subject:"Re\: \[Aus\-soaring\] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding"

any breakdown on the 23 in regard if any were at comps and how many fatalities?

> On 4 Mar 2016, at 2:46 PM, Anthony Smith <anthony.sm...@adelaide.on.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> From the Feb-Mar 2016 issue of Gliding Australia:
>  
> From 1 Oct 15 to 30 Nov 15: There were 34 reported accidents and incidents.
>  
> Of these:
>  
> In flight 2
> Launch  5
> Ground Ops   1
> Landing23
> Outlanding  3
>  
> I haven’t found the total reported hours for the same / similar period yet. I 
> will not hazard a guess about the average hours per year per pilot.
>  
> Latest Gliding International magazine estimated that we have~2600 active 
> pilots.  Mandy reported 2560 active pilots in January this year.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 12:48 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
>  
> Making it anywhere from 50 to 80 km/hr isn't going to change things by all 
> that much.
> 
> Call it a good physics order of magnitude estimate. It is better than that 
> actually.
> 
> Mike
> 
> At 11:51 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/03/2016 12:07 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote:
> 
> I doubt you'll find glider crash rates per km. Hours, yes.
> 
> What is the average speed of a motorcycle on the roads. I'll say 60km/h based 
> on driving a car with a car computer a few times.
> 
> Off the top of my head, I couldn't say for sure. I don't have time to go 
> trawling through the literature right now, but I'd guess it might be a bit 
> higher than for cars, given the proportion of motorcycle use that is 
> recreational (as opposed to commuting in traffic).
> 
> 
> 
> That gives you around one crash per 1600 hours or so for motorcycles. I guess 
> this is crashes not fatals? If so sounds about right for gliders too.
> 
> Yep, that's crashes, not fatals. Finding papers that have exposure data *and* 
> fatality data for motorcycles would take a bit more time (I didn't see any 
> during my quickish search earlier); and the nature of the beast is that just 
> copypasting the exposure data into someone else's fatality rate calculation 
> is prone to give you wildly inaccurate results, due to differences in sample 
> characteristics, methodology, etc, etc. (These things are never easy.)
> 
> 
> Teal
> 
> 
> 
> Mike
> 
> At 10:58 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/03/2016 10:44 AM, DMcD wrote:
> 
> And I don't think you could compare gliding with motorcycle riding (racing 
> maybe). In terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp pilot hours, 
> you'd find a difference of several orders of magnitude. We have whatâ€Š 2500 
> pilots active in Australia? And how many die each year? 1-2?
> 
> FWIW, I can help a bit with that question. Good road traffic exposure data 
> can be a bit hard to come by, but a bit of searching found a paper* reporting 
> motorcycle crash rates for NSW from (I think) 2004, and they said: "The mean 
> crash rate (based on self-reported crash involvement) was 0.96 
> crashes/100,000 km".
> 
> Now, if anyone has crash data and exposure figures for glider pilots 
> (measured in km travelled) then we can see how glider fatalities compare with 
> motorcycle fatalities, should we so desire.
> 
> 
> Teal
> 
> 
> *Source: Harrison, W. A., & Christie, R. (2005). Exposure survey of 
> motorcyclists in New South Wales. /Accident Analysis & Prevention/, /37/(3), 
> 441-451.
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring < 
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
> 
> *Borgelt Instruments***- /design & manufacture of quality soaring 
> instrumentation since 1978
> / www.borgeltinstruments.com
> < http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>tel:   07 4635 5784overseas: 
> int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation 
> si

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding


At 02:21 PM 3/4/2016, you wrote:

The Gliding International magazine breaks it down further

X-country pilots1820
Comp pilots 500 (probably a sub set of x-country pilots)
Instructors 600 (also probably a sub-set of x-country pilots -
but not guaranteed)




I wonder where they got those numbers from? The first two seem high.

Mike






Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Teal

If the active pilots estimate is based on GFA memberships, does it 
include AEFs? GFA membership figures I've seen certainly used to include 
them.  I think for the purposes of this fatalities-per-km-flown 
calculation we're trying to figure out, AEFs should be omitted since 
they're not exactly typical of the glider pilot population.



Teal

On 4/03/2016 2:16 PM, Anthony Smith wrote:


From the Feb-Mar 2016 issue of Gliding Australia:

From 1 Oct 15 to 30 Nov 15: There were 34 reported accidents and 
incidents.


Of these:

In flightÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  2

LaunchÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 5

Ground OpsÂ Â Â Â Â Â  1

LandingÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 23

OutlandingÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 3

I havenât found the total reported hours for the same / similar 
period yet. I will not hazard a guess about the average hours per year 
per pilot.


Latest Gliding International magazine estimated that we have~2600 
active pilots.Â  Mandy reported 2560 active pilots in January this year.


*From:*Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] 
*On Behalf Of *Mike Borgelt

*Sent:* Friday, 4 March 2016 12:48 PM
*To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

*Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

Making it anywhere from 50 to 80 km/hr isn't going to change things by 
all that much.


Call it a good physics order of magnitude estimate. It is better than 
that actually.


Mike

At 11:51 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:



On 4/03/2016 12:07 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote:

I doubt you'll find glider crash rates per km. Hours, yes.

What is the average speed of a motorcycle on the roads. I'll
say 60km/h based on driving a car with a car computer a few times.


Off the top of my head, I couldn't say for sure. I don't have time
to go trawling through the literature right now, but I'd guess it
might be a bit higher than for cars, given the proportion of
motorcycle use that is recreational (as opposed to commuting in
traffic).



That gives you around one crash per 1600 hours or so for
motorcycles. I guess this is crashes not fatals? If so sounds
about right for gliders too.


Yep, that's crashes, not fatals. Finding papers that have exposure
data *and* fatality data for motorcycles would take a bit more
time (I didn't see any during my quickish search earlier); and the
nature of the beast is that just copypasting the exposure data
into someone else's fatality rate calculation is prone to give you
wildly inaccurate results, due to differences in sample
characteristics, methodology, etc, etc. (These things are never easy.)


Teal



Mike

At 10:58 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:



On 4/03/2016 10:44 AM, DMcD wrote:

And I don't think you could compare gliding with
motorcycle riding (racing maybe). In terms of deaths
per hundred thousand rider or comp pilot hours, you'd
find a difference of several orders of magnitude. We
have whatÃ¢â¬Å  2500 pilots active in Australia? And
how many die each year? 1-2?


FWIW, I can help a bit with that question. Good road
traffic exposure data can be a bit hard to come by, but a
bit of searching found a paper* reporting motorcycle crash
rates for NSW from (I think) 2004, and they said: "The
mean crash rate (based on self-reported crash involvement)
was 0.96 crashes/100,000 km".

Now, if anyone has crash data and exposure figures for
glider pilots (measured in km travelled) then we can see
how glider fatalities compare with motorcycle fatalities,
should we so desire.


Teal


*Source: Harrison, W. A., & Christie, R. (2005). Exposure
survey of motorcyclists in New South Wales. /Accident
Analysis & Prevention/, /37/(3), 441-451.

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
<mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
<http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
<http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>>


*Borgelt Instruments***- /design & manufacture of quality
soaring instrumentation since 1978
/www.borgeltinstruments.com <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>
<http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/
<http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>>tel:   07 4635
5784overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Anthony Smith

>From the Feb-Mar 2016 issue of Gliding Australia:

>From 1 Oct 15 to 30 Nov 15: There were 34 reported accidents and incidents.

Of these:

In flight 2

Launch  5

Ground Ops   1

Landing23

Outlanding  3

I haven’t found the total reported hours for the same / similar period yet. I 
will not hazard a guess about the average hours per year per pilot.

Latest Gliding International magazine estimated that we have~2600 active 
pilots.  Mandy reported 2560 active pilots in January this year.

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Mike Borgelt
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 12:48 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

Making it anywhere from 50 to 80 km/hr isn't going to change things by all that 
much.

Call it a good physics order of magnitude estimate. It is better than that 
actually.

Mike

At 11:51 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:

On 4/03/2016 12:07 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote:

I doubt you'll find glider crash rates per km. Hours, yes.

What is the average speed of a motorcycle on the roads. I'll say 60km/h based 
on driving a car with a car computer a few times.

Off the top of my head, I couldn't say for sure. I don't have time to go 
trawling through the literature right now, but I'd guess it might be a bit 
higher than for cars, given the proportion of motorcycle use that is 
recreational (as opposed to commuting in traffic).

That gives you around one crash per 1600 hours or so for motorcycles. I guess 
this is crashes not fatals? If so sounds about right for gliders too.

Yep, that's crashes, not fatals. Finding papers that have exposure data *and* 
fatality data for motorcycles would take a bit more time (I didn't see any 
during my quickish search earlier); and the nature of the beast is that just 
copypasting the exposure data into someone else's fatality rate calculation is 
prone to give you wildly inaccurate results, due to differences in sample 
characteristics, methodology, etc, etc. (These things are never easy.)

Teal

Mike

At 10:58 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:

On 4/03/2016 10:44 AM, DMcD wrote:

And I don't think you could compare gliding with motorcycle riding (racing 
maybe). In terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp pilot hours, 
you'd find a difference of several orders of magnitude. We have whatâ€Š 2500 
pilots active in Australia? And how many die each year? 1-2?

FWIW, I can help a bit with that question. Good road traffic exposure data can 
be a bit hard to come by, but a bit of searching found a paper* reporting 
motorcycle crash rates for NSW from (I think) 2004, and they said: "The mean 
crash rate (based on self-reported crash involvement) was 0.96 crashes/100,000 
km".

Now, if anyone has crash data and exposure figures for glider pilots (measured 
in km travelled) then we can see how glider fatalities compare with motorcycle 
fatalities, should we so desire.

Teal

*Source: Harrison, W. A., & Christie, R. (2005). Exposure survey of 
motorcyclists in New South Wales. /Accident Analysis & Prevention/, /37/(3), 
441-451.

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au> 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring < 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
<http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> >

*Borgelt Instruments***- /design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978
/ www.borgeltinstruments.com <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/> 
< http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/ <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/> >tel: 
  07 4635 5784overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au> 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au> 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation 
since 1978
 <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/> www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia 

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

yes, it is recommended that all budding and  novice Comp pilots complete a 
Speedweek or similar before their first Comp.  

when Paul Mander runs Speedweek there is emphasis is on Comp preparation. Final 
Glides and FG planning is part of that. A great place with a structured low 
stress environment to learn and practice these key aspects.



