SAFETY ALERT

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

I regularly get safety alerts (bulletins, notices) from the FAA and
AOPA, but I never get one from the SSA. I went digging to see if the
SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
is relegated to a soaring partner?
Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines.

We have just had 5 fatal accidents within the last 45 days and not a
peep out of the SSA or the 'partner' SSF.
I submit the following that might have been published (but wasn't):

1 July, 2011 Glider crashes after initiating practice rope preak at
200 feet!
1 dead, 1 severly injured
SSA recommends practice rope breaks not be done below 500 feet and
only after thoroughly briefing before the flight. Briefing to include
altitude at which rope break will be initiated and pilots intended
actions.
All are reminded that a simple 180 degree turn will place the glider
parallel to, but not ovet the departure runway. Recommend a 90 / 270
when returning to departure runway (altitude permitting).

15 July, 2011 Glider spoilers open after takeoff, tow pilot gave
rudder-wag (check spoilers) which was misunderstood. Glider crashed
into trees.
1 dead, 1 seriously injured
This accident could have been prevented with a simple call from the
tow pilot to "close your spoilers", had radios been required by the
club or FBO.
SSA recommends all gliders and tow planes be equipped with radios and
a com-check be performed before all takeoffs. The com-check will
insure both radios are on, tuned to the same frequency, volume up,
squelch set and battery charged.

8 July, 2011 Off field landing accident (motor glider)
1 dead
SSA recommends that all gliders keep a suitable landing spot within
gliding distance at all times and engine starts not be attempted below
1500 agl.

JJ Sinclair
(for the SSA that could be)

[PK]

On Aug 21, 11:04*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> I regularly get safety alerts (bulletins, notices) from the FAA and
> AOPA, but I never get one from the SSA. I went digging to see if the
> SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
> Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
> is relegated to a soaring partner?
> Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
> to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
> pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines.
>
> We have just had 5 fatal accidents within the last 45 days and not a
> peep out of the SSA or the 'partner' SSF.
> I submit the following that might have been published (but wasn't):
>
> 1 July, 2011 * Glider crashes after initiating practice rope preak at
> 200 feet!
> * * * * * * * * * * * 1 dead, 1 severly injured
> SSA recommends practice rope breaks not be done below 500 feet and
> only after thoroughly briefing before the flight. Briefing to include
> altitude at which rope break will be initiated and pilots intended
> actions.
> All are reminded that a simple 180 degree turn will place the glider
> parallel to, but not ovet the departure runway. Recommend a 90 / 270
> when returning to departure runway (altitude permitting).
>
> 15 July, 2011 * *Glider spoilers open after takeoff, tow pilot gave
> rudder-wag (check spoilers) which was misunderstood. Glider crashed
> into trees.
> * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead, *1 seriously injured
> This accident could have been prevented with a simple call from the
> tow pilot to "close your spoilers", had radios been required by the
> club or FBO.
> SSA recommends all gliders and tow planes be equipped with radios and
> a com-check be performed before all takeoffs. The com-check will
> insure both radios are on, tuned to the same frequency, volume up,
> squelch set and battery charged.
>
> 8 July, 2011 * * Off field landing accident (motor glider)
> * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead
> SSA recommends that all gliders keep a suitable landing spot within
> gliding distance at all times and engine starts not be attempted below
> 1500 agl.
>
> JJ Sinclair
> (for the SSA that could be)

JJ wrote;"I went digging to see if the
SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
is relegated to a soaring partner?
Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines."

It is AMAZING! So what are these folks doing at the Soaring Safety
Foundation anyway???....

[Cookie]

On Aug 21, 2:04*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> I regularly get safety alerts (bulletins, notices) from the FAA and
> AOPA, but I never get one from the SSA. I went digging to see if the
> SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
> Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
> is relegated to a soaring partner?
> Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
> to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
> pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines.
>
> We have just had 5 fatal accidents within the last 45 days and not a
> peep out of the SSA or the 'partner' SSF.
> I submit the following that might have been published (but wasn't):
>
> 1 July, 2011 * Glider crashes after initiating practice rope preak at
> 200 feet!
> * * * * * * * * * * * 1 dead, 1 severly injured
> SSA recommends practice rope breaks not be done below 500 feet and
> only after thoroughly briefing before the flight. Briefing to include
> altitude at which rope break will be initiated and pilots intended
> actions.
> All are reminded that a simple 180 degree turn will place the glider
> parallel to, but not ovet the departure runway. Recommend a 90 / 270
> when returning to departure runway (altitude permitting).
>
> 15 July, 2011 * *Glider spoilers open after takeoff, tow pilot gave
> rudder-wag (check spoilers) which was misunderstood. Glider crashed
> into trees.
> * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead, *1 seriously injured
> This accident could have been prevented with a simple call from the
> tow pilot to "close your spoilers", had radios been required by the
> club or FBO.
> SSA recommends all gliders and tow planes be equipped with radios and
> a com-check be performed before all takeoffs. The com-check will
> insure both radios are on, tuned to the same frequency, volume up,
> squelch set and battery charged.
>
> 8 July, 2011 * * Off field landing accident (motor glider)
> * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead
> SSA recommends that all gliders keep a suitable landing spot within
> gliding distance at all times and engine starts not be attempted below
> 1500 agl.
>
> JJ Sinclair
> (for the SSA that could be)

All of the material for the prevention of those accidents is widely
available ...in just about any and every gliding texbook I have ever
seen.......Every instructor I know of also addresses all of those
concerns in detail during training....every club I have been involved
with addresses those scenarios...

Any pilot with even the most basic skill and common sense can easily
avoid all of those accident scenarios...

Rope demo and practice at only 500' or higher does not properly train
pilots for the real world...rope breaks at lower altitudes are not
necessarily dangerous....

Motor glider obvioulsy takes additional and specialized skills.......

The SAA cannot fly the glider for you......

Cookie

[[email protected][_2_]]

Personally I want the SSA lobbying against rules not making up new
ones or reminding me of old ones. When advocacy organizations become
governing/safetycratic they are ruined, worse than useless. Let the
SSA keep the gov't at bay, pilots, clubs, and insurance companies can
sort the safety standards.

[PK]

On Aug 21, 2:15*pm, " >
wrote:
> Personally I want the SSA lobbying against rules not making up new
> ones or reminding me of old ones. * When advocacy organizations become
> governing/safetycratic they are ruined, worse than useless. *Let the
> SSA keep the gov't at bay, pilots, clubs, and insurance companies can
> sort the safety standards.

So; than what is SSA for, not for pilots and clubs? You said you would
like insurance companies set the safety standards? God help us all!!
6PK

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> All of the material for the prevention of those accidents is widely
> available ...in just about any and every gliding texbook I have ever
> seen.......Every instructor I know of also addresses all of those
> concerns in detail during training....every club I have been involved
> with addresses those scenarios...

The purpose of a Safety Alert is to remind all that this sport can
kill and old knowledge needs to be reviewed from time to time.

> Any pilot with even the most basic skill and common sense can easily
> avoid all of those accident scenarios...
>

Yes, but these guys didn't avoid the accident, did they?

> Rope demo and practice at only 500' or higher does not properly train
> pilots for the real world...rope breaks at lower altitudes are not
> necessarily dangerous....

The AF used to do "real world" training by snatching a throttle of
takeoff, just to see what the pilot being evaluated would do. All too
often he would shut down the wrong engine and now they had a "real
world" emergency all right with 2 engines out. The AF stopped doing
that and thoroughly briefed all emergencies before hand. Real world
emergencies are best practiced in the simulator.
This accident just proved that "real world" training can lead to "real
world" disaster, didn't it?

> Motor glider obvioulsy takes additional and specialized skills.......

My post reminded those motor glider pilots still with us, of just
that, didn't it?

> The SAA cannot fly the glider for you......

No, but the SSA can remind us that this sport can kill you and
reemphasize some points that need attention.
JJ Sinclair

> Cookie- > -

[Cookie]

>
> The purpose of a Safety Alert is to remind all that this sport can
> kill and old knowledge needs to be reviewed from time to time.

You need a "safety alert" to remind you that soaring is a potentially
dangerous activity??

Safety knowlege is not supposed to be "old knowlege"....it is supposed
to be on the top of your list for every flight!

Let's see here......a glider....it flys thousands of feet up, and
covers hunderds of miles, and has no internal power source....yep
seems really safe to me...no problem...




>
> > Any pilot with even the most basic skill and common sense can easily
> > avoid all of those accident scenarios...
>
> Yes, but these guys didn't avoid the accident, did they?

And why was that? Maybe they were lacking in the most basic of
skills?....taking unnesessary risks? lacking common sense?? Lacking
review of safety issues before flight? Not doing proper preflight?
Not doing proper checklists??




>
> > Rope demo and practice at only 500' or higher does not properly train
> > pilots for the real world...rope breaks at lower altitudes are not
> > necessarily dangerous....
>
> The AF used to do "real world" training by snatching a throttle of
> takeoff, just to see what the pilot being evaluated would do. All too
> often he would shut down the wrong engine and now they had a "real
> world" emergency all right with 2 engines out. The AF stopped doing
> that and thoroughly briefed all emergencies before hand. Real world
> emergencies are best practiced in the simulator.
> This accident just proved that "real world" training can lead to "real
> world" disaster, didn't it?

Now you're onto "simulator"...always with the electronic gadgets!


I don't really see the comparison....but avoiding the problem (low
rope breaks) does nothing in the way of training for a real rope
break.........as and instructor, I have done (or done with my
students) hundreds of rope breaks in the 200 to 250 range.....without
incident.....I am sure that thousands if not tens of thousands of rope
break training scenarios have been done without incident.....It is
part of glider training...it is required by the PTS......It is on
every flight test......It should be on every flgiht review....





>
> > Motor glider obvioulsy takes additional and specialized skills.......
>
> My post reminded those motor glider pilots still with us, of just
> that, didn't it?

Thank god you're there to remind those motorglider pilots.....I mean
they would just be out there flying around aimlessly and
dangerously.........


>
> > The SAA cannot fly the glider for you......
>
> No, but the SSA can remind us that this sport can kill you and
> reemphasize some *points that need attention.


Again...if you need the SSA to remind you(of the blatently
obvious)....time for another hobby....

Once again you solution to safety is always on the
outside.........SSA, FAA, NTSB, Safety alert...two way radio,
flarm, simulator, transponder......

My solution is to turn to the inside....what can I do to make myself
safer?


Cookie

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
JJ

[Cookie]

On Aug 22, 9:44*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
> JJ

Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
already happened......unless I get a time machine.

But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.

So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
pass" incident.

Solution: Don't do low passes!

JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
accident free due to low passes.....

If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...

Cookie

[Ramy]

On Aug 22, 5:19*pm, Cookie > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:44*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
> > take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
> > JJ
>
> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>
> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
> errors. *Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>
> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
> pass" incident.
>
> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>
> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
> accident free due to low passes.....
>
> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
> if you wish. *Or we *can move on the another incident...
>
> Cookie

Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
ourself.

Ramy

[Cookie]

On Aug 22, 8:33*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:19*pm, Cookie > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 9:44*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
> > > take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
> > > JJ
>
> > Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
> > already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>
> > But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
> > errors. *Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
> > simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>
> > So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
> > pass" incident.
>
> > Solution: Don't do low passes!
>
> > JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
> > accident free due to low passes.....
>
> > If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
> > if you wish. *Or we *can move on the another incident...
>
> > Cookie
>
> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
> ourself.
>
> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
dangerous?

So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".


I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
some degree of intellegence and common sense.


Cookie

[Ramy]

On Aug 22, 5:50*pm, Cookie > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:33*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 5:19*pm, Cookie > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 22, 9:44*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > > OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
> > > > take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
> > > > JJ
>
> > > Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
> > > already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>
> > > But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
> > > errors. *Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
> > > simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>
> > > So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
> > > pass" incident.
>
> > > Solution: Don't do low passes!
>
> > > JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
> > > accident free due to low passes.....
>
> > > If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
> > > if you wish. *Or we *can move on the another incident...
>
> > > Cookie
>
> > Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
> > the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
> > Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
> > risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
> > mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
> > and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
> > The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
> > learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
> > ourself.
>
> > Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> dangerous?
>
> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, *FAA,
> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>
> Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, I need a reminder of what can go wrong (such as missinterpreting
tow plane signal), and so do most people, but espcially those who dont
read RAS, don't subscribe to any discussion group, live under a rock
as far as what is going on in the soaring world, and all they know
about soaring is what their instructor tell them and maybe what they
read in the soaring magazine. Many of them truely believe that soaring
is safer than driving to the airport, so what could possibly go wrong?
I know many such pilots, and I admit I was one of them when I started
soaring way back then. I was truely shocked the first time I heard
about a fatality.

