Does How a (Sailplane) Pilot Thinks, Matter?

[BobW]

Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
killing myself in a sailplane. :) )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

[[email protected]]

Good thread bobw. To get things going let me lay out a few of my inherent prejudgises if that is a word. Being a duster pilot I realize that I deal with a low-level-perspective that is innate and natural to me due to my profession. So I realize some folks look at my posts regarding low level thermalling as being nonserious or nonchalant of the risks involved. Believe me, that surely is not my attitude. As a cfi-g I understand and have seen the results of the biggest killer/injurer of pilots still to fhis day, namely stall/spin. Realize however, I was a glider pilot for many years before I got involved in dusting. Prior to dusting I thermalled just as low as I do now. What I was doing was done out of general knowledge, "fly faster, be totally focussed in whats happening etc". The only difference is now I have many thousands of hours of optically gauging the distances and sensations encountered when flying low.

So all that being presented as a preamble, let me say that the issue is proper airmanship, a proper turn is a proper turn irregardless of the altitude.. Doing crappy ignorant turns at altitude may be non life theeatening but they will kill you with no altitude. Similarly, doing proper informed turns at low altitude is not dangerous. Gusty conditions need to be acknowledged, and a reachable safe landing place needs to be present. Given those two considerations, turning while low is not inherently unsafe, while crappy turns at altitude may actually kill someone, like the guy who stalled out and spun past me while flying at 4k feet in a gaggle.

Lets get practical. The low saves I have made, and being a xc 1-26 driver, I've made many, are all made 1. With a landing spot already located. 2. With extra airspeed. I keep my bird moving and if I cant thermal within the lift at that speed, then ok I'm gonna land. This gives me a margin for error with the gustiness of low level turbulance and the nasty bottom of a thermal. These are the very same factors we have in mind while spraying.

As to an absolute minimum height, my minimums are dependent on terrain, turbulance, and distance from my previously chosen landing field. The lowest I have thermalled was at 150 ft on a relatively calm day over a 180 acre level wonderfull field. I felt like the asw12 pilot previously mentioned, i could set my bird down anywhere I needed safely in that field if needed, and I was flying well well well above stall speed.

That should get the ball rolling.
Dan

[[email protected]]

Ps. Bobw Im sitting in a hotel in MN waiting for the wind to lay down so I can make some xc runs before my work gets started. And to think two days ago I was complaining about the 80 degrees n high humidity, now I am watching snow flurries lol.

[N97MT]

Being a newly-minted CFI-G, and having directly witnessed a fatal "auger" prior to this at a contest, running to the wreck only to see there was nothing I could do for the decapitated pilot (tree trunk/canopy did this), in my post-traumatic state of mind I do have a pretty clear idea of what I would tell my student.

I would want my student to consider all available factors. I would want them to understand, and experience, what it really means to circle low. I would want them to understand the different sight picture vs. circling up high, and how it can induce the illusions of flying faster than they really are. And I would want them to realize the risk vs. the alternatives.

And if they are close to an airport (as was the case at the contest), I would want them to seriously consider if it is really worth circling in the airport pattern at 300 feet to save a few minutes for a relight, vs. the potential for disaster due to an unforeseeable tail gust or distraction.

And if they find themselves, for whatever reason, over inhospitable terrain, then yes maybe a low-altitude save could be worth considering. Of course again it is a matter of judgment. Hopefully he got it when practicing with the XC flight instructor.

A low-altitude save should be a rare occurrence and my student should be able to handle it competently after they become cross-country proficient. But it should never become a habit. If it is, then something is off in their judgment.

The above fatal pilot (a highly-experienced record holder) had a clear angle on final to land right next to the tow plane. Instead he threw that opportunity away to initiate a turn, down low towards a tree line, after crossing the runway threshold. He did not make it to 180 degrees into the turn before stalling and dropping the left wing, auguring into the tree line.

Yes it really does matter how a sailplane pilot thinks. And he really should be thinking about the mess he leaves behind when he doesn't.

[[email protected]]

N97 well spoken, I agree withh all you presented here. I also witnessed a guy stall spin a dg100 when a tow went bad. All the guy needed to do was drop the nose and land straight ahead. Thankfully he survived with only minor injuries. I presented the same perspective in an earlier posting relating to low-saves should be a rare occurrance and not a habbit. If for no other reason than they are woefully innefficient, it takes forever to dig out of a low save while everyone else is scooting along overhead on course.
Getting to bobw's initial interest, the mental aspect of the question, I guess it does have alot to do with ones perspective. Much of the faulty decision making regarding low saves is imho due to "modern" perspectives on soaring. One example that comes to mind is the reluctance/fear of an off field landing. While putting down in a field used to be a daily occurance with low performance ships, today it is relatively rare. So I think there becomes a mental reluctance toward having to accept the enevitable land out or the necessarly low level save. Since guys dont do it much, they dont think about all that a low save entails, they dont simulate the situation to gain real life experience, thus when confronted with the real thing, all sorts of mistakes are made.

[Dan Marotta]

Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.

A rather simplistic view, but I've observed (and experienced) the same
since I started flying some 43+ years ago.

Having said that, I've already heard the "good for the masses" appeal in
the statement that one should think about the mess he leaves behind.
That's an individual concern, not mine. I care only about staying alive
and I hope and believe that I have the skill and mainly good sense to
recognize when something is a bad idea FOR ME. If I survive, there's no
"mess" to be concerned with.

I agree with the poster who stated that a pattern of low saves indicates
a problem with judgment. One has to really descend far below the
working band to be executing a low save so I would think he's on final
glide and misjudged it. Low saves out on course may get you home if
done safely, but they surely don't make a lot of points.

Dan

On 4/1/2016 9:34 AM, BobW wrote:
> Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering"
> in "The Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last
> night for the first time in decades; cool!)...
>
> On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
> thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?
>
> In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in
> the other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say,
> "Irresponsibly"!) Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic
> itself is LOW SAVES - are they Killers or are they a Usefully
> Necessary XC Skill?
>
> Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted
> dustah pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live
> in the frozen wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of
> southern Alabammer, and, the scion of the great Flubber fortune!
> Gentlemen - please continue your thoughtful and thought-provoking
> analyses!!!
>
> But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has
> intrigued me since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is
> "safe enough?" Is life-continuing safety rigidly definable through
> numbers? Is there a "best way" to go about inculcating safety into and
> throughout the licensed pilot family?
>
> Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of
> "low altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering
> sailplane pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will
> consider, and (by definition) will soon actually have to DO, once
> undertaking XC, whether such XC occurs pre-planned or not.
>
> For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this
> front. More to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power
> GA fields I found myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT
> "recommended pattern altitudes": 1000' agl and 800' agl. Having
> obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern field, encountering the
> 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie, stranger, lacking the
> comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
> mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800'
> agl pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby
> also definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained
> "pattern safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying
> from the new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"
>
> For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach,
> reasoning it reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto
> someone else" mid-air, while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility
> for not killing myself by augering in due to a "dangerously thin
> ground clearance" margin. (I've always felt that way about augering
> in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the catchphrase, "Just
> say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding killing
> myself in a sailplane. :) )
>
> So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest
> begin!!!
>
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal
> safety philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and
> - so I think - in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had
> only one known-to-me instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue
> with my flying...and his back-seater later privately told me he
> disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems "absolute agreement" on the
> safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

--
Dan, 5J

[Paul Agnew]

Before you pass judgement on someone else's low save comfort level, we also have to ascertain how many times he opted not to try a low save because, in his judgement, it wasn't worth it or safe enough to try. Let's be careful not to assume he always goes for the low thermal just because it worked previously. The real story is more likely a lot more dynamic than that.

Few of us pilots have absolute limits set. We have safe margins that we plan to adhere to that we have to modify based on realtime data and expected outcomes. I couldn't count the times I've made the best plans possible only to have to throw them out the window when weather changed or my personal comfort level dictated I take a different course of action that would keep me/us safe.

In the end, if we want to be 100% safe, we'd have to never takeoff in the first place. Your comfort level and experience dictates your personal safety margins. For most, that means sticking with the numbers arbitrarily agreed upon by the community. For others - Bob Hoover comes to mind - they are comfortable and just as safe with their lower margins because they have considered all of the mitigating factors.

Of course, there are a minority of Darwin-affirming chuckleheads out there that skew the statistics and make us all look bad.

Paul A.
Jupiter, FL

[Giaco]

While I am almost unequivocally opposed to using anecdotes rather than statistics to further a cause, I think I need to side with the "too risky" crowd. The reason being the same as Dan stated, why is it worth it?

In each of the times that proponents of the low save have justified the measures, they have said that they would only do that in the case where there is a perfectly good landing spot available below them. I'm not saying you aren't capable of pulling it off or making it work, but as a CFI-G, it reminds me of my space-shuttle type landings i used to do that looked really cool and smooth, but are very difficult for a student to replicate. I no longer do them, because it is far more important that pilots understand what is considered a safe standard, and what is a pilot accepting additional risk for a perceived benefit.

In this case, especially due to the shear and turbulence that is almost always present on decent days, i put this in the latter category. Not saying Ag or any of you others are not capable of flying it correctly, but I would never teach my student that thermalling a 200ft over a good landing spot is worth it, because mistakes happen, and our standard as a community should always be to allow ourselves more than one mistake's room away from never coming home to our families.

[2G]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
> Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
> time in decades; cool!)...
>
> On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
> thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?
>
> In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
> other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
> Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
> they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?
>
> Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
> pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
> wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
> the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
> thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!
>
> But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
> since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
> life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
> way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?
>
> Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
> altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
> pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
> definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
> XC occurs pre-planned or not.
>
> For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
> to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
> myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
> 1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
> field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
> stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
> mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
> pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
> definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
> safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
> new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"
>
> For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
> reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
> while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
> augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
> felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
> catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
> killing myself in a sailplane. :) )
>
> So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!
>
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
> philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
> in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
> instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
> back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
> "absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

You asked two questions.
1. What pattern altitude should you use.
Answer: what feels most comfortable to you. Personally, I like a lot of extra altitude as insurance if someone comes busting into the pattern radio silent (it happens) or somebody ahead of you lands gear-up (that happens too).. Altitude can always be scrubbed, but is hard to gain if necessary. BTW, the difference between 800 and 1000 ft is negligible.

2. Minimum thermalling altitude.
Answer: your demonstrated spin recovery altitude x 2. Or your normal pattern altitude - which ever is higher. And this assumes you are over, or very near, a landable field. I knew a pilot who killed himself doing this at about 400 ft; he left a wife and kids. THINK about it: how important is it to you to prove you can "save" yourself from a dangerously low altitude? Be safe, live to fly another day.

Tom

[BobW]

<Snip...>

> Of course, there are a minority of Darwin-affirming chuckleheads out there
> that skew the statistics and make us all look bad.
>
> Paul A. Jupiter, FL
>

"What Paul A. said." No matter what else you do as a pilot, do try to avoid
induction into the Chucklehead Hall of Fame.

Thanks to the all for today's thoughtful replies. It'd be really nifty if
others pondering sharing their thoughts did so, too, even if they violently
disagree (though it'd be additionally nifty if we can keep the disagreements
civil! [For the record, when used in the manner above, in my book
"chucklehead" is quite civil. :) ]).

Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.
By way of example (to indulge in a bit of ad-hominem humor), while I may or
may not care IF someone thinks I'm an idiot, I'm always genuinely curious WHY
they may think that way!

Considering "low saves," I began my "XC career" with a "hard-deck-based"
numerical guideline volunteered to me by my fight instructor. Over the years,
influenced both by increasing experience and "situational awareness," I
"en-fuzzed the number," coming to rely instead on a daily collage of factors
(e.g. terrain, currency, physical/mental state, local weather, etc.). Funnily
enough, I've found my instructor's number amazingly applicable to most
situations; once or twice I thought it FAR more aggressive than the situation
warranted (and flew accordingly, of course); and a few other times I've
intentionally scratched below "my instructor's hard deck." (Whether I climbed
out or landed isn't importance in the context of "safety," but kinda-sorta
related, I've found every time I've "gotten stuck down low" it takes a solid
30 minutes to dig myself out of the hole, no matter the minimum height agl. I
began tracking that once I began wondering just how costly-in-time it was!)

On the off chance lurkers may be reading and pondering on thoughts expressed
in this thread (and being thoughtful about soaring is almost always a good
thing!), in addition to the (Most Excellent!) links posted by T8 in the "Boy
Who Flew With Condors" thread, I'll offer one; it's dated on the personal
front, but has withstood the test of time on the soaring front.

http://soarboulder.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131&Itemid=190

Bob W.

[Jim Kellett]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:

> Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
> is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
> bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.

<snip>

Great thread! Two thoughts:
1. First, with regards to "why" vs. "what", with every passing decade we learn more and more about how human brains work, and many of the discoveries reveal that what we have always THOUGHT just ain't so. For example, several studies (no, this isn't an April Fool joke!) have shown that risk-taking behavior is strongly affected by physiology. For example, you're more likely to take the risks of a low save if you happen to prefer spicy foods! (See http://www.nbcnews.com/health/your-love-spicy-foods-means-youre-risk-taker-new-study-6C10851877) Maybe the 'chuckleheads' are unfortunately addicted to jalapenos . . . and just can't help it. And you simply can't 'un-teach' an individual's fundamental neurology.

2. Second, on the question of what is a proper 'safe' altitude for the XC pilot, the answer, I believe (based on 50+ years of soaring experience, including 35 as a CFI) is the famous "IT DEPENDS". Over an airport in the pattern? Over unlandable terrain? Over a large, flat, open field? In a 1-26? In an ASG-29? No wind or strong gusty wind? I strongly believe that teaching 'standard' numbers for such situations is a cop-out by instructors who're reverting to the simple teaching of rote (the lowest level of learning).

[N97MT]

As to a clear metric, yes it depends. Rules of thumb need to be carefully evaluated if they match the situation.

One thing that I think we miss in the discussion is that, from a regulatory standpoint, a low save is (again depending on the situation) a potential emergency.

In the US, §91.119 has a very clear metric on this. Unless you are INTENDING to land (or takeoff), you must remain at least 1,000 feet above any obstacle with 2,000 feet horizontal of your position in a congested area. In uncongested areas you must remain 500 feet above the surface, except over "sparsely populated areas" and water surfaces, at least 500 feet away from, essentially, persons or man-made objects.

Sorry I am quoting regulation here, but certainly something as food for thought, and if anything a guide for serial low-savers.

