Wide-ranging Safety Discussion...?

On 6/26/2012 2:31 PM, Bill D wrote:

Major snip...

One of Feith's presentations uses a picture of burning wreckage with,
he says in his chilling way, 4 dead people inside. The light airplane
had stalled and crashed on takeoff while Greg happened to be at the
same airport so he was at the wreck site within a minute or so.The
flight was on an instrument flight plan in IMC with a ceiling of 600
feet but stalled and crashed before reaching the clouds. He points to
the cover with it's "remove before flight" flag still on the pitot
tube indicating the pilot had no airspeed data.

He then asked the audience if the pilot should have been able to fly
without a reliable ASI. They demur and Greg points out that every
instrument student learns to fly without one - that's why Sporty's
sells black suction disks to cover instruments.

Greg then asked when the pilot should have noticed the malfunctioning
instrument and gets various answers. Greg points out the pilot should
have noticed it before rotation and aborted the takeoff - even going
off the end of the runway would have been survivable. (I used to
carry a small cardboard slide rule which gave me the exact time to Vr
with consideration for density altitude and airplane weight.)

Without saying it is so many words, the dam[n]ing evidence pilot error
caused 4 deaths is plain to see. Three errors in fact. (1) Failure
to remove pitot cover in the pre-flight. (2) Failure to notice a
malfunctioning instrument on the takeoff roll. (3) Inability to fly
the airplane without an ASI. What more would the NTSB need to say?

One might argue the pilot might have been fatigued or distracted as
possible "outside causes" but that won't do. A pilot is responsible
for a personal pre-flight as well as for the aircraft.


"I'm with Feith and Bill D. on this one...all the way!" I might even add a 4th
error: Failure to hit the ground horizontally. But maybe that's just harsh ol'
me...

Though I'm more willing to cut some dead pilots "Fate slack" than is Bill,
tortuous reasoning IS required to deflect causal influences/conclusions away
from Joe PIC.

My first flight with an inop airspeed (it was drizzling heavily when I took
off in a 1-26) happened under my instructor's tutelage. Not until he told me
the ASI probably wouldn't work did the thought enter my skull. (Like all
ab-initio beginners, I was hugely ignorant and essentially completely
dependent on my instructor's judgment at the time.) Though my first
inclination was to exit the cockpit and not fly, I deferred to his laughing
assessment to the effect: "You know what it stalls like and what it sounds
like and what it feels like. Don't fly that slow!"

The ASI quit on the T/O roll, the plane flew as he'd reinforced to me, I
learned a bunch for future reference and never felt I'd been exposed to hasty
or incomplete instruction on the matter. (In hindsight, I suspect instructor
Tom actively connived to expose me to a teachable moment.) Tom had told me
what to expect, noted why I could expect it if I ignored my
senses/experience-to-date, and given me unforgettable, useful, instruction.
(Thanks, Tom!)

Since then I've had other ASI's in various gliders quit aloft (always from
rain), and landed at least one that way that I can recall, and all were
non-events - mentally and in fact.

Aviate. (Fly the stinking airplane!)
Navigate. (Don't hit nuthin'!)
Communicate. (Anything from pointless to potentially useful in multiple ways,
depending...)

Simple, prioritized, and - if implemented - generally effective.

Bob W.

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54:09 PM UTC-4, soartech wrote:
So the next issue of Soaring magazine will come off the press without
a single word about this horrible accident... like it never happened!!

The way it works over time is this: 1)you get hooked on the sport, 2)you become vaguely aware that it's dangerous and that you need to be careful, 3)you come to terms with the fact that it can kill you. 4)A friend or acquaintance gets killed or maimed.

Think about it. If the first thing you learned about soaring was that it can kill you, what would happen? You'd probably plow your thousands of dollars into some really nifty RC model gliders. My copy of Soaring goes to my local library. Maybe somebody will pick it up and take up soaring. Don't list the departed souls.

Soaring Magazine has a lot in it every month about the hazards of soaring, but it's almost always hypothetical. A simple tally sheet of crashes and injuries would drive the point home without anyone getting sued. But the SSA chooses to not do that. Why? It's a glaring omission. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. When you suggest that there is something wrong with this picture, you get a knee-jerk reaction. Wierd.

Someone tell me why there is never a tally of accidents in Soaring Magazine..

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:05:48 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54:09 PM UTC-4, soartech wrote:
So the next issue of Soaring magazine will come off the press without
a single word about this horrible accident... like it never happened!!

