Finish Gate Accident no. 2

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...
At 21:00 26 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

So, we shouldn't weed out anybody because we can't
prevent all the
accidents
with one set of entry criteria? If just one marginal
pilot is counseled to
get more current, it's a win.


I also never said that there aren't pilots in need
of better technical skill or
judgement, or that we shouldn't try to weed out pilots
who are dangerous
due to deficiencies in these areas. The hard part it
how.

I would add that it seems to me even harder to come
up with a standard test for competence in something as complex as
competition
soaring, particularly given all the exogenous factors in flying.
The 'drop a wing on takeoff and you're out' rule is a good example of how
hard this could be.

How do you allow for glider type, ballast, crosswind,
density altitude, wing runner skill? I had a bad wing run (didn't take a
single
step) on a cross-wind day in and ASW-27B full of water. I had to abort
when the wing went down. Did I flunk? I can just see the screaming match.

Best to empower the CD to check pilots informally -
particularly the
unknown/unseeded ones.

9B

The wing drop thing is easy to judge. Just watch the ailerons. If they
don't start to move until the wing hits the ground or nearly so, it's pilot
error. If they move to the stop as soon as the glider tilts a tiny bit yet
the wing still goes down, he gets a pass. Any good instructor, towpilot, or
any good pilot for that matter, can watch a takeoff and get a good idea of
how well a pilot flies.

BTW, there's a lot of heat AND light in this thread. I'll bet some folks
are thinking about dehydration and how well they fly takeoffs. Thinking's a
good thing.

Bill Daniels