Safety Corner-Nov/issue

[snoop]

I'd like to make a comment about this months Safety Corner. It's been
over twenty years since I flew the HS125, but I do know that, "With the
nose up", "passing through 350 knots", you would be going UP like a
homesick angel, not "losing altitude", as the author guesses. Besides I
believe that vmo in the hawker is more like 320kts, which would still
have you going up, quickly.

With regard to visibility, the particular model involved in the mid-air
has the new style windscreens, which in comparison to the older models
I flew, provide the crew with quite a panoramic view. Yes, yes, I know,
you have to be looking out the window. Point is the author should, in
his research maybe set up a tour of the aircraft model in question, and
get some facts. I've always read and learned from Safety Corner, but
this issue, well...........

I'll take my bizjet hat off now and put on my soaring cap, as some of
the other items discussed are just too far out there to waste time on,
"retractable domes, windows in the nose".

I have a real life scenario to offer up in the equation of having
xponders or not. Happened yesterday, I'm flying the Gwhiz corporate
plane, climbing out at 250 knots which is our normal climb speed until
we reach 10000 ft. then we accelerate out to 300 knots, until we
transition to mach around 32'000ft. Our TCAS brings up a target, at our
1 o'clock about 5 miles ahead converging. We're climbing to 6000 ft.
initially, in clear blue, daylit skies.

To dispel the rumors about controllers not saying anything to help
separate vfr from ifr, the controller does issue an adisory about the
target. The target does not have an encoder so we don't know if he's up
or down from us, but we know where he is laterally.

I tell my right seat to tell ATC, we're turning 15 degree turn to the
left to diverge from this target. All four eyes are out the window
looking. The autopilot is working just fine, all the way to level off
and speed control. With 42 computers on this machine, I'm going to use
every last one, and save the yanking and banking for my glider, the
Pawnee, and my friends' beautiful Cassutt, he trusts me with. As we
roll out on our new heading we spot the single engine taildragger about
500' above us at his legal vfr altitude. No conflict.

I have great faith that we would have spotted him even if he didn't
have a xponder on, because of our personal and flight department
mandated scanning habits, and the use of all automation to ease our
load so we can look outside. It was nice to have an early heads up
though.

The point is that the xponder in the single engine plane showed us
where he was and gave us some options before we came up on him/her
unannounced, or say another not so observant crew was involved, well,
it could have been disastorous. It was the way it should be.

We saluted our fellow General Aviation buddy as we passed him, and
pushed on home to Texas. If I still have my glider next year, I'm
investing in that cheap insurance called a xponder. I like that warm
and fuzzy feeling vs the cold cash I saved, that may be found in the
grease spot that used to be two aircraft.

Snoop

[bumper]

"snoop" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> We saluted our fellow General Aviation buddy as we passed him, and
> pushed on home to Texas. If I still have my glider next year, I'm
> investing in that cheap insurance called a xponder. I like that warm
> and fuzzy feeling vs the cold cash I saved, that may be found in the
> grease spot that used to be two aircraft.
>
> Snoop
>

Good on you!

I'd feel naked flying my glider high without TPAS and transponder on. Talked
to a pilot at Minden last week who just came down from flying wave over the
Sierra at 16.5K (it was one of those weaker days). Lots of cloud though and
he didn't have a transponder. Makes me cold just thinking about it.

bumper

[KM]

snoop wrote:
> Point is the author should, in
> his research maybe set up a tour of the aircraft model in question, and
> get some facts. I've always read and learned from Safety Corner, but
> this issue, well...........
>
Snoop,
Great Post.As a comercial guy myself, I think you offered a good
perspective from both sides of the fence.I have not read the colum for
this month yet, but I have to comment on your remarks about the lack of
facts in the safety column.For some reason Thelen has alot of baseless
assumptions and prejudises that get in the way of facts when he writes
a column.Just like you, I read the stories and try to learn from them,
but I find only about one out of every three or four columns is of any
use.Even Soaring magazine has had to post a disclaimer that his veiws
are not those of the SSA. Its too bad they dont get someone better to
write such an important column.
K Urban

[[email protected]]

"Even Soaring magazine has had to post a disclaimer that his veiws
> are not those of the SSA. Its too bad they dont get someone better to
> write such an important column".
> K Urban

These last two sentences in K Urban's post were groaners. Care to
volunteer to write the column ? Even with occasional flubs (which I
humbly acknowledge I do not detect), Thelen performs a great monthly
service and his column is probably the most important in every issue of
Soaring. Yikes, the cost of volunteering !

