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

Why Soaring's Safety Record Doesn't Improve



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 15th 04, 12:23 AM
D.A.L
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nafod40 wrote in message ...
JJ Sinclair wrote:
Ever ask yourself, why doesn't our safety record improve?


The best description I've ever came accross and fly by is 'Flying is
safe,untill you forget how dangerous it really is!' This would also
apply to skydiving I suppose.
  #12  
Old May 15th 04, 01:25 AM
Raphael Warshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gill Couto wrote in message news:Jh5pc.51$xi.38@fed1read07...
That's the same as asking why highway accidents can't be reduced.
The same goes for motorcycles, skydiving, and anything worth doing.

gill



There has been a small but real population adjusted reduction in auto
accidents in this country over the last 20-30 years. Training and
higher standards, while politically unpopular, would, IMHO, further
reduce the rate. However, because driving (and driving badly) is seen
as a right in this country, most recent efforts have concentrated on
reducing the impact (pun intended) of the inevitable accidents by
improvements in vehicle structure and performance, as well as the use
of airbags and seatbelts.

Because these sorts of engineering improvements are largely
unavailable to us in gliders (a whole other discussion), any
improvement in our accident statistics will have to come as a result
of improved pilot knowledge and performance.

Unfortunately age conspires to diminish important faculties like
vision, reaction, memory, etc., the effect being only partially
compensated by experience. There are lots of pilots out there who say
"I've forgotten more than you'll ever know". Probably true but,
unfortunately, some of that "more than you'll ever know" may be
important to their safety.

It may be that our aging pilot base needs as much (or more) training /
retraining and evaluation as our beginners to permit adequate
self-assessment and to counteract these inevitible effects.

Raphael Warshaw
Claremont, CA
  #13  
Old May 15th 04, 02:54 AM
Nyal Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At 20:48 14 May 2004, Todd Smith wrote:
I fly for my own challenge and enjoyment. I risk only
myself
and the tow pilot (I also tow for my club).

The airline and military pilots fly a mission for the
benefit of
the organization, using the organization's equippment.

Those pilots are not out for satisfaction, challenge
or enjoyment.

Yes, you could increase safety in soaring by adding
rules, policies
and procedures. You would also reduce the FUN of soaring
so that
nobody actually flys anymore, that would also reduce
the accident rate.

Todd Smith


In its logical extreme, this is quite true. On the
other hand, no one is going to miss out on any fun
by being required and double checked for control hookups.
I'm quite aware of the slippery slope of delegating
responsibilities and thereby abandoning self-reliance.
The launch is hardly an individual concern and I congratulate
FBOs and tow pilots who insist on this.



  #14  
Old May 15th 04, 01:57 PM
COLIN LAMB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In addition to gliders, I fly helicopters (glide angle is not as good,
though). Before each flight, I spend 20 minutes pre-flighting it. After
pre-flight, no one checks my work. As the pilot, I must be and am the
person responsible for the safety of the helicopter. If something does not
check out right, I do not fly it.

Likewise, in a glider, the pilot must be the person ultimately responsible
for the connections of the controls, as well as other safety checks. The
suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot, which does not
presently exist. That liability would be that if the sailplane crashed
because something went wrong with the controls or the signoff procedure, the
pilot would be a defendant in a multi-million dollar lawsuit - and this from
someone who may not be paid, or often underpaid. The second issue is that
it diverts responsibility from where it belongs - with the pilot.

Clubs are free to adopt rules and regulations to assure that controls are
properly connected. It would be easy to adopt a procedure to assure that
the controls are checked by someone other than the assembler.

On the other hand, I would leave the responsibility for the privately owned
ship with the owner.

I recall years ago flying into a private airstrip in Southern California.
The FBO owned the field. She denied landing permission to any pilot who had
a retractable gear ariplane and refused to state that his gear was "down and
locked". I do not know if safety was improved, but I do know of at least
one instance where the pilot landed gear up (not me).

Check lists are absolutely essential.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.656 / Virus Database: 421 - Release Date: 4/9/04


  #15  
Old May 15th 04, 03:38 PM
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The
suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot,


Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are hooked up, he's just
checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was accomplished.
Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing a
glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
being prudent in checking on something like this.

I don't want to even think about the number of accidents I know about caused by
unhooked controls, must be 20 in the last 30 years. At least 2 pilots are no
longer with us and another lives with daily pain in both legs. What are we
doing about it? NOTHING

We could do something, how about insurance companies refusing to insure
organizations (FBO's & clubs) that don't follow a few basic safety rules?

Can't wait to hear the howl and whine coming from the "I have a right to be
negligent" crowd on this proposal.
JJ Sinclair
  #16  
Old May 15th 04, 04:25 PM
Bullwinkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To all those interested about safety,

I realize I'll get flamed for this, but I'd like to point out that in the
March 1988 Soaring I proposed that we stop focusing on accident prevention
as our primary safety goal, and instead think about injury prevention. (I
got flamed a bit then, too.)

It changes a lot when you shift your focus that little bit. I won't
re-develop all the points I made then, just go back and read the article.

Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming the accident pilot for
being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor (therefore it's all the
pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been done differently to
prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.

And I don't want to hear from the "prevent the accident and you've prevented
the injury" crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year old could see through
it.

