When is too many at a glider meet

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.

In your own words:

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality"

and

"All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe."

Sounds like a prediction and a reinforcement of that prediction to me. If being wrong means a safe events what does being right mean when your prior post used the word "fatality"? Sheesh.


The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.

The only specific number you offered was 80 ("eight zero") and that was made up.

Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.

I have flown large-scale Utah soaring events dozens of times (Parowan, Logan, Nephi - as well as Minden and Ely), including all but one of the Nephi events (I've never seen you at any of them) and no, it hasn't happened - I have never seen the capacity of Nephi (or anywhere else - though that wasn't the subject here) strained, despite numerous thunderstorm days, weak conditions, strong conditions, high top of lift, low top of lift... all over hundreds of flights.

That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Well, you were trying to make some sort of point that a poster's flying record invalidated his point about safety, which isn't correct. It's not clear what point you are trying to make now. It seems to be who is the bigger a-hole. That's not a contest I'd really take much pride in finishing second.

My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.

Huh? Here is the direct quote of your "concern" from your original post:

"They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos."

I am at a total loss as to how or when your new concern emerged, but it is not what you originally posted. Furthermore, I have no idea how you now conclude that the big problem is "getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time". What small area? The sky? With 16-17,000' cloud bases? With tows spaced out over 1.5 to 2 hours? With early launches heading out on course immediately? At the same time? They were being launched one at a time, not at the same time. The spacing was average to greater than average given the tow cycle times at that altitude. Your argument has changed with each successive post. Each new argument gets harder and harder to decipher. Please explain what small area you are referring to and how that relates to the entire field being forced back to the airport (you original post) and why the size and shape of the airport is irrelevant to the entire field being force to return and land. Oh, and if the airport is irrelevant to your concern then what about the Nephi operation was a concern? You totally took a left turn into a new dimension on that one.

Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.

No, I read all of this quite carefully - particularly because your logic has been so tortured, inconsistent and, well, lacking. It takes an immense amount of focus and energy to try to figure out what point your are trying to make. Your latest comments lead me to conclude that I read your posts more carefully that you do, since you contradict your own prior statements.

9B

I tend to agree with Andy here.

I see an all too familiar pattern of people taking positions and having
heated personal debates that tend to miss the point.

So - applying some consulting skills:

I believe the original poster was of the opinion that the number of
contestants has a direct correlation with the relative safety of an
event. Various motivations for the perceived correlation were advanced.
Some relating to exogenous factors like weather and geography, and some
internals - predicting that behaviour will be influenced by the
competitive situation and lead to dangerous flying.

Unfortunately there is no way to directly test and disprove the thesis
(and the scientific method is that you can't prove a thesis - the best
you can say is that there is evidence to support the thesis and it has
not been proven wrong yet)

In most cases I see a lot of anecdotal evidence or opinions advanced to
prove or disprove a conclusion drawn from limited experience. One of the
big problems we have with this is misattribution - take an opinion or
speculative position and look for the first correlating fact we can
find.(never mind about whether there is any known / proven causal link)


So - I urge people to think a little before ascribing causal meaning to
things that merely correlate. Much more I wish people would discriminate
between
- a concern - that's a lot of people flying together, I hope nobody gets
hurt.
- a thesis - we postulate that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the number of contestants in any contest and the
risk per flying hour of an incident.
- speculation - I wonder if it is dangerous to fly in a group event with
more than 20 pilots participating?
- conjecture - there have been accidents at contests involving lots of
pilots so I conclude it is dangerous for lots of gliders to launch in a
short period of time.

A lot of the time people mix these all together, and it becomes very
difficult to work out what they actually think they are saying, let
alone what they meant...

Just saying - it might make things easier if we were more explicit about
things and think before we, for example, accidentally present
speculation as fact.

In that spirit, let me indulge in a little mind experimenting.

In my limited experience flying camps, contests and general stuff and as
a long time safety officer, I have observed the following:

Does the concentration of aircraft and activity in a relatively
constrained volume of airspace make for more danger from mid-air
collision , or ground collision or loss of control due to avoidance due
to the higher proximity?
My experience says the contrary. In a busy event there is a heightened
awareness of proximity and situational awareness tends to be excellent
due to the communication efforts of the organisers and participants. The
occasional mistake still happens, but from an accident history, I have
seen fewer incidents at busy events as opposed to the quiet days.
Similarly, it seems there is less danger when everyone is focussed on
the same thing, and generally on a similar task - so the combination of
bad task setting and concentration of participants might cause problems,
but in my experience the organisers do a good job of making
non-conflicting routes.

Does the absolute number of contestants correlate directly with risk? My
experience is that we each manage our risk according to our personal
comfort levels and capabilities. Busiest gaggle I have ever personally
been in had 36 gliders stacked in a 9,000" deep cylinder at the start.
Every time a tug dropped anyone - they would make a beeline for the
bottom of the "big" thermal. When they started crowding around at the
top, people started leaving. The very experienced pilots fought it out
to the top, but they would be doing the same if there were only 2 or 4
of them ...

We could go on for a long time - but enough to say that there is little
empirical evidence that the number of participants relates directly to
risk. What I have evidence of is, that for any particular facility and
available resources like tugs and ground crew - there is a point beyond
which risk will increase. If you are not leaving anywhere for a relight
landing, or there is nowhere safe to run out on the runway, or there are
points where aircraft will approach with significantly different tracks,
then you have to start doing something to manage the risk.

So -
I think you can find evidence where the organisation's failure to plan
or organise around the number of participants has resulted in accidents.
I think you will find evidence that failing to avoid conflicting flight
paths will result in increased danger. (It only takes two to make a
midair) and it is easy to find evidence that task setters avoid this.
It is easy to confirm that the general experience level and relative
safety maturity of the participants in such an event is well above
average. I could speculate that this is because the inexperienced wisely
elect to avoid them, or because they are more attractive to the
experienced pilot.
I think you will find evidence that "big" events are generally safer per
flying distance or time, than general operations.

The fact that there are lots of people flying lots of km over
consecutive days naturally concentrates the number of reported
incidents, but my conjecture (based on experience but not hard numbers)
is that it does so generally in a less than linear ratio to the same
group of pilots in general operations. So it is perhaps safe to assert a
thesis - I believe that there is a higher probability that an accident
or incident will occur during a contest because of the amount of flying,
but that on most meaningful metrics it is actually safer to fly in such
an event than to fly the same number of flights/cross country km and/or
time in general operations at the home field.

The sheer number of safely concluded contests is testimony to this - but
it is an unproven thesis.

So to come back to the OPs point.
If there were 20 more pilots competing at Nephi - would the statistical
probability of a reportable safety event increase?
Answer - of course it would, but probably in a diminishing ratio.

Would an accident at Nephi prove that the grid was too big and that the
accident would not have happened if the number (n) was limited to say 40?
Answer - Since it only takes one glider on one flight to have an
accident, and the number of accidents at any site is so small, it would
be practically impossible to make a statistically valid model that
supports this thesis except for the edge case where n=0.

More pertinently - would adding "n" additional aircraft to the grid
increase individual risk for the existing participants?
Answer - Personally I doubt it.(trivially it increases the risk for the
new participant)

Lastly - Is there a maximum number of pilots who can compete in an event
with guaranteed safety, and that you can prove that more than this
introduces risk?
Answer - Of course there is - the number is ZERO. Above that, the answer
is "It depends".

This winter weather is clearly getting to me...

Bruce --
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Originally Posted by BruceGreeff

I tend to agree with Andy here.

I see an all too familiar pattern of people taking positions and having
heated personal debates that tend to miss the point.

So - applying some consulting skills:

I believe the original poster was of the opinion that the number of
contestants has a direct correlation with the relative safety of an
event. Various motivations for the perceived correlation were advanced.
Some relating to exogenous factors like weather and geography, and some
internals - predicting that behaviour will be influenced by the
competitive situation and lead to dangerous flying.

Unfortunately there is no way to directly test and disprove the thesis
(and the scientific method is that you can't prove a thesis - the best
you can say is that there is evidence to support the thesis and it has
not been proven wrong yet)

In most cases I see a lot of anecdotal evidence or opinions advanced to
prove or disprove a conclusion drawn from limited experience. One of the
big problems we have with this is misattribution - take an opinion or
speculative position and look for the first correlating fact we can
find.(never mind about whether there is any known / proven causal link)


So - I urge people to think a little before ascribing causal meaning to
things that merely correlate. Much more I wish people would discriminate
between
- a concern - that's a lot of people flying together, I hope nobody gets
hurt.
- a thesis - we postulate that there is a statistically significant
correlation between the number of contestants in any contest and the
risk per flying hour of an incident.
- speculation - I wonder if it is dangerous to fly in a group event with
more than 20 pilots participating?
- conjecture - there have been accidents at contests involving lots of
pilots so I conclude it is dangerous for lots of gliders to launch in a
short period of time.

A lot of the time people mix these all together, and it becomes very
difficult to work out what they actually think they are saying, let
alone what they meant...

Just saying - it might make things easier if we were more explicit about
things and think before we, for example, accidentally present
speculation as fact.

In that spirit, let me indulge in a little mind experimenting.

In my limited experience flying camps, contests and general stuff and as
a long time safety officer, I have observed the following:

Does the concentration of aircraft and activity in a relatively
constrained volume of airspace make for more danger from mid-air
collision , or ground collision or loss of control due to avoidance due
to the higher proximity?
My experience says the contrary. In a busy event there is a heightened
awareness of proximity and situational awareness tends to be excellent
due to the communication efforts of the organisers and participants. The
occasional mistake still happens, but from an accident history, I have
seen fewer incidents at busy events as opposed to the quiet days.
Similarly, it seems there is less danger when everyone is focussed on
the same thing, and generally on a similar task - so the combination of
bad task setting and concentration of participants might cause problems,
but in my experience the organisers do a good job of making
non-conflicting routes.

Does the absolute number of contestants correlate directly with risk? My
experience is that we each manage our risk according to our personal
comfort levels and capabilities. Busiest gaggle I have ever personally
been in had 36 gliders stacked in a 9,000" deep cylinder at the start.
Every time a tug dropped anyone - they would make a beeline for the
bottom of the "big" thermal. When they started crowding around at the
top, people started leaving. The very experienced pilots fought it out
to the top, but they would be doing the same if there were only 2 or 4
of them ...

We could go on for a long time - but enough to say that there is little
empirical evidence that the number of participants relates directly to
risk. What I have evidence of is, that for any particular facility and
available resources like tugs and ground crew - there is a point beyond
which risk will increase. If you are not leaving anywhere for a relight
landing, or there is nowhere safe to run out on the runway, or there are
points where aircraft will approach with significantly different tracks,
then you have to start doing something to manage the risk.

So -
I think you can find evidence where the organisation's failure to plan
or organise around the number of participants has resulted in accidents.
I think you will find evidence that failing to avoid conflicting flight
paths will result in increased danger. (It only takes two to make a
midair) and it is easy to find evidence that task setters avoid this.
It is easy to confirm that the general experience level and relative
safety maturity of the participants in such an event is well above
average. I could speculate that this is because the inexperienced wisely
elect to avoid them, or because they are more attractive to the
experienced pilot.
I think you will find evidence that "big" events are generally safer per
flying distance or time, than general operations.

The fact that there are lots of people flying lots of km over
consecutive days naturally concentrates the number of reported
incidents, but my conjecture (based on experience but not hard numbers)
is that it does so generally in a less than linear ratio to the same
group of pilots in general operations. So it is perhaps safe to assert a
thesis - I believe that there is a higher probability that an accident
or incident will occur during a contest because of the amount of flying,
but that on most meaningful metrics it is actually safer to fly in such
an event than to fly the same number of flights/cross country km and/or
time in general operations at the home field.

The sheer number of safely concluded contests is testimony to this - but
it is an unproven thesis.

So to come back to the OPs point.
If there were 20 more pilots competing at Nephi - would the statistical
probability of a reportable safety event increase?
Answer - of course it would, but probably in a diminishing ratio.

Would an accident at Nephi prove that the grid was too big and that the
accident would not have happened if the number (n) was limited to say 40?
Answer - Since it only takes one glider on one flight to have an
accident, and the number of accidents at any site is so small, it would
be practically impossible to make a statistically valid model that
supports this thesis except for the edge case where n=0.

