Safety Corner-Nov/issue

I'd like to make a comment about this months Safety Corner. It's been
over twenty years since I flew the HS125, but I do know that, "With the
nose up", "passing through 350 knots", you would be going UP like a
homesick angel, not "losing altitude", as the author guesses. Besides I
believe that vmo in the hawker is more like 320kts, which would still
have you going up, quickly.

With regard to visibility, the particular model involved in the mid-air
has the new style windscreens, which in comparison to the older models
I flew, provide the crew with quite a panoramic view. Yes, yes, I know,
you have to be looking out the window. Point is the author should, in
his research maybe set up a tour of the aircraft model in question, and
get some facts. I've always read and learned from Safety Corner, but
this issue, well...........

I'll take my bizjet hat off now and put on my soaring cap, as some of
the other items discussed are just too far out there to waste time on,
"retractable domes, windows in the nose".

I have a real life scenario to offer up in the equation of having
xponders or not. Happened yesterday, I'm flying the Gwhiz corporate
plane, climbing out at 250 knots which is our normal climb speed until
we reach 10000 ft. then we accelerate out to 300 knots, until we
transition to mach around 32'000ft. Our TCAS brings up a target, at our
1 o'clock about 5 miles ahead converging. We're climbing to 6000 ft.
initially, in clear blue, daylit skies.

To dispel the rumors about controllers not saying anything to help
separate vfr from ifr, the controller does issue an adisory about the
target. The target does not have an encoder so we don't know if he's up
or down from us, but we know where he is laterally.

I tell my right seat to tell ATC, we're turning 15 degree turn to the
left to diverge from this target. All four eyes are out the window
looking. The autopilot is working just fine, all the way to level off
and speed control. With 42 computers on this machine, I'm going to use
every last one, and save the yanking and banking for my glider, the
Pawnee, and my friends' beautiful Cassutt, he trusts me with. As we
roll out on our new heading we spot the single engine taildragger about
500' above us at his legal vfr altitude. No conflict.

I have great faith that we would have spotted him even if he didn't
have a xponder on, because of our personal and flight department
mandated scanning habits, and the use of all automation to ease our
load so we can look outside. It was nice to have an early heads up
though.

The point is that the xponder in the single engine plane showed us
where he was and gave us some options before we came up on him/her
unannounced, or say another not so observant crew was involved, well,
it could have been disastorous. It was the way it should be.

We saluted our fellow General Aviation buddy as we passed him, and
pushed on home to Texas. If I still have my glider next year, I'm
investing in that cheap insurance called a xponder. I like that warm
and fuzzy feeling vs the cold cash I saved, that may be found in the
grease spot that used to be two aircraft.

Snoop

"snoop" wrote in message
ups.com...
We saluted our fellow General Aviation buddy as we passed him, and
pushed on home to Texas. If I still have my glider next year, I'm
investing in that cheap insurance called a xponder. I like that warm
and fuzzy feeling vs the cold cash I saved, that may be found in the
grease spot that used to be two aircraft.

Snoop


Good on you!

I'd feel naked flying my glider high without TPAS and transponder on. Talked
to a pilot at Minden last week who just came down from flying wave over the
Sierra at 16.5K (it was one of those weaker days). Lots of cloud though and
he didn't have a transponder. Makes me cold just thinking about it.

bumper

snoop wrote:
Point is the author should, in
his research maybe set up a tour of the aircraft model in question, and
get some facts. I've always read and learned from Safety Corner, but
this issue, well...........

Snoop,
Great Post.As a comercial guy myself, I think you offered a good
perspective from both sides of the fence.I have not read the colum for
this month yet, but I have to comment on your remarks about the lack of
facts in the safety column.For some reason Thelen has alot of baseless
assumptions and prejudises that get in the way of facts when he writes
a column.Just like you, I read the stories and try to learn from them,
but I find only about one out of every three or four columns is of any
use.Even Soaring magazine has had to post a disclaimer that his veiws
are not those of the SSA. Its too bad they dont get someone better to
write such an important column.
K Urban

"Even Soaring magazine has had to post a disclaimer that his veiws
are not those of the SSA. Its too bad they dont get someone better to
write such an important column".
K Urban

These last two sentences in K Urban's post were groaners. Care to
volunteer to write the column ? Even with occasional flubs (which I
humbly acknowledge I do not detect), Thelen performs a great monthly
service and his column is probably the most important in every issue of
Soaring. Yikes, the cost of volunteering !

Cheers anyhow, Charles

KM wrote:
snoop wrote:
Point is the author should, in
his research maybe set up a tour of the aircraft model in question, and
get some facts. I've always read and learned from Safety Corner, but
this issue, well...........

Snoop,
Great Post.As a comercial guy myself, I think you offered a good
perspective from both sides of the fence.I have not read the colum for
this month yet, but I have to comment on your remarks about the lack of
facts in the safety column.For some reason Thelen has alot of baseless
assumptions and prejudises that get in the way of facts when he writes
a column.Just like you, I read the stories and try to learn from them,
but I find only about one out of every three or four columns is of any
use.Even Soaring magazine has had to post a disclaimer that his veiws
are not those of the SSA.

I believe this disclaimer would be there regardless of who wrote the
column because it is not an "official" determination of accident which
may entail enforcement action and lawsuits. Until the government issues
a report that people can cite, they and their publisher have to be
careful to avoid potential legal problems.

