RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

On 1/22/2018 11:50 AM, krasw wrote:
So far work for improving safety in WGC events has realized in endless
safety briefings before each competition day. Same chant goes on forever,
"look outside, do not cut each other in thermal, do this, don't do that".
After this, everybody goes to fly the task EXACTLY same way as always.

Sometimes one has to wonder what goes on in pilots minds. For example, I
find thermal and start turning, after few turns fellow competitor joins
same thermal and starts circling to opposite direction at same altitude.
And this happens time and time again. They see you all the time and
apparently decide that "let's collide with that glider right here and now".
And this is just one small example of problems involving gaggle flying.
Luckily one doesn't have to witness all the stupidity of involved flying at
treetop level instead of landing out.

All this goes on forever, until there is rule that prevent stupidity, way
of controlling the rule, and penalty. It takes all of these three
components, if one is missing, we have useless rule.

My sincere condolences to everyone grieving for Mr. Reich, particularly his
family and personal friends.

At the risk of offending the Thread-drift Police, I'll add my "+1" to the
general message in the above post, and, emphasize the "universal truth" noted
in its final paragraph.

Way back when I was a vastly experienced soaring tyro flying my first
"semi-real contest," I independently came to krasw's conclusion expressed in
that final paragraph.

It took me two days to do so. The contest's pilot briefings hammered home two
flight safety rules each morning: 1) left-turns-only within 5 miles of the
launch airport; 2) thermal the same direction "everywhere." (From a
mid-air-prevention collision perspective, it would seem difficult to get more
"basically 'Duh!'" than that, IMO.) On Day 1, in my release thermal (at the
designated release point more or less directly atop the launch airfield), I
watched a guy join at my altitude and begin thermalling to his right; I left
to find another thermal. On Day 2 no one spoke up in the AM safety briefing
about the issue (which I'd noted was not isolated to the instance claimed
above)...and I experienced it again on Day 2. Again, no one spoke up on Day
3's safety review. (My 'excuse' for remaining mute was I felt intimidated,
being the new kid on the block...though [among other things] the sheer
brazenness displayed by the offending pilot[s?] appalled me.)

The circumstances troubled me sufficiently that, after the contest, I phoned
the person who'd introduced me to the sport, and who'd by then flown several
national contests, to ask: Was my experience normal at "real contests" too?
His response was a quiet chuckle followed by a comment to the effect that in
his experience it was. (He even volunteered one repeat offender's name; that
same alleged culprit continued to fly U.S. nationals for the next
quarter-century-plus.)

And while my experience noted above wasn't the sole reason for voting with my
contest-participating-feet - I found I simply enjoyed flying on my own
considerably more - it certainly was a big part of that being the last "real
contest" in which I participated.

Ideas have consequences, and the idea of actually being able to hold - and
holding - people accountable for their actions is an important one.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

please read this: http://soaring.eu/?p=20949


Large part of last accidents was playing in poor weather conditions.

I do not race and never will so excuse my ignorance but is there not a penalty for circling the "wrong" way in a thermal? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to catch offenders via logs.

On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 14:45:13 UTC+2, wrote:
I do not race and never will so excuse my ignorance but is there not a penalty for circling the "wrong" way in a thermal? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to catch offenders via logs.

True, and there is penalty for "hazardous flying". I have yet to see it enforced in situations like this. One can always say that one did not see the other guy (like it is ok if you do not watch out of the cockpit). Only soft measures (more lenghty safety lectures) are used, which are huge waist of everyone's time. You would have to make a loop in front of competition director's eyes at treetop level to get "hazardous flying" penalty. Unless of course you fly in a country where it is normal, and you are actually expected to make stunts low over airfield.

There was a hazardous flying penalty at the JWGC: https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jw...17-08-09/daily

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
There was a hazardous flying penalty at the JWGC: https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jw...17-08-09/daily

A competitor was sent home some years ago from a Nationals in Minden NV after repeated "hazardous flying". If enough pilots complain, this can be dealt with.

On 1/23/2018 7:03 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
There was a hazardous flying penalty at the JWGC:
https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jw...17-08-09/daily


A competitor was sent home some years ago from a Nationals in Minden NV
after repeated "hazardous flying". If enough pilots complain, this can be
dealt with.

Simply because I find this particular aspect of soaring/human nature
personally fascinating - and not because I have a horse in this race (I do
not) - I'll note that an argument can be made that but 2 "hard examples" over
several decades'-worth of international contests, makes a better case for the
*absence* of (consistent? rigorous? etc.) enforcement of this particular
aspect of contest flying as "easily visible from ground organizers'
perspectives," than it does for an absence of "unsafe flying incidents."

I remember when both examples cited above came to my "print attention" (the
former via the web and the latter via SSA's "Soaring" magazine). From my
perspective, no "obvious informational followup" from either source. (One
might also reasonably argue that lack of "press followup" is part of the
underlying issue as well.)

I suspect Herb K.'s post-ending assertion is accurate, though likely to be
"seriously inertially resisted" by organizers (and many competitors) for a
small host of easily identifiable, human-nature-based, rationales, including
(though not limited to): desire to avoid confrontation; fear of reducing
perceived minimal contest participation (a sword that cuts two ways);
"unfairness/judgmental/etc." complaints; ad-hominem responses; etc.

To the extent that soaring contests are democratic in their rules development
and enforcement, I'll put my money on nothing much changing on this particular
front in the near future...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:45:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
I do not race and never will so excuse my ignorance but is there not a penalty for circling the "wrong" way in a thermal? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to catch offenders via logs.

There are technological solutions for at least some infractions. With Flarm, you can no longer claim "I didn't see him" in a thermal - the glider will appear on your tactical display as well as his flight path and circling direction. Log files can automatically be examined to see who arrived first and who went the wrong way. There will be cases that are judgement calls, but most of them will be blatant. Second, low terrain clearance can be mostly solved with a hard floor. In the past difficult to comply with, but with modern tactical computers very easy. We already have a hard ceiling. There are pilots who hate the idea, these are usually the pilots that want to win with a low save that no one else believes was worth the risk. A hard floor is not detrimental at all to measuring soaring skill, though greatly detrimental to measuring risk tolerance.

I would suggest to look again at the Final Video of the SGP http://www.sgp.aero/finals2017.aspx?contestID=30819 with various pilot interviews. Taking away all the niceties they were saying about the place there are also some underlying uncertainty and comments which would worry me. M. Tingey at 3.09 (frightening) and S.Kawa at 6.10 (Scared). In my book both of these could mean trouble and it either takes skill or luck to get out of these situations.

Deepest condolences to family and friends. I have lost more friends in glider accidents than any other cause. I hope that a respectful discussion of safety issues in the wake of a tragic loss doesn't offend anyone.

In my experience, human behavior is a big consideration when looking at safety issues in glider racing.

First, unsafe flying penalties are rarely called, and only for the most egregious acts. Contest officials don't want to be in the position of determining contest placing based on penalties so they explicitly ask for rules that aren't subject to interpretation - or better yet, are calculated by scoring software. Unsafe flying is usually pretty subjective. Finishes are a classic case. Coming in low and cutting in front of gliders in the pattern or otherwise disrupting the well-being of other pilots rarely (if ever - I can't think of a case) gets called, so we are left speculating about the minimum safe finish heights to commit to the rules.

Second, humans are terrible at assessing low probability (but catastrophic) events and they are very good at rationalizing. A decision with a 10% chance of killing you will work out 9 times out of 10. If getting away with one encourages pilots to keep pushing the limit the eventual outcome will be predictable, but many pilots seem to feel the risk is acceptably low right up to the end.

Third, competition encourages everyone to push their limits and boundaries. I think the SGP format accentuates that tendency in two ways: 1) The head-to-head nature of the race makes it crystal clear where you stand and 2) the scoring system based on place rather than time makes every fraction of a second count (as has been pointed out and was evidenced on several days with split-second finishes). This certainly adds to the thrill, but has predictable behavioral implications.

I hear a lot that each pilot-in-command is responsible for their own fate (that's tautologically true) and that we should let pilots set their own safety limits with unsafe flying penalties only for obviously unsafe or illegal acts of piloting. I just think we are kidding ourselves when we attempt to assert that how we set the game up doesn't (or can't) materially influence the degree of carnage we witness at the end of the day.

There are also factors related to tasking, which are difficult to deal with explicitly in the way we set up the rules, penalties and scoring (weak weather, long hours in the cockpit over multiple days, difficult terrain, thunderstorms, etc.). Here too behavioral considerations factor in (needing/wanting to get in a contest day, pressure from pilots, etc.). We can try to deal with this via exhortations for responsible individual behavior, but maybe there is more to think about.

Respectfully.

Andy Blackburn
9B