Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding... [Archive]

Marc

February 7th 12, 05:25 AM

On Feb 6, 6:31*pm, matt michael > wrote:
> Another interesting question is to look at the elevation of the
> landing site relative to elevation/distance to South Tahoe airport.

Having done much flying in and around the mountains on that side of
Lake Tahoe, I can tell you that just because a particular airport may
be within straight line gliding distance doesn't mean you can get
there. If you're low (for whatever stupid reason) and in the
mountains, you're left with trying to sneak through low points in the
ridge to get to the lower ground. You may get through one pass, only
to discover that there is yet another ridge on the other side which
you can't quite clear. If you're well and truly screwed, you turn
around only to find that you no longer have enough altitude to clear
the pass you just came through. I haven't messed up quite that badly,
but I did have to make it out of that sort of trap once by dodging
trees. One tends to get religion after an incident like that, and
allow (a lot) more margin...

Marc

gemerson

February 7th 12, 12:46 PM

I wonder if the flight computer still has data on it from the previous
days to support the comment below. If it does and this person was
soaring over the ski area I'll have a lot less sympathy for this
landout. Sounds like a substantial lack of good judgement if the
claim made below is true, and I'm inclined to suspect it's likely
true.

>
> "Yeah, I was actually there on the mountain today, and had an
> opportunity to see the aftermath. over the past few days that glider
> has been getting uncomfortably close to many chair lifts on the
> mountain. Dangerously close in my opinion. While riding Dipper Express
> the other day, I was scared it was going to hit the lift while I was
> on it."
>

John Smith

February 7th 12, 01:46 PM

Sean Fidler wrote:
> Agreed. Excellent job landing safely here.

Safely? Safely for whom? Safely for the skiers? Safely for that snow
boarder who reportedly had to duck to not have his head clipped? This
landing was no "excellent job" but a highly irresponsible and reckless
action which I sure hope the FAA will take a closer look at. It was
sheer luck that nobody was hurt or even killed.

February 7th 12, 01:49 PM

On Feb 6, 3:29*pm, Bruno > wrote:
> "Outraged..." * As if the pilots wanted to land there. Nice job
> landing in a tough spot. *I am just glad that none of the farmers in
> any of the fields I have landed in have been, "outraged!"
>
> Bruno - B4

Bruno -- Take a look at a chart. Then see if you still think this was
a "Nice job."

This link should do it http://runwayfinder.com/?loc=TVL

The top of the ski area in question is at 2:00, about 6 miles from TVL
and a few thousand feet higher. The landing site (the bottom of the
ski area) is quite close to TVL. The news article mentions a golf
course being rejected due to trees. Look where the ski area parking
lot, the golf course and TVL are on the satellite view.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

soartech[_2_]

February 7th 12, 05:44 PM

>
> But it's obvious - he had to land when the tail fell off!!
>
> Kirk
> 66
Yes, not only that but he is still dragging the tow rope.

BobW

February 7th 12, 08:14 PM

On 2/6/2012 11:41 AM, Brad wrote:
<Snip...>
>
> Not to be contentious, but more fodder for the safety
> monkeys

Chortle!!! (I'll get back to this topic shortly...)

....................looks like this guy did a fantastic job
> getting the sailplane down safe and with all in 1 piece.

Always a good thing when the landing can be walked away from; I've known of
lots of others since getting into soaring that didn't end so serendipitously,
even withOUT the stress this (as it developed over time) situation surely induced.

Back to "safety monkeys" for a bit, I (and many others) well remember a
long-time, opinionated, disputatious (contentious?), high-time pilot
well-known in the experimental power aviation field, whose opinions were
always crystal clear. He had built and test flown his own RV-?, and test flown
at least one other homebuilt of which I'm aware.

One of his opinions (which can presumably be found in the archives of the
rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup) was that a monkey could be trained to fly
airplanes...but probably not helicopters - they required more brains or
SOMEthing. I'm not certain of his opinion regarding the brains to fly gliders,
which I know he had flown IN (don't remember if he obtained the rating). In
any event, he obviously had a pretty high opinion of his own skill set and
cranial power...and I gather not without substantiating reasons.

He died not long after a post-T.O.-crash of his Lancair (which I believe he
purchased), which also seriously injured his wife.

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/rnli5fqdr3hb3my1iryqyoqd1/U02072012120000.pdf

Maybe we're too smart to safely fly, because evidently he crashed a
flyable/flying airplane because he failed to latch/verify-latching the canopy,
and was unable to aviate, navigate and communicate in that order.

My point is, I'm OK with those who would rather kill the messenger in private
than apply safety lessons which may one day help mitigate the severity of
their own situation (regardless of how the situation may develop), but I'm not
so OK with those who would casually and publicly use a contentions "throw away
comment" ostensibly serving primarily as a means of ending discussion about
something of critical importance to open-minded, thoughtful aviators.

> I am interested in learning how the "loss of air" caused this to
> happen.
>
> I will not be criticizing the pilot, as we are all prone to being in
> the news someday, despite the never ending articles in Soaring about
> safety.
>
> Brad

"[N]ever ending articles in Soaring about safety" hunh? There's one sure way
to end them, but our record strongly suggests the human race is unlikely to
cooperate. Ignore such articles (and related lessons) if it floats your
boat...but you'll be intentionally blowing off some possibility of learning
from others' mistakes.

Rotsa Ruck,

Bob W.
Unofficial Safety Monkey

Brad[_2_]

February 7th 12, 08:29 PM

On Feb 7, 12:14*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 11:41 AM, Brad wrote:
> <Snip...>
>
>
>
> > Not to be contentious, but more fodder for the safety
> > monkeys
>
> Chortle!!! (I'll get back to this topic shortly...)
>
> ...................looks like this guy did a fantastic job
>
> > getting the sailplane down safe and with all in 1 piece.
>
> Always a good thing when the landing can be walked away from; I've known of
> lots of others since getting into soaring that didn't end so serendipitously,
> even withOUT the stress this (as it developed over time) situation surely induced.
>
> Back to "safety monkeys" for a bit, I (and many others) well remember a
> long-time, opinionated, disputatious (contentious?), high-time pilot
> well-known in the experimental power aviation field, whose opinions were
> always crystal clear. He had built and test flown his own RV-?, and test flown
> at least one other homebuilt of which I'm aware.
>
> One of his opinions (which can presumably be found in the archives of the
> rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup) was that a monkey could be trained to fly
> airplanes...but probably not helicopters - they required more brains or
> SOMEthing. I'm not certain of his opinion regarding the brains to fly gliders,
> which I know he had flown IN (don't remember if he obtained the rating). In
> any event, he obviously had a pretty high opinion of his own skill set and
> cranial power...and I gather not without substantiating reasons.
>
> He died not long after a post-T.O.-crash of his Lancair (which I believe he
> purchased), which also seriously injured his wife.
>
> http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/rnli5fqdr3hb3my1iryqyoqd...
>
> Maybe we're too smart to safely fly, because evidently he crashed a
> flyable/flying airplane because he failed to latch/verify-latching the canopy,
> and was unable to aviate, navigate and communicate in that order.
>
> My point is, I'm OK with those who would rather kill the messenger in private
> than apply safety lessons which may one day help mitigate the severity of
> their own situation (regardless of how the situation may develop), but I'm not
> so OK with those who would casually and publicly use a contentions "throw away
> comment" ostensibly serving primarily as a means of ending discussion about
> something of critical importance to open-minded, thoughtful aviators.
>
> > I am interested in learning how the "loss of air" caused this to
> > happen.
>
> > I will not be criticizing the pilot, as we are all prone to being in
> > the news someday, despite the never ending articles in Soaring about
> > safety.
>
> > Brad
>
> "[N]ever ending articles in Soaring about safety" hunh? There's one sure way
> to end them, but our record strongly suggests the human race is unlikely to
> cooperate. Ignore such articles (and related lessons) if it floats your
> boat...but you'll be intentionally blowing off some possibility of learning
> from others' mistakes.
>
> Rotsa Ruck,
>
> Bob W.
> Unofficial Safety Monkey

Are you making some kind of reference to my building and flying the
Tetra-15 with the guy and his Lancair?

rust rundering,
Brad

KevinFinke

February 7th 12, 10:32 PM

Brad, take your meds. He's not referring to you at all.

