2nd-Guessing Accidents (aka Seeking Personal Insight)

So far, the USA's 2012 northern spring appears to be shaping up to be a
"typical soaring season" in accident terms. In my view, that's not a good
thing. Why? Summary-to-date follows...

- - - - - -
1/28/12 - 2-33 seriously damaged in a non-rope-break approach accident; at
least one occupant precautionarily taken to hospital for back pain.

2/5/12 - Duo-Discus (NOT an accident - but easily *might* have been) landed at
Heavenly Valley Ski Resort on a Sunday during a BFR.

2/22/12 - Twin Grob seriously damaged in some TBD situation/manner in HI; no
known injuries.

4/5/12 - HP-14 "substantially damaged" with no known injury to pilot in an
attempted on-airport landing.

4/11/12 - SZD-48 "substantially damaged" and pilot suffered "minor injuries"
in some sort of TBD landing accident.

4/29/12 - JS-1 bailed out of after some sort of TBD rudder control system
failure; pilot apparently not seriously injured.

5/5 (or 5/6)/12 - PIK-20D seriously broken in a landing accident; pilot
apparently not seriously injured.
- - - - - -

So far:
- 0 fatalities; multiple precautionary hospitalizations
- 1 glider almost certainly destroyed
- 5 gliders substantially damaged
- unknown amount of anguish & after-the-fact soul-searching by numerous
people/pilots
- - - - - -

5 out of 6 accidents (almost certainly) easily avoidable.
- - - - - -

JUSTIFICATION/THINKING
Reason for this post is simply to openly discuss a topic that inevitably
induces heartburn in some of our U.S. soaring community's too small
population: individually-based accident assessments...often called
"2nd-guessing" or "speculation." Not infrequently, doing it generates real ire
in some, especially in an interactive forum as RAS.

FWIW/IMHO, trying to learn from others' misfortunes ASAP (always a personal
goal), better the serves the active pilot community as a whole than "waiting
until the NTSB/official report" to begin "officially-supported speculation."

Learning is a lifelong process, and those *always* actively seeking to learn
from others' situations/events/misfortunes are more likely to do so in
considerably more timely fashion than those "of inquiring mind who prefer to
wait (for NTSB reports,)" or (worse), those of closed/uninquiring minds. To my
mind, an active desire to learn is simple prudence, given routine engagement
in activities containing sufficient kinetic energy to easily kill participants
(e.g. driving, flying).

I've acted on this thought ever since obtaining my auto license. Prior, the
first person I applied my critical judgement to was an older sister whose
general lack of behind-the-wheel "situational awareness" made a doofus
16-year-old (me) nervous to the point my mother and I agreed it was preferable
for me to hitch-hike home from high school than wait to be chauffeured by my
older sister. (Yeah, that was a different time in the U.S. back in the late
'60's!)

I expanded my critical assessment arena to include power flying during
college, from beginning to read "Flying" magazines left around the
undergraduate engineering lounge.

By graduation time I'd a working hypothesis that most car/power-plane
accidents were driver-/pilot-influenced, if not outright induced.

I began taking soaring lessons in late '72, and sometime approaching initial
solo was given a handout of "Soaring" magazine "Safety Corner" articles from
the mid-1960s by my Club's chief instructor. Prior to then, we'd exchanged
perhaps 2 or 3 sentences, and the older gent intimidated wet-eared me due to
age, position and relative experience. He may not have walked on water as I
suspected he did, but I knew darned well that *I* did not! So it was with
genuine concern that the exchange of reading material from him to me included
also the assignment: "Read these, and tell me the most important lesson in
them." Talk about pressure!

Absorbing the articles took a month or so...and about the ONLY lesson I could
see in them was the bulk of the incidents and accidents were "stupid pilot
tricks." Uncertain this was the insight the Chief Instructor was looking for
from me, I read the articles a second time, more slowly. I then procrastinated
returning the collection for fear of failing his test.

Major Relief: I passed this particular test. Forty subsequent years of
continuing to try and learn from others' misfortunes haven't substantively
changed the assessments made in the 1960's (about drivers) and the early 1970s
(about pilots). IMHO, only a single-digit-small percentage of accidents are
NOT operator influenced (if not outright induced).

Unsurprisingly, my own flying (and driving) careers reflect that assessment.
Happily both have fairly rare and essentially exclusively minor personal
contributions to the incident/accident records, though there was one soaring
accident in 1975 that was major (in glider damage terms), dramatic (in pilot
terms) and was arguably in the pilot-influenced category despite never being
outside demonstrated/POH V-n limits. Had the same set of circumstances been
encountered subsequent to gaining the 1st-hand experience of the '75 event
subsequent to then, no one would've known of the subsequent incident unless I
chose to share it with them. Sort of a QED event, one could say, in the
"learning from others' misfortunes" sense of things!
- - - - - -

MINDSET
It matters. How a pilot thinks matters, because thought patterns inevitably
affect piloting actions. (Would anyone seriously try to self-teach solo flight
in glass single-seaters in the absence of FAA requirements for dual
instruction in SOMEthing prior to solo/license? My point here is it's pretty
much self-evident to rational people that self-preservation-instinct alone is
sufficient to influence one's thinking to conclude dual instruction in
sailplanes is a good idea. How a person thinks, matters.)

Mindset is as true post-licensing as it is pre-licensing, though arguably
perhaps more subtly so. If you think ridge soaring is no more risky than
thermal soaring, you're more likely to attempt to do both similarly...adding
additional risks to your ridge soaring attempts that a different mindset could
mitigate. Ditto cloud flying vs. VFR flight. Or downwind landings vs. upwind
landings. Etc., etc., etc...
- - - - - -

SPECULATION
I've been doing it for decades, and have never thought myself poorer for it in
knowledge-/insight-gained, or more ill-informed for having indulged.

"But what if you're wrong in your speculative accident conclusions?" some may ask.

Excellent question.

Let's consider a speculative, unintentional stall-spin/departure from
controlled flight scenario.

I've been at the gliderport when a friendly acquaintance died from one. (The
preceding statement is my conclusion; the NTSB added no substantive causative
insight to this particular crash, which you can find under HP-16s). Why it
happened was a mystery to me then, and remains one today, but one more
destroyed glider and one more dead pilot. Another friendly acquaintance - and
high-time power and glider pilot/instructor - died from such in the pattern on
a benign day from the same cause (SZD-59).

Happily I've never had to actually WITNESS a departure from controlled flight
in the pattern, though I HAVE seen a 2-33 (on a dual instruction flight!) hit
a tree on a low approach, and have seen WAY too many inadvertent low
approaches for good health (theirs and mine!). Know what? Most of the
resultant low patterns were NOT suitably modified by the self-inflicting
pilots to mitigate the inherent hazards in them. All could have been of
course. WHY were they not modified? Mindset?

My point here is it doesn't terribly MATTER if Joe Pilot's speculation is
spot-on or not, simply because the speculation has value in and of itself if
it influences Joe Pilot's future thinking (and hence actions) in different
(arguably safer) ways than would likely be the case in the absence of such
speculation. That's a good thing, IMHO.

Who wants to argue - after a pattern crunch, say - that inadvertent,
un-pre-planned, low and slow patterns are safer than "normal patterns"? Or
that the crunch was or was not departure-from-controlled-flight-induced
directly, or indirectly (e.g. by hitting a tree or wires or a fence or
something else)? Of course, the latter distinction is surely critical to an
accurate understanding of any particular accident...but it is NOT critical to
the fact of said crunch, if said crunch arguably would NOT have happened had a
"normal pattern" been flown. There are lessons to be gleaned about the risks
inherent to ALL low patterns from speculative assessment of low pattern crunches.

