Glider Safety

I submit that there is no case for a glider medical. I know of two
pilots who both had current FAA medicals and had heart problems
requiring stent implantation. Neither had any physical warning, much
less an AME telling them they had impending problems. Both are,
thankfully, just fine - but no thanks to a bureaucratic medical
process.

-John

On Feb 22, 12:42 pm, Andy wrote:
Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
contests?

Of course, there have never been holders of current medical
certificates suffering strokes, heart attacks, etc. Rubbish!
Keep the paperwork down, please.
Jim

On Feb 22, 10:19*am, michael case wrote:
Perhaps I have been sheltered,

But I have never heard the claim the flying gliders was safer than
driving.

What I have heard and my amateur review of the fatality numbers per
hour seems to confirm is.

Flying commercial airlines is safer than driving.

GA flying about the same as riding a motorcycle

GA flying can be as safe as driving if you eliminate low flying and
bad weather flying.

Glider flying is more dangerous than GA flying, I am unsure by what
factor.

*************
Of course there are many ways to look at the numbers. One can count
fatalities, injuries or accidents. One can count per vehicals or per
person. *Just those two variables give about 12 different
combination's of ways to count the numbers,

However I am looking forward to Tom's Analysis.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Statements like "safer than" or "more dangerous than" are not
extremely useful. The statistical base for pilots, and the quality of
those statistics, is too small and sketchy to meaningfully compare one
activity with another.

Safety in the air depends almost entirely on the individual pilot
whose attitude, self-discipline, skill-set and knowledge determine the
level of safety for that pilot. Statements to the effect that
"soaring is dangerous" serves a useful purpose only to the extent that
it encourages individual pilots to acquire those traits and practice
safe behavior.

A more meaningful approach would be to discuss how we individually
can safely manage an unforgiving system. Soaring is certainly
unforgiving of any neglect or carelessness - Individually, we need to
learn how to manage those risks. It might be correct to say "soaring
is extremely dangerous for careless, neglectful pilots" but is
relatively safe for "careful, disciplined pilots".

On Feb 22, 11:11*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Feb 22, 10:55*am, "
wrote:

Right. *Let us inflict more restrictions on ourselves. *For the
children of course. *If it is a good idea for contests then it is good
idea for everyone...

Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
contests?

Andy

I am unaware of any third party being injured from a glider accident
resulting from incapacity of the pilot. *After all, sailplanes are
pretty light and don't burn. *However, it's pretty unsettling to the
rest of us. *I was at Parowan last year and was also personally
affected by one such incident. *You'd get my vote for requiring a
medical certificate.

You could also make a case for requiring a medical certificate for
pilots instructing and carrying passengers, but again, I doubt that
there is much of an accident database to support the need for this.

Mike

Regardless of the FAA requirement to hold a medical for other
operations, pilots self-certify their medical condition every time
they fly. The FAA medical only demonstartes that you can see, breath,
have a normal heartbeat, and your blood pressure is not out of whack.
It also inititialy relies on the integrity of the airman applying for
the medical to inform the AME of any conditions that might be
disqualifying.

The FAA medical beuracracy is huge and any hiccup in your application
can send you on a frustrating and potentially expensive trip through
the system in order to regain your medical. This does not reduce the
responsibilities of pilots to honestly evaluate thier condition each
time they step into a glider, but let us leave well enough alone and
not get the FAA involved in a system that IMHO is not broke.
Mike

In message
,
jcarlyle writes
I submit that there is no case for a glider medical. I know of two
pilots who both had current FAA medicals and had heart problems
requiring stent implantation. Neither had any physical warning, much
less an AME telling them they had impending problems. Both are,
thankfully, just fine - but no thanks to a bureaucratic medical
process.
Snip

How many who have failed the medical have gone on to have some sort of
incapacitating illness?


--
Surfer!

I believe that the statement "Soaring is Dangerous" may be useful
statement to say to certified pilot but it certianly isn't what you
want to say to a 14 year old's Mom just before they take an intro
flight.

The statement "Soaring has it Dangers/Risks as does any Activity" is a
better statement, better still the statement that "the pilot has huge
amount of control in how risky a flight is or is not" is even better.

An indepth statistical analysis would take the 12 combination's of
variables i listed above (accidentally posted as michaelcase")
compared to other activities. However has Tom has already mentioned
it is difficult to get accurate numbers especially when you start
talking about incidents without injuries.

But it is useful to compare it to other activities since this is no
standard Risk level scale. It would be nice if we could says Soaring
rated a 6 on risk scale. But even then we would compare it to other
how other activities rated on the same scale. The benefit is it helps
pilot realize that they need to be diligent to keep it safe and helps
uninformed people make a decision about how much risk they willing to
accept.

The person riding to the airport on their Harley is probably less
likely to consider soaring too risky than the person who drives their
Volvo to the airport.

Brian

I know of none.

-John

On Feb 22, 3:03 pm, Surfer! wrote:
How many who have failed the medical have gone on to have some sort of
incapacitating illness?

"Andy" wrote

This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.

You missed my point. I mean flying when I am 99 with good health and sound
mind, all the way until that point. Not just gliders, either.
--
Jim in NC

On Feb 22, 12:42*pm, Andy wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:57*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

To some, that may be the reason they fly, but that sure isn't the reason
many or most fly. *I want to be old and gray, and flying all the way till I
can't see straight in my upper 90's, at least!

This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.

I wonder how much better the glider fatality numbers would look if the
cases where the pilot was dead, or otherwise medically incapacitated,
prior to the accident were eliminated. *Several US fatal accidents in
the past few years seem to fall into that category.

Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
contests?

Andy

This was on the RC agenda last Fall and the judgement was that this is
not needed.
My OPINION:We would more likely reduce accidents if the money that
would be spent on a medical were to be applied to regular recurrent
training. My personal observation is that the majority of the poor
flying I see is due to lack of recent practice and need for recurrent
training.
The 2 pilots I know of that had recent fatal accidents believed to be
attributable to medical causes both knew about their condition and
elected to fly anyway. Even a pilot holding a medical could do this-
not legally. Self certification holds us all to the same standard of
not having a physical defect that would make us unable to pilot
glider.
FWIW
UH

On Feb 23, 8:04*am, wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:42*pm, Andy wrote:



On Feb 21, 4:57*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

To some, that may be the reason they fly, but that sure isn't the reason
many or most fly. *I want to be old and gray, and flying all the way till I
can't see straight in my upper 90's, at least!

This seems to be quite a common attitude toward glider flying.

I wonder how much better the glider fatality numbers would look if the
cases where the pilot was dead, or otherwise medically incapacitated,
prior to the accident were eliminated. *Several US fatal accidents in
the past few years seem to fall into that category.

Is there a case for requiring a medical certificate for SSA sanctioned
contests?

Andy

This was on the RC agenda last Fall and the judgement was that this is
not needed.
My OPINION:We would more likely reduce accidents if the money that
would be spent on a medical were to be applied to regular recurrent
training. My personal observation is that the majority of the poor
flying I see is due to lack of recent practice and need for recurrent
training.
The 2 pilots I know of that had recent fatal accidents believed to be
attributable to medical causes both knew about their condition and
elected to fly anyway. Even a pilot holding a medical could do this-
not legally. Self certification holds us all to the same standard of
not having a physical defect that would make us unable to pilot
glider.
FWIW
UH

I second the recurrent training idea.