Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...

Jonathon May wrote:
I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.




Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
--
RWW

Precisely. That was the exact situation.




At 13:01 08 February 2012, T8 wrote:
Jim,

You're suggesting that they tried to make the KG, failed, plan B was
TVL and that also failed?

That at least makes a modicum of logical sense out of this.

-Evan Ludeman / T8



On Feb 8, 12:10=A0am, Jim Wallis
wrote:
Hi Evan: =A0I posted to this on a different thread, same topic: =A0The
la=
nding
site is about 3.5 miles from TVL at approximately the same altitude.
Kingsbury Grade, the passage through the ridge, is roughly three miles
farther away (and around the mountain) at something like 1300' above
fiel=
d
elevation - and that is being generous.

So the relevant question is: a nearly seven mile flight on a bit over
100=
0'
of altitude with a lot of trees on the way.

Guys:

I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
training during the flight phase of the review.

I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
immediately stated there would be litigation. I was standing near the
Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
money out of this. It was very ugly.

As to what precisely happened: I will be delighted to do a complete
debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
(tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)

Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.

There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. We were on
the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
been as little as 30 seconds. I believe that the approach was made without
spoilers deployed.

- Jim




At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:
Jonathon May wrote:
I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.




Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
--
RWW

Thanks for coming forward Jim and offering to share your story at the
appropriate time and place.

I hope that Heavenly has nothing more than trespassing to really
complain about from a legal stance since you guys didn't have lift
tickets and were on the slopes.



On Feb 9, 10:33*am, Jim Wallis
wrote:
Guys:

I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
training during the flight phase of the review.

I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
immediately stated there would be litigation. *I was standing near the
Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
money out of this. *It was very ugly.

As to what precisely happened: *I will be delighted to do a complete
debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
(tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)

Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.

There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. *We were on
the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
been as little as 30 seconds. *I believe that the approach was made without
spoilers deployed.

- Jim

At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:







Jonathon May *wrote:
I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.

Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
--
RWW

I believe that most ski areas in the western US are on public land /
National Forest property and as such they only lease the rights to
operate the skiing area and can only charge money to use the ski
lift. They cannot regulate access to the property since it is public
land. You can walk on ski area property any time you want, so you
should be able to land there in an emergency. I don't know about
Heavenly, but this is my understanding.

On Feb 9, 12:09*pm, Morgan wrote:
Thanks for coming forward Jim and offering to share your story at the
appropriate time and place.

I hope that Heavenly has nothing more than trespassing to really
complain about from a legal stance since you guys didn't have lift
tickets and were on the slopes.

On Feb 9, 10:33*am, Jim Wallis



wrote:
Guys:

I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
training during the flight phase of the review.

I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
immediately stated there would be litigation. *I was standing near the
Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
money out of this. *It was very ugly.

As to what precisely happened: *I will be delighted to do a complete
debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
(tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)

Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.

There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. *We were on
the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
been as little as 30 seconds. *I believe that the approach was made without
spoilers deployed.

- Jim

At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:

Jonathon May *wrote:
I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.

Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
--
RWW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 9, 2:23*pm, glider12321 wrote:
I believe that most ski areas in the western US are on public land /
National Forest property and as such they only lease the rights to
operate the skiing area *and can only charge money to use the ski
lift. They cannot regulate access to the property since it is public
land. You can walk on ski area property any time you want, so you
should be able to land there in an emergency. I don't know about
Heavenly, but this is my understanding.

On Feb 9, 12:09*pm, Morgan wrote:

Thanks for coming forward Jim and offering to share your story at the
appropriate time and place.

I hope that Heavenly has nothing more than trespassing to really
complain about from a legal stance since you guys didn't have lift
tickets and were on the slopes.

On Feb 9, 10:33*am, Jim Wallis

wrote:
Guys:

I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge
training during the flight phase of the review.

I believe the reason SoaringNV is exercising discretion is because Heavenly
immediately stated there would be litigation. *I was standing near the
Heavenly manager when he was brain-storming with his employees ways to get
money out of this. *It was very ugly.

As to what precisely happened: *I will be delighted to do a complete
debrief and/or presentation at the appropriate time. Perhaps the matter
will be resolved sufficiently to do this at the next PASCO Safety Seminar
(tentatively planned for early November at the Hillier Aviation Museum!)

Just to clarify my earlier comments, though, our final glide was from
Kingsbury Grade around the mountain towards TVL.

There was only one person standing to the side of the ski slope, which left
room to land safely - that was the only reason we landed there. *We were on
the ground VERY quickly after the decision and the picture on the ground
did not change during the approach which was maybe a minute, but could have
been as little as 30 seconds. *I believe that the approach was made without
spoilers deployed.

- Jim

At 13:40 09 February 2012, RWW wrote:

Jonathon May *wrote:
I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my
cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a
possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.

Will we be hearing SoaringNV's side of this, or are they hiding behind
lawyers (probably a smart move in today's society)?
--
RWW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Jim for sharing with us.
The more I learn and think about this incident, the more I am
convinced that the bad decision was done earlier which resulted in
not being able to clear Kingsbury Grade back to Minden. I would not
criticize the landing, as they tried to make it to South Lake Tahoe
airport, couldn't make it, and had only 2 choices left, the trees or
an empty slope. Given those 2 choices they made the right decision. If
the situation during landing would have changed, I am sure they would
have gone to the trees.

Ramy

I'm really glad that we are now hearing from one of the pilots and
especially happy to hear that he is considering a thorough analysis
and report at some point. I believe that we are at a critical
juncture in soaring today in terms of accounting for our shortcomings
and changing our culture to embody a higher standard of airmanship.
There was a lot of public discussion at the convention about this and
maybe even more in private. There are a couple of key points that this
"incident" could provide critical impetus and insight on.

First, unlike the airlines, the military, and other professional
aviation organizations, we in soaring do not HAVE to participate in
all the latest and greatest accident prevention, recurrent training,
preparation, performance, analysis, and reporting that have proven to
actually make a significant dent in overall safety. Just look at the
rates the Air Force and especially the Academy glider program can
boast about. We in general aviation soaring look like a bunch of
idiots in comparison. Agricultural aviation killed fewer people last
year in the US. That's embarrassing let alone tragic! But still,
there is a significant fraction of glider pilots and organizations who
resist the call to higher standards. They may be a minority but their
influence is huge. The FARs, the PTS, and "the way we've always done
it" is almost too much for them to adhere to. Since we don't HAVE to
do more, many don't and wont. That is, until we change the culture of
soaring to make it totally unacceptable not to, to make it COOL to be
as professional and safety conscious as the military or airlines.
Jim's offer of reporting on his experience is a very COOL thing to do,
especially in light of all the hubbub surrounding it. At the
convention I learned about a pilot in UT who had a serious injury
accident a few years ago and is now going around giving presentations
about it. I participated in discussions about helping him get his
presentations out via the web and in person to pilots and clubs all
across the US. I hope that the same can happen with this current
incident and that the PIC will also take part.

Presentations like this can change the culture of airmanship in
soaring but they can also provide vital information about the types of
errors and the nature of misjudgments that can lead to accidents.
Much of that detail is lacking when the final word is "pilot error" or
the participants are dead, or too embarrassed to talk. Further, there
are far more unreported "incidents" that are never brought to light
because they aren't required to be. The participants in any
unreportable incidents have an opportunity to contribute crucial
information about how things go wrong, and how to correct them before
airplanes and people get broken.

This landing on Heavenly bunny hill could fade into history as a hairy
but successful landout. (If I'd have been the PIC I'll admit I might
want it to). Or, due to it's happening at a crucial time and place in
US soaring culture it can become a shining example of professional
airmanship analysis that can lead the changes in our culture we so
desperately need.

Matt Michael
CFIG

But... We are *not* professionals. Some of us, myself included, are or
have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
safety programs which you mention. All of these programs have a positive
impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. You don't
play, we don't pay.

I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. I suspect the
majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.

For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
I ride my motorcycle. It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
SAFETY! I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
required, but because it improves my safety.

Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. We can
operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. Our CFIGs can
arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
required by the FAA to maintain their certification. Those who want to fly
because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...


"matt michael" wrote in message
...
I'm really glad that we are now hearing from one of the pilots and
especially happy to hear that he is considering a thorough analysis
and report at some point. I believe that we are at a critical
juncture in soaring today in terms of accounting for our shortcomings
and changing our culture to embody a higher standard of airmanship.
There was a lot of public discussion at the convention about this and
maybe even more in private. There are a couple of key points that this
"incident" could provide critical impetus and insight on.

First, unlike the airlines, the military, and other professional
aviation organizations, we in soaring do not HAVE to participate in
all the latest and greatest accident prevention, recurrent training,
preparation, performance, analysis, and reporting that have proven to
actually make a significant dent in overall safety. Just look at the
rates the Air Force and especially the Academy glider program can
boast about. We in general aviation soaring look like a bunch of
idiots in comparison. Agricultural aviation killed fewer people last
year in the US. That's embarrassing let alone tragic! But still,
there is a significant fraction of glider pilots and organizations who
resist the call to higher standards. They may be a minority but their
influence is huge. The FARs, the PTS, and "the way we've always done
it" is almost too much for them to adhere to. Since we don't HAVE to
do more, many don't and wont. That is, until we change the culture of
soaring to make it totally unacceptable not to, to make it COOL to be
as professional and safety conscious as the military or airlines.
Jim's offer of reporting on his experience is a very COOL thing to do,
especially in light of all the hubbub surrounding it. At the
convention I learned about a pilot in UT who had a serious injury
accident a few years ago and is now going around giving presentations
about it. I participated in discussions about helping him get his
presentations out via the web and in person to pilots and clubs all
across the US. I hope that the same can happen with this current
incident and that the PIC will also take part.

Presentations like this can change the culture of airmanship in
soaring but they can also provide vital information about the types of
errors and the nature of misjudgments that can lead to accidents.
Much of that detail is lacking when the final word is "pilot error" or
the participants are dead, or too embarrassed to talk. Further, there
are far more unreported "incidents" that are never brought to light
because they aren't required to be. The participants in any
unreportable incidents have an opportunity to contribute crucial
information about how things go wrong, and how to correct them before
airplanes and people get broken.

This landing on Heavenly bunny hill could fade into history as a hairy
but successful landout. (If I'd have been the PIC I'll admit I might
want it to). Or, due to it's happening at a crucial time and place in
US soaring culture it can become a shining example of professional
airmanship analysis that can lead the changes in our culture we so
desperately need.

Matt Michael
CFIG

You partially misunderstand me Dan. I'm not suggesting that we soar
because it's cool. I'm saying that we need to foster a culture that
makes it cool to be "professional" in our conduct as soaring pilots,
cool to be a team player in our approach to safety.

Obviously, you already approach airmanship in a professional way and
by example have a positive influence on the culture of safety. You are
already a part of the solution. It is true that the many pilots in
our sport operate safely and also true that they can do so without
formal safety programs. But you have to understand that not everyone
has the backround, training, and respect for airmanship that you do.
This is true of some CFIGs too! If good safe soaring pilots like
yourself go around saying "we don't need no stinking safety programs"
the pilots and would-be pilots that don't understand and respect
airmanship, the ones that really need recurrent training and ongoing
supervision wont sign up for it. They don't have to and if the expert
pilots they respect don't bother with it why should they? That's what
I mean about "cool". We have to make it cool to and participate in
safety related programs in soaring so that all soaring pilots will be
motivated to join the team.

Good airmanship starts with the individual and must be a personal
commitment but until we are all on the same team we don't have a
chance of reducing our accident rates. The ones to look out for are
the ones who refuse to join the team, regardless of their backround,
knowledge, and experience.

Matt Michael










On Feb 10, 8:34*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
But... *We are *not* professionals. *Some of us, myself included, are or
have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
safety programs which you mention. *All of these programs have a positive
impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. *You don't
play, we don't pay.

I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. *I suspect the
majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.

For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
I ride my motorcycle. *It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
SAFETY! *I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
required, but because it improves my safety.

Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. *We can
operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. *Our CFIGs can
arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
required by the FAA to maintain their certification. *Those who want to fly
because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...

On Feb 10, 9:55*am, matt michael wrote:
You partially misunderstand me Dan. *I'm not suggesting that we soar
because it's cool. *I'm saying that we need to foster a culture that
makes it cool to be "professional" in our conduct as soaring pilots,
cool to be a team player in our approach to safety.

Obviously, you already approach airmanship in a professional way and
by example have a positive influence on the culture of safety. You are
already a part of the solution. *It is true that the many pilots in
our sport operate safely and also true that they can do so without
formal safety programs. *But you have to understand that not everyone
has the backround, training, and respect for airmanship that you do.
This is true of some CFIGs too! * If good safe soaring pilots like
yourself go around saying "we don't need no stinking safety programs"
the pilots and would-be pilots that don't understand and respect
airmanship, the ones that really need recurrent training and ongoing
supervision wont sign up for it. *They don't have to and if the expert
pilots they respect don't bother with it why should they? *That's what
I mean about "cool". *We have to make it cool to and participate in
safety related programs in soaring so that all soaring pilots will be
motivated to join the team.

Good airmanship starts with the individual and must be a personal
commitment but until we are all on the same team we don't have a
chance of reducing our accident rates. The ones to look out for are
the ones who refuse to join the team, regardless of their backround,
knowledge, and experience.

Matt Michael

On Feb 10, 8:34*am, "Dan Marotta" wrote:







But... *We are *not* professionals. *Some of us, myself included, are or
have been professionals and have attended and participated in all of the
safety programs which you mention. *All of these programs have a positive
impact on safety, mainly with the threat of loss of livelihood. *You don't
play, we don't pay.

I fly gliders not because it's COOL - I do it because I love it and, since I
also love living, I operate my glider in a safe manner. *I suspect the
majority of us fly and operate for the same or similar reasons.

For the same reason as stated above, I also wear a DOT approved helmet when
I ride my motorcycle. *It is not required where I live but I do it for MY
SAFETY! *I've worn seat belts in my cars since the 60s, not because it's
required, but because it improves my safety.

Please don't misconstrue that I say to mean that I'm against safety (as I
know a certain individual will do), I am very much for safety. *We can
operate our aircraft safely without formal safety programs. *Our CFIGs can
arm us with the information we need to make rational judgments and they can
get all of the latest information and techniques from those programs
required by the FAA to maintain their certification. *Those who want to fly
because it's "cool" are the ones to look out for...

Matt, thanks for both your posts - you nailed it.