Perfect Soaring Safety - How to Achieve

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Instant, Absolutely Perfect, and Permanent Soaring Safety
(Without Government ‘Help’)

We all want it.

I know how to achieve it...and it does NOT involve sending me money,
taking any of my (non-existent) courses, or cadres of ‘safety nazis’ or
‘safety nannys.’ It doesn’t involve recurrent training (unless you want
it, of course). It doesn’t matter what bona-fides instructors have. It
doesn’t even matter how often or much you fly as PIC of a glider.
And here’s the best part...it’s free!!!

Now I’ll bet some readers are skeptical. I was too, once.
For you skeptics out there, I’ll be up-front with my own bona fides. I
have a U.S.-issued PP-G certificate, have never taken more than 54 tows
annually post-training, haven’t exceeded 20 annually since 2000, will
probably never add on the commercial or instructor ratings, have but 2/3
of my Silver Badge (lacking the distance, of course), have bailed out of
only one (single-seat) glider and minorly bent but two more, have had
fewer than 10 friends and probably fewer than 10 additional
acquaintances die in glider accidents, and have personally witnessed but
one fatal glider accident (winch launch structural failure). Point
being, though I lack any cite-able experience in the professional safety
fields, I - like most alert RAS readers - feel generally capable of
recognizing the absence of safety, even though I’ve never injured a
passenger, airport bystander or glider I’ve not been piloting myself. So
bear with me - it’s been a tiresome winter in much of the northern
hemisphere...

Understand, the term ‘safety’ as used herein means 100% absence of
soaring accidents and incidents, whether of the ‘stupid soaring pilot’
trick sort, the ‘thin margin’ sort, or any other sort short of ‘fate.’
And as soon as mankind learns how to predict sudden death and
incapacitation, I’ll include all ‘fate’ accidents EXcluding ‘structural
fate.’ I don’t know how to prevent the latter, despite an aging
aerospace engineering degree, and doubt anyone will learn how in my
lifetime. Fortunately, ‘structural fate’ accidents are extremely rare in
human soaring’s 99-year history, at least the latter half of it. I
apologize for this one limitation to today’s presentation.

With the meaning of ‘safety’ understood, it’s trivially easy to analyze
all official reports of glider accidents and incidents and instantly
identify a universal thread NOT in every last one of them. Genetically
insert that thread into all future soaring flights' pilots' thinking,
and all future accidents and incidents will be eliminated, because in
this case correlation *IS* indicative of causation.

What’s missing is the thought, the belief, the fully comprehended and
hence always actionable ‘sense’ that this (stupid glider pilot
trick-based, thin margin-based, ignorance-based, etc.) ‘thing’ *could*
happen to me...no matter how much time I have, how experienced I am
(overall or merely in this ship), or how Godlike my gifts to pilot-dom
and my fellow, admiring pilot-friends. Having such thinking in some
active portion of a glider pilot’s mind is the closest thing to being
inoculated against a future accident or incident any glider pilot could
ever hope to acquire. Guaranteed, or your money back.

Now I’m not going to *bet* any actual money I’m never going to have
another glider incident or accident, but I’m pretty darned certain I’m
not going to die from an inadvertent stall/spin in the pattern, hit
another glider/fence/innocent-bystander/vehicle/etc. after landing, pull
my wings off, hit a ridge, miss (short or long) my intended landing
area, or otherwise wind up (again) in the NTSB database due to reasons
*not* beyond my control. I have this ‘certainty’ because I truly,
actively and ‘always’ believe that I am NOT immune from these sorts of
things. Far better pilots than I have died from them. Others will have a
higher risk of following them if they do NOT so believe. Meantime,
because believe, I work really hard to avoid such things. I don’t mind
my paranoia in this particular instance; I consider it a *good* thing.
Somebody IS out to get me, and if I’m not really and continually
careful, it’s going to be ME! Inadvertent pattern stall/spin?...like
playing on the freeway, “Kids! Don’t DO it!!!”

I don’t consider such ‘self-inoculatory’ thinking arrogant; I consider
it a high form of humility. I’m a cowardly, fearful, humble sort of
glider pilot, immensely grateful for every future moment of stick time,
actively determined to maximize personal potential for more. I truly
think that way (and have, now, for many years) no matter how current –
or not – I am.

I apply the same thinking to my driving, too, and it's worked perfectly
since 1982 (when I started applying the thought pattern). That includes
thousands of miles of towing brakeless glider trailers all around the
intermountain west behind a 2,600 lb, drum-braked, 1972
vehicle...including an absurdly heavy, double-axled, 2-32 trailer w.
2-32 across the central Rocky Mountains. Of course, I've never driven a
glider trailer over 85 mph, so my experience has its limits, though I
did have an unstable trailer (cured by moving the axle aft), and have
BTDT with an on-road "Holy $#*t!!!" instability-induced moment.

Point being, believing you CAN have an accident, definitely affects how
you do things, whether we’re talking about using a table saw, driving,
soaring, or sex. ANYthing. If you’re a believer that actions have
consequences (and I’ve yet to meet a soaring pilot who isn’t), then
believing inattention, ignorance, overconfidence - hell, FLIGHT - all
have potential for very serious consequences WILL affect your flying
judgment. For the better. And, it’s free. (Woo hoo!!!)

Please – no thanks are necessary.
- - - - - -

Post Script: Believe it or not, I’m completely uninterested in hearing
why anyone disagrees with my Pollyannish vision of soaring perfection -
but probably not for any reason angry or dismissive readers might guess.
That said, by all means, flame away. Think hard about where and how I’ve
missed the boat, and share your own visions. If by so doing, your own
flying future safety improves, THAT will make my day, because I don’t
really care who agrees or disagrees with me. What I sincerely DO care
about is reading fewer avoidable accidents and incidents in “Soaring”
magazine, the NTSB database, and anywhere else, in the days and years
ahead. Further, not being a believer in ‘safety at any cost,’ I’m a big
fan of improving soaring safety as inexpensively as possible. I also
believe we can do it.

