How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[son_of_flubber]

(Title intended to add a bit of levity to serious post.)

Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?

A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that. I answered a few questions about my medical profile and age and it told me that statistically I have a 19% chance of dieing in the next ten years from natural causes or from an accident of any kind. Say a 1 in 5 chance. (Sucks of course.) The calculator does not properly weight the fact that I'm a glider pilot, so how do I adjust for that?

It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop.

An article about the mortality calculator. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/14/online-mortality-calculator-could-change-health-care-and-our-views-on-death.html

The calculator http://eprognosis.ucsf.edu/

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:55:05 AM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> (Title intended to add a bit of levity to serious post.)
>
>
>
> Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?
>
>
>
> A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that. I answered a few questions about my medical profile and age and it told me that statistically I have a 19% chance of dieing in the next ten years from natural causes or from an accident of any kind. Say a 1 in 5 chance. (Sucks of course..) The calculator does not properly weight the fact that I'm a glider pilot, so how do I adjust for that?
>
>
>
> It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop.
>
>
>
> An article about the mortality calculator. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/14/online-mortality-calculator-could-change-health-care-and-our-views-on-death.html
>
>
>
> The calculator http://eprognosis.ucsf.edu/

"Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational..."

You obviously haven't read the famous Gantenbrink article:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

Nobody decides to go out there and start "flying like an idiot" as you put it. Your thinking is flawed and dangerous in itself. When going to a contest or just to fly locally, I visualize myself driving in the opposite direction on the freeway, with my body and my glider intact and I vow to fly in a way to make that happen.
Herb

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 13/01/14 12:55, son_of_flubber wrote:
> (Title intended to add a bit of levity to serious post.)
>
> Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?
>
> A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that. I answered a few questions about my medical profile and age and it told me that statistically I have a 19% chance of dieing in the next ten years from natural causes or from an accident of any kind. Say a 1 in 5 chance. (Sucks of course.) The calculator does not properly weight the fact that I'm a glider pilot, so how do I adjust for that?
>
> It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop.
>
> An article about the mortality calculator. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/14/online-mortality-calculator-could-change-health-care-and-our-views-on-death.html
>
> The calculator http://eprognosis.ucsf.edu/

A good way of measuring mortality is in terms of "micromorts",
a 1 in a million chance of dying.

For example, each hang-glider trip has a risk of 8 micromorts.
Living in the UK has risk of around 40 micromorts/day including
natural causes, or 1 micromort/day without.

FFI, see
http://understandinguncertainty.org/microlives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:55:05 AM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?

> A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that. I answered a few questions about my medical profile and age and it told me that statistically I have a 19% chance of dieing in the next ten years from natural causes or from an accident of any kind. Say a 1 in 5 chance. (Sucks of course..) The calculator does not properly weight the fact that I'm a glider pilot, so how do I adjust for that?
>
> It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop.

> An article about the mortality calculator. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/14/online-mortality-calculator-could-change-health-care-and-our-views-on-death.html

Bah. Your risk is exactly 50%. Either you die, or you don't.

And as others will surely point out - gliding is dangerous, way more so than the proverbial "drive to the airport".

So you better worry about dying in a glider accident - dude, it happens! A lot! And as you get older, you become even more dangerous.

Not trying to be alarmist, but there it is. I've had many friends die in glider accidents, mostly (all?) self-inflicted. All old, experienced pilots. Nobody dies in car accidents any more!

I suggest you stop trying to justify your risk via statistical mumbo-jumbo and concentrate on learning what the actual threat is and training yourself to recognize and defeat it.

It's a lot more fun, anyway...

(by the way...do you have a real name or did your parents really hate you?)

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

So - who cares? We're all gonna die some day so why not just enjoy life
along the way?


"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 13, 2014 6:55:05 AM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?

> A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that. I answered a
> few questions about my medical profile and age and it told me that
> statistically I have a 19% chance of dieing in the next ten years from
> natural causes or from an accident of any kind. Say a 1 in 5 chance.
> (Sucks of course.) The calculator does not properly weight the fact that
> I'm a glider pilot, so how do I adjust for that?
>
> It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much
> better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of
> some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying
> about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the
> inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen,
> but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get
> older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop.

> An article about the mortality calculator.
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/14/online-mortality-calculator-could-change-health-care-and-our-views-on-death.html

Bah. Your risk is exactly 50%. Either you die, or you don't.

And as others will surely point out - gliding is dangerous, way more so than
the proverbial "drive to the airport".

So you better worry about dying in a glider accident - dude, it happens! A
lot! And as you get older, you become even more dangerous.

Not trying to be alarmist, but there it is. I've had many friends die in
glider accidents, mostly (all?) self-inflicted. All old, experienced pilots.
Nobody dies in car accidents any more!

I suggest you stop trying to justify your risk via statistical mumbo-jumbo
and concentrate on learning what the actual threat is and training yourself
to recognize and defeat it.

It's a lot more fun, anyway...

(by the way...do you have a real name or did your parents really hate you?)

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[BobW]

> (Title intended to add a bit of levity to serious post.)
>
> Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?
>
> A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that.

<Snip...>

> ...Worrying about a
> glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent
> dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is
> much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the odds
> of dying in a glider continue to drop.

Here's how *I* put soaring risk into perspective...more accurately, here's how
I put *any* activity's risk into a perspective that works for me, whether
using a sawzall, driving, washing dishes while standing on a skateboard or
whatever...

Risk assessment begins with recognizing risk exists (duh), then defining the
amount of risk (life threatening, limb threatening, get the crap beat out of
me threatening, legal, etc.).

My next step is deciding how I'm going to "inoculate myself" against the risk.
In broadest brush terms, my self-inoculation consists of two elements: 1)
skills education (e.g. flight training, practice, etc.); & 2) awareness
education (e.g. statistical assessment attempts, reading accident reports,
mental assessment, etc.).