:)

-Kevin

BobW

February 8th 12, 03:00 AM

On 2/7/2012 1:29 PM, Brad wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:14 pm, > wrote:
>> On 2/6/2012 11:41 AM, Brad wrote:
>> <Snip...>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Not to be contentious, but more fodder for the safety
>>> monkeys
>>
>> Chortle!!! (I'll get back to this topic shortly...)
>>
>> ...................looks like this guy did a fantastic job
>>
>>> getting the sailplane down safe and with all in 1 piece.
>>
>> Always a good thing when the landing can be walked away from; I've known of
>> lots of others since getting into soaring that didn't end so serendipitously,
>> even withOUT the stress this (as it developed over time) situation surely induced.
>>
>> Back to "safety monkeys" for a bit, I (and many others) well remember a
>> long-time, opinionated, disputatious (contentious?), high-time pilot
>> well-known in the experimental power aviation field, whose opinions were
>> always crystal clear. He had built and test flown his own RV-?, and test flown
>> at least one other homebuilt of which I'm aware.
>>
>> One of his opinions (which can presumably be found in the archives of the
>> rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup) was that a monkey could be trained to fly
>> airplanes...but probably not helicopters - they required more brains or
>> SOMEthing. I'm not certain of his opinion regarding the brains to fly gliders,
>> which I know he had flown IN (don't remember if he obtained the rating). In
>> any event, he obviously had a pretty high opinion of his own skill set and
>> cranial power...and I gather not without substantiating reasons.
>>
>> He died not long after a post-T.O.-crash of his Lancair (which I believe he
>> purchased), which also seriously injured his wife.
>>
>> http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/rnli5fqdr3hb3my1iryqyoqd...
>>
>> Maybe we're too smart to safely fly, because evidently he crashed a
>> flyable/flying airplane because he failed to latch/verify-latching the canopy,
>> and was unable to aviate, navigate and communicate in that order.
>>
>> My point is, I'm OK with those who would rather kill the messenger in private
>> than apply safety lessons which may one day help mitigate the severity of
>> their own situation (regardless of how the situation may develop), but I'm not
>> so OK with those who would casually and publicly use a contentions "throw away
>> comment" ostensibly serving primarily as a means of ending discussion about
>> something of critical importance to open-minded, thoughtful aviators.
>>
>>> I am interested in learning how the "loss of air" caused this to
>>> happen.
>>
>>> I will not be criticizing the pilot, as we are all prone to being in
>>> the news someday, despite the never ending articles in Soaring about
>>> safety.
>>
>>> Brad
>>
>> "[N]ever ending articles in Soaring about safety" hunh? There's one sure way
>> to end them, but our record strongly suggests the human race is unlikely to
>> cooperate. Ignore such articles (and related lessons) if it floats your
>> boat...but you'll be intentionally blowing off some possibility of learning
>> from others' mistakes.
>>
>> Rotsa Ruck,
>>
>> Bob W.
>> Unofficial Safety Monkey
>
> Are you making some kind of reference to my building and flying the
> Tetra-15 with the guy and his Lancair?
>
> rust rundering,
> Brad

Until posed, that particular question never entered my skull. (I believe the
Lancair's test hours had been flown off well prior to the crash by someone
entirely unrelated to the above synopsis.)

And for the record (having owned nothing but single-seat, experimentally
licensed sailplanes since 1976, including 195 hours in an HP-14), I hope all
the test flying of your initial example and all future examples of the HP-24
go safely and with a minimum of unwanted excitement.

But since my initial effort evidently was insufficiently clear, here's a 2nd
attempt...

I think a strong case can be made that pilots who intentionally ignore
(deprecate?) the lessons available through internalization of others'
misfortunes are doing themselves and future prospects for general aviation a
disservice.

Respectfully,
Bob W. (USM)

JP Stewart

February 8th 12, 03:46 AM

Interesting article relevant to this discussion:
http://www.airfactsjournal.com/2012/02/are-we-our-brothers-keeper/
and a separate video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gWEi_TNKoI&feature=share

JP

Jim Wallis

February 8th 12, 05:10 AM

Hi Evan: I posted to this on a different thread, same topic: The landing
site is about 3.5 miles from TVL at approximately the same altitude.
Kingsbury Grade, the passage through the ridge, is roughly three miles
farther away (and around the mountain) at something like 1300' above field
elevation - and that is being generous.

So the relevant question is: a nearly seven mile flight on a bit over 1000'
of altitude with a lot of trees on the way.

At 13:49 07 February 2012, T8 wrote:
>On Feb 6, 3:29=A0pm, Bruno wrote:
>> "Outraged..." =A0 As if the pilots wanted to land there. Nice job
>> landing in a tough spot. =A0I am just glad that none of the farmers in
>> any of the fields I have landed in have been, "outraged!"
>>
>> Bruno - B4
>
>Bruno -- Take a look at a chart. Then see if you still think this was
>a "Nice job."
>
>This link should do it http://runwayfinder.com/?loc=3DTVL
>
>The top of the ski area in question is at 2:00, about 6 miles from TVL
>and a few thousand feet higher. The landing site (the bottom of the
>ski area) is quite close to TVL. The news article mentions a golf
>course being rejected due to trees. Look where the ski area parking
>lot, the golf course and TVL are on the satellite view.
>
>-Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>

BruceGreeff

February 8th 12, 06:52 AM

Anyone considered that the Duo might have met a localised down draft?

I gather the pilot was too low for comfort, but experience in a given
area causes many to continually shave margin.

So it is a local flight, well known area, little wind. A perfect setup
for being close in on the mountain without big risk. My tiny brain
concludes that the only problem with this scenario is that one little
bit of rapidly descending air and you are on the ground.

So here is an hypothesis.

In still wind conditions the air on the surface does not get mixed, so
it is in contact with the nice cold snow and gets colder and heavier. At
some point a mass of air starts moving downhill - possibly triggered by
some skiers.

Think of it as a reverse thermal.
The air will tend to stay very close to the ground, but will entrain
other air. The reports put the Duo very close to the ground.

Assume vertical air speed of 500 feet per minute down, if you only have
200 feet gives you seconds to make up your mind - while the situation
deteriorates rapidly. Even if you have the height and energy to get away
from the immediate terrain, it can put you too low to get over passes,
and reach the safer places to land.

Possibly in these circumstances one will make apparently
incomprehensible decisions.

Bruce (just wondering)

Walt Connelly

February 8th 12, 12:43 PM

The article says this was a flight review. A BFR I presume? Therefore the backseat would be a CGI-G.....An experienced front seater and a CFI-G and things still happen such as this. Makes a relatively inexperience type such as much self think twice. Accidents happen, glad no one was hurt but a couple of the comments in the articles indicate a willingness on the part of some to restrict gliding even more in such areas. Something we don't need right now.

Walt

February 8th 12, 01:01 PM

Jim,

You're suggesting that they tried to make the KG, failed, plan B was
TVL and that also failed?

That at least makes a modicum of logical sense out of this.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Feb 8, 12:10*am, Jim Wallis
> wrote:
> Hi Evan: *I posted to this on a different thread, same topic: *The landing
> site is about 3.5 miles from TVL at approximately the same altitude.
> Kingsbury Grade, the passage through the ridge, is roughly three miles
> farther away (and around the mountain) at something like 1300' above field
> elevation - and that is being generous.
>
> So the relevant question is: a nearly seven mile flight on a bit over 1000'
> of altitude with a lot of trees on the way.
>
> At 13:49 07 February 2012, T8 wrote:
> >
> >On Feb 6, 3:29=A0pm, Bruno *wrote:
> >> "Outraged..." =A0 As if the pilots wanted to land there. Nice job
> >> landing in a tough spot. =A0I am just glad that none of the farmers in
> >> any of the fields I have landed in have been, "outraged!"
>
> >> Bruno - B4
>
> >Bruno -- Take a look at a chart. *Then see if you still think this was
> >a "Nice job."
>
> >This link should do ithttp://runwayfinder.com/?loc=3DTVL
>
> >The top of the ski area in question is at 2:00, about 6 miles from TVL
> >and a few thousand feet higher. *The landing site (the bottom of the
> >ski area) is quite close to TVL. *The news article mentions a golf
> >course being rejected due to trees. *Look where the ski area parking
> >lot, the golf course and TVL are on the satellite view.
>
> >-Evan Ludeman / T8

guy

February 8th 12, 02:36 PM

The more troubling aspect of this event to me are the reports of
several people that "a glider" had been flying very low relative to
the chair lifts for several days before this event. Flying close to
terrain is part of the soaring experience but we must remember that
doing so in the proximity of people is not good for the sport, nor for
the pilots, nor for the people beneath the glider.

Guy

Don Johnstone[_4_]

February 8th 12, 08:57 PM

At 14:36 08 February 2012, guy wrote:
>The more troubling aspect of this event to me are the reports of
>several people that "a glider" had been flying very low relative to
>the chair lifts for several days before this event. Flying close to
>terrain is part of the soaring experience but we must remember that
>doing so in the proximity of people is not good for the sport, nor for
>the pilots, nor for the people beneath the glider.
>
>Guy

How things differ. If we had to avoid flying close to people when ridge
flying in the UK we would not do any at all. Virtually all the hills worth
soaring have people walking along them and gliders very close to them, most
of the walkers wave and seem to enjoy the experience.
The two largest top of the hill sites in the UK have public footpaths along
the ridge line between the airfield and the ridge.

