Does How a (Sailplane) Pilot Thinks, Matter?

Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
killing myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

Good thread bobw. To get things going let me lay out a few of my inherent prejudgises if that is a word. Being a duster pilot I realize that I deal with a low-level-perspective that is innate and natural to me due to my profession. So I realize some folks look at my posts regarding low level thermalling as being nonserious or nonchalant of the risks involved. Believe me, that surely is not my attitude. As a cfi-g I understand and have seen the results of the biggest killer/injurer of pilots still to fhis day, namely stall/spin. Realize however, I was a glider pilot for many years before I got involved in dusting. Prior to dusting I thermalled just as low as I do now. What I was doing was done out of general knowledge, "fly faster, be totally focussed in whats happening etc". The only difference is now I have many thousands of hours of optically gauging the distances and sensations encountered when flying low.

So all that being presented as a preamble, let me say that the issue is proper airmanship, a proper turn is a proper turn irregardless of the altitude.. Doing crappy ignorant turns at altitude may be non life theeatening but they will kill you with no altitude. Similarly, doing proper informed turns at low altitude is not dangerous. Gusty conditions need to be acknowledged, and a reachable safe landing place needs to be present. Given those two considerations, turning while low is not inherently unsafe, while crappy turns at altitude may actually kill someone, like the guy who stalled out and spun past me while flying at 4k feet in a gaggle.

Lets get practical. The low saves I have made, and being a xc 1-26 driver, I've made many, are all made 1. With a landing spot already located. 2. With extra airspeed. I keep my bird moving and if I cant thermal within the lift at that speed, then ok I'm gonna land. This gives me a margin for error with the gustiness of low level turbulance and the nasty bottom of a thermal. These are the very same factors we have in mind while spraying.

As to an absolute minimum height, my minimums are dependent on terrain, turbulance, and distance from my previously chosen landing field. The lowest I have thermalled was at 150 ft on a relatively calm day over a 180 acre level wonderfull field. I felt like the asw12 pilot previously mentioned, i could set my bird down anywhere I needed safely in that field if needed, and I was flying well well well above stall speed.

That should get the ball rolling.
Dan

Ps. Bobw Im sitting in a hotel in MN waiting for the wind to lay down so I can make some xc runs before my work gets started. And to think two days ago I was complaining about the 80 degrees n high humidity, now I am watching snow flurries lol.

Being a newly-minted CFI-G, and having directly witnessed a fatal "auger" prior to this at a contest, running to the wreck only to see there was nothing I could do for the decapitated pilot (tree trunk/canopy did this), in my post-traumatic state of mind I do have a pretty clear idea of what I would tell my student.

I would want my student to consider all available factors. I would want them to understand, and experience, what it really means to circle low. I would want them to understand the different sight picture vs. circling up high, and how it can induce the illusions of flying faster than they really are. And I would want them to realize the risk vs. the alternatives.

And if they are close to an airport (as was the case at the contest), I would want them to seriously consider if it is really worth circling in the airport pattern at 300 feet to save a few minutes for a relight, vs. the potential for disaster due to an unforeseeable tail gust or distraction.

And if they find themselves, for whatever reason, over inhospitable terrain, then yes maybe a low-altitude save could be worth considering. Of course again it is a matter of judgment. Hopefully he got it when practicing with the XC flight instructor.

A low-altitude save should be a rare occurrence and my student should be able to handle it competently after they become cross-country proficient. But it should never become a habit. If it is, then something is off in their judgment.

The above fatal pilot (a highly-experienced record holder) had a clear angle on final to land right next to the tow plane. Instead he threw that opportunity away to initiate a turn, down low towards a tree line, after crossing the runway threshold. He did not make it to 180 degrees into the turn before stalling and dropping the left wing, auguring into the tree line.

Yes it really does matter how a sailplane pilot thinks. And he really should be thinking about the mess he leaves behind when he doesn't.

