Does How a (Sailplane) Pilot Thinks, Matter?

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-6, Jim Kellett wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:

Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.

snip

Great thread! Two thoughts:
1. First, with regards to "why" vs. "what", with every passing decade we learn more and more about how human brains work, and many of the discoveries reveal that what we have always THOUGHT just ain't so. For example, several studies (no, this isn't an April Fool joke!) have shown that risk-taking behavior is strongly affected by physiology. For example, you're more likely to take the risks of a low save if you happen to prefer spicy foods! (See http://www.nbcnews.com/health/your-l...udy-6C10851877) Maybe the 'chuckleheads' are unfortunately addicted to jalapenos . . . and just can't help it. And you simply can't 'un-teach' an individual's fundamental neurology.

2. Second, on the question of what is a proper 'safe' altitude for the XC pilot, the answer, I believe (based on 50+ years of soaring experience, including 35 as a CFI) is the famous "IT DEPENDS". Over an airport in the pattern? Over unlandable terrain? Over a large, flat, open field? In a 1-26? In an ASG-29? No wind or strong gusty wind? I strongly believe that teaching 'standard' numbers for such situations is a cop-out by instructors who're reverting to the simple teaching of rote (the lowest level of learning)..

What Jim says in 1. Discoveries regarding the brain are still happening. This study, published in June 2015, expands the knowledge of physiology related to the brain and body. Interesting that it was overlooked for so many years. Though the study relates to the physiology, it certainly opens the door to behavioral effects also in the sense of overall well-being, personal vulnerability, and attitude as part of the body's feedback loops.
http://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-r...nervous-system

I like spicy peppers and try and grow them annually. They do trigger physiological effects.

I've made some low saves from 400ft, but only where I've had the option to land, once rounding the turnpoint at the same time and field hopping on the sea breeze (UK) until I climbed out again. I believe I understand the risks. I've also bailed on low save attempts, especially after about 30 minutes where I felt the conditions and expended effort might lead to 'the mistake'. By conditions, I mean heat and undetected change in winds. 30 minutes seems to be my personal limit.

As part of the scoring team, I recall an early GPS trace (1993-1994) from a UK national's pilot thermalling at 250-450 agl for 35 minutes and getting away to complete the task, in an ASH-25. You can see where he did this by looking up Daventry, UK. It was just ESE of Bourough Hill. Plenty of landable fields, if they'd been harvested. IIRC, the contests in both years were held after the harvest was well underway.

Frank Whiteley

While I am almost unequivocally opposed to using anecdotes rather than statistics to further a cause, I think I need to side with the "too risky" crowd. The reason being the same as Dan stated, why is it worth it?

In each of the times that proponents of the low save have justified the measures, they have said that they would only do that in the case where there is a perfectly good landing spot available below them. I'm not saying you aren't capable of pulling it off or making it work, but as a CFI-G, it reminds me of my space-shuttle type landings i used to do that looked really cool and smooth, but are very difficult for a student to replicate. I no longer do them, because it is far more important that pilots understand what is considered a safe standard, and what is a pilot accepting additional risk for a perceived benefit.

In this case, especially due to the shear and turbulence that is almost always present on decent days, i put this in the latter category. Not saying Ag or any of you others are not capable of flying it correctly, but I would never teach my student that thermalling a 200ft over a good landing spot is worth it, because mistakes happen, and our standard as a community should always be to allow ourselves more than one mistake's room away from never coming home to our families.

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
killing myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

You asked two questions.
1. What pattern altitude should you use.
Answer: what feels most comfortable to you. Personally, I like a lot of extra altitude as insurance if someone comes busting into the pattern radio silent (it happens) or somebody ahead of you lands gear-up (that happens too).. Altitude can always be scrubbed, but is hard to gain if necessary. BTW, the difference between 800 and 1000 ft is negligible.

2. Minimum thermalling altitude.
Answer: your demonstrated spin recovery altitude x 2. Or your normal pattern altitude - which ever is higher. And this assumes you are over, or very near, a landable field. I knew a pilot who killed himself doing this at about 400 ft; he left a wife and kids. THINK about it: how important is it to you to prove you can "save" yourself from a dangerously low altitude? Be safe, live to fly another day.

Tom

As to a clear metric, yes it depends. Rules of thumb need to be carefully evaluated if they match the situation.

One thing that I think we miss in the discussion is that, from a regulatory standpoint, a low save is (again depending on the situation) a potential emergency.

In the US, §91.119 has a very clear metric on this. Unless you are INTENDING to land (or takeoff), you must remain at least 1,000 feet above any obstacle with 2,000 feet horizontal of your position in a congested area. In uncongested areas you must remain 500 feet above the surface, except over "sparsely populated areas" and water surfaces, at least 500 feet away from, essentially, persons or man-made objects.

Sorry I am quoting regulation here, but certainly something as food for thought, and if anything a guide for serial low-savers.

If you're going to cite regulations, let me ask you this: Do you fly up
to cloud base? I'll wager more pilots are guilty of one than the other.

