FLYING magazine safety article

[Bob Korves]

In the May 2005 issue of Flying magazine (yes, I am behind in my
reading) there is an excellent article by Bruce Landsberg in the
SafetyPilot column. It is titled "Death in the Afternoon."

In the article Bruce talks about bullfighting, airshows, auto racing,
Roman gladiators, and others as examples of "sports" that offer the
hint, if not the real promise, of danger. These events are ritualized
public risk taking. Bruce also gives examples of private risk taking
like skydiving. Soaring would fit in there, too.

Some quotes:

From Nancy Lynn, airshow performer: "Danger and risk have to be taken
in the context of life. Take a risk if it enhances your life, but
have an exit strategy." and "It is inherently dangerous and the ground
is the final authority."

From the International Council of Air Shows: "Ships are safe in
harbor, but that is not what ships are built for."

From Bruce: "I understand the airshow pilot's motivation, but is has
no bearing on the risk of my next cross country trip. Like moths to
a flame, we are drawn to risk in varying degrees. It makes the beer
taste better in the evening."

I found the article quite interesting, especially for Flying magazine,
which mostly caters to people that dream of flying jets someday. By
acknowledging the reality of the human response to the thrill of risk
taking, it avoids the trap of saying "Don't do anything stupid," which
is the message of most safety talks. That message works in the
classroom, but not in the cockpit.
-Bob Korves

[Bill Hoadley]

I've heard the "risk taking" thrill discussed with respect to
several activities, and I think it really is an individual thing. I
know that I hate being scared in a glider, and I try to minimize risk
while flying, especially in the cross-country mode. We've all had
that "wake up call" type of glide, and I don't enjoy it. What I
do enjoy, however, is the decision making process and the puzzle,
trying to speculate correctly, rather than guess, and using the "sure
thing" when it is available, as Bob Wander has discussed in one of
his books. This doesn't mean I don't land out, or goof up, but I
don't intentionally take a known big risk.
I think a number of people participate in what would be called "risk
sports" in spite of the risks, not because of them. While some rock
climbers enjoy the thrill of climbing difficult routes without a rope,
others enjoy doing them safely and enjoying that puzzle and the
mountain setting. I feel the same about gliding. I try to manage the
risks, and avoid that rush of adrenalin that comes when I don't like
the position I'm in. Every once in awhile I read this little tale by
pilot/author Bob Whelan, and that helps me keep things in perspective.
Read the question about "stretching a glide" (and he is married
now, so disregard that bachelor stuff):
http://soar.boulder.co.us/ssb_kissing.htm There is another gripping
tale in the New Zealand Gliding Kiwi about Terry Delore flying over a
canyon, at dusk, trying to find a place to land. It is another good
periodic read to keep things in perspective.
Some air show pilots love the low level aerobatic routine, other
aerobatic pilots use a high hard deck and don't worry about digging a
hole. I think the same concept is at work in all of these "risk
sports".
BH

[Bob Johnson]

Bill Hoadley wrote:
> I've heard the "risk taking" thrill discussed with respect to
> several activities, and I think it really is an individual thing. I
> know that I hate being scared in a glider, and I try to minimize risk
> while flying, especially in the cross-country mode. We've all had
> that "wake up call" type of glide, and I don't enjoy it. What I
> do enjoy, however, is the decision making process and the puzzle,
> trying to speculate correctly, rather than guess, and using the "sure
> thing" when it is available, as Bob Wander has discussed in one of
> his books. This doesn't mean I don't land out, or goof up, but I
> don't intentionally take a known big risk.
> I think a number of people participate in what would be called "risk
> sports" in spite of the risks, not because of them. While some rock
> climbers enjoy the thrill of climbing difficult routes without a rope,
> others enjoy doing them safely and enjoying that puzzle and the
> mountain setting. I feel the same about gliding. I try to manage the
> risks, and avoid that rush of adrenalin that comes when I don't like
> the position I'm in. Every once in awhile I read this little tale by
> pilot/author Bob Whelan, and that helps me keep things in perspective.
> Read the question about "stretching a glide" (and he is married
> now, so disregard that bachelor stuff):
> http://soar.boulder.co.us/ssb_kissing.htm There is another gripping
> tale in the New Zealand Gliding Kiwi about Terry Delore flying over a
> canyon, at dusk, trying to find a place to land. It is another good
> periodic read to keep things in perspective.
> Some air show pilots love the low level aerobatic routine, other
> aerobatic pilots use a high hard deck and don't worry about digging a
> hole. I think the same concept is at work in all of these "risk
> sports".
> BH
>