Would you rather hit a tree, or inadvertently depart from controlled flight,
if fate decrees those are to be the only two options you get from some future
low pattern you (inadvertently, most likely) enter? Personally, I'd rather hit
the tree...but much more to the thinking point is that I never want to
INADVERTENTLY enter a low pattern, and if I DO, then I want to do certain
things beginning the instant I realize I've made such a stupid error. (Anyone
want to chime in w. guesses what those things might be?)

Incidentally, for any readers who think I'm being too harsh in claiming anyone
who enters a low pattern inadvertently is being stupid, this is from someone
who's encountered 3 pattern microbursts in the inter-mountain Rocky Mountain
west...sort of this area's equivalent of falling off an Allegheny or UK ridge,
in available-pattern-time-terms. One of those patterns was entered at 2,500'
agl and eventually included a go-around from the downwind to base turn, and
another was entered at 3k' agl and included ONLY time for 2-360's (in the
clean configuration) that took less than a minute to ground contact. No damage
in any of them (though the first of the three was a crap shoot in
survivability terms). My point here is that "landing patterns" don't begin at
some arbitrary location or altitude agl, they begin when they need to begin,
and Joe Pilot had better begin - ASAP! - doing what that particular pattern
demands.

Mindset matters.

And my pattern mindset began to be influenced by reading about others'
misfortunes - then speculating about what I'd read - well before I obtained my
license. So far, the only stupid pilot tricks I've managed to do in over 1100
patterns have been convenience related. Happily, only one included
(bulkhead-repair-required) glider damage. My speculative conclusion? Pattern
risks taken for convenience reasons are entirely, 100%, avoidable. IOW,
convenience risks - if they don't work out - WILL be a stupid pilot trick.
- - - - - -

It sure would be wonderful if the rest of the 2012 U.S. soaring season doesn't
include any more stupid pilot tricks.

Bob - Captain Harsh - W.

On 5/13/2012 9:25 PM, Brad wrote:
On May 13, 4:10 pm, wrote:

Prolixity snipped...

Bob - Captain Harsh - W.

I discovered that the auto-tow accident last year during the filming
of a car commercial was caught on video, and probably a lot more was
taken by the professionals shooting the take.

If you want to go on a safety jihad, maybe you should start with the
folks who have this footage and implore upon them to make it
available. I know I haven't seen any of it, and this happened to
someone in my club. One would think that this would be an invaluable
tool for study and discussion.

Pick the low hanging fruit Bob, let's see how far you get with this
one.

Brad

So call me dense. I'm not sure what you're hoping for from me here, Brad.

If you think I'm on a "safety jihad" so be it. FWIW, I've long asked myself
certain fundamental questions - both when I drive and when I'm PIC - that I
think have served me well in avoiding accidents, both those influenced by
others (the most likely sort every sensible driver "hopes for"), and those
influenced by me (whether driving or piloting).

My fundamental driving question is: "Who can hit me now?" Those are the
vehicles I pay Very Close attention to. I worry a lot less about who I can
hit, for the simple reason I'm pretty much in direct control of those outcomes
and "drive accordingly."

My fundamental PIC questions vary situationally, but are no less to-the-point.
By "situationally" I mean (e.g.) tow, thermalling, while on a ridge, XC over
less-than-benign territory, etc., etc., etc. The vast majority of my PIC
questions - not all, since "fate" can easily intervene a dramatic hand to any
PIC - have as an underlying assumption that *I* - Joe Pilot - am the weak
link, and through the answers to the questions the goal is to detect ASAP if
I'm doing something imprudent, or even downright stupid. If I'm not, then I
keep on keeping on. If I AM being stupid, then I need to begin implementing -
sooner rather than later - Plan B (or C or maybe even D).

