Why Soaring's Safety Record Doesn't Improve

[JJ Sinclair]

Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve? We seem to have the
same type and about the same number of accidents every year. Lets take the
*controls not hooked up*, its about time for another one of those. Every year a
couple of guys will try to fly without hooking up a control. This type accident
is 100% preventable. Why can't we put a stop to it? The answer is simple, we
don't have the power to control it. The airlines wouldn't put up with it. The
military would have no problem in eliminating it. Clubs have the power to stop
it. How about the individual sailplane owner? We got the power to control
his/her actions? No we don't and just try and get a little muscle and listen to
the screams. I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my local
FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape sign off on
each sailplane wing. I got ZERO replies from the 5 FBO's I asked to try the
plan and several of them had experienced accidents caused by controls not
hooked up.

Our safety record will not improve because we don't have the power to enforce
rules designed to make soaring safer.
JJ Sinclair

[Gill Couto]

That's the same as asking why highway accidents can't be reduced.
The same goes for motorcycles, skydiving, and anything worth doing.

gill


JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve? We seem to have the
> same type and about the same number of accidents every year. Lets take the
> *controls not hooked up*, its about time for another one of those. Every year a
> couple of guys will try to fly without hooking up a control. This type accident
> is 100% preventable. Why can't we put a stop to it? The answer is simple, we
> don't have the power to control it. The airlines wouldn't put up with it. The
> military would have no problem in eliminating it. Clubs have the power to stop
> it. How about the individual sailplane owner? We got the power to control
> his/her actions? No we don't and just try and get a little muscle and listen to
> the screams. I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my local
> FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape sign off on
> each sailplane wing. I got ZERO replies from the 5 FBO's I asked to try the
> plan and several of them had experienced accidents caused by controls not
> hooked up.
>
> Our safety record will not improve because we don't have the power to enforce
> rules designed to make soaring safer.
> JJ Sinclair

[Bill Daniels]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve? We seem to have
the
> same type and about the same number of accidents every year. Lets take the
> *controls not hooked up*, its about time for another one of those. Every
year a
> couple of guys will try to fly without hooking up a control. This type
accident
> is 100% preventable. Why can't we put a stop to it? The answer is simple,
we
> don't have the power to control it. The airlines wouldn't put up with it.
The
> military would have no problem in eliminating it. Clubs have the power to
stop
> it. How about the individual sailplane owner? We got the power to control
> his/her actions? No we don't and just try and get a little muscle and
listen to
> the screams. I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my
local
> FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape sign
off on
> each sailplane wing. I got ZERO replies from the 5 FBO's I asked to try
the
> plan and several of them had experienced accidents caused by controls not
> hooked up.
>
> Our safety record will not improve because we don't have the power to
enforce
> rules designed to make soaring safer.
> JJ Sinclair

I'm convinced that safety can't be found in stricter rules or inspections.
The very nature of flight is that it takes place beyond the reach of these.
Safety is in the attitude and skillset of the individual pilot. Danger lies
between the ears of the pilot, not in the hardware or rulebook.

This is a classic cautionary tale of misdirected concern.

When I was a student pilot long ago, you would see pilots shaking the
wingtips of their wooden gliders up and down at the resonant frequency of
the wing while staring at the sweep second hand of their wris****ches. The
idea was that the natural frequency would change if the strength of the wing
deteriorated. They were REALLY worried about old wood wings.

One day a wing failed and two died. The FAA and NTSB took the separated
wing to a lab and measured its strength. They found it had failed at >14
G's. The pilot and his passenger didn't die from a defective wing, they
died of terminal stupidity. The pilot simply overloaded a perfectly good
wing while attempting aerobatics. I'll bet right up to the point the wing
broke he was sure he was safe because he was a wing shaker.

The next time you fly, take a second to look at the hand holding the stick.
Life and death is right there. Move it a couple of inches the wrong way and
you die. If you find that thought uncomfortable, find a good instructor to
fly with.

Bill Daniels

[Jim Vincent]

>I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my local
>FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape sign off
>on
>each sailplane wing

JJ,

While this is a great idea, the implementation is far different. I have seen
pilots do a "PCC" and not catch the disconnect or reversal. The core problem,
I think, is HOW the pilot does a PCC.


Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[nafod40]

JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve? We seem to have the
> same type and about the same number of accidents every year. Lets take the
> *controls not hooked up*, its about time for another one of those.

