FLYING magazine safety article

My experience of the number of friends and aquaintences
killed in gliding accidents, compared to those lost
in road accidents, matches every one else's comments.
However it is worth remembering that whilst I will
almost certainly hear about anyone I have ever known
being killed in a glider, a road fatality to someone
I knew but didn't see regularly, may well never be
reported to me, so my perception that more people that
I know are killed in gliders than on the road may not
be entirely accurate.

Having said that I am, however, convinced that on a
fatalaties to hours ratio, flying gliders is much more
dangerous than driving.

At 23:48 11 June 2005, Bob Whelan wrote:
...
Eric Greenwell wrote...
Stewart Kissel wrote:
One thing that has always bothered me with comparing
the fatality rate of autos to gliders is....with
autos,
you got a pretty good chance of getting killed by
another
driver. In gliders, you are almost always responsible
for your own death. So I am not sure how valid the
accident comparison rate is between the two.

My interpretation is this: I've known (met, flown
with, talked to,
corresponded with, not just heard their name) ten
or more glider pilots
killed in glider accidents, but none that were killed
in a car accident
on their way to or from the airport; for that matter,
I can think of
only one pilot I knew that was killed in a car accident
anywhere.

For the record, my take is this. Anytime you go faster
than you're willing
to hit a brick wall, or higher than you're willing
to fall, you're opting
for life-threatening risks. For me, driving obviously
qualifies as the
former, and arguably as the latter if I manage to go
off a bridge or the
side of a mountain/mesa. Soaring obviously qualifies
as both each time I do
it.

Consequently each time I indulge in either I try to
maintain an active
awareness that each activity involves energies high
enough to easily kill
me. Personally, driving makes me more uneasy than
soaring for the reason
Stewart noted: many of the actively-life-threatening
risks are beyond my
direct control. Yet paradoxically, my driving-/soaring-acquaintan
ce 'death
stats' mirror Eric's (and Bruno Gantenbrink's) experiences.
Arguing about
(as distinct from discussing) 'which activity is safer'
strikes me as an
exercise in futility, because one can 'prove' whatever
they want and thus
it's an unending argument (well, at least until I die,
ha ha).

Acting with constant awareness that each activity contains
immediate
potential to suddenly kill me, combined with training,
continuing education
and good judgement is the best I can do. I've difficulty
imagining living
life without indulging in either activity, so that's
how I attempt to
control the risks of both (and any other activity I
must - or choose to -
indulge in). Makes sense to me!

Weenily,
Bob - still has all his fingers - Whelan

You guys are on a roll, here!

Please tell me, what on Earth does the relative accident rates of
driving vs. flying have to do with making gliding safer? In other
words, who cares?

Focus your intellectual energies on something that will make a
difference. Like telling a friend/acquaintance/stranger that they need
dual instruction after witnessing poor flying habits.

When flying, unlike driving, there is no cop up there that will pull
you over and write you up.

Flying becomes dangerous when you fly TOO LITTLE, not TOO MUCH!

Tom

I beg to differ, Tom.

We're pointing out in part what you are saying: Flying more SHOULD
make you safer. However, one of my friends killed last year commuted
from SoCal to Red Bluff weekly in his own aircraft, built, owned and
flew the highest time Glassair III out there, and was in an aircraft he
likely had 2,000 hours in when he met an untimely death. Yes, he was
tragically killed in a midair. He was a good pilot, with extensive
recent experience and exhibited good judgement whenever I saw him.

Those that insist on low passes (at least those executed with poor
judgement), yet fly MORE, are increasing the risk to themselves and
others. High time and frequent flyer pilots still make mistakes,
sometimes fatal. Look through the NTSB accident statistics.

There are many "cops" out there chastizing poor judgement, at least
that which has been observed. Yes, they lack the authority to yank
tickets -- even where it might save a life! And some "cops" have
refused service (e.g., tows -- I have refused to tow people before),
when they feel there is too much risk. Believe me, it is far more
difficult to tell somebody you won't give them a tow than it is to grit
your teeth, give them one more tow and hope for the best.