The way it works over time is this: 1)you get hooked on the sport, 2)you become vaguely aware that it's dangerous and that you need to be careful, 3)you come to terms with the fact that it can kill you. 4)A friend or acquaintance gets killed or maimed.

Think about it. If the first thing you learned about soaring was that it can kill you, what would happen? You'd probably plow your thousands of dollars into some really nifty RC model gliders. My copy of Soaring goes to my local library. Maybe somebody will pick it up and take up soaring. Don't list the departed souls.

Soaring Magazine has a lot in it every month about the hazards of soaring, but it's almost always hypothetical. A simple tally sheet of crashes and injuries would drive the point home without anyone getting sued. But the SSA chooses to not do that. Why? It's a glaring omission. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. When you suggest that there is something wrong with this picture, you get a knee-jerk reaction. Wierd.

Someone tell me why there is never a tally of accidents in Soaring Magazine.

Good points, although there used to be a regular accident column written by Thelen until few years ago. Since then there is an occasional accident report.
But indeed many of us picked up soaring since we were told that it is safer than driving to the airport. By the time we realized the truth, we were already hooked. I would probably still flying hang gliders today if I knew back then that sailplanes are more dangerous. But I have no regrets. I understand the risks and willing to take them to be able to enjoy this amazing sport. But I am sure that most new pilots and ride passengers do not understand the risks.

Ramy

On Jun 26, 4:05*pm, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54:09 PM UTC-4, soartech wrote:
So the next issue of Soaring magazine will come off the press without
a single word about this horrible accident... like it never happened!!

The way it works over time is this: 1)you get hooked on the sport, 2)you become vaguely aware that it's dangerous and that you need to be careful, 3)you come to terms with the fact that it can kill you. *4)A friend or acquaintance gets killed or maimed.

Think about it. *If the first thing you learned about soaring was that it can kill you, what would happen? *You'd probably plow your thousands of dollars into some really nifty RC model gliders. *My copy of Soaring goes to my local library. *Maybe somebody will pick it up and take up soaring. *Don't list the departed souls.

Soaring Magazine has a lot in it every month about the hazards of soaring, but it's almost always hypothetical. *A simple tally sheet of crashes and injuries would drive the point home without anyone getting sued. *But the SSA chooses to not do that. *Why? It's a glaring omission. *THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. *When you suggest that there is something wrong with this picture, you get a knee-jerk reaction. Wierd.

Someone tell me why there is never a tally of accidents in Soaring Magazine.

When we had 2 of our club members collided in a mid-air the result was
finger pointing at the pilots (non-CFIG) who mentored them. It was
intimated that they were not ready for this kind of activity and that
those of us that actively flew in the mountains were somehow
responsible for encouraging them to do something they were not "ready"
for. Ironically some of those who criticized the most were the ones
who never left the vicinity of the airport, unless they were flying a
motorglider.

Another club member spun his motorglider into an unfamiliar field. He
was a low time pilot in a brand new ship with less than 20 hours on
it............he felt the need to try flying a "new" site, took a
check ride in that clubs Blanik (a sailplane he was very familiar
with) and did a great job. After soaring his TST-Atlas for several
hours he came back, did a Blanik approach in a 40:1 ship, realized at
mid-field he was to high and tried to do either a 360 or a 180, we'll
never know because he spun it in and killed himself.

Last year one of our CFIG's died during the filming of the "Cadillac"
commercial. There was a "list" of incidents that took place that made
it out thru the gossip channels that raised some eyebrows. None of
that was shared publicly (as far as I know) and none was shared within
the clubs official channels.

I'm pretty sure that some open, honest and heartfelt discussions about
all these accidents could have really benefited our club. Instead all
that was mentioned was how great these pilots all were, how careful
they were and how they had tons of experience....................which
was seen as somewhat ironic by those of us that personally knew them.

This is the culture we need to change.

Brad

On Jun 26, 5:27*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:05:48 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54:09 PM UTC-4, soartech wrote:
So the next issue of Soaring magazine will come off the press without
a single word about this horrible accident... like it never happened!!

The way it works over time is this: 1)you get hooked on the sport, 2)you become vaguely aware that it's dangerous and that you need to be careful, 3)you come to terms with the fact that it can kill you. *4)A friend or acquaintance gets killed or maimed.

Think about it. *If the first thing you learned about soaring was that it can kill you, what would happen? *You'd probably plow your thousands of dollars into some really nifty RC model gliders. *My copy of Soaring goes to my local library. *Maybe somebody will pick it up and take up soaring. *Don't list the departed souls.

Soaring Magazine has a lot in it every month about the hazards of soaring, but it's almost always hypothetical. *A simple tally sheet of crashes and injuries would drive the point home without anyone getting sued. *But the SSA chooses to not do that. *Why? It's a glaring omission. *THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. *When you suggest that there is something wrong with this picture, you get a knee-jerk reaction. Wierd.

Someone tell me why there is never a tally of accidents in Soaring Magazine.

Good points, although there used to be a regular accident column written by Thelen until few years ago. Since then there is an occasional accident report.
But indeed many of us picked up soaring since we were told that it is safer than driving to the airport. By the time we realized the truth, we were already hooked. I would probably still flying hang gliders today if I knew back then that sailplanes are more dangerous. But I have no regrets. I understand the risks and willing to take them to be able to enjoy this amazing sport. But I am sure that most new pilots and ride passengers do not understand the risks.

Ramy

It really sounds if you want someone else to look out for you. It
isn't going to happen - you're on your own. If you can't deal with
that, maybe RC gliders are better for you.

Gliders rarely hurt anyone. Pilots, on the other hand, have hurt
many, many gliders. Saying "soaring is dangerous" is nonsense -
dangerous nonsense. It detracts from careless and unprepared pilots
who ARE dangerous. 99.9 % of the time, one millisecond before impact,
it was a perfectly airworthy glider. The glider didn't put itself in
that position, the pilot did.

If you are going to get hurt, there's a 99.9% chance it will be your
fault. Don't blame soaring for that.

There's a wonderful old WWII era saying that goes, "The 99% of air
crashes are caused by a LOOSE NUT ON THE CONTROL STICK meaning the
pilot. Even then, pilots were the weak link.

Do new pilots understand this? They damn well better. It's part of
their basic training.

Agh, I give up. Every attempt to try to say something about the need for better safety culture will encounter resistant from those who claim there is nothing wrong with the system and the only problem is the pilots. I guess this is their way of convincing themselves they safe since they will never do such mistakes themselves.
Good luck.

Ramy ( who does NOT need anyone to look after him)

On Jun 26, 9:11*pm, Ramy wrote:
Agh, I give up. Every attempt to try to say something about the need for better safety culture will encounter resistant from those who claim there is nothing wrong with the system and the only problem is the pilots. I guess this is their way of convincing themselves they safe since they will never do such mistakes themselves.
Good luck.

Ramy ( who does NOT need anyone to look after him)

One group of pilots here in the US believe that they are sufficiently
trained to avoid making the stupid errors that cause others to end up
in the accident reports. Any pilot who makes this sort of error and
crashes, obviously did not have the skills necessary to be safe in
this sport. A rigorous training regimen, taught only by elite
instructors, will provide training to levels sufficient to address all
possible circumstances encountered during soaring flight. This will
result in soaring being safer than any other form of aviation, at
least for the 100 or so pilots left.

A second group of pilots likely remember times when they were lucky to
recover from situations in which their skill and experience levels
were nearly overwhelmed. Say, things that sometimes happened at the
ends of long days of flying, perhaps aided by a bit of dehydration or
hypoxia, a bit distracted by encountering something unexpected, or
just a touch of complacency because they have final glide nailed. Add
a momentary lapse of situational awareness, missing the clue that
suggests things aren't going to work out quite as expected, etc., and
suddenly one is staring into the abyss. A greater willingness in the
community to talk honestly talk about mistakes that they and others
make, would lead to increased levels of safety. There is always going
to be some amount of risk, as humans are not perfect.

The obvious solution, of course, is for the pilots in the first group
to convince the pilots in the second group to retire from soaring ;^)

Marc

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 11:11:29 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Agh, I give up. Every attempt to try to say something about the need for better safety culture will encounter resistant from those who claim there is nothing wrong with the system and the only problem is the pilots. I guess this is their way of convincing themselves they safe since they will never do such mistakes themselves.
Good luck.

Ramy ( who does NOT need anyone to look after him)

Then what are you asking for? There is a LOT of safety information and training available. Many old, experienced pilots still around. Good instructors.

What culture would you impose? How would you enforce it?

