Gliding risk....

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:24:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
With apologies for lack of context:
This is one of the DUMBEST threads I have followed

Not dumb. Thought provoking. Anyone who hasn't considered the risks of soaring is in denial.

I grew up hearing my father repeat the mantra that "the most dangerous part of soaring is driving to and from the airport." He was killed in a glider crash 15 years after I soloed. Six years later, my best friend died in another crash. I’ve known 16 other casualties, plus more I never met. Last Friday, I attended the wake of #18, a good pilot about my age who was careful and controlled.

I'm SO past the "he died doing what he loved" thing. It's probably true in many cases but the pilots are still dead, leaving families and friends. And if a missing man formation makes you feel better, great, but it does nothing to bring back someone you loved or treasured as a friend.

I also knew two guys who were killed in motorcycle crashes during this time (54 years), although I have no idea how many of my friends/acquaintances ride vs. fly. I recall only one person I met who was killed in a car crash.. I think comparing the risks of different activities is useful. But obviously we're not all making decisions based on minimizing risk.

There are ways to reduce the risk even in competition, which I think is probably riskier than doing rides around the gliderport. Eight of "my" 18 died at contests (44%) with another five arguably practicing for it. All were experienced, mature, high-time pilots. Medical factors may have been a factor in at least four cases but often it’s tough to make that call, although sometimes we’re tempted because it makes us feel better about the genuine risks we incur.

The safest thing is not flying at all. I’ve considered that. I’ve been away from soaring three times for multi-year periods (unrelated to risk) and come back every time after considering the pro’s and con’s. I still love soaring but the risk is always there. I’ve never been cavalier about the danger but I’m probably more careful now than I was 50 years ago. I think our community addresses safety much better than in the past. But--I concede that if soaring were 100% risk free (a la Condor, which I enjoy), it wouldn’t be as compelling. Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing!

Chip Bearden
JB

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, Chip!
Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.
Does anyone have data on that?

Uli
'AS'

Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.
Does anyone have data on that?

Uli
'AS'

I don't know, Uli. IIRC, top pilot Bruno Gantenbrink of Germany was the first to publicly address the fallacy of the "most dangerous part of soaring" so I suspect the U.S. is not the only place where the data conflict with what we'd like to believe. His insightful speech, published in Aerokurier more than 25 years ago, is on the DG site and should be required reading for all of us in the sport, but especially cross-country and competition pilots.

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/lib...ty-comes-first

More thought-provoking reading on the same subject is Aussie Bruce Taylor's account of a day at our Nationals at Nephi a few years ago. I heard this top pilot speak about it the next morning at the pilots' meeting and I wish everyone could have been the

https://glidingaustralia.org/mag/GA32.pdf

If there are lessons to be learned from other countries, we should seek them out. Perhaps someone could look at the data.

Chip Bearden
JB

wrote on 11/5/2019 4:12 PM:
Out of curiosity: is this a unique American issue? How does the US compare to other soaring nations? Maybe we can learn something from a comparison.
Does anyone have data on that?

Uli
'AS'

I don't know, Uli. IIRC, top pilot Bruno Gantenbrink of Germany was the first to publicly address the fallacy of the "most dangerous part of soaring" so I suspect the U.S. is not the only place where the data conflict with what we'd like to believe. His insightful speech, published in Aerokurier more than 25 years ago, is on the DG site and should be required reading for all of us in the sport, but especially cross-country and competition pilots.

https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/lib...ty-comes-first

More thought-provoking reading on the same subject is Aussie Bruce Taylor's account of a day at our Nationals at Nephi a few years ago. I heard this top pilot speak about it the next morning at the pilots' meeting and I wish everyone could have been the

https://glidingaustralia.org/mag/GA32.pdf

Woof! That was hair raiser - 600 feet AGL over the far side of the moon. I don't
like to be that low when I enter the pattern.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

Thanks Chip for the very thoughtful, honest and well written post, as well as the link to Bruce’s article. I needed to read this. Going forward I am going to try to keep track of how many holes left ahead of me in my Swiss cheese and not get too close to the last hole.

Ramy

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:56:36 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Going forward I am going to try to keep track of how many holes left ahead of me in my Swiss cheese and not get too close to the last hole.

My $0.02: I think that is /exactly/ the way that experienced guys like Bruce get into trouble. What's missing from that article: a determination to have a specific landing option that one can glide to, /especially/ in tiger country. This is basic XC stuff. Risk management means breaking the chain of events that lead to an accident or scary situation early. You accept the cost of a slow climb, detour (for weather, landability, etc.) and get on with your day.

Accidents and bad scares we've had in my club have been 80% due to inadequate XC risk management. Most of that 80% consists of lower experience guys misunderstanding how the more experienced guys do this (i.e. with discipline).

T8

I think the dilemma each cross country and contest pilot has to deal with every now and then is how much lowering the margins is acceptable. Whether we willing to admit it or not, we all lowering our margins and increasing risk every now and then to prevent a guaranteed landout. I believe this what happened to Bruce. When everything goes great and we cruise at 17K we don’t need to track landout options since there are plenty in glide , even in the western deserts. As we get lower we start tracking landout options along the intended course line. As we get further lower we start picking the best landout option. The real problem start when we finding enough lift or indication of lift further ahead and need to decide between staying within safe glide of the last good option we just past in dead air and pretty much guarantee a landout and possible a long painful retrieve, or keep pushing into what we believe is better air while lowering the margin or switching over to some unknown and potential problematic fields, but under nice looking Cu/ circling birds/ gliders/dust devil etc. So while we increase the risk of damage or difficult retrieve, we reduce the chance of landout as we heading into lift. Most of the time this works but once in a while it doesn’t. The hard limit in my opinion is to always have in glide at least something that looks reasonably landable and preferably in the database, while trying to never get to a situation in which a low save will not just save your flight but will also save your life. don’t get into a tunnel vision where the only option you can think of is keep going into the unknown hoping you’ll find something better. We actually had a webinar on this subject recently.

Ramy

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 6:40:32 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
I think the dilemma each cross country and contest pilot has to deal with every now and then is how much lowering the margins is acceptable. Whether we willing to admit it or not, we all lowering our margins and increasing risk every now and then to prevent a guaranteed landout. I believe this what happened to Bruce. When everything goes great and we cruise at 17K we don’t need to track landout options since there are plenty in glide , even in the western deserts. As we get lower we start tracking landout options along the intended course line. As we get further lower we start picking the best landout option. The real problem start when we finding enough lift or indication of lift further ahead and need to decide between staying within safe glide of the last good option we just past in dead air and pretty much guarantee a landout and possible a long painful retrieve, or keep pushing into what we believe is better air while lowering the margin or switching over to some unknown and potential problematic fields, but under nice looking Cu/ circling birds/ gliders/dust devil etc. So while we increase the risk of damage or difficult retrieve, we reduce the chance of landout as we heading into lift. Most of the time this works but once in a while it doesn’t. The hard limit in my opinion is to always have in glide at least something that looks reasonably landable and preferably in the database, while trying to never get to a situation in which a low save will not just save your flight but will also save your life. don’t get into a tunnel vision where the only option you can think of is keep going into the unknown hoping you’ll find something better. We actually had a webinar on this subject recently.

Ramy

I have observed that, over time, people dip into the margins they were taught. They become comfortable with the new lower margin.
Then they slip a bit more.
Eventually they either figure out they are going too far, somebody calls them out, or they scare themselves or even crash.
I regularly observe contest pilots flying low patterns. If I see a pilot doing this regularly, I know too low is their normal. I'll have a talk and explain what I'm seeing and why I'm concerned. Without exception they are appreciative of my taking the time to raise a warning flag. Most can later be seen to be flying more safely. Over the years, two did not take the suggestion to heart and had low pattern accidents. My success rate so far is about 90%.
I've also called pilots circling low and asked them to give up and land. I have offered to buy their next tow.
Peer pressure and constructive intervention can be a useful safety tool.
FWIW
UH

Wow, 6k hour pilot flying over unlandable with a vague idea of how to get to a place to land. Then virga playing Packman with the energy source, then delayed decision making, then a really focused low save.

Kudos for telling the story.

I've flown only a few contests and also have flown that area. I've always tried to fly with at least one specific landing point in the computer telling me the arrival altitude will be above some safety altitude. Sometimes, that tether causes non-optimal flight paths from a racing perspective. Maybe the tether doesn't work because of unexpected sink or a deyhdrated pilot, but when it fails I'm at least on the way to the safety point having started with enough energy to get there in theory.

Was this 6k pilot flying without a defined tether, and is this normal for competition flying?

The facts seem pretty clear

- Bad news: on a per hour basis, soaring is pretty risky

-Good news: the risks are not of the Russian-roulette type, how many barrels are loaded. The risk is primarily that you or I will do something dumb. Gliding is inherently quite safe. No engine = no engine failure, no engine fire, etc. Unforseeable mechanical failures and mid-air collisions outside of competition are really really rare. So what risks you face are entirely a question of how you approach decision-making.

- We all say we're going to make great decisions, but even the apparently safest and most careful pilots are often capable of making bad decisions.

- There is little correlation between the ability to fly fast and to fly safely. And people (like me) who talk a lot about safety on the ground are often just as prone to temptation in the air as others.

It's often expressed awkwardly. Yes, in the back row at every funeral we mutter, "well, I wouldn't do something that dumb." That keeps us going to get back in the air. Perhaps a better attitude is, I would, and probably will, unless I get really really careful and recognize my own susceptibility to temptation.

John Cochrane BB

Very good synopsis John, Well said, thoughtful and concise enough to keep in mind while on task.