Stress/Anxiety Driven Accidents

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-5, soarin wrote:

With a heart rate elevated to 115-145 BPM,
complex motor skills, visual reaction times and cognitive reaction times
are at their peak. However, between 145-175 mental and physical
performance begins to suffer dramatically.

I've no problem with the general idea, but since the author suggests the use of a heart rate monitor to measure stress level in the cockpit, I question the applicability of these specific numbers to pilots of different ages and fitness levels.

Talking averages... A 70 year old pilot would have a maximum heart rate of 220 - 70 = 150 bpm. I'd guess that he would experience debilitating stress well below 145 bpm. A 20 year old pilot would have a maximum heart rate of 220 - 20 = 200 bpm.

I'm not trying to say anything authoritative. I'm just questioning the numbers presented.

Source for calculation of maximum heart rate:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...-20046887?pg=2

"to calculate your maximum heart rate is to subtract your age from 220. For example, if you're 45 years old, subtract 45 from 220 to get a maximum heart rate of 175."

Very interesting discussion with a lot to think about.

I'd just like to make one caution which is do not try to use absolute values of HR to measure anything. A more reliable measure is % of max HR. There is much more variability in maximum HR between healthy individuals than the commonly quoted (and discounted in peer reviewed articles) formulas suggest. I'm a healthy fit 57 yr old male who exercises regularly with a max HR of over 200, with a similar aged friend who has a max HR under 170. Interestingly both of us have resting heart rates around 60.

I'd be very interested to see a reference to the source of the HR ranges published above, not that a problem with the value of the given ranges matters to the underlying thesis which is well worth exploring.

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:04:58 AM UTC+10, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-5, soarin wrote:

With a heart rate elevated to 115-145 BPM,
complex motor skills, visual reaction times and cognitive reaction times
are at their peak. However, between 145-175 mental and physical
performance begins to suffer dramatically.

I've no problem with the general idea, but since the author suggests the use of a heart rate monitor to measure stress level in the cockpit, I question the applicability of these specific numbers to pilots of different ages and fitness levels.

Talking averages... A 70 year old pilot would have a maximum heart rate of 220 - 70 = 150 bpm. I'd guess that he would experience debilitating stress well below 145 bpm. A 20 year old pilot would have a maximum heart rate of 220 - 20 = 200 bpm.

I'm not trying to say anything authoritative. I'm just questioning the numbers presented.

Source for calculation of maximum heart rate:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...-20046887?pg=2

"to calculate your maximum heart rate is to subtract your age from 220. For example, if you're 45 years old, subtract 45 from 220 to get a maximum heart rate of 175."

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 8:31:13 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 6:45:53 PM UTC+3, jfitch wrote:
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 3:30:09 AM UTC-8, soarin wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjsws679vx...ents.docx?dl=0

above is a Drop box link to this article for easier reading




March 3,2018

Stress/Anxiety Driven Accidents

For clarity, all references to tunnel vision in this article relate to an
actual visual impairment, where the individual can only properly focus on
objects in a narrow “tunnel-like" field. Sometimes referred to as
"peripheral vision loss" or “reduced visual perception�. Which is
totally different than the mental tunnel vision often inferred to as a
contributing cause in accidents, which can be defined as one’s tendency
to focus on a single goal or point of view.

On a BFR flight in the spring of 2013, I sat in the back seat of a Grob 103
as one of our most respected high time xc pilots silently dealt with what
should have been a simple (simulated) spoilers failed full open landing.
Just prior to turning downwind when the pilot checked his spoilers, I
alerted him to the fact that I was holding the spoilers open to simulate a
mechanical failure. He proceeded to turn downwind at the normal location,
altitude and airspeed, then ask “if he still needed to use some slip
during the landing as previously requested�. I replied “no, you’re
now dealing with a simulated emergency, just make a safe landing on the
airport. (For those unfamiliar with a Grob 103, with full spoilers at 60
kts the rate of descent is close to 1200 feet per minute). Not
surprisingly after a few moments on downwind the pilot became aware of our
rapid altitude loss and without saying anything he immediately turned base.


