.

You would expect glider flying to be safer than driving.

However, statistics show glider flying (USA & most countries) is much
worse.

FATALITIES PER THOUSAND
Gliders: Approximately 1 in 2,000
Autos: Approximately 1 in 6,000

Ten Year Glider Fatalities (USA)

Year
2009 8
2008 3
2007 6
2006 4
2005 6
2004 7
2003 6
2002 6
2001 6
2000 5

Total 57 fatalities.

5.7 per year.

The thirty-year average is 6.1 fatalities per year.

More to follow.

Tom Knauff

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 21, 2:04*pm, Tom > wrote:
> The following is the first of a series of newsletters to be sent to
> subscribers to my popular newsletter.

> This series of newsletters will review:
> Accident causes.

> FATALITIES PER THOUSAND
> Gliders: Approximately 1 in 2,000
> *Autos: *Approximately 1 in 6,000

Tom,

I don't doubt the numbers are horrible but can you please clarify
"FATALITIES PER THOUSAND"? Per thousand what? Is this registered
gliders, certificated pilots, hours flown, miles flown...?

thanks

Andy

[[email protected][_2_]]

If it wasn't dangerous it wouldn't be any fun.
On Feb 21, 5:04*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:04*pm, Tom > wrote:
>
> > The following is the first of a series of newsletters to be sent to
> > subscribers to my popular newsletter.
> > This series of newsletters will review:
> > Accident causes.
> > FATALITIES PER THOUSAND
> > Gliders: Approximately 1 in 2,000
> > *Autos: *Approximately 1 in 6,000
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't doubt the numbers are horrible but can you please clarify
> "FATALITIES PER THOUSAND"? *Per thousand what? *Is this registered
> gliders, certificated pilots, hours flown, miles flown...?
>
> thanks
>
> Andy

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> If it wasn't dangerous it wouldn't be any fun.

I hope you say that mostly in jest; otherwise, I say,

Bull-bleep!

To some, that may be the reason they fly, but that sure isn't the reason
many or most fly. I want to be old and gray, and flying all the way till I
can't see straight in my upper 90's, at least!
--
Jim in NC

[tienshanman]

I wonder how these calculations take into consideration the hours spent on both activities. After all, one spends a lot more time driving than flying a glider (although there may be a lucky few for whom this does not apply).

[michael case]

Perhaps I have been sheltered,

But I have never heard the claim the flying gliders was safer than
driving.

What I have heard and my amateur review of the fatality numbers per
hour seems to confirm is.

Flying commercial airlines is safer than driving.

GA flying about the same as riding a motorcycle

GA flying can be as safe as driving if you eliminate low flying and
bad weather flying.

Glider flying is more dangerous than GA flying, I am unsure by what
factor.

*************
Of course there are many ways to look at the numbers. One can count
fatalities, injuries or accidents. One can count per vehicals or per
person. Just those two variables give about 12 different
combination's of ways to count the numbers,

However I am looking forward to Tom's Analysis.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Tom Gardner]

On Feb 22, 5:19*pm, michael case > wrote:
> Of course there are many ways to look at the numbers.

My favourite are the pair of statistics from the '70s, probably
still true today:
1 landing in commercial airliners is becoming safer
2 landing in commercial airliners is becoming more dangerous

1 is true for accidents per landing
2 is true for proportion of accidents while landing

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 21, 4:57*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:

> To some, that may be the reason they fly, but that sure isn't the reason
> many or most fly. *I want to be old and gray, and flying all the way till I
> can't see straight in my upper 90's, at least!

This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.

I wonder how much better the glider fatality numbers would look if the
cases where the pilot was dead, or otherwise medically incapacitated,
prior to the accident were eliminated. Several US fatal accidents in
the past few years seem to fall into that category.

Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
contests?

Andy

[[email protected][_2_]]

Right. Let us inflict more restrictions on ourselves. For the
children of course. If it is a good idea for contests then it is good
idea for everyone...
>
> Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> contests?
>
> Andy

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 22, 10:55*am, " >
wrote:
> Right. *Let us inflict more restrictions on ourselves. *For the
> children of course. *If it is a good idea for contests then it is good
> idea for everyone...
>
>
>
> > Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> > contests?
>
> > Andy


I am unaware of any third party being injured from a glider accident
resulting from incapacity of the pilot. After all, sailplanes are
pretty light and don't burn. However, it's pretty unsettling to the
rest of us. I was at Parowan last year and was also personally
affected by one such incident. You'd get my vote for requiring a
medical certificate.

You could also make a case for requiring a medical certificate for
pilots instructing and carrying passengers, but again, I doubt that
there is much of an accident database to support the need for this.

Mike

[jcarlyle]

I submit that there is no case for a glider medical. I know of two
pilots who both had current FAA medicals and had heart problems
requiring stent implantation. Neither had any physical warning, much
less an AME telling them they had impending problems. Both are,
thankfully, just fine - but no thanks to a bureaucratic medical
process.

-John

On Feb 22, 12:42 pm, Andy > wrote:
> Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> contests?

[JS]

Of course, there have never been holders of current medical
certificates suffering strokes, heart attacks, etc. Rubbish!
Keep the paperwork down, please.
Jim

[bildan]

On Feb 22, 10:19*am, michael case > wrote:
> Perhaps I have been sheltered,
>
> But I have never heard the claim the flying gliders was safer than
> driving.
>
> What I have heard and my amateur review of the fatality numbers per
> hour seems to confirm is.
>
> Flying commercial airlines is safer than driving.
>
> GA flying about the same as riding a motorcycle
>
> GA flying can be as safe as driving if you eliminate low flying and
> bad weather flying.
>
> Glider flying is more dangerous than GA flying, I am unsure by what
> factor.
>
> *************
> Of course there are many ways to look at the numbers. One can count
> fatalities, injuries or accidents. One can count per vehicals or per
> person. *Just those two variables give about 12 different
> combination's of ways to count the numbers,
>
> However I am looking forward to Tom's Analysis.
>
> Brian
> CFIIG/ASEL

Statements like "safer than" or "more dangerous than" are not
extremely useful. The statistical base for pilots, and the quality of
those statistics, is too small and sketchy to meaningfully compare one
activity with another.

Safety in the air depends almost entirely on the individual pilot
whose attitude, self-discipline, skill-set and knowledge determine the
level of safety for that pilot. Statements to the effect that
"soaring is dangerous" serves a useful purpose only to the extent that
it encourages individual pilots to acquire those traits and practice
safe behavior.

A more meaningful approach would be to discuss how we individually
can safely manage an unforgiving system. Soaring is certainly
unforgiving of any neglect or carelessness - Individually, we need to
learn how to manage those risks. It might be correct to say "soaring
is extremely dangerous for careless, neglectful pilots" but is
relatively safe for "careful, disciplined pilots".

[mike martin]

On Feb 22, 11:11*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:55*am, " >
> wrote:
>
> > Right. *Let us inflict more restrictions on ourselves. *For the
> > children of course. *If it is a good idea for contests then it is good
> > idea for everyone...
>
> > > Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> > > contests?
>
> > > Andy
>
> I am unaware of any third party being injured from a glider accident
> resulting from incapacity of the pilot. *After all, sailplanes are
> pretty light and don't burn. *However, it's pretty unsettling to the
> rest of us. *I was at Parowan last year and was also personally
> affected by one such incident. *You'd get my vote for requiring a
> medical certificate.
>
> You could also make a case for requiring a medical certificate for
> pilots instructing and carrying passengers, but again, I doubt that
> there is much of an accident database to support the need for this.
>
> Mike

Regardless of the FAA requirement to hold a medical for other
operations, pilots self-certify their medical condition every time
they fly. The FAA medical only demonstartes that you can see, breath,
have a normal heartbeat, and your blood pressure is not out of whack.
It also inititialy relies on the integrity of the airman applying for
the medical to inform the AME of any conditions that might be
disqualifying.

The FAA medical beuracracy is huge and any hiccup in your application
can send you on a frustrating and potentially expensive trip through
the system in order to regain your medical. This does not reduce the
responsibilities of pilots to honestly evaluate thier condition each
time they step into a glider, but let us leave well enough alone and
not get the FAA involved in a system that IMHO is not broke.
Mike

[Surfer!]

In message
>,
jcarlyle > writes
>I submit that there is no case for a glider medical. I know of two
>pilots who both had current FAA medicals and had heart problems
>requiring stent implantation. Neither had any physical warning, much
>less an AME telling them they had impending problems. Both are,
>thankfully, just fine - but no thanks to a bureaucratic medical
>process.
<Snip>

How many who have failed the medical have gone on to have some sort of
incapacitating illness?


--
Surfer!