[[email protected]]

Jim, good point there. I have also agreed with the concept of teaching situational awareness and decision making over set and fast "numerology". I have found that using numerical guidelines is fine as a starting point in training but once a student has the basics of airmanship it is time to move on. I desire a student to be relatively comfortable without reference to an altimeter or an airspeed indicator.
This is not a popular or at least stated opinion amounst the cfi pools today but its not a radical stance and in fact, its a teaching methodology that prepares pilots for unexpected occurances. If you read any of Derrick Piggots training books you will see the same tact being expressed. Its an emphasis on what I would call "intuative airmanship". Old timers and detractors call it seat pants flying. I consider it essential stick n rudder skills.
Dan

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-6, Jim Kellett wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
>
> > Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
> > is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
> > bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.
>
> <snip>
>
> Great thread! Two thoughts:
> 1. First, with regards to "why" vs. "what", with every passing decade we learn more and more about how human brains work, and many of the discoveries reveal that what we have always THOUGHT just ain't so. For example, several studies (no, this isn't an April Fool joke!) have shown that risk-taking behavior is strongly affected by physiology. For example, you're more likely to take the risks of a low save if you happen to prefer spicy foods! (See http://www.nbcnews.com/health/your-love-spicy-foods-means-youre-risk-taker-new-study-6C10851877) Maybe the 'chuckleheads' are unfortunately addicted to jalapenos . . . and just can't help it. And you simply can't 'un-teach' an individual's fundamental neurology.
>
> 2. Second, on the question of what is a proper 'safe' altitude for the XC pilot, the answer, I believe (based on 50+ years of soaring experience, including 35 as a CFI) is the famous "IT DEPENDS". Over an airport in the pattern? Over unlandable terrain? Over a large, flat, open field? In a 1-26? In an ASG-29? No wind or strong gusty wind? I strongly believe that teaching 'standard' numbers for such situations is a cop-out by instructors who're reverting to the simple teaching of rote (the lowest level of learning)..

What Jim says in 1. Discoveries regarding the brain are still happening. This study, published in June 2015, expands the knowledge of physiology related to the brain and body. Interesting that it was overlooked for so many years. Though the study relates to the physiology, it certainly opens the door to behavioral effects also in the sense of overall well-being, personal vulnerability, and attitude as part of the body's feedback loops.
http://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lymphatic-vessels-discovered-central-nervous-system

I like spicy peppers and try and grow them annually. They do trigger physiological effects.

I've made some low saves from 400ft, but only where I've had the option to land, once rounding the turnpoint at the same time and field hopping on the sea breeze (UK) until I climbed out again. I believe I understand the risks. I've also bailed on low save attempts, especially after about 30 minutes where I felt the conditions and expended effort might lead to 'the mistake'. By conditions, I mean heat and undetected change in winds. 30 minutes seems to be my personal limit.

As part of the scoring team, I recall an early GPS trace (1993-1994) from a UK national's pilot thermalling at 250-450 agl for 35 minutes and getting away to complete the task, in an ASH-25. You can see where he did this by looking up Daventry, UK. It was just ESE of Bourough Hill. Plenty of landable fields, if they'd been harvested. IIRC, the contests in both years were held after the harvest was well underway.

Frank Whiteley

[Dan Marotta]

If you're going to cite regulations, let me ask you this: Do you fly up
to cloud base? I'll wager more pilots are guilty of one than the other.

It's easy to lose track of regulatory requirements when deeply involved
in saving the flight but, as others have also said, getting to the point
of executing a low save indicates lapses in judgment further back in the
flight. To take from Nancy Reagan, "Just don't get low."

Having said that, I recall catching a thermal off a pig farm as I was
turning final to land at that farm. The lift was smooth, gentle, and
smelly, but I got away! ...Only to land out later at an airport (still
not at home).

Numbers are for non-thinkers. How does it feel? Turbulence? Wind
drift? Terrain? Narrow or wide area of lift? Airspeed? Coordination?
Any one of these things can cause a really bad day and it's incumbent on
each of us to know what is "safe" for us in a given situation. As Dirty
Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Fly safe!

Dan

On 4/2/2016 6:47 AM, N97MT wrote:
> As to a clear metric, yes it depends. Rules of thumb need to be carefully evaluated if they match the situation.
>
> One thing that I think we miss in the discussion is that, from a regulatory standpoint, a low save is (again depending on the situation) a potential emergency.
>
> In the US, §91.119 has a very clear metric on this. Unless you are INTENDING to land (or takeoff), you must remain at least 1,000 feet above any obstacle with 2,000 feet horizontal of your position in a congested area. In uncongested areas you must remain 500 feet above the surface, except over "sparsely populated areas" and water surfaces, at least 500 feet away from, essentially, persons or man-made objects.
>
> Sorry I am quoting regulation here, but certainly something as food for thought, and if anything a guide for serial low-savers.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathon May]

At 15:08 02 April 2016, Dan Marotta wrote:
>If you're going to cite regulations, let me ask you this: Do you fly up
>to cloud base? I'll wager more pilots are guilty of one than the other.
>
>It's easy to lose track of regulatory requirements when deeply involved
>in saving the flight but, as others have also said, getting to the point
>of executing a low save indicates lapses in judgment further back in the
>flight. To take from Nancy Reagan, "Just don't get low."
>
>Having said that, I recall catching a thermal off a pig farm as I was
>turning final to land at that farm. The lift was smooth, gentle, and
>smelly, but I got away! ...Only to land out later at an airport (still
>not at home).
>
>Numbers are for non-thinkers. How does it feel? Turbulence? Wind
>drift? Terrain? Narrow or wide area of lift? Airspeed? Coordination?
>Any one of these things can cause a really bad day and it's incumbent on
>each of us to know what is "safe" for us in a given situation. As Dirty
>Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."
>
>Fly safe!
>
>Dan
>
>On 4/2/2016 6:47 AM, N97MT wrote:
>> As to a clear metric, yes it depends. Rules of thumb need to be
carefully
>evaluated if they match the situation.
>>
>> One thing that I think we miss in the discussion is that, from a
>regulatory standpoint, a low save is (again depending on the situation) a
>potential emergency.
>>
>> In the US, �91.119 has a very clear metric on this. Unless you are
>INTENDING to land (or takeoff), you must remain at least 1,000 feet above
>any obstacle with 2,000 feet horizontal of your position in a congested
>area. In uncongested areas you must remain 500 feet above the surface,
>except over "sparsely populated areas" and water surfaces, at least 500
>feet away from, essentially, persons or man-made objects.
>>
>> Sorry I am quoting regulation here, but certainly something as food for
>thought, and if anything a guide for serial low-savers.
>>
>
>Dan, 5J


How does a Comp pilot think ?
You can loose points spending 1/2 an hour struggling and then landing time

points are important.
Find a safe field as far down track as you can and land ,stopping the
clock,better points ,less tired,and back for the next day..
I've lost points to pilots who didn't try so hard because time points
I've also lost a day fixing the ship because I put it in the wrong field .
If the days over unless that last climb is going to get you home,stick it
in a
good field ASAP it's the best points you will get.
Once you have that in your head it's easier to rationalise ignoring that
1/2knot at 700 ft .
This assumes the comp is based on time and distance
>

[[email protected]]

Jonathon, thats a valid point. Some of us however are engaged in a different type of competition flying involving distance and record flying. For this type of endevor, staying in the air is the paramont concern. In these instances we take the risks necessary to keep going, making distance, many times is super marginal end of the day or very early in the day conditions.

Making educated low saves in these cases are historically frequent and necessary. Given the basics as stated previously of having a field already set up etc, making low saves is a necessary skill thats is seen in every record setter especially when trying to do it in low performance ships.

One side note is, most of the lower performance ships are dang good at landing slow and consequently, can use little pea size patches to set down safely which would make a js1 or other high performance glider pilot cringe
Dan.

[BobW]

> How does a Comp pilot think ? You can lose points spending 1/2 an hour
> struggling and then landing. Time points are important. Find a safe field
> as far down track as you can and land, stopping the clock, better points,
> less tired, and back for the next day. I've lost points to pilots who
> didn't try so hard because time points I've also lost a day fixing the ship
> because I put it in the wrong field. If the days over unless that last
> climb is going to get you home, stick it in a good field ASAP it's the best
> points you will get. Once you have that in your head it's easier to
> rationalise ignoring that 1/2knot at 700 ft . This assumes the comp is
> based on time and distance.

No question "tactical thinking" affects contest scores, such "potential
effects" existing probably regardless of the set of rules under which Joe
Pilot competes.

The "type of pilot thinking" I had in mind when starting this thread was less
"contest tactical" and more "thinking as it affects Joe Sailplane Pilot's
potential for continuing existence." It's something that's long intrigued
me...might Joe S. Pilot's thought processes have a fundamental effect on his
potential for damaging glider/self to where he can't fly the same plane
tomorrow? (Hey, if George Moffat could be intrigued by pilot psychology as it
affected contests, I figure "psychology as it affects future existence" isn't
that big a stretch. Besides, I always wanted to use "George Moffat" and "I" in
the same sentence!)

I have in mind "Joe Average" Sailplane (J.A.S.) Pilot, soaring for fun on a
"routine sailplane flight" in which s/he expects to routinely (as distinct
from "overtly aggressively") challenge only the sky and his or her skill set.
In the U.S. at any rate, considering only this century, several pilots each
year manage to kill themselves during such "for fun" flights, and that
statistical toll is *after* I arbitrarily ignore fatalities "too easily
rationalizable" due to age and "stupid stuff" you or I would, of course,
*never* do.

"Low saves" were selected as a point of departure for discussing mind sets
that are generally - and maybe less generally - associated with that flight
condition, and NOT because "I have a thing for (or against) low saves."

"Generally associated mindsets" would include (say) Joe Newbie Pilot's
heightened anxiety/tenseness/nervousness due to the landing-may-be-imminent
flight condition combining with pushing their personal flight envelope. I'd
sure hope that J.A.S. Pilot would have some basic understanding of what s/he
should mentally expect the first time such a new/stress-enhancing/thin-margin
situation faces them...as surely it will and ought to be expected to.

"Less generally associated mindsets" include (in my case) active recognition
that if I get it badly wrong, - e.g. lousy coordination; "too slow" (aka too
high an angle of attack); untreated gust stall; improperly responding to (say)
wind-influenced visual optical illusion; etc. - due to my thin/may-be-thinning
ground clearance margin, I could just kill myself...as distinct from die.
Memory says I've always felt/thought that way about "flight with thin margins"
but regardless of when such thinking began, it's been a part of how I think
while soaring (and driving, and working/messing around anything - say, 120VAC
- with potential to kill me...) In other words, I think about death not as
something that "might HAPPEN" to me IF I screw up, but as something that *I*
will have done to myself BY screwing up. That awareness also doesn't morph
into fear; if I'm genuinely, I might die, fearful of something I can avoid
simply by choice, I don't do it.

I've actually talked about this aspect of thought with soaring buddies, and
it's never been clear to me if it's something unique, uncommon or common, but
I'm pretty much convinced it's not universal. Some of the more memorable
conversations involved folks who O'beer-Thirty-described their own thin-margin
situations with high-ish/active potential to kill them, but from whom I was
unable to elicit any admission they seriously recognized potential death as
anything more than a theoretical possibility. ("I'd never hose up *that*
badly!") Others seem to put black-and-white faith in their own personal "hard
deck" as if it were a talisman. ("How much altitude do I need at XYZ to get
safely out of the mountains back to Boulder?")

Without intending to pick on anyone or discount the sensibility of the hard
deck suggestion which I'll paraphrase as, "Talismanic hard deck = (height
fudge factor plus) 2x the demonstrated minimum height needed to recover from a
major wing/drop/incipient spin" put forth earlier in this thread, when I
combine the "talismanic protection aspect" which MAY accompany using such a
mental device with the potential reality of actually *experiencing* an
uncommanded departure from controlled flight "down low/close to the
above-defined hard deck," I can't help but wonder if the experience might
prove quite thoroughly more alarming than any/all practice in spin recoveries
"performed aloft." And, if that alarm may bring with it additional
flight-control-(mis-)handling problems by J.A.S. Pilot leading to the hard
deck maybe not being so talismanic as previously believed. Point being, that
thin margins are thin margins, and as such ALWAYS carry with them potential
for bad/deadly outcomes, which is one reason we generally practice spin
recoveries well above any proposed "hard XC deck" I've ever seen proposed.

Understand, I'm not "playing this mental game" out of (say) seasonal boredom,
or by way of trying to frighten people away from the sport, or a tendency to
contemplate my navel, but as a way of trying to get inside Joe Sailplane
Pilots' heads to (possibly) see if how they think matters as it affects how
they approach flying and consequently how they actually fly. While I see
"arbitrary hard decks" (and other such "shorthand guidelines") as a useful
training concept, particularly if approached by Joe CFIG with
cautionary/explanatory sharing of the hidden assumptions underlying them (the
"why" of the "shorthand what"), they - along with the rest of our training -
would seem inadequate, judging from NTSB glider fatality statistics. I suppose
it's possible we - the sailplane pilot community - have reached the
"irreducible minimum" number of annual deaths, but I'm far from convinced such
a conclusion is warranted. I know lifetime instructors (Tom Knauff comes to
mind) have their own specific training-based thoughts and suggestions as well.

Bob W.

[[email protected]]

I think Platypus once said something like "If you're considering a course of action, think about whether you would look like an idiot if it were to go wrong. If it would, you should seriously consider not doing it"

[Giaco]

The biggest reason that I personally use a hard-deck is as the final safety check to dangerous thought processes in the cockpit. For me, it is just too easy to mentally assume all will work out and continue to push the limits of what I "feel" is safe in the moment versus what a removed unbiased observer would determine.

I think it comes back to the old saying about old and bold pilots...

[N97MT]

I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning the "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect" so that real learning can take place. But in the process of beating the fear out of (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student we abstract out a real and potentially life-saving emotion which may be the only thing keeping an otherwise competent pilot from his own demise.

I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a pre-flight student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall full of 150 people and many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did the student realize that at this point he is dead?" I only got silence and blank stares in response.

[Jim White[_3_]]

Take the 1kt thermal before you get low? 9 or 14 day contests are rarely
won by the high risk pilot.

Jim

[[email protected]]

Well Jim that doesnt seem to apply to guys like karl streideck or ray gimmy or going back aways, jim inderbo. I've seen those guys pull off amaizingly "risky" moves. Risk in general is directly related to experience. What might have been super risky the first few times becomes incrementally less risky with the gained experience. The problems arise when less experienced guys try to rush the learning curve by trying to immulate what they see other more experienced guys get away with.
Dan

[BobW]

On 4/3/2016 6:41 AM, Giaco wrote:
> The biggest reason that I personally use a hard-deck is as the final safety
> check to dangerous thought processes in the cockpit. For me, it is just too
> easy to mentally assume all will work out and continue to push the limits
> of what I "feel" is safe in the moment versus what a removed unbiased
> observer would determine.

Excellent point summarizable (I think) as: Pilot, know thyself!

