New news Soaring is dangerous ?

[R Barry]

As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
Soaring?

[nafod40]

R Barry wrote:
> As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
> building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
> second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
> www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
> My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
> accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
> Soaring?

You read more into it than is there. He says you need to be "totally
focused on being a disciplined practitioner of safe soaring" to do it
safely, and that he now wants to get back into powered flight, so he
won't be able to be totally focused. So he sells the plane. Makes sense
to me.

He didn't say an RV-8 is more/less safe.

[Mark Zivley]

I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture #7 without a
visible wing stand. Perhaps it was a "balance, then run" shot...

Could also be that he used some of the same technology used to create
the moon landing on a large sound stage too.... :-)

R Barry wrote:
> As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
> building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
> second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
> www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
> My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
> accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
> Soaring?

[tango4]

Not news! Soaring IS dangerous. The bad news is that it seems to be becoming
more so as time passes. If you believe anything else you need your head
read. I understand that there have been 5 fatalities in the Alps in the past
two months alone.

Ian

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, R Barry wrote:

> My question is if soaring is so dangerous why
> when you go to the NTSB accident pages are
> their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
> Soaring?

I happen to agree with this guy: I believe that there
are generally more opportunities to get injured, dismembered,
or outright killed in soaring than in the equivalent
time spent flying powered airplanes. I further believe
that it is likely a testament to the skill and dedication
of the average sailplane pilot that there are fewer
soaring fatalities than RV fatalities, if indeed that
is the case.

I've known more than a few pilots who continued soaring
past the age at which they no longer had the stamina
nor facility of tactics and strategy that it takes
to do it safely. I also know several who wisely scale
their soaring activity to the scope of their mental
and physical resources, and a few who have quit outright
on that account. And they may have quit, but they did
it while they were ahead.

Getting sort of off-topic, here is the text of an essay
on soaring safety that I started earlier this season,
but never polished off. Maybe it's worth thinking on
anyhow.

***************************************

Soaring is Dangerous

'You don't have to worry about safety. If you worry
about danger, safety will take care of itself.' - Anon

This soaring season has not been a good one for me
and my friends. There have been three accidents so
far at my home field, one of them a fatality involving
a friend. There were also two other fatalities involving
acquaintences with whom I shared a deep interest in
sailplane development. And there have also been one
or two additional fatalities involving friends of friends.

Recently, I've started to dabble in another sport,
that of rock climbing. It has given me a new perspective
on safety, one that I think might have value to the
world of soaring.

Rock climbing is dangerous. Everyone says that. Popular
imagery depicts it as an eXtreme sport practiced by
hulking youths dangling their butts over the walls
of Yosemite, with nothing between them and a 3000-foot
plummet except a scrap of shaggy rope and 30 grams
of battered aluminum. Dangerous? Sheesh, how could
it not be?

Oh, and the warning tags that go onto every piece of
climbing gear: With few exceptions, they start with
the bold disclaimer that 'Rock climbing is a dangerous
sport in which you may be seriously injured or die.'

However, popular imagery of rock climing does not depict
that rock climbers generally are aware of and acknowledge
the inherent dangers, and generally do everything practical
to stack the odds in their favor.

That shaggy-looking scrap of rope the climber is dangling
from? Under the slightly battered nylon sheath is a
springy core of incredible strength - I could hang
my family car from it. Fully loaded. It's connected
to the wall at a solid, redundant anchor consisting
of two to five attachments, any one of which will probably
absorb the impulse of a climber falling the full length
of the rope.

What I've found in rock climbing is that it seems to
be the very act of acknowledging the inherent risks
and dangers that equips climbers to address them, and
empowers them to do everything practical to mitigate
the risks and to stack the odds in their favor. I believe
that this frank acknowledgement is what makes rock
climbing a relatively safe sport, stastically speaking.


Anecdotally, among the climbers I know personally,
only about one in five knows someone who's been badly
hurt at it, and none of them has had a friend killed
at it. Contrast that with soaring, which everyone says
is basically safe, and for which I personally could
write you a list eight or a dozen names long of friends
and acquaintences lost. Lost, not only to me, but to
all their family and friends and colleagues and rivals
and employers and employees.

Soaring pilots, this is what I suggest to you:

* Acknowledge that soaring is an inherently unforgiving
endeavor that includes risks and dangers.

* Educate yourself about the risks and dangers of soaring.

* Weigh those risks and dangers against the values
and benefits of soaring flight. Weigh them against
your personal value to your family, friends, and community.
You may be one of the people to whom I am indifferent,
or with whom I disagree, or whom I might dislike. But
your family loves you and your community values you,
and they will all miss you dearly when you are gone.

If you find as I have that the balance favors a life
that includes soaring with all of its rewards _and_
perils, then soar. But do so with recognition of the
inherent dangers, and always with an eye towards doing
what you can to mitigate them.

***************************************

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
> Earlier, R Barry wrote:
>
> > My question is if soaring is so dangerous why
> > when you go to the NTSB accident pages are
> > their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
> > Soaring?
>
> I happen to agree with this guy: I believe that there
> are generally more opportunities to get injured, dismembered,
> or outright killed in soaring than in the equivalent
> time spent flying powered airplanes. I further believe
> that it is likely a testament to the skill and dedication
> of the average sailplane pilot that there are fewer
> soaring fatalities than RV fatalities, if indeed that
> is the case.
>
> I've known more than a few pilots who continued soaring
> past the age at which they no longer had the stamina
> nor facility of tactics and strategy that it takes
> to do it safely. I also know several who wisely scale
> their soaring activity to the scope of their mental
> and physical resources, and a few who have quit outright
> on that account. And they may have quit, but they did
> it while they were ahead.
>
> Getting sort of off-topic, here is the text of an essay
> on soaring safety that I started earlier this season,
> but never polished off. Maybe it's worth thinking on
> anyhow.
>
> ***************************************
>
> Soaring is Dangerous
>
> 'You don't have to worry about safety. If you worry
> about danger, safety will take care of itself.' - Anon
>
> This soaring season has not been a good one for me
> and my friends. There have been three accidents so
> far at my home field, one of them a fatality involving
> a friend. There were also two other fatalities involving
> acquaintences with whom I shared a deep interest in
> sailplane development. And there have also been one
> or two additional fatalities involving friends of friends.
>
> Recently, I've started to dabble in another sport,
> that of rock climbing. It has given me a new perspective
> on safety, one that I think might have value to the
> world of soaring.
>
> Rock climbing is dangerous. Everyone says that. Popular
> imagery depicts it as an eXtreme sport practiced by
> hulking youths dangling their butts over the walls
> of Yosemite, with nothing between them and a 3000-foot
> plummet except a scrap of shaggy rope and 30 grams
> of battered aluminum. Dangerous? Sheesh, how could
> it not be?
>
> Oh, and the warning tags that go onto every piece of
> climbing gear: With few exceptions, they start with
> the bold disclaimer that 'Rock climbing is a dangerous
> sport in which you may be seriously injured or die.'
>
> However, popular imagery of rock climing does not depict
> that rock climbers generally are aware of and acknowledge
> the inherent dangers, and generally do everything practical
> to stack the odds in their favor.
>
> That shaggy-looking scrap of rope the climber is dangling
> from? Under the slightly battered nylon sheath is a
> springy core of incredible strength - I could hang
> my family car from it. Fully loaded. It's connected
> to the wall at a solid, redundant anchor consisting
> of two to five attachments, any one of which will probably
> absorb the impulse of a climber falling the full length
> of the rope.
>
> What I've found in rock climbing is that it seems to
> be the very act of acknowledging the inherent risks
> and dangers that equips climbers to address them, and
> empowers them to do everything practical to mitigate
> the risks and to stack the odds in their favor. I believe
> that this frank acknowledgement is what makes rock
> climbing a relatively safe sport, stastically speaking.
>
>
> Anecdotally, among the climbers I know personally,
> only about one in five knows someone who's been badly
> hurt at it, and none of them has had a friend killed
> at it. Contrast that with soaring, which everyone says
> is basically safe, and for which I personally could
> write you a list eight or a dozen names long of friends
> and acquaintences lost. Lost, not only to me, but to
> all their family and friends and colleagues and rivals
> and employers and employees.
>
> Soaring pilots, this is what I suggest to you:
>
> * Acknowledge that soaring is an inherently unforgiving
> endeavor that includes risks and dangers.
>
> * Educate yourself about the risks and dangers of soaring.
>
> * Weigh those risks and dangers against the values
> and benefits of soaring flight. Weigh them against
> your personal value to your family, friends, and community.
> You may be one of the people to whom I am indifferent,
> or with whom I disagree, or whom I might dislike. But
> your family loves you and your community values you,
> and they will all miss you dearly when you are gone.
>
> If you find as I have that the balance favors a life
> that includes soaring with all of its rewards _and_
> perils, then soar. But do so with recognition of the
> inherent dangers, and always with an eye towards doing
> what you can to mitigate them.
>
> ***************************************
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
>
>
I agree, but I might sum it up another way: Soaring CAN be safe but you'd
damn well better be good at it.

The problem, I think, is that some start with the idea that 'soaring is
safe' and then, by extension, 'I don't have to work very hard at being
good - because it's safe'. These poor folks inevitably wind up as
statistics. Soaring is no safer than the participant makes it. But if the
participant decides to make it safe by acquiring the necessary skills,
cautious attitudes, and safety ethic, then it is safe.

By example, I was surprised at the reaction I got recently when I said that
to be safe on a cross country, you must always be with gliding distance of a
known-safe landing site. And that site should be reachable at half your
best glide. The reaction could be summed up as, "Then nobody would go cross
country". That startled me.

In response, I gave the example that I am now starting planning on a 1000km
straight-out flight that I hope to fly next June. I've chosen the route and
located 12 paved runways along the route that can accept the 20 meter span
of my Nimbus II. I still need to fill in some gaps with landout sites that
can be backcountry strips or farm fields. It may be necessary to drive
portions of the route by 4WD to get GPS coordinates of landable fields. I
won't fly the route until I have those gaps filled.

"Aw, that's too much work", was the response. At that point I gave up.

Bill Daniels

[Hal]

How do they get home? Too bad he was 44k short of his goal.

Mark Zivley > wrote in message >...
> I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture #7 without a
> visible wing stand. Perhaps it was a "balance, then run" shot...
>
> Could also be that he used some of the same technology used to create
> the moon landing on a large sound stage too.... :-)
>
> R Barry wrote:
> > As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
> > building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
> > second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
> > www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
> > My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
> > accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
> > Soaring?

[Andy Blackburn]

At 18:24 28 September 2004, Mark Zivley wrote:
>I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture
>#7 without a visible wing stand.

10) Touch and go - photographer has tire marks on hat
9) VERY breezy day
8) Laws of gravity temporarily suspended
7) Those CA desert thermals sure are strong
6) MSH = 0
5) Really skinny crew member hiding behind vertical
stab and pushing sideways like crazy
4) Fresh asphalt is soft and sticky
3) Helicopter with fishing line tied to tips hovering
just above top of picture
2) Photo is upside down, glider is actually hanging
from its wheel
1) Photoshop!

;-)

[Mal]

Lovley glider wish I had the cash.

[R Barry]

"tango4" > wrote in message >...
> Not news! Soaring IS dangerous. The bad news is that it seems to be becoming
> more so as time passes. If you believe anything else you need your head
> read. I understand that there have been 5 fatalities in the Alps in the past
> two months alone.
>
> Ian

Here I go again starting **** or opening a can of worms (for
discussion)? Your choice, is soaring dangerous ? Are guns dangerous
? Depends who's shooting them and what they are shooting at. Same
with cars, trucks, boats, ect guess it depends who's operating them
and how. If a person buys a glider and flies it 250 hrs in 5 years
equals 50 hours a year and averages say 6.5 hours per flight on cross
country flights out of Crystal or any other gliderport how many
flights is that per year 7-8? Is the sport dangerous or is the
indivual dangerous to himself and others. Yes a good judgement call
would be maybe I shouldn't be doing this cause I'm not going to be
very proficiant making only 7-8 flightd per year.

In the past 12 months I counted over 30 accidents involving RV's of
all types resulting in 11 fatalities in the USA. In the same period I
counted 23 accidents in gliders resulting in 7 fatalities in the USA.
NTSB accident web page was my source. I'm guessing there were more
total hours in glider operations than all RV operations in the same
period of time.

[Marc Ramsey]

R Barry wrote:
> In the past 12 months I counted over 30 accidents involving RV's of
> all types resulting in 11 fatalities in the USA. In the same period I
> counted 23 accidents in gliders resulting in 7 fatalities in the USA.
> NTSB accident web page was my source. I'm guessing there were more
> total hours in glider operations than all RV operations in the same
> period of time.

There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently flying in the
US, how many gliders are flying here?

Marc

[Ramy Yanetz]

"R Barry" > wrote in message
m...
> As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
> building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
> second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
> www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
> My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
> accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
> Soaring?

