When is too many at a glider meet

[2G]

I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

Actually what you heard is not correct. There will be 96 gliders at our event. I was hoping for 100 but we couldn't quite make it. Darn!

All kidding aside, sorry but you heard wrong. We are not sure of the final numbers due to many last minute drop outs, but it will be somewhere in the 60's with 6 tow planes. Last year we had 68 gliders attend and it worked out well, both at the airport and in the air. The largest gaggle seen last year only had around a half dozen gliders in it. Utah air and thermals offer lots of room.

Bruno - B4

[glen]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from what I heard not much organization, too busy going to the bank.

[[email protected]]

He would probably fly a Quintus... Assuming you could still buy one... The Nimbus 4 is no longer considered competitive.

[Wheaton]

I like the positive attitude displayed in many rec soaring comments including yours. (that's a joke son). I attended twice last year. One of the best organized events glider or otherwise. I also landed out with some damage. My choice of what looked like a good field not the number of gliders in the event. The other land outs were not a issue, fields and airports.. If you are not prepared to break you glider then don't do cross country or by a motor glider or like my wife says take up ping pong.

[Tony[_5_]]

You're kidding me right?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I realize your comments are satire, however, the Nimbus 4 is a wonderful glider and fully competitive in National contests. I think the Nimbus always gave away a bit to the ASW-22. The problem the Nimbus had was too much wing, which makes it a great fun glider. It can stay in the air when nothing else can. If you are not a world level competitor the Nimbus4 is an amazing glider, fun and easy to fly and it goes forever. I would have loved to buy a Quintus, but with the problems at Lange, no more Quintus :(

I do hope both Schempp and Schleicher get back into the single place open market with top designs!


On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:59:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> He would probably fly a Quintus... Assuming you could still buy one... The Nimbus 4 is no longer considered competitive.

[[email protected]]

> > He would probably fly a Quintus... Assuming you could still buy one... The Nimbus 4 is no longer considered competitive.

Looks like the streams crossed. Most of these comments should be under a different parent post.

[howard banks]

The opening post really illustrates the bipolar nature of RAS. At one end it is a super place to ask serious questions and get quick and accurate responses and counsel from people who know. At the other, it is a place where it is: Make it up (too many pills? smoking stuff?) -- fire (as in post) --- then wait and see.
Bruno's post was spot on.
HL
PS: I heard his aim was really 200 gliders with two tow planes and that he already has an EB-29 in place at Bitterwasser. The mizerable sod won't let me go fly it, which is why I am snitching and telling you all.






On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

[Papa3[_2_]]

Bruno,

You've got a ways to go to keep up with the Joneses (or more appropriately the Juhaszes)... there are over 110 registered for the European Gliding Championships in Hungary next month. That's right - one one zero. Slacker.

Erik Mann (P3)

p.s. Not to respond to troll bait, but there are places where 40 gliders is plenty and places where 100 wouldn't be out of the question. And I certainly can't think of any technical sites (mountains, ridges, forests, etc.) where there isn't some level of risk. Anyone that isn't aware of that is probably not ready to go to this sort of encampment or to leave the house unsupervised for that matter.


On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:13:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.
>
> Actually what you heard is not correct. There will be 96 gliders at our event. I was hoping for 100 but we couldn't quite make it. Darn!
>
> All kidding aside, sorry but you heard wrong. We are not sure of the final numbers due to many last minute drop outs, but it will be somewhere in the 60's with 6 tow planes. Last year we had 68 gliders attend and it worked out well, both at the airport and in the air. The largest gaggle seen last year only had around a half dozen gliders in it. Utah air and thermals offer lots of room.
>
> Bruno - B4

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 11:40:19 UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> You've got a ways to go to keep up with the Joneses (or more appropriately the Juhaszes)... there are over 110 registered for the European Gliding Championships in Hungary next month. That's right - one one zero. Slacker.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
>
> p.s. Not to respond to troll bait, but there are places where 40 gliders is plenty and places where 100 wouldn't be out of the question. And I certainly can't think of any technical sites (mountains, ridges, forests, etc..) where there isn't some level of risk. Anyone that isn't aware of that is probably not ready to go to this sort of encampment or to leave the house unsupervised for that matter.
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:13:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > > I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.
> >
> > Actually what you heard is not correct. There will be 96 gliders at our event. I was hoping for 100 but we couldn't quite make it. Darn!
> >
> > All kidding aside, sorry but you heard wrong. We are not sure of the final numbers due to many last minute drop outs, but it will be somewhere in the 60's with 6 tow planes. Last year we had 68 gliders attend and it worked out well, both at the airport and in the air. The largest gaggle seen last year only had around a half dozen gliders in it. Utah air and thermals offer lots of room.
> >
> > Bruno - B4

Erik, Erik, Erik how can you make this comparison? In Nephi we gather to fly with friends, attempt personal bests, fly the Great Basin, experience 8-10 knot thermals, observe National Parks and monuments from air, stay airborne for 4, 6, 8+ hours, attempt state records, find cloud streets or lift lines that run for 10's of miles, make new friends, experience rural UT and many other great experience soaring is known for.

Of course there are 110+ pilots at the European Championships, who would not want to attend when you have sponsors paying for everything, free use of gliders provided by manufacturers, accommodations at 4star hotels, air conditioned facilities for pilot meetings and lounges, ground crews provided by the organizers that do everything for the pilots, catered meals, free booze and much much more. Plus you have a set rules to follow that the US folks do not understand.

No comparison at all

[Papa3[_2_]]

Humor Ron. Humor.

P3

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 11:40:19 UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> > Bruno,
> >
> > You've got a ways to go to keep up with the Joneses (or more appropriately the Juhaszes)... there are over 110 registered for the European Gliding Championships in Hungary next month. That's right - one one zero. Slacker.
> >
> > Erik Mann (P3)
> >
> > p.s. Not to respond to troll bait, but there are places where 40 gliders is plenty and places where 100 wouldn't be out of the question. And I certainly can't think of any technical sites (mountains, ridges, forests, etc.) where there isn't some level of risk. Anyone that isn't aware of that is probably not ready to go to this sort of encampment or to leave the house unsupervised for that matter.
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:13:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > > > I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.
> > >
> > > Actually what you heard is not correct. There will be 96 gliders at our event. I was hoping for 100 but we couldn't quite make it. Darn!
> > >
> > > All kidding aside, sorry but you heard wrong. We are not sure of the final numbers due to many last minute drop outs, but it will be somewhere in the 60's with 6 tow planes. Last year we had 68 gliders attend and it worked out well, both at the airport and in the air. The largest gaggle seen last year only had around a half dozen gliders in it. Utah air and thermals offer lots of room.
> > >
> > > Bruno - B4
>
> Erik, Erik, Erik how can you make this comparison? In Nephi we gather to fly with friends, attempt personal bests, fly the Great Basin, experience 8-10 knot thermals, observe National Parks and monuments from air, stay airborne for 4, 6, 8+ hours, attempt state records, find cloud streets or lift lines that run for 10's of miles, make new friends, experience rural UT and many other great experience soaring is known for.
>
> Of course there are 110+ pilots at the European Championships, who would not want to attend when you have sponsors paying for everything, free use of gliders provided by manufacturers, accommodations at 4star hotels, air conditioned facilities for pilot meetings and lounges, ground crews provided by the organizers that do everything for the pilots, catered meals, free booze and much much more. Plus you have a set rules to follow that the US folks do not understand.
>
> No comparison at all

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 13:41:45 UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> Humor Ron. Humor.
>
> P3
>
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 2:30:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Gleason wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 11:40:19 UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
> > > Bruno,
> > >
> > > You've got a ways to go to keep up with the Joneses (or more appropriately the Juhaszes)... there are over 110 registered for the European Gliding Championships in Hungary next month. That's right - one one zero. Slacker.
> > >
> > > Erik Mann (P3)
> > >
> > > p.s. Not to respond to troll bait, but there are places where 40 gliders is plenty and places where 100 wouldn't be out of the question. And I certainly can't think of any technical sites (mountains, ridges, forests, etc.) where there isn't some level of risk. Anyone that isn't aware of that is probably not ready to go to this sort of encampment or to leave the house unsupervised for that matter.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:13:27 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > > > > I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.
> > > >
> > > > Actually what you heard is not correct. There will be 96 gliders at our event. I was hoping for 100 but we couldn't quite make it. Darn!
> > > >
> > > > All kidding aside, sorry but you heard wrong. We are not sure of the final numbers due to many last minute drop outs, but it will be somewhere in the 60's with 6 tow planes. Last year we had 68 gliders attend and it worked out well, both at the airport and in the air. The largest gaggle seen last year only had around a half dozen gliders in it. Utah air and thermals offer lots of room.
> > > >
> > > > Bruno - B4
> >
> > Erik, Erik, Erik how can you make this comparison? In Nephi we gather to fly with friends, attempt personal bests, fly the Great Basin, experience 8-10 knot thermals, observe National Parks and monuments from air, stay airborne for 4, 6, 8+ hours, attempt state records, find cloud streets or lift lines that run for 10's of miles, make new friends, experience rural UT and many other great experience soaring is known for.
> >
> > Of course there are 110+ pilots at the European Championships, who would not want to attend when you have sponsors paying for everything, free use of gliders provided by manufacturers, accommodations at 4star hotels, air conditioned facilities for pilot meetings and lounges, ground crews provided by the organizers that do everything for the pilots, catered meals, free booze and much much more. Plus you have a set rules to follow that the US folks do not understand.
> >
> > No comparison at all

back at ya Erik

[2G]

All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe.

