Pilot Mindsets and Enhanced Safety

[BobW]

(Apologies for the truncated earlier post...the 'draft' and 'send' buttons are
adjacent...)

Most U.S. glider pilots know of Tom Knauff, creator and long-time proprietor
of the well-known Ridge Soaring Gliderport in Pennsylvania. Probably fewer are
aware he has an intermittent electronic newsletter, which has as its most
persistent theme the utterly boring, sometimes irritating, theme of 'safety.'

Now I don't know Tom (have seen him once [maybe twice]), so please don't
misread any of what follows as something, somehow, having some nefarious
commercial relationship to his 'sideline' of creating safety-based books,
presentations, and general opinionating, because it doesn't. What follows
*does* represent my own thinking on the utterly boring, sometimes irritating,
'safety theme' as it applies to glider pilots. True, it's a U.S.-centric view,
but it wouldn't surprise me if much of it applies worldwide, simply because
it's based upon one man's perception of human nature.
- - - - - -

Background: Knauff has recently published a 'Young Driver Safety' book,
targeted (he says) at the kids' parents and guardians, and not limited in its
applicability to driving, but encompassing 'the dreaded safety mindset.' I've
used quotations because I've not yet read the book - someone else may
characterize it differently - but I'm guessing it's a generally accurate
representation.

The book came out no more than several months ago, memory says.

Since then, Knauff's newsletter has more than once expressed (serious!)
frustration at pilots' resistance to doing the few things he deems necessary
to fundamentally improve the sorry (especially this season), persistent,
little changing, U.S. glider safety record. (His frustration includes an
apparent resistance to buying the - inexpensive - book!) A day or two ago,
almost in passing, he ended one short newsletter with a comment to the effect
that he suspected there was one sure way to motivate (complacent? resistant?
otherwise disinterested?) glider pilots into have a more genuinely serious
outlook on their own, individual, piloting safety, specifically the improving
of, in the future.

The beautifully simple little idea was: self-insurance of gliders. (Think
about it!)

Having been a private owner who has (though not always) self-insured for hull,
and, a member of a club who also was 'forced' to do so for a number of years
not too long ago, the idea made me smile for its pertinent cogency and power.

Now, this very morning in his newsletter, Knauff expanded a bit on the idea,
and I quote...

<Begin quotation>

I recently received a note from a subscriber in Europe as follows:

Many years ago, a large glider club in Europe found itself confronted
with a steep increase in insurance premiums after a series of glider
accidents. The proposed insurance premiums would have exceeded the total club
subscription revenues, so the club was at risk of folding.

The chairman of the club read the Riot Act (much needed today) to the
members and said they were no longer going to rely on the insurance
company, but were going to self-insure. (The statement is recorded in
the club newsletter.)

Anyway, that dramatic response to the crisis worked.

Accidents were dramatically reduced, and with further changes to
practices and procedures, the club survives to this day.

As have a lot of people who might otherwise have been killed!

The message is clear: If the current accident rate is going to be
reduced, it will take the attention and cooperation of all glider
pilots, who will develop a new approach to being involved and watching
out for their fellow pilots.

Tom Knauff

<End quotation>

"What Tom says." Let the hand-waving begin...

Bob W.

[Cookie]

On Aug 21, 10:01*am, BobW > wrote:
> (Apologies for the truncated earlier post...the 'draft' and 'send' buttons are
> adjacent...)
>
> Most U.S. glider pilots know of Tom Knauff, creator and long-time proprietor
> of the well-known Ridge Soaring Gliderport in Pennsylvania. Probably fewer are
> aware he has an intermittent electronic newsletter, which has as its most
> persistent theme the utterly boring, sometimes irritating, theme of 'safety.'
>
> Now I don't know Tom (have seen him once [maybe twice]), so please don't
> misread any of what follows as something, somehow, having some nefarious
> commercial relationship to his 'sideline' of creating safety-based books,
> presentations, and general opinionating, because it doesn't. What follows
> *does* represent my own thinking on the utterly boring, sometimes irritating,
> 'safety theme' as it applies to glider pilots. True, it's a U.S.-centric view,
> but it wouldn't surprise me if much of it applies worldwide, simply because
> it's based upon one man's perception of human nature.
> - - - - - -
>
> Background: Knauff has recently published a 'Young Driver Safety' book,
> targeted (he says) at the kids' parents and guardians, and not limited in its
> applicability to driving, but encompassing 'the dreaded safety mindset.' I've
> used quotations because I've not yet read the book - someone else may
> characterize it differently - but I'm guessing it's a generally accurate
> representation.
>
> The book came out no more than several months ago, memory says.
>
> Since then, Knauff's newsletter has more than once expressed (serious!)
> frustration at pilots' resistance to doing the few things he deems necessary
> to fundamentally improve the sorry (especially this season), persistent,
> little changing, U.S. glider safety record. (His frustration includes an
> apparent resistance to buying the - inexpensive - book!) A day or two ago,
> almost in passing, he ended one short newsletter with a comment to the effect
> that he suspected there was one sure way to motivate (complacent? resistant?
> otherwise disinterested?) glider pilots into have a more genuinely serious
> outlook on their own, individual, piloting safety, specifically the improving
> of, in the future.
>
> The beautifully simple little idea was: self-insurance of gliders. (Think
> about it!)
>
> Having been a private owner who has (though not always) self-insured for hull,
> and, a member of a club who also was 'forced' to do so for a number of years
> not too long ago, the idea made me smile for its pertinent cogency and power.
>
> Now, this very morning in his newsletter, Knauff expanded a bit on the idea,
> and I quote...
>
> <Begin quotation>
>
> I recently received a note from a subscriber in Europe as follows:
>
> Many years ago, a large glider club in Europe found itself confronted
> with a steep increase in insurance premiums after a series of glider
> accidents. The proposed insurance premiums would have exceeded the total club
> subscription revenues, so the club was at risk of folding.
>
> The chairman of the club read the Riot Act (much needed today) to the
> members and said they were no longer going to rely on the insurance
> company, but were going to self-insure. (The statement is recorded in
> the club newsletter.)
>
> Anyway, that dramatic response to the crisis worked.
>
> Accidents were dramatically reduced, and with further changes to
> practices and procedures, the club survives to this day.
>
> As have a lot of people who might otherwise have been killed!
>
> The message is clear: If the current accident rate is going to be
> reduced, it will take the attention and cooperation of all glider
> pilots, who will develop a new approach to being involved and watching
> out for their fellow pilots.
>
> Tom Knauff
>
> <End quotation>
>
> "What Tom says." Let the hand-waving begin...
>
> Bob W.