People seem to think evolution is always forward, but in fact our
noggins are major consumers of energy, sources of heat loss, etc., and
the moment they lose their ability to offer an evolutionary advantage,
they'll evolve away.

In short, nature is perfectly capable of, and will in fact tend towards,
building a better idiot.

[Robert Danewid]

Not true!

The Swedish Soaring Federation has been delegated all authority over
gliding by the Swedish CAA. Since 1993 we have reduced our accident rate
by 50%.

You do not need a lot of rules, you need a few good rules, and the power
to enforce them!

Robert

Gill Couto wrote:
> That's the same as asking why highway accidents can't be reduced. The
> same goes for motorcycles, skydiving, and anything worth doing.
>
> gill
>
>
> JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>> Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve? We seem to
>> have the
>> same type and about the same number of accidents every year. Lets take
>> the
>> *controls not hooked up*, its about time for another one of those.
>> Every year a
>> couple of guys will try to fly without hooking up a control. This type
>> accident
>> is 100% preventable. Why can't we put a stop to it? The answer is
>> simple, we
>> don't have the power to control it. The airlines wouldn't put up with
>> it. The
>> military would have no problem in eliminating it. Clubs have the power
>> to stop
>> it. How about the individual sailplane owner? We got the power to control
>> his/her actions? No we don't and just try and get a little muscle and
>> listen to
>> the screams. I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking
>> my local
>> FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape
>> sign off on
>> each sailplane wing. I got ZERO replies from the 5 FBO's I asked to
>> try the
>> plan and several of them had experienced accidents caused by controls not
>> hooked up.
>>
>> Our safety record will not improve because we don't have the power to
>> enforce
>> rules designed to make soaring safer.
>> JJ Sinclair

[Todd Smith]

I fly for my own challenge and enjoyment. I risk only myself
and the tow pilot (I also tow for my club).

The airline and military pilots fly a mission for the benefit of
the organization, using the organization's equippment.
Those pilots are not out for satisfaction, challenge or enjoyment.

Yes, you could increase safety in soaring by adding rules, policies
and procedures. You would also reduce the FUN of soaring so that
nobody actually flys anymore, that would also reduce the accident rate.

Todd Smith

[Paul Lynch]

While I know many airline pilots who fit your description, that is not true
for most military pilots. I loved flying fighters. I would do it again in a
heart beat if they would let me.

"Todd Smith" > wrote in message
om...
> I fly for my own challenge and enjoyment. I risk only myself
> and the tow pilot (I also tow for my club).
>
> The airline and military pilots fly a mission for the benefit of
> the organization, using the organization's equippment.
> Those pilots are not out for satisfaction, challenge or enjoyment.
>
> Yes, you could increase safety in soaring by adding rules, policies
> and procedures. You would also reduce the FUN of soaring so that
> nobody actually flys anymore, that would also reduce the accident rate.
>
> Todd Smith

[Miguel Lavalle]

Robert,

I don't know if a program like this would be implemented
in the US, where I fly. But I would like to learn its
details hoping to learn something and apply it to my
own flying. This is the first time I read about hard
evidence of systematic safety improvement. Where can
I get more information?

Regards

Miguel

At 20:30 14 May 2004, Robert Danewid wrote:
>Not true!
>
>The Swedish Soaring Federation has been delegated all
>authority over
>gliding by the Swedish CAA. Since 1993 we have reduced
>our accident rate
>by 50%.
>
>You do not need a lot of rules, you need a few good
>rules, and the power
>to enforce them!
>
>Robert
>

[Ian Cant]

Before making or enforcing rules, it would be prudent
to get some real and up-to-date information. The SSA
annually publishes an abstract of US fatal accidents,
which may or may not be complete. But many accidents
and 'incidents' go unreported, or are reported but
not recorded or followed up. An accessible and reasonably
complete database of things that have gone wrong might
lead to useful and acceptable suggestions for future
accident abatement. When people are shown WHY rules
are made, with supporting evidence, they generally
self-enforce [Darwin had some thoughts on this].

However, in the end, we all accept a certain degree
of risk by choosing to fly, and that means that some
accidents will always happen either by bad luck or
bad judgment. Neither can be legislated or enforced
away.

Ian

At 22:12 14 May 2004, Miguel Lavalle wrote:
>Robert,
>
>I don't know if a program like this would be implemented
>in the US, where I fly. But I would like to learn its
>details hoping to learn something and apply it to my
>own flying. This is the first time I read about hard
>evidence of systematic safety improvement. Where can
>I get more information?
>
>Regards
>
>Miguel
>
>At 20:30 14 May 2004, Robert Danewid wrote:
>>Not true!
>>
>>The Swedish Soaring Federation has been delegated all
>>authority over
>>gliding by the Swedish CAA. Since 1993 we have reduced
>>our accident rate
>>by 50%.
>>
>>You do not need a lot of rules, you need a few good
>>rules, and the power
>>to enforce them!
>>
>>Robert
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[D.A.L]

nafod40 > wrote in message >...
> JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve?

The best description I've ever came accross and fly by is 'Flying is
safe,untill you forget how dangerous it really is!' This would also
apply to skydiving I suppose.

[Raphael Warshaw]

Gill Couto > wrote in message news:<Jh5pc.51$xi.38@fed1read07>...
> That's the same as asking why highway accidents can't be reduced.
> The same goes for motorcycles, skydiving, and anything worth doing.
>
> gill
>


There has been a small but real population adjusted reduction in auto
accidents in this country over the last 20-30 years. Training and
higher standards, while politically unpopular, would, IMHO, further
reduce the rate. However, because driving (and driving badly) is seen
as a right in this country, most recent efforts have concentrated on
reducing the impact (pun intended) of the inevitable accidents by
improvements in vehicle structure and performance, as well as the use
of airbags and seatbelts.

Because these sorts of engineering improvements are largely
unavailable to us in gliders (a whole other discussion), any
improvement in our accident statistics will have to come as a result
of improved pilot knowledge and performance.

Unfortunately age conspires to diminish important faculties like
vision, reaction, memory, etc., the effect being only partially
compensated by experience. There are lots of pilots out there who say
"I've forgotten more than you'll ever know". Probably true but,
unfortunately, some of that "more than you'll ever know" may be
important to their safety.

It may be that our aging pilot base needs as much (or more) training /
retraining and evaluation as our beginners to permit adequate
self-assessment and to counteract these inevitible effects.

Raphael Warshaw
Claremont, CA

[Nyal Williams]

At 20:48 14 May 2004, Todd Smith wrote:
>I fly for my own challenge and enjoyment. I risk only
>myself
>and the tow pilot (I also tow for my club).
>
>The airline and military pilots fly a mission for the
>benefit of
>the organization, using the organization's equippment.
>
>Those pilots are not out for satisfaction, challenge
>or enjoyment.
>
>Yes, you could increase safety in soaring by adding
>rules, policies
>and procedures. You would also reduce the FUN of soaring
>so that
>nobody actually flys anymore, that would also reduce
>the accident rate.
>
>Todd Smith
>

In its logical extreme, this is quite true. On the
other hand, no one is going to miss out on any fun
by being required and double checked for control hookups.
I'm quite aware of the slippery slope of delegating
responsibilities and thereby abandoning self-reliance.
The launch is hardly an individual concern and I congratulate
FBOs and tow pilots who insist on this.

[COLIN LAMB]

In addition to gliders, I fly helicopters (glide angle is not as good,
though). Before each flight, I spend 20 minutes pre-flighting it. After
pre-flight, no one checks my work. As the pilot, I must be and am the
person responsible for the safety of the helicopter. If something does not
check out right, I do not fly it.

Likewise, in a glider, the pilot must be the person ultimately responsible
for the connections of the controls, as well as other safety checks. The
suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot, which does not
presently exist. That liability would be that if the sailplane crashed
because something went wrong with the controls or the signoff procedure, the
pilot would be a defendant in a multi-million dollar lawsuit - and this from
someone who may not be paid, or often underpaid. The second issue is that
it diverts responsibility from where it belongs - with the pilot.

Clubs are free to adopt rules and regulations to assure that controls are
properly connected. It would be easy to adopt a procedure to assure that
the controls are checked by someone other than the assembler.

On the other hand, I would leave the responsibility for the privately owned
ship with the owner.

I recall years ago flying into a private airstrip in Southern California.
The FBO owned the field. She denied landing permission to any pilot who had
a retractable gear ariplane and refused to state that his gear was "down and
locked". I do not know if safety was improved, but I do know of at least
one instance where the pilot landed gear up (not me).

Check lists are absolutely essential.

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

[JJ Sinclair]

>The
>suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
>the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
>create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot,

Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are hooked up, he's just
checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was accomplished.
Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing a
glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
being prudent in checking on something like this.

I don't want to even think about the number of accidents I know about caused by
unhooked controls, must be 20 in the last 30 years. At least 2 pilots are no
longer with us and another lives with daily pain in both legs. What are we
doing about it? NOTHING

We could do something, how about insurance companies refusing to insure
organizations (FBO's & clubs) that don't follow a few basic safety rules?

