FLYING magazine safety article

In the May 2005 issue of Flying magazine (yes, I am behind in my
reading) there is an excellent article by Bruce Landsberg in the
SafetyPilot column. It is titled "Death in the Afternoon."

In the article Bruce talks about bullfighting, airshows, auto racing,
Roman gladiators, and others as examples of "sports" that offer the
hint, if not the real promise, of danger. These events are ritualized
public risk taking. Bruce also gives examples of private risk taking
like skydiving. Soaring would fit in there, too.

Some quotes:

From Nancy Lynn, airshow performer: "Danger and risk have to be taken
in the context of life. Take a risk if it enhances your life, but
have an exit strategy." and "It is inherently dangerous and the ground
is the final authority."

From the International Council of Air Shows: "Ships are safe in
harbor, but that is not what ships are built for."

From Bruce: "I understand the airshow pilot's motivation, but is has
no bearing on the risk of my next cross country trip. Like moths to
a flame, we are drawn to risk in varying degrees. It makes the beer
taste better in the evening."

I found the article quite interesting, especially for Flying magazine,
which mostly caters to people that dream of flying jets someday. By
acknowledging the reality of the human response to the thrill of risk
taking, it avoids the trap of saying "Don't do anything stupid," which
is the message of most safety talks. That message works in the
classroom, but not in the cockpit.
-Bob Korves

I've heard the "risk taking" thrill discussed with respect to
several activities, and I think it really is an individual thing. I
know that I hate being scared in a glider, and I try to minimize risk
while flying, especially in the cross-country mode. We've all had
that "wake up call" type of glide, and I don't enjoy it. What I
do enjoy, however, is the decision making process and the puzzle,
trying to speculate correctly, rather than guess, and using the "sure
thing" when it is available, as Bob Wander has discussed in one of
his books. This doesn't mean I don't land out, or goof up, but I
don't intentionally take a known big risk.
I think a number of people participate in what would be called "risk
sports" in spite of the risks, not because of them. While some rock
climbers enjoy the thrill of climbing difficult routes without a rope,
others enjoy doing them safely and enjoying that puzzle and the
mountain setting. I feel the same about gliding. I try to manage the
risks, and avoid that rush of adrenalin that comes when I don't like
the position I'm in. Every once in awhile I read this little tale by
pilot/author Bob Whelan, and that helps me keep things in perspective.
Read the question about "stretching a glide" (and he is married
now, so disregard that bachelor stuff):
http://soar.boulder.co.us/ssb_kissing.htm There is another gripping
tale in the New Zealand Gliding Kiwi about Terry Delore flying over a
canyon, at dusk, trying to find a place to land. It is another good
periodic read to keep things in perspective.
Some air show pilots love the low level aerobatic routine, other
aerobatic pilots use a high hard deck and don't worry about digging a
hole. I think the same concept is at work in all of these "risk
sports".
BH

Bill Hoadley wrote:
I've heard the "risk taking" thrill discussed with respect to
several activities, and I think it really is an individual thing. I
know that I hate being scared in a glider, and I try to minimize risk
while flying, especially in the cross-country mode. We've all had
that "wake up call" type of glide, and I don't enjoy it. What I
do enjoy, however, is the decision making process and the puzzle,
trying to speculate correctly, rather than guess, and using the "sure
thing" when it is available, as Bob Wander has discussed in one of
his books. This doesn't mean I don't land out, or goof up, but I
don't intentionally take a known big risk.
I think a number of people participate in what would be called "risk
sports" in spite of the risks, not because of them. While some rock
climbers enjoy the thrill of climbing difficult routes without a rope,
others enjoy doing them safely and enjoying that puzzle and the
mountain setting. I feel the same about gliding. I try to manage the
risks, and avoid that rush of adrenalin that comes when I don't like
the position I'm in. Every once in awhile I read this little tale by
pilot/author Bob Whelan, and that helps me keep things in perspective.
Read the question about "stretching a glide" (and he is married
now, so disregard that bachelor stuff):
http://soar.boulder.co.us/ssb_kissing.htm There is another gripping
tale in the New Zealand Gliding Kiwi about Terry Delore flying over a
canyon, at dusk, trying to find a place to land. It is another good
periodic read to keep things in perspective.
Some air show pilots love the low level aerobatic routine, other
aerobatic pilots use a high hard deck and don't worry about digging a
hole. I think the same concept is at work in all of these "risk
sports".
BH


When threads turn toward risk, I think it's always good to review
Bruno's thoughts on the subject ---

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

Bob Johnson

Bob Johnson wrote in
news:sH7qe.52588$gc6.31797@okepread04:

When threads turn toward risk, I think it's always good to review
Bruno's thoughts on the subject ---

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

Bob Johnson


Bruno's stuff is excellent. I recommend it to everyone.
-Bob Korves

When threads turn toward risk, I think it's always good to review
Bruno's thoughts on the subject ---

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

Bob Johnson


Bruno's stuff is excellent. I recommend it to everyone.
-Bob Korves

"What the other Bobs said!"

