![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Willing wrote:
Don't get me wrong: I am very cautious close to the ground, even though I did extensive spin testing with my ship. I actually very often do not come to the conclusion that this or that low level IS safe, and then I don't do it. It's just statements like "never thermal below 400ft" which I don't like, although I agree that in many (maybe most) cases it would be unsafe. "Never" and "always" don't help people to practise actively thinking about every single situation they're in, and I think that it this lack of active situational awareness which is a main cause of fatal accidents. If you keep telling that "never below x feet", some will think "well my alti reads x+100ft, so I can safely thermal" - and that might be totally wrong for a special situation. Hi Bert In this case I am entirely in agreement - situational awareness and evaluation of the possible outcomes is fundamental. The "I will never spin THIS plane unintentionally so it is always safe" is equally dangerous to the "never thermal below x feet rule" Know your aircraft, evaluate the situation and the weather and make a reasoned decision as to how much risk to take. This is OK, and some people will accept different risk levels, and what is dangerous for a low timer may be safer for an experienced pilot. Note I did not say safe - just safer. Flying gliders is dangerous - accepting that and managing the risk is the key step to being safer. There has to be some motivation to take risk though, and hubris is a poor reason. The complications arise with objectivity - most people are less objective about their own capabilities than they think (me included) If you are low and in the circuit I still believe you should land unless there is some hazard on the runway that increases the risk of landing above the risk involved in thermalling low down, possibly below spin recovery height, where there is the probability of conflicting traffic. Under pressure objectivity tends to decrease - rather err on the side of caution, as you said. To paraphrase a bumper sticker - A bad day retrieving beats a good day in hospital. Bruce |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 04:49 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |