Pilots with weakening vision - please install Powerflarm

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:09:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion.. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%.

The past 20 years are not a terribly good predictor of the next 5 years when you consider that a number of pilots are now seeing their vision deteriorate due to age. It happens gradually so the change sneaks up on you.

Take a minute to reread Vaughn's post which is very much to the point:

On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:
Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,
do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision
deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)

At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,
and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the
air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.
So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition
"marginal".

The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 2:46:41 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 4:09:34 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:



Look at the numbers. I believe we have around 10 - 15 fatalities a year in the US in soaring. Let me pick 12 as a average for the sake of discussion. That means that in 20 years, of 240 people that died, just 2 are from glider-to-glider mid air collisions. Eliminating those you still have 238 fatalities. You are reducing your risk by less than 1%.



The past 20 years are not a terribly good predictor of the next 5 years when you consider that a number of pilots are now seeing their vision deteriorate due to age. It happens gradually so the change sneaks up on you.



Take a minute to reread Vaughn's post which is very much to the point:



On Saturday, July 6, 2013 4:43:42 PM UTC-4, Vaughn wrote:

Some of you might also want to consider eye surgery. If nothing else,

do it for the sake of your fellow aviators. A while back my vision

deteriorated to something slightly better than 20/40. (Still FAA legal!)



At that point, I typically couldn't see other planes in the pattern,

and reluctantly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't want to share the

air with somebody in my condition, so therefore I shouldn't be there.

So I got surgery, even though the doctors had called my condition

"marginal".



The difference after cataract surgery was literally night and day!

Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that, I'm interested.

B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in the outcome (though Flarm probably would).

I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.

By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball jackpot.

Finally, a rational voice in the internet wilderness.
Statistically, midair collisions in non-contest situations are so small, especially as compared to approach to landing and scratching for lift stall/spins that the attention and money being directed to this technology is crazy. To my knowledge, the leading cause of pilot deaths is stall/spins in the landing phase of flight. The recent situation at SFO is different?

THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD GO.

Flame me.

Guy Acheson "DDS"

jfitch wrote, On 7/9/2013 4:24 PM:


Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has
changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that,
I'm interested.

B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB
database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in
the outcome (though Flarm probably would).

I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I
think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on
by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is
really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a
growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every
reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more
glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider
that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just
learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are
standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.

By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the
glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to
die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due
to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his
deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball
jackpot.

There were a number of glider-glider collisions in the last 20 years
that did not result in fatalities (like Ed Sakeld's a few years ago), so
perhaps we are lucky it's only two in twenty years. And since PowerFlarm
also adds transponder and ADS-B reporting, perhaps the statistics should
be enlarged to include accidents that could have been avoided by those
two technologies (like the airplane/towplane accident in Boulder).

Besides the collision warnings, many pilots will derive some value from
the flight recorder function and the "entertainment" aspect of PowerFlarm.

So, attributing some monetary value to these additional functions lowers
the cost of the glider-glider fatality avoidance function. I can't say
it would become the most cost effective way to spend that money for
glider-glider fatality avoidance, but it certainly makes it cheap enough
I'm happy to spend the money today for value that will accrue for many
years.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:50:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Finally, a rational voice in the internet wilderness.

Statistically, midair collisions in non-contest situations are so small, especially as compared to approach to landing and scratching for lift stall/spins that the attention and money being directed to this technology is crazy. To my knowledge, the leading cause of pilot deaths is stall/spins in the landing phase of flight. The recent situation at SFO is different?



THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD GO.



Flame me.



Guy Acheson "DDS"

It's not about money. If you can figure out how to get every glider pilot to use the ABCCCDDE or equivalent pre take off checklist for every take off, we'll cut fatalities by at least a quarter, right there. Dive brakes, dollies & canopies, anyone? A moment's advance thinking on an Emergency plan might save a few too.

Back to mid-airs. Eric is right to point out the potential utility of PF in the preventing accidents with transient power plane traffic. As well, it could have prevented the 2009(?) midair between a glider and tow plane (2 more fatalities).

regards,
Evan

On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 8:39:53 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
jfitch wrote, On 7/9/2013 4:24 PM:





Well, A: I don't believe the demographics of glider pilots has

changed much in 20 years. But please find some statistics on that,

I'm interested.



B: from the descriptions of the only 2 fatalities in the NTSB

database, better (or worse) eyesight would have made no difference in

the outcome (though Flarm probably would).



I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant about this issue, but I

think there is a sort of hysteria about mid air collisions brought on

by the sudden appearance of an elegant technical solution to what is

really quite a small problem. Now everyone must have it, with a

growing body who advocate legal requirement. In fact, there is every

reason to believe that a stall warning buzzer would save many more

glider pilots. This is old technology yet not installed in any glider

that I am aware of. I do not advocate them - you really ought to just

learn to fly the damn glider - but at the same time many of us are

standing in a forest fretting over a particularly small tree.



By all means get a Flarm. But don't then say, "There! I fixed the

glider safety problem." You are statistically just about as likely to

die in a glider with it, as without it. The likelihood of dying due

to being hit mid air by an aging glider pilot strictly because of his

deteriorating vision is about the same as hitting the Powerball

jackpot.



There were a number of glider-glider collisions in the last 20 years

that did not result in fatalities (like Ed Sakeld's a few years ago), so

perhaps we are lucky it's only two in twenty years. And since PowerFlarm

also adds transponder and ADS-B reporting, perhaps the statistics should

be enlarged to include accidents that could have been avoided by those

two technologies (like the airplane/towplane accident in Boulder).



Besides the collision warnings, many pilots will derive some value from

the flight recorder function and the "entertainment" aspect of PowerFlarm..



So, attributing some monetary value to these additional functions lowers

the cost of the glider-glider fatality avoidance function. I can't say

it would become the most cost effective way to spend that money for

glider-glider fatality avoidance, but it certainly makes it cheap enough

I'm happy to spend the money today for value that will accrue for many

years.



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

The thread started with the idea that old folks in gliders are plowing into young folks in gliders at an alarming rate. This is simply not happening, and not likely to. Yes there have been a few more non fatal mid airs, but still quite a low rate - only 4 or 5 more in twenty years history. Mid air collisions of any type are simply not the low hanging fruit of soaring safety.

I'm not sure the PCAS capability of PowerFlarm is going to be all that useful - but the ADS-B will be, and more so as time goes on. Mid airs between glider and tow plane (there have been more of those than glider-to-glider) would be prevented only if the towplanes have either Flarm or ADS-B. However much of this would also be (and is) accomplished by transponders.

I justified the PFlarm cost by the entertainment and leeching value.

It's true that Powerflarm will only help prevent a very unlikely situation - but unlike most causes of gliding accidents that can be largely handled by training and procedures, that situation (midair) is pretty much out of the pilots control and likely to be catastrophic - if you are lucky you land with a broken glider or under your chute, if you are unlucky you die. And unlike stall-spins, low final glides, or assembly errors, you can do everything perfectly and still get hit by someone you could not see. So while it is an (relatively) expensive solution to a low-probability event, it is (IMO) a damn good one. Ditto the expensive seat cushion most of us wear every-time we fly - how many chute saves have there been in the last 10 years? Does that mean we really don't need to wear chutes? We have been training and flying 2-33s and 1-26s for years without wearing chutes, so why the hysteria about wearing them in glass?

So I will continue to wear my chute whenever I can, fly with a PowerFLARM whenever I can, use checklists and positive control checks, and practice stall/spins and final glides whenever I can.

And hope a meteorite doesn't hit me.

But I aint wearing no stinkin' helmet! It messes up my hair...

Cheers,

Kirk

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:12:13 AM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:

The thread started with the idea that old folks in gliders are plowing into young folks in gliders at an alarming rate.

No. I started this thread because of ***one specific vision-impaired pilot*** who does not see me (or other pilots I've spoken with) in the air. This guy is a statistical anomaly; the low number of mid-airs over the years tells us that MOST people have had the good sense to get their cataracts fixed. This guy does not.

It was only a matter of hours before another pilot(Vaughn)caught my drift, bravely came forward on this thread, and admitted that he too had flown with poor vision (before he got his cataracts fixed). So it is fair to say that there are few other pilots out there that have been putting off cataract surgery ("but the doctor says that my eyes are 'not so bad'").

Now if these vision-impaired pilots want to extend the low historically low rate of mid-air collisions, they need to do what smart pilots have done in the past and get their eyes fixed. I would go so far as to say that if you are still flying with impaired vision, that you are probably suffering from mental impairment as well. That's the most polite way that I can say it..

The historically low rate of mid-air collisions is partly due to pilots in the past having the good sense to get their vision fixed. It is partly due to a safety culture that encourages pilots to get their vision fixed. If we want to continue the good historical record, we need to continue the safety culture that has made that record possible. It is "bad safety culture" to say "statistics tell us that people either do not fly with poor vision, or that they do not pose a real problem." Do I hear a tendency to deny that there are any impaired glider pilots in the air?

Back to the one specific "flying menace" in my neighborhood. This guy is cantankerous and sharp-tongued, he "goes off on people" and nobody wants to step into the line of fire. I've had him "go off" on me because I was mishandling his wingtip (according to him). The best advice that I've gotten so far is to "start flying XC and get away from him".

snick, snick, snick...

Oh, Brother! Put on your flame suit.


"Brad" wrote in message
...
My PF cost about as much as my AR-15, a dozen PMAGS and a locker of
ammo.........I feel REALLY safe now.

Brad

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 1:01:37 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
It's true that Powerflarm will only help prevent a very unlikely situation - but unlike most causes of gliding accidents that can be largely handled by training and procedures, that situation (midair) is pretty much out of the pilots control and likely to be catastrophic - if you are lucky you land with a broken glider or under your chute, if you are unlucky you die. And unlike stall-spins, low final glides, or assembly errors, you can do everything perfectly and still get hit by someone you could not see. So while it is an (relatively) expensive solution to a low-probability event, it is (IMO) a damn good one. Ditto the expensive seat cushion most of us wear every-time we fly - how many chute saves have there been in the last 10 years? Does that mean we really don't need to wear chutes? We have been training and flying 2-33s and 1-26s for years without wearing chutes, so why the hysteria about wearing them in glass?



So I will continue to wear my chute whenever I can, fly with a PowerFLARM whenever I can, use checklists and positive control checks, and practice stall/spins and final glides whenever I can.



And hope a meteorite doesn't hit me.



But I aint wearing no stinkin' helmet! It messes up my hair...



Cheers,



Kirk

S.O.F:

That you were speaking to one particular pilot did not occur to me until you said so about 15 posts in. There are always a couple of pilots you learn to avoid. Most often this is due to weak skills rather than weak vision. However I will grant you that Flarm is a great tool for avoiding them!

Kirk:

Actually parachutes save many more people than die in mid air collisions. Even in mid air collisions. The two fatalities in the database each have one death and one save (by parachute). Mid airs do seem to be bipolar: either you die or you fly home and land (or in a few cases bail and land). In fact there are in the database many more survived glider-to-glider mid airs than fatal ones.

In my area the parachute would come first, followed by a transponder due to the many non-Flarm equipped commercial airliners, followed by Flarm.