On 8/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Aug 22, 8:02 am, wrote:
When I fly...."insurance, yes or no" does not enter my mind at
all....safety, for the sake of safety is on my mind...

I agree with you.

I think Tom has confused correlation with causation.

Always possible, but - in this case - IMO your supposition is not a very good
explanation for the group reality when human nature is factored in. Those
glider pilots whose flying would NOT change in any fundamental way if they
KNEW any/all damage they inflicted on their ships would be paid for forcibly
and exclusively from their own pockets a 1) a distinct minority of glider
pilots (in my observations over the years); and 2) (IMO) less likely to have
'some stupid glider pilot trick' sort of accident befall them (when compared
to those whose reasons for 'not thinking about' insurance realities does NOT
'somehow' actively factor in their mortality).

Anyone is free to argue point #1 (which obviously is unprovable); we all get
to decide for ourselves.

In 'actionable' terms, I believe point #2 is crucial, though. Be honest with
yourselves about the actions/patterns/etc. you daily witness at your home
gliderport, and, if you're not already in the habit of chatting with other
pilots whose actions puzzle/concern/'whatever' you, I encourage you to begin
doing so. I predict it won't take more than 2 conversations for you to have an
eye-opening experience (maybe even revelation) about how (lots of!) your
fellow glider pilots 'reactively think.'

Here's a (very) short list of feedback I've had from doing so.

Incident A - was what I (with exaggerational humor editing my club's
newsletter) characterized as a 'drunken sailor' pattern to the sole available,
paved, runway at a winch camp following an ~700' snap of a nose-hooked 2-33 on
a no-brainer, unsoarable, late fall, late afternoon. Not until the ship was
near the 'teardrop pattern entry point' more or less abeam the numbers, at
~250', did it become obvious to me what Joe Pilot intended to do.

Response 1 - immediately afterwards (as part of the dragback crew), I
laughingly tweaked the pilot (a good friend) about his 'undecipherable
pattern' and literally asked him, "What were you THINKing?!?" His unsurprising
response was a mixture of embarrasment, chagrin, and a non-answer.

Response 2 - (About a month later) he buttonholed me to express some mild (but
very real) disgruntlement at my characterization of his pattern in the
newsletter as a 'drunken sailor pattern.' (Neither he nor the ship was
identified, and only the few folks at the camp could possibly have made the
personal connection. My newsletter point had been about 'thought patterns' and
why they mattered.) I apologized for unintentionally hurting his feelings, and
once again probed to see what I could learn about his thinking that
day...since there was absolutely nothing to be gained by flying the sort of
meandering, 'random-ish' pattern he had flown, short of incurring additional,
entirely avoidable, risk that is. He still could provide no
sensible/understandable (to me, anyway) explanation for it. This from someone
I'd characterize as a sober, deliberate individual, neither prone to showing
off nor prone to 'granny flying'...IOW a responsible, intelligent, XC-skilled,
'normal glider pilot.'

Incident B - a 2-33 with instructor and student (not in my club and neither
known to me [and vice versa]), flew a long, low, pattern to the home field on
a benign fall day. They entered low, flew the whole, 'normal sized' pattern
low, throughout used the spoilers as if it was a normal height pattern, and
scared the living crap out of me because none of it was necessary, and, I was
fearful they were going to snag the trees on the far side of the lake
bordering the runway. Naturally, they didn't reach that ship's 'normal tiedown
position' near midfield, and curiosity impelled me to become a member of their
ground dragging crew (our home field being a busy place, just then with
traffic behind them in the pattern).

Response - When I reached the ship still on the runway, the instructor was
outside, chatting with the student (still inside), about 'nothing specific in
particular'. It horrified me for two reasons: a) they were blocking the main
runway for the ship(s) behind them in the pattern (shame on that instructor!),
and b) in the time it took to motivate the available manpower to move the ship
off the runway, then listen in some more, then notice some fresh, pale green,
moisture/leaf sap on the left wingtip (I went and looked - they had hit a tree
on the base-to-final turn!!!), not once did I hear the topic of a 'dangerously
low pattern' arise. Color me beyond dismayed. I showed a friend who was a
respected member of that club the wingtip (he, too, had seen the pattern), and
left the crew to their devices, hoping my friend would take it upon himself to
do the right thing.

