Soaring not compatible with modern society?

I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:16:37 PM UTC-6, wrote:
I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?

Improvement is safety is a natural evolution of every dangerous sport, activity or pastime. I don't thing we are hiding the risks of soaring from society. No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport. Improving safety is important for the preservation of the sport relative to the outside world view,, and for the seven or so lives lost each year within our own ranks.

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:27:29 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
.... the first mid-air between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.

Anyone who does not want to be the glider pilot that causes that disaster would install a transponder now.

On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
collision with a Cessna 172.Â* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.

On 5/4/2018 8:27 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

snips
No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.

--
Dan, 5J

I was in San Diego that day, about 5 miles from the crash site. I will never forgot the loud boom of the 727 hitting the ground and blowing up! It could be heard throughout the city! It was a much simpler time but the FAA did order substantial changes after that event. One change was airlines could no longer cancel IFR and fly a visual approach. If a glider and airliner meet today, one could expect much tighter regulations on gliders.

Back in the 1990's and 2000's when gliders pilots out of Minden would brag about busting Class A space. I tried to get Larry Sanders to address this issue, even had a personal meeting with him at Baron Hilton's ranch, but Larry refused with the comment it is a big sky. Thank goodness for wide adoption of transponders!

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
collision with a Cessna 172.Â* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.

On 5/4/2018 8:27 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

snips
No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport..

--
Dan, 5J

Airliners are "Cleared visual approach, contact the tower" all the time,
though they don't "Cancel IFR".

On 5/5/2018 10:20 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I was in San Diego that day, about 5 miles from the crash site. I will never forgot the loud boom of the 727 hitting the ground and blowing up! It could be heard throughout the city! It was a much simpler time but the FAA did order substantial changes after that event. One change was airlines could no longer cancel IFR and fly a visual approach. If a glider and airliner meet today, one could expect much tighter regulations on gliders.

Back in the 1990's and 2000's when gliders pilots out of Minden would brag about busting Class A space. I tried to get Larry Sanders to address this issue, even had a personal meeting with him at Baron Hilton's ranch, but Larry refused with the comment it is a big sky. Thank goodness for wide adoption of transponders!

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
collision with a Cessna 172.Â* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.

On 5/4/2018 8:27 PM, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

snips
No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.
--
Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a collision
with a Cessna 172. To my knowledge 172s are still flying.

No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our sport.



And just for the possible edification of some (younger? non-U.S.?) RAS
readers, the San Diego mid-air led to the imposition of 'Terminal Control
Areas' around 'busy U.S. airports.' It was also - and likely is still -
routinely misreported as 'Cessna crashes into airliner' when in fact the very
opposite was true, despite both planes being in contact with San Diego A/P
radio and identified to/in both cockpits as being in potential
flight-path-crossing conflict. IMHO, a classic example of complacency combined
with the limitations of both 'see and avoid' and technology-assisted collision
avoidance.

Much as everyone today seems to wish for it, 'risk-free perfection' in the
skies is an oxymoronic concept. And, no, the preceding assertion should *not*
be assumed my 'comprehensive, philosophic, elevator opinion' regarding
concept(s) involving technology-assists in the collision-avoidance field...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

IIRC, there was another light plane in the pattern and the airline crew
saw it and called "Tally ho".Â* I don't recall all of the communications,
but I'd bet that the tower then said, "Maintain visual separation" and
everyone got complacent.

On 5/5/2018 10:26 AM, BobW wrote:
On Monday, 25 Sep, 1978, a B-727 crashed in San Diego following a
collision
Â*with a Cessna 172.Â* To my knowledge 172s are still flying.

No one is listening to our "safety blather", but the first mid-air
between a glider and a commercial jet will definitely curtail our
sport.



And just for the possible edification of some (younger? non-U.S.?) RAS
readers, the San Diego mid-air led to the imposition of 'Terminal
Control Areas' around 'busy U.S. airports.' It was also - and likely
is still - routinely misreported as 'Cessna crashes into airliner'
when in fact the very opposite was true, despite both planes being in
contact with San Diego A/P radio and identified to/in both cockpits as
being in potential flight-path-crossing conflict. IMHO, a classic
example of complacency combined with the limitations of both 'see and
avoid' and technology-assisted collision avoidance.

Much as everyone today seems to wish for it, 'risk-free perfection' in
the skies is an oxymoronic concept. And, no, the preceding assertion
should *not* be assumed my 'comprehensive, philosophic, elevator
opinion' regarding concept(s) involving technology-assists in the
collision-avoidance field...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


--
Dan, 5J

On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:53:25 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

IIRC, there was another light plane in the pattern and the airline crew
saw it and called "Tally ho".Â* I don't recall all of the communications,
but I'd bet that the tower then said, "Maintain visual separation" and
everyone got complacent.

Yes, I've just read the Wikipedia report on this crash and the third
aircraft is mentioned in that.

BTW, describes the 727 as hitting the Cessna, rather than the other way
round and also that the Cessna altered course by 20 degrees (070 to 090)
without getting an instruction or reporting it. Apparently the NTSB
report suggested that the collision may not have happened without that.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:16:37 PM UTC-6, wrote:
I'm wondering how much the modern reluctance to land out and desire for collision avoidance technology is driven by an underlying fear that if society knew about soaring, society would ban it. Granted no one wants to die or have anyone else die but we've been recreational flying for 100 years and accepting the same or worse odds the whole time. Taking risks that were normal not that long ago is frowned upon by society. More than frowned upon, prosecuted. Is soaring culturally illegal just not yet legislatively? Do we try to keep it hidden, play the 'preserve' freedom by not exercising it game? Spewing safety blather won't stop them from stopping us. Nor will better safety gear, the people driving modern society don't care about safety. Safety is just a cover for control and ruining other people's fun. Should we just run the game out then go sailing(if we are still allowed) or should we start standing up for our flying history and culture?

The problem with modern society is a lack of, or aversion to personal responsibility. It's alway "someone else's fault". In soaring, you have to accept the consequences of the choices you make. It is forced upon you. However you try and "tech it up", you still ultimately have to take responsibility for when you fly, where you fly, and how you fly. Those are all your decisions as a pilot, and you bear the consequences, both good and bad, for those choices. Too many people these days prefer to sit back on the couch and watch a screen of some sort where they don't have to deal with those consequences. So much of life these days is so protected in a shell, in an effort to shield against having to take responsibility for anything.