P.P.S.: Interested readers need look no further than Captain Chesley
Sullenberger’s recent book “Highest Duty – My Search for What Really
Matters” for a compelling example of the accuracy that truth underlies
my underlying claim that how a person thinks, matters. I suspect more
than a few U.S. glider pilots were disappointed to learn ‘Sully’ gave
his glider training zero credit for his deciding to ditch the Airbus he
was commanding in the Hudson River January, 2009, after losing both
engines to birds. I wasn’t disappointed. On the other hand, my worldview
gives him even greater credit for coming to the best conclusion deSPITE
not being able to credit glider training to his thinking & actions that
day. (I suspect he’s in the minority of ‘power-only’ pilots in his
demonstrated ability to think/act ‘outside the normal safety box,’
quickly and decisively making a basic decision so utterly foreign to
‘normal’ power-pilot thinking.) What allowed him to 'go there' was
(paraphrasing from his book) a long-standing interest in safety, a
desire to learn from others’ mistakes, and believing that ‘it’ could
happen to him...even though he never thought it would. (It’s a great
book for lots of other reasons, too, incidentally...)

P.P.P.S.: We return now to our regularly scheduled newsgroup…

[Tony[_5_]]

Excellent post Bob!

[toad]

Bob,

You might just have the perfect solution to glider safety. But I
couldn't make heads or tails of your post.

I would summarize (I think) it as, "I think I might have an accident,
therefore, I am safe."

Could you maybe explain a bit more clearly, with maybe some actionable
items on the list.

Thanks, your expectant audience.

[Gary Evans[_2_]]

On Feb 27, 12:06*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> * * * * Instant, Absolutely Perfect, and Permanent Soaring Safety
> * * * * * * * * * * * * (Without Government ‘Help’)
>
> We all want it.
>
> I know how to achieve it...and it does NOT involve sending me money,
> taking any of my (non-existent) courses, or cadres of ‘safety nazis’ or
> ‘safety nannys.’ It doesn’t involve recurrent training (unless you want
> it, of course). It doesn’t matter what bona-fides instructors have. It
> doesn’t even matter how often or much you fly as PIC of a glider.
> And here’s the best part...it’s free!!!
>
> Now I’ll bet some readers are skeptical. I was too, once.
> For you skeptics out there, I’ll be up-front with my own bona fides. I
> have a U.S.-issued PP-G certificate, have never taken more than 54 tows
> annually post-training, haven’t exceeded 20 annually since 2000, will
> probably never add on the commercial or instructor ratings, have but 2/3
> of my Silver Badge (lacking the distance, of course), have bailed out of
> only one (single-seat) glider and minorly bent but two more, have had
> fewer than 10 friends and probably fewer than 10 additional
> acquaintances die in glider accidents, and have personally witnessed but
> one fatal glider accident (winch launch structural failure). Point
> being, though I lack any cite-able experience in the professional safety
> fields, I - like most alert RAS readers - feel generally capable of
> recognizing the absence of safety, even though I’ve never injured a
> passenger, airport bystander or glider I’ve not been piloting myself. So
> bear with me - it’s been a tiresome winter in much of the northern
> hemisphere...
>
> Understand, the term ‘safety’ as used herein means 100% absence of
> soaring accidents and incidents, whether of the ‘stupid soaring pilot’
> trick sort, the ‘thin margin’ sort, or any other sort short of ‘fate.’
> And as soon as mankind learns how to predict sudden death and
> incapacitation, I’ll include all ‘fate’ accidents EXcluding ‘structural
> fate.’ I don’t know how to prevent the latter, despite an aging
> aerospace engineering degree, and doubt anyone will learn how in my
> lifetime. Fortunately, ‘structural fate’ accidents are extremely rare in
> human soaring’s 99-year history, at least the latter half of it. I
> apologize for this one limitation to today’s presentation.
>
> With the meaning of ‘safety’ understood, it’s trivially easy to analyze
> all official reports of glider accidents and incidents and instantly
> identify a universal thread NOT in every last one of them. Genetically
> insert that thread into all future soaring flights' pilots' thinking,
> and all future accidents and incidents will be eliminated, because in
> this case correlation *IS* indicative of causation.
>
> What’s missing is the thought, the belief, the fully comprehended and
> hence always actionable ‘sense’ that this (stupid glider pilot
> trick-based, thin margin-based, ignorance-based, etc.) ‘thing’ *could*
> happen to me...no matter how much time I have, how experienced I am
> (overall or merely in this ship), or how Godlike my gifts to pilot-dom
> and my fellow, admiring pilot-friends. Having such thinking in some
> active portion of a glider pilot’s mind is the closest thing to being
> inoculated against a future accident or incident any glider pilot could
> ever hope to acquire. Guaranteed, or your money back.
>
> Now I’m not going to *bet* any actual money I’m never going to have
> another glider incident or accident, but I’m pretty darned certain I’m
> not going to die from an inadvertent stall/spin in the pattern, hit
> another glider/fence/innocent-bystander/vehicle/etc. after landing, pull
> my wings off, hit a ridge, miss (short or long) my intended landing
> area, or otherwise wind up (again) in the NTSB database due to reasons
> *not* beyond my control. I have this ‘certainty’ because I truly,
> actively and ‘always’ believe that I am NOT immune from these sorts of
> things. Far better pilots than I have died from them. Others will have a
> higher risk of following them if they do NOT so believe. Meantime,
> because believe, I work really hard to avoid such things. I don’t mind
> my paranoia in this particular instance; I consider it a *good* thing.
> Somebody IS out to get me, and if I’m not really and continually
> careful, it’s going to be ME! Inadvertent pattern stall/spin?...like
> playing on the freeway, “Kids! Don’t DO it!!!”
>
> I don’t consider such ‘self-inoculatory’ thinking arrogant; I consider
> it a high form of humility. I’m a cowardly, fearful, humble sort of
> glider pilot, immensely grateful for every future moment of stick time,
> actively determined to maximize personal potential for more. I truly
> think that way (and have, now, for many years) no matter how current –
> or not – I am.
>
> I apply the same thinking to my driving, too, and it's worked perfectly
> since 1982 (when I started applying the thought pattern). That includes
> thousands of miles of towing brakeless glider trailers all around the
> intermountain west behind a 2,600 lb, drum-braked, 1972
> vehicle...including an absurdly heavy, double-axled, 2-32 trailer w.
> 2-32 across the central Rocky Mountains. Of course, I've never driven a
> glider trailer over 85 mph, so my experience has its limits, though I
> did have an unstable trailer (cured by moving the axle aft), and have
> BTDT with an on-road "Holy $#*t!!!" instability-induced moment.
>
> Point being, believing you CAN have an accident, definitely affects how
> you do things, whether we’re talking about using a table saw, driving,
> soaring, or sex. ANYthing. If you’re a believer that actions have
> consequences (and I’ve yet to meet a soaring pilot who isn’t), then
> believing inattention, ignorance, overconfidence - hell, FLIGHT - all
> have potential for very serious consequences WILL affect your flying
> judgment. For the better. And, it’s free. (Woo hoo!!!)
>
> Please – no thanks are necessary.
> - - - - - -
>
> Post Script: Believe it or not, I’m completely uninterested in hearing
> why anyone disagrees with my Pollyannish vision of soaring perfection -
> but probably not for any reason angry or dismissive readers might guess.
> That said, by all means, flame away. Think hard about where and how I’ve
> missed the boat, and share your own visions. If by so doing, your own
> flying future safety improves, THAT will make my day, because I don’t
> really care who agrees or disagrees with me. What I sincerely DO care
> about is reading fewer avoidable accidents and incidents in “Soaring”
> magazine, the NTSB database, and anywhere else, in the days and years
> ahead. Further, not being a believer in ‘safety at any cost,’ I’m a big
> fan of improving soaring safety as inexpensively as possible. I also
> believe we can do it.
>
> P.P.S.: Interested readers need look no further than Captain Chesley
> Sullenberger’s recent book “Highest Duty – My Search for What Really
> Matters” for a compelling example of the accuracy that truth underlies
> my underlying claim that how a person thinks, matters. I suspect more
> than a few U.S. glider pilots were disappointed to learn ‘Sully’ gave
> his glider training zero credit for his deciding to ditch the Airbus he
> was commanding in the Hudson River January, 2009, after losing both
> engines to birds. I wasn’t disappointed. On the other hand, my worldview
> gives him even greater credit for coming to the best conclusion deSPITE
> not being able to credit glider training to his thinking & actions that
> day. (I suspect he’s in the minority of ‘power-only’ pilots in his
> demonstrated ability to think/act ‘outside the normal safety box,’
> quickly and decisively making a basic decision so utterly foreign to
> ‘normal’ power-pilot thinking.) What allowed him to 'go there' was
> (paraphrasing from his book) a long-standing interest in safety, a
> desire to learn from others’ mistakes, and believing that ‘it’ could
> happen to him...even though he never thought it would. (It’s a great
> book for lots of other reasons, too, incidentally...)
>
> P.P.P.S.: We return now to our regularly scheduled newsgroup…

My short version is that judgement IMO is more important than flying
skills or hours logged. Judgement is what may keep you from exceeding
your ability whatever that may be and getting yourself into a
situation from which there is no recovery.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 28, 1:52*pm, Gary Evans > wrote:

> My short version is that judgement IMO is more important than flying
> skills or hours logged. Judgement is what may keep you from exceeding
> your ability whatever that may be and getting yourself into a
> situation from which there is no recovery.

Ok, pick a list of 10 people that died in gliding accidents in the
last 10 years and say how many of those exhibited poor judgment until
just before the accident that killed them.

It's easy to say he screwed up, now he's dead, but unless unless there
is a pattern of prior poor judgment how are we any closer to avoiding
the problem? If there was a pattern then perhaps intervention was the
solution. If not, then what?

Even pilots with superior skills and superior judgment sometimes find
themselves in a situation that exceeds their abilities. Sometimes they
die, sometimes they get lucky and learn from it. Sometimes they tell
the rest of us about it and we all learn from it.

I still don't have a clue what point the OP was trying to make. I
hope it was a valid one and I come to understand it because I've lost
too many friends in glider accidents.


Andy

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

toad wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I would summarize (I think) it as, "I think I might have an accident,
> therefore, I am safe."

No disrespect or sarcasm intended, but the first half of your quoted
statement above is a good start, but simplistically incomplete.

Joe Glider Pilot's continuing safety definitely is NOT ensured by merely
thinking, "I might have an accident, therefore, I am safe."

In any event, taking your summary as a point of departure for further
discussion, I'd change/expand your word 'think' to '(really and truly)
*believe*'...then complete building your 'inoculatory' mental edifice.
The Big Goal (of course) being to ensure your *actions* reflect your
thinking.
>
> Could you maybe explain a bit more clearly, with maybe some actionable
> items on the list.

