Does How a (Sailplane) Pilot Thinks, Matter?

Too much thinking, not enough flying?
Jim

LOL probably but I did get to fly today but too weak to go anywhere.

At 21:57 03 April 2016, wrote:
Well Jim that doesnt seem to apply to guys like karl streideck or ray
gimmy=
or going back aways, jim inderbo. I've seen those guys pull off
amaizingly=
"risky" moves. Risk in general is directly related to experience. What
mig=
ht have been super risky the first few times becomes incrementally less
ris=
ky with the gained experience. The problems arise when less experienced
guy=
s try to rush the learning curve by trying to immulate what they see
other
=
more experienced guys get away with.
Dan

Hi Dan

Following your post I thought I would take a look at Seb Kawa's flights at
the 2014 15M Worlds in Lezno which he won. I believe that Seb has 10 World
titles now so I thought we could learn something. Low points are above
ground.

Day Low Point Notes
1 2700ft Finished 4th
2 1200ft Only one low point, otherwise 2700ft 1st
3 2300ft 13th
4 3000ft 6th
5 2000ft 4th
6 1500ft Otherwise 2300ft everyone lands out 10th
7 2000ft 12th
8 3000ft 1st
9 2600ft 12th
10 2200ft 6th

I think that we can conclude that Seb didn't go low in order to win this
title. If you look at the barograph trace he takes frequent climbs in order
to stay high and conservative.

I have never looked at Karl's or the other guy's traces but I stand by my
point. Consistent result wins competitions. Getting low throws a lot of
time or, when you are the one that lands out, the day and the comp.

Jim

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:34:06 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in "The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the
other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES - are
they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah
pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer, and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has intrigued me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is
life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best
way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed pilot family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane
pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front. More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I found
myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":
1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl pattern
field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl
pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern
safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it
reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else" mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by
augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy regarding
killing myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I think -
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me
instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among reasonable people!

One key element in this is the recognition that if you have a "departure" FOR ANY REASON (inattention, turbulence, surprise etc.) below a certain altitude YOU WILL hit the ground. It is important to be in-flight aware of when you have descended into the "I will be hurt" zone. Whether on not the risk is worth it to you is between you and your family.

Some of this discussion reminds me of the movie "The Great Santini".

If Bull Meechum were a glider pilot, I bet he would do the lowest of the low saves.

There has been some very good discussion on this thread but I haven't
seen anyone on the "safe" side accept anything said by the "unsafe"
side. What I hear is that, if Bob does something that scares Bill, then
Bill thinks it's "unsafe" regardless of how well thought out or executed
the maneuver. People die every day in traffic accidents. Does that
make driving unsafe? Or does it simply indicate that there are both
mechanical failures and inattentive drivers? And while proper
maintenance can take care of most, but not all, of the mechanical
failures, you simply can't fix stupid.

Now I'm waiting to hear that people who perform low saves must be "stupid".

And please note, I don't do "low saves". I try not to get low out on
course and, if I get low enough to get worried, I simply land. And when
I see something that gives me the willies, I consider who is the pilot
and what I know his skill and experience to be. I will tell a newbie
that his final turn was too low, but not an experienced guy. He knows
what he's doing (usually).

Dan

On 4/4/2016 8:21 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
Some of this discussion reminds me of the movie "The Great Santini".

If Bull Meechum were a glider pilot, I bet he would do the lowest of the low saves.

--
Dan, 5J

There are many variables here, but not least experience and ability to
manage workload in the cockpit.

1) What do you consider a low save?
2) What terrain are you flying over? Big fields with lots of options or
small fields with stone walls or barbed wire?
3) Have you the experience to prioritize your actions an apportion your
work load accordingly.
4) Are you flying a flapped aircraft you could land on a postage stamp or
an 18m un-flapped slippery air frame?

From personnel experience my low saves in my Cirrus or 27 are much lower
than those in the club Duo.

