![]() |
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric referred to aggression level being a predictor of landout probability.
It is possibly semantics but to me aggression equates to pushing the limits without consideration. An approach that generally results in running out of height and ideas at some point. Even in a contest you have to finish tasks if you want to score well, so there is a careful cognitive process of assessment of conditions, personal and equipment performance and acceptable risk of landout to determine how hard you push. When racing I generally have little to lose so I can take risks - the top positions in the pack will be more averse to a landout, because that will demote them. The winning by not losing idea of George Moffatt. Same applies to personal flying. We should be balancing risk and goals analytically. My club is averse to XC flying, it is very hard to get anyone to retrieve you. Since not getting retrieved is at best inconvenient and could be bad for your health, I have to fly conservatively most of the time. 74 flights and 145 hours in my Std Cirrus - 1:37 on a GOOOD day. One land out, at another airfield. With a nearly two hour average - including the winch launches at sunset for a hangar landing, you can see I am generally flying in XC weather. But the conservative flying style means I have only a couple of 300+ km flights. We have pilots who own 1:29 performance ships that have never landed out in 10 years of flying. Clearly glider performance is not a predictor of landout probability. Conversely, flying in regional contests I can (and do) take a lot more risk in terms of land out. My flying has improved, as a result. I really believe that glider pilots should be encouraged to explore the performance capabilities of their aircraft. I disagree with the aggressive word though, to me this is all about developing judgement. In this context aggression would be referring to Instrumental aggression (aggression directed towards obtaining some goal, considered to be a learned response to a situation - care of wikipedia.) I would prefer to think of setting a risk level - What is possible today, and what risk of landout can I accept? As a measure - I tend to be below the half way position in contests. With my conservative flying meaning I fail to exploit the conditions and capabilities fully. I generally share this area with the other mis-judgers, either too conservative or trying too hard. (aggressive if you like) Now. I know Eric is a very experienced XC pilot so some opinions please. Should we be landing out frequently enough to account for luck only, or more? Should we ever intentionally fly aggressively as per the definition of aggression? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is no | gasman | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 06:39 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |