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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
I was the one getting the BFR and Jeffrey was providing me with some ridge training during the flight phase of the review. Forgive me Jim, but I just got to ask, did you pass the BFR? :) JJ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
As a new student glider pilot, this thread holds a lot of interest to
me. When I first made the decision to start learning to fly, one of the first tasks I undertook was looking into my life insurance policy. Sure enough, my policy excluded aviation related activites from payout. So, I went in search of new life insurance without aviation exclusions. I learned very quickly how dangerous the insurance industry believes gliding is. Imagine the following paraphrased summary of my conversation with multiple agents: Me: Looking for new life insurance that does not exclude aviation activites. Agent: Oh wow, that's going to be expensive. Give me some details. Me: Taking glider pilot lessons, want to be covered. Agent: Gliders!!!!???!!! OH WOW! That is going to be *REALLY* expensive since that is the highest risk aviation category. Etc. The point is, glider pilots have no one to blame but ourselves for the very poor safety record we apparently have. And, as demonstrated by the huge premiums I am now paying to be covered, the few bad apples are definitely costing the reast of us dearly - both monetarily and in reputation. I really appreciate those on this forum who are taking safety seriously and hope that we all can reflect a bit and ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to promote safety. If you can answer yes then thank you! If you can't, then maybe Matt's comments will strike a chord and provide the needed challenge to improve this season. Robert On Feb 10, 10:55*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...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
Matt,
You are absolutely correct - I misunderstood your position. What you said below makes it perfectly clear. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Dan "matt michael" wrote in message ... 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... |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
Kudos to Matt Michael for moving the discussion on to the bigger picture.
I would add that I had just came from the SSA convention and, before that, the PASCO safety seminar in November. Jeffrey was at the Convention, at least, so I think it would be fair to say that both of us started the day focused upon having a safe flight. Not only is Jeffrey a highly experienced pilot, but there was nothing about the flight (a simple BFR) that would tempt either of us into pushing the envelope. I have been very intrigued with Richard Carlson's descriptions of the "culture of safety" idea. Spent some time chatting with him about it at the PASCO meeting and also attended the safety presentation at the SSA convention. If it is possible to eventually use this incident as a springboard to improving the safety of our sport then I fully support that. To be honest, I'm not certain there is anything particularly special about this landout - I've since heard of two others in this general vicinity which have passed with little attention. On the other hand, nothing quite captures your attention like landing on a ski slope - so perhaps that will "sell" a little more safety to the soaring community. - Jim p.s. A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. I wouldn't answer this if it weren't JJ asking because no matter what the answer, I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication about fault or cause/effect. So I trust all of you to be professional and appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency opportunity. Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing! Yeah. I passed. p.p.s. And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy: Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something - that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. Shop it around some more. There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost. Incidentally, on Monday I heard the President of the trade association for California ski resorts assert on the radio that skiing was "inherently dangerous". This is true. While I was waiting on the slope to help with the retrieve there were two separate life flight helicopter missions to Heavenly for skiers who were seriously injured by skiing just in the course of a couple of hours. Yet no one in the ski industry is calling for additional safety training or safety precautions - to the contrary, the reason for his interview was that he was RESISTING outside suggestions for additional safety tools... Flying is not inherently dangerous. The reason for the attention to safety you are seeing in soaring now is precisely because we have so many people who are absolutely willing to set aside personal interest and step up to the plate when they see a problem. Welcome to the sport. There is no other like it. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
Yeah, I eventually ended up taking a policy with piclife. Its cost
was about twice the price of my original insurance policy. However, traditional companies were all quoting around 8x my original policy rate. Ouch. Robert On Feb 10, 11:44*pm, Jim Wallis wrote: .. p.p.s. *And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy: Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something - that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. *Shop it around some more. *There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost. Welcome to the sport. *There is no other like it. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
On Feb 10, 10:57*pm, Robert S wrote:
Yeah, I eventually ended up taking a policy with piclife. *Its cost was about twice the price of my original insurance policy. *However, traditional companies were all quoting around 8x my original policy rate. Ouch. Robert On Feb 10, 11:44*pm, Jim wrote: . * p.p.s. *And to the new guy to soaring with the expensive insurance policy: *Insurers with no experience will often try to act scared of something - *that is their excuse to charge more for the policy. *Shop it around some *more. *There are outfits that will insure you to fly for a reasonable cost. *Welcome to the sport. *There is no other like it. Did you look at the insurace that AOPA is offering (AVEMCO)? Ended up costing me less than the prior life insurance I had. Ramy |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
On Feb 11, 12:07*am, wrote:
As a new student glider pilot, this thread holds a lot of interest to me. *When I first made the decision to start learning to fly, one of the first tasks I undertook was looking into my life insurance policy. *Sure enough, my policy excluded aviation related activites from payout. *So, I went in search of new life insurance without aviation exclusions. I learned very quickly how dangerous the insurance industry believes gliding is. *Imagine the following paraphrased summary of my conversation with multiple agents: Me: *Looking for new life insurance that does not exclude aviation activites. Agent: *Oh wow, that's going to be expensive. *Give me some details. Me: *Taking glider pilot lessons, want to be covered. Agent: *Gliders!!!!???!!! *OH WOW! *That is going to be *REALLY* expensive since that is the highest risk aviation category. Etc. There are two points that may or may not be relevant. Firstly many people think "gliding" is "hang gliding" or "paragliding". Sometimes it can be useful to explain what you're _not_ going to be doing. Secondly almost all insurers have their "target demographic", and don't want to stray outside that. If you are outside that then they quote outrageous premiums simply because the are not interested in assessing the specific risks. In effect they are obliquely but politely "cherry picking", and implying you should check another insurer. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was not connected to the BFR. *That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing! Yeah. *I passed. I have always believed that Rule #1 is to put the ship down in the best location available and deal with the consequences later. I have landed at Reno International without radio contact with the tower and about a year later I plunked it down on the ramp at Edwards AFB without radio contact with the tower......(seems to be trend here)! Then there was the landing at a Nevada Cat-House and a wheat field that we managed to incinerate in west Texas! My rule has served me well with no violations or legal action for nearly 40 years now. Any landing where nobody got injured is a good landing in my book! Hang in there Jim, JJ |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
JJ,
Wasn't that Cat House story in Soaring Magazine? If not, it should be! "JJ Sinclair" wrote in message ... Quite simply, the sequence of events that led to the off field landing was not connected to the BFR. That said, I can guarantee that I learned a heck of a lot on that flight and I'm looking forward to sharing! Yeah. I passed. I have always believed that Rule #1 is to put the ship down in the best location available and deal with the consequences later. I have landed at Reno International without radio contact with the tower and about a year later I plunked it down on the ramp at Edwards AFB without radio contact with the tower......(seems to be trend here)! Then there was the landing at a Nevada Cat-House and a wheat field that we managed to incinerate in west Texas! My rule has served me well with no violations or legal action for nearly 40 years now. Any landing where nobody got injured is a good landing in my book! Hang in there Jim, JJ |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...
On Feb 10, 9:44*pm, Jim Wallis
wrote: p.s. *A couple of people have asked whether I passed the BFR. *I wouldn't answer this if it weren't JJ asking * *because no matter what the answer, I have been concerned that someone would make an incorrect implication about fault or cause/effect. *So I trust all of you to be professional and appreciate that (1) no CFIG in his right mind would let a student fly into a potentially dangerous situation (2) that the BFR is neither structured nor intended as a test, but rather as an instructional/recurrency opportunity. On point (1) above, I would consider it a serious mistake to assume that anyone, no matter what their perceived experience level, can be depended upon not to allow you to "fly into a potentially dangerous situation". Keep in mind, during a BFR you are the PIC, not a student. If a CFI-G asks you to do something which you feel is unsafe during a BFR, you should politely, but firmly, refuse. For all you know, it may be part of what he's checking... Marc |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding... | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | February 7th 12 08:52 AM |
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding... | Mark Jardini[_2_] | Soaring | 0 | February 7th 12 04:51 AM |
Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding... | Mark Jardini[_2_] | Soaring | 0 | February 7th 12 04:46 AM |
Our experience at Sky Bryce ski resort (video) | John Harlow | Piloting | 1 | February 1st 04 02:57 PM |
Flying to a Ski Resort | Victor | Piloting | 10 | December 29th 03 09:50 PM |