One without the other is pretty hopeless...think (say) boxing with one hand
tied behind your back...or entering a gunfight with only a knife in hand.

Most of us have seen pilots who seem to think being a good/safe pilot is
almost entirely a matter of racking up documentable skills (ratings, etc.).
IMO, skills w/o tempering judgment is scary. Gaining mechanical skills before
or without also gaining a sense that those skills now provide new chances to
kill or injure yourself is equivalent to NOT being smart enough to know you're
dangerous. Think 3-year-old.

So skills without judgment is a non-starter IMO.

As for judgement w/o skills, think trying to teach welding solely on the basis
of book knowledge...perhaps theoretically possible, but definitely a much
tougher task than teaching it after also getting some hands-on practice.
Personally, I'd rather learn welding from an "ivory-tower book master" than a
partially ignorant self-taught dude with UV-induced cataracts and perpetual
sunburn, but that's just me...point being, that risk awareness and
amelioration matters (very much!) to me. That's another way of saying I
probably weight it as MORE important than "mere" skills.

Eventually my thought process evolved to: a) soaring contains sufficient
energy to kill me...every single time I engage in the activity, therefore; b)
it is NOT irrational for me to worry about having a glider accident (even if I
choose to ignore money and embarrassment as additional risk factors); c) most
every general aviation accident report I've read, most every airport incident
and accident I've seen, most every "Oh ****!" moment I've had as a pilot and
motor vehicle operator, have had operator stupidity (e.g. inattention to the
primary task at hand, improper assessment of my own
skills/risks/energies-operating when I step across the "in-control boundary,"
etc.) as a (often, THE) major contributor; and d) the human condition rules
out perfection as an option.

So what to do?

For a long time now (decades), my "self-inoculation" has been a serious
attempt to never - and I mean NEVER - have out of my mind that what I'm doing
as a pilot (or driver, or sawzall operator or whatever) can permanently,
"instantly," and easily fatally change my life for the seriously,
irremedially, worse. (I don't fear death, I simply don't wish it to happen
prematurely in a forestallable-via-education-and-skills sense...because life
is so much fun!) That ever-present awareness of my mortality and the
activity's risks I hope (and expect) will combine to greatly weight the odds
*toward* dying a natural, biological death rather than a physically traumatic,
self-inflicted one, because from the continual awareness should - I hope -
flow unremitting skills-based efforts to properly and safely deal with the
physical risks.

In soaring, lack of skills alone can kill. Inattention alone can kill. In
combination, I believe they're exponentially deadly. Ignorance can kill.
Margin-thinning greatly raises risks, or at least the statistically probable
effects of said risks in the event of something undesired entering the
picture. There are LOTS of life-threatening soaring risks, and a great many
more scenario-based ones all capable of ending my life. That's not intended to
be hand-wavingly dramatic; it's merely a factual statement.

FWIW, I think that attempting to gain solace or an actionable sense of
soaring's risks from " a purely statistically-based assessment" of risks is
some combination of: ostrichian, potentially self-defeating, blinkered,
misguided, wrong-headed thought, etc., etc. That said, the simple fact that a
person is even *considering* such things, is a Great Thing in my book! I
believe that ultimately, such self-directed interest is much more likely to
lead that individual toward "the promised land of self-inoculation" than NOT
considering such things would be. But statistics alone is - I believe - a
woefully limited measure and assessment of soaring risk. (Hence, the
popularity of the statement that one's chances of dying on the next soaring
flight is 50%? Bring that up in your next statistics class and see what the
instructor has to say about it as a statistical measure, dry chuckle.)

Ultimately, one unarguable statistical measure of one's success (or not) will
be future NTSB reports. In any event...

Rotsa ruck (and have obscene amounts of fun along the way)!!!

Bob W.

[Dan Marotta]

Bob, do you actually go through that thought process before *any* activity
as implied? Think "analysis paralysis". Or maybe I misread an attempt to
put a wealth of knowledge and experience which now boils down to "gut
feeling" into words (probably a more accurate assessment).

I have never, and I mean NEVER, approached an aircraft with the thought that
I might die during this flight. If I felt that way, I wouldn't even get in.
On the other hand, after 41 years of flying (about 24 in gliders), I have
come to recognize that there many things well within my skill set that I
just don't do. I don't think, "This might just kill me", though I know at
some subcouscious level that it can. Instead I simply think, "Why - how
will this improve my flight?" and then simply don't bother.

Two glaring examples: The other day at the conclusion of a flight, I
thought of doing a giant barrel roll simply for the joy of seeing the world
upside down. But I didn't. I've done countless rolls in jets, props, and
gliders, and I simply don't "need" to do them any more (not to mention the
fact that aerobatics are prohibited by my flight manual). A few minutes
later a look at my state vector showed that I had just the right position
and altitude to fly a low pass over the hangars, ramp, and runway. Same
thought... "Why?" I don't care about impressing anyone on the ground and I
really don't need the rush any more. I haven't done either of those
meneuvers in over 15 years. Maybe that's why I'm an old fart now. :)

BTW, have you ever seen the occupants of an aircraft immediately after the
crash? It's enough to make you give up stupid tricks.


"BobW" > wrote in message
...
>> (Title intended to add a bit of levity to serious post.)
>>
>> Soaring can kill you, but how do we put that risk into perspective?
>>
>> A statistics based Mortality Calculator helped me do that.
>
> <Snip...>
>
>> ...Worrying about a
>> glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent
>> dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is
>> much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the
>> odds
>> of dying in a glider continue to drop.
>
> Here's how *I* put soaring risk into perspective...more accurately, here's
> how I put *any* activity's risk into a perspective that works for me,
> whether using a sawzall, driving, washing dishes while standing on a
> skateboard or whatever...
>
> Risk assessment begins with recognizing risk exists (duh), then defining
> the amount of risk (life threatening, limb threatening, get the crap beat
> out of me threatening, legal, etc.).
>
> My next step is deciding how I'm going to "inoculate myself" against the
> risk. In broadest brush terms, my self-inoculation consists of two
> elements: 1) skills education (e.g. flight training, practice, etc.); & 2)
> awareness education (e.g. statistical assessment attempts, reading
> accident reports, mental assessment, etc.).
>
> One without the other is pretty hopeless...think (say) boxing with one
> hand tied behind your back...or entering a gunfight with only a knife in
> hand.
>
> Most of us have seen pilots who seem to think being a good/safe pilot is
> almost entirely a matter of racking up documentable skills (ratings,
> etc.). IMO, skills w/o tempering judgment is scary. Gaining mechanical
> skills before or without also gaining a sense that those skills now
> provide new chances to kill or injure yourself is equivalent to NOT being
> smart enough to know you're dangerous. Think 3-year-old.
>
> So skills without judgment is a non-starter IMO.
>
> As for judgement w/o skills, think trying to teach welding solely on the
> basis of book knowledge...perhaps theoretically possible, but definitely a
> much tougher task than teaching it after also getting some hands-on
> practice. Personally, I'd rather learn welding from an "ivory-tower book
> master" than a partially ignorant self-taught dude with UV-induced
> cataracts and perpetual sunburn, but that's just me...point being, that
> risk awareness and amelioration matters (very much!) to me. That's another
> way of saying I probably weight it as MORE important than "mere" skills.
>
> Eventually my thought process evolved to: a) soaring contains sufficient
> energy to kill me...every single time I engage in the activity, therefore;
> b) it is NOT irrational for me to worry about having a glider accident
> (even if I choose to ignore money and embarrassment as additional risk
> factors); c) most every general aviation accident report I've read, most
> every airport incident and accident I've seen, most every "Oh ****!"
> moment I've had as a pilot and motor vehicle operator, have had operator
> stupidity (e.g. inattention to the primary task at hand, improper
> assessment of my own skills/risks/energies-operating when I step across
> the "in-control boundary," etc.) as a (often, THE) major contributor; and
> d) the human condition rules out perfection as an option.
>
> So what to do?
>
> For a long time now (decades), my "self-inoculation" has been a serious
> attempt to never - and I mean NEVER - have out of my mind that what I'm
> doing as a pilot (or driver, or sawzall operator or whatever) can
> permanently, "instantly," and easily fatally change my life for the
> seriously, irremedially, worse. (I don't fear death, I simply don't wish
> it to happen prematurely in a forestallable-via-education-and-skills
> sense...because life is so much fun!) That ever-present awareness of my
> mortality and the activity's risks I hope (and expect) will combine to
> greatly weight the odds *toward* dying a natural, biological death rather
> than a physically traumatic, self-inflicted one, because from the
> continual awareness should - I hope - flow unremitting skills-based
> efforts to properly and safely deal with the physical risks.
>
> In soaring, lack of skills alone can kill. Inattention alone can kill. In
> combination, I believe they're exponentially deadly. Ignorance can kill.
> Margin-thinning greatly raises risks, or at least the statistically
> probable effects of said risks in the event of something undesired
> entering the picture. There are LOTS of life-threatening soaring risks,
> and a great many more scenario-based ones all capable of ending my life.
> That's not intended to be hand-wavingly dramatic; it's merely a factual
> statement.
>
> FWIW, I think that attempting to gain solace or an actionable sense of
> soaring's risks from " a purely statistically-based assessment" of risks
> is some combination of: ostrichian, potentially self-defeating, blinkered,
> misguided, wrong-headed thought, etc., etc. That said, the simple fact
> that a person is even *considering* such things, is a Great Thing in my
> book! I believe that ultimately, such self-directed interest is much more
> likely to lead that individual toward "the promised land of
> self-inoculation" than NOT considering such things would be. But
> statistics alone is - I believe - a woefully limited measure and
> assessment of soaring risk. (Hence, the popularity of the statement that
> one's chances of dying on the next soaring flight is 50%? Bring that up in
> your next statistics class and see what the instructor has to say about it
> as a statistical measure, dry chuckle.)
>
> Ultimately, one unarguable statistical measure of one's success (or not)
> will be future NTSB reports. In any event...
>
> Rotsa ruck (and have obscene amounts of fun along the way)!!!
>
> Bob W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 1/14/2014 9:59 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Bob, do you actually go through that (prolix, snipped) thought process
> before *any* activity as implied? Think "analysis paralysis".

Good question...

Insofar as soaring specifically is concerned, WRT "analysis paralysis" I guess
I'd suggest several thousand hours of glider time "by definition" rules that
out. :-) But I understand your question. I'll admit to once or twice actually
thinking consciously prior to some flights that
stupidity/forgetfulness/thinning-of-margins/new-situations could get me killed
THIS flight, and - no - the conscious thought isn't a deterrent. Landing
patterns and takeoffs also fairly routinely trigger active such "Get this
wrong and die," thoughts in my mind, too. But most of the thinking occurred
after flights (personal remembrances, reliving, etc.), after reading accident
reports, daydreaming about soaring, etc. But there's been enough OF such
conscious, more or less analytical, thinking to have burned it into my
conscious, subconscious and fundamental approach to the silly sport. There's
also been many a gliderport-based bull session comparing notes with other
pilots about great flights, and dumb decision-making, plus "the usual"
0-beer-thirty type situations in which the topics of thought patterns and
decision-making have come up, often with humorous bonhomie along the lines of
"What were you *thinking?"* and "Here's how *I* think about such things..."
back and forth. I'm sure you've many hours of the same.

> Or maybe I misread an attempt to put a wealth of knowledge and experience
> which now boils down to "gut feeling" into words (probably a more accurate
> assessment).

How does one get a gut feel? How does one refine a gut feel to reflect
ever-increasing knowledge? Being something of an analytical kind of thinker,
mine evolves largely from knowledge intake (reading, directed brain-picking,
listening, etc.) and active - and probably sleep-based - consideration.