We've probably got close to the maximum benefit from improved flight
instruction, so it's now time to improve other things in the safety world.
Famous Professional Flight Instructors who write books and such disagree
with this viewpoint, but you'd expect that, wouldn't you.

Just my two cents, now sinking back into lurkerhood.


On 5/15/04 8:38 AM, in article ,
"JJ Sinclair" wrote:

The
suggestion of a "wing tape sign off", transferring some responsibility to
the tow pilot seems to raise at least a couple of issues. First, it would
create a potential legal liability upon the tow pilot,


Come on Colin, the tow pilot isn't saying the controls are hooked up, he's
just
checking that the sailplane pilot said it was done and a PCC was accomplished.
Just checking paper-work, so to speak, only make that tape-work. BTW, towing a
glider with controls not hooked up is hazardous to the tow pilot. He's just
being prudent in checking on something like this.

I don't want to even think about the number of accidents I know about caused
by
unhooked controls, must be 20 in the last 30 years. At least 2 pilots are no
longer with us and another lives with daily pain in both legs. What are we
doing about it? NOTHING

We could do something, how about insurance companies refusing to insure
organizations (FBO's & clubs) that don't follow a few basic safety rules?

Can't wait to hear the howl and whine coming from the "I have a right to be
negligent" crowd on this proposal.
JJ Sinclair


  #17  
Old May 15th 04, 05:03 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bullwinkle wrote:
To all those interested about safety,

I realize I'll get flamed for this, but I'd like to point out that in the
March 1988 Soaring I proposed that we stop focusing on accident prevention
as our primary safety goal, and instead think about injury prevention. (I
got flamed a bit then, too.)

It changes a lot when you shift your focus that little bit. I won't
re-develop all the points I made then, just go back and read the article.

Once you've made the shift, you're no longer blaming the accident pilot for
being an idiot who didn't listen to their instructor (therefore it's all the
pilot's fault), you're wondering what could have been done differently to
prevent the fatality, or lessen or prevent the injury.

And I don't want to hear from the "prevent the accident and you've prevented
the injury" crowd. That argument is so wrong a 5 year old could see through
it.

We've probably got close to the maximum benefit from improved flight
instruction, so it's now time to improve other things in the safety world.
Famous Professional Flight Instructors who write books and such disagree
with this viewpoint, but you'd expect that, wouldn't you.

Just my two cents, now sinking back into lurkerhood.


Before you go, maybe you could elaborate on what "injury prevention"
means: stronger cockpits, shock absorbing landing gear, BRS
installations, spin-proof gliders?

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #18  
Old May 15th 04, 05:33 PM
Bullwinkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default




Before you go, maybe you could elaborate on what "injury prevention"
means: stronger cockpits, shock absorbing landing gear, BRS
installations, spin-proof gliders?


Eric,

Great question. All of the above, plus some others. Once the accident is
inevitable, the glider just becomes a tool to either protect or injure the
occupants. At this point, you either say "the pilot gets what he deserves
for being a lunkhead" or you say "OK, it's going to happen, what can be done
to reduce the impact (pardon the pun) on the pilot?"

Injury prevention, generically, is keeping someone from being hurt or
killed. Accident prevention tries to keep the accident from happening. If
accident prevention is your goal, then once the accident occurs, you chalk
it up as another training/safety failure, clean up the mess, and redouble
your efforts to prevent the next one. If injury prevention is your goal,
however, you begin to think about how the accident occurred, how the pilot
got hurt, or didn't get hurt, what could be done to prevent that in the
future. What contributed to the injuries or fatality, and how the whole
situation could be fixed to keep injury from occurring in the future, should
the same kind of accident happen to someone else. Forget about protecting
the glider: protect the pilot!

Certainly, anything that absorbs energy in a crash sequence is a good idea,
like crumple zone cockpits, energy absorbing landing gear, maybe even
airbags (here comes another flame). Antisubmarining restraint systems.
Breakaway knobs and switches, so your face doesn't absorb the energy as you
flex forward at impact. Oxygen system fittings that break away safely,
without leaks (ever seen an oxygen-fed fire? Not pretty.) Easier to eject
canopies, should you have to bail.

Think how to improve the environment at your glider port: are there
telephone wires off the end that could snag a low pilot? Don't just train
him not to be low: reduce the height, or bury the wires. Same for an airport
fence, if close to the threshold. Are there sufficient landout areas in the
event of a rope break?

I don't want to rewrite my article here, but I hope this answers your
question. If I didn't make it clear enough, just ask again.
Thanks for asking.

Bob

  #19  
Old May 15th 04, 09:35 PM
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob,
Why can't we have both an active accident prevention program and an active
injury prevention program at the same time? Do everything we can to prevent the
accident and then crash softly as we take advantage of all our injury
prevention actions?
JJ Sinclair
 




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
Parachute fails to save SR-22 Capt.Doug Piloting 72 February 10th 05 06:14 AM
Army National Guard celebrates flight safety record Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 June 19th 04 09:16 PM
What is the safety record of the F-102? Guy Alcala Military Aviation 1 February 22nd 04 05:41 AM
LaPorte honors helicopter unit for four-year safety record Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 January 15th 04 12:03 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:36 AM.


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