Bob......You lost me......Are you saying that flying without insurance
somehow make a pilot safer...or "behave" better???


I have flown my own glider and planes, sometimes with insurance and
sometimes without.......I have flown club gliders...sometimes with
insurance and sometimes when the club "lost" its insurance......I have
flown at commercial operations which have insurance and sometimes
don't have insurance..........

The above had and has no effect whatsoever on the way I fly or on my
attitude and concern toward safety........I try to be as safe as I
can possibly be...on every flight...........

When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" does not enter my mind at
all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...

My desire for self preservation is a pretty strong factor in my
flying, however. And reading how pilots get themselves in trouble,
and sometimes killed, leads me to try to learn from their
mistakes....and NOT do what ever they did.

Cookie

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:02:50 -0700, Cookie wrote:

> Bob......You lost me......Are you saying that flying without insurance
> somehow make a pilot safer...or "behave" better???
>
I read that as meaning that too many club members are far too careless in
the way they treat club property and that, if the club is self-insured,
the threat to their wallet combined with their reputation in the club
might make them a bit more careful not to smash up the club's gliders and
other equipment.


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

[Cookie]

On Aug 21, 4:54*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:02:50 -0700, Cookie wrote:
> > Bob......You lost me......Are you saying that flying without insurance
> > somehow make a pilot safer...or "behave" better???
>
> I read that as meaning that too many club members are far too careless in
> the way they treat club property and that, if the club is self-insured,
> the threat to their wallet combined with their reputation in the club
> might make them a bit more careful not to smash up the club's gliders and
> other equipment.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Right....so they don't care if they kill themselvees....as long as
they don't have to pay for it!

Strange way of thinking.


Cookie

[BobW]

On 8/21/2011 2:02 PM, Cookie wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:01 am, > wrote:
>> (Apologies for the truncated earlier post...the 'draft' and 'send' buttons are
>> adjacent...)
>>
>> Most U.S. glider pilots know of Tom Knauff, creator and long-time proprietor
>> of the well-known Ridge Soaring Gliderport in Pennsylvania. Probably fewer are
>> aware he has an intermittent electronic newsletter, which has as its most
>> persistent theme the utterly boring, sometimes irritating, theme of 'safety.'
>>
>> Now I don't know Tom (have seen him once [maybe twice]), so please don't
>> misread any of what follows as something, somehow, having some nefarious
>> commercial relationship to his 'sideline' of creating safety-based books,
>> presentations, and general opinionating, because it doesn't. What follows
>> *does* represent my own thinking on the utterly boring, sometimes irritating,
>> 'safety theme' as it applies to glider pilots. True, it's a U.S.-centric view,
>> but it wouldn't surprise me if much of it applies worldwide, simply because
>> it's based upon one man's perception of human nature.
>> - - - - - -
>>
>> Background: Knauff has recently published a 'Young Driver Safety' book,
>> targeted (he says) at the kids' parents and guardians, and not limited in its
>> applicability to driving, but encompassing 'the dreaded safety mindset.' I've
>> used quotations because I've not yet read the book - someone else may
>> characterize it differently - but I'm guessing it's a generally accurate
>> representation.
>>
>> The book came out no more than several months ago, memory says.
>>
>> Since then, Knauff's newsletter has more than once expressed (serious!)
>> frustration at pilots' resistance to doing the few things he deems necessary
>> to fundamentally improve the sorry (especially this season), persistent,
>> little changing, U.S. glider safety record. (His frustration includes an
>> apparent resistance to buying the - inexpensive - book!) A day or two ago,
>> almost in passing, he ended one short newsletter with a comment to the effect
>> that he suspected there was one sure way to motivate (complacent? resistant?
>> otherwise disinterested?) glider pilots into have a more genuinely serious
>> outlook on their own, individual, piloting safety, specifically the improving
>> of, in the future.
>>
>> The beautifully simple little idea was: self-insurance of gliders. (Think
>> about it!)
>>
>> Having been a private owner who has (though not always) self-insured for hull,
>> and, a member of a club who also was 'forced' to do so for a number of years
>> not too long ago, the idea made me smile for its pertinent cogency and power.
>>
>> Now, this very morning in his newsletter, Knauff expanded a bit on the idea,
>> and I quote...
>>
>> <Begin quotation>
>>
>> I recently received a note from a subscriber in Europe as follows:
>>
>> Many years ago, a large glider club in Europe found itself confronted
>> with a steep increase in insurance premiums after a series of glider
>> accidents. The proposed insurance premiums would have exceeded the total club
>> subscription revenues, so the club was at risk of folding.
>>
>> The chairman of the club read the Riot Act (much needed today) to the
>> members and said they were no longer going to rely on the insurance
>> company, but were going to self-insure. (The statement is recorded in
>> the club newsletter.)
>>
>> Anyway, that dramatic response to the crisis worked.
>>
>> Accidents were dramatically reduced, and with further changes to
>> practices and procedures, the club survives to this day.
>>
>> As have a lot of people who might otherwise have been killed!
>>
>> The message is clear: If the current accident rate is going to be
>> reduced, it will take the attention and cooperation of all glider
>> pilots, who will develop a new approach to being involved and watching
>> out for their fellow pilots.
>>
>> Tom Knauff
>>
>> <End quotation>
>>
>> "What Tom says." Let the hand-waving begin...
>>
>> Bob W.
>
> Bob......You lost me......Are you saying that flying without insurance
> somehow make a pilot safer...or "behave" better???

I'm suggesting that for many people it is not unless something has the very
real likelihood of directly extracting money from their wallet that 'stuff'
becomes important/actionable in their world, glider pilots not excepted.

So, "Yes, I do think there's a (significant) proportion of glider pilots who
would fly 'differently' (i.e. presumably more safely) if they were self
insured for hull."

> I have flown my own glider and planes, sometimes with insurance and
> sometimes without.......I have flown club gliders...sometimes with
> insurance and sometimes when the club "lost" its insurance......I have
> flown at commercial operations which have insurance and sometimes
> don't have insurance..........
>
> The above had and has no effect whatsoever on the way I fly or on my
> attitude and concern toward safety........I try to be as safe as I
> can possibly be...on every flight...........
>
> When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" does not enter my mind at
> all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...