[Brian[_1_]]

I believe that the statement "Soaring is Dangerous" may be useful
statement to say to certified pilot but it certianly isn't what you
want to say to a 14 year old's Mom just before they take an intro
flight.

The statement "Soaring has it Dangers/Risks as does any Activity" is a
better statement, better still the statement that "the pilot has huge
amount of control in how risky a flight is or is not" is even better.

An indepth statistical analysis would take the 12 combination's of
variables i listed above (accidentally posted as michaelcase")
compared to other activities. However has Tom has already mentioned
it is difficult to get accurate numbers especially when you start
talking about incidents without injuries.

But it is useful to compare it to other activities since this is no
standard Risk level scale. It would be nice if we could says Soaring
rated a 6 on risk scale. But even then we would compare it to other
how other activities rated on the same scale. The benefit is it helps
pilot realize that they need to be diligent to keep it safe and helps
uninformed people make a decision about how much risk they willing to
accept.

The person riding to the airport on their Harley is probably less
likely to consider soaring too risky than the person who drives their
Volvo to the airport.

Brian

[jcarlyle]

I know of none.

-John

On Feb 22, 3:03 pm, Surfer! > wrote:
> How many who have failed the medical have gone on to have some sort of
> incapacitating illness?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Andy" > wrote

> This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.

You missed my point. I mean flying when I am 99 with good health and sound
mind, all the way until that point. Not just gliders, either.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Feb 22, 12:42*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 4:57*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > To some, that may be the reason they fly, but that sure isn't the reason
> > many or most fly. *I want to be old and gray, and flying all the way till I
> > can't see straight in my upper 90's, at least!
>
> This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.
>
> I wonder how much better the glider fatality numbers would look if the
> cases where the pilot was dead, or otherwise medically incapacitated,
> prior to the accident were eliminated. *Several US fatal accidents in
> the past few years seem to fall into that category.
>
> Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> contests?
>
> Andy

This was on the RC agenda last Fall and the judgement was that this is
not needed.
My OPINION:We would more likely reduce accidents if the money that
would be spent on a medical were to be applied to regular recurrent
training. My personal observation is that the majority of the poor
flying I see is due to lack of recent practice and need for recurrent
training.
The 2 pilots I know of that had recent fatal accidents believed to be
attributable to medical causes both knew about their condition and
elected to fly anyway. Even a pilot holding a medical could do this-
not legally. Self certification holds us all to the same standard of
not having a physical defect that would make us unable to pilot
glider.
FWIW
UH

[bildan]

On Feb 23, 8:04*am, wrote:
> On Feb 22, 12:42*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 4:57*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > > To some, that may be the reason they fly, but that sure isn't the reason
> > > many or most fly. *I want to be old and gray, and flying all the way till I
> > > can't see straight in my upper 90's, at least!
>
> > This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.
>
> > I wonder how much better the glider fatality numbers would look if the
> > cases where the pilot was dead, or otherwise medically incapacitated,
> > prior to the accident were eliminated. *Several US fatal accidents in
> > the past few years seem to fall into that category.
>
> > Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> > contests?
>
> > Andy
>
> This was on the RC agenda last Fall and the judgement was that this is
> not needed.
> My OPINION:We would more likely reduce accidents if the money that
> would be spent on a medical were to be applied to regular recurrent
> training. My personal observation is that the majority of the poor
> flying I see is due to lack of recent practice and need for recurrent
> training.
> The 2 pilots I know of that had recent fatal accidents believed to be
> attributable to medical causes both knew about their condition and
> elected to fly anyway. Even a pilot holding a medical could do this-
> not legally. Self certification holds us all to the same standard of
> not having a physical defect that would make us unable to pilot
> glider.
> FWIW
> UH

I second the recurrent training idea.

[cernauta]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:53:31 -0800 (PST), bildan >
wrote:


>I second the recurrent training idea.

This IS a very good idea.

But, look at what happened in the last few years in Switzerland.
There, no medical was required from glider pilots, after the first and
only examination as the licence is released. It was in fact a "once in
a lifetime" exam.

After a series of gliding accidents where elderly pilots were
involved, and the suspect is that at least one of two of them were
incapacitated before the crash occurred... And considering that one of
such crashes happened unfortunately in a public garden... A
periodical medical review is now compulsory in Switzerland.

Aldo Cernezzi

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:25:43 +0100, cernauta wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:53:31 -0800 (PST), bildan >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I second the recurrent training idea.
>
> This IS a very good idea.
>
Agreed. In my (UK) club all pilots must do a short refresher course
before the start of the season. Each refresher is for four pilots and is
run by two instructors. Its aimed at checking situational awareness and
eventualities rather than merely seeing if you can still fly. It consists
of:
- a chalk & talk session with the instructors running the course,
typically for no more than an hour.
- an aero tow to 3000-3500 ft for stalling and spinning exercises.
There's usually some exercises during the tow too - slack rope, out of
position recovery, etc.
- two winch launches which involve simulated cable breaks or power
failures. You know that you're unlikely to get to the top but
not what's about to be sprung on you.

> After a series of gliding accidents where elderly pilots were involved,
> and the suspect is that at least one of two of them were incapacitated
> before the crash occurred... And considering that one of such crashes
> happened unfortunately in a public garden... A periodical medical
> review is now compulsory in Switzerland.
>
We used to be self-certifying for solo flying but have had a 5 yearly
medical examination, administered by your GP, for a long time. It used to
be required only for passenger carrying or instructing. I don't know when
this was introduced: it pre-dates my start in gliding. The required
standard is equivalent to the professional driver's medical. I think this
is a sensible and reasonable approach.

Around 2003 or 4 the self-certification was replaced by the same medical
required for passenger carrying and instructing.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/22/2010 1:11 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:55 am, >
> wrote:
>> Right. Let us inflict more restrictions on ourselves. For the
>> children of course. If it is a good idea for contests then it is good
>> idea for everyone...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
>>> contests?
>>
>>> Andy
>
>
> I am unaware of any third party being injured from a glider accident
> resulting from incapacity of the pilot. After all, sailplanes are
> pretty light and don't burn. However, it's pretty unsettling to the
> rest of us. I was at Parowan last year and was also personally
> affected by one such incident. You'd get my vote for requiring a
> medical certificate.
>
> You could also make a case for requiring a medical certificate for
> pilots instructing and carrying passengers, but again, I doubt that
> there is much of an accident database to support the need for this.
>
> Mike
Why would it be more unsettling to someone for a glider pilot to have a
heart attack while flying and have a quick end doing what he/she loves,
vs having the same heart attack on the ground, which depending on the
circumstances may leave the person with a miserable quality of life.

I can understand the argument that we should protect innocent bystanders
from being injured as a result of a pilot's medical condition. That
same argument applies to automobiles, where an accident resulting from a
medical event is probably a lot more likely to injure a bystander than a
glider accident.

The reality is that there are a lot of glider pilots (myself included)
who ended up in the sport because it became too much of a hassle to keep
our medicals. If we start requiring medicals for soaring, it will
devastate the sport.

Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.



Mike Schumann

--
Mike Schumann

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 5:23*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 1:11 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 10:55 am, >
> > wrote:
> >> Right. *Let us inflict more restrictions on ourselves. *For the
> >> children of course. *If it is a good idea for contests then it is good
> >> idea for everyone...
>
> >>> Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
> >>> contests?
>
> >>> Andy
>
> > I am unaware of any third party being injured from a glider accident
> > resulting from incapacity of the pilot. *After all, sailplanes are
> > pretty light and don't burn. *However, it's pretty unsettling to the
> > rest of us. *I was at Parowan last year and was also personally
> > affected by one such incident. *You'd get my vote for requiring a
> > medical certificate.
>
> > You could also make a case for requiring a medical certificate for
> > pilots instructing and carrying passengers, but again, I doubt that
> > there is much of an accident database to support the need for this.
>
> > Mike
>
> Why would it be more unsettling to someone for a glider pilot to have a
> heart attack while flying and have a quick end doing what he/she loves,
> vs having the same heart attack on the ground, which depending on the
> circumstances may leave the person with a miserable quality of life.
>
> I can understand the argument that we should protect innocent bystanders
> from being injured as a result of a pilot's medical condition. *That
> same argument applies to automobiles, where an accident resulting from a
> medical event is probably a lot more likely to injure a bystander than a
> glider accident.
>
> The reality is that there are a lot of glider pilots (myself included)
> who ended up in the sport because it became too much of a hassle to keep
> our medicals. *If we start requiring medicals for soaring, it will
> devastate the sport.
>
> Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
> hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
> thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

well said..........

Brad

[T8]

On Feb 23, 8:23*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:

> Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
> hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
> thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.
>

You ever help clean up a wreck in the woods after a fatal?