Does it work? So far, I've never made an inadvertent (key word) low pattern,
and never come close to an inadvertent departure from controlled flight
(anywhere, not just in the pattern). *I* think it works for me. And, I've
talked to a lot of pilots over the years who've done "inexplicable" stuff -
ranging from the merely "pattern bizarre" to "near accident" - a large
proportion of whom have been unable to come up with sensible answers to "What
were you THINKing?" Some have admitted they were NOT thinking, and were doing
things by rote, suggesting to me that they were not actively engaged in a
mental Q&A. One or two have even changed their fundamental approach (as
learned by continuing interactions/BS sessions over the years)...and have
rarely scared/worried me since.

My conclusion is it works.

And though you didn't ask - but others (indirectly) have - yes, I do
speculate/2nd-guess about incidents/accidents involving people I've known that
have occurred at my home field. It has nothing to do with friendship and
everything to do with learning from others' misfortunes. A lot of my
speculation ended up in our monthly Club Newsletter over the ~9 years I was
Joe Editor...and no letter bombs.

Bob W.

This thread, and few others recently, is the main reason why I follow RAS since I started soaring 15 years ago. I have no doubts that the collective wisdom as demonstrated here made me a much safer pilot.
Thank you all and keep it coming (the insights, not the accidents)

Ramy

I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.

Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Some of these new pilots recognize that they are now just barely dangerous, and begin a lifelong quest to learn everything about flying gliders - and if they stick to it they can become self-taught excellent pilots.

But many others just smile when they get their nice new certificate and muddle along, safe in the knowledge that their great instructor taught them all they need to know.

I could talk about many areas where the lack of knowledge is scary (AOA, anybody?) but lets just look at landings - since we apparently aren't very good at them:

Enter the pattern at 1000' over the farm, fly downwind nice and slow to the pond and a nice easy turn to base, half spoilers and a nice long final, aiming to touchdown just past the fence to save having to drag the glider back to the launch point. In the flare, level off, and let the glider settle on the nice big main wheel, then forward stick to pin the nosewheel and brake to a stop.

Sound familiar? You see it everyday at any gliderport, in everything from 1-26s to Grob-103s.

And if you didn't cringe when you read that paragraph - or worse, nodded "yeah, sounds about right", you need some serious remedial training!

Try this - in a modern 2-seater with a good instructor in the back: Enter downwind at about 500' and stop looking at the altimeter. Fly a fast, tight pattern (triangle plus 10 for a start), make steep turns, and setup a final to an aimpoint one third of the way down the runway. On short final, slow to triangle (plus wind) and then set your spoilers and concentrate on a low energy, tail and main (or tail slightly first) landing. Hold the stick all the way back and steer out of the way clear of the active, if possible.

Then go up, and when you pull your spoilers on downwind to check them, have your instructor hold them all the way out. Land. On the airfield.

Do it again until you can land where you want, not where the glider wants.

Go up and setup a nice nose high slip (this works great in a K-21). Smoothly feed in full rudder until it locks over and you feel like you are going sideways. Take you feet off the rudder pedals to prove that the rudder is really locked over. Then recover. It's fun.

Have your towpilot simulate an engine failure and rock you off (prebrief, of course). See how long it takes you to recognize that you are no longer climbing and to SEE that the towplane is rocking his wings.

This is all BASIC AIRMANSHIP, guys! If our instructors won't teach us this stuff, then you need to teach yourself.

You get the idea. I realize I'm making a huge generalization, but the stats seem to back me up, unfortunately.

Okay, you guys are cleared in hot on me.

Pushing it up and takin' it down!

Kirk
66

On May 14, 10:04*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.

Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. *We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Some of these new pilots recognize that they are now just barely dangerous, and begin a lifelong quest to learn everything about flying gliders - and if they stick to it they can become self-taught excellent pilots.

But many others just smile when they get their nice new certificate and muddle along, safe in the knowledge that their great instructor taught them all they need to know.

