How safe is the sport of soaring today

The "Cheer up" part... I almost fell off of my chair laughing

My question is... to be a safe pilot you need to be able to react
with the (right stuff) in a choke situation. How do you determine
that quality in an individual?

No matter how good of a technical pilot a person may be... it is the
correct reaction in a "Panic" situation that can make the difference
between a safe pilot and an unfortunate individual.

and then of course there are the deaf blind and stupid folks that run
on luck.

Steve

On 14 May 2004 21:29:36 -0700, (Tom Seim) wrote:

Every year this (or a similar) thread shows up on RAS. Basically, it
is "Oh Muh God, people are DIEING!

Step back and take a deep breath; has anything fundamentally changed
in the sport? I don't think so. Soaring has its hazards and that will
not change. If you want to reduce your risk: stop flying! Clearly, the
sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
Lennie the Lurker did!

Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
Sailing).

The wild card in all of this is how will each individual pilot react
to a real emergency. Sometimes training can simulate an emergency, but
the student will always think, in the back of his/hers mind, that the
instructor will bail him/her out if he/she screws up.

I don't like going to friends funerals anymore than the next guy, but
I'm not willng to give up the sport to eliminate the possibility.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

Tom Seim wrote
Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
Sailing).

Where did you get your information about the accident at Air sailing, Tom?

My understanding is it involved the first flight of the year in a fairly new
bird (ASW-20) and a fairly low time pilot (500hrs). Rope broke because he was
all over the sky, trying to stay in position. Then he was unable to execute a
180
without-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------we all know the rest of this scenario.
JJ Sinclair

(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...


Clearly, the
sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
Lennie the Lurker did!

Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the
most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a
cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else.

Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the
third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more.
Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them.
(Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.)

I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called
pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it.
Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has
patches on it.

Bob Johnson wrote:
Hi Mot --

Could you give us your critique of the Gantenbrink essay? Does it cover
most of the bases for you, or do you have further concerns?

From the standpoint of a low time pilot the essay (and the other
material on the DG/LS Safety site) may not be quite the all-purpose
material I thought it was.

Thanks,

Bob Johnson


Hi Bob,

As a very low time pilot (13hrs glider, 11 aeroplane, soloed in both) I
found the DG Safety info and the essay useful reading.

Its often said that "you don't know what you don't know" and as a newbie
I'm critically aware of the volumes of theory and hours of practice that
I need to acquire. It seems to me (from what little I've read so far)
that safety is an issue closely intertwined with Airmanship and Human
Factors. Fortunately, on the theory side there are many volumes written
that I can read, learn from and discuss. Reading r.a.s is (mostly) an
enlightening and sometimes a very sobering experience. Compared to the
pioneers of this sport, I'm able to learn from the experience of others.
I've yet to being my formal training for the NZ "QGP" rating but am
looking forward to the theory and discussion with our club's instructors.

The Vector magazine published by CAA here in NZ has recently had a
series on airmanship following the catch-phrase "Detect - Determine -
Decide - Discipline - Do". I found the following comment in the Jul/Aug
2003 article on very useful: "There is a simple strategy that you can
can use to improve your level of discipline - pretend that every flight
you do is a check flight..."

I love flying (well except for the long haul 24hrs in the back of a 747
from Auckland to London via LAX). However, I love my wife and son
immeasurably more and they need to *know* that every time I leave for
the airfield in the morning, I'll be back in one piece in the evening.
Therefore its my duty to learn about and know the hazards, eliminate
risk where possible, minimise those risks I have no control over and
maintain the discipline of good airmanship at all times.

Best regards,
Neil

--
Neil Allison, Christchurch, NZ

In article ,
(Mot) wrote:

Robert, your comments are certainly true regarding the media, but no
troll here. The intent of my original post was to secure an opinion of
other pilots with much more knowledge than myself regarding the
general safety of the sport. As a low time pilot (100 hrs.)I'm just
trying to listen to those out there with all the experience to assist
with my decision to continue in the sport.

- triple check your controls after rigging, and before 1st flight of the
day

- before takeoff mentally review where you'd go if the tow fails below
200 - 300 ft AGL.

- never be low + slow at the same time (unless you're *planning* to stop
flying).

- always know where you could land safely if you wanted/had to.

- if there are too many other gliders around to keep track of then leave
the area (one might sometimes be too many).

- if you're not aure about the conditions and/or your currency then get
a check flight


There are risks in this sport, but you get to choose to what extent you
expose yourself to them.

I have difficulty accepting the premise that a pilot needs more than 500
hours to be truly a safe pilot. This appears to be snobism.

