Gliding risk.... [Archive]

Ramy[_2_]

October 31st 19, 07:32 AM

This article is the most realistic yet somber risk analysis Iâ€™ve encountered so far. And those who believe that soaring is safer than motorcycling must have not been exposed to soaring long enough. In fact I believe it is much more than twice as dangerous as motorcycling.
That said, I disagree with some of the conclusions. Iâ€™ve been involved enough in hang gliding and paragliding to conclude that hey are statistically safer than soaring as long as you only count fatalities. The risk of serious injury is much higher of course.
Also comparing to skydiving and base jumping is unfair since those are very short activities measured in minutes. Most jumpers will not even get close to the 1000 hours base line comparison in their life time while most soaring pilots have a good chance to get there in a decade. Number of jumps will be a better way to compare. In my opinion number of days of participating in any activity may be a better common denominator. But the overall risk per hours of flying sounds about right to me. So for an average active glider pilot who flies an average of 100 hours per year all his life (say 50 years of flying) has about 10% chance of dying flying which indeed match the reality. About 10-20% of deceased glider pilots I knew or heard about died from soaring. This is close to the risk I believe I am taking by flying often all my life.
That said, I think the age comparison is a bit overly pessimistic. Even though I fly over 300 hours per year I would like to believe that I have better chance to survive another year than a 90+ years old in general. Or maybe not?

Ramy (trying to beat the odds after 40 years and 8000 hours of soaring hang gliders and sailplanes...)

Bob Youngblood

October 31st 19, 08:19 AM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

I personally appreciate this information, having known 5 individuals that have lost their lives in gliders. Two were defined as medical casualties, heart attack or stroke in flight, both at tow release. One I define as being stupid and actually going in upside down at a high rate of speed. The other two negligent, elevator not connected and the other plane ole screwed up. Know the conditions and pay attention to detail.

[email protected]

October 31st 19, 09:09 AM

In all this discussion, there is one aspect missing: flying skills or level of practice
The stats imply a more or less linear risk. Meaning that the more you fly the higher is your risk and vice versa, simply because the more hours you do it, the more hours you are exposed to a certain threat.
But Iâ€™m convinced that the risk of a low time flying pilot is much higher than the one of a pilot that practices maybe one hundred hours of flying per year. Then, with an increasing amount of hours, the risk may rise up again because the longer exposure to threat outweights the slowly increasing practise.
In other words, I think with low hours the risk is high, with more practise the risk decreases and finally it rises again.
Of course I have no figures and data to proove that, but I think my feeling is not far off the truth.

glidergeek

October 31st 19, 09:26 AM

Here's my research. I drive alot more than I fly. I don't know 5286 glider pilots.

In 2016, 5,286 people died in motorcycle crashes, up 5.1 percent from 5,029 in 2015, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Motorcycle fatalities have increased for the second year in a row and are at the highest level since 2008, when 5,312 people died in motorcycle crashes.
Source google

[email protected][_2_]

October 31st 19, 09:49 AM

It would be interesting to know the history how the FAA came to the decision to regulate the minimum age (14) to solo gliders vs. powered aircrafts, cars, and motorcycles being at 16 or older. I am afraid if I do read the data that I will come to the fearful realization that all of you stink at being good airmen.
Here is my 320 risk list....with worst at top.

1. Motorcycles
2. Driving I-95 south anywhere south of New York.
3. Driving to/fro glider contest.
4. Eating Bubba Burgers with bacon.
5. Dumping black water without bio-hazard suit on.
6. Working off top rung of ladder.
7. Angry Mrs. R
319. Flying gliders with exceptional racing airmen.
320. Sitting on the couch waiting for death.

That ought to do it. The OP must be an insurance agent. Wait, the solicitation is coming.
This thread should be 86 for lack happy talk.

R

Ian Gallacher

October 31st 19, 02:34 PM

Dave,

I have just read you PDF 'On Safer Soaring' I found it to be a very good
read. There are plenty of observations in regards to planning and
decision points the members at my club could learn from.
I will certainly recommend it in my next CFI's news.

>http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.
pdf
>
>Be careful out there,
>Best Regards, Dave
>

Jonathan St. Cloud

October 31st 19, 02:38 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> Interesting stats. Counts of friends I've lost a few different ways:
> - driving: 0
> - motorcycle: 0
> - bicycling: 1
> - medical malpractice: 2
> - hang-gliding (where I don't know so many): a couple
> - general aviation: a few
> - gliding: 25
>
> After the first few friends I lost in gliding, I wrote this (recently reprinted in Soaring):
> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
> Be careful out there,
> Best Regards, Dave

Life is dangerous. We (community) lost a five year old riding a scooter upstairs at home, he went over banister, through the chandelier. We have lost of few others riding scooters on the boardwalk. A ninth month old was just dropped through an open window 115 feet to her death. Cherish and honor the life you have, grow, learn, experience. I have about 7,000 hours spread throughout anything that goes up including warbirds and helicopters. Never crashes an airplane, but I am still dealing with injuries suffered decades ago in an auto accident. I have not known anyone that was swatted out of the sky by the hand of fate, but I sure have witnessed a few natural selection events.

Ian Gallacher

October 31st 19, 02:39 PM

Matt Herron Jr.

October 31st 19, 03:56 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

The numbers sound plausible to me. If I take them at face value, I need to personalize them to make any assessment of risk. What I care about is what are the chances of me dying in the next year of doing these things.

For driving, I drive about 10,000 miles/yr. Assuming an average speed of 40mph, that's 250 hrs/yr. So my risk of dying next year behind the wheel is 0.01%

For soaring I fly about 40 hrs/yr. That means my chance of dying behind the stick next year is 0.08%

For down hill mountain biking, I ride maybe 400 miles/yr @ 15mph. That's 27 hrs/yr and makes my chances of dying behind the handle bars 0.08%

Now, for risky activities I try to mitigate the risks as best I can. I will assume I have average skill at all the above activities, but I can still reduce risk through technology. I drive a larger SUV, with lots of air bags, a crumple zone, and I wear a seatbelt. I fly a glider with a safety cockpit, FLARM, ADS-b out, a Spot, an AH, and automatic hook-ups. I ride a bike with a helmet and gloves.

My conclusion is: I need to spend way more time weighing the dangers of mountain biking!!!

Matt

Dan Marotta

October 31st 19, 04:04 PM

Yes, but I LOVE to fly.Â* I never consider risks, I just keep in practice
and don't do dumb **** (any more) to mitigate those risks. Oh, and I've
been riding motorcycles for 50 years, from dirt to my present Harley.

On 10/31/2019 8:39 AM, Ian Gallacher wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I have just read you PDF 'On Safer Soaring' I found it to be a very good
> read. There are plenty of observations in regards to planning and
> decision points the members at my club could learn from.
> I will certainly recommend it in my next CFI's news.
>
>> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.
> pdf
>> Be careful out there,
>> Best Regards, Dave
>>

--
Dan, 5J

jfitch

October 31st 19, 04:10 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

There are many ways of looking at this, risk per hour is one. Another might be risk per year of participation. By the information in the post, my risk of dying in a glider is 2% in the next 1000 hours of participation. If I fly 100 hours in a year which might be a typical average, my chance of dying next year in a glider is 0.2%. The raw death rate in the US for my age group (55-64, also typical of glider pilots) is about 1500/100000 or 1.5% according to the latest CDC data. In other words, I am about 8 times as likely to die of something else, than in a glider.

You are also somewhat in control of that 0.2%. The majority of accidents in gliders are preventable, merely by allowing for more margin of error which will decrease your enjoyment of the sport but little. Nevertheless, sometimes pilots are "swatted out of the sky by the hand of fate", as two of my very good friends were two years ago.

Frank Whiteley

October 31st 19, 04:21 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:57:36 PM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> Interesting stats. Counts of friends I've lost a few different ways:
> - driving: 0
> - motorcycle: 0
> - bicycling: 1
> - medical malpractice: 2
> - hang-gliding (where I don't know so many): a couple
> - general aviation: a few
> - gliding: 25
>
> After the first few friends I lost in gliding, I wrote this (recently reprinted in Soaring):
> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
> Be careful out there,
> Best Regards, Dave

I personally quit riding (and racing) motorcycles in 1973 after losing three friends in one summer. The BBC had an interesting series on motorcycle racing, following eight young racers as they entered the sport. IIRC, the final episode had an epilogue that stated all eight were deceased within two years, all due to motorcycle accidents. To my mind, racing motorcycles is far more dangerous than racing gliders.

That said, the number of soaring pilots I've known that have come to grief I could count on one hand for many years. That number has jumped, but that's because I know more pilots than I did formerly. The rate has not shown much variation though. Few were racing, unless you count racing the sun or the clock.

There was an actuarial table published many years ago that listed the chance of accidental death, which was 1/1500 overall. Death in a glider was listed as 1/1800. Haven't been able to find anything similar in recent years.

So, in the years since I've quit riding/racing motorcycles, I've known only one additional fatality on a motorcycle.

Since I've been in SSA leadership and paying attention, far more glider pilots are succumbing to age and infirmities than in flight accidents. It's the company you keep.

You all fly safely and sanely now and please, only fly if you are fit to do so.

Happy landings,

Frank Whiteley

Jonathan St. Cloud

October 31st 19, 04:39 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

A GREAT Read on this subject is "Fate is the Hunter". Ernest Gann.

Patrick Grady

October 31st 19, 04:43 PM

I think it's worth adding that 80% of drivers think they are above average in skill. (https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/01/americans-willing-ride-fully-self-driving-cars/)

That same illusory superiority probably applies to gliding. Yet, crashes still happen to these "above average" pilots.

Dan Marotta

October 31st 19, 04:57 PM

So your chance of dying in a glider is only 0.2% (or 0.02, or 0.002%).Â*
That doesn't mean that it won't happen on the very next flight.Â* It does
not mean that you can make 5,000 more flights and then stop just before
you kill yourself.Â* Statistics...Â* Fly! Enjoy!

On 10/31/2019 10:10 AM, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>>
>> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
> There are many ways of looking at this, risk per hour is one. Another might be risk per year of participation. By the information in the post, my risk of dying in a glider is 2% in the next 1000 hours of participation. If I fly 100 hours in a year which might be a typical average, my chance of dying next year in a glider is 0.2%. The raw death rate in the US for my age group (55-64, also typical of glider pilots) is about 1500/100000 or 1.5% according to the latest CDC data. In other words, I am about 8 times as likely to die of something else, than in a glider.
>
> You are also somewhat in control of that 0.2%. The majority of accidents in gliders are preventable, merely by allowing for more margin of error which will decrease your enjoyment of the sport but little. Nevertheless, sometimes pilots are "swatted out of the sky by the hand of fate", as two of my very good friends were two years ago.

--
Dan, 5J

October 31st 19, 04:59 PM

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:43:15 AM UTC-7, Patrick Grady wrote:
> I think it's worth adding that 80% of drivers think they are above average in skill. (https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/01/americans-willing-ride-fully-self-driving-cars/)
>
> That same illusory superiority probably applies to gliding. Yet, crashes still happen to these "above average" pilots.

I once showed photos taken while mountain soaring in the Canadian Rockies to a guy who raced motorcycles; his reaction was that glider flying was insanely dangerous (the photos were quite dramatic). I knew otherwise, because at all times I was within safe gliding distance of landable fields. Basically, perception is not reality. The more you fly, the safer you will be (within reason), and these type of articles suggest the opposite.

Tom

Ramy[_2_]

October 31st 19, 09:42 PM

Stefan you would think, but the stats show complete opposite. The majority of casualties are high time experienced pilots, including commercial and instructors. At the same time there are more students and inexperience pilots flying than high experience.

Ramy

Bruce Hoult

October 31st 19, 11:04 PM

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> Stefan you would think, but the stats show complete opposite. The majority of casualties are high time experienced pilots, including commercial and instructors. At the same time there are more students and inexperience pilots flying than high experience.

Comparing all of gliding to just recreational/commuting motorcycling seems wrong.

Racing is more dangerous than other forms in both activities. Motorcycle racing is just insanely dangerous. Multiple people who go to the same motorcycle shop as me in Wellington NZ have died in the annual Isle of Man races *alone*. On the other hand my gliding club with 50 to 80 members hasn't had a fatal accident since I joined it in 1985. We've lost several tow pilots doing things other than towing: for example one flying passengers commercially in the Pacific Islands, and one crop dusting in Africa.

[email protected]

October 31st 19, 11:20 PM

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 7:04:46 PM UTC-4, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:43:02 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > Stefan you would think, but the stats show complete opposite. The majority of casualties are high time experienced pilots, including commercial and instructors. At the same time there are more students and inexperience pilots flying than high experience.
>
> Comparing all of gliding to just recreational/commuting motorcycling seems wrong.
>
> Racing is more dangerous than other forms in both activities. Motorcycle racing is just insanely dangerous. Multiple people who go to the same motorcycle shop as me in Wellington NZ have died in the annual Isle of Man races *alone*. On the other hand my gliding club with 50 to 80 members hasn't had a fatal accident since I joined it in 1985. We've lost several tow pilots doing things other than towing: for example one flying passengers commercially in the Pacific Islands, and one crop dusting in Africa.

The Isle of Mann TT is an outlier even among motorcycle racing.

Bob Kuykendall

October 31st 19, 11:56 PM

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:

> The Isle of Mann TT is an outlier even among motorcycle racing.

Beat me to it. In my experience, racing at a well-equipped track like Sonoma (nee Sears Point) is safer than riding on the street. Everyone is going the same direction, no car is going to try to make a U-turn right in front of you, and all of the obstructions are padded. In the four years I raced at Sears Point, we only had one fatality.

Craig Funston[_3_]

November 1st 19, 12:07 AM

2KA

November 1st 19, 12:10 AM

What Ramy says is true, in the US at least. A look at NTSB accident reports shows that experienced pilots (including commercial pilots, frequent contest participants, and the like) make up a large or even the largest share of fatalities. Fatal accidents involving very low-time pilots are quite rare..

