Daniels Saturday Jan 28

[markc]

Good news from the ortho doc! Looks like just a small hairline fracture that won't require more than a brace!

He can't yet say that I've completely lucked-out.... A previous injury in '98 makes it hard to be sure. But
so far, so good. Will be keeping my (right) fingers crossed for two weeks, then some follow-up x-rays.

Big sigh!!

MarkC

[Dan T]

Great to hear Mark! But whatever you do don't take up golf. Much too great a risk of re-injuring your hand.

Dan T

[dbodner]

I'm glad I was doing something safe on Saturday, like riding my motorcycle.

Heal up, y'all. Spring's coming!

[Danny Brotto]

Bummer... too much carnage. Hope ya'll heal well and fast!

Danny Brotto

[pink_albatross]

Oh, Ashley, Mark and Krista, I am sorry you had such mis-adventures on Saturday! I'm glad it wasn't any worse!
I hope Mark and Ashley heal soon.
All the best!
-- ellis

[krista]

Landing cooties... I hope not for everyone's sake. But I had at least three / four bad decisions on my landing as well. It was the first one that got me (not getting rid of my extra altitude earlier). Hoping that counts as my T1. Thank goodness it was a little tree.

Hope your glider and Mark's wrist heal/repair quickly.

[Matthew]

Yikes!

That makes five reported HG crashes-- including me, Carlos and Bacil-- and a PG tree entanglement in the last few months.


This is not good.


Speedy recovery Mark. Ashley and Krista, glad you walked away unscathed.

Matthew

[Dan T]

I've noticed over the 15 years that I have been flying here that our level of complacency seems to be cyclic. With five incidents over the past few months it appears that it's time to reassess the conditions we are willing to fly in. If there is only one chance in a hundred that any one of us will have an accident on any given flight there is roughly a 50/50 chance that each individual will have one in the course of a year and about a 97% chance in 5 years. The adage about there being old pilots and bold pilots but not both rings true.

Dan

[XCanytime]

With five incidents over the past few months it appears that it's time to reassess the conditions we are willing to fly in.

Dan

The 5 mentioned incidents were not due to the flying conditions. One of the incidents (a crash landing) could be linked to the conditions. The other 4 incidents were due to poor launch techniques (2 blown launches), scratching too close to the trees with low visibility (a tree landing), and a poor approach into an unfamiliar LZ (clipping trees and pounding in from 10+' above the ground).

I have kept accident statistics for 17 years on the local flying and believe me, nobody is immune from having an accident, from the Master-rated pilot to the newly minted Hang 2. I succinctly remember a stretch in the spring of 1995 when we had 4 accidents in 6 weeks. We had a blown launch in strong conditions at Woodstock on 3/22 that resulted in the accident pilot lapsing into a coma. A tree landing occurred on 4/9 on an XC from Daniels. On 4/15 we had another tree landing in the Edinburg Gap when an inexperienced pilot new to XC got caught in a venturi and fell through the trees to the ground and suffered a concussion. Then on 4/29 we had a blown launch at High Rock in strong winds that resulted in a 17 hour operation to restore a crushed eye socket. Shortly after this string of accidents here was a huge amount of soul searching undertook by both clubs. The late Bill Bennett wrote an article for the MHGA newsletter in which he linked most of the accidents to the strong gusty conditions that were common to the 4 incidents. Geoff Mumford wrote a full 2 page Prez Sez in the June 1995 edition of the MHGA newsletter with great advice on a variety of topics. I will supply a summary of it in a subsequent post for food for thought.

Bacil

[XCanytime]

Flying Conditions and pilot training - the two main areas of discussion.

Flying Conditions

Carry a windspeed indicator with you but don't just rely on it. Listen to the trees, and they start getting noisy at 10-12 MPH and howl at 18-20 MPH. It's up to us to establish personal limits that err conservatively within the USHPA recommendations for our ratings and to recognize that we need to place different limits on different sites. Our launches vary dramatically from cliffs to open hillsides with a lot of slots of differing dimensions in between. How much time can you afford to spend in one of our slot launches getting thrashed around?

Winds at launch are only part of the problem, you still have to contend with winds aloft and conditions in the landing zone. So although you may be able to eek out a launch and fly away from terrain in strong conditions, you need to think about whether you want to be approaching the ground under similar conditions to land. Winds aloft may be very different than those you encounter at launch and it's worth getting at least a winds aloft forecast from Flight Service to get an idea of how dramatic that difference is likely to be. A recommendation to stay on the ground with winds of 20 knots or greater at 3000' MSL makes sense. Further, if you get a report of a dramatic difference between the winds at 3000' MSL and 6000' MSL, think about staying on the ground where that difference won't catch up with you and make your life miserable. High winds aloft blow apart the thermals you're probably hoping to find and parking is not a skill requirement for any rating, so there's little point in practicing that manuever.