Ramy

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/21/2011 4:15 PM, wrote:
> Personally I want the SSA lobbying against rules not making up new
> ones or reminding me of old ones. When advocacy organizations become
> governing/safetycratic they are ruined, worse than useless. Let the
> SSA keep the gov't at bay, pilots, clubs, and insurance companies can
> sort the safety standards.

I don't see a whole lot of lobbying going on either. For whatever
reason, there seems to be ZERO interest at the SSA to involve new people
in the organization who have new ideas and are volunteering to help out.

Another example of a HUGE problem.

--
Mike Schumann

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Cookie wrote:

>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> dangerous?
>
> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".

It's not obvious to me the low pass was the cause of the Idaho fatality,
and given the cursory investigation the FAA can afford, we might never
know. Was it

* a medical problem
* a mechanical failure
* hypoxia
* malfunctioning airspeed indicator
* pilot incompetence with pattern turns

I'm sure others can think of more factors that would have led to
spinning in, even if the pilot did not do a low pass beforehand. And
that is part of the problem with the SSA coming out with "generic"
advice immediately after an accident: it may completely miss the cause,
and lull us into an unfounded complacency.

Cookie and others suggest "Don't do low passes", but that's generic
advice not yet supported by this accident. That advice can stand on it's
own without this accident. We should still strive to understand this
accident, though it will be difficult, instead of assuming it was just a
botched low pass.

We can't do a full investigation ourselves, but we can at least consider
those factors I mentioned. Can we rule out a medical problem? Will
someone inspect the glider for mechanical malfunction? Did he have
oxygen left in the tank, a functioning delivery system, an oximeter,
experience in using oxygen? Is the airspeed system potentially
over-reading? Could he always fly a good pattern, or did he
over-rudder/under-bank at times? Was his glider (HIS glider, not BG's in
general) well tested and benign (no surprises) in it's handling?

There are many ways for things to go wrong, and even after 35 years of
"trying", I still - more infrequently now - discover new ones.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ > wrote:
>>
>>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
>>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
>>>> JJ
>>
>>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
>>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>>
>>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
>>> errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
>>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>>
>>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
>>> pass" incident.
>>
>>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>>
>>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
>>> accident free due to low passes.....
>>
>>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
>>> if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...
>>
>>> Cookie
>>
>> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
>> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
>> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
>> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
>> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
>> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
>> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
>> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
>> ourself.
>>
>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> dangerous?
>
> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
>
> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>
>
> Cookie
>

Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might see
the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.

Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
some local common sense.

It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?

--
Mike Schumann

[Cookie]

On Aug 22, 10:04*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ > *wrote:
>
> >>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
> >>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
> >>>> JJ
>
> >>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
> >>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>
> >>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
> >>> errors. *Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
> >>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>
> >>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
> >>> pass" incident.
>
> >>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>
> >>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
> >>> accident free due to low passes.....
>
> >>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
> >>> if you wish. *Or we *can move on the another incident...
>
> >>> Cookie
>
> >> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
> >> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
> >> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
> >> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
> >> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
> >> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
> >> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
> >> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
> >> ourself.
>
> >> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> > dangerous?
>
> > So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, *FAA,
> > NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
> > I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
> > some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>
> > Cookie
>
> Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
> degree of intelligence or common sense. *Some of these people might see
> the light with a timely reminder. *Many won't.
>
> Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
> these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
> bystander. *A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
> some local common sense.
>
> It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mike,

If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.

I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.

If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.

But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
placing the blame other then where it belongs....

"If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
would not be dead"

Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
prevention......etc.

OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!

Cookie

[Cookie]

On Aug 22, 10:02*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> > dangerous?
>
> > So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, *FAA,
> > NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
> It's not obvious to me the low pass was the cause of the Idaho fatality,
> and given the cursory investigation the FAA can afford, we might never
> know. Was it
>
> * a medical problem
> * a mechanical failure
> * hypoxia
> * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
> * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>
> I'm sure others can think of more factors that would have led to
> spinning in, even if the pilot did not do a low pass beforehand. And
> that is part of the problem with the SSA coming out with "generic"
> advice immediately after an accident: it may completely miss the cause,
> and lull us into an unfounded complacency.
>
> Cookie and others suggest "Don't do low passes", but that's generic
> advice not yet supported by this accident. That advice can stand on it's
> own without this accident. We should still strive to understand this
> accident, though it will be difficult, instead of assuming it was just a
> botched low pass.
>
> We can't do a full investigation ourselves, but we can at least consider
> those factors I mentioned. Can we rule out a medical problem? Will
> someone inspect the glider for mechanical malfunction? Did he have
> oxygen left in the tank, a functioning delivery system, an oximeter,
> experience in using oxygen? Is the airspeed system potentially
> over-reading? Could he always fly a good pattern, or did he
> over-rudder/under-bank at times? Was his glider (HIS glider, not BG's in
> general) well tested and benign (no surprises) in it's handling?
>
> There are many ways for things to go wrong, and even after 35 years of
> "trying", I still - more infrequently now - discover new ones.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
> you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz


Eric,

I am not trying to say what actually happened in any of these recent
accidents...we are just talking about accidents in general..that there
are certain categories of accident that seem to repete...and how to
help prevent them.

* a medical problem
* a mechanical failure
* hypoxia
* malfunctioning airspeed indicator
* pilot incompetence with pattern turns


You give 5 possible potential "causes" for accidents......we can
easily address each...and figure out how each of us could improve our
odds, or prevent the accidents caused by them.


I'm going to start with "malfunctioning airspeed indicator"........A
glider pilot should be able to fly safely without reference to an
airspeed indicator.......I can think of no accident where the cause
should be a malfunctioning airspeed indicator..airspeed indicator does
not seem to be a factor in any of the recent accidents.

Mechanical failure is very very rare..(unless caused by improper
flying)...annual inspections, 100 hour inspections and preflight
inspections insure us against mechanical failure.....the onus falls on
the PIC to insure the aircraft is airworthy. I don't see where
mechanical failure enters into any of the recent accidents.

Hypoxia is a good one.........we all should have received some degree
of training about hypoxia, its symptoms, and effects.
Many of us fly where this is seldon a concern..others use O2 on a
regular basis and better be proficient on this topic.
Again...don't see this relating to any of the recent accidents...

Medical problems.....we supposedly "self certify" and are required to
not fly during peroids of medical defeciency...does everybody do this?

Lastly pilot incompetence...........BINGO! That's the one! I
see this in accident after accident!


Cookie

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 8/22/2011 7:48 PM, Cookie wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:02 pm, Eric > wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
>>> dangerous?
>>
>>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
>>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>>
>> It's not obvious to me the low pass was the cause of the Idaho fatality,
>> and given the cursory investigation the FAA can afford, we might never
>> know. Was it
>>
>> * a medical problem
>> * a mechanical failure
>> * hypoxia
>> * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
>> * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>>
>> I'm sure others can think of more factors that would have led to
>> spinning in, even if the pilot did not do a low pass beforehand. And
>> that is part of the problem with the SSA coming out with "generic"
>> advice immediately after an accident: it may completely miss the cause,
>> and lull us into an unfounded complacency.
>>
>> Cookie and others suggest "Don't do low passes", but that's generic
>> advice not yet supported by this accident. That advice can stand on it's
>> own without this accident. We should still strive to understand this
>> accident, though it will be difficult, instead of assuming it was just a
>> botched low pass.
>>
>> We can't do a full investigation ourselves, but we can at least consider
>> those factors I mentioned. Can we rule out a medical problem? Will
>> someone inspect the glider for mechanical malfunction? Did he have
>> oxygen left in the tank, a functioning delivery system, an oximeter,
>> experience in using oxygen? Is the airspeed system potentially
>> over-reading? Could he always fly a good pattern, or did he
>> over-rudder/under-bank at times? Was his glider (HIS glider, not BG's in
>> general) well tested and benign (no surprises) in it's handling?
>>
>> There are many ways for things to go wrong, and even after 35 years of
>> "trying", I still - more infrequently now - discover new ones.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>> email me)
>> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
>> you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>
>
> Eric,
>
> I am not trying to say what actually happened in any of these recent
> accidents...we are just talking about accidents in general..that there
> are certain categories of accident that seem to repete...and how to
> help prevent them.
>
> * a medical problem
> * a mechanical failure
> * hypoxia
> * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
> * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>
>
> You give 5 possible potential "causes" for accidents......we can
> easily address each...and figure out how each of us could improve our
> odds, or prevent the accidents caused by them.
>
>
> I'm going to start with "malfunctioning airspeed indicator"........A
> glider pilot should be able to fly safely without reference to an
> airspeed indicator.......I can think of no accident where the cause
> should be a malfunctioning airspeed indicator..airspeed indicator does
> not seem to be a factor in any of the recent accidents.

The pilot flies through virga; water enters the airspeed system, causing
it to over-read as he pulls up from his low pass. As he waits for the
airspeed to bleed off to pattern speed while pointed up at 20 degrees,
the glider stalls and spins. This was my first thought, because I
recently had a virga induced airspeed error - my very first, despite
flying through virga and rain several times a year over 35 years of
glider flying. It took me at least a minute to realize I had a problem,
and even longer to decide it was water from the virga.

>
> Mechanical failure is very very rare..(unless caused by improper
> flying)...annual inspections, 100 hour inspections and preflight
> inspections insure us against mechanical failure.....the onus falls on
> the PIC to insure the aircraft is airworthy. I don't see where
> mechanical failure enters into any of the recent accidents.

A control rod jams when you try to put the nose down, stall, spin - It's
not something even a person watching on the ground would see, much less
trying to dissect the cause remotely after the fact. I had a control rod
break in the club Blanik that was not inspectable by the PIC. We got
down safely. If we'd spun in, would inspecting the wreck have found
that? Maybe, maybe not. It happens.

>
> Hypoxia is a good one.........we all should have received some degree
> of training about hypoxia, its symptoms, and effects.
> Many of us fly where this is seldon a concern..others use O2 on a
> regular basis and better be proficient on this topic.
> Again...don't see this relating to any of the recent accidents...

King Mountain Glider Park (the Idaho fatality location) is at 5500';
cloud base on a good day can be 20,000'; 16,000' to 18,000' is normal
for August. We don't know how high he was or for how long, how well his
oxygen system worked, what his pulmonary condition was, and if he
monitored it.

>
> Medical problems.....we supposedly "self certify" and are required to
> not fly during peroids of medical defeciency...does everybody do this?

We're not always aware of our medical deficiencies, or may misjudge
their effect.

>
> Lastly pilot incompetence...........BINGO! That's the one! I
> see this in accident after accident!

But it shouldn't become a prejudice, or we won't learn from an accident.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[T8]

On Aug 22, 10:32*pm, Cookie > wrote:

>
> OK, *so *now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
> couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? *I dunno!


You know the answer as well as I do.

I started writing up "Safety Alerts" for the wrecks I've seen the
aftermath of in the last ten years and it read like it belonged in the
Onion. I'm lucky. None of these have been fatal.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bill D]

On Aug 22, 7:59*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/21/2011 4:15 PM, wrote:
>
> > Personally I want the SSA lobbying against rules not making up new
> > ones or reminding me of old ones. * When advocacy organizations become
> > governing/safetycratic they are ruined, worse than useless. *Let the
> > SSA keep the gov't at bay, pilots, clubs, and insurance companies can
> > sort the safety standards.
>
> I don't see a whole lot of lobbying going on either. *For whatever
> reason, there seems to be ZERO interest at the SSA to involve new people
> in the organization who have new ideas and are volunteering to help out.
>
> Another example of a HUGE problem.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

I have to strongly disagree on all points. The SSA welcomes
volunteers - there just aren't many of them.

The SSA has successfully lobbied for numerous FAR changes - expanding
the use of tow pilots with a private rating is just the most recent.
Before that there was the extension of parachute repack to 180 days.
The SSA cares very much about what is happening to members.

Bill Daniels
SSA Growth and Development Committee Chairman.

