New news Soaring is dangerous ?

R Barry wrote:
In the past 12 months I counted over 30 accidents involving RV's of
all types resulting in 11 fatalities in the USA. In the same period I
counted 23 accidents in gliders resulting in 7 fatalities in the USA.
NTSB accident web page was my source. I'm guessing there were more
total hours in glider operations than all RV operations in the same
period of time.

There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently flying in the
US, how many gliders are flying here?

Marc

"R Barry" wrote in message
m...
As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
Soaring?

Maybe because the NTSB site doesn't list all fatal accidents? I know of 2
fatal accidents this year and one last year which were never published. Go
figure.

Ramy

In article O4l6d.38447$He1.940@attbi_s01,
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

By example, I was surprised at the reaction I got recently when I said that
to be safe on a cross country, you must always be with gliding distance of a
known-safe landing site. And that site should be reachable at half your
best glide. The reaction could be summed up as, "Then nobody would go cross
country". That startled me.

Depends on where you're flying.

Here in NZ we have a variety of conditions.

At Omarama you don't even think of flying cross country unless you have
all the topdressing airstrips in your GPS (and on your map, though there
are plenty you'll never see if you try to find them using a map).

Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within glide
range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there are
a dozen others right next to it.

-- Bruce

In article ,
Mark Zivley wrote:

I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture #7 without a
visible wing stand. Perhaps it was a "balance, then run" shot...

In the big shot it looks as if there might be someone sitting in it.
And the wings aren't terribly level.

Just a windy day, I guess.

-- Bruce

Glider just landed, photo taken using a telephoto lens from a safe distance

Paul

Mark Zivley wrote:
I'm more interested in figuring out how he got picture #7 without a
visible wing stand. Perhaps it was a "balance, then run" shot...

Could also be that he used some of the same technology used to create
the moon landing on a large sound stage too.... :-)

R Barry wrote:

As we all know soaring has it's challenges and risks. So does
building & flying your own plane. Check out this link and read the
second paragraph for details on the danger facing us.
www.rv-8project.com/good_bye_to_soaring.htm
My question is if soaring is so dangerous why when you go to the NTSB
accident pages are their more fatalities in RV's in 1 year than in
Soaring?

I recently flew with a good friend of mine in his RV8.
This guy is the craziest pilot you will ever meet
(most UK pilots will know who I am talking about).

Let me be clear... This guy is the loosest pilot I
have ever met, and that is saying something. Despite
this, he gave me a pre-flight safety briefing on the
RV8.

When this guy takes the time to give you a safety briefing...
you listen.

My suggestion... if it's danger you are worried about
- DON'T SWAP YOUR GLIDER FOR AN RV8.


Cheers,

Ben.



At 06:30 29 September 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote:
R Barry wrote:
In the past 12 months I counted over 30 accidents
involving RV's of
all types resulting in 11 fatalities in the USA.
In the same period I
counted 23 accidents in gliders resulting in 7 fatalities
in the USA.
NTSB accident web page was my source. I'm guessing
there were more
total hours in glider operations than all RV operations
in the same
period of time.

There are apparently somewhere around 3000 RVs currently
flying in the
US, how many gliders are flying here?

Marc

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...

Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within glide
range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there are
a dozen others right next to it.

-- Bruce

That qualifies as 'known safe'.

Bill Daniels

In article FIy6d.44971$He1.4592@attbi_s01,
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...

Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within glide
range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there are
a dozen others right next to it.

That qualifies as 'known safe'.

In that case I put it to you that most if not all of the people who's
reactions surprised you probably took a different meaning from your
phrase "known safe" than you intended.

I think the above situation is good *enough*, and I expect most careful
glider pilots would too, but there is no way I'd describe it as "known
safe". It's very likely to be safe, but certainly not *known* in the
way that public airfield you've checked the NOTAMs for is "known safe".


