"Selling" Safety

A newsgroup may well be one of the worst imaginable venues for 'selling
safety' (other than Twitter, of course...) but the recent threads focusing on
it set me to musing. Don't look for any pithy snippets of panacea wisdom in
what follows, but if some of it gets a reader or two to cogitating on their
own about their particular soaring situation, then maybe some of us may
'somehow, magically' become slightly safer than we would've been without the
cogitating...and I'm a fan of motherhood, apple pie, and 'safety.'

For the record, count me as one SSA member who wholeheartedly approves of and
agrees with the sentiments in Al Tyler's and Rich Carlson's 8/25 letter to
members. (For non-SSA readers, Tyler is Board Chairman of the SSA; Carlson is
Chairman of the Soaring Safety Foundation [SSF].) Their letter is a focused,
heartfelt, even actionable Great Start to 'getting a pilot's attention' on the
importance of incorporating an active safety focus into one's approach to the
sport.

It's my understanding they've received multiple (possibly even numerous)
letters of encouraging feedback, itself an encouraging sign. Maybe even from
RAS-ers. At least one includes a thoroughly thought out 'safety program' (my
characterization) I hope elements of which - all, in an ideal world - become a
fundamental part of SSA and 'the U.S. soaring movement.' That's you and me,
not 'someone else.'

I find it encouraging/validational I'm not the only soaring pilot who
amorphously feels 'the safety message' maybe hasn't been terribly well
presented - at least in the U.S. To me, it's almost as if certain aspects of
'soaring safety' are (perhaps) perceived as 'so self-evident' that they don't
need to be mentioned, certainly infrequently dwelled upon, during training.
After all who, by adulthood, doesn't know that when you go higher than you're
willing to fall - and, faster than you're willing to walk into a brick wall -
you're taking life-endangering risk? Yet, any semi-focused attention to human
behavior around us, anywhere, any day, quickly makes evident that many humans
routinely act as if the two preceding realities don't matter to them...at
least not when we happen to be watching. To often true for soaring, too, sad
to say.

Yet - and this is an experiment I've run many times out of bemused curiosity
(and, sometimes, as a means of improving my life-continuance chances in
friends' vehicles, dismayed chuckle) - if you're ever in a situation to 'ask
the obvious,' - e.g. "Joe, are you ready or wanting to die today, during this
activity?" - you often, not always, will get the expected answer. Which is to
say that most people, when they actually do stop for a moment to actively
ponder possible, not far-fetched, consequences of their actions, provide what
they believe is a rational answer. 'Rational' though isn't synonymous with
'informed.' (Try questioning interstate-tailgating friends, for a possible
eye-opener.)

When I try to reconcile the paradox of 'self-evident, life-threatening risk,'
and 'simultaneously unaware/unincorporative behavior,' part of me wonders
if/how much education (lack of?), 'culture' and 'related concepts' interact.

Probably most readers can think of a few 'cowboy soaring pilots' they've seen;
maybe even a few knew some in this category who've died 'cowboying.' (I have
one strong 'probable'.) But most of the now-dead soaring pilots I used to know
were not cowboys. A few had demonstrated (to my way of thinking) a certain
talent for 'questionable thought/practices' but were not obviously deficient
in their stick and rudder skills. Most I'd place in my 'normal Joe' pilot
category (in which I include myself). Further, the occasions of their deaths
tend to be generally innocuous situations - hitting a ridge tree on an utterly
benign, non-ridge-soarable afternoon, stalling/spinning into the ground from
several thousand feet aloft, the dreaded inadvertent stall spin on the
base-to-final turn on a benign day at a flatland airport, etc. Simply put, my
group of now-dead-by-soaring friends and acquaintances died 'situationally
unremarkably.' Various ad-hoc reviews of NTSB glider fatalities over the years
leads me to conclude this is the norm. Exceptions exist, but the largest
proportion of U.S. glider fatalities since the 1970s are (in my view) not from
actual (as distinct from perceived) emergency situations. In other words,
'normal soaring deaths' are typically due to situations any average glider
pilot might find themselves in on any routine - doesn't have to be XC -
soaring flight.

I could tabularize my investigations, but that would sort of defeat one hope
for these musings, which is to encourage readers to perhaps engage in more
'thoughts on soaring safety' than they otherwise might.

You don't have to look far to find folks who have stated, or do in all
seriousness state, "You can't sell safety." Ford Motor Company; I could
probably find a Tom Knauff statement to this effect; etc.

And maybe that's part of the problem, the concept that 'safety' has to be 'sold.'

Rubbish!!! Safety either is or is not an inherent part of one's approach to
any life-endangering activity, and the *degree* of it is far from easily
quantifiable.

Sailplane manufacturers can, and do, continually improve 'sailplane safety':
engineered cockpit reinforcement and 'crushability', improved seatbelts,
ballistic parachutes. Pilots sometimes join in: upgraded seatbelts, ballistic
parachutes, temperfoam, etc. All to the good, but woefully incomplete insofar
as risk to pilots' lives is concerned.

Beyond the 'mere mechanics' of safety, surrounding and enclosing 'mechanical
safety' is an entire universe of 'safety as a concept.'

At its most fundamental, 'conceptual safety' is the avoidance of an accident.

No manufacturer can help us here! (To do so would be to intentionally commit
corporate suicide, i.e. "You'll be safer if you don't buy my sailplane.")

QED, Joe Pilot is part and parcel of any glider's 'safety package.' What
soaring pilot would wish it otherwise?

And this brings us full circle to the concept of "selling" safety. I'll argue
it is 'our JOB' to do so, at every level of the sport, from club instructor,
to commercial (e.g. FBO) instructor, to (any level of) club pilot, to clubs
themselves (beyond instruction per se), to individual pilots in any setting.
Failure to do so isn't merely 'an inconsequential inaction,' but arguably
irresponsible if not outright endangering to the continuing health of the
sport itself.

When I was a neophyte, I looked not only to my instructor, but to my peers and
friends in the club, and beyond them to 'the experienced pilots' for 'safety
input.' I was a veritable 'eager, if somewhat overawed, sponge.' Maybe I was
abbienormal in that regard, but if so only in degree, not in concept.
Eventually I was able to detect - and confirm by asking those whose judgment
and opinions had gained further respect in my eyes - 'dodgy pilot activity'
(including pre-/post-flight). Even later I developed the ability and
confidence in my own judgment to make 'defensible judgmental assessments' on
my own. There's absolutely nothing remarkable or unusual about that progression.

I was, perhaps, luckier than I might have been in my 'choice' of training club
(the only one around where I happened to move to after school), but in no
other way was my beginner's situation unusual or different from any other
beginner's. Each beginner was/is/will-be entirely dependent on others for
their absorption of all that is 'soaring,' which includes not merely the stick
and rudder training so obvious to everyone as necessary, but also the
maybe-not-so-obvious 'other stuff.' Which just happens to include 'the safety
stuff.'

'Safety' isn't amenable to compartmentalization. The absence of 'certain
thoughts, concepts, and thinking' in everyday glider-based flight scenarios is
simply 'less safe' (than their presence), and it's up to those who know to
imbue those who are seeking to know, or simply in ignorant need *of* knowing,
with the requisite knowledge. To help them hear, comprehend and ultimately
develop a conceptual approach to 'safe flying.' The full monty of 'safety'
includes words, might/should-often include hands-on demonstrations, actions
("Do as I do, not as I say..."), and arguably 'daily life.' Safety isn't
something we switch on when we get into a glider cockpit, it's an approach to
our entire involvement *in* that activity. It's a mindset, an awareness, that
also just happens to include lots of nuggets and snippets of ad-hoc actions
and knowledge, too often mistaken for safety itself.

Reflectively,
Bob W.

Bob,
If the safety message is long or complicated it won't be read,
understood or remembered. I think it should be short, simple and
direct:

+++ Don't practice rope breaks below 500 feet and only after briefing
it.

+++ Everybody needs to have a radio and do a com-check before every
takeoff.

Cheers,
JJ

Well said Bob.
This took a lot of time to write, and you obviously spent a great deal
of time considering the words you used and message you conveyed.

With your permission, I plan to post this in our pilot lounge.

Tom Knauff
Ridge Soaring Gliderport

Originally Posted by JJ Sinclair[_2_]

Bob,
If the safety message is long or complicated it won't be read,
understood or remembered. I think it should be short, simple and
direct:

+++ Don't practice rope breaks below 500 feet and only after briefing
it.

+++ Everybody needs to have a radio and do a com-check before every
takeoff.

Cheers,
JJ

Geeezzzzzz, reflecting on this whole thing the last few weeks has gotten me really gun-shy about flying. I try hard to do it right... never had any "close ones" Am I the only one that's got a nagging freak factor tingling the back of my head now...... you still can pound in! Oh crap..... Do I need to ground myself tell I figure something out, am I just a skilled dodge ball junkie like all everyone else. I'm self grounding for a while, screw it.

On Sep 11, 1:37*pm, POPS wrote:
'JJ Sinclair[_2_ Wrote:

;782996']Bob,
If the safety message is long or complicated it won't be read,
understood or remembered. I think it should be short, simple and
direct:

+++ Don't practice rope breaks below 500 feet and only after briefing
it.

+++ Everybody needs to have a radio and do a com-check before every
takeoff.

Cheers,
JJ

Geeezzzzzz, * reflecting on this whole thing the last few weeks has
gotten me really gun-shy about *flying. * I try hard to do it right....
never had any "close ones" * Am I the only one that's got a nagging
freak factor tingling the back of my head now...... you still can pound
in! * Oh crap..... *Do I need to ground myself tell I figure something
out, *am I just a skilled dodge ball junkie like all everyone else. *I'm
self grounding for a while, screw it.

--
POPS

I've ALWAYS been gunshy about flying - but it hasn't stopped me.
Flying requires at least as much vigilance as working with a loaded
gun - it's just not something you can get away with doing
carelessly. Once you become accustomed to the vigilance it requires,
flying is a lot of fun.

If you study accident reports, you will find most are really stupid.
The remainder can be managed.

On 9/11/2011 9:58 AM, Tom wrote:
Well said Bob.
This took a lot of time to write, and you obviously spent a great deal
of time considering the words you used and message you conveyed.

With your permission, I plan to post this in our pilot lounge.

Tom Knauff
Ridge Soaring Gliderport

Tom - all feedback is appreciated, some more than others!

Even were RAS not public domain, my take on (anyone) disseminating 'safety
messages' is: The more the better.

Regards,
Bob W.

On 9/11/2011 7:05 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:

Bob,
If the safety message is long or complicated it won't be read,
understood or remembered. I think it should be short, simple and
direct:

+++ Don't practice rope breaks below 500 feet and only after briefing
it.

+++ Everybody needs to have a radio and do a com-check before every
takeoff.

Cheers,
JJ

Hi JJ,

My sense is you're already a member of the choir, so in that sense I won't
expend psychic energy worrying about your approach to safety. It seems to have
served & be serving you well!

Nor is your point worth discussing/'arguing' in the right/wrong sense. People
definitely learn in different ways (including in different ways at different
*times*), because brains are so complex and diverse.

I further agree bullet points are definitely a part of learning...as are
repetition, the placing of the bullet points in some sort of context, etc.
I do wonder how many bullet points SSA/SSF/you/I/anyone-else will need to
cover every aspect of 'life-threatening safety' simply in the soaring world,
though, not to mention the (obviously?) higher-energy/riskier military world
you're eminently familiar with. :-)

Regards,
Bob W.

On 9/11/11 12:37 PM, POPS wrote:
I'm self grounding for a while, screw it.

That's about the worst thing you can do. Most sailplane pilots fly
don't fly nearly enough to maintain currency. How many folks out there
don't bother to fly unless the weather is "perfect"??

-Tom