2nd-Guessing Accidents (aka Seeking Personal Insight)

On 5/15/2012 12:04 AM, 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.

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

From a UK perspective, I agree that instructors cannot possibly teach
everything. What they can, and I believe do, teach is all of the
essentials to be able to take off, soar locally, return to the
circuit, cope with too low, too high, or otherwise out of position,
cope with launch failures, appreciate stall and spin awareness, and
land safely after any or all of the above. A basic training syllabus
that leaves any of the above out would be defective.

Subsequently, they can and do teach field selection and good field
landing practices.

What I do not think is well taught is risk assessment other than as
covered above. On any one flight, there should not be more than one
major new thing which has risk attached to it, and/or not too many
minor new things. As an example, a young, very competent, but low
experience pilot from my club was visiting another. They offered him a
winch launch, at what was a new site, in a new type. He would probably
have coped all right, but I thought it was at least one new thing too
many. I spoke to their CFI (that is, chief flying instructor, in UK
terminology) and suggested that he should at least have a two seater
winch launch on their winch with which he was not familiar, at their
site which was also new to him, to be given a briefing on suitable
emergency situations and how to cope with them. If all that went okay,
and only then, should he be briefed on and be allowed to fly a new
solo glider type there.

A friend of mine died in his first flight on a new type, trying an
aerobatic manoeuvre (rolling to inverted) which was new to him, and he
then hit the ground trying to recover erect flight.

I keep losing count of how many people I have known personally who
died in gliding accidents, but I think it is between six and 10. It is
far higher than the number I knew who have died in road accidents, for
instance.

Re accident rates, we have fairly good UK data. It is not perfect,
because we know at least a small number of accidents that result in
insurance claims do not appear in our official accidents database. I
have no idea what you have in the USA.

Chris N

On May 15, 9:23*pm, Tony V wrote:
On 5/15/2012 12:04 AM, 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.

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

A few things I've been thinking about. There are lots of stall/spin
pattern accidents. Power planes do better because they can go around,
or use power to overcome the situation. So we can NOT get in the
situation in the first place. I feel there is no voice in our heads
that automatically screams when we are close to these situations. I
learned by wondering in bewilderment why one wing suddenly dropped
(crash) turning final with my radio control glider. I became very
aware and sensitive to that situation after is happened a few times.
A host of alarms should be going off when a situation is set up that
may lead to the stall/spin. These need to be hard wired into our
memory so that they fire a loud alarm. Knowledge is not enough. It
has to be prioritized knowledge backed up by muscle memory/fear. My
god, that's going to make me spin in! Relax back pressure and fly
into something under control because you are not going to live through
the stall/spin. Just like race car drivers. They always say drive
off the road under control and you are more likely to survive picking
what you will hit head on.

So how do we burn all these dangerous situations into muscle memory
and have the alarms go off that let us know how badly we are about to
be hurt? The airlines use simulators over and over and over again
until these situations are no longer emergencies, they become more
"abnormals". Real emergencies are unpreventable.

I hate to pull the Condor weapon out again, but I think, even though
it doesn't have failures built in, it can be very useful for the
repetition that is required to burn in the muscle/memory danger
awareness thing. If you set Condor to release at 200 AGL the tow will
wag its wings. Have this happen on lots of tows at various altitudes
and practice landing with different patterns, some with very strong
winds. I guarantee a student will instantly recognize the wave off
real world. With Condor, Make the student acknowledge out loud what
the wave off is, also that you have to give yourself a second to
access before you actually release.

In Condor I would make the student talk out loud on tow all the way to
maybe 500 AGL, such as. Continuously calling out where he will land if
the rope breaks. I do this myself both real world and Condor. Guard
the air brakes.

I see gliders drifting sideways on tow before lift off. To the point
where they should be releasing. Condor is fantastic at teaching the
skills to keep the nose straight, balanced on the one wheel, upwind
wing down slightly. Try it with full water and a huge crosswind. You
should be releasing often before airborne when it gets out of hand.
You will become hard wired to release.

All these very dangerous situations need to be burned into memory
somehow or we will keep making the same mistakes we have always made.
Reading helps too. Books, newsgroups, accident statistics, good
instructors, but don't be complacent.

The other thing I think about is competition flying. I may be out of
place, because I don't compete.. Yet. I would not dream of formation
flying in a gaggle of power planes, some with very little formation
flying experience. (PowerFlarm should help though) I would not have
a very casual attitude about landing out in a power plane. I do not
put myself in situations with power flying that gives me get home-
itis. Competition flying is a monumental example of this. I could
see competition flying with course lines over lots of airports with
finish lines off airport, large ant at altitude which I think being
implemented. I would fly that kind of competition flying.