Here's an attempt...taking the inadvertent pattern 'departure from
controlled flight' as an example (both because it's: a) not uncommon; b)
generally fatal; and c) a category that includes two dead glider pilots
I once knew), I've seen many a low pattern down the years, had 'quite a
few' conversations with some of the pilots who've done them, and 'only
rarely' come away from those conversations feeling comfortable with
those pilots' mind-sets. Common reasons for my discomfort follow...

Some denied their patterns were low. (Scary, to me...one involved the
instructor post-instructional-flight in a 2-33 that had actually grazed
the tops of trees (well) under the normal approach cone...as judging
from fresh green smear on the leading edge of the
lower...appeared-to-be-skidding-in-the-final-turn...wing!)

Others' attitudes seemed to be summarizable, as: I don't understand why
we're having this conversation; I'm safe, the plane is safe. What's the
problem?

Another not uncommon attitude seems to be: Yebbut I was carrying
extra/safety speed. (In most cases they did not appear to me to be.
Further digging usually obtained they were referencing 'extra' to 1G,
wings-level stall, and not their real-world situation. Worst cases
resulted in outright dismissal of the possibility that their recent
technique *might* have been both altitudinally/speed-coordinationally
problematic, *and* that they really *could* pilot a pattern that might
result in a departure from controlled flight on any day.)

My larger point is that ANYone can do a stall spin in the pattern, and
believing you can is much more likely to be a long-term-healthier
attitude toward real-world-flying
decisions/coordination/speeds/altitudes/etc. than NOT believing anyone -
including you, personally - can.

Now exercising my brain farther back in time in the pattern, and
applying my thinking to my home glider field (Boulder, CO), I have a
hard time explaining the (hundreds? thousands?) of patterns I've seen
flown by glider pilots (limiting things to single-seat, to eliminate
instructional training) that seemed to be started with complete
disregard for the fact there are 3 parallel runways on narrow (150'?)
centers, the southernmost one being a busy power one, with 3 glider
operations on the field (two typically very busy). Point being that it's
an avoidable risk - if not outright foolish - to come back to such a
situation *needing* the pattern NOW! Personally, I've long hated to come
back to Boulder's pattern without spending 'considerable time/altitude'
developing my visual/radio picture of both the air through which I'm
descending AND the ground situation I'm about to descend into. I'm
happiest making all my approaches as if the only one responsible for my
safety through rollout - and expedited removal from the runway - is ME
(and not anyone[s] on the ground hauling other gliders out of the way
[or whatever].)

Yet I've seen experienced pilots not return the pattern that way. Even
talked with several who were upset after landing because of 'some other
gliderpilot who screwed up the works.' I've also had to modify my own
pattern(s) to account for a few who came screaming back, inserted
themselves ahead of me (more than once, when I've been on an otherwise
routine base leg, by folks who were nowhere *near* the pattern
'energically-speaking,' prior), then proceeded to land/wait in prime
landing territory, as if they didn't comprehend that by so doing they
were risking *their* ship/life, too.

I can't help but believe that better 'situational awareness' all along
such a chain of thought and decisionmaking would've greatly minimized
the risk inherent in those situations.

If none of my examples seem particularly important to how a particular
Joe Glider Pilot views things, I guess I'd ask where Joe Glider Pilot
first looks after s/he's survived a situation that got his/her blood up.
If it's *at* the other contributor(s), I'd suggest not stopping there.
Better yet would be to 'naturally begin' by assessing his/her own
contribution(s) to the situation(s).

My Very Largest Point is that the vast majority of glider accidents are
- IMHO - at some level attributable to JGP's internal thought
patterns...sometimes the *lack* of forethought. Certainly all of mine
noted in my OP were, and only one of those situations *might* NOT have
been completely avoided if I'd brought my current thinking to the
cockpit. In any event, if JGP really and truly *believes* that any
future accident of his/hers has the *slightest* potential to be
assessable in the 'pilot-as-contributor' category, s/he is more likely
to work harder to *avoid* 'going there.' I think that's as true for
low-time, ignorance-heavy situations as it is for 'World's Best
Gliderpilotstud.'

Respectfully (and seriously),

Bob W.

P.S. If we could poll every gliderpilot who survived some incident
resulting in glider damage, I'd wager my retirement on well over 50% of
those pilots (rightly) feeling some embarrassment about how they came to
*need* to survive such a thing. True for me. :-)

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Andy wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:52 pm, Gary Evans > wrote:
>
>> My short version is that judgement IMO is more important than flying
>> skills or hours logged. Judgement is what may keep you from exceeding
>> your ability whatever that may be and getting yourself into a
>> situation from which there is no recovery.
>
> Ok, pick a list of 10 people that died in gliding accidents in the
> last 10 years and say how many of those exhibited poor judgment until
> just before the accident that killed them.

Andy,

Because to answer your question with 'my own specific accident analyses'
has significant potential to result in causing pain to previously
scarred emotions of 'strangers-to-me,' feel free to contact me by e-mail
if you wish, and I'll be happy to provide my assessments of what you
ask...the proviso being further dissemination by you must not tread in
the territory I'm trying to avoid on RAS. Strictly a 'trying to be
sensitive' aspect of my personality...
- - - - - -

> It's easy to say he screwed up, now he's dead, but unless unless there
> is a pattern of prior poor judgment how are we any closer to avoiding
> the problem? If there was a pattern then perhaps intervention was the
> solution. If not, then what?