[Bill D]

On Aug 22, 9:33*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 7:48 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:02 pm, Eric > *wrote:
> >> On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> >>> dangerous?
>
> >>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, *FAA,
> >>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
> >> It's not obvious to me the low pass was the cause of the Idaho fatality,
> >> and given the cursory investigation the FAA can afford, we might never
> >> know. Was it
>
> >> * a medical problem
> >> * a mechanical failure
> >> * hypoxia
> >> * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
> >> * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>
> >> I'm sure others can think of more factors that would have led to
> >> spinning in, even if the pilot did not do a low pass beforehand. And
> >> that is part of the problem with the SSA coming out with "generic"
> >> advice immediately after an accident: it may completely miss the cause,
> >> and lull us into an unfounded complacency.
>
> >> Cookie and others suggest "Don't do low passes", but that's generic
> >> advice not yet supported by this accident. That advice can stand on it's
> >> own without this accident. We should still strive to understand this
> >> accident, though it will be difficult, instead of assuming it was just a
> >> botched low pass.
>
> >> We can't do a full investigation ourselves, but we can at least consider
> >> those factors I mentioned. Can we rule out a medical problem? Will
> >> someone inspect the glider for mechanical malfunction? Did he have
> >> oxygen left in the tank, a functioning delivery system, an oximeter,
> >> experience in using oxygen? Is the airspeed system potentially
> >> over-reading? Could he always fly a good pattern, or did he
> >> over-rudder/under-bank at times? Was his glider (HIS glider, not BG's in
> >> general) well tested and benign (no surprises) in it's handling?
>
> >> There are many ways for things to go wrong, and even after 35 years of
> >> "trying", I still - more infrequently now - discover new ones.
>
> >> --
> >> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> >> email me)
> >> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
> >> you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>
> > Eric,
>
> > I am not trying to say what actually happened in any of these recent
> > accidents...we are just talking about accidents in general..that there
> > are certain categories of accident that seem to repete...and how to
> > help prevent them.
>
> > * a medical problem
> > * a mechanical failure
> > * hypoxia
> > * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
> > * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>
> > You give 5 possible potential "causes" for accidents......we can
> > easily address each...and figure out how each of us could improve our
> > odds, or prevent the accidents caused by them.
>
> > I'm going to start with "malfunctioning airspeed indicator"........A
> > glider pilot should be able to fly safely without reference to an
> > airspeed indicator.......I can think of no accident where the cause
> > should be a malfunctioning airspeed indicator..airspeed indicator does
> > not seem to be a factor in any of the recent accidents.
>
> The pilot flies through virga; water enters the airspeed system, causing
> it to over-read as he pulls up from his low pass. As he waits for the
> airspeed to bleed off to pattern speed while pointed up at 20 degrees,
> the glider stalls and spins. This was my first thought, because I
> recently had a virga induced airspeed error - my very first, despite
> flying through virga and rain several times a year over 35 years of
> glider flying. It took me at least a minute to realize I had a problem,
> and even longer to decide it was water from the virga.
>
>
>
> > Mechanical failure is very very rare..(unless caused by improper
> > flying)...annual inspections, 100 hour inspections and preflight
> > inspections insure us against mechanical failure.....the onus falls on
> > the PIC to insure the aircraft is airworthy. *I don't see where
> > mechanical failure enters into any of the recent accidents.
>
> A control rod jams when you try to put the nose down, stall, spin - It's
> not something even a person watching on the ground would see, much less
> trying to dissect the cause remotely after the fact. I had a control rod
> break in the club Blanik that was not inspectable by the PIC. We got
> down safely. If we'd spun in, would inspecting the wreck have found
> that? Maybe, maybe not. It happens.
>
>
>
> > Hypoxia is a good one.........we all should have received some degree
> > of training about hypoxia, its symptoms, and effects.
> > Many of us fly where this is seldon a concern..others use O2 on a
> > regular basis and better be proficient on this topic.
> > Again...don't see this relating to any of the recent accidents...
>
> King Mountain Glider Park (the Idaho fatality location) is at 5500';
> cloud base on a good day can be 20,000'; 16,000' to 18,000' is normal
> for August. We don't know how high he was or for how long, how well his
> oxygen system worked, what his pulmonary condition was, and if he
> monitored it.
>
>
>
> > Medical problems.....we supposedly "self certify" and are required to
> > not fly during peroids of medical defeciency...does everybody do this?
>
> We're not always aware of our medical deficiencies, or may misjudge
> their effect.
>
>
>
> > Lastly pilot incompetence...........BINGO! * * That's the one! * *I
> > see this in accident after accident!
>
> But it shouldn't become a prejudice, or we won't learn from an accident.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

Eric, I would think if an airspeed indicator fails because the pitot
is plugged the pilot would know it long before deciding to try a low
pass. Now, flying a low pass with a known-bad ASI is really dumb. I
suspect if the pilot thought anything whatever was wrong with the
glider or himself, he wouldn't have tried the pass.

We know the low pass happened - anything else is speculation. That
pretty much leaves pilot error as the top suspect for now.

Low passes in a BG-12 are certainly possible to do safely - I used to
watch Ross and Kenny do some spectacular ones. However any well
trained pilot has to know it is a maneuver with very low safety
margins.

I remember thinking I wanted to do one. Just going for it seemed dumb
so I practiced at a safe altitude to see how much height I would
gain. With the glider I had, 300 feet was about the max which seemed
to leave no margin at all. I gave up the idea.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 8/22/2011 9:11 PM, Bill D wrote:

>
> Eric, I would think if an airspeed indicator fails because the pitot
> is plugged the pilot would know it long before deciding to try a low
> pass.

Maybe, unless he flew through the virga or rain shortly before landing.
I've done that a number of times. My problem occurred at least 10
minutes after flying through the virga.

> Now, flying a low pass with a known-bad ASI is really dumb. I
> suspect if the pilot thought anything whatever was wrong with the
> glider or himself, he wouldn't have tried the pass.

I agree.

> We know the low pass happened - anything else is speculation. That
> pretty much leaves pilot error as the top suspect for now.

One possibility: the water lies spread out in a horizontal tube in
normal fight, but pulling up lets it slide back to a bend, and Ta-da,
the pitot is now blocked. I think this water might be hard to discover
after the wreckage is moved and lies around for several days.

>
> Low passes in a BG-12 are certainly possible to do safely - I used to
> watch Ross and Kenny do some spectacular ones. However any well
> trained pilot has to know it is a maneuver with very low safety
> margins.
>
> I remember thinking I wanted to do one. Just going for it seemed dumb
> so I practiced at a safe altitude to see how much height I would
> gain. With the glider I had, 300 feet was about the max which seemed
> to leave no margin at all. I gave up the idea.

Now I'm curious - what glider and what initial airspeed did you use?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[kevin anderson]

Another real possibility not mentioned is dehydration. Nice high
speed pass, pull, pull, pull, with positive g load, works fine if you
are hydrated, if not then you can drop your blood pressure and grey
out or pass out.

Drink, drink, drink.....

Kevin
192
92

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/22/2011 10:47 PM, Bill D wrote:
> On Aug 22, 7:59 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/21/2011 4:15 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I want the SSA lobbying against rules not making up new
>>> ones or reminding me of old ones. When advocacy organizations become
>>> governing/safetycratic they are ruined, worse than useless. Let the
>>> SSA keep the gov't at bay, pilots, clubs, and insurance companies can
>>> sort the safety standards.
>>
>> I don't see a whole lot of lobbying going on either. For whatever
>> reason, there seems to be ZERO interest at the SSA to involve new people
>> in the organization who have new ideas and are volunteering to help out.
>>
>> Another example of a HUGE problem.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> I have to strongly disagree on all points. The SSA welcomes
> volunteers - there just aren't many of them.
>
> The SSA has successfully lobbied for numerous FAR changes - expanding
> the use of tow pilots with a private rating is just the most recent.
> Before that there was the extension of parachute repack to 180 days.
> The SSA cares very much about what is happening to members.
>
> Bill Daniels
> SSA Growth and Development Committee Chairman.

My personal experience differs. Feel free to call me if you would like
to discuss.

--
Mike Schumann

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
>>>>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
>>>>>> JJ
>>
>>>>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
>>>>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>>
>>>>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
>>>>> errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
>>>>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>>
>>>>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
>>>>> pass" incident.
>>
>>>>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>>
>>>>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
>>>>> accident free due to low passes.....
>>
>>>>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
>>>>> if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...
>>
>>>>> Cookie
>>
>>>> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
>>>> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
>>>> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
>>>> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
>>>> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
>>>> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
>>>> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
>>>> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
>>>> ourself.
>>
>>>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
>>> dangerous?
>>
>>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
>>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>>
>>> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
>>> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>>
>>> Cookie
>>
>> Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
>> degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might see
>> the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.
>>
>> Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
>> these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
>> bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
>> some local common sense.
>>
>> It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Mike,
>
> If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
> starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
> think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
> constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.
>
> I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.
>
> If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.
>
> But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
> placing the blame other then where it belongs....
>
> "If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
> would not be dead"
>
> Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
> meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
> meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
> safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
> some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
> field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
> member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
> column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
> reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
> section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
> published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
> prevention......etc.
>
> OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
> couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!
>
> Cookie
>
>
>
>

You need to get around more. Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
officer. Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......

If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful for
them to get some regular input from the SSA?

If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail alerts?

--
Mike Schumann

[Cookie]

On Aug 23, 12:11*am, Bill D > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:33*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/22/2011 7:48 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 22, 10:02 pm, Eric > *wrote:
> > >> On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
> > >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> > >>> dangerous?
>
> > >>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, *FAA,
> > >>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
> > >> It's not obvious to me the low pass was the cause of the Idaho fatality,
> > >> and given the cursory investigation the FAA can afford, we might never
> > >> know. Was it
>
> > >> * a medical problem
> > >> * a mechanical failure
> > >> * hypoxia
> > >> * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
> > >> * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>
> > >> I'm sure others can think of more factors that would have led to
> > >> spinning in, even if the pilot did not do a low pass beforehand. And
> > >> that is part of the problem with the SSA coming out with "generic"
> > >> advice immediately after an accident: it may completely miss the cause,
> > >> and lull us into an unfounded complacency.
>
> > >> Cookie and others suggest "Don't do low passes", but that's generic
> > >> advice not yet supported by this accident. That advice can stand on it's
> > >> own without this accident. We should still strive to understand this
> > >> accident, though it will be difficult, instead of assuming it was just a
> > >> botched low pass.
>
> > >> We can't do a full investigation ourselves, but we can at least consider
> > >> those factors I mentioned. Can we rule out a medical problem? Will
> > >> someone inspect the glider for mechanical malfunction? Did he have
> > >> oxygen left in the tank, a functioning delivery system, an oximeter,
> > >> experience in using oxygen? Is the airspeed system potentially
> > >> over-reading? Could he always fly a good pattern, or did he
> > >> over-rudder/under-bank at times? Was his glider (HIS glider, not BG's in
> > >> general) well tested and benign (no surprises) in it's handling?
>
> > >> There are many ways for things to go wrong, and even after 35 years of
> > >> "trying", I still - more infrequently now - discover new ones.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > >> email me)
> > >> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
> > >> you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>
> > > Eric,
>
> > > I am not trying to say what actually happened in any of these recent
> > > accidents...we are just talking about accidents in general..that there
> > > are certain categories of accident that seem to repete...and how to
> > > help prevent them.
>
> > > * a medical problem
> > > * a mechanical failure
> > > * hypoxia
> > > * malfunctioning airspeed indicator
> > > * pilot incompetence with pattern turns
>
> > > You give 5 possible potential "causes" for accidents......we can
> > > easily address each...and figure out how each of us could improve our
> > > odds, or prevent the accidents caused by them.
>
> > > I'm going to start with "malfunctioning airspeed indicator"........A
> > > glider pilot should be able to fly safely without reference to an
> > > airspeed indicator.......I can think of no accident where the cause
> > > should be a malfunctioning airspeed indicator..airspeed indicator does
> > > not seem to be a factor in any of the recent accidents.
>
> > The pilot flies through virga; water enters the airspeed system, causing
> > it to over-read as he pulls up from his low pass. As he waits for the
> > airspeed to bleed off to pattern speed while pointed up at 20 degrees,
> > the glider stalls and spins. This was my first thought, because I
> > recently had a virga induced airspeed error - my very first, despite
> > flying through virga and rain several times a year over 35 years of
> > glider flying. It took me at least a minute to realize I had a problem,
> > and even longer to decide it was water from the virga.
>
> > > Mechanical failure is very very rare..(unless caused by improper
> > > flying)...annual inspections, 100 hour inspections and preflight
> > > inspections insure us against mechanical failure.....the onus falls on
> > > the PIC to insure the aircraft is airworthy. *I don't see where
> > > mechanical failure enters into any of the recent accidents.
>
> > A control rod jams when you try to put the nose down, stall, spin - It's
> > not something even a person watching on the ground would see, much less
> > trying to dissect the cause remotely after the fact. I had a control rod
> > break in the club Blanik that was not inspectable by the PIC. We got
> > down safely. If we'd spun in, would inspecting the wreck have found
> > that? Maybe, maybe not. It happens.
>
> > > Hypoxia is a good one.........we all should have received some degree
> > > of training about hypoxia, its symptoms, and effects.
> > > Many of us fly where this is seldon a concern..others use O2 on a
> > > regular basis and better be proficient on this topic.
> > > Again...don't see this relating to any of the recent accidents...
>
> > King Mountain Glider Park (the Idaho fatality location) is at 5500';
> > cloud base on a good day can be 20,000'; 16,000' to 18,000' is normal
> > for August. We don't know how high he was or for how long, how well his
> > oxygen system worked, what his pulmonary condition was, and if he
> > monitored it.
>
> > > Medical problems.....we supposedly "self certify" and are required to
> > > not fly during peroids of medical defeciency...does everybody do this?
>
> > We're not always aware of our medical deficiencies, or may misjudge
> > their effect.
>
> > > Lastly pilot incompetence...........BINGO! * * That's the one! * *I
> > > see this in accident after accident!
>
> > But it shouldn't become a prejudice, or we won't learn from an accident..
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > email me)
>
> Eric, I would think if an airspeed indicator fails because the pitot
> is plugged the pilot would know it long before deciding to try a low
> pass. * Now, flying a low pass with a known-bad ASI is really dumb. *I
> suspect if the pilot thought anything whatever was wrong with the
> glider or himself, he wouldn't have tried the pass.
>
> We know the low pass happened - anything else is speculation. *That
> pretty much leaves pilot error as the top suspect for now.
>
> Low passes in a BG-12 are certainly possible to do safely - I used to
> watch Ross and Kenny do some spectacular ones. *However any well
> trained pilot has to know it is a maneuver with very low safety
> margins.
>
> I remember thinking I wanted to do one. *Just going for it seemed dumb
> so I practiced at a safe altitude to see how much height I would
> gain. *With the glider I had, 300 feet was about the max which seemed
> to leave no margin at all. *I gave up the idea.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And inceased your safety greatly and reduded glider accident
rates....and make a good example for others....and exibited good pilot
skills....and common sense!