>
> I have never, and I mean NEVER, approached an aircraft with the thought
> that I might die during this flight. If I felt that way, I wouldn't even
> get in.

Everyone's different (duh!), but other activities beyond soaring I can think
of off the top of my head, where I've thought actively beforehand I might
die/suffer permanent injury from participation, have included
boulder-scrambling, driving, operating machinery (farm, machine tools), using
ladders, mixing chemicals, doing 120VAC wiring, enjoying lightning outdoors (I
always keep or post a good lookout, ha ha!) and undoubtedly others that
additional reflection would resurrect.

> On the other hand, after 41 years of flying (about 24 in gliders), I have
> come to recognize that there many things well within my skill set that I
> just don't do. I don't think, "This might just kill me", though I know at
> some subcouscious level that it can. Instead I simply think, "Why - how
> will this improve my flight?" and then simply don't bother.
>
> Two glaring examples: The other day at the conclusion of a flight, I
> thought of doing a giant barrel roll simply for the joy of seeing the world
> upside down. But I didn't. I've done countless rolls in jets, props, and
> gliders, and I simply don't "need" to do them any more (not to mention the
> fact that aerobatics are prohibited by my flight manual). A few minutes
> later a look at my state vector showed that I had just the right position
> and altitude to fly a low pass over the hangars, ramp, and runway. Same
> thought... "Why?" I don't care about impressing anyone on the ground and
> I really don't need the rush any more. I haven't done either of those
> meneuvers in over 15 years. Maybe that's why I'm an old fart now. :)

"Roger that," and BTDT!" My "need for zoomies" lasted maybe 2 soaring seasons
once I felt I'd gained the requisite skills and knowledge to do 'em with (as I
defined it then) "reasonable safety." Likewise, closeness to mountainous
terrain as a goal in and of itself evolved pretty rapidly (dry chuckle). My
motivation has always been to live to participate another day, with the same
equipment, because life is so much fun!

>
> BTW, have you ever seen the occupants of an aircraft immediately after the
> crash? It's enough to make you give up stupid tricks.

Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough, thank
you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot longevity?

Bob - not OBVIOUSLY anal? - W.

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

>
> Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough, thank
> you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot longevity?
>
> Bob - not OBVIOUSLY anal? - W.



Hah! Exactly. Those that know me have heard me say that anyone who
continues to ride a motorcycle on the street past the age of 30 is
suffering from a serious lack of imagination.


WB (who still has dreams about carving mountain roads on his cafe bike,
even after not riding for the past 30 years).

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Ralph Jones[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:53:25 -0700, Bob Whelan
> wrote:

>
>Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough, thank
>you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot longevity?

And it is not conducive to a productive career as a submarine
sailor...

[Dan Marotta]

Ah, so... Simply different thought processes. Maybe that's why I sometimes
say, at the end of certain activities, "Cheated death again"...


"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/14/2014 9:59 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Bob, do you actually go through that (prolix, snipped) thought process
>> before *any* activity as implied? Think "analysis paralysis".
>
> Good question...
>
> Insofar as soaring specifically is concerned, WRT "analysis paralysis" I
> guess
> I'd suggest several thousand hours of glider time "by definition" rules
> that
> out. :-) But I understand your question. I'll admit to once or twice
> actually
> thinking consciously prior to some flights that
> stupidity/forgetfulness/thinning-of-margins/new-situations could get me
> killed
> THIS flight, and - no - the conscious thought isn't a deterrent. Landing
> patterns and takeoffs also fairly routinely trigger active such "Get this
> wrong and die," thoughts in my mind, too. But most of the thinking
> occurred
> after flights (personal remembrances, reliving, etc.), after reading
> accident
> reports, daydreaming about soaring, etc. But there's been enough OF such
> conscious, more or less analytical, thinking to have burned it into my
> conscious, subconscious and fundamental approach to the silly sport.
> There's
> also been many a gliderport-based bull session comparing notes with other
> pilots about great flights, and dumb decision-making, plus "the usual"
> 0-beer-thirty type situations in which the topics of thought patterns and
> decision-making have come up, often with humorous bonhomie along the lines
> of
> "What were you *thinking?"* and "Here's how *I* think about such
> things..."
> back and forth. I'm sure you've many hours of the same.
>
>> Or maybe I misread an attempt to put a wealth of knowledge and experience
>> which now boils down to "gut feeling" into words (probably a more
>> accurate
>> assessment).
>
> How does one get a gut feel? How does one refine a gut feel to reflect
> ever-increasing knowledge? Being something of an analytical kind of
> thinker,
> mine evolves largely from knowledge intake (reading, directed
> brain-picking,
> listening, etc.) and active - and probably sleep-based - consideration.
>
>>
>> I have never, and I mean NEVER, approached an aircraft with the thought
>> that I might die during this flight. If I felt that way, I wouldn't even
>> get in.
>
> Everyone's different (duh!), but other activities beyond soaring I can
> think
> of off the top of my head, where I've thought actively beforehand I might
> die/suffer permanent injury from participation, have included
> boulder-scrambling, driving, operating machinery (farm, machine tools),
> using
> ladders, mixing chemicals, doing 120VAC wiring, enjoying lightning
> outdoors (I
> always keep or post a good lookout, ha ha!) and undoubtedly others that
> additional reflection would resurrect.
>
>> On the other hand, after 41 years of flying (about 24 in gliders), I have
>> come to recognize that there many things well within my skill set that I
>> just don't do. I don't think, "This might just kill me", though I know
>> at
>> some subcouscious level that it can. Instead I simply think, "Why - how
>> will this improve my flight?" and then simply don't bother.
>>
>> Two glaring examples: The other day at the conclusion of a flight, I
>> thought of doing a giant barrel roll simply for the joy of seeing the
>> world
>> upside down. But I didn't. I've done countless rolls in jets, props,
>> and
>> gliders, and I simply don't "need" to do them any more (not to mention
>> the
>> fact that aerobatics are prohibited by my flight manual). A few minutes
>> later a look at my state vector showed that I had just the right position
>> and altitude to fly a low pass over the hangars, ramp, and runway. Same
>> thought... "Why?" I don't care about impressing anyone on the ground
>> and
>> I really don't need the rush any more. I haven't done either of those
>> meneuvers in over 15 years. Maybe that's why I'm an old fart now. :)
>
> "Roger that," and BTDT!" My "need for zoomies" lasted maybe 2 soaring
> seasons
> once I felt I'd gained the requisite skills and knowledge to do 'em with
> (as I
> defined it then) "reasonable safety." Likewise, closeness to mountainous
> terrain as a goal in and of itself evolved pretty rapidly (dry chuckle).
> My motivation has always been to live to participate another day, with the
> same equipment, because life is so much fun!
>
>>
>> BTW, have you ever seen the occupants of an aircraft immediately after
>> the
>> crash? It's enough to make you give up stupid tricks.
>
> Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough, thank
> you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot
> longevity?
>
> Bob - not OBVIOUSLY anal? - W.