Not too long after I began flying retractable gear sailplanes, I settled on a
"hard deck for gear down/up" of 1,000' agl. While the "gear up" part won't
work if your ship has its release hook on the gear itself, the gear down bit
will. And - big surprise - what motivated me to begin using that particular
mental-crutch/memory-aid/practice was nearly forgetting to lower the gear the
first time I found myself "stretching a glide" back to the home field. I
remembered - only after it became clear at ~300'agl that I would, in fact,
make the field without a straight-in - that my mind had been completely
unemcumbered by any "pre-landing checklist bits" other than wind direction...

Bob W.

[BobW]

On 4/3/2016 7:07 AM, N97MT wrote:
> I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning the
> "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect" so that
> real learning can take place. But in the process of beating the fear out of
> (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student we abstract out a real and
> potentially life-saving emotion which may be the only thing keeping an
> otherwise competent pilot from his own demise.

Maybe this aspect of flight training is where's Mr. Spock's mind-meld
abilities would prove really useful! (For kids too young to remember the
original TV program "Star Trek," presumably somewhere on YouTube can be found
links to the "Mr. Spock" mind meld reference above...)

Might not a worthy goal for instruction be transitioning from the "fear and
anxiety" stage to the "healthy respect" stage withOUT heading down the
emotionally-numbing abstraction road? How would Joe CFIG be able to gauge
success? Your abstraction point above had not before occurred to
(non-instructor) me even as a possibility. Definitely food for thought,
though. Thanks!

> I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a pre-flight
> student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall full of 150 people and
> many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did the student realize that at this
> point he is dead?" I only got silence and blank stares in response.

Oh, for group mind-meld capability! Wouldn't you've liked to have known with
certainty the thoughts inside the heads of your fellow seminarians at that moment?

Bob W.

[2G]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 4/3/2016 7:07 AM, N97MT wrote:
> > I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning the
> > "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect" so that
> > real learning can take place. But in the process of beating the fear out of
> > (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student we abstract out a real and
> > potentially life-saving emotion which may be the only thing keeping an
> > otherwise competent pilot from his own demise.
>
> Maybe this aspect of flight training is where's Mr. Spock's mind-meld
> abilities would prove really useful! (For kids too young to remember the
> original TV program "Star Trek," presumably somewhere on YouTube can be found
> links to the "Mr. Spock" mind meld reference above...)
>
> Might not a worthy goal for instruction be transitioning from the "fear and
> anxiety" stage to the "healthy respect" stage withOUT heading down the
> emotionally-numbing abstraction road? How would Joe CFIG be able to gauge
> success? Your abstraction point above had not before occurred to
> (non-instructor) me even as a possibility. Definitely food for thought,
> though. Thanks!
>
> > I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a pre-flight
> > student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall full of 150 people and
> > many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did the student realize that at this
> > point he is dead?" I only got silence and blank stares in response.
>
> Oh, for group mind-meld capability! Wouldn't you've liked to have known with
> certainty the thoughts inside the heads of your fellow seminarians at that moment?
>
> Bob W.

Your original question was if low saves was a necessary XC skill. A "low save" is technically the same as a high save; the only difference is lowering your personal minimums. I have seen pilots die from attempting this, so I MUST ask the question: what is the perceived benefit from putting your life at risk?

In a contest it might mean placing a few positions higher, a meaningless benefit for all but a very few. Or it might mean saving you and your crew from a long and tiring retrieve, maybe even a overnight experience. Are you willing to trade 20-50 years of lifetime for this inconvenience? I would hope that most pilots - and their crew whom are usually their loved ones - would say, emphatically, NO!

[[email protected]]

Well 2G the answer to your question of "what is the percieced benefit" for taking these type of risks, is just that, LIFE. Some of us are not content to just float around or live life in complete perceived safety. We are not afraid to take a calculate, repeat calculated risk when necessary to acomplish a greater goal. Yes it may only be a spot or two higher on the back page of the contest results, or it may be making it ten more miles in a 1-26 on a diamond goal flight. Those "goals" may be miniscule or meaningless within other peoples paradigm. But its the guy in the cockpit who chooses whats meaningfull or whats worth the "risk".

As to the consequences of those choices, everyone has to pay the piper. I worry less about the guy who is stretching his experience level in an intelligent fashion, than I do about the guy who floats around at the home field who hasnt learned a single new aspect of the sport in the last ten years of his flying primarily due to not wanting to stretch out of a confort zone. We all know countless guys who have never ever gone xc or made an outlanding.That guy who refuses to grow has in my opinion a higher potential for disaster, he hasnt had to make critical decisions in decades and when confronted with an unexpected event he's frozen. I've seen that a few times also myself with disasterous results.

My earlier post also has bearing on this, being what is perceived as a "huge risk" by one person due to his experience, is NOT a huge risk to someone else with experience and focussed mental acumen.

Everyone sets there own personal minimums. Mine change according to the conditions but also according to time. Early in the season or after having any long hiatus from flying ( in my case my mark is 4 weeks out of the cockpit), I fly very conservatively untill I get a handfull of flights under my belt. As I get sharper and more re-atuned to my bird, my minimums change and I push them out further. Similarly early in a flight, two hours or less when I am still amped up, and fresh, I will push if it is required. As the day gets longer and especially after an arduous period of decision making in flight, or late in a long flight I do one of two things. I actually shout at myself to wake up, think, get sharp, in order to remind myself that here is where I could get in trouble. If I am not responding, and I feel I am not totally mentally alert, i completely real it in, fly in total conservative mode, no low saves, no risky decisions, take what I have and be content with it.

The issue you brought up was " is it worth it?" Yes but only for the few whose life is centered totally around a soaring goal. That is why there are so few really great champions. Theres only a few willing to do the work required to get good enough to minimize rhe percieved risks thru experience and talent. Theres only a few who master the skills needed to minimize risk. Do great soaring pilots get killed? Yes. Is it pilot error 99% of the time? Yes. Is there a logical reason for each death? Yes. Should others who desire to be great at any "speed/mechanical" sport" give up their goals and fly in perfect percieved safety? Hell no.

Those that do real it in and who do not knowledgably push into becoming better at all things including low saves never ever find out how good they ever could have been. Those that do never reach their full potential. Do they stay alive? Maybe yes maybe no, but have they lived? Depending on their goals, if they are one of the few of the "driven" temperment, then the answer may be, not really.

For those who are not of this temperment, its an entirely different perspective and that is great, ok, fullfilling. They due to who they are, and how they are wired, have a different set of minimums. I would never ever attempt to place my minimums on anyone else. When teaching I teach total conservative flying and my students hear that, experience that, and I exemplify that. However when on my own and according to my level of experience, I fly my standards. The important factor here is understanding who your audience is.. Many times we argue over different perspectives on these topics because we are coming from different experience levels and different overall goals.
Dan

[[email protected]]

Getting back to the original question of this thread, the mental aspects, I think the overall temperment/personality of the pilot is an essential factor in this discussion.

Two extremes exist, the timid/reserved personality and the fearless/"I can do anything" guy. The timid flier will error on the conservative side, I use "error" deliberately as I think the pilot who doesnt grow beyond this extreem will be the guy who doesnt progress in real experience level irregardless of how many hours he has. He is an accident waiting to happen.

The second guy, the fearless "it wont happen to me" guy also is an accident waiting to happen. Many of these guys never get a chance to survive their folly in order to even recognize the mistake they made.

Thankfully most of us are somewhere in the middle between these two guys. I found however that it was helpfull for me personally to self analyse where I fit between these two guys. For the timid conservative flier, if he also has personal goals towaed xc or contest flying, he needs to realize that to reach his goals he is going to have to in a knowledgeable fashion, stretch into unknown territory.

For the guy who is toward the daredevel side of this spectrum, he needs to recognize his temperment and also in a similar fashion, find a means to curb his disregard for danger and understand the realities/consequences of his decisions.

This is not an easy thing for either guy. The timid guy feels pushed and some of them become the guys that try to impose their personal minimums on everyone else.

The fearless fellow feels held back. Many times this is the guy with a big ego driven by who knows what (many reasons) and he also in a different way, attempts to impose his perspective on everyone else.
Personally speaking due to my flying experience in the duster business, I trend toward the conservative side in agricultural flying. Just as 2G I have seen the results of needless pilot errors in my business. Thus I am super conservative when hauling around 2,000 lbs of fertilizer 12 ft above the ground at 135mph.

Conversely, I trend toward the fearless perspective when flying my glider on my own. In regards to the low level save question, I guess it is exactly due to my profession ( flying thousands of hours at below 100 ft) that I am not overly concerned when pulling off a save below 600ft. I do recognize this percieved "nonchalance " and mentally acknowledge it when i am in a low save situation but I guess due to my experience at doing so much low level turning, it doesnt worry me the same way it would others who dont fly at ground level except for final approach.

Other situations in soaring are an entirely different matter for me. For example, my ridge soaring experience is rather limited, and as a consequence, I am extremely conservative when playing on a turbulent rough ridge day. Other guys who "ridge soaring" is their thing laugh at my personal minimums when on a ridge, but my experience level is not like theres thus my minimums are way different and my temperment is different on the ridge.

As a side note, my wife likes my "ridge" temperment way better than my "low save" temperment.
Dan

[BobW]

On 4/3/2016 7:12 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
>> On 4/3/2016 7:07 AM, N97MT wrote:
>>> I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning the
>>> "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect" so
>>> that real learning can take place. But in the process of beating the
>>> fear out of (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student we
>>> abstract out a real and potentially life-saving emotion which may be
>>> the only thing keeping an otherwise competent pilot from his own
>>> demise.
>>
>> Maybe this aspect of flight training is where's Mr. Spock's mind-meld
>> abilities would prove really useful! (For kids too young to remember the
>> original TV program "Star Trek," presumably somewhere on YouTube can be
>> found links to the "Mr. Spock" mind meld reference above...)
>>
>> Might not a worthy goal for instruction be transitioning from the "fear
>> and anxiety" stage to the "healthy respect" stage withOUT heading down
>> the emotionally-numbing abstraction road? How would Joe CFIG be able to
>> gauge success? Your abstraction point above had not before occurred to
>> (non-instructor) me even as a possibility. Definitely food for thought,
>> though. Thanks!
>>
>>> I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a
>>> pre-flight student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall full of
>>> 150 people and many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did the student
>>> realize that at this point he is dead?" I only got silence and blank
>>> stares in response.
>>
>> Oh, for group mind-meld capability! Wouldn't you've liked to have known
>> with certainty the thoughts inside the heads of your fellow seminarians
>> at that moment?
>>
>> Bob W.
>
> Your original question was if low saves was a necessary XC skill. A "low
> save" is technically the same as a high save; the only difference is
> lowering your personal minimums. I have seen pilots die from attempting
> this, so I MUST ask the question: what is the perceived benefit from
> putting your life at risk?
>
> In a contest it might mean placing a few positions higher, a meaningless
> benefit for all but a very few. Or it might mean saving you and your crew
> from a long and tiring retrieve, maybe even a overnight experience. Are you
> willing to trade 20-50 years of lifetime for this inconvenience? I would
> hope that most pilots - and their crew whom are usually their loved ones -
> would say, emphatically, NO!
>

No offense intended, but I disagree with the paraphrase of my initial post as
stated in your first sentence, and for those who may not have been following
this thread from the beginning, immediately below is a cut-n-paste from that
initial post (the quoted paragraphs were separated by intervening paragraphs):

"In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?...

"Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
XC occurs pre-planned or not."

Also, for the record, nowhere throughout the thread have I - or anyone else
that I can recall - attempted to numerically define "low save" (e.g. via an
agl number). In my case the omission was intentional. Why? Because one
person's "low save" may well be another's "routinely necessary XC skill," as
is easily seen when considering (say) Joe Average Sailplane Pilot's first
XC-to-undesired-outlanding vs. (say) his 20th. The mindsets on these flights
will be significantly different. The relative stress levels as J.A.S. Pilot
descends relentlessly - even though maybe not continuously - down, away from
his previously exulting "high on course" mindset present earlier in the
flight, will be significantly different. I seriously doubt a sailplane pilot
exists who will claim to be as "systemically stressed" on his 20th XC OFL (or
even his 20th XC *flight*) as on his first. Certainly,not me! On my very first
(unintentional) XC-to-landing, by the time I was down to ~2,000' agl I was
SERIOUSLY stressed, for beaucoup reasons, the only weather-related one being
that the boisterous climbs experienced in thermal #1 off tow, #2 used to go to
#3 one (1-26) thermal away from the field, and #3, seemed to exist now only as
memory. In other words, #4, the sole stepping stone I figured to need to get
back, simply didn't seem to be in the cards. (Yeah, I learned that day
something about differing airmasses!)

Even though I was a raw beginner, and even though I'd cleared the flight with
my (former) instructor, me now a 1/3 partner with him in the 1-26 he'd built
from a kit, I was already fighting "I can't believe this is happening!"
thoughts as I "ratty-teasers" descended down to 2,000' agl. And though I
suspect I'd've been able to climb away from (say) 1200' agl had I actually
encountered "usable lift" (like those first three thermals) at that altitude,
I'll never know. I had, well before then, picked out where I was likely going
to end up setting the ship down, but I *really* didn't want to have to.
Eventually, from my instructed pattern height, I did, successfully, and that
was that. By landout #20, my mindset was *any* landout ought to be no more
mentally stressful than a routine landing at my home field...if anything less
so, because I had only to "do the field selection thing" and not have to deal
with "the multiple runways at a busy GA airport" thing (far more potential
gotchas, IMO).

By landout #20 I'd also experienced plenty of opportunities to - gradually and
"acceptably-personally-stressfully" - lower my "comfortable thermalling
minimums" to my by then routine pattern entry height agl. Point being, "low
thermalling stress" is a hugely relative concept. Sure the ground clearance
margins are higher for "an equivalent stress level" for Joe Newbie XC pilot
compared to Joe Cool-w.-XC pilot, even if Joe Cool never performs a "low save
by Joe Reader's "even lower definition." Point being, that I'll dispute any
claim that "some definitional safety altitude" will always prove life-saving.
Pilots continue to kill themselves through unintended departures from
controlled flight even during benign-weather, flying "what should be routine"
landing patterns. Ignoring practical considerations mitigating against it,
would universally raising landing pattern altitudes end such departures from
controlled flight? I think not.

I'm not trying to weasel out of what may have been (an understandable)
difference in perception between "low save" as I had in mind in my initial
post, and "low save" as you interpreted it. I was - and am - more interested
in the mindsets that pilots who indulge in what *they* consider to be low
saves may have, and how those mindsets may - or may not - affect how they
mentally approach flight in conditions of intentionally-thinned margins.
Because, to my way of thinking, thin margins are an absolute. They respect no
one and no level of experience. Physics doesn't care; physics just is (am?).
It's up to Joe Pilot to deal with physics.

