Wide-ranging Safety Discussion...?

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 6:56:09 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:

The obituary section in the magazine (Final Glide) does not even mention if the death happened in a glider... not even an asterisk next to the name.

I opened the latest Soaring Magazine to find a safety-related letter to the editor by a competition pilot recently killed during a competition, and the mention of another such pilot in the rankings of another competition. That's food for thought.

People (that is, the general public) generally misjudge the risk involved in anything when rare events are involved. It is a well-studied fact that people cannot correctly estimate probabilities of low-frequency events (see Nobel prize winner Kahneman & Tversky's work), and if people are told about these events (as in the media), they become very salient and their probability is over-estimated (see Barron&Erev).

Thus, there are sound reasons why a public magazine does not discuss actual fatalities in a timely manner; however, I agree that this does not serve the soaring community well.

I like the "Never Again" column in AOPA magazine. Perhaps that would be a good compromise.

On 7/4/2012 4:56 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:52:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:

Why is Soaring Magazine not the right venue for a detailed discussion of
accidents?

The majority of the fatalities discussed in Soaring are the fictional
characters found in Dr. Dan's Soaring RX column; and the magazine gets
grief over that (see this month's letters to the editor). Now imagine what
would happen if real accidents were openly discussed.

Everyone's entitled to opinions, and encouragement of the sharing of them is a
fundamental aspect of "the U.S. system." As is learning how to agree to
disagree...
- - - - - -


The obituary section in the magazine (Final Glide) does not even mention if
the death happened in a glider... not even an asterisk next to the name.

I wonder if this editorial policy is itself a historical accident, or if
the policy evolved over the years. Were accidents ever reported in the
magazine? I'd guess that they were and that it caused some discord (this
is pure speculation).


SSA members have online access to "Soaring" magazine - a treMENdous resource,
btw!!! - and a search using "Safety Corner" will yield decades' worth of
columns (beginning, I seem to remember, in the 1960s) of "useful safety
stuff," very often including description/assessment of real-world-explicit
incidents & accidents.

A search using "George Thelen" will yield author-specific sub-columns mostly
from the '80s and '90s, though George didn't limit himself strictly to
accident reporting.

Great stuff all, IMHO...
- - - - - -

After I'd begun taking soaring instruction in '72, but even before my first
copy of "Soaring" arrived, my club's chief instructor handed me a stapled
package of what turned out to be copies of "Safety Corner"...to tide me over
until my subscription started, he smiled. Then he added he expected me to tell
him what lesson I learned after I'd absorbed the reading material he'd given
me. (Curses! His freebie came with strings attached.)

Put me in the camp that recognizes "Soaring" mag is likely read by some
"'members of the general public," but who also believes its
primary-intended-audience is soaring *enthusiasts*. In any event, even - if
it's still around; I don't know - every issue I ever saw of the v-e-r-y
"general-flying-audience" magazine "Flying" openly discussed real-world
accidents, pretty much in every issue, by multiple authors, some on-staff,
some by readers.

Someone will surely note that "Flying" mag wasn't put out by a member
organization as SSA is. AOPA is a member organization as is EAA. Both of their
monthly "general audience" magazines routinely discuss various aspects of
aviation/piloting safety, sometimes "purely statistically" sometimes using
real-world examples.

I find the arguments: (paraphrasing) "SSA will be at risk/SSA will scare off
potential members," not terribly compelling reasons to NOT discuss in the
magazine real-world-scenario incidents/accidents. JMHO...
- - - - - -

MAJOR Kudos to every individual involved in making happen what Chuck Coyne
writes about in the July "Soaring" mag's "Flight Lines" column. Open
discussion hardly gets any better than what he describes!

Bob W.

On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 3:56:09 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:52:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:

Why is Soaring Magazine not the right venue for a detailed discussion of accidents?

The majority of the fatalities discussed in Soaring are the fictional characters found in Dr. Dan's Soaring RX column; and the magazine gets grief over that (see this month's letters to the editor). Now imagine what would happen if real accidents were openly discussed.

The obituary section in the magazine (Final Glide) does not even mention if the death happened in a glider... not even an asterisk next to the name.

I wonder if this editorial policy is itself a historical accident, or if the policy evolved over the years. Were accidents ever reported in the magazine? I'd guess that they were and that it caused some discord (this is pure speculation).

At least some of the accidents described in that column are not fictional at all, except the name/place etc. A recent article described an accident which happened in Hobbs a decade ago if I recall correct.

Ramy

+1 On Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:52:37 PM UTC-4, Mike Schumann wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:31:06 PM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:54*am, 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!!
Head in the sand attitudes will not fix this problem.
WE NEED to air the dirty laundry until this problem is much better. We
can't depend on speculation on RAS or
digging for NTSB reports which often don't contain anything helpful.
Give me the facts, ma'am.

Soaring Magazine isn't the place for this subject but the SSF web site
is. I'd like to see detailed no-holds-barred discussion of every
accident. Unfortunately, making public allegations of incompetence
against a deceased pilot CAN get you sued by irate family members.
There is a need to tread responsibly - and carefully.

Why is Soaring Magazine not the right venue for a detailed discussion of accidents? AOPA Pilot has lots of articles on this topic, and it is one of the more interesting, not to mention informative, parts of the magazine.

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..

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:05:48 PM UTC-7, 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.

Good points, although there used to be a regular accident column written by Thelen until few years ago. Since then there is an occasional accident report.
But indeed many of us picked up soaring since we were told that it is safer than driving to the airport. By the time we realized the truth, we were already hooked. I would probably still flying hang gliders today if I knew back then that sailplanes are more dangerous. But I have no regrets. I understand the risks and willing to take them to be able to enjoy this amazing sport. But I am sure that most new pilots and ride passengers do not understand the risks.

Ramy

On Jun 26, 5:27*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:05:48 PM UTC-7, 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.

Good points, although there used to be a regular accident column written by Thelen until few years ago. Since then there is an occasional accident report.
But indeed many of us picked up soaring since we were told that it is safer than driving to the airport. By the time we realized the truth, we were already hooked. I would probably still flying hang gliders today if I knew back then that sailplanes are more dangerous. But I have no regrets. I understand the risks and willing to take them to be able to enjoy this amazing sport. But I am sure that most new pilots and ride passengers do not understand the risks.

Ramy

It really sounds if you want someone else to look out for you. It
isn't going to happen - you're on your own. If you can't deal with
that, maybe RC gliders are better for you.

Gliders rarely hurt anyone. Pilots, on the other hand, have hurt
many, many gliders. Saying "soaring is dangerous" is nonsense -
dangerous nonsense. It detracts from careless and unprepared pilots
who ARE dangerous. 99.9 % of the time, one millisecond before impact,
it was a perfectly airworthy glider. The glider didn't put itself in
that position, the pilot did.

If you are going to get hurt, there's a 99.9% chance it will be your
fault. Don't blame soaring for that.

There's a wonderful old WWII era saying that goes, "The 99% of air
crashes are caused by a LOOSE NUT ON THE CONTROL STICK meaning the
pilot. Even then, pilots were the weak link.

Do new pilots understand this? They damn well better. It's part of
their basic training.

Agh, I give up. Every attempt to try to say something about the need for better safety culture will encounter resistant from those who claim there is nothing wrong with the system and the only problem is the pilots. I guess this is their way of convincing themselves they safe since they will never do such mistakes themselves.
Good luck.

Ramy ( who does NOT need anyone to look after him)

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

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.