My own interpretation of this is that complacency can be a much bigger safety problem than lack of skill.

I have more than 4000 hours flown over 48 years. I think I am smack in the middle of the most dangerous demographic.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

Martin Gregorie[_6_]

November 1st 19, 02:11 AM

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 09:39:40 -0700, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7,
> wrote:
>> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>>
>> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> A GREAT Read on this subject is "Fate is the Hunter". Ernest Gann.

+1

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

danlj

November 1st 19, 03:56 AM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:57:36 PM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> Interesting stats. Counts of friends I've lost a few different ways:
> - driving: 0
> - motorcycle: 0
> - bicycling: 1
> - medical malpractice: 2
> - hang-gliding (where I don't know so many): a couple
> - general aviation: a few
> - gliding: 25
>
> After the first few friends I lost in gliding, I wrote this (recently reprinted in Soaring):
> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
> Be careful out there,
> Best Regards, Dave

A few years ago, I sat next to Judge McWhorter during the SSA convention safety presentation, at which gliding fatalities were related to hours of exposure to risk (in flight).
Judge's career has been in coal-mining safety. Listening to the numbers, he said, "Soaring is more dangerous than coal mining."

Bruce Hoult

November 1st 19, 04:15 AM

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > The Isle of Mann TT is an outlier even among motorcycle racing.
>
> Beat me to it. In my experience, racing at a well-equipped track like Sonoma (nee Sears Point) is safer than riding on the street. Everyone is going the same direction, no car is going to try to make a U-turn right in front of you, and all of the obstructions are padded. In the four years I raced at Sears Point, we only had one fatality.

Formula 1, rated on that page as ten times more dangerous than flying gliders, was insanely dangerous in the 1960s and 1970s, but in recent times went 30 years between deaths -- and that one was due to utter stupidity, with a driver failing to observe the warning flags warning to slow down because a large tractor was retrieving a car that had (safely!) left the track and hit the barriers, running off the road in the same spot, and hitting the tractor...

[email protected]

November 1st 19, 06:39 AM

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 3:54:26 AM UTC+2, wrote:
> I quit reading when the data presented listed motorcycling safer than â€˜glidingâ€™. By 100%.
> Hmmm.....donâ€™t think so.
> R

It depends a lot on what is included in motorcycling. If you include the millions who use scooters as their daily commute in the Far East puttering along at 30km/h, then motorcycling would be considered as pretty low risk. If you consider just the people using the motorcycle as a hobby and think of superbikes racing at crazy speeds in traffic or on mountain roads, then the statistics related to risk become very different. But even considering just superbikes, I have lost more friends gliding than motorcycling.

Clinton

[email protected]

November 1st 19, 06:50 AM

> A few years ago, I sat next to Judge McWhorter during the SSA convention safety presentation, at which gliding fatalities were related to hours of exposure to risk (in flight).
> Judge's career has been in coal-mining safety. Listening to the numbers, he said, "Soaring is more dangerous than coal mining."

As somebody in the mining industry in South Africa (which has worse mining safety figures than the U.S.) - I can vouch for the fact that coal mining is pretty safe when considering the statistics.

Clinton Birch

Paul T[_4_]

November 1st 19, 07:56 AM

At 00:07 01 November 2019, Craig Funston wrote:
>On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bob
Kuykendall wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7,

>wro=
>te:
>>=20
>> > The Isle of Mann TT is an outlier even among motorcycle
racing.
>>=20
>> Beat me to it. In my experience, racing at a well-equipped track
like
>Son=
>oma (nee Sears Point) is safer than riding on the street. Everyone
is
>going=
> the same direction, no car is going to try to make a U-turn right in
>front=
> of you, and all of the obstructions are padded. In the four years I
raced
>=
>at Sears Point, we only had one fatality.
>
>Indeed. I believe Isle of Mann averages just over one fatality per
year.
>In=
>sanity.
>

All activities have a risk/reward element People who race the Isle of
Man know the risks and accept them, but for them the rewards in
participating in this activity outweigh the risks -if the risks are too
much for you don't do it ... but don't call people who do insane -
that's imposing your value judgement on to others..

[email protected]

November 1st 19, 02:04 PM

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 4:00:06 AM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
> At 00:07 01 November 2019, Craig Funston wrote:
> >On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bob
> Kuykendall wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7,
>
> >wro=
> >te:
> >>=20
> >> > The Isle of Mann TT is an outlier even among motorcycle
> racing.
> >>=20
> >> Beat me to it. In my experience, racing at a well-equipped track
> like
> >Son=
> >oma (nee Sears Point) is safer than riding on the street. Everyone
> is
> >going=
> > the same direction, no car is going to try to make a U-turn right in
> >front=
> > of you, and all of the obstructions are padded. In the four years I
> raced
> >=
> >at Sears Point, we only had one fatality.
> >
> >Indeed. I believe Isle of Mann averages just over one fatality per
> year.
> >In=
> >sanity.
> >
>
> All activities have a risk/reward element People who race the Isle of
> Man know the risks and accept them, but for them the rewards in
> participating in this activity outweigh the risks -if the risks are too
> much for you don't do it ... but don't call people who do insane -
> that's imposing your value judgement on to others..

I'm with you on that. The Isle of Man is fantastic.

Dan Marotta

November 1st 19, 04:12 PM

I'll bet those Isle of Mann racers actually DO get hot chicks and free
beer...

On 11/1/2019 1:56 AM, Paul T wrote:
> At 00:07 01 November 2019, Craig Funston wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:56:24 PM UTC-7, Bob
> Kuykendall wrote:
>>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7,
>
>> wro=
>> te:
>>> =20
>>>> The Isle of Mann TT is an outlier even among motorcycle
> racing.
>>> =20
>>> Beat me to it. In my experience, racing at a well-equipped track
> like
>> Son=
>> oma (nee Sears Point) is safer than riding on the street. Everyone
> is
>> going=
>> the same direction, no car is going to try to make a U-turn right in
>> front=
>> of you, and all of the obstructions are padded. In the four years I
> raced
>> =
>> at Sears Point, we only had one fatality.
>>
>> Indeed. I believe Isle of Mann averages just over one fatality per
> year.
>> In=
>> sanity.
>>
> All activities have a risk/reward element People who race the Isle of
> Man know the risks and accept them, but for them the rewards in
> participating in this activity outweigh the risks -if the risks are too
> much for you don't do it ... but don't call people who do insane -
> that's imposing your value judgement on to others..
>

--
Dan, 5J

Bret Hess

November 1st 19, 04:44 PM

JFitch, I'm with you. When you're older than 50, the risk of dying in gliders per year gets down into the noise compared to dying of cancer, heart disease, etc. Conclusion: soaring is appropriately an older man's sport :).

Charlie Quebec

November 1st 19, 11:12 PM

I took up gliding when I gave up motorbikes, too many near misses on bikes, no near misses so far in gliders. If I die in a glider at least it will be my fault, not some bozo in a car doing a U turn. Go figure.

John DeRosa OHM â„¦ http://aviation.derosaweb.net

November 2nd 19, 04:01 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:54:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I quit reading when the data presented listed motorcycling safer than â€˜glidingâ€™. By 100%.
> Hmmm.....donâ€™t think so.
> R

R,

About motorcycling versus gliding, and the former being safer, but does not seem to be that way. It is difficult not to quickly compare things without using apples to apples. Been there, done that.

I am no statistician but there are two things that spring to mind;

- How many motorcyclists are there versus glider pilots? Certainly many more.
- How many motorcycle trips (or miles) are taken in a year versus glider flights? Certainly many more.

So even if there are many more motorcycle fatalities than glider fatalities the number of FATALITIES PER TRIP (or MILE) are STATISTICALLY less for motorcyclists. Thus motorcycling is considered "safer". Hmmm, indeed.

How about car travel? Accidents are very common and we have all seen them and maybe even been in a few. On the other hand very, very few of us has even SEEN a glider accident or, thankfully, been in one. So it would SEEM that car travel is much more dangerous. Not so STATISTICALLY. There are immensely more car trips (or miles) than other forms of transportation (except airline per passenger mile) so car travel is STATISTICALLY safer than everything else.

But I would rather fly a glider than drive a car.

"Not a Stat Guy" John

Brian[_1_]

November 4th 19, 03:41 AM

Most good analysis try to compare activities hour for hour. So how risky is an hour of motorcycle riding vs an hour of Gliding. This is done to as much as possible eliminate the issues pointed out about the frequency of the activity or the number of people doing it.

Most of the analysis I have done and observed seem to indicate the GA Aviation over all is has about the same risk as riding a motorcycle hour per hour. Gliders seem to be a bit worse. But as with motorcycles there are riskier kinds of activities that get lumped into the over all numbers like Low thermalling, flying in bad weather, Low finishes. So even with the overall number you can individually improve your odds depending on what kinds of risks you are willing to accept.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Jonathan Foster

November 4th 19, 03:04 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

I think the reactions to this article is super interesting. I posted this to my local hang gliding/paragliding club and the reactions were super similar to what has been posted here.

If we read this and take exception with which sport is riskier, I feel we are missing the point. My guess is most of us participate in several of these "risky" activities. The real question we should be asking is, "HOW CAN I BE SAFER AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS?".

glidergeek

November 4th 19, 03:30 PM

"HOW CAN I BE SAFER AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS?" Drink less booze don't smoke pot, and stay home on the couch! I forgot look both ways before you cross the street. Anything that is affected by gravity (and some things that aren't) has risk. Like gambling, only gamble what you're willing to loose.

[email protected]

November 4th 19, 05:32 PM

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:30:24 AM UTC-8, Glidergeek wrote:
> "HOW CAN I BE SAFER AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS?" Drink less booze don't smoke pot, and stay home on the couch! I forgot look both ways before you cross the street. Anything that is affected by gravity (and some things that aren't) has risk. Like gambling, only gamble what you're willing to loose.

Mr. Foster, here I think we have exhibit A. Good luck in your soaring career GliderGeek...

[email protected]

November 4th 19, 05:33 PM

[email protected]

November 4th 19, 05:42 PM

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:30:24 AM UTC-8, Glidergeek wrote:
> "HOW CAN I BE SAFER AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS?" Drink less booze don't smoke pot, and stay home on the couch! I forgot look both ways before you cross the street. Anything that is affected by gravity (and some things that aren't) has risk. Like gambling, only gamble what you're willing to loose.

I'll instead avoid the personal attack. I did not expect the thread to so quickly and thoroughly support Mr. Foster's idea...

November 5th 19, 06:11 AM

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 9:42:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:30:24 AM UTC-8, Glidergeek wrote:
> > "HOW CAN I BE SAFER AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS?" Drink less booze don't smoke pot, and stay home on the couch! I forgot look both ways before you cross the street. Anything that is affected by gravity (and some things that aren't) has risk. Like gambling, only gamble what you're willing to loose.
>
> I'll instead avoid the personal attack. I did not expect the thread to so quickly and thoroughly support Mr. Foster's idea...

This is one of the DUMBEST threads I have followed - if you want something even MORE DANGEROUS try wing suiting in Norway!

[email protected]

November 5th 19, 03:15 PM

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 1:11:24 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 9:42:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:30:24 AM UTC-8, Glidergeek wrote:
> > > "HOW CAN I BE SAFER AND MAKE BETTER DECISIONS?" Drink less booze don't smoke pot, and stay home on the couch! I forgot look both ways before you cross the street. Anything that is affected by gravity (and some things that aren't) has risk. Like gambling, only gamble what you're willing to loose.
> >
> > I'll instead avoid the personal attack. I did not expect the thread to so quickly and thoroughly support Mr. Foster's idea...
>
> This is one of the DUMBEST threads I have followed - if you want something even MORE DANGEROUS try wing suiting in Norway!

BTDT. Makes soaring really safe, for me. lolz.

[email protected]

November 5th 19, 07:24 PM

With apologies for lack of context:
> This is one of the DUMBEST threads I have followed

Not dumb. Thought provoking. Anyone who hasn't considered the risks of soaring is in denial.

I grew up hearing my father repeat the mantra that "the most dangerous part of soaring is driving to and from the airport." He was killed in a glider crash 15 years after I soloed. Six years later, my best friend died in another crash. Iâ€™ve known 16 other casualties, plus more I never met. Last Friday, I attended the wake of #18, a good pilot about my age who was careful and controlled.

I'm SO past the "he died doing what he loved" thing. It's probably true in many cases but the pilots are still dead, leaving families and friends. And if a missing man formation makes you feel better, great, but it does nothing to bring back someone you loved or treasured as a friend.

I also knew two guys who were killed in motorcycle crashes during this time (54 years), although I have no idea how many of my friends/acquaintances ride vs. fly. I recall only one person I met who was killed in a car crash. I think comparing the risks of different activities is useful. But obviously we're not all making decisions based on minimizing risk.

There are ways to reduce the risk even in competition, which I think is probably riskier than doing rides around the gliderport. Eight of "my" 18 died at contests (44%) with another five arguably practicing for it. All were experienced, mature, high-time pilots. Medical factors may have been a factor in at least four cases but often itâ€™s tough to make that call, although sometimes weâ€™re tempted because it makes us feel better about the genuine risks we incur.

The safest thing is not flying at all. Iâ€™ve considered that. Iâ€™ve been away from soaring three times for multi-year periods (unrelated to risk) and come back every time after considering the proâ€™s and conâ€™s. I still love soaring but the risk is always there. Iâ€™ve never been cavalier about the danger but Iâ€™m probably more careful now than I was 50 years ago. I think our community addresses safety much better than in the past. But--I concede that if soaring were 100% risk free (a la Condor, which I enjoy), it wouldnâ€™t be as compelling. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing!