It's easy to lose track of regulatory requirements when deeply involved
in saving the flight but, as others have also said, getting to the point
of executing a low save indicates lapses in judgment further back in the
flight. To take from Nancy Reagan, "Just don't get low."

Having said that, I recall catching a thermal off a pig farm as I was
turning final to land at that farm. The lift was smooth, gentle, and
smelly, but I got away! ...Only to land out later at an airport (still
not at home).

Numbers are for non-thinkers. How does it feel? Turbulence? Wind
drift? Terrain? Narrow or wide area of lift? Airspeed? Coordination?
Any one of these things can cause a really bad day and it's incumbent on
each of us to know what is "safe" for us in a given situation. As Dirty
Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Fly safe!

Dan

On 4/2/2016 6:47 AM, N97MT wrote:
As to a clear metric, yes it depends. Rules of thumb need to be carefully evaluated if they match the situation.

One thing that I think we miss in the discussion is that, from a regulatory standpoint, a low save is (again depending on the situation) a potential emergency.

In the US, §91.119 has a very clear metric on this. Unless you are INTENDING to land (or takeoff), you must remain at least 1,000 feet above any obstacle with 2,000 feet horizontal of your position in a congested area. In uncongested areas you must remain 500 feet above the surface, except over "sparsely populated areas" and water surfaces, at least 500 feet away from, essentially, persons or man-made objects.

Sorry I am quoting regulation here, but certainly something as food for thought, and if anything a guide for serial low-savers.


--
Dan, 5J

At 15:08 02 April 2016, Dan Marotta wrote:
If you're going to cite regulations, let me ask you this: Do you fly up
to cloud base? I'll wager more pilots are guilty of one than the other.

It's easy to lose track of regulatory requirements when deeply involved
in saving the flight but, as others have also said, getting to the point
of executing a low save indicates lapses in judgment further back in the
flight. To take from Nancy Reagan, "Just don't get low."

Having said that, I recall catching a thermal off a pig farm as I was
turning final to land at that farm. The lift was smooth, gentle, and
smelly, but I got away! ...Only to land out later at an airport (still
not at home).

Numbers are for non-thinkers. How does it feel? Turbulence? Wind
drift? Terrain? Narrow or wide area of lift? Airspeed? Coordination?
Any one of these things can cause a really bad day and it's incumbent on
each of us to know what is "safe" for us in a given situation. As Dirty
Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Fly safe!

Dan

On 4/2/2016 6:47 AM, N97MT wrote:
As to a clear metric, yes it depends. Rules of thumb need to be
carefully
evaluated if they match the situation.

One thing that I think we miss in the discussion is that, from a
regulatory standpoint, a low save is (again depending on the situation) a
potential emergency.

In the US, �91.119 has a very clear metric on this. Unless you are
INTENDING to land (or takeoff), you must remain at least 1,000 feet above
any obstacle with 2,000 feet horizontal of your position in a congested
area. In uncongested areas you must remain 500 feet above the surface,
except over "sparsely populated areas" and water surfaces, at least 500
feet away from, essentially, persons or man-made objects.

Sorry I am quoting regulation here, but certainly something as food for
thought, and if anything a guide for serial low-savers.


Dan, 5J


How does a Comp pilot think ?
You can loose points spending 1/2 an hour struggling and then landing time

points are important.
Find a safe field as far down track as you can and land ,stopping the
clock,better points ,less tired,and back for the next day..
I've lost points to pilots who didn't try so hard because time points
I've also lost a day fixing the ship because I put it in the wrong field .
If the days over unless that last climb is going to get you home,stick it
in a
good field ASAP it's the best points you will get.
Once you have that in your head it's easier to rationalise ignoring that
1/2knot at 700 ft .
This assumes the comp is based on time and distance

Jonathon, thats a valid point. Some of us however are engaged in a different type of competition flying involving distance and record flying. For this type of endevor, staying in the air is the paramont concern. In these instances we take the risks necessary to keep going, making distance, many times is super marginal end of the day or very early in the day conditions.

Making educated low saves in these cases are historically frequent and necessary. Given the basics as stated previously of having a field already set up etc, making low saves is a necessary skill thats is seen in every record setter especially when trying to do it in low performance ships.

One side note is, most of the lower performance ships are dang good at landing slow and consequently, can use little pea size patches to set down safely which would make a js1 or other high performance glider pilot cringe
Dan.

How does a Comp pilot think ? You can lose points spending 1/2 an hour
struggling and then landing. Time points are important. Find a safe field
as far down track as you can and land, stopping the clock, better points,
less tired, and back for the next day. I've lost points to pilots who
didn't try so hard because time points I've also lost a day fixing the ship
because I put it in the wrong field. If the days over unless that last
climb is going to get you home, stick it in a good field ASAP it's the best
points you will get. Once you have that in your head it's easier to
rationalise ignoring that 1/2knot at 700 ft . This assumes the comp is
based on time and distance.

No question "tactical thinking" affects contest scores, such "potential
effects" existing probably regardless of the set of rules under which Joe
Pilot competes.