Tom

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 12:15:20 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe.
>
> Tom

Okay, I'll bite. I tried to use some tongue in cheek humor to defuse my initial gut reaction, but here goes. I think it's completely classless (i.e. lacking in grace) to throw out troll bait like your comments when someone puts tremendous effort into organizing an event like this. Having been the guy who has organized any number of soaring events and activities, I know how much safety weighs on the mind. Having people sitting on the sidelines throwing out thinly-veiled criticisms (okay, completely unveiled criticisms) based on rumor and innuendo makes people think twice about stepping up in the future.

At this point, if something DOES happen (God forbid), which is not out of the question at any glider event, you have the bully pulpit all set up to say "see, I told you so."

And, maybe I buried the lead, but IMO there are places where 40 gliders is too many and places where 80 is just fine.

Hope there's not too much humor in the above.

Erik Mann (P3)

[Mike the Strike]

The majority of the participants at Nephi are seasoned contest or cross-country pilots. I have no qualms about flying there.

However, it's pretty likely that one or more gliders will suffer some at least minor damage in a ten-day long event. There will be something like 300 or more cross-country flights, with rigging, derigging, towing, loading and some outlanding. (My ship suffered minor damage on my recent trip to Moriarty - trailer and hangar rash.) It's what happens when you use your ship as intended. They are fragile and cross-country flying is not a benign pastime!


Mike

[BobW]

On 6/25/2015 4:23 AM, Papa3 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 12:15:20 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>> All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope
>> to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe.
>>
>> Tom
>
> Okay, I'll bite. I tried to use some tongue in cheek humor to defuse my
> initial gut reaction, but here goes. I think it's completely classless
> (i.e. lacking in grace) to throw out troll bait like your comments when
> someone puts tremendous effort into organizing an event like this. Having
> been the guy who has organized any number of soaring events and activities,
> I know how much safety weighs on the mind. Having people sitting on the
> sidelines throwing out thinly-veiled criticisms (okay, completely unveiled
> criticisms) based on rumor and innuendo makes people think twice about
> stepping up in the future.
>
> At this point, if something DOES happen (God forbid), which is not out of
> the question at any glider event, you have the bully pulpit all set up to
> say "see, I told you so."
>
> And, maybe I buried the lead, but IMO there are places where 40 gliders is
> too many and places where 80 is just fine.
>
> Hope there's not too much humor in the above.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
>

+1 to P3.

IMO every sensible soaring practitioner of ANY sort - tyro of every sort of
future predilection, XC wannabe, 'pure' XC fan, 'hardcore' competition
aficionado, definitional 'glasshole,' etc. - has a gut-level, deep, concern
for flight (and personal) safety. Safety does, after all, not only possibly
directly affect our own individual lives and economic futures but also
inextricably entwines the future of the activity we all feel so deeply about.

I've attended camps where I thought *10* gliders were too many (and never
returned to such sites unless I believed the site limit [as defined by me]
wasn't to be exceeded). For the record such sites were narrow mountain strips
in the Colorado Rockies limited by available ground-handling space and likely
to be influenced/quickly-shut-down by monsoon storms. I've also attended camps
where 'maximum safe glider capacity' was limited essentially by tow plane
availability.

Right or wrong my air-to-air collision/fatality concerns at EVERY camp I've
personal experience with (LOTS of 'em) were essentially unvarying; personal
paranoia has long dictated my approach to 'soaring safety' as I expect some
longer-time RASidents already are aware.

If/when I felt my personal safety limits were being pressured my reactions
were drawn from a small collection: politely expressing my concerns directly
to those in a position to 'do something' about it, whether then or in the
future; voting with my feet; explaining my thinking to those expressing
genuine curiosity; continually evaluating my assessments.

I've never thought certain approaches had serious potential to illuminate and
ameliorate 'safety concerns.'

'Certain approaches' that spring to mind include: drive-by shootings; overly
dramatic hand-waving; personal limitations unhelpfully generalized into 'group
endangerment'; concerns and 'hard conclusions' based on hearsay, indirect,
quite-possibly-muddied-by-distance information; etc.

I am in no way trying to diminish or dismiss the O.P.'s individual safety
concerns, but I do take serious issue with how they were expressed. I take
further issue with the above-noted patronizing dismissal of thoughtful,
specific replies as discussion-killing "'feel good' responses." Is there a
sane soaring practitioner anywhere in the world who doesn't "...hope to God
that...this event will be perfectly safe"?

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

I thought at first that this was a reference to Steve & Howard Jones flying
the Arcus!


At 17:40 24 June 2015, Papa3 wrote:
>Bruno,=20
>
>You've got a ways to go to keep up with the Joneses (or more
appropriately
>=
>the Juhaszes)... there are over 110 registered for the European Gliding
>Championships in Hungary next month. That's right - one one zero.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 10:15:20 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe.
>
> Tom

Hi Tom,
We addressed your original concern of NOT having 80+ gliders coming to the event - more like around 65. However,you still seem concerned. What other aspects of this event are you concerned about safety that we can review and address?

As for Glen - thanks for your kind words. ;)

Bruno - B4

[2G]

On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 9:21:35 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 10:15:20 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Hi Tom,
> We addressed your original concern of NOT having 80+ gliders coming to the event - more like around 65. However,you still seem concerned. What other aspects of this event are you concerned about safety that we can review and address?
>
> As for Glen - thanks for your kind words. ;)
>
> Bruno - B4

My original question was how many gliders is too many at a meet. This was a simple question. For my efforts I am vilified as a troll. So be it. I remember the 1984 15 Meter Nationals held at Ephrata, WA where they increased the normal limit of contestants from 40 to 65. There were two mid-airs at the contest, one of which resulted in a fatality.

I guess I was naive to expect a respectful, reasoned discussion of the subject. My bad.

Tom

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 12:15:31 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 9:21:35 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 10:15:20 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > > All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe.
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> > We addressed your original concern of NOT having 80+ gliders coming to the event - more like around 65. However,you still seem concerned. What other aspects of this event are you concerned about safety that we can review and address?
> >
> > As for Glen - thanks for your kind words. ;)
> >
> > Bruno - B4
>
> My original question was how many gliders is too many at a meet. This was a simple question. For my efforts I am vilified as a troll. So be it. I remember the 1984 15 Meter Nationals held at Ephrata, WA where they increased the normal limit of contestants from 40 to 65. There were two mid-airs at the contest, one of which resulted in a fatality.
>
> I guess I was naive to expect a respectful, reasoned discussion of the subject. My bad.
>
> Tom

The Ephrata contest you refer to started with 69 gliders, featured *three* mid-airs, one fatality, some very scary flying in a badly damaged glider after a mid-air, a take off with a disconnected elevator (pilot okay, ship wrecked hard) and launches that were barely clear of the runway end on some days. And that's just the stuff that got written up in the magazine (back in the day when we took time to write... and read... long articles in print magazines). Soaring Sept. 1984 if anyone wants to look it up.

Reading that article (again) illustrates just how far the contest community has come, safety wise.

I agree, you asked a simple question, you got your answer (you misunderstood "80"). You were not vilified. The heat was generated by a certain other less gracious fellow who got pretty much the response he deserved.

Have fun at Nephi, everyone. Fly sharp, fly safe.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 8:04:28 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> You were not vilified.

I guess I should amend that. You were, but I think you were collateral damage so to speak.

best,
Evan

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Glen" wrote (full post with headers at bottom):

> Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from
> what I heard not much organization, too busy going to the
> bank.

In no particular order:

* More likely everyone who opened their trailer went home with a "damaged" glider. Scratches and dings are a fact of life.

* There is no sector of soaring with much "going to the bank." The majority of our sport is subsidized by near-symbiotic relationships.

* Care to tell us who you "heard" this from?

Thanks, Bob K.



X-Received: by 10.42.207.140 with SMTP id fy12mr36843021icb.3.1435146516044;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere:
Received: by 10.107.6.223 with SMTP id f92ls521087ioi.22.gmail; Wed, 24 Jun
2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.66.146.227 with SMTP id tf3mr53917841pab.21.1435146513715;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.33.76 with SMTP id i70mr271143qgi.14.1435146513665; Wed,
24 Jun 2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: k20ni3150qgd.0!nntp.google.com!q107no3036695qgd.0! postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups .com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: >
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1007:b018:2650:2498:5b13:db2e:f255;
posting-account=4i71lQoAAAAQkiQP27wpT7T6vFfR1eo1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1007:b018:2650:2498:5b13:db2e:f255
References: >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: >
Subject: Re: When is too many at a glider meet
From: glen >
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:48:33 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the=
Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, e=
ven if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cr=
oss country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense =
of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at=
once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep inc=
reasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from what I heard not m=
uch organization, too busy going to the bank.