Chip Bearden
JB

Bob Kuykendall

November 5th 19, 09:12 PM

November 5th 19, 10:36 PM

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:24:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> With apologies for lack of context:
> > This is one of the DUMBEST threads I have followed
>
> Not dumb. Thought provoking. Anyone who hasn't considered the risks of soaring is in denial.
>
> I grew up hearing my father repeat the mantra that "the most dangerous part of soaring is driving to and from the airport." He was killed in a glider crash 15 years after I soloed. Six years later, my best friend died in another crash. Iâ€™ve known 16 other casualties, plus more I never met. Last Friday, I attended the wake of #18, a good pilot about my age who was careful and controlled.
>
> I'm SO past the "he died doing what he loved" thing. It's probably true in many cases but the pilots are still dead, leaving families and friends. And if a missing man formation makes you feel better, great, but it does nothing to bring back someone you loved or treasured as a friend.
>
> I also knew two guys who were killed in motorcycle crashes during this time (54 years), although I have no idea how many of my friends/acquaintances ride vs. fly. I recall only one person I met who was killed in a car crash.. I think comparing the risks of different activities is useful. But obviously we're not all making decisions based on minimizing risk.
>
> There are ways to reduce the risk even in competition, which I think is probably riskier than doing rides around the gliderport. Eight of "my" 18 died at contests (44%) with another five arguably practicing for it. All were experienced, mature, high-time pilots. Medical factors may have been a factor in at least four cases but often itâ€™s tough to make that call, although sometimes weâ€™re tempted because it makes us feel better about the genuine risks we incur.
>
> The safest thing is not flying at all. Iâ€™ve considered that. Iâ€™ve been away from soaring three times for multi-year periods (unrelated to risk) and come back every time after considering the proâ€™s and conâ€™s. I still love soaring but the risk is always there. Iâ€™ve never been cavalier about the danger but Iâ€™m probably more careful now than I was 50 years ago. I think our community addresses safety much better than in the past. But--I concede that if soaring were 100% risk free (a la Condor, which I enjoy), it wouldnâ€™t be as compelling. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing!
>
> Chip Bearden
> JB

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, Chip!
Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.
Does anyone have data on that?

Uli
'AS'

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 12:12 AM

> Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.
> Does anyone have data on that?
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

I don't know, Uli. IIRC, top pilot Bruno Gantenbrink of Germany was the first to publicly address the fallacy of the "most dangerous part of soaring" so I suspect the U.S. is not the only place where the data conflict with what we'd like to believe. His insightful speech, published in Aerokurier more than 25 years ago, is on the DG site and should be required reading for all of us in the sport, but especially cross-country and competition pilots.

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/safety-comes-first

More thought-provoking reading on the same subject is Aussie Bruce Taylor's account of a day at our Nationals at Nephi a few years ago. I heard this top pilot speak about it the next morning at the pilots' meeting and I wish everyone could have been there:

https://glidingaustralia.org/mag/GA32.pdf

If there are lessons to be learned from other countries, we should seek them out. Perhaps someone could look at the data.

Chip Bearden
JB

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

November 6th 19, 12:59 AM

wrote on 11/5/2019 4:12 PM:
>> Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.
>> Does anyone have data on that?
>>
>> Uli
>> 'AS'
>
> I don't know, Uli. IIRC, top pilot Bruno Gantenbrink of Germany was the first to publicly address the fallacy of the "most dangerous part of soaring" so I suspect the U.S. is not the only place where the data conflict with what we'd like to believe. His insightful speech, published in Aerokurier more than 25 years ago, is on the DG site and should be required reading for all of us in the sport, but especially cross-country and competition pilots.
>
> https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/safety-comes-first
>
> More thought-provoking reading on the same subject is Aussie Bruce Taylor's account of a day at our Nationals at Nephi a few years ago. I heard this top pilot speak about it the next morning at the pilots' meeting and I wish everyone could have been there:
>
> https://glidingaustralia.org/mag/GA32.pdf

Woof! That was hair raiser - 600 feet AGL over the far side of the moon. I don't
like to be that low when I enter the pattern.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

JS[_5_]

November 6th 19, 04:10 AM

I was in Hong Kong the day Bruce nearly landed on the moon, but got the full report when he picked me up at SLC.
We're all capable of getting in trouble, and need to be aware of that.
Jim

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:12:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> More thought-provoking reading on the same subject is Aussie Bruce Taylor's account of a day at our Nationals at Nephi a few years ago. I heard this top pilot speak about it the next morning at the pilots' meeting and I wish everyone could have been there:
>
> https://glidingaustralia.org/mag/GA32.pdf
>

Ramy[_2_]

November 6th 19, 04:56 AM

Thanks Chip for the very thoughtful, honest and well written post, as well as the link to Bruceâ€™s article. I needed to read this. Going forward I am going to try to keep track of how many holes left ahead of me in my Swiss cheese and not get too close to the last hole.

Ramy

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 6th 19, 01:32 PM

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 4:12:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.

Tango Eight

November 6th 19, 01:36 PM

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:56:36 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> Going forward I am going to try to keep track of how many holes left ahead of me in my Swiss cheese and not get too close to the last hole.

My $0.02: I think that is /exactly/ the way that experienced guys like Bruce get into trouble. What's missing from that article: a determination to have a specific landing option that one can glide to, /especially/ in tiger country. This is basic XC stuff. Risk management means breaking the chain of events that lead to an accident or scary situation early. You accept the cost of a slow climb, detour (for weather, landability, etc.) and get on with your day.

Accidents and bad scares we've had in my club have been 80% due to inadequate XC risk management. Most of that 80% consists of lower experience guys misunderstanding how the more experienced guys do this (i.e. with discipline).

T8

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 02:12 PM

Wow, 6k hour pilot flying over unlandable with a vague idea of how to get to a place to land. Then virga playing Packman with the energy source, then delayed decision making, then a really focused low save.

Kudos for telling the story.

I've flown only a few contests and also have flown that area. I've always tried to fly with at least one specific landing point in the computer telling me the arrival altitude will be above some safety altitude. Sometimes, that tether causes non-optimal flight paths from a racing perspective. Maybe the tether doesn't work because of unexpected sink or a deyhdrated pilot, but when it fails I'm at least on the way to the safety point having started with enough energy to get there in theory.

Was this 6k pilot flying without a defined tether, and is this normal for competition flying?

John Cochrane[_3_]

November 6th 19, 02:26 PM

The facts seem pretty clear

- Bad news: on a per hour basis, soaring is pretty risky

-Good news: the risks are not of the Russian-roulette type, how many barrels are loaded. The risk is primarily that you or I will do something dumb. Gliding is inherently quite safe. No engine = no engine failure, no engine fire, etc. Unforseeable mechanical failures and mid-air collisions outside of competition are really really rare. So what risks you face are entirely a question of how you approach decision-making.

- We all say we're going to make great decisions, but even the apparently safest and most careful pilots are often capable of making bad decisions.

- There is little correlation between the ability to fly fast and to fly safely. And people (like me) who talk a lot about safety on the ground are often just as prone to temptation in the air as others.

It's often expressed awkwardly. Yes, in the back row at every funeral we mutter, "well, I wouldn't do something that dumb." That keeps us going to get back in the air. Perhaps a better attitude is, I would, and probably will, unless I get really really careful and recognize my own susceptibility to temptation.

John Cochrane BB

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 02:35 PM

Very good synopsis John, Well said, thoughtful and concise enough to keep in mind while on task.

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 6th 19, 04:13 PM

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 6:12:51 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Wow, 6k hour pilot flying over unlandable with a vague idea of how to get to a place to land. Then virga playing Packman with the energy source, then delayed decision making, then a really focused low save.
>
> Kudos for telling the story.
>
> I've flown only a few contests and also have flown that area. I've always tried to fly with at least one specific landing point in the computer telling me the arrival altitude will be above some safety altitude. Sometimes, that tether causes non-optimal flight paths from a racing perspective. Maybe the tether doesn't work because of unexpected sink or a deyhdrated pilot, but when it fails I'm at least on the way to the safety point having started with enough energy to get there in theory.
>
> Was this 6k pilot flying without a defined tether, and is this normal for competition flying?

" Wow, 6k hour pilot flying over unlandable with a vague idea of how to get to a place to land. Then virga playing Packman with the energy source, then delayed decision making, then a really focused low save."

Just to be clear, that 6K pilot did that twice, back to back, double tap, two in a roll on one flight. If you haven't watched it on Seeyou or soaringlab.eu you should. Every once in a while the hand of fate finds it's toll in the air, but mostly our risks are manageable with a safe margin as long as the brain is engaged. Try getting stuck later in the day in an ice couloir raining rocks and your only option is to climb faster and hope for the best. For some the drive to the airport might be the riskiest part as there are risks you can't control. I am going to continue to operate under the guise that soaring is safe as long as I am safe. I have grounded myself more than once when I was not as flight worthy as I thought I should be. Make decisions early.

jfitch

November 6th 19, 04:21 PM

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 6:12:51 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Maybe the tether doesn't work because of unexpected sink or a deyhdrated pilot, but when it fails I'm at least on the way to the safety point having started with enough energy to get there in theory.
>

I don't believe in "unexpected sink". Sink always finds me, and it finds everyone eventually. Flying over rocks with a landing site at max L/D away (even with your safety margin set to 800 or 1000) will eventually land you in those rocks, at least out west. This is what I was talking about in leaving enough margin for error.

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 05:31 PM

I'm not sure it comes across quite so clearly in his article but Bruce Taylor was unequivocal the morning after his flight that he had made a series of bad decisions that nearly led to a serious accident. It was a complete mea culpa; there was absolutely no attempt to justify his actions, no rationalization, no spin (no pun intended), and no bits of humor thrown in to lighten the mood. That's one reason why his talk was so sobering and impactful and the reception he got during the pilots' meeting and long after was so respectful.

Clearly he's a very, very good pilot. But he owned up to his mistakes 100%. Many of us thanked him in the days afterward and more than a few of us, I suspect, encouraged him to write the article so that more pilots could learn from his experience. I can also confirm that his voice sounded very calm, though serious, when he radioed in the blind to announce his predicament that afternoon. I had just come through that area not long before and seen how difficult was the terrain. His escape from that low point under tremendous pressure is a remarkable tribute to the man but so is the way he handled himself afterward.

I don't know Bruce well at all but, yeah, I'm a fan.

Chip Bearden
JB

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 05:44 PM

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:26:36 PM UTC, John Cochrane wrote:
> The facts seem pretty clear
>
> - Bad news: on a per hour basis, soaring is pretty risky
>
> -Good news: the risks are not of the Russian-roulette type, how many barrels are loaded. The risk is primarily that you or I will do something dumb.. Gliding is inherently quite safe.

I am a pessimist and have a different personal perspective on my own gliding safety. In my view every time I take a launch in a glider it will end in my fatality unless I prevent it. (Proof - put a dummy in a glider and launch it.)

Fortunately the actions to prevent that are pretty simple and vary according to the phase of flight. 1) Make sure the glider is airworthy and think out the launch emergency plan in advance. 2) If the wing hits the ground on a winch launch release immediately. 3) If you cant keep adequate control and position on an aerotow release immediately put the stick forward and follow the emergency plan. 4) In free flight *look out* and do not hit another glider - or a mountainside. 5) Fly accurately at all times and if anything whatsoever surprising ever happens in any turn then put the stick forward to unload the wing immediately - or better still sooner than that - then think. 6) Always have an realistic plan about where to land if something goes goes wrong with the soaring (or the engine doesn't start). 7) Never find yourself "holding the nose up" when close to the ground or on an aerotow (not the same as appropriate raising the nose to slow down) because that means the stick is being held back, the angle of attack is too high and you are in risk of being an unfortunate statistic. 8) Actively monitor the airspeed and attitude during the turn to finals and give it an extra few knots.

The underlying principles are preparation, not hitting anything, constant awareness of the angle of attack relative to the stall, and situational awareness.

Yes, I have broken a glider (in an unexpectedly long grass field landing) and, yes, I am aware that I have just jinxed myself by writing this.

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 07:33 PM

â€œProof - put a dummy in a glider and launch it.â€

We see many â€œdummies being launched each week, and theyâ€™re not maniquines but real dumb flesh n blood.

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 10:35 PM

Another good article is this one by Martin Hellman:

https://ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/PASCO_2007_talk.html

In particular, I thought this quote was interesting for self assessment.

"Many years ago, I heard an expert on industrial safety give a talk in which he noted that for every fatality, there were roughly ten injury accidents; for every injury accident, there were roughly ten property damage accidents; and for every property damage accidents, there were about ten "scares" or near accidents"

[email protected]

November 6th 19, 11:34 PM

^That's the best response in this whole thread.

Ramy[_2_]

November 6th 19, 11:40 PM

I think the dilemma each cross country and contest pilot has to deal with every now and then is how much lowering the margins is acceptable. Whether we willing to admit it or not, we all lowering our margins and increasing risk every now and then to prevent a guaranteed landout. I believe this what happened to Bruce. When everything goes great and we cruise at 17K we donâ€™t need to track landout options since there are plenty in glide , even in the western deserts. As we get lower we start tracking landout options along the intended course line. As we get further lower we start picking the best landout option. The real problem start when we finding enough lift or indication of lift further ahead and need to decide between staying within safe glide of the last good option we just past in dead air and pretty much guarantee a landout and possible a long painful retrieve, or keep pushing into what we believe is better air while lowering the margin or switching over to some unknown and potential problematic fields, but under nice looking Cu/ circling birds/ gliders/dust devil etc. So while we increase the risk of damage or difficult retrieve, we reduce the chance of landout as we heading into lift. Most of the time this works but once in a while it doesnâ€™t. The hard limit in my opinion is to always have in glide at least something that looks reasonably landable and preferably in the database, while trying to never get to a situation in which a low save will not just save your flight but will also save your life. donâ€™t get into a tunnel vision where the only option you can think of is keep going into the unknown hoping youâ€™ll find something better. We actually had a webinar on this subject recently.