For the record, I've had "pretty well known to me friendly soaring
acquaintances" die from "unintentionally thinned to zero" margins, ranging
from "a (probably) stressed-like-me-newbie" trying to return from the local
ridge (benign day; hit a tree), to someone who somehow or other managed to
spin to the ground from an estimated 2,000' above a knife-edged ridge (3500+'
agl above the adjoining plains) in utterly benign conditions in a
within-CG-range glider, which one of his partners (a good friend of mine) said
flew like a pussycat. Fuzzy memory says the latter pilot had landed off-field,
but in any case how he encountered the original departure from controlled
flight must remain a mystery. Both pilots were in their later twenties. There
have been more...

But to explicitly address the question you've posed, i.e.: "I have seen pilots
die from attempting this ["a low save"], so I MUST ask the question: what is
the perceived benefit from putting your life at risk?"

That, to me, is the million dollar question. I wouldn't bet against someone
replying to the effect that even to indulge in soaring is "putting your life
at risk," but should they, I'd respond along the lines that life itself is a
risk, and that to not indulge in personally rewarding, voluntary activities
(which is just about everything beyond working to earn one's
food/clothing/shelter keep) would be a gray life indeed, arguably, one hardly
worth living.

To my way of thinking, how one chooses to go about approaching soaring flight
with voluntarily thinning/thin margins is an intensely personal thing, with
potentially "friends-n-family-affecting" negative consequences. I doubt anyone
really needs to have that aspect pointed out to them, when premature death is
on the talking table...but I could be wrong. It's how we - J.A.S. pilot; the
sailplane piloting community at large; CFIGs - mentally approach those higher
danger zones that is of genuine interest to me. I just don't see "hard limits
defined by someone else" as an unarguably, universally,
always-safety-enhancing, good thing. The individual ALWAYS has a say (and a
vote) in how they approach flight. As I gained soaring flight experience, my
own thinking tended to evolve toward thinking it "CERtainly better for me, and
probably better for Joe Every Other Pilot" to embrace the outlook that
sensibly expanding one's flight skills is a good thing...key word being
"sensibly."

In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned I'd recently looked at every
U.S. sailplane fatality this century in the NTSB's database. Ignoring those
presently lacking an NTSB-considered "Probable Cause" and some 20+ I tossed
out as too easily rationalizable as "geezer-related" or "out-of-hand stupid,"
of the roughly 55 remaining deaths "only" 4 *might* be attributable to "low
thermalling," in the "low save" sense of things, with "low" being defined as
"obviously/apparently below routine ground clearances for a normal pattern."
And to obtain 4, I had to infer one Sierra fatality. That's 4 too many, and at
least one of those deaths happened in a setting with many witnesses (and
families), undoubtedly searing its way into many minds which would prefer not
to be so burdened. There were 17 (!) "routine pattern" unintended departures
from controlled flight resulting in fatalities, including two with instructors
on board in G-103s. (IMO, perhaps only the 2-33 is a more benign,
routinely-used-in-the-U.S., training ship.) There were additional "should have
been routinely executable" landing patterns (with "departure from controlled
flight deaths") downstream of premature terminations of tows for various
reasons. (I haven't attempted to "hard categorize" every fatality with a fine
brush, broad-brushing satisfying my curiosity. I'm uninterested in "debating
about trees" regarding "category buckets." However, for anyone seriously
interested in discussing things with me on this front, feel free to do so
offline, but understand you'll first need to go through the NTSB records for
yourself...tedious, it is.)

If I'm limited to a single point from the preceding paragraph, it'd be simply
that this century's statistical risk from "low saves" is way out on one tail,
probably regardless of how one chooses to categorize all the fatalities. By
far, many more "average sailplane pilots" die from "routine flight conditions"
than while "obviously pushing this particular limit."

Bob W.

[[email protected]]

Bobw, I was thinking your last post was directed at me in miss stating the original intent of this thread, but I expanded the quote and see it was toward 2G , my last two posts must have crossed as you wee typing.

[JS]

Too much thinking, not enough flying?
Jim

[[email protected]]

LOL probably but I did get to fly today but too weak to go anywhere.

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 21:57 03 April 2016, wrote:
>Well Jim that doesnt seem to apply to guys like karl streideck or ray
>gimmy=
> or going back aways, jim inderbo. I've seen those guys pull off
>amaizingly=
> "risky" moves. Risk in general is directly related to experience. What
>mig=
>ht have been super risky the first few times becomes incrementally less
>ris=
>ky with the gained experience. The problems arise when less experienced
>guy=
>s try to rush the learning curve by trying to immulate what they see
other
>=
>more experienced guys get away with.
>Dan
>
Hi Dan

Following your post I thought I would take a look at Seb Kawa's flights at
the 2014 15M Worlds in Lezno which he won. I believe that Seb has 10 World
titles now so I thought we could learn something. Low points are above
ground.

Day Low Point Notes
1 2700ft Finished 4th
2 1200ft Only one low point, otherwise 2700ft 1st
3 2300ft 13th
4 3000ft 6th
5 2000ft 4th
6 1500ft Otherwise 2300ft everyone lands out 10th
7 2000ft 12th
8 3000ft 1st
9 2600ft 12th
10 2200ft 6th

I think that we can conclude that Seb didn't go low in order to win this
title. If you look at the barograph trace he takes frequent climbs in order
to stay high and conservative.

I have never looked at Karl's or the other guy's traces but I stand by my
point. Consistent result wins competitions. Getting low throws a lot of
time or, when you are the one that lands out, the day and the comp.

Jim

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:34:06 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
> Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
> Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
> time in decades; cool!)...
>
> On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
> thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?
>
> In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
> other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
> Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
> they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?
>
> Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
> pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
> wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
> the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
> thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!
>
> But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
> since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
> life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
> way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?
>
> Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
> altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
> pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
> definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
> XC occurs pre-planned or not.
>
> For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
> to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
> myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
> 1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
> field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
> stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
> mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
> pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
> definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
> safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
> new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"
>
> For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
> reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
> while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
> augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
> felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
> catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
> killing myself in a sailplane. :) )
>
> So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!
>
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
> philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
> in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
> instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
> back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
> "absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

One key element in this is the recognition that if you have a "departure" FOR ANY REASON (inattention, turbulence, surprise etc.) below a certain altitude YOU WILL hit the ground. It is important to be in-flight aware of when you have descended into the "I will be hurt" zone. Whether on not the risk is worth it to you is between you and your family.

[son_of_flubber]

Some of this discussion reminds me of the movie "The Great Santini".

If Bull Meechum were a glider pilot, I bet he would do the lowest of the low saves.

[Dan Marotta]

There has been some very good discussion on this thread but I haven't
seen anyone on the "safe" side accept anything said by the "unsafe"
side. What I hear is that, if Bob does something that scares Bill, then
Bill thinks it's "unsafe" regardless of how well thought out or executed
the maneuver. People die every day in traffic accidents. Does that
make driving unsafe? Or does it simply indicate that there are both
mechanical failures and inattentive drivers? And while proper
maintenance can take care of most, but not all, of the mechanical
failures, you simply can't fix stupid.

Now I'm waiting to hear that people who perform low saves must be "stupid".

And please note, I don't do "low saves". I try not to get low out on
course and, if I get low enough to get worried, I simply land. And when
I see something that gives me the willies, I consider who is the pilot
and what I know his skill and experience to be. I will tell a newbie
that his final turn was too low, but not an experienced guy. He knows
what he's doing (usually).

Dan

On 4/4/2016 8:21 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Some of this discussion reminds me of the movie "The Great Santini".
>
> If Bull Meechum were a glider pilot, I bet he would do the lowest of the low saves.

--
Dan, 5J

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

There are many variables here, but not least experience and ability to
manage workload in the cockpit.

1) What do you consider a low save?
2) What terrain are you flying over? Big fields with lots of options or
small fields with stone walls or barbed wire?
3) Have you the experience to prioritize your actions an apportion your
work load accordingly.
4) Are you flying a flapped aircraft you could land on a postage stamp or
an 18m un-flapped slippery air frame?

From personnel experience my low saves in my Cirrus or 27 are much lower
than those in the club Duo.

In the Duo I am in the circuit committed to landing much higher than I
would in the 27.

Considering the above and to put it in context (in the same scenario,
heights, etc), flying the 27 I would already have the wheel down and would
have my field / fields selected but would be focused on getting away secure
in the knowledge that I have my field landing plan in place.

At 16:34 01 April 2016, BobW wrote:
>Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in
>"The
>Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the
>first
>time in decades; cool!)...
>
>On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
>thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?
>
>In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the

>other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
>Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES -
are
>
>they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?
>
>Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah

>pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the
>frozen
>wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer,
>and,
>the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
>thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!
>
>But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has
intrigued
>me
>since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is

>life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best

>way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed
pilot
>family?
>
>Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
>altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane

>pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
>definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether
>such
>XC occurs pre-planned or not.
>
>For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front.
>More
>to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I
found
>
>myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":

>1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl
pattern
>
>field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
>stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a
>personally-knowledgeable,
>mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl

>pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
>definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern

>safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
>new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"
>
>For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it

>reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else"
>mid-air,
>while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by

>augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've
>always
>felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for
>the
>catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy
regarding
>
>killing myself in a sailplane. :) )
>
>So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest
>begin!!!
>
>Bob W.
>
>P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
>philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I
think
>-
>in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me

>instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
>back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It
>seems
>"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among
reasonable
>people!
>

[BobW]

On 4/4/2016 3:22 PM, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
<Snip...>

> One key element in this is the recognition that if you have a "departure"
> FOR ANY REASON (inattention, turbulence, surprise etc.) below a certain
> altitude YOU WILL hit the ground. It is important to be in-flight aware of
> when you have descended into the "I will be hurt" zone.

Absolutely - what John says!!! Apparent lack of said "hurt/death zone
awareness" seems (to me) to be a fairly consistently missing element in "the
vast majority of" this millennium's U.S. glider fatalities in the NTSB's database.

Moreover, it's usually easily found/seen at any glider site on any flying
weekend, in my observational/participational experience. One of the funnier
(to me, and, because no glider pilots were harmed in the making and gaining of
the experience) occurred on a non-soarable, flat calm, clear, winter-season,
day at one of our Club's winch camps. Our nose-hooked 2-33 with two
experienced (both had made more than one successful OFL), "potential PICs" on
board, got a lowish snap (600'agl?) and - to my surprise - instead of doing
whatever the PIC thought reasonable to do under the circumstances, but doing
it from a position allowing them "no-brainer pattern entry considerations"
proceeded to do it from more or less directly along the center line of the
runway, down to "considerably lower than would've been prudent at our busy
home field." And *then* instead of performing a distance-minimizing teardrop
turn onto final, the "home field's, textbook mandated, 4-leg pattern was
(safely, if tree-scrapingly low base-to-final turn) performed...to the more
distant end of the runway (presumably for "next snap" convenience reasons).

Because I knew both pilots, I wasn't terribly worried about them actually
killing themselves or horribly bending the sailplane, but as I watched the
(inexplicable, to me) meanderings going on more or less overhead, I got the
image of a drunken sailor stumbling about, utterly planless. The three of us
hee-hawed about it afterwards, though I seemed to find the drunken sailor
analogy funnier than did the actual PIC. (Happily, the *actual* PIC admitted
to some embarrassment for the lack of obvious/decisive flight planning, but I
later had to apologize to him for using - in a suitably anonymous fashion -
the incident as "safety filler" in our Club's newsletter, which I put together
for years because it was fun for me to do. Using "anonymized" on-field
sillinesses was a routine part of its content, but occasionally a "rightfully"
embarrassed pilot took offense. Curiously, I can't recall ever having occasion
for them to appear in future issues, while - sad to say - that wasn't
universally true of *every* PPG-carrying Club member.)

> Whether on not the
> risk is worth it to you is between you and your family.
>

Indeed, although the anal part of me feels compelled to add that government
minions always maintain an interested watch on the statistical front, so to
that potential extent, effects also theoretically extend to the rest of the
piloting community at large.

Bob W.

[Mike the Strike]

One of my favorite safety topics is the widely used 200' rope break practice - it leads to some accidents and I believe is not that common a scenario. A colleague more versed in soaring safety recently opined that a rope break at 500 feet was more problematic as it required greater skills in decision-making that many students were ill-prepared for.

The anecdote above suggests that it's not just students who are ill-prepared!

Mike

[[email protected]]

Which is safer; a conservative pilot who thinks they are safe, or a pilot aware of their inclination to push things but thinks themselves switched on enough to pull it off?

[BobW]

On 4/5/2016 1:59 PM, wrote:
> Which is safer; a conservative pilot who thinks they are safe, or a pilot
> aware of their inclination to push things but thinks themselves switched on
> enough to pull it off?
>

Excellent, thought-provoking, question! Particularly if we place "reasonable
mechanical competency" in both pilots' cockpits.

Probably not (yet?) answerable, though...

Judging from this millennium's NTSB statistics, the MUCH larger proportion of
fatalities have (apparently, so it seems to me) come from the "not obviously
actively pushing things" group of pilots, regardless of whether they may have
been "conservative" or "inclined to push physics' dangerous limits."

By way of example, one (cartwheeling, apparently) fatality involved an attempt
to land on a road, when the NTSB noted (they thought? a glider pilot thought?)
a perfectly landable field was less than half a mile away. I choose to imagine
this pilot thought success chances were better on a
"should-be-via-routine-driving-observationally-known-rife-with-obstructions"
road than going into a "surface-maybe-not-so-observationally-known-smooth"
field. FWIW, the "roads are good" misconception was common among 20+ years'
worth of new-to-XC pilots from our Club at a site in the (flat, huge fields
common, sparsely settled) panhandle of Texas. Memory sez the idea had to be
disabused each year, when it arose during formal/informal training/bull
sessions. No one ever did land a glider on a road, and so far as I know there
was never any OFL damage EVER incurred between 1989 and 2009, the only camp
years I had direct exposure to. Funnily enough, there *were* a few minor -
e.g. gear-ups - landing damages occurred at the (ex-WW-II) camp airports. Many
a club member made their first-ever OFL at that camp.

Back to the question above, I'm inclined to think "limits awareness" is a
better way to approach piloting than not, just as (say) it's better when
driving on highways. While (as someone noted earlier this thread) "There's no
fixing stupid," I believe lack of "pushing limits" awareness IS fixable.

Bob W.

[2G]

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 4/3/2016 7:12 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2016 7:07 AM, N97MT wrote:
> >>> I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning the
> >>> "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect" so
> >>> that real learning can take place. But in the process of beating the
> >>> fear out of (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student we
> >>> abstract out a real and potentially life-saving emotion which may be
> >>> the only thing keeping an otherwise competent pilot from his own
> >>> demise.
> >>
> >> Maybe this aspect of flight training is where's Mr. Spock's mind-meld
> >> abilities would prove really useful! (For kids too young to remember the
> >> original TV program "Star Trek," presumably somewhere on YouTube can be
> >> found links to the "Mr. Spock" mind meld reference above...)
> >>
> >> Might not a worthy goal for instruction be transitioning from the "fear
> >> and anxiety" stage to the "healthy respect" stage withOUT heading down
> >> the emotionally-numbing abstraction road? How would Joe CFIG be able to
> >> gauge success? Your abstraction point above had not before occurred to
> >> (non-instructor) me even as a possibility. Definitely food for thought,
> >> though. Thanks!
> >>
> >>> I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a
> >>> pre-flight student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall full of
> >>> 150 people and many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did the student
> >>> realize that at this point he is dead?" I only got silence and blank
> >>> stares in response.
> >>
> >> Oh, for group mind-meld capability! Wouldn't you've liked to have known
> >> with certainty the thoughts inside the heads of your fellow seminarians
> >> at that moment?
> >>
> >> Bob W.
> >
> > Your original question was if low saves was a necessary XC skill. A "low
> > save" is technically the same as a high save; the only difference is
> > lowering your personal minimums. I have seen pilots die from attempting
> > this, so I MUST ask the question: what is the perceived benefit from
> > putting your life at risk?
> >
> > In a contest it might mean placing a few positions higher, a meaningless
> > benefit for all but a very few. Or it might mean saving you and your crew
> > from a long and tiring retrieve, maybe even a overnight experience. Are you
> > willing to trade 20-50 years of lifetime for this inconvenience? I would
> > hope that most pilots - and their crew whom are usually their loved ones -
> > would say, emphatically, NO!
> >
>
> No offense intended, but I disagree with the paraphrase of my initial post as
> stated in your first sentence, and for those who may not have been following
> this thread from the beginning, immediately below is a cut-n-paste from that
> initial post (the quoted paragraphs were separated by intervening paragraphs):
>
> "In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
> other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
> Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
> they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?...
>
> "Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
> altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
> pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
> definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
> XC occurs pre-planned or not."
>
> Also, for the record, nowhere throughout the thread have I - or anyone else
> that I can recall - attempted to numerically define "low save" (e.g. via an
> agl number). In my case the omission was intentional. Why? Because one
> person's "low save" may well be another's "routinely necessary XC skill," as
> is easily seen when considering (say) Joe Average Sailplane Pilot's first
> XC-to-undesired-outlanding vs. (say) his 20th. The mindsets on these flights
> will be significantly different. The relative stress levels as J.A.S. Pilot
> descends relentlessly - even though maybe not continuously - down, away from
> his previously exulting "high on course" mindset present earlier in the
> flight, will be significantly different. I seriously doubt a sailplane pilot
> exists who will claim to be as "systemically stressed" on his 20th XC OFL (or
> even his 20th XC *flight*) as on his first. Certainly,not me! On my very first
> (unintentional) XC-to-landing, by the time I was down to ~2,000' agl I was
> SERIOUSLY stressed, for beaucoup reasons, the only weather-related one being
> that the boisterous climbs experienced in thermal #1 off tow, #2 used to go to
> #3 one (1-26) thermal away from the field, and #3, seemed to exist now only as
> memory. In other words, #4, the sole stepping stone I figured to need to get
> back, simply didn't seem to be in the cards. (Yeah, I learned that day
> something about differing airmasses!)
>
> Even though I was a raw beginner, and even though I'd cleared the flight with
> my (former) instructor, me now a 1/3 partner with him in the 1-26 he'd built
> from a kit, I was already fighting "I can't believe this is happening!"
> thoughts as I "ratty-teasers" descended down to 2,000' agl. And though I
> suspect I'd've been able to climb away from (say) 1200' agl had I actually
> encountered "usable lift" (like those first three thermals) at that altitude,
> I'll never know. I had, well before then, picked out where I was likely going
> to end up setting the ship down, but I *really* didn't want to have to.
> Eventually, from my instructed pattern height, I did, successfully, and that
> was that. By landout #20, my mindset was *any* landout ought to be no more
> mentally stressful than a routine landing at my home field...if anything less
> so, because I had only to "do the field selection thing" and not have to deal
> with "the multiple runways at a busy GA airport" thing (far more potential
> gotchas, IMO).
>
> By landout #20 I'd also experienced plenty of opportunities to - gradually and
> "acceptably-personally-stressfully" - lower my "comfortable thermalling
> minimums" to my by then routine pattern entry height agl. Point being, "low
> thermalling stress" is a hugely relative concept. Sure the ground clearance
> margins are higher for "an equivalent stress level" for Joe Newbie XC pilot
> compared to Joe Cool-w.-XC pilot, even if Joe Cool never performs a "low save
> by Joe Reader's "even lower definition." Point being, that I'll dispute any
> claim that "some definitional safety altitude" will always prove life-saving.
> Pilots continue to kill themselves through unintended departures from
> controlled flight even during benign-weather, flying "what should be routine"
> landing patterns. Ignoring practical considerations mitigating against it,
> would universally raising landing pattern altitudes end such departures from
> controlled flight? I think not.
>
> I'm not trying to weasel out of what may have been (an understandable)
> difference in perception between "low save" as I had in mind in my initial
> post, and "low save" as you interpreted it. I was - and am - more interested
> in the mindsets that pilots who indulge in what *they* consider to be low
> saves may have, and how those mindsets may - or may not - affect how they
> mentally approach flight in conditions of intentionally-thinned margins.
> Because, to my way of thinking, thin margins are an absolute. They respect no
> one and no level of experience. Physics doesn't care; physics just is (am?).
> It's up to Joe Pilot to deal with physics.
>
> For the record, I've had "pretty well known to me friendly soaring
> acquaintances" die from "unintentionally thinned to zero" margins, ranging
> from "a (probably) stressed-like-me-newbie" trying to return from the local
> ridge (benign day; hit a tree), to someone who somehow or other managed to
> spin to the ground from an estimated 2,000' above a knife-edged ridge (3500+'
> agl above the adjoining plains) in utterly benign conditions in a
> within-CG-range glider, which one of his partners (a good friend of mine) said
> flew like a pussycat. Fuzzy memory says the latter pilot had landed off-field,
> but in any case how he encountered the original departure from controlled
> flight must remain a mystery. Both pilots were in their later twenties. There
> have been more...
>
> But to explicitly address the question you've posed, i.e.: "I have seen pilots
> die from attempting this ["a low save"], so I MUST ask the question: what is
> the perceived benefit from putting your life at risk?"
>
> That, to me, is the million dollar question. I wouldn't bet against someone
> replying to the effect that even to indulge in soaring is "putting your life
> at risk," but should they, I'd respond along the lines that life itself is a
> risk, and that to not indulge in personally rewarding, voluntary activities
> (which is just about everything beyond working to earn one's
> food/clothing/shelter keep) would be a gray life indeed, arguably, one hardly
> worth living.
>
> To my way of thinking, how one chooses to go about approaching soaring flight
> with voluntarily thinning/thin margins is an intensely personal thing, with
> potentially "friends-n-family-affecting" negative consequences. I doubt anyone
> really needs to have that aspect pointed out to them, when premature death is
> on the talking table...but I could be wrong. It's how we - J.A.S. pilot; the
> sailplane piloting community at large; CFIGs - mentally approach those higher
> danger zones that is of genuine interest to me. I just don't see "hard limits
> defined by someone else" as an unarguably, universally,
> always-safety-enhancing, good thing. The individual ALWAYS has a say (and a
> vote) in how they approach flight. As I gained soaring flight experience, my
> own thinking tended to evolve toward thinking it "CERtainly better for me, and
> probably better for Joe Every Other Pilot" to embrace the outlook that
> sensibly expanding one's flight skills is a good thing...key word being
> "sensibly."
>
> In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned I'd recently looked at every
> U.S. sailplane fatality this century in the NTSB's database. Ignoring those
> presently lacking an NTSB-considered "Probable Cause" and some 20+ I tossed
> out as too easily rationalizable as "geezer-related" or "out-of-hand stupid,"
> of the roughly 55 remaining deaths "only" 4 *might* be attributable to "low
> thermalling," in the "low save" sense of things, with "low" being defined as
> "obviously/apparently below routine ground clearances for a normal pattern."
> And to obtain 4, I had to infer one Sierra fatality. That's 4 too many, and at
> least one of those deaths happened in a setting with many witnesses (and
> families), undoubtedly searing its way into many minds which would prefer not
> to be so burdened. There were 17 (!) "routine pattern" unintended departures
> from controlled flight resulting in fatalities, including two with instructors
> on board in G-103s. (IMO, perhaps only the 2-33 is a more benign,
> routinely-used-in-the-U.S., training ship.) There were additional "should have
> been routinely executable" landing patterns (with "departure from controlled
> flight deaths") downstream of premature terminations of tows for various
> reasons. (I haven't attempted to "hard categorize" every fatality with a fine
> brush, broad-brushing satisfying my curiosity. I'm uninterested in "debating
> about trees" regarding "category buckets." However, for anyone seriously
> interested in discussing things with me on this front, feel free to do so
> offline, but understand you'll first need to go through the NTSB records for
> yourself...tedious, it is.)
>
> If I'm limited to a single point from the preceding paragraph, it'd be simply
> that this century's statistical risk from "low saves" is way out on one tail,
> probably regardless of how one chooses to categorize all the fatalities. By
> far, many more "average sailplane pilots" die from "routine flight conditions"
> than while "obviously pushing this particular limit."
>
> Bob W.

A "low save" is one where spin recovery is not likely.

If you want to think that the statistical probability of dying while executing low saves is diminishingly small, so be it. When you know the pilot who died, as I do, it becomes more personal and real.

I don't particularly care what risks you are willing to take; my intended audience are those other low time pilots who might be reading this and acting on the advice.

Tom

[Surge]

The topic of low altitude flying and beat-ups (high speed, low level passes) comes up on a nearly weekly basis on a general aviation forum I frequent.
There are two well defined groups who each defend their position with passion.
The first group insists that low level flying is 100% safe if done correctly by someone experienced while the second group insists that the closer to the ground one flies the higher the risk regardless of skill level.

Invariably every few months there is another fatal accident which removes someone from the first group. The chatter online nearly always points out that the deceased was an experienced and low risk pilot. I've lost count of the fatalities due to flights into power lines, beat-ups with wing over manoeuvres into the ground, etc.
Clearly the closer one flies to the ground, the less time and space there is for recovery regardless of skill level.
The further I stay away from that dead man's zone the better. The air space between the ground and 1000 feet AGL is strictly reserved for takeoffs and landings in my book.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:59:14 AM UTC+3, 2G wrote:
> A "low save" is one where spin recovery is not likely.
>
> If you want to think that the statistical probability of dying while executing low saves is diminishingly small, so be it. When you know the pilot who died, as I do, it becomes more personal and real.

Seems like a flat land flier's definition.

Those flying in mountains are constantly taking thermals from a few hundred feet above peaks and ridges -- or from below the ridge.

The key is to make sure you *don't* spin. Fly at all times at LEAST at landing approach speed (in the given wind conditions), not at the speed you use for thermalling at 2000 ft. And add a bit onto that. I'm talking about 60 or 65 or even 70 knots, instead of 45 or 50 knots.

Yeah, you might decrease your chance of being able to climb in a weak or small thermal, but you also vastly decrease your chance of dying.

[PGS]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:48:22 AM UTC-4, Surge wrote:
> The topic of low altitude flying and beat-ups (high speed, low level passes) comes up on a nearly weekly basis on a general aviation forum I frequent.

[BobW]

Apologies for not cutting this down to size, but I happen to think some of the
thoughts expressed in it are important, perhaps even crucial to some
RASidents' continuing existence?

"This reply" will be found at the bottom of the post...

