Why Soaring's Safety Record Doesn't Improve

To all those interested about safety,

I realize I'll get flamed for this, but I'd like to point out that in the
March 1988 Soaring I proposed that we stop focusing on accident prevention
as our primary safety goal, and instead think about injury prevention. (I
got flamed a bit then, too.)

It changes a lot when you shift your focus that little bit. I won't
re-develop all the points I made then, just go back and read the article.

Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming the accident pilot for
being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor (therefore it's all the
pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been done differently to
prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.

And I don't want to hear from the "prevent the accident and you've prevented
the injury" crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year old could see through
it.

We've probably got close to the maximum benefit from improved flight
instruction, so it's now time to improve other things in the safety world.
Famous Professional Flight Instructors who write books and such disagree
with this viewpoint, but you'd expect that, wouldn't you.

Just my two cents, now sinking back into lurkerhood.


On 5/15/04 8:38 AM, in article ,
"JJ Sinclair" wrote:

The
suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot,

Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are hooked up, he's
just
checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was accomplished.
Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing a
glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
being prudent in checking on something like this.

I don't want to even think about the number of accidents I know about caused
by
unhooked controls, must be 20 in the last 30 years. At least 2 pilots are no
longer with us and another lives with daily pain in both legs. What are we
doing about it? NOTHING

We could do something, how about insurance companies refusing to insure
organizations (FBO's & clubs) that don't follow a few basic safety rules?

Can't wait to hear the howl and whine coming from the "I have a right to be
negligent" crowd on this proposal.
JJ Sinclair

Bullwinkle wrote:
To all those interested about safety,

I realize I'll get flamed for this, but I'd like to point out that in the
March 1988 Soaring I proposed that we stop focusing on accident prevention
as our primary safety goal, and instead think about injury prevention. (I
got flamed a bit then, too.)

It changes a lot when you shift your focus that little bit. I won't
re-develop all the points I made then, just go back and read the article.

Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming the accident pilot for
being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor (therefore it's all the
pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been done differently to
prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.

And I don't want to hear from the "prevent the accident and you've prevented
the injury" crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year old could see through
it.

We've probably got close to the maximum benefit from improved flight
instruction, so it's now time to improve other things in the safety world.
Famous Professional Flight Instructors who write books and such disagree
with this viewpoint, but you'd expect that, wouldn't you.

Just my two cents, now sinking back into lurkerhood.

Before you go, maybe you could elaborate on what "injury prevention"
means: stronger cockpits, shock absorbing landing gear, BRS
installations, spin-proof gliders?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Before you go, maybe you could elaborate on what "injury prevention"
means: stronger cockpits, shock absorbing landing gear, BRS
installations, spin-proof gliders?

Eric,

Great question. All of the above, plus some others. Once the accident is
inevitable, the glider just becomes a tool to either protect or injure the
occupants. At this point, you either say "the pilot gets what he deserves
for being a lunkhead" or you say "OK, it's going to happen, what can be done
to reduce the impact (pardon the pun) on the pilot?"

Injury prevention, generically, is keeping someone from being hurt or
killed. Accident prevention tries to keep the accident from happening. If
accident prevention is your goal, then once the accident occurs, you chalk
it up as another training/safety failure, clean up the mess, and redouble
your efforts to prevent the next one. If injury prevention is your goal,
however, you begin to think about how the accident occurred, how the pilot
got hurt, or didn't get hurt, what could be done to prevent that in the
future. What contributed to the injuries or fatality, and how the whole
situation could be fixed to keep injury from occurring in the future, should
the same kind of accident happen to someone else. Forget about protecting
the glider: protect the pilot!

Certainly, anything that absorbs energy in a crash sequence is a good idea,
like crumple zone cockpits, energy absorbing landing gear, maybe even
airbags (here comes another flame). Antisubmarining restraint systems.
Breakaway knobs and switches, so your face doesn't absorb the energy as you
flex forward at impact. Oxygen system fittings that break away safely,
without leaks (ever seen an oxygen-fed fire? Not pretty.) Easier to eject
canopies, should you have to bail.

Think how to improve the environment at your glider port: are there
telephone wires off the end that could snag a low pilot? Don't just train
him not to be low: reduce the height, or bury the wires. Same for an airport
fence, if close to the threshold. Are there sufficient landout areas in the
event of a rope break?

I don't want to rewrite my article here, but I hope this answers your
question. If I didn't make it clear enough, just ask again.
Thanks for asking.

Bob

Statement: "Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are
hooked up, he's just
checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was
accomplished.
Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing
a
glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
being prudent in checking on something like this."

Response: The tow pilot is responsible for the safety of his aircraft and he
or she needs to do whatever is necessary to assure that safety. That would
require more than a simple review of paper-work. The tow pilot also needs
to assure the tow cable and link are safe. However, once he or she assumes
a responsibility to check the sailplane paperwork, then if that condition
has not been met, there will likely be a lawsuit when the sailplane pilot
dies because of that condition. And, this check of paperwork may not be
covered by the tow plane's liability policy. As a towplane pilot, I would
want to assure myself that the sailplane is not going to kill me, so I would
make whatever inspections, require whatever paperwork I felt necessary to
protect me, and question the glider operator if I had any concerns.

Colin





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04

At 15:36 15 May 2004, Bullwinkle wrote: (snip)

Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming
the accident pilot for
being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor
(therefore it's all the
pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been
done differently to
prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.

And I don't want to hear from the 'prevent the accident
and you've prevented
the injury' crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year
old could see through.


I wish that you were right, unfortunately you are so
very wrong in one respect. The prevent the accident
prevent the injury statement is very right, in fact
it is the only certain way of preventing the injury,
you may deny that all you wish but until you accept
that the injury is caused by the accident you will
get nowhere. Why do I say this, simple.
In 30 years I attended many motor vehicle accidents
and investigated the causes. A large proportion of
the accidents were fatal (My rank meant that I had
to attend all fatal accidents in my area) however I
also attended non fatal incidents. What was very clear
to me was that once control of the vehicle was lost
by the driver, in other words the circumstances that
came together to cause the accident happened the outcome,
damage, injury or death was a matter OF PURE BLIND
CHANCE. While it is possible to make vehicles safer
this is by no means the answer that is suggested here.
I have attended accidents where the occupants of a
vehicle had no right to live but did, conversely I
have been to accidents where the damage was so minor
yet someone died, pure blind chance. I have been to
accidents where the occupants of the stongest, most
safety designed vehilces contain dead where the flimsy
tin can contains survivors so the 'design survivability'
is not the complete answer to the problem that faces
us. It can help in some cases, perhaps in a significant
number but never in all.
The only, and I stress, only way of ensuring the continue
health of the occupant of a vehicle, airborne or otherwise
is to work towards indentifying the cause and eleiminating
that.
Just think on this, if all motor vehicles were built
to the same standard as a Chieftan or M1 Abrams tank,
would any driver take care? Would they care if they
banged into things or not? If you wish to place your
fate in pure blind chance, russian roulette in a glider,
by all means concentrate on working towards making
your glider immune to your cock ups. If you want to
guaruntee to survive retain control of you destiny,
eliminate the cock up.

Please stop confusing outcome with cause!!!

FLIGHT SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT

DAJ401