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
  #1  
Old November 9th 19, 07:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bret Hess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Put your money where the risk is

The discussion "Gliding risk" has been excellent for the most part. To me the most compelling thoughts are about gradually getting conditioned to taking increasing risks ("normalization of deviance"), that experience is a curse as well as a blessing, and that fatalities are just the apex of a pyramid of risk-taking, close calls, incidents and injuries.

The problem is that the risk taking and close calls don't "hurt". Instead we usually get **rewarded** by more points and praise because we fly farther or longer. If we could make the risk taking and close calls "hurt", we would avoid a lot of injuries and fatalities.

There are now apps that help you be disciplined by putting money on the line over whether you meet your standards or not. See https://georgehalachev.com/2017/06/0...-your-success/ for example. When you mess up your money goes to an organization you hate or to the others on the app that didn't mess up. The point is that it just "doesn't matter" if you skip exercising for a day, so we skip it for days on end and then all the days matter to our health long-term. Losing money helps it to matter that day. If you lose $20 for skipping the gym, you lose $20, but you can't afford that very often

Flying risks are very similar. Each risk doesn't appear to matter that day, but we know it can all add up without warning. So maybe we should use technology and the power of "fear of loss" to help us at the bottom of the fatality pyramid: risk taking. Post-flight analysis of igc tracks could pretty accurately detect low thermaling, slow landing patterns, slow flight or turns on ridges or near other terrain, maybe near-collisions. It can detect getting caught in terrain without a safe glide margin through the terrain to an airport or a field.

For the fear of loss, scale is important here. $20 isn't enough. I guess you would want to put in at least one year's soaring expenses, or maybe 1/10 or more the value of your glider. You would lose (on a sliding scale) a small portion or all your money depending on the severity of the risk you took.

So how would we do this? Pilots join a group for a season and put in all the money in advance. They agree to upload *all* their flight tracks or (better) use services that track them real-time on cell phones where coverage exists (e.g Skylines flight tracking). They get a safety analysis of each flight showing the parts of the flight with the most detectable risk. The reports might be public, and we certainly publicize the pilots who are flying safely. And pilots lose money for their riskiest behavior. Maybe the money lost could be less if they self-report the behavior. Some gain a little money at the end of the season. We could set uniform standards, or each person could set their own at the beginning of the season. All this could be very motivating and create a real safety culture.
Ads
  #2  
Old November 9th 19, 10:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 382
Default Put your money where the risk is

Will the accused pilot have a say in jury selection?
  #3  
Old November 10th 19, 02:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 140
Default Put your money where the risk is

I kind of like the concept, it has general potential.

However what is definitely risky/dangerous practice for one pilot, is a normal day, well within safe boundaries for another pilot with a different skill set.

Example: for the type of flying I do, thermalling/saves at the 400-600 ft agl level are not a risky manouver given that I have a landing spot already studied out and within direct reach and having literally thousands of hours of low level flying and turning. For someone else this would be a very bad idea
Who judges whats considered dangerous or not?

How about each pilot submits a list of what their personal boundaries are, then we judge and watch for the times that pilot breaks his own submitted set of do’s and don’t. That could be directly useful. I know I broke one of my own personal rules this last season, no harm no foul but if I volunteered myself to an outside judge they could possibly bring to my attention other unrecognized (to me) instances where I was seen to come very close or break my own safety-set.
  #4  
Old November 12th 19, 03:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard Livingston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Put your money where the risk is

In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L
  #5  
Old November 16th 19, 07:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 738
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L


I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories. Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.

Tom
  #6  
Old November 16th 19, 03:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,242
Default Put your money where the risk is

2G wrote on 11/15/2019 10:16 PM:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L


I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories. Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.