[Gliding Guru]

At 18:30 24 June 2015, Ron Gleason wrote:
>On Wednesday, 24 June 2015 11:40:19 UTC-6, Papa3 wrote:
>> Bruno,=20
>>=20
>> You've got a ways to go to keep up with the Joneses (or more
>appropriatel=
>y the Juhaszes)... there are over 110 registered for the European Gliding
>C=
>hampionships in Hungary next month. That's right - one one zero.
>Slacke=
>r. =20
>>=20
>> Erik Mann (P3)
>>=20
>> p.s. Not to respond to troll bait, but there are places where 40
gliders
>=
>is plenty and places where 100 wouldn't be out of the question. And I
>ce=
>rtainly can't think of any technical sites (mountains, ridges, forests,
>etc=
>..) where there isn't some level of risk. Anyone that isn't aware of
that
>=
>is probably not ready to go to this sort of encampment or to leave the
>hous=
>e unsupervised for that matter. =20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:13:27 AM UTC-4,
>wrot=
>e:
>> > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
>> > > I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders
>for=
> the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too
>man=
>y, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually
>zer=
>o cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false
>se=
>nse of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the
>airpor=
>t at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will
>keep=
> increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.
>> >=20
>> > Actually what you heard is not correct. There will be 96 gliders at
>ou=
>r event. I was hoping for 100 but we couldn't quite make it. Darn! =20
>> >=20
>> > All kidding aside, sorry but you heard wrong. We are not sure of the
>fi=
>nal numbers due to many last minute drop outs, but it will be somewhere
in
>=
>the 60's with 6 tow planes. Last year we had 68 gliders attend and it
>work=
>ed out well, both at the airport and in the air. The largest gaggle seen
>l=
>ast year only had around a half dozen gliders in it. Utah air and
thermals
>=
>offer lots of room.
>> >=20
>> > Bruno - B4
>
>Erik, Erik, Erik how can you make this comparison? In Nephi we gather to
>f=
>ly with friends, attempt personal bests, fly the Great Basin, experience
>8-=
>10 knot thermals, observe National Parks and monuments from air, stay
>airbo=
>rne for 4, 6, 8+ hours, attempt state records, find cloud streets or lift
>l=
>ines that run for 10's of miles, make new friends, experience rural UT
and
>=
>many other great experience soaring is known for.
>
>Of course there are 110+ pilots at the European Championships, who would
>no=
>t want to attend when you have sponsors paying for everything, free use
of
>=
>gliders provided by manufacturers, accommodations at 4star hotels, air
>cond=
>itioned facilities for pilot meetings and lounges, ground crews provided
>by=
> the organizers that do everything for the pilots, catered meals, free
>booz=
>e and much much more. Plus you have a set rules to follow that the US
>folk=
>s do not understand.=20
>
>No comparison at all

Jeeze do they sponsor gliding now - cool I can finally quit my day job!!!

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-6, glen wrote:
Glen,
I was there last year and can be counted in as a "damaged glider" due to a small rock chip on the underside of my fuselage from landing on the grass strip. The only damaged gliders I saw were caused at the airport by non attentive pilots/crews going down the taxi and hitting landing lights. Plus there was one damaged by running off the end of a 6,000' runway through the approach lights. Yes a tow-plane did experience an engine fatality on the ground. All the above were due to individual mistakes not the number of gliders...
Tom
One Idah


di age > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.
>
> Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from what I heard not much organization, too busy going to the bank.

[Papa3[_2_]]

Tom,

I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).

For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question".

As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.

Sincerely,
Erik Mann (P3)

[Nigel Pocock[_2_]]

Quote :-
Of course there are 110+ pilots at the European Championships, who
would =
not want to attend when you have sponsors paying for everything, free
use o=
f gliders provided by manufacturers, accommodations at 4star hotels,
air co=
nditioned facilities for pilot meetings and lounges, ground crews
provided =
by the organizers that do everything for the pilots, catered meals, free
bo=
oze and much much more. Plus you have a set rules to follow that the
US fo=
lks do not understand.

I cant speak for other nations but the uk pilots:-
Have very limited sponsorship, typically this pays for the ferry and fuel
to get to the event.
Use their own gliders.
Stay in their own tents.
Meeting rooms might be provided by the organisers to all competitors.
Provide their own crews.
Buy food and refreshment like anyone else.
you read the rules like any other competitor.

Incidentally our club has a typical grid launch at the weekends of 40 -
80 gliders. plus winch launches plus club aerotows. The 18m Nationals
and Laham regionals will have a combined entry of about 90 gliders.

[2G]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
>
> For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question".
>
> As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
>
> Sincerely,
> Erik Mann (P3)

Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.

Tom

[[email protected]]

P3 +1
2G -5

5Z

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 5:52:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> >
> > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question"..
> >
> > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
>
> Tom

[Papa3[_2_]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibWqDWGcBM

Outta here.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 5:52:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> >
> > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question"..
> >
> > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
>
> Tom

Tom Seim... you are a whining blowhard. You started this thread with incorrect information, and instead of picking up the phone or sending a private email to check your facts or express your concerns you just go out of your way to attempting a well timed/last minute public character assassination of folks organizing an event for other glider pilots. An event with a very good reputation. And then when you don't succeed in your character assassination, and people call you on your behavior, you accuse them of bullying you. Your behavior is why people think you are an asshole, and don't care at all what you think about saftey or anything else.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 5:52:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> >
> > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question"..
> >
> > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
>
> Tom

Tom Seim... you are a whining blowhard. You started this thread with incorrect information, and instead of picking up the phone or sending a private email to check your facts or express your concerns you just go out of your way to attempting a well timed/last minute public character assassination of folks organizing an event for other glider pilots. An event with a very good reputation. And then when you don't succeed in your character assassination, and people call you on your behavior, you accuse them of bullying you. Your behavior is why people think you are an asshole, and don't care at all what you think about saftey or anything else.

[ND]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 12:07:32 AM UTC-4, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 5:52:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> > >
> > > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question".
> > >
> > > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Erik Mann (P3)
> >
> > Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Tom Seim... you are a whining blowhard. You started this thread with incorrect information, and instead of picking up the phone or sending a private email to check your facts or express your concerns you just go out of your way to attempting a well timed/last minute public character assassination of folks organizing an event for other glider pilots. An event with a very good reputation. And then when you don't succeed in your character assassination, and people call you on your behavior, you accuse them of bullying you. Your behavior is why people think you are an asshole, and don't care at all what you think about saftey or anything else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0fl2u9xN_Q

[ND]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 10:53:38 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibWqDWGcBM
>
> Outta here.

http://funnyand.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Talk-to-Stupid-People.jpg

[ND]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 8:52:48 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> >
> > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question"..
> >
> > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
>
> Tom

dude the soaring weather must suck in your neck of the woods, this smacks of boredom.

[WAVEGURU]

Hey now. I know Tom and I can personally vouch for him. Darryl, you are completely correct, Tom is an asshole...


Boggs

[[email protected]]

Well doggone it! Now the cat is out of the bag. Just imagine what is gonna happen when people learn that hosting a contest is a money-making proposition. Every club, commercial operator, airport operator, and investment banker will be lining up to host glider contests. I fully expect Donald Trump to drop out of the presidential race and host several glider contests just to line his pockets. I'm sure the SSA is sorry they were not able to keep this secret for the few anointed parties who have been getting wealthy hosting contests year after year. /sarc/

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 5:52:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> >
> > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question"..
> >
> > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Erik Mann (P3)
>
> Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
>
> Tom

That really was totally unnecessary.

Anybody who knows Eric even a little can attest that he is the opposite of "classless". His suggested edit to the original post was thoughtful, totally benign and educational as to how to raise a question or concern on r.a.s. while avoiding unnecessary and destructive speculation, potentially avoiding the kind of conflagration that results when accusations are made without proper fact-checking.

I also don't understand how a guy who lives and flies in New Jersey can have a "vested interest" in an event in Utah or how suggesting how to avoid baseless speculation in a post is "bullying". That's just bizarre.

Perhaps rather than doubling down on a the initial factual error with a whole new and equally baseless "bully and enemy of safety" assertion, a more appropriate post would have been: "Good edit Eric, that would have been a better way to put it".

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 5:52:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:02:04 AM UTC-7, Papa3 wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I'd go back and reread your original post. I don't think it was a "simple question." It was a thinly veiled criticism of the Nephi XC/OLC camp and the organizers. I'm all for questions that create meaningful dialogue related to safety. In fact, I think it's one of the best things that R.A.S. can contribute (realizing that one has to sift through a lot of slag to find nuggets of useful information).
> > >
> > > For your consideration, here's a light edit of your original "question".
> > >
> > > As many of you know, the Nephi XC/OLC camp is slated to kick off in a few days. As I understand it, the camp is expecting in excess of 60 participants and maybe as many as 80. That's a lot of gliders in one place. So, how many gliders is too many? What needs to be done to ensure safety in such a setting? I'd be interested in thoughts from people who have experience with large soaring events. What are considerations for safety on course? In the pattern? On the ground? Thanks for any and all thoughtful contributions.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Erik Mann (P3)
> >
> > Now that the event is over and no in-flight injuries occurred, I will respond to your criticisms of my question. You are abusive and aggressive when it comes to a subject in which you have a vested interest. This is classless and disruptive. You want to browbeat others into submitting to your personal whims and desires. You have nothing to add to the subject of safety of gliders and detract from the subject in general. This attitude is why people don't want to talk about safety.
> >
> > Tom
>
> That really was totally unnecessary.
>
> Anybody who knows Eric even a little can attest that he is the opposite of "classless". His suggested edit to the original post was thoughtful, totally benign and educational as to how to raise a question or concern on r.a.s. while avoiding unnecessary and destructive speculation, potentially avoiding the kind of conflagration that results when accusations are made without proper fact-checking.
>
> I also don't understand how a guy who lives and flies in New Jersey can have a "vested interest" in an event in Utah or how suggesting how to avoid baseless speculation in a post is "bullying". That's just bizarre.
>
> Perhaps rather than doubling down on a the initial factual error with a whole new and equally baseless "bully and enemy of safety" assertion, a more appropriate post would have been: "Good edit Eric, that would have been a better way to put it".
>
> 9B

Sorry for the typo Erik (duh)

9B

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

How about we keep it a bit more civil. The results and positive posts about the event speak louder than any of the name calling. I look forward to flying the nationals there next year. "Keep it classy San Diego".

[2G]

Boy, is this a tough crowd!

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!

Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.

Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.

Okay, fire away, I can take it.

Tom

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:40:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> Boy, is this a tough crowd!
>
> For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.
>
> Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!
>
> Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!
>
> Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.
>
> Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.
>
> Okay, fire away, I can take it.
>
> Tom

Uh oh. He's found the caps lock key.

[2G]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:08:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:40:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > Boy, is this a tough crowd!
> >
> > For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.
> >
> > Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!
> >
> > Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!
> >
> > Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.
> >
> > Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.
> >
> > Okay, fire away, I can take it.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Uh oh. He's found the caps lock key.

Come on Darryl, is that your BEST comeback? No "asshole" or "jerk" or "idiot" pejorative? Really, you can do BETTER!

[Ramy[_2_]]

Ok Tom, I'll bite, as I participated in the event twice and I also had concerns before I participated the first time.
The location and organizers has *everything* to do with how many is too many.
In the case of the Nephi events, there were multiple factors which made the high number of participants a non issue:
1- PowerFlarm mandatory. This mad a HUGE difference. I just can't say enough on how much it reduces the risk of mid air.
2 - line holds. The organizers held the line whenever there was even a minor congestion over the field.
3 - no start gate, which means everyone left once they topped out in the first thermal.
4 - multiple ranges and directions to go, so everyone spread quickly.
5- multiple options to land in case of congestion in the pattern: main runway, the grass parallel to the runway, a cross runway.
6 - since it wasn't a contest, most pilots only flew some of the days, making the max number of gliders flying on any given day at no more than 50.

So to answer your question, for Nephi OLC camp, 60 gliders are just about right.

Ramy

[Darryl Ramm]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:18:48 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:08:24 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> > On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:40:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > Boy, is this a tough crowd!
> > >
> > > For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.
> > >
> > > Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!
> > >
> > > Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!
> > >
> > > Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture.. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.
> > >
> > > Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.
> > >
> > > Okay, fire away, I can take it.
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Uh oh. He's found the caps lock key.
>
> Come on Darryl, is that your BEST comeback? No "asshole" or "jerk" or "idiot" pejorative? Really, you can do BETTER!

I think everybody here takes the asshole, jerk and idiot part as given....

[Frank Whiteley]

"2G" wrote in message
...

Boy, is this a tough crowd!

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in
the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that
information.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY
criticized it!

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and
reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult
for a change!

Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how
many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched
faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture.
Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The
issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky
theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window.
And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that
pilots fly at high speed at each other.

Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors
here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying
practices.

Okay, fire away, I can take it.

Tom

This was an SSA sanctioned air meet, though not a ranking competition. The
SSA sanction limit of 65 was in effect as well as the SSA pilot waivers and
insurance requirements. As I approved this sanction, I did take time to
verify attendance with the organizers following your original post.

As to how many gliders are too many for a particular venue, there are some
sensible things to consider before entertaining a waiver above the sanction
limit. There are also sensible reasons to set a lower limit. These
organizers have the upcoming Logan Mountain Flying Camp and have set a limit
of 40 for this sanctioned event.

I think there are a few housekeeping items the SSA needs to consider
regarding the sanctions of OLC/XC and other themed camps, just to clarify
the sanction boundaries and requirements.

Regards,

Frank Whiteley
SSA Director, Region 9
970-330-2050 7am-10pm MDT

[2G]

> I think everybody here takes the asshole, jerk and idiot part as given.....

Well, I guess that was your BEST comeback! Good luck next time!

Ramy,

What you are saying, as I see it, is that FLARM permits a higher density of gliders than without. In general, I agree with that. I would like to see pilot reports of how FLARM worked out at this event. My general safety approach, for an idiotic assholic jerk, is that you MUST error on the side of safety. Personally, I would put the number at 40, but at least you gave me a number unlike the rest.

Tom

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

> Boy, is this a tough crowd!

People call it like they see it, true.

> For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.

Apology noted. Also for the record, the SSA event page clearly stated the 65 limit and that the event was oversubscribed. Also, the participant list detailed "confirmed" vs "wait list" so no matter what bad info you may have received, it would have been simple to verify that the info was bad before firing off a post. This is a public forum and predicting fatalities is about as irresponsible as you can get when your facts are wrong.

> Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!

And you didn't have the facts on your side (with regard to actual participants, nor any specific knowledge of the airport facilities, operations or surrounding landable fields when you did it so I don't see how this clarification represents an improvement.

> Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!

Okay, but you kind of had it coming by predicting fatalities and then doubling down when the facts turned against you.

> Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.

I think you mostly missed the point. The criticism isn't with the theoretical question of what is the maximum capacity of a glider site or even asking it about a specific site. It was that you didn't ask the question, you asserted an answer without any demonstrable knowledge of the circumstances of the event or even the correct number of participants.

Specifically, for Nephi, it is really hard to construct a scenario where 60 (or 80) gliders launched 90-plus minutes apart and flying at altitudes from 6,000 to as much as 17,000 feet all get knocked out of the sky by a storm at exactly the same time (where none of them have headed out on course to escape the approaching storm) such that none can orbit more than 30 seconds, all the ground help is incapacitated, everyone lands midfield and just sits in their glider and no one decides to use the cross runway, the 7000x250 feet of turf to the west, the infield or any of the three dozen landable fields within range of the downwind entry point. Is there a theoretical limit? Probably, but your "IMHO" assertion was, whether you meant it or not, a misinformed slander of an event that has had a lot of thought put into operations and specific lessons from prior events. Also, raising a midair concern and reiterating it now for an event that was PowerFLARM mandatory, seems particularly ill-advised (and "ready!-fire!-aim!).

> Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.

Not so - safety gets discussed regularly on r.a.s, generally with a great deal of seriousness. Also, an ad hominem criticism of the flying skills of a poster doesn't make his points incorrect nor does it validate the comment from you he might be criticizing. It's almost entirely irrelevant and comes across as a kind of "your momma" retort.

> Okay, fire away, I can take it.

If you insist. :-)

Really Tom, it's not asking questions about safe operations that gets people jumping to defend Nephi, it's the assertion that they did it wrong and you know better. You don't. Your facts were wrong and your theories about what might happen were inconsistent with the operations and airport layout. When you double down on it you just dig the hole deeper. It is possible that some of the responses you got didn't come from daredevil morons who lack your insight or depth of experience operating large-scale glider events at Nephi or anywhere else.

There's a vast difference between making the last debating point and being right. A little active listening would go a long way. This is a public forum and wild assertions, if they stand uncorrected, can do damage to events, reputations and the sport more broadly.

With regards,

Andy
9B

[Jim White[_3_]]

Probably already said but Lasham launch over 100 in their annual comp,
every year. It is what they have done for years without too many problems.
If the organisation know what they are doing and the pilots are sensible it
isn't a problem.

[[email protected]]

As well as 100 or so regularly at the Lasham comps, there are over that number based there all the time, with an organised grid launch on good weekend days (as Nigel P already mentioned).

The home-based gliders can still fly during the competition week, launching before and after the main grid, so sometimes the continuous stream may be 150 to 200.

By coincidence, before this discussion started I watched someone's video on YouTube, starting and ending at Nephi. It didn't look like a small place to me.

People can land sensibly in rather smaller areas without real drama. A retrieve instruction was go along the road to - for about 20 km until you come to what looks like a gliding club. There were about 30 juniors in about 350m by 150m. Or at a pre-Worlds 18 or 20 at a small strip in a quarry at the side of a lake.

One of the biggest mass arrivals I've seen was about 60 gliders in 3 or 4 minutes, but even that only used a fraction of the space available. mostly direct landings rather than circuits. But for those doing circuits the instructions should avoid clashing with direct landings anyway.

I'm not counselling complacency, and people do need to keep their wits about them, but at least avoid wildly exaggerating the risks.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I will add this, even on a big field that is clear, that STILL does not mean someone (that stopped thinking) can't land in a bad spot and run into parked aircraft.
I know, I saw the aftermath at our field (no injuries to people, broken glider, broken towplane).

Max number of gliders has a lot to do with field size & approaches. Huge field with 360* of flat approaches should be able to handle more gliders that a small narrow field with trees on multiple sides.

I have never been to Nephi, so I can't comment on the site.

[2G]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 11:40:58 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Boy, is this a tough crowd!
>
> People call it like they see it, true.
>
> > For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.
>
> Apology noted. Also for the record, the SSA event page clearly stated the 65 limit and that the event was oversubscribed. Also, the participant list detailed "confirmed" vs "wait list" so no matter what bad info you may have received, it would have been simple to verify that the info was bad before firing off a post. This is a public forum and predicting fatalities is about as irresponsible as you can get when your facts are wrong.
>
> > Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!
>
> And you didn't have the facts on your side (with regard to actual participants, nor any specific knowledge of the airport facilities, operations or surrounding landable fields when you did it so I don't see how this clarification represents an improvement.
>
> > Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!
>
> Okay, but you kind of had it coming by predicting fatalities and then doubling down when the facts turned against you.

I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.

>
> > Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.
>
> I think you mostly missed the point. The criticism isn't with the theoretical question of what is the maximum capacity of a glider site or even asking it about a specific site. It was that you didn't ask the question, you asserted an answer without any demonstrable knowledge of the circumstances of the event or even the correct number of participants.

The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.