[Dan Marotta]

At almost 66 years old, I still own and ride two Harleys (though not at the
same time). I bought my first bike in 1969. And if you like carving
mountain roads, try Lolo Pass.


"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough,
>> thank
>> you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot
>> longevity?
>>
>> Bob - not OBVIOUSLY anal? - W.
>
>
>
> Hah! Exactly. Those that know me have heard me say that anyone who
> continues to ride a motorcycle on the street past the age of 30 is
> suffering from a serious lack of imagination.
>
>
> WB (who still has dreams about carving mountain roads on his cafe bike,
> even after not riding for the past 30 years).
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Mike the Strike]

Based on my personal experiences of close friends and colleagues, I have lost four due to disease, two to suicide, two to car accidents, two in hang-glider crashes and one in a sailplane accident. Since we spend more time driving than flying, I have to think that hang-gliding is the most dangerous of these activities and gliding more so than driving.

Of my personal near-death experiences, one was being knocked from my motorcycle, one was a horse-riding accident (back in my competitive days) and one was a near car accident. All of these three could easily have been fatal. I haven't had any comparable fright in gliders in 46 years of flying.

Any activity that involves speed or height above the ground is potentially dangerous. (I seem to remember that after deep-sea divers and fisherman, jockeys have one of the highest job-fatality rates in the UK). I doubt that gliding is the worst.

Flying cross-country in the Southwest, particularly with gaggles of other gliders, is no doubt somewhat hazardous. Like many, I have found the rewards of doing so far exceed the possible downsides.

Mike

[Roy Clark, \B6\]

Went through this many years ago as a solo practitioner with wife, two kids, and mortgage, applying for individual professional disability insurance.

Provided all the data they asked for.

No increase in premium was required.

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:09:32 PM UTC-8, Roy Clark, "B6" wrote:
> Went through this many years ago as a solo practitioner with wife, two kids, and mortgage, applying for individual professional disability insurance.
>
>
>
> Provided all the data they asked for.
>
>
>
> No increase in premium was required.

Same drill here. It was the mountain climbing that really got the insurance company worked up. They weren't concerned about the flying.

7Q

[Mike I Green]

I gave up riding my R100-RT when 1 Got to 80. My first two bikes,
bought in 1950, 1951 were Harley 45's. They cost me $25 each. World
War II surplus. Double dated on on of them.

MG
--
Mike I Green

On 1/15/2014 8:48 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> At almost 66 years old, I still own and ride two Harleys (though not at
> the same time). I bought my first bike in 1969. And if you like
> carving mountain roads, try Lolo Pass.
>
>
> "Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough,
>>> thank
>>> you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot
>>> longevity?
>>>
>>> Bob - not OBVIOUSLY anal? - W.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hah! Exactly. Those that know me have heard me say that anyone who
>> continues to ride a motorcycle on the street past the age of 30 is
>> suffering from a serious lack of imagination.
>>
>>
>> WB (who still has dreams about carving mountain roads on his cafe bike,
>> even after not riding for the past 30 years).
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
>

[Mike I Green]

On 1/15/2014 8:48 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> At almost 66 years old, I still own and ride two Harleys (though not at
> the same time). I bought my first bike in 1969. And if you like
> carving mountain roads, try Lolo Pass.
>
>
> "Wallace Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Just in pictures and my imagination...and both are more than enough,
>>> thank
>>> you. Hey! Maybe a vivid imagination is strongly correlated to pilot
>>> longevity?
>>>
>>> Bob - not OBVIOUSLY anal? - W.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hah! Exactly. Those that know me have heard me say that anyone who
>> continues to ride a motorcycle on the street past the age of 30 is
>> suffering from a serious lack of imagination.
>>
>>
>> WB (who still has dreams about carving mountain roads on his cafe bike,
>> even after not riding for the past 30 years).
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
>

I am almost 84. Gave up riding my R100-RT when I got to 80. My first
two bikes were Harley 45's. I bought them 1949,50. Cost me $25 each
World War II surplus.
--
Mike I Green

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
Mike I Green > wrote:

> I gave up riding my R100-RT when 1 Got to 80. My first two bikes,
> bought in 1950, 1951 were Harley 45's. They cost me $25 each. World
> War II surplus. Double dated on on of them.
>
> MG
> --
> Mike I Green
>
>

My favorite picture of my folks is Dad at 20 years old, in jeans and a
tee-shirt, hair oiled back, on an early 1950's 650 Triumph, Mom on
behind him.

I always wanted an R100. Closest I ever came was a somewhat tired Moto
Guzzi 750 Sport. My best bike ever was a customized 1973 RD-350 Yamaha.
Actually, I still have it. It was set up for production class road
racing. Rode it in practice at a couple meets, but never worked up the
nerve to actually compete. Didn't want to wreck the bike (or myself). I
had been racing MX for a couple of years, but road racing was a totally
different thing.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[WAVEGURU]

I hope I never get tired of blasting along at near redline within a wingspan of stuff.

