Too many accidents

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:06:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Every time an aircraft leaves the ground, the potential for a fatal accident exists. There is no denying that Gravity and Aerodynamics are essentially mortal enemies. We use our hard won skills to deal with aerodynamics, but patiently and inexorably, the Law of Gravity awaits our tiniest mistake.

Since millions of flights are attempted each year, by millions of pilots, there will always be accidents. Education and ongoing training may mitigate some accidents, but statistically, they will happen more or less often, and there is simply no way to predict whether there is an increasing or decreasing trend from year to year.

This has been a bad year. Next year might be worse. Or, there might be no fatalities at all. The basic rule is that no single accident directly affects the likelihood of YOU having an accident yourself. In fact, the subconscious memory of a friend who succumbed to an aircraft accident "might" make you more cognizant of your limitations. A year with no fatalities "might" make you more complacent, and encourage less than perfect cockpit performance and judgment.

Think sharp at all times. Remember your friends. Learn, and don't fall into the trap that a safe year means that accidents will finally go away. They won't. We do this, hopefully, by recognizing that aviation is inherently risky, but the rewards of flight somehow make it worth the expense and effort. Try to keep in mind that we don't NEED to do this. We do it by choice, and the desire to fly must always be tempered by things that may affect our ability to fly well.

Currency, weather conditions, peer pressure, mental attitude and a myriad of other factors may suggest that, perhaps "today" should be dedicated to some neglected maintenance, maybe a wash and wax job and a reconnect to why we want to fly, as well as a reflection of the lessons we might learn from the untimely passing of our pilot brethren.

Be safe my friends, but FLY!

I have had a moment with these spat of mishaps. I am troubled by the experience/competence level of the pilots in these accidents. I knew Sergio, his energy was a gift to soaring and to the friends at Truckee. Losing commercial pilots, with their faire's, whom fly daily. I lost a good friend last week in east county of San Diego in a power airplane. He was one of those special pilots whom could just make any plane dance, a real Bob Hoover type who ran a sterile cockpit. He was a CFI taking another CFI up to do a few spins in a Citabria. Did one spin all the way to the deck. Thanks Mark, for your words of encouragement to keep flying and keep safe.

I don't think a high level of experience or competence will ever protect us against an insidious form of complacency that makes us sometimes forget the most elementary safety procedures. The slightest disturbance during the pre-flight or the checklist can make us forget to do something we allways took for granted. This summer, for the first time in almost 40 years of gliding, I took off with airbrakes unlocked. I had been disturbed during the preflight and hadn't followed my ususal checklist procedure while taking a winch launch at another airfield.

When you look at gliding accidents, it seems to me there are three kinds of pilots who are most susceptible to be involved in accidents: the very inexperienced, the ones who begin to think of themselves as being experienced, and the too experienced (look at the list in the well known Gantenbrink paper on safety)... Not much room between those three, I'm afraid.

Stéphane

Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

At 14:44 06 September 2018, 2KA wrote:
Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last
n=
ight I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and
i=
t appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I
c=
ould only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours
tota=
l time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining
physica=
l ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For
e=
xample, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps
i=
t is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for
tho=
ught, especially when I look in the mirror.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

Try this link to a very good spin demo
Jon

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_...eature%3Dshare

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

My Father used to teach a college course "The Psychology of Aging". Never took it, too bad. I usually shave in the shower so I don't look at that old man I don't recognize in the mirror. I still see myself as a strapping 40 year old. Age might have something to do failure to get out of a doomed aircraft.

While I respect Tom Knauff, his teachings and writings, I know my CFI friend Dave, whom died in a planned spin with another CFI last week, knew what a rudder does, Sergio, Don, all very experienced. These are not the guys whom skills or knowledge are questioned. For that matter how did Peter Maask spin in, he knew what a rudder does, and I had heard that his trace showed safe speeds. I am afraid we will not know what caused these accidents so we can learn how not to experience these accidents. Why did Matt Wright still have max turn puts at 60 degrees bank on that day?

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I've been suspecting for a while that this is the case.

Slower reactions. Worse tolerance of physical and mental stress. Reversion to habit from a familiar aircraft when in a different one. Sometimes even actual medical events.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

55 with 400-and-something, and haven't flown much since getting a new job and moving to Moscow at 51. It's a worry if/when I get a chance to fly again..

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out a

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

Just received this timely notice of a Wings event in San Diego:
"Physiology of Aging for Pilots - How to Slow It Down and Fly Longer" reminder
When
Thursday, 06 September 2018
07:00 PM to 09:00 PM
(GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Where
4200 Ruffin Rd Titan Conference Room
Notes
Contact Information: Paul Kortopates 619-560-8980 Event Date/Time: Thursday, September 6, 2018, starting at 19:00 Pacific Daylight Time
From
Calendar Calendar

This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.

And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.

I would include my favorite question:

Why does an aircraft have a rudder?

Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.

It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.

Tom Knauff

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:11:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.

And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.

I would include my favorite question:

Why does an aircraft have a rudder?

Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.

It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.

Tom Knauff

An aircraft has a rudder for positive control about the yaw axis, of course. The primary reason we need such control is adverse yaw. Next?

So Tom... are you still claiming that a glider cannot be stalled without first bringing the nose above the horizon?

Just curious.

Evan Ludeman (student pilot since 1986, instructor since 2015)

I haven't flown in a while, but a pilot friend of mine and I were recently discussing accidents, and he sent me this thread. I'd like to share a story which may help clubs out there.

Our club had pricing for 1k, 1.5k and 2k tows (extra height when needed). Of course, the 1K was cheapest. There was a typical scenario where a glass ship was filled with water, and the pilot popped off at 1K to save a few bucks, and then tried to scratch away. One day, a student was on the porch with me and an instructor had just launched in his 15m. He had told the student before launch that the most important thing of his flight that day was to be at IP at 800ft when landing. Yet there he was, being blown straight down the middle of the field circling at 600ft. The student actually approached me and told me the story... that it was a really bad example that the instructor was setting.

I was VP for a while, and suggested that the 1K tow be a restricted access tow, only for students that are practicing circuits. This was adopted, and there were no more cases of gliders starting their day with an unscheduled low altitude recovery. It wasn't only the instructor. It was many experienced, private ship owners doing this. Almost to the point of taking a 2K tow meant you didn't have the skills to squeak away from low altitude. This was never said, of course, but actions were certainly speaking louder in that situation. You know who NEVER ended up circling down the middle of a runway at low altitude... students... inexperienced students. They new better.

Sometimes the structure of the system has to be altered to help guide pilots into an environment that is helpful and not detrimental. I think that the 1.5K minimum release altitude for non training flights was a huge step improvement in safety at the club.

Related... I flew a few region 10 contests over the years and in the morning meetings there was a safety moment put on by a selected pilot. These were so helpful. One that was great was to kick a rudder when approaching a thermal where a glider was circling, to see who was below the pilot you were seeing, as that glider is below the nose. Yes, it cost a few feet of altitude, but in one contest a glider ended up sitting 10 feet above another in a glider. I still remember the voice of the pilot of the lower plane, letting the pilot clearly in the wrong know that they would have a discussion on the ground. This was after he pulled full spoilers to clear his tail section to dive out of the way. Scary stuff.

Lots of good ideas out there...