Cheers anyhow, Charles

[Eric Greenwell]

KM wrote:
> snoop wrote:
>> Point is the author should, in
>> his research maybe set up a tour of the aircraft model in question, and
>> get some facts. I've always read and learned from Safety Corner, but
>> this issue, well...........
>>
> Snoop,
> Great Post.As a comercial guy myself, I think you offered a good
> perspective from both sides of the fence.I have not read the colum for
> this month yet, but I have to comment on your remarks about the lack of
> facts in the safety column.For some reason Thelen has alot of baseless
> assumptions and prejudises that get in the way of facts when he writes
> a column.Just like you, I read the stories and try to learn from them,
> but I find only about one out of every three or four columns is of any
> use.Even Soaring magazine has had to post a disclaimer that his veiws
> are not those of the SSA.

I believe this disclaimer would be there regardless of who wrote the
column because it is not an "official" determination of accident which
may entail enforcement action and lawsuits. Until the government issues
a report that people can cite, they and their publisher have to be
careful to avoid potential legal problems.

> Its too bad they dont get someone better to
> write such an important column.

And if someone better came along, I think George would glad to step
aside. I ocasionally chide him privately (we've known each other for
decades), but more often praise him. When I think there's a problem with
a particular column, I email or call him to discuss my view with him. He
always listens, and I think it results in better columns in the future.

I'm sure he'd like to hear from anyone with comments about particular
columns. Writing a monthly column like his isn't easy, and more facts
and more views would make it an easier task. My preference is to contact
George before RAS, so he has an opportunity to discuss his reasons, and
maybe get my input for follow-up article. I can always come to RAS later.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[KM]

> These last two sentences in K Urban's post were groaners. Care to
> volunteer to write the column ? Even with occasional flubs (which I
> humbly acknowledge I do not detect), Thelen performs a great monthly
> service and his column is probably the most important in every issue of
> Soaring. Yikes, the cost of volunteering !
>
> Cheers anyhow, Charles

Charles, Just about all of my soaring buddies find Thelen's column
useless and a few of them find it downright iritating.That said, I knew
my comments might cause a few "groaners".I dont know the guy
personally, but he seems to be very opinionated (Or doesnt have a real
firm grasp of whats going on, Im not sure which), and kinda lets this
stand in the way of the facts.
What really drove this home for me was reading about an accident that
hit all too close to home.Losing a soaring buddy is a real wake up
call.I talked to everyone I could about this crash, eyewittnesses, the
tow pilot, and anyone at the field that day to try to pinpoint what
happened.When Thelen's article came out on this, he just about
completely omitted all the facts related to the crash, and turned his
column into a rip about how dangerous the model of sailplane involved
is.He admitted in the column that he had never flown this model of
sailplane and was just going from heresay, Go figure.About this time
his email disapered from the column, so I sent a lengthy and detailed
email about his column and the crash to the SSA to read and forward to
him (Info that could save a pilots life someday mind you), and I never
got a response from George or the SSA.
Charles, One way to guage the accuracy of his column is to dig up some
old copies of Soaring, and compare his conclusions to those of the
NTSB.I think the official reports come out about 12 months after an
accident.This way you can see how off base the guy is.Another thing you
can do is discuss his columns with a local CFIG or pilots with a lot of
experience.Usually they will have very different opinions from his.
As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
with you that this is one of the most important features of the
magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
improvement.
Fly Safe,
K Urban

[Brian[_1_]]

A rather well know author of aerodynamics books prefaces at least one
of his books with something simlar to the following statement.

