Glider accident while filming commercial in 2011. NTSB Report updated

On Monday, June 24, 2013 6:11:53 PM UTC-6, waremark wrote:
I find it exceptionally unlikely that winch launching is an order of magnitude safer in Germany than the UK. Bill, would you be kind enough to write a succinct summary of your evidence with appropriate links in a form which is suitable for referring to the BGA Safety Committee?
__________________________________________________ ____

I already have - several times. At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking.

This is the last time I'll go through it. The numbers below are just too big to spin no matter how much you attack them. It doesn't' matter if you think it's 10:1 or "merely" 5:1 it's still ugly.

If one simply takes the BGA report supplied earlier in this thread which states there is one accident in the UK every 13,000 launches as true and compare it with the German BFU/DAeC data showing one accident in 180,000 launches you have a ratio of 13.8:1 in favor of Germany - well over an order of magnitude difference.

The German number of launches a year was from the DAeC report showing just under a million launches a year. The BFU shows 5 accidents in 2011. If you choose 900,000 German launches as a conservative number and divide by 5 you get 1 accident in 180,000 launches.

Hi Bill

"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "

"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help."

"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "
------------

I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.

As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.

Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.

From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf
“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “

That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:

“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”

For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).

I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.

What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.

Paul

Hi Bill

Just to pick up one other point. You said

"If one simply takes the BGA report supplied earlier in this thread which states there is one accident in the UK every 13,000 launches as true and compare it with the German BFU/DAeC data showing one accident in 180,000 launches you have a ratio of 13.8:1 in favor of Germany - well over an order of magnitude difference. "

I don't have all the data, as you clearly have, but others have expressed surprise about an apparent 10:1 difference in accident rates. So a little bit of a back of the envelope calculation to see if the ballpark is right. Whether accidents are reported equally, I don't know, but fatalities probably are.

From he http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/wi...n/message/9553

"Germany did 712,000 winch launches in 2009.... Only three accidents with 2 pilot fatalities occurred during the actual launch." So that's one fatality per 356,000 launches.

From the BGA stats I quoted in the previous post - UK fatalities 4 in 7 years, with 180K launches per year (from your earlier post). That's one fatality per 315K launches. And that's before we add back in the RAFGSA launches that Don mentioned.

Whilst in no way wishing to be complacent, that doesn't suggest to me that winch launching in Germany is currently an order of magnitude safer than in the UK.


Paul

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:13:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Hi Bill



"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "



"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help."



"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "

------------



I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.



As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.



Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.



From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf

“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “



That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:



“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”



For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).



I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.



What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.



Paul

You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to reduce the numbers. Be consistent.

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:43:34 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:13:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Hi Bill







"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "







"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help.."







"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "



------------







I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.







As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.







Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.







From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf



“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “







That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:







“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”







For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).







I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.







What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.







Paul



You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to reduce the numbers. Be consistent.

It is pretty certain that fatal accidents will be accurately recorded in all western countries, so this is definitely a good comparison and very interesting that the British and German numbers are quite similar.

The implication is that, while serious injury accidents occur at about the same rate, accidents that do not cause injury have a ten to fifteen times lower incidence in Germany than the rest of the world. I'm very skeptical of this. Perhaps another explanation is that dealing with the German bureaucracy is so complex and difficult that clubs don't report minor incidents to the national body at all?

From my own observations, there are a lot of minor and sometimes not-so-minor accidents that don't make the US database either.

Mike

Hi Bill

You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to reduce the numbers. Be consistent.

I am indeed - so that I can be consistent - it seems to me to be a better absolute measure of safety than a poorly defined 'accident'. I think fatal accidents are more likely to get recorded, and won't suffer from differential reporting. (It's also data I could find easily - and note that I only used fatal rather than serious because that was what the German number was.).. If these fatal accident numbers are correct(and I accept I only used one year from Germany, but it was a back of the envelope calculation), they really don't support the contention that winch launching is 10 times as safe in Germany as in the UK. Otherwise we have the proposition that only a 10th as many winch accidents in the UK end up fatal as in Germany - and that seems unlikely. I think different recording is more likely.

