SAFETY ALERT

Hang in there, Cookie. It's refreshing to hear someone defend the position
of taking responsibility for one's self.

Folks who routinely do low passes are the same who would say, "Here, hold my
beer and watch this". You know who you are. I used to be one of them
until, one day, I realized everyone could watch me kill myself and, maybe,
someone else. There's a commercial operation I know of (and I won't give
any hints) that routinely does a low pass after every flight with a *paying*
customer in the front seat. They haven't killed anyone *yet*...

Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek the
information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then ignore
the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and none of
us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're flying club
equipment).


"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
...
On 8/23/2011 6:00 AM, Cookie wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:44 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:





On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:

On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, wrote:
On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, wrote:

On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ
wrote:

OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions would
you
take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
JJ

Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they have
already happened......unless I get a time machine.

But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures, which
is
simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.

So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the
"low
pass" incident.

Solution: Don't do low passes!

JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
accident free due to low passes.....

If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long
version
if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...

Cookie

Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding people
the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind people
the
risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the same
mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a rock
and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all try to
learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
ourself.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
dangerous?

So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".

I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
some degree of intellegence and common sense.

Cookie

Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might
see
the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.

Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
some local common sense.

It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,

If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.

I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.

If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.

But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
placing the blame other then where it belongs....

"If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
would not be dead"

Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
prevention......etc.

OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!

Cookie

You need to get around more. Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
officer. Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......

If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful for
them to get some regular input from the SSA?

If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail alerts?

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike....

If the safety information is not available from one or two of the
sources I mentioned...it is available from the other 10 or so I
mentioned and the other 20 or so I did not mention....

Any reasonable pilot can get all the safety infromation he cares to
get.....

Any idiot can put he blinders on and be ignorant, no natter how many
"safety alerts" you post, or publish or mail to them...

But hey...if you think we need a "safety alert system" whenever there
a rash of accidents....go for it....

Cookie

You are right. Anyone who is interested in safety can get the necessary
information from multiple sources. These guys are not the problem.

The pilots who are the problem are the ones who aren't looking for safety
information and don't have anyone they interact with on a regular basis
who are pushing a safety message.

--
Mike Schumann

On 8/23/2011 11:39 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Hang in there, Cookie. It's refreshing to hear someone defend the
position of taking responsibility for one's self.

Folks who routinely do low passes are the same who would say, "Here,
hold my beer and watch this". You know who you are. I used to be one of
them until, one day, I realized everyone could watch me kill myself and,
maybe, someone else. There's a commercial operation I know of (and I
won't give any hints) that routinely does a low pass after every flight
with a *paying* customer in the front seat. They haven't killed anyone
*yet*...

Those of us who are concerned with safety will act accordingly and seek
the information we need. The others will simply nod their heads and then
ignore the message. The only way to make them safe is to ground them and
none of us have the authority nor the right to do that (unless they're
flying club equipment).


"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
...
On 8/23/2011 6:00 AM, Cookie wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:44 am, Mike
wrote:
On 8/22/2011 9:32 PM, Cookie wrote:





On Aug 22, 10:04 pm, Mike
wrote:
On 8/22/2011 7:50 PM, Cookie wrote:

On Aug 22, 8:33 pm, wrote:
On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, wrote:

On Aug 22, 9:44 am, JJ wrote:

OK Cookie, you don't like my Safety Alert idea. What actions
would you
take to counter the recent rash of soaring accidents?
JJ

Well I can't counter the recent rash of accidents because they
have
already happened......unless I get a time machine.

But I can point out actions to prevent pilots form repeting those
errors. Most pilots are already doing preventitive measures,
which is
simply a part of being a pilot and taking responsibility.

So lets take the recent incidents one by one, starting with the
"low
pass" incident.

Solution: Don't do low passes!

JJ, that is the short answer and sums it up....and insures 100%
accident free due to low passes.....

If you don't understand this answer....I can give you the long
version
if you wish. Or we can move on the another incident...

Cookie

Cookie, isn't this exactly what JJ was suggesting?? Reminding
people
the dangers of low pass so they will avoid doing this?
Same goes for the rudder signal, low rope break etc. Remind
people the
risks and consequences so hopefully someone else will avoid the
same
mistake. There are still many pilots out there who live under a
rock
and believe that soaring is safer than driving to the airport.
The SSF and the rest of us should discuss accidents so we all
try to
learn something and remind ourself of the many ways we can kill
ourself.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ramy do you really need "reminding" to realize that low passes are
dangerous?

So a guy gets killed doing a low pass....Do you need the SSA, FAA,
NTSB, and whoever else to tell you "Don't do that".

