Put your money where the risk is

Will the accused pilot have a say in jury selection?

I kind of like the concept, it has general potential.

However what is definitely risky/dangerous practice for one pilot, is a normal day, well within safe boundaries for another pilot with a different skill set.

Example: for the type of flying I do, thermalling/saves at the 400-600 ft agl level are not a risky manouver given that I have a landing spot already studied out and within direct reach and having literally thousands of hours of low level flying and turning. For someone else this would be a very bad idea
Who judges whats considered dangerous or not?

How about each pilot submits a list of what their personal boundaries are, then we judge and watch for the times that pilot breaks his own submitted set of do’s and don’t. That could be directly useful. I know I broke one of my own personal rules this last season, no harm no foul but if I volunteered myself to an outside judge they could possibly bring to my attention other unrecognized (to me) instances where I was seen to come very close or break my own safety-set.

In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L

I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories. Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.

Tom

2G wrote on 11/15/2019 10:16 PM:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L

I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories. Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.

I don't recall any recent incidents, but getting sucked into a cloud may be an
example of slowly reducing your margins because you got away with it before. I'm
thinking of Erik Larson, who wasn't killed, but bailed out of his ASH26E when it
became enveloped in a cloud while wave flying out of Minden. Another is Kempton
Izuno, who got pulled up into the cloud during thermalling, and very narrowly
avoided catastrophe. Both could have gone far worse. Another example might be Bill
Gawthrop's crash short of the runway at Truckee. All three of these were very good
pilots at the time of the incidents.


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

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:12:07 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 11/15/2019 10:16 PM:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L

I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories.. Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.

I don't recall any recent incidents, but getting sucked into a cloud may be an
example of slowly reducing your margins because you got away with it before. I'm
thinking of Erik Larson, who wasn't killed, but bailed out of his ASH26E when it
became enveloped in a cloud while wave flying out of Minden. Another is Kempton
Izuno, who got pulled up into the cloud during thermalling, and very narrowly
avoided catastrophe. Both could have gone far worse. Another example might be Bill
Gawthrop's crash short of the runway at Truckee. All three of these were very good
pilots at the time of the incidents.


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

None of these were fatal accidents (Bill's was very close). Flying in wave these days w/o an artificial horizon is a judgment, not an airmanship, error. Furthermore, Bill's accident was the result of very unusual winds, which is just bad luck. The original post specifically mentioned fatalities.

Tom

2G wrote on 11/16/2019 4:56 PM:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:12:07 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 11/15/2019 10:16 PM:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston
wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This
is a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that
occasionally experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this
happens it would almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes
this hazard and decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing
before dawn when rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to
trigger these). He then has to decide if, for a particular situation,
the risk is worth the reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to
camp before the weather turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and
mitigated, but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their
own skill versus the situation and decide if the reward is worth the
risk. The wise pilots will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will
lose more often.

Rich L

I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents
in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories..
Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.

I don't recall any recent incidents, but getting sucked into a cloud may be
an example of slowly reducing your margins because you got away with it
before. I'm thinking of Erik Larson, who wasn't killed, but bailed out of his
ASH26E when it became enveloped in a cloud while wave flying out of Minden.
Another is Kempton Izuno, who got pulled up into the cloud during
thermalling, and very narrowly avoided catastrophe. Both could have gone far
worse. Another example might be Bill Gawthrop's crash short of the runway at
Truckee. All three of these were very good pilots at the time of the
incidents.


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

None of these were fatal accidents (Bill's was very close). Flying in wave
these days w/o an artificial horizon is a judgment, not an airmanship, error.
Furthermore, Bill's accident was the result of very unusual winds, which is
just bad luck. The original post specifically mentioned fatalities.

I was giving examples that I thought illustrated the concept, and perhaps jog
peoples memories for more examples. They didn't need to be fatal for that purpose,
especially since I wasn't certain "loses" referred only to fatal events. Erik
Larson did have an artificial horizon, but as I recall, it was not on when he
entered cloud, and it didn't spin up fast enough to help him. I think Bill's
accident was not just bad luck, but partly the result of a purposeful reduction in
margins. As I recall, he wanted to land short to avoid pushing the plane back a
longer ways, instead of landing long as using the turnout further down the runway.

Tom, the sad reality is that the cause of majority of fatal accidents is not known. There are usually only speculations. So I am curious which fatal accidents in recent years you have enough data to conclude they were due to poor airmanship, and where do you get this data. Certainly not from most NTSB reports.
In fact, most of the incidents which were clearly due to poor airmanship or unnecessary risk taking that we know of are the non fatal ones.

Ramy

Tom,Iam not sure I know what you mean by **** poor aitmanship. Do you mean poor stick and rudder skills? Someone that would be considered an inexperienced pilot? As noted, we dont realy know what exactly happend in most fatal accidents, as there are no survivors to interview.

The ones that hit home for me are very experienced pilots, who I asume were using their excellent stick and rudder skills but that could not save them.. I believe in most of those cases, it was the erosion of personal margins that got them in trouble. For each one of those accidents I have added to my own margins.

The old saying The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid needing to use his superior flying skills...

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-6, RR wrote:
Tom,Iam not sure I know what you mean by **** poor aitmanship. Do you mean poor stick and rudder skills? Someone that would be considered an inexperienced pilot? As noted, we dont realy know what exactly happend in most fatal accidents, as there are no survivors to interview.

The ones that hit home for me are very experienced pilots, who I asume were using their excellent stick and rudder skills but that could not save them. I believe in most of those cases, it was the erosion of personal margins that got them in trouble. For each one of those accidents I have added to my own margins.

The old saying The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid needing to use his superior flying skills...

Websters' expanded definition:Airmanship

Airmanship is skill and knowledge applied to aerial navigation, similar to seamanship in maritime navigation. Airmanship covers a broad range of desirable behaviors and abilities in an aviator. It is not simply a measure of skill or technique, but also a measure of a pilot’s awareness of the aircraft, the environment in which it operates, and of his own capabilities. �A sound acquaintance with the principles of flight, �The ability to operate an airplane with competence and precision both on the ground and in the air, and �The exercise of sound judgment that results in optimal operational safety and efficiency. The three fundamental principles of expert airmanship are skill, proficiency, and the discipline to apply them in a safe and efficient manner. Discipline is the foundation of airmanship. The complexity of the aviation environment demands a foundation of solid airmanship, and a healthy, positive approach to combating pilot error. The actions of Captain Alfred C. Haynes and the crew of United Airlines Flight 232 are often cited as an exemplar of good airmanship. They were able to maintain control of their crippled McDonnell Douglas DC-10, bringing it to a survivable "controlled crash" in Sioux City, Iowa, after a complete loss of all flight controls following an engine failure in July 1989. They did this by improvising a control scheme on the spot using differential thrust on the two working engines. Captain Haynes credited his Crew Resource Management training as one of the key factors that saved his own life, and many others.

I will chime in, and IMHO, airmanship is vastly more than "stick and rudder skills"