Wacky Tracky

I'm curious: How does an FBO forbid leaving the local area if an
aircraft does not have certain equipment that the FBO thinks is good?

Does he refuse a to tow the glider? He doesn't own the airport, so I
can fly there without Spot or InReach. Or /_does_/ he own the airport?
Is there some special circumstance, terrain, traffic situation, etc.,
which makes him feel the need to snoop in my cockpit? I understand the
value of a transponder around Reno and similar places.

I'm glad I don't need a tow plane any more.


On 6/7/2016 7:13 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
How on earth did lack of piloting skills get annexed to having a well equipped cockpit. They are separate events without a causal link. Virtually all glider pilots learn in gliders not fitted with GPS nor electronic audio varios. The march of technology has made the sport safer, radios, audio various, transponders, Flarm, GPS, spot... These have nothing to due with learning the basics of stick and rudder. If you can afford the latest, great. If you can't still good. We have several local 1-26 guys whom fly amazing distances, and we have glass guys from early glass to the latest glass flying amazing flights. All of them can fly and it doesn't matter what instruments they use. However, they all must have a spot or inreach to leave the local area, this is required from the FBO.

If someone is giving you grief, it is more about them than you. As far as the march of technology making lesser pilots, I have not witnessed this at the glider port, but multiple accidents and incidents of Air-carriers has shown this. Again this is more training and experience than instruments. I am thinking of Airfrance held aircraft in deep stall for over 3 minutes, Korean Air, couldn't even follow a VASI, recent asian air another stall from altitude, cargo carrier out of SF where the 747 lost two engines on one side, long haul pilot forgot he had rudders...

All the glider pilots I know can fly, navigate and communicate. The modern stuff is nice and I believe leads to less head down time in cockpit, folding a map, looking up freqs, ...

With no offense intended to any of the posters, but this thread has gotten senseless. If you fly without any electronics fine, but know that spot and Inreach are required in some places and are just a good idea period. So are Transponders and Flarm. I couldn't care less if you navigate by GPS, this has no effect on me.




--
Dan, 5J

An FBO or the owner can refuse to tow you without a tracker, especially after they had to spend days searching for an aircraft which did not return in two separate occasions. In both cases the pilot probably thought that he did not need another stinkin electronic gadget in their cockpit, or could not afford $10 a month. In one case the pilot was found dead, in another he was found barely alive after couple of days. Email privately if you want more info.

Ramy

Since it's come up in another thread (again), and since it seems a
worthwhile topic for active soaring pilots to be giving active
thought to as the northern hemisphere soaring season gets cranking, I thought
this particular debate might be worthy of its own thread right about now.
(Goodness knows RASidents have recently seemed "winterly active" in expressing
strongly held opinions...another chance here to go for it!!!)

[Someone] "...made the bogus claim that driving to the gliderport is more
dangerous than flying XC. Please tell us all the pilots you know that had
accidents driving to or from the gliderport Vs all the pilots that had
accidents flying."

Based on the above excerpt from another thread, so far we seem to have one
vote in each camp!

FWIW, in the 49 years I've been driving, I've known/interacted with exactly
one (1) person subsequently killed in a vehicle crash (not a pilot; yes, he'd
been drinking.)

In my 37+ years spent soaring, I've known and interacted with
approaching-double-digits'-worth of friends & acquaintances who've died at the
controls of sailplanes...all single-glider accidents, as in no midairs.

I've also read (several times, over the years) and pondered (many more times)
Bruno Gantenbrink's thoughtful and some might say provocative take on the
question heading this thread. I've further read and pondered other heartfelt
and thoughtful expositions on the general topic of soaring's potentially
deadly risks (usually written from an XC-based and sometimes - not always -
also with a competition flavor). Most of them have been authored by people
then in current psychic pain from the recent soaring-related-deaths of
personal friends.

In my ideal world, every
"interested-in-self-education-beyond-formal-training-levels" soaring
aficionado would go out of his or her way to further self-educate on "the
deadly risk topic." By "self-educate" I mean
reading/pondering/taking-mental-decisions-beforehand, as distinct from
"OJT-motivation" (i.e. scaring themselves silly or crunching a glider or
[gasp] killing themselves before they get a chance to priorly develop "more
thoughtful motivation.")

Based on comments seen on RAS threads over time (20+ years, now?), I'd bet
Real Money a poll of RASidents would reveal more coming down on the side of
soaring being the riskier/more deadly. (In that time, RAS has lost more than
one participant via deadly soaring crash.)

Personally, I don't think it much matters which activity I (or anyone else)
consider(s) "more deadly." What matters is avoiding the deadly outcomes in
both activities.

I consider both activities sufficiently potentially deadly that I give them
both my deepest respect. Let the statisticians figure as they will...

