Safety against commercial pressure?

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:43:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I prefer to start this new thread rather than to pollute the original, related to the recent fatal Teton crash. I have some reservations concerning this posting:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec....w/UPoMSUMjBgAJ

"My hats off to the commercial pilots and CFI's out there that often times are the lifeblood of the glider operations. These operations depend on people walking in the door to buy a ride and the ride pilots many times take that ride on a day when the private owners, who can choose when they want to fly, would choose not to fly! These pilots fly those rides to pay the bills, to keep the customer happy, and damnit, it is business hours we are open. These pilots are unsung, but so very important. Very rarely, one of these experienced pilots comes up against a force they did not recognize in time. My heart goes out to the families of the lost and to the pilots whom safely fly rides everyday in most conditions many would not venture."

If "many would not venture" in some conditions, I very strongly doubt it to be sensible to give a joyride to an ignorant customer in those same conditions. Marginal conditions can be killers. Bowing to commercial pressure in these conditions is taking a big risk. I'm glad not every commercial operation takes this kind of risk.

I'm not saying that this was a factor in the Teton crash, I have no idea what the conditions were that day / at that location. It's the general idea of "It's normal to take risks if it's for the money" I find deeply disturbing.

Rides on unsoarable, overcast, stable days? Sure.
Rides on high wind, turbulent days? No way!

People seem to tolerate bumps on the first 500' of the climbout and last 500' of the landing if there is an hour of smooth zooming along the ridges in between. Especially if you warn them in advance and tell them it's only going to be for a minute. But not extended periods of getting banged about.

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 7:54:59 PM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:

Rides on unsoarable, overcast, stable days? Sure.
Rides on high wind, turbulent days? No way!

People seem to tolerate bumps on the first 500' of the climbout and last 500' of the landing if there is an hour of smooth zooming along the ridges in between. Especially if you warn them in advance and tell them it's only going to be for a minute. But not extended periods of getting banged about.

My busiest rides days (I am back to being private owner pilot now) were the days "red flag warnings for high winds and high profile vehicles". The place I flew from is just a few miles west of a mountain range and we can only takeoff to the west due to rope break options and several other factors. I have flown rides with 26 knot quartering downwind takeoffs. Do that ten times a day for a few weekends and it is not really a factor, other than it is still not fun. Plus we have the dirty air from the mountains behind use. At least no one falls a sleep on tow. Never had a passenger complain nor get sick, many were thrill seekers who would scream in joy at each bump. We had a ride, not flown by me, where there was a rope break and the pilot thought the best place to land was ahead with slight right turn into field. That ride (two people) waited for the 2-32 to be recovered via aero tow from field and took the full 5k ride. That ride pilot flew the tow out of the field and flew his passengers. How about stopping the BS on this thread and appreciating the hard work of these unsung pilots. I am so sorry we lost one I know how hard they work.

I seem to get a beating for attacking commercial pilots in general. Please read my first post carefully: the whole point is about the phrase "in conditions many would not venture".

According to Collins:

"If you venture somewhere, you go somewhere that might be dangerous. [literary]
People are afraid to venture out for fear of sniper attacks. Few Europeans who had ventured beyond the Himalayas had returned to tell the tale."

Every other meaning in the book also stresses the concept of taking a risk.

So, I inferred the poster meant that some commercial pilots, flying for commercial operators, take risks knowingly, more so than other sailplane pilots. That is what I find disturbing, especially if they do it when taking guests with them.

If the consensus is that nobody does it, and I understood the phrase wrong, it's OK with me.

I also clearly stated that I didn't want to relate this thread to the particular accident, having no details about the causes or conditions of the crash.

I replied in the other thread.

Life is risk.

I can't speak for other pilots or sites, but as I mentioned before, rides are 95% trying to give a great first impression. Poor weather does not do that.
Some pilots have to prove, "they are ACE of the base" and may do a full aerobatic routine to "Grandma". Not good. I have seen news peeps that did a ride and came back green......again, not good.
We, and a lot of other sites I know of, would rather turn someone away unhappy than give a "sporty ride".
Granted, I fly at a club now, but the same scale was used in the previous commercial operation.

There may be some that do anything for a dollar, they usually don't last.

Neither of my posts in this thread should be taken as a comment in the other thread. I don't know the pilot, operation, glider or weather.
I am only commenting on what some do/may do when giving rides.

And speaking of rules, we had hard rules at the last commercial
operation where I towed:Â* G-103 - 11 kts cross wind, 27 kts any
direction for ground operations, private owners - whatever they want as
long is the winds are within the prior limits and the tow pilot agreed
to do the tow.Â* I've seen many ride hopefuls turned away due to weather
conditions and never felt any pressure to fly if I did not feel comfortable.

On 6/14/2018 10:52 AM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
I replied in the other thread.

Life is risk.

I can't speak for other pilots or sites, but as I mentioned before, rides are 95% trying to give a great first impression. Poor weather does not do that.
Some pilots have to prove, "they are ACE of the base" and may do a full aerobatic routine to "Grandma". Not good. I have seen news peeps that did a ride and came back green......again, not good.
We, and a lot of other sites I know of, would rather turn someone away unhappy than give a "sporty ride".
Granted, I fly at a club now, but the same scale was used in the previous commercial operation.

There may be some that do anything for a dollar, they usually don't last.

Neither of my posts in this thread should be taken as a comment in the other thread. I don't know the pilot, operation, glider or weather.
I am only commenting on what some do/may do when giving rides.


--
Dan, 5J

Why on earth would you "infer" that commercial pilots take more risk!!!! As I said, before dropping shade on the line pilots, fly a year in their shoes! Commercial means you need a glider to sell rides in. If you brake them, end of commerce. These pilots fly all year long in conditions most private owners including myself, would prefer not to fly. On blowing east wind days, myself and the other privates stay home. The line pilots fly, and when I was a line pilot I flew. The line pilots including tow pilots are expected to not fly if the conditions are too much for their skills. I turned down only two rides, due to weather conditions and both times the owners were happy that I knew when conditions were pushing my skills. On one of those rides, one of the owners came to the office on his day off with the kids to fly the ride. NO ONE wants to break a glider.

We recently had a much beloved CFI/commercial/examiner... retire. When asked what she enjoyed most about retirement, she blurted out "Knowing I don't have to come to work on those blowing east wind days". So yeah, the line pilots fly everyday "in conditions many would not venture". These men and women do a great service to our sport. I for one appreciate their hard work.

Jonathan


On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 9:16:11 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I seem to get a beating for attacking commercial pilots in general. Please read my first post carefully: the whole point is about the phrase "in conditions many would not venture".

According to Collins:

"If you venture somewhere, you go somewhere that might be dangerous. [literary]
People are afraid to venture out for fear of sniper attacks. Few Europeans who had ventured beyond the Himalayas had returned to tell the tale."

Every other meaning in the book also stresses the concept of taking a risk.

So, I inferred the poster meant that some commercial pilots, flying for commercial operators, take risks knowingly, more so than other sailplane pilots. That is what I find disturbing, especially if they do it when taking guests with them.

If the consensus is that nobody does it, and I understood the phrase wrong, it's OK with me.

I also clearly stated that I didn't want to relate this thread to the particular accident, having no details about the causes or conditions of the crash.