Maybe because the NTSB site doesn't list all fatal accidents? I know of 2
fatal accidents this year and one last year which were never published. Go
figure.

Ramy

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <O4l6d.38447$He1.940@attbi_s01>,
"Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> By example, I was surprised at the reaction I got recently when I said that
> to be safe on a cross country, you must always be with gliding distance of a
> known-safe landing site. And that site should be reachable at half your
> best glide. The reaction could be summed up as, "Then nobody would go cross
> country". That startled me.

Depends on where you're flying.

Here in NZ we have a variety of conditions.

At Omarama you don't even think of flying cross country unless you have
all the topdressing airstrips in your GPS (and on your map, though there
are plenty you'll never see if you try to find them using a map).

Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within glide
range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there are
a dozen others right next to it.

-- Bruce

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Mark Zivley > wrote:

> I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture #7 without a
> visible wing stand. Perhaps it was a "balance, then run" shot...

In the big shot it looks as if there might be someone sitting in it.
And the wings aren't terribly level.

Just a windy day, I guess.

-- Bruce

[Paul]

Glider just landed, photo taken using a telephoto lens from a safe distance

Paul

Mark Zivley wrote:
> I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture #7 without a
> visible wing stand. Perhaps it was a "balance, then run" shot...
>
> Could also be that he used some of the same technology used to create
> the moon landing on a large sound stage too.... :-)
>
> R Barry wrote:
>
>> As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
>> building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
>> second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
>> www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
>> My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
>> accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
>> Soaring?
>
>

[Ben Flewett]

I recently flew with a good friend of mine in his RV8.
This guy is the craziest pilot you will ever meet
(most UK pilots will know who I am talking about).

Let me be clear... This guy is the loosest pilot I
have ever met, and that is saying something. Despite
this, he gave me a pre-flight safety briefing on the
RV8.

When this guy takes the time to give you a safety briefing...
you listen.

My suggestion... if it's danger you are worried about
- DON'T SWAP YOUR GLIDER FOR AN RV8.


Cheers,

Ben.



At 06:30 29 September 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>R Barry wrote:
>> In the past 12 months I counted over 30 accidents
>>involving RV's of
>> all types resulting in 11 fatalities in the USA.
>>In the same period I
>> counted 23 accidents in gliders resulting in 7 fatalities
>>in the USA.
>> NTSB accident web page was my source. I'm guessing
>>there were more
>> total hours in glider operations than all RV operations
>>in the same
>> period of time.
>
>There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently
>flying in the
>US, how many gliders are flying here?
>
>Marc
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...

> Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
> many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
> are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
> you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within glide
> range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
> sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there are
> a dozen others right next to it.
>
> -- Bruce

That qualifies as 'known safe'.

Bill Daniels

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <FIy6d.44971$He1.4592@attbi_s01>,
"Bill Daniels" > wrote:

> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
> > many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
> > are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
> > you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within glide
> > range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
> > sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there are
> > a dozen others right next to it.
>
> That qualifies as 'known safe'.

In that case I put it to you that most if not all of the people who's
reactions surprised you probably took a different meaning from your
phrase "known safe" than you intended.

I think the above situation is good *enough*, and I expect most careful
glider pilots would too, but there is no way I'd describe it as "known
safe". It's very likely to be safe, but certainly not *known* in the
way that public airfield you've checked the NOTAMs for is "known safe".


There's a large paddock about 20 km from our glider field. It is nearly
100m wide and over 1000m long. I've landed out there several times and
in fact once a year or so our club takes students there for practising
landing over obstacles and circuits without familiar landmarks. But I
wouldn't describe even that as "known safe" unless I'd seen it
(preferably from the ground) very recently.

You could arrive at 500 or 1000 ft and find livestock on it, or very
long grass (e.g. shut up for hay), or temporary electric fences across
it.

Of course there are other good choices nearby, and you might choose to
land in the big one anyway even if there is a minor problem: certainly I
have landed at one end while cattle were grazing near the middle -- and
aerotowed out again after quietly shooing them right down to the far end
while waiting for the tow plane to arrive.

