![]() |
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 20:18 27 June 2012, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 6/26/2012 5:39 PM, Brad wrote: On Jun 26, 4:05 pm, son_of_flubber wrote: On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:54:09 PM UTC-4, soartech wrote: So the next issue of Soaring magazine will come off the press without a single word about this horrible accident... like it never happened!! The way it works over time is this: 1)you get hooked on the sport, 2)you become vaguely aware that it's dangerous and that you need to be careful, 3)you come to terms with the fact that it can kill you. 4)A friend or acquaintance gets killed or maimed. Think about it. If the first thing you learned about soaring was that it can kill you, what would happen? You'd probably plow your thousands of dollars into some really nifty RC model gliders. My copy of Soaring goes to my local library. Maybe somebody will pick it up and take up soaring. Don't list the departed souls. Soaring Magazine has a lot in it every month about the hazards of soaring, but it's almost always hypothetical. A simple tally sheet of crashes and injuries would drive the point home without anyone getting sued. But the SSA chooses to not do that. Why? It's a glaring omission. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. When you suggest that there is something wrong with this picture, you get a knee-jerk reaction. Wierd. Someone tell me why there is never a tally of accidents in Soaring Magazine. When we had 2 of our club members collided in a mid-air the result was finger pointing at the pilots (non-CFIG) who mentored them. It was intimated that they were not ready for this kind of activity and that those of us that actively flew in the mountains were somehow responsible for encouraging them to do something they were not "ready" for. Ironically some of those who criticized the most were the ones who never left the vicinity of the airport, unless they were flying a motorglider. Another club member spun his motorglider into an unfamiliar field. He was a low time pilot in a brand new ship with less than 20 hours on it............he felt the need to try flying a "new" site, took a check ride in that clubs Blanik (a sailplane he was very familiar with) and did a great job. After soaring his TST-Atlas for several hours he came back, did a Blanik approach in a 40:1 ship, realized at mid-field he was to high and tried to do either a 360 or a 180, we'll never know because he spun it in and killed himself. Last year one of our CFIG's died during the filming of the "Cadillac" commercial. There was a "list" of incidents that took place that made it out thru the gossip channels that raised some eyebrows. None of that was shared publicly (as far as I know) and none was shared within the clubs official channels. I'm pretty sure that some open, honest and heartfelt discussions about all these accidents could have really benefited our club. Instead all that was mentioned was how great these pilots all were, how careful they were and how they had tons of experience....................which was seen as somewhat ironic by those of us that personally knew them. This is the culture we need to change. Brad "What Brad said!!!" Certain micro-cultures are "obviously sub-optimum." I've been a member of the same soaring club for 20+ years, and varyingly intimately familiar with it for over 36 years. In that time I've watched its "personality" (culture, if you will) evolve. Historically, my club's personality change has occurred slowly over time...except when (safety-related) issues arose which simply could not be ignored. I can recall at least twice when (poor/ugly) safety-related issues "forced introspection/change". Actually, all it "forced" was "cheap talk", but a topical part of the cheap talk quickly became the need (or not) for cultural change. In neither case was the club seriously at risk of folding...but in both cases it was a painful, protracted (in the pain sense) yet brief (in the objective passage of time sense), process that resulted in years' long "cultural change" that benefited the club and arguably prevented it from continuing to add incidents/accidents to national stats. In any event, the club's stats clearly reflected a before-change/after-change effect, when measured over multi-year periods. The second instance's effects still appear to be part of the club's normal culture more than a decade after the need for change became unignorable...and (IMHO) that's a good thing! Perfection? Not a chance. Improvement (stats and culture)? Darn tootin'! - - - - - - While making no claims for having a guaranteed recipe for "change success," the analytical part of me thinks it saw in both instances some things that may have been crucial in overcoming varied and obvious obstacles to change, e.g.: personalities; hurt feelings; inertia; denial; personality-based cliques; etc. These include: persistence; discussionally remaining (as in relentlessly returning to being) "on topic"; patience (letting people speak, willingness to not settle everything in a single meeting or night or session); mutual respect (agreeing to disagree; calling out/cutting off ad-hominem arguments the instant they appeared). But perhaps THE crucial element in both instances was having at least one "club leader" (officer, board member, etc.) sufficiently motivated to "oversee"/push the process forward until the consensus was a consensus had been reached. None of this "fizzling out" nonsense allowed. I've also some first hand experience with a club which could benefit itself, the sport of soaring, and probably its safety record if "it effected some sort of internal cultural change(s?)" but which has been "board resistant" to such change over decades. Terribly unfortunate. IMO. Bob W. A lot is down to personal commitment if you see something that is dangerous ,either stop them doing it or if it you just don't fly.To elaborate ,I once refused to launch a far better qualified instructor than me because he had a child on his wife's knee ,it did not make me popular but he wasn't doing that on my watch.I have ,and am sure so have many other,refused launches,because I thought the child was to young,or they had a drink first or there was a storm too close lots of reasons but just say NO if you think it's not safe.It won't make you popular but that's not what safety is about. You asked for it and that's my 2 pence worth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PRN133 ranging now useable for SoL, at non precision approach level | macpacheco | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | November 2nd 11 11:14 PM |
Galaxy XV / PRN 135 geo arrives at 133.1W, WAAS ranging back to 7.5meter UDRE | macpacheco | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | April 6th 11 07:17 PM |
USA / The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars 2008 | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | November 8th 07 11:15 PM |
NPR discussion on NAS | Neil Gould | Piloting | 9 | September 3rd 07 09:47 PM |
The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars Hit The Road in the USA | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | September 11th 06 03:48 AM |