Lastly there are a lot of old glider pilots. I'm one. Face it, our
memories are getting worse. Just another reason to adjust our
personal minimums.

Soaring puts us in a precarious situation by what it is, how we are
taught, and human nature. If we don't realize this and are not pro-
active, or we have one of the "hazardous attitudes". Our likelihood
of not surviving goes up. There is no one on this earth that should
have the attitude that they know it all. I walked out of a check ride
based on this hazardous attitude. I wasn't going to fly with him. ...
Aaron

On May 15, 6:23*pm, Tony V wrote:

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

Tony - Gliding International did a spread on this a few issues back
and compared accident rates (as well as pilot population sizes so you
could see "per capita" numbers). From what I recall, the US was not
stellar; but also not at the top of the list for accidents, either (by
comparison France was surprisingly high, IIRC).

One big comment I'll make about the quality of instruction in the US:
There are some really talented and dedicated CFIGs out there (and I
humbly hope to join their ranks late this year). But I have also
found a lot of instructors who are no longer interested in making
pilots; all they want to do is get some free air-time and teach stick
and rudder skills. I see these a lot in club operations, where I
think we are loathe to turn away any volunteer help, regardless of its
true value. The result is that you get students who either:
1) Take forever to get to their license and get frustrated (and often
drop out of the club/sport).
2) Go into their Checkride unprepared, leading to them fail (and
getting frustrated and possibly leaving the sport).
3) Pass their checkride, but get into trouble as they do more flying
and/or encounter challenges like rough thermals, mountain conditions,
long XC glides, etc - which require more knowledge and planning than
pure stick-and-rudder reflexes.

While I find those results distasteful, I'm also coming around to the
idea that maybe these stick-and-rudder instructors aren't necessarily
a bad thing - IF they are managed appropriately. I think the club
(and a club's Chief CFIG) needs to keep an eye on these folks and
either provide supplemental instruction or transition students AWAY
from them once they master the basics. But I don't think the proper
people are providing the proper oversight; or they're not willing to
risk offending volunteers by exercising any control over these
processes.

I also see a dearth of ground instruction at some clubs (at least in
my area), even with "good" instructors. I think the flight line is a
HORRIBLE place to talk about theory or discuss the PTS or GFH. Yet I
watch instructors fly with students, then wave goodbye and a jaunty
"see you here next week!" How does the student learn about the theory
and important mental aspects of our sport if we don't guide them to
the knowledge by helping them figure out what reading to focus on,
what topics to study, and encourage the retention of this knowledge
through interaction and questioning? Students need to be self-
motivated; but even enthusiastic ones "don't know what they don't
know". They need a roadmap, some friendly advice, and occasionally a
shove in the right direction to give them some momentum when it comes
to studying on the ground. You don't get that "push" on the flight-
line or in the cockpit - the student is way too busy just trying to
fly the airplane and manage their stress levels!

--Noel

On May 17, 9:13*am, akiley wrote:
On May 15, 9:23*pm, Tony V wrote:

On 5/15/2012 12:04 AM, 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.

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

A few things I've been thinking about. *There are lots of stall/spin
pattern accidents.

Actually, while stall/spin accidents happen, most glider landing
accidents are less complicated. They just involve hitting things.

While seeking to avoid stalls and spins in the pattern is laudatory,
it should not be overdone to the extent pilots become so fearful they
carry too much airspeed into the landing flare. Trying to get rid of
excess speed while "floating" down the runway can lead to collisions
with objects.

In most situations, a pattern airspeed of "Yellow Triangle + 1/2 the
gust speed" is safe enough. Once on short final, the airspeed can be
reduced to just above the yellow triangle for a short landing roll.

I searched the thread for the word "currency" and didnt see it.
It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between
accidents and lack of currency in these cases.
This applies to currency of basic flight operations and currency of
basic XC principles(harder to measure).
But to clarify, to me, its not how many hours you got, but rather
"where your mind is" with recent experiences.

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:13:20 PM UTC-7, noel.wade wrote:
On May 15, 6:23*pm, Tony V wrote:

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

Tony - Gliding International did a spread on this a few issues back
and compared accident rates (as well as pilot population sizes so you
could see "per capita" numbers). From what I recall, the US was not
stellar; but also not at the top of the list for accidents, either (by
comparison France was surprisingly high, IIRC).

One big comment I'll make about the quality of instruction in the US:
There are some really talented and dedicated CFIGs out there (and I
humbly hope to join their ranks late this year). But I have also
found a lot of instructors who are no longer interested in making
pilots; all they want to do is get some free air-time and teach stick
and rudder skills. I see these a lot in club operations, where I
think we are loathe to turn away any volunteer help, regardless of its
true value. The result is that you get students who either:
1) Take forever to get to their license and get frustrated (and often
drop out of the club/sport).
2) Go into their Checkride unprepared, leading to them fail (and
getting frustrated and possibly leaving the sport).
3) Pass their checkride, but get into trouble as they do more flying
and/or encounter challenges like rough thermals, mountain conditions,
long XC glides, etc - which require more knowledge and planning than
pure stick-and-rudder reflexes.