At this point, I assumed he had given up on the glider runway and was now
planning to land on the closer parallel main runway. Apparently, he could
not see that our L/D was not going to get us to the runway, let alone have
the remaining altitude necessary to then turn finale and land. I refrained
from commenting fully expecting that at any moment he would announce that
he needs to close the spoilers to make a safe landing, but silently he
pressed on seemingly undaunted by the decaying situation. Finally at a
point 200 feet North of the runway half way thru a rapidly descending left
turn to final and with the left tip less than a half wingspan from the
ground. I loudly barked “my glider� as I slammed the spoilers closed,
arrested the descent and leveled the wings to maneuver and land on the
runway then to roll up and stop at the mid field taxiway. I was
dumbfounded and clueless as to how such a qualified pilot could have been
completely oblivious to the fact that he was but a few heartbeats away from
destroying the glider and likely crippling or killing us both. Our post
landing debrief was eye opening to say the least.

question: “when I took the glider how high do you think our left tip was
above the ground�

reply: “I’m not sure but I thought we were ok and maybe fifty feet
above the ground�

question: “at the moment I took the glider, where were you looking�

reply: he raised his right hand putting his thumb and index finger
together to make circle to look thru and stated “I was looking at where I
wanted to go on the runway and it was like I was looking thru a tube�

question: “did you feel like you were stressed during that landing�

reply: “I definitely had a lot of anxiety�

His description of seemingly looking thru a tube, sounded remarkably
similar to what I had experienced back in 1988 on one of my first glider
rides. A local pilot wanted to fly the Grob 103 from the back seat, so I
went along as front seat ballast. Briefly into his second consecutive
loop, I was surprised when my peripheral vision collapsed to the point that
all I could see was the instrument panel. Having read about g-induced
tunnel vision, greying out, and eventual blacking out, I tried pushing the
blood back up to my eyes by tightening the muscles in my legs and abdomen.
Magically it worked, and my vision immediately opened back up to normal.


In 2013 when this pilot described the visual limitation of seemingly
looking thru a tube. I began a research project into learning about what I
believed must be a connection between tunnel vision and accidents. While
there are there are numerous medical, biological or environmental
conditions that can cause tunnel vision. Research shows that the anxiety,
stress and fear, pilots feel when they perceive they are facing a
life-threatening event, triggers the hypothalamus to activate two systems:
the sympathetic nervous system and the adrenal-cortical system. The first
phase of this is what is known as the fight or flight response
(interestingly in some individuals it’s actually an or freeze response).
The stress hormones adrenalin and noradrenalin from the adrenal medulla
along with approximately 30 hormones from the adrenal cortex enter the
blood stream. The heart rate and blood pressure rise, preparing the body
to deal with the threat. With a heart rate elevated to 115-145 BPM,
complex motor skills, visual reaction times and cognitive reaction times
are at their peak. However, between 145-175 mental and physical
performance begins to suffer dramatically. Tunnel vision, loss of
peripheral vision, loss of depth perception, auditory exclusion, the
slowing down or speeding up of time as well a decay in complex motor skills
are common. At heart rates above 175 BPM even a well-trained combatant
experiences a catastrophic break down of mental and physical performance
and most combatants experience bladder and bowl voiding.

I realize that lacking any name recognition in the soaring community this
article may well fall on deaf ears. I believe the best I can hope for is
that some small percentage of pilots and instructors, will be intrigued
enough to do their own research on this subject. If they see the value in
it, they will start a grass roots movement to have it pushed thru and
addressed at a national level.

For those pilots who believe they are too good to be susceptible to this
phenomenon. Best wishes

For those pilots who believe they quite susceptible to this issue. Seek
out an exceptional instructor who can challenge your skills and expand your
comfort level with diverse training

I believe that shedding light on what should be a serious safety concern
for all pilots, was an important first step.

Learn to recognize your signs of stress/anxiety, practice tactical
breathing as an aid in calming down.

Take corrective action immediately when available to mitigate the
stressor.

During landings learn to consciously and regularly look left and right
during the approach to help prevent or brake tunnel vision. Verbalizing
what you see and your intentions (even when solo) helps prevent tunnel
vision.

Invest in a wearable heart rate monitor and use it regularly to gauge your
own stress levels, pay special attention to its recording following
emergency training or off field landings. Lend it to other fellow pilots.


This age of technology provides us with a slew of wearable heart rate
monitors, some relatively cheap and some rather exotic and expensive.
There are watches available that constantly display current heart rate,
record your daily heart rate information, have settable alarms and even
blue tooth to smart phones that display current heart rate information.
The FitBit AltaHR is but one of numerous wearable wrist band heart rate
monitors that send continuous current heart rate to an Iphone. Most
instructors would value being able to have some real insight into their
students stress levels during flight training, particularly during
emergency maneuvers. Viewing pertinent data post flight could be an
invaluable tool for the student and instructor.