I mean really, we are supposedly trained, experienced pilots..with
some degree of intellegence and common sense.

Cookie

Obviously some us are not properly trained or don't have a certain
degree of intelligence or common sense. Some of these people might
see
the light with a timely reminder. Many won't.

Also some fellow club members might wake up to the fact that one of
these days one of these stunts is going to involve an innocent
bystander. A reminder might motivate them to speak up and establish
some local common sense.

It might not help, but how can reminding people of the obvious hurt?

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,

If there are that many stupid people out there flying (and I am
starting to think there are)..accident rates will not get better. I
think statistics show that accident rates for glider have been fairly
constant in the long run, with some good years and some bad years.

I "remind" myself...every time I fly, and even when I'm not flying.

If others need reminding, of the blatently obvious...OK remind them.

But my objection is to the knee jerk reaction to a fatality, and then
placing the blame other then where it belongs....

"If only the SSA would have released a safety bulletin then joe pilot
would not be dead"

Every club I know of has a "safety officer"...every club has "safety
meetings"...every club I know of has a "safety' section at the club
meetings....every instructor I know has a #1 concern for
safety...every gliding textbook I have ever read deals with safety to
some degree....every flight review is centered on safety....every
field check out is safety oriented....every prospective new club
member is examined as to safety....the SAA has published a safety
column as long as I can remember....NTSB publishes accident
reports...any number of pilot publications have an accident report
section and numerous safety articles....numerous books have been
published dealing specifically with soaring safety and accident
prevention......etc.

OK, so now we need "safety alerts"...go for it ...you're right it
couldn't hurt..........but will it address the problem? I dunno!

Cookie

You need to get around more. Every soaring club does NOT have a safety
officer. Every club does NOT have safety meetings.......

If you have club members who are not getting drilled with safety
messages daily by there fellow local members, wouldn't it be helpful
for
them to get some regular input from the SSA?

If these safety reminders are completely ineffective, why is the FAA
putting so much effort into their wings program and other e-mail
alerts?

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike....

If the safety information is not available from one or two of the
sources I mentioned...it is available from the other 10 or so I
mentioned and the other 20 or so I did not mention....

Any reasonable pilot can get all the safety infromation he cares to
get.....

Any idiot can put he blinders on and be ignorant, no natter how many
"safety alerts" you post, or publish or mail to them...

But hey...if you think we need a "safety alert system" whenever there
a rash of accidents....go for it....

Cookie

You are right. Anyone who is interested in safety can get the
necessary information from multiple sources. These guys are not the
problem.

The pilots who are the problem are the ones who aren't looking for
safety information and don't have anyone they interact with on a
regular basis who are pushing a safety message.

--
Mike Schumann

There are a lot of people who see something unsafe happening and don't
speak up. Whether they assume that the other party already knows about
it, or they don't think it's any of their business, or they are
concerned about sounding like a know it all.....

That's part of the culture that needs to change. Everyone needs to
speak up when they see something that doesn't look right. Often the
message may be a false alarm or ignored, but every now and then it might
save someone's life.

--
Mike Schumann

On Aug 23, 6:41*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!

Cookie

You just don't get it, do you Cookie................We're not talking
about BLAME, we're talking about PREVENTION
JJ

JJ, I am afraid he really doesn't get it. If the subject wasn't a
sobering one, and if he didn't occasionaly write a sensible sentence
or two, I would consider him a troll.
Cookie, we are not here to put blames. You are the one who put blames.
Your attitude is that all those who get killed must be idiots and/or
clueless, and as such you are safe. I find it very hard to believe
that such a high percentage of experienced glider pilots including
CFIGs, examinars, ATP etc were clueless or idiots. Maybe you can think
so about traffic accidents since almost anyone can and drive cars so
there are bound to be many idiots who kill themselves and others, but
the average inteligence of glider pilots is signifficantly higher, yet
our accident rate is 100 times worse. There are so few of us actively
flying gliders (my guess is few thousands in the US at most, much less
that the total SSA membership) and so many fatal accidents it is very
alarming and disconcerning, and down right depressing. I am afraid it
boils down to the simple fact that soaring is a very unforgiving
activity and human nature always make mistakes. Only those of us who
are willing to accept the high risk should fly. I know I do. This does
not mean I think I am safe. No one is...

Ramy

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:02:17 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Now I'm curious - what glider and what initial airspeed did you use?

That may well apply to anything up to and including early glass and to
selected later gliders too: Juniors and ASK-23 both come to mind.

I checked my Std Libelle's zoom capability yesterday - at 3000 ft and
2800 ft, pulling up at a stabilised 100 kts both times. Each time I
pushed over as the speed came down toward 50 kts. Both went no lower that
42 kts and both gained precisely 300 ft. The rate of speed drop-off below
50 kts is dramatic.

Bottom line: As I'd guessed, I don't think a low pass and pull up is a
safe option in a Libelle.

Re elevator flutter stories: surely you'll only get control surface
flutter if you're over Vne or flying a badly maintained glider? Doing
either is unsafe at any altitude.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Aug 21, 11:04*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
I regularly get safety alerts (bulletins, notices) from the FAA and
AOPA, but I never get one from the SSA. I went digging to see if the
SSA had a similar program. I went to SSA home page, then to SSA
Partners..........Hmm, safety isn't a primary concern of the SSA and
is relegated to a soaring partner?
Then to Soaring Safety Foundation, then to Accident Prevention, then
to Advisory Notices and I actually found one! Yep on 5/23/05 the SSF
pumped out a Notice about props on solo engines.

We have just had 5 fatal accidents within the last 45 days and not a
peep out of the SSA or the 'partner' SSF.
I submit the following that might have been published (but wasn't):

1 July, 2011 * Glider crashes after initiating practice rope preak at
200 feet!
* * * * * * * * * * * 1 dead, 1 severly injured
SSA recommends practice rope breaks not be done below 500 feet and
only after thoroughly briefing before the flight. Briefing to include
altitude at which rope break will be initiated and pilots intended
actions.
All are reminded that a simple 180 degree turn will place the glider
parallel to, but not ovet the departure runway. Recommend a 90 / 270
when returning to departure runway (altitude permitting).

15 July, 2011 * *Glider spoilers open after takeoff, tow pilot gave
rudder-wag (check spoilers) which was misunderstood. Glider crashed
into trees.
* * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead, *1 seriously injured
This accident could have been prevented with a simple call from the
tow pilot to "close your spoilers", had radios been required by the
club or FBO.
SSA recommends all gliders and tow planes be equipped with radios and
a com-check be performed before all takeoffs. The com-check will
insure both radios are on, tuned to the same frequency, volume up,
squelch set and battery charged.

8 July, 2011 * * Off field landing accident (motor glider)
* * * * * * * * * * * *1 dead
SSA recommends that all gliders keep a suitable landing spot within
gliding distance at all times and engine starts not be attempted below
1500 agl.

JJ Sinclair
(for the SSA that could be)

CONCLUSIONS
Well, I hope those who have been following this thread have learned
some things, because this is the last you'll hear about it. In a
couple of months the SSF will warn about complacency and the need for
more training, then they will dutifully add 6 more to the 'fatal
accident' column and 8 to the 'destroyed' column and that will be the
end of it. One thing for sure there will be no mention of flying
without radios, 200 foot practice rope-breaks (aka practice bleeding)
or low passes. Its up to each one of us to decide what is in our best
interests. Tow pilots that goes for you also, there have been all too
many checks in the tow plane/pilot column recently. I have made it
crystal clear where I stand on these, where do you stand?
Cheers,
JJ

On 8/23/2011 2:30 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Snip...

Re elevator flutter stories: surely you'll only get control surface
flutter if you're over Vne or flying a badly maintained glider? Doing
either is unsafe at any altitude.

Being a strong believer in Murphy, and knowing enough about engineering and
airplane design to be dangerous, and allowing for uncertainties difficult to
convey in short snippets of writing, I - myself - would have used a different
word than 'surely' in the posed question. In any event, you're theoretically
correct...but the pilot in me isn't comfortable pushing that part of the
envelope in close proximity to the ground. There are reasons many (most?)
professional test pilots tend to rank flutter testing toward the top of their
least favorite tests.

And I suppose it's quite possible each case of zoomie-related, contest finish
flutter about which I've read involved flight exceeding Vne and/or 'lousy
maintenance.' If so what might that suggest about some subset of contest
pilots...flagrant disregard of flight limitations? Dubious ability to maintain
precise speed control at high speeds, in thermic turbulence, near to the
ground? Slapdash maintainers of their ships? Hidden pre-existing damage? Etc.
The simple fact of flutter existence in this particular flight regime raises
seriously perturbing questions in my mind.

Without intending to kick a wounded horse (while noting no one so far has
bothered to address most of the *non*-rhetorical questions posed elsewhere
about zoomies), my larger point in posing the questions is to encourage
readers of the thread to examine themselves, their motivations, and their
comfort levels in performing this particular task. Whether individuals decide
to perform zoomies is up to them, and I'm philosophically OK with that.

As I noted elsewhe BTDT; stopped doing them ~1980; have seen (and enjoyed
watching) many since (while simultaneously mentally cringing and
hoping/praying nothing bad happens); wouldn't consider my future significantly
poorer if I never see another one; sincerely hope I don't personally know
(even via RAS) anyone who may be a part of a zoomie gone bad in the future.