When threads turn toward risk, I think it's always good to review
Bruno's thoughts on the subject ---

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

Bob Johnson

[Bob Korves]

Bob Johnson > wrote in
news:sH7qe.52588$gc6.31797@okepread04:

> When threads turn toward risk, I think it's always good to review
> Bruno's thoughts on the subject ---
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html
>
> Bob Johnson


Bruno's stuff is excellent. I recommend it to everyone.
-Bob Korves

[Bob Whelan]

> > When threads turn toward risk, I think it's always good to review
> > Bruno's thoughts on the subject ---
> >
> > http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html
> >
> > Bob Johnson
>
>
> Bruno's stuff is excellent. I recommend it to everyone.
> -Bob Korves

"What the other Bobs said!"

It's a slow, overcast, day and things are right for further ruminations on
"the safety topic."

For any who glanced at the link provided by Bill Hoadley earlier in this
thread, it originally was an article for our club's (Soaring Society of
Boulder) newsletter. Coincidentally, it was independently written about the
same time as Bruno Gantenbrink's excellent and thought-provoking talk was
given.

Reason for this note follows...

For the record, I agree in wholehearted principle with everything Bruno
included in his talk. Yet, paradoxically (and as perhaps an odd RAS reader
or two may know for certain: I didn't check before writing this note), I
*think* I have also included in book form the statement Bruno takes to
rightful task, i.e.: The most dangerous thing about soaring is the drive to
the airport.

If I did, you won't find a retraction here, because if I did I also included
a "hidden assumption" I include whenever I think (or write) about the
statement. Namely, "If you can control yourself, you can control most of
the life-threatening risks in the sport."

To me, the drive to the airport is risky because it necessarily involves
interaction with hundreds of other drivers who by the nature of driving can
be thought of as risks beyond your direct control. That's not to say you
can't - and should! - do any number of simple little things that go a long
way to mitigate those uncontrolled risks, but there's just a lot OF them.
And as an accident about 6 road miles from me yesterday afternoon suggests,
even your best efforts may not be enough. There was a fatality at the
intersection of 2 country roads, caused by the driver of one vehicle failing
to stop at a (the only) stop sign (on the smaller, intersecting road). In
this case it was one of his passengers who died, not anyone in the vehicle
he T-boned, but the driver of the hit vehicle could not have actively done
anything reasonable to prevent the crash since the vehicle that hit her
would have been invisible until the last moment due to terrain and visual
obstructions. That she and her passenger survived was a matter of luck (and
preparation - she was using her seat belt and her child was in a restrained
safety seat).

The nature of soaring also includes some risks beyond Joe Pilot's direct
control, but (in my opinion) they're a LOT less volumetrically dense than
those contained in driving. What's different about soaring risks under
DIRECT control of Joe Pilot is many of them have potential to kill him or
her dead each and every time the risks are disregarded, and it's this
disregard (whether active or passive) I had in mind when qualifying the
statement "The most dangerous thing about soaring is the drive to the
airport."

If in fact a soaring pilot tells an unsuspecting member of the public who
may express an interest in pursuing soaring, "The most dangerous thing about
soaring is the drive to the airport," WITHOUT further qualifying it, I agree
with Bruno Gantenbrink an active disservice has been perpetrated. IF the
qualification is included, then I think Bruno's point has been made, while
just coincidentally including the statement he takes to task.

Isn't language a wonderful thing?!? Language - like almost everything else
in life (including soaring) - is a double-edged sword. Use language
carefully. Soar carefully. Have fun!!!

Reflectively,

Bob Whelan

[Stewart Kissel]

>It's a slow, overcast, day and things are right for
>further ruminations on
>'the safety topic.'

U got that right, rain that feels like it will turn
to snow over on my side of the pile of rocks. So if
I understand your post Bob, then I agree with it.
One thing that has always bothered me with comparing
the fatality rate of autos to gliders is....with autos,
you got a pretty good chance of getting killed by another
driver. In gliders, you are almost always responsible
for your own death. So I am not sure how valid the
accident comparison rate is between the two.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Stewart Kissel wrote:


> U got that right, rain that feels like it will turn
> to snow over on my side of the pile of rocks. So if
> I understand your post Bob, then I agree with it.
> One thing that has always bothered me with comparing
> the fatality rate of autos to gliders is....with autos,
> you got a pretty good chance of getting killed by another
> driver. In gliders, you are almost always responsible
> for your own death. So I am not sure how valid the
> accident comparison rate is between the two.

My interpertation is this: I've known (met, flown with, talked to,
corrsponded with, not just heard their name) ten or more glider pilots
killed in glider accidents, but none that were killed in a car accident
on their way to or from the airport; for that matter, I can think of
only one pilot I knew that was killed in a car accident anywhere.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bob Whelan]

<Various snipperinos>...
Eric Greenwell wrote...
> Stewart Kissel wrote:
> > One thing that has always bothered me with comparing
> > the fatality rate of autos to gliders is....with autos,
> > you got a pretty good chance of getting killed by another
> > driver. In gliders, you are almost always responsible
> > for your own death. So I am not sure how valid the
> > accident comparison rate is between the two.
>
> My interpretation is this: I've known (met, flown with, talked to,
> corresponded with, not just heard their name) ten or more glider pilots
> killed in glider accidents, but none that were killed in a car accident
> on their way to or from the airport; for that matter, I can think of
> only one pilot I knew that was killed in a car accident anywhere.

For the record, my take is this. Anytime you go faster than you're willing
to hit a brick wall, or higher than you're willing to fall, you're opting
for life-threatening risks. For me, driving obviously qualifies as the
former, and arguably as the latter if I manage to go off a bridge or the
side of a mountain/mesa. Soaring obviously qualifies as both each time I do
it.

Consequently each time I indulge in either I try to maintain an active
awareness that each activity involves energies high enough to easily kill
me. Personally, driving makes me more uneasy than soaring for the reason
Stewart noted: many of the actively-life-threatening risks are beyond my
direct control. Yet paradoxically, my driving-/soaring-acquaintance 'death
stats' mirror Eric's (and Bruno Gantenbrink's) experiences. Arguing about
(as distinct from discussing) 'which activity is safer' strikes me as an
exercise in futility, because one can 'prove' whatever they want and thus
it's an unending argument (well, at least until I die, ha ha).

Acting with constant awareness that each activity contains immediate
potential to suddenly kill me, combined with training, continuing education
and good judgement is the best I can do. I've difficulty imagining living
life without indulging in either activity, so that's how I attempt to
control the risks of both (and any other activity I must - or choose to -
indulge in). Makes sense to me!

Weenily,
Bob - still has all his fingers - Whelan

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> <Various snipperinos>...
> Eric Greenwell wrote...
> > Stewart Kissel wrote:
> > > One thing that has always bothered me with comparing
> > > the fatality rate of autos to gliders is....with autos,
> > > you got a pretty good chance of getting killed by another
> > > driver. In gliders, you are almost always responsible
> > > for your own death. So I am not sure how valid the
> > > accident comparison rate is between the two.
> >
> > My interpretation is this: I've known (met, flown with, talked to,
> > corresponded with, not just heard their name) ten or more glider pilots
> > killed in glider accidents, but none that were killed in a car accident
> > on their way to or from the airport; for that matter, I can think of
> > only one pilot I knew that was killed in a car accident anywhere.
>
> For the record, my take is this. Anytime you go faster than you're
willing
> to hit a brick wall, or higher than you're willing to fall, you're opting
> for life-threatening risks. For me, driving obviously qualifies as the
> former, and arguably as the latter if I manage to go off a bridge or the
> side of a mountain/mesa. Soaring obviously qualifies as both each time I
do
> it.
>
> Consequently each time I indulge in either I try to maintain an active
> awareness that each activity involves energies high enough to easily kill
> me. Personally, driving makes me more uneasy than soaring for the reason
> Stewart noted: many of the actively-life-threatening risks are beyond my
> direct control. Yet paradoxically, my driving-/soaring-acquaintance
'death
> stats' mirror Eric's (and Bruno Gantenbrink's) experiences. Arguing about
> (as distinct from discussing) 'which activity is safer' strikes me as an
> exercise in futility, because one can 'prove' whatever they want and thus
> it's an unending argument (well, at least until I die, ha ha).
>
> Acting with constant awareness that each activity contains immediate
> potential to suddenly kill me, combined with training, continuing
education
> and good judgement is the best I can do. I've difficulty imagining living
> life without indulging in either activity, so that's how I attempt to
> control the risks of both (and any other activity I must - or choose to -
> indulge in). Makes sense to me!
>
> Weenily,
> Bob - still has all his fingers - Whelan
>
>
The thing these driving vs. flying safety discussions seem to miss is that
the average person drives 600 to 1000 hours per year whereas pilots fly less
than 100. Drivers are usually pretty good, or at least good enough to
survive simply because they practice it enough to be current whereas pilots
are often pretty rusty each time they fly. If we flew gliders as much as we
drive, the accident rate per hour would probably be much better than it is.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

>
> The thing these driving vs. flying safety discussions seem to miss is that
> the average person drives 600 to 1000 hours per year whereas pilots fly less
> than 100.

The average is around 12,000 miles per year in the USA. At 50 mph,
that's 240 hours; at 30, that's only 400 hours. Still more than the
usual glider pilot, but nothing like 600-1000.

> Drivers are usually pretty good, or at least good enough to
> survive simply because they practice it enough to be current whereas pilots
> are often pretty rusty each time they fly. If we flew gliders as much as we
> drive, the accident rate per hour would probably be much better than it is.

I agree, but the accidents per year would likely increase, and that is
what we go by: "number killed over the years".


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Chris Rollings]

My experience of the number of friends and aquaintences
killed in gliding accidents, compared to those lost
in road accidents, matches every one else's comments.
However it is worth remembering that whilst I will
almost certainly hear about anyone I have ever known
being killed in a glider, a road fatality to someone
I knew but didn't see regularly, may well never be
reported to me, so my perception that more people that
I know are killed in gliders than on the road may not
be entirely accurate.

Having said that I am, however, convinced that on a
fatalaties to hours ratio, flying gliders is much more
dangerous than driving.

At 23:48 11 June 2005, Bob Whelan wrote:
>...
>Eric Greenwell wrote...
>> Stewart Kissel wrote:
>> > One thing that has always bothered me with comparing
>> > the fatality rate of autos to gliders is....with
>>>autos,
>> > you got a pretty good chance of getting killed by
>>>another
>> > driver. In gliders, you are almost always responsible
>> > for your own death. So I am not sure how valid the
>> > accident comparison rate is between the two.
>>
>> My interpretation is this: I've known (met, flown
>>with, talked to,
>> corresponded with, not just heard their name) ten
>>or more glider pilots
>> killed in glider accidents, but none that were killed
>>in a car accident
>> on their way to or from the airport; for that matter,
>>I can think of
>> only one pilot I knew that was killed in a car accident
>>anywhere.
>
>For the record, my take is this. Anytime you go faster
>than you're willing
>to hit a brick wall, or higher than you're willing
>to fall, you're opting
>for life-threatening risks. For me, driving obviously
>qualifies as the
>former, and arguably as the latter if I manage to go
>off a bridge or the
>side of a mountain/mesa. Soaring obviously qualifies
>as both each time I do
>it.
>
>Consequently each time I indulge in either I try to
>maintain an active
>awareness that each activity involves energies high
>enough to easily kill
>me. Personally, driving makes me more uneasy than
>soaring for the reason
>Stewart noted: many of the actively-life-threatening
>risks are beyond my
>direct control. Yet paradoxically, my driving-/soaring-acquaintan
>>ce 'death
>stats' mirror Eric's (and Bruno Gantenbrink's) experiences.
> Arguing about
>(as distinct from discussing) 'which activity is safer'
>strikes me as an
>exercise in futility, because one can 'prove' whatever
>they want and thus
>it's an unending argument (well, at least until I die,
>ha ha).
>
>Acting with constant awareness that each activity contains
>immediate
>potential to suddenly kill me, combined with training,
>continuing education
>and good judgement is the best I can do. I've difficulty
>imagining living
>life without indulging in either activity, so that's
>how I attempt to
>control the risks of both (and any other activity I
>must - or choose to -
>indulge in). Makes sense to me!
>
>Weenily,
>Bob - still has all his fingers - Whelan
>
>
>

[309]

Just imagine how much safer the roads would be if every driver had to
have 40 hours before being turned loose, and had to pass a biennial
driving review!

>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> The average is around 12,000 miles per year in the USA. At 50 mph,
> that's 240 hours; at 30, that's only 400 hours. Still more than the
> usual glider pilot, but nothing like 600-1000.
>
>

Eric, when you're caught in L.A. traffic, you average speed drops very
quickly...and many opt for the 45 minute (each way) commute, so the
commute to work adds up to 360 hours on its own...

I believe I've lost more freinds in aircraft accidents than auto
accidents. However, I believe I know FAR more people who've been
INVOLVED in auto accidents that have never been in an AIRCRAFT accident
(myself included). Having an uninsured teen slam into the back of my
car with a good 30+ mph closing velocity really rattled my cage. I
have a scar from a motorcycle accident. I've had elderly drivers clip
me from multiple directions. Yes, I'll admit that two of my auto
accidents are arguably my fault. I hope to never have an aircraft
accident.

What many of us are forgetting here is the old adage that like the sea,
the air is terribly unforgiving of mistakes and carelessness. Much
less tolerant than the (typically) lower speed accidents we experience
in more modern and safe (airbags) autos (drive by shootings excepted,
yeah, I live in L.A.).

As such, with greater risk, we take more action to mitigate or control
the risk. More recurrent training (I do much more than just a BFR).
When it comes to FLIGHT TEST, where we intentionally do stupid things
to prove the aircraft is tolerant of some degree of mishandling, we
examine the hazard, the cause of the hazard and do our best to stack
the deck in our favor. Not really controlling the risk, but managing
it and operating at the right level.

My most recent personal example? Yeah, I'm IFR current, yeah, the
airplane could handle rough air, clouds, etc. When Flight Service said
there was a chance for rhime ice above 5,000 feet, I opted to drive.
So I traded one risk for another (well, some would say one flying risk
for about 50 driving risks).

The other slant on this argument is that the average non-flying person
knows one or two people that perished in auto accidents, but because
they're not pilots, they don't know anybody that's perished in an
aviation accident. Avaition is a smaller, closer community than
"drivers" and non-flyers, so statistically, we're more likely to know
that person killed in an accident.

Last August/September was really hard for me: I lost two friends in a
midair and a week later, a co-worker and her husband perished on the
northeast end of the Grand Canyon.

Fly safely folks. Operate at the right risk level.

-Pete
#309

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > The thing these driving vs. flying safety discussions seem to miss is
that
> > the average person drives 600 to 1000 hours per year whereas pilots fly
less
> > than 100.
>
> The average is around 12,000 miles per year in the USA. At 50 mph,
> that's 240 hours; at 30, that's only 400 hours. Still more than the
> usual glider pilot, but nothing like 600-1000.
>
> > Drivers are usually pretty good, or at least good enough to
> > survive simply because they practice it enough to be current whereas
pilots
> > are often pretty rusty each time they fly. If we flew gliders as much
as we
> > drive, the accident rate per hour would probably be much better than it
is.
>
> I agree, but the accidents per year would likely increase, and that is
> what we go by: "number killed over the years".
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>

I don't know anybody that drives less than 12000 miles per year. The only
year I drove less (10,000 miles) was when I worked out of a home office and
did no commuting. A quick check of odometers and vehicle age showed closer
to 22, 000 miles per year for my acquaintances. Those vehicles showed
evidence of road encounters too.

I'm not at all sure the number of accident would increase if we flew more.
The full-time glider pilots I know fly year in and out with no incidents
much less accidents. Flying a glider safely isn't hard, it just takes
training, experience, unrelenting alertness and a commitment to become the
best pilot possible.

Most of the accidents I know about happened to the "fly-one-week-a-year"
pilots who, if asked, would say that they "completed" their flight training
X years ago and feel no need to submit to additional training. No pilots
flight training is ever completed - there's always more to learn.

I may be a statistical anomaly but, in over four decades of driving and
flying, I know a LOT more people that died in cars than gliders - by about a
10:1 ratio. Five of my high school classmates died within a year of
graduation in car accidents. Eight of my college classmates died before
graduation. Seat belts and air bags have reduced the number of fatalities
but now those unfortunates wind up in wheel chairs.

Bill Daniels

[F.L. Whiteley]

309 wrote:

> Just imagine how much safer the roads would be if every driver had to
> have 40 hours before being turned loose, and had to pass a biennial
> driving review!
>
Here in Colorado, in order to secure a drivers license at 16, 50 hours of
dual, with parent or guardian, must be logged. Currently the driver is
restricted from driving between midnight and 5am. Commencing July 1st of
this year, a young person must have held a permit for a minimum of 12
months prior to getting a drivers license. After getting the license, they
will only be permitted one minor passenger during the first 12 months,
restricted to a family member only for the first six months.

FWIW, I'm married to a driving instructor (here in CO they also can give the
drive tests). She opens the morning paper with some trepidition daily.

Frank Whiteley

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> I'm not at all sure the number of accident would increase if we flew
> more. The full-time glider pilots I know fly year in and out with no
> incidents much less accidents. Flying a glider safely isn't hard, it
> just takes training, experience, unrelenting alertness and a
> commitment to become the best pilot possible.

Nonetheless, the pilots I'm thinking of are not the 50 hour a year
pilots, but people like Clem Bowman, Peter Masak, Klaus Holighaus,
Helmut Reichmann.

>
> Most of the accidents I know about happened to the
> "fly-one-week-a-year" pilots who, if asked, would say that they
> "completed" their flight training X years ago and feel no need to
> submit to additional training. No pilots flight training is ever
> completed - there's always more to learn.