Cookie

[Cookie]

On Aug 23, 5:29*am, kevin anderson > wrote:
> Another real possibility not mentioned is dehydration. *Nice high
> speed pass, pull, pull, pull, *with positive g load, works fine if you
> are hydrated, if not then you can drop your blood pressure and grey
> out or pass out.
>
> Drink, drink, drink.....
>
> Kevin
> 192
> * 92

More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!


Cookie

[Cookie]

On Aug 23, 5:44*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
> >>>>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
> >>>>>> JJ
>
> >>>>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
> >>>>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>
> >>>>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
> >>>>> errors. *Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
> >>>>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>
> >>>>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
> >>>>> pass" incident.
>
> >>>>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>
> >>>>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
> >>>>> accident free due to low passes.....
>
> >>>>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
> >>>>> if you wish. *Or we *can move on the another incident...
>
> >>>>> Cookie
>
> >>>> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
> >>>> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
> >>>> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
> >>>> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
> >>>> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
> >>>> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
> >>>> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
> >>>> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
> >>>> ourself.
>
> >>>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
> >>> dangerous?
>
> >>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, *FAA,
> >>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>
> >>> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
> >>> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>
> >>> Cookie
>
> >> Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
> >> degree of intelligence or common sense. *Some of these people might see
> >> the light with a timely reminder. *Many won't.
>
> >> Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
> >> these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
> >> bystander. *A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
> >> some local common sense.
>
> >> It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Mike,
>
> > If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
> > starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. *I
> > think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
> > constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.
>
> > I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.
>
> > If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.
>
> > But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
> > placing the blame other then where it belongs....
>
> > "If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
> > would not be dead"
>
> > Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
> > meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
> > meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
> > safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
> > some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
> > field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
> > member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
> > column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
> > reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
> > section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
> > published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
> > prevention......etc.
>
> > OK, *so *now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
> > couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? *I dunno!
>
> > Cookie
>
> You need to get around more. *Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
> officer. *Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......
>
> If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
> messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful for
> them to get some regular input from the SSA?
>
> If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
> putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail alerts?
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mike....

If the safety information is not available from one or two of the
sources I mentioned...it is available from the other 10 or so I
mentioned and the other 20 or so I did not mention....

Any reasonable pilot can get all the safety infromation he cares to
get.....

Any idiot can put he blinders on and be ignorant, no natter how many
"safety alerts" you post, or publish or mail to them...

But hey...if you think we need a "safety alert system" whenever there
a rash of accidents....go for it....

Cookie

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!
>
> Cookie

You just don't get it, do you Cookie................We're not talking
about BLAME, we're talking about PREVENTION
JJ

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/23/2011 6:00 AM, Cookie wrote:
> On Aug 23, 5:44 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would you
>>>>>>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
>>>>>>>> JJ
>>
>>>>>>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
>>>>>>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>>
>>>>>>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
>>>>>>> errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which is
>>>>>>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>>
>>>>>>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the "low
>>>>>>> pass" incident.
>>
>>>>>>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>>
>>>>>>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
>>>>>>> accident free due to low passes.....
>>
>>>>>>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long version
>>>>>>> if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...
>>
>>>>>>> Cookie
>>
>>>>>> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
>>>>>> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
>>>>>> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people the
>>>>>> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
>>>>>> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
>>>>>> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
>>>>>> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
>>>>>> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
>>>>>> ourself.
>>
>>>>>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>>>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
>>>>> dangerous?
>>
>>>>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
>>>>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>>
>>>>> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
>>>>> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>>
>>>>> Cookie
>>
>>>> Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
>>>> degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might see
>>>> the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.
>>
>>>> Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
>>>> these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
>>>> bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
>>>> some local common sense.
>>
>>>> It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Mike,
>>
>>> If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
>>> starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
>>> think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
>>> constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.
>>
>>> I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.
>>
>>> If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.
>>
>>> But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
>>> placing the blame other then where it belongs....
>>
>>> "If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
>>> would not be dead"
>>
>>> Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
>>> meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
>>> meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
>>> safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
>>> some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
>>> field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
>>> member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
>>> column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
>>> reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
>>> section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
>>> published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
>>> prevention......etc.
>>
>>> OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
>>> couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!
>>
>>> Cookie
>>
>> You need to get around more. Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
>> officer. Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......
>>
>> If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
>> messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful for
>> them to get some regular input from the SSA?
>>
>> If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
>> putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail alerts?
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Mike....
>
> If the safety information is not available from one or two of the
> sources I mentioned...it is available from the other 10 or so I
> mentioned and the other 20 or so I did not mention....
>
> Any reasonable pilot can get all the safety infromation he cares to
> get.....
>
> Any idiot can put he blinders on and be ignorant, no natter how many
> "safety alerts" you post, or publish or mail to them...
>
> But hey...if you think we need a "safety alert system" whenever there
> a rash of accidents....go for it....
>
> Cookie

You are right. Anyone who is interested in safety can get the necessary
information from multiple sources. These guys are not the problem.

The pilots who are the problem are the ones who aren't looking for
safety information and don't have anyone they interact with on a regular
basis who are pushing a safety message.

--
Mike Schumann

[Dan Marotta]

Hang in there, Cookie. It's refreshing to hear someone defend the position
of taking responsibility for one's self.

Folks who routinely do low passes are the same who would say, "Here, hold my
beer and watch this". You know who you are. I used to be one of them
until, one day, I realized everyone could watch me kill myself and, maybe,
someone else. There's a commercial operation I know of (and I won't give
any hints) that routinely does a low pass after every flight with a *paying*
customer in the front seat. They haven't killed anyone *yet*...

Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek the
information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then ignore
the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and none of
us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're flying club
equipment).


"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/23/2011 6:00 AM, Cookie wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 5:44 am, Mike >
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
>>>>>>>>> JJ
>>>
>>>>>>>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
>>>>>>>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>>>
>>>>>>>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
>>>>>>>> errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>>>
>>>>>>>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the
>>>>>>>> "low
>>>>>>>> pass" incident.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>>>
>>>>>>>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
>>>>>>>> accident free due to low passes.....
>>>
>>>>>>>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long
>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>> if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Cookie
>>>
>>>>>>> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
>>>>>>> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
>>>>>>> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
>>>>>>> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
>>>>>>> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
>>>>>>> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
>>>>>>> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
>>>>>>> ourself.
>>>
>>>>>>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>>>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
>>>>>> dangerous?
>>>
>>>>>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
>>>>>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>>>
>>>>>> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
>>>>>> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>>>
>>>>>> Cookie
>>>
>>>>> Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
>>>>> degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might
>>>>> see
>>>>> the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.
>>>
>>>>> Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
>>>>> these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
>>>>> bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
>>>>> some local common sense.
>>>
>>>>> It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?
>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>
>>>> If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
>>>> starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
>>>> think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
>>>> constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.
>>>
>>>> I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.
>>>
>>>> If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.
>>>
>>>> But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
>>>> placing the blame other then where it belongs....
>>>
>>>> "If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
>>>> would not be dead"
>>>
>>>> Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
>>>> meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
>>>> meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
>>>> safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
>>>> some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
>>>> field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
>>>> member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
>>>> column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
>>>> reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
>>>> section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
>>>> published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
>>>> prevention......etc.
>>>
>>>> OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
>>>> couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!
>>>
>>>> Cookie
>>>
>>> You need to get around more. Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
>>> officer. Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......
>>>
>>> If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
>>> messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful for
>>> them to get some regular input from the SSA?
>>>
>>> If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
>>> putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail alerts?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Mike....
>>
>> If the safety information is not available from one or two of the
>> sources I mentioned...it is available from the other 10 or so I
>> mentioned and the other 20 or so I did not mention....
>>
>> Any reasonable pilot can get all the safety infromation he cares to
>> get.....
>>
>> Any idiot can put he blinders on and be ignorant, no natter how many
>> "safety alerts" you post, or publish or mail to them...
>>
>> But hey...if you think we need a "safety alert system" whenever there
>> a rash of accidents....go for it....
>>
>> Cookie
>
> You are right. Anyone who is interested in safety can get the necessary
> information from multiple sources. These guys are not the problem.
>
> The pilots who are the problem are the ones who aren't looking for safety
> information and don't have anyone they interact with on a regular basis
> who are pushing a safety message.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/23/2011 11:39 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Hang in there, Cookie. It's refreshing to hear someone defend the
> position of taking responsibility for one's self.
>
> Folks who routinely do low passes are the same who would say, "Here,
> hold my beer and watch this". You know who you are. I used to be one of
> them until, one day, I realized everyone could watch me kill myself and,
> maybe, someone else. There's a commercial operation I know of (and I
> won't give any hints) that routinely does a low pass after every flight
> with a *paying* customer in the front seat. They haven't killed anyone
> *yet*...
>
> Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek
> the information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then
> ignore the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and
> none of us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're
> flying club equipment).
>
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/23/2011 6:00 AM, Cookie wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 5:44 am, Mike >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions
>>>>>>>>>> would you
>>>>>>>>>> take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
>>>>>>>>>> JJ
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> already happened......unless I get a time machine.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
>>>>>>>>> errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures,
>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>> simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the
>>>>>>>>> "low
>>>>>>>>> pass" incident.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Solution: Don't do low passes!
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
>>>>>>>>> accident free due to low passes.....
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long
>>>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>> if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cookie
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
>>>>>>>> Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind
>>>>>>>> people the
>>>>>>>> risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a
>>>>>>>> rock
>>>>>>>> and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
>>>>>>>> The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all
>>>>>>>> try to
>>>>>>>> learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
>>>>>>>> ourself.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>>> Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
>>>>>>> dangerous?
>>>>
>>>>>>> So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
>>>>>>> NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".
>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
>>>>>>> some degree of intellegence and common sense.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Cookie
>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
>>>>>> degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.
>>>>
>>>>>> Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
>>>>>> these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
>>>>>> bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
>>>>>> some local common sense.
>>>>
>>>>>> It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>>> If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
>>>>> starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
>>>>> think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
>>>>> constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.
>>>>
>>>>> I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.
>>>>
>>>>> If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.
>>>>
>>>>> But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
>>>>> placing the blame other then where it belongs....
>>>>
>>>>> "If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
>>>>> would not be dead"
>>>>
>>>>> Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
>>>>> meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
>>>>> meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
>>>>> safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
>>>>> some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
>>>>> field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
>>>>> member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
>>>>> column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
>>>>> reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
>>>>> section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
>>>>> published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
>>>>> prevention......etc.
>>>>
>>>>> OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
>>>>> couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!
>>>>
>>>>> Cookie
>>>>
>>>> You need to get around more. Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
>>>> officer. Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......
>>>>
>>>> If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
>>>> messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful
>>>> for
>>>> them to get some regular input from the SSA?
>>>>
>>>> If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
>>>> putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail
>>>> alerts?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Mike....
>>>
>>> If the safety information is not available from one or two of the
>>> sources I mentioned...it is available from the other 10 or so I
>>> mentioned and the other 20 or so I did not mention....
>>>
>>> Any reasonable pilot can get all the safety infromation he cares to
>>> get.....
>>>
>>> Any idiot can put he blinders on and be ignorant, no natter how many
>>> "safety alerts" you post, or publish or mail to them...
>>>
>>> But hey...if you think we need a "safety alert system" whenever there
>>> a rash of accidents....go for it....
>>>
>>> Cookie
>>
>> You are right. Anyone who is interested in safety can get the
>> necessary information from multiple sources. These guys are not the
>> problem.
>>
>> The pilots who are the problem are the ones who aren't looking for
>> safety information and don't have anyone they interact with on a
>> regular basis who are pushing a safety message.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
There are a lot of people who see something unsafe happening and don't
speak up. Whether they assume that the other party already knows about
it, or they don't think it's any of their business, or they are
concerned about sounding like a know it all.....