It ain't exactly a treat.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Jim Logajan]

T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:23*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
>> hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
>> thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.
>>
>
> You ever help clean up a wreck in the woods after a fatal?
>
> It ain't exactly a treat.

Since that is a point applicable to all fatal accidents (train, plane, and
automobile) and all causal chains leading to those accidents, its non-
uniqueness effectively makes it irrelevant to requiring a glider medical.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 5:40*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:23*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
> > hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
> > thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.
>
> You ever help clean up a wreck in the woods after a fatal?
>
> It ain't exactly a treat.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Twice.................it ain't a treat...............but it was worse
for us than them, at least I have to hope that was the case. I'd still
rather go out that way than with DNR.

[T8]

On Feb 23, 8:50*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> T8 > wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 8:23*pm, Mike Schumann >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
> >> hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
> >> thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.
>
> > You ever help clean up a wreck in the woods after a fatal?
>
> > It ain't exactly a treat.
>
> Since that is a point applicable to all fatal accidents (train, plane, and
> automobile) and all causal chains leading to those accidents, its non-
> uniqueness effectively makes it irrelevant to requiring a glider medical.

I don't support requiring glider medicals. I took the previous
poster's comments to be a version of John Denver's "I wanna die in my
airplane". I take issue with sentiments like these. Messy, bad for
the sport. It's a sh!tty thing to wish for.

-Evan

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

I cannot give up that easily -- I hope to die in my sleep, like my
Uncle Ray, not screaming like his passengers.

Sincerely, I don't buy the "doing what he loved" bit. I love life, so
I hang onto it, try to savor every minute.

Re-currrent training to a high level of proficiency (different for
every pilot) is what is needed to reverse the horrible safety trend in
glider flying (and aerotowing.).
Go fly with a seasoned instructor for an afternoon and get a "real"
Flight Review.
Beware the "he or she is an experienced pilot" excuse. Laws of
gravity and aerodynamics are no less fatal to the "skygods."
Offer to simply ride along as copilot in a two seater with the older
pilots - don't send them to the golf course.
Try intervention with miss-behaving glider pilots and your rogue
towpilots who insist on a wingover and an aggressive dive just seconds
after you release.

Speak up about the pilots that you have already identified as "an
accident waiting to happen", then look to yourself.
Why are we waiting?

[Brad[_2_]]

> Speak up about the pilots that you have already identified as "an
> accident waiting to happen", then look to yourself.
> Why are we waiting?

I'd be somewhat careful about this comment. Ultra-conservative flag
pole sitters love to criticize pilots who go out and polish the rocks
and do things they consider "unsafe"

I would have to think those pilots, and some of them are CFIG's would
love to pull an intervention on a few of us. Question is, are they
really safer than me?

A few of us spent 2.5 hours in close proximity to rocks and trees
yesterday for a spectacular ridge/mountain flight. To my knowledge,
none of the local instructors were there, or have done anything like
that in years, if ever.

So, are you telling me they are going to tell me how to fly safe?

I get a BFR in power every year, and fly 12 months out of the year in
my sailplane; my currency and safety is something I take
responsibility for, not some part time instructor who sit's in a
Blanik every other weekend.

Brad

[Greg Arnold]

Brad wrote:
>> Speak up about the pilots that you have already identified as "an
>> accident waiting to happen", then look to yourself.
>> Why are we waiting?
>
> I'd be somewhat careful about this comment. Ultra-conservative flag
> pole sitters love to criticize pilots who go out and polish the rocks
> and do things they consider "unsafe"
>
> I would have to think those pilots, and some of them are CFIG's would
> love to pull an intervention on a few of us. Question is, are they
> really safer than me?
>
> A few of us spent 2.5 hours in close proximity to rocks and trees
> yesterday for a spectacular ridge/mountain flight. To my knowledge,
> none of the local instructors were there, or have done anything like
> that in years, if ever.
>
> So, are you telling me they are going to tell me how to fly safe?
>
> I get a BFR in power every year, and fly 12 months out of the year in
> my sailplane; my currency and safety is something I take
> responsibility for, not some part time instructor who sit's in a
> Blanik every other weekend.
>
> Brad


I agree. Burt in his post says "Go fly with a seasoned instructor for
an afternoon and get a "real" Flight Review." This statement is based
on the assumption that instructors (or at least those instructors who
are "seasoned") are better pilots than the rest of us. While that may
be true for Burt and some others, in the US instructors are just pilots
who have taken more FAA tests than the rest of us (and probably done a
lot less XC). Why would that make them better pilots?

I would bet that the typical instructor could learn more from the
typical XC pilot, than vice versa.

[bildan]

On Feb 23, 7:13*pm, Burt Compton - Marfa > wrote:
> I cannot give up that easily -- I hope to die in my sleep, like my
> Uncle Ray, not screaming like his passengers.
>
> Sincerely, I don't buy the "doing what he loved" bit. *I love life, so
> I hang onto it, try to savor every minute.
>
> Re-currrent training to a high level of proficiency (different for
> every pilot) is what is needed to reverse the horrible safety trend in
> glider flying (and aerotowing.).
> Go fly with a seasoned instructor for an afternoon and get a "real"
> Flight Review.
> Beware the "he or she is an experienced pilot" excuse. *Laws of
> gravity and aerodynamics are no less fatal to the "skygods."
> Offer to simply ride along as copilot in a two seater with the older
> pilots - don't send them to the golf course.
> Try intervention with miss-behaving glider pilots and your rogue
> towpilots who insist on a wingover and an aggressive dive just seconds
> after you release.
>
> Speak up about the pilots that you have already identified as "an
> accident waiting to happen", then look to yourself.
> Why are we waiting?

I have to agree with Burt. Intervention is the key to greater safety
- if it's by by highly experienced instructors. However, the points
that many CFIG's aren't all that experienced and some will use
'safety' as a political horse are valid.

Maybe that's an argument for higher instructor certification
standards. I've always thought that CFIG's should, at a minimum, hold
a Gold Badge and preferably a Diamond Badge. Of course, badges in
themselves, don't prove superior instructional skills - but it would
be better than what we have now.

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

Folks (USA),

I did not write in my previous post that the CFIG's would intervene.
My intention was to encourage pilots request a proper and complete
Flight Review in a glider to hopefully reduce the terrible glider
accident rate. You have all read about the Soaring Safety Foundation
"First Flight" program, now in the third year. This is just one of
many methods for a conscientious pilot to achieve a higher level of
proficiency. It is part of your Continuing Education, like you may
accomplish in your profession.

The intervention I was trying to describe is between you and the pilot
who you might observe as "an accident waiting to happen."
"Intervention" does not always mean grounding someone, and you
certainly do not need to be a CFIG to intervene.

WE are our brother's (and sister's) keeper. Watch out for each other,
speak up regarding safety.
Share your knowledge of soaring and the things you have learned that
keep YOU alive such as positive control checks, collision avoidance,
"low saves", ridge running, wave safety, off-airport landing
techniques, rough weather / windy day flying, energy and risk
management.

I fly in Germany most every year and note that many of their top
pilots are also club flight instructors. It seems this is how they pay-
back their club.

Then again, YOU can be a flight instructor, or simply host safety
seminars at your club, especially if you have experience in a
particular aspect of soaring, such as aerobatics, XC / Badge / OLC
soaring, or racing.

You might consult with that lowly CFIG to develop an outline so you
communicate efficiently. Just because you fly well doesn't always
mean you can verbalize and teach the lesson -- that's what good
instructors strive to do. A quiz at the end of the seminar is a
method to test both your effectiveness and whether your audience
understood what you meant to say.

So spend some time mentoring in a class format, in addition to lead-
and-follow flying.
Sharing your knowledge may help our terrible accident rate in the
USA.

According to Bernald Smith of the SSF and OSTIV, one in every 2,000
SSA members will die while participating in soaring in 2010, based on
our accident rate in the USA in 2009. That's a horrible prediction,
and it could be the reality of 2010. Whether you care to debate the
statistics or not, it is clear we all must be proactive to reduce our
fatalities and serious injuries. Tom Knauff, the SSF and others
(including your CFIG's) have offered valid suggestions on how you can
not be that one in 2,000.

[Mike the Strike]

On Feb 23, 6:40*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:23*pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd love to live my final moments doing what I love, and
> > hope that all of my friends and family will share in that joy and be
> > thankful that I had a quick and uncomplicated end.
>
> You ever help clean up a wreck in the woods after a fatal?
>
> It ain't exactly a treat.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Exactly what I was going to say - I've been at a couple of fatals and
it affects you more than you might think, especially if you were a
first responder.