I agree with the need to continue learning.
>
> I may be a statistical anomaly but, in over four decades of driving
> and flying, I know a LOT more people that died in cars than gliders -
> by about a 10:1 ratio.
>
> Five of my high school classmates died within a year of graduation in
> car accidents. Eight of my college classmates died before
> graduation. Seat belts and air bags have reduced the number of
> fatalities but now those unfortunates wind up in wheel chairs.

But you are now considering "everyone", not just glider pilots. I think
we are talking only of glider pilots, and whether it's cars or gliders
that kills them. If we include everyone we know, your experience is
probably common, because we know a lot more people that aren't glider
pilots.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack]

Know the risks, minimize the risks, practice throughout the year --
virtually when necessary -- and soar.

-----------------

For Those Who Fly

Do not shed a tear for me
For I would not for you
Instead just drink a beer for me
And know well that I knew

Dreams of flight do not come free
There comes attached a price
And we do not do it blindly
We know we roll the dice

Before you sail into the sky
A sky slow to forgive
Answer am I afraid to die
Or just afraid to live

So if you try to reason why
When fate can seem unjust
We take these risks not to escape life
But to stop life escaping us.

- Dr. James Freeman

===================


Jack

[Bill Daniels]

"Jack" > wrote in message
...
> Know the risks, minimize the risks, practice throughout the year --
> virtually when necessary -- and soar.
>
> -----------------
>
> For Those Who Fly
>
> Do not shed a tear for me
> For I would not for you
> Instead just drink a beer for me
> And know well that I knew
>
> Dreams of flight do not come free
> There comes attached a price
> And we do not do it blindly
> We know we roll the dice
>
> Before you sail into the sky
> A sky slow to forgive
> Answer am I afraid to die
> Or just afraid to live
>
> So if you try to reason why
> When fate can seem unjust
> We take these risks not to escape life
> But to stop life escaping us.
>
> - Dr. James Freeman
>
> ===================
>
>
> Jack

The greatest tragedy is to grow old having missed the opportunity to fly.

Bill Daniels

[309]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> Here in Colorado, in order to secure a drivers license at 16, 50 hours of
> dual, with parent or guardian, must be logged. Currently the driver is
> restricted from driving between midnight and 5am. Commencing July 1st of
> this year, a young person must have held a permit for a minimum of 12
> months prior to getting a drivers license. After getting the license, they
> will only be permitted one minor passenger during the first 12 months,
> restricted to a family member only for the first six months.
>

Yes, it's that way in California, too. And they drive sensably until
they have the ticket, and then the teens go like maniacs. I happen to
remember being a teen a long, long time ago...in Chicago. Having been
a step-parent conducting some of that 50+ hours, I'm ashamed I didn't
learn more about the art of teaching...

Still: NO Biennial _Driver_ Review required...witness the
eighty-something man who plowed through Farmers' Market in Santa
Monica, killng 10, injuring 25. I've heard of some elderly but
competent pilots who've voluntarily chosen not to fly anymore. I hope
I am fortunate enough to live so long, and be graced with good
judgement to know when I need to hang it up (kneeboard and/or car
keys).

Pete

[F.L. Whiteley]

309 wrote:

>
>
> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Here in Colorado, in order to secure a drivers license at 16, 50 hours of
>> dual, with parent or guardian, must be logged. Currently the driver is
>> restricted from driving between midnight and 5am. Commencing July 1st of
>> this year, a young person must have held a permit for a minimum of 12
>> months prior to getting a drivers license. After getting the license,
>> they will only be permitted one minor passenger during the first 12
>> months, restricted to a family member only for the first six months.
>>
>
> Yes, it's that way in California, too. And they drive sensably until
> they have the ticket, and then the teens go like maniacs. I happen to
> remember being a teen a long, long time ago...in Chicago. Having been
> a step-parent conducting some of that 50+ hours, I'm ashamed I didn't
> learn more about the art of teaching...
>
> Still: NO Biennial _Driver_ Review required...witness the
> eighty-something man who plowed through Farmers' Market in Santa
> Monica, killng 10, injuring 25. I've heard of some elderly but
> competent pilots who've voluntarily chosen not to fly anymore. I hope
> I am fortunate enough to live so long, and be graced with good
> judgement to know when I need to hang it up (kneeboard and/or car
> keys).
>
> Pete

Fair points.

Couple of unfortunate accidents in US soaring today at two ends of the
spectrum:

17 year old fatal in WA
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Glider%20Fatal


81 year old in trees in OH
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4598934/detail.html

Frank

[[email protected]]

You guys are on a roll, here!

