In article ,
Steve Hill wrote:
Mark,
Thanks for clarifying that you weren't mis-representing the ASW-20
itself as dangerous, or trading safety for performance...or increasing
workload on the pilot in command, SPECIFICALLY on JUST the ASW-20...it
sounds like you really meant...All High performance sailplanes and with
that, I'd agree that as performance is gained, somewhere safety is given up.
But I don't think it's at all safe to say that it's because of a sailplanes
design, it's because of what people do with them.

Absolutely. Flown within the limitations of the pilot and
aircraft and weather, all flying is safe. The interesting part is
that for some aircraft (the 2-33 for example), flying outside of
all of these limitations is still unlikely to result in
death. Not just because it is so hard to even GET into the mountains,
above wave, etc., but also because the 2-33 is a lot like
flying inside a big rubber ball anyway (to use an analogy).

Those of us that choose
high performing sailplanes, do accept increased risk...and almost everyone I
know who pursues it, is aware of those risks and mentally works to mitigate
as much or as many of the variables possible.

That's almost a direct quote from Steve Fosset, right? From what I've
seen of competition pilots and even just "fast glass" pilots,
their preparation and proficiency and experience is quite extensive.
I think this is because it MUST be. They then go out and eeek
performance out of themselves, the weather, and the aircraft.
This reminds me of NASCAR, where the drivers have every concievable
safety device, are very experienced, and know everything about
their craft as well as anyone can. Instead of using this
knowledge to safely drive the minivan with the kids to Chuck-E-Cheeses,
they strap on the fastest, gnarlyest machine imagineable and
drive it as fast and hard as possible without ensuring certain death.

Make no mistake, I think the competition pilots are every bit
as comitted to the sport as the Reno air race guys or NASCAR or
fill in your favorite. Just because it isn't as noisy or
"in your face" doesn't make the "fast glass" any less sporty.

If the complexity of the
aircraft were really the issue, wouldn't in then mean that as aircraft
continued to go up in sophistication levels or performance levels, then that
as some point you'd simply die just by getting in or on one...??

Yes that is precisely what I think. Ask Mike Melvill
(the fastest glider pilot in the world)
why he didn't take the third flight. And ask Richard Branson
how many glider rides he expects to give if his fatality rate
for the White Knight ends up matching NASA's 4%.

Methinks
the logic is fundamentally flawed. It's what happens in the cockpit with the
pilot...not the craft.

I disagree. The pilot, craft, and weather are all co-involved.
I didn't see a single fatal accident that would have happened in a 2-33.
I also noted the Hottelier connections causing fatalities. This
doesn't happen with self-connecting controls. And I don't think this
is a "pilot training" issue. This is a design flaw.
Some accidents can be designed away. A very interesting
area of work in soaring is designing away some of these fatalities
with a minimal reduction in performance. Parachutes, BRS, traffic
detectors, turbo, spin characteristics, etc. are all hotly
discussed here and by designers for just this reason.

Your comment about predicting the next bad accident is well taken...sorta
like saying the next catastrophic car crash next Friday, will be due to a 17
year old, his three best buddies and a case of Bud....on a long straight
road, with a nasty curve at the end....

Yes, yes. It wasn't a terribly insightful comment to some people. But
I think your analogy surprises few, while my prediction perhaps DID
surprise some people, who didn't know most fatalities are happening mostly
in 33 to 1 gliders.

We also accept increased risk as a very function of our daily lives Mark,
cars that zip along happily at 75 or 80...when things go bad...they go bad
worse than if you were doing 45. We all know that.

Well, airbags and shoulder harnesses and crash zones made cars
better. This maybe translated into exactly the same fatality rate,
but with greatly increased capability.

Soaring pilots seem to accept a certain level of risk. If
a safety device reduces this risk, it doesn't seem to
provide more safety, it seems to provide more CAPABILITY.
For me it's the same for training. The student was at an
acceptable level of safety when he soloed. Beyond that, my
goal was always to improve his CAPABILITY, while keeping
the safety level at least as good as during solo.

Oh well....not sure where this threads going anymore, but thanks for the
clarification.

And thanks for taking the time to share viewpoints. I don't
know right or wrong, but I certainly know discussing this stuff at all
is VERY helpful for me at least.



Steve.








--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd