Too many accidents

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I've been suspecting for a while that this is the case.

Slower reactions. Worse tolerance of physical and mental stress. Reversion to habit from a familiar aircraft when in a different one. Sometimes even actual medical events.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

55 with 400-and-something, and haven't flown much since getting a new job and moving to Moscow at 51. It's a worry if/when I get a chance to fly again..

wrote on 9/6/2018 7:11 AM:
This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.

And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.

I would include my favorite question:

Why does an aircraft have a rudder?

Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.

It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.

It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

". . . there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents. And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

Tom:
We can only wish that it were just so simple - that we could buy and study some book(s) and pass some silly test and know we are "safe".

Think of Helmut Reichman, Klaus Holighaus , Bill Ivans and many other masters of our sport that are gone. Did they have a "demonstrable lack of knowledge"? I do not pretend to have the answers to the difficult question of the cause of fatal accidents in our sport. But I distrust those who say that they do have it.
ROY

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

Just received this timely notice of a Wings event in San Diego:
"Physiology of Aging for Pilots - How to Slow It Down and Fly Longer" reminder
When
Thursday, 06 September 2018
07:00 PM to 09:00 PM
(GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Where
4200 Ruffin Rd Titan Conference Room
Notes
Contact Information: Paul Kortopates 619-560-8980 Event Date/Time: Thursday, September 6, 2018, starting at 19:00 Pacific Daylight Time
From
Calendar Calendar

It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.

--
Eric Greenwell

IIRC, one of the principal rules Tom Knauff has been teaching is expressed by the acronym: TLAR - This Looks About Right.

john firth wrote on 9/6/2018 8:06 AM:
The topic is depressing and worrying; However , there is a small
positive factor; when you are flying, you are not at risk of
a highway accident. Perhaps we should subtract from the fatalities the
risk of dying in a road accident.

John F

You are also not at risk of slipping in a bathtub or falling down the stairs, but
that doesn't affect the risk of soaring, does it? More flying doesn't
automatically mean less driving (or less of most other things); in fact, a pilot
that flies a lot might also drive a lot to get to the airport.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

I saw a fatal accident from 50' on an acceptable approach when the student and friend on her first flight in a single seater suddenly got messed up with the spoilers.

There's differences between an L-23 and a Junior that the student had not been briefed on.

Coming out of a vortex / downburst encounter on final, I missed a wire by just enough to avoid becoming a statistic.

You can establish margins, but Mother Nature at any time can blow right through them and put you into a totally new aerodynamic situation.

The operative word is blow.

It's clearly not, as Eric says, just about knowledge. Sparky Imeson wrote the book on Mountain Flying, and yet died doing that. Of course terrain and weather are only part of it, but play a big part of many accidents and are at least a contributing factor in most.

Always remember Mother Nature can always dish out more than we or our little aircraft can handle. Safe mountain flying is knowing where and when she might do that and staying clear.

keskiviikko 5. syyskuuta 2018 23.35.53 UTC+3 Andrzej Kobus kirjoitti:

Unfortunately, accidents have always been part of the sport. We have more slippery gliders, fly at higher wing loadings...

We have been preached about dangers of slippery gliders since late 60's. Would this, 2018, be a good year to finally forget this? There has been several pilot generations that have flown only slippery gliders without any indication that they are dangerous. In fact, dangerous would be to let these pilots fly non-slippery vintage without proper briefing.

Modern gliders are safer to fly (and crash) than older gliders.

Several posters have raised the issue of declining reflexes with advancing age. Especially so in flying and particularly in gliding.
This surely must be at least a causal factor in many accidents and even more incidents. I don't believe its so much a matter of complacency amongst aging pilots (50). More a failure to recognize that continuing to do what we have been doing for some years is no longer good enough. Aging requires positive compensatory/offsetting action to counter waning reflexes and senses so as to maintain a high standard of inflight analysis, and situational awareness.
A highly experienced glider engineer friend is now in his 50's. He says that he longer double check his work...he triple checks it.
I recognise that I now need to be extra thorough with my flight planning, checks, lookout and overall self discipline and airmanship if I want to continue in this great sport for as long as safely possible.
Laurence Hoffman
Sydney Australia