When is too many at a glider meet

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

But actually you are achieving nothing other than alienating yourself from
your peers.

There is a risk with everything in life, and that is part of what makes it
fun.

Reading other posts on this thread its sounds like the organization of this
meet put on a very well run event, and in doing so mitigate a large portion
of that risk.....but not enough to stop it being darn good fun.

Out of interest...whats your stance on racing finishes?


Andy,
The 80 figure was given to me in good faith, and I repeated it as such.
Cou=
ld I have verified this number from a 2nd source? Sure, but the actual
numb=
er isn't the crux of the matter. Would you feel any different about the
Nep=
hi operation if the number WAS 80? I doubt it. Are my concerns alleviated
i=
f 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
da=
ngerous. The only meet that has no risk of a glider-glider mid-air is a
mee=
t of one. Raise it to two and now the risk is non-zero. Sound ridiculous?
H=
ardly, 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
incre=
ases, so does the risk of a mid-air. That is just common sense that, I
thin=
k, 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
becaus=
e nothing bad happened there was no, or little, risk. That is just,
simply,=
not true.=20

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
gatherin=
g data on glider-glider mid-airs (there are also a few glider-power
mid-air=
s, 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
acci=
dents (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
gli=
der-glider mid-airs (remember, this is not an exhaustive search) What was
g=
laring about what I found was a disproportionate number of mid-airs
involvi=
ng contest flying; 11 of the 13. Contests represent perhaps 5% of total
gli=
der hours flown, yet a majority of mid-airs occur during contests. The
Worl=
d gliding contest is particularly bad (5 out of 13). If you calculate the
n=
umber 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
acci=
dents that is searchable by all phases of glider flying. The Albuquerque
So=
aring Club did an excellent analysis of glider accidents in New Mexico
(www=
..abqsoaring.org/misc_files/NM_Glider_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
e=
xtraordinary abusive, but I don't give a damn).

Best regards,
Tom

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:19:11 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
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_files...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

If you search the NTSB with type "Glider" and keyword "mid air" 10 come up. Yeah, they are mostly at contests. Yeah, if you fly in crowded airspace you are more likely to hit something. Still, mid air collisions remain a rare event, we hope made rarer still by Flarm.