I strongly suspect that you and I (because from what I can tell on this forum,
we think fundamentally similarly about safety, pilot mindsets, etc.) are in a
very small minority of glider pilots in that regard. It's been my experience
that 'most glider pilots' learn 'just enough to become effective glider pilots
in their own minds' and then pretty much turn their 'self-aware learning
switch' to the OFF position, unless something scares them or otherwise gets
their attention. This seems to be human nature, so far as I can tell.
(Tangentially, but not entirely unrelated to the point I'm trying to convey
here, everyone who's happy with the safety margins routinely displayed by your
fellow freeway drivers raise one hand...)

That said, Joe Average Glider Pilot IS interested in what he's interested in,
and in that sense is always seeking to learn glider related 'stuff,' but once
he's learned the basics about pattern flying, ridge flying, thermal selection,
worm-burning, etc., he's more interested in DOING those things than he is in
continuing to learn the 'gotcha's' generally associated with them, but which
perhaps are not so obvious.

I believe this from not only having wasted most of my youth at gliderports,
but having also picked a lot of brains about 'glider stuff,' pilots' actions
and their reasons underlying them, and (not so rarely) trying to change how
some of my friends viewed and interacted with their gliding world, because I
cared about them and selfishly wanted to continue to have them around and
enjoying the sport for as long as possible.

> My desire for self preservation is a pretty strong factor in my
> flying, however. And reading how pilots get themselves in trouble,
> and sometimes killed, leads me to try to learn from their
> mistakes....and NOT do what ever they did.

"Ditto!!!" And when I got into the sport, I used to think EVERY glider pilot
thought that way. They do not. For most piloting participants I sense a
powerful disconnect between 'mortality reality' and 'learning enough to
participate.' How a person defines 'enough' is key, IMHO.

You, as an instructor, have considerable potential influence on (not control
of) every student coming into your care...and how he or she futurely thinks.

I, as a (non-instructor) club member, have some less direct influence on my
fellow club members via whatever direct peer pressure my presence-to-date, and
preceding reputation, bring me.

Ultimately, though, it is Joe Glider Pilot who 'has the power' to decide how
he or she is going to fly, and with what safety margins, and what ignorance
levels (since we're all ignorant at various levels) he will choose to fly.
Soaring doesn't happen in a vacuum (no pun intended) of course, and the web of
influences, and the sources of knowledge available to every pilot, is an
ill-defined, continuously shifting, amorphous, 'cloud' that unarguably exists,
but is of VERY arguable impact on each glider pilot, the impact varying over
time, and also, to a considerable extent, 'switchable' by each individual pilot.

Given the above realities, self-preservation (of the sport, if not of the
pilots, wry half-smile) seems sufficient justification for all of us to do our
individual utmosts to:
1) move 'permanently and continuously' from the majority 'disconnected pilots'
group, to the minority 'self-preservationally-motivated' group; and
2) apply peer pressure wherever and whenever the opportunity arises/becomes
necessary.

Culture matters, or few of us would sweat blood as parents trying to inculcate
some of it into their kids. Soaring culture matters, too.

To expect - the FAA, the SSA, the SSF, somebody else beyond ourselves - to
'take care of safety' is evidence (IMHO) of more 'disconnected thinking'.

Do I think such a thing as personal inoculation against accidents exists?
Heavens no!

Do I think a personally greater sense of mortality than most of us exhibit is
a) possible, and b) safety enhancing? Hell yes! On both counts.

Do MOST glider pilots (sometimes) think safety could and should be higher in
our sport? I think the hand-wringing on this forum eloquently answers this in
the affirmative.

Hand wringing without personal buy-in and action though, is no more than an
exercise in ground-bound self-gratification, and something in which I have
exactly zero interest in participating.

"Starwars" and its pre-teen pop-psychology aside, we have the power within us,
and it's up to us to develop and use it.

Bob W.

[BobW]

On 8/21/2011 2:54 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:02:50 -0700, Cookie wrote:
>
>> Bob......You lost me......Are you saying that flying without insurance
>> somehow make a pilot safer...or "behave" better???
>>
> I read that as meaning that too many club members are far too careless in
> the way they treat club property and that, if the club is self-insured,
> the threat to their wallet combined with their reputation in the club
> might make them a bit more careful not to smash up the club's gliders and
> other equipment.
>

Martin is 100% spot-on in his conclusion...but I don't limit the conclusion
'merely' to 'club members' and 'club equipment.'

Consider motor vehicles. Here in the U.S. drivers are pretty much legally
required to have certain types of insurance, but none of the states in which
I've lived have *required* collision insurance (which, in the States, covers
your vehicle for an accident that is YOUR fault). Even some mainstream
magazines (e.g. "Consumer Reports") accurately suggest collision coverage is
an expensive luxury...if one is a 'responsible driver.' Yet most of the people
I've had reason to ask about this, DO carry it; a common rationale is, "My
vehicle is new and it would be really expensive to repair it." I don't carry
it, never have carried it, and use my 'situational awareness' and general
driving skill set to do my utmost to 'not NEED it.' With one semi-youthful
stupidity-influenced and one (minor) glare-ice-influenced exception(s),
economically - not to mention safety-wise - I consider myself *way* ahead in
this particular game. Strictly for context, I've been driving since 1968, and
since 2003 getting paid to do so.

My point is that mindset, and perceived risk, DO matter in how one interacts
with their world.

Bob W.