Ramy

[email protected]

November 7th 19, 12:06 AM

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 6:40:32 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> I think the dilemma each cross country and contest pilot has to deal with every now and then is how much lowering the margins is acceptable. Whether we willing to admit it or not, we all lowering our margins and increasing risk every now and then to prevent a guaranteed landout. I believe this what happened to Bruce. When everything goes great and we cruise at 17K we donâ€™t need to track landout options since there are plenty in glide , even in the western deserts. As we get lower we start tracking landout options along the intended course line. As we get further lower we start picking the best landout option. The real problem start when we finding enough lift or indication of lift further ahead and need to decide between staying within safe glide of the last good option we just past in dead air and pretty much guarantee a landout and possible a long painful retrieve, or keep pushing into what we believe is better air while lowering the margin or switching over to some unknown and potential problematic fields, but under nice looking Cu/ circling birds/ gliders/dust devil etc. So while we increase the risk of damage or difficult retrieve, we reduce the chance of landout as we heading into lift. Most of the time this works but once in a while it doesnâ€™t. The hard limit in my opinion is to always have in glide at least something that looks reasonably landable and preferably in the database, while trying to never get to a situation in which a low save will not just save your flight but will also save your life. donâ€™t get into a tunnel vision where the only option you can think of is keep going into the unknown hoping youâ€™ll find something better. We actually had a webinar on this subject recently.
>
> Ramy

I have observed that, over time, people dip into the margins they were taught. They become comfortable with the new lower margin.
Then they slip a bit more.
Eventually they either figure out they are going too far, somebody calls them out, or they scare themselves or even crash.
I regularly observe contest pilots flying low patterns. If I see a pilot doing this regularly, I know too low is their normal. I'll have a talk and explain what I'm seeing and why I'm concerned. Without exception they are appreciative of my taking the time to raise a warning flag. Most can later be seen to be flying more safely. Over the years, two did not take the suggestion to heart and had low pattern accidents. My success rate so far is about 90%.
I've also called pilots circling low and asked them to give up and land. I have offered to buy their next tow.
Peer pressure and constructive intervention can be a useful safety tool.
FWIW
UH

Dave Nadler

November 7th 19, 12:48 AM

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:06:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I have observed that, over time, people dip into the margins they were taught.
> They become comfortable with the new lower margin.
> Then they slip a bit more.

Yep, "normalization of deviance".
We lost a space shuttle this way.

> Eventually they either figure out they are going too far,
> somebody calls them out, or they scare themselves or even crash.

Or worse, they don't scare themselves, become "experts",
and encourage others to lower their margins. Then call them wimps
if they don't.

Thanks Hank!

[email protected]

November 7th 19, 01:33 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I quit reading when the data presented listed motorcycling safer than â€˜glidingâ€™. By 100%.
> Hmmm.....donâ€™t think so.
> R

Since 1980ies motorcycle fatalities have increased 20x!!! These and open cockpit high CG ATVs have become the redneck population control method. States still allow these Neanderthals to ride without helmets. Now motocross, an entire whole another story, few fatalities, break every long bone, but you are in control and not at the mercy of some 20/400 vision Buick/Caddy driving nonagenarian cleared by his ophthalmologist.

November 8th 19, 03:22 AM

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:24:12 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> With apologies for lack of context:
> > This is one of the DUMBEST threads I have followed
>
> Not dumb. Thought provoking. Anyone who hasn't considered the risks of soaring is in denial.
>
> I grew up hearing my father repeat the mantra that "the most dangerous part of soaring is driving to and from the airport." He was killed in a glider crash 15 years after I soloed. Six years later, my best friend died in another crash. Iâ€™ve known 16 other casualties, plus more I never met. Last Friday, I attended the wake of #18, a good pilot about my age who was careful and controlled.
>
> I'm SO past the "he died doing what he loved" thing. It's probably true in many cases but the pilots are still dead, leaving families and friends. And if a missing man formation makes you feel better, great, but it does nothing to bring back someone you loved or treasured as a friend.
>
> I also knew two guys who were killed in motorcycle crashes during this time (54 years), although I have no idea how many of my friends/acquaintances ride vs. fly. I recall only one person I met who was killed in a car crash.. I think comparing the risks of different activities is useful. But obviously we're not all making decisions based on minimizing risk.
>
> There are ways to reduce the risk even in competition, which I think is probably riskier than doing rides around the gliderport. Eight of "my" 18 died at contests (44%) with another five arguably practicing for it. All were experienced, mature, high-time pilots. Medical factors may have been a factor in at least four cases but often itâ€™s tough to make that call, although sometimes weâ€™re tempted because it makes us feel better about the genuine risks we incur.
>
> The safest thing is not flying at all. Iâ€™ve considered that. Iâ€™ve been away from soaring three times for multi-year periods (unrelated to risk) and come back every time after considering the proâ€™s and conâ€™s. I still love soaring but the risk is always there. Iâ€™ve never been cavalier about the danger but Iâ€™m probably more careful now than I was 50 years ago. I think our community addresses safety much better than in the past. But--I concede that if soaring were 100% risk free (a la Condor, which I enjoy), it wouldnâ€™t be as compelling. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing!
>
> Chip Bearden
> JB

Chip,

That would be nice if that was the intent of this thread, but it isn't. It is entirely about making you feel anxious about flying. I don't particularly care whether flying is more or less dangerous than motorcycle riding because I don't ride motorcycles. And, even if I did, how would that make me be a safer pilot? I gave up flying in site contests (OLC is different) because I was almost killed in one, and decided the benefit didn't justify the risk. Some pilots become very aggressive while flying in a contest.

Tom

[email protected]

November 8th 19, 03:58 PM

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:33:41 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I quit reading when the data presented listed motorcycling safer than â€˜glidingâ€™. By 100%.
> > Hmmm.....donâ€™t think so.
> > R
>
> Since 1980ies motorcycle fatalities have increased 20x!!! These and open cockpit high CG ATVs have become the redneck population control method. States still allow these Neanderthals to ride without helmets. Now motocross, an entire whole another story, few fatalities, break every long bone, but you are in control and not at the mercy of some 20/400 vision Buick/Caddy driving nonagenarian cleared by his ophthalmologist.

It ain't rednecks dying. The motorcycle fatality increase is from yuppies and boomers getting their first bike, a Harley of course, in middle age. Motocross kids do OK, banged up no worse than playing high school football.

[email protected]

November 8th 19, 04:21 PM

I grew up racing motocross in Michigan, no learning in an ASK21 in CAPat age 60..
But motocross has fatalities, tracks are much more technical and the the bikes are phenomenal. Speed is way up

https://thumpertalk.com/forums/topic/246342-deaths-in-motocross/

[email protected]

November 8th 19, 06:02 PM

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 10:22:48 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
>
> That would be nice if that was the intent of this thread, but it isn't. It is entirely about making you feel anxious about flying. I don't particularly care whether flying is more or less dangerous than motorcycle riding because I don't ride motorcycles. And, even if I did, how would that make me be a safer pilot? I gave up flying in site contests (OLC is different) because I was almost killed in one, and decided the benefit didn't justify the risk. Some pilots become very aggressive while flying in a contest.
>
> Tom

Tom,

I wouldn't ordinarily get involved in tussling with you on something like this but since I used one of your posts as my entree, I'll make an exception..

None of us really knows what the true intent of the thread was because we're not the original poster. But the way I read it, he had two points. First, people tend to ignore the risks of things they want to do so they won't stress about them. Second, the risks of soaring are higher than many of us want to admit.

It doesn't necessarily follow that the OP wanted us to "feel anxious about flying." That's your interpretation. I like to think he wanted us to make intelligent, reasoned choices based on the facts. This thread has helped in that regard. "Anxious" is defined as "experiencing worry, unease, or nervousness." Yup. I'm nervous at times when I fly. Sometimes I'm uneasy. I never take flying for granted. I still fly because I love it even though I know it's more risky than flying Condor or driving to the theater.

It's often easier for us to understand risk using benchmarks and comparisons. As many have said, the least risky thing is to stay home--but even that's not risk-free. Comparing the risk of soaring to other activities and to simply getting older can help us understand and weigh the risk of flying. That's useful.

I disagree that understanding the risks of soaring won't make us better pilots. Knowing I could get killed any number of ways in a glider has helped me be a safer pilot. The risks I'm willing to tolerate might be different than for other pilots and certainly non-pilots.

For example, you've chosen to restrict yourself to certain types of soaring based on your personal knowledge of the risks of contest flying. If you did fly a contest, I suspect you'd be anxious. If someone approached me about flying their first contest, I'd want them to understand the risks, which I agree are higher than just flying cross country and certainly higher than doing rides around the airport.

Chip Bearden
JB

Dan Marotta

November 8th 19, 06:52 PM

Not always Harleys.Â* I'd say crotch rockets are a bigger threat from my
observation.Â* I recall a young guy at work who told me he'd ridden his
super bike at 180 mph on I-81 south of Syracuse.Â* I wonder if he's still
alive...

On 11/8/2019 8:58 AM, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:33:41 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> I quit reading when the data presented listed motorcycling safer than â€˜glidingâ€™. By 100%.
>>> Hmmm.....donâ€™t think so.
>>> R
>> Since 1980ies motorcycle fatalities have increased 20x!!! These and open cockpit high CG ATVs have become the redneck population control method. States still allow these Neanderthals to ride without helmets. Now motocross, an entire whole another story, few fatalities, break every long bone, but you are in control and not at the mercy of some 20/400 vision Buick/Caddy driving nonagenarian cleared by his ophthalmologist.
> It ain't rednecks dying. The motorcycle fatality increase is from yuppies and boomers getting their first bike, a Harley of course, in middle age. Motocross kids do OK, banged up no worse than playing high school football.

--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

November 8th 19, 10:18 PM

Chip
I heard a really useful axiom awhile back. It was in an interview of one of the founding engineers of the X-plane/X15 program. When questioned about the differences between the approach they took during those heated-space/aviation race days of the cold war and the more cerebral go slow pace of later test flying. This guy called what they did earlier as â€œEducated Courageâ€, meaning, yes they were involved in risky business but they entered those risks thoughtfully with preparation and built in contingencies.

It does take a level of courage needed in the pursuit of certain goals, in our case that being xc or contest flying. Without courage and just operating from â€œthoughtfulnessâ€ and a guy could consider venturing off anywhere beyond gliding distance of home as foolhardy. Or flying in a gaggle with 10 other guys all flying within a few hundred feet of each other sounds like a recipe for trouble. But when thoughtful preparation, common sense precautions and contingencies are joined up with a measure of courage, great things, enjoyment, and accomplishment can result.

I have gone thru my big dollar high performance phase of soaring, but have jumped into a different pond of challenge, namely, trying to do great things in low performance machines. In order to do this, I have to ask things of my bird and my own abilities way beyond the norm, not having the L/D to get me free of trouble areas etc. As a result, it takes gobbs of courage, just ask Daniel Sazhin or Ron Schwartz who ran the ridges in their
1-26â€™s to put up some of the first few 1000k 1-26 flights. Without courage they could never have even gotten started.
But given the need for courage, what comes along with it is the need for a whole bunch of Thoughtfulness. Read study, knowledge gained from numerous failed attempts, having well defined and adhered-to personal minimums. I spend way more energy and flight time working on the skills needed to safely stretch into this challenging low performance flying than I do one the record attempts. In my case it involves lots and lots of low level and weak wx flying, and very short small off field landing simulation. This is all done to perfect and sharpen my skills, skills that are essential for reaching my goals. In three years of pursuing low performance records, I have made over 20 off field landings. Not airports or grass strips, but actual farm fields, roads, unoccupied parking lots etc. Have I learned things? Absolutely. Was I ever scared, absolutely not. Concerned? Yes, but never fearing for life or limb. In it all I have not hurt my bird in any way, a few scraps on the fusalage bottom is all.

Put the package together and you can have success without falling either into the â€œchicken littleâ€ syndrome or the other end of the spectrum, namely foolhardy confidence.

FWIW
Dan

November 8th 19, 10:40 PM

Tom,
You certainly gave me a big scare during a contest, when you flew
your DG-400 across the nose of the Pawnee that I was using to tow a
Ventus

BobW

November 9th 19, 12:00 AM

On 11/8/2019 3:18 PM, wrote:
> ...I heard a really useful axiom awhile back. It was in an interview of
> one of the founding engineers of the X-plane/X15 program. When questioned
> about the differences between the approach they took during those
> heated-space/aviation race days of the cold war and the more cerebral go
> slow pace of later test flying. This guy called what they did earlier as
> â€œEducated Courageâ€, meaning, yes they were involved in risky business but
> they entered those risks thoughtfully with preparation and built in
> contingencies.
>
> It does take a level of courage needed in the pursuit of certain goals, in
> our case that being xc or contest flying. Without courage and just
> operating from â€œthoughtfulnessâ€ and a guy could consider venturing off
> anywhere beyond gliding distance of home as foolhardy. Or flying in a
> gaggle with 10 other guys all flying within a few hundred feet of each
> other sounds like a recipe for trouble. But when thoughtful preparation,
> common sense precautions and contingencies are joined up with a measure of
> courage, great things, enjoyment, and accomplishment can result.
>
> I have gone thru my big dollar high performance phase of soaring, but have
> jumped into a different pond of challenge, namely, trying to do great
> things in low performance machines. In order to do this, I have to ask
> things of my bird and my own abilities way beyond the norm, not having the
> L/D to get me free of trouble areas etc. As a result, it takes gobbs of
> courage, just ask Daniel Sazhin or Ron Schwartz who ran the ridges in
> their 1-26â€™s to put up some of the first few 1000k 1-26 flights. Without
> courage they could never have even gotten started. But given the need for
> courage, what comes along with it is the need for a whole bunch of
> Thoughtfulness. Read study, knowledge gained from numerous failed attempts,
> having well defined and adhered-to personal minimums. I spend way more
> energy and flight time working on the skills needed to safely stretch into
> this challenging low performance flying than I do one the record attempts.
> In my case it involves lots and lots of low level and weak wx flying, and
> very short small off field landing simulation. This is all done to perfect
> and sharpen my skills, skills that are essential for reaching my goals. In
> three years of pursuing low performance records, I have made over 20 off
> field landings. Not airports or grass strips, but actual farm fields,
> roads, unoccupied parking lots etc. Have I learned things? Absolutely. Was
> I ever scared, absolutely not. Concerned? Yes, but never fearing for life
> or limb. In it all I have not hurt my bird in any way, a few scraps on the
> fusalage bottom is all.
>
> Put the package together and you can have success without falling either
> into the â€œchicken littleâ€ syndrome or the other end of the spectrum, namely
> foolhardy confidence.
>
> FWIW Dan

"I'm with Dan, here" (and, e.g., his reference to Daniel Sazhin and *his*
similarly nuanced posts and "Soaring" mag articles).

Never met "FWIW Dan", but the mental (and practical/physical) approaches he
tries to convey in his posts "work for me." Like him, I've only scared myself
once while indulging in this wonderul sport - it had zero to do with an
imminent landing - though there *were* (rare, entirely self-inflicted) times
when the possibility of an imminent outlanding had all my focusable senses at
what-then-seemed-to-me highest-possible-alert. That noted, I never actually
had to make a "100%-on-my-/ship-limits" off-field landing...though that one
time I seriously thought I might have to surely burned itself into my mind.

Some posters seem eager to disagree with Dan's posted words, and there
unquestionably are certain things associated with the sport 100% of us should
*never* do. Experience an uncommanded departure from controlled flight in the
landing pattern immediately springs to mind, here.

That noted, much, if not most, of the sport screams for nuanced thought, and
not rarely, nuanced practices. Seems to me that this is what Dan is attempting
to convey in many of his posts. If his posts don't "work for you," by all
means ignore his advice. But if you're able to "get a glimmer" (relating to
what I imagine he's trying to convey), keep noodling on it. It might one day
begin to make shining sense to you...at which moment you'll have attained a
new mental height which may seriously add to your enjoyment of the sport...and
personal flight skills, too. Skilled-enjoyment is what instruction and stick
time are all about.

My .02-cents.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[email protected]

November 9th 19, 12:12 AM

â€œSkilled Enjoymentâ€ I like that one Bob, and thanks for the post. At least I know someone is tracking with what I am always trying to communicate.

One of the caviats that I probably ought to restate here is that I fly low level for a living, being a duster pilot, and engage in low level turning all day long with very heavy loads and ridiculously high wing loading. So in regards to dealing with low level soaring saves, I do have a pretty big cash of experience with the nuances of low level flying. But that being said, I still very much need to keep highly sharp in my sailplane and that takes lots of â€œdirectedâ€ practice. I never fly my 1-26 just to fly, I always have a mission in mind on every flight. Without that, a guy just ends up picking up bad habits, sloppy airmanship, and never progresses. Moffat had it right 50 years ago.
Dan

Martin Gregorie[_6_]

November 9th 19, 12:54 AM

On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:12:28 -0800, uneekcowgirl wrote:

> I never fly
> my 1-26 just to fly, I always have a mission in mind on every flight.
> Without that, a guy just ends up picking up bad habits, sloppy
> airmanship, and never progresses. Moffat had it right 50 years ago.
>
Roger that. Always have something in mind, even if its a mini-triangle:
50-100 km with the field at its centre and have that dialled into your nav
system both to check that out and to keep sharp at hitting turnpoints.

At least, thats what I do. Our field's close proximity to Class D
airspace (5500 overhead our field) and NOTAMed airspace are both good
reasons to always fly with the navsystem freshly updated. About the only
time I fly without these preparations is if its the first flight in the
season or, during winter, to stay current and knowing that even a good
winch launch is very unlikely to get me more than a 15 minute flight.

--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Bruce Hoult

November 9th 19, 03:31 PM

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 10:52:42 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Not always Harleys.Â* I'd say crotch rockets are a bigger threat from my
> observation.Â* I recall a young guy at work who told me he'd ridden his
> super bike at 180 mph on I-81 south of Syracuse.Â* I wonder if he's still
> alive...

Starting to ride motorcycles in middle age is definitely risky. So is starting to ride motorcycles on public roads at *any* age without first getting a good bit of experience off road and gaining muscle memory in how to handle skids and slides and maximum braking in questionable traction and how to fall off when it's inevitable. All of which is best done while you are young and pliable, but is in any event necessary at any age if you want to survive your first on-road "situation".

180 mph is pretty quick. I've never done that. I've driven a car and ridden a motorcycle at 160 mph on a public road. Not as a matter of habit -- just once each. There's no reason for it to be particularly risky if you pick the right place (straight bit of motorway without exits), time (4 AM midweek), and vehicle. And of course be sober. If it all goes wrong then 80 mph kills you just as dead.

[email protected]

November 10th 19, 01:51 PM

"The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise."
-Publius Tacitus, Book XV

Some things are worth doing. Soaring is one of them.

Dan Marotta

November 11th 19, 06:39 PM

:-D!!

On 11/10/2019 6:51 AM, wrote:
> "The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise."
> -Publius Tacitus, Book XV
>
> Some things are worth doing. Soaring is one of them.

--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

November 11th 19, 06:43 PM

â€œOi Vey!â€

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 19th 19, 04:24 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

Something that no one addressed is how safe aviation can be. Commercial flight operations, operate under constraints of economics and time schedules, yet the carriers have an outstanding safety record. I never feel safer than when I am flying a helicopter, they don't glide well and every part has to work. Responsibility for safety in soaring and general aviation, largely lays with the pilot and even the choices made before driving to the airport. Every once in a while the breath of a zephyr will take it's fare, but that was always destined to be. After watching many shows of "Air Disaster", "Why Planes Crash"... where the ATP pilots made basic pilotage errors, I will continue to both feel and be safe, flying a glider by merely being a current engaged pilot.

Dan Marotta

November 19th 19, 04:33 PM

On 11/19/2019 9:24 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>>
>> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
> Something that no one addressed is how safe aviation can be. Commercial flight operations, operate under constraints of economics and time schedules, yet the carriers have an outstanding safety record. I never feel safer than when I am flying a helicopter, they don't glide well and every part has to work. Responsibility for safety in soaring and general aviation, largely lays with the pilot and even the choices made before driving to the airport. Every once in a while the breath of a zephyr will take it's fare, but that was always destined to be. After watching many shows of "Air Disaster", "Why Planes Crash"... where the ATP pilots made basic pilotage errors, I will continue to both feel and be safe, flying a glider by merely being a current engaged pilot.

....And continuing to exercise good airmanship.Â* It seems to me that
most, if not all, of the fatal accidents are the result of poor
airmanship.Â* There is usually a series of poor decisions leading up to
the accident and, when the accident is survived, the pilot usually makes
excuses for what happened rather than accepting the blame for his
decisions.Â* I salute the gent who admitted to bad decisions leading to
his crash in the Nevada desert after passing many safe options.Â* There's
only so many times you can poke the bear before you get bit.Â* (Bad
grammar intended).
--
Dan, 5J

Jonathan St. Cloud

November 19th 19, 05:13 PM

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 8:33:59 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 11/19/2019 9:24 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> >>
> >> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
> > Something that no one addressed is how safe aviation can be. Commercial flight operations, operate under constraints of economics and time schedules, yet the carriers have an outstanding safety record. I never feel safer than when I am flying a helicopter, they don't glide well and every part has to work. Responsibility for safety in soaring and general aviation, largely lays with the pilot and even the choices made before driving to the airport. Every once in a while the breath of a zephyr will take it's fare, but that was always destined to be. After watching many shows of "Air Disaster", "Why Planes Crash"... where the ATP pilots made basic pilotage errors, I will continue to both feel and be safe, flying a glider by merely being a current engaged pilot.
>
>
> ...And continuing to exercise good airmanship.Â* It seems to me that
> most, if not all, of the fatal accidents are the result of poor
> airmanship.Â* There is usually a series of poor decisions leading up to
> the accident and, when the accident is survived, the pilot usually makes
> excuses for what happened rather than accepting the blame for his
> decisions.Â* I salute the gent who admitted to bad decisions leading to
> his crash in the Nevada desert after passing many safe options.Â* There's
> only so many times you can poke the bear before you get bit.Â* (Bad
> grammar intended).
> --
> Dan, 5J

In this case the bear was poked only once. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-WWdE1_RW0
Some airman can poke the bear more than once, but...

[email protected]

November 19th 19, 05:58 PM

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 11:24:11 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:49:22 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> >
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> Something that no one addressed is how safe aviation can be. Commercial flight operations, operate under constraints of economics and time schedules, yet the carriers have an outstanding safety record.

Strict procedures and limited pilot autonomy. Airline pilots flying general aviation aircraft crash at about the same rate as non-pro pilots.

[email protected]

November 19th 19, 09:46 PM

I have to retrain most airline pilots when they jump to gliders. They loose most all their stick n rudder skills. Airline guys are â€œproâ€™sâ€ but only at airline work. I have found the flying they do has very little application to soaring.

Clemens Ceipek

November 22nd 19, 03:44 AM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

In the three weeks since I completed the analysis that started this conversation, I have reviewed and interpreted over 250 glider accidents to try to find out why accidents really happen, how many of them are avoidable, and what each of us can to to prevent them. I've certainly learned some important lessons for my own flying in the process. I hope some of you will find it useful as well. Please read it with an open mind. Here's the link:

https://chessintheair.com/does-soaring-have-to-be-so-dangerous/

Tom BravoMike

November 22nd 19, 05:23 AM

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9:44:45 PM UTC-6, Clemens Ceipek wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> >
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> In the three weeks since I completed the analysis that started this conversation, I have reviewed and interpreted over 250 glider accidents to try to find out why accidents really happen, how many of them are avoidable, and what each of us can to to prevent them. I've certainly learned some important lessons for my own flying in the process. I hope some of you will find it useful as well. Please read it with an open mind. Here's the link:
>
> https://chessintheair.com/does-soaring-have-to-be-so-dangerous/

Wow, what a read! Is this some kind of a degree thesis? No kidding, I'm going to make a booklet of it for myself as a 'must read' before every new season. Thanks! One thing I would add (it is there between the lines, I believe, but could be stated more explicitly - and I was taught it in the soaring ground school): most accidents are a result not of a single event/decision/circumstance/situation but rather of a chain of them; that chain has to be broken as soon as possible, or the options will be fewer and fewer, down to none.

November 22nd 19, 07:16 AM

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 7:44:45 PM UTC-8, Clemens Ceipek wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> >
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> In the three weeks since I completed the analysis that started this conversation, I have reviewed and interpreted over 250 glider accidents to try to find out why accidents really happen, how many of them are avoidable, and what each of us can to to prevent them. I've certainly learned some important lessons for my own flying in the process. I hope some of you will find it useful as well. Please read it with an open mind. Here's the link:
>
> https://chessintheair.com/does-soaring-have-to-be-so-dangerous/

Kudos for doing the best glider accident analysis that I have ever seen - and that includes the efforts by the Soaring Safety Foundation. Looking critically at the causes of accidents is vital to improving our safety record. I, personally, have been vilified here when I bring up safety issues. This reveals a mentality that is antagonistic, or at least ambivalent, towards safety issues.

Tom

Dave Nadler

November 22nd 19, 03:05 PM

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 10:44:45 PM UTC-5, Clemens Ceipek wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
> https://chessintheair.com/does-soaring-have-to-be-so-dangerous/

Thanks Clemens, a great piece of work.
Probably you've seen this already, but another important factor
is herd mentality, following another pilot, and not just in contests.
Some examples:
http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

Thanks again,
Best Regards, Dave

BobW

November 22nd 19, 04:20 PM

On 11/21/2019 8:44 PM, Clemens Ceipek wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6,
> wrote:
>> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>>
>> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> In the three weeks since I completed the analysis that started this
> conversation, I have reviewed and interpreted over 250 glider accidents to
> try to find out why accidents really happen, how many of them are
> avoidable, and what each of us can to to prevent them. I've certainly
> learned some important lessons for my own flying in the process. I hope
> some of you will find it useful as well. Please read it with an open mind.
> Here's the link:
>
> https://chessintheair.com/does-soaring-have-to-be-so-dangerous/

Seriously Excellent Stuff, Clemens! Thanks for taking time to research,
analyze and share it.

My short-form assessment? How a person thinks *does* matter! :)

Bob W.

Matt Herron Jr.

November 22nd 19, 05:06 PM

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 7:44:45 PM UTC-8, Clemens th wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:49:22 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> >
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> In the three weeks since I completed the analysis that started this conversation, I have reviewed and interpreted over 250 glider accidents to try to find out why accidents really happen, how many of them are avoidable, and what each of us can to to prevent them. I've certainly learned some important lessons for my own flying in the process. I hope some of you will find it useful as well. Please read it with an open mind. Here's the link:
>
> https://chessintheair.com/does-soaring-have-to-be-so-dangerous/

Clemens,

This is such a thoughtful, thorough, and practical analysis of glider accidents. Thank you so much for taking the time to think it through, do the research, and write it up. Is there any way you could present this at the upcoming SSA convention? I would donate something towards your air fare, if that is an issue.

I would also love to have a little "reminder card" that I could consult on a regular basis, maybe tucked in the glider pocket. We tend to forget even important information like this fairly quickly.

Thanks again,

Matt

Clemens Ceipek

November 22nd 19, 05:45 PM

Dave - thank you for sharing that article. I had not seen it before. It is super insightful and remains very relevant! It is very possible that some of the pilots who crashed due to "fateful decisions /eroded margins" had been following someone else before they crashed and this just wasn't mentioned in the accident report. (I have done that a few times in multi-player races on Condor and learned that way that it's never a good idea to assume that the pilot ahead knows what they are doing. In real life I have so far resisted the temptation considering differences in experience/skill level, equipment, and risk attitude. I want to keep it that way - especially as I will be flying in my first real-life contests next year.)

