On Oct 31, 7:41 pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
...clip...

Observe that the numbers for gliders are 19.45 accidents per 100,000
hours flown, with 5.07 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours. That's
second only to amateur-built aircraft, with 21.6 and 5.5 respectively.

Contrast that with the numbers for single-engine piston-powered
airplanes with 7.91 accidents and 1.41 fatal accidents per 100,000
hours. In 2003 at least, gliders had 245% more accidents and 360% more
fatal accidents per hour than the puddle-jumpers that comprise the
majority of the US general aviation fleet
....clip...

As concerns comparisons between the accident rates of flying and
driving, I defer to this analysis by Harry Mantakos:
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flyin...vsdriving.html

Given those numbers, I normally feel fairly confident when I say that
soaring is much more dangerous than driving, and is perhaps comparable
to riding a motorcycle. ...clip...

The fatalities-per-hoiur statistics in soaring were presented at SSA a
couple of years ago, and Judge McWhorter, sitting next to me, compared
it to the fatality rate in coal mining, a famously risky occupation.
Judge quickly calculated in his head that soaring has about a five-
fold greater fatality rate per hour than coal miners.

But he's a mining-safety expert; his next point was not that coal
mining is too dangerous, or that soaring is too dangerous, but that
formal safety practices, taught and followed with discipline, reduce
the fatality experience rate tremendously in coal mining, and would in
soaring also.

The key to devising safety practices is understanding the behavior and
circumstances that increase the incidence of deadly accidents (we call
them 'accidents' because the participants had no intention of having
them).

The key to making safety practices effective is to follow them with
discipline and understanding.

Now, the caveat is that we can ultimately control only our own
behavior; we merely influence others, which is not the same thing. So
we then need to understand also to what extent we are at risk from
others' foolishness or ignorance, or from uncontrollable factors.

In this regard, a colleague stopped riding motorcycle completely,
during college, when he discovered a statistic that said that 2/3 of
motorcycle accidents are due to autos turning left in front of the
motorcycle. Most of the risk was beyond his control, and he wanted to
matriculate through medical school with intact brain and spinal cord.

Another factor is tolerable risk. Several posters have alluded to
this: a single parent with small children will have little tolerance
for personal risk, for the sake of the children. Others have more
room. I'm not here to deride either.

And fear itself is an very aversive emotion. Whether or not the fear
is rational, it's real, and it's distracting. One sensible response
to fear is withdrawal from the situation. If this means to stop
soaring, so be it, for that person. For others, it stimulates
additional study or training, or a change in location or practices.
So be it.

Thanks for listening.

DJ