For some people out there, a BFR is not sufficient recurrent training.
It isn't enough for me, and I hold an ATP rating. Similarly, once a
lifetime is not sufficient for automobile drivers. Once every two
years, as I'm told is required in New Zeland after a certain age, might
be a good start -- for all drivers.

And there need to be more cops on the highways...and the ramps at
airports.

Respectfully,

-Pete

wrote:
You guys are on a roll, here!

Please tell me, what on Earth does the relative accident rates of
driving vs. flying have to do with making gliding safer? In other
words, who cares?

Focus your intellectual energies on something that will make a
difference. Like telling a friend/acquaintance/stranger that they need
dual instruction after witnessing poor flying habits.

When flying, unlike driving, there is no cop up there that will pull
you over and write you up.

Flying becomes dangerous when you fly TOO LITTLE, not TOO MUCH!

Tom

I'm not sure what you are taking exception with. The thread had
degenerated into arguing about what was more dangerous: flying or
driving. I can't think of a more irrelevent comparison.

Currency DOES make you a safer pilot: and you CAN look at the NTSB
reports as a verification of that obvious principal. The reports also
include accidents involving high time pilots. Make a mistake and it can
kill you, high time or not.

BTW: a mid-air does not necessarily mean poor judgement - that can just
be bad luck. Bad judgement means having all the facts at your disposal
and still making the wrong decision.

Tom

Ahh, but the comparison between driving and flying IS relevant! So
much is taught to new and old pilots by analogy, and driving is the
closest thing many have prior to getting in the cockpit.

The risk equations are the same (albeit with different factors or
gains): more speed means more "ouch," closer proximity to
terrain/another vehicle/a wall increases probability of impact. Don't
drive a car very often (currency) and your chances of getting into an
accident increase! Buy equipment you're not used to (that new
Leviathan SUV), and your chances similarly go up. Try to cut that
corner a little quick (stretch a glide???) and you increase the chance
of coming up short.

I'll agree you're correct on the other points: a midair can be just
bad luck, and currency CAN make you a better pilot. But we need to
remember, only perfect practice makes perfect. Proriciency vs. mere
currency? I suspect we're really agreeing with one another. Practice
nothing but zoomies (high speed passes) and you may not be "current" in
something more important at the necessary time. Look at zoomies that
result in gear up landings or (worse), injuries/fatalities.

I pay the CFIG "cop" to help me identify where I'm slipping. And I
agree with you, I'm not flying "enough," either.

Is it really stupid to argue which is safer, driving or flying? I
think it is a relevant comparison as people are taking issue with the
statement that the drive home is more dangerous than the flight...and
making some of us think about what we can do to reduce our personal
risks and (as you suggested), the risks our fellow pilots take.

Peace?

wrote:
I'm not sure what you are taking exception with. The thread had
degenerated into arguing about what was more dangerous: flying or
driving. I can't think of a more irrelevent comparison.

Tom

In article .com,
"309" wrote:

For some people out there, a BFR is not sufficient recurrent training.
It isn't enough for me, and I hold an ATP rating. Similarly, once a
lifetime is not sufficient for automobile drivers. Once every two
years, as I'm told is required in New Zeland after a certain age, might
be a good start -- for all drivers.

IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Bruce Hoult wrote:

IIRC, the current regulations here in NZ are that you have to renew your
license at age 75, and then at 80 and every two years after that.

My wife - who earns a living in gerontological research - recently
attended a seminar in Sydney where a NZ person stated that extensive
research showed there was no statistically significant difference in
acccident rates of older drivers between jurisdictions (worldwide,
including NZ) which proficiency tested older drivers and those which did
not. Accordingly (NZ being a rational country) it was proposed that
proficiency testing of older drivers would be abandoned and only medical
checks would be required.

The main policy problem to be sorted out before the change could be
implemented appeared to be what should be done with the redundant
examiners. I suppose they could be retrained as medical examiners...or
your gliding club could slip a free trial flight voucher into their last
pay packets...

Graeme Cant