Why Soaring's Safety Record Doesn't Improve

JJ

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Obviously we need to work accident
prevention/instruction, etc to the max, but once that has reached it's
maximum benefit, we need to look elsewhere for opportunities to reduce the
injury rate.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough before.

It just seems to me that the soaring community as a whole stops with trying
to train the accidents out of the pilots. It's a safety philosophy thing, I
guess.

Bob

On 5/15/04 2:35 PM, in article ,
"JJ Sinclair" wrote:

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

At 15:36 15 May 2004, Bullwinkle wrote: (snip)

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.


I wish that you were right, unfortunately you are so
very wrong in one respect. The prevent the accident
prevent the injury statement is very right, in fact
it is the only certain way of preventing the injury,
you may deny that all you wish but until you accept
that the injury is caused by the accident you will
get nowhere. Why do I say this, simple.
In 30 years I attended many motor vehicle accidents
and investigated the causes. A large proportion of
the accidents were fatal (My rank meant that I had
to attend all fatal accidents in my area) however I
also attended non fatal incidents. What was very clear
to me was that once control of the vehicle was lost
by the driver, in other words the circumstances that
came together to cause the accident happened the outcome,
damage, injury or death was a matter OF PURE BLIND
CHANCE. While it is possible to make vehicles safer
this is by no means the answer that is suggested here.
I have attended accidents where the occupants of a
vehicle had no right to live but did, conversely I
have been to accidents where the damage was so minor
yet someone died, pure blind chance. I have been to
accidents where the occupants of the stongest, most
safety designed vehilces contain dead where the flimsy
tin can contains survivors so the 'design survivability'
is not the complete answer to the problem that faces
us. It can help in some cases, perhaps in a significant
number but never in all.
The only, and I stress, only way of ensuring the continue
health of the occupant of a vehicle, airborne or otherwise
is to work towards indentifying the cause and eleiminating
that.
Just think on this, if all motor vehicles were built
to the same standard as a Chieftan or M1 Abrams tank,
would any driver take care? Would they care if they
banged into things or not? If you wish to place your
fate in pure blind chance, russian roulette in a glider,
by all means concentrate on working towards making
your glider immune to your cock ups. If you want to
guaruntee to survive retain control of you destiny,
eliminate the cock up.

Please stop confusing outcome with cause!!!

FLIGHT SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT

DAJ401

Statement: "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."

Response: The tow pilot is responsible for the safety of his aircraft and he
or she needs to do whatever is necessary to assure that safety. That would
require more than a simple review of paper-work. The tow pilot also needs
to assure the tow cable and link are safe. However, once he or she assumes
a responsibility to check the sailplane paperwork, then if that condition
has not been met, there will likely be a lawsuit when the sailplane pilot
dies because of that condition. And, this check of paperwork may not be
covered by the tow plane's liability policy. As a towplane pilot, I would
want to assure myself that the sailplane is not going to kill me, so I would
make whatever inspections, require whatever paperwork I felt necessary to
protect me, and question the glider operator if I had any concerns.

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

(Jim Vincent) writes:

I tried to get the *wing tape sign off* adopted by asking my local
FBO's to refuse to give a tow unless the tow pilot saw a wing tape
sign off on each sailplane wing

While this is a great idea, the implementation is far different. I
have seen pilots do a "PCC" and not catch the disconnect or
reversal. The core problem, I think, is HOW the pilot does a PCC.

No, the problem is in how people think. If you have a person who
expects a result X, and give him something that is neat to X or -X, he
will in a very high percentage of cases accept it as correct. This is
not lack of atention, or carlessness, it is just the way our brains
work.

Yes and no. If the person is not trained to question result X, they will
accept result X. If they are ignorant through stupidity, ignorance, or
attitude, they will never even get to the point where they even have the
oppportunity to evaluate result X, never mind Y or Z. The problem goes back to
the AB and C of doing a PCC. The instructors at my club haven't a f'ijng clue
how to do one....never mind that they won't allow the student to do the
checklist approved for the G103 in the POH. So what you get is a dumb ****
trained by a dumb ****.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
illspam

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

Just wanted to point out, as a former Naval Aviator, that it was all
about satisfaction, challenge, and enjoyment for me. And I got paid for
it too! Hard to believe...

In short, most mil pilots are into flying for the same reasons you are.

I'm convinced that safety can't be found in stricter rules or inspections.
The very nature of flight is that it takes place beyond the reach of these.

The airline industry would take exception to that statement and offer
their safety record as evidence, I think. But, you can't apply airline
rules and inspections (not to mention recurrent training) to general
aviation - it's simply not practical.

Safety is in the attitude and skillset of the individual pilot. Danger lies
between the ears of the pilot, not in the hardware or rulebook.

For the glider pilot, I think this is very true.

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

Miguel;

If you are in the US. look at the Soaring Safety Foundations Site survey
program (http://www.soaringsafety.org). This program is modeled after
the Swedish program. The major points a

*) It's confidential, nobody but your club/school gets a copy of the
final report, even the SSF destroy's it's copy

*) It's free. The SSF is trying to address all safety issues and this
is one aspect of the fight to improve safety awarness.

Rich Carlson
V2Bx (1I)

Miguel Lavalle wrote:

Robert,

I don't know if a program like this would be implemented
in the US, where I fly. But I would like to learn its
details hoping to learn something and apply it to my
own flying. This is the first time I read about hard
evidence of systematic safety improvement. Where can
I get more information?

Regards

Miguel

At 20:30 14 May 2004, Robert Danewid wrote:

Not true!

The Swedish Soaring Federation has been delegated all
authority over
gliding by the Swedish CAA. Since 1993 we have reduced
our accident rate
by 50%.

You do not need a lot of rules, you need a few good
rules, and the power
to enforce them!

Robert

Todd Pattist wrote:
Tony Verhulst wrote:


Safety is in the attitude and skillset of the individual pilot. Danger lies
between the ears of the pilot, not in the hardware or rulebook.

For the glider pilot, I think this is very true.


I don't.

Aircraft design is an important element in the safety
equation. Automatic hookups do help reduce "failure to
connect controls" accidents in a way that no amount of
training can duplicate.

Rules have a role to play too.
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
I think both are valid views, but should not be exclusive.

If you do not think safe thoughts and practice safe habits you will be dangerous
to yourself or others. Conversely, having a good attitude and being careful is
not infallible.
Anyone who has never gone " Damn that was dumb/dangerous/irrational" after the
fact has no use for automatic control hookups. The rest of us with the
unreliable Mk1 brain can do with all the help we can get. The important point is
not to rely on the technology, or rule book to substitute for thought.