> On 4 Mar 2016, at 2:26 PM, Jarek Mosiejewski <jar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> From my observations, circuit finishes happen most often with novice 
> competition pilots who are not yet comfortable with straight-ins and / or 
> unable to fine-tune the final glide arriving with too much altitude.
> Sometimes you may also see this when the designated duty runway  is so 
> congested that it is safer to join the circuit to an alternative runway. 
> Regards 
> Jarek
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Gary Stevenson" <gstev...@bigpond.com>
> 
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>, "M-12148 Mosiejewski Jaroslaw" 
> <jar...@optusnet.com.au>
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:59:57 +1100
> Subject:
> RE: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
> 
> 
> Yeah, it can happen, but only on good blue days, when your normal 
> inter-thermal glide speed is about 100 knots or so, and you are already on, 
> or close to, final glide . If your VNE is say 135 knots, and  you 
> find/stumble upon a nice energy line in the blue, you can be at VNE 
> surprisingly quickly. On Cu days, you can usually allow for this by looking 
> well ahead, starting the final glide early, and gradually pulling up under 
> the clouds onto the optimal final glide path.
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Richard Frawley
> Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 11:49 AM
> To: M-12148 Mosiejewski, Jaroslaw; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring 
> in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
> 
>  
> 
> expect for the rare occasion, if you come in with that much energy on final 
> glide in a comp, then you screwed up the planning of the final glide
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 4 Mar 2016, at 11:42 AM, Jarek Mosiejewski <jar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> There are no low level finished in the comps, the vast majority of comp 
> finishes are straight-ins which are really long finals.  The rest, for people 
> who have too much energy for a straight in, they are regular circuits.
> Most comps explicitly forbid low level, high energy finishes (aka bit ups).
> Regards 
> Jarek
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From:
> 
> 
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> To:
> 
> 
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> 
> Cc:
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Sent:
> 
> 
> Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:30:20 +1100
> 
> Subject:
> 
> 
> Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
> 
> 
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:14 AM, DMcD <slutsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> 
> It's probable that the
> statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
> another.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Well, sure, you could give strong-feelings-and-make-believe a try if you 
> want, but if you can’t baseline a “before” and “after” picture I’m not sure 
> how you’ll work out whether or not you’ve advanced the state of the art.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
> the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
> which is unique to comps… low finishes. 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Is that a true statement?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> This type of accident is rare or non-existent outside comp flying.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Is that a true statement?
> 
> 
>  
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Email sent using Optus Webmail ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
>  
> 
> Email sent using Optus Webmail
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Jarek Mosiejewski

>From my observations, circuit finishes happen most often with novice
competition pilots who are not yet comfortable with straight-ins and /
or unable to fine-tune the final glide arriving with too much
altitude.
Sometimes you may also see this when the designated duty runway  is
so congested that it is safer to join the circuit to an alternative
runway. 
Regards 
Jarek

- Original Message -
From:
 "Gary Stevenson" <gstev...@bigpond.com>

To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>, "M-12148 Mosiejewski Jaroslaw"
<jar...@optusnet.com.au>
Cc:

Sent:
Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:59:57 +1100
Subject:
RE: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

Yeah, it can happen, but only on good blue days, when your normal
inter-thermal glide speed is about 100 knots or so, and you are
already on, or close to, final glide . If your VNE is say 135 knots,
and  you find/stumble upon a nice energy line in the blue, you can be
at VNE surprisingly quickly. On Cu days, you can usually allow for
this by looking well ahead, starting the final glide early, and
gradually pulling up under the clouds onto the optimal final glide
path.

Gary

 

FROM: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] ON
BEHALF OF Richard Frawley
SENT: Friday, 4 March 2016 11:49 AM
TO: M-12148 Mosiejewski, Jaroslaw; Discussion of issues relating to
Soaring in Australia.
SUBJECT: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

 

expect for the rare occasion, if you come in with that much energy on
final glide in a comp, then you screwed up the planning of the final
glide

 

 

 

On 4 Mar 2016, at 11:42 AM, Jarek Mosiejewski <jar...@optusnet.com.au
[1]> wrote:

 

There are no low level finished in the comps, the vast majority of
comp finishes are straight-ins which are really long finals.  The
rest, for people who have too much energy for a straight in, they are
regular circuits.
Most comps explicitly forbid low level, high energy finishes (aka bit
ups).
Regards 

Jarek

- Original Message -

FROM:

"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [2]>

 

TO:

"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au [3]>

CC:

         

    SENT:

    Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:30:20 +1100

SUBJECT:

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:14 AM, DMcD <slutsw...@gmail.com [4]> wrote:

 

It's probable that the
statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
another.

 

Well, sure, you could give strong-feelings-and-make-believe a try if
you want, but if you can’t baseline a “before” and “after”
picture I’m not sure how you’ll work out whether or not you’ve
advanced the state of the art.

 

There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
which is unique to comps… low finishes. 

 

Is that a true statement?

 

This type of accident is rare or non-existent outside comp flying.

 

Is that a true statement?

 

  
- mark

 

 

-

Email sent using Optus Webmail 
___
Aus-soaring mailing list

Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
 [5]

http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
 [6]

 

-
Email sent using Optus Webmail

Links:
--
[1] mailto:jar...@optusnet.com.au
[2] mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[3] mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[4] mailto:slutsw...@gmail.com
[5] mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
[6] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

Making it anywhere from 50 to 80 km/hr isn't 
going to change things by all that much.


Call it a good physics order of magnitude 
estimate. It is better than that actually.


Mike

At 11:51 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:



On 4/03/2016 12:07 PM, Mike Borgelt wrote:

I doubt you'll find glider crash rates per km. Hours, yes.

What is the average speed of a motorcycle on 
the roads. I'll say 60km/h based on driving a 
car with a car computer a few times.


Off the top of my head, I couldn't say for sure. 
I don't have time to go trawling through the 
literature right now, but I'd guess it might be 
a bit higher than for cars, given the proportion 
of motorcycle use that is recreational (as opposed to commuting in traffic).




That gives you around one crash per 1600 hours 
or so for motorcycles. I guess this is crashes 
not fatals? If so sounds about right for gliders too.


Yep, that's crashes, not fatals. Finding papers 
that have exposure data *and* fatality data for 
motorcycles would take a bit more time (I didn't 
see any during my quickish search earlier); and 
the nature of the beast is that just copypasting 
the exposure data into someone else's fatality 
rate calculation is prone to give you wildly 
inaccurate results, due to differences in sample 
characteristics, methodology, etc, etc. (These things are never easy.)



Teal



Mike

At 10:58 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:



On 4/03/2016 10:44 AM, DMcD wrote:
And I don't think you could compare gliding 
with motorcycle riding (racing maybe). In 
terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or 
comp pilot hours, you'd find a difference of 
several orders of magnitude. We have whatâ 
2500 pilots active in Australia? And how many die each year? 1-2?


FWIW, I can help a bit with that question. 
Good road traffic exposure data can be a bit 
hard to come by, but a bit of searching found 
a paper* reporting motorcycle crash rates for 
NSW from (I think) 2004, and they said: "The 
mean crash rate (based on self-reported crash 
involvement) was 0.96 crashes/100,000 km".


Now, if anyone has crash data and exposure 
figures for glider pilots (measured in km 
travelled) then we can see how glider 
fatalities compare with motorcycle fatalities, should we so desire.



Teal


*Source: Harrison, W. A., & Christie, R. 
(2005). Exposure survey of motorcyclists in 
New South Wales. /Accident Analysis & Prevention/, /37/(3), 441-451.


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 



*Borgelt Instruments***- /design & manufacture 
of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

/www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 
4635 5784overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784

mob: 042835 5784: int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Gary Stevenson

Yeah, it can happen, but only on good blue days, when your normal inter-thermal 
glide speed is about 100 knots or so, and you are already on, or close to, 
final glide . If your VNE is say 135 knots, and  you find/stumble upon a nice 
energy line in the blue, you can be at VNE surprisingly quickly. On Cu days, 
you can usually allow for this by looking well ahead, starting the final glide 
early, and gradually pulling up under the clouds onto the optimal final glide 
path.

Gary

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of 
Richard Frawley
Sent: Friday, 4 March 2016 11:49 AM
To: M-12148 Mosiejewski, Jaroslaw; Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in 
Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

 

expect for the rare occasion, if you come in with that much energy on final 
glide in a comp, then you screwed up the planning of the final glide

 

 

 

On 4 Mar 2016, at 11:42 AM, Jarek Mosiejewski <jar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

 

There are no low level finished in the comps, the vast majority of comp 
finishes are straight-ins which are really long finals.  The rest, for people 
who have too much energy for a straight in, they are regular circuits.
Most comps explicitly forbid low level, high energy finishes (aka bit ups).
Regards 
Jarek




- Original Message -

From:

"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

 

To:

"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

Cc:

 

Sent:

Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:30:20 +1100

Subject:

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding


On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:14 AM, DMcD <slutsw...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

It's probable that the
statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
another.

 

Well, sure, you could give strong-feelings-and-make-believe a try if you want, 
but if you can’t baseline a “before” and “after” picture I’m not sure how 
you’ll work out whether or not you’ve advanced the state of the art.

 

There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
which is unique to comps… low finishes. 

 

Is that a true statement?

 

This type of accident is rare or non-existent outside comp flying.

 

Is that a true statement?

 

  - mark

 

 

  _  

Email sent using Optus Webmail ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
 <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
 <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring> 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

 

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

not a suggestion to start Mark, more a reminder to self as much as anyone else 
that's it's important never to be complacent.


> On 4 Mar 2016, at 11:54 AM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
>> 6) is it more likely that on going attention, education, reeducation and 
>> simulation will have positive effect towards reducing these events
>> 
>> Yes
> 
> There’s been rather a lot of ongoing attention, education, reeducation, and 
> simulation over the years. It’s not like we haven’t been doing those things, 
> and we’re suddenly having a bolt from the blue about how it’d be a great idea 
> to start.
> 
> Have they helped?
> 
>  - mark
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding


I doubt you'll find glider crash rates per km. Hours, yes.

What is the average speed of a motorcycle on the 
roads. I'll say 60km/h based on driving a car with a car computer a few times.



That gives you around one crash per 1600 hours or 
so for motorcycles. I guess this is crashes not 
fatals? If so sounds about right for gliders too.


Mike

At 10:58 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:



On 4/03/2016 10:44 AM, DMcD wrote:
And I don't think you could compare gliding 
with motorcycle riding (racing maybe). In terms 
of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp 
pilot hours, you'd find a difference of several 
orders of magnitude. We have whatâ 2500 
pilots active in Australia? And how many die each year? 1-2?