It's a slow, overcast, day and things are right for further ruminations on
"the safety topic."

For any who glanced at the link provided by Bill Hoadley earlier in this
thread, it originally was an article for our club's (Soaring Society of
Boulder) newsletter. Coincidentally, it was independently written about the
same time as Bruno Gantenbrink's excellent and thought-provoking talk was
given.

Reason for this note follows...

For the record, I agree in wholehearted principle with everything Bruno
included in his talk. Yet, paradoxically (and as perhaps an odd RAS reader
or two may know for certain: I didn't check before writing this note), I
*think* I have also included in book form the statement Bruno takes to
rightful task, i.e.: The most dangerous thing about soaring is the drive to
the airport.

If I did, you won't find a retraction here, because if I did I also included
a "hidden assumption" I include whenever I think (or write) about the
statement. Namely, "If you can control yourself, you can control most of
the life-threatening risks in the sport."

To me, the drive to the airport is risky because it necessarily involves
interaction with hundreds of other drivers who by the nature of driving can
be thought of as risks beyond your direct control. That's not to say you
can't - and should! - do any number of simple little things that go a long
way to mitigate those uncontrolled risks, but there's just a lot OF them.
And as an accident about 6 road miles from me yesterday afternoon suggests,
even your best efforts may not be enough. There was a fatality at the
intersection of 2 country roads, caused by the driver of one vehicle failing
to stop at a (the only) stop sign (on the smaller, intersecting road). In
this case it was one of his passengers who died, not anyone in the vehicle
he T-boned, but the driver of the hit vehicle could not have actively done
anything reasonable to prevent the crash since the vehicle that hit her
would have been invisible until the last moment due to terrain and visual
obstructions. That she and her passenger survived was a matter of luck (and
preparation - she was using her seat belt and her child was in a restrained
safety seat).

The nature of soaring also includes some risks beyond Joe Pilot's direct
control, but (in my opinion) they're a LOT less volumetrically dense than
those contained in driving. What's different about soaring risks under
DIRECT control of Joe Pilot is many of them have potential to kill him or
her dead each and every time the risks are disregarded, and it's this
disregard (whether active or passive) I had in mind when qualifying the
statement "The most dangerous thing about soaring is the drive to the
airport."

If in fact a soaring pilot tells an unsuspecting member of the public who
may express an interest in pursuing soaring, "The most dangerous thing about
soaring is the drive to the airport," WITHOUT further qualifying it, I agree
with Bruno Gantenbrink an active disservice has been perpetrated. IF the
qualification is included, then I think Bruno's point has been made, while
just coincidentally including the statement he takes to task.

Isn't language a wonderful thing?!? Language - like almost everything else
in life (including soaring) - is a double-edged sword. Use language
carefully. Soar carefully. Have fun!!!

Reflectively,

Bob Whelan

It's a slow, overcast, day and things are right for
further ruminations on
'the safety topic.'

U got that right, rain that feels like it will turn
to snow over on my side of the pile of rocks. So if
I understand your post Bob, then I agree with it.
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.

Stewart Kissel wrote:


U got that right, rain that feels like it will turn
to snow over on my side of the pile of rocks. So if
I understand your post Bob, then I agree with it.
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 interpertation is this: I've known (met, flown with, talked to,
corrsponded 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.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Various snipperinos...
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-acquaintance '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

"Bob Whelan" wrote in message
...
Various snipperinos...
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-acquaintance
'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


The thing these driving vs. flying safety discussions seem to miss is that
the average person drives 600 to 1000 hours per year whereas pilots fly less
than 100. Drivers are usually pretty good, or at least good enough to
survive simply because they practice it enough to be current whereas pilots
are often pretty rusty each time they fly. If we flew gliders as much as we
drive, the accident rate per hour would probably be much better than it is.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:


The thing these driving vs. flying safety discussions seem to miss is that
the average person drives 600 to 1000 hours per year whereas pilots fly less
than 100.

The average is around 12,000 miles per year in the USA. At 50 mph,
that's 240 hours; at 30, that's only 400 hours. Still more than the
usual glider pilot, but nothing like 600-1000.

Drivers are usually pretty good, or at least good enough to
survive simply because they practice it enough to be current whereas pilots
are often pretty rusty each time they fly. If we flew gliders as much as we
drive, the accident rate per hour would probably be much better than it is.

I agree, but the accidents per year would likely increase, and that is
what we go by: "number killed over the years".


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA