RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

At 05:17 24 January 2018, Tango Eight wrote:
There are three scenarios I know of that are important in mountain flying
accidents.

1. Controlled flight into terrain. Trying to squeak through a pass or
over a ridgeline, or hooking a tree with a wingtip.

2. Loss of control without margin to recover (Henry Coomb's "Sinister
Trap", see Soaring 9/84).

3. Failure to maintain margin to a landable field.

When the glider ends up on the mountain, it's scenario #1 or 2. In the
valley, #3. Is one scenario more "important" than the others? Not
really,
we've lost friends to all three.

A hard deck designed to address #1 &/or #2 will be objectionable to guys
that routinely fly within a wingspan or two of mountains. A hard deck
can't really address #3 in an effective way.

Evan Ludeman / T8




First my condolences

Like many I watched the live uplink until the transmission break and
because the only competitor I have met was Tillo H I was watching him and
trying to see his strategy. He seemed to be "down slope " I wasn't sure if
he was trying something different ,or he just loved his family and wanted
to be that bit nearer to a landable field.
Its very easy to follow the leaders even SGP pilots have hero s but in a
world where 5M lower can leave you in a place with no "get out of jail free
card" the price can be higher than you think.
A very sad end to a spectacular event ,but you have to ask
Did they all know what risks they were taking,or were some following and
letting others gauge the risk.

With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.

Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.

As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.

As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

keskiviikko 24. tammikuuta 2018 14.57.36 UTC+2 kirjoitti:
With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.

Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.

As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.

As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!


I have lost a friend in gliding competition accident, and I know people who have competed for decades losing 10-20% of their pilot friends to accidents over the years (yes it is absolutely unbelievable, but true). So I care, and I know that others do too, while you may not. No-one flies competitions making decisions whether to "live or die". We try to find out who is the best athlete without risking our lives. There are rules that dictate how we measure performance, and then there should be rules that prevent us from doing something stupid in the heat of race. If pilots are allowed to take a risk to get more points, they do it way too often, and job of rules is to make sure that no more points are given at that point. Hard floor is excellent idea, at least in flatlands. If you watch Formula 1 car racing, they have hectares of gravel around the curves in case you loose control of the car, instead of stone wall (which we quite literally have). That's because they accept that mistakes are made, and control (with rules concerning circuits) what happens if you make a mistake. In 50's drivers ended up in fireball. Our sport has not progressed much.

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 7:57:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.

Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.

As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.

As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

From my own experience, which includes 40 years or so of competition from regional to WGC, I can relate my observations of my own behavior. I expect I am not much different than most other competitors.
When the event is of high importance and visibility one is more likely to accept higher risk. This can, and sometimes does, mean "temporarily" suspending hard safety boundaries to continue a flight or try to get a big score.
The trap is "temporarily", when repeated, can move toward habitual. We see this all the time with pilots that fly low patterns. They accept a known risk and it becomes their "normal" behavior. Pushing a bit beyond does not trigger alarm bells.
This is quite common in ridge and mountain flying. Acceptance of low energy flying near terrain becomes too easy.
I am an example of that trap. I became "Admiral Nixon" in 1999 by allowing myself to push too far into the boundaries while leading in the 18M nationals and ended up landing in a lake. That was embarrassing, but it could well have been much worse. At the time I had made over 9000 safe flights, yet I allowed myself to be seduced by temptation into breaking my own safety rules.
At the WGC in Musbach I made 3 final glides, one almost 50km, with a total margin above Macready 0 of about 200 feet. There were landable options on all 3 in the last bit before the airport. All of them worked. I never would have made all those that way if I was not in the WGC.
Applying my own experience to what I expect flying in the GP, in the mountains, is like, I can see how many would be likely to take risks they never would flying at home.
I don't see any realistic way to prevent this with rules.
It is mostly about trying to create a culture that makes it OK to quit when things aren't working. Karol has voiced it the best.
Some choose to avoid the trap by not participating. A good choice for them.
I'm glad I get to play this game and hope some introspection can cause some thought among pilots that could prevent the next tragedy. When the risk alarm bell goes off- listen and heed it.
Respectfully
UH

UH very well said, thanks for a well thought summary.

Krasn states:
"No-one flies competitions making decisions whether to "live or die". We try to find out who is the best athlete without risking our lives. There are rules that dictate how we measure performance, and then there should be rules that prevent us from doing something stupid in the heat of race."
I think this mentality that Krasn presents that is the very problem right here. In reality we DO make decisions minute by minute regarding life and death during a task. How close to thermal next to a ridge, how close do I get to that guy in a thermal, do I want to exit this gaggle cause there is a crazy guy thermalling in there, how close do I cut this final glide, etc etc. these are ALL life and death decisions. When a guy has this fact in mind, then it acts as a natural "tempering" to the dangerous "gotta win at all costs" mentality that wants to spring up during a race.