The only group in soaring that really enforces a safety culture is, oddly enough, the racing community - parachutes, ELTs, radios, FLARM, skill requirements, training camps, etc. - If the rest of the soaring community had the same requirements, it might improve safety.

Or not.

Bottom line. Our gliders are incredibly safe. Pilots are not. Our initial and recurrent training system is minimal, and requires individual commitment to learn and practice safe soaring.

If you know how to fix that - please let us know! It gets old having to lie about how safe our sport really is!

Meanwhile, I'm not waiting for someone else to make me safer. I'll do that myself, thankyou.

Kirk
66

On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:11:59 AM UTC-5, BobW wrote:
I might be wrong, but my sense is that now in this soaring season, and
considering *only* quantity of gliders "substantially damaged" or worse, few
semi-regular, US-based, RAS readers would not agree this U.S. season is -
statistical pedantry aside - already distinctly worse-than-recent-years.

Non-midair ship-damage-inflicted hasn't apparently (if still-TBD in some
cases) been limited to uncurrent, inexperienced (total, or in-type) pilots,
or, been an exclusive function of 'bad luck' associated with off-field landings.

Some fundamental questions:
- why aren't we pilots as a group more considerate of our expensive equipment?
- why intentionally shave margins thin in the absence of a compelling reason
to do so...and awareness we ARE doing so?
- have any readers/contributors had (near) incidents in which neither
time-in-type (absence of) or currency (lack of) or 'obvious outside factors'
were factors, and if so, what *were* contributing factors?

Perhaps a wide-ranging, open, discussion of 'the whole safety thing' might be
worthwhile, both here and within our clubs. All pilots (presumably) believe
themselves sufficiently safe as to be unlikely to be PIC in anything other
than a 'pure bad luck' related accident/incident. There may be a few readers
who've even been involved in such.

But my personal 1st-hand experience, combined with a long-standing interest in
learning from the gaffes/unluckiness of other pilots, leads to the personal
conclusion the majority of crunches are NOT 'pure bad luck.' The good news
(considering only my personal experiences) is I've not been a repeat offender,
insofar as 'primary contributors' are concerned. Nonetheless, for me, pushing
weather limits has been one obvious potential "Gotcha!" (Duh!) Big surprise,
given the nature of sport soaring. That said, none of my 3 scratch-n-dent
inducing incidents had weather as a contributor...well, other than, in 2 of
the 3, by inducing soarability, I mean.

For better or worse, I early-on in my PIC-ing concluded I'd be much
happier/safer avoiding crunches, incidents, etc., than trying to explain or
justify how they happened, point being that I actively THOUGHT ABOUT the
possibility I COULD be involved in such. I think the belief not only helped
power/fine-tune my "situational awareness" radar, but favorably influenced all
my future piloting, gliderporting, driving, bicycling, urban pedestrianing,
etc. experiences. Personal safety culture, if you will. And no, I don't
consider my outlook an inoculation against personal lapses of
attention...though I do believe my outlook distinctly decreases the chances
I'll be involved in a self-inflicted incident or accident. (So far, so good!)

What do others think?

Bob W.



On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:11:59 AM UTC-5, BobW wrote:
I might be wrong, but my sense is that now in this soaring season, and
considering *only* quantity of gliders "substantially damaged" or worse, few
semi-regular, US-based, RAS readers would not agree this U.S. season is -
statistical pedantry aside - already distinctly worse-than-recent-years.

Non-midair ship-damage-inflicted hasn't apparently (if still-TBD in some
cases) been limited to uncurrent, inexperienced (total, or in-type) pilots,
or, been an exclusive function of 'bad luck' associated with off-field landings.

Some fundamental questions:
- why aren't we pilots as a group more considerate of our expensive equipment?
- why intentionally shave margins thin in the absence of a compelling reason
to do so...and awareness we ARE doing so?
- have any readers/contributors had (near) incidents in which neither
time-in-type (absence of) or currency (lack of) or 'obvious outside factors'
were factors, and if so, what *were* contributing factors?

Perhaps a wide-ranging, open, discussion of 'the whole safety thing' might be
worthwhile, both here and within our clubs. All pilots (presumably) believe
themselves sufficiently safe as to be unlikely to be PIC in anything other
than a 'pure bad luck' related accident/incident. There may be a few readers
who've even been involved in such.