Can't wait to hear the howl and whine coming from the "I have a right to be
negligent" crowd on this proposal.
JJ Sinclair

[Bullwinkle]

To all those interested about safety,

I realize I'll get flamed for this, but I'd like to point out that in the
March 1988 Soaring I proposed that we stop focusing on accident prevention
as our primary safety goal, and instead think about injury prevention. (I
got flamed a bit then, too.)

It changes a lot when you shift your focus that little bit. I won't
re-develop all the points I made then, just go back and read the article.

Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming the accident pilot for
being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor (therefore it's all the
pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been done differently to
prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.

And I don't want to hear from the "prevent the accident and you've prevented
the injury" crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year old could see through
it.

We've probably got close to the maximum benefit from improved flight
instruction, so it's now time to improve other things in the safety world.
Famous Professional Flight Instructors who write books and such disagree
with this viewpoint, but you'd expect that, wouldn't you.

Just my two cents, now sinking back into lurkerhood.


On 5/15/04 8:38 AM, in article ,
"JJ Sinclair" > wrote:

>> The
>> suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
>> the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
>> create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot,
>
> Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are hooked up, he's
> just
> checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was accomplished.
> Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing a
> glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
> being prudent in checking on something like this.
>
> I don't want to even think about the number of accidents I know about caused
> by
> unhooked controls, must be 20 in the last 30 years. At least 2 pilots are no
> longer with us and another lives with daily pain in both legs. What are we
> doing about it? NOTHING
>
> We could do something, how about insurance companies refusing to insure
> organizations (FBO's & clubs) that don't follow a few basic safety rules?
>
> Can't wait to hear the howl and whine coming from the "I have a right to be
> negligent" crowd on this proposal.
> JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

Bullwinkle wrote:
> To all those interested about safety,
>
> I realize I'll get flamed for this, but I'd like to point out that in the
> March 1988 Soaring I proposed that we stop focusing on accident prevention
> as our primary safety goal, and instead think about injury prevention. (I
> got flamed a bit then, too.)
>
> It changes a lot when you shift your focus that little bit. I won't
> re-develop all the points I made then, just go back and read the article.
>
> Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming the accident pilot for
> being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor (therefore it's all the
> pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been done differently to
> prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.
>
> And I don't want to hear from the "prevent the accident and you've prevented
> the injury" crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year old could see through
> it.
>
> We've probably got close to the maximum benefit from improved flight
> instruction, so it's now time to improve other things in the safety world.
> Famous Professional Flight Instructors who write books and such disagree
> with this viewpoint, but you'd expect that, wouldn't you.
>
> Just my two cents, now sinking back into lurkerhood.

Before you go, maybe you could elaborate on what "injury prevention"
means: stronger cockpits, shock absorbing landing gear, BRS
installations, spin-proof gliders?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bullwinkle]

>
> Before you go, maybe you could elaborate on what "injury prevention"
> means: stronger cockpits, shock absorbing landing gear, BRS
> installations, spin-proof gliders?

Eric,

Great question. All of the above, plus some others. Once the accident is
inevitable, the glider just becomes a tool to either protect or injure the
occupants. At this point, you either say "the pilot gets what he deserves
for being a lunkhead" or you say "OK, it's going to happen, what can be done
to reduce the impact (pardon the pun) on the pilot?"

Injury prevention, generically, is keeping someone from being hurt or
killed. Accident prevention tries to keep the accident from happening. If
accident prevention is your goal, then once the accident occurs, you chalk
it up as another training/safety failure, clean up the mess, and redouble
your efforts to prevent the next one. If injury prevention is your goal,
however, you begin to think about how the accident occurred, how the pilot
got hurt, or didn't get hurt, what could be done to prevent that in the
future. What contributed to the injuries or fatality, and how the whole
situation could be fixed to keep injury from occurring in the future, should
the same kind of accident happen to someone else. Forget about protecting
the glider: protect the pilot!

Certainly, anything that absorbs energy in a crash sequence is a good idea,
like crumple zone cockpits, energy absorbing landing gear, maybe even
airbags (here comes another flame). Antisubmarining restraint systems.
Breakaway knobs and switches, so your face doesn't absorb the energy as you
flex forward at impact. Oxygen system fittings that break away safely,
without leaks (ever seen an oxygen-fed fire? Not pretty.) Easier to eject
canopies, should you have to bail.