I don't recall any recent incidents, but getting sucked into a cloud may be an
example of slowly reducing your margins because you got away with it before. I'm
thinking of Erik Larson, who wasn't killed, but bailed out of his ASH26E when it
became enveloped in a cloud while wave flying out of Minden. Another is Kempton
Izuno, who got pulled up into the cloud during thermalling, and very narrowly
avoided catastrophe. Both could have gone far worse. Another example might be Bill
Gawthrop's crash short of the runway at Truckee. All three of these were very good
pilots at the time of the incidents.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #7  
Old November 17th 19, 01:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 738
Default Put your money where the risk is

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:12:07 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 11/15/2019 10:16 PM:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This is
a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that occasionally
experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this happens it would
almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes this hazard and
decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing before dawn when
rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to trigger these). He
then has to decide if, for a particular situation, the risk is worth the
reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to camp before the weather
turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and mitigated,
but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their own skill versus
the situation and decide if the reward is worth the risk. The wise pilots
will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will lose more often.

Rich L


I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories.. Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.


I don't recall any recent incidents, but getting sucked into a cloud may be an
example of slowly reducing your margins because you got away with it before. I'm
thinking of Erik Larson, who wasn't killed, but bailed out of his ASH26E when it
became enveloped in a cloud while wave flying out of Minden. Another is Kempton
Izuno, who got pulled up into the cloud during thermalling, and very narrowly
avoided catastrophe. Both could have gone far worse. Another example might be Bill
Gawthrop's crash short of the runway at Truckee. All three of these were very good
pilots at the time of the incidents.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1


None of these were fatal accidents (Bill's was very close). Flying in wave these days w/o an artificial horizon is a judgment, not an airmanship, error. Furthermore, Bill's accident was the result of very unusual winds, which is just bad luck. The original post specifically mentioned fatalities.

Tom
  #8  
Old November 17th 19, 05:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,242
Default Put your money where the risk is

2G wrote on 11/16/2019 4:56 PM:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 6:12:07 AM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 11/15/2019 10:16 PM:
On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 6:40:44 AM UTC-8, Richard Livingston
wrote:
In mountain climbing there is the concept of "objective hazard". This
is a hazard that is recognized, such as climbing up a gully that
occasionally experiences rock falls. If you are in the gully when this
happens it would almost certainly be fatal. The wise climber recognizes
this hazard and decides what he can do to mitigate it, such as climbing
before dawn when rock falls are less likely (warming by sunlight tends to
trigger these). He then has to decide if, for a particular situation,
the risk is worth the reward (getting to the peak, or getting back to
camp before the weather turns bad).

The wise climber sometimes loses this gamble. The unwise climber loses
more often. Soaring is similar in that there are hazards that, through
training, experience and acquired skill, can be recognized and
mitigated, but never completely avoided. Each pilot must assess their
own skill versus the situation and decide if the reward is worth the
risk. The wise pilots will sometimes lose, but the unwise pilots will
lose more often.

Rich L

I challenge you guys to go back thru the last few years of glider accidents
in the US and find ANY fatal accidents that fall into these categories..
Generally, they are the consequence of ****-poor airmanship.


I don't recall any recent incidents, but getting sucked into a cloud may be
an example of slowly reducing your margins because you got away with it
before. I'm thinking of Erik Larson, who wasn't killed, but bailed out of his
ASH26E when it became enveloped in a cloud while wave flying out of Minden.
Another is Kempton Izuno, who got pulled up into the cloud during
thermalling, and very narrowly avoided catastrophe. Both could have gone far
worse. Another example might be Bill Gawthrop's crash short of the runway at
Truckee. All three of these were very good pilots at the time of the
incidents.


-- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
me) - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1


None of these were fatal accidents (Bill's was very close). Flying in wave
these days w/o an artificial horizon is a judgment, not an airmanship, error.
Furthermore, Bill's accident was the result of very unusual winds, which is
just bad luck. The original post specifically mentioned fatalities.


I was giving examples that I thought illustrated the concept, and perhaps jog
peoples memories for more examples. They didn't need to be fatal for that purpose,
especially since I wasn't certain "loses" referred only to fatal events. Erik
Larson did have an artificial horizon, but as I recall, it was not on when he
entered cloud, and it didn't spin up fast enough to help him. I think Bill's
accident was not just bad luck, but partly the result of a purposeful reduction in
margins. As I recall, he wanted to land short to avoid pushing the plane back a
longer ways, instead of landing long as using the turnout further down the runway.
  #9  
Old November 17th 19, 08:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 467
Default Put your money where the risk is

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
  #10  
Old November 17th 19, 02:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
RR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default Put your money where the risk is

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...

 




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 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.