Soaring not compatible with modern society?

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:16:37 PM UTC-6, wrote:
I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?

The problem with modern society is a lack of, or aversion to personal responsibility. It's alway "someone else's fault". In soaring, you have to accept the consequences of the choices you make. It is forced upon you. However you try and "tech it up", you still ultimately have to take responsibility for when you fly, where you fly, and how you fly. Those are all your decisions as a pilot, and you bear the consequences, both good and bad, for those choices. Too many people these days prefer to sit back on the couch and watch a screen of some sort where they don't have to deal with those consequences. So much of life these days is so protected in a shell, in an effort to shield against having to take responsibility for anything.

Well I think there is a simpler explanation. In the past
sailplanes were cheap and did not have "little engines", if you
flew cross country you sometimes ended up in a field.
Now it's very different: firstly sailplanes are vastly more
expensive and secondly many have those "little engines",
thirdly todays sailplanes are much heavier and land much
faster. Landing a Grunau Baby is not the same experience as
landing a Nimbus 4.
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?
The accident statistics clearly show how many field landing
accidents result in damage. I don't think it's anything to do
with personal risk; lots of people still rock climb, mountaineer,
sail, ski, sky-dive etc. They don't set off on each trip with the
expectation of a vast bill from their local repair shop!
Dave Walsh

This quote - it will go on my "best of RAS": "Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun." I'll keep it in mind as we conduct our pre-season safety meeting, as our main purpose is to not have someone die or be injured and not to break a lot of expensive, hard to replace equipment. I'll keep that in mind as we try to keep the our young line crew, our tow pilots, our instructors, our pilots and our passengers safe and have a successful season.

There are so many other things I could say here but I think I will treat this as one of the posts that there truly is no reasonable response to. My friends would tell me to not rise to this obvious bait but obviously this poster has cast that fly so perfectly into my pool that it got me.

Regards, Tom

There are SO many activities competing for one’s attention (and dollars) that it dilutes the pool of possible participants. Coupled with an expectation of immediate gratification (vs. waiting at the gliderport for CUs to pop) and a more solitary existence (staring at a mobile device while in a crowd) and you may be right.

On Saturday, 5 May 2018 20:01:36 UTC+8, Tom wrote:
This quote - it will go on my "best of RAS": "Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun." I'll keep it in mind as we conduct our pre-season safety meeting, as our main purpose is to not have someone die or be injured and not to break a lot of expensive, hard to replace equipment. I'll keep that in mind as we try to keep the our young line crew, our tow pilots, our instructors, our pilots and our passengers safe and have a successful season.

There are so many other things I could say here but I think I will treat this as one of the posts that there truly is no reasonable response to. My friends would tell me to not rise to this obvious bait but obviously this poster has cast that fly so perfectly into my pool that it got me.

Regards, Tom

My thoughts exactly!

Dave, Why do you speak of the "little engines" in a negative way? They are part of the way you can greatly reduce your risk of landing out. Yes, landing your expensive composite glider in a farmers field is "idiotic". I agree! I was a hang glider pilot for 35 years before taking up sailplanes. Many of us were. Every HG XC flight has a landout at the end, usually in some field. But HG are way less expensive, fold up easily and weigh ~75 lbs. So landouts are not much of a problem. Sort of like the Grunu Baby you mention, I imagine, without a trailer.
The big problem with entry into our sport is the huge amount of money required. Face it, this is a rich man's sport! Any young person with a desire to soar to the clouds these days can do so for just a few thousand dollars with a paraglider or hang glider. No license, no trailer, no crew required. For them, the choice has already been made by their financial situation. Sailplanes are in their distant future (maybe).

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 5:15:07 AM UTC-4, Dave Walsh wrote:
Well I think there is a simpler explanation. In the past
sailplanes were cheap and did not have "little engines", if you
flew cross country you sometimes ended up in a field.
Now it's very different: firstly sailplanes are vastly more
expensive and secondly many have those "little engines",
thirdly todays sailplanes are much heavier and land much
faster. Landing a Grunau Baby is not the same experience as
landing a Nimbus 4.
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?
The accident statistics clearly show how many field landing
accidents result in damage. I don't think it's anything to do
with personal risk; lots of people still rock climb, mountaineer,
sail, ski, sky-dive etc. They don't set off on each trip with the
expectation of a vast bill from their local repair shop!
Dave Walsh

Money being the barrier to enter the sport of soaring is complete bull****. Money is an easy scapegoat. We have hull insurance to cover the cost of replacing a broken glider. A tow costs less than a lift ticket and depending upon where you go sometimes a daily lift ticket is twice as expensive. On average, many people ski 10-15 times a yea'r. This is probably the number of times the average glider pilot will fly in a year. What about golf? Money st bicycles cost $3-8k. Look at the number of people racing stock cars at the local track. Most will drop $10-20k each year. No, sponsors don't pick up the tab at the local level. Look at the number of RVs on hecroad on any given day. A motor home costs more than a modern sailplane. Clubs are a cost effective watt I fly but they can be inconvenient. People with discressionary time have a lot of disposable cash. Most choose to spend it on activities other than flying a sailplane.

Soaring is not expensive. Soaring is inconvenient and has a very thin slice of conditions when it can be enjoyed. Landout s are an adventure and most great soaring stories revolve around some iteration of a landout. Off airport landings, even when safe, are inconvenient. As a society we abhor inconvenience and go to great length it avoid it. Little motors help avoid the inconvenience of landouts and finding towpilots or the inconvenience of paying our tow fees.

As the soaring population ages we also become more risk adverse. Electronic gadgets seem to make us feel better about taking risks. The aging population also wants more certainty so we rely upon gadgets to help reinforce our decisions of risk management.

In general I agree with Gregg's opinions and find them refreshing even if they only serve to spark debate and make us think a bit.

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:15:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?

This is one of the more "Idiotic" statements Ive seen on RAS. Do you have better suggestions on where to land out? Have farmers not created an inviting nuisance with their large flat and mostly unobstructed fields. Here's a newsflash, land outs are a part of the sport just like assembly, CAC checks, flat trailer tires, etc..
Keep us posted if you come up with a better option than farm fields.
Kirk
And to those who think soaring is expensive, it is. The question to ask; Is it worth it....

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 1:36:54 PM UTC-4, K m wrote:
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:15:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?

This is one of the more "Idiotic" statements Ive seen on RAS. Do you have better suggestions on where to land out? Have farmers not created an inviting nuisance with their large flat and mostly unobstructed fields. Here's a newsflash, land outs are a part of the sport just like assembly, CAC checks, flat trailer tires, etc..
Keep us posted if you come up with a better option than farm fields.
Kirk
And to those who think soaring is expensive, it is. The question to ask; Is it worth it....

I think he meant that pilots avoid landouts on farmer fields by investing the big money into motorized gliders, which (usually) allows them to motor away from a landout. One can also avoid landouts by staying close to airfields. Yes in many areas that means not flying the possible distance for the day. I had a non-roadworthy trailer and a hard-to-rig glider for a while, and suffered that fate. Now I fly farther in a glider with lower performance.

When I was flying my Nimbus4, I used airports as alternates. I really did not want to risk putting that bird anywhere and in over 400 hours, virtually all XC time, I never put it in a field, other than an airfield.


If you haven't priced a new glider, you might be surprised to find they are over $200K now. That is a lot of $ to put into a farmer's field of unknown hazards. Having said this, I did have a land out last summer on a "dryish" lake, but I really try to have landouts be at other airports.


On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 10:36:54 AM UTC-7, K m wrote:
On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 2:15:07 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
Landing into an unknown farmers field is idiotic, why would
you willingly strap multi thousands of $'s of carbon fibre to
your backside and choose to land in a field?

This is one of the more "Idiotic" statements Ive seen on RAS. Do you have better suggestions on where to land out? Have farmers not created an inviting nuisance with their large flat and mostly unobstructed fields. Here's a newsflash, land outs are a part of the sport just like assembly, CAC checks, flat trailer tires, etc..
Keep us posted if you come up with a better option than farm fields.
Kirk
And to those who think soaring is expensive, it is. The question to ask; Is it worth it....