That's part of the culture that needs to change. Everyone needs to
speak up when they see something that doesn't look right. Often the
message may be a false alarm or ignored, but every now and then it might
save someone's life.

--
Mike Schumann

[Ramy]

On Aug 23, 6:41*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!
>
> > Cookie
>
> You just don't get it, do you Cookie................We're not talking
> about BLAME, we're talking about PREVENTION
> JJ

JJ, I am afraid he really doesn't get it. If the subject wasn't a
sobering one, and if he didn't occasionaly write a sensible sentence
or two, I would consider him a troll.
Cookie, we are not here to put blames. You are the one who put blames.
Your attitude is that all those who get killed must be idiots and/or
clueless, and as such you are safe. I find it very hard to believe
that such a high percentage of experienced glider pilots including
CFIGs, examinars, ATP etc were clueless or idiots. Maybe you can think
so about traffic accidents since almost anyone can and drive cars so
there are bound to be many idiots who kill themselves and others, but
the average inteligence of glider pilots is signifficantly higher, yet
our accident rate is 100 times worse. There are so few of us actively
flying gliders (my guess is few thousands in the US at most, much less
that the total SSA membership) and so many fatal accidents it is very
alarming and disconcerning, and down right depressing. I am afraid it
boils down to the simple fact that soaring is a very unforgiving
activity and human nature always make mistakes. Only those of us who
are willing to accept the high risk should fly. I know I do. This does
not mean I think I am safe. No one is...

Ramy

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:02:17 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Now I'm curious - what glider and what initial airspeed did you use?
>
That may well apply to anything up to and including early glass and to
selected later gliders too: Juniors and ASK-23 both come to mind.

I checked my Std Libelle's zoom capability yesterday - at 3000 ft and
2800 ft, pulling up at a stabilised 100 kts both times. Each time I
pushed over as the speed came down toward 50 kts. Both went no lower that
42 kts and both gained precisely 300 ft. The rate of speed drop-off below
50 kts is dramatic.

Bottom line: As I'd guessed, I don't think a low pass and pull up is a
safe option in a Libelle.

Re elevator flutter stories: surely you'll only get control surface
flutter if you're over Vne or flying a badly maintained glider? Doing
either is unsafe at any altitude.


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

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Aug 21, 11:04*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> I regularly get safety alerts (bulletins, notices) from the FAA and
> AOPA, but I never get one from the SSA. I went digging to see if the
> SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
> Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
> is relegated to a soaring partner?
> Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
> to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
> pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines.
>
> We have just had 5 fatal accidents within the last 45 days and not a
> peep out of the SSA or the 'partner' SSF.
> I submit the following that might have been published (but wasn't):
>
> 1 July, 2011 * Glider crashes after initiating practice rope preak at
> 200 feet!
> * * * * * * * * * * * 1 dead, 1 severly injured
> SSA recommends practice rope breaks not be done below 500 feet and
> only after thoroughly briefing before the flight. Briefing to include
> altitude at which rope break will be initiated and pilots intended
> actions.
> All are reminded that a simple 180 degree turn will place the glider
> parallel to, but not ovet the departure runway. Recommend a 90 / 270
> when returning to departure runway (altitude permitting).
>
> 15 July, 2011 * *Glider spoilers open after takeoff, tow pilot gave
> rudder-wag (check spoilers) which was misunderstood. Glider crashed
> into trees.
> * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead, *1 seriously injured
> This accident could have been prevented with a simple call from the
> tow pilot to "close your spoilers", had radios been required by the
> club or FBO.
> SSA recommends all gliders and tow planes be equipped with radios and
> a com-check be performed before all takeoffs. The com-check will
> insure both radios are on, tuned to the same frequency, volume up,
> squelch set and battery charged.
>
> 8 July, 2011 * * Off field landing accident (motor glider)
> * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead
> SSA recommends that all gliders keep a suitable landing spot within
> gliding distance at all times and engine starts not be attempted below
> 1500 agl.
>
> JJ Sinclair
> (for the SSA that could be)

CONCLUSIONS
Well, I hope those who have been following this thread have learned
some things, because this is the last you'll hear about it. In a
couple of months the SSF will warn about complacency and the need for
more training, then they will dutifully add 6 more to the 'fatal
accident' column and 8 to the 'destroyed' column and that will be the
end of it. One thing for sure there will be no mention of flying
without radios, 200 foot practice rope-breaks (aka practice bleeding)
or low passes. Its up to each one of us to decide what is in our best
interests. Tow pilots that goes for you also, there have been all too
many checks in the tow plane/pilot column recently. I have made it
crystal clear where I stand on these, where do you stand?
Cheers,
JJ

[BobW]

On 8/23/2011 2:30 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
<Snip...>

> Re elevator flutter stories: surely you'll only get control surface
> flutter if you're over Vne or flying a badly maintained glider? Doing
> either is unsafe at any altitude.

Being a strong believer in Murphy, and knowing enough about engineering and
airplane design to be dangerous, and allowing for uncertainties difficult to
convey in short snippets of writing, I - myself - would have used a different
word than 'surely' in the posed question. In any event, you're theoretically
correct...but the pilot in me isn't comfortable pushing that part of the
envelope in close proximity to the ground. There are reasons many (most?)
professional test pilots tend to rank flutter testing toward the top of their
least favorite tests.

And I suppose it's quite possible each case of zoomie-related, contest finish
flutter about which I've read involved flight exceeding Vne and/or 'lousy
maintenance.' If so what might that suggest about some subset of contest
pilots...flagrant disregard of flight limitations? Dubious ability to maintain
precise speed control at high speeds, in thermic turbulence, near to the
ground? Slapdash maintainers of their ships? Hidden pre-existing damage? Etc.
The simple fact of flutter existence in this particular flight regime raises
seriously perturbing questions in my mind.

Without intending to kick a wounded horse (while noting no one so far has
bothered to address most of the *non*-rhetorical questions posed elsewhere
about zoomies), my larger point in posing the questions is to encourage
readers of the thread to examine themselves, their motivations, and their
comfort levels in performing this particular task. Whether individuals decide
to perform zoomies is up to them, and I'm philosophically OK with that.

As I noted elsewhere: BTDT; stopped doing them ~1980; have seen (and enjoyed
watching) many since (while simultaneously mentally cringing and
hoping/praying nothing bad happens); wouldn't consider my future significantly
poorer if I never see another one; sincerely hope I don't personally know
(even via RAS) anyone who may be a part of a zoomie gone bad in the future.

And to paraphrase Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about zoomies in this
thread.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 24, 8:30*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:02:17 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > Now I'm curious - what glider and what initial airspeed did you use?
>
> That may well apply to anything up to and including early glass and to
> selected later gliders too: Juniors and ASK-23 both come to mind.
>
> I checked my Std Libelle's zoom capability yesterday - at 3000 ft and
> 2800 ft, pulling up at a stabilised 100 kts both times. Each time I
> pushed over as the speed came down toward 50 kts. Both went no lower that
> 42 kts and both gained precisely 300 ft. The rate of speed drop-off below
> 50 kts is dramatic.

That is exactly what I'd have predicted.

A rough mental calculation of how much height a given airspeed can be
converted to (at zero final airspeed e.g. top of a tail slide) is
speed in knots divided by five, squared.

So 100 knots can be converted to (100/5)^2 = 20^2 = 400 ft

If you still want to have 50 knots at the top then you need to
subtract the height that 50 knots is "worth": (50/5)^2 = 10^2 = 100
ft.

Giving 300 ft net.

(the theoretical frictionless physics says to divide by 4.748 not 5,
but 5 is both easier to work with in your head and closer to what
you'll actually get)

> Bottom line: As I'd guessed, I don't think a low pass and pull up is a
> safe option in a Libelle.

100 knots is certainly on the slow side. 120 is much better. That
gives you an expected (120/5)^2 - 100 = 476 ft to play with.


Wikipedia says the Std Libelle has a 250 km/h (135 knot) Vne. Is that
incorrect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasflügel_H-201

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 8/23/2011 3:55 AM, Cookie wrote:
> On Aug 23, 5:29 am, kevin > wrote:
>> Another real possibility not mentioned is dehydration. Nice high
>> speed pass, pull, pull, pull, with positive g load, works fine if you
>> are hydrated, if not then you can drop your blood pressure and grey
>> out or pass out.
>>
>> Drink, drink, drink.....
>>
>> Kevin
>> 192
>> 92
>
> More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!

That's not shifting the blame, it's looking for factors that contributed
to the accident. Knowing the factors in accidents can help us learn to
do better as pilots, and improve our pilot training. "Blame" is more of
a moral or legal assignment of guilt, but does not help us find the
actions needed to avoid the accident in the future.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

[Cookie]

On Aug 24, 12:50*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 3:55 AM, Cookie wrote:
>
> > On Aug 23, 5:29 am, kevin > *wrote:
> >> Another real possibility not mentioned is dehydration. *Nice high
> >> speed pass, pull, pull, pull, *with positive g load, works fine if you
> >> are hydrated, if not then you can drop your blood pressure and grey
> >> out or pass out.
>
> >> Drink, drink, drink.....
>
> >> Kevin
> >> 192
> >> * *92
>
> > More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!
>
> That's not shifting the blame, it's looking for factors that contributed
> to the accident. Knowing the factors in accidents can help us learn to
> do better as pilots, and improve our pilot training. "Blame" is more of
> a moral or legal assignment of guilt, but does not help us find the
> actions needed to avoid the accident in the future.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

So...you think that if you are thirsty...you're going to fly so bad as
to kill yourself??

You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
dehydration?

The spoiler open accident was beacause the pilot took off with spoiler
open.

The out of gas accident was because the pilot took off with not enough
gas

The zoomie accident or whatever it was....was either poor airmanship
or poor judgement or both.

Cookie

(boy you guys are realling teaming up on me now....but am going to
hold my ground on the "personal responsibility thing"...I do notce
that the "name calling" has begun always a sign of not being able to
defend one's position...)

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
Cookie > wrote:

>
> So...you think that if you are thirsty...you're going to fly so bad as
> to kill yourself??
>
> You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
> dehydration?
>
> The spoiler open accident was beacause the pilot took off with spoiler
> open.
>
> The out of gas accident was because the pilot took off with not enough
> gas
>
> The zoomie accident or whatever it was....was either poor airmanship
> or poor judgement or both.
>
> Cookie
>
> (boy you guys are realling teaming up on me now....but am going to
> hold my ground on the "personal responsibility thing"...I do notce
> that the "name calling" has begun always a sign of not being able to
> defend one's position...)

I don't know if dehydration had any part in any of those accidents.
Heck, lack of sleep might have been involved for all I know. However, I
know of at least one very serious glider crash that, for certain, was
the result of a combination of overheating and dehydration. So, yes, if
you are thirsty, you CAN fly so bad as to kill yourself.

The physiology of dehydration is well known and the degradation of
mental functioning with dehydration is well documented. Humans have a
relatively insensitive capability to sense dehydration (a poor "thirst"
sensor) and so one can be very dehydrated, not thinking well, and only
be moderately thirsty.

[T8]

On Aug 24, 9:52*am, Cookie > wrote:

> You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
> dehydration?

Maybe.

A CFIG crashed their personal single place high performance ship due
to an off field landing over run. Current, plenty of time in type,
etc. The pilot had been pulling on (wait for it) the *release handle*
instead of opening the spoilers. Dehydrated? You bet. This may have
been (I am speculating, but have reason to speculate) a "can't pee in
the glider" scenario in which the pilot was intentionally dehydrating
before flight.