The "type of pilot thinking" I had in mind when starting this thread was less
"contest tactical" and more "thinking as it affects Joe Sailplane Pilot's
potential for continuing existence." It's something that's long intrigued
me...might Joe S. Pilot's thought processes have a fundamental effect on his
potential for damaging glider/self to where he can't fly the same plane
tomorrow? (Hey, if George Moffat could be intrigued by pilot psychology as it
affected contests, I figure "psychology as it affects future existence" isn't
that big a stretch. Besides, I always wanted to use "George Moffat" and "I" in
the same sentence!)

I have in mind "Joe Average" Sailplane (J.A.S.) Pilot, soaring for fun on a
"routine sailplane flight" in which s/he expects to routinely (as distinct
from "overtly aggressively") challenge only the sky and his or her skill set.
In the U.S. at any rate, considering only this century, several pilots each
year manage to kill themselves during such "for fun" flights, and that
statistical toll is *after* I arbitrarily ignore fatalities "too easily
rationalizable" due to age and "stupid stuff" you or I would, of course,
*never* do.

"Low saves" were selected as a point of departure for discussing mind sets
that are generally - and maybe less generally - associated with that flight
condition, and NOT because "I have a thing for (or against) low saves."

"Generally associated mindsets" would include (say) Joe Newbie Pilot's
heightened anxiety/tenseness/nervousness due to the landing-may-be-imminent
flight condition combining with pushing their personal flight envelope. I'd
sure hope that J.A.S. Pilot would have some basic understanding of what s/he
should mentally expect the first time such a new/stress-enhancing/thin-margin
situation faces them...as surely it will and ought to be expected to.

"Less generally associated mindsets" include (in my case) active recognition
that if I get it badly wrong, - e.g. lousy coordination; "too slow" (aka too
high an angle of attack); untreated gust stall; improperly responding to (say)
wind-influenced visual optical illusion; etc. - due to my thin/may-be-thinning
ground clearance margin, I could just kill myself...as distinct from die.
Memory says I've always felt/thought that way about "flight with thin margins"
but regardless of when such thinking began, it's been a part of how I think
while soaring (and driving, and working/messing around anything - say, 120VAC
- with potential to kill me...) In other words, I think about death not as
something that "might HAPPEN" to me IF I screw up, but as something that *I*
will have done to myself BY screwing up. That awareness also doesn't morph
into fear; if I'm genuinely, I might die, fearful of something I can avoid
simply by choice, I don't do it.

I've actually talked about this aspect of thought with soaring buddies, and
it's never been clear to me if it's something unique, uncommon or common, but
I'm pretty much convinced it's not universal. Some of the more memorable
conversations involved folks who O'beer-Thirty-described their own thin-margin
situations with high-ish/active potential to kill them, but from whom I was
unable to elicit any admission they seriously recognized potential death as
anything more than a theoretical possibility. ("I'd never hose up *that*
badly!") Others seem to put black-and-white faith in their own personal "hard
deck" as if it were a talisman. ("How much altitude do I need at XYZ to get
safely out of the mountains back to Boulder?")

Without intending to pick on anyone or discount the sensibility of the hard
deck suggestion which I'll paraphrase as, "Talismanic hard deck = (height
fudge factor plus) 2x the demonstrated minimum height needed to recover from a
major wing/drop/incipient spin" put forth earlier in this thread, when I
combine the "talismanic protection aspect" which MAY accompany using such a
mental device with the potential reality of actually *experiencing* an
uncommanded departure from controlled flight "down low/close to the
above-defined hard deck," I can't help but wonder if the experience might
prove quite thoroughly more alarming than any/all practice in spin recoveries
"performed aloft." And, if that alarm may bring with it additional
flight-control-(mis-)handling problems by J.A.S. Pilot leading to the hard
deck maybe not being so talismanic as previously believed. Point being, that
thin margins are thin margins, and as such ALWAYS carry with them potential
for bad/deadly outcomes, which is one reason we generally practice spin
recoveries well above any proposed "hard XC deck" I've ever seen proposed.

Understand, I'm not "playing this mental game" out of (say) seasonal boredom,
or by way of trying to frighten people away from the sport, or a tendency to
contemplate my navel, but as a way of trying to get inside Joe Sailplane
Pilots' heads to (possibly) see if how they think matters as it affects how
they approach flying and consequently how they actually fly. While I see
"arbitrary hard decks" (and other such "shorthand guidelines") as a useful
training concept, particularly if approached by Joe CFIG with
cautionary/explanatory sharing of the hidden assumptions underlying them (the
"why" of the "shorthand what"), they - along with the rest of our training -
would seem inadequate, judging from NTSB glider fatality statistics. I suppose
it's possible we - the sailplane pilot community - have reached the
"irreducible minimum" number of annual deaths, but I'm far from convinced such
a conclusion is warranted. I know lifetime instructors (Tom Knauff comes to
mind) have their own specific training-based thoughts and suggestions as well.

Bob W.

Take the 1kt thermal before you get low? 9 or 14 day contests are rarely
won by the high risk pilot.

Jim

I think Platypus once said something like "If you're considering a course of action, think about whether you would look like an idiot if it were to go wrong. If it would, you should seriously consider not doing it"