How safe is the sport of soaring today

[Mot]

With the increase of glider accidents these days, just how safe is
this sport? There is always a element of risk associated with flying
but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation or
motorsports?

[Bill Daniels]

"Mot" > wrote in message
m...
> With the increase of glider accidents these days, just how safe is
> this sport? There is always a element of risk associated with flying
> but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation or
> motorsports?

I've been in this sport over four decades and every spring there is a rash
of accidents as rusty pilots come out of hibernation. Comparing soaring to
motorsports has much less to do with the equipment or procedures than with
the safety culture of the group. Safety boils down to the loose nut at the
controls.

Soaring is neither more dangerous nor safer than the pilot makes it. I know
a half dozen or so who, sooner or later, will certainly kill themselves. I
know a lot more that will never so much as put a scratch on their gliders no
matter how much they fly. I just wish the former would pay a lot more
attention to the latter.

Bill Daniels

[Don Johnstone]

At 19:06 13 May 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'Mot' wrote in message
m...
>> With the increase of glider accidents these days,
>>just how safe is
>> this sport? There is always a element of risk associated
>>with flying
>> but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation
>>or
>> motorsports?
>
>I've been in this sport over four decades and every
>spring there is a rash
>of accidents as rusty pilots come out of hibernation.
> Comparing soaring to
>motorsports has much less to do with the equipment
>or procedures than with
>the safety culture of the group. Safety boils down
>to the loose nut at the
>controls.
>
>Soaring is neither more dangerous nor safer than the
>pilot makes it. I know
>a half dozen or so who, sooner or later, will certainly
>kill themselves. I
>know a lot more that will never so much as put a scratch
>on their gliders no
>matter how much they fly. I just wish the former would
>pay a lot more
>attention to the latter.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
Amen to that

DAJ 401

[Bob Johnson]

Whenever this subject comes up, as it often does, I like to refer to the
site maintained by DG/LS. Bruno Gantenbrinck's essay pretty much says it
all ---

BTW, thanks DG/LS!

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/index-e.html

Bob Johnson



Mot wrote:
>
> With the increase of glider accidents these days, just how safe is
> this sport? There is always a element of risk associated with flying
> but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation or
> motorsports?

[Bill Daniels]

"Asbjorn Hojmark" > wrote in message
city.dk...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:51:50 GMT, "Bill Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> > I know a half dozen or so who, sooner or later, will certainly
> > kill themselves.
>
> Really?! What are you going to do about it?
>

First, realize that there are some people who will never operate a glider
safely. No amount of training will change them. No amount of persuasion
will make them find a hobby which is practiced at ground level. I suspect
all instructors have a short list of pilots who would be better off doing
something else.

Second, I make absolutely sure my signature never appears in their logbook
meaning I will never pass them on a flight review. Where possible, I would
attempt to persuade other instructors of that view. In fact, I find
instructors have VERY similar lists. It makes me wonder why insurance
companies haven't offered to buy those lists.

Beyond that, in a litigious society like the USA, there isn't much one can
do except try not to be present when the inevitable happens.

Bill Daniels

[JJ Sinclair]

>
>
>Second, I make absolutely sure my signature never appears in their logbook
>meaning I will never pass them on a flight review.

Shouldn't we be telling these guys exactly what we think? I know of 2 pilots
that were killed in sailplanes where their instructor later said, "I knew it
was going to happen". Aren't we doing everyone a disservice by sighing them off
when we really don't think they are safe? I'm not talking about you Bill, But
someone is sighing these marginal people off every 2 years. If an instructor
were to tell them the truth, as he sees it, they might just get the message.
JJ Sinclair

[Bill Daniels]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >Second, I make absolutely sure my signature never appears in their
logbook
> >meaning I will never pass them on a flight review.
>
> Shouldn't we be telling these guys exactly what we think? I know of 2
pilots
> that were killed in sailplanes where their instructor later said, "I knew
it
> was going to happen". Aren't we doing everyone a disservice by sighing
them off
> when we really don't think they are safe? I'm not talking about you Bill,
But
> someone is sighing these marginal people off every 2 years. If an
instructor
> were to tell them the truth, as he sees it, they might just get the
message.
> JJ Sinclair

[their instructor later said, "I knew it was going to happen."]

That statement is a prima facie basis for a professional negligence lawsuit
and perhaps criminal prosecution for negligent homicide. It's also the
basis for the FAA to suspend an instructor certificate. I wish these
instructors would think about THAT.

I've told a few pilots just what I think and all it's got me is
unpopularity. They just find an easier instructor or, if they own their own
glider, they don't bother getting a BFR. I know of a few that no instructor
will admit signing off.

Most of the time these days when I do a BFR it's a pilot that I personally
know and whose skills I respect.

Bill Daniels

[Vaughn]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> >
>... But someone is sighing these marginal people off every 2 years.

Not necessarily true, at least not necessarily in a glider. It is possible
to be an adequate power pilot but a dangerous glider pilot (or the other way
around) but a flight review is only required in one category.

Vaughn

[Finbar]

Not to be difficult or necessarily disagree that there are pilots who
are accidents waiting to happen, but...

....most of the fatal accidents so far this year seem to have involved
highly experienced pilots with good reputations.

Telling ourselves that "it only happens to the bad pilots" and "it
isn't really all that risky" could either be true, or could be
dangerously close to denial (or overconfidence).

The evidence does suggest it's not entirely true.

[Clint]

Bruno Gantenbrinck's essay pretty much says it


I read this excellent essay and was surprised to see Heini Heiress's
name listed in the essay. Heini's son - Dieter was killed in his
glider last month - 30 years after his father's death. A more safety
conscience pilot was hard to find. Everything about his glider was
also immaculate. He was a pilot that represented South Africa on three
occasions in the World Gliding Championships in the Std Class.

Soaring is a sport that can bite any participant - even the best!

Clinton Birch
LAK 12

[Robertmudd1u]

>With the increase of glider accidents these days, just how safe is
>this sport? There is always a element of risk associated with flying
>but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation or
>motorsports?

This looks like a troll to me. Lets be careful about what we say.

Here in the USA the media is out to paint general aviation in a bad light. See
the AOPA web site. We should not give them any help.

Robert Mudd

[Mot]

(Robertmudd1u) wrote in message >...
> >With the increase of glider accidents these days, just how safe is
> >this sport? There is always a element of risk associated with flying
> >but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation or
> >motorsports?
>
> This looks like a troll to me. Lets be careful about what we say.
>
> Here in the USA the media is out to paint general aviation in a bad light. See
> the AOPA web site. We should not give them any help.
>
> Robert Mudd

Robert, your comments are certainly true regarding the media, but no
troll here. The intent of my original post was to secure an opinion of
other pilots with much more knowledge than myself regarding the
general safety of the sport. As a low time pilot (100 hrs.)I'm just
trying to listen to those out there with all the experience to assist
with my decision to continue in the sport.

[Michel Talon]

Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> On 14 May 2004 00:25:39 GMT, (JJ Sinclair)
> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't we be telling these guys exactly what we think?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Failing to do so, and later seeing those pilots killed, really
> ought to make those instructors reconsider whether they should be
> instructing at all.
>

This sort of people, notoriously dangerous people, are very well
warned by instructors and other fellows that they should stop flying.
They decide themselves that they don't want to hear such advice,
and eventually kill themselves. As long as they are not involved in a
mid air and don't kill other pilots (this is rare), it is their life,
after all. Do you have any consideration for the notion of liberty?
Do you beleive you are obliged to protect people against themselves?


> IMO.
>
> -A

--

Michel TALON

[Bob Johnson]

Hi Mot --

Could you give us your critique of the Gantenbrink essay? Does it cover
most of the bases for you, or do you have further concerns?

From the standpoint of a low time pilot the essay (and the other
material on the DG/LS Safety site) may not be quite the all-purpose
material I thought it was.

Thanks,

Bob Johnson

Mot wrote:
>
> (Robertmudd1u) wrote in message >...
> > >With the increase of glider accidents these days, just how safe is
> > >this sport? There is always a element of risk associated with flying
> > >but how does soaring compare with other forms of aviation or
> > >motorsports?
> >
> > This looks like a troll to me. Lets be careful about what we say.
> >
> > Here in the USA the media is out to paint general aviation in a bad light. See
> > the AOPA web site. We should not give them any help.
> >
> > Robert Mudd
>
> Robert, your comments are certainly true regarding the media, but no
> troll here. The intent of my original post was to secure an opinion of
> other pilots with much more knowledge than myself regarding the
> general safety of the sport. As a low time pilot (100 hrs.)I'm just
> trying to listen to those out there with all the experience to assist
> with my decision to continue in the sport.

[Bill Daniels]

"Michel Talon" > wrote in message
...
> Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> > On 14 May 2004 00:25:39 GMT, (JJ Sinclair)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Shouldn't we be telling these guys exactly what we think?
> >
> > Absolutely.
> >
> > Failing to do so, and later seeing those pilots killed, really
> > ought to make those instructors reconsider whether they should be
> > instructing at all.
> >
>
> This sort of people, notoriously dangerous people, are very well
> warned by instructors and other fellows that they should stop flying.
> They decide themselves that they don't want to hear such advice,
> and eventually kill themselves. As long as they are not involved in a
> mid air and don't kill other pilots (this is rare), it is their life,
> after all. Do you have any consideration for the notion of liberty?
> Do you beleive you are obliged to protect people against themselves?
>
> Michel TALON

Yes, for three reasons.

1. Accidents provide justification for more regulation.
2. Accidents increase insurance premiums for all of us.
3. Accidents create bad press which reduces our opportunity to grow the
sport.

I would turn it around and suggest that the individual pilot has an
obligation to protect the soaring community at large from the consequences
of his unsafe actions.

Bill Daniels

[Michel Talon]

Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
> Yes, for three reasons.
>
> 1. Accidents provide justification for more regulation.
> 2. Accidents increase insurance premiums for all of us.
> 3. Accidents create bad press which reduces our opportunity to grow the
> sport.
>
> I would turn it around and suggest that the individual pilot has an
> obligation to protect the soaring community at large from the consequences
> of his unsafe actions.

I don't think so. I think your argument has moral connotations that
i am not sure i like. Generally moralist people are far too much
dangerous for my taste. Gliding (or power flying) is a dangerous sport,
nothing and nobody can change that. There are a lot of other dangerous
sports, like climbing, diving, etc. Unfortunately a lot of people die
each year climbing or diving or even skying. One has to be honest and
say these sports are dangerous, after that, it is each one responsibilty
to take risks or not. One can try to give good advice to fellows, such
as "keep speed" and avoid spin at all price. This will not deter
idiots to fly at stall speed + 1 km/h in order to "better center
thermals", or to spend all their time playing with their GPS, their
Palm and other crap instead of looking outside. Even when you take
all possible precautions there are excellent pilots who kill themselves.
I have known an instructor, who was around 40, in excellent physical
condition, intellectually very alert (he was a medical doctor), an
excellent XC performer, still he crashed in the Alps with his brand
new Schleicher. I have a collegue who has been a glider champion, and
induced his son to also become a champion. At around 20 he killed
himself during a championship. Now the father is desperate.

>
> Bill Daniels
>

--

Michel TALON

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
(Mot) wrote:

> Robert, your comments are certainly true regarding the media, but no
> troll here. The intent of my original post was to secure an opinion of
> other pilots with much more knowledge than myself regarding the
> general safety of the sport. As a low time pilot (100 hrs.)I'm just
> trying to listen to those out there with all the experience to assist
> with my decision to continue in the sport.

- triple check your controls after rigging, and before 1st flight of the
day

- before takeoff mentally review where you'd go if the tow fails below
200 - 300 ft AGL.

- never be low + slow at the same time (unless you're *planning* to stop
flying).

- always know where you could land safely if you wanted/had to.

- if there are too many other gliders around to keep track of then leave
the area (one might sometimes be too many).

- if you're not aure about the conditions and/or your currency then get
a check flight


There are risks in this sport, but you get to choose to what extent you
expose yourself to them.

[Tom Seim]

Every year this (or a similar) thread shows up on RAS. Basically, it
is "Oh Muh God, people are DIEING!

Step back and take a deep breath; has anything fundamentally changed
in the sport? I don't think so. Soaring has its hazards and that will
not change. If you want to reduce your risk: stop flying! Clearly, the
sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
Lennie the Lurker did!

Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
Sailing).

The wild card in all of this is how will each individual pilot react
to a real emergency. Sometimes training can simulate an emergency, but
the student will always think, in the back of his/hers mind, that the
instructor will bail him/her out if he/she screws up.

I don't like going to friends funerals anymore than the next guy, but
I'm not willng to give up the sport to eliminate the possibility.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Steve / Sperry]

The "Cheer up" part... I almost fell off of my chair laughing

My question is... to be a safe pilot you need to be able to react
with the (right stuff) in a choke situation. How do you determine
that quality in an individual?

No matter how good of a technical pilot a person may be... it is the
correct reaction in a "Panic" situation that can make the difference
between a safe pilot and an unfortunate individual.

and then of course there are the deaf blind and stupid folks that run
on luck.