Driving contains many more direct risks beyond my control (other drivers, many
of them drunk or [increasingly] distracted!) and is in that sense *much*
scarier to me...but not so much that I've ever felt a "safety need" to own a
vehicle weighing more than 2600 pounds ready for me to fuel & go, or even one
with airbags. And, so far, I've never needed seatbelts or airbags...though my
wife benefited from every safety feature Toyota designed into her 2005 Tacoma
which got T-boned/totaled by "an habitual scumbucket drunk" in a car ~half the
weight of the Tacoma. (Tangentially - long story - we managed to badger "the
justice system" to hold the (.237 BAC) guy accountable [for the first time in
30+ years and (considering only his DUIs) 9(+?) prior arrests]; 4-years until
recent parole - you're welcome! )

Soaring's deadly risks are by and large controlled by Joe Pilot, and in that
sense might be thought of as containing numerically fewer potentially deadly
risks than driving. Balancing that to some extent are ground vehicles'
generally superior crashworthiness (mass, crush zones, multiple restraints,
etc.) compared to the best of sailplanes, and the complexity-adding
"3-dimensionality" aspects of flight. Arguably, weather might be considered a
wash, while almost certainly we have more practice-at/time driving.

But so what? Both activities inherently contain sufficient energies to easily
kill us...and both at probabilities sufficiently high by common measures to
get MY attention. Anyone who minimizes the risk realities of either is some
combination of: ignorant; foolish; in denial.

All that said, as already noted, I've long *felt* safer soaring than driving,
even though (IMHO) "situational awareness" works as well in a ground vehicle
as it does in a cockpit insofar as avoiding accidents...at least in the rarely
foggy (IMC mostly optional!), not-terribly-densely-populated, intermountain
western U.S.

Bob W.

Statistics are wonderful, 99% of people who move into retirement homes die
there. That has to make retirement homes the most dangerous places on
earth. Don't go there.


At 05:49 09 June 2016, BobW wrote:
Since it's come up in another thread (again), and since it seems a
worthwhile topic for active soaring pilots to be giving active
thought to as the northern hemisphere soaring season gets cranking, I
thought
this particular debate might be worthy of its own thread right about now.
(Goodness knows RASidents have recently seemed "winterly active" in
expressing
strongly held opinions...another chance here to go for it!!!)

[Someone] "...made the bogus claim that driving to the gliderport is
more
dangerous than flying XC. Please tell us all the pilots you know that
had
accidents driving to or from the gliderport Vs all the pilots that had
accidents flying."

Based on the above excerpt from another thread, so far we seem to have
one
vote in each camp!

FWIW, in the 49 years I've been driving, I've known/interacted with
exactly
one (1) person subsequently killed in a vehicle crash (not a pilot; yes,
he'd
been drinking.)

In my 37+ years spent soaring, I've known and interacted with
approaching-double-digits'-worth of friends & acquaintances who've died
at
the
controls of sailplanes...all single-glider accidents, as in no midairs.

I've also read (several times, over the years) and pondered (many more
times)
Bruno Gantenbrink's thoughtful and some might say provocative take on the
question heading this thread. I've further read and pondered other
heartfelt
and thoughtful expositions on the general topic of soaring's potentially
deadly risks (usually written from an XC-based and sometimes - not always
-
also with a competition flavor). Most of them have been authored by
people
then in current psychic pain from the recent soaring-related-deaths of
personal friends.

In my ideal world, every
"interested-in-self-education-beyond-formal-training-levels" soaring
aficionado would go out of his or her way to further self-educate on "the
deadly risk topic." By "self-educate" I mean
reading/pondering/taking-mental-decisions-beforehand, as distinct from
"OJT-motivation" (i.e. scaring themselves silly or crunching a glider or
[gasp] killing themselves before they get a chance to priorly develop
"more
thoughtful motivation.")

Based on comments seen on RAS threads over time (20+ years, now?), I'd
bet
Real Money a poll of RASidents would reveal more coming down on the side
of
soaring being the riskier/more deadly. (In that time, RAS has lost more
than
one participant via deadly soaring crash.)

Personally, I don't think it much matters which activity I (or anyone
else)
consider(s) "more deadly." What matters is avoiding the deadly outcomes
in
both activities.

I consider both activities sufficiently potentially deadly that I give
them
both my deepest respect. Let the statisticians figure as they will...

Driving contains many more direct risks beyond my control (other drivers,
many
of them drunk or [increasingly] distracted!) and is in that sense *much*
scarier to me...but not so much that I've ever felt a "safety need" to
own
a
vehicle weighing more than 2600 pounds ready for me to fuel & go, or even
one
with airbags. And, so far, I've never needed seatbelts or
airbags...though
my
wife benefited from every safety feature Toyota designed into her 2005
Tacoma
which got T-boned/totaled by "an habitual scumbucket drunk" in a car
~half
the
weight of the Tacoma. (Tangentially - long story - we managed to badger
"the
justice system" to hold the (.237 BAC) guy accountable [for the first
time
in
30+ years and (considering only his DUIs) 9(+?) prior arrests]; 4-years
until
recent parole - you're welcome! )

Soaring's deadly risks are by and large controlled by Joe Pilot, and in
that
sense might be thought of as containing numerically fewer potentially
deadly
risks than driving. Balancing that to some extent are ground vehicles'
generally superior crashworthiness (mass, crush zones, multiple
restraints,
etc.) compared to the best of sailplanes, and the complexity-adding
"3-dimensionality" aspects of flight. Arguably, weather might be
considered
a
wash, while almost certainly we have more practice-at/time driving.