-- Bruce

[Bill Daniels]

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article <FIy6d.44971$He1.4592@attbi_s01>,
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
> > "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
> > > many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
> > > are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
> > > you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within
glide
> > > range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
> > > sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there
are
> > > a dozen others right next to it.
> >
> > That qualifies as 'known safe'.
>
> In that case I put it to you that most if not all of the people who's
> reactions surprised you probably took a different meaning from your
> phrase "known safe" than you intended.
>
> I think the above situation is good *enough*, and I expect most careful
> glider pilots would too, but there is no way I'd describe it as "known
> safe". It's very likely to be safe, but certainly not *known* in the
> way that public airfield you've checked the NOTAMs for is "known safe".
>
>
> There's a large paddock about 20 km from our glider field. It is nearly
> 100m wide and over 1000m long. I've landed out there several times and
> in fact once a year or so our club takes students there for practising
> landing over obstacles and circuits without familiar landmarks. But I
> wouldn't describe even that as "known safe" unless I'd seen it
> (preferably from the ground) very recently.
>
> You could arrive at 500 or 1000 ft and find livestock on it, or very
> long grass (e.g. shut up for hay), or temporary electric fences across
> it.
>
> Of course there are other good choices nearby, and you might choose to
> land in the big one anyway even if there is a minor problem: certainly I
> have landed at one end while cattle were grazing near the middle -- and
> aerotowed out again after quietly shooing them right down to the far end
> while waiting for the tow plane to arrive.
>
> -- Bruce

Bruce, I think you're waffling but it's a good topic. If you have a good
knowledge of the farming practices of an area, there's an excellent chance
that a good field can be found when needed. I agree that there's a non-zero
chance of picking a bad field but the odds of success are very good.

I'm fortunate to fly on the western edge of North America's Great Plains
where there's a sharp transition from extremely landable prairie to high
mountains. To the west, even the valley floors are covered with rough sage
or cactus. To the east, vast wheat fields are landable most of the year.

Even though the plains are very landable, most long flights originating here
are flown over the mountains. There, knowing where you can land is vital.
If you have a database of 'known-safe' fields in your computer and marked on
the map, a mountain flight is much more relaxing and enjoyable.

I find that airstrips marked on the official maps are often unused and
overgrown with brush making them unusable. A visit to these strips on the
ground is the only way to insure they are landable. Just assuming a strip
is usable because it is shown on an aviation chart will lead to some nasty
surprises.

Today, most clubs have web sites. I wish all of them would create a page
with information and photos of landout sites in their area. A good example
is the Albuquerque Soaring Club in New Mexico. (www.abqsoaring.org) The
ASC is the number four ranking club in the world in OLC standing. I'm sure
that knowledge of good landing sites in their area contributed to their
excellent XC record.

Bill Daniels

[Marian Aldenhövel]

Hi,

> I wish all of them would create a page with information and photos of landout
> sites in their area. A good example is the Albuquerque Soaring Club
> in New Mexico. (www.abqsoaring.org)

A nice alpine example:

http://www.schaenissoaring.ch/aussenlandefelder.cfm?SelectedMenuID=40

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"When firing areas are active all air traffic is strongly
requested to avoid them"

[Bob]

Marc Ramsey wrote in message news:<zhs6d.21113>
> There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently flying in the
> US, how many gliders are flying here?
>
> Marc

There are 3000 RV's operating in Ohio, I don't know where you got your
info but the number should be around 100,000 acording to RV World the
industry magazine.

And with these numbers gliding doesn't seem so safe (still am not
going to trade my winch launches for a fifth wheel setup)

Bob

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob wrote:
> Marc Ramsey wrote in message news:<zhs6d.21113>
>
>>There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently flying in the
>>US, how many gliders are flying here?
>>
>>Marc
>
>
> There are 3000 RV's operating in Ohio, I don't know where you got your
> info but the number should be around 100,000 acording to RV World the
> industry magazine.

Bob, take a look at www.vansaircraft.com for a different meaning of the
letters "RV". They produce about 700 kits a year, so it's unlikely there
are 100,000 of them flying!

I'm sure there are a lot more the 100,000 motorhomes and travel
trailers, also. I think there are that many sitting on the lots in our
state, waiting to be sold!


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tony Verhulst]

> Bob, take a look at www.vansaircraft.com for a different meaning of the
> letters "RV". They produce about 700 kits a year, so it's unlikely there
> are 100,000 of them flying!

Given that in his last paragraph he mentioned fifth wheels and winching
gliders in the same sentence, it's safe to assume that he was joking.

Tony V.