On 4/6/2016 11:59 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
>> On 4/3/2016 7:12 PM, 2G wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2016 7:07 AM, N97MT wrote:
>>>>> I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning
>>>>> the "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect"
>>>>> so that real learning can take place. But in the process of beating
>>>>> the fear out of (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student
>>>>> we abstract out a real and potentially life-saving emotion which
>>>>> may be the only thing keeping an otherwise competent pilot from his
>>>>> own demise.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this aspect of flight training is where's Mr. Spock's
>>>> mind-meld abilities would prove really useful! (For kids too young to
>>>> remember the original TV program "Star Trek," presumably somewhere on
>>>> YouTube can be found links to the "Mr. Spock" mind meld reference
>>>> above...)
>>>>
>>>> Might not a worthy goal for instruction be transitioning from the
>>>> "fear and anxiety" stage to the "healthy respect" stage withOUT
>>>> heading down the emotionally-numbing abstraction road? How would Joe
>>>> CFIG be able to gauge success? Your abstraction point above had not
>>>> before occurred to (non-instructor) me even as a possibility.
>>>> Definitely food for thought, though. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>> I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a
>>>>> pre-flight student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall
>>>>> full of 150 people and many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did
>>>>> the student realize that at this point he is dead?" I only got
>>>>> silence and blank stares in response.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, for group mind-meld capability! Wouldn't you've liked to have
>>>> known with certainty the thoughts inside the heads of your fellow
>>>> seminarians at that moment?
>>>>
>>>> Bob W.
>>>
>>> Your original question was if low saves was a necessary XC skill. A
>>> "low save" is technically the same as a high save; the only difference
>>> is lowering your personal minimums. I have seen pilots die from
>>> attempting this, so I MUST ask the question: what is the perceived
>>> benefit from putting your life at risk?
>>>
>>> In a contest it might mean placing a few positions higher, a
>>> meaningless benefit for all but a very few. Or it might mean saving you
>>> and your crew from a long and tiring retrieve, maybe even a overnight
>>> experience. Are you willing to trade 20-50 years of lifetime for this
>>> inconvenience? I would hope that most pilots - and their crew whom are
>>> usually their loved ones - would say, emphatically, NO!
>>>
>>
>> No offense intended, but I disagree with the paraphrase of my initial
>> post as stated in your first sentence, and for those who may not have
>> been following this thread from the beginning, immediately below is a
>> cut-n-paste from that initial post (the quoted paragraphs were separated
>> by intervening paragraphs):
>>
>> "In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in
>> the other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
>> Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES -
>> are they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?...
>>
>> "Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
>> altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering
>> sailplane pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider,
>> and (by definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC,
>> whether such XC occurs pre-planned or not."
>>
>> Also, for the record, nowhere throughout the thread have I - or anyone
>> else that I can recall - attempted to numerically define "low save" (e.g.
>> via an agl number). In my case the omission was intentional. Why? Because
>> one person's "low save" may well be another's "routinely necessary XC
>> skill," as is easily seen when considering (say) Joe Average Sailplane
>> Pilot's first XC-to-undesired-outlanding vs. (say) his 20th. The mindsets
>> on these flights will be significantly different. The relative stress
>> levels as J.A.S. Pilot descends relentlessly - even though maybe not
>> continuously - down, away from his previously exulting "high on course"
>> mindset present earlier in the flight, will be significantly different. I
>> seriously doubt a sailplane pilot exists who will claim to be as
>> "systemically stressed" on his 20th XC OFL (or even his 20th XC *flight*)
>> as on his first. Certainly,not me! On my very first (unintentional)
>> XC-to-landing, by the time I was down to ~2,000' agl I was SERIOUSLY
>> stressed, for beaucoup reasons, the only weather-related one being that
>> the boisterous climbs experienced in thermal #1 off tow, #2 used to go
>> to #3 one (1-26) thermal away from the field, and #3, seemed to exist now
>> only as memory. In other words, #4, the sole stepping stone I figured to
>> need to get back, simply didn't seem to be in the cards. (Yeah, I learned
>> that day something about differing airmasses!)
>>
>> Even though I was a raw beginner, and even though I'd cleared the flight
>> with my (former) instructor, me now a 1/3 partner with him in the 1-26
>> he'd built from a kit, I was already fighting "I can't believe this is
>> happening!" thoughts as I "ratty-teasers" descended down to 2,000' agl.
>> And though I suspect I'd've been able to climb away from (say) 1200' agl
>> had I actually encountered "usable lift" (like those first three
>> thermals) at that altitude, I'll never know. I had, well before then,
>> picked out where I was likely going to end up setting the ship down, but
>> I *really* didn't want to have to. Eventually, from my instructed pattern
>> height, I did, successfully, and that was that. By landout #20, my
>> mindset was *any* landout ought to be no more mentally stressful than a
>> routine landing at my home field...if anything less so, because I had
>> only to "do the field selection thing" and not have to deal with "the
>> multiple runways at a busy GA airport" thing (far more potential gotchas,
>> IMO).
>>
>> By landout #20 I'd also experienced plenty of opportunities to -
>> gradually and "acceptably-personally-stressfully" - lower my "comfortable
>> thermalling minimums" to my by then routine pattern entry height agl.
>> Point being, "low thermalling stress" is a hugely relative concept. Sure
>> the ground clearance margins are higher for "an equivalent stress level"
>> for Joe Newbie XC pilot compared to Joe Cool-w.-XC pilot, even if Joe
>> Cool never performs a "low save by Joe Reader's "even lower definition."
>> Point being, that I'll dispute any claim that "some definitional safety
>> altitude" will always prove life-saving. Pilots continue to kill
>> themselves through unintended departures from controlled flight even
>> during benign-weather, flying "what should be routine" landing patterns.
>> Ignoring practical considerations mitigating against it, would
>> universally raising landing pattern altitudes end such departures from
>> controlled flight? I think not.
>>
>> I'm not trying to weasel out of what may have been (an understandable)
>> difference in perception between "low save" as I had in mind in my
>> initial post, and "low save" as you interpreted it. I was - and am - more
>> interested in the mindsets that pilots who indulge in what *they*
>> consider to be low saves may have, and how those mindsets may - or may
>> not - affect how they mentally approach flight in conditions of
>> intentionally-thinned margins. Because, to my way of thinking, thin
>> margins are an absolute. They respect no one and no level of experience.
>> Physics doesn't care; physics just is (am?). It's up to Joe Pilot to deal
>> with physics.
>>
>> For the record, I've had "pretty well known to me friendly soaring
>> acquaintances" die from "unintentionally thinned to zero" margins,
>> ranging from "a (probably) stressed-like-me-newbie" trying to return from
>> the local ridge (benign day; hit a tree), to someone who somehow or other
>> managed to spin to the ground from an estimated 2,000' above a
>> knife-edged ridge (3500+' agl above the adjoining plains) in utterly
>> benign conditions in a within-CG-range glider, which one of his partners
>> (a good friend of mine) said flew like a pussycat. Fuzzy memory says the
>> latter pilot had landed off-field, but in any case how he encountered the
>> original departure from controlled flight must remain a mystery. Both
>> pilots were in their later twenties. There have been more...
>>
>> But to explicitly address the question you've posed, i.e.: "I have seen
>> pilots die from attempting this ["a low save"], so I MUST ask the
>> question: what is the perceived benefit from putting your life at risk?"
>>
>> That, to me, is the million dollar question. I wouldn't bet against
>> someone replying to the effect that even to indulge in soaring is
>> "putting your life at risk," but should they, I'd respond along the lines
>> that life itself is a risk, and that to not indulge in personally
>> rewarding, voluntary activities (which is just about everything beyond
>> working to earn one's food/clothing/shelter keep) would be a gray life
>> indeed, arguably, one hardly worth living.
>>
>> To my way of thinking, how one chooses to go about approaching soaring
>> flight with voluntarily thinning/thin margins is an intensely personal
>> thing, with potentially "friends-n-family-affecting" negative
>> consequences. I doubt anyone really needs to have that aspect pointed out
>> to them, when premature death is on the talking table...but I could be
>> wrong. It's how we - J.A.S. pilot; the sailplane piloting community at
>> large; CFIGs - mentally approach those higher danger zones that is of
>> genuine interest to me. I just don't see "hard limits defined by someone
>> else" as an unarguably, universally, always-safety-enhancing, good thing.
>> The individual ALWAYS has a say (and a vote) in how they approach flight.
>> As I gained soaring flight experience, my own thinking tended to evolve
>> toward thinking it "CERtainly better for me, and probably better for Joe
>> Every Other Pilot" to embrace the outlook that sensibly expanding one's
>> flight skills is a good thing...key word being "sensibly."
>>
>> In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned I'd recently looked at
>> every U.S. sailplane fatality this century in the NTSB's database.
>> Ignoring those presently lacking an NTSB-considered "Probable Cause" and
>> some 20+ I tossed out as too easily rationalizable as "geezer-related" or
>> "out-of-hand stupid," of the roughly 55 remaining deaths "only" 4 *might*
>> be attributable to "low thermalling," in the "low save" sense of things,
>> with "low" being defined as "obviously/apparently below routine ground
>> clearances for a normal pattern." And to obtain 4, I had to infer one
>> Sierra fatality. That's 4 too many, and at least one of those deaths
>> happened in a setting with many witnesses (and families), undoubtedly
>> searing its way into many minds which would prefer not to be so burdened.
>> There were 17 (!) "routine pattern" unintended departures from controlled
>> flight resulting in fatalities, including two with instructors on board
>> in G-103s. (IMO, perhaps only the 2-33 is a more benign,
>> routinely-used-in-the-U.S., training ship.) There were additional "should
>> have been routinely executable" landing patterns (with "departure from
>> controlled flight deaths") downstream of premature terminations of tows
>> for various reasons. (I haven't attempted to "hard categorize" every
>> fatality with a fine brush, broad-brushing satisfying my curiosity. I'm
>> uninterested in "debating about trees" regarding "category buckets."
>> However, for anyone seriously interested in discussing things with me on
>> this front, feel free to do so offline, but understand you'll first need
>> to go through the NTSB records for yourself...tedious, it is.)
>>
>> If I'm limited to a single point from the preceding paragraph, it'd be
>> simply that this century's statistical risk from "low saves" is way out
>> on one tail, probably regardless of how one chooses to categorize all the
>> fatalities. By far, many more "average sailplane pilots" die from
>> "routine flight conditions" than while "obviously pushing this particular
>> limit."
>>
>> Bob W.
>
> A "low save" is one where spin recovery is not likely.
>
> If you want to think that the statistical probability of dying while
> executing low saves is diminishingly small, so be it. When you know the
> pilot who died, as I do, it becomes more personal and real.
>
> I don't particularly care what risks you are willing to take; my intended
> audience are those other low time pilots who might be reading this and
> acting on the advice.
>
> Tom
>

For clarity in this particular post, "We can agree," on the above definition
of "low save" (with the caveat noted in the first "bullet" below).

I understand - and can relate to - the sentiment expressed in your middle
paragraph. In a perfect world, neither of us would have to feel as we do. It
is, in fact, "needless deaths" which have long-sparked my interest in flight
safety.

And hoping I'm not whipping a downed horse, perhaps in my attempts to convey
nuance in writing I've been less clear than I'd wish, so allow me an attempt
to be succinct:

- Nowhere throughout this thread have I advised glider pilots to practice low
saves (let's assume above flatlands, simply to avoid the very real
geographical complexities associated with mountain/ridge flying). I simply
chose to use the topic of low saves as a focused topic by way of opening a
larger discussion/"thought experiment".

- In another thread (and link) I admit to (once) having thermalled away from
650' (flatland) agl, and once having entered the landing pattern at 400'
(flatland) agl. I well remember both instances because both pushed my "those
days' sensible" personal limits, not because both were fraught with imminent
(non-margin-related) peril. Under other circumstances, both may easily have
been "stupidly foolish".

- I *have* (and do) encourage every glider pilot to *sensibly* expand their
personal limits, throughout their flying "careers" whether or not they choose
to use "hard safety limits."

- Thin margins are thin margins, regardless of geography or PIC experience.

- Pilots need to *always* be aware when they are thinning their margins
(whether intentionally or otherwise), and fly accordingly, lest lack of such
awareness leads to (say - by way of but one example) attempting a "low save"
in the same manner as they might routinely thermal at (say) 2,000' agl.