Think how to improve the environment at your glider port: are there
telephone wires off the end that could snag a low pilot? Don't just train
him not to be low: reduce the height, or bury the wires. Same for an airport
fence, if close to the threshold. Are there sufficient landout areas in the
event of a rope break?

I don't want to rewrite my article here, but I hope this answers your
question. If I didn't make it clear enough, just ask again.
Thanks for asking.

Bob

[JJ Sinclair]

Bob,
Why can't we have both an active accident prevention program and an active
injury prevention program at the same time? Do everything we can to prevent the
accident and then crash softly as we take advantage of all our injury
prevention actions?
JJ Sinclair

[Paul Repacholi]

(Jim Vincent) writes:

>>I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my local
>>FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape
>>sign off on each sailplane wing

> While this is a great idea, the implementation is far different. I
> have seen pilots do a "PCC" and not catch the disconnect or
> reversal. The core problem, I think, is HOW the pilot does a PCC.

No, the problem is in how people think. If you have a person who
expects a result X, and give him something that is neat to X or -X, he
will in a very high percentage of cases accept it as correct. This is
not lack of atention, or carlessness, it is just the way our brains
work.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Bullwinkle]

JJ

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Obviously we need to work accident
prevention/instruction, etc to the max, but once that has reached it's
maximum benefit, we need to look elsewhere for opportunities to reduce the
injury rate.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough before.

It just seems to me that the soaring community as a whole stops with trying
to train the accidents out of the pilots. It's a safety philosophy thing, I
guess.

Bob

On 5/15/04 2:35 PM, in article ,
"JJ Sinclair" > wrote:

> Bob,
> Why can't we have both an active accident prevention program and an active
> injury prevention program at the same time? Do everything we can to prevent
> the
> accident and then crash softly as we take advantage of all our injury
> prevention actions?
> JJ Sinclair

[Don Johnstone]

At 15:36 15 May 2004, Bullwinkle wrote: (snip)

>Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming
>the accident pilot for
>being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor
>(therefore it's all the
>pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been
>done differently to
>prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.
>
>And I don't want to hear from the 'prevent the accident
>and you've prevented
>the injury' crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year
>old could see through.


I wish that you were right, unfortunately you are so
very wrong in one respect. The prevent the accident
prevent the injury statement is very right, in fact
it is the only certain way of preventing the injury,
you may deny that all you wish but until you accept
that the injury is caused by the accident you will
get nowhere. Why do I say this, simple.
In 30 years I attended many motor vehicle accidents
and investigated the causes. A large proportion of
the accidents were fatal (My rank meant that I had
to attend all fatal accidents in my area) however I
also attended non fatal incidents. What was very clear
to me was that once control of the vehicle was lost
by the driver, in other words the circumstances that
came together to cause the accident happened the outcome,
damage, injury or death was a matter OF PURE BLIND
CHANCE. While it is possible to make vehicles safer
this is by no means the answer that is suggested here.
I have attended accidents where the occupants of a
vehicle had no right to live but did, conversely I
have been to accidents where the damage was so minor
yet someone died, pure blind chance. I have been to
accidents where the occupants of the stongest, most
safety designed vehilces contain dead where the flimsy
tin can contains survivors so the 'design survivability'
is not the complete answer to the problem that faces
us. It can help in some cases, perhaps in a significant
number but never in all.
The only, and I stress, only way of ensuring the continue
health of the occupant of a vehicle, airborne or otherwise
is to work towards indentifying the cause and eleiminating
that.
Just think on this, if all motor vehicles were built
to the same standard as a Chieftan or M1 Abrams tank,
would any driver take care? Would they care if they
banged into things or not? If you wish to place your
fate in pure blind chance, russian roulette in a glider,
by all means concentrate on working towards making
your glider immune to your cock ups. If you want to
guaruntee to survive retain control of you destiny,
eliminate the cock up.

Please stop confusing outcome with cause!!!

FLIGHT SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT

DAJ401

[COLIN LAMB]

Statement: "Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are
hooked up, he's just
checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was
accomplished.
Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing
a
glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
being prudent in checking on something like this."

Response: The tow pilot is responsible for the safety of his aircraft and he
or she needs to do whatever is necessary to assure that safety. That would
require more than a simple review of paper-work. The tow pilot also needs
to assure the tow cable and link are safe. However, once he or she assumes
a responsibility to check the sailplane paperwork, then if that condition
has not been met, there will likely be a lawsuit when the sailplane pilot
dies because of that condition. And, this check of paperwork may not be
covered by the tow plane's liability policy. As a towplane pilot, I would
want to assure myself that the sailplane is not going to kill me, so I would
make whatever inspections, require whatever paperwork I felt necessary to
protect me, and question the glider operator if I had any concerns.

