Safety Corner-Nov/issue

KM wrote:
Brian wrote:

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.

You are misreading my statements - I did not admit nor imply anything
like that.

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 agree he should have researched the visibility of the jet and it's
VFR/IFR status better, instead of guessing. But, remember he had Rich
Carlson there to give a counterpoint to some of his statements, so I
think most readers would end up with a reasonable understanding.

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.

You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those things could improve
the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting any of it into
these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it BS - he states it's
his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast they can't clear
their path should do more to avoid problems. You might not agree, but
that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

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.

At least for his November article, I don't recall anything from the huge
thread on RAS that offered anything better, except that I think he
should have mentioned TPAS units for glider pilots. A phone call or
email (use the SSA member locater to get his phone number and email) to
him will likely result in it being mentioned in a future column, or
elsewhere in the magazine.

The SSA
is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
not having an accurate and relevant safety column.

George's column is there every month, but it is not the only
"opportunity" for safety content in the magazine: currently, the Soaring
Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and there are other
articles on safety during the year. The November issue had an article by
Knauff, for example.

Still, there are other ways to do a safety column. One that might
satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting column and not a
clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2 or 3 pilots writing
the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds and soaring
experiences, so more factors would be examined and more knowledge put
into it than any one writer could manage.

Having a team would reduce the work each had to do. The actual writing
could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of group and
individually written columns. By operating it as a team and not just 2
or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column could be consistent
in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.

What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS think about this
approach? How is it handled by other countries?

--
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

Maybe it didn't come across that way.

But what I was trying to say is it is very easy to critisize, it is
much harder to write a better column. Evidently no one here is
offering to write a better column. I really wasn't trying to express an
opinion about his column, especially since I haven't read the latest
one.

Brian

Thomas Knauff wrote:
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.

Tom, why would you make an assumption like this?I dont think it is so
much about critisizing as it is trying to enhance safety.I would jump
at the chance to be an editor.There has been a few exellent articles
written by a couple of local pilots (One of which was about towing and
the divergent flight paths of the tow plane and glider, similar to the
one published in England only more in depth), that were submitted to
SSA but never published.I called the SSA about this and some other
stuff today and the impression that I got was that if your last name
isnt Knauff or Wander, or Compton or someone else who buys ad space in
soaring, you will go pretty far down the list.Before I would invest the
time and energy in writing an article I would need some assurance that
it would get some consideration.
As to your comment about being the answer or the problem, let me ask
you who is the problem.Is it the guy who writes a inaccurate column
with sometimes glaring omisions, or is it the people who write in to
Soaring with corrections and clarifications meant to prevent accidents
(Which never get published in his column).In terms of safety here Tom,
you are thinking backwards.

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, here you go with the basseless assumptions again.The "Vast
Majority" of the pilots that I know dont apprececiate George's dubiuos
level of accuracy.A good budy of mine who is a former Air Force
investigator makes jokes about Thelens column at our monthly
meetings.Thanks to the November column, alot of pilots will have
misconceptions about ATC and jet traffic.Why would you appreciate
that?

Tom Knauff

Maybe it didn't come across that way.

But what I was trying to say is it is very easy to critisize, it is
much harder to write a better column. Evidently no one here is
offering to write a better column. I really wasn't trying to express an
opinion about his column, especially since I haven't read the latest
one.

Brian

KM stated:
". . .the impression that I got was that if your last name
isn't Knauff or Wander, or Compton or someone else who buys ad space in
soaring, you will go pretty far down the list."

Just so you know, I submitted the November article about a year ago. It is
very unusual for me to have more than one article per year. Probably as it
should be.

Tom Knauff

Eric Greenwell wrote:
KM wrote:
Brian wrote:

You are misreading my statements - I did not admit nor imply anything
like that.

Yes I did, sorry about that.

You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those things could improve
the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting any of it into
these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it BS - he states it's
his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast they can't clear
their path should do more to avoid problems. You might not agree, but
that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

Not just the domes Eric.It was pretty much the whole thing.The fact
that he started analizing an airline crash was very irritating and he
didnt need to place blame either.This stuff is clearly outside the
scope of Soaring magazine.I think that readers should understand that a
small plane is VERY hard to see soon enough to do anything about at 300
KTS. Another thing is turn that transponder ON and the jet WILL pick
you up at least 20 miles away.

George's column is there every month, but it is not the only
"opportunity" for safety content in the magazine: currently, the Soaring
Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and there are other
articles on safety during the year. The November issue had an article by
Knauff, for example.

So true, but from what I have seen in the few years I have been reading
Soaring, his is the only one that deals with accident
investigations.This is where I think his conclusions need to be more
consistent with the facts so that the average reader can learn
something and prevent a future problem.

Still, there are other ways to do a safety column. One that might
satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting column and not a
clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2 or 3 pilots writing
the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds and soaring
experiences, so more factors would be examined and more knowledge put
into it than any one writer could manage.

Having a team would reduce the work each had to do. The actual writing
could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of group and
individually written columns. By operating it as a team and not just 2
or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column could be consistent
in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.

What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS think about this
approach? How is it handled by other countries?

I think it is a great idea.Depending on lead times and such I might not
be able to help out on a consistant basis but I am all for it.

At 00:42 07 November 2006, Km wrote:

Eric Greenwell wrote:
KM wrote:
Brian wrote:

You are misreading my statements - I did not admit
nor imply anything
like that.

Yes I did, sorry about that.

You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those
things could improve
the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting
any of it into
these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it
BS - he states it's
his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast
they can't clear
their path should do more to avoid problems. You might
not agree, but
that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

Not just the domes Eric.It was pretty much the whole
thing.The fact
that he started analizing an airline crash was very
irritating and he
didnt need to place blame either.This stuff is clearly
outside the
scope of Soaring magazine.I think that readers should
understand that a
small plane is VERY hard to see soon enough to do anything
about at 300
KTS. Another thing is turn that transponder ON and
the jet WILL pick
you up at least 20 miles away.

George's column is there every month, but it is not
the only
'opportunity' for safety content in the magazine:
currently, the Soaring
Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and
there are other
articles on safety during the year. The November issue
had an article by
Knauff, for example.

So true, but from what I have seen in the few years
I have been reading
Soaring, his is the only one that deals with accident
investigations.This is where I think his conclusions
need to be more
consistent with the facts so that the average reader
can learn
something and prevent a future problem.

Still, there are other ways to do a safety column.
One that might
satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting
column and not a
clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2
or 3 pilots writing
the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds
and soaring
experiences, so more factors would be examined and
more knowledge put
into it than any one writer could manage.

Having a team would reduce the work each had to do.
The actual writing
could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of
group and
individually written columns. By operating it as a
team and not just 2
or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column
could be consistent
in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.

What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS
think about this
approach? How is it handled by other countries?

I think it is a great idea.Depending on lead times
and such I might not
be able to help out on a consistant basis but I am
all for it.



The benefit in the Safety Column to me is the communications
of what occurred and not necessarily any resultant
recommendations. As in everything I hear or read I
try to separate the facts from opinions or conjecture
and I'll make my own judgments on that basis. With
a column subject like this it would be difficult to
find a author that would not put in some degree of
personal opinion and I doubt that (at least from RAS
perspective) it would ever satisfy everyone. IMO this
particular article did a pretty good job of keeping
the two separate.

While Thelen's column suffer occasionly from lack of facts and too much
speculations, especially when he doesn't get around to interview the
pilots involved or eye witnesses, let's not forget that it is all
voluntarily. The NTSB, on the other end, is getting paid to produce
completely useless and inaccurate accident reports. Unless the accident
involved a celebrity or a famous pilot, the investigation is
wortheless. For example compare the NTSB report about the Owl accicdent
at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...30X01573&key=1 to
Eric's report from the manufacture.
Thelen's safety corner at least attemtps to investigate the accidents
and provide us with food for thoughts. It is usually the first column I
read, accurate or not.

Ramy

Gary Evans wrote:
At 00:42 07 November 2006, Km wrote:

Eric Greenwell wrote:
KM wrote:
Brian wrote:

You are misreading my statements - I did not admit
nor imply anything
like that.

Yes I did, sorry about that.

You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those
things could improve
the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting
any of it into
these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it
BS - he states it's
his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast
they can't clear
their path should do more to avoid problems. You might
not agree, but
that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

Not just the domes Eric.It was pretty much the whole
thing.The fact
that he started analizing an airline crash was very
irritating and he
didnt need to place blame either.This stuff is clearly
outside the
scope of Soaring magazine.I think that readers should
understand that a
small plane is VERY hard to see soon enough to do anything
about at 300
KTS. Another thing is turn that transponder ON and
the jet WILL pick
you up at least 20 miles away.

George's column is there every month, but it is not
the only
'opportunity' for safety content in the magazine:
currently, the Soaring
Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and
there are other
articles on safety during the year. The November issue
had an article by
Knauff, for example.

So true, but from what I have seen in the few years
I have been reading
Soaring, his is the only one that deals with accident
investigations.This is where I think his conclusions
need to be more
consistent with the facts so that the average reader
can learn
something and prevent a future problem.

Still, there are other ways to do a safety column.
One that might
satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting
column and not a
clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2
or 3 pilots writing
the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds
and soaring
experiences, so more factors would be examined and
more knowledge put
into it than any one writer could manage.

Having a team would reduce the work each had to do.
The actual writing
could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of
group and
individually written columns. By operating it as a
team and not just 2
or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column
could be consistent
in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.

What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS
think about this
approach? How is it handled by other countries?

I think it is a great idea.Depending on lead times
and such I might not
be able to help out on a consistant basis but I am
all for it.



The benefit in the Safety Column to me is the communications
of what occurred and not necessarily any resultant
recommendations. As in everything I hear or read I
try to separate the facts from opinions or conjecture
and I'll make my own judgments on that basis. With
a column subject like this it would be difficult to
find a author that would not put in some degree of
personal opinion and I doubt that (at least from RAS
perspective) it would ever satisfy everyone. IMO this
particular article did a pretty good job of keeping
the two separate.