There's a large paddock about 20 km from our glider field. It is nearly
100m wide and over 1000m long. I've landed out there several times and
in fact once a year or so our club takes students there for practising
landing over obstacles and circuits without familiar landmarks. But I
wouldn't describe even that as "known safe" unless I'd seen it
(preferably from the ground) very recently.

You could arrive at 500 or 1000 ft and find livestock on it, or very
long grass (e.g. shut up for hay), or temporary electric fences across
it.

Of course there are other good choices nearby, and you might choose to
land in the big one anyway even if there is a minor problem: certainly I
have landed at one end while cattle were grazing near the middle -- and
aerotowed out again after quietly shooing them right down to the far end
while waiting for the tow plane to arrive.

-- Bruce

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...
In article FIy6d.44971$He1.4592@attbi_s01,
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
...

Here in the North Island there's a lot of dairy farming. There are so
many paddocks (with an average size of about two football fields) that
are safe to land in that you don't need to know in advance which *one*
you'd use if you had to ... it's enough to know that you're within
glide
range (at half best L/D if you want though we seldom get that sort of
sink) of a farmed area. If one paddock doesn't look good then there
are
a dozen others right next to it.

That qualifies as 'known safe'.

In that case I put it to you that most if not all of the people who's
reactions surprised you probably took a different meaning from your
phrase "known safe" than you intended.

I think the above situation is good *enough*, and I expect most careful
glider pilots would too, but there is no way I'd describe it as "known
safe". It's very likely to be safe, but certainly not *known* in the
way that public airfield you've checked the NOTAMs for is "known safe".


There's a large paddock about 20 km from our glider field. It is nearly
100m wide and over 1000m long. I've landed out there several times and
in fact once a year or so our club takes students there for practising
landing over obstacles and circuits without familiar landmarks. But I
wouldn't describe even that as "known safe" unless I'd seen it
(preferably from the ground) very recently.

You could arrive at 500 or 1000 ft and find livestock on it, or very
long grass (e.g. shut up for hay), or temporary electric fences across
it.

Of course there are other good choices nearby, and you might choose to
land in the big one anyway even if there is a minor problem: certainly I
have landed at one end while cattle were grazing near the middle -- and
aerotowed out again after quietly shooing them right down to the far end
while waiting for the tow plane to arrive.

-- Bruce

Bruce, I think you're waffling but it's a good topic. If you have a good
knowledge of the farming practices of an area, there's an excellent chance
that a good field can be found when needed. I agree that there's a non-zero
chance of picking a bad field but the odds of success are very good.

I'm fortunate to fly on the western edge of North America's Great Plains
where there's a sharp transition from extremely landable prairie to high
mountains. To the west, even the valley floors are covered with rough sage
or cactus. To the east, vast wheat fields are landable most of the year.

Even though the plains are very landable, most long flights originating here
are flown over the mountains. There, knowing where you can land is vital.
If you have a database of 'known-safe' fields in your computer and marked on
the map, a mountain flight is much more relaxing and enjoyable.

I find that airstrips marked on the official maps are often unused and
overgrown with brush making them unusable. A visit to these strips on the
ground is the only way to insure they are landable. Just assuming a strip
is usable because it is shown on an aviation chart will lead to some nasty
surprises.

Today, most clubs have web sites. I wish all of them would create a page
with information and photos of landout sites in their area. A good example
is the Albuquerque Soaring Club in New Mexico. (www.abqsoaring.org) The
ASC is the number four ranking club in the world in OLC standing. I'm sure
that knowledge of good landing sites in their area contributed to their
excellent XC record.

Bill Daniels

Hi,

I wish all of them would create a page with information and photos of landout
sites in their area. A good example is the Albuquerque Soaring Club
in New Mexico. (www.abqsoaring.org)

A nice alpine example:

http://www.schaenissoaring.ch/aussen...ectedMenuID=40

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"When firing areas are active all air traffic is strongly
requested to avoid them"