Boggs

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:24:40 AM UTC-8, Waveguru wrote:
> I hope I never get tired of blasting along at near redline within a wingspan of stuff.
>
>
>
> Boggs

WaveGuru

Thank you so much for this quote. I am putting it on a t-shirt. This is why I soar.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:24:40 AM UTC-6, Waveguru wrote:
> I hope I never get tired of blasting along at near redline within a wingspan of stuff.
>
>
>
> Boggs

Those were possibly Klaus Holighaus last words...
Tinking about it some more I guess that no, Klaus was too smart for that.

[WAVEGURU]

I'll bet Klaus wasn't going fast.

Boggs

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> "Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational..."

I don't think that it is fair to take that statement out of context. Here is what I said:

<summary of text omitted: my chances of dieing from all causes in the next ten years is 19%, see original post if interested in where this number comes from.>

son_of_flubber wrote:
> > It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen, but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop. < <

The key word that you gloss over is "worry". Worry means to feel anxiety, and feeling anxiety in the air, reduces my performance. The extreme case is to feel anxiety to the point of panic where performance goes through the floor. Anxiety and worry make flying more dangerous.

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did not decide to disregard the inherent dangers of flying when I decided to stop worrying. I'm saying that you can pay much closer attention to those dangers if you stop feeling anxious (aka stop worrying).

wrote:
> You obviously haven't read the famous Gantenbrink article:
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

At your suggestion I've gone back and reread this article. To use Bruno Gantenbrink's numbers, a world champion has a 10% chance of dieing in a glider (and lower levels of pilots like me have lower mortality rates). My chance of dieing from natural causes and non-flying related accidents in the next ten years is 19%. Even if I were a world champion, 19% is twice 10%. 2:1 (this grossly exaggerates the flying related mortality because we're talking about the next ten years, not an entire flying career). If you understand statistics, this puts the risks of flying in perspective. If you think that statistics are mumbo-jumbo, feel free to disregard my reasoning.

wrote:
> Nobody decides to go out there and start "flying like an idiot" as you put it.

From what I've seen, "flying like an idiot" is a clear and present danger that every pilot is capable of falling into. Being honest about the mistakes that we make and changing our habits/style to avoid those same mistakes in the future is good piloting. I know that I'm capable of "flying like an idiot" but I don't worry about it. I just try my best to avoid doing dumb stuff. When I start "flying like an idiot" on a routine basis (it could happen), I will stop flying. At some point, I will start taking an annual flight review because things can change fast.

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:58:06 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

> So you better worry about dying in a glider accident - dude, it happens!

I know that flying is dangerous and I'm actually a "squeaky wheel" about safety issues in pretty much every situation, not just flying. I just think that it is better to do something about a safety issue, than to worry about it. Worry/anxiety clouds the mind. I guess that worry/anxiety is the only thing that motivates some people wrt safety, but that is not me.


> And as you get older, you become even more dangerous.

You missed my point. I agree that it's obvious that as piloting capacities deteriorate with age, that we are more likely to do something dumb or make a mistake. But (also obvious) as you get older, your chances of dieing from natural causes in the next few years increase as well.

We don't have the numbers to say whether an 80 year pilot is more likely to die in a glider than a 70 year old pilot. It is probably fair to say that in the last year (or few months) of natural life (assuming a rapid drop-off of mental and physical capabilities), a pilot who continues to fly has a much higher chance of dieing in a glider accident than he did for his entire flying career. I saw that happen once and I plan to stop flying before I become that dangerous to innocent bystanders.

[Soartech]

Thank you Debbie Downer.

[Dan Marotta]

Well, since it's winter and the sky looks flat today, I'll attempt to show
you how little I know about statistics:

Say the chance of flipping a coin and getting heads is 1:2 or 0.5. The odds
of flipping that coin twice and getting heads twice is 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25.
The odds of flipping it three times (same logic) is 0.125. With that in
mind, what are the odds that the fourth flip will be heads?

Do you really think that, since 1 in 10 German champions died in a glider
crash (wasn't that 3 of 32?), that the remainder should quit flying since
they have a 1 in 10 chance of dieing in a glider crash? "Let's see... I've
had 9 flights and survived, so I guess I'll die if I takeoff again."

Why not follow the advice of Alfred E. Newman?

"son_of_flubber" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> "Worrying about a glider accident is completely irrational..."

I don't think that it is fair to take that statement out of context. Here
is what I said:

<summary of text omitted: my chances of dieing from all causes in the next
ten years is 19%, see original post if interested in where this number comes
from.>

son_of_flubber wrote:
> > It's obvious to me that my chances of dying in a glider are much much
> > better than 1 in 5. So it is much much more likely that I will die of
> > some other cause before I live long enough to die in a glider. Worrying
> > about a glider accident is completely irrational (until I disregard the
> > inherent dangers and start flying like an idiot.) Sure it could happen,
> > but it is much more likely to die from something else. And as I get
> > older, the odds of dying in a glider continue to drop. < <

The key word that you gloss over is "worry". Worry means to feel anxiety,
and feeling anxiety in the air, reduces my performance. The extreme case is
to feel anxiety to the point of panic where performance goes through the
floor. Anxiety and worry make flying more dangerous.

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I did not decide to disregard
the inherent dangers of flying when I decided to stop worrying. I'm saying
that you can pay much closer attention to those dangers if you stop feeling
anxious (aka stop worrying).

wrote:
> You obviously haven't read the famous Gantenbrink article:
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

At your suggestion I've gone back and reread this article. To use Bruno
Gantenbrink's numbers, a world champion has a 10% chance of dieing in a
glider (and lower levels of pilots like me have lower mortality rates). My
chance of dieing from natural causes and non-flying related accidents in the
next ten years is 19%. Even if I were a world champion, 19% is twice 10%.
2:1 (this grossly exaggerates the flying related mortality because we're
talking about the next ten years, not an entire flying career). If you
understand statistics, this puts the risks of flying in perspective. If you
think that statistics are mumbo-jumbo, feel free to disregard my reasoning.

wrote:
> Nobody decides to go out there and start "flying like an idiot" as you put
> it.