I could talk about many areas where the lack of knowledge is scary (AOA, anybody?) but lets just look at landings - since we apparently aren't very good at them:

Enter the pattern at 1000' over the farm, fly downwind nice and slow to the pond and a nice easy turn to base, half spoilers and a nice long final, aiming to touchdown just past the fence to save having to drag the glider back to the launch point. *In the flare, level off, and let the glider settle on the nice big main wheel, then forward stick to pin the nosewheel and brake to a stop.

Sound familiar? *You see it everyday at any gliderport, in everything from 1-26s to Grob-103s.

And if you didn't cringe when you read that paragraph - or worse, nodded "yeah, sounds about right", you need some serious remedial training!

Try this - in a modern 2-seater with a good instructor in the back: *Enter downwind at about 500' and stop looking at the altimeter. *Fly a fast, tight pattern (triangle plus 10 for a start), make steep turns, and setup a final to an aimpoint one third of the way down the runway. On short final, slow to triangle (plus wind) and then set your spoilers and concentrate on a low energy, tail and main (or tail slightly first) landing. Hold the stick all the way back and steer out of the way clear of the active, if possible.

Then go up, and when you pull your spoilers on downwind to check them, have your instructor hold them all the way out. *Land. *On the airfield.

Do it again until you can land where you want, not where the glider wants..

Go up and setup a nice nose high slip (this works great in a K-21). Smoothly feed in full rudder until it locks over and you feel like you are going sideways. *Take you feet off the rudder pedals to prove that the rudder is really locked over. *Then recover. *It's fun.

Have your towpilot simulate an engine failure and rock you off (prebrief, of course). *See how long it takes you to recognize that you are no longer climbing and to SEE that the towplane is rocking his wings.

This is all BASIC AIRMANSHIP, guys! *If our instructors won't teach us this stuff, then you need to teach yourself.

You get the idea. I realize I'm making a huge generalization, but the stats seem to back me up, unfortunately.

Okay, you guys are cleared in hot on me.

Pushing it up and takin' it down!

Kirk
66

Nicely said. Now, what can we do about those instructors?

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow.
Kirk
66

That was a pretty broad brush you used there, Kirk. While I would agree with some of that concerning the instruction I got 40 years ago, there are some very good instructors out there who produce well quolified glider pilots. Kenny Price at Williams for one! After flying with the Air Force cadets for several years I think the AFA is producing well quolified glider pilots as well!
JJ

You're right, quality of instruction is all across the board. I don't have an answer for it except to do my best to keep turning out new glider pilots and flying with as many students as I can. Of course I, like you, assume that I'm one of the good ones.

I'm guessing if you took a survey about 80-90% of CFI's would say they are above average.

On Monday, May 14, 2012 11:04:40 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.

Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Some of these new pilots recognize that they are now just barely dangerous, and begin a lifelong quest to learn everything about flying gliders - and if they stick to it they can become self-taught excellent pilots.

But many others just smile when they get their nice new certificate and muddle along, safe in the knowledge that their great instructor taught them all they need to know.

I could talk about many areas where the lack of knowledge is scary (AOA, anybody?) but lets just look at landings - since we apparently aren't very good at them:

Enter the pattern at 1000' over the farm, fly downwind nice and slow to the pond and a nice easy turn to base, half spoilers and a nice long final, aiming to touchdown just past the fence to save having to drag the glider back to the launch point. In the flare, level off, and let the glider settle on the nice big main wheel, then forward stick to pin the nosewheel and brake to a stop.

Sound familiar? You see it everyday at any gliderport, in everything from 1-26s to Grob-103s.

And if you didn't cringe when you read that paragraph - or worse, nodded "yeah, sounds about right", you need some serious remedial training!

Try this - in a modern 2-seater with a good instructor in the back: Enter downwind at about 500' and stop looking at the altimeter. Fly a fast, tight pattern (triangle plus 10 for a start), make steep turns, and setup a final to an aimpoint one third of the way down the runway. On short final, slow to triangle (plus wind) and then set your spoilers and concentrate on a low energy, tail and main (or tail slightly first) landing. Hold the stick all the way back and steer out of the way clear of the active, if possible..