>
> Specifically, for Nephi, it is really hard to construct a scenario where 60 (or 80) gliders launched 90-plus minutes apart and flying at altitudes from 6,000 to as much as 17,000 feet all get knocked out of the sky by a storm at exactly the same time (where none of them have headed out on course to escape the approaching storm) such that none can orbit more than 30 seconds, all the ground help is incapacitated, everyone lands midfield and just sits in their glider and no one decides to use the cross runway, the 7000x250 feet of turf to the west, the infield or any of the three dozen landable fields within range of the downwind entry point. Is there a theoretical limit? Probably, but your "IMHO" assertion was, whether you meant it or not, a misinformed slander of an event that has had a lot of thought put into operations and specific lessons from prior events. Also, raising a midair concern and reiterating it now for an event that was PowerFLARM mandatory, seems particularly ill-advised (and "ready!-fire!-aim!).

Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.

>
> > Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.
>
> Not so - safety gets discussed regularly on r.a.s, generally with a great deal of seriousness. Also, an ad hominem criticism of the flying skills of a poster doesn't make his points incorrect nor does it validate the comment from you he might be criticizing. It's almost entirely irrelevant and comes across as a kind of "your momma" retort.

That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

>
> > Okay, fire away, I can take it.
>
> If you insist. :-)
>
> Really Tom, it's not asking questions about safe operations that gets people jumping to defend Nephi, it's the assertion that they did it wrong and you know better. You don't. Your facts were wrong and your theories about what might happen were inconsistent with the operations and airport layout. When you double down on it you just dig the hole deeper. It is possible that some of the responses you got didn't come from daredevil morons who lack your insight or depth of experience operating large-scale glider events at Nephi or anywhere else.

My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.

>
> There's a vast difference between making the last debating point and being right. A little active listening would go a long way. This is a public forum and wild assertions, if they stand uncorrected, can do damage to events, reputations and the sport more broadly.

Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.

>
> With regards,
>
> Andy
> 9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>
> I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.

In your own words:

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality"

and

"All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe."

Sounds like a prediction and a reinforcement of that prediction to me. If being wrong means a safe events what does being right mean when your prior post used the word "fatality"? Sheesh.


> The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.

The only specific number you offered was 80 ("eight zero") and that was made up.

> Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.

I have flown large-scale Utah soaring events dozens of times (Parowan, Logan, Nephi - as well as Minden and Ely), including all but one of the Nephi events (I've never seen you at any of them) and no, it hasn't happened - I have never seen the capacity of Nephi (or anywhere else - though that wasn't the subject here) strained, despite numerous thunderstorm days, weak conditions, strong conditions, high top of lift, low top of lift... all over hundreds of flights.

> That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Well, you were trying to make some sort of point that a poster's flying record invalidated his point about safety, which isn't correct. It's not clear what point you are trying to make now. It seems to be who is the bigger a-hole. That's not a contest I'd really take much pride in finishing second.

> My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.

Huh? Here is the direct quote of your "concern" from your original post:

"They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos."

I am at a total loss as to how or when your new concern emerged, but it is not what you originally posted. Furthermore, I have no idea how you now conclude that the big problem is "getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time". What small area? The sky? With 16-17,000' cloud bases? With tows spaced out over 1.5 to 2 hours? With early launches heading out on course immediately? At the same time? They were being launched one at a time, not at the same time. The spacing was average to greater than average given the tow cycle times at that altitude. Your argument has changed with each successive post. Each new argument gets harder and harder to decipher. Please explain what small area you are referring to and how that relates to the entire field being forced back to the airport (you original post) and why the size and shape of the airport is irrelevant to the entire field being force to return and land. Oh, and if the airport is irrelevant to your concern then what about the Nephi operation was a concern? You totally took a left turn into a new dimension on that one.

> Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.

No, I read all of this quite carefully - particularly because your logic has been so tortured, inconsistent and, well, lacking. It takes an immense amount of focus and energy to try to figure out what point your are trying to make. Your latest comments lead me to conclude that I read your posts more carefully that you do, since you contradict your own prior statements.

9B

[BruceGreeff]

I tend to agree with Andy here.

I see an all too familiar pattern of people taking positions and having
heated personal debates that tend to miss the point.

So - applying some consulting skills:

I believe the original poster was of the opinion that the number of
contestants has a direct correlation with the relative safety of an
event. Various motivations for the perceived correlation were advanced.
Some relating to exogenous factors like weather and geography, and some
internals - predicting that behaviour will be influenced by the
competitive situation and lead to dangerous flying.

Unfortunately there is no way to directly test and disprove the thesis
(and the scientific method is that you can't prove a thesis - the best
you can say is that there is evidence to support the thesis and it has
not been proven wrong yet)

In most cases I see a lot of anecdotal evidence or opinions advanced to
prove or disprove a conclusion drawn from limited experience. One of the
big problems we have with this is misattribution - take an opinion or
speculative position and look for the first correlating fact we can
find.(never mind about whether there is any known / proven causal link)


So - I urge people to think a little before ascribing causal meaning to
things that merely correlate. Much more I wish people would discriminate
between
- a concern - that's a lot of people flying together, I hope nobody gets
hurt.
- a thesis - we postulate that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the number of contestants in any contest and the
risk per flying hour of an incident.
- speculation - I wonder if it is dangerous to fly in a group event with
more than 20 pilots participating?
- conjecture - there have been accidents at contests involving lots of
pilots so I conclude it is dangerous for lots of gliders to launch in a
short period of time.

A lot of the time people mix these all together, and it becomes very
difficult to work out what they actually think they are saying, let
alone what they meant...

Just saying - it might make things easier if we were more explicit about
things and think before we, for example, accidentally present
speculation as fact.

In that spirit, let me indulge in a little mind experimenting.

In my limited experience flying camps, contests and general stuff and as
a long time safety officer, I have observed the following:

Does the concentration of aircraft and activity in a relatively
constrained volume of airspace make for more danger from mid-air
collision , or ground collision or loss of control due to avoidance due
to the higher proximity?
My experience says the contrary. In a busy event there is a heightened
awareness of proximity and situational awareness tends to be excellent
due to the communication efforts of the organisers and participants. The
occasional mistake still happens, but from an accident history, I have
seen fewer incidents at busy events as opposed to the quiet days.
Similarly, it seems there is less danger when everyone is focussed on
the same thing, and generally on a similar task - so the combination of
bad task setting and concentration of participants might cause problems,
but in my experience the organisers do a good job of making
non-conflicting routes.

Does the absolute number of contestants correlate directly with risk? My
experience is that we each manage our risk according to our personal
comfort levels and capabilities. Busiest gaggle I have ever personally
been in had 36 gliders stacked in a 9,000" deep cylinder at the start.
Every time a tug dropped anyone - they would make a beeline for the
bottom of the "big" thermal. When they started crowding around at the
top, people started leaving. The very experienced pilots fought it out
to the top, but they would be doing the same if there were only 2 or 4
of them ...

We could go on for a long time - but enough to say that there is little
empirical evidence that the number of participants relates directly to
risk. What I have evidence of is, that for any particular facility and
available resources like tugs and ground crew - there is a point beyond
which risk will increase. If you are not leaving anywhere for a relight
landing, or there is nowhere safe to run out on the runway, or there are
points where aircraft will approach with significantly different tracks,
then you have to start doing something to manage the risk.

So -
I think you can find evidence where the organisation's failure to plan
or organise around the number of participants has resulted in accidents.
I think you will find evidence that failing to avoid conflicting flight
paths will result in increased danger. (It only takes two to make a
midair) and it is easy to find evidence that task setters avoid this.
It is easy to confirm that the general experience level and relative
safety maturity of the participants in such an event is well above
average. I could speculate that this is because the inexperienced wisely
elect to avoid them, or because they are more attractive to the
experienced pilot.
I think you will find evidence that "big" events are generally safer per
flying distance or time, than general operations.

The fact that there are lots of people flying lots of km over
consecutive days naturally concentrates the number of reported
incidents, but my conjecture (based on experience but not hard numbers)
is that it does so generally in a less than linear ratio to the same
group of pilots in general operations. So it is perhaps safe to assert a
thesis - I believe that there is a higher probability that an accident
or incident will occur during a contest because of the amount of flying,
but that on most meaningful metrics it is actually safer to fly in such
an event than to fly the same number of flights/cross country km and/or
time in general operations at the home field.

The sheer number of safely concluded contests is testimony to this - but
it is an unproven thesis.

So to come back to the OPs point.
If there were 20 more pilots competing at Nephi - would the statistical
probability of a reportable safety event increase?
Answer - of course it would, but probably in a diminishing ratio.

Would an accident at Nephi prove that the grid was too big and that the
accident would not have happened if the number (n) was limited to say 40?
Answer - Since it only takes one glider on one flight to have an
accident, and the number of accidents at any site is so small, it would
be practically impossible to make a statistically valid model that
supports this thesis except for the edge case where n=0.

More pertinently - would adding "n" additional aircraft to the grid
increase individual risk for the existing participants?
Answer - Personally I doubt it.(trivially it increases the risk for the
new participant)

Lastly - Is there a maximum number of pilots who can compete in an event
with guaranteed safety, and that you can prove that more than this
introduces risk?
Answer - Of course there is - the number is ZERO. Above that, the answer
is "It depends".

This winter weather is clearly getting to me...

Bruce --
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[Ventus_a]

I tend to agree with Andy here.

I see an all too familiar pattern of people taking positions and having
heated personal debates that tend to miss the point.