"I know at least a dozen people that are more qualified to write books
on aerodyamics than I am. They didn't so I did."

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

After all the only pay he is getting is the feed back he gets from the
readers and hopefully satisifaction from knowing that at the very least
he is getting us to think and talk about safty.

Brian



KM wrote:
> As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
> kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
> folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
> willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
> would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
> should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
> what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
> with you that this is one of the most important features of the
> magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
> facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
> these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
> improvement.
> Fly Safe,
> K Urban

[Brian[_1_]]

A rather well know author of aerodynamics books prefaces at least one
of his books with something simlar to the following statement.

"I know at least a dozen people that are more qualified to write books
on aerodyamics than I am. They didn't so I did."

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

After all the only pay he is getting is the feed back he gets from the
readers and hopefully satisifaction from knowing that at the very least
he is getting us to think and talk about safty.

Brian



KM wrote:
> As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
> kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
> folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
> willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
> would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
> should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
> what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
> with you that this is one of the most important features of the
> magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
> facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
> these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
> improvement.
> Fly Safe,
> K Urban

[KM]

Brian wrote:

> George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
> that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
> the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
> critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
> writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
> put into it.
>
> Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
> columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
> cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

Brian, Thanks to you and Eric G for the responses.Its kind of funny
that both you and Eric G defend Thelen, and you both admit he is
unqualified to do what he is doing.I just read the November column, and
everything after "What I really think" is pure BS.Thelen is writting
stuff about jets and ATC that he clearly has no understanding of.I now
understand exactly what the original post was refering to.
Let me try to make my critisizim more clear; Think about the main
reason pilots read about other pilots accidents.Obviously it is to
learn from them and try to keep it from happening again.In order to do
this, you need somewhat accurate facts and a logical conclusion drawn
from those facts.This is where George Thelen drops the ball.His columns
(Like the current one) are sadly so lacking that it doesnt do anything
for anyones ability to avoid a similar accident in the future.The SSA
is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
not having an accurate and relevant safety column.

> Brian
K Urban

[Thomas Knauff]

Assuming those of you who are most willing to criticize are also unwilling
to submit articles, perhaps you would volunteer to serve as editors? You can
choose to either be part of the answer or part of the problem.

George Thelan has served the soaring community well for many years and has
made major contributions to gliding safety. Most of us read his monthly
column first, and the vast majority of us appreciate his efforts.

Tom Knauff


"KM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Brian wrote:
>
> > George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
> > that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
> > the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
> > critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
> > writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
> > put into it.
> >
> > Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
> > columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
> > cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.
>
> Brian, Thanks to you and Eric G for the responses.Its kind of funny
> that both you and Eric G defend Thelen, and you both admit he is
> unqualified to do what he is doing.I just read the November column, and
> everything after "What I really think" is pure BS.Thelen is writting
> stuff about jets and ATC that he clearly has no understanding of.I now
> understand exactly what the original post was refering to.
> Let me try to make my critisizim more clear; Think about the main
> reason pilots read about other pilots accidents.Obviously it is to
> learn from them and try to keep it from happening again.In order to do
> this, you need somewhat accurate facts and a logical conclusion drawn
> from those facts.This is where George Thelen drops the ball.His columns
> (Like the current one) are sadly so lacking that it doesnt do anything
> for anyones ability to avoid a similar accident in the future.The SSA
> is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
> not having an accurate and relevant safety column.
>
> > Brian
> K Urban
>

[Eric Greenwell]

KM wrote:
> Brian wrote:

> Brian, Thanks to you and Eric G for the responses.Its kind of funny
> that both you and Eric G defend Thelen, and you both admit he is
> unqualified to do what he is doing.

You are misreading my statements - I did not admit nor imply anything
like that.

> I just read the November column, and
> everything after "What I really think" is pure BS.Thelen is writting
> stuff about jets and ATC that he clearly has no understanding of.