FWIW, I can help a bit with that question. Good 
road traffic exposure data can be a bit hard to 
come by, but a bit of searching found a paper* 
reporting motorcycle crash rates for NSW from (I 
think) 2004, and they said: "The mean crash rate 
(based on self-reported crash involvement) was 0.96 crashes/100,000 km".


Now, if anyone has crash data and exposure 
figures for glider pilots (measured in km 
travelled) then we can see how glider fatalities 
compare with motorcycle fatalities, should we so desire.



Teal


*Source: Harrison, W. A., & Christie, R. (2005). 
Exposure survey of motorcyclists in New South 
Wales. /Accident Analysis & Prevention/, /37/(3), 441-451.


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Matthew Scutter

>It's possible, by changing the finish rules, to reduce the accidents
>relating to low finishes.

Is it? How did you establish this?

> Why not do it?
The rules were changed in response to the recent accidents. We went from a
0ft 3km finish, to a 200-500ft 3km finish. (Keeping in mind 3km is not 3km
to the airfield boundary, rather ~1.5km). There were many arguments for an
against, but the general consensus seems to be the finish height is the
safest option.


On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:14 AM, DMcD  wrote:

> >>"More people die in comps than during non-competition flying"
>
> >>I do not think you can defend this statement with numbers.
>
> OK, perhaps a bit of clarification is needed.  It's probable that the
> statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
> another. However…
>
> There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
> the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
> which is unique to comps… low finishes. This type of accident is rare
> or non-existent outside comp flying.
>
> Mid-air collisions were common in gliding a decade and more ago. FLARM
> and better rules appear to have lowered this risk to acceptable
> standards (except perhaps in GP style racing.)
>
> It's possible, by changing the finish rules, to reduce the accidents
> relating to low finishes. Why not do it?
>
> There are a significant number of non-comp pilots who would fly comps
> if the perceived risks were lower. A number of these people are not
> comps averse… they regularly do things like sailing comps.
>
> And I don't think you could compare gliding with motorcycle riding
> (racing maybe). In terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp
> pilot hours, you'd find a difference of several orders of magnitude.
> We have what… 2500 pilots active in Australia? And how many die each
> year? 1-2?
>
> D
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Teal




On 4/03/2016 10:44 AM, DMcD wrote:
And I don't think you could compare gliding with motorcycle riding 
(racing maybe). In terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp 
pilot hours, you'd find a difference of several orders of magnitude. 
We have whatâŠ 2500 pilots active in Australia? And how many die each 
year? 1-2?


FWIW, I can help a bit with that question. Good road traffic exposure 
data can be a bit hard to come by, but a bit of searching found a paper* 
reporting motorcycle crash rates for NSW from (I think) 2004, and they 
said: "The mean crash rate (based on self-reported crash involvement) 
was 0.96 crashes/100,000 km".


Now, if anyone has crash data and exposure figures for glider pilots 
(measured in km travelled) then we can see how glider fatalities compare 
with motorcycle fatalities, should we so desire.



Teal


*Source: Harrison, W. A., & Christie, R. (2005). Exposure survey of 
motorcyclists in New South Wales. /Accident Analysis & Prevention/, 
/37/(3), 441-451.


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Mark Newton

On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 6) is it more likely that on going attention, education, reeducation and 
> simulation will have positive effect towards reducing these events
> 
> Yes

There’s been rather a lot of ongoing attention, education, reeducation, and 
simulation over the years. It’s not like we haven’t been doing those things, 
and we’re suddenly having a bolt from the blue about how it’d be a great idea 
to start.

Have they helped?

  - mark

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

expect for the rare occasion, if you come in with that much energy on final 
glide in a comp, then you screwed up the planning of the final glide



> On 4 Mar 2016, at 11:42 AM, Jarek Mosiejewski <jar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> There are no low level finished in the comps, the vast majority of comp 
> finishes are straight-ins which are really long finals.  The rest, for people 
> who have too much energy for a straight in, they are regular circuits.
> Most comps explicitly forbid low level, high energy finishes (aka bit ups).
> Regards 
> Jarek
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>>
> 
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>>
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:30:20 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
> 
> 
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:14 AM, DMcD <slutsw...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:slutsw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> It's probable that the
> statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
> another.
> 
> Well, sure, you could give strong-feelings-and-make-believe a try if you 
> want, but if you can’t baseline a “before” and “after” picture I’m not sure 
> how you’ll work out whether or not you’ve advanced the state of the art.
> 
> There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
> the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
> which is unique to comps… low finishes. 
> 
> Is that a true statement?
> 
> This type of accident is rare or non-existent outside comp flying.
> 
> Is that a true statement?
> 
>   - mark
> 
> 
> Email sent using Optus Webmail ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au <mailto:Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring 
> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Jarek Mosiejewski

There are no low level finished in the comps, the vast majority of
comp finishes are straight-ins which are really long finals.  The
rest, for people who have too much energy for a straight in, they are
regular circuits.
Most comps explicitly forbid low level, high energy finishes (aka bit
ups).
Regards 
Jarek

- Original Message -
From:
 "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
Cc:

Sent:
Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:30:20 +1100
Subject:
Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

 On Mar 4, 2016, at 11:14 AM, DMcD <slutsw...@gmail.com [1]> wrote:
It's probable that the

statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or

another.

Well, sure, you could give strong-feelings-and-make-believe a try if
you want, but if you can’t baseline a “before” and “after”
picture I’m not sure how you’ll work out whether or not you’ve
advanced the state of the art.

There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
which is unique to comps… low finishes. 

Is that a true statement?

This type of accident is rare or non-existent outside comp flying.

Is that a true statement?

  - mark

-
Email sent using Optus Webmail

Links:
--
[1] mailto:slutsw...@gmail.com

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

You initial statement when the evidence is presented and understood correctly 
you may find is falsely assumed.

As Simon pointed out, ensure you have all the evidence before you assume a 
conclusion.

Get the data as it been gathered,  then resume this discussion and see if you 
are chasing the right devil.




> On 4 Mar 2016, at 11:14 AM, DMcD  wrote:
> 
>>> "More people die in comps than during non-competition flying"
> 
>>> I do not think you can defend this statement with numbers.
> 
> OK, perhaps a bit of clarification is needed.  It's probable that the
> statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
> another. However…
> 
> There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
> the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
> which is unique to comps… low finishes. This type of accident is rare
> or non-existent outside comp flying.
> 
> Mid-air collisions were common in gliding a decade and more ago. FLARM
> and better rules appear to have lowered this risk to acceptable
> standards (except perhaps in GP style racing.)
> 
> It's possible, by changing the finish rules, to reduce the accidents
> relating to low finishes. Why not do it?
> 
> There are a significant number of non-comp pilots who would fly comps
> if the perceived risks were lower. A number of these people are not
> comps averse… they regularly do things like sailing comps.
> 
> And I don't think you could compare gliding with motorcycle riding
> (racing maybe). In terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp
> pilot hours, you'd find a difference of several orders of magnitude.
> We have what… 2500 pilots active in Australia? And how many die each
> year? 1-2?
> 
> D
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Mark Newton

On Mar 3, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> Also I really liked your guest article in the last AOPA magazine.
> Can you post it here?

Sure. I haven’t seen it in print, so I don’t know how they edited it, but 
here’s the original copy:

 "Things that irk me about CASA's online regulatory services survey."

CASA has been asking aviation stakeholders to fill out a voluntary online 
survey which seeks to baseline their performance. The survey poses a series of 
statements or questions, and asks respondents to provide a rating on a scale 
ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree."
There is a question on the fourth or fifth screen which asks you to rate 
whether you agree or disagree with the statement, "Regulations play a key role 
in ensuring that I operate safely."

CASA's belief that that statement needs to be true is one of their weirder 
affectations. If it were true, my safety standards would change when I flew in 
different jurisdictions with different regulations.

But they don't: The USA doesn't have a "minimum height" rule like Australia 
does, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to plough into trees. Much of the 
world has no maximum altitude before O2 must be carried and used, but I'm not 
suddenly going to choose to be hypoxic if I fly in those places. My safety 
standards are a product of my training, my airmanship, and my personal minima, 
and where I pay attention to regulations at all it's almost always to have 
arguments with people on the internet, rather than to actually affect the 
safety of my flying.

But CASA believes that their regulations are critical to safety. Moreover, they 
also believe that the regulatory reform that everyone has been distracted by 
for most of the last 20 years is all about better safety outcomes.

So, is it?

Unlike most Government departments, CASA's performance is objectively 
measurable. If their regulatory reform is actually enhancing safety, we should 
see ATSB accident and incident stats decrease. And, because our regulations are 
(according to CASA) more modern and better than our overseas brethren, our 
stats really ought to be better than everyone else's, or at least trending 
towards better faster than everyone else's.

But they aren't.

Our rate of accidents is more or less constant. Pilots make the same dumb 
decisions over and over, having the same accidents over and over, no matter how 
many regulations they need to ignore to get there. And completely compliant 
pilots (which is what virtually all of us like to believe we are!) are almost 
as likely to kill themselves as lawbreakers.

Over the lifetime of CASA's regulatory reform program, our accident stats have 
barely changed. Which tells me that we wouldn't have been worse off if the 
regulatory reform program had never been started in the first place; and we're 
unlikely to be better off if it ever finishes.

Even worse: Our accident stats aren't materially different from anywhere else 
in the world. We'd be just as well off if a significantly smaller and cheaper 
CASA had said, "We're not going to waste any time writing our own rules, we're 
just going to photocopy the regs from the New Zealanders. Or the Americans." 
(just don't choose the Europeans, they're even worse than CASA and still don't 
fly any safer than we do)

They've spent hundreds of millions of dollars over decades, and have barely 
nudged the accident stats. If they're all about enhancing safety, they have 
objectively failed.

As a private pilot, the thing I want to see from CASA is pretty simple: "Right, 
boys, pencils down. Sit back, put your hands on your heads. ON YOUR HEAD, 
Jenkins. We're waiting. Good. Now don't touch anything."

Then, once they're no longer consumed and distracted by rewriting regulations 
which accident stats indisputably show didn't need rewriting in the first 
place, I want them to cast their eyes around the world to places where aviation 
thrives, and cherry-pick the best bits.

I want a regulatory system which assumes we're going to look after our own 
safety (because we manifestly do -- and the people who don't aren't swayed by 
regulations anyway). Having made that assumption, the regs can then be all 
about enabling things and making them easier, instead of being about penalty 
clauses and strict liability.