From what I've seen, "flying like an idiot" is a clear and present danger
that every pilot is capable of falling into. Being honest about the
mistakes that we make and changing our habits/style to avoid those same
mistakes in the future is good piloting. I know that I'm capable of "flying
like an idiot" but I don't worry about it. I just try my best to avoid
doing dumb stuff. When I start "flying like an idiot" on a routine basis
(it could happen), I will stop flying. At some point, I will start taking
an annual flight review because things can change fast.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:55:05 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

Many years ago there was some sort of mortality list published. It's the only list I've ever seen gliding on. It stated:

The odds of an accidental death, 1/1500
The odds of death in a gliding accident, 1/1800

There are 6000 SSA members in clubs/chapters. Some other number fly in private settings and with commercial operations. That number might be 2000 to 6000, which gives me an active number of 8000 to 12000, so quite a variation. I recently saw an FAA number of 24,400 glider pilots, but we all no many are no longer actively using the rating.

Picking the middle ground at 10,000, there were 5 fatalities in 2013. 1/2000. There were 8 in 2012, 1/1250 (two sort of anomalies; one a Pipistrel Virus, one a triple fatal) Might normalize this to 6, which would be 1/1666. 2011, 9, 1/1.1111 (one may have been stricken in flight, yet there it is and those who might have, did not prevent this pilot from flying. Another was probably probably like the Pipistrel count). So, it could be rationalized as 7, 1/1428. 2010, 5 or 1/2000. 2009, 7 of the 8 were in gliders. 2008, 7 again. 2007, 3 so 1/3333 beat the odds. 2007, 6, but one was most assuredly a suicide, so a skewed factor, thus 5 is the acceptable number. Again, we're at 1/2000. 1/1800 just kind of looks about right given what we know about the pilot population. The number is likely better than overall odds of traffic, ladders, being a pedestrian, or cleaning the gutters, etc.. Taking the raw numbers, gliding seems quite reasonable if you are in good health, use due diligence, and remain current. The SSF would like to improve on our numbers. I think we might. But I think it could require a major re-thinking of our soaring culture.
That exists in our competition community to some extent. It's greater in some of the European soaring organizations. I know pilots that reject this approach. A couple of years ago a notable instructor suggested the FAA was killing us. Not sure I agree, but I don't think they're helping. To that end, I'm not sure many feel EASA is helping either.

My $0.02,

Frank Whiteley

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:49:17 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Do you really think that, since 1 in 10 German champions died in a glider
> crash (wasn't that 3 of 32?), that the remainder should quit flying since
> they have a 1 in 10 chance of dieing in a glider crash? "Let's see... I've
> had 9 flights and survived, so I guess I'll die if I takeoff again."

I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. I've no clue about the motivations of world champion glider pilots and no opinion about their choices..

I'm pretty sure that I will die of natural causes. I don't worry about dying of natural causes, but I do everything that I can to stay healthy (sleep well, good diet, exercise, be sociable, don't worry and enjoy life).

I'm pretty sure that I will die of natural causes BEFORE I die in a glider. The point of my original post is that I find this conjecture to be a good reason to stop worrying about dieing in a glider. My second reason to stop worrying is that worry (feeling anxiety) degrades the quality of my flying.. At the end of the day, I still do everything that I can to fly safely and reduce risk to myself and innocent bystanders. I don't think that worry should be my motivation to fly safely.

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:38:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>1/1800 just kind of looks about right given what we know about the pilot population.

Thanks for this well-considered number, it completes the picture. To relate it back to the context of my original point...

1/1800 equates to a .18% chance of glider related fatality in each year of flying. Over ten years that would be .18 X 10 = 1.8% cumulative risk over 10 years (say 2%).

Side by side with my original mortality prognosis (individual based on my age and health status):

I have a 19% chance of dieing from all other causes in the next ten years.

I have a 2% chance of dieing in a glider in the next 10 years.

Say a 10:1 chance of dying of natural causes before I die in a glider. I'm good with that, but I will keep looking for ways to improve my odds.

[C-FFKQ (42)]

Actually, at .18% chance of death each year, the probability of dying in the next 10 years is:
..0018(1 + .9982 + (.9982)^2 + (.9982)^3 + (.9982)^4 + ... + (.9982)^9)
= 1.7855%

It's the probability of dying in a particular year times the probability of surviving to that year, summed over each of the years.

Sorry, it's the former actuary in me coming out on a cold winter day.

- John

[David Reitter]

Frank,

On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:38:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:

> 1/3333 beat the odds. 2007, 6, but one was most assuredly a suicide, so a skewed factor,
> thus 5 is the acceptable number. Again, we're at 1/2000. 1/1800 just kind of looks about
> right given what we know about the pilot population. The number is likely better than overall
> odds of traffic, ladders, being a pedestrian, or cleaning the gutters, etc.

There's an article by Tom Knauff that comes up with very similar numbers:

http://www.eglider.org/NewsArticles/launchingemergencies.htm

Now, the thing is, coming up with informative statistics is difficult in this context, and it is difficult to put these statistics into perspective for the average glider pilot or person potentially interested in gliding.

As for the latter, a lot of this has to do with the fact that people are notoriously bad at judging and handling probabilities of rare events. No disrespect to anyone here. (I make my living by doing university research into people's cognitive "in"abilities, and people's mistakes in decision-making are very well established.)