February 8th 12, 09:11 PM

On Feb 8, 3:57*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> At 14:36 08 February 2012, guy wrote:
>
> >The more troubling aspect of this event to me are the reports of
> >several people that "a glider" had been flying very low relative to
> >the chair lifts for several days before this event. *Flying close to
> >terrain is part of the soaring experience but we must remember that
> >doing so in the proximity of people is not good for the sport, nor for
> >the pilots, nor for the people beneath the glider.
>
> >Guy
>
> How things differ. If we had to avoid flying close to people when ridge
> flying in the UK we would not do any at all. Virtually all the hills worth
> soaring have people walking along them and gliders very close to them, most
> of the walkers wave and seem to enjoy the experience.
> The two largest top of the hill sites in the UK have public footpaths along
> the ridge line between the airfield and the ridge.

It's the same in the US, of course (common race separated only
language, etc.). We do seem to have a few news reporters willing to
search for a willing dupe to regurgitate the "quotes" they seek or,
failing that, just make the quotes up out of whole cloth. I've taken
the time to dig around on the bulletin boards used by hikers in the
mountains where I fly to see if gliders get mentioned. We do... and
it's all positive.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Darryl Ramm

February 8th 12, 09:26 PM

We will see people hiking on peaks/trails while ridge soaring etc. in the USA, obviously population density is often less than in parts of the UK. However at a ski resort like Heavenly there are potentially thousands of people on the slopes and multiple obstructions including chair lift, gondola and power lines.

AFAIK there are no details of the claimed low flights that occurred days before, except the complaints from the public that were posted as a comment on some news reports. And everybody's idea of what "low" or "close" may vary.. However I agree with Guy. It would be irresponsible for any pilot to push the boundaries of "closeness" over such a populated and potentially hazardous region such as Heavenly Ski resort. Now whether that has really been happening in the past, or was a factor on this flight, and how close etc. I don't think we really know.

I have flown that area several times, including ridge soaring further away from the resort, and only in late spring/summer months. As both a Tahoe area skier and a glider pilot (who really does not get to fly this area anymore) I am very dissapointed at the apparent poor judgement that led to landing on this typically busy beginners ski-run, thankful nobody on the ground was injured or killed. I am dismayed why either KTVL airport or the local golf course were not used instead.

Darryl

JohnDeRosa

February 8th 12, 09:45 PM

We might have to distinguish between;

- Ridge soaring and getting close to the terrain and close to
people.

and...

- Landing on a ski slope and getting close to people.

I try to put myself in other people's shoes to get their point of
view. While I know that this "Crash" (the reporter's words) was
really a landout and under control, I can understand the concern of
the uninitiated especially in a crowded sking environment. Watching a
glider moving in a straight line along a ridge doing something
obviously intentional, is quite a bit different than watching a glider
landing in a place that no one on the ground expected.

However, I don't believe that the ski resort owner is going to get
anywhere demanding that the gliders are banned from ridge soaring his
mountain...he doesn't own the air rights...as long as the pilots are
following the FAA rules of the game.

I can't comment if the pilot could have made it to another field or
should have "put it into the trees". I wasn't there.

- John

akiley

February 8th 12, 10:04 PM

On Feb 7, 12:25*am, Marc > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:31*pm, matt michael > wrote:
>
> > Another interesting question is to look at the elevation of the
> > landing site relative to elevation/distance to South Tahoe airport.
>
> Having done much flying in and around the mountains on that side of
> Lake Tahoe, I can tell you that just because a particular airport may
> be within straight line gliding distance doesn't mean you can get
> there. *If you're low (for whatever stupid reason) and in the
> mountains, you're left with trying to sneak through low points in the
> ridge to get to the lower ground. *You may get through one pass, only
> to discover that there is yet another ridge on the other side which
> you can't quite clear. *If you're well and truly screwed, you turn
> around only to find that you no longer have enough altitude to clear
> the pass you just came through. *I haven't messed up quite that badly,
> but I did have to make it out of that sort of trap once by dodging
> trees. *One tends to get religion after an incident like that, and
> allow (a lot) more margin...
>
> Marc
I've been flying gliders 3 years, I'd like to learn something from
this. *But we really don't know the details. *Did the winds switch
from the forecast heading and increase in velocity? * Was the pilot
assuming ridge lift on that side, but instead he immediately ran into
1000fpm sink? 2000fpm sink? instantly closing himself off from a 180
back over the ridge to Minden? *Was he then monitoring the required
altitude to make South Tahoe Airport, headed there and realized the
extreme sink wouldn't allow that option? *I'm sure there is the rare,
"surprise" weather situation that goes way beyond even the most safety
conscious pilot's personal minimums, especially in the mountains.
*Until I know the details, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

One problem we have with soaring is that if we set our personal safety
minimums too high, we never get anywhere. *Cross country attempts
become nearly impossible. *So we back them off based on our skill and
comfort level. *That exposes us to that "whatever percent" chance that
we get shot down. *Maybe this guy just ran into his "whatever percent"

On a side note, I just visited and rented from SoaringNV a month ago.
*I was checked out in this very glider, but by a different instructor.
*My takeaway is that SoaringNV seemed to have their act together.
*Very much safety oriented. *After I was soloing, my instructor never
stopped monitoring my actions, making comments and suggestions,
pointing out dangers. *All their gliders have glide computers,
transponders, radios, audio varios, oxygen, *plus they have PowerFlarm
on order for all their gliders and tow planes. *No affiliation, just
wanted to make the point. *I was impresses. * ... Aaron

February 8th 12, 10:11 PM

On hikers' views of gliders... here's one old exchange I ran across
and was able to dredge up again

http://www.viewsfromthetop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4473

As far as Heavenly goes... well, I can understand "outrage" over this
incident. It would have taken very little bad luck to make this a
really ugly national news story.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Liam

February 8th 12, 10:16 PM

> However, I don't believe that the ski resort owner is going to get
> anywhere demanding that the gliders are banned from ridge soaring his
> mountain...he doesn't own the air rights...as long as the pilots are
> following the FAA rules of the game.

Which they almost certainly weren't (500 ft rule). He just needs to
go up with a laser range finder and a video camera, he'll have enough
evidence to make trouble.

John Smith

February 8th 12, 10:44 PM

JohnDeRosa wrote:

> I can understand the concern of
> the uninitiated especially in a crowded sking environment.

I consider myself pretty much initiated, but I surely would be more than
concerned when seeing a glider unexpectedly landing in a crowded place,
be it a ski slope or a parking lot or whatever.

That said, I wasn't there either.

Jonathon May[_2_]

February 8th 12, 11:14 PM

At 22:44 08 February 2012, John Smith wrote:
>JohnDeRosa wrote:
>
>> I can understand the concern of
>> the uninitiated especially in a crowded sking environment.
>
>I consider myself pretty much initiated, but I surely would be more than
>concerned when seeing a glider unexpectedly landing in a crowded place,
>be it a ski slope or a parking lot or whatever.
>
>That said, I wasn't there either.
>
It's easy to criticise and I have never flown other than in the UK.But I do
fly a
ridge site and when the wave moved and the lift went from 3 knts up to 10
down,I landed an air experience pupil at the bottom.It was a very busy 40
seconds,yes seconds,that's about all the time you get,you pile on the
speed,because you are effectively land ing up hill and pick the biggest bit
you
can see.2000ft above the ridge to 700ft below,ina few seconds.Thats an
instructor using his superior skills to get himself out of the cockup his
overconfidence let him get into.But it easy to get complacent if it's your
4th
or 5th flight over the same geography that day.Damn good flying from what I

can see.

joesimmers

February 9th 12, 12:52 AM

I am surprised no one has asked this, did he pass his bfr?

I know from personal experience there are two better options for
bailout in this area, the golf course and the lake.

Landing against traffic on an active ski slope is not even an option.

Tim[_2_]

February 9th 12, 01:55 AM

On Feb 6, 12:25*pm, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> http://southtahoenow.com/story/02/05/2012/report-glider-crash-heavenl...
>
> I was just in this glider (absolutely gorgeous) last Wednesday. *Holy crap. *Epic Fail.

Was this Duo operated by SoarNV? Do we have any idea who the "hero"
pilot is?

Great job setting her down on a ski run. However, the risk to
bystanders and the risk to your commercial operation by operating very
low over a commercial ski resort, and then leaving you self no way out
but to land there, is unconscionable. Sure the exposure is terrific,
but at what cost?

Please note: I ran a commercial ride giving operation in Steamboat
Springs, CO for 4 years. My main goal when operating around the ski
area was to obey FAA regs and do no NOTHING to arouse the ire of Ski
Corp. or the skiing population on the mountain. Especially when
conducting this type of operation, my safety margins were always VERY
fat, PLUS I had an engine.

Sure it sounds like the lift died, but while conducting relatively low
flight operations over a ski area, I would have nearly immediately
bailed to the airport and then tried to save myself once I was clear
of the ski area.

Just my 2cents. But we certainly do not EVER need the headline "Glider
Claims Multiple Victims on Ski Mtn" ...

Tim McAllister EY

Darryl Ramm

February 9th 12, 02:41 AM

On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:14:09 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:

> Damn good flying from what I can see.

Damn irresponsible from what I can see. Sorry, but I get really frustrated with complimenting this behavior at all. Yes the stick skills to execute the landing may have been impressive (and likely that's what was meant in the comment), but the likely poor judgement and risk exposure to people on the ground are severe. Several possible better things might have been possible earlier, but there is a Golf course 2 - 2.5 km away fairly straight downhill (500' lower elevation) from the landing location. Effectively zero chance of hitting anybody on the snow covered abandoned golf course. I just cannot fathom putting a glider on that ski-run with that golf course so close. Of course it would have been been better to go earlier to KTVL airport nearby.

Fairly benign weather conditions were likely, no bursts or sudden downdrafts likely. Quite possible that the forecast and actual wind reports from nearby peaks indicating a reverse to typical wind direction with the glider now flying more the lee side of the mountain may have been a factor. But they should have had a lot of time after crossing the ridge into the South Lake Tahoe bowl area to work out that was going on.

Of course there are always dangers of making uniformed comments, and second guessing any situation, and yes I am doing that, but the action of landing this glider and putting people on the ground at such high risk just claws at me, especially when there appears to have been useful safer (for third parties) alternatives.

If you are not familiar with this area, go have a virtual look, you can fly around in the Google Earth's flight simulator and the default Minden demo terrain for SilentWings covers this area, and I assume the same for Condor. Try running different scenarios in your mind and think what you might do.

I am assuming the landing location was on "First Run" at Heavenly near the main lodge building around about 38°55'59.77"N 119°56'27.08"W

The Golf course is at 38°56'21.61"N 119°57'58.76"W

The North end of runway 18 @ KTVL is at 38°54'14.98"N 119°59'32.12"W

As other commentators have noted it is very unfortunate to see a Soaring NV glider involved in this. Their operation really is impressive, people there care deeply about promoting soaring, they have a great well equipped modern glider fleet and saftey is something they seem to care deeply about (e.g.. being a hard advocate for use of transponders in the busy airspace of the Reno area and many other things).

Maybe we'll find out more what happened and we'll be able to make more informed comments but if nothing else I hope at least thinking about this helps folks in future choices between different land-out options where there could be very high risks to people on the ground.

Darryl

Morgan[_2_]

February 9th 12, 05:21 AM

I hope that we get a "Never Again" type of story out of this from
Jeffrey or the pilot under review. For those not familiar, AOPA does
articles on bad experiences that turned out OK in the end so that
others might learn from them. This seems like a good event for that
kind of public debrief that we could all learn from.

We've had a couple of really good examples of this kind of honest
debrief and assessment in the PASCO community in the last year and I
think it goes a long way towards improving safety when we share how we
screwed up so that others might learn.

Only two people know the circumstances of that flight and landing. So
far they haven't spoken up and the speculation is all that we have to
go off of and the assumptions of how bad it could have been or what
might have lead to being on the wrong side of the mountain.

I hope that they are able to find the courage to describe the
situation. Not defend it, just describe it. Unfortunately with all
of the attacks, I suspect that will be a hard thing to come forward
with.

As a side note. FARs require staying 500ft away from people in
sparsely populated area's which I'd say the mountains probably
qualify. I can see some of the "complaints" in the comments as being
directed at gliders that may very well have been at least 500ft away,
but it's all about perception and that's hard to control.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/78096E016AFA36F8852566CF006150B1?OpenDocument

Morgan

On Feb 8, 6:41*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:14:09 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> > Damn good flying from what I can see.
>
> Damn irresponsible from what I can see. Sorry, but I get really frustrated with complimenting this behavior at all. Yes the stick skills to execute the landing may have been impressive (and likely that's what was meant in the comment), but the likely poor judgement and risk exposure to people on the ground are severe. Several possible better things might have been possible earlier, but there is a Golf course 2 - 2.5 km away fairly straight downhill (500' lower elevation) from the landing location. Effectively zero chance of hitting anybody on the snow covered abandoned golf course. I just cannot fathom putting a glider on that ski-run with that golf course so close.. Of course it would have been been better to go earlier to KTVL airport nearby.
>
> Fairly benign weather conditions were likely, no bursts or sudden downdrafts likely. Quite possible that the forecast and actual wind reports from nearby peaks indicating a reverse to typical wind direction with the glider now flying more the lee side of the mountain may have been a factor. But they should have had a lot of time after crossing the ridge into the South Lake Tahoe bowl area to work out that was going on.
>
> Of course there are always dangers of making uniformed comments, and second guessing any situation, and yes I am doing that, but the action of landing this glider and putting people on the ground at such high risk just claws at me, especially when there appears to have been useful safer (for third parties) alternatives.
>
> If you are not familiar with this area, go have a virtual look, you can fly around in the Google Earth's flight simulator and the default Minden demo terrain for SilentWings covers this area, and I assume the same for Condor. Try running different scenarios in your mind and think what you might do..
>
> I am assuming the landing location was on "First Run" at Heavenly near the main lodge building around about 38°55'59.77"N 119°56'27.08"W
>
> The Golf course is at 38°56'21.61"N 119°57'58.76"W
>
> The North end of runway 18 @ KTVL is at 38°54'14.98"N 119°59'32.12"W
>
> As other commentators have noted it is very unfortunate to see a Soaring NV glider involved in this. Their operation really is impressive, people there care deeply about promoting soaring, they have a great well equipped modern glider fleet and saftey is something they seem to care deeply about (e..g. being a hard advocate for use of transponders in the busy airspace of the Reno area and many other things).
>
> Maybe we'll find out more what happened and we'll be able to make more informed comments but if nothing else I hope at least thinking about this helps folks in future choices between different land-out options where there could be very high risks to people on the ground.
>
> Darryl

Jonathon May[_2_]

February 9th 12, 08:31 AM

I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.

At 05:21 09 February 2012, Morgan wrote:
>I hope that we get a "Never Again" type of story out of this from
>Jeffrey or the pilot under review. For those not familiar, AOPA does
>articles on bad experiences that turned out OK in the end so that
>others might learn from them. This seems like a good event for that
>kind of public debrief that we could all learn from.
>
>We've had a couple of really good examples of this kind of honest
>debrief and assessment in the PASCO community in the last year and I
>think it goes a long way towards improving safety when we share how we
>screwed up so that others might learn.
>
>Only two people know the circumstances of that flight and landing. So
>far they haven't spoken up and the speculation is all that we have to
>go off of and the assumptions of how bad it could have been or what
>might have lead to being on the wrong side of the mountain.
>
>I hope that they are able to find the courage to describe the
>situation. Not defend it, just describe it. Unfortunately with all
>of the attacks, I suspect that will be a hard thing to come forward
>with.
>
>As a side note. FARs require staying 500ft away from people in
>sparsely populated area's which I'd say the mountains probably
>qualify. I can see some of the "complaints" in the comments as being
>directed at gliders that may very well have been at least 500ft away,
>but it's all about perception and that's hard to control.
>
>http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/78096E016AFA=
>36F8852566CF006150B1?OpenDocument
>
>Morgan
>
>On Feb 8, 6:41=A0pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:14:09 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
>> > Damn good flying from what I can see.
>>
>> Damn irresponsible from what I can see. Sorry, but I get really
>frustrate=
>d with complimenting this behavior at all. Yes the stick skills to
execute
>=
>the landing may have been impressive (and likely that's what was meant in
>t=
>he comment), but the likely poor judgement and risk exposure to people on
>t=
>he ground are severe. Several possible better things might have been
>possib=
>le earlier, but there is a Golf course 2 - 2.5 km away fairly straight
>down=
>hill (500' lower elevation) from the landing location. Effectively zero
>cha=
>nce of hitting anybody on the snow covered abandoned golf course. I just
>ca=
>nnot fathom putting a glider on that ski-run with that golf course so
>close=
>.. Of course it would have been been better to go earlier to KTVL airport
>ne=
>arby.
>>
>> Fairly benign weather conditions were likely, no bursts or sudden
>downdra=
>fts likely. Quite possible that the forecast and actual wind reports from
>n=
>earby peaks indicating a reverse to typical wind direction with the
glider
>=
>now flying more the lee side of the mountain may have been a factor. But
>th=
>ey should have had a lot of time after crossing the ridge into the South
>La=
>ke Tahoe bowl area to work out that was going on.
>>
>> Of course there are always dangers of making uniformed comments, and
>seco=
>nd guessing any situation, and yes I am doing that, but the action of
>landi=
>ng this glider and putting people on the ground at such high risk just
>claw=
>s at me, especially when there appears to have been useful safer (for
>third=
> parties) alternatives.
>>
>> If you are not familiar with this area, go have a virtual look, you can
>f=
>ly around in the Google Earth's flight simulator and the default Minden
>dem=
>o terrain for SilentWings covers this area, and I assume the same for
>Condo=
>r. Try running different scenarios in your mind and think what you might
>do=
>..
>>
>> I am assuming the landing location was on "First Run" at Heavenly near
>th=
>e main lodge building around about 38=B055'59.77"N 119=B056'27.08"W
>>
>> The Golf course is at 38=B056'21.61"N 119=B057'58.76"W
>>
>> The North end of runway 18 @ KTVL is at 38=B054'14.98"N
119=B059'32.12"W
>>
>> As other commentators have noted it is very unfortunate to see a
Soaring
>=
>NV glider involved in this. Their operation really is impressive, people
>th=
>ere care deeply about promoting soaring, they have a great well equipped
>mo=
>dern glider fleet and saftey is something they seem to care deeply about
>(e=
>..g. being a hard advocate for use of transponders in the busy airspace
of
>t=
>he Reno area and many other things).
>>
>> Maybe we'll find out more what happened and we'll be able to make more
>in=
>formed comments but if nothing else I hope at least thinking about this
>hel=
>ps folks in future choices between different land-out options where there
>c=
>ould be very high risks to people on the ground.
>>
>> Darryl
>
>

RWW[_2_]

February 9th 12, 01:40 PM

Jonathon May > wrote:
> I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my cfi's
> instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a possition
> that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
> think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.
>
>

Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
--
RWW

Jim Wallis

February 9th 12, 05:25 PM

Precisely. That was the exact situation.

At 13:01 08 February 2012, T8 wrote:
>Jim,
>
>You're suggesting that they tried to make the KG, failed, plan B was
>TVL and that also failed?
>
>That at least makes a modicum of logical sense out of this.
>
>-Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
>On Feb 8, 12:10=A0am, Jim Wallis
> wrote:
>> Hi Evan: =A0I posted to this on a different thread, same topic: =A0The
>la=
>nding
>> site is about 3.5 miles from TVL at approximately the same altitude.
>> Kingsbury Grade, the passage through the ridge, is roughly three miles
>> farther away (and around the mountain) at something like 1300' above
>fiel=
>d
>> elevation - and that is being generous.
>>
>> So the relevant question is: a nearly seven mile flight on a bit over
>100=
>0'
>> of altitude with a lot of trees on the way.
>>

Jim Wallis

February 9th 12, 06:33 PM

Guys:

I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
training during the flight phase of the review.

I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
immediately stated there would be litigation. I was standing near the
Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
money out of this. It was very ugly.

As to what precisely happened: I will be delighted to do a complete
debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
(tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)

Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.

There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. We were on
the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
been as little as 30 seconds. I believe that the approach was made without
spoilers deployed.

- Jim

At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:
>Jonathon May wrote:
>> I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
>cfi's
>> instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
>possition
>> that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
>> think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.
>>
>>
>
>
>Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
>lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
>--
>RWW
>

Morgan[_2_]

February 9th 12, 07:09 PM

Thanks for coming forward Jim and offering to share your story at the
appropriate time and place.

I hope that Heavenly has nothing more than trespassing to really
complain about from a legal stance since you guys didn't have lift
tickets and were on the slopes.

On Feb 9, 10:33*am, Jim Wallis
> wrote:
> Guys:
>
> I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
> training during the flight phase of the review.
>
> I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
> immediately stated there would be litigation. *I was standing near the
> Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
> money out of this. *It was very ugly.
>
> As to what precisely happened: *I will be delighted to do a complete
> debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
> will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
> (tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)
>
> Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
> Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.
>
> There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
> room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. *We were on
> the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
> did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
> been as little as 30 seconds. *I believe that the approach was made without
> spoilers deployed.
>
> - Jim
>
> At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Jonathon May *wrote:
> >> I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
> >cfi's
> >> instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
> >possition
> >> that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
> >> think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.
>
> >Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
> >lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
> >--
> >RWW

glider12321

February 9th 12, 10:23 PM

I believe that most ski areas in the western US are on public land /
National Forest property and as such they only lease the rights to
operate the skiing area and can only charge money to use the ski
lift. They cannot regulate access to the property since it is public
land. You can walk on ski area property any time you want, so you
should be able to land there in an emergency. I don't know about
Heavenly, but this is my understanding.

On Feb 9, 12:09*pm, Morgan > wrote:
> Thanks for coming forward Jim and offering to share your story at the
> appropriate time and place.
>
> I hope that Heavenly has nothing more than trespassing to really
> complain about from a legal stance since you guys didn't have lift
> tickets and were on the slopes.
>
> On Feb 9, 10:33*am, Jim Wallis
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Guys:
>
> > I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
> > training during the flight phase of the review.
>
> > I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
> > immediately stated there would be litigation. *I was standing near the
> > Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
> > money out of this. *It was very ugly.
>
> > As to what precisely happened: *I will be delighted to do a complete
> > debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
> > will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
> > (tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)
>
> > Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
> > Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.
>
> > There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
> > room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. *We were on
> > the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
> > did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
> > been as little as 30 seconds. *I believe that the approach was made without
> > spoilers deployed.
>
> > - Jim
>
> > At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:
>
> > >Jonathon May *wrote:
> > >> I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
> > >cfi's
> > >> instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
> > >possition
> > >> that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
> > >> think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.
>
> > >Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
> > >lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
> > >--
> > >RWW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ramy

February 9th 12, 10:47 PM

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, glider12321 > wrote:
> I believe that most ski areas in the western US are on public land /
> National Forest property and as such they only lease the rights to
> operate the skiing area *and can only charge money to use the ski
> lift. They cannot regulate access to the property since it is public
> land. You can walk on ski area property any time you want, so you
> should be able to land there in an emergency. I don't know about
> Heavenly, but this is my understanding.
>
> On Feb 9, 12:09*pm, Morgan > wrote:
>
> > Thanks for coming forward Jim and offering to share your story at the
> > appropriate time and place.
>
> > I hope that Heavenly has nothing more than trespassing to really
> > complain about from a legal stance since you guys didn't have lift
> > tickets and were on the slopes.
>
> > On Feb 9, 10:33*am, Jim Wallis
>
> > > wrote:
> > > Guys:
>
> > > I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
> > > training during the flight phase of the review.
>
> > > I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
> > > immediately stated there would be litigation. *I was standing near the
> > > Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
> > > money out of this. *It was very ugly.
>
> > > As to what precisely happened: *I will be delighted to do a complete
> > > debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
> > > will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
> > > (tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)
>
> > > Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
> > > Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.
>
> > > There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
> > > room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. *We were on
> > > the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
> > > did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
> > > been as little as 30 seconds. *I believe that the approach was made without
> > > spoilers deployed.
>
> > > - Jim
>
> > > At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:
>
> > > >Jonathon May *wrote:
> > > >> I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
> > > >cfi's
> > > >> instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
> > > >possition
> > > >> that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
> > > >> think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.
>
> > > >Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
> > > >lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
> > > >--
> > > >RWW- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Thanks Jim for sharing with us.
The more I learn and think about this incident, the more I am
convinced that the bad decision was done earlier which resulted in
not being able to clear Kingsbury Grade back to Minden. I would not
criticize the landing, as they tried to make it to South Lake Tahoe
airport, couldn't make it, and had only 2 choices left, the trees or
an empty slope. Given those 2 choices they made the right decision. If
the situation during landing would have changed, I am sure they would
have gone to the trees.

Ramy

matt michael

February 10th 12, 04:24 AM

I'm really glad that we are now hearing from one of the pilots and
especially happy to hear that he is considering a thorough analysis
and report at some point. I believe that we are at a critical
juncture in soaring today in terms of accounting for our shortcomings
and changing our culture to embody a higher standard of airmanship.
There was a lot of public discussion at the convention about this and
maybe even more in private. There are a couple of key points that this
"incident" could provide critical impetus and insight on.

First, unlike the airlines, the military, and other professional
aviation organizations, we in soaring do not HAVE to participate in
all the latest and greatest accident prevention, recurrent training,
preparation, performance, analysis, and reporting that have proven to
actually make a significant dent in overall safety. Just look at the
rates the Air Force and especially the Academy glider program can
boast about. We in general aviation soaring look like a bunch of
idiots in comparison. Agricultural aviation killed fewer people last
year in the US. That's embarrassing let alone tragic! But still,
there is a significant fraction of glider pilots and organizations who
resist the call to higher standards. They may be a minority but their
influence is huge. The FARs, the PTS, and "the way we've always done
it" is almost too much for them to adhere to. Since we don't HAVE to
do more, many don't and wont. That is, until we change the culture of
soaring to make it totally unacceptable not to, to make it COOL to be
as professional and safety conscious as the military or airlines.
Jim's offer of reporting on his experience is a very COOL thing to do,
especially in light of all the hubbub surrounding it. At the
convention I learned about a pilot in UT who had a serious injury
accident a few years ago and is now going around giving presentations
about it. I participated in discussions about helping him get his
presentations out via the web and in person to pilots and clubs all
across the US. I hope that the same can happen with this current
incident and that the PIC will also take part.