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

[Jim Vincent]

(Jim Vincent) writes:
>
>>>I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my local
>>>FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape
>>>sign off on each sailplane wing
>
>> While this is a great idea, the implementation is far different. I
>> have seen pilots do a "PCC" and not catch the disconnect or
>> reversal. The core problem, I think, is HOW the pilot does a PCC.
>
>No, the problem is in how people think. If you have a person who
>expects a result X, and give him something that is neat to X or -X, he
>will in a very high percentage of cases accept it as correct. This is
>not lack of atention, or carlessness, it is just the way our brains
>work.

Yes and no. If the person is not trained to question result X, they will
accept result X. If they are ignorant through stupidity, ignorance, or
attitude, they will never even get to the point where they even have the
oppportunity to evaluate result X, never mind Y or Z. The problem goes back to
the AB and C of doing a PCC. The instructors at my club haven't a f'ijng clue
how to do one....never mind that they won't allow the student to do the
checklist approved for the G103 in the POH. So what you get is a dumb ****
trained by a dumb ****.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[nafod40]

Todd Smith wrote:
> I fly for my own challenge and enjoyment. I risk only myself
> and the tow pilot (I also tow for my club).
>
> The airline and military pilots fly a mission for the benefit of
> the organization, using the organization's equipment.
> Those pilots are not out for satisfaction, challenge or enjoyment.

Just wanted to point out, as a former Naval Aviator, that it was all
about satisfaction, challenge, and enjoyment for me. And I got paid for
it too! Hard to believe...

In short, most mil pilots are into flying for the same reasons you are.

[Tony Verhulst]

> I'm convinced that safety can't be found in stricter rules or inspections.
> The very nature of flight is that it takes place beyond the reach of these.

The airline industry would take exception to that statement and offer
their safety record as evidence, I think. But, you can't apply airline
rules and inspections (not to mention recurrent training) to general
aviation - it's simply not practical.

> Safety is in the attitude and skillset of the individual pilot. Danger lies
> between the ears of the pilot, not in the hardware or rulebook.

For the glider pilot, I think this is very true.

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Rich Carlson]

Miguel;

If you are in the US. look at the Soaring Safety Foundations Site survey
program (http://www.soaringsafety.org). This program is modeled after
the Swedish program. The major points are:

*) It's confidential, nobody but your club/school gets a copy of the
final report, even the SSF destroy's it's copy

*) It's free. The SSF is trying to address all safety issues and this
is one aspect of the fight to improve safety awarness.

Rich Carlson
V2Bx (1I)

Miguel Lavalle wrote:

> Robert,
>
> I don't know if a program like this would be implemented
> in the US, where I fly. But I would like to learn its
> details hoping to learn something and apply it to my
> own flying. This is the first time I read about hard
> evidence of systematic safety improvement. Where can
> I get more information?
>
> Regards
>
> Miguel
>
> At 20:30 14 May 2004, Robert Danewid wrote:
>
>>Not true!
>>
>>The Swedish Soaring Federation has been delegated all
>>authority over
>>gliding by the Swedish CAA. Since 1993 we have reduced
>>our accident rate
>>by 50%.
>>
>>You do not need a lot of rules, you need a few good
>>rules, and the power
>>to enforce them!
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Bruce Greeff]

Todd Pattist wrote:
> Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
>
>>>Safety is in the attitude and skillset of the individual pilot. Danger lies
>>>between the ears of the pilot, not in the hardware or rulebook.
>>
>>For the glider pilot, I think this is very true.
>
>
> I don't.
>
> Aircraft design is an important element in the safety
> equation. Automatic hookups do help reduce "failure to
> connect controls" accidents in a way that no amount of
> training can duplicate.
>
> Rules have a role to play too.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
I think both are valid views, but should not be exclusive.

If you do not think safe thoughts and practice safe habits you will be dangerous
to yourself or others. Conversely, having a good attitude and being careful is
not infallible.
Anyone who has never gone " Damn that was dumb/dangerous/irrational" after the
fact has no use for automatic control hookups. The rest of us with the
unreliable Mk1 brain can do with all the help we can get. The important point is
not to rely on the technology, or rule book to substitute for thought.