Mike

[Jack Hamilton]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:29:20 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

>We used to be self-certifying for solo flying but have had a 5 yearly
>medical examination, administered by your GP, for a long time. It used to
>be required only for passenger carrying or instructing. I don't know when
>this was introduced: it pre-dates my start in gliding. The required
>standard is equivalent to the professional driver's medical. I think this
>is a sensible and reasonable approach.

The FAA requirements in the US are more stringent than California
Department of Motor Vehicles requirements (I have a DMV medical
certificate because I drive a vanpool to work). The DMV requirements
are reasonable.

[Eric Greenwell]

T8 wrote:
> I don't support requiring glider medicals. I took the previous
> poster's comments to be a version of John Denver's "I wanna die in my
> airplane". I take issue with sentiments like these. Messy, bad for
> the sport. It's a sh!tty thing to wish for.
And it destroys a perfectly good glider someone else could have enjoyed
for many years. So, do your last flying in a two seater so the other
pilot can bring the glider back.

I don't think glider medicals will make much difference, and the AOPA
doesn't think the facts support medicals for the smaller GA planes, either

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Eric Greenwell]

Brad wrote:
> A few of us spent 2.5 hours in close proximity to rocks and trees
> yesterday for a spectacular ridge/mountain flight. To my knowledge,
> none of the local instructors were there, or have done anything like
> that in years, if ever.
>
> So, are you telling me they are going to tell me how to fly safe?
>
> I get a BFR in power every year, and fly 12 months out of the year in
> my sailplane; my currency and safety is something I take
> responsibility for, not some part time instructor who sit's in a
> Blanik every other weekend.
>
I think Burt's point was "find an instructor that is able and willing to
find your weak points". For an experienced pilot, that might not be the
club instructors. Maybe you have find that instructor at Air Sailing,
Minden, Cal City, or elsewhere. All great places to fly! Make an
appointment, pack up the glider and the wife, do some soaring and get
good BFR!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[CindyB[_2_]]

On Feb 23, 10:08*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> > A few of us spent 2.5 hours in close proximity to rocks and trees
> > yesterday for a spectacular ridge/mountain flight. To my knowledge,
> > none of the local instructors were there, or have done anything like
> > that in years, if ever.
>
> > So, are you telling me they are going to tell me how to fly safe?
>
SNIPPED by CB
>
> I think Burt's point was "find an instructor that is able and willing to
> find your weak points". For an experienced pilot, that might not be the
> club instructors. Maybe you have find that instructor at Air Sailing,
> Minden, Cal City, or elsewhere. All great places to fly! Make an
> appointment, pack up the glider and the wife, do some soaring and get
> good BFR!
>

Thank you to many who have contributed to this topic, and to Tom
for beginning it.

I agree heartily that 'more recurrent training and more taxing
recurrent
training' would be a great investment in personal safety.

I have several local and imported customers who visit for their
version
of the First Flight (annually with a CFI) concept. Usually it is many
flights,
mostly to work on landing skills and some with a focus on emergency
procedures.

I don't think that aviation medical certificates will predict future
medical
events. Most typical autopsies will conclude a glider death was
granted
by blunt force trauma, and not address anything miniscule in medical
events that might have contributed, eschemic strokes, clots, low
blood
pressure event, dehydration, arterial blockages, etc.
I think it is up to the glider peer community to continue to behave
in
a manner that precludes the FAA changing their minds, and forcing
medical certificates for glider airmen. We know that both Mike
Packard
and Dick Johnson had known cardiac conditions, and yet both flew.

We lose participation in soaring both short and long term through
exposure socially to these losses. I have had to pick up after a
loss,
and don't want to do it again.

Flying while medically unfit is GREEDY.
We lose a friend.
We lose a glider.
We lose a settlement in an insurance claim, and jeopardize the
health of the insurance business that allows us ALL to fly. Even when
that is "ONLY" a hull loss. Geez, a single seater can be easily over
a
hundred grand in a settlement. But, wasn't it great it was only in the
woods? NO.

We need to police ourselves. Singlely and collectively.
Love your buddy enough to tell him, hey, maybe you should consider
a two-seater, and I'll ride along and keep quiet.

Enough of the garbage about it being the XC guys that make the
losses, or the racers. Only two of the eight 'flyers' lost last year
were at contests.

Two were tow pilots at home fields;
one got midaired, one got kited/pitched on early launch.
Two lost were in low altitude launch screwups - one winch one aero.
One got hypoxic.
One spun.
One wasn't observed at all, but was a pretty old guy.
One probably had a heart attack. One midaired.

Out of the 2009 list, training could have helped at least three/four
glider pilots and one tow pilot. Peer counseling could have changed
the behavior of maybe the hypoxia and the heart attack pilots.

The SSF statistics tell us that the majority of accidents, about 65%
EVERY year, that are not fatals, are landings gone wrong at the
HOME airfield.
I can confirm that one popular item I stress on BFRs and dual
opportunities are spot landings. Touch after that place and halt
before that place on the airfield. I dread to report that usually,
the
private owner that tries this the first time with me, does NOT
succeed. He does NOT succeed because I use some
DIFFERENT place on the airfield than his normal spot. I allow
all systems to be used on the glider, hydraulic brake included,
and the soon-to-be-launching for XC pilot doesn't do so hot.

One pilot, after realizing his eroded skills told me, "I'd rather pay
the tow fees to you, than the repair bill to some shop after my
outlanding." I figured that was a successful training day.

Safety? You bet is it a personal choice.
And a collective choice.
Don't be passive, and don't be silent.
Get training. Talk to your friends if they worry you.
Let's all have this talk again next February.

With love,

Cindy B
www.caracole-soaring.com
Check the button for Advanced Training

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

Greg Arnold wrote:

> I would bet that the typical instructor could learn more from the
> typical XC pilot, than vice versa.
>
I think this rather misses the point. What you're looking for is an
external analysis of your flying, something you can't do yourself.

I've flown with many instructors who were no "better" than me as pilots
but learnt something about my flying from each of them because they can
spot idiosyncrasies that I've developed without realising it. As an
example, I tend to be heavy-footed on the rudder because most of my
flying is in an Open Cirrus. Now I'm aware of this, I can pay special
attention to it when flying a different type. I'd expect most of us have
defects in our flying which we could usefully work on, if we only knew
what they were.

Of course, flying with an instructor who is markedly a "better" pilot
(on whatever measure you're using) *and* who can analyse your own flying
is clearly the best option. But those instructors are rare everywhere.
That doesn't mean you can't benefit from observation of your flying by a
peer in terms of simple pilot ability.

[Dave White]

I always thought that glider pilots were a pretty sharp bunch, by and
large. However, some of the comments in this discussion are
breathtaking in the level of sheer nonsense and selfishness they
display. Clearly, there is a surprisingly common underlying attitude
that contributes to our accident problem. Those who think it's okay
to put themselves, their glider, their families, and innocent others
at risk simply because they have a "right" to fly without a medical
have a bigger issue than their medical condition. While I am not in
favor of requiring a third class medical for glider flying, clearly we
need a new approach to medical qualification--if for no other reason
than the irresponsibility of these persons.

Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
sheer stupidity. The soaring community is already woefully short of
instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
sport. The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
badge beggars belief. How will reducing the instructor corps to a
mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? Astonishing
arrogance.

The fact is that soaring has a problem with safety. Another fact is
that we as a community have failed to identify the segment of our
community most likely to be involved in an accident. At the recent
FIRC during the SSA convention, I asked why no attempt has been made
to do an in-depth analysis of the accident record to try and find
demographic data that might be relevant. There was no interest in the
idea, and I have since been told that the data would be impossible to
obtain. I don't buy that--I think it's just head in the sand
thinking. We as a community deserve an answer about the
characteristics, skills, attitudes, and experience of those most
likely to be involved in an accident. That would enable the safety
and educational agencies to focus more preventive effort on the real
causes of accidents, rather than merely telling us what happened after
the fact.

[ken]

In article
>,
Dave White > wrote:

> I always thought that glider pilots were a pretty sharp bunch, by and
> large. However, some of the comments in this discussion are
> breathtaking in the level of sheer nonsense and selfishness they
> display. Clearly, there is a surprisingly common underlying attitude
> that contributes to our accident problem.

Agreed. My being the one in two thousand is looking a lot less likely
considering the distribution I'm seeing here. I almost feel like saying
thank you, thank you, thank you!

[bildan]

> Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> arrogance.

So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? I know of
many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". A lot of
accidents can be traced back to them.

We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
to instruct which says something about working conditions. A lot of
them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. Buy
a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.

In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
instructor.