Steve

On 14 May 2004 21:29:36 -0700, (Tom Seim) wrote:

>Every year this (or a similar) thread shows up on RAS. Basically, it
>is "Oh Muh God, people are DIEING!
>
>Step back and take a deep breath; has anything fundamentally changed
>in the sport? I don't think so. Soaring has its hazards and that will
>not change. If you want to reduce your risk: stop flying! Clearly, the
>sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
>Lennie the Lurker did!
>
>Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
>flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
>might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
>accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
>Sailing).
>
>The wild card in all of this is how will each individual pilot react
>to a real emergency. Sometimes training can simulate an emergency, but
>the student will always think, in the back of his/hers mind, that the
>instructor will bail him/her out if he/she screws up.
>
>I don't like going to friends funerals anymore than the next guy, but
>I'm not willng to give up the sport to eliminate the possibility.
>
>Tom Seim
>Richland, WA

[Eric Greenwell]

Steve / Sperry wrote:
> The "Cheer up" part... I almost fell off of my chair laughing
>
> My question is... to be a safe pilot you need to be able to react
> with the (right stuff) in a choke situation. How do you determine
> that quality in an individual?

Or, as that famous saying goes, more or less: use your superior
judgement to avoid those "choke" situations. Lots of people fly with
smaller margins than they realize, and sometimes they run out of
margins. It's not just about reacting properly in an emergency, but also
about avoiding it in the first place.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Greeff]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>
>>Second, I make absolutely sure my signature never appears in their logbook
>>meaning I will never pass them on a flight review.
>
>
> Shouldn't we be telling these guys exactly what we think? I know of 2 pilots
> that were killed in sailplanes where their instructor later said, "I knew it
> was going to happen". Aren't we doing everyone a disservice by sighing them off
> when we really don't think they are safe? I'm not talking about you Bill, But
> someone is sighing these marginal people off every 2 years. If an instructor
> were to tell them the truth, as he sees it, they might just get the message.
> JJ Sinclair
We recently had to face something like this. A dedicated student, out at the
club twice a month. Flies pretty competently, as well he should after nearly 200
dual launches. Only one problem, he tends to startle, and do irrational things
when he does. None of our instructors were happy to send him solo, not because
he could not fly safely 99% of the time, but because none of them wanted to
discuss how he killed himself with his family.

A little diplomacy from the CFI and an agreement reached. He still flies, and is
no longer formally under instruction. One of the basic instructors goes along as
a safety pilot, and every one is happy. If he ever settles down enough that the
instructors are very sure of him, he may even get to fly solo. Nobody -
including him - expects this, but the option is open.

Everyone wins, he gets to fly without pressure, the club is not exposed to
unneccessary risk, and we retain a friend in the club. There are very few
people who actually want to kill themselves, and you have little chance of
catching or preventing them.

[Bruce Greeff]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> "Michel Talon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 May 2004 00:25:39 GMT, (JJ Sinclair)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Shouldn't we be telling these guys exactly what we think?
>>>
>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>>Failing to do so, and later seeing those pilots killed, really
>>>ought to make those instructors reconsider whether they should be
>>>instructing at all.
>>>
>>
>>This sort of people, notoriously dangerous people, are very well
>>warned by instructors and other fellows that they should stop flying.
>>They decide themselves that they don't want to hear such advice,
>>and eventually kill themselves. As long as they are not involved in a
>>mid air and don't kill other pilots (this is rare), it is their life,
>>after all. Do you have any consideration for the notion of liberty?
>>Do you beleive you are obliged to protect people against themselves?
>>
>>Michel TALON
>
>
> Yes, for three reasons.
>
> 1. Accidents provide justification for more regulation.
> 2. Accidents increase insurance premiums for all of us.
> 3. Accidents create bad press which reduces our opportunity to grow the
> sport.
>
> I would turn it around and suggest that the individual pilot has an
> obligation to protect the soaring community at large from the consequences
> of his unsafe actions.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
As a safety officer I will add a fourth reason.

4. Accidents create a lot of work for other people.

Why should the organisation have to sort out the aftermath of an avoidable fatal
crash?
It is a lot of time and work, and certainly not a pleasant excercise.

So far (13 years 15,000+ launches) we have had no fatal crashes at the club I
fly from, the worst injury has been some facial cuts from a pilot who put his
Austria through a fence on an outlanding. He was lucky.
For the last three years, every time someone in my club screws up, I have to do
a lot of paperwork and review our operating procedures to check that they are
valid. I would much rather be up there in my glider...

[Shirley]

Bruce Greeff bgpub wrote:

>As a safety officer I will add a fourth reason.
>4. Accidents create a lot of work for other people.
>[snip]
>For the last three years, every time someone in
>my club screws up, I have to do a lot of paperwork
>and review our operating procedures to check that
>they are valid. I would much rather be up there in
>my glider...

That's incentive if I ever heard it!... sure wouldn't want anyone to have to do
any paperwork or spend time looking at operating procedures! I would hope a
safety officer would gladly give up time that could be spent on a flight or two
reviewing the vallidity of operating procedures at least a couple of times/year
whether it was prompted by someone screwing up or not. Isn't *anyone* screwing
up, even if it doesn't result in an accident and even if it's the LAST person
you'd expect to screw up, always an opportunity for *everyone* to stop and
re-evaluate?

--Shirley

[JJ Sinclair]

Tom Seim wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
>flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
>might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
>accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
>Sailing).

Where did you get your information about the accident at Air sailing, Tom?

My understanding is it involved the first flight of the year in a fairly new
bird (ASW-20) and a fairly low time pilot (500hrs). Rope broke because he was
all over the sky, trying to stay in position. Then he was unable to execute a
180
without-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------we all know the rest of this scenario.
JJ Sinclair

[Shirley]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote:

>My understanding is it involved the first
>flight of the year in a fairly new bird (ASW-20)
>and a fairly low time pilot (500hrs).

I know there are people with many more, but ... 500 hours *in a glider* is
considered "low time"?

[JJ Sinclair]

>
>I know there are people with many more, but ... 500 hours *in a glider* is
>considered "low time"?

When I had 500 hours in gliders, I understood just how much I didn't know.
JJ Sinclair

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

How is it that a 500hrs. pilot is all over the sky on aerotow?
Presumably his experience was mainly aerotow, not ground launch.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >Tom Seim wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
> >flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
> >might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
> >accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
> >Sailing).
>
> Where did you get your information about the accident at Air sailing, Tom?
>
> My understanding is it involved the first flight of the year in a fairly
> new bird (ASW-20) and a fairly low time pilot (500hrs). Rope broke
> because he was all over the sky, trying to stay in position. Then he was
> unable to execute a 180
> without-------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------we all know the rest of this scenario.
>
> JJ Sinclair.
>

[Shirley]

wrote:
>When I had 500 hours in gliders, I understood
>just how much I didn't know.

<shrug> I wasn't suggesting it means one would know all there is to know ... no
matter what number you're at, there's always a huge element of unknown, isn't
there? Still, at 500 hours, unless you were asleep, how much *did* you know?
With some flights being only 10 or 15 minutes (or even less), 500 hours isn't a
fair chunk of experience? And of at least some importance would be how that
time was spaced over x-number of years, wouldn it? Isn't the danger in the
complacent attitude that having reached ANY arbitrary number, that you suddenly
you know more than you don't?

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
>
>
> Clearly, the
> sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
> Lennie the Lurker did!

Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the
most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a
cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else.

Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the
third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more.
Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them.
(Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.)

I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called
pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it.
Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has
patches on it.

[Bruce Greeff]

Shirley wrote:

> Bruce Greeff bgpub wrote:
>
>
>>As a safety officer I will add a fourth reason.
>>4. Accidents create a lot of work for other people.
>>[snip]
>>For the last three years, every time someone in
>>my club screws up, I have to do a lot of paperwork
>>and review our operating procedures to check that
>>they are valid. I would much rather be up there in
>>my glider...
>
>
> That's incentive if I ever heard it!... sure wouldn't want anyone to have to do
> any paperwork or spend time looking at operating procedures! I would hope a
> safety officer would gladly give up time that could be spent on a flight or two
> reviewing the vallidity of operating procedures at least a couple of times/year
> whether it was prompted by someone screwing up or not. Isn't *anyone* screwing
> up, even if it doesn't result in an accident and even if it's the LAST person
> you'd expect to screw up, always an opportunity for *everyone* to stop and
> re-evaluate?
>
> --Shirley
>
Hi Shirly

I spend a lot of time on operating procedures and safety audits and education
about safety to try to influence attitude in a safety direction. My predecessors
and I have been quite successful. One moderate injury in 13 years is not bad.

My objection is not to doing constructive work - but a whole lot of paperwork
and checking that the procedures did address whatever incident happened, and
placating the burocrats is a waste of time. I think my time is better spent at
the field - including being there when people do things that are unsafe and get
away with it, so I can do something constructive to lower the chance of a
recurrence.

I have no issue with real accidents, this sport can be dangerous. But when
someone causes damage or injury to themselves or others through hubris or
overconfidence or negligence or any other variation of bad attitude; it is an
avoidable accident, and inconsiderate of others.

Why should a whole team of volunteer people have to do a whole lot of work to
sort out the aftermath because one person felt it their right to endanger
themselves. Anyone with the attitude of 'it's my problem if what I am doing is
dangerous, because I will only harm myself', is failing to consider the
community they operate in, and in our case would be shown the clubhouse door. No
hard feelings but we can get by without them.

Maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon...

[Tom Seim]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> Tom Seim wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
> >flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
> >might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
> >accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
> >Sailing).
>
> Where did you get your information about the accident at Air sailing, Tom?
>
> My understanding is it involved the first flight of the year in a fairly new
> bird (ASW-20) and a fairly low time pilot (500hrs). Rope broke because he was
> all over the sky, trying to stay in position. Then he was unable to execute a
> 180
> without-------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------we all know the rest of this scenario.

And exactly which technological advance would have prevented this, an autopilot?

Tom

[Tom Seim]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> > Clearly, the
> > sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
> > Lennie the Lurker did!
>
> Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the
> most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a
> cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else.
>
> Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the
> third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more.
> Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them.
> (Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.)
>
> I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called
> pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it.
> Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has
> patches on it.

And in this respect, your actions are exemplary. There are others out
there that have not yet reached this conclusion that should.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> (Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> > (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> > >
> > >
> > > Clearly, the
> > > sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
> > > Lennie the Lurker did!
> >
> > Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the
> > most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a
> > cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else.
> >
> > Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the
> > third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more.
> > Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them.
> > (Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.)
> >
> > I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called
> > pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it.
> > Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has
> > patches on it.
>
> And in this respect, your actions are exemplary. There are others out
> there that have not yet reached this conclusion that should.

A bit of snippage might make your comments clearer, such as, which
actions, stopping flying, standing on the ground, or not pushing the
edges?

Which conclusions? That I choose not to be in the same airspace with
the one mentioned first, that I don't want to see any more crashes, or
not take chances?

The first crash, two dead, one survivor, drove home the consequences
quite nicely. one does not forget that.

[JJ Sinclair]

Tom,
Perhaps I misread your comments. I thought you were saying the accident
involved a higher degree of pilot proficency.

My point in posting was to alert the readers of RAS to the potential dangers of
early flights in a new bird, first flight after taking the winter off and
flying at a new site

>soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
>> >flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
>> >might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
>> >accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
>> >Sailing).


JJ Sinclair

[glider4]

Shirley,
I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring
in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with
few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field.
One of my biggest concerns as a former instructor was pilots who so
intently focused on getting back to the home runway that they would
fly over very safe fields - getting way too low in the process. IMHO
instructors just don't practice enough off-airport landings with new
cross country pilots. We leave it to the pilots to learn this skill on
their own....If a pilot (of any experience level) is too worried about
trying to land in a reasonably safe off-airport field and insists on
streaching it to get back to the home runway they are asking for
trouble!
I understand the fear of damaging one's sailplane in an off-field
landing - it happens. But I would rather risk dinging my sailplane
than to risk serious injury trying to it stretch getting home. I have
made over a dozen outlandings within 2 miles of my "home" runway as a
result of my belief!
I know nothing of the details about the accident at Air Sailing.
Never-the-less I would be willing to speculate that, even knowing the
terrain around Air Sailing, had an average 500 hour pilot elected to
land "straight ahead" after the low altitude rope break, he or she
most likely would have walked away from the landing.

[Shirley]

wrote:

>I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty
>low time to be soaring in strong weather
>conditions at a high density altitude airport
>with few reasonably safe landable areas near
>the home field.

But he hadn't even LEFT the field yet. I'm not arguing with you, but I am
curious to know ... what do you define "strong weather conditions" and "a high
density altitude airport" where a 500-hr pilot shouldn't be flying?? And at
what point, hour-wise, would you say a person would be qualified to fly in
same? Isn't it difficult to put a number to it, there are *so many* variables.

--Shirley

[Michel Talon]

Shirley > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty
>>low time to be soaring in strong weather
>>conditions at a high density altitude airport
>>with few reasonably safe landable areas near
>>the home field.
>
> But he hadn't even LEFT the field yet. I'm not arguing with you, but I am
> curious to know ... what do you define "strong weather conditions" and "a high
> density altitude airport" where a 500-hr pilot shouldn't be flying?? And at
> what point, hour-wise, would you say a person would be qualified to fly in
> same? Isn't it difficult to put a number to it, there are *so many* variables.
>

It may be that you have accomplished 500 hours in a 30:1 glider, and in
a place with very mild conditions. If you then go directly to an ASW 20
which is a racer, which accelerates a lot and requires fine control,
and at the same time do that in a place with rotors, this is for sure
putting yourself in a delicate situation...
Otherwise, i myself began in a place with frequent rotors, Montpellier.
Of course people were kind enough to send me solo in a single seater
a fine day. But soon after i was flying with strong conditions, and it
was the same for my fellows. As for plastic gliders, i was flying a
Pegase with less than 100 hours, and this was nothing exceptional, on
the contrary. Requiring > 500 hours to fly a performing glider in
strong conditions is next to insane. At least here i have never heard
in many years such an assertion, and in practice, in all reasonable
clubs in France, and i am sure in Germany also, young people are
frequently able to fly Pegases or the equivalent in far less than
100 hours. Perhaps older people need some more, but this is not a
general rule.

> --Shirley
>

--

Michel TALON

[Tom Seim]

> A bit of snippage might make your comments clearer, such as, which
> actions, stopping flying, standing on the ground, or not pushing the
> edges?
>
> Which conclusions? That I choose not to be in the same airspace with
> the one mentioned first, that I don't want to see any more crashes, or
> not take chances?
>
> The first crash, two dead, one survivor, drove home the consequences
> quite nicely. one does not forget that.

For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status.
You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This
is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations. I don't think
that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the
blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think
your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you
into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind.

As always, these are my opinions and your conclusions may differ.

Tom

[Neil Allison]

Bob Johnson wrote:
> Hi Mot --
>
> Could you give us your critique of the Gantenbrink essay? Does it cover
> most of the bases for you, or do you have further concerns?
>
> From the standpoint of a low time pilot the essay (and the other
> material on the DG/LS Safety site) may not be quite the all-purpose
> material I thought it was.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Johnson
>

Hi Bob,

As a very low time pilot (13hrs glider, 11 aeroplane, soloed in both) I
found the DG Safety info and the essay useful reading.

Its often said that "you don't know what you don't know" and as a newbie
I'm critically aware of the volumes of theory and hours of practice that
I need to acquire. It seems to me (from what little I've read so far)
that safety is an issue closely intertwined with Airmanship and Human
Factors. Fortunately, on the theory side there are many volumes written
that I can read, learn from and discuss. Reading r.a.s is (mostly) an
enlightening and sometimes a very sobering experience. Compared to the
pioneers of this sport, I'm able to learn from the experience of others.
I've yet to being my formal training for the NZ "QGP" rating but am
looking forward to the theory and discussion with our club's instructors.

The Vector magazine published by CAA here in NZ has recently had a
series on airmanship following the catch-phrase "Detect - Determine -
Decide - Discipline - Do". I found the following comment in the Jul/Aug
2003 article on very useful: "There is a simple strategy that you can
can use to improve your level of discipline - pretend that every flight
you do is a check flight..."

I love flying (well except for the long haul 24hrs in the back of a 747
from Auckland to London via LAX). However, I love my wife and son
immeasurably more and they need to *know* that every time I leave for
the airfield in the morning, I'll be back in one piece in the evening.
Therefore its my duty to learn about and know the hazards, eliminate
risk where possible, minimise those risks I have no control over and
maintain the discipline of good airmanship at all times.

Best regards,
Neil

--
Neil Allison, Christchurch, NZ

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
>
> For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status.

Being as I never reached active pilot status, that part wasn't hard.

> You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This
> is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations.

I have found, over the years, that my limitations are whatever I have
to push myself to. Willingness to put myself in a position that I
have to push myself is another matter entirely.

> I don't think
> that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the
> blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think
> your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you
> into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind.
>
The tragedy, the two fatalities, were in 1957, and all of my flight
time came after that. Doubts as to my safety played the most minor
part in my decision. The fact that I recognized that I was in what
could have developed into a bad situation in time to prevent it, and
not repeat it, did a little more for my confidence than mere words
could have.

"A cockpit is a bottomless pit into which one throws large amounts of
money in a futile attempt to fill it." Reason number one that I
decided that continuing was senseless. Pursuit of a goal that only
ends in negative numbers is useless. Knowing that it will only
financially strap me, and returning to it would be of the utmost
stupidity. There are too many interesting things in this world to
expend all you can on only one. Many of which offer personal reward
far beyond any that soaring has to offer, and with far less risk.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
>
>
> For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status.
> You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This
> is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations. I don't think
> that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the
> blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think
> your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you
> into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind.
>
> As always, these are my opinions and your conclusions may differ.
>
As I never reached "active pilot status", removing myself wasn't a
possibility. Flying a glider and being a pilot are two different
things, I chose to fly, I also chose not to become a pilot.

Almost all of my flight time came far after seeing the first two
crashes, I realized the dangers long before I ever decided to try.
The third was the instructor I had been flying with, that had little
to do with with my decision. My decision was based mostly on
realizing that when the planes were hangared for the winter, it meant
another bunch of money for ground school, (again), at least several
hours of dual in the spring (again), and another trip into downtown
Milwaukee for the written, (again) which I will not do.

My limitations are what ever I choose to push myself to, or what I
deem worth pushing myself to. Absolutely no different than any other
human on the face of this earth. YOu confirmed what I thought, but
don't pride yourself on overcoming "limitations" that I could not. In
any 24 hour period, were you to try to follow me, you would soon find
who is limited and who is not. The only limitation I found was the
time limit that I was willing to devote. Once it was exceeded, it
became something I chose to drop. Partly my fault, partly time
working against me. makes no difference, time and money limit
reached, end of saga.

[D.A.L]

> "A cockpit is a bottomless pit into which one throws large amounts of
> money in a futile attempt to fill it." Reason number one that I
> decided that continuing was senseless. Pursuit of a goal that only
> ends in negative numbers is useless.

I guess you'd never spend money a bouquet of roses and have their
smell linger in your house, plant flowers that bloom all summer then
die, bungie jump or even eat a great meal with a fine bottle of wine
knowing that in the end you would be left with nothing to show for it
other than the experience. A sad way to live your life IMHO. Maybe
when you die you'll be glad you accumulated hole lot of stuff to leave
behind, I'll be proud of the vast number of life experiences I
enjoyed. Soaring being one of them!

Enjoy your life safely,
Don

[Shawn Curry]

glider4 wrote:

> Shirley,
> I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring
> in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with
> few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field.

Are Michel and I the only ones scratching our heads over this? I
checked my log book. I was flying wave over the foothills west of
Boulder in a 1-34 with 115 hours. My training and advancement was, if
anything, slow and cautious compared to most of my peers. In
retrospect, I would expect any pilot with similar hours who trained on
the Colorado Front Range to be able to safely (and enjoyably) complete
such a flight. This includes the expectation of strong sink and rotor
in the pattern, as well as strong winds on the ground.
Perhaps lower time pilots around here have more flights in stronger
conditions with an instructor in the back than many places(?) Dunno.
BTW, I flew with an instructor yesterday because I felt sufficiently
dusty for the conditions. (I was just feeling current at the end of
March and hadn't flown since :-P )

Shawn

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:01:50 -0600, Shawn Curry
> wrote:

>Are Michel and I the only ones scratching our heads over this? I
>checked my log book. I was flying wave over the foothills west of
>Boulder in a 1-34 with 115 hours.