[Cookie]

On Aug 21, 7:21*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 8/21/2011 2:02 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 10:01 am, > *wrote:
> >> (Apologies for the truncated earlier post...the 'draft' and 'send' buttons are
> >> adjacent...)
>
> >> Most U.S. glider pilots know of Tom Knauff, creator and long-time proprietor
> >> of the well-known Ridge Soaring Gliderport in Pennsylvania. Probably fewer are
> >> aware he has an intermittent electronic newsletter, which has as its most
> >> persistent theme the utterly boring, sometimes irritating, theme of 'safety.'
>
> >> Now I don't know Tom (have seen him once [maybe twice]), so please don't
> >> misread any of what follows as something, somehow, having some nefarious
> >> commercial relationship to his 'sideline' of creating safety-based books,
> >> presentations, and general opinionating, because it doesn't. What follows
> >> *does* represent my own thinking on the utterly boring, sometimes irritating,
> >> 'safety theme' as it applies to glider pilots. True, it's a U.S.-centric view,
> >> but it wouldn't surprise me if much of it applies worldwide, simply because
> >> it's based upon one man's perception of human nature.
> >> - - - - - -
>
> >> Background: Knauff has recently published a 'Young Driver Safety' book,
> >> targeted (he says) at the kids' parents and guardians, and not limited in its
> >> applicability to driving, but encompassing 'the dreaded safety mindset..' I've
> >> used quotations because I've not yet read the book - someone else may
> >> characterize it differently - but I'm guessing it's a generally accurate
> >> representation.
>
> >> The book came out no more than several months ago, memory says.
>
> >> Since then, Knauff's newsletter has more than once expressed (serious!)
> >> frustration at pilots' resistance to doing the few things he deems necessary
> >> to fundamentally improve the sorry (especially this season), persistent,
> >> little changing, U.S. glider safety record. (His frustration includes an
> >> apparent resistance to buying the - inexpensive - book!) A day or two ago,
> >> almost in passing, he ended one short newsletter with a comment to the effect
> >> that he suspected there was one sure way to motivate (complacent? resistant?
> >> otherwise disinterested?) glider pilots into have a more genuinely serious
> >> outlook on their own, individual, piloting safety, specifically the improving
> >> of, in the future.
>
> >> The beautifully simple little idea was: self-insurance of gliders. (Think
> >> about it!)
>
> >> Having been a private owner who has (though not always) self-insured for hull,
> >> and, a member of a club who also was 'forced' to do so for a number of years
> >> not too long ago, the idea made me smile for its pertinent cogency and power.
>
> >> Now, this very morning in his newsletter, Knauff expanded a bit on the idea,
> >> and I quote...
>
> >> <Begin quotation>
>
> >> I recently received a note from a subscriber in Europe as follows:
>
> >> Many years ago, a large glider club in Europe found itself confronted
> >> with a steep increase in insurance premiums after a series of glider
> >> accidents. The proposed insurance premiums would have exceeded the total club
> >> subscription revenues, so the club was at risk of folding.
>
> >> The chairman of the club read the Riot Act (much needed today) to the
> >> members and said they were no longer going to rely on the insurance
> >> company, but were going to self-insure. (The statement is recorded in
> >> the club newsletter.)
>
> >> Anyway, that dramatic response to the crisis worked.
>
> >> Accidents were dramatically reduced, and with further changes to
> >> practices and procedures, the club survives to this day.
>
> >> As have a lot of people who might otherwise have been killed!
>
> >> The message is clear: If the current accident rate is going to be
> >> reduced, it will take the attention and cooperation of all glider
> >> pilots, who will develop a new approach to being involved and watching
> >> out for their fellow pilots.
>
> >> Tom Knauff
>
> >> <End quotation>
>
> >> "What Tom says." Let the hand-waving begin...
>
> >> Bob W.
>
> > Bob......You lost me......Are you saying that flying without insurance
> > somehow make a pilot safer...or "behave" better???
>
> I'm suggesting that for many people it is not unless something has the very
> real likelihood of directly extracting money from their wallet that 'stuff'
> becomes important/actionable in their world, glider pilots not excepted.
>
> So, "Yes, I do think there's a (significant) proportion of glider pilots who
> would fly 'differently' (i.e. presumably more safely) if they were self
> insured for hull."
>
> > I have flown my own glider and planes, sometimes with insurance and
> > sometimes without.......I have flown club gliders...sometimes with
> > insurance and sometimes when the club "lost" its insurance......I have
> > flown at commercial operations which have insurance and sometimes
> > don't have insurance..........
>
> > The above had and has no effect whatsoever on the way I fly or on my
> > attitude and concern *toward safety........I try to be as safe as I
> > can possibly be...on every flight...........
>
> > When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" *does not enter my mind at
> > all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...
>
> I strongly suspect that you and I (because from what I can tell on this forum,
> we think fundamentally similarly about safety, pilot mindsets, etc.) are in a
> very small minority of glider pilots in that regard. It's been my experience
> that 'most glider pilots' learn 'just enough to become effective glider pilots
> in their own minds' and then pretty much turn their 'self-aware learning
> switch' to the OFF position, unless something scares them or otherwise gets
> their attention. This seems to be human nature, so far as I can tell.
> (Tangentially, but not entirely unrelated to the point I'm trying to convey
> here, everyone who's happy with the safety margins routinely displayed by your
> fellow freeway drivers raise one hand...)
>
> That said, Joe Average Glider Pilot IS interested in what he's interested in,
> and in that sense is always seeking to learn glider related 'stuff,' but once
> he's learned the basics about pattern flying, ridge flying, thermal selection,
> worm-burning, etc., he's more interested in DOING those things than he is in
> continuing to learn the 'gotcha's' generally associated with them, but which
> perhaps are not so obvious.
>
> I believe this from not only having wasted most of my youth at gliderports,
> but having also picked a lot of brains about 'glider stuff,' pilots' actions
> and their reasons underlying them, and (not so rarely) trying to change how
> some of my friends viewed and interacted with their gliding world, because I
> cared about them and selfishly wanted to continue to have them around and
> enjoying the sport for as long as possible.
>
> > My desire for self preservation is a pretty strong factor in my
> > flying, however. * And reading how pilots get themselves in trouble,
> > and sometimes killed, leads me to try to learn from their
> > mistakes....and NOT do what ever they did.
>
> "Ditto!!!" And when I got into the sport, I used to think EVERY glider pilot
> thought that way. They do not. For most piloting participants I sense a
> powerful disconnect between 'mortality reality' and 'learning enough to
> participate.' How a person defines 'enough' is key, IMHO.
>
> You, as an instructor, have considerable potential influence on (not control
> of) every student coming into your care...and how he or she futurely thinks.
>
> I, as a (non-instructor) club member, have some less direct influence on my
> fellow club members via whatever direct peer pressure my presence-to-date, and
> preceding reputation, bring me.
>
> Ultimately, though, it is Joe Glider Pilot who 'has the power' to decide how
> he or she is going to fly, and with what safety margins, and what ignorance
> levels (since we're all ignorant at various levels) he will choose to fly..
> Soaring doesn't happen in a vacuum (no pun intended) of course, and the web of
> influences, and the sources of knowledge available to every pilot, is an
> ill-defined, continuously shifting, amorphous, 'cloud' that unarguably exists,
> but is of VERY arguable impact on each glider pilot, the impact varying over
> time, and also, to a considerable extent, 'switchable' by each individual pilot.
>
> Given the above realities, self-preservation (of the sport, if not of the
> pilots, wry half-smile) seems sufficient justification for all of us to do our
> individual utmosts to:
> 1) move 'permanently and continuously' from the majority 'disconnected pilots'
> group, to the minority 'self-preservationally-motivated' group; and
> 2) apply peer pressure wherever and whenever the opportunity arises/becomes
> necessary.
>
> Culture matters, or few of us would sweat blood as parents trying to inculcate
> some of it into their kids. Soaring culture matters, too.
>
> To expect - the FAA, the SSA, the SSF, somebody else beyond ourselves - to
> 'take care of safety' is evidence (IMHO) of more 'disconnected thinking'.
>
> Do I think such a thing as personal inoculation against accidents exists?
> Heavens no!
>
> Do I think a personally greater sense of mortality than most of us exhibit is
> a) possible, and b) safety enhancing? Hell yes! On both counts.
>
> Do MOST glider pilots (sometimes) think safety could and should be higher in
> our sport? I think the hand-wringing on this forum eloquently answers this in
> the affirmative.
>
> Hand wringing without personal buy-in and action though, is no more than an
> exercise in ground-bound self-gratification, and something in which I have
> exactly zero interest in participating.
>
> "Starwars" and its pre-teen pop-psychology aside, we have the power within us,
> and it's up to us to develop and use it.
>
> Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow....nice post....some very inetersting points.....In fact each of
your points is excellent!