Please tell me, what on Earth does the relative accident rates of
driving vs. flying have to do with making gliding safer? In other
words, who cares?

Focus your intellectual energies on something that will make a
difference. Like telling a friend/acquaintance/stranger that they need
dual instruction after witnessing poor flying habits.

When flying, unlike driving, there is no cop up there that will pull
you over and write you up.

Flying becomes dangerous when you fly TOO LITTLE, not TOO MUCH!

Tom

[309]

I beg to differ, Tom.

We're pointing out in part what you are saying: Flying more SHOULD
make you safer. However, one of my friends killed last year commuted
from SoCal to Red Bluff weekly in his own aircraft, built, owned and
flew the highest time Glassair III out there, and was in an aircraft he
likely had 2,000 hours in when he met an untimely death. Yes, he was
tragically killed in a midair. He was a good pilot, with extensive
recent experience and exhibited good judgement whenever I saw him.

Those that insist on low passes (at least those executed with poor
judgement), yet fly MORE, are increasing the risk to themselves and
others. High time and frequent flyer pilots still make mistakes,
sometimes fatal. Look through the NTSB accident statistics.

There are many "cops" out there chastizing poor judgement, at least
that which has been observed. Yes, they lack the authority to yank
tickets -- even where it might save a life! And some "cops" have
refused service (e.g., tows -- I have refused to tow people before),
when they feel there is too much risk. Believe me, it is far more
difficult to tell somebody you won't give them a tow than it is to grit
your teeth, give them one more tow and hope for the best.

For some people out there, a BFR is not sufficient recurrent training.
It isn't enough for me, and I hold an ATP rating. Similarly, once a
lifetime is not sufficient for automobile drivers. Once every two
years, as I'm told is required in New Zeland after a certain age, might
be a good start -- for all drivers.

And there need to be more cops on the highways...and the ramps at
airports.

Respectfully,

-Pete

wrote:
> You guys are on a roll, here!
>
> Please tell me, what on Earth does the relative accident rates of
> driving vs. flying have to do with making gliding safer? In other
> words, who cares?
>
> Focus your intellectual energies on something that will make a
> difference. Like telling a friend/acquaintance/stranger that they need
> dual instruction after witnessing poor flying habits.
>
> When flying, unlike driving, there is no cop up there that will pull
> you over and write you up.
>
> Flying becomes dangerous when you fly TOO LITTLE, not TOO MUCH!
>
> Tom

[[email protected]]

I'm not sure what you are taking exception with. The thread had
degenerated into arguing about what was more dangerous: flying or
driving. I can't think of a more irrelevent comparison.

Currency DOES make you a safer pilot: and you CAN look at the NTSB
reports as a verification of that obvious principal. The reports also
include accidents involving high time pilots. Make a mistake and it can
kill you, high time or not.

BTW: a mid-air does not necessarily mean poor judgement - that can just
be bad luck. Bad judgement means having all the facts at your disposal
and still making the wrong decision.

Tom

[309]

Ahh, but the comparison between driving and flying IS relevant! So
much is taught to new and old pilots by analogy, and driving is the
closest thing many have prior to getting in the cockpit.

The risk equations are the same (albeit with different factors or
gains): more speed means more "ouch," closer proximity to
terrain/another vehicle/a wall increases probability of impact. Don't
drive a car very often (currency) and your chances of getting into an
accident increase! Buy equipment you're not used to (that new
Leviathan SUV), and your chances similarly go up. Try to cut that
corner a little quick (stretch a glide???) and you increase the chance
of coming up short.

I'll agree you're correct on the other points: a midair can be just
bad luck, and currency CAN make you a better pilot. But we need to
remember, only perfect practice makes perfect. Proriciency vs. mere
currency? I suspect we're really agreeing with one another. Practice
nothing but zoomies (high speed passes) and you may not be "current" in
something more important at the necessary time. Look at zoomies that
result in gear up landings or (worse), injuries/fatalities.

I pay the CFIG "cop" to help me identify where I'm slipping. And I
agree with you, I'm not flying "enough," either.

Is it really stupid to argue which is safer, driving or flying? I
think it is a relevant comparison as people are taking issue with the
statement that the drive home is more dangerous than the flight...and
making some of us think about what we can do to reduce our personal
risks and (as you suggested), the risks our fellow pilots take.

Peace?

wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are taking exception with. The thread had
> degenerated into arguing about what was more dangerous: flying or
> driving. I can't think of a more irrelevent comparison.
>
> Tom

[[email protected]]

Peace? Certainly!

