Pilots with weakening vision - please install Powerflarm

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 11:27:09 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 1:28:13 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:06:07 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:



PowerFlarm saved us from a probable fatal midair at Hobbs.















Thanks to everyone who has equipped their gliders with flarm.















-Evan Ludeman / T8







In the last 20 years, there have been 2 fatalities reported to the NTSB in glider-to-glider collisions. One in competition, the other not (ridge flying). Most of this period is without the benefit of Flarm. In both cases had both gliders been Flarm equipped the accident probably would have been avoided. Nevertheless, it remains statistically a very rare event. If safety is your concern there is more fertile ground to plow.







Disclaimer: my glider is PFlarm equipped and I have 20/15 vision in both eyes.



Cast your excellent vision on this sometime, please. It's 20 years old, unfortunately still very relevant. Bruno speaks for me on the comparison of auto and glider safety.



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



FWIW, I agree (it's obvious to anyone that takes the time to look) that mid air risk is second order to launch phase, landing phase and terrain collision accidents.



Different types of risk respond to different risk management approaches and what works (training, judgement) for these other types of accidents just doesn't work as well for mid air avoidance. It's a sensory limitation. We don't have 4pi steradian vision and we aren't very good at picking up targets that are on a direct collision course. Happily, flarm does these things pretty well. Good on you for installing flarm.



regards,

Evan

That is an interesting article, but only tangentially on point.

Soaring is (compared to automobile travel) statistically dangerous. Glider-to-glider mid air collisions are a negligible part of that danger. Concentrating on them distracts from the much larger dangers. However, your point about mid air collisions being intractable to training is valid. Here is a risk that - with the mere expenditure of $2000 by every glider owner - can be largely eliminated. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you are much safer as a result.

Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%. Now I am aware that a particular misfortune that befalls me is not made more bearable by its statistic rarity. Nevertheless, those are the numbers.

I installed the PFlarm mainly for two reasons: peer pressure and as an in-flight entertainment system. Safety concerns were a distant third. I will though, turn hard right if I see you coming on my entertainment system!

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:09:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion.. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%.

The past 20 years are not a terribly good predictor of the next 5 years when you consider that a number of pilots are now seeing their vision deteriorate due to age. It happens gradually so the change sneaks up on you.

Take a minute to reread Vaughn's post which is very much to the point:

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:
Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,
do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision
deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)

At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,
and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the
air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.
So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition
"marginal".

The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 2:46:41 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:09:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:



Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%.



The past 20 years are not a terribly good predictor of the next 5 years when you consider that a number of pilots are now seeing their vision deteriorate due to age. It happens gradually so the change sneaks up on you.



Take a minute to reread Vaughn's post which is very much to the point:



On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:

Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,

do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision

deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)



At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,

and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the

air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.

So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition

"marginal".



The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that, I'm interested.

B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in the outcome (though Flarm probably would).

I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.

By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball jackpot.

Finally, a rational voice in the internet wilderness.
Statistically, midair collisions in non-contest situations are so small, especially as compared to approach to landing and scratching for lift stall/spins that the attention and money being directed to this technology is crazy. To my knowledge, the leading cause of pilot deaths is stall/spins in the landing phase of flight. The recent situation at SFO is different?

THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD GO.

Flame me.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:50:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Finally, a rational voice in the internet wilderness.

Statistically, midair collisions in non-contest situations are so small, especially as compared to approach to landing and scratching for lift stall/spins that the attention and money being directed to this technology is crazy. To my knowledge, the leading cause of pilot deaths is stall/spins in the landing phase of flight. The recent situation at SFO is different?



THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD GO.



Flame me.



Guy Acheson "DDS"

It's not about money. If you can figure out how to get every glider pilot to use the ABCCCDDE or equivalent pre take off checklist for every take off, we'll cut fatalities by at least a quarter, right there. Dive brakes, dollies & canopies, anyone? A moment's advance thinking on an Emergency plan might save a few too.

Back to mid-airs. Eric is right to point out the potential utility of PF in the preventing accidents with transient power plane traffic. As well, it could have prevented the 2009(?) midair between a glider and tow plane (2 more fatalities).

regards,
Evan

jfitch wrote, On 7/9/2013 4:24 PM:


Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has
changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that,
I'm interested.

B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB
database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in
the outcome (though Flarm probably would).

I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I
think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on
by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is
really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a
growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every
reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more
glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider
that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just
learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are
standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.