I give John Cochran credit for being willing to voice his opinions
regarding contest safety issues. Maybe he can convince some contest pilots
to wear heart rate monitors, so there can be some hard data to share
regarding pilot stress levels during low saves.

Having been involved as a soaring FBO, instructor and examiner for over a
quarter century. I always took great pride in the fact that I provided
students a level of training that assured their safety, as opposed to just
meeting the FAA’s published minimums. I slept well at night, knowing I
should never have a student come thru the door in a wheel chair and ask
“why didn’t you teach me about that�. This article is my final
installment in that process.

Get high, go far, go fast and come home safe.

Marty Eiler

While the article is about a physical phenomenon, the sequence started with a poorly planned approach, did it not? Entering downwind before having checked the operation of the spoilers, too low to reach the runway if they stick open - apparently as normal practice.

Checking the spoilers *before* you're on downwind, probably even further away from the airfield, does not improve the situation if they stick open.

You only want to check the spoilers after you are in spoilers-stuck-open range of a landable place on the field. Which, I would suggest, means you're not only already on downwind, but you've preferably got a decent amount of the field behind your wing, so you have the option of turning 90 degrees towards the field immediately, and then deciding based on how the sight picture is changing whether you are now on base, or on a crosswind final.

If the spoilers are stuck closed then you still have plenty of time to widen your downwind and/or extend it to execute a slipping approach.

As I said: "Entering downwind before having checked the operation of the spoilers, **too low to reach the runway if they stick open**". You either need to be higher, or closer to the field, if stuck open spoilers causes panic..

I still think that while *some* practice managing stress levels might be of some value, *good* practice in managing the glider is of much more value.

At 21:36 04 March 2018, wrote:
Very interesting discussion with a lot to think about.=20

I'd just like to make one caution which is do not try to use absolute
value=
s of HR to measure anything. A more reliable measure is % of max HR.
There
=
is much more variability in maximum HR between healthy individuals than
the=
commonly quoted (and discounted in peer reviewed articles) formulas
sugges=
t. I'm a healthy fit 57 yr old male who exercises regularly with a max HR
o=
f over 200, with a similar aged friend who has a max HR under 170.
Interest=
ingly both of us have resting heart rates around 60.=20

I'd be very interested to see a reference to the source of the HR ranges
pu=
blished above, not that a problem with the value of the given ranges
matter=
s to the underlying thesis which is well worth exploring.

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:04:58 AM UTC+10, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-5, soarin wrote:
=20
With a heart rate elevated to 115-145 BPM,
complex motor skills, visual reaction times and cognitive reaction
time=
s
are at their peak. However, between 145-175 mental and physical
performance begins to suffer dramatically.=20
=20
I've no problem with the general idea, but since the author suggests
the
=
use of a heart rate monitor to measure stress level in the cockpit, I
quest=
ion the applicability of these specific numbers to pilots of different
ages=
and fitness levels.
=20
Talking averages... A 70 year old pilot would have a maximum heart rate
o=
f 220 - 70 =3D 150 bpm. I'd guess that he would experience debilitating
st=
ress well below 145 bpm. A 20 year old pilot would have a maximum heart
rat=
e of 220 - 20 =3D 200 bpm. =20
=20
I'm not trying to say anything authoritative. I'm just questioning the
n=
umbers presented.
=20
Source for calculation of maximum heart rate:
=20

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...h/exercise-in=
tensity/art-20046887?pg=3D2
=20
"to calculate your maximum heart rate is to subtract your age from 220.
F=
or example, if you're 45 years old, subtract 45 from 220 to get a maximum
h=
eart rate of 175."