But my personal 1st-hand experience, combined with a long-standing interest in
learning from the gaffes/unluckiness of other pilots, leads to the personal
conclusion the majority of crunches are NOT 'pure bad luck.' The good news
(considering only my personal experiences) is I've not been a repeat offender,
insofar as 'primary contributors' are concerned. Nonetheless, for me, pushing
weather limits has been one obvious potential "Gotcha!" (Duh!) Big surprise,
given the nature of sport soaring. That said, none of my 3 scratch-n-dent
inducing incidents had weather as a contributor...well, other than, in 2 of
the 3, by inducing soarability, I mean.

For better or worse, I early-on in my PIC-ing concluded I'd be much
happier/safer avoiding crunches, incidents, etc., than trying to explain or
justify how they happened, point being that I actively THOUGHT ABOUT the
possibility I COULD be involved in such. I think the belief not only helped
power/fine-tune my "situational awareness" radar, but favorably influenced all
my future piloting, gliderporting, driving, bicycling, urban pedestrianing,
etc. experiences. Personal safety culture, if you will. And no, I don't
consider my outlook an inoculation against personal lapses of
attention...though I do believe my outlook distinctly decreases the chances
I'll be involved in a self-inflicted incident or accident. (So far, so good!)

What do others think?

Bob W.



On Monday, June 25, 2012 11:11:59 AM UTC-5, BobW wrote:
I might be wrong, but my sense is that now in this soaring season, and
considering *only* quantity of gliders "substantially damaged" or worse, few
semi-regular, US-based, RAS readers would not agree this U.S. season is -
statistical pedantry aside - already distinctly worse-than-recent-years.

Non-midair ship-damage-inflicted hasn't apparently (if still-TBD in some
cases) been limited to uncurrent, inexperienced (total, or in-type) pilots,
or, been an exclusive function of 'bad luck' associated with off-field landings.

Some fundamental questions:
- why aren't we pilots as a group more considerate of our expensive equipment?
- why intentionally shave margins thin in the absence of a compelling reason
to do so...and awareness we ARE doing so?
- have any readers/contributors had (near) incidents in which neither
time-in-type (absence of) or currency (lack of) or 'obvious outside factors'
were factors, and if so, what *were* contributing factors?

Perhaps a wide-ranging, open, discussion of 'the whole safety thing' might be
worthwhile, both here and within our clubs. All pilots (presumably) believe
themselves sufficiently safe as to be unlikely to be PIC in anything other
than a 'pure bad luck' related accident/incident. There may be a few readers
who've even been involved in such.

But my personal 1st-hand experience, combined with a long-standing interest in
learning from the gaffes/unluckiness of other pilots, leads to the personal
conclusion the majority of crunches are NOT 'pure bad luck.' The good news
(considering only my personal experiences) is I've not been a repeat offender,
insofar as 'primary contributors' are concerned. Nonetheless, for me, pushing
weather limits has been one obvious potential "Gotcha!" (Duh!) Big surprise,
given the nature of sport soaring. That said, none of my 3 scratch-n-dent
inducing incidents had weather as a contributor...well, other than, in 2 of
the 3, by inducing soarability, I mean.

For better or worse, I early-on in my PIC-ing concluded I'd be much
happier/safer avoiding crunches, incidents, etc., than trying to explain or
justify how they happened, point being that I actively THOUGHT ABOUT the
possibility I COULD be involved in such. I think the belief not only helped
power/fine-tune my "situational awareness" radar, but favorably influenced all
my future piloting, gliderporting, driving, bicycling, urban pedestrianing,
etc. experiences. Personal safety culture, if you will. And no, I don't
consider my outlook an inoculation against personal lapses of
attention...though I do believe my outlook distinctly decreases the chances
I'll be involved in a self-inflicted incident or accident. (So far, so good!)

What do others think?

Bob W.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:56:22 -0700 (PDT), Marc
wrote:

One group of pilots here in the US believe that they are sufficiently
trained to avoid making the stupid errors[.....]
result in soaring being safer than any other form of aviation, at
least for the 100 or so pilots left.
[...]
The obvious solution, of course, is for the pilots in the first group
to convince the pilots in the second group to retire from soaring ;^)


Occasionally, also some of the most experienced and safest pilots
(based on a long, immaculate safety record), crash.
Too much confidence, too small safety margins (margins? doh!), or just
a plain, simple lapse of the moment.
This can happen to anyone, and that's when we need margins. Most
probably, we will not be grateful to those safety margins, as we won't
recognize they saved us on that occasion.

aldo cernezzi