The solution to the safety problem is summed up beautifully in your
post!

Yes, you and I think fundamentally alike on this issue.....but
unfortunately some do see it this way...

Cookie

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 22, 8:02*am, Cookie > wrote:
> When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" *does not enter my mind at
> all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...

I agree with you.

I think Tom has confused correlation with causation.

Those who fly or drive safer than the average person who has insurance
won't long term benefit from insurance.

I've never had insurance on my motorcycles (~400,000 km) or cars
(~200,000 km) and i'm way ahead.

This does not mean that those who are less safe than average will
suddenly become safe if they drop their insurance.

[BobW]

On 8/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:02 am, > wrote:
>> When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" does not enter my mind at
>> all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I think Tom has confused correlation with causation.

Always possible, but - in this case - IMO your supposition is not a very good
explanation for the group reality when human nature is factored in. Those
glider pilots whose flying would NOT change in any fundamental way if they
KNEW any/all damage they inflicted on their ships would be paid for forcibly
and exclusively from their own pockets are: 1) a distinct minority of glider
pilots (in my observations over the years); and 2) (IMO) less likely to have
'some stupid glider pilot trick' sort of accident befall them (when compared
to those whose reasons for 'not thinking about' insurance realities does NOT
'somehow' actively factor in their mortality).

Anyone is free to argue point #1 (which obviously is unprovable); we all get
to decide for ourselves.

In 'actionable' terms, I believe point #2 is crucial, though. Be honest with
yourselves about the actions/patterns/etc. you daily witness at your home
gliderport, and, if you're not already in the habit of chatting with other
pilots whose actions puzzle/concern/'whatever' you, I encourage you to begin
doing so. I predict it won't take more than 2 conversations for you to have an
eye-opening experience (maybe even revelation) about how (lots of!) your
fellow glider pilots 'reactively think.'

Here's a (very) short list of feedback I've had from doing so.

Incident A - was what I (with exaggerational humor editing my club's
newsletter) characterized as a 'drunken sailor' pattern to the sole available,
paved, runway at a winch camp following an ~700' snap of a nose-hooked 2-33 on
a no-brainer, unsoarable, late fall, late afternoon. Not until the ship was
near the 'teardrop pattern entry point' more or less abeam the numbers, at
~250', did it become obvious to me what Joe Pilot intended to do.

Response 1 - immediately afterwards (as part of the dragback crew), I
laughingly tweaked the pilot (a good friend) about his 'undecipherable
pattern' and literally asked him, "What were you THINKing?!?" His unsurprising
response was a mixture of embarrasment, chagrin, and a non-answer.

Response 2 - (About a month later) he buttonholed me to express some mild (but
very real) disgruntlement at my characterization of his pattern in the
newsletter as a 'drunken sailor pattern.' (Neither he nor the ship was
identified, and only the few folks at the camp could possibly have made the
personal connection. My newsletter point had been about 'thought patterns' and
why they mattered.) I apologized for unintentionally hurting his feelings, and
once again probed to see what I could learn about his thinking that
day...since there was absolutely nothing to be gained by flying the sort of
meandering, 'random-ish' pattern he had flown, short of incurring additional,
entirely avoidable, risk that is. He still could provide no
sensible/understandable (to me, anyway) explanation for it. This from someone
I'd characterize as a sober, deliberate individual, neither prone to showing
off nor prone to 'granny flying'...IOW a responsible, intelligent, XC-skilled,
'normal glider pilot.'

Incident B - a 2-33 with instructor and student (not in my club and neither
known to me [and vice versa]), flew a long, low, pattern to the home field on
a benign fall day. They entered low, flew the whole, 'normal sized' pattern
low, throughout used the spoilers as if it was a normal height pattern, and
scared the living crap out of me because none of it was necessary, and, I was
fearful they were going to snag the trees on the far side of the lake
bordering the runway. Naturally, they didn't reach that ship's 'normal tiedown
position' near midfield, and curiosity impelled me to become a member of their
ground dragging crew (our home field being a busy place, just then with
traffic behind them in the pattern).

Response - When I reached the ship still on the runway, the instructor was
outside, chatting with the student (still inside), about 'nothing specific in
particular'. It horrified me for two reasons: a) they were blocking the main
runway for the ship(s) behind them in the pattern (shame on that instructor!),
and b) in the time it took to motivate the available manpower to move the ship
off the runway, then listen in some more, then notice some fresh, pale green,
moisture/leaf sap on the left wingtip (I went and looked - they had hit a tree
on the base-to-final turn!!!), not once did I hear the topic of a 'dangerously
low pattern' arise. Color me beyond dismayed. I showed a friend who was a
respected member of that club the wingtip (he, too, had seen the pattern), and
left the crew to their devices, hoping my friend would take it upon himself to
do the right thing.

