Sorry, but I still don't see it. Two accidents in 20
years doesn't strike me as a top ten safety issue.
Certainly finding better ways to train for more advanced
forms of soaring (cross country, racing, acro, etc.)
and exercising good judgement generally are motherhood
issues for the sport.

I think it is possible to construct worst case scenarios
for any phase of flight and thinking about these scenarios
may prove instructive for the development of flying
judgement -- after all judgement is generally born
out of learning from experience. If you construct a
low pass scenario of gliders converging from different
directions on a busy, mixed-use airport without proper
radio procedures or situational awareness, crossing
active runways without looking, squeezing between buildings
and frightening the children it starts to sound reckless.
But in my view that is a debating canard. I can make
a simple pattern tow sound dangerous with similar 'scenario-buildi
ng' just by adding in high crosswinds, local thunderstorms,
poor preflight procedures... you get the picture.

If there are facts about actual accidents (Tom's search
turned up two that were of questionable applicability
since I don't think we're talking about attempting
loops at low altitude as a standard procedure), or
facts about near misses where another aircraft was
forced to take emergency evasive action, then maybe
there can be a productive discussion about what to
do to improve safety. But the facts don't seem to bear
this out.

Tom, I don't dispute your general points about judgement
and training, I just think we need to be careful about
characterizing certain types of flying as inherently
risky if the real point is reckless or thoughtless
flying in any phase of flight is potentially dangerous.
The first thought tends to lead to rules and regulations
about specific flight procedures (e.g. no low-passes,
no more than one glider in a thermal, no ridge soaring,
no landings [okay that might be a tough one to implement]),
but if the real issue is poor judgement generally,
than all the rules do is take the fun out of flying
and give some people a false sense of security. Some
of the clubs I've belonged to that have been the most
'rule happy' actually have poorer safety records (no
I don't have statistics). I'd hate to distract people
away from the real safety issues, which (according
to the statistics) have to do with maintaining proper
control of the aircraft and adequate flying speed/coordination.

Hope these thoughts are viewed as constructive - it's
how they are intended.

9B

At 01:54 10 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote:
Jack wrote in message news:...
in article ,
Tom Seim at
wrote on 2003/09/08 23:52:

Character assignation is a definte debate loser.

Perhaps you meant '...assassination', rather than
'...assignation'?

Yes, my fingers were a couple words behind my brain.
Shows the problem
with spell check.



...pull up stall-spins following the low pass [are]
an
essential part of the maneuver which would not have
been
attempted had it not been for the low pass. Thus
the low
pass was directly contributory to the accident.

I think you may have to go further and tell us how
you define
'low pass'. Are pull ups from three feet more dangerous
than pullups from
ten feet, or one hundred feet, or three hundred? And
by how much,
statistically speaking?

Now you are in the 'bring me a rock' mode. You are
no more interested
in additional stats than you are in changing your mind
on the matter.
The maneuver is an inherently high-risk one with little
margin for
error. Blasting thru a busy GA airport such as the
one where I fly out
of with piston A/C, turbine A/C, ultra-lights and helicopters
is using
questionable judgment. Not all pilots are on the correct
frequency or
have their squelch set properly. Some don't have radios
at all. None
will be expecting this maneuver.

Some maneuvers are inherently more dangerous than others
(i.e. ridge
soaring and landings). Their accident rate per flight
hour WILL be
higher, but you don't see it referenced. It gets lumped
into the
overall rate. All of us will be doing one landing for
each flight; few
will be doing a low pass.



...training...for high speed low passes...isn't part
of
the practical test standards and it certainly wasn't
a
part of my training.

Then please don't do them. Nor should you presume
to decide who is qualified
to do them and who is not, nor how much risk exposure
is involved.


Judgment is the integration of training and experience.
Let the record speak for itself; this maneuver is,
deservedly, a high risk one.

The record merely tells us that some glider pilots
have performed the low
pass maneuver poorly. You have no idea how many do
it every day with success
and even aplomb.

Not many. I seldom see it performed. Most of them were
done at
contests until the rules were changed over concern
about safety. I
personally have done them at contests. And I admit
it; they were fun!
With the new tasks which had gliders coming in to the
finish line from
any direction, even though we all crossed the finish
line in the same
direction, heightened the risk substantially.


It is a failing of our government-approved so-called
system of training
which refuses to even acknowledge, let alone prepare
pilots for, any number
of maneuvers which a competent pilot should have in
his repertoire. No
wonder they occasionally do them poorly.


The current program doesn't even address cross country
soaring. It
basically teaches gliding, not soaring. Yet much of
the glider hours
flown are cross country. The Feds will change training
requirements
when they see unusually high accident rates, which
is probably just as
well because we would have a real problem getting instructors.

Let me be clear about one thing: the low pass maneuver
is legal except
where prohibited by local A/P rules (assuming you don't
violate some
other rule in the process). I have no intention of
petitioning the FAA
otherwise (have you read the posts by the club that
is having major
difficulties with the A/P management?). I was expressing
my opinion to
which I am entitled, and just think that low time pilots
should not be
attempting it. Now, the bird man thing is another story.