- I'm of the opinion that how a sailplane pilot thinks *does* matter, even
though I can't prove it.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[2G]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:27:16 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> Apologies for not cutting this down to size, but I happen to think some of the
> thoughts expressed in it are important, perhaps even crucial to some
> RASidents' continuing existence?
>
> "This reply" will be found at the bottom of the post...
>
> On 4/6/2016 11:59 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:31:04 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2016 7:12 PM, 2G wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:32:27 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> >>>> On 4/3/2016 7:07 AM, N97MT wrote:
> >>>>> I think that it is ironic that we as CFI's are tasked with turning
> >>>>> the "fear and anxiety" bit into what I would call "healthy respect"
> >>>>> so that real learning can take place. But in the process of beating
> >>>>> the fear out of (or shall I say, selling safety to?) the student
> >>>>> we abstract out a real and potentially life-saving emotion which
> >>>>> may be the only thing keeping an otherwise competent pilot from his
> >>>>> own demise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe this aspect of flight training is where's Mr. Spock's
> >>>> mind-meld abilities would prove really useful! (For kids too young to
> >>>> remember the original TV program "Star Trek," presumably somewhere on
> >>>> YouTube can be found links to the "Mr. Spock" mind meld reference
> >>>> above...)
> >>>>
> >>>> Might not a worthy goal for instruction be transitioning from the
> >>>> "fear and anxiety" stage to the "healthy respect" stage withOUT
> >>>> heading down the emotionally-numbing abstraction road? How would Joe
> >>>> CFIG be able to gauge success? Your abstraction point above had not
> >>>> before occurred to (non-instructor) me even as a possibility.
> >>>> Definitely food for thought, though. Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>>> I raised this at a seminar once when someone was describing a
> >>>>> pre-flight student simulating a spin/crash on Condor. In a hall
> >>>>> full of 150 people and many CFI's in attendance I asked "but did
> >>>>> the student realize that at this point he is dead?" I only got
> >>>>> silence and blank stares in response.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, for group mind-meld capability! Wouldn't you've liked to have
> >>>> known with certainty the thoughts inside the heads of your fellow
> >>>> seminarians at that moment?
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob W.
> >>>
> >>> Your original question was if low saves was a necessary XC skill. A
> >>> "low save" is technically the same as a high save; the only difference
> >>> is lowering your personal minimums. I have seen pilots die from
> >>> attempting this, so I MUST ask the question: what is the perceived
> >>> benefit from putting your life at risk?
> >>>
> >>> In a contest it might mean placing a few positions higher, a
> >>> meaningless benefit for all but a very few. Or it might mean saving you
> >>> and your crew from a long and tiring retrieve, maybe even a overnight
> >>> experience. Are you willing to trade 20-50 years of lifetime for this
> >>> inconvenience? I would hope that most pilots - and their crew whom are
> >>> usually their loved ones - would say, emphatically, NO!
> >>>
> >>
> >> No offense intended, but I disagree with the paraphrase of my initial
> >> post as stated in your first sentence, and for those who may not have
> >> been following this thread from the beginning, immediately below is a
> >> cut-n-paste from that initial post (the quoted paragraphs were separated
> >> by intervening paragraphs):
> >>
> >> "In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in
> >> the other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
> >> Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES -
> >> are they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?...
> >>
> >> "Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
> >> altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering
> >> sailplane pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider,
> >> and (by definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC,
> >> whether such XC occurs pre-planned or not."
> >>
> >> Also, for the record, nowhere throughout the thread have I - or anyone
> >> else that I can recall - attempted to numerically define "low save" (e..g.
> >> via an agl number). In my case the omission was intentional. Why? Because
> >> one person's "low save" may well be another's "routinely necessary XC
> >> skill," as is easily seen when considering (say) Joe Average Sailplane
> >> Pilot's first XC-to-undesired-outlanding vs. (say) his 20th. The mindsets
> >> on these flights will be significantly different. The relative stress
> >> levels as J.A.S. Pilot descends relentlessly - even though maybe not
> >> continuously - down, away from his previously exulting "high on course"
> >> mindset present earlier in the flight, will be significantly different.. I
> >> seriously doubt a sailplane pilot exists who will claim to be as
> >> "systemically stressed" on his 20th XC OFL (or even his 20th XC *flight*)
> >> as on his first. Certainly,not me! On my very first (unintentional)
> >> XC-to-landing, by the time I was down to ~2,000' agl I was SERIOUSLY
> >> stressed, for beaucoup reasons, the only weather-related one being that
> >> the boisterous climbs experienced in thermal #1 off tow, #2 used to go
> >> to #3 one (1-26) thermal away from the field, and #3, seemed to exist now
> >> only as memory. In other words, #4, the sole stepping stone I figured to
> >> need to get back, simply didn't seem to be in the cards. (Yeah, I learned
> >> that day something about differing airmasses!)
> >>
> >> Even though I was a raw beginner, and even though I'd cleared the flight
> >> with my (former) instructor, me now a 1/3 partner with him in the 1-26
> >> he'd built from a kit, I was already fighting "I can't believe this is
> >> happening!" thoughts as I "ratty-teasers" descended down to 2,000' agl..
> >> And though I suspect I'd've been able to climb away from (say) 1200' agl
> >> had I actually encountered "usable lift" (like those first three
> >> thermals) at that altitude, I'll never know. I had, well before then,
> >> picked out where I was likely going to end up setting the ship down, but
> >> I *really* didn't want to have to. Eventually, from my instructed pattern
> >> height, I did, successfully, and that was that. By landout #20, my
> >> mindset was *any* landout ought to be no more mentally stressful than a
> >> routine landing at my home field...if anything less so, because I had
> >> only to "do the field selection thing" and not have to deal with "the
> >> multiple runways at a busy GA airport" thing (far more potential gotchas,
> >> IMO).
> >>
> >> By landout #20 I'd also experienced plenty of opportunities to -
> >> gradually and "acceptably-personally-stressfully" - lower my "comfortable
> >> thermalling minimums" to my by then routine pattern entry height agl.
> >> Point being, "low thermalling stress" is a hugely relative concept. Sure
> >> the ground clearance margins are higher for "an equivalent stress level"
> >> for Joe Newbie XC pilot compared to Joe Cool-w.-XC pilot, even if Joe
> >> Cool never performs a "low save by Joe Reader's "even lower definition.."
> >> Point being, that I'll dispute any claim that "some definitional safety
> >> altitude" will always prove life-saving. Pilots continue to kill
> >> themselves through unintended departures from controlled flight even
> >> during benign-weather, flying "what should be routine" landing patterns.
> >> Ignoring practical considerations mitigating against it, would
> >> universally raising landing pattern altitudes end such departures from
> >> controlled flight? I think not.
> >>
> >> I'm not trying to weasel out of what may have been (an understandable)
> >> difference in perception between "low save" as I had in mind in my
> >> initial post, and "low save" as you interpreted it. I was - and am - more
> >> interested in the mindsets that pilots who indulge in what *they*
> >> consider to be low saves may have, and how those mindsets may - or may
> >> not - affect how they mentally approach flight in conditions of
> >> intentionally-thinned margins. Because, to my way of thinking, thin
> >> margins are an absolute. They respect no one and no level of experience.
> >> Physics doesn't care; physics just is (am?). It's up to Joe Pilot to deal
> >> with physics.
> >>
> >> For the record, I've had "pretty well known to me friendly soaring
> >> acquaintances" die from "unintentionally thinned to zero" margins,
> >> ranging from "a (probably) stressed-like-me-newbie" trying to return from
> >> the local ridge (benign day; hit a tree), to someone who somehow or other
> >> managed to spin to the ground from an estimated 2,000' above a
> >> knife-edged ridge (3500+' agl above the adjoining plains) in utterly
> >> benign conditions in a within-CG-range glider, which one of his partners
> >> (a good friend of mine) said flew like a pussycat. Fuzzy memory says the
> >> latter pilot had landed off-field, but in any case how he encountered the
> >> original departure from controlled flight must remain a mystery. Both
> >> pilots were in their later twenties. There have been more...
> >>
> >> But to explicitly address the question you've posed, i.e.: "I have seen
> >> pilots die from attempting this ["a low save"], so I MUST ask the
> >> question: what is the perceived benefit from putting your life at risk?"
> >>
> >> That, to me, is the million dollar question. I wouldn't bet against
> >> someone replying to the effect that even to indulge in soaring is
> >> "putting your life at risk," but should they, I'd respond along the lines
> >> that life itself is a risk, and that to not indulge in personally
> >> rewarding, voluntary activities (which is just about everything beyond
> >> working to earn one's food/clothing/shelter keep) would be a gray life
> >> indeed, arguably, one hardly worth living.
> >>
> >> To my way of thinking, how one chooses to go about approaching soaring
> >> flight with voluntarily thinning/thin margins is an intensely personal
> >> thing, with potentially "friends-n-family-affecting" negative
> >> consequences. I doubt anyone really needs to have that aspect pointed out
> >> to them, when premature death is on the talking table...but I could be
> >> wrong. It's how we - J.A.S. pilot; the sailplane piloting community at
> >> large; CFIGs - mentally approach those higher danger zones that is of
> >> genuine interest to me. I just don't see "hard limits defined by someone
> >> else" as an unarguably, universally, always-safety-enhancing, good thing.
> >> The individual ALWAYS has a say (and a vote) in how they approach flight.
> >> As I gained soaring flight experience, my own thinking tended to evolve
> >> toward thinking it "CERtainly better for me, and probably better for Joe
> >> Every Other Pilot" to embrace the outlook that sensibly expanding one's
> >> flight skills is a good thing...key word being "sensibly."
> >>
> >> In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned I'd recently looked at
> >> every U.S. sailplane fatality this century in the NTSB's database.
> >> Ignoring those presently lacking an NTSB-considered "Probable Cause" and
> >> some 20+ I tossed out as too easily rationalizable as "geezer-related" or
> >> "out-of-hand stupid," of the roughly 55 remaining deaths "only" 4 *might*
> >> be attributable to "low thermalling," in the "low save" sense of things,
> >> with "low" being defined as "obviously/apparently below routine ground
> >> clearances for a normal pattern." And to obtain 4, I had to infer one
> >> Sierra fatality. That's 4 too many, and at least one of those deaths
> >> happened in a setting with many witnesses (and families), undoubtedly
> >> searing its way into many minds which would prefer not to be so burdened.
> >> There were 17 (!) "routine pattern" unintended departures from controlled
> >> flight resulting in fatalities, including two with instructors on board
> >> in G-103s. (IMO, perhaps only the 2-33 is a more benign,
> >> routinely-used-in-the-U.S., training ship.) There were additional "should
> >> have been routinely executable" landing patterns (with "departure from
> >> controlled flight deaths") downstream of premature terminations of tows
> >> for various reasons. (I haven't attempted to "hard categorize" every
> >> fatality with a fine brush, broad-brushing satisfying my curiosity. I'm
> >> uninterested in "debating about trees" regarding "category buckets."
> >> However, for anyone seriously interested in discussing things with me on
> >> this front, feel free to do so offline, but understand you'll first need
> >> to go through the NTSB records for yourself...tedious, it is.)
> >>
> >> If I'm limited to a single point from the preceding paragraph, it'd be
> >> simply that this century's statistical risk from "low saves" is way out
> >> on one tail, probably regardless of how one chooses to categorize all the
> >> fatalities. By far, many more "average sailplane pilots" die from
> >> "routine flight conditions" than while "obviously pushing this particular
> >> limit."
> >>
> >> Bob W.
> >
> > A "low save" is one where spin recovery is not likely.
> >
> > If you want to think that the statistical probability of dying while
> > executing low saves is diminishingly small, so be it. When you know the
> > pilot who died, as I do, it becomes more personal and real.
> >
> > I don't particularly care what risks you are willing to take; my intended
> > audience are those other low time pilots who might be reading this and
> > acting on the advice.
> >
> > Tom
> >
>
> For clarity in this particular post, "We can agree," on the above definition
> of "low save" (with the caveat noted in the first "bullet" below).
>
> I understand - and can relate to - the sentiment expressed in your middle
> paragraph. In a perfect world, neither of us would have to feel as we do. It
> is, in fact, "needless deaths" which have long-sparked my interest in flight
> safety.
>
> And hoping I'm not whipping a downed horse, perhaps in my attempts to convey
> nuance in writing I've been less clear than I'd wish, so allow me an attempt
> to be succinct:
>
> - Nowhere throughout this thread have I advised glider pilots to practice low
> saves (let's assume above flatlands, simply to avoid the very real
> geographical complexities associated with mountain/ridge flying). I simply
> chose to use the topic of low saves as a focused topic by way of opening a
> larger discussion/"thought experiment".
>
> - In another thread (and link) I admit to (once) having thermalled away from
> 650' (flatland) agl, and once having entered the landing pattern at 400'
> (flatland) agl. I well remember both instances because both pushed my "those
> days' sensible" personal limits, not because both were fraught with imminent
> (non-margin-related) peril. Under other circumstances, both may easily have
> been "stupidly foolish".
>
> - I *have* (and do) encourage every glider pilot to *sensibly* expand their
> personal limits, throughout their flying "careers" whether or not they choose
> to use "hard safety limits."
>
> - Thin margins are thin margins, regardless of geography or PIC experience.
>
> - Pilots need to *always* be aware when they are thinning their margins
> (whether intentionally or otherwise), and fly accordingly, lest lack of such
> awareness leads to (say - by way of but one example) attempting a "low save"
> in the same manner as they might routinely thermal at (say) 2,000' agl.
>
> - I'm of the opinion that how a sailplane pilot thinks *does* matter, even
> though I can't prove it.
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob W.

As I have already said, my comments are directed a towards low-time pilots who are reading this and are formulating their own personal risk/benefit analysis. If you are willing to take calculated risks your assessment of the risk level better be pretty good, which can only be developed after years and, perhaps, thousands of hours of flying. Certainly, your 200 hr pilot will not have those skills. This is the experience level where the accident rate climbs significantly; they overestimate their capabilities.

Statistical analysis can be misleading. The Concord has the best safety record in the industry until one crashed - then they had the worst. The odds of a certain maneuver going wrong after 1000 attempts is the same as the first attempt. A pilot with 10,000 hr will die just as dead as a 100 hr pilot in a stall spin crash.

I have found that there a group of people on this group that are down right antagonistic towards any discussion of safety to the point of being abusive. I know they will always be out there and are not receptive to risk analysis.

I am WELL AWARE that flying involves risks which cannot be eliminated. But they CAN be managed. During the summer I fly in eastern Nevada where afternoon thunderstorms are common and landable fields, let alone airports, are scarce. Some of us have developed our own risk threshold: if the forecast probability of thunderstorms in the area are 30% or higher we don't fly. My simple rule is: I would rather be on the ground wishing I was up flying than be up flying wishing I was on the ground.

Tom

[[email protected]]

I agree with 2G - I am a low time pilot - I know other LTP's that read this blog and most do not reply, but many believe experienced high skilled guys write.

I have had a few mentors (as I am trying to become a contest pilot) - all of them have given me the same advice - "have a AGL deck where you stop flying and start landing" - and I have been told "I have 10,000 flights and can count on one hand the number of times I have successfully dug out from 400 ft AGL".

For me it is a risk vs. reward - we know the ultimate risk..... the reward is ???? (there are no chicks, money or sponsorship's) - so I guess the reward is having a tale to tell.

My suggestion to LTP's: do what most experienced contest pilots do/tell you - and fabricate a really good story - most people will believe you - and you get to live to tell about it :)

WH1

[BobW]

On 4/7/2016 2:36 PM, wrote:

> I agree with 2G - I am a low time pilot - I know other LTP's that read this
> blog and most do not reply, but many believe experienced high skilled guys
> write.
>
> I have had a few mentors (as I am trying to become a contest pilot) - all
> of them have given me the same advice - "have a AGL deck where you stop
> flying and start landing" - and I have been told "I have 10,000 flights and
> can count on one hand the number of times I have successfully dug out from
> 400 ft AGL".

Actually, the longer the conversation continues, the more I think 2G and I are
in fundamental agreement, as I'll touch upon (briefly - honest!) below.

As for the advice you're getting, it's: 1) EXCELLENT, and 2) the same I give
everyone, regardless of experience or situation, whenever the topic of "When
should I break it off and land?" arises. Always - and I mean always - have a
height agl in mind at which you are *committed* to landing. That height may
well be lower than that at which you chose your ultimate field/approach (even
in the absence of attempting a "low save" as defined by 2G a few posts ago),
but it's a "hard deck." What it is depends on you, weather, geography...all
the things that go into how you assess your capabilities that time, that day.
And - so sensible pilots all hope! - it's not something you ginned like the
credits on "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"...you know, at great haste and at
the last moment. :)

>
> For me it is a risk vs. reward - we know the ultimate risk..... the reward
> is ???? (there are no chicks, money or sponsorship's) - so I guess the
> reward is having a tale to tell.

Worrisomely to say, many's the time an "O'beer Thirty" B.S. session has led me
to seriously wonder if some pilots actually DO "unthinkingly" push their
personal limits primarily with "tale telling" as an (the?) active concept in
the backs of their noodles. Yeah, it scares me to listen to such tales...and
if I can do it without cutting them off at the psychological knees, I
generally look for a way to ask them, "What were you *thinking*?"

>
> My suggestion to LTP's: do what most experienced contest pilots do/tell you
> - and fabricate a really good story - most people will believe you - and
> you get to live to tell about it :)
>
> WH1
>

"What WH1 said!"
- - - - -

From the post to which WHI replied, 2G wrote (with snips):


> As I have already said, my comments are directed a towards low-time pilots
> who are reading this and are formulating their own personal risk/benefit
> analysis. If you are willing to take calculated risks your assessment of
> the risk level better be pretty good, which can only be developed after
> years and, perhaps, thousands of hours of flying. Certainly, your 200 hr
> pilot will not have those skills. This is the experience level where the
> accident rate climbs significantly; they overestimate their capabilities.

We're in 100% agreement here! (And for the record, my posts were directed not
at pilots of "a certain experience level" but at pilots of ANY experience
level who maybe have not "sensibly thought through" how they mentally approach
flight at reducing/reduced margins. Again, I'm of the opinion that how they
think about flight in the "thin margin regime" matters.)
- - - - - -

>
> Statistical analysis can be misleading. The Concord has the best safety
> record in the industry until one crashed - then they had the worst. The
> odds of a certain maneuver going wrong after 1000 attempts is the same as
> the first attempt. A pilot with 10,000 hr will die just as dead as a 100 hr
> pilot in a stall spin crash.

More 100% agreement!
- - - - - -

>
> I have found that there a group of people on this group that are down right
> antagonistic towards any discussion of safety to the point of being
> abusive. I know they will always be out there and are not receptive to risk
> analysis.

Such, indeed, is the world. Happily, in my experience, this sort of attitude
is far less common in soaring aficionados than in society in general, or (sad
to say) even in certain segments of the aviation community...
- - - - - -

>
> I am WELL AWARE that flying involves risks which cannot be eliminated. But
> they CAN be managed. During the summer I fly in eastern Nevada where
> afternoon thunderstorms are common and landable fields, let alone airports,
> are scarce. Some of us have developed our own risk threshold: if the
> forecast probability of thunderstorms in the area are 30% or higher we
> don't fly. My simple rule is: I would rather be on the ground wishing I was
> up flying than be up flying wishing I was on the ground.

More 100% agreement! "Mentally ACTIVE" management is what I'm advocating for.
My very first - regrettably, not my last - microburst experience was one of
those "I wish I was on the ground!" situations. By the time I'd managed to
work myself onto some semblance of a final approach into a grass strip from
which a C-182 regularly flew, it had occurred to me that if - after the
arrival - I could even *walk* (and SCREW the airframe!), I'd be overjoyed.
That was one of the (very many) days when I learned something(s) about weather
I've yet to find in a book, namely that microbursts don't require massive
thunderstorms (or even thunderstorms at all), high cloudbases, or "obviously
menacing" weather. None of those existed that day.

Bob W.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 1:36:03 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For me it is a risk vs. reward - we know the ultimate risk..... the reward is ???? (there are no chicks, money or sponsorship's) - so I guess the reward is having a tale to tell.

