If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
When I earned my pilot's license a fellow pilot gave me a short but
serious talk about how dangerous soaring is, and how many friends had been lost, etc. Later in the day he nearly took off with airbrakes deployed. Fortunately I did not pick up the wing but instead pointed at the air brakes. My point is not to criticize the pilot, but to point out that we are all human and sometimes make mistakes. To me this is what makes soaring dangerous... falling into a routine and then falling out of it without realizing you have done so. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
On Mar 21, 6:00*pm, bildan wrote:
It's not hard to ascribe the other 5% to pilots as well since the pilot is charged with insuring his (it's usually guys) aircraft is airworthy. An airworthy spar in a glider flown by a well trained pilot who knows and follows the rules has a 0% chance of breaking. Wait. If pilot n-1 overstresses said spar, then chances of it breaking may be closer to 100% for pilot n. Yet, the damage may well be invisible and impossible to detect during normal preflight. Are you saying that if pilot n gets killed then it is his own fault for not properly x-raying the wings before flying? B. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
Bill, My comment was in reaction to the last statement in his post.
"That seems different from our sailplane experience, where I'd say most glider crashes involve an airworthy glider." My point was simply that a glider with an improper hookup is not airworthy. I know there are a lot of accidents because of this phenomenon, but I don't know how significant this is statistically. This does not take away from your argument. Best, Nyal At 15:49 22 March 2011, bildan wrote: On Mar 22, 9:20=A0am, Nyal Williams wrote: Have you factored out the unairworthy gliders made so by faulty assembly? Why would anyone do that? Proper assembly is a pilot responsibility whether he rigged the glider or not. Pilots have the final responsibility to perform a pre-flight inspection which includes checking for proper assembly. If a pilot crashes due to improper assembly, he alone bears the blame. Again, training and experience is critically important. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
On Mar 22, 1:25*pm, toad wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:53*pm, bildan wrote: On Mar 22, 11:36*am, toad wrote: On Mar 22, 11:49*am, bildan wrote: Again, training and experience is critically important. billdan, Are you missing the point on purpose, not understanding or just trying to have a different discussion ? Neither the referenced article nor my post disagree with the statement "training and experience is critically important". *But we are making the statement "there are some risks not mitigable by training". If you are trying to emphasize the importance of training, please do so without diminshing the posibility of other issues. Thanks Todd Smith 3S I'm not missing the point - I'm going right at it. Exactly what issues are not 'mitigable' by training? * I'm saying there are no such issues. *All safety issues are addressable by training. That's the fundamental premise of safety training. My hot button is the prevalent but very wrong headed statement, "Soaring is dangerous and there's nothing we can do about it". Soaring isn't inherently dangerous of itself but human factors such as lack of skill and knowledge can certainly make it so. *Training and experience is how we address human factors.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I guess you are missing the point. Which is: "Aircraft design issues can not be addressed by pilot training." Todd What!? Of course design issues are addressed by pilot training. It's called a type checkout. Certain designs do have idiosyncrasies and they're thoroughly covered in the checkout. If you referring to structural or handling deficiencies that somehow made through the certification process without being detected - those are incredibly rare to the point of being almost non-existent. If they do make it through the certification process, they'll lead to an AD which requires all affected aircraft to be modified. With those systems in place, the odds any individual pilot will be the unfortunate one to find them are vanishingly small. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
On Mar 22, 1:54*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:53*am, bildan wrote: Soaring isn't inherently dangerous of itself but human factors such as lack of skill and knowledge can certainly make it so. *Training and experience is how we address human factors. I see this in the opposite way: I firmly believe that soaring is inherently unforgiving, and it is only through training and judgment that we mitigate the risks. I think that no conscientious sailplane developer or human factors specialist would say otherwise. We fling ourselves through the air in lightweight plastic shells that have only modest crash protection at speeds up to 150 MPH. We do not always have full control over the conditions under which we land, or where we land. Our machines have myriad idiosyncrasies that give rise to sometimes awkward handling. We often operate these machines in close proximity to one another, despite the fact that even the slightest collision can result in structural failure. We often operate them at altitudes conducive to hypoxia, which causes disorientation. We fly in contests that place incentive on calibrated risk-taking. Against all that we have training, skill, judgment, discretion, engineering, a handful of electronics, some compressed gasses, statistical probability, and a few books full of rules. And so far, that stuff has kept the danger down to a dull roar, down to where soaring is about as dangerous as you make it. It obviously cannot be exactly as dangerous as you make it; in addition to the subjective risks there are objective risks such as getting run down by the occasional airplane that comes from behind. But for the most part subjective risks reign, and training and experience hold the field. Thanks, Bob K. Well said. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
On Mar 22, 2:46*pm, tstock wrote:
When I earned my pilot's license a fellow pilot gave me a short but serious talk about how dangerous soaring is, and how many friends had been lost, etc. *Later in the day he nearly took off with airbrakes deployed. Fortunately I did not pick up the wing but instead pointed at the air brakes. My point is not to criticize the pilot, but to point out that we are all human and sometimes make mistakes. *To me this is what makes soaring dangerous... falling into a routine and then falling out of it without realizing you have done so. My point exactly. Gliders don't kill pilots - pilots wreck gliders. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
On Mar 22, 5:45*pm, bildan wrote:
On Mar 22, 1:25*pm, toad wrote: On Mar 22, 2:53*pm, bildan wrote: On Mar 22, 11:36*am, toad wrote: On Mar 22, 11:49*am, bildan wrote: Again, training and experience is critically important. billdan, Are you missing the point on purpose, not understanding or just trying to have a different discussion ? Neither the referenced article nor my post disagree with the statement "training and experience is critically important". *But we are making the statement "there are some risks not mitigable by training". If you are trying to emphasize the importance of training, please do so without diminshing the posibility of other issues. Thanks Todd Smith 3S I'm not missing the point - I'm going right at it. Exactly what issues are not 'mitigable' by training? * I'm saying there are no such issues. *All safety issues are addressable by training. That's the fundamental premise of safety training. My hot button is the prevalent but very wrong headed statement, "Soaring is dangerous and there's nothing we can do about it". Soaring isn't inherently dangerous of itself but human factors such as lack of skill and knowledge can certainly make it so. *Training and experience is how we address human factors.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I guess you are missing the point. Which is: "Aircraft design issues can not be addressed by pilot training." Todd What!? *Of course design issues are addressed by pilot training. *It's called a type checkout. *Certain designs do have idiosyncrasies and they're thoroughly covered in the checkout. If you referring to structural or handling deficiencies that somehow made through the certification process without being detected - those are incredibly rare to the point of being almost non-existent. *If they do make it through the certification process, they'll lead to an AD which requires all affected aircraft to be modified. *With those systems in place, the odds any individual pilot will be the unfortunate one to find them are vanishingly small.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am very specifically referring to "structural or handling deficiencies" inherent in a paraglider's basic design. Because that is what the linked article was discussing. If you want to discuss certified sailplanes, we won't have much to argue about, because I think Bob K said it very well. Todd |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Reason 28, 29, 30.... why I don't paraglide
On 3/22/2011 8:20 AM, Nyal Williams wrote:
worthyAt 01:29 22 March 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote: On 3/21/2011 6:00 PM, bildan wrote: An airworthy spar in a glider flown by a well trained pilot who knows and follows the rules has a 0% chance of breaking. Wasn't that the point of the website? That the paraglider has a relatively large, non-zero chance of "breaking", even though you are well trained and follow the rules? I don't know if he's right, but seemed to be reasonable argument, that many/most accidents began when the paraglider became unairworthy. That seems different from our sailplane experience, where I'd say most glider crashes involve an airworthy glider. Have you factored out the unairworthy gliders made so by faulty assembly? Yes, I was thinking of gliders that were airworthy at the beginning of the flight. I would also exclude all paragliders that were not airworthy at the beginning of the flight. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reason 27 why I don't paraglide | Frank Whiteley | Soaring | 10 | July 23rd 10 06:38 PM |
Another Good Reason Not to Paraglide? | sisu1a | Soaring | 4 | May 11th 09 02:27 AM |
Another reason to fly yourself | Paul kgyy | Piloting | 47 | December 24th 05 03:37 PM |
Another reason to fly yourself | Paul kgyy | Owning | 47 | December 24th 05 03:37 PM |
Another reason to fly GA... | john smith | Piloting | 147 | July 31st 05 07:07 PM |