Tom Knauff's newsletter

In article Nyal Williams writes:

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

And we blame pilot error when a preflight misses a part about to come
apart.

We blame lots of things on pilot error. The FAA seems to like to do
that, and we go along with it because it allows us to remind ourselves
that we are better, and we would not make those mistakes.

The folks who have had "pilot error" accidents almost certainly were
certain of the same thing.

I apologize (slightly) for putting this in .soaring, because it also
applies to powered flight. It also applies to driving. We think that
we are not going to make the same mistake. We become comfortable with
our new safety and that comfort leads to carelessness.


At 18:38 30 June 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:

"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

In many things this is probably true. In the air, there are too
many exceptions.

Alan

Tom,

I've not read your books and have just skimmed some of the posts. In
general I agree with some of your assertions. The stuff I agree with
would have me pulling out my FAR/AIM if/when I hop in a power plane
and fly in to areas where airspace, radio freq's and communication
issues are required. I believe that would fall under the FAR that all
pilots make themselves aware of all aspects of the flight they are
engaging in.

My main flying is done in the foothills of the Cascades, and then when
conditions allow, moving back into the cascades proper. Do you have
specific information written in any of your books about mountain
flying and what to do, not do...........etc?

I would suspect that given the variety of conditions a mountain
sailplane pilot can experience, might not have him worried much about
remembering what are the proper positions the controls must be in, but
more an instinctual and reflexive response/solution to the dynamics of
the situation at hand.

Cheers,
Brad

On 30 Jun, 12:34, wrote:

Examples of the questions include:

During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?

During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?

I believe you would all agree the test includes subject matter a
glider pilot should know.

Over the years, the average score by licensed pilots has been 37%.

But does that mean that pilots are holding the controls in the wrong
place while turning and looking at the wrong side of the towplane ...
or does it mean that they don't think about things in that way because
they don't need to think about things in that way?

Over here the Institute of Advanced Motorists runs advanced driving
tests, an important part of which is the narrative - a running
commentary on exactly what one is doing and why. However, the
statistics (ie the insurance company premiums) suggest that "advanced"
drivers are not "safer" drivers. Part of this may be that although
verbalising may be an interesting skill, it's not needed to drive
safely.

In an activity which is largely learned and trained reflexes - like
flying, driving, riding a bike or tap dancing - "doing" it is much
more important than being able to say exactly "what I'm doing".

Of course it's very useful for an instructor to be able to break down
the activities in order to work on faults, but it's a secondary skill
for the pupil.

Ian

PS I'd be interested to see the other questions - are they available
online?

Examples of the questions include:

During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?

A. Left side
B. Right Side
C. Both sides equally
D. Which side does not matter as long as the glider is not too high.

During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?

A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick


First, I think Tom is mostly right, but I'll make a couple of points.

Look at the two questions above. I'd suggest that these questions are
both moot. On the first question I would have originally said A, but
this past weekend while on tow I realized that the angle is pretty small
and you can actually see both sides almost the same as long as the turn
isn't very sharp. But WHO CARES???? Just because I couldn't remember
this visual image with photographic memory doesn't make me a bad pilot
or an unaware pilot. I can certainly recognize when I'm out of position
laterally without having to ask myself if I'm looking at one side of the
towplane more than the other.

Same goes for the second question. I CAN make very steep coordinated
turns. I don't have to verbalize to myself what I need to do with the
controls in order to do it. It just happens. Again, not being able to
verbalize this doesn't make one a bad pilot.

Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't
plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS
prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

At 11:43 01 July 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
snips
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't

plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS

prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.

If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?

This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.

"Soarin Again" wrote in message
...
At 11:43 01 July 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
snips
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't

plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS

prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.

If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?

This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.



It's already in the FAR's. To pass a Biannual Flight Review, (BFR) you have
to meet the skill and knowledge requirements of the rating you hold. Flight
instructors giving BFR's are now required to test BFR candidates to that
level.

The rudder wag signals are part of that test.

So, if you can't pass the written test, don't expect an instructor to sign
off your next BFR.

Bill D

If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why not include
what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

"Soarin Again" wrote in message
...
At 11:43 01 July 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
snips
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't

plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS

prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.

If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?

This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Yes, I'd like to know what the third one is!

At 02:33 02 July 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why not
include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

Yes, I'd like to know what the third one is!

At 02:33 02 July 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why not
include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann

Yes, I'd like to know what the third one is!

At 02:33 02 July 2008, Mike Schumann wrote:
If you really want to help educate the pilots that need it, why not
include what the signals are in your post!

Mike Schumann