Then go up, and when you pull your spoilers on downwind to check them, have your instructor hold them all the way out. Land. On the airfield.

Do it again until you can land where you want, not where the glider wants..

Go up and setup a nice nose high slip (this works great in a K-21). Smoothly feed in full rudder until it locks over and you feel like you are going sideways. Take you feet off the rudder pedals to prove that the rudder is really locked over. Then recover. It's fun.

Have your towpilot simulate an engine failure and rock you off (prebrief, of course). See how long it takes you to recognize that you are no longer climbing and to SEE that the towplane is rocking his wings.

This is all BASIC AIRMANSHIP, guys! If our instructors won't teach us this stuff, then you need to teach yourself.

You get the idea. I realize I'm making a huge generalization, but the stats seem to back me up, unfortunately.

Okay, you guys are cleared in hot on me.

Pushing it up and takin' it down!

Kirk
66

On May 15, 8:10*am, Tony wrote:
You're right, quality of instruction is all across the board. *I don't have an answer for it except to do my best to keep turning out new glider pilots and flying with as many students as I can. *Of course I, like you, assume that I'm one of the good ones.

I'm guessing if you took a survey about 80-90% of CFI's would say they are above average.







On Monday, May 14, 2012 11:04:40 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.

Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. *We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Some of these new pilots recognize that they are now just barely dangerous, and begin a lifelong quest to learn everything about flying gliders - and if they stick to it they can become self-taught excellent pilots.

But many others just smile when they get their nice new certificate and muddle along, safe in the knowledge that their great instructor taught them all they need to know.

I could talk about many areas where the lack of knowledge is scary (AOA, anybody?) but lets just look at landings - since we apparently aren't very good at them:

Enter the pattern at 1000' over the farm, fly downwind nice and slow to the pond and a nice easy turn to base, half spoilers and a nice long final, aiming to touchdown just past the fence to save having to drag the glider back to the launch point. *In the flare, level off, and let the glider settle on the nice big main wheel, then forward stick to pin the nosewheel and brake to a stop.

Sound familiar? *You see it everyday at any gliderport, in everything from 1-26s to Grob-103s.

And if you didn't cringe when you read that paragraph - or worse, nodded "yeah, sounds about right", you need some serious remedial training!

Try this - in a modern 2-seater with a good instructor in the back: *Enter downwind at about 500' and stop looking at the altimeter. *Fly a fast, tight pattern (triangle plus 10 for a start), make steep turns, and setup a final to an aimpoint one third of the way down the runway. On short final, slow to triangle (plus wind) and then set your spoilers and concentrate on a low energy, tail and main (or tail slightly first) landing. Hold the stick all the way back and steer out of the way clear of the active, if possible.

Then go up, and when you pull your spoilers on downwind to check them, have your instructor hold them all the way out. *Land. *On the airfield..

Do it again until you can land where you want, not where the glider wants.

Go up and setup a nice nose high slip (this works great in a K-21). Smoothly feed in full rudder until it locks over and you feel like you are going sideways. *Take you feet off the rudder pedals to prove that the rudder is really locked over. *Then recover. *It's fun.

Have your towpilot simulate an engine failure and rock you off (prebrief, of course). *See how long it takes you to recognize that you are no longer climbing and to SEE that the towplane is rocking his wings.

This is all BASIC AIRMANSHIP, guys! *If our instructors won't teach us this stuff, then you need to teach yourself.

You get the idea. I realize I'm making a huge generalization, but the stats seem to back me up, unfortunately.

Okay, you guys are cleared in hot on me.

Pushing it up and takin' it down!

Kirk
66

I suspect revamping the old methods has reached the point of
diminishing returns. Maybe new methods using Condor and other on-line
training methods can improve the training experience.

