News about Pittsburgh Soaring Club

http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20...5#.UcL21Plwp8E

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:38:05 AM UTC-5, Tom K (ES) wrote:
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20...5#.UcL21Plwp8E

"...gliders, soarers or soarplanes..."

OUCH!

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:03:52 AM UTC-6, JohnDeRosa wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:38:05 AM UTC-5, Tom K (ES) wrote:

http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20...5#.UcL21Plwp8E



"...gliders, soarers or soarplanes..."



OUCH!

“It appeals to older folks,”
Must be true - we clearly show that on the 'Let's go gliding' banners and stickers. The only reinforcement of that statement would have been two oxygen cannulas stuck in their noses!
It would be great if the 'Journalist' would run their articles past someone with first-hand knowledge to filter out some of the garbage which I am sure wasn't said as printed!
'GM' - a former member of the Pittsburgh Soaring Club

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:38:05 AM UTC-4, Tom K (ES) wrote:
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20...5#.UcL21Plwp8E

"As far as flying goes, Wilson says it’s very safe."

On the off chance that Wilson did in fact say this, I cringe. A few people said similar things to me when I first started to fly, so I'll assume that it was said.

How about saying this instead, "Flying in a glider is inherently dangerous, but we do a lot to make it safer."

Is there no consensus that it is problematic to misrepresent or discount the inherent dangers of soaring? The moral (and legal) ramifications of a newcomer having an accident after being told that the sport is safe are grave..

Admitting that the sport is inherently dangerous and having an adult conversation about those dangers before a new person hops into the glider is not going to scare away the good candidates. I think that the opposite may be true.

In article son_of_flubber writes:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:38:05 AM UTC-4, Tom K (ES) wrote:
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20...0619935#.UcL2=
1Plwp8E

"As far as flying goes, Wilson says it=92s very safe."

On the off chance that Wilson did in fact say this, I cringe. A few people=
said similar things to me when I first started to fly, so I'll assume that=
it was said.

How about saying this instead, "Flying in a glider is inherently dangerous,=
but we do a lot to make it safer."

Is there no consensus that it is problematic to misrepresent or discount th=
e inherent dangers of soaring? The moral (and legal) ramifications of a ne=
wcomer having an accident after being told that the sport is safe are grave=
.

Admitting that the sport is inherently dangerous and having an adult conver=
sation about those dangers before a new person hops into the glider is not =
going to scare away the good candidates. I think that the opposite may be =
true.


I'll disagree.

If flying in a glider is inherently dangerous, then you are doing
something wrong.

If folks had been telling me that flying gliders was inherently
dangerous before I started, I would have gotten back into my cessna
and flown (safely) away.

Aviation may be unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity, or neglect;
but it should not be inherently dangerous.

I read of people doing dangerous things in gliders, such as:
a. Ignoring 91.111(a) in thermals.
If another aircraft suddenly changes direction of flight, you
should have been far enough away that it didn't cause a problem.
b. Ignoring 91.155(a) particularly cloud clearance requirements.
If you are "at cloudbase", it sounds like you have busted this
one.
c. Ignoring 91.119(c) with a high speed pass over the airport
on return. It is not "necessary for takeoff or landing".
If you cannot land without it, I can refer you to some good
instructors who can show you how.
The same may apply to some ridge flying.

I'll say it again. If you believe that your glider flying is inherently
dangerous, get some better instruction.

Alan