Put your money where the risk is

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 12:30:21 AM UTC-8, Branko Stojkovic wrote:
On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 2:53:54 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
I don't want to over-think things here - it actually is a pretty basic concept. If you have poor stick-and-rudder skills, or poor decision making skills, or both, you are an accident waiting to happen.

Tom

It is true that poor stick-and-rudder skills and/or poor decision-making skills cause majority of fatal and non-fatal accidents, and near misses. Case closed!

Or is it?

With regards to the stick-and-rudder skills, the matter is pretty straight forward. In general, there is a direct correlation/causation between the flying experience and the stick-and-rudder skill level, i.e., the beginners have limited skills and the experts have excellent skills. Furthermore, most pilots can fairly accurately assess their own stick-and-rudder skills. A yearly check ride with an instructor provides a useful feedback about the areas that need improvement.

Okay, so what about them decision-making skills, which also vary among the glider pilot population? It is safe to say that in this case there is a much weaker correlation between the flying experience and the skill level. It seems that the decision-making skills are much more related to the psychological makeup of the pilot and makes things much more complicated and causes several intractable problems.

Problem #1: Few of us who have poor decision-making skills are aware of that fact. The simplest reason is that we have been getting away with making certain types of poor decisions. Even if our poor decisions caused us a few incidents or near misses, we are inclined to place the blame elsewhere (very likely), instead of openly examining our decision-making processes (not likely) or seeking help/advice (very unlikely).

Problem #2: There are no established methods of tracking the decision-making skills, nor of providing feedback, like there is for the stick-and-rudder skills. Some experienced pilots, when they see that someone has made a poor decision, will speak to that pilot and point out the problem. Others will not, likely because of their own personality and/or the offending pilot's personality. In any case, only few of our bad decisions will be pointed out to us.

Problem #3: Even if someone tells me that I made a bad decision, or God forbid, that my decision-making skills are lacking, I will likely take that as a personal attack because of an instant emotional reaction of my injured ego. What happens next will depend on my psychological makeup. If I am rough around the edges, or have a short fuse, I may tell you to bugger off and mind you own damn business. On the other hand, if I'm polite and easy going, I may smile and say "okay thanks I appreciate it," but in my head I'd be thinking "F#@$ YOU, you know-it-all." The problem is that in either case, I have not learned a damn thing from this experience. If anything, it may motivate me to do the same thing (make the same poor decision) again, just to prove (at least to myself) that it's no big deal.

If the above analysis is correct, then is there a solution? There better be, because lives are at stake. I suggest starting by asking yourself a simple question:

"Do I sometime make poor decisions that could cause me to have an accident?"

If your answer is "yes", then you are sufficiently self-aware and you are probably in the process of improving your decision-making skills.

If your answer is "no" or "not that I'm aware off", then you have a problem that might one day cost you your life. In order to make progress you may need help, professional or otherwise.

Branko XYU

Branko,

I will answer your question right after you answer this one: do you think Masak made a bad decision(s) that cost him his life?

Tom

I will answer your question right after you answer this one: do you think Masak made a bad decision(s) that cost him his life?

Tom

Tom,

Based on Tom Knauff's analysis of Peter Masak's fatal accident, I think it was most likely a poor decision that put him in situation in which his piloting skills could save him. Peter was flying in the 15m US nationals and was in a good position to win that day. Tom Knauff put it this way:

"He was obviously planning to fly to, and over Tussey ridge, into ridge lift and then south to a turnpoint. If he were successful, he would have been the only pilot to do so, and probably would have easily won the day. Only two other pilots flew to a nearby turnpoint, (Spruce Creek) and then returned towards the contest site."

Given the juicy reward that was waiting for him on the other side of Tussey ridge, I am guessing that Peter pushed his luck just a bit, reducing his safety margin. I am also guessing that 99 or 99.9 times out of a 100 he would have either made it over the ridge or would have been able to safely complete a 180° turn. I am also guessing that he encountered an unexpected sink and/or wind shear, which took away his diminished safety margin.

Would someone else in the same situation have been able to avoid stalling and made it out alive? Maybe, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

Branko
XYU

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 1:20:35 PM UTC-8, Branko Stojkovic wrote:
I will answer your question right after you answer this one: do you think Masak made a bad decision(s) that cost him his life?

Tom

Tom,

Based on Tom Knauff's analysis of Peter Masak's fatal accident, I think it was most likely a poor decision that put him in situation in which his piloting skills could save him. Peter was flying in the 15m US nationals and was in a good position to win that day. Tom Knauff put it this way:

"He was obviously planning to fly to, and over Tussey ridge, into ridge lift and then south to a turnpoint. If he were successful, he would have been the only pilot to do so, and probably would have easily won the day. Only two other pilots flew to a nearby turnpoint, (Spruce Creek) and then returned towards the contest site."

Given the juicy reward that was waiting for him on the other side of Tussey ridge, I am guessing that Peter pushed his luck just a bit, reducing his safety margin. I am also guessing that 99 or 99.9 times out of a 100 he would have either made it over the ridge or would have been able to safely complete a 180° turn. I am also guessing that he encountered an unexpected sink and/or wind shear, which took away his diminished safety margin.

Would someone else in the same situation have been able to avoid stalling and made it out alive? Maybe, but I guess we'll never know for sure.

Branko
XYU

Branko,

The answer is a definite yes. Anytime you landout there is the very real potential (1 in 10, not 1 in 100) of a mishap, and I have had such an incident. In fact, I listed it explicitly in this thread. Did you not see it?

Tom Knauff said Masak "pushed his luck." You will not find "luck" listed in any flight training manual, so Knauff must have meant something else. I personally listened to Knauff describe his world distance record flight he made. He related how himself and three other very experienced pilots were trying to make it the last stretch back to the Ridge Soaring. They all committed to flying into an area where they had no landing option; if they didn't find some lift, remember this the end of a very long day, they ALL would have landed in the trees. Nobody commented on this possibility on the radio, but they all were aware of it, yet they did it anyhow. Well, one of them found some lift and they all got away with it, and Knauff got his world record flight. He obviously "pushed his luck" beyond any reasonable limit. I am more blunt: he made a very bad decision and got away with it. Masak did the same thing, but didn't get away with it. By any measure, both incidents are examples of "****-poor airmanship" where an unsuccessful outcome results in death(s).

So, part of solution is to analyze your flight afterwards and identify any decision that is likely a poor one:
1. What factors led up to the poor decision.
2. What options did you reject that would have been a better choice.
3. How you can change your future decision making to prevent a re-occurrence.
We all make bad decisions - the better pilots learn from them so as not to repeat them.

Tom

Tom,

I think we are in agreement. It's just that sometimes the debate on RAS gets a bit heated, at least for my taste. To quote Ursula Le Guin: The soundest fact may fail or prevail in the style of its telling.

Branko
XYU

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 3:18:55 PM UTC-8, Branko Stojkovic wrote:
Tom,

I think we are in agreement. It's just that sometimes the debate on RAS gets a bit heated, at least for my taste. To quote Ursula Le Guin: The soundest fact may fail or prevail in the style of its telling.

Branko
XYU

Branko,

You right-on there; I thought I was just making a simple observation that all could agree with, then it degenerated to the point that people were actually defending poor airmanship and cheering for luck. Go figure...

Tom

Actually we were acknowledging luck as a factor in glider fatalities and suggesting that denial and overconfidence are dangerous as well.
Dale

On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 4:58:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Actually we were acknowledging luck as a factor in glider fatalities and suggesting that denial and overconfidence are dangerous as well.
Dale

....all of which fall into the category of poor airmanship (assuming you are depending upon "luck" for a satisfactory outcome), and are preventable. This should be good news for those of us concerned about our safety. Many power accidents are the result of "get-home-itis" which is bad prioritizing of outcomes.

Tom