More pertinently - would adding "n" additional aircraft to the grid
increase individual risk for the existing participants?
Answer - Personally I doubt it.(trivially it increases the risk for the
new participant)

Lastly - Is there a maximum number of pilots who can compete in an event
with guaranteed safety, and that you can prove that more than this
introduces risk?
Answer - Of course there is - the number is ZERO. Above that, the answer
is "It depends".

This winter weather is clearly getting to me...

Bruce --
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Very sagacious Bruce. Lots of food for thought

:-)

The British/South African contingent at Nephi did not consider the OP to be an asshole. We think he is a ******!

Mike

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I never predicted fatalities. You are wrong and should correct that.

In your own words:

"I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality"

and

"All that I will say to all of these "feel good" responses is that I hope to God that I am wrong and this event will be perfectly safe."


Sounds like a prediction and a reinforcement of that prediction to me. If being wrong means a safe events what does being right mean when your prior post used the word "fatality"? Sheesh.

Neither of those statements are a prediction of a fatality. Sorry, you are the one making that interpretation. I cannot control what it "sounds like" to you. A "bad feeling" is EXACTLY that, a bad feeling, not a prediction.



The title of the thread is "When is too many at a glider meet" - I certainly asked the question and proffered my opinion that 60 is too many and 40 would be ok.

The only specific number you offered was 80 ("eight zero") and that was made up.

The number WAS NOT made up - it came from a member of their staff.


Have you actually flown this country? It is not only possible, it has happened.

I have flown large-scale Utah soaring events dozens of times (Parowan, Logan, Nephi - as well as Minden and Ely), including all but one of the Nephi events (I've never seen you at any of them) and no, it hasn't happened - I have never seen the capacity of Nephi (or anywhere else - though that wasn't the subject here) strained, despite numerous thunderstorm days, weak conditions, strong conditions, high top of lift, low top of lift... all over hundreds of flights.

Well, I HAVE! You just didn't fly on those days.


That poster's sole point was that I was an asshole. Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Well, you were trying to make some sort of point that a poster's flying record invalidated his point about safety, which isn't correct. It's not clear what point you are trying to make now. It seems to be who is the bigger a-hole. That's not a contest I'd really take much pride in finishing second..

Andy, you are hopeless. This whole thread has been nothing but a personal invective towards me. He was making a character statement about me, therefore HIS character becomes fair game.


My primary concern is getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time. The airport layout has NOTHING to do with this concern. You are missing the fundamental point I was making, along with most of the others.

Huh? Here is the direct quote of your "concern" from your original post:

"They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos."

I am at a total loss as to how or when your new concern emerged, but it is not what you originally posted. Furthermore, I have no idea how you now conclude that the big problem is "getting a large number of gliders airborne in a small area at the same time". What small area? The sky? With 16-17,000' cloud bases? With tows spaced out over 1.5 to 2 hours? With early launches heading out on course immediately? At the same time? They were being launched one at a time, not at the same time. The spacing was average to greater than average given the tow cycle times at that altitude. Your argument has changed with each successive post. Each new argument gets harder and harder to decipher. Please explain what small area you are referring to and how that relates to the entire field being forced back to the airport (you original post) and why the size and shape of the airport is irrelevant to the entire field being force to return and land. Oh, and if the airport is irrelevant to your concern then what about the Nephi operation was a concern? You totally took a left turn into a new dimension on that one.

My concern came 31 years ago after the Ephrata 15M nationals.


Most of the posters here had their ears shut off, including you.

No, I read all of this quite carefully - particularly because your logic has been so tortured, inconsistent and, well, lacking. It takes an immense amount of focus and energy to try to figure out what point your are trying to make. Your latest comments lead me to conclude that I read your posts more carefully that you do, since you contradict your own prior statements.


That is your opinion. As I told someone else, I will defend to the death the right for you to have an opinion, even if it is wrong. My interest is making these events safer, nothing more, nothing less. Too many gliders at a meet is unsafe, that is my point. Is that REALLY too hard to understand?

Best regards,
Tom

Doc? I need help! This thread is giving me flashbacks beyond-in-time even a
certain lurking Leonard, all the way back to middle school!!! (Did not! Did
too! Did NOT!! Did TOO!! etc.)

How about letting it go, Tom? Taking your most recent post-ending statement at
face value, i.e....

"My interest is making these events safer, nothing more, nothing less. Too
many gliders at a meet is unsafe, that is my point. Is that REALLY too hard to
understand?

"Best regards, Tom"

....and, further, having read and paid focused attention to this entire
revealing thread, IMO most serious posters did in fact understand the
question/point. I didn't see one poster who actually addressed the basic
question (as most have in some way or another), who did NOT seem to grasp and
address your question. The fact most (all?) of them seem to have a more
nuanced view than you seem to hold, and differing opinions, may be
disappointing to you, but it's one measure of reality. There comes a time
simply to deal with it and move on.

FWIW, it's my considered opinion that the response immediately below is
something I'd more likely expect to find in a middle school spat than between
respectful adults...and to be explicit, I found P3's and 9B's posts 100%
mutually respectful, even if you do not. Being forthright - blunt, if you will
- is not definitional disrespect. Nor is polite disagreement vilification. Sorry.


On 7/13/2015 1:46 PM, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:32:37 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 7:55:21 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

Major snip...

Andy, you are hopeless. This whole thread has been nothing but a personal
invective towards me. He was making a character statement about me,
therefore HIS character becomes fair game.

Wow. Not into "moral high ground," eh?

Respectfully,
Bob W.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 12:46:46 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

Tom,

I'm trying to help you out here, but it's gotten down to a level of hair-splitting that is really not very productive (I'm reminded of the famous "it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is"). Name-calling aside, the basic problem people had is that there was an assertion made as to the number of gliders at an event and the likely implications of that number. Both assertions were wrong - both in concept and in fact - and the tone was inflammatory.

First, the number was wrong. You represented the number then set aside your own responsibility for spreading bad info - even though the correct info was readily available in writing. That's your bad. If you'd just accepted the correction you'd have been fine, but you felt compelled to follow up with the "feel good" post which really came across as condescending and sour grapes.

Second, most people saw the use of the phrase "until there is a fatality" as an assertion of the likely outcome (why else would you write it?) - in my book that's a form of prediction and most everyone else saw it the same way. That's really inflammatory and accusatory in tone.

Third, you now have explained that you made a connection between bad outcomes at a Nationals 31 years ago and an XC event - based on the absolute number of gliders flying - but with little knowledge of the operations or the circumstances that might actually lead to some sort of bad outcome at Nephi. It's still not clear what specific risk scenario you were referring to, but several candidates have been alluded to (and some subsequently disavowed).. You initially referred to "chaos" resulting from bad weather and the fleet returning to the field - that sounds a lot like a relight/landing space concern, which was addressed. You later raised a concern about enroute collision potential (you paraphrased my comment on the subject), but the Flarm-mandatory provision of the event makes a dramatic difference here as well as when thermalling in the initial climb out, which I believe you raised in some post about launching into "small space".

The simple fact of the matter (and as has been demonstrated at countless glider events before and after the Ephrata Nationals), there is no single absolute number of gliders that represents an upper limit for safe operations across all locations under all conditions - it varies by side and due to different operational circumstances. Asserting a number for Nephi with little or no operational knowledge of the event really comes across as unreasonable.

Fourth, (this is the olive branch part) I don't think anyone has a problem with asking a question about the operations of an event and safety. It's good and healthy to discuss specifics of safety and safe operational practices. If you want to get down to real risk scenarios you get into a set of questions that need to be evaluated for a specific site, for the equipment being used (especially towplanes), for each phase of flight, in combination with all sorts of weather and other risk factors and with consideration for operational procedures that are designed to mitigate the risk. People want to fly at these great locations and we want to accommodate them within the bounds of safety and in ways that are economically reasonable for organizers.. That takes a careful assessment of the risk scenarios, not broad generalizations.

The problem people had with your post is not with whether organizers and participants should do the work to figure the risks out - we all want these things to be thought through in detail. The problem was the implication in your post that the Nephi guys hadn't done their homework or were ignoring good sense and that bad things were likely ("bad feeling") to happen as a result. It was pretty insulting and condescending in tone and as it turns out, wrong on the facts - both the numbers and in terms of being able to point to any specific risk that had not been considered and addressed. Your "bad feeling" was unfounded - both in terms of actual outcomes and in terms of any discernible operational issues related to having 60-plus gliders fly at Nephi. Yet you persisted, without reference to a consistent set of specific concerns. "Too many gliders" is not a specific concern. It is vague and unactionable operationally.

Honestly, you could have put it in much more constructive and less inflammatory terms - in the form of an actual question and some disclaimer that you didn't really know what operational steps had been taken to handle the capacity. You could have also been a lot more thoughtful in terms of handling the responses that made good-faith attempts to address your "bad feeling" - rather than dismiss them out of hand as "feel good" comments.

It's not an attempt to vilify you personally (the name-calling part is always a bit unfortunate), it's a response to the tone and content of what you wrote - initially and in follow-up.

That's all the energy I can put into this one. I've tried to be constructive and specific and not make it personal, despite some frustration.

All the best to anyone with the patience to read through all of this.

Andy
9B

Andy,
The 80 figure was given to me in good faith, and I repeated it as such. Could I have verified this number from a 2nd source? Sure, but the actual number isn't the crux of the matter. Would you feel any different about the Nephi operation if the number WAS 80? I doubt it. Are my concerns alleviated if I knew the actual number was 65? No. Anyway, we all agree the true number is 65. So let's JUST MOVE ON - this is beating a dead horse.

Bruce raised an interesting question: is a meet of 20 gliders inherently dangerous. The only meet that has no risk of a glider-glider mid-air is a meet of one. Raise it to two and now the risk is non-zero. Sound ridiculous? Hardly, two gliders flying out of Arlington, WA, had a mid-air resulting in one fatality. So as the number of gliders flying in the same airspace increases, so does the risk of a mid-air. That is just common sense that, I think, we can all agree on. The point of contention is that risk acceptable or not. That gets down to a judgment issue. Some people think that just because nothing bad happened there was no, or little, risk. That is just, simply, not true.

Bruce inspired me to do a little research. In my former life as a research engineer I always put a lot of effort into getting as much information on a particular subject before trying fashion a solution. So I started gathering data on glider-glider mid-airs (there are also a few glider-power mid-airs, but this is a different problem). Part of the problem of gathering this data is it is a bit tedious. The FAA ASRS database found no such incidents, so it is of no help whatsoever. The NTSB accident database is very limited in finding such incidents because a mid-air is not a searchable criteria. You basically have to look at EVERY reported accident involving gliders. I did, however, find some glider mid-airs by going thru the fatal glider accidents (I quit after 2007 due to lack of time). I found more such incidents by doing a Google search ("glider mid-air accident"). I came up with 13 glider-glider mid-airs (remember, this is not an exhaustive search) What was glaring about what I found was a disproportionate number of mid-airs involving contest flying; 11 of the 13. Contests represent perhaps 5% of total glider hours flown, yet a majority of mid-airs occur during contests. The World gliding contest is particularly bad (5 out of 13). If you calculate the number of mid-airs per 100,000 hours flown contest flying dwarfs other types of events on a risk-based assessment.

I also went to the Soaring Safety Foundation for guidance. I was stunned to find that the SSF has NO database whatsoever. This is a glaring deficiency on their part. I propose that the SSF create a database of ALL glider accidents that is searchable by all phases of glider flying. The Albuquerque Soaring Club did an excellent analysis of glider accidents in New Mexico (http://www..abqsoaring.org/misc_file...Accidents.doc). This level of analysis needs to be done on a national basis.

I feel strongly about safety and do not apologize for it. If I can prevent a SINGLE accident, fatal or otherwise, by my actions it is WORTH IT for the abuse I have taken here (and make no mistake: some people here have been extraordinary abusive, but I don't give a damn).

Best regards,
Tom

Are we there yet?

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 10:27:17 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Are we there yet?

i wonder if anyone knows what SMFH stands for...

this picture sums this thread up for me:

http://www.themachinestarts.com/arti...es/redditq.jpg