I don't view my accident assessments as simply as what's written above,
though at least one of the dead glider pilots I once knew fit into the
category as you've written it. Ultimately, his death was -IMHO - due to
flying with a 'thin margin' for 'personality reasons.' (He snagged a
dead tree on a mountainside soon after release on what may have not yet
been a soarable day...quite possibly a buzz job to give some hikers a
moment of 'How cool!' joy. Even so, his death stunned me, because I'd
previously thought his [basically good, IMO] judgment would've been
sufficient to protect him from such an event. The snag stuck up from a
mountainside, not a mountaintop ridge. Yet, he took an avoidable risk,
and it killed him. Did he ask himself ahead of time, "What might go
wrong?" I'd like to know...)

To your question of 'prior pattern' allow me to add 'unthinking
ignorance' and 'momentary thoughtlessness' because all can lead to
risker in-flight decisions than what might otherwise be the case if
neither is present. And all can kill a pilot.

I knew a 'good judgment overall' pilot who died after - apparently -
getting into an unplanned spin in a ship type the airfoil suggested (to
me, anyway) was 'stall-docile.' I believe it inadvertent, because had it
happened half a mile east, he'd have had another 3000' for
recovery/bailout. But how he got into the spin perplexes me to this day
(it happened in the early 1980s)...yet he did. Do I KNOW that if he'd
actively considered the possibility of an inadvertent spin that he would
have flown differently that day? Of course not. But if we could ask him
if he had truly believed that he *might* depart controlled flight while
~1500' above a ridge line would he have 'somehow' been flying
differently that day, I suspect his answer would be something along the
lines of, "THAT's a silly question...of COURSE I would have!" Maybe it
would have been only to be quicker with forward stick when the more
stalled wing began to pay out...as distinct (say) from thermalling at a
higher speed, or whatever. But he seemed to be an individual who
definitely enjoyed life, and had many reasons to want it to continue.
Yet - for some reason(s) - he flew in such a manner as to lead directly
to his death. If he really and truly thought his flying might lead to
such an unhappy circumstance, I believe he would have 'somehow' flown
differently, and might still be with us today. At the very least, if he
had any doubt about recovering from an inadvertent spin - and I choose
to believe reasonable pilots do! - he would have at least practiced them
under different circumstances, if he thought about his situation at all.
I hope you see what sort of mindset I'd hope to encourage every
gliderpilot to develop...i.e. to 'continuously' ask themselves ahead of
time some equivalent of "What could go wrong?" and then to fly 'sensibly
accordingly.'

Personally, I never spun my V-tailed HP-14 because I surmised it might
be short of rudder for recovery purposes (don't know, of course...but
what could go wrong?!?). Nor have I spun my Zuni I (though I know others
from the same mold have been intentionally spun), because I don't want
to ask it to fly 'so near to redline' as a sensible pullout would
require. Once again, that's my answer in this particular instance to
"What could go wrong?" Did I ask both to ease into the separated flow
regimes? Have I abused and aggravated the ZUni on possible spin-entry
modes? Yes I have (and still occasionally do), including negative flap
entries. Do I play Joe Test Pilot? Both being experimentally licensed,
by my definition I am every time I fly, but more to the point I believe
that each moment of each flight could result in my self-induced death if
I'm not mentally up on things/the situation/my reactions. THAT's my
'inoculation' and not merely 'fear' or 'belief.'

>
> Even pilots with superior skills and superior judgment sometimes find
> themselves in a situation that exceeds their abilities. Sometimes they
> die, sometimes they get lucky and learn from it. Sometimes they tell
> the rest of us about it and we all learn from it.

BTDT...my first microburst encounter (I've now had 3) was - and remains
should the same happen again - a 'roll of the dice' situation
life-n-death-wise. Today it takes little thought to induce an adrenaline
reaction 15+ years after it happened. That noted, there *were* signs
(virga) of enthusiastic lift decay...just that I never imagined
'considering everything else' that day, the enthusiasm would include a
microburst directly over me. Heck, *I* thought I was being conservative
by heading back for the field miles ahead of the most recently nearest
virga. I like to think my most likely method of dying that day would've
been sink-/lift-induced under-/over-shoot into a
'horizontal-ground-contact-situation' as opposed to a
vertical-ground-impact. Atmospherically speaking, under-/over-shoot was
my situation by the time I'd worked my way to base leg into a 3,000+
strip. There's little doubt in my mind, that someone with my outlook
would have attributed my death after the fact to "I wonder what in hell
happened to Whelan? He seems to have screwed up horribly badly."

Hoping to avoid all semblance of arrogance, I imagine I'd be OK with
that epitaph...under those circumstances. If I die in a sailplane
*after* doing the best I could reasonably be expected (by someone with
my own outlook) to do, then I like to imagine I'd attribute my piloting
death to 'fate' rather than (say) myself...the dumb/inattentive/***t. If
I die in a sailplane I sincerely hope to not embarrass or puzzle my
living piloting friends. WAY too many soaring accidents (as I judge from
years-continuing review of NTSB files and every accident factoid I can
get my hands on) would do one or both of those if I were being read about.
- - - - - -
>
> I still don't have a clue what point the OP was trying to make. I
> hope it was a valid one and I come to understand it because I've lost
> too many friends in glider accidents.

"Me too," regarding dead soaring pilot friends/acquaintances...and but
two of their deaths seem to me to be remotely assignable to 'fate' and
both of those pilots in hindsight might reasonably conclude each had
been given warnings or hints that 'fate' might intervene. One was a (20+
years bygone, now) 'Dick Johnson-like' possible medical situation; the
other was almost certainly influenced by self-made starved glue joints.
(For the record, and just by way of trying to shed further light on how
I think about the risks of soaring flight, I choose to attribute the
recent Boulder midair to 'fate.' I did not know any of the folks involved.)

As to your first point above Andy, FWIW if you ever feel invulnerable or
'absolutely safe' aloft in a glider, my fundamental reasoning is your
assumptions could do with additional self-scrutiny. :-)

Respectfully,
Bob - chicken-man - W.

[toad]

Bob,

I think I start to understand your thesis, but I have to tell you,
brevity is not your strong suite.

So, If I really truly believe that I can have an accident, I will pay
close attention to all possible dangers and work hard not to have an
accident. I think that I can boil your thesis down to 2 principles:

1) Pay attention
2) Don't push the limits

Does that fit your model ? I will assume that it does and forge ahead
with my comments.

I completely agree with "Pay attention", no issues at all.

The other one though has 2 issues.

2a) It's hard to know where the limits are (sometimes). This is
where specific knowledge comes into play. Even if you are paying
attention and trying to stay conservatively back from the limits, if
you have a false concept of where the safe limit is, you can't be
safe.

Therefore to improve pilot safety, you must improve knowledge of where
the safe limits actually are.

2b) I enjoy pushing the limits. :-)

Thank you
Todd

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 28, 8:19*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:

> As to your first point above Andy, FWIW if you ever feel invulnerable or
> 'absolutely safe' aloft in a glider, my fundamental reasoning is your
> assumptions could do with additional self-scrutiny. :-)

What did I ever say to you that would suggest that I feel invulnerable
while flying anything? If I ever did feel invulnerable I lost that
illusion after I found myself pinned to the headrest by barbed wire
after it penetrated my canopy. I spent a long time going over the
events that lead to that accident over 20 years ago and have no doubt
dehydration was a significant contributing factor.

What did I learn - have an effective relief system and keep
hydrated.

That is a lesson others should learn without tangling with barbed wire
but in those days people didn't talk much about relief systems or the
need to keep hydrated. It was a hard learned lesson and I pass it on
whenever I can.

I also try to learn from the accidents of other others, but I have no
way to predict the accident that may one day kill me, any more than
many better pilots than me predicted their own demise.

I know that if I fly I may have a fatal flying accident. That in
itself does nothing to increase my safety. At least it does not
increase it above the margin that was established a long time ago.


Andy

[Westbender]

> I know that if I fly I may have a fatal flying accident. *That in
> itself does nothing to increase my safety. At least it does not
> increase it above the margin that was established a long time ago.

And what exactly was the reason for establishing that margin a long
time ago? If you're not driven to fly as safe as you possibly can by
survival and the preservation of life, I'd sure like to know where
else your motivation comes from.

There's absolutely no question in my mind that complacency, over-
confidence, risk-taking, etc can end me if I let any of them creep
into my flying. I also know the fact that I can kill myself or others
is tremendous motivation to be as safe a pilot as I can be. This is
just basic common sense. As a low-timer-nobody pilot, I've given the
idea of complacency through experience much thought. I hope to do my
best to not fall into that trap.

Thanks for the thread Bob. Interesting discussion.

[ken]

> Thanks for the thread Bob. Interesting discussion.

Agreed.

I'm a little surprised, though, that throughout the entire discussion
there has been no mention of the FAA's efforts in Aero Decision Making,
particularly those addressing "hazardous thoughts". Maybe I missed it.

While a broad systematic description of problem solving can at times
insult our intelligence, AC 60-22 is nonetheless filled with great and
*actionable* insights. Without question, the approaches described in ADM
have improved my own safety -- both in the air and on the ground. Maybe
that's more a commentary on my own lifestyle? :-)

Ac 60-22 can be found online at

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/

Perhaps coincidentally, I'm in the middle of reading Tom Knauff's
"Accident Prevention Manual for Glider Pilots" as well his APM for
Flight Instructors. It's largely an exposition of ADM, esp. hazardous
attitudes, but in a much more consumable form.

The more angles from which you look at this problem, probably the
better. ADM, however, is well thought out and is largely at a
theoretical level, meaning it covers all the space one might try to
cover with anecdotes... and then all the spaces in between the
anecdotes. If you haven't read it, yet, you should. If it has been a
while, it's well worth a solid review.

[bildan]

On Mar 1, 9:50*am, ken > wrote:
> > Thanks for the thread Bob. Interesting discussion.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I'm a little surprised, though, that throughout the entire discussion
> there has been no mention of the FAA's efforts in Aero Decision Making,
> particularly those addressing "hazardous thoughts". Maybe I missed it.
>
> While a broad systematic description of problem solving can at times
> insult our intelligence, AC 60-22 is nonetheless filled with great and
> *actionable* insights. Without question, the approaches described in ADM
> have improved my own safety -- both in the air and on the ground. Maybe
> that's more a commentary on my own lifestyle? :-)
>
> Ac 60-22 can be found online at
>
> * *http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/
>
> Perhaps coincidentally, I'm in the middle of reading Tom Knauff's
> "Accident Prevention Manual for Glider Pilots" as well his APM for
> Flight Instructors. It's largely an exposition of ADM, esp. hazardous
> attitudes, but in a much more consumable form.
>
> The more angles from which you look at this problem, probably the
> better. ADM, however, is well thought out and is largely at a
> theoretical level, meaning it covers all the space one might try to
> cover with anecdotes... and then all the spaces in between the
> anecdotes. If you haven't read it, yet, you should. If it has been a
> while, it's well worth a solid review.

One thought that always seems to flit through my mind just after
completing the final cockpit check is, "If I screw this up, I'll be
the lead story on the 10PM news - better be careful."