So - applying some consulting skills:

I believe the original poster was of the opinion that the number of
contestants has a direct correlation with the relative safety of an
event. Various motivations for the perceived correlation were advanced.
Some relating to exogenous factors like weather and geography, and some
internals - predicting that behaviour will be influenced by the
competitive situation and lead to dangerous flying.

Unfortunately there is no way to directly test and disprove the thesis
(and the scientific method is that you can't prove a thesis - the best
you can say is that there is evidence to support the thesis and it has
not been proven wrong yet)

In most cases I see a lot of anecdotal evidence or opinions advanced to
prove or disprove a conclusion drawn from limited experience. One of the
big problems we have with this is misattribution - take an opinion or
speculative position and look for the first correlating fact we can
find.(never mind about whether there is any known / proven causal link)


So - I urge people to think a little before ascribing causal meaning to
things that merely correlate. Much more I wish people would discriminate
between
- a concern - that's a lot of people flying together, I hope nobody gets
hurt.
- a thesis - we postulate that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the number of contestants in any contest and the
risk per flying hour of an incident.
- speculation - I wonder if it is dangerous to fly in a group event with
more than 20 pilots participating?
- conjecture - there have been accidents at contests involving lots of
pilots so I conclude it is dangerous for lots of gliders to launch in a
short period of time.

A lot of the time people mix these all together, and it becomes very
difficult to work out what they actually think they are saying, let
alone what they meant...

Just saying - it might make things easier if we were more explicit about
things and think before we, for example, accidentally present
speculation as fact.

In that spirit, let me indulge in a little mind experimenting.

In my limited experience flying camps, contests and general stuff and as
a long time safety officer, I have observed the following:

Does the concentration of aircraft and activity in a relatively
constrained volume of airspace make for more danger from mid-air
collision , or ground collision or loss of control due to avoidance due
to the higher proximity?
My experience says the contrary. In a busy event there is a heightened
awareness of proximity and situational awareness tends to be excellent
due to the communication efforts of the organisers and participants. The
occasional mistake still happens, but from an accident history, I have
seen fewer incidents at busy events as opposed to the quiet days.
Similarly, it seems there is less danger when everyone is focussed on
the same thing, and generally on a similar task - so the combination of
bad task setting and concentration of participants might cause problems,
but in my experience the organisers do a good job of making
non-conflicting routes.

Does the absolute number of contestants correlate directly with risk? My
experience is that we each manage our risk according to our personal
comfort levels and capabilities. Busiest gaggle I have ever personally
been in had 36 gliders stacked in a 9,000" deep cylinder at the start.
Every time a tug dropped anyone - they would make a beeline for the
bottom of the "big" thermal. When they started crowding around at the
top, people started leaving. The very experienced pilots fought it out
to the top, but they would be doing the same if there were only 2 or 4
of them ...

We could go on for a long time - but enough to say that there is little
empirical evidence that the number of participants relates directly to
risk. What I have evidence of is, that for any particular facility and
available resources like tugs and ground crew - there is a point beyond
which risk will increase. If you are not leaving anywhere for a relight
landing, or there is nowhere safe to run out on the runway, or there are
points where aircraft will approach with significantly different tracks,
then you have to start doing something to manage the risk.

So -
I think you can find evidence where the organisation's failure to plan
or organise around the number of participants has resulted in accidents.
I think you will find evidence that failing to avoid conflicting flight
paths will result in increased danger. (It only takes two to make a
midair) and it is easy to find evidence that task setters avoid this.
It is easy to confirm that the general experience level and relative
safety maturity of the participants in such an event is well above
average. I could speculate that this is because the inexperienced wisely
elect to avoid them, or because they are more attractive to the
experienced pilot.
I think you will find evidence that "big" events are generally safer per
flying distance or time, than general operations.

The fact that there are lots of people flying lots of km over
consecutive days naturally concentrates the number of reported
incidents, but my conjecture (based on experience but not hard numbers)
is that it does so generally in a less than linear ratio to the same
group of pilots in general operations. So it is perhaps safe to assert a
thesis - I believe that there is a higher probability that an accident
or incident will occur during a contest because of the amount of flying,
but that on most meaningful metrics it is actually safer to fly in such
an event than to fly the same number of flights/cross country km and/or
time in general operations at the home field.

The sheer number of safely concluded contests is testimony to this - but
it is an unproven thesis.

So to come back to the OPs point.
If there were 20 more pilots competing at Nephi - would the statistical
probability of a reportable safety event increase?
Answer - of course it would, but probably in a diminishing ratio.

Would an accident at Nephi prove that the grid was too big and that the
accident would not have happened if the number (n) was limited to say 40?
Answer - Since it only takes one glider on one flight to have an
accident, and the number of accidents at any site is so small, it would
be practically impossible to make a statistically valid model that
supports this thesis except for the edge case where n=0.

More pertinently - would adding "n" additional aircraft to the grid
increase individual risk for the existing participants?
Answer - Personally I doubt it.(trivially it increases the risk for the
new participant)

Lastly - Is there a maximum number of pilots who can compete in an event
with guaranteed safety, and that you can prove that more than this
introduces risk?
Answer - Of course there is - the number is ZERO. Above that, the answer
is "It depends".

This winter weather is clearly getting to me...

Bruce --
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Very sagacious Bruce. Lots of food for thought

:-)

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 10:02:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

2G,
I have to say that you don't have a very clear picture of the Nephi event. This year the airport (Which more than doubled in size a few years ago) had 6 areas that were landable and one could turn off the main runway into an expansive infield at any time. I have been in the pattern with 8 other gliders during last years contest and we all landed on the main runway with no stress. With cooperation and a well coordinated ground crew this is not a big deal. The airport is also surrounded by landable fields and you have to consider that without everyone bunched up in a start cylinder the chance of a mass landing is non existent. There were improvements this year in staging and landing (with penalties of being excluded from the following days flying) and things went very smooth. There is something to consider with Flarm, It does not replace diligence, it just makes scanning easier. I have found it more challenging to fly the contest at Air Sailing (Nevada) where most years there are 15 or so contestants but with Minden and Truckee busy ATC shows between 40-50 transponder equipped gliders in the air at any given time. Some of these people may or may not have the heightened awareness about a contest in the area. This is where the PF really pays for itself.
One of the big problems Bruno and the Utah Soaring Association have is that this format (And the site) have become hugely popular. The roster filled up in two weeks with a waiting list. Where else can you race all out, leisurely boat around the course with your buddies on a party line frequency, or ignore the task and go off on a personal best. Ive done all the above and this year I took the Hard working club president around the course in a club trainer which was something he had never done before. I suggest you hop in the car two years from now and try it out for yourself and then maybe you can make a little more educated posts.
Lastly, and you probably know this by now, don't start a post with "I recently learned" followed by stuff you know nothing about. It makes you look silly.

[Mike the Strike]

The British/South African contingent at Nephi did not consider the OP to be an asshole. We think he is a ******!

Mike

[2G]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> >
> > I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.
>
> In your own words:
>
> "I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality"
>
> and
>
> "All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe."

>
> Sounds like a prediction and a reinforcement of that prediction to me. If being wrong means a safe events what does being right mean when your prior post used the word "fatality"? Sheesh.

Neither of those statements are a prediction of a fatality. Sorry, you are the one making that interpretation. I cannot control what it "sounds like" to you. A "bad feeling" is EXACTLY that, a bad feeling, not a prediction.

>
>
> > The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.
>
> The only specific number you offered was 80 ("eight zero") and that was made up.

The number WAS NOT made up - it came from a member of their staff.

>
> > Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.
>
> I have flown large-scale Utah soaring events dozens of times (Parowan, Logan, Nephi - as well as Minden and Ely), including all but one of the Nephi events (I've never seen you at any of them) and no, it hasn't happened - I have never seen the capacity of Nephi (or anywhere else - though that wasn't the subject here) strained, despite numerous thunderstorm days, weak conditions, strong conditions, high top of lift, low top of lift... all over hundreds of flights.

Well, I HAVE! You just didn't fly on those days.

>
> > That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.
>
> Well, you were trying to make some sort of point that a poster's flying record invalidated his point about safety, which isn't correct. It's not clear what point you are trying to make now. It seems to be who is the bigger a-hole. That's not a contest I'd really take much pride in finishing second..

Andy, you are hopeless. This whole thread has been nothing but a personal invective towards me. He was making a character statement about me, therefore HIS character becomes fair game.

>
> > My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.
>
> Huh? Here is the direct quote of your "concern" from your original post:
>
> "They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos."
>
> I am at a total loss as to how or when your new concern emerged, but it is not what you originally posted. Furthermore, I have no idea how you now conclude that the big problem is "getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time". What small area? The sky? With 16-17,000' cloud bases? With tows spaced out over 1.5 to 2 hours? With early launches heading out on course immediately? At the same time? They were being launched one at a time, not at the same time. The spacing was average to greater than average given the tow cycle times at that altitude. Your argument has changed with each successive post. Each new argument gets harder and harder to decipher. Please explain what small area you are referring to and how that relates to the entire field being forced back to the airport (you original post) and why the size and shape of the airport is irrelevant to the entire field being force to return and land. Oh, and if the airport is irrelevant to your concern then what about the Nephi operation was a concern? You totally took a left turn into a new dimension on that one.

My concern came 31 years ago after the Ephrata 15M nationals.