Tom BravoMike - yes, I could have been more explicit in mentioning that accidents are often a the result of a chain of decisions or events. Classifying them one way or another obviously required me to pick one moment in that chain. I tried to identify the one point from where the accident became probably no longer avoidable. (e.g. consider the many cases where pilots delayed a decision to land. Many of them are officially reported as stall/spins or failure to maintain a sufficient airspeed/or ground clearance. I reported them as "delayed decision to land" because that's what set off the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the accident.) If you read Dave's article, it provides several great examples for exactly those types of situations and in most cases I found it not very difficult to identify the point after which the accident could have only been prevented by sheer luck.

Clemens

2KA

November 22nd 19, 06:23 PM

Wow, what great work. Thanks!

I understand from the article that you looked at both US and German reports for the source data. Were there any significant differences, or did the accident causes break out in similar percentages?

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

November 22nd 19, 06:32 PM

Nicely done and insightful....yes, a longish read, but I read the whole thing.
Thanks for your time.....

Only "nitpick" maybe run the text through a grammar/spell checker and repost. Some minor spacing, spelling and grammar issues.
Otherwise, the gist gets through and worth the read.

Charlie, ex-CFIG and regional/national contest pilot in the US.

Bret Hess

November 22nd 19, 06:47 PM

Clemens, can you analyze vs "under the influence of competition" factor?

Clemens Ceipek

November 22nd 19, 06:56 PM

> I understand from the article that you looked at both US and German reports for the source data. Were there any significant differences, or did the accident causes break out in similar percentages?
>
> Lynn Alley
> "2KA"

Lynn Alley - great question. Overall the results are fairly similar and for many individual causes the numbers are too small to be statistically significant. That said, the following differences stood out to me and are significant:

Germany has a higher share of accidents in standard emergency situations - this is driven mainly by a much greater use of winch launches, which are more accident prone than aero-tows because pilots must react very quickly in case of a cable break or winch slow down before they stall and spin in. (It also takes a greater number of winch launches to get into lift because you can't wait to release until you're in a thermal.) The low attainable altitude on the winch also tempts pilots to thermal too low near the airport - thus Germany has a higher share of accidents caused by "delaying to land at the airport".

The US has a higher share of "fateful decision" accidents which I believe is attributable to a larger percentage of flights occurring in unforgiving terrain (most of Germany is flat with plenty of fields - similar to the Midwest.) The US has greater numbers of accidents due to "delaying decision to land out" and "out of glide range". I also looked at the data from Austria (although they are not included in the stats) and you will also see a greater share of decision mistakes there since almost all of the soaring takes place in the mountains.

Hope this helps.
Clemens

Clemens Ceipek

November 22nd 19, 07:05 PM

>can you analyze vs "under the influence of competition" factor?

Brett - I wanted to do that as well. Unfortunately, it's not enough to know how many accidents occur in competition. To understand if competition flying is more dangerous than regular flying (and by how much), I would need to know what percentage of flights occur in competition vs. pleasure flights vs. training flights. Unfortunately, I don't think this information exists and I think a guess would be too inaccurate. If you have a good source, please let me know. Clemens

john firth

November 22nd 19, 07:49 PM

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
>
> https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/

Great piece of work which I shall read again in March!

A few comments;

"if you dread the thought of a field landing....."
then you should set up a simulation on your own field and practice till
you are confident.

No pilot should EVER be criticised for deciding on a field landing; I suppose this must happen; very immature behavior.

Duo Discus in flight wing failure.
The German report ( thanks Google) says that there was an unbonded section
on the spar some 20cm long. Surely an ultrasound scan of the spar line
would reveal this. I have no experience/ expertise in this regard.

John Firth

December 4th 19, 09:54 PM

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 11:49:15 AM UTC-8, john firth wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> >
> > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
>
> Great piece of work which I shall read again in March!
>
> A few comments;
>
> "if you dread the thought of a field landing....."
> then you should set up a simulation on your own field and practice till
> you are confident.
>
> No pilot should EVER be criticised for deciding on a field landing; I suppose this must happen; very immature behavior.
>
> Duo Discus in flight wing failure.
> The German report ( thanks Google) says that there was an unbonded section
> on the spar some 20cm long. Surely an ultrasound scan of the spar line
> would reveal this. I have no experience/ expertise in this regard.
>
> John Firth

Thanks for pointing the Duo Discus manufacturing problem. Here is a link to the BFU report:
https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2003/Report_03_3X164-0-Heppenheim-DuoDiscus.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

A couple of disturbing findings in this report:

"Manufacture of the wings was based on the knowledge of Schempp-Hirth at Kircheim which was not available as written instructions. This was true for the processes during manufacture, the specification of materical (e.g. adhesives) and the criteria for quality assurance (tolerances)."

Instead, employees from the subcontractors spent time at Kircheim to learn all of this. This system would utterly fail any quality control evaluation (e.g. CE), and is disturbing to me as a potential customer. Furthermore, this was the SECOND wing failure of an S-H product in the same year:

"The accident to the Discus CS in France revealed an even more extensive bonding defect on the wing spar."

This Discus had been in service for some time prior to the failure (900 hrs and 900 launches), so time in service is no security blanket. All Discus gliders were grounded in France after this accident:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/MTRTAwPn7qA

Yes, ultrasonic nondestructive testing can reveal such defects, but I don't know of any glider repair facilities that use them. I have designed such products in the past and have connections with a local NDT company. I will reach out to them to see how feasible such testing is. In the mean time, you can do a crude kind of NDT test by tapping on the surface above the bond with a metal object like a coin and listen to the sound produced. A defective bond will sound different than a good bond (less sharp and duller):

https://www.aviationpros.com/home/article/10389135/nondestructive-testing-of-aircraft-composites

Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.

Tom

son_of_flubber

December 5th 19, 03:53 AM

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
>
> Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.

This relevant accident happened in 2003.

Before I get my nickers in a twist, I'd like to know whether the manufacturing deficiencies have been addressed in the intervening 16 years.

December 5th 19, 04:41 AM

December 5th 19, 04:43 AM

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> >
> > Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.
>
> This relevant accident happened in 2003.
>
> Before I get my nickers in a twist, I'd like to know whether the manufacturing deficiencies have been addressed in the intervening 16 years.

Sounds like a recent story about Boeing...
https://boingboing.net/2019/12/02/razor-sharp-metal-shavings.html

"...Barnett says the 787 facility was run by a new leadership team that had been transferred in from St Louis, MO, with a background in overseeing military contracts, and that they prioritized production speed over airworthiness and safety.

He says that the culture of poor safety began in 2011 or 2012, with top management ordering employees not to document defects, but that this graduated to "ignoring safety issues and the defective parts." Barnett pursued this internally, exhausting every internal process and facing workplace retaliation before going to federal regulators like the FAA and OSHA, which resulted in even more retaliation, and, eventually, blackballing across the aviation industry."

December 5th 19, 07:00 AM

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 8:43:39 PM UTC-8, 5Z wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 7:53:57 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > >
> > > Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.
> >
> > This relevant accident happened in 2003.
> >
> > Before I get my nickers in a twist, I'd like to know whether the manufacturing deficiencies have been addressed in the intervening 16 years.
>
> Sounds like a recent story about Boeing...
> https://boingboing.net/2019/12/02/razor-sharp-metal-shavings.html
>
> "...Barnett says the 787 facility was run by a new leadership team that had been transferred in from St Louis, MO, with a background in overseeing military contracts, and that they prioritized production speed over airworthiness and safety.
>
> He says that the culture of poor safety began in 2011 or 2012, with top management ordering employees not to document defects, but that this graduated to "ignoring safety issues and the defective parts." Barnett pursued this internally, exhausting every internal process and facing workplace retaliation before going to federal regulators like the FAA and OSHA, which resulted in even more retaliation, and, eventually, blackballing across the aviation industry."

Yeah, Boeing used to be run be engineers in Seattle. That changed when they moved their headquarters to Chicago in 2001. Now, engineers became a necessary nuisance and profit became king. When they tried to farm out most subsections of the 787, with only final assembly being done in Seattle, they ran into major problems: the subs really didn't know how to make aircraft. These are the kind of blunders bean-counters make, with no sense of what made the company great. The 737 Max is just the latest, if not the worst, blunder. They didn't even designate the MCAS as flight critical, so it didn't get the attention it deserved. And then they charged extra for it to operate off of both AOA sensors that were on the plane anyhow - a colossal bean-counter screw-up: charge extra for basic safety! Heads need to roll in top management, although they will wait until after the current crisis is over.

[email protected]

December 5th 19, 01:46 PM

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 10:53:57 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 4:54:08 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> >
> > Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.
>
> This relevant accident happened in 2003.
>
> Before I get my nickers in a twist, I'd like to know whether the manufacturing deficiencies have been addressed in the intervening 16 years.

SH issued an AD on affected ships. Presumably all were inspected and repaired as needed a long time ago.
I recall that SH did take action to document the process areas that had been done only by hands on training. I don't have written info on this.
SH stepped up on this and did what I consider a good job when the issue was identified. I had an affected glider at the time and the inspection was prompt, thorough, and cost free.
UH

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 5th 19, 03:53 PM

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 11:49:15 AM UTC-8, john firth wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> > >
> > > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
> >
> > Great piece of work which I shall read again in March!
> >
> > A few comments;
> >
> > "if you dread the thought of a field landing....."
> > then you should set up a simulation on your own field and practice till
> > you are confident.
> >
> > No pilot should EVER be criticised for deciding on a field landing; I suppose this must happen; very immature behavior.
> >
> > Duo Discus in flight wing failure.
> > The German report ( thanks Google) says that there was an unbonded section
> > on the spar some 20cm long. Surely an ultrasound scan of the spar line
> > would reveal this. I have no experience/ expertise in this regard.
> >
> > John Firth
>
> Thanks for pointing the Duo Discus manufacturing problem. Here is a link to the BFU report:
> https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2003/Report_03_3X164-0-Heppenheim-DuoDiscus.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
>
> A couple of disturbing findings in this report:
>
> "Manufacture of the wings was based on the knowledge of Schempp-Hirth at Kircheim which was not available as written instructions. This was true for the processes during manufacture, the specification of materical (e.g. adhesives) and the criteria for quality assurance (tolerances)."
>
> Instead, employees from the subcontractors spent time at Kircheim to learn all of this. This system would utterly fail any quality control evaluation (e.g. CE), and is disturbing to me as a potential customer. Furthermore, this was the SECOND wing failure of an S-H product in the same year:
>
> "The accident to the Discus CS in France revealed an even more extensive bonding defect on the wing spar."
>
> This Discus had been in service for some time prior to the failure (900 hrs and 900 launches), so time in service is no security blanket. All Discus gliders were grounded in France after this accident:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/MTRTAwPn7qA
>
> Yes, ultrasonic nondestructive testing can reveal such defects, but I don't know of any glider repair facilities that use them. I have designed such products in the past and have connections with a local NDT company. I will reach out to them to see how feasible such testing is. In the mean time, you can do a crude kind of NDT test by tapping on the surface above the bond with a metal object like a coin and listen to the sound produced. A defective bond will sound different than a good bond (less sharp and duller):
>
> https://www.aviationpros.com/home/article/10389135/nondestructive-testing-of-aircraft-composites
>
> Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.
>
> Tom

Tom did you get this NDT done to your ASH-31mi? Just curious if the Manufacturers provide this service. I couldn't even get an airbrushing.

2KA

December 5th 19, 04:14 PM

Yeah, the entire fleet was inspected and repaired as required (years ago), and SH paid for the whole thing. Gliders built at the factory in Germany were found to be affected, as well as those built at contractors.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

Dave Walsh[_2_]

December 5th 19, 07:09 PM

At 16:14 05 December 2019, 2KA wrote:
>Yeah, the entire fleet was inspected and repaired as required
(years ago),
>and SH paid for the whole thing. Gliders built at the factory
in Germany
>were found to be affected, as well as those built at
contractors.
>
>Lynn Alley
>"2KA"

You were lucky! I was in a UK owned DuoDiscus based at
Sisteron, France, a few years ago. Wing spar de-bonding was
discovered at an annual inspection even though the glider had,
in theory, been inspected previously, looking for this specific
manufacturing fault. SH DECLINED TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR;
if I recall correctly each of us in the 8 man syndicate had to
cough up about Â£700.......
Dave Walsh

Terry Slater[_2_]

December 5th 19, 09:07 PM

At 19:09 05 December 2019, Dave Walsh wrote:
>At 16:14 05 December 2019, 2KA wrote:
>>Yeah, the entire fleet was inspected and repaired as required
>(years ago),
>>and SH paid for the whole thing. Gliders built at the factory
>in Germany
>>were found to be affected, as well as those built at
>contractors.
>>
>>Lynn Alley
>>"2KA"
>
>You were lucky! I was in a UK owned DuoDiscus based at
>Sisteron, France, a few years ago. Wing spar de-bonding was
>discovered at an annual inspection even though the glider had,
>in theory, been inspected previously, looking for this specific
>manufacturing fault. SH DECLINED TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR;
>if I recall correctly each of us in the 8 man syndicate had to
>cough up about Â£700.......
>Dave Walsh
>
>I inspected this glider in compliance with the AD, and was accused of
not inspecting it correctly! It was subsequently discovered an
undocumented wing change had taken place. Not all inspectors or repair
shops are honest!