Mark

Sorry for the delayed response, it took me a while going back thru my
rather extensive lists of links, articles and saved pages to find what I
think your looking for in regard to elevated heart rates with exercise as
opposed to elevated heart rate resulting from the fight or flight response.
This link should answer that.

http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-hsu-fightorflight/

I will say that throughout my relatively extensive research into this
subject.
It's been a disappointment to not stumble across some psychology paper or
doctoral thesis that provides all of this data in one source. The majority
of my information has been gleaned from articles relating to police, fire
and military training. While there is no doubt in my mind that there is a
link between the fight or flight response, tunnel vision and glider
accidents. But without tangible proof, it's just a reasonable hypothesis.
But there are allot of glider pilots in the world and if enough of us
start collecting and saving data, maybe eventually some college or
institution will step up and take it on as a project. In the mean time if
anyone finds anything worthwhile relating to this subject, by all means
forward it to me at

Are people really suggesting fitting a heart rate monitor and using it in
flight?

Someone is having a difficult time, their heart rate is going up and then a
heart rate warning comes up. This has now added something else for them to
cope with, thus increasing the prospect of getting overloaded.

Chris

At 21:36 04 March 2018, wrote:
Very interesting discussion with a lot to think about.=20

I'd just like to make one caution which is do not try to use absolute
value=
s of HR to measure anything. A more reliable measure is % of max HR.
There
=
is much more variability in maximum HR between healthy individuals than
the=
commonly quoted (and discounted in peer reviewed articles) formulas
sugges=
t. I'm a healthy fit 57 yr old male who exercises regularly with a max HR
o=
f over 200, with a similar aged friend who has a max HR under 170.
Interest=
ingly both of us have resting heart rates around 60.=20

I'd be very interested to see a reference to the source of the HR ranges
pu=
blished above, not that a problem with the value of the given ranges
matter=
s to the underlying thesis which is well worth exploring.

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:04:58 AM UTC+10, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-5, soarin wrote:
=20
With a heart rate elevated to 115-145 BPM,
complex motor skills, visual reaction times and cognitive reaction
time=
s
are at their peak. However, between 145-175 mental and physical
performance begins to suffer dramatically.=20
=20
I've no problem with the general idea, but since the author suggests
the
=
use of a heart rate monitor to measure stress level in the cockpit, I
quest=
ion the applicability of these specific numbers to pilots of different
ages=
and fitness levels.
=20
Talking averages... A 70 year old pilot would have a maximum heart rate
o=
f 220 - 70 =3D 150 bpm. I'd guess that he would experience debilitating
st=
ress well below 145 bpm. A 20 year old pilot would have a maximum heart
rat=
e of 220 - 20 =3D 200 bpm. =20
=20
I'm not trying to say anything authoritative. I'm just questioning the
n=
umbers presented.
=20
Source for calculation of maximum heart rate:
=20

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...h/exercise-in=
tensity/art-20046887?pg=3D2
=20
"to calculate your maximum heart rate is to subtract your age from 220.
F=
or example, if you're 45 years old, subtract 45 from 220 to get a maximum
h=
eart rate of 175."

All I know about this is what you post but there are a couple of questions
that occur to me:

Did the CFI realise that the glider was about to enter a spin after the
rope break at 300'?

If he was aware that the glider was about to spin did did he then let the
P2 continue into a spin? At 300'?

Chris

At 00:49 04 March 2018, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:30:09 AM UTC-5, soarin wrote:
=20
On a BFR flight in the spring of 2013, I sat in the back seat of a Grob
1=
03
as one of our most respected high time xc pilots silently dealt with
what
should have been a simple (simulated) spoilers failed full open
landing.

Back in 2011, I was a student glider pilot. Standing on the field I
watche=
d 'one of our most respected high time xc pilots' fail to respond
correctly=
to a 'simulated rope break' at 300 AGL during his Flight Review. I
watche=
d the glider enter an incipient spin and disappear behind a line of
trees.
=
To my untrained eye, it looked to be flying straight down.=20

The CFI recovered from the dive at the very last second, flared, rolled
uph=
ill about 50 feet, and put a wing tip down to ground loop (to avert
collisi=
on with an immovable object). Wing spar bent. No injuries. That was
the
=
pilot-under-review's last flight in a glider.

I will probably never be a respected high time XC pilot, but when it
comes
=
time hang up my wings, I sincerely hope that I quit BEFORE I kill a
flight
=
instructor, a tow pilot, or anyone else.