>
> > Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.
>
> No, I read all of this quite carefully - particularly because your logic has been so tortured, inconsistent and, well, lacking. It takes an immense amount of focus and energy to try to figure out what point your are trying to make. Your latest comments lead me to conclude that I read your posts more carefully that you do, since you contradict your own prior statements.
>

That is your opinion. As I told someone else, I will defend to the death the right for you to have an opinion, even if it is wrong. My interest is making these events safer, nothing more, nothing less. Too many gliders at a meet is unsafe, that is my point. Is that REALLY too hard to understand?

Best regards,
Tom

[Darryl Ramm]

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - UNTIL THERE IS A FATALITY"

Is a prediction of a fatality.

It's pretty clear folks here think your a jerk and do not value whatever wisdom you think you are imparting to humanity, but keep going... digging yourself a deeper hole. The attempted public character assassination of good people who are very successfully and safely promotion soaring, the holier-than-thou I know more than you do (when you clearly have your facts wrong) and let me just tell all you idiots style, and the bull**** of arguing what you wrote when it's right in front of everybody to see.

Go on keep digging yourself a hole, I hope clubs, FBOs and event organizers are paying attention and will in future provide you with the "not welcome here" reception you are working so hard to earn. With an attitude like yours I would not want you anywhere near an event or glider port criticizing and arguing about stuff. And since you drive a motorglider and can go off an launch from somewhere else, that is a great thing for you, and everybody else here.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Doc? I need help! This thread is giving me flashbacks beyond-in-time even a
certain lurking Leonard, all the way back to middle school!!! (Did not! Did
too! Did NOT!! Did TOO!! etc.)

How about letting it go, Tom? Taking your most recent post-ending statement at
face value, i.e....

"My interest is making these events safer, nothing more, nothing less. Too
many gliders at a meet is unsafe, that is my point. Is that REALLY too hard to
understand?

"Best regards, Tom"

....and, further, having read and paid focused attention to this entire
revealing thread, IMO most serious posters did in fact understand the
question/point. I didn't see one poster who actually addressed the basic
question (as most have in some way or another), who did NOT seem to grasp and
address your question. The fact most (all?) of them seem to have a more
nuanced view than you seem to hold, and differing opinions, may be
disappointing to you, but it's one measure of reality. There comes a time
simply to deal with it and move on.

FWIW, it's my considered opinion that the response immediately below is
something I'd more likely expect to find in a middle school spat than between
respectful adults...and to be explicit, I found P3's and 9B's posts 100%
mutually respectful, even if you do not. Being forthright - blunt, if you will
- is not definitional disrespect. Nor is polite disagreement vilification. Sorry.


On 7/13/2015 1:46 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

<Major snip...>
>
> Andy, you are hopeless. This whole thread has been nothing but a personal
> invective towards me. He was making a character statement about me,
> therefore HIS character becomes fair game.

Wow. Not into "moral high ground," eh?

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

Tom,

I'm trying to help you out here, but it's gotten down to a level of hair-splitting that is really not very productive (I'm reminded of the famous "it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is"). Name-calling aside, the basic problem people had is that there was an assertion made as to the number of gliders at an event and the likely implications of that number. Both assertions were wrong - both in concept and in fact - and the tone was inflammatory.

First, the number was wrong. You represented the number then set aside your own responsibility for spreading bad info - even though the correct info was readily available in writing. That's your bad. If you'd just accepted the correction you'd have been fine, but you felt compelled to follow up with the "feel good" post which really came across as condescending and sour grapes.

Second, most people saw the use of the phrase "until there is a fatality" as an assertion of the likely outcome (why else would you write it?) - in my book that's a form of prediction and most everyone else saw it the same way. That's really inflammatory and accusatory in tone.

Third, you now have explained that you made a connection between bad outcomes at a Nationals 31 years ago and an XC event - based on the absolute number of gliders flying - but with little knowledge of the operations or the circumstances that might actually lead to some sort of bad outcome at Nephi. It's still not clear what specific risk scenario you were referring to, but several candidates have been alluded to (and some subsequently disavowed).. You initially referred to "chaos" resulting from bad weather and the fleet returning to the field - that sounds a lot like a relight/landing space concern, which was addressed. You later raised a concern about enroute collision potential (you paraphrased my comment on the subject), but the Flarm-mandatory provision of the event makes a dramatic difference here as well as when thermalling in the initial climb out, which I believe you raised in some post about launching into "small space".

The simple fact of the matter (and as has been demonstrated at countless glider events before and after the Ephrata Nationals), there is no single absolute number of gliders that represents an upper limit for safe operations across all locations under all conditions - it varies by side and due to different operational circumstances. Asserting a number for Nephi with little or no operational knowledge of the event really comes across as unreasonable.

Fourth, (this is the olive branch part) I don't think anyone has a problem with asking a question about the operations of an event and safety. It's good and healthy to discuss specifics of safety and safe operational practices. If you want to get down to real risk scenarios you get into a set of questions that need to be evaluated for a specific site, for the equipment being used (especially towplanes), for each phase of flight, in combination with all sorts of weather and other risk factors and with consideration for operational procedures that are designed to mitigate the risk. People want to fly at these great locations and we want to accommodate them within the bounds of safety and in ways that are economically reasonable for organizers.. That takes a careful assessment of the risk scenarios, not broad generalizations.

The problem people had with your post is not with whether organizers and participants should do the work to figure the risks out - we all want these things to be thought through in detail. The problem was the implication in your post that the Nephi guys hadn't done their homework or were ignoring good sense and that bad things were likely ("bad feeling") to happen as a result. It was pretty insulting and condescending in tone and as it turns out, wrong on the facts - both the numbers and in terms of being able to point to any specific risk that had not been considered and addressed. Your "bad feeling" was unfounded - both in terms of actual outcomes and in terms of any discernible operational issues related to having 60-plus gliders fly at Nephi. Yet you persisted, without reference to a consistent set of specific concerns. "Too many gliders" is not a specific concern. It is vague and unactionable operationally.

Honestly, you could have put it in much more constructive and less inflammatory terms - in the form of an actual question and some disclaimer that you didn't really know what operational steps had been taken to handle the capacity. You could have also been a lot more thoughtful in terms of handling the responses that made good-faith attempts to address your "bad feeling" - rather than dismiss them out of hand as "feel good" comments.

It's not an attempt to vilify you personally (the name-calling part is always a bit unfortunate), it's a response to the tone and content of what you wrote - initially and in follow-up.

That's all the energy I can put into this one. I've tried to be constructive and specific and not make it personal, despite some frustration.

All the best to anyone with the patience to read through all of this.

Andy
9B

[Mark628CA]

OK- As an attempt to lighten up this thread:

I want a meet where I have four tow planes (with at least three functional), three wind dummies (hang gliding terminology- we call 'em "sniffers" in Soaring), and I would appreciate it if one of the sniffers was a 1-26 so I could be sure SOMEONE could stay up and I would have a reasonable chance of beating him on miles flown. But his OLC handicap (350 points for putting the wings on and launching) might put me in second or third place JUST BECAUSE!

Come on guys, this has been beaten flat. Let it go. If you think there are too many gliders to be safe, DON'T GO! If you do, DON'T LAUNCH!

As I saw on a cool T-shirt, "Fly More. Bitch Less"

[2G]

Andy,
The 80 figure was given to me in good faith, and I repeated it as such. Could I have verified this number from a 2nd source? Sure, but the actual number isn't the crux of the matter. Would you feel any different about the Nephi operation if the number WAS 80? I doubt it. Are my concerns alleviated if I knew the actual number was 65? No. Anyway, we all agree the true number is 65. So let's JUST MOVE ON - this is beating a dead horse.

Bruce raised an interesting question: is a meet of 20 gliders inherently dangerous. The only meet that has no risk of a glider-glider mid-air is a meet of one. Raise it to two and now the risk is non-zero. Sound ridiculous? Hardly, two gliders flying out of Arlington, WA, had a mid-air resulting in one fatality. So as the number of gliders flying in the same airspace increases, so does the risk of a mid-air. That is just common sense that, I think, we can all agree on. The point of contention is that risk acceptable or not. That gets down to a judgment issue. Some people think that just because nothing bad happened there was no, or little, risk. That is just, simply, not true.

Bruce inspired me to do a little research. In my former life as a research engineer I always put a lot of effort into getting as much information on a particular subject before trying fashion a solution. So I started gathering data on glider-glider mid-airs (there are also a few glider-power mid-airs, but this is a different problem). Part of the problem of gathering this data is it is a bit tedious. The FAA ASRS database found no such incidents, so it is of no help whatsoever. The NTSB accident database is very limited in finding such incidents because a mid-air is not a searchable criteria. You basically have to look at EVERY reported accident involving gliders. I did, however, find some glider mid-airs by going thru the fatal glider accidents (I quit after 2007 due to lack of time). I found more such incidents by doing a Google search ("glider mid-air accident"). I came up with 13 glider-glider mid-airs (remember, this is not an exhaustive search) What was glaring about what I found was a disproportionate number of mid-airs involving contest flying; 11 of the 13. Contests represent perhaps 5% of total glider hours flown, yet a majority of mid-airs occur during contests. The World gliding contest is particularly bad (5 out of 13). If you calculate the number of mid-airs per 100,000 hours flown contest flying dwarfs other types of events on a risk-based assessment.

I also went to the Soaring Safety Foundation for guidance. I was stunned to find that the SSF has NO database whatsoever. This is a glaring deficiency on their part. I propose that the SSF create a database of ALL glider accidents that is searchable by all phases of glider flying. The Albuquerque Soaring Club did an excellent analysis of glider accidents in New Mexico (www..abqsoaring.org/misc_files/NM_Glider_Accidents.doc). This level of analysis needs to be done on a national basis.