[Finbar]

According to Van's Aircraft,

3,862 RV aircraft have been completed and flown. By far the most
popular model has been the RV-6 model. Here's a table, by model,
showing number ever completed and flown, with accident statistics from
NTSB since 1/1/99 (the search looked for RV in the model designator
and excluded "incidents"):

Fatal accident
Model Flown Accidents Fatal Killed rate per year

RV-6/6A 1,850 68 13 21 0.15%
RV-4 1,127 31 7 11 0.14%
RV-8/8A 441 12 4 5 0.20%
RV-3 217 5 0 0 0
RV-7 114 2 1 1 0.20%
RV-9/9A 112 5 1 2 0.20%
RV-10 2 0 0 0 n/a

The RV-7, 9 and 10 are recent models.

By comparison, about 36,000 Piper Cherokee (PA-28) variants were
built. In the 1-year period up to 9/1/2003 there were 14 fatal
accidents in this fleet with 26 fatalities. This translates to a
fatal accident rate per year of just 0.04%. However, this large fleet
includes many airplanes built decades ago. It seems reasonable to
divide the "ever built" size by 2 to reflect the relatively more
recent vintage of the RVs. This still makes the Cherokee rate about
0.08%, significantly below the RV rate.

Of course, this doesn't provide the required comparison, which is to
sailplanes. Anybody got a reasonable estimate for the number of
sailplanes in existence, say, completed and flown since 1970?

[Mark James Boyd]

Speaking of RV and Van's,

I'm in contact with them regarding Sport Pilot and LSA.
It seems there is unclear information about this, and
Van's believes one must certify an aircraft as an LSA to
operate it under LSA rules.

This is not the case. An experimental airplane OR glider which
meets the LSA limitations (120 kts Vne/max level flight airspeed,
1320 lbs max gross) can be flown without a medical (in the case
of ASEL LSA, need a state driver's license). In addition, if
one already has a pilot's or CFI license, one can be signed
off by two CFIs and fly a different cat/class (such as gliders),
as of Jan 15, 2005.

Other than the 2-33, the most common (and apparently the best
performing) glider that qualifies as an LSA is the SZD 50-3
Puchacz (roughly pronounced as poo-hotch,
rhymes with watch, the first "c" is silent).

Apparently this glider is also a Utility class standard US
certificated glider, which means it can be rented out for hire,
but still meets the LSA Vne (116 kts) and Gross Max (1257 lbs)
so is legal for sport pilots to fly. This is a great opportunity
since this glider can be used for dual by a Sport CFI (who
perhaps was an ASEL CFI and then easily transitioned to
being a Sport Pilot instructor by just two signoffs, and no
FAA checkride).

How the insurers will view this is another matter, that
hasn't yet been addressed...

Anyway, the RV-11 is likely going to be a motorglider, and
I'd like to encourage RAS readers to write Van's and suggest it
be designed to meet the LSA limitations in its specs, even though
it will actually just be certified "Experimental -
Amateur Built - Glider."

I'd also like Van's to design an LSA tricycle gear version of the
RV-9, for similar reasons, but the self-launch
glider version is of course more interesting to this newsgroup...

So take a look at LSA and Sport Pilot, and then send an e-mail to Vans

asking if the RV-11 will meet LSA Vne and gross weight requirements...

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bob Kuykendall]

At 23:18 01 October 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Speaking of RV and Van's...

I chat with Dick about the RV-11 every six months or
so. The first I saw of it was during a visit to his
facility in 1997. It'll be interesting to see if it
becomes a commercial product, and how the wings of
that product might be constructed.

Here's what I think an aircraft of the RV-11's parameters
ought to look like:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/glidair/glidair_1.jpg

Not too many rivets there...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[GeorgeB]

On 1 Oct 2004 15:56:47 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>believes one must certify an aircraft as an LSA to
>operate it under LSA rules.
>
>This is not the case.

Leaving personalities out of it completely, it is obvious that is not
the case when EAA has listed certificated planes which will meet the
requirements.

>Anyway, the RV-11 is likely going to be a motorglider, and
>I'd like to encourage RAS readers to write Van's and suggest it
>be designed to meet the LSA limitations in its specs, even though
>it will actually just be certified "Experimental -
>Amateur Built - Glider."
>
>So take a look at LSA and Sport Pilot, and then send an e-mail to Vans

>asking if the RV-11 will meet LSA Vne and gross weight requirements...