By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the
glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to
die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due
to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his
deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball
jackpot.

There were a number of glider-glider collisions in the last 20 years
that did not result in fatalities (like Ed Sakeld's a few years ago), so
perhaps we are lucky it's only two in twenty years. And since PowerFlarm
also adds transponder and ADS-B reporting, perhaps the statistics should
be enlarged to include accidents that could have been avoided by those
two technologies (like the airplane/towplane accident in Boulder).

Besides the collision warnings, many pilots will derive some value from
the flight recorder function and the "entertainment" aspect of PowerFlarm.

So, attributing some monetary value to these additional functions lowers
the cost of the glider-glider fatality avoidance function. I can't say
it would become the most cost effective way to spend that money for
glider-glider fatality avoidance, but it certainly makes it cheap enough
I'm happy to spend the money today for value that will accrue for many
years.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:39:53 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
jfitch wrote, On 7/9/2013 4:24 PM:





Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has

changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that,

I'm interested.



B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB

database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in

the outcome (though Flarm probably would).



I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I

think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on

by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is

really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a

growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every

reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more

glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider

that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just

learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are

standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.



By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the

glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to

die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due

to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his

deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball

jackpot.



There were a number of glider-glider collisions in the last 20 years

that did not result in fatalities (like Ed Sakeld's a few years ago), so

perhaps we are lucky it's only two in twenty years. And since PowerFlarm

also adds transponder and ADS-B reporting, perhaps the statistics should

be enlarged to include accidents that could have been avoided by those

two technologies (like the airplane/towplane accident in Boulder).



Besides the collision warnings, many pilots will derive some value from

the flight recorder function and the "entertainment" aspect of PowerFlarm..



So, attributing some monetary value to these additional functions lowers

the cost of the glider-glider fatality avoidance function. I can't say

it would become the most cost effective way to spend that money for

glider-glider fatality avoidance, but it certainly makes it cheap enough

I'm happy to spend the money today for value that will accrue for many

years.



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

The thread started with the idea that old folks in gliders are plowing into young folks in gliders at an alarming rate. This is simply not happening, and not likely to. Yes there have been a few more non fatal mid airs, but still quite a low rate - only 4 or 5 more in twenty years history. Mid air collisions of any type are simply not the low hanging fruit of soaring safety.

I'm not sure the PCAS capability of PowerFlarm is going to be all that useful - but the ADS-B will be, and more so as time goes on. Mid airs between glider and tow plane (there have been more of those than glider-to-glider) would be prevented only if the towplanes have either Flarm or ADS-B. However much of this would also be (and is) accomplished by transponders.

I justified the PFlarm cost by the entertainment and leeching value.

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:12:13 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

The thread started with the idea that old folks in gliders are plowing into young folks in gliders at an alarming rate.

No. I started this thread because of ***one specific vision-impaired pilot*** who does not see me (or other pilots I've spoken with) in the air. This guy is a statistical anomaly; the low number of mid-airs over the years tells us that MOST people have had the good sense to get their cataracts fixed. This guy does not.

It was only a matter of hours before another pilot(Vaughn)caught my drift, bravely came forward on this thread, and admitted that he too had flown with poor vision (before he got his cataracts fixed). So it is fair to say that there are few other pilots out there that have been putting off cataract surgery ("but the doctor says that my eyes are 'not so bad'").

Now if these vision-impaired pilots want to extend the low historically low rate of mid-air collisions, they need to do what smart pilots have done in the past and get their eyes fixed. I would go so far as to say that if you are still flying with impaired vision, that you are probably suffering from mental impairment as well. That's the most polite way that I can say it..

The historically low rate of mid-air collisions is partly due to pilots in the past having the good sense to get their vision fixed. It is partly due to a safety culture that encourages pilots to get their vision fixed. If we want to continue the good historical record, we need to continue the safety culture that has made that record possible. It is "bad safety culture" to say "statistics tell us that people either do not fly with poor vision, or that they do not pose a real problem." Do I hear a tendency to deny that there are any impaired glider pilots in the air?

Back to the one specific "flying menace" in my neighborhood. This guy is cantankerous and sharp-tongued, he "goes off on people" and nobody wants to step into the line of fire. I've had him "go off" on me because I was mishandling his wingtip (according to him). The best advice that I've gotten so far is to "start flying XC and get away from him".

Son,I just spoke to your dad (Flubber ) and he said " Yeah the kid stepped on his weenie, he should just own it and move on"