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 7:32:17 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
On May 15, 8:10*am, Tony wrote:
You're right, quality of instruction is all across the board. *I don't have an answer for it except to do my best to keep turning out new glider pilots and flying with as many students as I can. *Of course I, like you, assume that I'm one of the good ones.

I'm guessing if you took a survey about 80-90% of CFI's would say they are above average.







On Monday, May 14, 2012 11:04:40 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.

Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. *We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Some of these new pilots recognize that they are now just barely dangerous, and begin a lifelong quest to learn everything about flying gliders - and if they stick to it they can become self-taught excellent pilots.

But many others just smile when they get their nice new certificate and muddle along, safe in the knowledge that their great instructor taught them all they need to know.

I could talk about many areas where the lack of knowledge is scary (AOA, anybody?) but lets just look at landings - since we apparently aren't very good at them:

Enter the pattern at 1000' over the farm, fly downwind nice and slow to the pond and a nice easy turn to base, half spoilers and a nice long final, aiming to touchdown just past the fence to save having to drag the glider back to the launch point. *In the flare, level off, and let the glider settle on the nice big main wheel, then forward stick to pin the nosewheel and brake to a stop.

Sound familiar? *You see it everyday at any gliderport, in everything from 1-26s to Grob-103s.

And if you didn't cringe when you read that paragraph - or worse, nodded "yeah, sounds about right", you need some serious remedial training!

Try this - in a modern 2-seater with a good instructor in the back: *Enter downwind at about 500' and stop looking at the altimeter. *Fly a fast, tight pattern (triangle plus 10 for a start), make steep turns, and setup a final to an aimpoint one third of the way down the runway. On short final, slow to triangle (plus wind) and then set your spoilers and concentrate on a low energy, tail and main (or tail slightly first) landing. Hold the stick all the way back and steer out of the way clear of the active, if possible.

Then go up, and when you pull your spoilers on downwind to check them, have your instructor hold them all the way out. *Land. *On the airfield.

Do it again until you can land where you want, not where the glider wants.

Go up and setup a nice nose high slip (this works great in a K-21). Smoothly feed in full rudder until it locks over and you feel like you are going sideways. *Take you feet off the rudder pedals to prove that the rudder is really locked over. *Then recover. *It's fun.

Have your towpilot simulate an engine failure and rock you off (prebrief, of course). *See how long it takes you to recognize that you are no longer climbing and to SEE that the towplane is rocking his wings.

This is all BASIC AIRMANSHIP, guys! *If our instructors won't teach us this stuff, then you need to teach yourself.

You get the idea. I realize I'm making a huge generalization, but the stats seem to back me up, unfortunately.

Okay, you guys are cleared in hot on me.

Pushing it up and takin' it down!

Kirk
66

I suspect revamping the old methods has reached the point of
diminishing returns. Maybe new methods using Condor and other on-line
training methods can improve the training experience.

Even the best instructor can not possibly teach a student everything they need to know to be safe. Unless someone wants to be an eternal student. Even then, the instructors themselves can not know everything. We can always learn more and strive to learn more on our own, using available resources such as books, publications and online forums such as RAS. The highest risk pilots are those who get their ticket, and never use any other resource to learn more other than a BFR. This usually happens in club environments with no much external exposure.

Ramy

On 5/15/2012 3:26 PM, Ramy wrote:

Much intervening thoughtful assessment/criticism/discussion of US-centric
instruction snipped...

Even the best instructor can not possibly teach a student everything they
need to know to be safe. Unless someone wants to be an eternal student.

Absolutely spot-on.
- - - - - -

Even then, the instructors themselves can not know everything. We can
always learn more and strive to learn more on our own, using available
resources such as books, publications and online forums such as RAS. The
highest risk pilots are those who get their ticket, and never use any other
resource to learn more other than a BFR. This usually happens in club
environments with no[t] much external exposure.

Ramy

Your final sentence touches upon something that's simultaneously - for a long
time - bugged, pained, perplexed and off-n-on preoccupied the part of my brain
that likes to ponder imponderables.