As a single-place, and (obviously?) his intent that it meet the JAR22
criteria (kg/m[2]) < 3, it is hard to imagine that it won't meet GW,
but with his current Jab 2200 (80+ HP) thoughts, keeping Vh within the
specs will require "creative" specmanship. (I don't think there is a
Vne limit applies to powered planes; see the Sonex site which quotes
"3. Maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power (Vh)
of not more than 120 kts (138 mph) CAS under standard atmospheric
conditions at sea level.")

The Jab literature I've seen wants that engine to spin, although if
the pitch is flat enough to lightly (maybe 50HP?) load the engine at
2500, I'm not sure that a small carb wouldn't do it; Jab would have to
address that one.

[GeorgeB]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:22:04 -0400, GeorgeB > wrote:

AND I MESSED UP ...

>As a single-place, and (obviously?) his intent that it meet the JAR22
>criteria (kg/m[2]) < 3, it is hard to imagine that it won't meet GW,

600kg (the 1320 lb we used in the US) would work with wingspan of
14.28 meters ... 15 meters would allow 675 kg (1485 lb) so he does
have to at least consider it.

SORRY for the earlier keyboard diarrhea!

George

[Chris OCallaghan]

For those who haven't been around the sport long enough to know who
Bruno Gantenbrink is, here's a link to his article on safety. A very
worthwhile read from a man with a compelling point of view.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

"tango4" > wrote in message >...
> Not news! Soaring IS dangerous. The bad news is that it seems to be becoming
> more so as time passes. If you believe anything else you need your head
> read. I understand that there have been 5 fatalities in the Alps in the past
> two months alone.
>
> Ian

[Tom Seim]

(Finbar) wrote in message >...
> According to Van's Aircraft,
>
> 3,862 RV aircraft have been completed and flown. By far the most
> popular model has been the RV-6 model. Here's a table, by model,
> showing number ever completed and flown, with accident statistics from
> NTSB since 1/1/99 (the search looked for RV in the model designator
> and excluded "incidents"):
>
> Fatal accident
> Model Flown Accidents Fatal Killed rate per year
>
> RV-6/6A 1,850 68 13 21 0.15%
> RV-4 1,127 31 7 11 0.14%
> RV-8/8A 441 12 4 5 0.20%
> RV-3 217 5 0 0 0
> RV-7 114 2 1 1 0.20%
> RV-9/9A 112 5 1 2 0.20%
> RV-10 2 0 0 0 n/a
>
> The RV-7, 9 and 10 are recent models.
>
> By comparison, about 36,000 Piper Cherokee (PA-28) variants were
> built. In the 1-year period up to 9/1/2003 there were 14 fatal
> accidents in this fleet with 26 fatalities. This translates to a
> fatal accident rate per year of just 0.04%. However, this large fleet
> includes many airplanes built decades ago. It seems reasonable to
> divide the "ever built" size by 2 to reflect the relatively more
> recent vintage of the RVs. This still makes the Cherokee rate about
> 0.08%, significantly below the RV rate.
>
> Of course, this doesn't provide the required comparison, which is to
> sailplanes. Anybody got a reasonable estimate for the number of
> sailplanes in existence, say, completed and flown since 1970?

I have been involved in a reliability analysis at work recently (of
our super computer). There are about 2000 processors in the thing. The
numbers follow classical reliability theory fairly closely: on average
one of the processors is going fail about every 3 days. The mean time
to failure of an individual processor is 172 MONTHS. So, if I am a
processor I might be the one that fails (i.e. dies) within 3 days, or
I could last well past the 172 months. Should I be writing my will or
relaxing with a beer?

The issue becomes more complicated if you consider Bayesian
statistics. This would apply to situations such as: "What is the
probability of dieing if you fly drunk?". For "drunk" you might
substitute:
1. High performance glider
2. Low performance glider
3. Contests
4. First flight of the season
5. Fly less/more than 20 hours/year
6. Have less/more than 100 total flight hours
7. Fly in the mountains/ridges/prairies
8. Fly in wave/thermals/ridge

The moral is that statistics are meaningful for actuaries and
politicians, but aren't very useful for us pilots. OK, flying drunk is
a BAD idea! Don't do it! But what about the rest? While you can't
avoid the first flight of the season, some of the others are in your
control. Do you quit contests because of the higher risks? This must
be a personal decision.

The fatalities seem to be predominated by preventable mistakes, i.e.
stall/spin low to the ground. Don't do this, either!

Tom