But so what? Both activities inherently contain sufficient energies to
easily
kill us...and both at probabilities sufficiently high by common measures
to

get MY attention. Anyone who minimizes the risk realities of either is
some

combination of: ignorant; foolish; in denial.

All that said, as already noted, I've long *felt* safer soaring than
driving,
even though (IMHO) "situational awareness" works as well in a ground
vehicle
as it does in a cockpit insofar as avoiding accidents...at least in the
rarely
foggy (IMC mostly optional!), not-terribly-densely-populated,
intermountain
western U.S.

Bob W.

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 8:50:03 AM UTC+3, BobW wrote:
FWIW, in the 49 years I've been driving, I've known/interacted with exactly
one (1) person subsequently killed in a vehicle crash (not a pilot; yes, he'd
been drinking.)

Yes, I don't know who is getting killed in road crashes. Everyone in NZ drives, but the only person I've known who was killed in one was a highschool friend who died in a motorcycle crash while still in highschool. To no-one's surprise, unfortunately. And another of our circle was drowned in a white water kayaking incident while we were at university.

I've been a member of the same gliding club with usally 80-100ish members since 1985. There have been a few gliders damaged, but the worst injury I recall was a broken ankle. A dozen or so of our members regularly do cross-country in the mountains, visit places such as Omarama, take part in the nationals (often winning or placing highly in them).

A number of other clubs in NZ have had fatal accidents, and I don't think they operate differently to us, so maybe we're just lucky.

Several of our club members have died in powered aircraft crashes, unrelated to gliding (and the ones I can think of were in the pacific islands and Africa).

Personally, I don't think it much matters which activity I (or anyone else)
consider(s) "more deadly." What matters is avoiding the deadly outcomes in
both activities.

I agree.

Ramy quote:
"An FBO or the owner can refuse to tow you without a tracker, especially after they had to spend days searching for an aircraft which did not return in two separate occasions. In both cases the pilot probably thought that he did not need another stinkin electronic gadget in their cockpit, or could not afford $10 a month. In one case the pilot was found dead, in another he was found barely alive after couple of days."

As to if they want to refuse me a tow, that is their perogative. They own the business, they can do what they want. I have no problem with that. As for an official competition, same thing, whatever rules they want to set is their business, and I can choose to participate or not.

BUT, we sure are turning into a nanny state way faster than I realized. When I fly, I am on my own, I dont want anyone feeling obliged to look for me. I dont want outside folks setting up their own standards as to what they think constitutes an emergency involving me! Its no damn business where I fly or how I get there!

After working search and rescue for the last 20 years, I sure as hell dont depend on them. I hate to be brutal but sometimes the truth is brutal. The two incidents you mention are case in point. The dead guy screwed the pooch from the start so no amount of rescue is gonna help him, the second guy's life was also in his own hands. I dont know the particulars of his injury producing accident, I am sorry he got hurt and was lost and thankful he survived to fly another day, but it was HIS accident. Do not lay rules or requirments on me and other responsible pilots due to the poor decisions of others. I dont need rules committies or the FAA or other peoples opinions to "save me" from myself. I dont expect others to babysit me and I sure as hell hope you dont either!

I am no fool, as for "stinking electronics" (your words) I utilize "safety" oriented equipment, Spot, transponder etc, I have invested my cash into these systems but I do it knowing those tools are way way secondary to having my head screwed on straight when flying. We can armchair all we want after the fact, but the fact remains dang near every accident involving a sailplane boils down to pilot error. Prevent the pilot error and you prevent the accident. No accident is ever really "accidental".

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 1:50:03 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:

this particular debate might be worthy of its own thread right about now.

A better use of time might be to (re)read the "Gods of the Copy Book Headings".

I think the unstated fourth certain thing Kipling refers to anticipated r.a.s. :-)

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Yes Evan this thread has gone into the Realm of the Ridiculous. Hopefully it doesnt degrade into the Lord of the Flies. Or I should say Lord of the Fliers lol.
Cheers

How about simply - aware of the risks and accepts them as part of the
price of soaring? Is that minimizing the risk realities?

Otherwise I think that was a well stated case.


On 6/8/2016 11:49 PM, BobW wrote:
Anyone who minimizes the risk realities of either is some combination
of: ignorant; foolish; in denial.

--
Dan, 5J

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 3:12:28 PM UTC-4, Candid Sky Productions wrote:
I do think so and I think the reliance on some of this technology is absolutely the problem today.


What problem exactly, Candid?