A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Put your money where the risk is



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 17th 19, 06:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Scott Williams[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 7:49:19 AM UTC-6, RR wrote:
Tom,Iam not sure I know what you mean by **** poor aitmanship. Do you mean poor stick and rudder skills? Someone that would be considered an inexperienced pilot? As noted, we dont realy know what exactly happend in most fatal accidents, as there are no survivors to interview.

The ones that hit home for me are very experienced pilots, who I asume were using their excellent stick and rudder skills but that could not save them. I believe in most of those cases, it was the erosion of personal margins that got them in trouble. For each one of those accidents I have added to my own margins.

The old saying The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid needing to use his superior flying skills...


Websters' expanded definition:Airmanship

Airmanship is skill and knowledge applied to aerial navigation, similar to seamanship in maritime navigation. Airmanship covers a broad range of desirable behaviors and abilities in an aviator. It is not simply a measure of skill or technique, but also a measure of a pilot’s awareness of the aircraft, the environment in which it operates, and of his own capabilities. ⁕A sound acquaintance with the principles of flight, ⁕The ability to operate an airplane with competence and precision both on the ground and in the air, and ⁕The exercise of sound judgment that results in optimal operational safety and efficiency. The three fundamental principles of expert airmanship are skill, proficiency, and the discipline to apply them in a safe and efficient manner. Discipline is the foundation of airmanship. The complexity of the aviation environment demands a foundation of solid airmanship, and a healthy, positive approach to combating pilot error. The actions of Captain Alfred C. Haynes and the crew of United Airlines Flight 232 are often cited as an exemplar of good airmanship. They were able to maintain control of their crippled McDonnell Douglas DC-10, bringing it to a survivable "controlled crash" in Sioux City, Iowa, after a complete loss of all flight controls following an engine failure in July 1989. They did this by improvising a control scheme on the spot using differential thrust on the two working engines. Captain Haynes credited his Crew Resource Management training as one of the key factors that saved his own life, and many others.

I will chime in, and IMHO, airmanship is vastly more than "stick and rudder skills"
  #12  
Old November 19th 19, 06:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 11:36:33 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
Tom, the sad reality is that the cause of majority of fatal accidents is not known. There are usually only speculations. So I am curious which fatal accidents in recent years you have enough data to conclude they were due to poor airmanship, and where do you get this data. Certainly not from most NTSB reports.
In fact, most of the incidents which were clearly due to poor airmanship or unnecessary risk taking that we know of are the non fatal ones.

Ramy


Ramy,

Oh, yes you can. Here is the last fatal glider accident just last month:

"A witness was also a glider pilot stated that the accident flight was among a group of three
other cross-county glider flights that intended to depart 1N7, fly over Burnt Cabins,
Pennsylvania, and then return to 1N7. The witness stated that he departed 1N7 around 0930,
and the accident glider took off around 0945. He further stated that it was not common for the
glider pilots to fly together but they would maintain radio contact throughout the day and help
each other with geographical points and finding thermals for lift. He said that around 1400 the
accident pilot radioed and said that he was at Burnt Cabins and turning around to return to
1N7. Around 1515, the accident pilot reported that he was climbing in a weak thermal near
Tamaqua, Pennsylvania. That was the last communication he heard from the accident pilot.
According to another witness, he was working outside when he looked up and saw "an
airplane" about .5 mile away heading straight down. He stopped and watched "the airplane" for
a few seconds before it disappeared behind some trees."

The guy clearly had a stall-spin at low altitude, which is the result of ****-poor airmanship. I have commented about low saves in the past. Here is the one last August:

"According to multiple witnesses located at WN15, the glider arrived overhead at about 800 to
1,000 ft above ground level (agl), descending and circling left around the southern half of the
airport. On the last circle, about 300 ft agl, the landing gear was seen coming down followed
very quickly by the glider banking left to about 30-40o
.. The glider then struck three trees and
rotated 270o
while now descending in about a 75° nose-low attitude. The glider struck the
grass runway nose first, rebounded up and back about 10 ft, then came to rest upright and
listing on the left wing."

Tell me that was superb airmanship.

Tom
  #13  
Old November 19th 19, 06:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-8, RR wrote:
Tom,Iam not sure I know what you mean by **** poor aitmanship. Do you mean poor stick and rudder skills? Someone that would be considered an inexperienced pilot? As noted, we dont realy know what exactly happend in most fatal accidents, as there are no survivors to interview.

The ones that hit home for me are very experienced pilots, who I asume were using their excellent stick and rudder skills but that could not save them. I believe in most of those cases, it was the erosion of personal margins that got them in trouble. For each one of those accidents I have added to my own margins.

The old saying The superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid needing to use his superior flying skills...


Airmanship is the ability to competently command an aircraft in all phases of flight, including flying, preparation and judgment. If you skillfully fly yourself into a box canyon and crash, you exhibited poor judgment, therefore poor airmanship. If you stall and spin an aircraft turning final, that's poor airmanship. If you take off w/o checking the weather an fly skillfully into a thunderstorm, that's poor airmanship.