Terry Slater

December 5th 19, 10:25 PM

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 7:53:33 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 1:54:08 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
> > On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 11:49:15 AM UTC-8, john firth wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > For those who havenâ€™t seen it....
> > > >
> > > > https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/
> > >
> > > Great piece of work which I shall read again in March!
> > >
> > > A few comments;
> > >
> > > "if you dread the thought of a field landing....."
> > > then you should set up a simulation on your own field and practice till
> > > you are confident.
> > >
> > > No pilot should EVER be criticised for deciding on a field landing; I suppose this must happen; very immature behavior.
> > >
> > > Duo Discus in flight wing failure.
> > > The German report ( thanks Google) says that there was an unbonded section
> > > on the spar some 20cm long. Surely an ultrasound scan of the spar line
> > > would reveal this. I have no experience/ expertise in this regard.
> > >
> > > John Firth
> >
> > Thanks for pointing the Duo Discus manufacturing problem. Here is a link to the BFU report:
> > https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2003/Report_03_3X164-0-Heppenheim-DuoDiscus.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
> >
> > A couple of disturbing findings in this report:
> >
> > "Manufacture of the wings was based on the knowledge of Schempp-Hirth at Kircheim which was not available as written instructions. This was true for the processes during manufacture, the specification of materical (e.g. adhesives) and the criteria for quality assurance (tolerances)."
> >
> > Instead, employees from the subcontractors spent time at Kircheim to learn all of this. This system would utterly fail any quality control evaluation (e.g. CE), and is disturbing to me as a potential customer. Furthermore, this was the SECOND wing failure of an S-H product in the same year:
> >
> > "The accident to the Discus CS in France revealed an even more extensive bonding defect on the wing spar."
> >
> > This Discus had been in service for some time prior to the failure (900 hrs and 900 launches), so time in service is no security blanket. All Discus gliders were grounded in France after this accident:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.aviation.soaring/MTRTAwPn7qA
> >
> > Yes, ultrasonic nondestructive testing can reveal such defects, but I don't know of any glider repair facilities that use them. I have designed such products in the past and have connections with a local NDT company. I will reach out to them to see how feasible such testing is. In the mean time, you can do a crude kind of NDT test by tapping on the surface above the bond with a metal object like a coin and listen to the sound produced. A defective bond will sound different than a good bond (less sharp and duller):
> >
> > https://www.aviationpros.com/home/article/10389135/nondestructive-testing-of-aircraft-composites
> >
> > Before I purchased any glider manufactured by either of these subcontractors I would insist on a full-blown ultrasonic NDT test.
> >
> > Tom
>
> Tom did you get this NDT done to your ASH-31mi? Just curious if the Manufacturers provide this service. I couldn't even get an airbrushing.

No, I haven't and no they don't. The company I have ties with is local and I might interest them in a new market. I have to get to feeling better before I try.

NDT is only one way to do the inspection, although it is unquestionably the most convenient (no drilling of holes).

Tom

December 5th 19, 10:33 PM

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-8, Dave Walsh wrote:
> At 16:14 05 December 2019, 2KA wrote:
> >Yeah, the entire fleet was inspected and repaired as required
> (years ago),
> >and SH paid for the whole thing. Gliders built at the factory
> in Germany
> >were found to be affected, as well as those built at
> contractors.
> >
> >Lynn Alley
> >"2KA"
>
> You were lucky! I was in a UK owned DuoDiscus based at
> Sisteron, France, a few years ago. Wing spar de-bonding was
> discovered at an annual inspection even though the glider had,
> in theory, been inspected previously, looking for this specific
> manufacturing fault. SH DECLINED TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR;
> if I recall correctly each of us in the 8 man syndicate had to
> cough up about Â£700.......
> Dave Walsh

This is particularly disturbing, raising the question of the effectiveness of the original inspection method(s). Do the logbook(s) detail how and when this inspection was done? How did the current annual discover the de-bonding?

Tom

Terry Slater[_2_]

December 6th 19, 11:05 AM

At 22:33 05 December 2019, 2G wrote:
>On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-8, Dave Walsh wrote:
>> At 16:14 05 December 2019, 2KA wrote:
>> >Yeah, the entire fleet was inspected and repaired as required=20
>> (years ago),
>> >and SH paid for the whole thing. Gliders built at the factory=20
>> in Germany
>> >were found to be affected, as well as those built at=20
>> contractors.
>> >
>> >Lynn Alley
>> >"2KA"
>>=20
>> You were lucky! I was in a UK owned DuoDiscus based at=20
>> Sisteron, France, a few years ago. Wing spar de-bonding was=20
>> discovered at an annual inspection even though the glider had,=20
>> in theory, been inspected previously, looking for this specific=20
>> manufacturing fault. SH DECLINED TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR;=20
>> if I recall correctly each of us in the 8 man syndicate had to=20
>> cough up about =C2=A3700.......
>> Dave Walsh
>
>This is particularly disturbing, raising the question of the
effectiveness
>=
>of the original inspection method(s). Do the logbook(s) detail how and
>when=
> this inspection was done? How did the current annual discover the
>de-bondi=
>ng?
>
>Tom
>
The inspections were performed with an endoscope, and the full length of
the spar bonding was inspected visually. SH issued a very comprehensive
guide to the process.

Terry

Bob Youngblood

December 6th 19, 12:31 PM

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 2:34:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> â€œProof - put a dummy in a glider and launch it.â€
>
> We see many â€œdummies being launched each week, and theyâ€™re not maniquines but real dumb flesh n blood.

I have seen many of those in my day, go ahead and let them go! Mistakes do happen, careless assembly almost cost me my life as a very young glider pilot. Wish I would have read the book, Glider Assembly For Dummies. Bob

rudolph stutzmann

December 6th 19, 01:48 PM

Many years ago I read an old book that was a collection of self submitted/reported stories from glider pilots that had a good outcome from a potentially disaterous situation. I think it was called "Glider accidents that almost happened".
It's a short book, more of a complication of short stories, but provided experiences of others that all people can learn from.

Never Again 2

December 6th 19, 02:19 PM

At 13:48 06 December 2019, rudolph stutzmann wrote:
>Many years ago I read an old book that was a collection of self
>submitted/reported stories from glider pilots that had a good outcome
from
>a potentially disaterous situation. I think it was called "Glider
>accidents that almost happened".
>It's a short book, more of a complication of short stories, but provided
>experiences of others that all people can learn from.
>
>
It's called Soaring Accidents That Almost Happened and there happens to be
a
copy listed on ebay

December 6th 19, 09:53 PM

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:15:05 AM UTC-8, Terry Slater wrote:
> At 22:33 05 December 2019, 2G wrote:
> >On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-8, Dave Walsh wrote:
> >> At 16:14 05 December 2019, 2KA wrote:
> >> >Yeah, the entire fleet was inspected and repaired as required=20
> >> (years ago),
> >> >and SH paid for the whole thing. Gliders built at the factory=20
> >> in Germany
> >> >were found to be affected, as well as those built at=20
> >> contractors.
> >> >
> >> >Lynn Alley
> >> >"2KA"
> >>=20
> >> You were lucky! I was in a UK owned DuoDiscus based at=20
> >> Sisteron, France, a few years ago. Wing spar de-bonding was=20
> >> discovered at an annual inspection even though the glider had,=20
> >> in theory, been inspected previously, looking for this specific=20
> >> manufacturing fault. SH DECLINED TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR;=20
> >> if I recall correctly each of us in the 8 man syndicate had to=20
> >> cough up about =C2=A3700.......
> >> Dave Walsh
> >
> >This is particularly disturbing, raising the question of the
> effectiveness
> >=
> >of the original inspection method(s). Do the logbook(s) detail how and
> >when=
> > this inspection was done? How did the current annual discover the
> >de-bondi=
> >ng?
> >
> >Tom
> >
> The inspections were performed with an endoscope, and the full length of
> the spar bonding was inspected visually. SH issued a very comprehensive
> guide to the process.
>
> Terry

Yeah, I read their TN 396-08 that covered the process. This required cutting several holes in each wing for access by the endoscope. Of course, these holes had to be repaired and refinished. It would have been so much easier and cheaper to have done this inspection by ultrasonic NDT.

Tom

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

December 6th 19, 10:13 PM

2G wrote on 12/6/2019 1:53 PM:
> On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:15:05 AM UTC-8, Terry Slater wrote:
>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> The inspections were performed with an endoscope, and the full length of
>> the spar bonding was inspected visually. SH issued a very comprehensive
>> guide to the process.
>>
>> Terry
>
> Yeah, I read their TN 396-08 that covered the process. This required cutting several holes in each wing for access by the endoscope. Of course, these holes had to be repaired and refinished. It would have been so much easier and cheaper to have done this inspection by ultrasonic NDT.

If the SH wing is constructed like the ASH26E wing, there is a layer of foam
between the outer skin and inner skin that is glued (hopefully) to spar. I suspect
ultrasound would not be effective, so what would kind of NDT would be used?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

krasw

December 7th 19, 10:09 AM

Reading this forum, sounds like biggest safety risks in gliding are:

- Any glider or radio that has had an AD in it's history
- Rogue thermals
- Mysterious medical symptoms that occur only when flying

Other that that, we are pretty safe.

December 9th 19, 06:29 AM

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:13:13 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 12/6/2019 1:53 PM:
> > On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:15:05 AM UTC-8, Terry Slater wrote:
> >
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >> The inspections were performed with an endoscope, and the full length of
> >> the spar bonding was inspected visually. SH issued a very comprehensive
> >> guide to the process.
> >>
> >> Terry
> >
> > Yeah, I read their TN 396-08 that covered the process. This required cutting several holes in each wing for access by the endoscope. Of course, these holes had to be repaired and refinished. It would have been so much easier and cheaper to have done this inspection by ultrasonic NDT.
>
> If the SH wing is constructed like the ASH26E wing, there is a layer of foam
> between the outer skin and inner skin that is glued (hopefully) to spar. I suspect
> ultrasound would not be effective, so what would kind of NDT would be used?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Ultrasonic NDT with with sufficient energy to penetrate to the suspect layer.

December 9th 19, 06:30 AM

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 2:09:19 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> Reading this forum, sounds like biggest safety risks in gliding are:
>
> - Any glider or radio that has had an AD in it's history
> - Rogue thermals
> - Mysterious medical symptoms that occur only when flying
>
> Other that that, we are pretty safe.

The biggest safety risks have been, and continue to be, pilot error.

Tom

PGS

December 9th 19, 02:55 PM

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 1:29:10 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:13:13 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > 2G wrote on 12/6/2019 1:53 PM:
> > > On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:15:05 AM UTC-8, Terry Slater wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Tom
> > >>>
> > >> The inspections were performed with an endoscope, and the full length of
> > >> the spar bonding was inspected visually. SH issued a very comprehensive
> > >> guide to the process.
> > >>
> > >> Terry
> > >
> > > Yeah, I read their TN 396-08 that covered the process. This required cutting several holes in each wing for access by the endoscope. Of course, these holes had to be repaired and refinished. It would have been so much easier and cheaper to have done this inspection by ultrasonic NDT.
> >
> > If the SH wing is constructed like the ASH26E wing, there is a layer of foam
> > between the outer skin and inner skin that is glued (hopefully) to spar.. I suspect
> > ultrasound would not be effective, so what would kind of NDT would be used?
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> Ultrasonic NDT with with sufficient energy to penetrate to the suspect layer.
>
> Tom

Ultrasonic will not work through a foam layer.

Dave Walsh[_2_]

December 9th 19, 11:07 PM

>>
>>You were lucky! I was in a UK owned DuoDiscus based at
>>Sisteron, France, a few years ago. Wing spar de-bonding was
>>discovered at an annual inspection even though the glider had,
>>in theory, been inspected previously, looking for this specific
>>manufacturing fault. SH DECLINED TO PAY FOR THIS REPAIR;
>>if I recall correctly each of us in the 8 man syndicate had to
>>cough up about Â£700.......
>>Dave Walsh
>>
>>I inspected this glider in compliance with the AD, and was
accused of
>not inspecting it correctly! It was subsequently discovered an
>undocumented wing change had taken place. Not all inspectors
or repair
>shops are honest!
>Terry Slater

I never recall being told that an "undocumented wing change" had
actually taken place; all I heard was a rumour. I was told that
there was no truth in the rumour. The facts remains that SH built
this Duo wing and we, the syndicate partners at the time, ended
up paying for its repair. Who inspected what and whether it was
done competently is not relevant: our wing WAS defective, it had
defective wing spar bonding, we ended up footing the bill. A ****
poor result.
Dave Walsh
>
>

Bob T

December 10th 19, 12:10 AM

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:19 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> Reading this forum, sounds like biggest safety risks in gliding are:
>
> - Any glider or radio that has had an AD in it's history
> - Rogue thermals
> - Mysterious medical symptoms that occur only when flying
>
> Other that that, we are pretty safe.

Regarding the rogue thermal comment... they can occur. I came VERY close to becoming a statistic a few years ago while thermalling about 1500 ft. agl and wrote a feature article for SOARING MAGAZINE dealing with it. Rather than stalling an inside wing in a thermal turn (as one would expect if you happened to fly too slowly), while thermalling at about 10-15 kts above stall speed my INSIDE (lower) wing suddenly was pushed up and over, resulting in a steep dive / spiral. Subsequent research showed that some thermals can have strong down cores inside of overall lift, and if a glider happened to hit the sheer boundary, with suddenly one wing in the up air and the other in the down air, your day could quickly end.

