Safety Corner-Nov/issue

KM wrote:
Brian wrote:

Brian, Thanks to you and Eric G for the responses.Its kind of funny
that both you and Eric G defend Thelen, and you both admit he is
unqualified to do what he is doing.

You are misreading my statements - I did not admit nor imply anything
like that.

I just read the November column, and
everything after "What I really think" is pure BS.Thelen is writting
stuff about jets and ATC that he clearly has no understanding of.

I agree he should have researched the visibility of the jet and it's
VFR/IFR status better, instead of guessing. But, remember he had Rich
Carlson there to give a counterpoint to some of his statements, so I
think most readers would end up with a reasonable understanding.

I now
understand exactly what the original post was refering to.
Let me try to make my critisizim more clear; Think about the main
reason pilots read about other pilots accidents.Obviously it is to
learn from them and try to keep it from happening again.In order to do
this, you need somewhat accurate facts and a logical conclusion drawn
from those facts.This is where George Thelen drops the ball.

You mean the domes and stuff? I think some of those things could improve
the visual discovery by an aircrew, but think getting any of it into
these planes is most unlikely. That doesn't make it BS - he states it's
his opinion. He clearly thinks pilots going so fast they can't clear
their path should do more to avoid problems. You might not agree, but
that still doesn't make it BS. Naive, maybe; BS, no.

His columns
(Like the current one) are sadly so lacking that it doesnt do anything
for anyones ability to avoid a similar accident in the future.

At least for his November article, I don't recall anything from the huge
thread on RAS that offered anything better, except that I think he
should have mentioned TPAS units for glider pilots. A phone call or
email (use the SSA member locater to get his phone number and email) to
him will likely result in it being mentioned in a future column, or
elsewhere in the magazine.

The SSA
is really missing a HUGE oportunity to enhance the safety of soaring by
not having an accurate and relevant safety column.

George's column is there every month, but it is not the only
"opportunity" for safety content in the magazine: currently, the Soaring
Safety Foundation is running a series on safety, and there are other
articles on safety during the year. The November issue had an article by
Knauff, for example.

Still, there are other ways to do a safety column. One that might
satisfy your complaints and still yield an interesting column and not a
clone of a (yawn) NTSB report would be a team of 2 or 3 pilots writing
the column. Ideally, they'd have quite different backgrounds and soaring
experiences, so more factors would be examined and more knowledge put
into it than any one writer could manage.

Having a team would reduce the work each had to do. The actual writing
could be by all three, or individually, or a mix of group and
individually written columns. By operating it as a team and not just 2
or 3 pilots writing a column alternately, the column could be consistent
in approach, avoiding conflicting recommendations.

What does KM think about this idea? What does RAS think about this
approach? How is it handled by other countries?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org