Cookie, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I think on
this issue you have some homework to do.

Naturally, it's the PIC's job to keep the PIC healthy.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

btw, don't you instruct here?: http://tinyurl.com/3e4hlcs

Can you teach me to fly the '21 like that :-)? (sorry, I'm a natural
born wiseacre, couldn't resist)

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:07:57 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> 100 knots is certainly on the slow side. 120 is much better. That gives
> you an expected (120/5)^2 - 100 = 476 ft to play with.
>
Agreed, but mine is not a B series, so that's just over Vne, so I can't
see a good reason for intentionally going there outside an emergency in a
42 year old glider. 110 kts maybe, but thats 384 ft with 50kt pushover -
still pretty marginal.

> Wikipedia says the Std Libelle has a 250 km/h (135 knot) Vne. Is that
> incorrect?
>
That's a B series.

Mine is earlier (balsa wing skins, top & bottom airbrakes, s/n 82) the BGA
data sheet quotes 119kts for Vne. All other limiting speeds apart from
Vne are the same for both original and B series.


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

[BobW]

On 8/23/2011 11:12 AM, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 11:39 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:

<Snip...>

>> Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek
>> the information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then
>> ignore the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and
>> none of us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're
>> flying club equipment).

No cynicism intended, "I'll second these observations." Human nature is real.

<Major Snip...>

>>
> There are a lot of people who see something unsafe happening and don't speak
> up. Whether they assume that the other party already knows about it, or they
> don't think it's any of their business, or they are concerned about sounding
> like a know it all.....

"Roger all the above." ...or they're concerned about their opinions being
poo-pooed/dissed/treated dismissively, or being subjected to ad-hominem
attacks...regrettably, there's a lengthy list of possible silencing influences.

> That's part of the culture that needs to change. Everyone needs to speak up
> when they see something that doesn't look right. Often the message may be a
> false alarm or ignored, but every now and then it might save someone's life.

"What Mike said, about culture." It matters, and the most effective inputs to
Joe Average Club Gliderpilot I've yet seen has been peer pressure. I've also
seen peer pressure work well at a commercial glider FBO.
- - - - - -

The rest of this post is some strictly anecdotal - if historically/personally
based, broad-brush, observational support of the preceding paragraph.

Here's my (U.S.-based) observations and assessments the safety cultures of 3
clubs to which I've belonged.

But first, a summary for short-attention-span readers:
- club 'safety culture' has a LOT of inertia;
- (in my experience) a good argument can be made for a club's safety culture
directly affecting its day-to-day operations and safety record.

Club A: member 9/'72->4/'74; had an obvious, top-to-bottom (in
member-experience terms) concern for members' safety-related habits. Also had
a wide range of age and experience, with obvious respect granted those with
more experience, yet without giving them a free-ride in situations where they
'did dumb things.' No whiff of "Do as I say, not as I do," hypocrisy that the
youngest, newest, least-experienced club member (23-year-old me) could sense.
In hindsight, a club that then had a 'to be emulated/envied' safety culture,
despite also then having a world-record-O&R ridge running pilot/FAA-examiner
and several other serious contest pilots as members. No accidents/mild-prangs
during my short tenure. I was volunteered LOTS of tips and safety-related
inputs/reading/conversations...and eagerly lapped it up.

Club B: member 5/'74->9/'75; had no detectable-to-me club safety culture at
all. Slightly smaller than Club A (~40 vs. 60-ish social-to-active members).
No accidents/mild-prangs during my short tenure. I felt then, its overall
cultural environment was 'less inherently beneficial to Joe Newbie' than was
Club A's, mostly from the relative absence of 'club-encouraged generic
input/peer pressure.' Not until I got to know some club members personally,
was I privy to 'club culture.' Essentially the then-existing 'club culture'
seemed more akin to 'corporate ownership of shared assets' to me.

Club C: participant/member 9/'75->today, during which time club
social-to-active membership has varied from ~60 to ~160. Club C's basic
culture seemed/was similar to Club B when I arrived on the scene. Since then
I've seen its safety culture run the gamut from 'none immediately obvious to
me' to 'much better,' to 'slapdash in pursuit of
instructors/towpilots/growth,' to 'similar to Club A's.' Happily, the 21st
century culture has been essentially a positive, active, worth-emulating sort.
Over my observational span, the Club has had a number of incidents to
tugs/gliders, the most serious to the former (that I can recall) being a prop
strike of a 180HP Super Cub. I can recall 1 glider being insurance-totalled in
that span. No fatalities; no hospital-worthy injuries. Fleet size: tug -
originally i, now 2; gliders - originally 2, now 6.

It's worth noting that *changes* in Club C's safety culture have mostly
evolved very slowly...I would say the safety culture has been resistant to
change from the perspective of anyone actively trying to effect some sort of
sea change, in the absence of 'a shocking event.' Most of the
non-significant-event-based cultural changes evolved as club membership
evolved. The most rapid changes (to-date-lasting) occurred as a result
insurance-pressures (i.e. the inability to retain hull coverage at any
'reasonable rate'). This event occurred a few years into the club's 'slapdash
in pursuit of instructors/towpilots/growth' cultural phase.
- - - - - -

[T8]

On Aug 24, 8:47*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:07:57 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > 100 knots is certainly on the slow side. 120 is much better. That gives
> > you an expected (120/5)^2 - 100 = 476 ft to play with.
>
> Agreed, but mine is not a B series, so that's just over Vne, so I can't
> see a good reason for intentionally going there outside an emergency in a
> 42 year old glider. 110 kts maybe, but thats 384 ft with 50kt pushover -
> still pretty marginal.
>
> > Wikipedia says the Std Libelle has a 250 km/h (135 knot) Vne. Is that
> > incorrect?
>
> That's a B series.
>
> Mine is earlier (balsa wing skins, top & bottom airbrakes, s/n 82) the BGA
> data sheet quotes 119kts for Vne. *All other limiting speeds apart from
> Vne are the same for both original and B series.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I have pics of 201 Libelles doing low finishes... with the wing tips
drooping noticeably. I don't know if the wing is twisting or just has
a bunch of washout to begin with, but it doesn't look happy going that
fast. And that was brand new.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Bill D]

I always love to read Bob's posts and I always learn something.

However...

>> Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek
>> the information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then
>> ignore the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and
>> none of us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're
>> flying club equipment).

There is another authority. That friendly guy with his own glider
getting a tow from the FBO may be an off duty FAA Principal Operations
Inspector. (A fair number of FAA people fly gliders.) He loves
soaring and soaring people but he viscerally hates pilots whose
careless attitude mucks it up for everyone else. Don't cross him if
you value your pilots certificate.

[Peter F[_2_]]

At 04:07 24 August 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
Vne for the Std Libelle is 118kts.

Vne for Std Cirrus is about the same.

135kts is probably quite exciting in either

PF

>Wikipedia says the Std Libelle has a 250 km/h (135 knot) Vne. Is that
>incorrect?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasfl=FCgel_H-201
>

[Cookie]

On Aug 24, 2:34*pm, T8 > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 9:52*am, Cookie > wrote:
>
> > You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
> > dehydration?
>
> Maybe.
>
> A CFIG crashed their personal single place high performance ship due
> to an off field landing over run. *Current, plenty of time in type,
> etc. *The pilot had been pulling on (wait for it) the *release handle*
> instead of opening the spoilers. *Dehydrated? *You bet. *This may have
> been (I am speculating, but have reason to speculate) a "can't pee in
> the glider" scenario in which the pilot was intentionally dehydrating
> before flight.
>
> Cookie, I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I think on
> this issue you have some homework to do.
>
> Naturally, it's the PIC's job to keep the PIC healthy.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> btw, don't you instruct here?: *http://tinyurl.com/3e4hlcs
>
> Can you teach me to fly the '21 like that :-)? *(sorry, I'm a natural
> born wiseacre, couldn't resist)

Yes I teach there, but not that....but that video was done long before
I got on the scene there.......Proably not a good thing to have on a
web site.....

Dehydration? Keep that one in your bag of excuses. For airplanes
always use "carburator ice"...

This pulling on the wrong handle is a fairly common mistake....for
beginners especially....I see it all the time...

Flap handle and spoiler handle mixed up.....release and spoiler
handle mixed up......at release they open the spoiler.

One of our club Larks got totalled this way......pilot applied full
spoiler, then modulated the flaps thru the pattern...came up "just a
bit" short.........

Early 1-26 .....the handles look about the same spoiler and
release...

Lark and Blanik...flap and spoiler handle close together and look the
same.....Blanik had AD or service bulliten to change the handles to
look and feel different for this reason.........

Gee...and all that was needed was some water?

Since you were up at WB this summer...the guy who flew thru two
fences...dehydration????

Cookie

[Cookie]

On Aug 24, 10:44*pm, Bill D > wrote:
> I always love to read Bob's posts and I always learn something.
>
> However...
>
> >> Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek
> >> the information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then
> >> ignore the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and
> >> none of us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're
> >> flying club equipment).
>
> There is another authority. *That friendly guy with his own glider
> getting a tow from the FBO may be an off duty FAA Principal Operations
> Inspector. *(A fair number of FAA people fly gliders.) He loves
> soaring and soaring people but he viscerally hates pilots whose
> careless attitude mucks it up for everyone else. *Don't cross him if
> you value your pilots certificate.

Good point....I was going to suggest that those proponents of the low
pass....come out and demonstrate the technique, while I invite some of
our "friends" form the FAA to watch and comment...

Cookie

[Cookie]

On Aug 23, 7:38*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:04*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I regularly get safety alerts (bulletins, notices) from the FAA and
> > AOPA, but I never get one from the SSA. I went digging to see if the
> > SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
> > Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
> > is relegated to a soaring partner?
> > Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
> > to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
> > pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines.
>
> > We have just had 5 fatal accidents within the last 45 days and not a
> > peep out of the SSA or the 'partner' SSF.
> > I submit the following that might have been published (but wasn't):
>
> > 1 July, 2011 * Glider crashes after initiating practice rope preak at
> > 200 feet!
> > * * * * * * * * * * * 1 dead, 1 severly injured
> > SSA recommends practice rope breaks not be done below 500 feet and
> > only after thoroughly briefing before the flight. Briefing to include
> > altitude at which rope break will be initiated and pilots intended
> > actions.
> > All are reminded that a simple 180 degree turn will place the glider
> > parallel to, but not ovet the departure runway. Recommend a 90 / 270
> > when returning to departure runway (altitude permitting).
>
> > 15 July, 2011 * *Glider spoilers open after takeoff, tow pilot gave
> > rudder-wag (check spoilers) which was misunderstood. Glider crashed
> > into trees.
> > * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead, *1 seriously injured
> > This accident could have been prevented with a simple call from the
> > tow pilot to "close your spoilers", had radios been required by the
> > club or FBO.
> > SSA recommends all gliders and tow planes be equipped with radios and
> > a com-check be performed before all takeoffs. The com-check will
> > insure both radios are on, tuned to the same frequency, volume up,
> > squelch set and battery charged.
>
> > 8 July, 2011 * * Off field landing accident (motor glider)
> > * * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead
> > SSA recommends that all gliders keep a suitable landing spot within
> > gliding distance at all times and engine starts not be attempted below
> > 1500 agl.
>
> > JJ Sinclair
> > (for the SSA that could be)
>
> CONCLUSIONS
> Well, I hope those who have been following this thread have learned
> some things, because this is the last you'll hear about it. In a
> couple of months the SSF will warn about complacency and the need for
> more training, then they will dutifully add 6 more to the 'fatal
> accident' column and 8 to the 'destroyed' column and that will be the
> end of it. One thing for sure there will be no mention of flying
> without radios, 200 foot practice rope-breaks (aka practice bleeding)
> or low passes. Its up to each one of us to decide what is in our best
> interests. Tow pilots that goes for you also, there have been all too
> many checks in the tow plane/pilot column recently. *I have made it
> crystal clear where I stand on these, where do you stand?
> Cheers,
> JJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My conclusions....

JJ recipe for safety:

Safety = 2 way radio + safety alert + drink of water = SAFE PILOT

Cookie recipe for safety:

Intelligence, knowledge, common sense, reason, problem solving,
judgment, planning working under pressure, training, practice,
proficiency, continued learning, learning from mistakes, learning from
other’s mistakes, taking advice, taking criticism, piloting skills,
coordination, using proven procedures, situational awareness, grasp of
reality, self reliance, self preservation, self control, self respect,
knowing one's limitations, flying within one's limitations, a
conservative approach to flying, ego in check.