Without exaggeration, I could easily write a fair-sized book about this sort
of horrifying (to me, anyway) crud - and include ONLY crud I 'investigated to
my own satisfaction' - routinely seen at the many gliderports throughout the
intermountain U.S. west.

The takeaway point is NOT that I've seen lots of 'stupid pilot tricks,' but
that in digging into many of the ones I *have* seen, I've learned lots...about
pilot thought patterns (both under stress and not so), and about human nature.

I've learned that 'doing things by rote' is a very common manner of 'thinking'
for pattern-returning pilots. I've learned that the majority of glider pilots
do NOT seem to have 'thought through' the 2 or 3 obvious/possible consequences
their doing things by rote might situationally present them with when they
return to a busy gliderport presuming the pattern/runway WILL be clear when
they need it to be. I've learned a surprisingly large percentage of returning
pilots chose their pattern direction on the basis of 'what is normal' as
opposed to actual pattern conditions. I've learned many pilots initially get
(and quite a few remain) angry at the *other* pilots involved in obstructing
'their' pattern, when - had they not come burning back to the pattern as if
they were the only ship around - they might actually have seen and been able
to more conveniently (not to mention safely) accommodate the other traffic.

Now it's possible I've managed to associate with only an 'abbienormal' subset
of humans and gliderpilots...but I think not. To me, from a safety
perspective, it makes the most sense to conclude the slice of soaring pilots
with whom I've interacted since late 1972 represent 'gliderport normalcy.'

Yikes.

Interestingly, only a very small fraction of 'stupid pilot tricks' I've
witnessed has come from folks with some admixture of showoff, immortality, and
'world's greatest pilot' in their personalities. The vast majority has come
from 'normal-people' pilots. In other words, 'you and me.'

In another post I mentioned my working conclusion is there's a very real
disconnect between 'mortality reality' and Joe Average Glider Pilot's desire
to 'learn enough to participate.' In my opinion/observation, how JAGP defines
'enough' is key to their future accident risk. It strongly influences to what
level of safety he'll participate. Except for the time he's a student pilot
(or, perhaps pursuing additional ratings), most JAGP's switch off the aspect
of their learning process that fundamentally focuses on 'my soft pink body's
safety.' The rest of their learning tends to focus on how do I *DO* this or
that thing (e.g. fly XC, fly ridges, maximize my XC speed, etc.)?

I was fortunate enough to have my private pilot-glider examiner comment to me
when he handed me my temporary certificate, "You DO know this is primarily a
license to learn, right?" I feel further fortunate to've been able to take his
insight to heart, and, to retain my sense of mortality each and every time I
get in a sailplane (as well as do things which can easily kill me, such as
driving, trimming trees, working on ladders, etc.). But I don't think my
attitude is 'typically average' based on decades of incident-based brain picking.

>
> Those who fly or drive safer than the average person who has insurance
> won't long term benefit from insurance.

No disagreement, there.

>
> I've never had insurance on my motorcycles (~400,000 km) or cars
> (~200,000 km) and i'm way ahead.
>
> This does not mean that those who are less safe than average will
> suddenly become safe if they drop their insurance.

Here I disagree, to the extent that most people ARE monetarily limited and to
that extent WILL modify their behavior if they unequivocally KNOW their wallet
WILL be lighter after they cause a (survivable) accident. Human nature is
real...and evidently little changing over the millenia. Ignore it to your own
(frustration, peril, inaccuracy of thinking, increased personal [if misplaced]
comfort level!).

They may not ever KNOW (or admit) they've changed their behavior, but change
it likely will. Casino gambling aside, how many people do you know who
routinely (burn, give away great gobs of, tear up) cash from their bank
accounts? Why don't they?

Regards,
Bob W.

[jimboffin]

On Aug 21, 3:01*pm, BobW > wrote:
> I recently received a note from a subscriber in Europe as follows:
>
> Many years ago, a large glider club in Europe found itself confronted
> with a steep increase in insurance premiums after a series of glider
> accidents. The proposed insurance premiums would have exceeded the total club
> subscription revenues, so the club was at risk of folding.
>
> The chairman of the club read the Riot Act (much needed today) to the
> members and said they were no longer going to rely on the insurance
> company, but were going to self-insure. (The statement is recorded in
> the club newsletter.)
>
> Anyway, that dramatic response to the crisis worked.
>
> Accidents were dramatically reduced, and with further changes to
> practices and procedures, the club survives to this day.
>
> As have a lot of people who might otherwise have been killed!
>
> The message is clear: If the current accident rate is going to be
> reduced, it will take the attention and cooperation of all glider
> pilots, who will develop a new approach to being involved and watching
> out for their fellow pilots.
>
> Tom Knauff
>
> <End quotation>

I suspect I was treasurer of the said club at the time. The inference
that the decision was about safety is charming but, I am afraid, is
incorrect. The decision was to self insure gliders with a value of
£10k or less. This was simply a financial decision. If we made any
claims during a season we lost c. £20k of rebate on the policy. It
made no sense therefore to make claims on low cost gliders and,
therefore, made no sense to insure their hulls.

Jim

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/22/2011 1:22 PM, BobW wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 8:02 am, > wrote:[i]
>>> When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" does not enter my mind at
>>> all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...
>>
>> I agree with you.
>>
>> I think Tom has confused correlation with causation.
>
> Always possible, but - in this case - IMO your supposition is not a very
> good explanation for the group reality when human nature is factored in.
> Those glider pilots whose flying would NOT change in any fundamental way
> if they KNEW any/all damage they inflicted on their ships would be paid
> for forcibly and exclusively from their own pockets are: 1) a distinct
> minority of glider pilots (in my observations over the years); and 2)
> (IMO) less likely to have 'some stupid glider pilot trick' sort of
> accident befall them (when compared to those whose reasons for 'not
> thinking about' insurance realities does NOT 'somehow' actively factor
> in their mortality).
>
> Anyone is free to argue point #1 (which obviously is unprovable); we all
> get to decide for ourselves.
>
> In 'actionable' terms, I believe point #2 is crucial, though. Be honest
> with yourselves about the actions/patterns/etc. you daily witness at
> your home gliderport, and, if you're not already in the habit of
> chatting with other pilots whose actions puzzle/concern/'whatever' you,
> I encourage you to begin doing so. I predict it won't take more than 2
> conversations for you to have an eye-opening experience (maybe even
> revelation) about how (lots of!) your fellow glider pilots 'reactively
> think.'
>
> Here's a (very) short list of feedback I've had from doing so.
>
> Incident A - was what I (with exaggerational humor editing my club's
> newsletter) characterized as a 'drunken sailor' pattern to the sole
> available, paved, runway at a winch camp following an ~700' snap of a
> nose-hooked 2-33 on a no-brainer, unsoarable, late fall, late afternoon.
> Not until the ship was near the 'teardrop pattern entry point' more or
> less abeam the numbers, at ~250', did it become obvious to me what Joe
> Pilot intended to do.
>
> Response 1 - immediately afterwards (as part of the dragback crew), I
> laughingly tweaked the pilot (a good friend) about his 'undecipherable
> pattern' and literally asked him, "What were you THINKing?!?" His
> unsurprising response was a mixture of embarrasment, chagrin, and a
> non-answer.
>
> Response 2 - (About a month later) he buttonholed me to express some
> mild (but very real) disgruntlement at my characterization of his
> pattern in the newsletter as a 'drunken sailor pattern.' (Neither he nor
> the ship was identified, and only the few folks at the camp could
> possibly have made the personal connection. My newsletter point had been
> about 'thought patterns' and why they mattered.) I apologized for
> unintentionally hurting his feelings, and once again probed to see what
> I could learn about his thinking that day...since there was absolutely
> nothing to be gained by flying the sort of meandering, 'random-ish'
> pattern he had flown, short of incurring additional, entirely avoidable,
> risk that is. He still could provide no sensible/understandable (to me,
> anyway) explanation for it. This from someone I'd characterize as a
> sober, deliberate individual, neither prone to showing off nor prone to
> 'granny flying'...IOW a responsible, intelligent, XC-skilled, 'normal
> glider pilot.'
>
> Incident B - a 2-33 with instructor and student (not in my club and
> neither known to me [and vice versa]), flew a long, low, pattern to the
> home field on a benign fall day. They entered low, flew the whole,
> 'normal sized' pattern low, throughout used the spoilers as if it was a
> normal height pattern, and scared the living crap out of me because none
> of it was necessary, and, I was fearful they were going to snag the
> trees on the far side of the lake bordering the runway. Naturally, they
> didn't reach that ship's 'normal tiedown position' near midfield, and
> curiosity impelled me to become a member of their ground dragging crew
> (our home field being a busy place, just then with traffic behind them
> in the pattern).
>
> Response - When I reached the ship still on the runway, the instructor
> was outside, chatting with the student (still inside), about 'nothing
> specific in particular'. It horrified me for two reasons: a) they were
> blocking the main runway for the ship(s) behind them in the pattern
> (shame on that instructor!), and b) in the time it took to motivate the
> available manpower to move the ship off the runway, then listen in some
> more, then notice some fresh, pale green, moisture/leaf sap on the left
> wingtip (I went and looked - they had hit a tree on the base-to-final
> turn!!!), not once did I hear the topic of a 'dangerously low pattern'
> arise. Color me beyond dismayed. I showed a friend who was a respected
> member of that club the wingtip (he, too, had seen the pattern), and
> left the crew to their devices, hoping my friend would take it upon
> himself to do the right thing.
>
> Without exaggeration, I could easily write a fair-sized book about this
> sort of horrifying (to me, anyway) crud - and include ONLY crud I
> 'investigated to my own satisfaction' - routinely seen at the many
> gliderports throughout the intermountain U.S. west.
>
> The takeaway point is NOT that I've seen lots of 'stupid pilot tricks,'
> but that in digging into many of the ones I *have* seen, I've learned
> lots...about pilot thought patterns (both under stress and not so), and
> about human nature.
>
> I've learned that 'doing things by rote' is a very common manner of
> 'thinking' for pattern-returning pilots. I've learned that the majority
> of glider pilots do NOT seem to have 'thought through' the 2 or 3
> obvious/possible consequences their doing things by rote might
> situationally present them with when they return to a busy gliderport
> presuming the pattern/runway WILL be clear when they need it to be. I've
> learned a surprisingly large percentage of returning pilots chose their
> pattern direction on the basis of 'what is normal' as opposed to actual
> pattern conditions. I've learned many pilots initially get (and quite a
> few remain) angry at the *other* pilots involved in obstructing 'their'
> pattern, when - had they not come burning back to the pattern as if they
> were the only ship around - they might actually have seen and been able
> to more conveniently (not to mention safely) accommodate the other traffic.
>
> Now it's possible I've managed to associate with only an 'abbienormal'
> subset of humans and gliderpilots...but I think not. To me, from a
> safety perspective, it makes the most sense to conclude the slice of
> soaring pilots with whom I've interacted since late 1972 represent
> 'gliderport normalcy.'
>
> Yikes.
>
> Interestingly, only a very small fraction of 'stupid pilot tricks' I've
> witnessed has come from folks with some admixture of showoff,
> immortality, and 'world's greatest pilot' in their personalities. The
> vast majority has come from 'normal-people' pilots. In other words, 'you
> and me.'
>
> In another post I mentioned my working conclusion is there's a very real
> disconnect between 'mortality reality' and Joe Average Glider Pilot's
> desire to 'learn enough to participate.' In my opinion/observation, how
> JAGP defines 'enough' is key to their future accident risk. It strongly
> influences to what level of safety he'll participate. Except for the
> time he's a student pilot (or, perhaps pursuing additional ratings),
> most JAGP's switch off the aspect of their learning process that
> fundamentally focuses on 'my soft pink body's safety.' The rest of their
> learning tends to focus on how do I *DO* this or that thing (e.g. fly
> XC, fly ridges, maximize my XC speed, etc.)?
>
> I was fortunate enough to have my private pilot-glider examiner comment
> to me when he handed me my temporary certificate, "You DO know this is
> primarily a license to learn, right?" I feel further fortunate to've
> been able to take his insight to heart, and, to retain my sense of
> mortality each and every time I get in a sailplane (as well as do things
> which can easily kill me, such as driving, trimming trees, working on
> ladders, etc.). But I don't think my attitude is 'typically average'
> based on decades of incident-based brain picking.
>
>>
>> Those who fly or drive safer than the average person who has insurance
>> won't long term benefit from insurance.
>
> No disagreement, there.
>
>>
>> I've never had insurance on my motorcycles (~400,000 km) or cars
>> (~200,000 km) and i'm way ahead.
>>
>> This does not mean that those who are less safe than average will
>> suddenly become safe if they drop their insurance.
>
> Here I disagree, to the extent that most people ARE monetarily limited
> and to that extent WILL modify their behavior if they unequivocally KNOW
> their wallet WILL be lighter after they cause a (survivable) accident.
> Human nature is real...and evidently little changing over the millenia.
> Ignore it to your own (frustration, peril, inaccuracy of thinking,
> increased personal comfort level!).
>
> They may not ever KNOW (or admit) they've changed their behavior, but
> change it likely will. Casino gambling aside, how many people do you
> know who routinely (burn, give away great gobs of, tear up) cash from
> their bank accounts? Why don't they?
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.
The biggest change in mindset might not be on the flying pilot, but on
other club members who will be much more focused on preventing accidents
and confronting and limiting the flight privileges of pilots they view
as accidents waiting to happen.