While I find those results distasteful, I'm also coming around to the
idea that maybe these stick-and-rudder instructors aren't necessarily
a bad thing - IF they are managed appropriately. I think the club
(and a club's Chief CFIG) needs to keep an eye on these folks and
either provide supplemental instruction or transition students AWAY
from them once they master the basics. But I don't think the proper
people are providing the proper oversight; or they're not willing to
risk offending volunteers by exercising any control over these
processes.

I also see a dearth of ground instruction at some clubs (at least in
my area), even with "good" instructors. I think the flight line is a
HORRIBLE place to talk about theory or discuss the PTS or GFH. Yet I
watch instructors fly with students, then wave goodbye and a jaunty
"see you here next week!" How does the student learn about the theory
and important mental aspects of our sport if we don't guide them to
the knowledge by helping them figure out what reading to focus on,
what topics to study, and encourage the retention of this knowledge
through interaction and questioning? Students need to be self-
motivated; but even enthusiastic ones "don't know what they don't
know". They need a roadmap, some friendly advice, and occasionally a
shove in the right direction to give them some momentum when it comes
to studying on the ground. You don't get that "push" on the flight-
line or in the cockpit - the student is way too busy just trying to
fly the airplane and manage their stress levels!

--Noel

Excellent points. Unfortunately, the majority of flight instructors I know never read this forum, and as such will not take notes...

Ramy

On May 17, 1:13*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On May 15, 6:23*pm, Tony V wrote:

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

Tony - Gliding International did a spread on this a few issues back
and compared accident rates (as well as pilot population sizes so you
could see "per capita" numbers). *From what I recall, the US was not
stellar; but also not at the top of the list for accidents, either (by
comparison France was surprisingly high, IIRC).

One big comment I'll make about the quality of instruction in the US:
There are some really talented and dedicated CFIGs out there (and I
humbly hope to join their ranks late this year). *But I have also
found a lot of instructors who are no longer interested in making
pilots; all they want to do is get some free air-time and teach stick
and rudder skills. *I see these a lot in club operations, where I
think we are loathe to turn away any volunteer help, regardless of its
true value. *The result is that you get students who either:
1) Take forever to get to their license and get frustrated (and often
drop out of the club/sport).
2) Go into their Checkride unprepared, leading to them fail (and
getting frustrated and possibly leaving the sport).
3) Pass their checkride, but get into trouble as they do more flying
and/or encounter challenges like rough thermals, mountain conditions,
long XC glides, etc - which require more knowledge and planning than
pure stick-and-rudder reflexes.

While I find those results distasteful, I'm also coming around to the
idea that maybe these stick-and-rudder instructors aren't necessarily
a bad thing - IF they are managed appropriately. *I think the club
(and a club's Chief CFIG) needs to keep an eye on these folks and
either provide supplemental instruction or transition students AWAY
from them once they master the basics. *But I don't think the proper
people are providing the proper oversight; or they're not willing to
risk offending volunteers by exercising any control over these
processes.

I also see a dearth of ground instruction at some clubs (at least in
my area), even with "good" instructors. *I think the flight line is a
HORRIBLE place to talk about theory or discuss the PTS or GFH. *Yet I
watch instructors fly with students, then wave goodbye and a jaunty
"see you here next week!" *How does the student learn about the theory
and important mental aspects of our sport if we don't guide them to
the knowledge by helping them figure out what reading to focus on,
what topics to study, and encourage the retention of this knowledge
through interaction and questioning? *Students need to be self-
motivated; but even enthusiastic ones "don't know what they don't
know". *They need a roadmap, some friendly advice, and occasionally a
shove in the right direction to give them some momentum when it comes
to studying on the ground. *You don't get that "push" on the flight-
line or in the cockpit - the student is way too busy just trying to
fly the airplane and manage their stress levels!

--Noel

Noel makes some excellent points. The flight line, and by extension
the cockpit, are lousy classrooms. Classroom instruction is a
critical part of learning to become a pilot.

The solution, I'd humbly suggest, is not to build hundreds of
classrooms and find capable instructors to teach in them, it's to use
this medium - the Internet. We need on-line Private Pilot, Glider
courses to teach the knowledge required for the written and oral
exams. I'd think both the student and instructor should create an
account as a pair. The student can do the coursework and the
instructor can log in to see the student's progress.

BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing stick and
rudder skills. Without those, not much else is possible. A lot of
instructors have settled on the approach of first teaching people to
fly, then teaching them the rest. I've seen students become so
frustrated they quit because an instructor was hammering landings when
the student couldn't fly well enough to perform them. If a student
can't fly a straight course in the sky, they can't be expected to fly
a straight final approach.

At 23:00 17 May 2012, Bill D wrote:
On May 17, 1:13=A0pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On May 15, 6:23=A0pm, Tony V wrote:

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs
everywher=
e
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just
ask=
ing.

Tony "6N"

Tony - Gliding International did a spread on this a few issues back
and compared accident rates (as well as pilot population sizes so you
could see "per capita" numbers). =A0From what I recall, the US was not
stellar; but also not at the top of the list for accidents, either (by
comparison France was surprisingly high, IIRC).

One big comment I'll make about the quality of instruction in the US:
There are some really talented and dedicated CFIGs out there (and I
humbly hope to join their ranks late this year). =A0But I have also
found a lot of instructors who are no longer interested in making
pilots; all they want to do is get some free air-time and teach stick
and rudder skills. =A0I see these a lot in club operations, where I
think we are loathe to turn away any volunteer help, regardless of its
true value. =A0The result is that you get students who either:
1) Take forever to get to their license and get frustrated (and often
drop out of the club/sport).
2) Go into their Checkride unprepared, leading to them fail (and
getting frustrated and possibly leaving the sport).
3) Pass their checkride, but get into trouble as they do more flying
and/or encounter challenges like rough thermals, mountain conditions,
long XC glides, etc - which require more knowledge and planning than
pure stick-and-rudder reflexes.

While I find those results distasteful, I'm also coming around to the
idea that maybe these stick-and-rudder instructors aren't necessarily
a bad thing - IF they are managed appropriately. =A0I think the club
(and a club's Chief CFIG) needs to keep an eye on these folks and
either provide supplemental instruction or transition students AWAY
from them once they master the basics. =A0But I don't think the proper
people are providing the proper oversight; or they're not willing to
risk offending volunteers by exercising any control over these
processes.

I also see a dearth of ground instruction at some clubs (at least in
my area), even with "good" instructors. =A0I think the flight line is a
HORRIBLE place to talk about theory or discuss the PTS or GFH. =A0Yet I
watch instructors fly with students, then wave goodbye and a jaunty
"see you here next week!" =A0How does the student learn about the
theory
and important mental aspects of our sport if we don't guide them to
the knowledge by helping them figure out what reading to focus on,
what topics to study, and encourage the retention of this knowledge
through interaction and questioning? =A0Students need to be self-
motivated; but even enthusiastic ones "don't know what they don't
know". =A0They need a roadmap, some friendly advice, and occasionally a
shove in the right direction to give them some momentum when it comes
to studying on the ground. =A0You don't get that "push" on the flight-
line or in the cockpit - the student is way too busy just trying to
fly the airplane and manage their stress levels!

--Noel

Noel makes some excellent points. The flight line, and by extension
the cockpit, are lousy classrooms. Classroom instruction is a
critical part of learning to become a pilot.

The solution, I'd humbly suggest, is not to build hundreds of
classrooms and find capable instructors to teach in them, it's to use
this medium - the Internet. We need on-line Private Pilot, Glider
courses to teach the knowledge required for the written and oral
exams. I'd think both the student and instructor should create an
account as a pair. The student can do the coursework and the
instructor can log in to see the student's progress.

BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing stick and
rudder skills. Without those, not much else is possible. A lot of
instructors have settled on the approach of first teaching people to
fly, then teaching them the rest. I've seen students become so
frustrated they quit because an instructor was hammering landings when
the student couldn't fly well enough to perform them. If a student
can't fly a straight course in the sky, they can't be expected to fly
a straight final approach.


If the day is less than perfect its our practice to have a general
classroom sestion not too formal .Perhaps the CFI will give the job of
heading it up to a 1/2 cat instructor,very informal with lots of very
expreienced pilots listening in,but inexperienced ears are listening,the
same as here.Hopefully out of that comes the knowlage that is so expensive
if learned by breaking thing.We are all there to learn, it could be how to
land ,but it equally could be which side of the cloud when the sun is here
and the wind here.A pilot who knows it all is just delusional.
Then the front clears through and we all go and try to get it right

At 20:13 17 May 2012, db_sonic wrote:
I searched the thread for the word "currency" and didnt see it.
It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between
accidents and lack of currency in these cases.
This applies to currency of basic flight operations and currency of
basic XC principles(harder to measure).
But to clarify, to me, its not how many hours you got, but rather
"where your mind is" with recent experiences.


The BGA has this useful "Currency Barometer"
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/saf...ilot-briefing-
guidance.htm