Its too bad they dont get someone better to
write such an important column.

And if someone better came along, I think George would glad to step
aside. I ocasionally chide him privately (we've known each other for
decades), but more often praise him. When I think there's a problem with
a particular column, I email or call him to discuss my view with him. He
always listens, and I think it results in better columns in the future.

I'm sure he'd like to hear from anyone with comments about particular
columns. Writing a monthly column like his isn't easy, and more facts
and more views would make it an easier task. My preference is to contact
George before RAS, so he has an opportunity to discuss his reasons, and
maybe get my input for follow-up article. I can always come to RAS later.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

These last two sentences in K Urban's post were groaners. Care to
volunteer to write the column ? Even with occasional flubs (which I
humbly acknowledge I do not detect), Thelen performs a great monthly
service and his column is probably the most important in every issue of
Soaring. Yikes, the cost of volunteering !

Cheers anyhow, Charles

Charles, Just about all of my soaring buddies find Thelen's column
useless and a few of them find it downright iritating.That said, I knew
my comments might cause a few "groaners".I dont know the guy
personally, but he seems to be very opinionated (Or doesnt have a real
firm grasp of whats going on, Im not sure which), and kinda lets this
stand in the way of the facts.
What really drove this home for me was reading about an accident that
hit all too close to home.Losing a soaring buddy is a real wake up
call.I talked to everyone I could about this crash, eyewittnesses, the
tow pilot, and anyone at the field that day to try to pinpoint what
happened.When Thelen's article came out on this, he just about
completely omitted all the facts related to the crash, and turned his
column into a rip about how dangerous the model of sailplane involved
is.He admitted in the column that he had never flown this model of
sailplane and was just going from heresay, Go figure.About this time
his email disapered from the column, so I sent a lengthy and detailed
email about his column and the crash to the SSA to read and forward to
him (Info that could save a pilots life someday mind you), and I never
got a response from George or the SSA.
Charles, One way to guage the accuracy of his column is to dig up some
old copies of Soaring, and compare his conclusions to those of the
NTSB.I think the official reports come out about 12 months after an
accident.This way you can see how off base the guy is.Another thing you
can do is discuss his columns with a local CFIG or pilots with a lot of
experience.Usually they will have very different opinions from his.
As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
with you that this is one of the most important features of the
magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
improvement.
Fly Safe,
K Urban

A rather well know author of aerodynamics books prefaces at least one
of his books with something simlar to the following statement.

"I know at least a dozen people that are more qualified to write books
on aerodyamics than I am. They didn't so I did."

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

After all the only pay he is getting is the feed back he gets from the
readers and hopefully satisifaction from knowing that at the very least
he is getting us to think and talk about safty.

Brian



KM wrote:
As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
with you that this is one of the most important features of the
magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
improvement.
Fly Safe,
K Urban

A rather well know author of aerodynamics books prefaces at least one
of his books with something simlar to the following statement.

"I know at least a dozen people that are more qualified to write books
on aerodyamics than I am. They didn't so I did."

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

After all the only pay he is getting is the feed back he gets from the
readers and hopefully satisifaction from knowing that at the very least
he is getting us to think and talk about safty.

Brian



KM wrote:
As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
with you that this is one of the most important features of the
magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
improvement.
Fly Safe,
K Urban

Brian wrote:

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

Brian, Thanks to you and Eric G for the responses.Its kind of funny
that both you and Eric G defend Thelen, and you both admit he is
unqualified to do what he is doing.I just read the November column, and
everything after "What I really think" is pure BS.Thelen is writting
stuff about jets and ATC that he clearly has no understanding of.I now
understand exactly what the original post was refering to.
Let me try to make my critisizim more clear; Think about the main
reason pilots read about other pilots accidents.Obviously it is to
learn from them and try to keep it from happening again.In order to do
this, you need somewhat accurate facts and a logical conclusion drawn
from those facts.This is where George Thelen drops the ball.His columns
(Like the current one) are sadly so lacking that it doesnt do anything
for anyones ability to avoid a similar accident in the future.The SSA
is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
not having an accurate and relevant safety column.

Brian
K Urban

Assuming those of you who are most willing to criticize are also unwilling
to submit articles, perhaps you would volunteer to serve as editors? You can
choose to either be part of the answer or part of the problem.

George Thelan has served the soaring community well for many years and has
made major contributions to gliding safety. Most of us read his monthly
column first, and the vast majority of us appreciate his efforts.

Tom Knauff


"KM" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian wrote:

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

Brian, Thanks to you and Eric G for the responses.Its kind of funny
that both you and Eric G defend Thelen, and you both admit he is
unqualified to do what he is doing.I just read the November column, and
everything after "What I really think" is pure BS.Thelen is writting
stuff about jets and ATC that he clearly has no understanding of.I now
understand exactly what the original post was refering to.
Let me try to make my critisizim more clear; Think about the main
reason pilots read about other pilots accidents.Obviously it is to
learn from them and try to keep it from happening again.In order to do
this, you need somewhat accurate facts and a logical conclusion drawn
from those facts.This is where George Thelen drops the ball.His columns
(Like the current one) are sadly so lacking that it doesnt do anything
for anyones ability to avoid a similar accident in the future.The SSA
is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
not having an accurate and relevant safety column.

Brian
K Urban