See https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Rogue-Air-Oct2014-p20-29_Bob_Thompson.pdf

and Dr. Dan Johnson had a good one, too https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Mindset-Jan-p12-15.pdf

There are 2 books I referred to in my classes that have some pretty good info, too, although they are mostly intended for business folks:
1. Will Your Next Mistake Be Fatal? by Robert E. Mittelstaedt, Jr. for example - on page 160 - Insight #29 - Culture is powerful - what creates success may kill you. Think about this one seriously, for a long time! What you, or others, have gotten away with for a number of times can lead to complacency... and you becoming a statistic... that you couldn't tell anyone about ... from the grave. I recently attended a "celebration of life" for a friend that I suspect may have either lost his life due to his prior successes or rogue air.
2.Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph T. Hallinan

December 10th 19, 06:31 AM

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:10:16 PM UTC-8, Bob T wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:19 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> > Reading this forum, sounds like biggest safety risks in gliding are:
> >
> > - Any glider or radio that has had an AD in it's history
> > - Rogue thermals
> > - Mysterious medical symptoms that occur only when flying
> >
> > Other that that, we are pretty safe.
>
> Regarding the rogue thermal comment... they can occur. I came VERY close to becoming a statistic a few years ago while thermalling about 1500 ft. agl and wrote a feature article for SOARING MAGAZINE dealing with it. Rather than stalling an inside wing in a thermal turn (as one would expect if you happened to fly too slowly), while thermalling at about 10-15 kts above stall speed my INSIDE (lower) wing suddenly was pushed up and over, resulting in a steep dive / spiral. Subsequent research showed that some thermals can have strong down cores inside of overall lift, and if a glider happened to hit the sheer boundary, with suddenly one wing in the up air and the other in the down air, your day could quickly end.
>
> See https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Rogue-Air-Oct2014-p20-29_Bob_Thompson.pdf
>
> and Dr. Dan Johnson had a good one, too https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Mindset-Jan-p12-15.pdf
>
> There are 2 books I referred to in my classes that have some pretty good info, too, although they are mostly intended for business folks:
> 1. Will Your Next Mistake Be Fatal? by Robert E. Mittelstaedt, Jr. for example - on page 160 - Insight #29 - Culture is powerful - what creates success may kill you. Think about this one seriously, for a long time! What you, or others, have gotten away with for a number of times can lead to complacency... and you becoming a statistic... that you couldn't tell anyone about ... from the grave. I recently attended a "celebration of life" for a friend that I suspect may have either lost his life due to his prior successes or rogue air.
> 2.Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph T. Hallinan

A thermal may not be your standard British thermal, but a confluence of several, competing mini-thermals. I have seen up to six, or more, dust devils converging to make a single thermal. However, in 40 years of flying, much in the very dynamic high western desert, I have never been upset in the manner you describe. This is not to say it can't happen, but I think the typical glider accident is much more mundane and the direct result of poor airmanship.

Tom

Tango Whisky

December 10th 19, 02:03 PM

Le mardi 10 dÃ©cembre 2019 07:31:14 UTC+1, 2G a Ã©critÂ*:
> On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:10:16 PM UTC-8, Bob T wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:19 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> > > Reading this forum, sounds like biggest safety risks in gliding are:
> > >
> > > - Any glider or radio that has had an AD in it's history
> > > - Rogue thermals
> > > - Mysterious medical symptoms that occur only when flying
> > >
> > > Other that that, we are pretty safe.
> >
> > Regarding the rogue thermal comment... they can occur. I came VERY close to becoming a statistic a few years ago while thermalling about 1500 ft. agl and wrote a feature article for SOARING MAGAZINE dealing with it. Rather than stalling an inside wing in a thermal turn (as one would expect if you happened to fly too slowly), while thermalling at about 10-15 kts above stall speed my INSIDE (lower) wing suddenly was pushed up and over, resulting in a steep dive / spiral. Subsequent research showed that some thermals can have strong down cores inside of overall lift, and if a glider happened to hit the sheer boundary, with suddenly one wing in the up air and the other in the down air, your day could quickly end.
> >
> > See https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Rogue-Air-Oct2014-p20-29_Bob_Thompson.pdf
> >
> > and Dr. Dan Johnson had a good one, too https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Mindset-Jan-p12-15.pdf
> >
> > There are 2 books I referred to in my classes that have some pretty good info, too, although they are mostly intended for business folks:
> > 1. Will Your Next Mistake Be Fatal? by Robert E. Mittelstaedt, Jr. for example - on page 160 - Insight #29 - Culture is powerful - what creates success may kill you. Think about this one seriously, for a long time! What you, or others, have gotten away with for a number of times can lead to complacency... and you becoming a statistic... that you couldn't tell anyone about ... from the grave. I recently attended a "celebration of life" for a friend that I suspect may have either lost his life due to his prior successes or rogue air.
> > 2.Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph T. Hallinan
>
> A thermal may not be your standard British thermal, but a confluence of several, competing mini-thermals. I have seen up to six, or more, dust devils converging to make a single thermal. However, in 40 years of flying, much in the very dynamic high western desert, I have never been upset in the manner you describe. This is not to say it can't happen, but I think the typical glider accident is much more mundane and the direct result of poor airmanship.
>
> Tom

In 39 years of flying, I have once been upset by a thermal (entering at a speed of 130 kph, 300 m over the rocks in the central Alps, 4 m/s climb after recovery).
A second time such an upset was caused by a rotor (vertical speeds varying between -12 m/s and +12 m/s, trying to work it at 150 kph), but it didn't really come as a surprise.

[email protected]

December 10th 19, 02:38 PM

I have been literally thrown out of thermals and rolled partially inverted by rotor while flying a very light (1-26) ship multiple times in NV . As a previous poster said, not much of a surprise, i think the â€œdeath-by-unusual wx conditionâ€ scenario is somewhat overblown. If flying on an extremely gusty day or with rotor condx or in monster thermals, a guy needs to factor that into his margins. If he doesâ€™nt then heâ€™s setting himself up for an â€œunexpectedâ€ issue where in reality, it shouldâ€™nt be unexpected at all. As 2g says, its just another part of proper and proactive airmanship.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

December 10th 19, 03:30 PM

Tango Whisky wrote on 12/10/2019 6:03 AM:
> Le mardi 10 décembre 2019 07:31:14 UTC+1, 2G a écrit :
>> A thermal may not be your standard British thermal, but a confluence of
>> several, competing mini-thermals. I have seen up to six, or more, dust devils
>> converging to make a single thermal. However, in 40 years of flying, much in
>> the very dynamic high western desert, I have never been upset in the manner
>> you describe. This is not to say it can't happen, but I think the typical
>> glider accident is much more mundane and the direct result of poor
>> airmanship.
>>
>> Tom
>
> In 39 years of flying, I have once been upset by a thermal (entering at a speed
> of 130 kph, 300 m over the rocks in the central Alps, 4 m/s climb after
> recovery). A second time such an upset was caused by a rotor (vertical speeds
> varying between -12 m/s and +12 m/s, trying to work it at 150 kph), but it
> didn't really come as a surprise.

In 45 years of flying, I've never been upset by a thermal. I attribute that to
lack of exposure, as I rarely thermal below 1000' over mountains and ridges, or
below ridge top. That's where the "rogue thermals" exist, and where you are so
close to the ground that even a very capable pilot may not recover in time.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

SoaringXCellence

December 10th 19, 04:33 PM

Here's an article written by JJ Sinclair about a mountain phenomenon that is not that unusual:

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/dont-smack-the-mountain

My father's name is at the top of the list.

Mike

Dan Marotta

December 10th 19, 05:00 PM

I've been upset as described, but it was rotor, not a thermal.

There's no substitute for training...

On 12/9/2019 11:31 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 4:10:16 PM UTC-8, Bob T wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:19 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
>>> Reading this forum, sounds like biggest safety risks in gliding are:
>>>
>>> - Any glider or radio that has had an AD in it's history
>>> - Rogue thermals
>>> - Mysterious medical symptoms that occur only when flying
>>>
>>> Other that that, we are pretty safe.
>> Regarding the rogue thermal comment... they can occur. I came VERY close to becoming a statistic a few years ago while thermalling about 1500 ft. agl and wrote a feature article for SOARING MAGAZINE dealing with it. Rather than stalling an inside wing in a thermal turn (as one would expect if you happened to fly too slowly), while thermalling at about 10-15 kts above stall speed my INSIDE (lower) wing suddenly was pushed up and over, resulting in a steep dive / spiral. Subsequent research showed that some thermals can have strong down cores inside of overall lift, and if a glider happened to hit the sheer boundary, with suddenly one wing in the up air and the other in the down air, your day could quickly end.
>>
>> See https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Rogue-Air-Oct2014-p20-29_Bob_Thompson.pdf
>>
>> and Dr. Dan Johnson had a good one, too https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2013-01-Mindset-Jan-p12-15.pdf
>>
>> There are 2 books I referred to in my classes that have some pretty good info, too, although they are mostly intended for business folks:
>> 1. Will Your Next Mistake Be Fatal? by Robert E. Mittelstaedt, Jr. for example - on page 160 - Insight #29 - Culture is powerful - what creates success may kill you. Think about this one seriously, for a long time! What you, or others, have gotten away with for a number of times can lead to complacency... and you becoming a statistic... that you couldn't tell anyone about ... from the grave. I recently attended a "celebration of life" for a friend that I suspect may have either lost his life due to his prior successes or rogue air.
>> 2.Why We Make Mistakes by Joseph T. Hallinan
> A thermal may not be your standard British thermal, but a confluence of several, competing mini-thermals. I have seen up to six, or more, dust devils converging to make a single thermal. However, in 40 years of flying, much in the very dynamic high western desert, I have never been upset in the manner you describe. This is not to say it can't happen, but I think the typical glider accident is much more mundane and the direct result of poor airmanship.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

Jonathan St. Cloud

December 10th 19, 05:15 PM

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 10:31:14 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:

> A thermal may not be your standard British thermal, but a confluence of several, competing mini-thermals. I have seen up to six, or more, dust devils converging to make a single thermal. However, in 40 years of flying, much in the very dynamic high western desert, I have never been upset in the manner you describe. This is not to say it can't happen, but I think the typical glider accident is much more mundane and the direct result of poor airmanship.
>
> Tom

We'll make sure that gets printed on your tombstone. Back when I was a young pilot and working toward my multi-engine instrument I read a story in NTSD briefs or reports or one of the bi-weekly pamphlets publications I was reading about fly/IFR, regarding a 7,000 hour ATP that stalled a Beech Baron on short final. I thought how could you be so dumb. That evening I was doing a night instrument training flight in a rent-a-wreck piper Semihole. This particular evening the buzzing in the headsets had been louder than normal. This was my first night flight after the airport installed a displaced threshold. While on long final, I thought I heard tower clear an aircraft to taxi onto the active runway and hold. I was gentling pulling myself up, by the yoke, to look over the cowling. The stall horn went off and to me it was lost in the background buzzzing noise in the electrical system. The instructor put his palm on the yoke and pushed it forward enough for the horn to stop. I was still concentrated on looking over cowling pull myself up by the yoke, the horn went off for a second time and the instructor said" I got it. " It was not until then I understood what I had been doing and what I had been ignoring. I never again thought I was beyond making a mistake! I try to stay very alert, I keep learning and I keep flying. Could I make an airmanship mistake, you bet I could. Because I know I can screw up, I keep up with training, flying, Condor, reading about flying, and staying fit to fly. When The above don't come together I am fast to ground myself. I think only a foolish pilot would think they can't make a mistake.

Stay safe out there,
Jon

Ramy[_2_]

December 10th 19, 06:27 PM

As Jonathan said. You will never hear me say that the typical glider accident is direct result of poor airmanship. Sure some of them were, but many arenâ€™t. We are human and human make fatal mistakes, including, and perhaps especially, the best pilots. This is the ultimate price some of us pay for the thrill that soaring gives us. Life is either an adventure or not at all, just a bunch of birthdays strung together.
I am ok if this will be written on my tombstone.

Ramy

Dan Marotta

December 10th 19, 11:48 PM

I went to the dictionary and looked up "****ing contest".Â* There was a
link to this thread.

On 12/10/2019 11:27 AM, Ramy wrote:
> As Jonathan said. You will never hear me say that the typical glider accident is direct result of poor airmanship. Sure some of them were, but many arenâ€™t. We are human and human make fatal mistakes, including, and perhaps especially, the best pilots. This is the ultimate price some of us pay for the thrill that soaring gives us. Life is either an adventure or not at all, just a bunch of birthdays strung together.
> I am ok if this will be written on my tombstone.
>
> Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

December 11th 19, 04:29 AM

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 3:48:08 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I went to the dictionary and looked up "****ing contest".Â* There was a
> link to this thread.
>
> On 12/10/2019 11:27 AM, Ramy wrote:
> > As Jonathan said. You will never hear me say that the typical glider accident is direct result of poor airmanship. Sure some of them were, but many arenâ€™t. We are human and human make fatal mistakes, including, and perhaps especially, the best pilots. This is the ultimate price some of us pay for the thrill that soaring gives us. Life is either an adventure or not at all, just a bunch of birthdays strung together.
> > I am ok if this will be written on my tombstone.
> >
> > Ramy
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Ha! I think that link is actually to the "15 Hour Wonders" thread.
This one is listed under the Circular Reasoning entry in wikipedia. It goes something like this:
All aspects of flying, with perhaps the exception of an elevator connected improperly at the factory, are within the definition of airmanship. Crashes happen. Therefore crashes happen because of poor airmanship.

December 11th 19, 05:43 AM

On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 8:29:47 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2019 at 3:48:08 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > I went to the dictionary and looked up "****ing contest".Â* There was a
> > link to this thread.
> >
> > On 12/10/2019 11:27 AM, Ramy wrote:
> > > As Jonathan said. You will never hear me say that the typical glider accident is direct result of poor airmanship. Sure some of them were, but many arenâ€™t. We are human and human make fatal mistakes, including, and perhaps especially, the best pilots. This is the ultimate price some of us pay for the thrill that soaring gives us. Life is either an adventure or not at all, just a bunch of birthdays strung together.
> > > I am ok if this will be written on my tombstone.
> > >
> > > Ramy
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
> Ha! I think that link is actually to the "15 Hour Wonders" thread.
> This one is listed under the Circular Reasoning entry in wikipedia. It goes something like this:
> All aspects of flying, with perhaps the exception of an elevator connected improperly at the factory, are within the definition of airmanship. Crashes happen. Therefore crashes happen because of poor airmanship.

You need to go to NTSB/Aviation and read the actual accident reports. Get back to me after you've gone thru a few years of them.

Tom