The very fact that you are looking to rule makers to dictate how safe you fly is what creates the problem in the first place. This "nanny state" mentality is actually creating the problem, where guys think if they follow the published rules then they are flying "safe". How wrong we have seen this to be.

Place as many "disinsentives" to unsafe flying as you like in the rules and guys will still be running into ridges, stall/spinning and acting crazy in a gaggle. Once again, it is personal decision making and personal limits that create safety. It is an INTERNAL issue (mindset), not an external (rules) one.

We have rules against cloud flying, rules against flying in controlled airspace, rules to thermal in the same direction, rules about how to fly an approach pattern, rules against flying under the influence of drugs or alcohol (FAI rules even have a special penalty for second offense), minimum finish height rules. Are these all unnecessary “nanny state� wastes of space?

I’d stop racing if I thought that every contest I attended was going to include a choice to significantly risk my life versus withdraw from the competition. I’m thankful there are people willing to contemplate the interplay between how we structure competition, human behavior and the most likely causes of death or injury.

Andy Blackburn
9B

In 2010 a paper on Gliding Safety was made by an Ostiv Member as a Guideline for the IGC to Improve Safety especially during competitions.

http://journals.sfu.ca/ts/index.php/...viewFile/59/53

one figure struck me in particular is that your chances of having a mishap - accident are 10times higher during a competition as proved by the statistics.

IGC has implemented some of the recommendations put unfortunately not all of them and is very slow to even enforce the rules.

I was involved on a administrative level on a European competition in the French Alps. It was obvious after a few days flying that we had some wastly inexpierenced pilots taking part and each Team Captains meeting we spend most of the time explaining the basic rules of mountain flying instead of taking the action required i.e. stopping these pilots from continuing flying. One mistake was that the Organisation did not demand an account of mounting flying experience from the Pilots nor did their National Organisation which submitted the entries. One reason for this is that they would probably end up with a very small Entry of sufficently qualified Pilots. Sadly the Competition ended up with one fatality which may or may not have been avoidable.

I’d stop racing if I thought that every contest I attended was going to include a choice to significantly risk my life versus withdraw from the competition

Andy, this is the exact point. It is YOUR choice whether to take the risk or not. You don't have to withdraw from the contest, you just don't win on that day but you stay alive and fly according to your own set of "minimums". Do contests award risk taking? Absolutely, they always have and always will. Should contests award risk taking? Probably not but there is no way to fully legislate risk-reward out of the system.

Yes some rules are common sense based, no IFR/cloud flying, circle same direction in gaggle, alt floor for finishes, but a look at this and many other accidents reveals they DID NOT involve any current rules, they involved poor judgement. How do you legislate out poor judgement? We have partially done this but it will be impossible to cover every contingency encountered.

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 4:57:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.

Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.

As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.

As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

There is a dichotomy he lack of participation vs. personal responsibility for risk. Everyone is hand wringing about the nanny state and too many rules, and also the decline of participation: but the reason most often expressed for not wanting to race is "it's too risky". The fact is that racing rewards risk. Some of this is always going to be necessary. But flying low over unlandable terrain is not one of those. It does not measure skill, only luck. The hard deck I envision would not prevent flying next to or over ridges, this is still a judgement call. It would discourage you from getting very low in unlandable valleys. Those who say a hard deck won't work in the mountains haven't thought about it enough. Certainly where I fly, whole competitions can be flown within easy gliding range not just from a landing site, but from real airports. On decent days, the hard deck involved would not even come into play. On bad days it might, and one wonders if perhaps those days are unsafe days to hold competitions. I know a number of pilots who might enter such a competition, who will not otherwise.

Why not run the Olympics with no drug tests? After all, the damage done is simply a matter of personal risk tolerance? The reason is, any competition attempts to create a flat playing field, where the skill being measured makes the difference between winning and loosing. When personal risk tolerance is added as a major factor, we are not testing soaring skill anymore. You can still go out on a non contest day and get as low as you like wherever you like, if that's what turns your prop. In a soaring competition, it is soaring skill we are supposed to be measuring, not risk tolerance.

I think the idea that contests reward risk taking is way overblown. Spend some time analyzing Sebastian Kawa's flight logs (ok, maybe not those in Chile), and I think you will see a pilot that minimizes risk to the maximum extent possible. I don't think we need to give budding competition pilots the idea that they will need to be taking risks to do well. I think the opposite is more likely true.