Think about how the wind (and any crosswind) is going to interact with the terrain one you are airborne. A quick look at a raised relief map with show you why you can expect more trash at Daniels than, say, the Pulpit or Jacks. The Blue Ridge is covered with gnarly-looking lumps and bumps compared to the smooth face of the Tuscarora or Jacks. Take note of the differences between forecast conditions and actual conditions at a site. There may be something about the configuration of a specific launch that lays it open to frequent blowout or somehow protects it (maybe falsely) in a strong wind. That's good info to store away. However, having said that, don't let a site's reputation determine your launch behavior. Sites gain reputations for being either more or less forgiving under specific sets of circumstances and this reputation may remain valid forever or may require periodic amendment (is Woodstock really more forgiving in high winds?).

Novice pilots need observers and observers need to make themselves available to novice pilots. The responsibility should not be treated casually on either side and you both need to trust each other. Novices should always have a log book available for review by an observer and the observer, particularly if he/she doesn't know the novice well, should take the time to review the log book and general flying history with the novice. A novice should be wary of an observer who just lets them fly without some discussion of wind/weather, launch conditions, a general flight plan, and landing options (is this person giving you appropriate guidance?). Observers are free to set limits for themselves and for novice pilots. A novice pilot should seek the advice of the most experienced observer they can find and new observers to defer to more experienced observers who recommend a more conservative approach. Finally, observers should log comments about novice flights in the novice's log book for the benefit of the pilot and other observers down the line.

Pay attention to the activities of the more experienced pilots in general, if they aren't flying there's probably a good reason and they'll be more than glad to tell you why. If they're cutting their flight short maybe they saw something changing that you didn't. Start looking around if more experienced pilots are landing out early. Better yet, link up with our Hang 4 and Hang 5 pilots and fly with them. We have a wealth of experience in the local clubs and those of us who are less experienced should take advantage of every opportunity to learn.

We all have different levels of natural ability and pilots progress through the rating system at different rates. The requirements for a given rating are the bare minimums and ratings should be awarded to pilots at the minimums only if they have demonstrated exemplary performance throughout their pilot career. The drive to move to a high performance glider may outpace pilot training. Pilots should make gradual transitions in glider performance with the idea that it's better to be ahead of your glider than to let your glider get ahead of you. Pilots at any level can lose mastery of the skills necessary to meet the requirements of the ratings they hold. However, currency is not an issue addressed or tested for in the USHPA pilot proficiency system, except when their membership has lapsed for 2 years or where gross deficiencies may result in the revocation of a rating by various combinations of USHPA observers/examiners. It is our individual responsibility to remain current and it must become a priority. Some pilots don't have much time to fly or become inactive for other reasons. This may happen over a few weeks, a winter, or a year and may just be "rust" but we have to determine that slowly. If currency is lost through inactivity it should be regained gradually in conditions that allow for a wide margin of error. Pilots returning to the sport after an extended absence should be encouraged to do so under the supervision of an observer or mentor. Pilots who no longer fly enough to maintain currency at the performance level required of their glider should be encouraged to drop back to a lower performance wing and lighter conditions and we should applaud any such decisions on the part of the pilot.

Lastly, with regard to flying conditions, we can stack the odds in everyone's favor by maintaining good verbal and visual communication. Radios will facilitate good communication at all levels, air-to-air (hey I've never crossed this gap would you mind leading the way), air-to-ground (it's smooth at altitude and I'm penetrating fine), and ground-to-ground (I had a crummy landing but I'm OK, the LZ is really turbulent and you may want to delay your launch). On the visual front, think about getting a windsock or something big enough to let you know what's going on in the LZ before you launch. Binoculars are also useful for checking out small windsocks or streamers and may help you determine the outcome of a bad landing.

[jyoder111]

Thanks, Bacil. As a new pilot, I had never heard of those previous incidents. Sobering...

Jesse

[sailin]

Wow!!, Bacil thank you for digging those articles up!!!! Super read and so much good info and stuff to think and talk about.

Jon

[Ashley Groves]

I have not logged in for a while, so I missed much of the conversation. As I am rushed at the moment I did not read all of Bacil's thread (although he is often thoughtful and insightful).

I would say I do not blame my landing on conditions (however tempting) but with me. The set up was too far back for an approach low over trees and I cut off my options. It was a stupid error and I am lucky it was not worse. I am talking about myself and not any other pilots who flew that day. There is no good reason I could not have had a good landing that day.

In other news I am mending nicely.