I agree he should have researched the visibility of the jet and it's
VFR/IFR status better, instead of guessing. But, remember he had Rich
Carlson there to give a counterpoint to some of his statements, so I
think most readers would end up with a reasonable understanding.

> I now
> understand exactly what the original post was refering to.
> Let me try to make my critisizim more clear; Think about the main
> reason pilots read about other pilots accidents.Obviously it is to
> learn from them and try to keep it from happening again.In order to do
> this, you need somewhat accurate facts and a logical conclusion drawn
> from those facts.This is where George Thelen drops the ball.

You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those things could improve
the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting any of it into
these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it BS - he states it's
his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast they can't clear
their path should do more to avoid problems. You might not agree, but
that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

> His columns
> (Like the current one) are sadly so lacking that it doesnt do anything
> for anyones ability to avoid a similar accident in the future.

At least for his November article, I don't recall anything from the huge
thread on RAS that offered anything better, except that I think he
should have mentioned TPAS units for glider pilots. A phone call or
email (use the SSA member locater to get his phone number and email) to
him will likely result in it being mentioned in a future column, or
elsewhere in the magazine.

> The SSA
> is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
> not having an accurate and relevant safety column.

George's column is there every month, but it is not the only
"opportunity" for safety content in the magazine: currently, the Soaring
Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and there are other
articles on safety during the year. The November issue had an article by
Knauff, for example.

Still, there are other ways to do a safety column. One that might
satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting column and not a
clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2 or 3 pilots writing
the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds and soaring
experiences, so more factors would be examined and more knowledge put
into it than any one writer could manage.

Having a team would reduce the work each had to do. The actual writing
could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of group and
individually written columns. By operating it as a team and not just 2
or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column could be consistent
in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.

What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS think about this
approach? How is it handled by other countries?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Brian[_1_]]

Maybe it didn't come across that way.

But what I was trying to say is it is very easy to critisize, it is
much harder to write a better column. Evidently no one here is
offering to write a better column. I really wasn't trying to express an
opinion about his column, especially since I haven't read the latest
one.

Brian

[KM]

Thomas Knauff wrote:
> Assuming those of you who are most willing to criticize are also unwilling
> to submit articles, perhaps you would volunteer to serve as editors? You can
> choose to either be part of the answer or part of the problem.

Tom, why would you make an assumption like this?I dont think it is so
much about critisizing as it is trying to enhance safety.I would jump
at the chance to be an editor.There has been a few exellent articles
written by a couple of local pilots (One of which was about towing and
the divergent flight paths of the tow plane and glider, similar to the
one published in England only more in depth), that were submitted to
SSA but never published.I called the SSA about this and some other
stuff today and the impression that I got was that if your last name
isnt Knauff or Wander, or Compton or someone else who buys ad space in
soaring, you will go pretty far down the list.Before I would invest the
time and energy in writing an article I would need some assurance that
it would get some consideration.
As to your comment about being the answer or the problem, let me ask
you who is the problem.Is it the guy who writes a inaccurate column
with sometimes glaring omisions, or is it the people who write in to
Soaring with corrections and clarifications meant to prevent accidents
(Which never get published in his column).In terms of safety here Tom,
you are thinking backwards.

> George Thelan has served the soaring community well for many years and has
> made major contributions to gliding safety. Most of us read his monthly
> column first, and the vast majority of us appreciate his efforts.

Tom, here you go with the basseless assumptions again.The "Vast
Majority" of the pilots that I know dont apprececiate George's dubiuos
level of accuracy.A good budy of mine who is a former Air Force
investigator makes jokes about Thelens column at our monthly
meetings.Thanks to the November column, alot of pilots will have
misconceptions about ATC and jet traffic.Why would you appreciate
that?
>
> Tom Knauff

[Brian[_1_]]

Maybe it didn't come across that way.

But what I was trying to say is it is very easy to critisize, it is
much harder to write a better column. Evidently no one here is
offering to write a better column. I really wasn't trying to express an
opinion about his column, especially since I haven't read the latest
one.

Brian

[Thomas Knauff]

KM stated:
". . .the impression that I got was that if your last name
isn't Knauff or Wander, or Compton or someone else who buys ad space in
soaring, you will go pretty far down the list."

Just so you know, I submitted the November article about a year ago. It is
very unusual for me to have more than one article per year. Probably as it
should be.

Tom Knauff

[KM]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> KM wrote:
> > Brian wrote:

> You are misreading my statements - I did not admit nor imply anything
> like that.

Yes I did, sorry about that.

> You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those things could improve
> the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting any of it into
> these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it BS - he states it's
> his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast they can't clear
> their path should do more to avoid problems. You might not agree, but
> that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

Not just the domes Eric.It was pretty much the whole thing.The fact
that he started analizing an airline crash was very irritating and he
didnt need to place blame either.This stuff is clearly outside the
scope of Soaring magazine.I think that readers should understand that a
small plane is VERY hard to see soon enough to do anything about at 300
KTS. Another thing is turn that transponder ON and the jet WILL pick
you up at least 20 miles away.

> George's column is there every month, but it is not the only
> "opportunity" for safety content in the magazine: currently, the Soaring
> Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and there are other
> articles on safety during the year. The November issue had an article by
> Knauff, for example.

So true, but from what I have seen in the few years I have been reading
Soaring, his is the only one that deals with accident
investigations.This is where I think his conclusions need to be more
consistent with the facts so that the average reader can learn
something and prevent a future problem.

> Still, there are other ways to do a safety column. One that might
> satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting column and not a
> clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2 or 3 pilots writing
> the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds and soaring
> experiences, so more factors would be examined and more knowledge put
> into it than any one writer could manage.
>
> Having a team would reduce the work each had to do. The actual writing
> could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of group and
> individually written columns. By operating it as a team and not just 2
> or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column could be consistent
> in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.
>
> What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS think about this
> approach? How is it handled by other countries?

I think it is a great idea.Depending on lead times and such I might not
be able to help out on a consistant basis but I am all for it.

[Gary Evans[_1_]]

At 00:42 07 November 2006, Km wrote:
>
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> KM wrote:
>> > Brian wrote:
>
>> You are misreading my statements - I did not admit
>>nor imply anything
>> like that.
>
>Yes I did, sorry about that.
>
>> You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those
>>things could improve
>> the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting
>>any of it into
>> these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it
>>BS - he states it's
>> his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast
>>they can't clear
>> their path should do more to avoid problems. You might
>>not agree, but
>> that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.
>
>Not just the domes Eric.It was pretty much the whole
>thing.The fact
>that he started analizing an airline crash was very
>irritating and he
>didnt need to place blame either.This stuff is clearly
>outside the
>scope of Soaring magazine.I think that readers should
>understand that a
>small plane is VERY hard to see soon enough to do anything
>about at 300
>KTS. Another thing is turn that transponder ON and
>the jet WILL pick
>you up at least 20 miles away.
>
>> George's column is there every month, but it is not
>>the only
>> 'opportunity' for safety content in the magazine:
>>currently, the Soaring
>> Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and
>>there are other
>> articles on safety during the year. The November issue
>>had an article by
>> Knauff, for example.
>
>So true, but from what I have seen in the few years
>I have been reading
>Soaring, his is the only one that deals with accident
>investigations.This is where I think his conclusions
>need to be more
>consistent with the facts so that the average reader
>can learn
>something and prevent a future problem.
>
>> Still, there are other ways to do a safety column.
>>One that might
>> satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting
>>column and not a
>> clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2
>>or 3 pilots writing
>> the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds
>>and soaring
>> experiences, so more factors would be examined and
>>more knowledge put
>> into it than any one writer could manage.
>>
>> Having a team would reduce the work each had to do.
>>The actual writing
>> could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of
>>group and
>> individually written columns. By operating it as a
>>team and not just 2
>> or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column
>>could be consistent
>> in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.
>>
>> What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS
>>think about this
>> approach? How is it handled by other countries?
>
>I think it is a great idea.Depending on lead times
>and such I might not
>be able to help out on a consistant basis but I am
>all for it.
>
>

The benefit in the Safety Column to me is the communications
of what occurred and not necessarily any resultant
recommendations. As in everything I hear or read I
try to separate the facts from opinions or conjecture
and I'll make my own judgments on that basis. With
a column subject like this it would be difficult to
find a author that would not put in some degree of
personal opinion and I doubt that (at least from RAS
perspective) it would ever satisfy everyone. IMO this
particular article did a pretty good job of keeping
the two separate.