Without exaggeration, I could easily write a fair-sized book about this sort
of horrifying (to me, anyway) crud - and include ONLY crud I 'investigated to
my own satisfaction' - routinely seen at the many gliderports throughout the
intermountain U.S. west.

The takeaway point is NOT that I've seen lots of 'stupid pilot tricks,' but
that in digging into many of the ones I *have* seen, I've learned lots...about
pilot thought patterns (both under stress and not so), and about human nature.

I've learned that 'doing things by rote' is a very common manner of 'thinking'
for pattern-returning pilots. I've learned that the majority of glider pilots
do NOT seem to have 'thought through' the 2 or 3 obvious/possible consequences
their doing things by rote might situationally present them with when they
return to a busy gliderport presuming the pattern/runway WILL be clear when
they need it to be. I've learned a surprisingly large percentage of returning
pilots chose their pattern direction on the basis of 'what is normal' as
opposed to actual pattern conditions. I've learned many pilots initially get
(and quite a few remain) angry at the *other* pilots involved in obstructing
'their' pattern, when - had they not come burning back to the pattern as if
they were the only ship around - they might actually have seen and been able
to more conveniently (not to mention safely) accommodate the other traffic.

Now it's possible I've managed to associate with only an 'abbienormal' subset
of humans and gliderpilots...but I think not. To me, from a safety
perspective, it makes the most sense to conclude the slice of soaring pilots
with whom I've interacted since late 1972 represent 'gliderport normalcy.'

Yikes.

Interestingly, only a very small fraction of 'stupid pilot tricks' I've
witnessed has come from folks with some admixture of showoff, immortality, and
'world's greatest pilot' in their personalities. The vast majority has come
from 'normal-people' pilots. In other words, 'you and me.'

In another post I mentioned my working conclusion is there's a very real
disconnect between 'mortality reality' and Joe Average Glider Pilot's desire
to 'learn enough to participate.' In my opinion/observation, how JAGP defines
'enough' is key to their future accident risk. It strongly influences to what
level of safety he'll participate. Except for the time he's a student pilot
(or, perhaps pursuing additional ratings), most JAGP's switch off the aspect
of their learning process that fundamentally focuses on 'my soft pink body's
safety.' The rest of their learning tends to focus on how do I *DO* this or
that thing (e.g. fly XC, fly ridges, maximize my XC speed, etc.)?

I was fortunate enough to have my private pilot-glider examiner comment to me
when he handed me my temporary certificate, "You DO know this is primarily a
license to learn, right?" I feel further fortunate to've been able to take his
insight to heart, and, to retain my sense of mortality each and every time I
get in a sailplane (as well as do things which can easily kill me, such as
driving, trimming trees, working on ladders, etc.). But I don't think my
attitude is 'typically average' based on decades of incident-based brain picking.


Those who fly or drive safer than the average person who has insurance
won't long term benefit from insurance.

No disagreement, there.


I've never had insurance on my motorcycles (~400,000 km) or cars
(~200,000 km) and i'm way ahead.

This does not mean that those who are less safe than average will
suddenly become safe if they drop their insurance.

Here I disagree, to the extent that most people ARE monetarily limited and to
that extent WILL modify their behavior if they unequivocally KNOW their wallet
WILL be lighter after they cause a (survivable) accident. Human nature is
real...and evidently little changing over the millenia. Ignore it to your own
(frustration, peril, inaccuracy of thinking, increased personal [if misplaced]
comfort level!).

They may not ever KNOW (or admit) they've changed their behavior, but change
it likely will. Casino gambling aside, how many people do you know who
routinely (burn, give away great gobs of, tear up) cash from their bank
accounts? Why don't they?

Regards,
Bob W.