Don't worry... you are not alone.
In my club one needed 100 hrs total (and a comleted 300 (later 200) km
triangle) to fly the ASW-20L. No problems ever.

I'd estimate that 75percent of the pilots in my club have less than
500 hours.


Bye
Andreas

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Ding.A.Ling) wrote in message >...
> > "A cockpit is a bottomless pit into which one throws large amounts of
> > money in a futile attempt to fill it." Reason number one that I
> > decided that continuing was senseless. Pursuit of a goal that only
> > ends in negative numbers is useless.
>
> I guess you'd never spend money a bouquet of roses and have their
> smell linger in your house,

When I have roses on three sides of my house, lilacs next to the
garage, and 4300 acres of natural prairie to smell the flowers, I
don't buy them.

> or even eat a great meal with a fine bottle of wine

Wine is all rotten grape juice, nothing else. You like the taste of
rot, have at it. The toxic byproduct of a fungal organism is not what
I want to drink in any form. I happen to like my fruit BEFORE it's
rotten. I have never allowed any form of drinking alcohol in my
house, and never will.

> Maybe
> when you die you'll be glad you accumulated hole lot of stuff to leave
> behind, I'll be proud of the vast number of life experiences I
> enjoyed. Soaring being one of them!

As I will be proud of the number of experiences I have had, soaring
not one that I'll remember with pride. Sure, it was fun, but living
only waiting for the weekend, and hoping the weather wasn't bad, and
sitting around all winter twiddling my thumbs because I didn't want to
cut into my block time made no sense at all. November 11 2001 marked
the last day I did either one. If you are willing to live your life
with only one interest, and best chances are that you have a single
place glider, can't even share it with anyone else, you may do so. I
am not willing to live that way. It's not a game for the average wage
earner, and I'm not willing to substitute soaring for life.

[Jeremy Zawodny]

glider4 wrote:
> Shirley,
> I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring
> in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with
> few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field.

As a relatively low-time pilot planning to attent Air Sailing's XC camp
in a few weeks, that's pretty discourging. I'd rather believe that
training and attention to safety are equally as important as having 500+
hours of flying experience.

--
Jeremy
N304GT

[COLIN LAMB]

I have difficulty accepting the premise that a pilot needs more than 500
hours to be truly a safe pilot. This appears to be snobism.

If soaring pilots are not safe until they reach 500 hours, then those pilots
who choose not to be unsafe would voluntarily not fly, because they would be
unsafe for the first 500 hours.

Each of us can only speak from our own experience. When I took my check
ride for a private fixed wing license, I only had 35 hours. The check pilot
took me to a small airport to do takeoffs and landings. It was an
uncontrolled airport and very hazy. As we approached the airport, I became
uncomfortable flying with the reduced visibility, although I realized it was
still legal. I advised the check pilot that I was beyond my limits and was
going to turn around. He stated that I was too safe and cautious and that
it was legal to fly. He had about 10,000 hours of flying.

The following week, he was flying a twin engine Cessna on a charter during a
storm. He flew into a mountain in Cranbrook, BC.

Safety involves not exceeding the limits of your aircraft or your ability.
It is based upon knowledge, attitude and check lists. Unless the hours
increases knowledge or attitude, it does not necessarily make a safer pilot.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04

[glider4]

In NTSB reports on aircraft accidents, frequently you will see mention
of "contributing factors". IMHO contributing factors usually don't
cause accidents, they just increase the odds that an accident will
occur. When any of the following apply you are increasing your risk
- new to type
- first few flights of the season or lack of currency
- flying at a high density airport
- having a get back to the runway fixation
- dehydration
- interuptions during rigging
- strong x-winds or excessive turbulence
- flying out of an unfamiliar airport

I only have about 2,600 hours in gliders spread over 37 years. I say
only 2,600 hours because I consider myself to still be a student of
the sport. I also believe it necessary to fly a minimum of 100 hours a
year to remain current at a professional level of skill - I have a
commercial rating. There have been many times when I have not meet my
targeted 100 hour minimum within the prior rolling 12 month period.
So, am I safe to fly during those periods? Yes, but I recognize that I
am not as sharp as when I am keeping to my 100 hour minimum currency
objective. Perhaps my self assessment metrics are a bit more demanding
than the average recreational soaring pilot - I don't know.

It's easy to think you know a lot about soaring when you reach 500
hours of time. The retrospective view from 1,000 hours or 2,000 hours
puts a different light on the level of skill you really had at 500
hours. Perhaps at 5,000 hours I'll look back and think the same thing
about my current skill level at 2,600 hours. I just want to be sure I
make it to 5,000 hours.

I guess the point of my rambling is that you need to be honest about
your individual skill level. Do that by comparing your skills to those
of the most experienced soaring pilots in the world - you know the
guys that have been winning National and World contests year after
year AND maintain an accident free record. But no matter what your
experience level, realize that contributing factors may significantly
increase your risk exposure and act accoringly.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> >When I had 500 hours in gliders, I understood
> >just how much I didn't know.
>
> <shrug> I wasn't suggesting it means one would know all there is to know
.... no
> matter what number you're at, there's always a huge element of unknown,
isn't
> there? Still, at 500 hours, unless you were asleep, how much *did* you
know?
> With some flights being only 10 or 15 minutes (or even less), 500 hours
isn't a
> fair chunk of experience? And of at least some importance would be how
that
> time was spaced over x-number of years, wouldn it? Isn't the danger in the
> complacent attitude that having reached ANY arbitrary number, that you
suddenly
> you know more than you don't?
>
>
There were some numbers presented several years ago that showed an soaring
accident spike around 500 hours. I don't recall if there were ever any
correlations made with racing, record flying, or anything else. May have
appeared in Soaring or S&G. Anyone recall this and any conclusions made?

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

[Tom Seim]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> > For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status.
> > You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This
> > is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations. I don't think
> > that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the
> > blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think
> > your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you
> > into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind.
> >
> > As always, these are my opinions and your conclusions may differ.
> >
> As I never reached "active pilot status", removing myself wasn't a
> possibility. Flying a glider and being a pilot are two different
> things, I chose to fly, I also chose not to become a pilot.
>
> Almost all of my flight time came far after seeing the first two
> crashes, I realized the dangers long before I ever decided to try.
> The third was the instructor I had been flying with, that had little
> to do with with my decision. My decision was based mostly on
> realizing that when the planes were hangared for the winter, it meant
> another bunch of money for ground school, (again), at least several
> hours of dual in the spring (again), and another trip into downtown
> Milwaukee for the written, (again) which I will not do.
>
> My limitations are what ever I choose to push myself to, or what I
> deem worth pushing myself to. Absolutely no different than any other
> human on the face of this earth. YOu confirmed what I thought, but
> don't pride yourself on overcoming "limitations" that I could not. In
> any 24 hour period, were you to try to follow me, you would soon find
> who is limited and who is not. The only limitation I found was the
> time limit that I was willing to devote. Once it was exceeded, it
> became something I chose to drop. Partly my fault, partly time
> working against me. makes no difference, time and money limit
> reached, end of saga.

Lennie,

Let's be serious for a moment. In regards to soaring, which is what
this news group is about, you are a quitter. I, on the other hand, am
a triple diamond holder. You don't use your real name (surprise!). I,
on the other hand, do. I don't really care what else you do, it's
irrelevent. But, were you to follow me around for a single day, you
would be totally clueless about things that I am an expert at. So
what? That has nothing to do with this news group. You are basically a
bitter old man. I feel sorry for you.

Tom

[Michel Talon]

Jeremy Zawodny > wrote:
> glider4 wrote:
>> Shirley,
>> I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring
>> in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with
>> few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field.
>
> As a relatively low-time pilot planning to attent Air Sailing's XC camp
> in a few weeks, that's pretty discourging. I'd rather believe that
> training and attention to safety are equally as important as having 500+
> hours of flying experience.
>

You are right. Most of the accidents i know involved pilots with high
number of hours > 1000. Main factor: age. Moreover many of these pilots
take bad habits which get more and more entranched, such as ridge flying
at slow speed and so on. One day or the other they get bitten.
Another factor of course is competition, notably among young pilots,
which take way too much risks to pass ahead of their pals. It's this way
the son of my colleague died. From what i have seen, young pilots which
are serious and don't want to enter ****ing contests learn to fly XC
in plastic gliders in far, far less than 500 hours, and are as good
pilots as multi thousand hours guys. World champions are an entirely
different category, and nobody needs to feel obliged to perform the same
exploits as they do.


--

Michel TALON

[Don Johnstone]

At 05:12 18 May 2004, Tom Seim wrote: (Snip)

>Let's be serious for a moment. In regards to soaring,
>which is what
>this news group is about, you are a quitter. I, on
>the other hand, am
>a triple diamond holder. You don't use your real name
>(surprise!). I,
>on the other hand, do. I don't really care what else
>you do, it's
>irrelevent. But, were you to follow me around for a
>single day, you
>would be totally clueless about things that I am an
>expert at. So
>what? That has nothing to do with this news group.
>You are basically a
>bitter old man. I feel sorry for you.
>
>Tom

I don't have a clue who Lennie is and I know that some
of the things he has said are somewhat provocative
but earlier in this thread, before the mudslinging
started he perhaps let slip something that we should
all consider. As human beings we all have limitations
and our limitations are different. We should all ask
ourselves 'am I competent to carry out the task'. Those
who can honestly answer yes and are flying within their
own limitations are the safe pilots. Those who are
not aware of the limitations or deliberately fly outside
them are something else. Anyone who recognises that
to continue when they are not sure of what they are
doing or realises that their committment has altered
and then act on that is not a quitter, he is a very
brave man. The graveyards are full of people who think
that they can get away with it for ever.

A triple diamond holder, does that make you a better
safer pilot do you think? It might, it probably does
but it could also mean that you are lucky, possess
better equipment or are a cheater. I am not for one
moment suggesting that you are any of the latter just
that in terms of safety and competence those little
sparkling gems mean very little. What means a great
deal more is the attitude you adopt when you take to
the air. Experience is not the number of diamonds you
have or even the number of flying hours, it is what
you have learned in achieving them. Safety is not about
achieving it is about attitude, skill and staying with
the limitations of yourself, your glider and others,
using the experience gained to avoid the dangerous
situations. Recognising that the time has come to quit
is the bravest that anyone could do.

Who should we really feel sorry for?

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
>
> Let's be serious for a moment. In regards to soaring, which is what
> this news group is about, you are a quitter.

Hmmmm, bankruptcy or quitter. Ok. Common sense prevailed.

I, on the other hand, am
> a triple diamond holder.

BFHAD. Probably spent more getting them than I earned in ten years.

YOu were the one that in your magnificent egotism thought you could
insinuate that Lennie was unsafe. Lennie made most of the common
beginners mistakes, and recognized them in time that I'm still among
the living. My biggest mistake was thinking that maybe it wasn't a
rich man's game, it is, and will always be. The second biggest was
thinking maybe it was something I could do without a bunch of people
telling me "you should try_________" when they were things I really
didn't want to try. I don't care how different a Lark or blanik or
russia or anything else flew from the 1-26, and planting the seeds of
discontent would have been extremely stupid. IT did not happen.

HOwever, the only times I really did badly were times that I knew I
should not fly, but allowed myself to be talked into it, with totally
predictable results. Or, the only time that I consider that I was
really unsafe, was when I trusted the judgement of "more experienced
people" over my own. I flew badly, and knew I flew badly. What I
should have done was pulled the release at 1K and gone back
immediately to the ground. Nerves that are already on edge don't need
to be behind a tug. Like my other mistakes, it did not happen twice.

[Tom Seim]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> >
> > Let's be serious for a moment. In regards to soaring, which is what
> > this news group is about, you are a quitter.
>
> Hmmmm, bankruptcy or quitter. Ok. Common sense prevailed.
>
> I, on the other hand, am
> > a triple diamond holder.
>
> BFHAD. Probably spent more getting them than I earned in ten years.

Were you unemployed during those 10 years? Because you would have to
have been for this absurdity to be true. As usual, you know NOTHING of
what you speak.

>
> YOu were the one that in your magnificent egotism thought you could
> insinuate that Lennie was unsafe.

Who is the REAL Lennie? Who is this coward who doesn't want to use his
real name?

Lennie made most of the common
> beginners mistakes, and recognized them in time that I'm still among
> the living. My biggest mistake was thinking that maybe it wasn't a
> rich man's game, it is, and will always be.

Wrong again, quitter. My son managed it while in the military, hardly
an Ivy League organization.

The second biggest was
> thinking maybe it was something I could do without a bunch of people
> telling me "you should try_________" when they were things I really
> didn't want to try. I don't care how different a Lark or blanik or
> russia or anything else flew from the 1-26, and planting the seeds of
> discontent would have been extremely stupid. IT did not happen.
>
> HOwever, the only times I really did badly were times that I knew I
> should not fly, but allowed myself to be talked into it, with totally
> predictable results. Or, the only time that I consider that I was
> really unsafe, was when I trusted the judgement of "more experienced
> people" over my own. I flew badly, and knew I flew badly. What I
> should have done was pulled the release at 1K and gone back
> immediately to the ground. Nerves that are already on edge don't need
> to be behind a tug. Like my other mistakes, it did not happen twice.

Can you spell QUITTER?

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> >
> >
> > YOu were the one that in your magnificent egotism thought you could
> > insinuate that Lennie was unsafe.
>
> Who is the REAL Lennie? Who is this coward who doesn't want to use his
> real name?

Brilliance! YOu know less than nothing, yet presume to make judgments
as to my capabilities. My personal email box had nothing in it this
morning, my lycos spambox had fifty or more. Maybe that might
penetrate the eternal and impenetrable fog between your ears, but I
doubt it. My first name is Richard, and my last name is of german
origin, which is not a point of pride, but something to overcome.
What my name is is of no consequence, those that I flew with know who
Lennie is. Not that it makes any difference, none of them know me
until something needs repairing anyhow. Not that it bothers me, I
*like* playing with my toys.

Neither one of which will in the slightest compensate for your false
statement that soaring was somehow safer because of the lack of my
participation. Do you know what a false statement is? It's called a
lie. You have no information at all as to who I am, who I flew with,
where I flew, or how well I flew, yet you know that it was not safe.
That makes your statement only a hateful lie, nothing more or less.
Black and white, there are no shades of gray. It is what I would
expect of you.

[Tom Seim]

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message >...
> (Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> > >
> > >
> > > YOu were the one that in your magnificent egotism thought you could
> > > insinuate that Lennie was unsafe.
> >
> > Who is the REAL Lennie? Who is this coward who doesn't want to use his
> > real name?
>
> Brilliance! YOu know less than nothing, yet presume to make judgments
> as to my capabilities. My personal email box had nothing in it this
> morning, my lycos spambox had fifty or more. Maybe that might
> penetrate the eternal and impenetrable fog between your ears, but I
> doubt it. My first name is Richard, and my last name is of german
> origin, which is not a point of pride, but something to overcome.
> What my name is is of no consequence, those that I flew with know who
> Lennie is. Not that it makes any difference, none of them know me
> until something needs repairing anyhow. Not that it bothers me, I
> *like* playing with my toys.
>
> Neither one of which will in the slightest compensate for your false
> statement that soaring was somehow safer because of the lack of my
> participation. Do you know what a false statement is? It's called a
> lie. You have no information at all as to who I am, who I flew with,
> where I flew, or how well I flew, yet you know that it was not safe.
> That makes your statement only a hateful lie, nothing more or less.
> Black and white, there are no shades of gray. It is what I would
> expect of you.

Anyone who wants to know what is going on in the mind of Lennie the
Lurker (and his real name and address) can do a Google search. What
you will find is some of the most vile and vulgar rants posted on news
groups by anyone. I seriously doubt that anyone who reads this trash
will want to be flying in the same state as you, let alone in a
gaggle. You did the sport a real favor by quitting, and I stand by my
statements.

This will be my final exchange with you.

Tom

[Lennie the Lurker]

Don Johnstone > wrote in message >...
> At 05:12 18 May 2004, Tom Seim wrote: (Snip)
>
>Those
> who can honestly answer yes and are flying within their
> own limitations are the safe pilots. Those who are
> not aware of the limitations or deliberately fly outside
> them are something else. Anyone who recognises that
> to continue when they are not sure of what they are
> doing or realises that their committment has altered
> and then act on that is not a quitter,

Not sure just how to clarify what I meant there, I think any person
will find that their absolute limitations are far beyond what they
think they are, but the difference is in the judgment call in being
able to avoid having to push to their limitations in the first place.
Almost like having a gap between our perceived limits and what the
limits really are. When, for one reason or another, that gap has been
removed, the trouble starts. All margin of safety has been removed,
and a bad judgment call will be fatal. I never doubted myself in that
area, margins of safety, after the initial beginners mistakes, was
more important than anything else.

Limitations in being able to spend the amounts of money needed, I
never doubted them, they can be calculated to the last cent. IT hit
the limit, and nothing happened to cause me to doubt what had to be
done. I never felt really comfortable at the field, and that made the
decision easier, as did a lot of other small factors.

I see seim hasn't answered you, and doubt that he will. I have him
backed into a corner on his insinuation, and there isn't any graceful
way out for him. Exactly where I plan on keeping it. No facts and a
big ego will do it every time.

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
> >
> This will be my final exchange with you.
>
>
Hope you like being in a corner, until you admit you made insinuations
without having any facts, YOU WILL BE A LIAR. A Google search will
also confirm that nicely. You make me proud that I'm not a pilot, and
even more proud that I'm not a glider pilot.

Admit your lie, tommy boy. One like you will rot the whole barrel.

[Chris OCallaghan]

Hi Lennie,

Could you do me a big favor? Change your email handle... irony just
isn't your strong suit.

Thanks! Hope your world continues to turn predictably.

Best wishes for your and yours,

OC

[Chris OCallaghan]

Hi Lennie,

Could you do me a big favor? Change your email handle... irony just
isn't your strong suit.

Thanks! Hope your world continues to turn predictably.

Best wishes for you and yours,

OC

[Keith W]

> Hi Lennie,
>
> Could you do me a big favor? Change your email handle... irony just
> isn't your strong suit.
>
I thought irony *was* his strong point - chunks it up in lathes and mills,
etc? 8-)

Keith

[Lennie the Lurker]

"Keith W" > wrote in message >...
> > Hi Lennie,
> >
> > Could you do me a big favor? Change your email handle... irony just
> > isn't your strong suit.

Sorry, CHris, that's my spambox, everything can be deleted with two
clicks. It'll stay the same. IF there's anyone that I think needs my
addy, they've already got it. Nobody else gets through.
> >
> I thought irony *was* his strong point - chunks it up in lathes and mills,
> etc? 8-)
>
Visit here:

http://www.n-lemma.com/ssadventures/camp.htm

Then, irony is that we're predicted to have rain and thunderstorms for
the next three days. Rain started tonight, supposed to clear on
monday.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Lennie the Lurker wrote:
> ...
> It's not a game for the average wage
> earner, and I'm not willing to substitute soaring for life.
>

But it doesn't depend on what you are willing, soaring IS life :-)

[Lennie the Lurker]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message >...
> Lennie the Lurker wrote:
> > ...
> > It's not a game for the average wage
> > earner, and I'm not willing to substitute soaring for life.
> >
>
> But it doesn't depend on what you are willing, soaring IS life :-)

Life for the last two weeks has been trying to avoid the $%%&&$#@
phone because out of 200 applicants for a machinists job, not a damn
one of them can do the work. 4 hours monday, six tuesday, four
yesterday, five today. I'm supposed to be retired, not just tired.
That's 200 applicants for an $18 per hour job, easy work, and no
qualified people except retirees that, like me, don't want to work.
Humor though, half of the applicants are either people with
engineering degrees, or business administration. Neither of which
helps when the job is pulling handles and turning cranks. Which I
would like to be doing with my OWN projects, not somebody else's
repair job.