Put your money where the risk is

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 8:13:21 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 8:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Tell us more about this 'Airmanship' religion. I'm sure many of us here are interested in salvation. Does Airmanship have a worthy god? Hymnals? Tithing? Do we have to wear silly dresses or silly hats?

Tom explained himself adequately. He's a bit hard to parse because he insists on defining commonly used words and terms differently than the rest of the world (hence the Lewis Carroll reference I made earlier), but I think anyone can get the gist now.

It's clear to me now that what he means by "making my own luck" is in fact "not trusting to luck". What he means by CFIT is in fact "Controlled flight into a situation that any sensible pilot would avoid".

T8

I won't disagree with that, but "making your own luck" means manipulating circumstances to increase the odds of a good outcome. Things as simple as getting multiple weather reports and viewing NOTAMs in your region fall into this category. Also is is walking potential landing fields. In other words, making your own luck is evaluating potential risks and taking measures, including not flying, to mitigate those risks.

Now this discussion has degenerated into a ridiculous belittling of fundamental airmanship. Apparently, they don't even get the mandatory weather briefing before flying. I can only hope that none of those individuals are CFIGs.

Tom

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 10:38:36 AM UTC-8, rj wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 8:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Tell us more about this 'Airmanship' religion. I'm sure many of us here are interested in salvation. Does Airmanship have a worthy god? Hymnals? Tithing? Do we have to wear silly dresses or silly hats?

Religion is a matter of faith.

Airmanship is a matter of science.

Take your pick.

Here is how the FAA defines airmanship:

Airmanship is a broad term that includes a sound knowledge of and
experience with the principles of flight, the knowledge,
experience, and ability to operate an airplane with
competence and precision both on the ground and in the air,
and the application of sound judgment that results in optimal
operational safety and efficiency.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...03_afh_ch1.pdf

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 1:38:36 PM UTC-5, rj wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 8:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Tell us more about this 'Airmanship' religion. I'm sure many of us here are interested in salvation. Does Airmanship have a worthy god? Hymnals? Tithing? Do we have to wear silly dresses or silly hats?

Religion is a matter of faith.

Airmanship is a matter of science.

Take your pick.

Belief in airmanship excepting you from the risk pool is a leap of faith greater than belief in God.

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 11:39:39 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 1:38:36 PM UTC-5, rj wrote:
On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 8:38:15 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Tell us more about this 'Airmanship' religion. I'm sure many of us here are interested in salvation. Does Airmanship have a worthy god? Hymnals? Tithing? Do we have to wear silly dresses or silly hats?

Religion is a matter of faith.

Airmanship is a matter of science.

Take your pick.

Belief in airmanship excepting you from the risk pool is a leap of faith greater than belief in God.

Tell that to the experts at the FAA and CFIGs. At least you confirmed that you ARE NOT a CFIG, thank God!

Tom

My Irish kin have a saying “luck favors the prepared�. Just thought I’d leave that here and come back and see what it provoked many posts from now.

Regards, Tom

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:51:47 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:08:21 PM UTC-8, wrote:
No, I'm sorry, but you DON'T get it.

Tom

Tom don't you want others to have the same safety level you have? Let us all come together in the cult of airmanship. Believe and immortality is yours.

No, I'm sorry, you DON'T get it.

Tom

I know I don't get it! I've read through this entire thread and I still cannot figure out what your point is exactly. Could you clarify it in one paragraph so we all understand what exactly we are discussing? As best I can understand it... we all agree that poor airmanship happens, and that it is a major cause of accidents. I think you have also agreed that there is at least some (perhaps tiny) percentage of incidents that are not due to poor airmanship. Near as I can tell the rest of us are talking about out how to minimize our own personal probability of being the cause of an accident to ourselves or others while flying a glider. I'm having a hard time understanding why it matters that we determine if the total percentage of poor airmanship is 75%, 95% or 99.999% the cause... And a more minor point, I know that my airmanship is not even close to 95% perfect (I've been flying long enough to have proof) and I think I'm pretty hot **** Are you saying you have perfected airmanship to the degree that you have eliminated that risk for yourself entirely and that other considerations are not worth analyzing because the overwhelming cause of accidents is poor airmanship? I ask honestly and without malice. Frustrated perhaps, but honestly.

Tell that to the experts at the FAA and CFIGs. At least you confirmed that you ARE NOT a CFIG, thank God!

Tom

I did? Or did you just make a penmanship err postmanship error based on faulty assumption fueled by preconceived notions? That you seem to think you are incapable of making a similar cognitive airmanship error while flying is scary for you.

On Monday, December 2, 2019 at 10:55:38 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:51:47 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:08:21 PM UTC-8, wrote:
No, I'm sorry, but you DON'T get it.

Tom

Tom don't you want others to have the same safety level you have? Let us all come together in the cult of airmanship. Believe and immortality is yours.

No, I'm sorry, you DON'T get it.

Tom

I know I don't get it! I've read through this entire thread and I still cannot figure out what your point is exactly. Could you clarify it in one paragraph so we all understand what exactly we are discussing? As best I can understand it... we all agree that poor airmanship happens, and that it is a major cause of accidents. I think you have also agreed that there is at least some (perhaps tiny) percentage of incidents that are not due to poor airmanship. Near as I can tell the rest of us are talking about out how to minimize our own personal probability of being the cause of an accident to ourselves or others while flying a glider. I'm having a hard time understanding why it matters that we determine if the total percentage of poor airmanship is 75%, 95% or 99.999% the cause... And a more minor point, I know that my airmanship is not even close to 95% perfect (I've been flying long enough to have proof) and I think I'm pretty hot **** Are you saying you have perfected airmanship to the degree that you have eliminated that risk for yourself entirely and that other considerations are not worth analyzing because the overwhelming cause of accidents is poor airmanship? I ask honestly and without malice. Frustrated perhaps, but honestly.

We agree on virtually all of the major points. No, it doesn't matter what the exact percentage is because that's going to vary from year-to-year, just that it is the majority of accidents. Poor airmanship is the one thing you have control over, even if you are not perfect (none of us are). I assume that most everyone posting here has good airmanship (the one's talking about religion are likely doing that from a tongue-in-cheek standpoint). If not, then they have something they should work on.

Tom