View Single Post
  #6  
Old April 1st 16, 07:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Does How a (Sailplane) Pilot Thinks, Matter?

Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.

A rather simplistic view, but I've observed (and experienced) the same
since I started flying some 43+ years ago.

Having said that, I've already heard the "good for the masses" appeal in
the statement that one should think about the mess he leaves behind.
That's an individual concern, not mine. I care only about staying alive
and I hope and believe that I have the skill and mainly good sense to
recognize when something is a bad idea FOR ME. If I survive, there's no
"mess" to be concerned with.

I agree with the poster who stated that a pattern of low saves indicates
a problem with judgment. One has to really descend far below the
working band to be executing a low save so I would think he's on final
glide and misjudged it. Low saves out on course may get you home if
done safely, but they surely don't make a lot of points.

Dan

On 4/1/2016 9:34 AM, 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!


--
Dan, 5J