Tom Knauff's newsletter

Tom,

I've not read your books and have just skimmed some of the posts. In
general I agree with some of your assertions. The stuff I agree with
would have me pulling out my FAR/AIM if/when I hop in a power plane
and fly in to areas where airspace, radio freq's and communication
issues are required. I believe that would fall under the FAR that all
pilots make themselves aware of all aspects of the flight they are
engaging in.

My main flying is done in the foothills of the Cascades, and then when
conditions allow, moving back into the cascades proper. Do you have
specific information written in any of your books about mountain
flying and what to do, not do...........etc?

I would suspect that given the variety of conditions a mountain
sailplane pilot can experience, might not have him worried much about
remembering what are the proper positions the controls must be in, but
more an instinctual and reflexive response/solution to the dynamics of
the situation at hand.

Cheers,
Brad

At 18:38 30 June 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
The glider pilot fatality rate is one of the highest of any activity.

I've been looking for accident statistics for gliding/soaring and
haven't
come across any formal studies. So the assertion above comes somthing
as
a
surprise and it would be greatly appreciated if you can provide the
location of any supporting data. I know of some cross-modal studies
that
indicate that helicopters appear to have a higher accident rate on a
per
mile and hour flown than fixed wing aircraft, and that motorcycles are
more
dangerous than general aviation flying, but gliders weren't split out
into
their own category in those studies.

Actually, cross-modal accident studies are, in general, hard to find
so
I'm
always curious to know the source of any such claims.

It's confusing to address relative safety as it relates to the 'sport'
as
opposed to the pilot. A glider, in and of itself, is neither dangerous
or
safe. It's only when you put a human pilot in it and launch it into
the
air
that the activity can become dangerous. One statistic that comes
through
loud and clear is that 99% of all glider accidents are pilot error.

So, I tend to agree with Tom Knauf. The safety issue almost entirely
involves pilot knowledge, skill and whether the pilot chooses to use
them
on
any particular flight. If you are to survive, you must accept that
it's
only your knowledge, skills and a determination to use them on every
flight
that will assure survival.

Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of rules.
One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother
Nature's
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to keep
you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and
She'll
kill you without mercy.

Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

Nyal Williams wrote:
At 18:38 30 June 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
Major snip
Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of rules.
One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother
Nature's
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to keep
you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and
She'll
kill you without mercy.

Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

Hmmm...

I suspect many more pilots would (still be a)live in the 100% absence of
pilot-error-induced fatalities than the 100% absence of
equipment-induced fatalities.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to prevent both in my flying!

Regards,
Bob - perfection is not an option - W.

At 22:31 30 June 2008, Bob Whelan wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
At 18:38 30 June 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:

Flying is highly Darwinian. As a pilot you must know two sets of
rules.

One
set is, of course, flying regulations. The other set is Mother
Nature's
laws - like gravity, weather and aerodynamics. Regulations are to
keep
you
safe. Mother Nature just wants to clean the gene pool. Cross Her and
She'll
kill you without mercy.

Bill Daniels
"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for
100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

Hmmm...

I suspect many more pilots would (still be a)live in the 100% absence of

pilot-error-induced fatalities than the 100% absence of
equipment-induced fatalities.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to prevent both in my flying!

Regards,
Bob - perfection is not an option - W.

Absolutely! But there are those who think that an excuse exists if it can
be blamed on equipment. While I'm blundering about I don't want my
equipment to fail me.

be blamed on equipment. *While I'm blundering about I don't want my
equipment to fail me.

This is exactly what "scares" me the most. Imagine aggresively
thermalling in front of a rock face, only to find out your elevator
circuit fails just as you start your turn away from the granite.
Wonder what the nattering nabobs of negativity in our club would say
about that one?

Brad

"Brad" wrote in message
...

be blamed on equipment. While I'm blundering about I don't want my
equipment to fail me.

This is exactly what "scares" me the most. Imagine aggresively
thermalling in front of a rock face, only to find out your elevator
circuit fails just as you start your turn away from the granite.
Wonder what the nattering nabobs of negativity in our club would say
about that one?

Brad

I'd bet that at least 99% of those who actually hit a cliff had perfectly
airworthy gliders one nanosecond before impact. It happens often enough
there's a name for it - CFIT. (Controlled Flight Into Terrain)

Yes, by all means, eliminate equipment failures. But if a pilot is among
the tiny minority destined to have an accident, there's a 99% probability
the cause will be the fabled "loose nut on the stick".

Bill Daniels
"Your most effective safety gear is located between your ears."

On 30 Jun, 12:34, wrote:

Examples of the questions include:

During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?

During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?

I believe you would all agree the test includes subject matter a
glider pilot should know.

Over the years, the average score by licensed pilots has been 37%.

But does that mean that pilots are holding the controls in the wrong
place while turning and looking at the wrong side of the towplane ...
or does it mean that they don't think about things in that way because
they don't need to think about things in that way?

Over here the Institute of Advanced Motorists runs advanced driving
tests, an important part of which is the narrative - a running
commentary on exactly what one is doing and why. However, the
statistics (ie the insurance company premiums) suggest that "advanced"
drivers are not "safer" drivers. Part of this may be that although
verbalising may be an interesting skill, it's not needed to drive
safely.

In an activity which is largely learned and trained reflexes - like
flying, driving, riding a bike or tap dancing - "doing" it is much
more important than being able to say exactly "what I'm doing".

Of course it's very useful for an instructor to be able to break down
the activities in order to work on faults, but it's a secondary skill
for the pupil.

Ian

PS I'd be interested to see the other questions - are they available
online?

In article Nyal Williams writes:

On reflection, I believe we would all want pilot error to account for 100%
of the accidents. This would remove those accidents attributable to
equipment flaws and would make flying that much safer.

And we blame pilot error when a preflight misses a part about to come
apart.

We blame lots of things on pilot error. The FAA seems to like to do
that, and we go along with it because it allows us to remind ourselves
that we are better, and we would not make those mistakes.

The folks who have had "pilot error" accidents almost certainly were
certain of the same thing.

I apologize (slightly) for putting this in .soaring, because it also
applies to powered flight. It also applies to driving. We think that
we are not going to make the same mistake. We become comfortable with
our new safety and that comfort leads to carelessness.


At 18:38 30 June 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:

"If you can avoid the really stupid mistakes, what's left is
manageable."

In many things this is probably true. In the air, there are too
many exceptions.

Alan

Examples of the questions include:

During a left turn on aero tow, which side of the towplane should the
glider pilot see?

A. Left side
B. Right Side
C. Both sides equally
D. Which side does not matter as long as the glider is not too high.

During a steep, continuous left hand turn, how are the controls held?

A. Left Aileron, right rudder, back stick
B. Left aileron, left rudder, back stick
C. Right aileron, right rudder, back stick
D. Right aileron, left rudder, back stick


First, I think Tom is mostly right, but I'll make a couple of points.

Look at the two questions above. I'd suggest that these questions are
both moot. On the first question I would have originally said A, but
this past weekend while on tow I realized that the angle is pretty small
and you can actually see both sides almost the same as long as the turn
isn't very sharp. But WHO CARES???? Just because I couldn't remember
this visual image with photographic memory doesn't make me a bad pilot
or an unaware pilot. I can certainly recognize when I'm out of position
laterally without having to ask myself if I'm looking at one side of the
towplane more than the other.

Same goes for the second question. I CAN make very steep coordinated
turns. I don't have to verbalize to myself what I need to do with the
controls in order to do it. It just happens. Again, not being able to
verbalize this doesn't make one a bad pilot.

Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't
plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS
prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

At 11:43 01 July 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
snips
Now, back to the original point. There ARE some number of people who
have mis-understood the rudder wag signal. Tom's solution is to blame
those people and he's mostly right. I'm not saying that there aren't

plenty of people flying today who couldn't pass the FAA written right
now, but IF (big IF) a different signal could be developed that was LESS

prone to confusion with the rock off signal we might keep a couple of
people from at least crashing, if not dying. IF the towpilot is giving
the rudder wag signal to someone, that gliderpilot is probably already
in a stressful situation because the tow isn't going well. True, they
should be more prepared, but if a different signal could be developed
that helped, wouldn't we all be better off?

Changing the signal, mandating radios, prohibiting tow pilots
from giving the appropriate signal until pattern altitude?
We only have 3 signals that the tow plane can give the glider
while on tow and each signal is easily distinguished from the
other. Let's quit making excuses for pilots who simply don't
consider it important enough to bother to know the tow signals.
Yes in many cases poor initial instruction and deficient flight
reviews contributes to their poor attitude regarding the signals.
But just ask anyone who routinely does field checks or flight
reviews particularly for transient pilots and they can tell you
how unimportant many glider pilots consider the tow signals.

If we want to reduce the accidents resulting from pilots not
knowing (not misinterpreting) the rudder wag. Examiners
need to routinely include all of the signals on flight tests,
instructors must always include all of the signals on tow
during training and flight reviews, and finally glider pilots
need to accept that they have a responsibility to know and
practice the signals. Otherwise are destined to continue seeing
pilots release from tow rather than simply closing their spoilers.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that apparently tow pilots
don't seem to have the same confusion about what signal to give
a spoiler open glider?

This is a golden opportunity for the Soaring Safety Foundation
to actually impact the accident rate. They should lobby to get
all signals on tow incorporrated into a specific task in all of the
Practical Test Standards for gliders.