It is worth saying that (at least at my club) we're pretty rigorous about recording even relatively minor incidents, and these all end up on the BGA database. We do that, in part I suspect, because the BGA is not seen as a 'regulator' but something that we belong to. And because we've seen the success of initiatives such as the Safe Launching one.

Paul

At 14:47 25 June 2013, wrote:
Hi Bill

You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to
reduc=
e the numbers. Be consistent.

I am indeed - so that I can be consistent - it seems to me to be a better
a=
bsolute measure of safety than a poorly defined 'accident'. I think
fatal
=
accidents are more likely to get recorded, and won't suffer from
differenti=
al reporting. (It's also data I could find easily - and note that I only
u=
sed fatal rather than serious because that was what the German number
was.)=
.. If these fatal accident numbers are correct(and I accept I only used
one=
year from Germany, but it was a back of the envelope calculation), they
re=
ally don't support the contention that winch launching is 10 times as
safe
=
in Germany as in the UK. Otherwise we have the proposition that only a
10t=
h as many winch accidents in the UK end up fatal as in Germany - and that
s=
eems unlikely. I think different recording is more likely.

It is worth saying that (at least at my club) we're pretty rigorous about
r=
ecording even relatively minor incidents, and these all end up on the BGA
d=
atabase. We do that, in part I suspect, because the BGA is not seen as a
'=
regulator' but something that we belong to. And because we've seen the
suc=
cess of initiatives such as the Safe Launching one.

Paul


I believe that if we are really serious about improving safety then all
incidents should be reported if only because an incident was not an
accident due to pure luck in most cases. This then means that it is easier
to analyze what went wrong, simply because we can talk directly to the
pilots. This is obviously not possible following a fatal accident and
difficult after a serious injury one.
Based on this we can then make changes in the way we do things to try to
avoid accidents before they happen. I believe that this is generally the
approach adopted by the BGA.

In short I do not believe that winching, or aero towing for that matter are
inherently dangerous and most incidents and accidents are due to human
error.

Terry Walsh

From the little I have been able to ascertain.

The German system is very de-centralised - and federated.
If there is an accident or incident it is generally dealt with locally.
Apparently - Only serious events make it up the hierarchy to the LBA/DaEC.

I have seen more than one glider where the log book does not record what
in local terms would have been "Moderate" damage and would definitely
have been reported. But again it is not possible to generalise this to
current practice. These gliders are, in general, decades old. So the
reporting standards were different when this happened. From the
difference in national numbers, one can only deduce that the reporting
methods differ.

Any of our European friends able to comment?

Bruce



--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:13:44 AM UTC-4, Paul Ruskin wrote:
Hi Bill



"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "



"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help."



"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "

------------



I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.



As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.



Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.



From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf

“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “



That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:



“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”



For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).



I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.



What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.



Paul

Apologies for perhaps contributing to thread drift, but... I have to say I was favorably impressed at the rigor and standardized procedures with which winch operations were run at the UK operations I visited over the last few years. Business had me spending weekends in England, so I would seek out local gliding clubs and volunteered to work the launch point for several hours at a couple of locations. There was an obvious safety culture and a general awareness of the terms/terminology in the BGA Winch procedures manual (don't have it in front of me right now, so I may not be using the right name, but an impressive piece of work). Having also visited several winching ops in Germany and the Netherlands, I was actually struck by the quality of the UK procedures in comparison to those at the clubs on the Continent.

Highly subjective and completely unscientific, but I simply can't fathom an order-of-magnitude difference in outcomes given my very limited sample...

Hello Papa3, you wrote at 06.25.2013 20:31

Business had me spending weekends in England, so I would seek out
local gliding clubs and volunteered to work the launch point for
several hours at a couple of locations. There was an obvious safety
culture and a general awareness of the terms/terminology in the BGA
Winch procedures manual (don't have it in front of me right now, so I
may not be using the right name, but an impressive piece of work).

as highly subjective and completely unscientific as your words and
speaking just for my club here in northern Germany:

For safety reasons no one in our club would let any non-member of the
club volunteer at the launch point in any way.

regards
Werner