If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...
(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message om... (Tom Seim) wrote in message . com... Clearly, the sport would be better off if some of the pilots did this. Cheer up, Lennie the Lurker did! Yes, Lennie did. but, just so you know who didn't, the one that the most commom comment I heard was "that guy has no business in a cockpit" has his license and is still in the air with everyone else. Lennie also witnessed his first two airplane crashes at age 16, the third one while soaring, and has no appetite to witness any more. Lennie was also standing on the ground watching all three of them. (Just to stop the word twisters before they open their mouths.) I didn't reach retirement age by taking chances, otherwise called pushing the edges. When I sold my plane, there were no patches on it. Now that More Experienced People are flying it, the right wing has patches on it. And in this respect, your actions are exemplary. There are others out there that have not yet reached this conclusion that should. A bit of snippage might make your comments clearer, such as, which actions, stopping flying, standing on the ground, or not pushing the edges? Which conclusions? That I choose not to be in the same airspace with the one mentioned first, that I don't want to see any more crashes, or not take chances? The first crash, two dead, one survivor, drove home the consequences quite nicely. one does not forget that. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Tom,
Perhaps I misread your comments. I thought you were saying the accident involved a higher degree of pilot proficency. My point in posting was to alert the readers of RAS to the potential dangers of early flights in a new bird, first flight after taking the winter off and flying at a new site soaring requires a higher degree of pilot proficiency than powered flight does. Nothing is going to change that, although technology might help to a small degree, i.e. collision avoidance devices. Most accidents, however, don't involve this (like the fatality at Air Sailing). JJ Sinclair |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Shirley,
I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field. One of my biggest concerns as a former instructor was pilots who so intently focused on getting back to the home runway that they would fly over very safe fields - getting way too low in the process. IMHO instructors just don't practice enough off-airport landings with new cross country pilots. We leave it to the pilots to learn this skill on their own....If a pilot (of any experience level) is too worried about trying to land in a reasonably safe off-airport field and insists on streaching it to get back to the home runway they are asking for trouble! I understand the fear of damaging one's sailplane in an off-field landing - it happens. But I would rather risk dinging my sailplane than to risk serious injury trying to it stretch getting home. I have made over a dozen outlandings within 2 miles of my "home" runway as a result of my belief! I know nothing of the details about the accident at Air Sailing. Never-the-less I would be willing to speculate that, even knowing the terrain around Air Sailing, had an average 500 hour pilot elected to land "straight ahead" after the low altitude rope break, he or she most likely would have walked away from the landing. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Shirley wrote:
wrote: I agree with JJ. A total of 500 hours is pretty low time to be soaring in strong weather conditions at a high density altitude airport with few reasonably safe landable areas near the home field. But he hadn't even LEFT the field yet. I'm not arguing with you, but I am curious to know ... what do you define "strong weather conditions" and "a high density altitude airport" where a 500-hr pilot shouldn't be flying?? And at what point, hour-wise, would you say a person would be qualified to fly in same? Isn't it difficult to put a number to it, there are *so many* variables. It may be that you have accomplished 500 hours in a 30:1 glider, and in a place with very mild conditions. If you then go directly to an ASW 20 which is a racer, which accelerates a lot and requires fine control, and at the same time do that in a place with rotors, this is for sure putting yourself in a delicate situation... Otherwise, i myself began in a place with frequent rotors, Montpellier. Of course people were kind enough to send me solo in a single seater a fine day. But soon after i was flying with strong conditions, and it was the same for my fellows. As for plastic gliders, i was flying a Pegase with less than 100 hours, and this was nothing exceptional, on the contrary. Requiring 500 hours to fly a performing glider in strong conditions is next to insane. At least here i have never heard in many years such an assertion, and in practice, in all reasonable clubs in France, and i am sure in Germany also, young people are frequently able to fly Pegases or the equivalent in far less than 100 hours. Perhaps older people need some more, but this is not a general rule. --Shirley -- Michel TALON |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
A bit of snippage might make your comments clearer, such as, which
actions, stopping flying, standing on the ground, or not pushing the edges? Which conclusions? That I choose not to be in the same airspace with the one mentioned first, that I don't want to see any more crashes, or not take chances? The first crash, two dead, one survivor, drove home the consequences quite nicely. one does not forget that. For whatever reasons you removed yourself from an active pilot status. You have alluded to safety margins below your personal minimums. This is indicative of a pilot recognizing their limitations. I don't think that you witnessed a tragedy and then had a vision, totally out of the blue, that the sport was dangerous beyond your expectations. I think your doubts were there all along and the accident merely forced you into admitting what you were always thinking in the back of your mind. As always, these are my opinions and your conclusions may differ. Tom |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Johnson wrote:
Hi Mot -- Could you give us your critique of the Gantenbrink essay? Does it cover most of the bases for you, or do you have further concerns? From the standpoint of a low time pilot the essay (and the other material on the DG/LS Safety site) may not be quite the all-purpose material I thought it was. Thanks, Bob Johnson Hi Bob, As a very low time pilot (13hrs glider, 11 aeroplane, soloed in both) I found the DG Safety info and the essay useful reading. Its often said that "you don't know what you don't know" and as a newbie I'm critically aware of the volumes of theory and hours of practice that I need to acquire. It seems to me (from what little I've read so far) that safety is an issue closely intertwined with Airmanship and Human Factors. Fortunately, on the theory side there are many volumes written that I can read, learn from and discuss. Reading r.a.s is (mostly) an enlightening and sometimes a very sobering experience. Compared to the pioneers of this sport, I'm able to learn from the experience of others. I've yet to being my formal training for the NZ "QGP" rating but am looking forward to the theory and discussion with our club's instructors. The Vector magazine published by CAA here in NZ has recently had a series on airmanship following the catch-phrase "Detect - Determine - Decide - Discipline - Do". I found the following comment in the Jul/Aug 2003 article on very useful: "There is a simple strategy that you can can use to improve your level of discipline - pretend that every flight you do is a check flight..." I love flying (well except for the long haul 24hrs in the back of a 747 from Auckland to London via LAX). However, I love my wife and son immeasurably more and they need to *know* that every time I leave for the airfield in the morning, I'll be back in one piece in the evening. Therefore its my duty to learn about and know the hazards, eliminate risk where possible, minimise those risks I have no control over and maintain the discipline of good airmanship at all times. Best regards, Neil -- Neil Allison, Christchurch, NZ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
insurance for Sport Pilots! | Cub Driver | Piloting | 4 | September 11th 04 01:14 AM |
Soaring, a non-communal sport. | plasticguy | Soaring | 2 | April 16th 04 05:39 AM |
Mid-Air at Turf Soaring | Herbert Kilian | Soaring | 7 | January 2nd 04 11:26 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Will US Sport Pilot be insurable? | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 12 | November 29th 03 03:57 AM |