Kudos to Matt Michael for moving the discussion on to the bigger picture.
I would add that I had just came from the SSA convention and, before that,
the PASCO safety seminar in November. Jeffrey was at the Convention, at
least, so I think it would be fair to say that both of us started the day
focused upon having a safe flight. Not only is Jeffrey a highly
experienced pilot, but there was nothing about the flight (a simple BFR)
that would tempt either of us into pushing the envelope.

I have been very intrigued with Richard Carlson's descriptions of the
"culture of safety" idea. Spent some time chatting with him about it at
the PASCO meeting and also attended the safety presentation at the SSA
convention. If it is possible to eventually use this incident as a
springboard to improving the safety of our sport then I fully support that.


To be honest, I'm not certain there is anything particularly special about
this landout - I've since heard of two others in this general vicinity
which have passed with little attention. On the other hand, nothing quite
captures your attention like landing on a ski slope - so perhaps that will
"sell" a little more safety to the soaring community.

- Jim

p.s. A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. I wouldn't
answer this if it weren't JJ asking because no matter what the answer,
I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
about fault or cause/effect. So I trust all of you to be professional and
appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
opportunity.

Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was
not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck
of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing!

Yeah. I passed.

p.p.s. And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy:
Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something -
that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. Shop it around some
more. There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost.


Incidentally, on Monday I heard the President of the trade association for
California ski resorts assert on the radio that skiing was "inherently
dangerous". This is true. While I was waiting on the slope to help with
the retrieve there were two separate life flight helicopter missions to
Heavenly for skiers who were seriously injured by skiing just in the course
of a couple of hours. Yet no one in the ski industry is calling for
additional safety training or safety precautions - to the contrary, the
reason for his interview was that he was RESISTING outside suggestions for
additional safety tools...

Flying is not inherently dangerous. The reason for the attention to safety
you are seeing in soaring now is precisely because we have so many people
who are absolutely willing to set aside personal interest and step up to
the plate when they see a problem.

Welcome to the sport. There is no other like it.