Buckleys and none, right? I fully expect to be making these same points, after 
watching the same arbitrary enforcement overreaches in the face of the same 
accident stats ten years from now, assuming GA still exists in something like 
its present form by then. We can't have a negotiation about CASA's future, we 
can only be negotiated at.

Have a look at the latest ATSB statistical report, and read it with an attitude 
that says, "If CASA has objectively put their money where their 
safety-enhancing mouth is, there should be a long term fall in the accident or 
fatality rate per million departures or per million hours, and we could

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread DMcD

>>"More people die in comps than during non-competition flying"

>>I do not think you can defend this statement with numbers.

OK, perhaps a bit of clarification is needed.  It's probable that the
statistics overall are not enough to prove anything one way or
another. However…

There have been a significant number of accidents and fatalities in
the last few years during comps which were related a style of flying
which is unique to comps… low finishes. This type of accident is rare
or non-existent outside comp flying.

Mid-air collisions were common in gliding a decade and more ago. FLARM
and better rules appear to have lowered this risk to acceptable
standards (except perhaps in GP style racing.)

It's possible, by changing the finish rules, to reduce the accidents
relating to low finishes. Why not do it?

There are a significant number of non-comp pilots who would fly comps
if the perceived risks were lower. A number of these people are not
comps averse… they regularly do things like sailing comps.

And I don't think you could compare gliding with motorcycle riding
(racing maybe). In terms of deaths per hundred thousand rider or comp
pilot hours, you'd find a difference of several orders of magnitude.
We have what… 2500 pilots active in Australia? And how many die each
year? 1-2?

D
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding


Possibly not. The correct metric is per exposure hour.

Mike



At 09:44 AM 3/4/2016, you wrote:

"More people die in comps than during non-competition flying"

I do not think you can defend this statement with numbers.

Regards
Jarek

- Original Message -
From:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in 
Australia." <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>


To:
"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in 
Australia." <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>

Cc:

Sent:
Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:42:18 +1100
Subject:
Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding


>>I will further suggest to all forum members, 
most of whom are NOT competition pilotsâ¦ 
definitely no circuits !! {edited}


Here iss the logic. We fly a standard circuit, because over time it has
proved to the the best and safest thing to do. During comps, we are
prepared to compromise safety. More people die in comps than during
non-competition flying.

Is it any wonder that most glider pilots are not comp pilots!?

D
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


--
Email sent using Optus Webmail
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Mark Newton

On Mar 4, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Richard Frawley  wrote:
> 
> If this question is asked on the GFA form list, the actual numbers can be 
> quickly produced

Can’t they be quickly produced here too?

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

If this question is asked on the GFA form list, the actual numbers can be 
quickly produced



> On 4 Mar 2016, at 10:44 AM, Jarek Mosiejewski <jar...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> "More people die in comps than during non-competition flying"
> 
> I do not think you can defend this statement with numbers. 
> 
> Regards 
> Jarek
> 
> - Original Message -
> From:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> 
> To:
> "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au>
> Cc:
> 
> Sent:
> Fri, 4 Mar 2016 09:42:18 +1100
> Subject:
> Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
> 
> 
> >>I will further suggest to all forum members, most of whom are NOT 
> >>competition pilots……… definitely no circuits !! {edited}
> 
> Here is the logic. We fly a standard circuit, because over time it has
> proved to the the best and safest thing to do. During comps, we are
> prepared to compromise safety. More people die in comps than during
> non-competition flying.
> 
> Is it any wonder that most glider pilots are not comp pilots!?
> 
> D
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
> Email sent using Optus Webmail
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

nicely put mate! 



> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:00 PM, Gary Stevenson <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> As usual,  good robust discussion.
>  
> Re the 3 km finish circle for competitions, please CAREFULLY  re-read Matt 
> Gage’s post on this.
>  
> My comment is that this arrangement “just did not happen”, but is in fact  
> the end result of a process of evolution that spans many years of experiment 
> worldwide . As a current competition pilot,  I will further suggest to all 
> forum members, most of whom  are NOT competition pilots,  that this 
> arrangement is the best that the combined minds of the gliding movement has 
> been able to come up with, and most certainly one that I agree with.  
> Straight in and land long is the name of the game. If you have excess height 
> then do a (non conflicting), circuit onto another strip. The recommended 
> procedure will of course be spelt out at the daily briefing.
>  
> If people want to do stupid things, or push the limit (on final glide or 
> elsewhere), that is their choice: Sometimes they will get away with it. If 
> they survive the first  fuck-up and don’t learn, they will ultimately, 
> without the slightest doubt, end up dead.
>  
> Please read again that article by Bruno Gatenbrink that I earlier posted. Do 
> keep in mind that even If you are a World Champion and you badly fuck up, 
> there is only one outcome.
>  
> As to comment on the Waikerie crash: Taboo on discussing such accidents does 
> not enter into it . Simon Hackett in his post, went to some pains to explain 
> why. As the pilot survived the crash, we will in the fullness of time get a 
> definitive report on this accident. So please be patient.
>  
> Regards,
> Gary
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2016 5:48 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
>  
> 
> Well the Pete Cesco thread turned into a useful discussion on safety. All to 
> the good.
> 
> I understand the desire to move the finish away from the airfield but making 
> at the ground 3Km out was so obviously stupid I still can't believe it. We've 
> only severely broken two gliders and risked pilots' necks before starting to 
> fix that. 
> 
> If you want a remote finish move it vertically. About 1000 to 1500 feet above 
> the middle of the airfield will do fine. Don't make it at that height you get 
> distance points only. That will DEFINITELY encourage not cutting it too fine, 
> just as the ground does. Must be above the minimum for the last 3km(or say 
> 5km). Lots of time to sort out a crowded circuit as the racing stops below 
> finish height.
> 
> For some strange reason discussing accidents seems taboo. FWIW I've heard 
> from 3 sources that the Waikerie accident was a spin in, not a misjudged 
> final glide.
> 
> If what I've heard is anything like true the story needs to get out at least 
> in preliminary form as soon as possible.
> 
> With any luck the flight recorder data is available.
> 
> One other thing - eyewitness accounts, even from the participants, are 
> notoriously unreliable. Wernher von Braun and his mates found that out at 
> Peenemunde in 1942 when several witnesses would give totally conflicting 
> accounts of what happened to the failed rocket launches, hence started 
> filming them.
> 
> There is also a well known phenomenon of people suffering a traumatic event 
> or shock not remembering a damn thing for some seconds to minutes even though 
> they were conscious and functioning because it doesn't go in to long term 
> memory.  You don't even have to be injured for this to happen. (I consulted a 
> flying shrink about that one)
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation 
> since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
> tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Optusnet

Well that's it, I am now on the floor hugging myself, I have s_at myself, the 
floor is nice and safe for now and my ears are ringing from maniacal induced 
laughter. Briefing briefing briefing ahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahah

Justin 

Sent from my iPad

> On 3 Mar 2016, at 10:00 PM, Gary Stevenson <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> As usual,  good robust discussion.
>  
> Re the 3 km finish circle for competitions, please CAREFULLY  re-read Matt 
> Gage’s post on this.
>  
> My comment is that this arrangement “just did not happen”, but is in fact  
> the end result of a process of evolution that spans many years of experiment 
> worldwide . As a current competition pilot,  I will further suggest to all 
> forum members, most of whom  are NOT competition pilots,  that this 
> arrangement is the best that the combined minds of the gliding movement has 
> been able to come up with, and most certainly one that I agree with.  
> Straight in and land long is the name of the game. If you have excess height 
> then do a (non conflicting), circuit onto another strip. The recommended 
> procedure will of course be spelt out at the daily briefing.
>  
> If people want to do stupid things, or push the limit (on final glide or 
> elsewhere), that is their choice: Sometimes they will get away with it. If 
> they survive the first  fuck-up and don’t learn, they will ultimately, 
> without the slightest doubt, end up dead.
>  
> Please read again that article by Bruno Gatenbrink that I earlier posted. Do 
> keep in mind that even If you are a World Champion and you badly fuck up, 
> there is only one outcome.
>  
> As to comment on the Waikerie crash: Taboo on discussing such accidents does 
> not enter into it . Simon Hackett in his post, went to some pains to explain 
> why. As the pilot survived the crash, we will in the fullness of time get a 
> definitive report on this accident. So please be patient.
>  
> Regards,
> Gary
>  
> From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf 
> Of Mike Borgelt
> Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2016 5:48 PM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding
>  
> 
> Well the Pete Cesco thread turned into a useful discussion on safety. All to 
> the good.
> 
> I understand the desire to move the finish away from the airfield but making 
> at the ground 3Km out was so obviously stupid I still can't believe it. We've 
> only severely broken two gliders and risked pilots' necks before starting to 
> fix that. 
> 
> If you want a remote finish move it vertically. About 1000 to 1500 feet above 
> the middle of the airfield will do fine. Don't make it at that height you get 
> distance points only. That will DEFINITELY encourage not cutting it too fine, 
> just as the ground does. Must be above the minimum for the last 3km(or say 
> 5km). Lots of time to sort out a crowded circuit as the racing stops below 
> finish height.
> 
> For some strange reason discussing accidents seems taboo. FWIW I've heard 
> from 3 sources that the Waikerie accident was a spin in, not a misjudged 
> final glide.
> 
> If what I've heard is anything like true the story needs to get out at least 
> in preliminary form as soon as possible.
> 
> With any luck the flight recorder data is available.
> 
> One other thing - eyewitness accounts, even from the participants, are 
> notoriously unreliable. Wernher von Braun and his mates found that out at 
> Peenemunde in 1942 when several witnesses would give totally conflicting 
> accounts of what happened to the failed rocket launches, hence started 
> filming them.
> 
> There is also a well known phenomenon of people suffering a traumatic event 
> or shock not remembering a damn thing for some seconds to minutes even though 
> they were conscious and functioning because it doesn't go in to long term 
> memory.  You don't even have to be injured for this to happen. (I consulted a 
> flying shrink about that one)
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation 
> since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
> tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-03 Thread Gary Stevenson

Hi Mike,

As usual,  good robust discussion. 

 

Re the 3 km finish circle for competitions, please CAREFULLY  re-read Matt
Gage's post on this.

 

My comment is that this arrangement "just did not happen", but is in fact
the end result of a process of evolution that spans many years of experiment
worldwide . As a current competition pilot,  I will further suggest to all
forum members, most of whom  are NOT competition pilots,  that this
arrangement is the best that the combined minds of the gliding movement has
been able to come up with, and most certainly one that I agree with.
Straight in and land long is the name of the game. If you have excess height
then do a (non conflicting), circuit onto another strip. The recommended
procedure will of course be spelt out at the daily briefing. 

 

If people want to do stupid things, or push the limit (on final glide or
elsewhere), that is their choice: Sometimes they will get away with it. If
they survive the first  fuck-up and don't learn, they will ultimately,
without the slightest doubt, end up dead. 

 

Please read again that article by Bruno Gatenbrink that I earlier posted. Do
keep in mind that even If you are a World Champion and you badly fuck up,
there is only one outcome. 

 

As to comment on the Waikerie crash: Taboo on discussing such accidents does
not enter into it . Simon Hackett in his post, went to some pains to explain
why. As the pilot survived the crash, we will in the fullness of time get a
definitive report on this accident. So please be patient.

 

Regards,

Gary

 

From: Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf
Of Mike Borgelt
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2016 5:48 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

 


Well the Pete Cesco thread turned into a useful discussion on safety. All to
the good.

I understand the desire to move the finish away from the airfield but making
at the ground 3Km out was so obviously stupid I still can't believe it.
We've only severely broken two gliders and risked pilots' necks before
starting to fix that. 

If you want a remote finish move it vertically. About 1000 to 1500 feet
above the middle of the airfield will do fine. Don't make it at that height
you get distance points only. That will DEFINITELY encourage not cutting it
too fine, just as the ground does. Must be above the minimum for the last
3km(or say 5km). Lots of time to sort out a crowded circuit as the racing
stops below finish height.

For some strange reason discussing accidents seems taboo. FWIW I've heard
from 3 sources that the Waikerie accident was a spin in, not a misjudged
final glide.

If what I've heard is anything like true the story needs to get out at least
in preliminary form as soon as possible.

With any luck the flight recorder data is available.

One other thing - eyewitness accounts, even from the participants, are
notoriously unreliable. Wernher von Braun and his mates found that out at
Peenemunde in 1942 when several witnesses would give totally conflicting
accounts of what happened to the failed rocket launches, hence started
filming them.

There is also a well known phenomenon of people suffering a traumatic event
or shock not remembering a damn thing for some seconds to minutes even
though they were conscious and functioning because it doesn't go in to long
term memory.  You don't even have to be injured for this to happen. (I
consulted a flying shrink about that one)

Mike







Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring
instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/> 
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 :  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia 

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-02 Thread Mike Borgelt



Well the Pete Cesco thread turned into a useful discussion on safety. 
All to the good.


I understand the desire to move the finish away from the airfield but 
making at the ground 3Km out was so obviously stupid I still can't 
believe it. We've only severely broken two gliders and risked pilots' 
necks before starting to fix that.


If you want a remote finish move it vertically. About 1000 to 1500 
feet above the middle of the airfield will do fine. Don't make it at 
that height you get distance points only. That will DEFINITELY 
encourage not cutting it too fine, just as the ground does. Must be 
above the minimum for the last 3km(or say 5km). Lots of time to sort 
out a crowded circuit as the racing stops below finish height.


For some strange reason discussing accidents seems taboo. FWIW I've 
heard from 3 sources that the Waikerie accident was a spin in, not a 
misjudged final glide.


If what I've heard is anything like true the story needs to get out 
at least in preliminary form as soon as possible.


With any luck the flight recorder data is available.

One other thing - eyewitness accounts, even from the participants, 
are notoriously unreliable. Wernher von Braun and his mates found 
that out at Peenemunde in 1942 when several witnesses would give 
totally conflicting accounts of what happened to the failed rocket 
launches, hence started filming them.


There is also a well known phenomenon of people suffering a traumatic 
event or shock not remembering a damn thing for some seconds to 
minutes even though they were conscious and functioning because it 
doesn't go in to long term memory.  You don't even have to be injured 
for this to happen. (I consulted a flying shrink about that one)


Mike





Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-02 Thread Mike Borgelt


Mark,

Yes.

Also I really liked your guest article in the last AOPA magazine.

Can you post it here?

Mike

At 10:42 AM 3/3/2016, you wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Peter (PCS3) 
<p...@internode.on.net> wrote:
As an L2 instructor, I teach that glider pilots 
have to be flexible and not fixate on landing 
on the RWY they took off on. I also quote that 
we had a spin in and death at our airfield of a 
pilot who was flying with RAA.  His beautiful 
self constructed glider had a motor in it and 
he flew low past one runway to join the duty 
runway and spun in on joining downwind. :-( :-(


Flexibility is part of it, decision-making is 
another. And it isnât even cockpit decision-making.


Aviation in small airplanes has an accident rate 
roughly equivalent to motorcycle riding.


To my mind (which could be very wrong), 
thereâs a difference between riding motorbikes 
and flying, in that I think motorcyclists have 
less agency, which means theyâre more 
susceptible to accidents that they donât 
contribute to.  That is: you can be the best 
motorcyclist in the world and still get randomly 
run off the road by a B-double, but aircraft 
accidents tend to result from the actions, 
inactions, and decision-making chains of aircrew.


So I look at the categorizations of aircraft 
accident data, and I make decisions from my 
lounge room which affect my risk exposure, and 
the tradeoffs Iâm willing to make.


For example:

Thereâs a disproportionate number of aircraft 
accidents resulting from low-flying; I choose not to do that.


VFR into IMC has always been a problem; so Iâm 
conservative about weather, I bought an 
autopilot, and I undertook additional instrument 
flying training so that if I end up in IMC 
itâs an inconvenience rather than a loss-of-control event.


There appears to be a peak of âlosing control 
on the runwayâ accidents; so Iâm probably 
one of the few non-trainee licensed pilots who 
goes out for sessions of circuit bashing, to 
maintain proficiency by doing 30 landings in a 
month instead of the 6 or 8 Iâd otherwise 
typically do in a month of weekends.


Losing control in flight is another one; I went 
out and got an aerobatics rating, and do recurrent training there too.


In gliders, the risk of a midair collision is 
significantly higher in comps; so I chose not to fly comps.


The general idea is that I can understand that 
flying is risky, but make decisions about which 
risk factors Iâll expose myself to. As I gain 
knowledge of risks and/or apply countermeasures, 
my willingness to expose myself to them can (and does) change.


Some of those involve tradeoffs: For instance, 
the specific type of instrument flying training 
I undertook was a night VFR rating. 
Single-engine night VFR comes with its own 
risks, which I can judge with my eyes open, and 
mitigate appropriately (the decision to acquire 
the autopilot came part-way through the training 
as a mitigator for the risk of perceptual 
illusions). Time will tell if my tradeoffs are good ones.


Will I have an accident? No idea, I really hope 
not. But if I do, I know thereâs a 100% chance 
that it wonât be due to low flying, or loss of 
control in cloud, or mishandling of a crosswind 
on landing, or inadvertent spinning. Iâve made 
specific decisions to exclude myself from those. 
Maybe Iâll be surprised by something else, but 
the residual risk in aviation in small planes 
looks significantly safer than the baseline once 
those classes of accident are eliminated from the stats.


Hope thatâs useful to someone.

   - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-02 Thread Future Aviation Pty. Ltd.

Very useful, Mark - thanks for letting us in on your thinking, it makes a lot 
of sense!!

Kind regards

Bernard 


> On 3 Mar 2016, at 11:12 AM, Mark Newton  wrote:
> 
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 8:44 AM, Peter (PCS3)  > wrote:
>> As an L2 instructor, I teach that glider pilots have to be flexible and not 
>> fixate on landing on the RWY they took off on. I also quote that we had a 
>> spin in and death at our airfield of a pilot who was flying with RAA.  His 
>> beautiful self constructed glider had a motor in it and he flew low past one 
>> runway to join the duty runway and spun in on joining downwind. :-( :-(
> 
> Flexibility is part of it, decision-making is another. And it isn’t even 
> cockpit decision-making.
> 
> Aviation in small airplanes has an accident rate roughly equivalent to 
> motorcycle riding.
> 
> To my mind (which could be very wrong), there’s a difference between riding 
> motorbikes and flying, in that I think motorcyclists have less agency, which 
> means they’re more susceptible to accidents that they don’t contribute to.  
> That is: you can be the best motorcyclist in the world and still get randomly 
> run off the road by a B-double, but aircraft accidents tend to result from 
> the actions, inactions, and decision-making chains of aircrew.
> 
> So I look at the categorizations of aircraft accident data, and I make 
> decisions from my lounge room which affect my risk exposure, and the 
> tradeoffs I’m willing to make.
> 
> For example: 
> 
> There’s a disproportionate number of aircraft accidents resulting from 
> low-flying; I choose not to do that. 
> 
> VFR into IMC has always been a problem; so I’m conservative about weather, I 
> bought an autopilot, and I undertook additional instrument flying training so 
> that if I end up in IMC it’s an inconvenience rather than a loss-of-control 
> event. 
> 
> There appears to be a peak of “losing control on the runway” accidents; so 
> I’m probably one of the few non-trainee licensed pilots who goes out for 
> sessions of circuit bashing, to maintain proficiency by doing 30 landings in 
> a month instead of the 6 or 8 I’d otherwise typically do in a month of 
> weekends. 
> 
> Losing control in flight is another one; I went out and got an aerobatics 
> rating, and do recurrent training there too. 
> 
> In gliders, the risk of a midair collision is significantly higher in comps; 
> so I chose not to fly comps.
> 
> The general idea is that I can understand that flying is risky, but make 
> decisions about which risk factors I’ll expose myself to. As I gain knowledge 
> of risks and/or apply countermeasures, my willingness to expose myself to 
> them can (and does) change.
> 
> Some of those involve tradeoffs: For instance, the specific type of 
> instrument flying training I undertook was a night VFR rating. Single-engine 
> night VFR comes with its own risks, which I can judge with my eyes open, and 
> mitigate appropriately (the decision to acquire the autopilot came part-way 
> through the training as a mitigator for the risk of perceptual illusions). 
> Time will tell if my tradeoffs are good ones.
> 
> Will I have an accident? No idea, I really hope not. But if I do, I know 
> there’s a 100% chance that it won’t be due to low flying, or loss of control 
> in cloud, or mishandling of a crosswind on landing, or inadvertent spinning. 
> I’ve made specific decisions to exclude myself from those. Maybe I’ll be 
> surprised by something else, but the residual risk in aviation in small 
> planes looks significantly safer than the baseline once those classes of 
> accident are eliminated from the stats.
> 
> Hope that’s useful to someone.
> 
>- mark
> 
> 
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-02 Thread Peter (PCS3)

On 2/03/2016 3:50 PM, Richard Frawley wrote:

come to the comps and find out... NSW states are about to happen there.

on the day, it was an appropriate margin as determined by the race stewards.
the pilots all agreed by show of hand. seems a responsible approach (opps no
pun) to creating the right safety measures.

bit like gliding in general. make good decisions based on current and expected conditions. one of
the first lessons about "continuous integration of information and flexibility in decision
making" was on an early check ride. the instructor loaded me up with a set of unexpected
things which ended me up low on base. rather that reset my landing to the alt runway nearly
straight ahead (that I had forgotten about) I did an unnecessary tight turn onto the planned one. I
have never forgotten that lesson of "what are my options"
As an L2 instructor, I teach that glider pilots have to be flexible and
not fixate on landing on the RWY they took off on. I also quote that we
had a spin in and death at our airfield of a pilot who was flying with
RAA. His beautiful self constructed glider had a motor in it and he
flew low past one runway to join the duty runway and spun in on joining
downwind. :-( :-(

PeterS

On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:28 PM, DMcD wrote:

500' feet minima at 3k

Is the approach over the lake the normal circuit joining area or a
straight in with a limited margin for error?

So on a normal day when you could expect 500 down in the circuit, that
would leave a safety margin of how much at safe speed (very) near the
ground?

D
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-02 Thread whisson



Yeah, I'm a bit confused by that statement also ...


Col Whisson

0459 121 457






On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:32 PM -0800, "Optusnet"  
wrote:





I am laughing so hard I think I just s_at myself

Sent from my iPad

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:54 PM, Matt Gage  wrote:
>
> The height is intended to be set to make a straight in possible and safe - 
> high enough to encourage people to make the airfield, low enough to make the 
> straight in possible. A circuit after a comp flight is the exception now and 
> if at all possible will be to any runway EXCEPT that being used for straight 
> in. The last leg should be roughly in line with the runway.
>
> The biggest problem I’ve had with finish heights being set too high has been 
> the last 10km spent head in cockpit judging whether I’m going to clear the 
> set finish height (along with the other 15 gliders within 500m of me) as I 
> know I’ll make the airfield with masses of height to spare - set just right 
> and I can fly a 10km final judging angle to the airfield by eye, confident 
> that I’ll clear the finish height without worrying about it.
>
>
>
>> On 2 Mar 2016, at 16:28 , DMcD  wrote:
>>
 500' feet minima at 3k
>>
>> Is the approach over the lake the normal circuit joining area or a
>> straight in with a limited margin for error?
>>
>> So on a normal day when you could expect 500 down in the circuit, that
>> would leave a safety margin of how much at safe speed (very) near the
>> ground?
>>
>>
>> D
>> ___
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

*'Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat nearly 4 years ago?''*

*Yes we do know what happened.*  Why try to hide it?

There was an aerotow incident,  The rope went slack.  They released at low
altitude. There was a safe landing ahead.  Maurice Little  did a turn back
to the airfield  at low altitude. The glider stalled in a tun and crashed
 Both student and instructor were killed.

The rules are clear. Land ahead if possible.


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

> I was trying to figure out what you were getting at. I use a glide
> computer, not the Mark 1 eyeball for final glides. If you are going to do
> really skinny final glides it better be one you are familiar with and a
> glider you are familiar with.
> I'm also very conservative and while I've taken the risk of having an
> outlanding in order to gain contest points I've never knowingly risked my
> life by going where I couldn't reasonably get to a suitable landing area.
> I've been fortunate to have an outstanding crew who can drive and navigate
> and a good trailer so de-rigging is a simple 5 minute operation. Running
> into a rabbit hole in the paddock is just the luck of the draw. In 63 for
> real paddock landings the worst damage was a flat main tyre.(there's an
> interesting story - don't land out on the highest ground for about 100 km
> around - and eagles climb better than gliders)
>
> Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV footage I don't think
> we're talking about a misjudged skinny final glide in this case. YMMV (Your
> Mileage May Vary). Then again we may never get to know and speculation is
> all we have.
> It doesn't do any harm BTW. We have a broken glider and pilot and it can
> be a great learning experience to figure out how this MIGHT have happened.
> Trusting officialdom to come up with the truth is fraught. I know of one
> GFA accident investigation that was totally FUBAR because of faulty logic
> and lack of understanding of the characteristics of the instrumentation
> relied upon.
> The ATSB was brought into being because, quite rightly, it was perceived
> that the regulator would never find fault with its own rules and procedures
> even when they were contributory. The GFA investigates itself.
> Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat nearly 4 years ago? Like
> how many hours did the instructor have? How many solo? How many
> instructing? How many last 12 months, last 90 days? The US NTSB would let
> you know.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> At 06:13 PM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>
>> Possibly of interest Mike.Â
>>
>> Can you enlarge on this comment.Â  Do you mean open the dive brakes 10 km
>> for the Airfield and make an off field landing, as I have suggested?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt <> mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:
>> I thought that's what dive brakes were for.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:12 AM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>>
>>> There have been quite a few accidents in recent years due to misjudging
>>> the approach to landing and undershooting.
>>>
>>> Clearly if the angle of approach seems too low a pilot will take option
>>> B and make an outlanding.Ã‚Â  It is probably much easier to see this in a
>>> short wing Kookaburra than it is in a 50:1 glider. Ã‚Â  In a high
>>> performance glider the difference between a safe approach and a marginal
>>> one is about 1 degree.Ã‚Â  Worse still if the area adjacent to the runway
>>> is unlandable and hence the outlanding decision must be taken quite a way
>>> from the airfield. Ã‚ Ã‚
>>>
>>> Hence when flying a modern glider it is probably a good idea to add an
>>> additional safety marginÃ‚
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Gary Stevenson <>> gstev...@bigpond.com>gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Bob,
>>> Good to see you in print again.
>>> Ã‚
>>> For newer members to our sport, Let me say that Bob has Ã¢â‚¬œbeen there
>>> and done thatÃ¢€ in reference to most elements of our sport. OOn this
>>> particular aspect of our sport . yep he has Ã‚ Ã¢€ÅÅ“ been there and
>>> done thatÃ¢€ too, having looked Death in the eye after he had a nassty
>>> landing discussion with a fence.
>>> Ã‚
>>> Again for newer members, I have attached what is perhaps the seminal
>>> article (1993), on this subject, by a guy named Bruno Gantenbrink, (now
>>> another old fogey). However he was not always an old fogey, and you might
>>> be a bit surprised at some of the tricks he got up to!
>>> Ã‚
>>> I noted Richard FrawleyÃ¢€™s one line comment nt with some surprise:
>>> Totally irrelevant here, but it could be the basis of a new thread: However
>>> I expect that this topic has already been done to death, so is not new.
>>> Ã‚
>>> Regards.
>>> Gary
>>> Ã‚
>>> Ã‚
>>> From: Aus-soaring [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On
>>> Behalf Of Bob Ward
>>> Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 7:43 PM
>>> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

Yes I did  Otherwise he would not have landed in the vines.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Paul Bart  wrote:

>
> Yes, but when they coined that impressive phrase, they assumed that the
> facts used would be relevant. Unless you actually know what happened to the
> glider you are just guessing and "the facts" put forward may be entirely
> irrelevant to what happened. Whilst you have said the the pilot can speak
> for himself, you then went ahead and suggested that he was low on approach.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
> On 1 Mar 2016 21:29, "Peter Champness"  wrote:
>
>> "Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV footage I don't think
>> we're talking about a misjudged skinny final glide in this case."
>>
>> Disagree!  Adelaide doctor can answer for himself.
>>
>> The approach to Waikerie airfield from the North involves;
>> 1, crossing the river,
>> 2. an up slope of 100 ft or more from the river.
>> 3. vineyards before the airfield boundary,
>> 4. powerlines.
>> 5. runway is uphill.
>>
>> Glider landed in the vines.  The legal phase (sometimes used in medical
>> cases) is "res ipse loquitor" - the facts speek for themselves.
>>
>> Peter Champness
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Mike Borgelt <
>> mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I was trying to figure out what you were getting at. I use a glide
>>> computer, not the Mark 1 eyeball for final glides. If you are going to do
>>> really skinny final glides it better be one you are familiar with and a
>>> glider you are familiar with.
>>> I'm also very conservative and while I've taken the risk of having an
>>> outlanding in order to gain contest points I've never knowingly risked my
>>> life by going where I couldn't reasonably get to a suitable landing area.
>>> I've been fortunate to have an outstanding crew who can drive and navigate
>>> and a good trailer so de-rigging is a simple 5 minute operation. Running
>>> into a rabbit hole in the paddock is just the luck of the draw. In 63 for
>>> real paddock landings the worst damage was a flat main tyre.(there's an
>>> interesting story - don't land out on the highest ground for about 100 km
>>> around - and eagles climb better than gliders)
>>>
>>> Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV footage I don't think
>>> we're talking about a misjudged skinny final glide in this case. YMMV (Your
>>> Mileage May Vary). Then again we may never get to know and speculation is
>>> all we have.
>>> It doesn't do any harm BTW. We have a broken glider and pilot and it can
>>> be a great learning experience to figure out how this MIGHT have happened.
>>> Trusting officialdom to come up with the truth is fraught. I know of one
>>> GFA accident investigation that was totally FUBAR because of faulty logic
>>> and lack of understanding of the characteristics of the instrumentation
>>> relied upon.
>>> The ATSB was brought into being because, quite rightly, it was perceived
>>> that the regulator would never find fault with its own rules and procedures
>>> even when they were contributory. The GFA investigates itself.
>>> Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat nearly 4 years ago? Like
>>> how many hours did the instructor have? How many solo? How many
>>> instructing? How many last 12 months, last 90 days? The US NTSB would let
>>> you know.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 06:13 PM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>>>
 Possibly of interest Mike.Â

 Can you enlarge on this comment.Â  Do you mean open the dive brakes 10
 km for the Airfield and make an off field landing, as I have suggested?



 On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt <>>> mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:
 I thought that's what dive brakes were for.


 Mike






 At 10:12 AM 3/1/2016, you wrote:

> There have been quite a few accidents in recent years due to
> misjudging the approach to landing and undershooting.
>
> Clearly if the angle of approach seems too low a pilot will take
> option B and make an outlanding.Ã‚Â  It is probably much easier to see 
> this
> in a short wing Kookaburra than it is in a 50:1 glider. Ã‚Â  In a high
> performance glider the difference between a safe approach and a marginal
> one is about 1 degree.Ã‚Â  Worse still if the area adjacent to the runway
> is unlandable and hence the outlanding decision must be taken quite a way
> from the airfield. Ã‚ Ã‚
>
> Hence when flying a modern glider it is probably a good idea to add an
> additional safety marginÃ‚
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Gary Stevenson < gstev...@bigpond.com>gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Hello Bob,
> Good to see you in print again.
> Ã‚
> For newer members to our sport, Let me say that Bob has Ã¢â‚¬œbeen
> there and done thatÃ¢€ in reference to most elements of our sport. OOn 
> this

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

"Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV footage I don't think
we're talking about a misjudged skinny final glide in this case."

Disagree!  Adelaide doctor can answer for himself.

The approach to Waikerie airfield from the North involves;
1, crossing the river,
2. an up slope of 100 ft or more from the river.
3. vineyards before the airfield boundary,
4. powerlines.
5. runway is uphill.

Glider landed in the vines.  The legal phase (sometimes used in medical
cases) is "res ipse loquitor" - the facts speek for themselves.

Peter Champness

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

> I was trying to figure out what you were getting at. I use a glide
> computer, not the Mark 1 eyeball for final glides. If you are going to do
> really skinny final glides it better be one you are familiar with and a
> glider you are familiar with.
> I'm also very conservative and while I've taken the risk of having an
> outlanding in order to gain contest points I've never knowingly risked my
> life by going where I couldn't reasonably get to a suitable landing area.
> I've been fortunate to have an outstanding crew who can drive and navigate
> and a good trailer so de-rigging is a simple 5 minute operation. Running
> into a rabbit hole in the paddock is just the luck of the draw. In 63 for
> real paddock landings the worst damage was a flat main tyre.(there's an
> interesting story - don't land out on the highest ground for about 100 km
> around - and eagles climb better than gliders)
>
> Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV footage I don't think
> we're talking about a misjudged skinny final glide in this case. YMMV (Your
> Mileage May Vary). Then again we may never get to know and speculation is
> all we have.
> It doesn't do any harm BTW. We have a broken glider and pilot and it can
> be a great learning experience to figure out how this MIGHT have happened.
> Trusting officialdom to come up with the truth is fraught. I know of one
> GFA accident investigation that was totally FUBAR because of faulty logic
> and lack of understanding of the characteristics of the instrumentation
> relied upon.
> The ATSB was brought into being because, quite rightly, it was perceived
> that the regulator would never find fault with its own rules and procedures
> even when they were contributory. The GFA investigates itself.
> Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat nearly 4 years ago? Like
> how many hours did the instructor have? How many solo? How many
> instructing? How many last 12 months, last 90 days? The US NTSB would let
> you know.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> At 06:13 PM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>
>> Possibly of interest Mike.Â
>>
>> Can you enlarge on this comment.Â  Do you mean open the dive brakes 10 km
>> for the Airfield and make an off field landing, as I have suggested?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt <> mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com>mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:
>> I thought that's what dive brakes were for.
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 10:12 AM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>>
>>> There have been quite a few accidents in recent years due to misjudging
>>> the approach to landing and undershooting.
>>>
>>> Clearly if the angle of approach seems too low a pilot will take option
>>> B and make an outlanding.Ã‚Â  It is probably much easier to see this in a
>>> short wing Kookaburra than it is in a 50:1 glider. Ã‚Â  In a high
>>> performance glider the difference between a safe approach and a marginal
>>> one is about 1 degree.Ã‚Â  Worse still if the area adjacent to the runway
>>> is unlandable and hence the outlanding decision must be taken quite a way
>>> from the airfield. Ã‚ Ã‚
>>>
>>> Hence when flying a modern glider it is probably a good idea to add an
>>> additional safety marginÃ‚
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Gary Stevenson <>> gstev...@bigpond.com>gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Bob,
>>> Good to see you in print again.
>>> Ã‚
>>> For newer members to our sport, Let me say that Bob has Ã¢â‚¬œbeen there
>>> and done thatÃ¢€ in reference to most elements of our sport. OOn this
>>> particular aspect of our sport . yep he has Ã‚ Ã¢€ÅÅ“ been there and
>>> done thatÃ¢€ too, having looked Death in the eye after he had a nassty
>>> landing discussion with a fence.
>>> Ã‚
>>> Again for newer members, I have attached what is perhaps the seminal
>>> article (1993), on this subject, by a guy named Bruno Gantenbrink, (now
>>> another old fogey). However he was not always an old fogey, and you might
>>> be a bit surprised at some of the tricks he got up to!
>>> Ã‚
>>> I noted Richard FrawleyÃ¢€™s one line comment nt with some surprise:
>>> Totally irrelevant here, but it could be the basis of a new thread: However
>>> I expect that this topic has already been done to death, so is not new.
>>> Ã‚
>>> Regards.
>>> Gary
>>> Ã‚
>>> Ã‚
>>> From: Aus-soaring [ mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On
>>>

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

*"I was trying to figure out what you were getting at. I use a glide
computer, not the Mark 1 eyeball for final glides"*

Thanks Mike,  What I was getting at was this: At the end of a final glide
you have decision to make.  It it this:* Am I sure I can get in to the
airfield safely*!  This decision is made by observation, not computer.  If
the answer is* "not sure"* then a out landing should be made.  The decision
seems to be much harder in a high performance glider (given recent
incidents).

If you want to use the airbrakes they must be used to choose the safe
landing option, ie the paddock short of the airfield.


On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Mike Borgelt <
mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote:

> I was trying to figure out what you were getting at. I use a glide
> computer, not the Mark 1 eyeball for final glides. If you are going to do
> really skinny final glides it better be one you are familiar with and a
> glider you are familiar with.
> I'm also very conservative and while I've taken the risk of having an
> outlanding in order to gain contest points I've never knowingly risked my
> life by going where I couldn't reasonably get to a suitable landing area.
> I've been fortunate to have an outstanding crew who can drive and navigate
> and a good trailer so de-rigging is a simple 5 minute operation. Running
> into a rabbit hole in the paddock is just the luck of the draw. In 63 for
> real paddock landings the worst damage was a flat main tyre.(there's an
> interesting story - don't land out on the highest ground for about 100 km
> around - and eagles climb better than gliders)
>
> Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV footage I don't think
> we're talking about a misjudged skinny final glide in this case. YMMV (Your
> Mileage May Vary). Then again we may never get to know and speculation is
> all we have.
> It doesn't do any harm BTW. We have a broken glider and pilot and it can
> be a great learning experience to figure out how this MIGHT have happened.
> Trusting officialdom to come up with the truth is fraught. I know of one
> GFA accident investigation that was totally FUBAR because of faulty logic
> and lack of understanding of the characteristics of the instrumentation
> relied upon.
> The ATSB was brought into being because, quite rightly, it was perceived
> that the regulator would never find fault with its own rules and procedures
> even when they were contributory. The GFA investigates itself.
> Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat nearly 4 years ago? Like
> how many hours did the instructor have? How many solo? How many
> instructing? How many last 12 months, last 90 days? The US NTSB would let
> you know.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> At 06:13 PM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>
> Possibly of interest Mike.Â
>
> Can you enlarge on this comment.Â  Do you mean open the dive brakes 10 km
> for the Airfield and make an off field landing, as I have suggested?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt <
> mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote: I thought that's what dive brakes
> were for.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> At 10:12 AM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
>
> There have been quite a few accidents in recent years due to misjudging
> the approach to landing and undershooting.
> Clearly if the angle of approach seems too low a pilot will take option B
> and make an outlanding.Ã‚Â  It is probably much easier to see this in a
> short wing Kookaburra than it is in a 50:1 glider. Ã‚Â  In a high
> performance glider the difference between a safe approach and a marginal
> one is about 1 degree.Ã‚Â  Worse still if the area adjacent to the runway
> is unlandable and hence the outlanding decision must be taken quite a way
> from the airfield. Ã‚ Ã‚
> Hence when flying a modern glider it is probably a good idea to add an
> additional safety marginÃ‚
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Gary Stevenson 
> wrote: Hello Bob, Good to see you in print again. Ã‚ For newer members to
> our sport, Let me say that Bob has Ã¢â‚¬œbeen there and done thatÃ¢€ in
> reference to most elements of our sport. OOn this particular aspect of our
> sport . yep he has Ã‚ Ã¢€ÅÅ“ been there and done thatÃ¢€ too, having
> looked Death in the eye after he had a nassty landing discussion with a
> fence. Ã‚ Again for newer members, I have attached what is perhaps the
> seminal article (1993), on this subject, by a guy named Bruno Gantenbrink,
> (now another old fogey). However he was not always an old fogey, and you
> might be a bit surprised at some of the tricks he got up to! Ã‚ I noted
> Richard FrawleyÃ¢€™s one line comment nt with some surprise: Totally
> irrelevant here, but it could be the basis of a new thread: However I
> expect that this topic has already been done to death, so is not new. Ã‚ 
> Regards.
> Gary Ã‚ Ã‚ From: Aus-soaring [
> mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
> ] On Behalf Of Bob Ward Sent:
> Monday, 29 February 2016 7:43 PM To:

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-01 Thread Mike Borgelt

I was trying to figure out what you were getting 
at. I use a glide computer, not the Mark 1 
eyeball for final glides. If you are going to do 
really skinny final glides it better be one you 
are familiar with and a glider you are familiar with.
I'm also very conservative and while I've taken 
the risk of having an outlanding in order to gain 
contest points I've never knowingly risked my 
life by going where I couldn't reasonably get to 
a suitable landing area. I've been fortunate to 
have an outstanding crew who can drive and 
navigate and a good trailer so de-rigging is a 
simple 5 minute operation. Running into a rabbit 
hole in the paddock is just the luck of the draw. 
In 63 for real paddock landings the worst damage 
was a flat main tyre.(there's an interesting 
story - don't land out on the highest ground for 
about 100 km around - and eagles climb better than gliders)


Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV 
footage I don't think we're talking about a 
misjudged skinny final glide in this case. YMMV 
(Your Mileage May Vary). Then again we may never 
get to know and speculation is all we have.
It doesn't do any harm BTW. We have a broken 
glider and pilot and it can be a great learning 
experience to figure out how this MIGHT have 
happened. Trusting officialdom to come up with 
the truth is fraught. I know of one GFA accident 
investigation that was totally FUBAR because of 
faulty logic and lack of understanding of the 
characteristics of the instrumentation relied upon.
The ATSB was brought into being because, quite 
rightly, it was perceived that the regulator 
would never find fault with its own rules and 
procedures even when they were contributory. The GFA investigates itself.
Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat 
nearly 4 years ago? Like how many hours did the 
instructor have? How many solo? How many 
instructing? How many last 12 months, last 90 
days? The US NTSB would let you know.


Mike




At 06:13 PM 3/1/2016, you wrote:

Possibly of interest Mike.Â

Can you enlarge on this comment.Â  Do you mean 
open the dive brakes 10 km for the Airfield and 
make an off field landing, as I have suggested?