And to paraphrase Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about zoomies in this
thread.

Regards,
Bob W.

On Aug 24, 8:30*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:02:17 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Now I'm curious - what glider and what initial airspeed did you use?

That may well apply to anything up to and including early glass and to
selected later gliders too: Juniors and ASK-23 both come to mind.

I checked my Std Libelle's zoom capability yesterday - at 3000 ft and
2800 ft, pulling up at a stabilised 100 kts both times. Each time I
pushed over as the speed came down toward 50 kts. Both went no lower that
42 kts and both gained precisely 300 ft. The rate of speed drop-off below
50 kts is dramatic.

That is exactly what I'd have predicted.

A rough mental calculation of how much height a given airspeed can be
converted to (at zero final airspeed e.g. top of a tail slide) is
speed in knots divided by five, squared.

So 100 knots can be converted to (100/5)^2 = 20^2 = 400 ft

If you still want to have 50 knots at the top then you need to
subtract the height that 50 knots is "worth": (50/5)^2 = 10^2 = 100
ft.

Giving 300 ft net.

(the theoretical frictionless physics says to divide by 4.748 not 5,
but 5 is both easier to work with in your head and closer to what
you'll actually get)

Bottom line: As I'd guessed, I don't think a low pass and pull up is a
safe option in a Libelle.

100 knots is certainly on the slow side. 120 is much better. That
gives you an expected (120/5)^2 - 100 = 476 ft to play with.


Wikipedia says the Std Libelle has a 250 km/h (135 knot) Vne. Is that
incorrect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasflügel_H-201

On 8/23/2011 3:55 AM, Cookie wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:29 am, kevin wrote:
Another real possibility not mentioned is dehydration. Nice high
speed pass, pull, pull, pull, with positive g load, works fine if you
are hydrated, if not then you can drop your blood pressure and grey
out or pass out.

Drink, drink, drink.....

Kevin
192
92

More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!

That's not shifting the blame, it's looking for factors that contributed
to the accident. Knowing the factors in accidents can help us learn to
do better as pilots, and improve our pilot training. "Blame" is more of
a moral or legal assignment of guilt, but does not help us find the
actions needed to avoid the accident in the future.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

On Aug 24, 12:50*am, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 8/23/2011 3:55 AM, Cookie wrote:

On Aug 23, 5:29 am, kevin *wrote:
Another real possibility not mentioned is dehydration. *Nice high
speed pass, pull, pull, pull, *with positive g load, works fine if you
are hydrated, if not then you can drop your blood pressure and grey
out or pass out.

Drink, drink, drink.....

Kevin
192
* *92

More shifting of the blame........again and again...shift the blame!

That's not shifting the blame, it's looking for factors that contributed
to the accident. Knowing the factors in accidents can help us learn to
do better as pilots, and improve our pilot training. "Blame" is more of
a moral or legal assignment of guilt, but does not help us find the
actions needed to avoid the accident in the future.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

So...you think that if you are thirsty...you're going to fly so bad as
to kill yourself??

You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
dehydration?

The spoiler open accident was beacause the pilot took off with spoiler
open.

The out of gas accident was because the pilot took off with not enough
gas

The zoomie accident or whatever it was....was either poor airmanship
or poor judgement or both.

Cookie

(boy you guys are realling teaming up on me now....but am going to
hold my ground on the "personal responsibility thing"...I do notce
that the "name calling" has begun always a sign of not being able to
defend one's position...)

In article
,
Cookie wrote:


So...you think that if you are thirsty...you're going to fly so bad as
to kill yourself??

You really think ANY of the recent accidents are attributed to
dehydration?

The spoiler open accident was beacause the pilot took off with spoiler
open.

The out of gas accident was because the pilot took off with not enough
gas

The zoomie accident or whatever it was....was either poor airmanship
or poor judgement or both.

Cookie

(boy you guys are realling teaming up on me now....but am going to
hold my ground on the "personal responsibility thing"...I do notce
that the "name calling" has begun always a sign of not being able to
defend one's position...)

I don't know if dehydration had any part in any of those accidents.
Heck, lack of sleep might have been involved for all I know. However, I
know of at least one very serious glider crash that, for certain, was
the result of a combination of overheating and dehydration. So, yes, if
you are thirsty, you CAN fly so bad as to kill yourself.

The physiology of dehydration is well known and the degradation of
mental functioning with dehydration is well documented. Humans have a
relatively insensitive capability to sense dehydration (a poor "thirst"
sensor) and so one can be very dehydrated, not thinking well, and only
be moderately thirsty.