Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...

On Feb 11, 11:35*am, Marc wrote:
On Feb 10, 9:44*pm, Jim Wallis

wrote:
p.s. *A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. *I wouldn't
answer this if it weren't JJ asking * *because no matter what the answer,
I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
about fault or cause/effect. *So I trust all of you to be professional and
appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
opportunity.


If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. *For all you know, it
may be part of what he's checking...

Marc

Yes indeed. It's a very common tactic to test judgement.

For example, a CFIG knows of a safe land out field (guess how) but
suspects you don't. "Lets go over there", he says expecting you to
decline. You go and, after some panic on your part, wind up in the
CFIG's field. Your BFR just got more expensive as you listen to a
lecture on glide planning and judgement while waiting for the
retrieve. It may not happen on a BFR but there's a likelihood it will
on a certificate checkride. Beware, CFIG's and DPE's can be downright
devious

The risk for the GFIG is a 10 kt thermal lurking near the field.
"Wow", says the BFR candidate. "You're good - how did you know it
would be here?." So much for the judgement lesson.

Exactly. I absolutely endorse what Marc is pointing out. I am sure we all
know there are some classic accidents involving two-pilot interactions in a
cockpit. I personally felt we had good cockpit communication during the
flight but I'm certainly looking forward to exploring this aspect further.


- Jim







On point (1) above, I would consider it a serious mistake to assume
that anyone, no matter what their perceived experience level, can be
depended upon not to allow you to "fly into a potentially dangerous
situation". Keep in mind, during a BFR you are the PIC, not a student.
If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. For all you know, it
may be part of what he's checking...

Marc

I thought I had posted a reply to Marc's post, earlier, but for some reason
I don't see it. Of course, I completely agree with all of what you are
both saying.

- Jim






If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. =A0For all you know, it
may be part of what he's checking...

Marc

Yes indeed. It's a very common tactic to test judgement.

For example, a CFIG knows of a safe land out field (guess how) but
suspects you don't. "Lets go over there", he says expecting you to
decline. You go and, after some panic on your part, wind up in the
CFIG's field. Your BFR just got more expensive as you listen to a
lecture on glide planning and judgement while waiting for the
retrieve. It may not happen on a BFR but there's a likelihood it will
on a certificate checkride. Beware, CFIG's and DPE's can be downright
devious

The risk for the GFIG is a 10 kt thermal lurking near the field.
"Wow", says the BFR candidate. "You're good - how did you know it
would be here?." So much for the judgement lesson.

I completely agree with both of you.







If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a
BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. =A0For all you know, it
may be part of what he's checking...

Marc

Yes indeed. It's a very common tactic to test judgement.

For example, a CFIG knows of a safe land out field (guess how) but
suspects you don't. "Lets go over there", he says expecting you to
decline. You go and, after some panic on your part, wind up in the
CFIG's field. Your BFR just got more expensive as you listen to a
lecture on glide planning and judgement while waiting for the
retrieve. It may not happen on a BFR but there's a likelihood it will
on a certificate checkride. Beware, CFIG's and DPE's can be downright
devious

The risk for the GFIG is a 10 kt thermal lurking near the field.
"Wow", says the BFR candidate. "You're good - how did you know it
would be here?." So much for the judgement lesson.

Marc and Bill: I completely agree with both of you.

- Jim

Clearly this is not universal but my (life) insurer is perfectly happy
with me flying gliders, instructing, and occasionally doing some
regional contests. 0% loading on premiums.

The broker claimed to have checked their actuarial tables which
apparently show it is (cheaper to the insurer) for you to be flying the
glider than working on it or some other project using power tools in the
back yard.

YMMV - Different cohorts, countries, companies and cultures.

FWIW. we (South Africa) appear to have a relatively low claim rate - the
last few years have seen a higher than average but still less than one
fatality per year. Sounds good until you figure there are only ~500
active pilots...

Oh - and we have a formal club structure, with a mandatory safety
officer per club and annual safety seminars. Nothing like an active peer
review system to keep things within bounds. Been running that way for
decades.

On 2012/02/11 7:44 AM, Jim Wallis wrote:
Kudos to Matt Michael for moving the discussion on to the bigger picture.
I would add that I had just came from the SSA convention and, before that,
the PASCO safety seminar in November. Jeffrey was at the Convention, at
least, so I think it would be fair to say that both of us started the day
focused upon having a safe flight. Not only is Jeffrey a highly
experienced pilot, but there was nothing about the flight (a simple BFR)
that would tempt either of us into pushing the envelope.

I have been very intrigued with Richard Carlson's descriptions of the
"culture of safety" idea. Spent some time chatting with him about it at
the PASCO meeting and also attended the safety presentation at the SSA
convention. If it is possible to eventually use this incident as a
springboard to improving the safety of our sport then I fully support that.


To be honest, I'm not certain there is anything particularly special about
this landout - I've since heard of two others in this general vicinity
which have passed with little attention. On the other hand, nothing quite
captures your attention like landing on a ski slope - so perhaps that will
"sell" a little more safety to the soaring community.

- Jim

p.s. A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. I wouldn't
answer this if it weren't JJ asking because no matter what the answer,
I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication
about fault or cause/effect. So I trust all of you to be professional and
appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into
a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured
nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency
opportunity.

Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was
not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck
of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing!

Yeah. I passed.

p.p.s. And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy:
Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something -
that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. Shop it around some
more. There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost.


Incidentally, on Monday I heard the President of the trade association for
California ski resorts assert on the radio that skiing was "inherently
dangerous". This is true. While I was waiting on the slope to help with
the retrieve there were two separate life flight helicopter missions to
Heavenly for skiers who were seriously injured by skiing just in the course
of a couple of hours. Yet no one in the ski industry is calling for
additional safety training or safety precautions - to the contrary, the
reason for his interview was that he was RESISTING outside suggestions for
additional safety tools...

Flying is not inherently dangerous. The reason for the attention to safety
you are seeing in soaring now is precisely because we have so many people
who are absolutely willing to set aside personal interest and step up to
the plate when they see a problem.

Welcome to the sport. There is no other like it.


--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57