On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt 
<mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> 
wrote:

I thought that's what dive brakes were for.


Mike






At 10:12 AM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
There have been quite a few accidents in recent 
years due to misjudging the approach to landing and undershooting.


Clearly if the angle of approach seems too low 
a pilot will take option B and make an 
outlanding.ÃÂ  It is probably much easier to 
see this in a short wing Kookaburra than it is 
in a 50:1 glider. ÃÂ  In a high performance 
glider the difference between a safe approach 
and a marginal one is about 1 degree.ÃÂ  Worse 
still if the area adjacent to the runway is 
unlandable and hence the outlanding decision 
must be taken quite a way from the airfield. Ã Ã


Hence when flying a modern glider it is 
probably a good idea to add an additional safety marginÃ


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Gary 
Stevenson <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Hello Bob,
Good to see you in print again.
Ã
For newer members to our sport, Let me say that 
Bob has Ã¢â¬been there and done thatÃ¢ in 
reference to most elements of our sport. OOn 
this particular aspect of our sport . yep 
he has Ã Ã¢ÅÅ been there and done thatÃ¢ 
too, having looked Death in the eye after he 
had a nassty landing discussion with a fence.

Ã
Again for newer members, I have attached what 
is perhaps the seminal article (1993), on this 
subject, by a guy named Bruno Gantenbrink, (now 
another old fogey). However he was not always 
an old fogey, and you might be a bit surprised 
at some of the tricks he got up to!

Ã
I noted Richard FrawleyÃ¢s one line comment 
nt with some surprise: Totally irrelevant here, 
but it could be the basis of a new thread: 
However I expect that this topic has already been done to death, so is not new.

Ã
Regards.
Gary
Ã
Ã
From: Aus-soaring [ 
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Bob Ward

Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 7:43 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Pete Cesco on TV
Ã
If Peter Cesco with his myriad experience does 
not know that gliding is many times more 
dangerous than the drive to the airport, then I 
am truly amazed. In my forty nine years 
continuous participation with the sport, I can 
now count thirteenÃÂ  people I knew who have 
perished whilst perusing gliding. Two of these 
were members of my own club, and several were competition associates.
I do not have any answer as to how we promote 
our sport if we are honest and face up to the 
fact that it is essentially Ã¢Åbloody 
dangerousÃ¢ . This is of course a dilemma 
facing the GFA and individuals or groups trying 
to promote our sport. However I cringe

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-01 Thread Mike Borgelt

I was trying to figure out what you were getting 
at. I use a glide computer, not the Mark 1 
eyeball for final glides. If you are going to do 
really skinny final glides it better be one you 
are familiar with and a glider you are familiar with.
I'm also very conservative and while I've taken 
the risk of having an outlanding in order to gain 
contest points I've never knowingly risked my 
life by going where I couldn't reasonably get to 
a suitable landing area. I've been fortunate to 
have an outstanding crew who can drive and 
navigate and a good trailer so de-rigging is a 
simple 5 minute operation. Running into a rabbit 
hole in the paddock is just the luck of the draw. 
In 63 for real paddock landings the worst damage 
was a flat main tyre.(there's an interesting 
story - don't land out on the highest ground for 
about 100 km around - and eagles climb better than gliders)


Anyway after looking at Google Earth and the TV 
footage I don't think we're talking about a 
misjudged skinny final glide in this case. YMMV 
(Your Mileage May Vary). Then again we may never 
get to know and speculation is all we have.
It doesn't do any harm BTW. We have a broken 
glider and pilot and it can be a great learning 
experience to figure out how this MIGHT have 
happened. Trusting officialdom to come up with 
the truth is fraught. I know of one GFA accident 
investigation that was totally FUBAR because of 
faulty logic and lack of understanding of the 
characteristics of the instrumentation relied upon.
The ATSB was brought into being because, quite 
rightly, it was perceived that the regulator 
would never find fault with its own rules and 
procedures even when they were contributory. The GFA investigates itself.
Does anyone know what really happened at Ararat 
nearly 4 years ago? Like how many hours did the 
instructor have? How many solo? How many 
instructing? How many last 12 months, last 90 
days? The US NTSB would let you know.


Mike




At 06:13 PM 3/1/2016, you wrote:

Possibly of interest Mike.Â

Can you enlarge on this comment.Â  Do you mean 
open the dive brakes 10 km for the Airfield and 
make an off field landing, as I have suggested?




On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mike Borgelt 
<mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> 
wrote:

I thought that's what dive brakes were for.

Mike





At 10:12 AM 3/1/2016, you wrote:
There have been quite a few accidents in recent 
years due to misjudging the approach to landing and undershooting.
Clearly if the angle of approach seems too low 
a pilot will take option B and make an 
outlanding.ÃÂ  It is probably much easier to 
see this in a short wing Kookaburra than it is 
in a 50:1 glider. ÃÂ  In a high performance 
glider the difference between a safe approach 
and a marginal one is about 1 degree.ÃÂ  Worse 
still if the area adjacent to the runway is 
unlandable and hence the outlanding decision 
must be taken quite a way from the airfield. Ã Ã
Hence when flying a modern glider it is 
probably a good idea to add an additional safety marginÃ
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Gary 
Stevenson <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Hello Bob,
Good to see you in print again.
Ã
For newer members to our sport, Let me say that 
Bob has Ã¢â¬been there and done thatÃ¢ in 
reference to most elements of our sport. OOn 
this particular aspect of our sport . yep 
he has Ã Ã¢ÅÅ been there and done thatÃ¢ 
too, having looked Death in the eye after he 
had a nassty landing discussion with a fence.

Ã
Again for newer members, I have attached what 
is perhaps the seminal article (1993), on this 
subject, by a guy named Bruno Gantenbrink, (now 
another old fogey). However he was not always 
an old fogey, and you might be a bit surprised 
at some of the tricks he got up to!

Ã
I noted Richard FrawleyÃ¢s one line comment 
nt with some surprise: Totally irrelevant here, 
but it could be the basis of a new thread: 
However I expect that this topic has already 
been done to death, so is not new.

Ã
Regards.
Gary
Ã
Ã
From: Aus-soaring [ 
mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] On Behalf Of Bob Ward

Sent: Monday, 29 February 2016 7:43 PM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Pete Cesco on TV
Ã
If Peter Cesco with his myriad experience does 
not know that gliding is many times more 
dangerous than the drive to the airport, then I 
am truly amazed. In my forty nine years 
continuous participation with the sport, I can 
now count thirteenÃÂ  people I knew who have 
perished whilst perusing gliding. Two of these 
were members of my own club, and several were competition associates.
I do not have any answer as to how we promote 
our sport if we are honest and face up to the 
fact that it is essentially Ã¢Åbloody 
dangerousÃ¢ . This is of course a dilemma 
facing the GFA and individuals or groups trying 
to promote our sport. However I cringe when I

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding

2016-03-01 Thread Ian Mc Phee

Hey Bob I am 50 years in gliding this month and thats longer than you!! and
regretfully I remember many of them we have lost.

As a friend once said to me "straight ahead to the hospital and left or
right to the cemetery".  ie avoid low level spins at all costs.

Ian McPhee
0428857642
Box 657 Byron Bay NSW 2481
ClearNav - the next generation variometer
On 29 Feb 2016 10:12 pm, "Gary Stevenson"  wrote:

> Hello Bob,
>
> Good to see you in print again.
>
>
>
> For newer members to our sport, Let me say that Bob has “been there and
> done that” in reference to most elements of our sport. On this particular
> aspect of our sport . yep he has  “ been there and done that” too,
> having looked Death in the eye after he had a nasty landing discussion with
> a fence.
>
>
>
> Again for newer members, I have attached what is perhaps the seminal
> article (1993), on this subject, by a guy named Bruno Gantenbrink, (now
> another old fogey). However he was not always an old fogey, and you might
> be a bit surprised at some of the tricks he got up to!
>
>
>
> I noted Richard Frawley’s one line comment with some surprise: Totally
> irrelevant here, but it could be the basis of a new thread: However I
> expect that this topic has already been done to death, so is not new.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au] *On
> Behalf Of *Bob Ward
> *Sent:* Monday, 29 February 2016 7:43 PM
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Pete Cesco on TV
>
>
>
> If Peter Cesco with his myriad experience does not know that gliding is
> many times more dangerous than the drive to the airport, then I am truly
> amazed. In my forty nine years continuous participation with the sport, I
> can now count thirteen  people I knew who have perished whilst perusing
> gliding. Two of these were members of my own club, and several were
> competition associates.
>
> I do not have any answer as to how we promote our sport if we are honest
> and face up to the fact that it is essentially “bloody dangerous” . This is
> of course a dilemma facing the GFA and individuals or groups trying to
> promote our sport. However I cringe when I hear glider pilots try to
> perpetuate the old myth “the most dangerous part of gliding is the drive to
> the airport”
>
> Otherwise I agree that Peter’s TV spot was a creditable performance.
>
> Regards
>
> Bob Ward
>
>
>
> *From:* Glenn McLean 
>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 6:04 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> 
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Pete Cesco on TV
>
>
>
> Thanks David.
> Glenn
>
> On 2/29/2016 6:41 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>
> HI Glen
>
>
>
> Is this what you want?
>
>
>
>
> http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/2016-nsw-state-championships-lake-keepit-gld-2016/results
>
> Soaring Spot :: 2016 NSW State Championships
> 
>
> www.soaringspot.com
>
> Lake Keepit Gld, Australia, 27 February 2016 – 5 March 2016 ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
> *David*
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
>  on behalf of Glenn McLean
> mailto:glenn...@bigpond.com 
> *Sent:* Monday, 29 February 2016 6:34 PM
> *To:* aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Pete Cesco on TV
>
>
>
> Hi Derek,
> Any idea on how to access info about the NSW State Comps? I looked at the
> keepit website and it goes nowhere.
> Regards
> Glenn
>
> On 2/29/2016 4:29 PM, Derek wrote:
>
> Any idea why he didn’t land on the clear strip just to the right?
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Aus-soaring [mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.base64.com.au
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mark Newton
> *Sent:* Monday, February 29, 2016 1:54 PM
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Pete Cesco on TV
>
>
>
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Anthony Smith 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Which show was it on?
>
>
>
>
> https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/30949880/adelaide-doctor-recovering-in-hospital-after-glider-crash/#page1
>
>
>
>- mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Aus-soaring mailing list
>
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Aus-soaring mailing list
>
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
>
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
>

Re: [Aus-soaring] Potential dangers in the sport of gliding