I think Bob's point is that, absent knowledge, skill and a
disciplined, safe mindset, we CAN screw up. It's only that which
prevents crashes.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

toad wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I think I start to understand your thesis, but I have to tell you,
> brevity is not your strong suite.
No? :-)
- - - - - -

> So, If I really truly believe that I can have an accident, I will pay
> close attention to all possible dangers and work hard not to have an
> accident. I think that I can boil your thesis down to 2 principles:
>
> 1) Pay attention
> 2) Don't push the limits
>
> Does that fit your model?
1) certainly does. 2) does not. I have no philosophical problem with
pushing one's limits...it's a great way to get better after all. What
one's limits are 'simply' need to be known, and pushed 'wisely.' (What
might go wrong if I do this next thing...? How will I address it?)
- - - - - - -

I will assume that it does and forge ahead
> with my comments.
>
> I completely agree with "Pay attention", no issues at all.
>
> The other one though has 2 issues.
>
> 2a) It's hard to know where the limits are (sometimes). This is
> where specific knowledge comes into play. Even if you are paying
> attention and trying to stay conservatively back from the limits, if
> you have a false concept of where the safe limit is, you can't be
> safe.
>
> Therefore to improve pilot safety, you must improve knowledge of where
> the safe limits actually are.
Indeed. Personal research, listening more than contributing to hangar
sessions [other than insightful questions, I mean :-)], and merely
understanding the truth of your working premise immeedjutly above
definitely apply, here.
>
> 2b) I enjoy pushing the limits. :-)
Have at it...thoughtfully, as incrementally as possible, and intelligently!
>
> Thank you
> Todd
Thanks for puzzling over my prolix discourse. :-)

Regards,
Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Andy wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:19 pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
>
>> As to your first point above Andy, FWIW if you ever feel invulnerable or
>> 'absolutely safe' aloft in a glider, my fundamental reasoning is your
>> assumptions could do with additional self-scrutiny. :-)
>
> What did I ever say to you that would suggest that I feel invulnerable
> while flying anything?
I apologize if I unintentionally and accidentally poked personally. I
was simply trying to end the previous reply re-iterating an important
general point I hope might be thoughtfully new to some readers. For
example, while admiring approaching dusk aloft from a glider, I try to
keep part of my brain 'nervous' about the possibility of mid-airs; I
think it helps my scan.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

ken wrote:

<Snip...>
> I'm a little surprised, though, that throughout the entire discussion
> there has been no mention of the FAA's efforts in Aero Decision Making,
> particularly those addressing "hazardous thoughts". Maybe I missed it.
<Snip...>

> Ac 60-22 can be found online at
>
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/
>
> Perhaps coincidentally, I'm in the middle of reading Tom Knauff's
> "Accident Prevention Manual for Glider Pilots" as well his APM for
> Flight Instructors. It's largely an exposition of ADM, esp. hazardous
> attitudes, but in a much more consumable form.
>
> The more angles from which you look at this problem, probably the
> better.

"Roger that!"

ADM, however, is well thought out and is largely at a
> theoretical level, meaning it covers all the space one might try to
> cover with anecdotes... and then all the spaces in between the
> anecdotes. If you haven't read it, yet, you should. If it has been a
> while, it's well worth a solid review.

"What Ken said."

Available via 24k land-line, even. Typically heavy reading in the 'pure
government-ese' form; summaries have (re-)appeared in "Soaring" magazine
down the years; good food for actionable thought, indeed!

May the rest of this year's soaring accidents be entirely 'fate induced...'