In the Duo I am in the circuit committed to landing much higher than I
would in the 27.

Considering the above and to put it in context (in the same scenario,
heights, etc), flying the 27 I would already have the wheel down and would
have my field / fields selected but would be focused on getting away secure
in the knowledge that I have my field landing plan in place.

At 16:34 01 April 2016, BobW wrote:
Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in
"The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the
first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the

other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES -
are

they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah

pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the
frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer,
and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has
intrigued
me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is

life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best

way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed
pilot
family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane

pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether
such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front.
More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I
found

myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":

1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl
pattern

field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a
personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl

pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern

safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it

reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else"
mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by

augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've
always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for
the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy
regarding

killing myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest
begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I
think
-
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me

instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It
seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among
reasonable
people!

On 4/4/2016 3:22 PM, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
Snip...

One key element in this is the recognition that if you have a "departure"
FOR ANY REASON (inattention, turbulence, surprise etc.) below a certain
altitude YOU WILL hit the ground. It is important to be in-flight aware of
when you have descended into the "I will be hurt" zone.

Absolutely - what John says!!! Apparent lack of said "hurt/death zone
awareness" seems (to me) to be a fairly consistently missing element in "the
vast majority of" this millennium's U.S. glider fatalities in the NTSB's database.

Moreover, it's usually easily found/seen at any glider site on any flying
weekend, in my observational/participational experience. One of the funnier
(to me, and, because no glider pilots were harmed in the making and gaining of
the experience) occurred on a non-soarable, flat calm, clear, winter-season,
day at one of our Club's winch camps. Our nose-hooked 2-33 with two
experienced (both had made more than one successful OFL), "potential PICs" on
board, got a lowish snap (600'agl?) and - to my surprise - instead of doing
whatever the PIC thought reasonable to do under the circumstances, but doing
it from a position allowing them "no-brainer pattern entry considerations"
proceeded to do it from more or less directly along the center line of the
runway, down to "considerably lower than would've been prudent at our busy
home field." And *then* instead of performing a distance-minimizing teardrop
turn onto final, the "home field's, textbook mandated, 4-leg pattern was
(safely, if tree-scrapingly low base-to-final turn) performed...to the more
distant end of the runway (presumably for "next snap" convenience reasons).

Because I knew both pilots, I wasn't terribly worried about them actually
killing themselves or horribly bending the sailplane, but as I watched the
(inexplicable, to me) meanderings going on more or less overhead, I got the
image of a drunken sailor stumbling about, utterly planless. The three of us
hee-hawed about it afterwards, though I seemed to find the drunken sailor
analogy funnier than did the actual PIC. (Happily, the *actual* PIC admitted
to some embarrassment for the lack of obvious/decisive flight planning, but I
later had to apologize to him for using - in a suitably anonymous fashion -
the incident as "safety filler" in our Club's newsletter, which I put together
for years because it was fun for me to do. Using "anonymized" on-field
sillinesses was a routine part of its content, but occasionally a "rightfully"
embarrassed pilot took offense. Curiously, I can't recall ever having occasion
for them to appear in future issues, while - sad to say - that wasn't
universally true of *every* PPG-carrying Club member.)

Whether on not the
risk is worth it to you is between you and your family.


Indeed, although the anal part of me feels compelled to add that government
minions always maintain an interested watch on the statistical front, so to
that potential extent, effects also theoretically extend to the rest of the
piloting community at large.

Bob W.

One of my favorite safety topics is the widely used 200' rope break practice - it leads to some accidents and I believe is not that common a scenario. A colleague more versed in soaring safety recently opined that a rope break at 500 feet was more problematic as it required greater skills in decision-making that many students were ill-prepared for.

The anecdote above suggests that it's not just students who are ill-prepared!

Mike

Which is safer; a conservative pilot who thinks they are safe, or a pilot aware of their inclination to push things but thinks themselves switched on enough to pull it off?