Daniels Incident 12/4/13

[mingram]

Daniels Incident 12/4/13

This incident involved a new P2 visiting from out of town. This pilot flew Daniels solo without an observer and was stuck in a tree for an hour before someone noticed him and called for help. It took several more hours before he was rescued from the tree. During the rescue a heavy carabiner hit him in the face and busted his lip. He was in a very precarious situation hanging by a branch and half by his harness and suffered severe exhaustion from holding on for so long. He was in the tree for an hour before he was able to reach his phone and call me. He was admitted to the hospital, but was released that night with minor injuries thankfully.

As a P2 he was supposed to have an observer, but he did not. I failed to tell the pilot that the site requires an observer, which is standard operating procedure at Daniels. He had flown the site a year before and I observed him at Edith's Gap the weekend before and I think those two events contributed to my oversight assuming he already knew the rules. The pilot contacted me about wanting to fly Daniels so I forwarded his email to an observer who I knew was trying to fly that day. I should have given the observer and P2 a proper introduction and should have explained what I knew about the P2's skills and needs. A template of information or questions would help, but I was busy at work and just assumed he knew the rules and that the observer would know to ask the right questions.

The P2 also didn't know the site rules of thumb - that you should go land if you aren't getting lift. He did a forward launch and launched with a cravat in his left wing which contributed to this incident because he was too focused on trying to clear the cravat instead of focusing on getting away from the mountain and going to land. He was also completely unprepared for a tree landing. He didn't know you should try to aim for the center and grab on, that you shouldn't try to get out of your harness or get down yourself (this made his situation much worse), and that you should call 911 for help immediately (The pilot called me since I was his last dialed number).

This caused a lot of stress that could have been completely avoided. Luckily he was not seriously injured. To prevent something like this from happening in the future I will write-up information for visiting P2s explaining the rules and giving them better information about our sites. We could even get pilots to sign a statement indicating they've read and understand the rules. They do this in Golden, CO so I may use that as a template. I think I will also include emergency information like what to do if you're about to land in a tree.

Thoughts or suggestions?

Matt

[Dan T]

It seem to me that if there was an observer error in all of this the error was in drawing conclusions about a pilot's judgement and maturity based upon only one successful previous observation. We should expect that any P2 should have the knowledge and maturity to avoid flying an unfamiliar site alone.

Had their been any local pilot there at the same time the visiting pilot could have gotten a thorough briefing on the site merely by asking. I'm not convinced that our procedures warrant modification as a result of this incident. The one suggestion I would make is that if we see an unfamiliar face at our sites talk with them. Don't wait for them to come talk with us.

Dan

[laszlo]

Well, there was a local pilot there. I arrived after the other pilot was already at the site. When we exchanged text messages earlier on the phone, he indicated that he was ahead of me by half an hour and would most likely be in the air or just land when I arrive there. This created the impression that he was briefed about the site (he referred to Matt) and was an experienced pilot. When I arrived, he was still at the LZ. The sky clouded over, and there was a light breeze coming in from the S. Not enough for soaring or thermaling, but definitely safe for an extendo/sled. I told him I would rather go back to work, as the conditions were not attractive enough for me to take the afternoon off. He said fine, and added that he was still interested in launching. I told him where to park his car (halfway up the mountain, as the road has been fixed), and I left. I waited for a text message from him while driving back, but then got "distracted" by work and finally sent him a message at the end of the workday. He responded by informing me that he had a tree landing, it was no fun, but he was fine. I gave him advice how to get his glider back. Then discussed the case with Matt.

I should have asked more questions about his skills and ratings. Lesson learned.

Laszlo

[sailin]

Matt and Laszlo,

Thank you both for posting up on this incident. Your openness here will help prevent this from happening again, and will make us all more diligent about checking pilot qualifications and giving local site knowledge. Thank you guys.

Jon

[Danny Brotto]

A while ago there was some discussion about the wisdom of flying "solo" at a site (I seem to recall it was at this same very site.) I offer this real-life example of why one should rethink the urge to fly solo.

Danny Brotto

[Danny Brotto]

Demonstrated Skills and Knowledge for P2 Rating

30. Acknowledges and understands the need to become familiar with site-specific restrictions and launch or landing access limits, consistent with preservation of flying privileges at a site.

Matt, don't wouldn't beat yourself up too much on this. As a P2, ultimately it is the pilot's responsibility to understand the site requirements and protocols as outlined in the USHGPA SOP. This pilot did not follow these guidelines.

Danny Brotto

[FlyingFelix]

A while ago there was some discussion about the wisdom of flying "solo" at a site (I seem to recall it was at this same very site.) I offer this real-life example of why one should rethink the urge to fly solo.

Danny Brotto

Yes, this pilot should not have flown. He was a P2 with no observer and only one previous flight at the site. He should if stopped his "urge" to fly... However you cannot say another pilot with the right qualifications and experience at this site should not fly it alone. As a pilot you are in charge and it's not anyone's business to tell you what and what not to do.
I don't mean to start a debate, it's been already dealt with...
I'm sorry for this pilot's misfortune and glad he's doing well.

[Matthew]

Danny did not say that I pilots should not fly alone. He said "I offer this real-life example of why one should rethink the urge to fly solo."

This is a suggestion regarding safety.

If anyone wants to fly alone and has the qualifications-- go ahead-- no one is stopping pilots from flying alone. Still-- I concur with Danny with added emphasis. Flying alone is just plain stupid! But, yes, everyone has a right to be stupid.

Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

In his post, Felix states: “it's not anyone's business”

I like your youthful idealism Felix, however, it’s everyone’s business when a local landowner discovers one of us hanging from a tree all by his or her lonesome! The experience/emotion triggered in a non-pilot landowner of finding a flight related crash with no one around and the resulting rescue squad is enough to trigger a flying-site community response that really, really does not work in our favor. That’s why a number of us (including myself) objected to your solo from Daniels last spring.

Based on Laszlo’s comments about the “incident” he’s okay with flying solo as there was no mention of other pilots at the site in his post! Giving a visiting pilot (with unknown flying skills) driving instructions to one of our takeoffs and then leaving knowing that he’s going to fly alone - what’s up with that!

In addition, Dan T writes, “The one suggestion I would make is that if we see an unfamiliar face at our sites talk with them.” Sounds good Dan and if we could place a name with a past issue(s) we would be better equipped to respond, which raises the next question – why haven’t Matt, Laszlo or Dan T given us the name of the visiting pilot – is it cause he’s “just passing through” or is he a regular visitor that really doesn’t care about the rest of us and you guys don’t want to embarrass the casual visitor?

“If anyone wants to fly alone and has the qualifications-- go ahead-- no one is stopping pilots from flying alone.” Matthew, please reread my first paragraph and respond if I’m missing the point. Ward

[eggzkitz]

Matt-

I'm very much with Danny.

Only because I sensed something in your post, I'll make public here what I've expressed to you privately -- I'm not sure I agree with or understand the "P2 with observer" concept. Here are a couple reasons:

1. The USHPA provision and intent for "observers" is a far cry from how we typically see it implemented. I'll leave the experts to weigh in, but the actual USHPA "examiner" and "observer" provisions doesn't appear to offer a sanctioned way to make a P3 site flyable by a P2 pilot.

2. As your post seems to suggest, the observer concept inappropriately shifts the burden of judgment from the pilot to the "observer." The "observer" system is a poor substitute for mentoring, which is admittedly in short supply. Talking to more experienced pilots on launch, and hearing about their experiences, and asking them questions is how junior (single-seat) pilots can make more informed decisions. The "observer" system doesn't involve much mentoring. It just suggests that a P3 site can somehow be removed of its objective dangers by having a P3 "observer" nearby on the ground.

3. In flying, there is a time-honored tradition of "instructor-pilot" and "student-pilot." Both are pilots, but the two are separated by a profound gulf of experience. The other tradition is the "solo" flight, which represents a hard-earned, major milestone. All of this highly evolved tradition has refined a culture whereby the "winged" pilot has earned a novice rating after a long and extensive apprenticeship, and even then only appropriate for certain conditions. Our "observer" system muddies that, and creates an informal "in-between," cheapening the time-honored requirement to earn one's solo ratings. This is all-the-more important in the single-seat aircraft.

4. A site or event should be P2 or P3, period. I don't know what a "P3 but P2 with observer" means. Again, "observing" can't change the physical characteristics of a site and make a risky site less so. "Observing" is meant to evaluate a pilot's readiness for rating advancement. The factors that make any site P2 or P4 are intrinsic to the site, not the conditions. But too often, the "observer" is ostensibly there to evaluate whether the conditions are acceptable for the P2 to fly. In a single-seat aircraft, only the pilot can be held culpable for the decision to take-off -- that judgment is non-transferrable.