Second, I would point out that while the probability of dying seems acceptable, risk (and "expected utility") has a second component: the cost in the event that something does happen. Many of us have lost a friend in a gliding accident. It was after I talked to the dad who lost his twenty-something year-old daughter (and my friend) in a gliding accident, that I understood what such fatalities mean to one's family, friends, club mates, workplace, and so on. I think we might underestimate this, and the numbers don't really do this any justice.

As for the statistics, I wish we could express the probability of a fatality per glider flight. If we assume 11,000 SSA members and 6.7 fatalities in the US annually, how many flights do people do, on average? If it's 20 flights (given that many people don't fly much), I get to 30 micromorts. The right way to do this would be to survey logged hours (ensuring random sampling and an acceptable response rate), and count accidents for sample population (i.e., sample from SSA membership, and count only SSA-member accidents). I think that the OLC database might be a good population, provided your result then applies to people enthusiastic and experienced enough to log their flights there.

I want to point out that risk expressed in terms of number of flights or flight hours is also difficult to interpret, because the relationship between flights and total risk is not linear. Highly inexperienced, not-current pilots are likely to be less safe. Very high-time pilots might also be less safe, as they would tend to fly in a broader range of conditions and over other terrain. That's why I would call the "10-years of risk equals 10 times .18 probability" perhaps a back-of-the envelope approximation, but also armchair statistics.

Gliding brings plenty of long-term health benefits as well. Many of us are >70 y/o and pretty fit, physically and mentally. Self-selection or causation? I don't know. We're not taking this into accounts so far.

A much more informative estimate might be one's individual assessment, or even our assessment of the other guy rigging his glider. Am I fit to fly today? Have I checked those control connections? Am I diligent with checklists? Do I know the weather? Am I current? And so on.

All of that said - nothing is a "safe" activity. We're all going to die of something. The question is: when that day comes, have we lived?

[Eric Bick (1DB)]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:55:20 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:38:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> >1/1800 just kind of looks about right given what we know about the pilot population.
>
>
>
> Thanks for this well-considered number, it completes the picture. To relate it back to the context of my original point...
>
>
>
> 1/1800 equates to a .18% chance of glider related fatality in each year of flying. Over ten years that would be .18 X 10 = 1.8% cumulative risk over 10 years (say 2%).
>
>
>
> Side by side with my original mortality prognosis (individual based on my age and health status):
>
>
>
> I have a 19% chance of dieing from all other causes in the next ten years..
>
>
>
> I have a 2% chance of dieing in a glider in the next 10 years.
>
>
>
> Say a 10:1 chance of dying of natural causes before I die in a glider. I'm good with that, but I will keep looking for ways to improve my odds.

Our club got into this topic a couple of years ago regarding the old statement of the drive to the airport being the most dangerous part of a glider flight. I went about the analysis a little bit differently, but came to about the same number for gliding. Per the NHTSA statistics, in 2011, auto fatalities were 15.28 per 100,000 (1/6,545) licensed drivers. Using this set of data leads to a 0.015% chance of becoming an auto fatality statistic. Bottom line is that flying a glider is more dangerous than driving a car, but in a risk/benefit assessment, the risk of gliding is (generally) fully acceptable, and the benefits (enjoyment, challenge, etc) far more than offset the risk. Similarly, auto fatality statistics apply to the average commuter, not race car drivers, who have their own risk/benefit analysis which leads them to accept a higher risk for participating in their sport.

The risk of a fatality is not the same as the likelihood. We expose ourselves to the risk of an auto fatality much more frequently than we do to a gliding fatality. For the auto side, there is a low risk, which coupled with the frequency still leads to a low likelihood of a fatality. For soaring, the risk is much higher (although still low), and the frequency of exposure is less. I haven't worked out the likelihood for soaring, but it is probably less than the risk might lead one to think.

Of keen interest to me, just recently having cataract surgery, the risk of a major complication from the cataract surgery, up to and including blindness, is about the same as a soaring fatality (in the analyses overall). Having had the surgery, I wouldn't try to keep flying without having it, now that I know the impact of cataracts on vision. Likewise, so long as I take care of pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight tasks in a safe manner, I'm confident that risk of a fatality while flying remains low - for me. Not wanting to judge, I've watched other pilots do - or not do - things that makes their risk of having an accident, fatal or not, much higher than 1/1800. (Note: the risk of a group is essentially an average for that group. For some members, the risk is much less, and for others, much higher. So, for one pilot the risk might consistently be 1/500 and for another 1/2500. And, the risk can vary from flight to flight, depending on a number of factors. Bottom line - the averages help, but don't tell any one pilot what is going to happen any one time, or over their flying career.)

It is interesting to note that since 1994 the auto fatality rate has been consistently declining primarily related to auto and road safety measures, not better driving habits or heightened driver safety awareness. Maybe a message there for soaring safety, maybe not, since so many fatalities occur on takeoffs and landings. But driver error is as a contributor to auto fatalities, and some auto safety improvements have led to fewer fatalities regardless of driver error.

Another 2 cents worth.

[Ramy]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:55:20 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, January 17, 2014 10:38:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> >1/1800 just kind of looks about right given what we know about the pilot population.
>
>
>
> Thanks for this well-considered number, it completes the picture. To relate it back to the context of my original point...
>
>
>
> 1/1800 equates to a .18% chance of glider related fatality in each year of flying. Over ten years that would be .18 X 10 = 1.8% cumulative risk over 10 years (say 2%).
>
>
>
> Side by side with my original mortality prognosis (individual based on my age and health status):
>
>
>
> I have a 19% chance of dieing from all other causes in the next ten years.
>
>
>
> I have a 2% chance of dieing in a glider in the next 10 years.
>
>
>
> Say a 10:1 chance of dying of natural causes before I die in a glider. I'm good with that, but I will keep looking for ways to improve my odds.

I agree with your math for us old geezers, but if you run the numbers for a 20 years old for their risk of dying in a glider vs natural cause? I bet the results will not be too encouraging...

Ramy