[Ramy]

While Thelen's column suffer occasionly from lack of facts and too much
speculations, especially when he doesn't get around to interview the
pilots involved or eye witnesses, let's not forget that it is all
voluntarily. The NTSB, on the other end, is getting paid to produce
completely useless and inaccurate accident reports. Unless the accident
involved a celebrity or a famous pilot, the investigation is
wortheless. For example compare the NTSB report about the Owl accicdent
at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20061030X01573&key=1 to
Eric's report from the manufacture.
Thelen's safety corner at least attemtps to investigate the accidents
and provide us with food for thoughts. It is usually the first column I
read, accurate or not.

Ramy

Gary Evans wrote:
> At 00:42 07 November 2006, Km wrote:
> >
> >Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> KM wrote:
> >> > Brian wrote:
> >
> >> You are misreading my statements - I did not admit
> >>nor imply anything
> >> like that.
> >
> >Yes I did, sorry about that.
> >
> >> You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those
> >>things could improve
> >> the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting
> >>any of it into
> >> these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it
> >>BS - he states it's
> >> his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast
> >>they can't clear
> >> their path should do more to avoid problems. You might
> >>not agree, but
> >> that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.
> >
> >Not just the domes Eric.It was pretty much the whole
> >thing.The fact
> >that he started analizing an airline crash was very
> >irritating and he
> >didnt need to place blame either.This stuff is clearly
> >outside the
> >scope of Soaring magazine.I think that readers should
> >understand that a
> >small plane is VERY hard to see soon enough to do anything
> >about at 300
> >KTS. Another thing is turn that transponder ON and
> >the jet WILL pick
> >you up at least 20 miles away.
> >
> >> George's column is there every month, but it is not
> >>the only
> >> 'opportunity' for safety content in the magazine:
> >>currently, the Soaring
> >> Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and
> >>there are other
> >> articles on safety during the year. The November issue
> >>had an article by
> >> Knauff, for example.
> >
> >So true, but from what I have seen in the few years
> >I have been reading
> >Soaring, his is the only one that deals with accident
> >investigations.This is where I think his conclusions
> >need to be more
> >consistent with the facts so that the average reader
> >can learn
> >something and prevent a future problem.
> >
> >> Still, there are other ways to do a safety column.
> >>One that might
> >> satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting
> >>column and not a
> >> clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2
> >>or 3 pilots writing
> >> the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds
> >>and soaring
> >> experiences, so more factors would be examined and
> >>more knowledge put
> >> into it than any one writer could manage.
> >>
> >> Having a team would reduce the work each had to do.
> >>The actual writing
> >> could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of
> >>group and
> >> individually written columns. By operating it as a
> >>team and not just 2
> >> or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column
> >>could be consistent
> >> in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.
> >>
> >> What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS
> >>think about this
> >> approach? How is it handled by other countries?
> >
> >I think it is a great idea.Depending on lead times
> >and such I might not
> >be able to help out on a consistant basis but I am
> >all for it.
> >
> >
>
> The benefit in the Safety Column to me is the communications
> of what occurred and not necessarily any resultant
> recommendations. As in everything I hear or read I
> try to separate the facts from opinions or conjecture
> and I'll make my own judgments on that basis. With
> a column subject like this it would be difficult to
> find a author that would not put in some degree of
> personal opinion and I doubt that (at least from RAS
> perspective) it would ever satisfy everyone. IMO this
> particular article did a pretty good job of keeping
> the two separate.