5. We need more independent, pilot-based assessment and decision-making. Too many pilots decide when and where and whether to fly based on what other pilots are doing. Some of this is healthy mentoring, and learning from folks who know the area. But some of it is dependency. Pilots need to learn to evaluate sites, weather, conditions, etc. for themselves. One way to do that is to sit on launch and talk to pilots and watch other pilots flying, and then evaluate the conditions for one's self. But again, the "observer" can too easily become someone whose very presence erodes the responsibility to evaluate conditions and make personal judgments.

The incident in question appears (IMHO) to have had more to do with a visiting pilot who was unfamiliar with the site, didn't get a proper site briefing, and accepted the risk of flying alone. The "observer" system isn't meant to teach someone what to do with a cravat on launch, or how to land safely in a tree.

Finally, you're a dedicated, respected and valued leader in the CHGPA community, so thanks for what you do.

Cheers,
Jeff

[Matthew]

Ward,

How is it possible for you to agree with me and disagree with me at the same time? You have a unique talent. I suggest you consult the site guide and the USHPA Pilot Proficiency Guidelines on flying alone. There are none.

Matthew

[Ward Odenwald]

Unique talent? Used to be called commen sense and respect for others. Don’t need a Proficiency Guideline for that. Ward

[FlyingFelix]

Again, this thread need not be a debate about flying alone.
And please no name calling, ok?! (Direct or indirect)
There are PLENTY pilots out there flying along at various sites. Are they all just stupid? I don't think so.
You don't want to fly alone, that's fine. Don't do it.
It IS nobody's business to tell a qualified pilot what to do. I'm done with this nonsense.

[theflyingdude]

I think Danny's post questioned the wisdom of flying alone, not whether it was permissible. I share his opinion, but it's a (mostly) free country and as long as a pilot has the necessary rating, then it becomes a matter of personal choice.

JR

[RichH]

First I'd like to applaud Matthew for allowing this incident to be a learning experience for the forum.. I see a couple of things that might help. 1. repost the active list of Observers for PG and HG with phone #'s my guess is its probably out of date.
2. Try to get a new crop of observers to join the ranks. ( maybe offer some incentives for becoming an
Observer)
3. We need to realize that our decisions to fly not to fly/ to follow rules and regs. does not just effect
ourselves but the community at large and creating a culture as such is all of our responsibilities.
4. Both of our communities HG & PG need to realize that our actions will and do effect the other
5. My last suggestion is going to seem harsh but I feel its become necessary to hold pilots who routinely
have shown a disregard for the rules and regulations set forth by our local and national organization
accountable. USHGPA has now taken steps to suspend and revoke pilot ratings for pilots who have shown
routine disregard for our communities policies and procedures. I see this as an unfortunate but
necessary step if our community is unable to self regulate.
6. My comments are not meant to cause a division. Its simply the reality of the world we fly in. We can no
longer ignore each other and our guidelines and expect for there to be no consequences. I believe an
unfortunate consequence may be the closure of one or more of our flying sites if we are unable to fly
in a safe and prudent manner.

[mcelrah]

Well, there's a nice productive parallel discussion going on on the exclusive/no-agro PG list, minus the snippy comments. What is it about this forum?! (Not directed at JR or Rich H.). Pat Terry is reposting for me - all I got here is a smartphone. - Hugh

[FlyingFelix]

Well, there's a nice productive parallel discussion going on on the exclusive/no-agro PG list, minus the snippy comments. What is it about this forum?! (Not directed at JR or Rich H.). Pat Terry is reposting for me - all I got here is a smartphone. - Hugh

A forum like that must be nice...

[Matthew]

Rich H,

Matt should be congratulated-- not Matthew.

Mattt Ingram posted the incident. I just made a snippy comment. My apologies.

How about this? I implore all pilots to not fly alone at our sites. If we had wide open bald mountain-tops or open coastal sites with regular foot traffic from non-pilots, then flying alone would not be as much of an issue. We don't have that here. We have narrow tree-lined slots, cliffs and ramps. Daniel's does not attract hikers. There is no one there to call 911 if something goes wrong. At High Rock it is a requirement of our insurance poicy that only pilots assist with launches.

So again, I implore pilots not to fly alone.

Matthew (not Matt)

[Ward Odenwald]

Well-said! - Thinking about going it alone in region 9? - Matthew has just defined why “we don’t have that here.” Although many of us could pull it off, the risks to our community are not worth it.