Cookie

[[email protected]]

On 8/25/2011 8:17 AM, Cookie wrote:
> My conclusions....
>
> JJ recipe for safety:
>
> Safety = 2 way radio + safety alert + drink of water = SAFE PILOT
>
> Cookie recipe for safety:
>
> Intelligence, knowledge, common sense, reason, problem solving,
> judgment, planning working under pressure, training, practice,
> proficiency, continued learning, learning from mistakes, learning from
> other’s mistakes, taking advice, taking criticism, piloting skills,
> coordination, using proven procedures, situational awareness, grasp of
> reality, self reliance, self preservation, self control, self respect,
> knowing one's limitations, flying within one's limitations, a
> conservative approach to flying, ego in check.

> Cookie


Cookie:
You appear to be out of line.
You need to get to know the posters, or, at least their past writings
and experiences.
Even if you disagree with them, study them and learn.
Your writings have given some of us the impression that your are a new
"hotshot" CFI with only the basics of experience and little real life
knowledge beyond studying.

Walk away from the computer keyboard, kick back, and take some of your
own advice:
> continued learning, learning from mistakes, learning from
> other’s mistakes, taking advice, taking criticism,

Go fly, teach, learn how to become a CFI, apply the rest of the values
you outline and actually learn how to approach the subject of
instruction, safety, and aviation.
In the mean time, educate yourself, with good and bad information from
the experience of those that have actually done what you are now trying
to experience.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> Cookie recipe for safety:

learning from
> other’s mistakes,

That's what this whole discussion has been about, but you still don't
get it. I am suggesting ways to prevent making the same mistake that
these 6 dead pilots made.

You don't seem to believe that dehydration can cause an accident, let
me tell you about some cases where you can "learn from other's
mistakes".

Cal City Regionals, pilot flying an Open Cirrus approached the finish
line at 50 feet and about 50 knots, all thought he would just land
straight ahead, but just after he crossed the line, he pulled up,
stalled and killed himself right in front of the finish gate. The only
plausible explanation is he must have slowely bled off his airspeed,
but didn't realize it and thought he was going 150, not 50. No water
bottle was found in the wreckage. Dehydration can do that kind of
thing to the mind.

Another pilot flying a Ventus B was seen about 5pm, circling so low
that he was casting a shadow and then crashed, still circling! Pilot
doesn't remember anything after breakfast that day. Dehydration can do
that kind of thing to the mind.

Another instructor pilot with thousands of hours in gliders stalled
his 1-26 turning final to an off-field landing about 4pm. He hadn't
had a dring of water all day! Dehydration can do that kind of thing to
the mind.

Food (water) for thought,
JJ

[kirk.stant]

> JJ recipe for safety:
>
> Safety *= 2 way radio + safety alert + drink of water = SAFE PILOT
>
> Cookie recipe for safety:
>
> Intelligence, knowledge, common sense, reason, problem solving,
> judgment, planning working under pressure, training, practice,
> proficiency, continued learning, learning from mistakes, learning from
> other’s mistakes, taking advice, taking criticism, piloting skills,
> coordination, using proven procedures, situational awareness, grasp of
> reality, self reliance, self preservation, self control, self respect,
> knowing one's limitations, flying within one's limitations, a
> conservative approach to flying, ego in check.
>
> Cookie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow, Cookie, you are so full of yourself it boggles the imagination.

JJ (and just about everybody else who has been on this thread) has
contributed rational comments.

You, on the other hand, dismiss proven safety issues (dehydration not
a possible factor? really? ever fly out west by any chance?
unbelievable!).

You also dismiss the proven benefit of technology (radios, stall
warning, FLARM, etc), applied intelligently, with a casual "oh just
pay attention and fly better blah blah blah" approach. What are you, a
card carrying Luddite?

And you are a CFI. And presumably this is what you teach your
students!

Doesn't say much for our method of making instructors.

And I pity your students, they will have a lot to learn after you are
done with them!

Kirk
66

[T8]

On Aug 25, 7:09*am, Cookie > wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2:34*pm, T8 > wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 9:52*am, Cookie > wrote:
>
> > > You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
> > > dehydration?
>
> > Maybe.

> Gee...and all that was needed was some water?
>
> Since you were up at WB this summer...the guy who flew thru two
> fences...dehydration????
>
>

Grrrrrrr. Sorry about the wall of text to follow.

I don't have a bag of excuses, thank you very much and I didn't say
that dehydration was the "cause" of the accident. You completely blew
off the point of my post. Yep, "all we need is water." "All we need
is oxygen." "All we need is to put the airplane together correctly."
If the PIC gets sufficiently dehydrated, his brain turns to oatmeal.
It's a process that although slower, can be nearly as debilitating as
hypoxia and just as dangerous as a disconnected control. Is aviation
physiology not something you acknowledge as an important part of
aviation safety? WTF is up with you? It's *every* bit as important
as putting the airplane together correctly. Sorry, that winds me up a
bit. Of COURSE it's the responsibility of the PIC. Is that clear
enough?

I am familiar with the facts of the accident you speak of. I saw the
flight log and the pics, I know the field (it's huge, maybe 2500 x
1200'). PIC set up really high, really crowded, turned way too early
and dove it straight onto the field (100 mph gps ground speed on short
final). As PIC, I think he probably understands he was responsible
for a) keeping landable areas in reach (check), b) selecting a good
option for landing (check), c) flying an appropriate pattern and
landing (massive fail).

I don't know that pilot personally. The only narrative I've heard
some third hand stuff, but I'm not going into that here.

This accident is, unfortunately, typical of what I have seen on the
contest circuit. The guy still trying to climb at 100 agl in flat
lands over scrub (beautiful fields 1/2 mile away), didn't work out,
busted glider. Two guys trying to do impossible final glides in heavy
rain/sink over wilderness (one busted glider in trees, miraculous
escape by pilot thanks to Gerhard's cockpit, one glider landing in
lake wing tip first, pilot unhurt, glider unhurt). A guy on a contest
ridge mission flying above and down wind of the crest... ridge gets
poochy and he falls off the *back* side of the ridge into miles and
miles of wilderness, gets directed by a heads up pilot into the first
clearing (not really landable, just a place to crash near a house) and
gets away with bumps and bruises, again thanks to Gerhard (plane
destroyed). And then there are two guys who tried to fly complete
landing patterns from around 200 agl on extended downwind. All sorts
of other options available (including a nice big runway going the
other way). One crashes on the numbers in an incipient stall/spin,
walks away with a bad back (another modern cockpit), the other just
barely gets away with it (lift in the pattern) and good thing too
because it's an older ship with an eggshell fuselage. Some of these
guys are friends of mine and probably reading and possibly getting
annoyed (sorry, I'll buy you a beer some time, just glad you were
lucky enough I can still do that).

I do think that there's a common thread here and it has to do with
intellectual tunnel vision. You've all heard of the "monkey trap"
http://tinyurl.com/3ayq6tk? I have my doubts about the reality of
this technique for catching monkeys, but it's useful in assessing
human reactions. I think we all have a tendency to get fixated on
executing a preconceived plan and have difficulty abandoning this for
"plan B". Some, I am convinced, simply don't formulate "plan B", but
that's another story. Some of the best advice I've ever heard for XC
soaring is this: "If your plan isn't working, you'd better get a new
plan" (thanks UH). To be ahead of the game, this needs to be a
continuous process with multiple contingencies, *all* the time. This
is why xc soaring is usually hard work. All of those accidents I just
recounted were completely avoidable, but only "by getting a new
plan". Dehydration, hypoxia, hangovers, or for chrissakes bees in the
cockpit may interfere with this process and it's important to
understand how and why. That doesn't make any of these "an excuse".
"See and avoid" applies to more than traffic.

One of my most satisfying flights in 08, my first season back on the
contest circuit in a few years, was a landout. What pleased me about
it was my decision making after I missed the gear shift, got low, was
pretty darned good. I found a field, scratched, got up a little and
field hopped my way to an eventual private airport landout. I *might*
have been able to make it to the finish. I had a small positive
number on final glide, some likely enroute convergence lift... but it
was hazy, a new to me and very technical site (New Castle) and
although I knew there were a few landable fields on the way home, I
was not going to put myself into a position where I might need to be
finding a place to park from less than 1000' agl at the state of local
knowledge I had at that point in time. My planning and transition to
alternates went really well. Moderate stress, no anxiety. That's the
way it's supposed to work. Result: shiny ship, $65 aeroretrieve,
home in time for dinner.

Back to tunnel vision. What I worry about is that the guys I have
spoken with (about half) after the fact don't always seem to "get
it". I know I'm not the only one to observe this. There's a certain
amount of re-invention of the circumstances going on and I hope that
deep inside they *do* acknowledge what really happened and how they
had a hand in it, had (usually) 2 or more perfectly safe, fairly easy
options to exercise once it should have been completely obvious plan
A wasn't working out. I don't know what to do about that. JJ (bless
him) means well, but safety isn't something that you can write down on
paper or install in a panel. These actions may provide useful aids to
safety conscious individuals but they would not have helped a bit in
the accidents I've recounted above. Those guys already had all the
knowledge, all the information, all the gizmos they needed to be
safe. I hope by now they realize that.

Now Cookie, it seems to me that based on what I've read from you, you
would agree with at least some of the foregoing. Either way it's fine
by me. I have a system, it seems to work for me. I can only work my
ass off to make sure that some day when these words float over my
grave it's not because I put myself there through some unforgivably
stupid act of incompetence or worse.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[BobW]

On 8/25/2011 7:54 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:

<Snip...>
> Cal City Regionals, pilot flying an Open Cirrus approached the finish
> line at 50 feet and about 50 knots, all thought he would just land
> straight ahead, but just after he crossed the line, he pulled up,
> stalled and killed himself right in front of the finish gate. The only
> plausible explanation is he must have slowly bled off his airspeed,
> but didn't realize it and thought he was going 150, not 50. No water
> bottle was found in the wreckage. Dehydration can do that kind of
> thing to the mind.
>
> Another pilot flying a Ventus B was seen about 5pm, circling so low
> that he was casting a shadow and then crashed, still circling! Pilot
> doesn't remember anything after breakfast that day. Dehydration can do
> that kind of thing to the mind.
>
> Another instructor pilot with thousands of hours in gliders stalled
> his 1-26 turning final to an off-field landing about 4pm. He hadn't
> had a drink of water all day! Dehydration can do that kind of thing to
> the mind.
>
> Food (water) for thought,
> JJ

It was probably from "Soaring" magazine I began to learn of the
'easy-to-achieve' reality/subtle hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
1-26 'Nationals,' but it sure could be; definitely recommended reading from
the archives. If it happens, it must be possible, and Paul concluded
dehydration was a (the main?) contributor. This in *east* Texas.

After moving to Colorado's Front Range (~13" annual moisture; daytime humidity
not uncommonly in the low teens), I quickly got in the habit of ensuring
(after a breakfast with no diuretics [Kids, can you spell 'caffeine'?] and at
least 16 oz. of fluids) I drank another 24 oz. of cold water (draining a
thermos) before/during/after the (early as possible) rigging process. After
that, I've always PIC-ed with an additional gallon of water. Never guzzled it
all in flight, but more than once have drunk over 75% of it prior to landing.

I recall once forgetting the thermos, rigging, a longish wait for tow,
thrashing around down low for what mentally seemed a *long* time, and finally
opting for a sip from one of my canteens, long before I was able to climb into
air-conditioned comfort. The (not quite scaldingly hot, sun-baked) water
tasted so good, I polished that canteen's 2 quarts off, then and there. One
conclusion: if hot water tastes and feels GOOD, you're majorly dehydrated!

At a Salida (CO) camp involving some longish pushing of gliders, and *after*
employing the ground-thermos strategy, I could feel myself getting
cotton-mouthed come tow time. After about half an hour (on a good day, too;
grnxx!), I voluntarily terminated the flight because I could tell my
thermaling skills simply weren't there. Nor was my brain. Worrisome, scary,
irritating, not fun, easier to achieve than to remedy.

After that, if I can easily sense dehydration pre-tow, I simply don't tow. I'd
rather that decision be a no-brainer, than my flying.

If I'm honest with myself, a good case of dehydration (easy to achieve out
west) has for 25+ years taken me at least 24 hours from which to recover; 48
hours is better.

Dehydration - bad juju (and, not at all uncommon out here, IMO).

Bob W.

[Wayne Paul]

JJ and Bob, thank you for bringing up this subject. As you have stated,
dehydration is a real concern for those of us who live in fly here in the
Mountain West.