It's this: Why do soaring groups (clubs, FBOs) often struggle with the concept
of, "Who shall instruct?" It's seemingly a simple question...with answers that
quickly become complex.

Sure, "government approved instructors" are on everyone's lists, whether you
work for the FAA, a law firm or simply wanna obtain a glider rating.

Where I've seen disagreement tending to start is, "Who ELSE?" And what
constitutes "instruction"?

I'll argue from the accident prevention perspective, "instruction" is the
acquisition of knowledge about the sport. Muscle memory and judgement are part
of it too, natch, but it all starts with knowledge. Knowledge in the most
general sense. By my definition, anyone who's ever read a(ny) book about
soaring has undertaken self-instruction, whether it's a flight manual, a book
of retrieve stories, or even a novel (there are some!).

Anyone who's ever engaged in a bull session has instructed (sometimes, in ways
they may not have wanted to!).

Anyone who's shared a 2-seater - whether with a fellow licensed glider-guider
or a member of the great unwashed - has instructed.

In an ideal world, ALL participants in these sorts of "instructional
activities" would recognize and respect the facts of "instruction" having
taken place, no matter the bulk being unloggable. This would - it seems to me
- help more of us focus on the fact that our silly avocation *requires*
knowledge...and also applied focus. Knowledge both 'ad-hoc' (e.g. what the
controls do) and of our own limitations. Applied focus at all times (whether
on acquiring more knowledge or applying what we presently have).

Where the "respect concept" comes in has been easily seen in every soaring
club of which I've knowledge, whenever the topic of peer pressure arose.

Tangentially, I happen to believe peer pressure is a powerful, useful,
often-denigrated if not outright attacked (e.g. because "it infringes on
licensed instructors' authority"), and too often underutilized safety tool.
IMO similar forces tending to limit the use/effectiveness of peer pressure
also exist at glider FBOs. The really perverse part of the equation is that
most people would agree (I'd bet, if they could be engaged in a
'non-threatening' one-on-one discussion about the *idea* of knowledge-based
peer pressure) that peer pressure is a good idea. But the instant egos are
allowed to muddy the picture, feathers get ruffled, and the peer pressure tool
begins losing potential effectiveness. In one club, "the ruling party" people
actively got angry for many years whenever the topic was broached. (For the
record - and unsurprisingly, in my view - this club [which still exists,
though presently and for a couple of years now, inactively] has always had a
very spotty safety record [my characterization] in the 20+ years I've been an
active observer of it. Its "culture" was one of the reasons I never chose to
join it.)

I doubt I've stated things clearly, but I think what I'm really stumbling to
express is an aspect of our glider-sporting culture...an aspect which - if we
improved it - might measurably reduce our group rate of stupid pilot tricks,
as measured by dollar (and sometimes, maybe even *life*) losses.

I'm no Safety Nazi, not a licensed instructor, but like most of us have always
gotten genuinely perturbed whenever directly exposed to real-world effects
associated with the very real risks we take as practicing glider pilots. I was
exposed to my first "I KNEW that person!" death less than two years after
obtaining my rating; I was 26. Death or "mere accident"...all perturb me,
*especially* because I'm of the opinion the vast majority have not only been
avoidable/unnecessary, but self-inflicted. I'm as paranoid as anyone about
"fate" accidents (e.g. a spar failing, mid-air), but to be honest they don't
perturb me in the way self-inflicted ones do. (All are terrible, of course...)
Avoidable ones we can do something about.

Anyone have some "my Club improved its safety culture" stories to share?

Bob - (*I* have a cultural story!) - W.

P.S. It begins with, "...and so, after my Club became non-usuriously
uninsurable, some critical self-assessment became unavoidable..."

P.P.S. One consequence - our "peer pressure quotient" rose distinctly
higher...and the world did not end.

P.P.P.S Costello (a USA glider insurance broker) learned to love us again
about a decade ago now.