Does How a (Sailplane) Pilot Thinks, Matter?

Snip...

Of course, there are a minority of Darwin-affirming chuckleheads out there
that skew the statistics and make us all look bad.

Paul A. Jupiter, FL


"What Paul A. said." No matter what else you do as a pilot, do try to avoid
induction into the Chucklehead Hall of Fame.

Thanks to the all for today's thoughtful replies. It'd be really nifty if
others pondering sharing their thoughts did so, too, even if they violently
disagree (though it'd be additionally nifty if we can keep the disagreements
civil! [For the record, when used in the manner above, in my book
"chucklehead" is quite civil. ]).

Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.
By way of example (to indulge in a bit of ad-hominem humor), while I may or
may not care IF someone thinks I'm an idiot, I'm always genuinely curious WHY
they may think that way!

Considering "low saves," I began my "XC career" with a "hard-deck-based"
numerical guideline volunteered to me by my fight instructor. Over the years,
influenced both by increasing experience and "situational awareness," I
"en-fuzzed the number," coming to rely instead on a daily collage of factors
(e.g. terrain, currency, physical/mental state, local weather, etc.). Funnily
enough, I've found my instructor's number amazingly applicable to most
situations; once or twice I thought it FAR more aggressive than the situation
warranted (and flew accordingly, of course); and a few other times I've
intentionally scratched below "my instructor's hard deck." (Whether I climbed
out or landed isn't importance in the context of "safety," but kinda-sorta
related, I've found every time I've "gotten stuck down low" it takes a solid
30 minutes to dig myself out of the hole, no matter the minimum height agl. I
began tracking that once I began wondering just how costly-in-time it was!)

On the off chance lurkers may be reading and pondering on thoughts expressed
in this thread (and being thoughtful about soaring is almost always a good
thing!), in addition to the (Most Excellent!) links posted by T8 in the "Boy
Who Flew With Condors" thread, I'll offer one; it's dated on the personal
front, but has withstood the test of time on the soaring front.

http://soarboulder.org/index.php?opt...1&I temid=190

Bob W.

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:

Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.

snip

Great thread! Two thoughts:
1. First, with regards to "why" vs. "what", with every passing decade we learn more and more about how human brains work, and many of the discoveries reveal that what we have always THOUGHT just ain't so. For example, several studies (no, this isn't an April Fool joke!) have shown that risk-taking behavior is strongly affected by physiology. For example, you're more likely to take the risks of a low save if you happen to prefer spicy foods! (See http://www.nbcnews.com/health/your-l...udy-6C10851877) Maybe the 'chuckleheads' are unfortunately addicted to jalapenos . . . and just can't help it. And you simply can't 'un-teach' an individual's fundamental neurology.

2. Second, on the question of what is a proper 'safe' altitude for the XC pilot, the answer, I believe (based on 50+ years of soaring experience, including 35 as a CFI) is the famous "IT DEPENDS". Over an airport in the pattern? Over unlandable terrain? Over a large, flat, open field? In a 1-26? In an ASG-29? No wind or strong gusty wind? I strongly believe that teaching 'standard' numbers for such situations is a cop-out by instructors who're reverting to the simple teaching of rote (the lowest level of learning).

Jim, good point there. I have also agreed with the concept of teaching situational awareness and decision making over set and fast "numerology". I have found that using numerical guidelines is fine as a starting point in training but once a student has the basics of airmanship it is time to move on. I desire a student to be relatively comfortable without reference to an altimeter or an airspeed indicator.
This is not a popular or at least stated opinion amounst the cfi pools today but its not a radical stance and in fact, its a teaching methodology that prepares pilots for unexpected occurances. If you read any of Derrick Piggots training books you will see the same tact being expressed. Its an emphasis on what I would call "intuative airmanship". Old timers and detractors call it seat pants flying. I consider it essential stick n rudder skills.
Dan

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 5:26:50 AM UTC-6, Jim Kellett wrote:
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:48:59 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:

Of greater importance - thinks I - than "merely" WHAT a person's opinions are,
is WHY they are. So by all means, share that part, too! Because it's the "why"
bits that tend to drive formation, growth and development of the "what" bits.

snip

Great thread! Two thoughts:
1. First, with regards to "why" vs. "what", with every passing decade we learn more and more about how human brains work, and many of the discoveries reveal that what we have always THOUGHT just ain't so. For example, several studies (no, this isn't an April Fool joke!) have shown that risk-taking behavior is strongly affected by physiology. For example, you're more likely to take the risks of a low save if you happen to prefer spicy foods! (See http://www.nbcnews.com/health/your-l...udy-6C10851877) Maybe the 'chuckleheads' are unfortunately addicted to jalapenos . . . and just can't help it. And you simply can't 'un-teach' an individual's fundamental neurology.

2. Second, on the question of what is a proper 'safe' altitude for the XC pilot, the answer, I believe (based on 50+ years of soaring experience, including 35 as a CFI) is the famous "IT DEPENDS". Over an airport in the pattern? Over unlandable terrain? Over a large, flat, open field? In a 1-26? In an ASG-29? No wind or strong gusty wind? I strongly believe that teaching 'standard' numbers for such situations is a cop-out by instructors who're reverting to the simple teaching of rote (the lowest level of learning)..

What Jim says in 1. Discoveries regarding the brain are still happening. This study, published in June 2015, expands the knowledge of physiology related to the brain and body. Interesting that it was overlooked for so many years. Though the study relates to the physiology, it certainly opens the door to behavioral effects also in the sense of overall well-being, personal vulnerability, and attitude as part of the body's feedback loops.
http://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-r...nervous-system

I like spicy peppers and try and grow them annually. They do trigger physiological effects.

I've made some low saves from 400ft, but only where I've had the option to land, once rounding the turnpoint at the same time and field hopping on the sea breeze (UK) until I climbed out again. I believe I understand the risks. I've also bailed on low save attempts, especially after about 30 minutes where I felt the conditions and expended effort might lead to 'the mistake'. By conditions, I mean heat and undetected change in winds. 30 minutes seems to be my personal limit.

As part of the scoring team, I recall an early GPS trace (1993-1994) from a UK national's pilot thermalling at 250-450 agl for 35 minutes and getting away to complete the task, in an ASH-25. You can see where he did this by looking up Daventry, UK. It was just ESE of Bourough Hill. Plenty of landable fields, if they'd been harvested. IIRC, the contests in both years were held after the harvest was well underway.

Frank Whiteley