It's like I told my boss once after he asked "Aren't I entitled to my
opinion?". My response: "Of course. And I will defend to the death your
right to hold that opinion, even if it's wrong!"

You might as well compare rock climbing to flying - the activities have
little in common. Most pointedly, flying is a three dimensional
activity, driving is not. Weather plays a much reduced roll in car
accidents than it does in A/C accidents. I am most appalled at the
comparison "Driving to the 'blank' is more dangerous than 'blank'". I
have even heard this said about mountain climbing. Driving safety has
risen remarkedly over the last 40+ years because of the tremendous
investment of money and resources. A good part of the GA fleet is over
40 years old.

Particularly inappropriate is taking statistics involving large groups
and applying it to you individually. Such convoluted logic would have
you believe that flying more is more hazardous to your health, when
exactly the opposite may be true.

While equipment has improved, from a safety standpoint, marginally over
the years, the greatest impact on your personal safety is in the area
of judgement. Unfortunately, I am probably preaching to the choir on
this point.

Tom

[309]

wrote:
> Peace? Certainly!
>
> It's like I told my boss once after he asked "Aren't I entitled to my
> opinion?". My response: "Of course. And I will defend to the death your
> right to hold that opinion, even if it's wrong!"
>
> You might as well compare rock climbing to flying - the activities have
> little in common. Most pointedly, flying is a three dimensional
> activity, driving is not. Weather plays a much reduced roll in car
> accidents than it does in A/C accidents. I am most appalled at the
> comparison "Driving to the 'blank' is more dangerous than 'blank'". I
> have even heard this said about mountain climbing. Driving safety has
> risen remarkedly over the last 40+ years because of the tremendous
> investment of money and resources. A good part of the GA fleet is over
> 40 years old.
>
> Particularly inappropriate is taking statistics involving large groups
> and applying it to you individually. Such convoluted logic would have
> you believe that flying more is more hazardous to your health, when
> exactly the opposite may be true.
>
> While equipment has improved, from a safety standpoint, marginally over
> the years, the greatest impact on your personal safety is in the area
> of judgement. Unfortunately, I am probably preaching to the choir on
> this point.
>
> Tom

[Bruce Hoult]

In article . com>,
"309" > wrote:

> For some people out there, a BFR is not sufficient recurrent training.
> It isn't enough for me, and I hold an ATP rating. Similarly, once a
> lifetime is not sufficient for automobile drivers. Once every two
> years, as I'm told is required in New Zeland after a certain age, might
> be a good start -- for all drivers.

IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Graeme Cant]

Bruce Hoult wrote:

> IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
> license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

My wife - who earns a living in gerontological research - recently
attended a seminar in Sydney where a NZ person stated that extensive
research showed there was no statistically significant difference in
acccident rates of older drivers between jurisdictions (worldwide,
including NZ) which proficiency tested older drivers and those which did
not. Accordingly (NZ being a rational country) it was proposed that
proficiency testing of older drivers would be abandoned and only medical
checks would be required.

The main policy problem to be sorted out before the change could be
implemented appeared to be what should be done with the redundant
examiners. I suppose they could be retrained as medical examiners...or
your gliding club could slip a free trial flight voucher into their last
pay packets... :)

Graeme Cant

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Graeme Cant > wrote:

> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
> > license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.
>
> My wife - who earns a living in gerontological research - recently
> attended a seminar in Sydney where a NZ person stated that extensive
> research showed there was no statistically significant difference in
> acccident rates of older drivers between jurisdictions (worldwide,
> including NZ) which proficiency tested older drivers and those which did
> not. Accordingly (NZ being a rational country) it was proposed that
> proficiency testing of older drivers would be abandoned and only medical
> checks would be required.

Yes, well the rationality of politically-driven decisions is not,
unfortunately, a given.


I forget when, but sometime in the mid 1980's it was decided that there
wasn't any point in making people renew their driver's licenses every
five years, since all that happened was that you showed up, paid some
money, and they gave you a sticker to stick into your license.
Therefore, NZ being a rational country, it was decided by the government
of the day to issue "lifetime" licenses. Mine expires on 31/12/2033, at
which time I hope to still be alive as it will be at the end of the
month containing my 71st birthday.

However, another government in the late 1990's decided that this was a
bad idea and that people should in fact have to renew their license
every ten years (?). So they revoked all existing licenses and issued
new ones. Despite me not having done anything wrong, my license now
expires at the end of 2007 instead of the end of 2033, which is 26 years
earlier than previously.

If there is logic behind these moves, it escapes me.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------