I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
instructors with them. I also tell any instructor seeking some
respect to get their Diamond.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 24, 6:16*am, Dave White > wrote:
> I always thought that glider pilots were a pretty sharp bunch, by and
> large. *However, some of the comments in this discussion are
> breathtaking in the level of sheer nonsense and selfishness they
> display. *Clearly, there is a surprisingly common underlying attitude
> that contributes to our accident problem. *Those who think it's okay
> to put themselves, their glider, their families, and innocent others
> at risk simply because they have a "right" to fly without a medical
> have a bigger issue than their medical condition. *While I am not in
> favor of requiring a third class medical for glider flying, clearly we
> need a new approach to medical qualification--if for no other reason
> than the irresponsibility of these persons.
>
> Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> arrogance.
>
> The fact is that soaring has a problem with safety. *Another fact is
> that we as a community have failed to identify the segment of our
> community most likely to be involved in an accident. * *At the recent
> FIRC during the SSA convention, I asked why no attempt has been made
> to do an in-depth analysis of the accident record to try and find
> demographic data that might be relevant. *There was no interest in the
> idea, and I have since been told that the data would be impossible to
> obtain. *I don't buy that--I think it's just head in the sand
> thinking. *We as a community deserve an answer about the
> characteristics, skills, attitudes, and experience of those most
> likely to be involved in an accident. *That would enable the safety
> and educational agencies to focus more preventive effort on the real
> causes of accidents, rather than merely telling us what happened after
> the fact.

I recall reading about a few accidents in the Soaring Safety Column/
Corner. In the last few years:

If I recall correctly, a couple of really smart guys broke a wing off
a motorglider and died.

Another guy recently tore his glider apart while flying in wave. The
description of the pilots curriculum vitae seems to indicate such an
accident would never happen to him.

Another unfortunate pilot was caught in a micro-burst while making an
off field landing.

I'm sure each of these pilots was well aware of the conditions that
killed them, they just didn't know this particular flight was going to
be their last.

We all learn from these accidents. And we are all aware of the
circumstances that caused them. But I guarantee you there will be more
pilots snapping wings off of gliders, crashing gliders due to micro-
bursts, and having fatal O2 problems.

So yeah, we are a bunch of sharp guys..................good luck
sussing out who will be the next unfortunate accident victim. I'm
guessing it will be some smart guy with tons of hours and experience.

FWIW,
Brad

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
> > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > arrogance.
>
> So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
> While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> instructor.
>
> I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> respect to get their Diamond.

I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. Not all of us
live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. Some instructors
seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. I've only got a
lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
my students and their DPE's seem to think so. As far as I know none
of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. I also feel
that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
I don't have the coveted Diamonds.

If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
review or spring checkout is about. We'd have a fun time reviewing
tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
field landings, and other things that are the real killers.

And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.

[noel.wade]

On Feb 24, 9:00*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> accidents can be traced back to them.

Well said!

Furthermore, there is an attitude in some clubs around the country
(including my local club) that you cannot give advice or instruction
or peer-reviews unless you are a CFIG. Without that ticket, you are
unqualified to pass along knowledge and even non-CFIGs have taken
steps to stop the transfer of knowledge between private pilots who are
trying to mentor others. I have been fortunate to have a few very
good CFIGs (all of them at commercial outfits, none of them were club
instructors) - but I have also learned a hell of a lot from private
pilots who took me aside and mentored me.

Good (and bad) information can come from any source, no matter their
certificate level or their age or number or hours of experience. As
Pilots-in-command (with our lives and the lives of others in our
hands), we have a duty to find and filter good sources of
information. And while this may seem like common sense to some - when
was the last time you heard a student being told this?

Lastly: The Soaring community talks about *quantity* of training (in
terms of spring checkouts and recurrent training)... But *QUALITY* of
training gets swept under the rug a lot. Good primary training is the
time to instill proper attitudes towards safety and advancement and
all of these other issues - yet I don't think these get taught much,
especially in club environments where training is done by old/
overworked/underprepared instructors.

--Noel
(who's hoping to become a CFIG that does not fall into one of the
categories I just mentioned)

[Greg Arnold]

Tony wrote:

>
> I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
> Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
> trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. Not all of us
> live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. Some instructors
> seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. I've only got a
> lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
> my students and their DPE's seem to think so. As far as I know none
> of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
> But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. I also feel
> that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
> I don't have the coveted Diamonds.
>
> If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
> checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
> thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
> review or spring checkout is about. We'd have a fun time reviewing
> tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
> field landings, and other things that are the real killers.
>
> And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
> back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
> Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.



Another issue is the type of glider being used. Does a glass pilot
learn anything useful by practicing abnormal patterns, spot landings,
simulated off field landings, etc. in a 2-XX? Don't you need an least
an ASK-21 or Grob 103 to make such instruction useful, and preferably a
Duo Discus or DG-1000? Or even better, have him use his own glider to
practice these things?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 24, 12:40*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>training is done by old/ overworked/underprepared instructors.
> (who's hoping to become a CFIG that does not fall into one of the
> categories I just mentioned)

Sorry to hear that. Getting old sucks but it beats the alternative.

More to the point though, there are at least 3 qualities required of
an instructor - experience, ability to teach, and perhaps just as
important, a desire to instruct. Quite a few instructors with both
experience and ability choose to do other things with their time.
Many of them (us) did their fair share in the back seat (and/or right
seat) but now find solo flying more enjoyable.


Andy

[bildan]

On Feb 24, 12:39*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > > arrogance.
>
> > So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> > many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> > accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> > We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> > However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> > to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> > them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> > a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> > In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> > best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
> > While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> > relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> > instructor.
>
> > I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> > changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> > instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> > respect to get their Diamond.
>
> I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
> Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
> trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. *Not all of us
> live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. *Some instructors
> seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. *I've only got a
> lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
> my students and their DPE's seem to think so. *As far as I know none
> of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
> But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. *I also feel
> that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
> I don't have the coveted Diamonds.
>
> If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
> checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
> thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
> review or spring checkout is about. *We'd have a fun time reviewing
> tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
> field landings, and other things that are the real killers.
>
> And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
> back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
> Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.

If badges were required for instructors, I think most of the
'effective' instructors would just go get them - even if it took a
trip. I would suspect the motivation and commitment of who couldn't
be bothered.

I recall an incident where a 'professional' instructor was offered an
LS-4, crew and a tow - all free of charge - to get Gold Distance on a
booming 10 knot, 18,000' cloud,base day. All he had to do was fly out
95 miles and come back - it would probably have taken less than 4
thermals yet he began sweating profusely and declined. I had
previously heard him denigrating cross country pilots as "crazy
people" when speaking to his students. He was terrified of getting
out of gliding range of the home airport. Unfortunately, this isn't
uncommon.

We have known for decades that pilots who take up cross country flying
tend to stay with the sport longer than those who don't. Instructors
set an example. If they instill a fear of XC flying, it hurts the
sport.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Feb 24, 2:07*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 12:39*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > > > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > > > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > > > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > > > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > > > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > > > arrogance.
>
> > > So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> > > many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> > > accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> > > We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> > > However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> > > to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> > > them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> > > a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> > > In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> > > best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
> > > While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> > > relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> > > instructor.
>
> > > I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> > > changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> > > instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> > > respect to get their Diamond.
>
> > I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
> > Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
> > trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. *Not all of us
> > live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. *Some instructors
> > seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. *I've only got a
> > lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
> > my students and their DPE's seem to think so. *As far as I know none
> > of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
> > But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. *I also feel
> > that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
> > I don't have the coveted Diamonds.
>
> > If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
> > checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
> > thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
> > review or spring checkout is about. *We'd have a fun time reviewing
> > tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
> > field landings, and other things that are the real killers.
>
> > And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
> > back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
> > Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.
>
> If badges were required for instructors, I think most of the
> 'effective' instructors would just go get them - even if it took a
> trip. *I would suspect the motivation and commitment of who couldn't
> be bothered.
>
> I recall an incident where a 'professional' instructor was offered an
> LS-4, crew and a tow - all free of charge - to get Gold Distance on a
> booming 10 knot, 18,000' cloud,base day. *All he had to do was fly out
> 95 miles and come back - it would probably have taken less than 4
> thermals yet he began sweating profusely and declined. *I had
> previously heard him denigrating cross country pilots as "crazy
> people" when speaking to his students. *He was terrified of getting
> out of gliding range of the home airport. *Unfortunately, this isn't
> uncommon.
>
> We have known for decades that pilots who take up cross country flying
> tend to stay with the sport longer than those who don't. *Instructors
> set an example. *If they instill a fear of XC flying, it hurts the
> sport.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree that encouraging cross country flying is a very good thing.