If soaring pilots are not safe until they reach 500 hours, then those pilots
who choose not to be unsafe would voluntarily not fly, because they would be
unsafe for the first 500 hours.

Each of us can only speak from our own experience. When I took my check
ride for a private fixed wing license, I only had 35 hours. The check pilot
took me to a small airport to do takeoffs and landings. It was an
uncontrolled airport and very hazy. As we approached the airport, I became
uncomfortable flying with the reduced visibility, although I realized it was
still legal. I advised the check pilot that I was beyond my limits and was
going to turn around. He stated that I was too safe and cautious and that
it was legal to fly. He had about 10,000 hours of flying.

The following week, he was flying a twin engine Cessna on a charter during a
storm. He flew into a mountain in Cranbrook, BC.

Safety involves not exceeding the limits of your aircraft or your ability.
It is based upon knowledge, attitude and check lists. Unless the hours
increases knowledge or attitude, it does not necessarily make a safer pilot.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04

At 05:12 18 May 2004, Tom Seim wrote: (Snip)

Let's be serious for a moment. In regards to soaring,
which is what
this news group is about, you are a quitter. I, on
the other hand, am
a triple diamond holder. You don't use your real name
(surprise!). I,
on the other hand, do. I don't really care what else
you do, it's
irrelevent. But, were you to follow me around for a
single day, you
would be totally clueless about things that I am an
expert at. So
what? That has nothing to do with this news group.
You are basically a
bitter old man. I feel sorry for you.

Tom

I don't have a clue who Lennie is and I know that some
of the things he has said are somewhat provocative
but earlier in this thread, before the mudslinging
started he perhaps let slip something that we should
all consider. As human beings we all have limitations
and our limitations are different. We should all ask
ourselves 'am I competent to carry out the task'. Those
who can honestly answer yes and are flying within their
own limitations are the safe pilots. Those who are
not aware of the limitations or deliberately fly outside
them are something else. Anyone who recognises that
to continue when they are not sure of what they are
doing or realises that their committment has altered
and then act on that is not a quitter, he is a very
brave man. The graveyards are full of people who think
that they can get away with it for ever.

A triple diamond holder, does that make you a better
safer pilot do you think? It might, it probably does
but it could also mean that you are lucky, possess
better equipment or are a cheater. I am not for one
moment suggesting that you are any of the latter just
that in terms of safety and competence those little
sparkling gems mean very little. What means a great
deal more is the attitude you adopt when you take to
the air. Experience is not the number of diamonds you
have or even the number of flying hours, it is what
you have learned in achieving them. Safety is not about
achieving it is about attitude, skill and staying with
the limitations of yourself, your glider and others,
using the experience gained to avoid the dangerous
situations. Recognising that the time has come to quit
is the bravest that anyone could do.

Who should we really feel sorry for?

Don Johnstone wrote in message ...
At 05:12 18 May 2004, Tom Seim wrote: (Snip)

Those
who can honestly answer yes and are flying within their
own limitations are the safe pilots. Those who are
not aware of the limitations or deliberately fly outside
them are something else. Anyone who recognises that
to continue when they are not sure of what they are
doing or realises that their committment has altered
and then act on that is not a quitter,

Not sure just how to clarify what I meant there, I think any person
will find that their absolute limitations are far beyond what they
think they are, but the difference is in the judgment call in being
able to avoid having to push to their limitations in the first place.
Almost like having a gap between our perceived limits and what the
limits really are. When, for one reason or another, that gap has been
removed, the trouble starts. All margin of safety has been removed,
and a bad judgment call will be fatal. I never doubted myself in that
area, margins of safety, after the initial beginners mistakes, was
more important than anything else.

Limitations in being able to spend the amounts of money needed, I
never doubted them, they can be calculated to the last cent. IT hit
the limit, and nothing happened to cause me to doubt what had to be
done. I never felt really comfortable at the field, and that made the
decision easier, as did a lot of other small factors.

I see seim hasn't answered you, and doubt that he will. I have him
backed into a corner on his insinuation, and there isn't any graceful
way out for him. Exactly where I plan on keeping it. No facts and a
big ego will do it every time.

Hi Lennie,

Could you do me a big favor? Change your email handle... irony just
isn't your strong suit.

Thanks! Hope your world continues to turn predictably.

Best wishes for your and yours,

OC

Hi Lennie,

Could you do me a big favor? Change your email handle... irony just
isn't your strong suit.

I thought irony *was* his strong point - chunks it up in lathes and mills,
etc? 8-)

Keith