I feel strongly about safety and do not apologize for it. If I can prevent a SINGLE accident, fatal or otherwise, by my actions it is WORTH IT for the abuse I have taken here (and make no mistake: some people here have been extraordinary abusive, but I don't give a damn).

Best regards,
Tom

[Bob Kuykendall]

Are we there yet?

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

But actually you are achieving nothing other than alienating yourself from
your peers.

There is a risk with everything in life, and that is part of what makes it
fun.

Reading other posts on this thread its sounds like the organization of this
meet put on a very well run event, and in doing so mitigate a large portion
of that risk.....but not enough to stop it being darn good fun.

Out of interest...whats your stance on racing finishes?


>Andy,
>The 80 figure was given to me in good faith, and I repeated it as such.
>Cou=
>ld I have verified this number from a 2nd source? Sure, but the actual
>numb=
>er isn't the crux of the matter. Would you feel any different about the
>Nep=
>hi operation if the number WAS 80? I doubt it. Are my concerns alleviated
>i=
>f I knew the actual number was 65? No. Anyway, we all agree the true
>number=
> is 65. So let's JUST MOVE ON - this is beating a dead horse.
>
>Bruce raised an interesting question: is a meet of 20 gliders inherently
>da=
>ngerous. The only meet that has no risk of a glider-glider mid-air is a
>mee=
>t of one. Raise it to two and now the risk is non-zero. Sound ridiculous?
>H=
>ardly, two gliders flying out of Arlington, WA, had a mid-air resulting
in
>=
>one fatality. So as the number of gliders flying in the same airspace
>incre=
>ases, so does the risk of a mid-air. That is just common sense that, I
>thin=
>k, we can all agree on. The point of contention is that risk acceptable
or
>=
>not. That gets down to a judgment issue. Some people think that just
>becaus=
>e nothing bad happened there was no, or little, risk. That is just,
>simply,=
> not true.=20
>
>Bruce inspired me to do a little research. In my former life as a
research
>=
>engineer I always put a lot of effort into getting as much information on
>a=
> particular subject before trying fashion a solution. So I started
>gatherin=
>g data on glider-glider mid-airs (there are also a few glider-power
>mid-air=
>s, but this is a different problem). Part of the problem of gathering
this
>=
>data is it is a bit tedious. The FAA ASRS database found no such
>incidents,=
> so it is of no help whatsoever. The NTSB accident database is very
>limited=
> in finding such incidents because a mid-air is not a searchable
criteria.
>=
>You basically have to look at EVERY reported accident involving gliders.
I
>=
>did, however, find some glider mid-airs by going thru the fatal glider
>acci=
>dents (I quit after 2007 due to lack of time). I found more such
incidents
>=
>by doing a Google search ("glider mid-air accident"). I came up with 13
>gli=
>der-glider mid-airs (remember, this is not an exhaustive search) What was
>g=
>laring about what I found was a disproportionate number of mid-airs
>involvi=
>ng contest flying; 11 of the 13. Contests represent perhaps 5% of total
>gli=
>der hours flown, yet a majority of mid-airs occur during contests. The
>Worl=
>d gliding contest is particularly bad (5 out of 13). If you calculate the
>n=
>umber of mid-airs per 100,000 hours flown contest flying dwarfs other
>types=
> of events on a risk-based assessment.
>
>I also went to the Soaring Safety Foundation for guidance. I was stunned
>to=
> find that the SSF has NO database whatsoever. This is a glaring
>deficiency=
> on their part. I propose that the SSF create a database of ALL glider
>acci=
>dents that is searchable by all phases of glider flying. The Albuquerque
>So=
>aring Club did an excellent analysis of glider accidents in New Mexico
>(www=
>..abqsoaring.org/misc_files/NM_Glider_Accidents.doc). This level of
>analysis=
> needs to be done on a national basis.
>
>I feel strongly about safety and do not apologize for it. If I can
prevent
>=
>a SINGLE accident, fatal or otherwise, by my actions it is WORTH IT for
>the=
> abuse I have taken here (and make no mistake: some people here have been
>e=
>xtraordinary abusive, but I don't give a damn).
>
>Best regards,
>Tom
>

[[email protected]]

This thread was a lot more fun than that boring crap such as FLARM config files or ADS-B! To elaborate on one poster's comment, it really was like schoolboys calling each other names and older kids or teachers trying to maintain order. Life can be boring. This was entertaining.

I have no idea what number of gliders is safe/unsafe at a given site. I flew a Nationals (Bryan, OH 1976) where we launched 52 from a single hardsurface runway into skies where cloudbase seldom exceeded 4,000 AGL. Relights and finishes were frequent, closely spaced, and involved landings where there were at times four pilots landing in trail and four more in the pattern behind them. The radio-equipped ground controller knew his stuff and the pilots paid CLOSE attention and were responsible. The only incident that I recall was when an early LS-1F had the gear fold up on landing in the grass alongside the runway, which made that alternative even less attractive as the contest went on.

A few years later we had 58 pilots at Adrian, MI in a somewhat larger but still constrained venue. There was a midair at that contest but not because of the congestion. It's going to sound a bit mean but hopefully enough time has passed that I can be excused for saying it involved two guys who surprised no one when they collided (no injuries). There was another glider at that same contest who, fortunately, was brightly colored and so could be easily distinguised and avoided by leaving whatever thermal he entered.

My point is that the number of contestants isn't nearly so important to safety as the way they fly. There are always a few guys who scare everyone else. In an Eastern contest with low bases and weak lift, you're often forced into close proximity with them, hopefully not excessively close. I don't care whether it's 10 gliders or 80, if these guys enter, the risk goes up for everyone.

Experience is important, of course, but attitude counts much more. Often these pilots collect a number of complaints in the safety box and are cautioned by the organizers. Some take it well; others are defensive. More often than not, it seems they don't really see their behavior the way everyone else does and therefore feel no need to change. Yes, there's a parallel with this thread. :)

With good organization and high-caliber pilots, I'm more concerned about not getting hit by one of the aerial Rambos who's on the short list of see-and-avoid offenders kept by me and nearly everyone else. A nice FLARM refinement would be to use a different algorithm to warn other pilots whenever one of them is nearby.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
U.S.A.

[ND]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 10:27:17 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Are we there yet?

i wonder if anyone knows what SMFH stands for...

this picture sums this thread up for me:

http://www.themachinestarts.com/article_images/redditq.jpg

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:19:11 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> Andy,
> The 80 figure was given to me in good faith, and I repeated it as such. Could I have verified this number from a 2nd source? Sure, but the actual number isn't the crux of the matter. Would you feel any different about the Nephi operation if the number WAS 80? I doubt it. Are my concerns alleviated if I knew the actual number was 65? No. Anyway, we all agree the true number is 65. So let's JUST MOVE ON - this is beating a dead horse.
>
> Bruce raised an interesting question: is a meet of 20 gliders inherently dangerous. The only meet that has no risk of a glider-glider mid-air is a meet of one. Raise it to two and now the risk is non-zero. Sound ridiculous? Hardly, two gliders flying out of Arlington, WA, had a mid-air resulting in one fatality. So as the number of gliders flying in the same airspace increases, so does the risk of a mid-air. That is just common sense that, I think, we can all agree on. The point of contention is that risk acceptable or not. That gets down to a judgment issue. Some people think that just because nothing bad happened there was no, or little, risk. That is just, simply, not true.
>
> Bruce inspired me to do a little research. In my former life as a research engineer I always put a lot of effort into getting as much information on a particular subject before trying fashion a solution. So I started gathering data on glider-glider mid-airs (there are also a few glider-power mid-airs, but this is a different problem). Part of the problem of gathering this data is it is a bit tedious. The FAA ASRS database found no such incidents, so it is of no help whatsoever. The NTSB accident database is very limited in finding such incidents because a mid-air is not a searchable criteria.. You basically have to look at EVERY reported accident involving gliders. I did, however, find some glider mid-airs by going thru the fatal glider accidents (I quit after 2007 due to lack of time). I found more such incidents by doing a Google search ("glider mid-air accident"). I came up with 13 glider-glider mid-airs (remember, this is not an exhaustive search) What was glaring about what I found was a disproportionate number of mid-airs involving contest flying; 11 of the 13. Contests represent perhaps 5% of total glider hours flown, yet a majority of mid-airs occur during contests. The World gliding contest is particularly bad (5 out of 13). If you calculate the number of mid-airs per 100,000 hours flown contest flying dwarfs other types of events on a risk-based assessment.
>
> I also went to the Soaring Safety Foundation for guidance. I was stunned to find that the SSF has NO database whatsoever. This is a glaring deficiency on their part. I propose that the SSF create a database of ALL glider accidents that is searchable by all phases of glider flying. The Albuquerque Soaring Club did an excellent analysis of glider accidents in New Mexico (www.abqsoaring.org/misc_files/NM_Glider_Accidents.doc). This level of analysis needs to be done on a national basis.
>
> I feel strongly about safety and do not apologize for it. If I can prevent a SINGLE accident, fatal or otherwise, by my actions it is WORTH IT for the abuse I have taken here (and make no mistake: some people here have been extraordinary abusive, but I don't give a damn).
>
> Best regards,
> Tom

If you search the NTSB with type "Glider" and keyword "mid air" 10 come up. Yeah, they are mostly at contests. Yeah, if you fly in crowded airspace you are more likely to hit something. Still, mid air collisions remain a rare event, we hope made rarer still by Flarm.