N97 well spoken, I agree withh all you presented here. I also witnessed a guy stall spin a dg100 when a tow went bad. All the guy needed to do was drop the nose and land straight ahead. Thankfully he survived with only minor injuries. I presented the same perspective in an earlier posting relating to low-saves should be a rare occurrance and not a habbit. If for no other reason than they are woefully innefficient, it takes forever to dig out of a low save while everyone else is scooting along overhead on course.
Getting to bobw's initial interest, the mental aspect of the question, I guess it does have alot to do with ones perspective. Much of the faulty decision making regarding low saves is imho due to "modern" perspectives on soaring. One example that comes to mind is the reluctance/fear of an off field landing. While putting down in a field used to be a daily occurance with low performance ships, today it is relatively rare. So I think there becomes a mental reluctance toward having to accept the enevitable land out or the necessarly low level save. Since guys dont do it much, they dont think about all that a low save entails, they dont simulate the situation to gain real life experience, thus when confronted with the real thing, all sorts of mistakes are made.

Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.

A rather simplistic view, but I've observed (and experienced) the same
since I started flying some 43+ years ago.

Having said that, I've already heard the "good for the masses" appeal in
the statement that one should think about the mess he leaves behind.
That's an individual concern, not mine. I care only about staying alive
and I hope and believe that I have the skill and mainly good sense to
recognize when something is a bad idea FOR ME. If I survive, there's no
"mess" to be concerned with.

I agree with the poster who stated that a pattern of low saves indicates
a problem with judgment. One has to really descend far below the
working band to be executing a low save so I would think he's on final
glide and misjudged it. Low saves out on course may get you home if
done safely, but they surely don't make a lot of points.

Dan

On 4/1/2016 9:34 AM, BobW wrote:
Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering"
in "The Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last
night for the first time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in
the other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say,
"Irresponsibly"!) Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic
itself is LOW SAVES - are they Killers or are they a Usefully
Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted
dustah pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live
in the frozen wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of
southern Alabammer, and, the scion of the great Flubber fortune!
Gentlemen - please continue your thoughtful and thought-provoking
analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has
intrigued me since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is
"safe enough?" Is life-continuing safety rigidly definable through
numbers? Is there a "best way" to go about inculcating safety into and
throughout the licensed pilot family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of
"low altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering
sailplane pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will
consider, and (by definition) will soon actually have to DO, once
undertaking XC, whether such XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this
front. More to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power
GA fields I found myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT
"recommended pattern altitudes": 1000' agl and 800' agl. Having
obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern field, encountering the
800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie, stranger, lacking the
comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800'
agl pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby
also definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained
"pattern safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying
from the new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach,
reasoning it reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto
someone else" mid-air, while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility
for not killing myself by augering in due to a "dangerously thin
ground clearance" margin. (I've always felt that way about augering
in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the catchphrase, "Just
say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding killing
myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest
begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal
safety philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and
- so I think - in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had
only one known-to-me instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue
with my flying...and his back-seater later privately told me he
disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems "absolute agreement" on the
safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

--
Dan, 5J

Before you pass judgement on someone else's low save comfort level, we also have to ascertain how many times he opted not to try a low save because, in his judgement, it wasn't worth it or safe enough to try. Let's be careful not to assume he always goes for the low thermal just because it worked previously. The real story is more likely a lot more dynamic than that.

Few of us pilots have absolute limits set. We have safe margins that we plan to adhere to that we have to modify based on realtime data and expected outcomes. I couldn't count the times I've made the best plans possible only to have to throw them out the window when weather changed or my personal comfort level dictated I take a different course of action that would keep me/us safe.

In the end, if we want to be 100% safe, we'd have to never takeoff in the first place. Your comfort level and experience dictates your personal safety margins. For most, that means sticking with the numbers arbitrarily agreed upon by the community. For others - Bob Hoover comes to mind - they are comfortable and just as safe with their lower margins because they have considered all of the mitigating factors.

Of course, there are a minority of Darwin-affirming chuckleheads out there that skew the statistics and make us all look bad.

Paul A.
Jupiter, FL

While I am almost unequivocally opposed to using anecdotes rather than statistics to further a cause, I think I need to side with the "too risky" crowd. The reason being the same as Dan stated, why is it worth it?

In each of the times that proponents of the low save have justified the measures, they have said that they would only do that in the case where there is a perfectly good landing spot available below them. I'm not saying you aren't capable of pulling it off or making it work, but as a CFI-G, it reminds me of my space-shuttle type landings i used to do that looked really cool and smooth, but are very difficult for a student to replicate. I no longer do them, because it is far more important that pilots understand what is considered a safe standard, and what is a pilot accepting additional risk for a perceived benefit.

In this case, especially due to the shear and turbulence that is almost always present on decent days, i put this in the latter category. Not saying Ag or any of you others are not capable of flying it correctly, but I would never teach my student that thermalling a 200ft over a good landing spot is worth it, because mistakes happen, and our standard as a community should always be to allow ourselves more than one mistake's room away from never coming home to our families.

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:34:06 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
killing myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

You asked two questions.
1. What pattern altitude should you use.
Answer: what feels most comfortable to you. Personally, I like a lot of extra altitude as insurance if someone comes busting into the pattern radio silent (it happens) or somebody ahead of you lands gear-up (that happens too).. Altitude can always be scrubbed, but is hard to gain if necessary. BTW, the difference between 800 and 1000 ft is negligible.

2. Minimum thermalling altitude.
Answer: your demonstrated spin recovery altitude x 2. Or your normal pattern altitude - which ever is higher. And this assumes you are over, or very near, a landable field. I knew a pilot who killed himself doing this at about 400 ft; he left a wife and kids. THINK about it: how important is it to you to prove you can "save" yourself from a dangerously low altitude? Be safe, live to fly another day.

Tom

Snip...

Of course, there are a minority of Darwin-affirming chuckleheads out there
that skew the statistics and make us all look bad.

Paul A. Jupiter, FL


"What Paul A. said." No matter what else you do as a pilot, do try to avoid
induction into the Chucklehead Hall of Fame.

Thanks to the all for today's thoughtful replies. It'd be really nifty if
others pondering sharing their thoughts did so, too, even if they violently
disagree (though it'd be additionally nifty if we can keep the disagreements
civil! [For the record, when used in the manner above, in my book
"chucklehead" is quite civil. ]).

Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.
By way of example (to indulge in a bit of ad-hominem humor), while I may or
may not care IF someone thinks I'm an idiot, I'm always genuinely curious WHY
they may think that way!

Considering "low saves," I began my "XC career" with a "hard-deck-based"
numerical guideline volunteered to me by my fight instructor. Over the years,
influenced both by increasing experience and "situational awareness," I
"en-fuzzed the number," coming to rely instead on a daily collage of factors
(e.g. terrain, currency, physical/mental state, local weather, etc.). Funnily
enough, I've found my instructor's number amazingly applicable to most
situations; once or twice I thought it FAR more aggressive than the situation
warranted (and flew accordingly, of course); and a few other times I've
intentionally scratched below "my instructor's hard deck." (Whether I climbed
out or landed isn't importance in the context of "safety," but kinda-sorta
related, I've found every time I've "gotten stuck down low" it takes a solid
30 minutes to dig myself out of the hole, no matter the minimum height agl. I
began tracking that once I began wondering just how costly-in-time it was!)

On the off chance lurkers may be reading and pondering on thoughts expressed
in this thread (and being thoughtful about soaring is almost always a good
thing!), in addition to the (Most Excellent!) links posted by T8 in the "Boy
Who Flew With Condors" thread, I'll offer one; it's dated on the personal
front, but has withstood the test of time on the soaring front.

http://soarboulder.org/index.php?opt...1&I temid=190

Bob W.