Tom


  #14  
Old November 19th 19, 07:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default Put your money where the risk is

Tom, you chooses the 10% or so of accidents which had enough data to come to a conclusion. Even then I would question most NTSB reports until I talked to the locals who knew the pilots involved and can confirm the accuracy of the report. I personally know of quiet a few fatal accidents which can not be classified as poor airmanship. At the same time I am aware of many poor airmanship which did not result in fatal accidents.
I guess what I am trying to say here is don’t fall into the “this would never happen to me since I am a good pilot” category. I know I don’t kid myself that any of these accidents couldn’t happen to me.

Ramy
  #15  
Old November 19th 19, 07:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 10:12:04 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
Tom, you chooses the 10% or so of accidents which had enough data to come to a conclusion. Even then I would question most NTSB reports until I talked to the locals who knew the pilots involved and can confirm the accuracy of the report. I personally know of quiet a few fatal accidents which can not be classified as poor airmanship. At the same time I am aware of many poor airmanship which did not result in fatal accidents.
I guess what I am trying to say here is don’t fall into the “this would never happen to me since I am a good pilot” category. I know I don’t kid myself that any of these accidents couldn’t happen to me.

Ramy


Ramy,

I went thru ALL of the fatal accidents this year before my original post: these are just the last two. Both of these accidents had witnesses, and the conclusions are pretty clear-cut. You are more than welcome to do your own review of all past fatals (please don't bother with the non-fatals as this is much less conclusive). This pattern of poor airmanship is startling because it is preventable. It is sort of like car accidents: if you drive distracted you shouldn't be surprised if you have an accident.

Tom
  #16  
Old November 19th 19, 07:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default Put your money where the risk is

Funny how you get to the opposite conclusions. Are we talking about the same sport? Anyway, I did my own analysis and almost all fatal accidents are inconclusive, mostly speculation, while almost all non fatal accidents are conclusive (since they all have witness).
Anyway, I’ll bow out now.

Ramy
  #17  
Old November 19th 19, 09:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default Put your money where the risk is

So what other speculated reasons are there for these accidents? Technical issue? "Sudden wind gust from nowhere"?
  #18  
Old November 19th 19, 04:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
MNLou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 271
Default Put your money where the risk is

I always wonder how many accidents are a result of an in-air medical problem.

Lou
  #19  
Old November 20th 19, 04:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 10:40:24 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
Funny how you get to the opposite conclusions. Are we talking about the same sport? Anyway, I did my own analysis and almost all fatal accidents are inconclusive, mostly speculation, while almost all non fatal accidents are conclusive (since they all have witness).
Anyway, I’ll bow out now.

Ramy


Ramy,

I reviewed, again, all of the 2019 fatal accidents. One sounds like a medical emergency suffered upon a successful outlanding, all of the others were clear loss of control of a functioning glider. One guy hit the only tree in a field during an outlanding.

Tom
  #20  
Old November 20th 19, 09:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
CindyB[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 7:16:13 AM UTC-8, MNLou wrote:
I always wonder how many accidents are a result of an in-air medical problem.

Lou


Lou --

Too many.
We know of many pilots who had documented medical issues, medications, for things like: extreme high blood pressure, heart arrythmias and looming bypass surgeries, or case histories that would preclude them having an FAA medical certificate and they migrate into glider flying....
and despite these known issues they choose to continue soaring.

When the machine makes an unexplainable, observed descent in a seemingly random flight path to impact -- regrettably the local coroner concludes "blunt force trauma" and makes no effort to ascertain what happened "prior" to impact. Coroner's job is done, paperwork filed.
NTSB has a report, case closed.

We do a much better job of analysis within our community, and make that available through the Soaring Safety Foundations reports. Liability concerns for slander or defamation? Every pilot who dies is a 'wonderful' human. I don't intend to attack any individual pilot, but should strive to learn from prior accidents. I have offered a popular presentation at conventions that reviewed fatal accidents. The take-away from those has been -- how could I (you) have replicated or avoided that particular scenario, based on publicly available information.

When we know of local pilots who are flying beyond seemingly rational medical situations, we should personally intervene.
"Hey, I like you too much to see something bad happen. Can I encourage you to fly a two-seater with a safety pilot?" Our insurance pool losses are a concern for all of us.

Sincerely,
Cindy B
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gliding risk.... [email protected] Soaring 141 December 11th 19 06:25 PM
YOUR safety is at risk BR549 Instrument Flight Rules 0 December 13th 07 01:21 AM
Safety at risk in FAA Peterpan Piloting 7 February 24th 05 09:58 PM
how much money have you lost on the lottery? NOW GET THAT MONEY BACK! shane Home Built 0 February 5th 05 08:54 AM
U.S. SCHOOLKIDS AT RISK Cribsheet Piloting 0 December 5th 04 06:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.