How safe is the sport of soaring today

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Tom Seim wrote
Soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
Sailing).

Where did you get your information about the accident at Air sailing, Tom?

My understanding is it involved the first flight of the year in a fairly new
bird (ASW-20) and a fairly low time pilot (500hrs). Rope broke because he was
all over the sky, trying to stay in position. Then he was unable to execute a
180
without-------------------------------------------------------------------
---------we all know the rest of this scenario.

And exactly which technological advance would have prevented this, an autopilot?

Tom

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message om...
(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...


Clearly, the
sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
Lennie the Lurker did!

Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the
most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a
cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else.

Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the
third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more.
Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them.
(Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.)

I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called
pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it.
Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has
patches on it.

And in this respect, your actions are exemplary. There are others out
there that have not yet reached this conclusion that should.

(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...
(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message om...
(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...


Clearly, the
sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up,
Lennie the Lurker did!

Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the
most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a
cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else.

Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the
third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more.
Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them.
(Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.)

I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called
pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it.
Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has
patches on it.

And in this respect, your actions are exemplary. There are others out
there that have not yet reached this conclusion that should.

A bit of snippage might make your comments clearer, such as, which
actions, stopping flying, standing on the ground, or not pushing the
edges?

Which conclusions? That I choose not to be in the same airspace with
the one mentioned first, that I don't want to see any more crashes, or
not take chances?

The first crash, two dead, one survivor, drove home the consequences
quite nicely. one does not forget that.

Tom,
Perhaps I misread your comments. I thought you were saying the accident
involved a higher degree of pilot proficency.

My point in posting was to alert the readers of RAS to the potential dangers of
early flights in a new bird, first flight after taking the winter off and
flying at a new site

soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered
flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology
might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most
accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air
Sailing).


JJ Sinclair

Shirley,
I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring
in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with
few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field.
One of my biggest concerns as a former instructor was pilots who so
intently focused on getting back to the home runway that they would
fly over very safe fields - getting way too low in the process. IMHO
instructors just don't practice enough off-airport landings with new
cross country pilots. We leave it to the pilots to learn this skill on
their own....If a pilot (of any experience level) is too worried about
trying to land in a reasonably safe off-airport field and insists on
streaching it to get back to the home runway they are asking for
trouble!
I understand the fear of damaging one's sailplane in an off-field
landing - it happens. But I would rather risk dinging my sailplane
than to risk serious injury trying to it stretch getting home. I have
made over a dozen outlandings within 2 miles of my "home" runway as a
result of my belief!
I know nothing of the details about the accident at Air Sailing.
Never-the-less I would be willing to speculate that, even knowing the
terrain around Air Sailing, had an average 500 hour pilot elected to
land "straight ahead" after the low altitude rope break, he or she
most likely would have walked away from the landing.

wrote:

I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty
low time to be soaring in strong weather
conditions at a high density altitude airport
with few reasonably safe landable areas near
the home field.

But he hadn't even LEFT the field yet. I'm not arguing with you, but I am
curious to know ... what do you define "strong weather conditions" and "a high
density altitude airport" where a 500-hr pilot shouldn't be flying?? And at
what point, hour-wise, would you say a person would be qualified to fly in
same? Isn't it difficult to put a number to it, there are *so many* variables.

--Shirley

Shirley wrote:
wrote:

I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty
low time to be soaring in strong weather
conditions at a high density altitude airport
with few reasonably safe landable areas near
the home field.

But he hadn't even LEFT the field yet. I'm not arguing with you, but I am
curious to know ... what do you define "strong weather conditions" and "a high
density altitude airport" where a 500-hr pilot shouldn't be flying?? And at
what point, hour-wise, would you say a person would be qualified to fly in
same? Isn't it difficult to put a number to it, there are *so many* variables.


It may be that you have accomplished 500 hours in a 30:1 glider, and in
a place with very mild conditions. If you then go directly to an ASW 20
which is a racer, which accelerates a lot and requires fine control,
and at the same time do that in a place with rotors, this is for sure
putting yourself in a delicate situation...
Otherwise, i myself began in a place with frequent rotors, Montpellier.
Of course people were kind enough to send me solo in a single seater
a fine day. But soon after i was flying with strong conditions, and it
was the same for my fellows. As for plastic gliders, i was flying a
Pegase with less than 100 hours, and this was nothing exceptional, on
the contrary. Requiring 500 hours to fly a performing glider in
strong conditions is next to insane. At least here i have never heard
in many years such an assertion, and in practice, in all reasonable
clubs in France, and i am sure in Germany also, young people are
frequently able to fly Pegases or the equivalent in far less than
100 hours. Perhaps older people need some more, but this is not a
general rule.

--Shirley


--

Michel TALON

A bit of snippage might make your comments clearer, such as, which
actions, stopping flying, standing on the ground, or not pushing the
edges?

Which conclusions? That I choose not to be in the same airspace with
the one mentioned first, that I don't want to see any more crashes, or
not take chances?

The first crash, two dead, one survivor, drove home the consequences
quite nicely. one does not forget that.

For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status.
You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This
is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations. I don't think
that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the
blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think
your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you
into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind.

As always, these are my opinions and your conclusions may differ.

Tom

Bob Johnson wrote:
Hi Mot --

Could you give us your critique of the Gantenbrink essay? Does it cover
most of the bases for you, or do you have further concerns?

From the standpoint of a low time pilot the essay (and the other
material on the DG/LS Safety site) may not be quite the all-purpose
material I thought it was.

Thanks,

Bob Johnson


Hi Bob,

As a very low time pilot (13hrs glider, 11 aeroplane, soloed in both) I
found the DG Safety info and the essay useful reading.

Its often said that "you don't know what you don't know" and as a newbie
I'm critically aware of the volumes of theory and hours of practice that
I need to acquire. It seems to me (from what little I've read so far)
that safety is an issue closely intertwined with Airmanship and Human
Factors. Fortunately, on the theory side there are many volumes written
that I can read, learn from and discuss. Reading r.a.s is (mostly) an
enlightening and sometimes a very sobering experience. Compared to the
pioneers of this sport, I'm able to learn from the experience of others.
I've yet to being my formal training for the NZ "QGP" rating but am
looking forward to the theory and discussion with our club's instructors.

The Vector magazine published by CAA here in NZ has recently had a
series on airmanship following the catch-phrase "Detect - Determine -
Decide - Discipline - Do". I found the following comment in the Jul/Aug
2003 article on very useful: "There is a simple strategy that you can
can use to improve your level of discipline - pretend that every flight
you do is a check flight..."

I love flying (well except for the long haul 24hrs in the back of a 747
from Auckland to London via LAX). However, I love my wife and son
immeasurably more and they need to *know* that every time I leave for
the airfield in the morning, I'll be back in one piece in the evening.
Therefore its my duty to learn about and know the hazards, eliminate
risk where possible, minimise those risks I have no control over and
maintain the discipline of good airmanship at all times.

Best regards,
Neil

--
Neil Allison, Christchurch, NZ

(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...



For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status.

Being as I never reached active pilot status, that part wasn't hard.

You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This
is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations.

I have found, over the years, that my limitations are whatever I have
to push myself to. Willingness to put myself in a position that I
have to push myself is another matter entirely.

I don't think
that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the
blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think
your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you
into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind.

The tragedy, the two fatalities, were in 1957, and all of my flight
time came after that. Doubts as to my safety played the most minor
part in my decision. The fact that I recognized that I was in what
could have developed into a bad situation in time to prevent it, and
not repeat it, did a little more for my confidence than mere words
could have.

"A cockpit is a bottomless pit into which one throws large amounts of
money in a futile attempt to fill it." Reason number one that I
decided that continuing was senseless. Pursuit of a goal that only
ends in negative numbers is useless. Knowing that it will only
financially strap me, and returning to it would be of the utmost
stupidity. There are too many interesting things in this world to
expend all you can on only one. Many of which offer personal reward
far beyond any that soaring has to offer, and with far less risk.