When I got my CFIG I had a hard enough time affording to do the add on
training, let alone take a couple weeks off in the summer to go to a
diamond mine, join a club or get checked out in a commercial
operation, learn a new to me glider, and then get to the point where I
was ready to fly it cross country. And then complete gold or diamond
badge flights with it. Hell even right now, I am in a dual income no
kids no college debt no car payment and pretty low rent situation and
I don't think I'd be too interested in taking a week in Boulder or
Minden. I'd probably spend enough in a week of glider rental and tow
costs not to mention gas to get there and hotels and food to pay for a
season's worth of tows at home. Or I could just use that money to buy
another Cherokee II!

So no, if gold or higher were required for CFIG, the "effective"
instructors would not just go get them. Only the ones who could get
the time off work and who could afford the associated costs with
getting the badge would do it.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 24, 11:58*am, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
> > I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
> > Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
> > trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. *Not all of us
> > live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. *Some instructors
> > seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. *I've only got a
> > lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
> > my students and their DPE's seem to think so. *As far as I know none
> > of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
> > But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. *I also feel
> > that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
> > I don't have the coveted Diamonds.
>
> > If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
> > checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
> > thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
> > review or spring checkout is about. *We'd have a fun time reviewing
> > tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
> > field landings, and other things that are the real killers.
>
> > And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
> > back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
> > Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.
>
> Another issue is the type of glider being used. *Does a glass pilot
> learn anything useful by practicing abnormal patterns, spot landings,
> simulated off field landings, etc. in a 2-XX? *Don't you need an least
> an ASK-21 or Grob 103 to make such instruction useful, and preferably a
> Duo Discus or DG-1000? *Or even better, have him use his own glider to
> practice these things?

Awhile ago a friend of mine bought himself a 40:1 motorglider. His
first glass ship, after years flying Blaniks, Twin Larks and other
club tin. He was a competent pilot and had a fair amount of time, I'm
guessing under 300 hours.

So, after getting checked out in his new motorglider, he flew it
"several" times at the local airport where our club operates. No
worries, he does fine, let's a few of us fly the ship......the first
thing I notice is this is NOT a Blanik, or a Lark, or anything else he
might have flown, this thing has a great sink rate, and a great glide,
and while easy to fly, did require all my attention when entering the
pattern and setting up for a landing.

One afternoon after flying together, and while having dinner at the
airport cafe, he say's to me "let's take our sailplanes to XX field
tomorrow and fly". I declined the invite, since it was a long drive
and didn't offer anything my local area didn't offer. But this field
is "trickier" than our home field, and I should have asked him if he
was comfortable enough in his new glider to go there, not "safer". It
never occurred to me to really dig in and question him.

The locals required him to take a couple check flights in the L-13, he
flies the TO/Tow, pattern then lands flawlessly. So now he's ready to
fly his glider. From what I understand he had a great flight, close to
4 hours and explores all the local ridges, etc. then..........when it
comes time to land, he sets up and flies a perfect Blanik pattern,
into this tight field, with no real emergency bail out
options..............panics, makes a few hesitant S turns, then stall
and spins into the middle of the field, killing himself.

What went wrong?

Brad

[tienshanman]

;722037']On Feb 24, 11:58*am, Greg Arnold wrote:
Tony wrote:

I think you'd lose a lot of experienced and effective instructors.
Seeking advanced badges and advanced knowledge is certainly a good
trait in an instructor but not the be all and end all. *Not all of us
live and work and play at a "Diamond Mine" location. *Some instructors
seek advancement in other ways than badge flights. *I've only got a
lousy Silver Badge but I certainly think I'm a decent CFIG, at least
my students and their DPE's seem to think so. *As far as I know none
of the CFIG's I have taken training from have above a Silver Badge.
But I still feel that I received top notch instruction. *I also feel
that I get plenty of respect from my fellow glider pilots even though
I don't have the coveted Diamonds.

If any of the racing pilots in the country came to me for a spring
checkout or a flight review I wouldn't be able to teach them a damn
thing about going fast or winning races, but that is not what a flight
review or spring checkout is about. *We'd have a fun time reviewing
tow signals, tow failures, abnormal patterns, spot landings, sim off
field landings, and other things that are the real killers.

And I'm still young enough to think of an afternoon crammed in the
back of a 2-XX rotating through 3 or 4 students as a good time.
Hopefully I don't get too old for that for a long time.

Another issue is the type of glider being used. *Does a glass pilot
learn anything useful by practicing abnormal patterns, spot landings,
simulated off field landings, etc. in a 2-XX? *Don't you need an least
an ASK-21 or Grob 103 to make such instruction useful, and preferably a
Duo Discus or DG-1000? *Or even better, have him use his own glider to
practice these things?

Awhile ago a friend of mine bought himself a 40:1 motorglider. His
first glass ship, after years flying Blaniks, Twin Larks and other
club tin. He was a competent pilot and had a fair amount of time, I'm
guessing under 300 hours.

So, after getting checked out in his new motorglider, he flew it
"several" times at the local airport where our club operates. No
worries, he does fine, let's a few of us fly the ship......the first
thing I notice is this is NOT a Blanik, or a Lark, or anything else he
might have flown, this thing has a great sink rate, and a great glide,
and while easy to fly, did require all my attention when entering the
pattern and setting up for a landing.

One afternoon after flying together, and while having dinner at the
airport cafe, he say's to me "let's take our sailplanes to XX field
tomorrow and fly". I declined the invite, since it was a long drive
and didn't offer anything my local area didn't offer. But this field
is "trickier" than our home field, and I should have asked him if he
was comfortable enough in his new glider to go there, not "safer". It
never occurred to me to really dig in and question him.

The locals required him to take a couple check flights in the L-13, he
flies the TO/Tow, pattern then lands flawlessly. So now he's ready to
fly his glider. From what I understand he had a great flight, close to
4 hours and explores all the local ridges, etc. then..........when it
comes time to land, he sets up and flies a perfect Blanik pattern,
into this tight field, with no real emergency bail out
options..............panics, makes a few hesitant S turns, then stall
and spins into the middle of the field, killing himself.

What went wrong?

Brad

Brad, Are you referring by any chance to the guy who died in the Tst 10M down by Mt. Rainier?

[ken]

In article
>,
bildan > wrote:

> So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? I know of
> many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". A lot of
> accidents can be traced back to them.

Dude, that's a pretty strong statement with some harsh implications.
First, anyone truly familiar with instructors with high accident rates
(of their former students) should be in touch with the FAA to share the
observation. And second, if they aren't, that kind of makes them
complicit, doesn't it.

[Dave White]

On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
> > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > arrogance.
>
> So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
> While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> instructor.
>
> I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> respect to get their Diamond.

You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
"we have always known," and "it's clear to me." However, you are not
so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
facts. You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
exalted level of accomplishment. PROVE that we have a surplus of
instructors. PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
instructors whose only interest is free flying. PROVE that a
dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
excellent instruction to his/her students. The fact is that your idea
is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Feb 26, 10:42*am, Dave White > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > > arrogance.
>
> > So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> > many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> > accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> > We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> > However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> > to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> > them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> > a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> > In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> > best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
> > While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> > relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> > instructor.
>
> > I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> > changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> > instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> > respect to get their Diamond.
>
> You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
> "we have always known," and "it's clear to me." *However, you are not
> so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
> facts. *You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
> generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
> exalted level of accomplishment. *PROVE that we have a surplus of
> instructors. *PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
> instructors whose only interest is free flying. *PROVE that a
> dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
> excellent instruction to his/her students. *The fact is that your idea
> is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
> diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.

FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. Can't
say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
without some research. Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
flights in club equipment. Many encourage and mentor XC flying.

Frank Whiteley

[bildan]

On Feb 26, 11:05*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 10:42*am, Dave White > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > > > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > > > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > > > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > > > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > > > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > > > arrogance.
>
> > > So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> > > many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> > > accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> > > We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> > > However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> > > to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> > > them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> > > a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> > > In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> > > best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do.
> > > While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> > > relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> > > instructor.
>
> > > I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> > > changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> > > instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> > > respect to get their Diamond.
>
> > You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
> > "we have always known," and "it's clear to me." *However, you are not
> > so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
> > facts. *You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
> > generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
> > exalted level of accomplishment. *PROVE that we have a surplus of
> > instructors. *PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
> > instructors whose only interest is free flying. *PROVE that a
> > dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
> > excellent instruction to his/her students. *The fact is that your idea
> > is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
> > diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.
>
> FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. *Can't
> say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
> without some research. *Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
> flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
> flights in club equipment. *Many encourage and mentor XC flying.
>
> Frank Whiteley

Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
difficulties finding one.

Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
riders" don't. Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
doing us much good in the long run. I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
ride" schools. Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.

[bildan]

On Feb 25, 2:38*pm, ken > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *bildan > wrote:
> > So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> > many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> > accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> Dude, that's a pretty strong statement with some harsh implications.
> First, anyone truly familiar with instructors with high accident rates
> (of their former students) should be in touch with the FAA to share the
> observation. And second, if they aren't, that kind of makes them
> complicit, doesn't it.

You know what, I work with the FAA on a pretty regular basis and have
a damn good relationship with them. My points come from those
discussions. Think I'm harsh, try getting cross-ways with a FSDO
Operations Inspector.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Feb 26, 5:40*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 11:05*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 10:42*am, Dave White > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 11:00*am, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > > > Further, the brilliant idea of requiring advanced badges for CFIGs is
> > > > > sheer stupidity. *The soaring community is already woefully short of
> > > > > instructors--the very men and women who do the most to grow the
> > > > > sport. *The very idea that you can't teach soaring without a diamond
> > > > > badge beggars belief. *How will reducing the instructor corps to a
> > > > > mere handful improve safety, much less improve the sport? *Astonishing
> > > > > arrogance.
>
> > > > So, how much good are crappy instructors for the sport? *I know of
> > > > many 'instructors' whose only interest is "free flying". *A lot of
> > > > accidents can be traced back to them.
>
> > > > We are not short of instructors - we actually have a surplus.
> > > > However, many pilots holding instructor certificates are not willing
> > > > to instruct which says something about working conditions. *A lot of
> > > > them are no longer willing to spend time in ragged old trainers. *Buy
> > > > a new trainer and instructors will come out of the woodwork.
>
> > > > In a lifetime of observation and instructing, it's clear to me the
> > > > best instructors always hold advanced badges and the worst never do..
> > > > While it's not quite black and white, there's a very strong
> > > > relationship between soaring accomplishment and ability as an
> > > > instructor.
>
> > > > I don't ask for FAR Part 61 instructor experience requirements be
> > > > changed to include FAI badges but I strongly suggest students seek out
> > > > instructors with them. *I also tell any instructor seeking some
> > > > respect to get their Diamond.
>
> > > You are pretty good at supporting your arguments with statements like
> > > "we have always known," and "it's clear to me." *However, you are not
> > > so good at supporting what is clearly a weak position with actual
> > > facts. *You cite an example of ONE instructor with a problem and
> > > generalize it to ALL instructors who don't have your apparently
> > > exalted level of accomplishment. *PROVE that we have a surplus of
> > > instructors. *PROVE that a lot of accidents can be traced to
> > > instructors whose only interest is free flying. *PROVE that a
> > > dedicated instructor who doesn't have a diamond badge cannot provide
> > > excellent instruction to his/her students. *The fact is that your idea
> > > is simply unjustified, unworkable, and would lead to a further
> > > diminishing of the numbers of participants in our sport.
>
> > FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. *Can't
> > say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
> > without some research. *Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
> > flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
> > flights in club equipment. *Many encourage and mentor XC flying.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
> "occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
> There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
> difficulties finding one.
>
> Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
> XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
> riders" don't. *Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
> doing us much good in the long run. *I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
> ride" schools. *Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
> rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.

I suspect most chapters have between 1 and 8 active CFIG's. I suspect
there are 1-4 in most commercial operations. I'd expect more like 800
are active, some in currency flights, others mostly in ab-initio
training, and a few qualifying pilots for commercial and CFI-G check
rides.

Frank Whiteley

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > bildan > writes:
>On Feb 26, 11:05 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:

>> FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. Can't
>> say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
>> without some research. Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
>> flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
>> flights in club equipment. Many encourage and mentor XC flying.
>>
>> Frank Whiteley

I just looked it up in part 61, when an instructor re-validates or
renews his instructor certificate, all parts get renewed. He may have
instructed in gliders 10 years ago, but now lives 150 miles from the
gliderport and only instructs in powered aircraft at the nearby airport.


>Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
>"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
>There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
>difficulties finding one.
>
>Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
>XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
>riders" don't. Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
>doing us much good in the long run. I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
>ride" schools. Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
>rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.


I can see why simply doing sled rides might be less exciting than
XC trips, but if priced right, I think that it could be attractive to
a lot more folks. Figuring the cost per hour of such flights, the
folks who added the rating to their power rating probably went back
to the powered aircraft. The price of 10 touch and go laps around
the pattern is a lot less than the price of 10 pattern tows in a
glider. (by about 4 to 1 around here)


Safety comes from practice. (At least, the right kind of practice.)

Given three pilots:
1. A power pilot who flys about 2 hours per week in a single
engine cessna, and gets about 6 - 10 landings per week.
2. Glider pilot who flys 6 - 10 sled rides in a glider, totaling
about 2 hours flight time.
3. XC glider pilot, who flys about 3 - 4 hours per week, making
1 landing per week.
Who do you think will be making better landings? I figure 1 and 2 will
be about tied, and the XC pilot will be getting down safely, but probably
not as accurately as the other two.


But my real point is, what is wrong with sled rides or local flying?
If the price were right, I would be doing those every chance I got.

Cross country and racing are fine, just as sailboat sailors want
to race or do long trips. We should not look down on those who just
want to go out ans spend the afternoon in the air. By discouraging
these non-XC types, either by social attitudes or cost, we do us all
a disservice.


Alan

[noel.wade]

On Feb 27, 12:42*am, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > bildan > writes:
>
> >On Feb 26, 11:05 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> >> FWIW, there are approximately 3000 CFI-G's in the FAA database. *Can't
> >> say how many are active, nor how many hold FAI badges, at least
> >> without some research. *Of the approximately 130 SSA chapters with
> >> flight activities, several are suspected to not encourage or allow XC
> >> flights in club equipment. *Many encourage and mentor XC flying.
>
> >> Frank Whiteley
>
> * I just looked it up in part 61, when an instructor re-validates or
> renews his instructor certificate, all parts get renewed. *He may have
> instructed in gliders 10 years ago, but now lives 150 miles from the
> gliderport and only instructs in powered aircraft at the nearby airport.
>
> >Of those 3000 CFI-G's in the US, surveys show about 400 are
> >"occasionally" active with the usual 20% doing 80% of the work.
> >There's no overall shortage but it's true some localities can have
> >difficulties finding one.
>
> >Over the years, there have been a number of Soaring articles showing
> >XC pilots tend to stay with the sport while local-only and "sleigh
> >riders" don't. *Operations which only teach "sleigh rides" aren't
> >doing us much good in the long run. *I've worked for 2-33 "sleigh
> >ride" schools. *Only about 1 in 10 stuck around after getting their
> >rating - and they moved to a club where they could fly XC.
>
> * I can see why simply doing sled rides might be less exciting than
> XC trips, but if priced right, I think that it could be attractive to
> a lot more folks. *Figuring the cost per hour of such flights, the
> folks who added the rating to their power rating probably went back
> to the powered aircraft. *The price of 10 touch and go laps around
> the pattern is a lot less than the price of 10 pattern tows in a
> glider. *(by about 4 to 1 around here)
>
> * Safety comes from practice. *(At least, the right kind of practice.)
>
> * Given three pilots:
> * * 1. *A power pilot who flys about 2 hours per week in a single
> * * * * engine cessna, and gets about 6 - 10 landings per week.
> * * 2. *Glider pilot who flys 6 - 10 sled rides in a glider, totaling
> * * * * about 2 hours flight time.
> * * 3. *XC glider pilot, who flys about 3 - 4 hours per week, making
> * * * * 1 landing per week.
> Who do you think will be making better landings? *I figure 1 and 2 will
> be about tied, and the XC pilot will be getting down safely, but probably
> not as accurately as the other two.
>
> * But my real point is, what is wrong with sled rides or local flying?
> If the price were right, I would be doing those every chance I got.
>
> * Cross country and racing are fine, just as sailboat sailors want
> to race or do long trips. *We should not look down on those who just
> want to go out ans spend the afternoon in the air. *By discouraging
> these non-XC types, either by social attitudes or cost, we do us all
> a disservice.
>
> * * * * Alan

Alan -

Its not that XC types are getting a certain number of landings... Its
that XC types tend to fly regularly and tend to stick with the sport,
accumulating more time and experience and skill.

The "local fliers" who come out for a sled ride now and then DO NOT
typically go 6 - 10 times; especially not in a single day! In my
experience, a lot of the "local only" or "sled ride" folks come out
once every few weeks or months, take 1 - 3 tows, and then disappear
for another stretch of time. It is the infrequency of their
experience and the lack of regular practice that is the problem - not
the type of flying that they enjoy.

When I was earning my first license (PPL, SEL) I flew 3 times a week
and studied very hard. I made sure that every flight ended in 2 or 3
touch-and-go's before a final full-stop landing. With this regular
regimen of training, I was able to get my license in about 45 hours -
at a large airport in difficult airspace (Boeing Field, Seattle). I
know that flying often helped, because at one point in my training I
had to take about a week off from flying... and let me tell you, my
first flight or two after that showed obvious signs of "rust"!

--Noel
P.S. Also: Quantity of landings doesn't mean as much as the _quality_
of your landings. If you practice the wrong technique or do something
badly 100 times, you're going to be bad at it on the 101st time too!
So don't just use number of landings as a measuring stick...

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > "noel.wade" > writes:



>Alan -
>
>Its not that XC types are getting a certain number of landings... Its
>that XC types tend to fly regularly and tend to stick with the sport,
>accumulating more time and experience and skill.
>
>The "local fliers" who come out for a sled ride now and then DO NOT
>typically go 6 - 10 times; especially not in a single day! In my
>experience, a lot of the "local only" or "sled ride" folks come out
>once every few weeks or months, take 1 - 3 tows, and then disappear
>for another stretch of time. It is the infrequency of their
>experience and the lack of regular practice that is the problem - not
>the type of flying that they enjoy.


Actually, this is pretty close to my point. These discussions seem
to always include the theme that the XC flyers are the "better" flyers
with some credit to their doing XC. There is no reason a local flyer
cannot be the better flyer, if they get enough practice at it.

As I wrote:
>> But my real point is, what is wrong with sled rides or local flying?
>> If the price were right, I would be doing those every chance I got.

It is my claim that we need to address the issues that keep those
folks from flying frequently, be they cost or attitudes.



>P.S. Also: Quantity of landings doesn't mean as much as the _quality_
>of your landings. If you practice the wrong technique or do something
>badly 100 times, you're going to be bad at it on the 101st time too!
>So don't just use number of landings as a measuring stick...

Right you are. As I said:
Safety comes from practice. (At least, the right kind of practice.)
When I said "At least, the right kind of practice" that is exactly what
I meant.


Alan

[Eric Greenwell]

Alan wrote:
>>
>> Its not that XC types are getting a certain number of landings... Its
>> that XC types tend to fly regularly and tend to stick with the sport,
>> accumulating more time and experience and skill.
>>
>> The "local fliers" who come out for a sled ride now and then DO NOT
>> typically go 6 - 10 times; especially not in a single day! In my
>> experience, a lot of the "local only" or "sled ride" folks come out
>> once every few weeks or months, take 1 - 3 tows, and then disappear
>> for another stretch of time. It is the infrequency of their
>> experience and the lack of regular practice that is the problem - not
>> the type of flying that they enjoy.
>>
>
> Actually, this is pretty close to my point. These discussions seem
> to always include the theme that the XC flyers are the "better" flyers
> with some credit to their doing XC. There is no reason a local flyer
> cannot be the better flyer, if they get enough practice at it.
>
I suppose it means what you mean by "better flyer". My observation is
these "local only" pilots tend to have limited ability to handle a
different landing place (like a landout, or even a different airport)
than the home airport, or weather that varies much beyond good (any
thing besides light crosswinds and modest downdrafts in the pattern,
say), or a "panic" situation (inadvertently blown downwind, for
example). It's not surprising that is so, since "local flying" requires
less flying skill, and much less decision making, attention, and
priority setting.

Because their local flying tends to limit the difficulty of the
situations they encounter, they may not be any less safe, but typically,
they are still less capable pilots. It's not a problem, as long as they
enjoy it and limit their exposure to the more difficult conditions they
are not prepared for.

"Enough practice" seems unlikely in such a "local" situation. They might
have a lot of practice, but it's the same thing repeated a hundred
times, not coping with new situations. I certainly experience far
greater requirements on my piloting skill during cross-country flying
than I ever do within gliding distance of my home airport.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Andy[_10_]]

On Feb 21, 2:04*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:04*pm, Tom > wrote:
>
> > The following is the first of a series of newsletters to be sent to
> > subscribers to my popular newsletter.
> > This series of newsletters will review:
> > Accident causes.
> > FATALITIES PER THOUSAND
> > Gliders: Approximately 1 in 2,000
> > *Autos: *Approximately 1 in 6,000
>
> Tom,
>
> I don't doubt the numbers are horrible but can you please clarify
> "FATALITIES PER THOUSAND"? *Per thousand what? *Is this registered
> gliders, certificated pilots, hours flown, miles flown...?
>
> thanks
>
> Andy

I have the same question - what is the denominator? In fact there are
two denominators required since you also need to specify a time frame
(typically a year).

If the 1 in 2,000 is per glider pilot per year that would be a lot
worse for glider pilots than per hour or per operation - like takeoff
or landing, or per trip in a car. Most pilots spend a lot less time in
their gliders than in their autos and make a lot more car trips than
glider flights.

If the stats are per pilot then you are three times as likely to have
a fatal accident in your glider for an average person. If it's per
hour then you are 2-3 times as likely to have a fatal auto accident in
any given year.

Based on the number of people I know who have died in each activity
I'm betting Tom's stats are per person per year. I've known maybe a
dozen pilots who have been killed in gliders and can't recall a single
auto accident victim that I had met personally.

It also means that over a 40 year soaring career your probability of
being in a fatal accident is around 1 in 50, or 2% - assuming you fly
the average annual amount of hours over the entire period.

9B

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

> It also means that over a 40 year soaring career your probability of
> being in a fatal accident is around 1 in 50, or 2% - assuming you fly
> the average annual amount of hours over the entire period.
>
> 9B
>
>


No, it doesn't. The risk isn't cumulative, it's 1:2,000 each year you fly.

I can guarantee that if you have a fatal accident in year 1, your risk
of repeating it in years 2-40 is 0%.

Bear in mind also that more than 3/4 of fatal accidents seem to have
causes within the pilot's own control so that, if you flew perfectly all
the time, you could reduce that risk to more like 1:8,000.

My philosophy is that 1:2,000 is acceptable, and that I will work to get
it nearer 1:8,000. Still more dangerous than autos per hour, but worth it.

[Eric Greenwell]

Chris Reed wrote:
>> It also means that over a 40 year soaring career your probability of
>> being in a fatal accident is around 1 in 50, or 2% - assuming you fly
>> the average annual amount of hours over the entire period.
>>
>> 9B
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. The risk isn't cumulative, it's 1:2,000 each year you
> fly.
True, but 9B said "over 40 year soaring career".
>
> I can guarantee that if you have a fatal accident in year 1, your risk
> of repeating it in years 2-40 is 0%.
True, but irrelevant. I also calculate the risk over a 40 year period as
being 2%, assuming the 1 in 2000 chance/year. YMMV.

Chance of not being in an accident each year = (1 - 0.0005) = 0.9995
For 40 years, chance = 0.9995^40 = 0.98

That's 98% chance of not being in an accident. Lots of assumptions, so
maybe not too instructive.
For 40 years, 1 in 8000 gets it down to 99.5% of not being in an accident.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Chris Reed[_2_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Chris Reed wrote:
>>> It also means that over a 40 year soaring career your probability of
>>> being in a fatal accident is around 1 in 50, or 2% - assuming you fly
>>> the average annual amount of hours over the entire period.
>>>
>>> 9B
>>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't. The risk isn't cumulative, it's 1:2,000 each year you
>> fly.
> True, but 9B said "over 40 year soaring career".
>>
>> I can guarantee that if you have a fatal accident in year 1, your risk
>> of repeating it in years 2-40 is 0%.
> True, but irrelevant. I also calculate the risk over a 40 year period as
> being 2%, assuming the 1 in 2000 chance/year. YMMV.
>
> Chance of not being in an accident each year = (1 - 0.0005) = 0.9995
> For 40 years, chance = 0.9995^40 = 0.98
>
> That's 98% chance of not being in an accident. Lots of assumptions, so
> maybe not too instructive.
> For 40 years, 1 in 8000 gets it down to 99.5% of not being in an accident.
>
OK, I'll accept that as a calculation at the beginning of year 1.

However, I've survived 14 years without a fatal accident so far. In the
remaining 26 of my 40 year career (I hope), that gives me a 0.9995 to
the power 26 chance of a fatal accident (0.987, or a 1.3% chance). If I
make it to the end of year 39 I have a 1:2,000 or 0.0005 chance of a
fatal accident in the final year.

I don't think the probability over a flying career helps understand risk
much on an individual basis, though it's useful for insurers and actuaries.

Much better to think that you have a 1:2,000 chance in the coming year,
and work on getting that ratio to improve in your favour.