Interesting stuff, Thank you Marty for bringing it up. The professional aviation safety method of incremental exposure to scary stuff to build tolerance for the really scary stuff and a weekend of professional simulator training every 6 months doesn't scale down to us hobby pilots. Also have to point out, pledging allegiance to the rule book will not guarantee you don't experience a high stress event in the air.
Daily meditation is supposed to improve the ability to function under high stress, too hippy for me.
Stoicism also reduces stress. Just tell yourself you aren't going to survive this season/contest/instructional flight. And you will be more relaxed thus fly safer. Sounds dark. But it works. Those old guys knew a thing or two.
The Armed forces have had success with teaching simple breathing exercises. At peak heart rate people are uncoordinated, partially blind, sometimes deaf, and incredibly dumb.
Consciously regulating breathing brings people back to where they can function at a high level. Conscious breath control is probably the best, teachable, immediately available, universal technique for dealing with stress.
I have flown with a spire wearable. Spire measures respiration and can be set to alert you to mental states that correlate to breathing patterns. The stress alert while flying is mildly amusing. Comparing the respiration log and flight log postflight and seeing when there was focus, relaxation and stress is more interesting. Doubt wearables are useful as an inflight warning system.
Stress management is worthy discussion, except thinking about this stuff can be hard on the ego.

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:36:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Spire measures respiration

If I got this right, Spire is a wearable, logging, accelerometer. It infers respiration from the acceleration caused by chest movement. Does it not get confused in turbulence when in a plane?

I read that if you wear it while running, it stops inferring respiration and starts to count jolts as steps. Does it switch over to 'step counting mode' in a glider?

If it does what the marketing says, it is amazing tech, but it seems 'too good to be true'.

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 10:36:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
The professional aviation safety method of incremental exposure to scary stuff to build tolerance for the really scary stuff and a weekend of professional simulator training every 6 months doesn't scale down to us hobby pilots.

Actually it can. The glider flight simulations available today can be used to effectively and repeatedly expose pilots to situations too dangerous to perform in real aircraft. Experience is the key here, and experience is built through repetition. The brain needs to have repeatedly "seen", and therefore learned to recognize, and learned to deal with situations until they seem familiar, and therefore no longer threatening. Early recognition of a situation is key to preventing it from getting any worse.

Simulation is an effective tool in the hands of a competent instructor, but it can also be used as a proficiency maintenance tool by rated pilots serious about their longevity.

Those who would argue a simulation will not produce the same level of stress as occurs in a real aircraft have likely never tried it. The brain cares only about its perceived environment, not its actual environment. If you have ever seen the involuntary physical contortions of someone flying even a desktop simulation, as their brain attempts to resolve what it is seeing on the monitor, you know what I mean. On more than one occasion I have had to wipe the sweat off my desktop joystick after having put someone through a stress-inducing scenario.

The solution lies in the number of times the pilot's brain has seen and dealt with a given situation. Simulation is an effective and efficient way to provide our brains with the requisite number of experiences.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Scott Manley - 3167160CFI-G

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 7:36:02 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Interesting stuff, Thank you Marty for bringing it up. The professional aviation safety method of incremental exposure to scary stuff to build tolerance for the really scary stuff and a weekend of professional simulator training every 6 months doesn't scale down to us hobby pilots. Also have to point out, pledging allegiance to the rule book will not guarantee you don't experience a high stress event in the air.
Daily meditation is supposed to improve the ability to function under high stress, too hippy for me.
Stoicism also reduces stress. Just tell yourself you aren't going to survive this season/contest/instructional flight. And you will be more relaxed thus fly safer. Sounds dark. But it works. Those old guys knew a thing or two.
The Armed forces have had success with teaching simple breathing exercises. At peak heart rate people are uncoordinated, partially blind, sometimes deaf, and incredibly dumb.
Consciously regulating breathing brings people back to where they can function at a high level. Conscious breath control is probably the best, teachable, immediately available, universal technique for dealing with stress.
I have flown with a spire wearable. Spire measures respiration and can be set to alert you to mental states that correlate to breathing patterns. The stress alert while flying is mildly amusing. Comparing the respiration log and flight log postflight and seeing when there was focus, relaxation and stress is more interesting. Doubt wearables are useful as an inflight warning system.
Stress management is worthy discussion, except thinking about this stuff can be hard on the ego.

I was talking to the MH guys, and they said they can reliably predict panic by the respiration rates tracked by the MH O2 control. They don't know what to do with the info. I'm pretty sure I don't want red lights and horns sounding during a panic attack, it would be better to have the "Bitching Betty" voice synthesizer say in a loud, calm voice: "Panic, Panic, Panic" and then start playing some calming new age muzak.....