--
Mike Schumann

[BobW]

On 9/9/2011 6:41 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 1:22 PM, BobW wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:

<Prolixity mostly snipped...>
[i]
>>>
>>> This does not mean that those who are less safe than average will
>>> suddenly become safe if they drop their insurance.
>>
>> Here I disagree, to the extent that most people ARE monetarily limited
>> and to that extent WILL modify their behavior if they unequivocally KNOW
>> their wallet WILL be lighter after they cause a (survivable) accident.
>> Human nature is real...and evidently little changing over the millenia.
>> Ignore it to your own (frustration, peril, inaccuracy of thinking,
>> increased personal comfort level!).
>>
>> They may not ever KNOW (or admit) they've changed their behavior, but
>> change it likely will. Casino gambling aside, how many people do you
>> know who routinely (burn, give away great gobs of, tear up) cash from
>> their bank accounts? Why don't they?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob W.
> The biggest change in mindset might not be on the flying pilot, but on other
> club members who will be much more focused on preventing accidents and
> confronting and limiting the flight privileges of pilots they view as
> accidents waiting to happen.
>

Cogent observation. And it touches upon what's almost certainly a *very*
sensitive (in the U.S., anyway) point regarding clubs and club ships. I'd
argue U.S. club-members 'on average' are (sensitive to, touchy about, wary of)
anyone daring to tread upon ('safety nazi,' 'Who appointed YOU king,' etc.)
territory.

That noted, club cultures can - and do, even if usually slowly - change, and
not always for the safer. I'd further argue - if any(one in a) club is seeking
(to be an agent of) change toward the safer, that said change will - one way
or another - be psychologically trying (if not outright painful) to
initiate/endure. I suppose my blunt response to anyone pointing towards 'club
inertia' as a justification for NOT veering intentionally and consciously
toward the road of enhancing their club's safety culture by actively embracing
peer review - and 'where justified' peer pressure - would be: "Deal with it."
Better a self-chosen club path than one forced upon a club by 'accident trauma.'

As always...the devil is in the details. Simply achieving serious club
discussion of the issue would be a HUGE accomplishment, and major step toward
identifying and taming the devils, IMO. It would also almost certainly help
validate and enable motivated individuals in the club. Club members are going
to talk about SOMEthing in their non-flying moments; 'generic pattern
practices' (including the minefield of potential metrics coupled to the topic)
should-oughta be an active component of such discussions.

Philosophically,
Bob W.

P.S. Quite a few times over the years, my club's peanut gallery has humorously
expressed the wish for scorecards - a la 'Olympic skating-like' judging.
Naturally, the comments generally occur after particularly graceless - no
harm, no foul - landings. Personally, I think it's a great idea for multiple
reasons. Even better would be if we included *pattern* scorecard numbers, too;
these could be of a different color. Not all peer pressure has to be
unremittingly painful.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:38:56 -0600, BobW wrote:

> On 9/9/2011 6:41 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 1:22 PM, BobW wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> <Prolixity mostly snipped...>
>
>
>>>> This does not mean that those who are less safe than average will
>>>> suddenly become safe if they drop their insurance.
>>>
>>> Here I disagree, to the extent that most people ARE monetarily limited
>>> and to that extent WILL modify their behavior if they unequivocally
>>> KNOW their wallet WILL be lighter after they cause a (survivable)
>>> accident. Human nature is real...and evidently little changing over
>>> the millenia. Ignore it to your own (frustration, peril, inaccuracy of
>>> thinking, increased personal [if misplaced] comfort level!).
>>>
>>> They may not ever KNOW (or admit) they've changed their behavior, but
>>> change it likely will. Casino gambling aside, how many people do you
>>> know who routinely (burn, give away great gobs of, tear up) cash from
>>> their bank accounts? Why don't they?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bob W.
>> The biggest change in mindset might not be on the flying pilot, but on
>> other club members who will be much more focused on preventing
>> accidents and confronting and limiting the flight privileges of pilots
>> they view as accidents waiting to happen.
>>
>>
> Cogent observation. And it touches upon what's almost certainly a *very*
> sensitive (in the U.S., anyway) point regarding clubs and club ships.
> I'd argue U.S. club-members 'on average' are (sensitive to, touchy
> about, wary of) anyone daring to tread upon ('safety nazi,' 'Who
> appointed YOU king,' etc.) territory.
>
Good point. My (UK) club is exactly the opposite.

Whenever we're flying there's a nominated duty instructor. He has an
unquestioned authority to ask any pilot waiting to launch about his
currency, even if he's intending to fly his own glider, and to require a
check flight in a K-21 if he's not satisfied with the answer. Most of us
touch base with the DI when we arrive at the launch point about the same
time as we write our intended task, retrieval crew and mobile number on
the sheet , tick the 'medical' and 'insurance' boxes and sign on the line.

I would expect to do a check flight if I hadn't flown for more than a
month and will maintain currency at this level over the winter in the
club Juniors as preparation for the annual proficiency check. As a
benchmark, I comfortably cracked 500 hours this year.


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