Put your money where the risk is

Tom, the sad reality is that the cause of majority of fatal accidents is not known. There are usually only speculations. So I am curious which fatal accidents in recent years you have enough data to conclude they were due to poor airmanship, and where do you get this data. Certainly not from most NTSB reports.
In fact, most of the incidents which were clearly due to poor airmanship or unnecessary risk taking that we know of are the non fatal ones.

Ramy

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 11:36:33 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
Tom, the sad reality is that the cause of majority of fatal accidents is not known. There are usually only speculations. So I am curious which fatal accidents in recent years you have enough data to conclude they were due to poor airmanship, and where do you get this data. Certainly not from most NTSB reports.
In fact, most of the incidents which were clearly due to poor airmanship or unnecessary risk taking that we know of are the non fatal ones.

Ramy

Ramy,

Oh, yes you can. Here is the last fatal glider accident just last month:

"A witness was also a glider pilot stated that the accident flight was among a group of three
other cross-county glider flights that intended to depart 1N7, fly over Burnt Cabins,
Pennsylvania, and then return to 1N7. The witness stated that he departed 1N7 around 0930,
and the accident glider took off around 0945. He further stated that it was not common for the
glider pilots to fly together but they would maintain radio contact throughout the day and help
each other with geographical points and finding thermals for lift. He said that around 1400 the
accident pilot radioed and said that he was at Burnt Cabins and turning around to return to
1N7. Around 1515, the accident pilot reported that he was climbing in a weak thermal near
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. That was the last communication he heard from the accident pilot.
According to another witness, he was working outside when he looked up and saw "an
airplane" about .5 mile away heading straight down. He stopped and watched "the airplane" for
a few seconds before it disappeared behind some trees."

The guy clearly had a stall-spin at low altitude, which is the result of ****-poor airmanship. I have commented about low saves in the past. Here is the one last August:

"According to multiple witnesses located at WN15, the glider arrived overhead at about 800 to
1,000 ft above ground level (agl), descending and circling left around the southern half of the
airport. On the last circle, about 300 ft agl, the landing gear was seen coming down followed
very quickly by the glider banking left to about 30-40o
.. The glider then struck three trees and
rotated 270o
while now descending in about a 75° nose-low attitude. The glider struck the
grass runway nose first, rebounded up and back about 10 ft, then came to rest upright and
listing on the left wing."

Tell me that was superb airmanship.

Tom

Tom, you chooses the 10% or so of accidents which had enough data to come to a conclusion. Even then I would question most NTSB reports until I talked to the locals who knew the pilots involved and can confirm the accuracy of the report. I personally know of quiet a few fatal accidents which can not be classified as poor airmanship. At the same time I am aware of many poor airmanship which did not result in fatal accidents.
I guess what I am trying to say here is don’t fall into the “this would never happen to me since I am a good pilot� category. I know I don’t kid myself that any of these accidents couldn’t happen to me.

Ramy

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 10:12:04 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
Tom, you chooses the 10% or so of accidents which had enough data to come to a conclusion. Even then I would question most NTSB reports until I talked to the locals who knew the pilots involved and can confirm the accuracy of the report. I personally know of quiet a few fatal accidents which can not be classified as poor airmanship. At the same time I am aware of many poor airmanship which did not result in fatal accidents.
I guess what I am trying to say here is don’t fall into the “this would never happen to me since I am a good pilot� category. I know I don’t kid myself that any of these accidents couldn’t happen to me.

Ramy

Ramy,

I went thru ALL of the fatal accidents this year before my original post: these are just the last two. Both of these accidents had witnesses, and the conclusions are pretty clear-cut. You are more than welcome to do your own review of all past fatals (please don't bother with the non-fatals as this is much less conclusive). This pattern of poor airmanship is startling because it is preventable. It is sort of like car accidents: if you drive distracted you shouldn't be surprised if you have an accident.

Tom

Funny how you get to the opposite conclusions. Are we talking about the same sport? Anyway, I did my own analysis and almost all fatal accidents are inconclusive, mostly speculation, while almost all non fatal accidents are conclusive (since they all have witness).
Anyway, I’ll bow out now.

Ramy

So what other speculated reasons are there for these accidents? Technical issue? "Sudden wind gust from nowhere"?

I always wonder how many accidents are a result of an in-air medical problem.

Lou

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 10:40:24 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
Funny how you get to the opposite conclusions. Are we talking about the same sport? Anyway, I did my own analysis and almost all fatal accidents are inconclusive, mostly speculation, while almost all non fatal accidents are conclusive (since they all have witness).
Anyway, I’ll bow out now.

Ramy

Ramy,

I reviewed, again, all of the 2019 fatal accidents. One sounds like a medical emergency suffered upon a successful outlanding, all of the others were clear loss of control of a functioning glider. One guy hit the only tree in a field during an outlanding.

Tom

Tom,

Check 2018. I researched a little more about those and personally knew 3 of the victims.

Ramy