Presentations like this can change the culture of airmanship in
soaring but they can also provide vital information about the types of
errors and the nature of misjudgments that can lead to accidents.
Much of that detail is lacking when the final word is "pilot error" or
the participants are dead, or too embarrassed to talk. Further, there
are far more unreported "incidents" that are never brought to light
because they aren't required to be. The participants in any
unreportable incidents have an opportunity to contribute crucial
information about how things go wrong, and how to correct them before
airplanes and people get broken.

This landing on Heavenly bunny hill could fade into history as a hairy
but successful landout. (If I'd have been the PIC I'll admit I might
want it to). Or, due to it's happening at a crucial time and place in
US soaring culture it can become a shining example of professional
airmanship analysis that can lead the changes in our culture we so
desperately need.

Matt Michael
CFIG

Dan Marotta

February 10th 12, 02:34 PM

But... We are *not* professionals. Some of us, myself included, are or
have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
safety programs which you mention. All of these programs have a positive
impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. You don't
play, we don't pay.

I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. I suspect the
majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.

For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
I ride my motorcycle. It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
SAFETY! I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
required, but because it improves my safety.

Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. We can
operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. Our CFIGs can
arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
required by the FAA to maintain their certification. Those who want to fly
because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...

"matt michael" > wrote in message
...
> I'm really glad that we are now hearing from one of the pilots and
> especially happy to hear that he is considering a thorough analysis
> and report at some point. I believe that we are at a critical
> juncture in soaring today in terms of accounting for our shortcomings
> and changing our culture to embody a higher standard of airmanship.
> There was a lot of public discussion at the convention about this and
> maybe even more in private. There are a couple of key points that this
> "incident" could provide critical impetus and insight on.
>
> First, unlike the airlines, the military, and other professional
> aviation organizations, we in soaring do not HAVE to participate in
> all the latest and greatest accident prevention, recurrent training,
> preparation, performance, analysis, and reporting that have proven to
> actually make a significant dent in overall safety. Just look at the
> rates the Air Force and especially the Academy glider program can
> boast about. We in general aviation soaring look like a bunch of
> idiots in comparison. Agricultural aviation killed fewer people last
> year in the US. That's embarrassing let alone tragic! But still,
> there is a significant fraction of glider pilots and organizations who
> resist the call to higher standards. They may be a minority but their
> influence is huge. The FARs, the PTS, and "the way we've always done
> it" is almost too much for them to adhere to. Since we don't HAVE to
> do more, many don't and wont. That is, until we change the culture of
> soaring to make it totally unacceptable not to, to make it COOL to be
> as professional and safety conscious as the military or airlines.
> Jim's offer of reporting on his experience is a very COOL thing to do,
> especially in light of all the hubbub surrounding it. At the
> convention I learned about a pilot in UT who had a serious injury
> accident a few years ago and is now going around giving presentations
> about it. I participated in discussions about helping him get his
> presentations out via the web and in person to pilots and clubs all
> across the US. I hope that the same can happen with this current
> incident and that the PIC will also take part.
>
> Presentations like this can change the culture of airmanship in
> soaring but they can also provide vital information about the types of
> errors and the nature of misjudgments that can lead to accidents.
> Much of that detail is lacking when the final word is "pilot error" or
> the participants are dead, or too embarrassed to talk. Further, there
> are far more unreported "incidents" that are never brought to light
> because they aren't required to be. The participants in any
> unreportable incidents have an opportunity to contribute crucial
> information about how things go wrong, and how to correct them before
> airplanes and people get broken.
>
> This landing on Heavenly bunny hill could fade into history as a hairy
> but successful landout. (If I'd have been the PIC I'll admit I might
> want it to). Or, due to it's happening at a crucial time and place in
> US soaring culture it can become a shining example of professional
> airmanship analysis that can lead the changes in our culture we so
> desperately need.
>
> Matt Michael
> CFIG

matt michael

February 10th 12, 04:55 PM

You partially misunderstand me Dan. I'm not suggesting that we soar
because it's cool. I'm saying that we need to foster a culture that
makes it cool to be "professional" in our conduct as soaring pilots,
cool to be a team player in our approach to safety.

Obviously, you already approach airmanship in a professional way and
by example have a positive influence on the culture of safety. You are
already a part of the solution. It is true that the many pilots in
our sport operate safely and also true that they can do so without
formal safety programs. But you have to understand that not everyone
has the backround, training, and respect for airmanship that you do.
This is true of some CFIGs too! If good safe soaring pilots like
yourself go around saying "we don't need no stinking safety programs"
the pilots and would-be pilots that don't understand and respect
airmanship, the ones that really need recurrent training and ongoing
supervision wont sign up for it. They don't have to and if the expert
pilots they respect don't bother with it why should they? That's what
I mean about "cool". We have to make it cool to and participate in
safety related programs in soaring so that all soaring pilots will be
motivated to join the team.

Good airmanship starts with the individual and must be a personal
commitment but until we are all on the same team we don't have a
chance of reducing our accident rates. The ones to look out for are
the ones who refuse to join the team, regardless of their backround,
knowledge, and experience.

Matt Michael

On Feb 10, 8:34*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> But... *We are *not* professionals. *Some of us, myself included, are or
> have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
> safety programs which you mention. *All of these programs have a positive
> impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. *You don't
> play, we don't pay.
>
> I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
> also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. *I suspect the
> majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.
>
> For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
> I ride my motorcycle. *It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
> SAFETY! *I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
> required, but because it improves my safety.
>
> Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
> know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. *We can
> operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. *Our CFIGs can
> arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
> get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
> required by the FAA to maintain their certification. *Those who want to fly
> because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...

Bill D

February 10th 12, 08:07 PM

On Feb 10, 9:55*am, matt michael > wrote:
> You partially misunderstand me Dan. *I'm not suggesting that we soar
> because it's cool. *I'm saying that we need to foster a culture that
> makes it cool to be "professional" in our conduct as soaring pilots,
> cool to be a team player in our approach to safety.
>
> Obviously, you already approach airmanship in a professional way and
> by example have a positive influence on the culture of safety. You are
> already a part of the solution. *It is true that the many pilots in
> our sport operate safely and also true that they can do so without
> formal safety programs. *But you have to understand that not everyone
> has the backround, training, and respect for airmanship that you do.
> This is true of some CFIGs too! * If good safe soaring pilots like
> yourself go around saying "we don't need no stinking safety programs"
> the pilots and would-be pilots that don't understand and respect
> airmanship, the ones that really need recurrent training and ongoing
> supervision wont sign up for it. *They don't have to and if the expert
> pilots they respect don't bother with it why should they? *That's what
> I mean about "cool". *We have to make it cool to and participate in
> safety related programs in soaring so that all soaring pilots will be
> motivated to join the team.
>
> Good airmanship starts with the individual and must be a personal
> commitment but until we are all on the same team we don't have a
> chance of reducing our accident rates. The ones to look out for are
> the ones who refuse to join the team, regardless of their backround,
> knowledge, and experience.
>
> Matt Michael
>
> On Feb 10, 8:34*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > But... *We are *not* professionals. *Some of us, myself included, are or
> > have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
> > safety programs which you mention. *All of these programs have a positive
> > impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. *You don't
> > play, we don't pay.
>
> > I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
> > also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. *I suspect the
> > majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.
>
> > For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
> > I ride my motorcycle. *It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
> > SAFETY! *I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
> > required, but because it improves my safety.
>
> > Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
> > know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. *We can
> > operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. *Our CFIGs can
> > arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
> > get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
> > required by the FAA to maintain their certification. *Those who want to fly
> > because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...

Matt, thanks for both your posts - you nailed it.

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

February 10th 12, 08:23 PM

> I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
> training during the flight phase of the review.

Forgive me Jim, but I just got to ask, did you pass the BFR?
:>) JJ

[email protected]

February 11th 12, 12:07 AM

As a new student glider pilot, this thread holds a lot of interest to
me. When I first made the decision to start learning to fly, one of
the first tasks I undertook was looking into my life insurance
policy. Sure enough, my policy excluded aviation related activites
from payout. So, I went in search of new life insurance without
aviation exclusions.

I learned very quickly how dangerous the insurance industry believes
gliding is. Imagine the following paraphrased summary of my
conversation with multiple agents:
Me: Looking for new life insurance that does not exclude aviation
activites.
Agent: Oh wow, that's going to be expensive. Give me some details.
Me: Taking glider pilot lessons, want to be covered.
Agent: Gliders!!!!???!!! OH WOW! That is going to be *REALLY*
expensive since that is the highest risk aviation category.
Etc.

The point is, glider pilots have no one to blame but ourselves for the
very poor safety record we apparently have. And, as demonstrated by
the huge premiums I am now paying to be covered, the few bad apples
are definitely costing the reast of us dearly - both monetarily and in
reputation. I really appreciate those on this forum who are taking
safety seriously and hope that we all can reflect a bit and ask
ourselves if we're doing all we can to promote safety. If you can
answer yes then thank you! If you can't, then maybe Matt's comments
will strike a chord and provide the needed challenge to improve this
season.

Robert

On Feb 10, 10:55*am, matt michael > wrote:
> You partially misunderstand me Dan. *I'm not suggesting that we soar
> because it's cool. *I'm saying that we need to foster a culture that
> makes it cool to be "professional" in our conduct as soaring pilots,
> cool to be a team player in our approach to safety.
>
> Obviously, you already approach airmanship in a professional way and
> by example have a positive influence on the culture of safety. You are
> already a part of the solution. *It is true that the many pilots in
> our sport operate safely and also true that they can do so without
> formal safety programs. *But you have to understand that not everyone
> has the backround, training, and respect for airmanship that you do.
> This is true of some CFIGs too! * If good safe soaring pilots like
> yourself go around saying "we don't need no stinking safety programs"
> the pilots and would-be pilots that don't understand and respect
> airmanship, the ones that really need recurrent training and ongoing
> supervision wont sign up for it. *They don't have to and if the expert
> pilots they respect don't bother with it why should they? *That's what
> I mean about "cool". *We have to make it cool to and participate in
> safety related programs in soaring so that all soaring pilots will be
> motivated to join the team.
>
> Good airmanship starts with the individual and must be a personal
> commitment but until we are all on the same team we don't have a
> chance of reducing our accident rates. The ones to look out for are
> the ones who refuse to join the team, regardless of their backround,
> knowledge, and experience.
>
> Matt Michael
>
> On Feb 10, 8:34*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > But... *We are *not* professionals. *Some of us, myself included, are or
> > have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
> > safety programs which you mention. *All of these programs have a positive
> > impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. *You don't
> > play, we don't pay.
>
> > I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
> > also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. *I suspect the
> > majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.
>
> > For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
> > I ride my motorcycle. *It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
> > SAFETY! *I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
> > required, but because it improves my safety.
>
> > Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
> > know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. *We can
> > operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. *Our CFIGs can
> > arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
> > get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
> > required by the FAA to maintain their certification. *Those who want to fly
> > because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dan Marotta

February 11th 12, 01:12 AM

Matt,

You are absolutely correct - I misunderstood your position. What you said
below makes it perfectly clear.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Dan

"matt michael" > wrote in message
...
You partially misunderstand me Dan. I'm not suggesting that we soar
because it's cool. I'm saying that we need to foster a culture that
makes it cool to be "professional" in our conduct as soaring pilots,
cool to be a team player in our approach to safety.

Obviously, you already approach airmanship in a professional way and
by example have a positive influence on the culture of safety. You are
already a part of the solution. It is true that the many pilots in
our sport operate safely and also true that they can do so without
formal safety programs. But you have to understand that not everyone
has the backround, training, and respect for airmanship that you do.
This is true of some CFIGs too! If good safe soaring pilots like
yourself go around saying "we don't need no stinking safety programs"
the pilots and would-be pilots that don't understand and respect
airmanship, the ones that really need recurrent training and ongoing
supervision wont sign up for it. They don't have to and if the expert
pilots they respect don't bother with it why should they? That's what
I mean about "cool". We have to make it cool to and participate in
safety related programs in soaring so that all soaring pilots will be
motivated to join the team.

Good airmanship starts with the individual and must be a personal
commitment but until we are all on the same team we don't have a
chance of reducing our accident rates. The ones to look out for are
the ones who refuse to join the team, regardless of their backround,
knowledge, and experience.

Matt Michael

On Feb 10, 8:34 am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> But... We are *not* professionals. Some of us, myself included, are or
> have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
> safety programs which you mention. All of these programs have a positive
> impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. You don't
> play, we don't pay.
>
> I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since
> I
> also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. I suspect the
> majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.
>
> For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet
> when
> I ride my motorcycle. It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
> SAFETY! I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
> required, but because it improves my safety.
>
> Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
> know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. We can
> operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. Our CFIGs can
> arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they
> can
> get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
> required by the FAA to maintain their certification. Those who want to fly
> because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...

Jim Wallis

February 11th 12, 05:44 AM

Kudos to Matt Michael for moving the discussion on to the bigger picture.
I would add that I had just came from the SSA convention and, before that,
the PASCO safety seminar in November. Jeffrey was at the Convention, at
least, so I think it would be fair to say that both of us started the day
focused upon having a safe flight. Not only is Jeffrey a highly
experienced pilot, but there was nothing about the flight (a simple BFR)
that would tempt either of us into pushing the envelope.

I have been very intrigued with Richard Carlson's descriptions of the
"culture of safety" idea. Spent some time chatting with him about it at
the PASCO meeting and also attended the safety presentation at the SSA
convention. If it is possible to eventually use this incident as a
springboard to improving the safety of our sport then I fully support that.

To be honest, I'm not certain there is anything particularly special about
this landout - I've since heard of two others in this general vicinity
which have passed with little attention. On the other hand, nothing quite
captures your attention like landing on a ski slope - so perhaps that will
"sell" a little more safety to the soaring community.

- Jim

p.s. A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. I wouldn't
answer this if it weren't JJ asking :) because no matter what the answer,
I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
about fault or cause/effect. So I trust all of you to be professional and
appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
opportunity.

Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was
not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck
of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing!

Yeah. I passed.

p.p.s. And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy:
Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something -
that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. Shop it around some
more. There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost.

Incidentally, on Monday I heard the President of the trade association for
California ski resorts assert on the radio that skiing was "inherently
dangerous". This is true. While I was waiting on the slope to help with
the retrieve there were two separate life flight helicopter missions to
Heavenly for skiers who were seriously injured by skiing just in the course
of a couple of hours. Yet no one in the ski industry is calling for
additional safety training or safety precautions - to the contrary, the
reason for his interview was that he was RESISTING outside suggestions for
additional safety tools...

Flying is not inherently dangerous. The reason for the attention to safety
you are seeing in soaring now is precisely because we have so many people
who are absolutely willing to set aside personal interest and step up to
the plate when they see a problem.

Welcome to the sport. There is no other like it.

Robert S

February 11th 12, 06:57 AM

Yeah, I eventually ended up taking a policy with piclife. Its cost
was about twice the price of my original insurance policy. However,
traditional companies were all quoting around 8x my original policy
rate. Ouch.

Robert

On Feb 10, 11:44*pm, Jim Wallis
> wrote:
..
p.p.s. *And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance
policy:
Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something
-
that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. *Shop it around
some
more. *There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable
cost.

Welcome to the sport. *There is no other like it.

Ramy

February 11th 12, 08:54 AM

On Feb 10, 10:57*pm, Robert S > wrote:
> Yeah, I eventually ended up taking a policy with piclife. *Its cost
> was about twice the price of my original insurance policy. *However,
> traditional companies were all quoting around 8x my original policy
> rate. Ouch.
>
> Robert
>
> On Feb 10, 11:44*pm, Jim > wrote:
>
> .
> * p.p.s. *And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance
> policy:
> *Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something
> -
> *that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. *Shop it around
> some
> *more. *There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable
> cost.
>
> *Welcome to the sport. *There is no other like it.

Did you look at the insurace that AOPA is offering (AVEMCO)? Ended up
costing me less than the prior life insurance I had.

Ramy

Tom Gardner

February 11th 12, 10:30 AM

On Feb 11, 12:07*am, wrote:
> As a new student glider pilot, this thread holds a lot of interest to
> me. *When I first made the decision to start learning to fly, one of
> the first tasks I undertook was looking into my life insurance
> policy. *Sure enough, my policy excluded aviation related activites
> from payout. *So, I went in search of new life insurance without
> aviation exclusions.
>
> I learned very quickly how dangerous the insurance industry believes
> gliding is. *Imagine the following paraphrased summary of my
> conversation with multiple agents:
> Me: *Looking for new life insurance that does not exclude aviation
> activites.
> Agent: *Oh wow, that's going to be expensive. *Give me some details.
> Me: *Taking glider pilot lessons, want to be covered.
> Agent: *Gliders!!!!???!!! *OH WOW! *That is going to be *REALLY*
> expensive since that is the highest risk aviation category.
> Etc.

There are two points that may or may not be relevant.

Firstly many people think "gliding" is "hang gliding" or
"paragliding".
Sometimes it can be useful to explain what you're _not_ going to
be doing.

Secondly almost all insurers have their "target demographic", and
don't want to stray outside that. If you are outside that then they
quote outrageous premiums simply because the are not interested
in assessing the specific risks. In effect they are obliquely but
politely "cherry picking", and implying you should check another
insurer.

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

February 11th 12, 03:09 PM

> Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was
> not connected to the BFR. *That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck
> of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing!
>
> Yeah. *I passed.

I have always believed that Rule #1 is to put the ship down in the
best location available and deal with the consequences later. I have
landed at Reno International without radio contact with the tower and
about a year later I plunked it down on the ramp at Edwards AFB
without radio contact with the tower......(seems to be trend here)!
Then there was the landing at a Nevada Cat-House and a wheat field
that we managed to incinerate in west Texas!
My rule has served me well with no violations or legal action for
nearly 40 years now. Any landing where nobody got injured is a good
landing in my book!
Hang in there Jim,
JJ

Dan Marotta

February 11th 12, 05:51 PM

JJ,

Wasn't that Cat House story in Soaring Magazine? If not, it should be!

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...

> Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was
> not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck
> of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing!
>
> Yeah. I passed.

I have always believed that Rule #1 is to put the ship down in the
best location available and deal with the consequences later. I have
landed at Reno International without radio contact with the tower and
about a year later I plunked it down on the ramp at Edwards AFB
without radio contact with the tower......(seems to be trend here)!
Then there was the landing at a Nevada Cat-House and a wheat field
that we managed to incinerate in west Texas!
My rule has served me well with no violations or legal action for
nearly 40 years now. Any landing where nobody got injured is a good
landing in my book!
Hang in there Jim,
JJ

Marc

February 11th 12, 06:35 PM

On Feb 10, 9:44*pm, Jim Wallis
> wrote:
> p.s. *A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. *I wouldn't
> answer this if it weren't JJ asking *:) *because no matter what the answer,
> I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
> about fault or cause/effect. *So I trust all of you to be professional and
> appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
> a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
> nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
> opportunity.

On point (1) above, I would consider it a serious mistake to assume
that anyone, no matter what their perceived experience level, can be
depended upon not to allow you to "fly into a potentially dangerous
situation". Keep in mind, during a BFR you are the PIC, not a student.
If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. For all you know, it
may be part of what he's checking...

Marc

Bill D

February 11th 12, 07:59 PM

On Feb 11, 11:35*am, Marc > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 9:44*pm, Jim Wallis
>
> > wrote:
> > p.s. *A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. *I wouldn't
> > answer this if it weren't JJ asking *:) *because no matter what the answer,
> > I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
> > about fault or cause/effect. *So I trust all of you to be professional and
> > appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
> > a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
> > nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
> > opportunity.
>

> If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
> BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. *For all you know, it
> may be part of what he's checking...
>
> Marc

Yes indeed. It's a very common tactic to test judgement.

For example, a CFIG knows of a safe land out field (guess how) but
suspects you don't. "Lets go over there", he says expecting you to
decline. You go and, after some panic on your part, wind up in the
CFIG's field. Your BFR just got more expensive as you listen to a
lecture on glide planning and judgement while waiting for the
retrieve. It may not happen on a BFR but there's a likelihood it will
on a certificate checkride. Beware, CFIG's and DPE's can be downright
devious:)

The risk for the GFIG is a 10 kt thermal lurking near the field.
"Wow", says the BFR candidate. "You're good - how did you know it
would be here?." So much for the judgement lesson.

Jim Wallis[_2_]

February 12th 12, 01:02 AM

Exactly. I absolutely endorse what Marc is pointing out. I am sure we all
know there are some classic accidents involving two-pilot interactions in a
cockpit. I personally felt we had good cockpit communication during the
flight but I'm certainly looking forward to exploring this aspect further.

- Jim

>
>On point (1) above, I would consider it a serious mistake to assume
>that anyone, no matter what their perceived experience level, can be
>depended upon not to allow you to "fly into a potentially dangerous
>situation". Keep in mind, during a BFR you are the PIC, not a student.
>If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
>BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. For all you know, it
>may be part of what he's checking...
>
>Marc
>
>

Jim Wallis[_2_]

February 12th 12, 07:31 AM

I thought I had posted a reply to Marc's post, earlier, but for some reason
I don't see it. Of course, I completely agree with all of what you are
both saying.

- Jim

>
>> If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
>> BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. =A0For all you know, it
>> may be part of what he's checking...
>>
>> Marc
>
>Yes indeed. It's a very common tactic to test judgement.
>
>For example, a CFIG knows of a safe land out field (guess how) but
>suspects you don't. "Lets go over there", he says expecting you to
>decline. You go and, after some panic on your part, wind up in the
>CFIG's field. Your BFR just got more expensive as you listen to a
>lecture on glide planning and judgement while waiting for the
>retrieve. It may not happen on a BFR but there's a likelihood it will
>on a certificate checkride. Beware, CFIG's and DPE's can be downright
>devious:)
>
>The risk for the GFIG is a 10 kt thermal lurking near the field.
>"Wow", says the BFR candidate. "You're good - how did you know it
>would be here?." So much for the judgement lesson.
>

Jim Wallis

February 12th 12, 08:05 AM

I completely agree with both of you.

>>
>
>> If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
>> BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. =A0For all you know, it
>> may be part of what he's checking...
>>
>> Marc
>
>Yes indeed. It's a very common tactic to test judgement.
>
>For example, a CFIG knows of a safe land out field (guess how) but
>suspects you don't. "Lets go over there", he says expecting you to
>decline. You go and, after some panic on your part, wind up in the
>CFIG's field. Your BFR just got more expensive as you listen to a
>lecture on glide planning and judgement while waiting for the
>retrieve. It may not happen on a BFR but there's a likelihood it will
>on a certificate checkride. Beware, CFIG's and DPE's can be downright
>devious:)
>
>The risk for the GFIG is a 10 kt thermal lurking near the field.
>"Wow", says the BFR candidate. "You're good - how did you know it
>would be here?." So much for the judgement lesson.
>

Jim Wallis[_2_]

February 12th 12, 08:16 AM

Marc and Bill: I completely agree with both of you.

- Jim

BruceGreeff

February 12th 12, 04:53 PM

Clearly this is not universal but my (life) insurer is perfectly happy
with me flying gliders, instructing, and occasionally doing some
regional contests. 0% loading on premiums.

The broker claimed to have checked their actuarial tables which
apparently show it is (cheaper to the insurer) for you to be flying the
glider than working on it or some other project using power tools in the
back yard.

YMMV - Different cohorts, countries, companies and cultures.

FWIW. we (South Africa) appear to have a relatively low claim rate - the
last few years have seen a higher than average but still less than one
fatality per year. Sounds good until you figure there are only ~500
active pilots...

Oh - and we have a formal club structure, with a mandatory safety
officer per club and annual safety seminars. Nothing like an active peer
review system to keep things within bounds. Been running that way for
decades.

On 2012/02/11 7:44 AM, Jim Wallis wrote:
> Kudos to Matt Michael for moving the discussion on to the bigger picture.
> I would add that I had just came from the SSA convention and, before that,
> the PASCO safety seminar in November. Jeffrey was at the Convention, at
> least, so I think it would be fair to say that both of us started the day
> focused upon having a safe flight. Not only is Jeffrey a highly
> experienced pilot, but there was nothing about the flight (a simple BFR)
> that would tempt either of us into pushing the envelope.
>
> I have been very intrigued with Richard Carlson's descriptions of the
> "culture of safety" idea. Spent some time chatting with him about it at
> the PASCO meeting and also attended the safety presentation at the SSA
> convention. If it is possible to eventually use this incident as a
> springboard to improving the safety of our sport then I fully support that.
>
>
> To be honest, I'm not certain there is anything particularly special about
> this landout - I've since heard of two others in this general vicinity
> which have passed with little attention. On the other hand, nothing quite
> captures your attention like landing on a ski slope - so perhaps that will
> "sell" a little more safety to the soaring community.
>
> - Jim
>
> p.s. A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. I wouldn't
> answer this if it weren't JJ asking :) because no matter what the answer,
> I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
> about fault or cause/effect. So I trust all of you to be professional and
> appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
> a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
> nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
> opportunity.
>
> Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was
> not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck
> of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing!
>
> Yeah. I passed.
>
> p.p.s. And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy:
> Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something -
> that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. Shop it around some
> more. There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost.
>
>
> Incidentally, on Monday I heard the President of the trade association for
> California ski resorts assert on the radio that skiing was "inherently
> dangerous". This is true. While I was waiting on the slope to help with
> the retrieve there were two separate life flight helicopter missions to
> Heavenly for skiers who were seriously injured by skiing just in the course
> of a couple of hours. Yet no one in the ski industry is calling for
> additional safety training or safety precautions - to the contrary, the
> reason for his interview was that he was RESISTING outside suggestions for
> additional safety tools...
>
> Flying is not inherently dangerous. The reason for the attention to safety
> you are seeing in soaring now is precisely because we have so many people
> who are absolutely willing to set aside personal interest and step up to
> the plate when they see a problem.
>
> Welcome to the sport. There is no other like it.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57