PS: Not sure if Matthew's post gets him off the forum's naughty list but he's in good company - no snip intended. Ward

[chgpa]

This discussion, although it is veering hard into site-protocol territory, and away from the specifics of the actual incident, is being conducted in a more productive way than some other recent forum topics.

And this is a good thing! Keep it up! Content trumps invective, eh?

But please be aware: If it becomes a discussion that's solely focused on "Is it ok for pilots at CHGPA sites to fly alone?", then it will have probably moved beyond this forum's charter. Which states:

Here are some examples of Off-Topic issues that must be discussed elsewhere:
[....]

• Discussions related to changing some practice/behavior/preference within the pilot community

If that happens, then this topic will be locked, and we'll invite you to continue your discussion with the CHGPA Club-Related Affairs forum.

Cheers,

MarkC

PS: Yes, we all realize that the distinction between "Flight-Related" topics and "Club Affairs" topics is going to be very gray. We're trying to feel our way to a balance that works for all... Please help us reach that point, by providing content that is helpful, thoughtful, and respectful of others' opinions. Especially the opinions that you disagree with.

[mcelrah]

Guess the repost didn't happen. To Jeff's observer/mentor comment: USHPA tried to have a mentor program to reduce the notable attrition of 2s who drop out before getting to 3, but it fizzled. Around here, observers function like mentors, hence going beyond just "observing" demonstrated skills for the next rating. Different observers provide more or less hand-holding (look up the etymology of "pedagogy"). Perhaps we should have an observer caucus to standardize/learn from each other - and invite the examiners who appoint us. Difference for a mentor: an ongoing relationship with one H/P2, invite him out for hill work/flying rather than wait for him to snivel for an observer. On "P2 with observer": all of our sites are challenging compared to alpine grassy wide-open slopes with huge LZs right underfoot - if we don't let 2s fly under observation, how will they ever get to 3? (Dickey's and Edith's Gap are 3 only.) - Hugh

[brianvh]

Browsing from outside, but a good discussion.

First off, as everyone else has said: clearly Matt is not at fault, just providing a reminder of what a little extra vigilance might prevent.

The point that technically a 2 cannot be prevented from launching from a 2 rated site is necessary to prevent the liability and blame/guilt game. Yet as Matt noted, the incident might easily have been prevented if there was some community protocol to help remind new pilots of wise flying practices. Perhaps a mantra along the lines of "Remember: don't fly alone, always get a full briefing on site if anything about the launch (including conditions) is unfamiliar, always do a methodical preflight, etc etc" that by design new pilots hear multiple times from multiple pilots might be a good thing.

Despite any such system, exercising wisdom is up to the pilot alone; though reminders won't hurt.

[Ward Odenwald]

Hugh,
Can you provide us with any insight as to why the name of this P2 has been kept hidden from the HG community? I ask because when conditions are on the edge for safe PG flying, we (HG pilots) will frequently be getting ready to fly along side one or two PG pilots. For example, on Oct 25 at WS there were five HG pilots waiting for conditions to improve along side a single PG pilot, Scott who was visiting from Colorado (mentioned in a previous post about flying that day). Most, or all, of the HG pilots had never met Scott. If the same scenario were to occur today with the anonymous P2, the PG community would be held accountable for not communicating information that could potentially help secure our flying sites. So again, why hasn’t there been full disclosure of information that help’s the entire community? One of the common threads between the Daniels and Hogback PG incidents is the perception that the PG community is hiding information (names) from the rest of us – information that is most likely common knowledge on the closed forum! This divisive issue is not about protecting pilots who screwed up, as we have all been in that uncomfortable position – it’s about protecting our flying sites! Ward

[brianvh]

Though the convention has often been broken (I've done it myself) it's good policy that in the case of an incident that does not involve serious injury, the name of a pilot involved be publicly withheld until the pilot feels comfortable posting directly. In the case of newer pilots especially this reduces the feelings of social stigma - people have left the sport out of embarrassment. We've all done stupid things early in our careers (and later), there's no reason to be posting names. No doubt those directly involved have been discussing the situation fully and competently. If you don't recognize someone at launch, talk to them and address all concerns. That should cover all the bases.

[mcelrah]

The name was not posted on the PG forum. I don't know who it is - but I wouldn't tell you if I did. This practice of public humiliation is counter-productive and must cease. It's a basic leadership principle: praise in public, correct in private. - Hugh