Before Cookie gets on my case I'll say that from my understanding the
"cause" of the recent Idaho accident was "poor pilot judgment." However,
dehydration could definitely have been a "contributing factor."

I helped assemble the BG-12B involved in the accident. I know it had a
Mountain High electronic O2 system, so I'm assuming it was being used. I
also know that the bird was not equipped with a pilot relief system. I
discussed installation options with the pilot.

I don't know if, or how much drinking water he had onboard. I don't know if
he was adequately hydrated prior to entering the cockpit. (He normally
elected to launch at the end of the launch cycle so he could have easily
been behind the hydration cycle prior to takeoff.)

For those not familiar with the part of the state of Idaho where the
accident occurred, it has an annual rain fall of only 10.25 inches a year.
The field is located 5,500 MSL and the temperature that day was in the low
90s.

Dehydration IS a big deal and as stated in both JJ's and Bob's posts, its'
effects should NOT be taken lightly.

There are many things that we don't really know about this accident;
however, I know that we lost a relatively young commercial glider pilot that
was excited about owning and flying his own sailplane.

My thoughts and prayers are for his sister who is retrieving his pickup and
personal belonging today.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/


"BobW" wrote in message ...

On 8/25/2011 7:54 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:

<Snip...>
> Cal City Regionals, pilot flying an Open Cirrus approached the finish
> line at 50 feet and about 50 knots, all thought he would just land
> straight ahead, but just after he crossed the line, he pulled up,
> stalled and killed himself right in front of the finish gate. The only
> plausible explanation is he must have slowly bled off his airspeed,
> but didn't realize it and thought he was going 150, not 50. No water
> bottle was found in the wreckage. Dehydration can do that kind of
> thing to the mind.
>
> Another pilot flying a Ventus B was seen about 5pm, circling so low
> that he was casting a shadow and then crashed, still circling! Pilot
> doesn't remember anything after breakfast that day. Dehydration can do
> that kind of thing to the mind.
>
> Another instructor pilot with thousands of hours in gliders stalled
> his 1-26 turning final to an off-field landing about 4pm. He hadn't
> had a drink of water all day! Dehydration can do that kind of thing to
> the mind.
>
> Food (water) for thought,
> JJ

It was probably from "Soaring" magazine I began to learn of the
'easy-to-achieve' reality/subtle hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
1-26 'Nationals,' but it sure could be; definitely recommended reading from
the archives. If it happens, it must be possible, and Paul concluded
dehydration was a (the main?) contributor. This in *east* Texas.

After moving to Colorado's Front Range (~13" annual moisture; daytime
humidity
not uncommonly in the low teens), I quickly got in the habit of ensuring
(after a breakfast with no diuretics [Kids, can you spell 'caffeine'?] and
at
least 16 oz. of fluids) I drank another 24 oz. of cold water (draining a
thermos) before/during/after the (early as possible) rigging process. After
that, I've always PIC-ed with an additional gallon of water. Never guzzled
it
all in flight, but more than once have drunk over 75% of it prior to
landing.

I recall once forgetting the thermos, rigging, a longish wait for tow,
thrashing around down low for what mentally seemed a *long* time, and
finally
opting for a sip from one of my canteens, long before I was able to climb
into
air-conditioned comfort. The (not quite scaldingly hot, sun-baked) water
tasted so good, I polished that canteen's 2 quarts off, then and there. One
conclusion: if hot water tastes and feels GOOD, you're majorly dehydrated!

At a Salida (CO) camp involving some longish pushing of gliders, and *after*
employing the ground-thermos strategy, I could feel myself getting
cotton-mouthed come tow time. After about half an hour (on a good day, too;
grnxx!), I voluntarily terminated the flight because I could tell my
thermaling skills simply weren't there. Nor was my brain. Worrisome, scary,
irritating, not fun, easier to achieve than to remedy.

After that, if I can easily sense dehydration pre-tow, I simply don't tow.
I'd
rather that decision be a no-brainer, than my flying.

If I'm honest with myself, a good case of dehydration (easy to achieve out
west) has for 25+ years taken me at least 24 hours from which to recover; 48
hours is better.

Dehydration - bad juju (and, not at all uncommon out here, IMO).

Bob W.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:03:54 +0000, Peter F wrote:

> At 04:07 24 August 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> Vne for the Std Libelle is 118kts.
>
> Vne for Std Cirrus is about the same.
>
> 135kts is probably quite exciting in either
>
I thought I'd seen the H.201B Vne given as 123 kts. In fact the BGA Data
Sheets quote 124kts but the B series Operators Manual, as issued by
Glasfaser says 135 kts, 250 km/h

I'm with you: 135kts sounds rather too exciting.


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

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
> JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
> 1-26 'Nationals,'

No, this one was at our annual Air Sailing Sports Contest. I was the
CD that year and I caught the pilot climbing in his 1-26 without a
parachute. I told him he would have to wear a chute in a sanctioned
contest and he reluctantly went and got one. After the accident he was
alone in the desert with badly broken legs and ankles and started
going into shock. He pooped the parachute I made him wear and wrapped
it around himself. That might have saved his life, because it was
quite some time before he was found by a car that was driving on a
seldom used dirt road in the desert (White Rock Road). We launched Air
Sailing Air (tow plane) about 6:PM, with no results, but Vern was
already in the hospital at that time.
Drink will help you Think,
JJ

[drbdanieli]

On Aug 26, 10:34*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> *hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
>
> > JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
> > 1-26 'Nationals,'
>
> No, this one was at our annual Air Sailing Sports Contest. I was the
> CD that year and I caught the pilot climbing in his 1-26 without a
> parachute. I told him he would have to wear a chute in a sanctioned
> contest and he reluctantly went and got one. After the accident he was
> alone in the desert with badly broken legs and ankles and started
> going into shock. He pooped the parachute I made him wear and wrapped
> it around himself. That might have saved his life, because it was
> quite some time before he was found by a car that was driving on a
> seldom used dirt road in the desert (White Rock Road). We launched Air
> Sailing Air (tow plane) about 6:PM, with no results, but Vern was
> already in the hospital at that time.
> Drink will help you Think,
> JJ

Hey JJ,

Do you remember were the info is on the research that Chuck Fischer
did on dehydration? Seems like a lot of contest pilots gave blood
for his project and if I remember correctly, everyone was way more
dehydrated than they thought they were. Also, that wrecked Mini-
Nimbus I picked up years ago came from an East Coast pilot who was
severly dehydrated. Nearly killed him and it would be easy to also
pass this off as pilot error has he not survived and admitted to
flying with the vents closed during the contest.

Barry

[Mike I Green]

On 8/26/2011 6:01 PM, drbdanieli wrote:
> On Aug 26, 10:34 am, JJ > wrote:
>> hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
>>
>>> JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
>>> 1-26 'Nationals,'
>>
>> No, this one was at our annual Air Sailing Sports Contest. I was the
>> CD that year and I caught the pilot climbing in his 1-26 without a
>> parachute. I told him he would have to wear a chute in a sanctioned
>> contest and he reluctantly went and got one. After the accident he was
>> alone in the desert with badly broken legs and ankles and started
>> going into shock. He pooped the parachute I made him wear and wrapped
>> it around himself. That might have saved his life, because it was
>> quite some time before he was found by a car that was driving on a
>> seldom used dirt road in the desert (White Rock Road). We launched Air
>> Sailing Air (tow plane) about 6:PM, with no results, but Vern was
>> already in the hospital at that time.
>> Drink will help you Think,
>> JJ
>
> Hey JJ,
>
> Do you remember were the info is on the research that Chuck Fischer
> did on dehydration? Seems like a lot of contest pilots gave blood
> for his project and if I remember correctly, everyone was way more
> dehydrated than they thought they were. Also, that wrecked Mini-
> Nimbus I picked up years ago came from an East Coast pilot who was
> severly dehydrated. Nearly killed him and it would be easy to also
> pass this off as pilot error has he not survived and admitted to
> flying with the vents closed during the contest.
>
> Barry

Wouldn't one consider dehydration pilot error?

Barry - what has dehydration got to do with flying with the vents closed?

MG

[drbdanieli]

On Aug 26, 7:33*pm, Mike I Green > wrote:
> On 8/26/2011 6:01 PM, drbdanieli wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 10:34 am, JJ > *wrote:
> >> * hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
>
> >>> JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
> >>> 1-26 'Nationals,'
>
> >> No, this one was at our annual Air Sailing Sports Contest. I was the
> >> CD that year and I caught the pilot climbing in his 1-26 without a
> >> parachute. I told him he would have to wear a chute in a sanctioned
> >> contest and he reluctantly went and got one. After the accident he was
> >> alone in the desert with badly broken legs and ankles and started
> >> going into shock. He pooped the parachute I made him wear and wrapped
> >> it around himself. That might have saved his life, because it was
> >> quite some time before he was found by a car that was driving on a
> >> seldom used dirt road in the desert (White Rock Road). We launched Air
> >> Sailing Air (tow plane) about 6:PM, with no results, but Vern was
> >> already in the hospital at that time.
> >> Drink will help you Think,
> >> JJ
>
> > Hey JJ,
>
> > Do you remember were the info is on the research that Chuck Fischer
> > did on dehydration? *Seems like *a lot of contest pilots gave blood
> > for his project and if I remember correctly, everyone was way more
> > dehydrated than they thought they were. *Also, that wrecked Mini-
> > Nimbus I picked up years ago came from an East Coast pilot who was
> > severly dehydrated. *Nearly killed him and it would be easy to also
> > pass this off as pilot error has he not survived and admitted to
> > flying with the vents closed during the contest.
>
> > Barry
>
> Wouldn't one consider dehydration pilot error?
>
> Barry - what has dehydration got to do with flying with the vents closed?
>
> MG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mike,

Of course not drinking enough fluids is an error on the pilots part.
My point was to reinforce the significance of dehydration in ones
ablity to fly safely. If you look at the report in the Soaring
archives (August 1980 page 44) you can see the the pilot was unable to
reach his water bottle, doesn't remember anything after circling over
the field he crashed in, and witness' state that the pilot looked like
he quit flying the plane.

Now I guess that sitting in a sauna (vents closed) would cause you to
perspire and dehydrate more rapidly than if you had some fresh air
cooling you down a bit.

I believe you too were there during that contest Chuck was doing the
research on dehydration. Do you have any idea where that info can be
found?

Barry

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Aug 26, 6:01*pm, drbdanieli > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 10:34*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > *hazards of dehydration. And I don't know if
>
> > > JJ's ending example above is of Paul Schweizer's accident in a Texas-based
> > > 1-26 'Nationals,'
>
> > No, this one was at our annual Air Sailing Sports Contest. I was the
> > CD that year and I caught the pilot climbing in his 1-26 without a
> > parachute. I told him he would have to wear a chute in a sanctioned
> > contest and he reluctantly went and got one. After the accident he was
> > alone in the desert with badly broken legs and ankles and started
> > going into shock. He pooped the parachute I made him wear and wrapped
> > it around himself. That might have saved his life, because it was
> > quite some time before he was found by a car that was driving on a
> > seldom used dirt road in the desert (White Rock Road). We launched Air
> > Sailing Air (tow plane) about 6:PM, with no results, but Vern was
> > already in the hospital at that time.
> > Drink will help you Think,
> > JJ
>
> Hey JJ,
>
> Do you remember were the info is on the research that Chuck Fischer
> did on dehydration? *Seems like *a lot of contest pilots gave blood
> for his project and if I remember correctly, everyone was way more
> dehydrated than they thought they were. *Also, that wrecked Mini-
> Nimbus I picked up years ago came from an East Coast pilot who was
> severly dehydrated. *Nearly killed him and it would be easy to also
> pass this off as pilot error has he not survived and admitted to
> flying with the vents closed during the contest.
>
> Barry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I remember the study that Chuck Fisher did, but have no idea where it
could be found. Dr. Walt Cannon has given several presentations that
suggest that the pull-up after a long hot romp in the desert is enough
to shut down a dehydrated mind. That might explain the finish line
accident at Uvalde in '86 where the pilot made a good finish at 20
feet with plenty of speed, then pulled up and just kept flying north
and crashed in the housing area north of the airport. Kemo Sobe and I
helped get the 20 out of the street. The nose of the ship hit a pickup
truck's left door, shoved the truck into the curb and broke both right
side axles...........the whole thing acted like a big shock absorber,
pilot wasn't injured too badly.
I got my LS-6 from insurance salvage at that contest (first 15 meter
nats at Uvalde) after the pilot got low before the gate was even open
and landed in an 8 foot high corn field. Dehydration was suspected
Cheers,
JJ