For those of us who have no crew, the reward can be not spending the night in a field, something which I've done more than once.

The problem here is that off-field-landings are not something that can be realistically taught, particularly in mountainous areas like I often fly in. Some places will provide training in the form of having an instructor talk you through landing in a known unobstructed field large enough to aerotow from afterwards. That is not the sort of field you'll always end up in when you are on your own. So, you end up listening to advice from instructors (who may or may not have ever landed in a field), more "experienced" pilots (who may have gotten into bad habits), reading books, or r.a.s. (there are very experienced and sensible pilots posting here, you have to recognize which ones, though). Oddly enough, in one club I belonged to, just about every time a club glider was broken in a field, a club instructor was onboard.

Do listen to those with local knowledge that know the kinds of issues and obstructions that you are likely encounter, things like how recognize if a field is long enough and which way it may be sloping, how to determine wind direction near ground level, how to recognize where wires and fences may be, what kind of irrigation equipment might be present, how to recognize the different local crops and how tall they are likely to be at that time of year, what to do if animals are present, whether dry lakes are really dry, etc. In the end, though, you really are on your own once you start going cross-country. Each pilot has to develop their own techniques and change them as experience teaches.

Personally, I've landed in actual fields perhaps 20 times in 25+ years of XC flying, and the most damage I've done (so far) is scuffed up the underside of the nose when the field turns out to be soft (I've done more damage landing at airports, but I do that 30X more often). I've always circled a field I'm planning to land in at least twice, looking for things I don't like, and have several times switched to an alternate field, or switched to approaching from a different direction, when I've spotted obstructions. Also, under 1000 ft AGL I'm checking airspeed every few seconds, as in mountainous terrain it's easy to get fooled into flying too slow. I make sure I'm very comfortable slipping close to the ground in any glider before I go cross-country in it (or better yet, have a glider with good drag producing flaps), as I like to make high circular approaches into fields, and keep the airspeed at approach speed or higher.

And, yes, I've climbed away a few times with the gear down from what would normally be a high turn from base to final, but I don't like sleeping in fields. Has worked for me, may not work for anyone else...

Marc

[Giaco]

It's a good thing that we have finally defined "low save" for the sake of argument, but I think it is equally important to define "risk," as the original question was "what is Safe Enough" for the community.

Risk as the Air Force defines it at least, is the intersection of probability of an event occurring and the consequences of that action. One side of this debate is arguing that flying faster when thermalling low or proper training reduces the probability of an accident occurring, while the other is arguing that the consequences of doing that are dire...both of these statements are entirely true, and are not mutually exclusive. This conversation is just debating the two different axes of a risk matrix.

So if we are trying to actually answer Bob's initial question, the real question is how much total risk is the soaring community willing to accept?

Chart below for those who are unfamiliar with risk matrices:
http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/risk-matrix.html

[BobW]

On 4/8/2016 5:40 AM, Giaco wrote:
> It's a good thing that we have finally defined "low save" for the sake of
> argument, but I think it is equally important to define "risk," as the
> original question was "what is Safe Enough" for the community.
>
> Risk as the Air Force defines it at least, is the intersection of
> probability of an event occurring and the consequences of that action. One
> side of this debate is arguing that flying faster when thermalling low or
> proper training reduces the probability of an accident occurring, while the
> other is arguing that the consequences of doing that are dire...both of
> these statements are entirely true, and are not mutually exclusive. This
> conversation is just debating the two different axes of a risk matrix.
>
> So if we are trying to actually answer Bob's initial question, the real
> question is how much total risk is the soaring community willing to
> accept?
>
> Chart below for those who are unfamiliar with risk matrices:
> http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/risk-matrix.html
>

Yeah - that's it! Accepting (avoidable, with
foreknowledge/self-education/"proper-mindset"/etc.) risk ignorantly or
unthinkingly or "merely hopefully" is (IMO) practically encouraging a bad
outcome. True whether we're talking about soaring or (say) investing in
stocks. Pre-licensing flight training is all about learning the basics of (to
cite just one of many topics) handling controls and not killing yourself due
to ignorance/improper-understanding, while post-licensing,
unencumbered-by-the-presence-of-a-licensed-instructor, solo, flight is (in one
way or another, i.e. actively vs. "unthinkingly") all about continuing that
process of self-education...while always remaining aware of where we are in
that Great Margins Bucket.

Bob W.

[Dan Marotta]

Slightly off topic, but I can't help but think that this is another part
of the larger issue of why we haven't won a war since 1945. When I was a
young Air Force pilot in the early 70s I thought then that the flight
regulations were written for the lowest common denominator. I guess
things have not improved since then.

On 4/8/2016 5:40 AM, Giaco wrote:
> It's a good thing that we have finally defined "low save" for the sake of argument, but I think it is equally important to define "risk," as the original question was "what is Safe Enough" for the community.
>
> Risk as the Air Force defines it at least, is the intersection of probability of an event occurring and the consequences of that action. One side of this debate is arguing that flying faster when thermalling low or proper training reduces the probability of an accident occurring, while the other is arguing that the consequences of doing that are dire...both of these statements are entirely true, and are not mutually exclusive. This conversation is just debating the two different axes of a risk matrix.
>
> So if we are trying to actually answer Bob's initial question, the real question is how much total risk is the soaring community willing to accept?
>
> Chart below for those who are unfamiliar with risk matrices:
> http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/risk-matrix.html

--
Dan, 5J

[Giaco]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but I can't help but think that this is another
> part of the larger issue of why we haven't won a war since 1945.*
> When I was a young Air Force pilot in the early 70s I thought then
> that the flight regulations were written for the lowest common
> denominator.* I guess things have not improved since then.
>
I don't think they have, regulations are just the minimum standards, would you prefer you have average speed limits? If you raise the standard, then you have just set a new lowest common denominator, and are eternally in a snake eating itself kind of intelligent thought.

We haven't won a war since 1945 because we haven't declared one since 1941....

[[email protected]]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:40:05 AM UTC-7, Giaco wrote:
> So if we are trying to actually answer Bob's initial question, the real question is how much total risk is the soaring community willing to accept?

The thing is, though, the soaring community tends to focus on risks which are real, but don't occur very often. In 25 years of flying in California and Nevada I've known about 10 pilots on a first name basis who died in accidents. Almost all were due to mundane things like missing a control connection, stall/spins in gusty/turbulent conditions on landing or PTT, hitting the rocks while trying to climb up high enough to clear that last ridge before home late in the day, etc. It's the mid and high time pilots that these things tend to happen to, low time pilots seem to mostly avoid getting into these sorts of scenarios. Statistically, off-airport landing fatalities are towards the bottom of the list of fatality causes (although destroyed gliders and injuries do happen more frequently), as are mid-air fatalities.

I think we tend to ignore risks which we think can't happen to us (because we are, of course, more skilled than those who screwed up), and focus on things that other, less skilled pilots can do to us, like hit us in a blind spot (hence strong community pressure for FLARM). The real killers here are likely things like dehydration, hypoxia, and plain old complacency about ones current skill level. I've stopped flying a number of times, when I come to the realization that complacency and infrequent flying was leading to silly mistakes that easily could have resulted in a fatal accident chain.

I've brought this up before, but I think one big factor causing that complacency is the ubiquity of high quality online soaring forecasts. Years ago most pilots would go flying just about every weekend, as we often had no good idea whether we were going to miss a good day. We'd fly whether it looked promising or not, because we were already there. Now, nobody heads to the airport unless the forecasts show conditions will be great, many pilots may only make 10 or so flights in an entire season. I suspect this is killing pilots, as well as soaring operations...

Marc

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 2:27:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:

>...many pilots may only make 10 or so flights in an entire season. I suspect
> this is killing pilots

I think I would fall into this trap if I did not have my glider sitting assembled in a hangar ready to fly for an hour on a weak and challenging day. Those days are easy to make happen and sometimes they seem to be the most fun... and I enjoying hanging out at the airport. I might do something else in the morning.

Epic XC is fine, notable, to be lauded, admired and sought after... but there are so many other ways to enjoy soaring that are treated like the poor cousins of the king.

I see that our under-20 pilots find great pleasure in flying on weak days for an hour. That tells me that I'm on the right track. Don't lose 'Beginner's Mind'.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:23:01 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I see that our under-20 pilots find great pleasure in flying on weak days for an hour. That tells me that I'm on the right track. Don't lose 'Beginner's Mind'.

That's one of the reasons I wasted so much time and money trying to get a winch going, to allow some cheap fun (plus practice takeoff and landings) closer to home when an epic XC wasn't necessarily in the cards. It seems like we don't have enough pilots left around our area who enjoy flying for the sake of flying, rather than racking up OLC points.

Marc

[BobW]

On 4/8/2016 2:06 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:23:01 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> I see that our under-20 pilots find great pleasure in flying on weak days
>> for an hour. That tells me that I'm on the right track. Don't lose
>> 'Beginner's Mind'.
>
> That's one of the reasons I wasted so much time and money trying to get a
> winch going, to allow some cheap fun (plus practice takeoff and landings)
> closer to home when an epic XC wasn't necessarily in the cards. It seems
> like we don't have enough pilots left around our area who enjoy flying for
> the sake of flying, rather than racking up OLC points.
>
> Marc
>

I dunno/have-no-opinion about how OLC has-affected/is-affecting pilot
motivation, but the "selective day tendency" was something that became
apparent to me within a year or two of bumbling into the sport in the early
1970s, as "fairly common". And I agree with you both that it's (arguably)
something of a force mitigating against continuing participation. (It's a
pretty small mental step from "This day isn't worth going to the airport
over," to "ANY day isn't good enough.") Those times on "looked dodgy/dead"
days I was able to convince others to join me by taking a tow were always
pretty rare, even if anyone showed up at the field at all. Many were the times
I'd be aloft for "from well beyond dead-air times" to hours, and no one else
took tows...bizarro, to me. And yet - having learned in the east, where "good
days" were far from "visually common" - I felt ANY stick time was worth it,
and by springing for at least one tow pretty much every day I went to the
field, I learned buckets'-worth about how dynamic the atmosphere actually is.
(Useful on XC, too! :) )

As to targeting pilots for winching, I imagine I'd pretty much write off just
about every "experienced glider pilot I know" as a target-winchee,
concentrating instead on the steady stream of newbies filtering into local
clubs; they pretty much lack preconceptions about it. IMO/observation most
people simply aren't mentally into "new experiences like that" once they've
ascended whatever learning curve(s) they're comfortable with. (Aerotow was
good enough for my old man & it's good enough for me!)

Bob W.

[Dan Marotta]

On 4/8/2016 11:42 AM, Giaco wrote:
> I don't think they have, regulations are just the minimum standards, would you prefer you have average speed limits? If you raise the standard, then you have just set a new lowest common denominator, and are eternally in a snake eating itself kind of intelligent thought.
>
> We haven't won a war since 1945 because we haven't declared one since 1941...
True, neither have we had a successful conclusion. Think Korea,
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... You gotta go in it to win or else you're
just wasting blood. My point wasn't about geopolitics, it was about
wimpy flight regulations, chintzy training, and the exaltation of
"accident free" days above all else. How many missions did we cancel
because the field was IFR? Jeez...

As to standards, the point I was attempting to make is that you can talk
all day about risk matrices, yadda, yadda... but that does not do
anything about accidents, it only addresses risk tolerance/acceptance.
You either have to quit flying or accept that there will be accidents.
Some people can handle a particular situation while others can not.
Some of the people who /_can_/ handle the situation one day will screw
it up (and possibly die) the next day. I accept this risk in trade for
the pleasure I derive from flying. You want to institute a "hard
deck"? Someone will spin in from above that altitude. Then what?
Raise the limit again?

PS - I'm not implying that you actually want to institute a hard deck.
--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> As to targeting pilots for winching, I imagine I'd pretty much write off just
> about every "experienced glider pilot I know" as a target-winchee,
> concentrating instead on the steady stream of newbies filtering into local
> clubs; they pretty much lack preconceptions about it. IMO/observation most
> people simply aren't mentally into "new experiences like that" once they've
> ascended whatever learning curve(s) they're comfortable with. (Aerotow was
> good enough for my old man & it's good enough for me!)

Newbies aren't yet invested enough in the sport to spend time and money on something they know nothing about. The vast majority of veterans (at least, in in our area) don't particularly care about lower cost launches or even having a steady (or any) stream of newbies. After 7 years of making presentations and talking up the subject, in one of the most populous soaring regions in the country, I was able to find only one other person really willing to invest the cost of a cheap used glider and spend a couple of years of weekends with building a winch (with more support, we would have been much happier to buy one of Roman's). And, once built, we had to spring for a full membership in one of the local clubs just to get hold of a CG hook equipped Grob to test with. We gave up, and someone else now has a cheap winch project elsewhere, maybe they can get some traction.

It's not surprising that the majority of new winches in the US are going to CAP units, they are faced with dwindling budgets and actually need an economical way to get newbies in the air.

Marc

[[email protected]]

How this sailplane pilot thinks is:

In aviation, the convenient and the unnecessary are invitations to an accident.

MM

[Dan Marotta]

WELL STATED! That says it all.

On 4/8/2016 11:22 PM, wrote:
> How this sailplane pilot thinks is:
>
> In aviation, the convenient and the unnecessary are invitations to an accident.
>
> MM

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

A poster above the urinal at Black Forest Soaring Society was this poster: http://www.check-six.com/lib/Poster_Crash.htm

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

Keep this in mind and take baby steps to expand your boundaries and you can become an old and (to the uninitiated) bold pilot.

-Tom

[BobW]

On 4/8/2016 11:22 PM, wrote:
> How this sailplane pilot thinks is:
>
> In aviation, the convenient and the unnecessary are invitations to an
> accident.
>
> MM
>

Heh! One might say this - like the 10 Commandments - is additional evidence
that it's more succinct to suggest how NOT to live a life (pilot a glider)
than it is TO do so.

Bob W.

[Dan Marotta]

I posted that same quotation a while back. The first time I saw it was
in a weather shack in Windy Pass which runs through the Alaska Range.
It was a dark and stormy night... No! Really, it was, and I was in a
C-172, it was about 0200, and, though I was a studly AF jet pilot, I had
absolutely zero instrument time in a light plane. Prudence told me not
to mess with the thunderstorm blocking the pass and the mountains on
either side of the pass were above my service ceiling. I landed on a
gravel strip and spent the rest of the night in the weather shack
drinking coffee and eating pop corn.

On 4/9/2016 10:09 PM, wrote:
> A poster above the urinal at Black Forest Soaring Society was this poster: http://www.check-six.com/lib/Poster_Crash.htm
>
> "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
>
> Keep this in mind and take baby steps to expand your boundaries and you can become an old and (to the uninitiated) bold pilot.
>
> -Tom

--
Dan, 5J