Regards,
Bob W.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 27, 11:06*am, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> * * * * Instant, Absolutely Perfect, and Permanent Soaring Safety
> * * * * * * * * * * * * (Without Government ‘Help’)
>
> We all want it.
>
> I know how to achieve it...and it does NOT involve sending me money,
> taking any of my (non-existent) courses, or cadres of ‘safety nazis’ or
> ‘safety nannys.’ It doesn’t involve recurrent training (unless you want
> it, of course). It doesn’t matter what bona-fides instructors have. It
> doesn’t even matter how often or much you fly as PIC of a glider.
> And here’s the best part...it’s free!!!
>
> Now I’ll bet some readers are skeptical. I was too, once.
> For you skeptics out there, I’ll be up-front with my own bona fides. I
> have a U.S.-issued PP-G certificate, have never taken more than 54 tows
> annually post-training, haven’t exceeded 20 annually since 2000, will
> probably never add on the commercial or instructor ratings, have but 2/3
> of my Silver Badge (lacking the distance, of course), have bailed out of
> only one (single-seat) glider and minorly bent but two more, have had
> fewer than 10 friends and probably fewer than 10 additional
> acquaintances die in glider accidents, and have personally witnessed but
> one fatal glider accident (winch launch structural failure). Point
> being, though I lack any cite-able experience in the professional safety
> fields, I - like most alert RAS readers - feel generally capable of
> recognizing the absence of safety, even though I’ve never injured a
> passenger, airport bystander or glider I’ve not been piloting myself. So
> bear with me - it’s been a tiresome winter in much of the northern
> hemisphere...
>
> Understand, the term ‘safety’ as used herein means 100% absence of
> soaring accidents and incidents, whether of the ‘stupid soaring pilot’
> trick sort, the ‘thin margin’ sort, or any other sort short of ‘fate.’
> And as soon as mankind learns how to predict sudden death and
> incapacitation, I’ll include all ‘fate’ accidents EXcluding ‘structural
> fate.’ I don’t know how to prevent the latter, despite an aging
> aerospace engineering degree, and doubt anyone will learn how in my
> lifetime. Fortunately, ‘structural fate’ accidents are extremely rare in
> human soaring’s 99-year history, at least the latter half of it. I
> apologize for this one limitation to today’s presentation.
>
> With the meaning of ‘safety’ understood, it’s trivially easy to analyze
> all official reports of glider accidents and incidents and instantly
> identify a universal thread NOT in every last one of them. Genetically
> insert that thread into all future soaring flights' pilots' thinking,
> and all future accidents and incidents will be eliminated, because in
> this case correlation *IS* indicative of causation.
>
> What’s missing is the thought, the belief, the fully comprehended and
> hence always actionable ‘sense’ that this (stupid glider pilot
> trick-based, thin margin-based, ignorance-based, etc.) ‘thing’ *could*
> happen to me...no matter how much time I have, how experienced I am
> (overall or merely in this ship), or how Godlike my gifts to pilot-dom
> and my fellow, admiring pilot-friends. Having such thinking in some
> active portion of a glider pilot’s mind is the closest thing to being
> inoculated against a future accident or incident any glider pilot could
> ever hope to acquire. Guaranteed, or your money back.
>
> Now I’m not going to *bet* any actual money I’m never going to have
> another glider incident or accident, but I’m pretty darned certain I’m
> not going to die from an inadvertent stall/spin in the pattern, hit
> another glider/fence/innocent-bystander/vehicle/etc. after landing, pull
> my wings off, hit a ridge, miss (short or long) my intended landing
> area, or otherwise wind up (again) in the NTSB database due to reasons
> *not* beyond my control. I have this ‘certainty’ because I truly,
> actively and ‘always’ believe that I am NOT immune from these sorts of
> things. Far better pilots than I have died from them. Others will have a
> higher risk of following them if they do NOT so believe. Meantime,
> because believe, I work really hard to avoid such things. I don’t mind
> my paranoia in this particular instance; I consider it a *good* thing.
> Somebody IS out to get me, and if I’m not really and continually
> careful, it’s going to be ME! Inadvertent pattern stall/spin?...like
> playing on the freeway, “Kids! Don’t DO it!!!”
>
> I don’t consider such ‘self-inoculatory’ thinking arrogant; I consider
> it a high form of humility. I’m a cowardly, fearful, humble sort of
> glider pilot, immensely grateful for every future moment of stick time,
> actively determined to maximize personal potential for more. I truly
> think that way (and have, now, for many years) no matter how current –
> or not – I am.
>
> I apply the same thinking to my driving, too, and it's worked perfectly
> since 1982 (when I started applying the thought pattern). That includes
> thousands of miles of towing brakeless glider trailers all around the
> intermountain west behind a 2,600 lb, drum-braked, 1972
> vehicle...including an absurdly heavy, double-axled, 2-32 trailer w.
> 2-32 across the central Rocky Mountains. Of course, I've never driven a
> glider trailer over 85 mph, so my experience has its limits, though I
> did have an unstable trailer (cured by moving the axle aft), and have
> BTDT with an on-road "Holy $#*t!!!" instability-induced moment.
>
> Point being, believing you CAN have an accident, definitely affects how
> you do things, whether we’re talking about using a table saw, driving,
> soaring, or sex. ANYthing. If you’re a believer that actions have
> consequences (and I’ve yet to meet a soaring pilot who isn’t), then
> believing inattention, ignorance, overconfidence - hell, FLIGHT - all
> have potential for very serious consequences WILL affect your flying
> judgment. For the better. And, it’s free. (Woo hoo!!!)
>
> Please – no thanks are necessary.
> - - - - - -
>
> Post Script: Believe it or not, I’m completely uninterested in hearing
> why anyone disagrees with my Pollyannish vision of soaring perfection -
> but probably not for any reason angry or dismissive readers might guess.
> That said, by all means, flame away. Think hard about where and how I’ve
> missed the boat, and share your own visions. If by so doing, your own
> flying future safety improves, THAT will make my day, because I don’t
> really care who agrees or disagrees with me. What I sincerely DO care
> about is reading fewer avoidable accidents and incidents in “Soaring”
> magazine, the NTSB database, and anywhere else, in the days and years
> ahead. Further, not being a believer in ‘safety at any cost,’ I’m a big
> fan of improving soaring safety as inexpensively as possible. I also
> believe we can do it.
>
> P.P.S.: Interested readers need look no further than Captain Chesley
> Sullenberger’s recent book “Highest Duty – My Search for What Really
> Matters” for a compelling example of the accuracy that truth underlies
> my underlying claim that how a person thinks, matters. I suspect more
> than a few U.S. glider pilots were disappointed to learn ‘Sully’ gave
> his glider training zero credit for his deciding to ditch the Airbus he
> was commanding in the Hudson River January, 2009, after losing both
> engines to birds. I wasn’t disappointed. On the other hand, my worldview
> gives him even greater credit for coming to the best conclusion deSPITE
> not being able to credit glider training to his thinking & actions that
> day. (I suspect he’s in the minority of ‘power-only’ pilots in his
> demonstrated ability to think/act ‘outside the normal safety box,’
> quickly and decisively making a basic decision so utterly foreign to
> ‘normal’ power-pilot thinking.) What allowed him to 'go there' was
> (paraphrasing from his book) a long-standing interest in safety, a
> desire to learn from others’ mistakes, and believing that ‘it’ could
> happen to him...even though he never thought it would. (It’s a great
> book for lots of other reasons, too, incidentally...)
>
> P.P.P.S.: We return now to our regularly scheduled newsgroup…

Well said Bob...............my buddies and I will usually high-5 and
generally strut around like studs after a particular gratifying
flight, but during private de-briefing sessions we all agree that it
was heads up flying, and we all posses a healthy respect for what we
are doing, and believe it or not, are actually humble about these
sorts of things. Knowing full well that what we do carries with it the
risk of pain, or death, or loosing your toy and not being able to play
anymore.

Brad