![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 22, 5:45*pm, bildan wrote:
On Mar 22, 1:25*pm, toad wrote: On Mar 22, 2:53*pm, bildan wrote: On Mar 22, 11:36*am, toad wrote: On Mar 22, 11:49*am, bildan wrote: Again, training and experience is critically important. billdan, Are you missing the point on purpose, not understanding or just trying to have a different discussion ? Neither the referenced article nor my post disagree with the statement "training and experience is critically important". *But we are making the statement "there are some risks not mitigable by training". If you are trying to emphasize the importance of training, please do so without diminshing the posibility of other issues. Thanks Todd Smith 3S I'm not missing the point - I'm going right at it. Exactly what issues are not 'mitigable' by training? * I'm saying there are no such issues. *All safety issues are addressable by training. That's the fundamental premise of safety training. My hot button is the prevalent but very wrong headed statement, "Soaring is dangerous and there's nothing we can do about it". Soaring isn't inherently dangerous of itself but human factors such as lack of skill and knowledge can certainly make it so. *Training and experience is how we address human factors.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I guess you are missing the point. Which is: "Aircraft design issues can not be addressed by pilot training." Todd What!? *Of course design issues are addressed by pilot training. *It's called a type checkout. *Certain designs do have idiosyncrasies and they're thoroughly covered in the checkout. If you referring to structural or handling deficiencies that somehow made through the certification process without being detected - those are incredibly rare to the point of being almost non-existent. *If they do make it through the certification process, they'll lead to an AD which requires all affected aircraft to be modified. *With those systems in place, the odds any individual pilot will be the unfortunate one to find them are vanishingly small.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I am very specifically referring to "structural or handling deficiencies" inherent in a paraglider's basic design. Because that is what the linked article was discussing. If you want to discuss certified sailplanes, we won't have much to argue about, because I think Bob K said it very well. Todd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reason 27 why I don't paraglide | Frank Whiteley | Soaring | 10 | July 23rd 10 06:38 PM |
Another Good Reason Not to Paraglide? | sisu1a | Soaring | 4 | May 11th 09 02:27 AM |
Another reason to fly yourself | Paul kgyy | Piloting | 47 | December 24th 05 03:37 PM |
Another reason to fly yourself | Paul kgyy | Owning | 47 | December 24th 05 03:37 PM |
Another reason to fly GA... | john smith | Piloting | 147 | July 31st 05 07:07 PM |