2nd-Guessing Accidents (aka Seeking Personal Insight)

[BobW]

So far, the USA's 2012 northern spring appears to be shaping up to be a
"typical soaring season" in accident terms. In my view, that's not a good
thing. Why? Summary-to-date follows...

- - - - - -
1/28/12 - 2-33 seriously damaged in a non-rope-break approach accident; at
least one occupant precautionarily taken to hospital for back pain.

2/5/12 - Duo-Discus (NOT an accident - but easily *might* have been) landed at
Heavenly Valley Ski Resort on a Sunday during a BFR.

2/22/12 - Twin Grob seriously damaged in some TBD situation/manner in HI; no
known injuries.

4/5/12 - HP-14 "substantially damaged" with no known injury to pilot in an
attempted on-airport landing.

4/11/12 - SZD-48 "substantially damaged" and pilot suffered "minor injuries"
in some sort of TBD landing accident.

4/29/12 - JS-1 bailed out of after some sort of TBD rudder control system
failure; pilot apparently not seriously injured.

5/5 (or 5/6)/12 - PIK-20D seriously broken in a landing accident; pilot
apparently not seriously injured.
- - - - - -

So far:
- 0 fatalities; multiple precautionary hospitalizations
- 1 glider almost certainly destroyed
- 5 gliders substantially damaged
- unknown amount of anguish & after-the-fact soul-searching by numerous
people/pilots
- - - - - -

5 out of 6 accidents (almost certainly) easily avoidable.
- - - - - -

JUSTIFICATION/THINKING
Reason for this post is simply to openly discuss a topic that inevitably
induces heartburn in some of our U.S. soaring community's too small
population: individually-based accident assessments...often called
"2nd-guessing" or "speculation." Not infrequently, doing it generates real ire
in some, especially in an interactive forum as RAS.

FWIW/IMHO, trying to learn from others' misfortunes ASAP (always a personal
goal), better the serves the active pilot community as a whole than "waiting
until the NTSB/official report" to begin "officially-supported speculation."

Learning is a lifelong process, and those *always* actively seeking to learn
from others' situations/events/misfortunes are more likely to do so in
considerably more timely fashion than those "of inquiring mind who prefer to
wait (for NTSB reports,)" or (worse), those of closed/uninquiring minds. To my
mind, an active desire to learn is simple prudence, given routine engagement
in activities containing sufficient kinetic energy to easily kill participants
(e.g. driving, flying).

I've acted on this thought ever since obtaining my auto license. Prior, the
first person I applied my critical judgement to was an older sister whose
general lack of behind-the-wheel "situational awareness" made a doofus
16-year-old (me) nervous to the point my mother and I agreed it was preferable
for me to hitch-hike home from high school than wait to be chauffeured by my
older sister. (Yeah, that was a different time in the U.S. back in the late
'60's!)

I expanded my critical assessment arena to include power flying during
college, from beginning to read "Flying" magazines left around the
undergraduate engineering lounge.

By graduation time I'd a working hypothesis that most car/power-plane
accidents were driver-/pilot-influenced, if not outright induced.

I began taking soaring lessons in late '72, and sometime approaching initial
solo was given a handout of "Soaring" magazine "Safety Corner" articles from
the mid-1960s by my Club's chief instructor. Prior to then, we'd exchanged
perhaps 2 or 3 sentences, and the older gent intimidated wet-eared me due to
age, position and relative experience. He may not have walked on water as I
suspected he did, but I knew darned well that *I* did not! So it was with
genuine concern that the exchange of reading material from him to me included
also the assignment: "Read these, and tell me the most important lesson in
them." Talk about pressure!

Absorbing the articles took a month or so...and about the ONLY lesson I could
see in them was the bulk of the incidents and accidents were "stupid pilot
tricks." Uncertain this was the insight the Chief Instructor was looking for
from me, I read the articles a second time, more slowly. I then procrastinated
returning the collection for fear of failing his test.

Major Relief: I passed this particular test. Forty subsequent years of
continuing to try and learn from others' misfortunes haven't substantively
changed the assessments made in the 1960's (about drivers) and the early 1970s
(about pilots). IMHO, only a single-digit-small percentage of accidents are
NOT operator influenced (if not outright induced).

Unsurprisingly, my own flying (and driving) careers reflect that assessment.
Happily both have fairly rare and essentially exclusively minor personal
contributions to the incident/accident records, though there was one soaring
accident in 1975 that was major (in glider damage terms), dramatic (in pilot
terms) and was arguably in the pilot-influenced category despite never being
outside demonstrated/POH V-n limits. Had the same set of circumstances been
encountered subsequent to gaining the 1st-hand experience of the '75 event
subsequent to then, no one would've known of the subsequent incident unless I
chose to share it with them. Sort of a QED event, one could say, in the
"learning from others' misfortunes" sense of things!
- - - - - -

MINDSET
It matters. How a pilot thinks matters, because thought patterns inevitably
affect piloting actions. (Would anyone seriously try to self-teach solo flight
in glass single-seaters in the absence of FAA requirements for dual
instruction in SOMEthing prior to solo/license? My point here is it's pretty
much self-evident to rational people that self-preservation-instinct alone is
sufficient to influence one's thinking to conclude dual instruction in
sailplanes is a good idea. How a person thinks, matters.)

Mindset is as true post-licensing as it is pre-licensing, though arguably
perhaps more subtly so. If you think ridge soaring is no more risky than
thermal soaring, you're more likely to attempt to do both similarly...adding
additional risks to your ridge soaring attempts that a different mindset could
mitigate. Ditto cloud flying vs. VFR flight. Or downwind landings vs. upwind
landings. Etc., etc., etc...
- - - - - -

SPECULATION
I've been doing it for decades, and have never thought myself poorer for it in
knowledge-/insight-gained, or more ill-informed for having indulged.

"But what if you're wrong in your speculative accident conclusions?" some may ask.

Excellent question.

Let's consider a speculative, unintentional stall-spin/departure from
controlled flight scenario.

I've been at the gliderport when a friendly acquaintance died from one. (The
preceding statement is my conclusion; the NTSB added no substantive causative
insight to this particular crash, which you can find under HP-16s). Why it
happened was a mystery to me then, and remains one today, but one more
destroyed glider and one more dead pilot. Another friendly acquaintance - and
high-time power and glider pilot/instructor - died from such in the pattern on
a benign day from the same cause (SZD-59).

Happily I've never had to actually WITNESS a departure from controlled flight
in the pattern, though I HAVE seen a 2-33 (on a dual instruction flight!) hit
a tree on a low approach, and have seen WAY too many inadvertent low
approaches for good health (theirs and mine!). Know what? Most of the
resultant low patterns were NOT suitably modified by the self-inflicting
pilots to mitigate the inherent hazards in them. All could have been of
course. WHY were they not modified? Mindset?

My point here is it doesn't terribly MATTER if Joe Pilot's speculation is
spot-on or not, simply because the speculation has value in and of itself if
it influences Joe Pilot's future thinking (and hence actions) in different
(arguably safer) ways than would likely be the case in the absence of such
speculation. That's a good thing, IMHO.

Who wants to argue - after a pattern crunch, say - that inadvertent,
un-pre-planned, low and slow patterns are safer than "normal patterns"? Or
that the crunch was or was not departure-from-controlled-flight-induced
directly, or indirectly (e.g. by hitting a tree or wires or a fence or
something else)? Of course, the latter distinction is surely critical to an
accurate understanding of any particular accident...but it is NOT critical to
the fact of said crunch, if said crunch arguably would NOT have happened had a
"normal pattern" been flown. There are lessons to be gleaned about the risks
inherent to ALL low patterns from speculative assessment of low pattern crunches.

Would you rather hit a tree, or inadvertently depart from controlled flight,
if fate decrees those are to be the only two options you get from some future
low pattern you (inadvertently, most likely) enter? Personally, I'd rather hit
the tree...but much more to the thinking point is that I never want to
INADVERTENTLY enter a low pattern, and if I DO, then I want to do certain
things beginning the instant I realize I've made such a stupid error. (Anyone
want to chime in w. guesses what those things might be?)

Incidentally, for any readers who think I'm being too harsh in claiming anyone
who enters a low pattern inadvertently is being stupid, this is from someone
who's encountered 3 pattern microbursts in the inter-mountain Rocky Mountain
west...sort of this area's equivalent of falling off an Allegheny or UK ridge,
in available-pattern-time-terms. One of those patterns was entered at 2,500'
agl and eventually included a go-around from the downwind to base turn, and
another was entered at 3k' agl and included ONLY time for 2-360's (in the
clean configuration) that took less than a minute to ground contact. No damage
in any of them (though the first of the three was a crap shoot in
survivability terms). My point here is that "landing patterns" don't begin at
some arbitrary location or altitude agl, they begin when they need to begin,
and Joe Pilot had better begin - ASAP! - doing what that particular pattern
demands.

Mindset matters.

And my pattern mindset began to be influenced by reading about others'
misfortunes - then speculating about what I'd read - well before I obtained my
license. So far, the only stupid pilot tricks I've managed to do in over 1100
patterns have been convenience related. Happily, only one included
(bulkhead-repair-required) glider damage. My speculative conclusion? Pattern
risks taken for convenience reasons are entirely, 100%, avoidable. IOW,
convenience risks - if they don't work out - WILL be a stupid pilot trick.
- - - - - -

It sure would be wonderful if the rest of the 2012 U.S. soaring season doesn't
include any more stupid pilot tricks.

Bob - Captain Harsh - W.

[Brad]

I discovered that the auto-tow accident last year during the filming
of a car commercial was caught on video, and probably a lot more was
taken by the professionals shooting the take.

If you want to go on a safety jihad, maybe you should start with the
folks who have this footage and implore upon them to make it
available. I know I haven't seen any of it, and this happened to
someone in my club. One would think that this would be an invaluable
tool for study and discussion.

Pick the low hanging fruit Bob, let's see how far you get with this
one.

Brad

[Frank Whiteley]

Hi Brad,

I know and have spoken to a witness to this accident. I had also spoken to the pilot, albeit a couple of years earlier. I still have lingering questions, firstly about currency and qualifications for the launch method, and secondly about the personal/professional motivations. That is, the pilot also had a commercial enterprise and I believe to some extent some of his instruction and flying was done in a commercial sense, though he still provided services as a club member. The only real issue I have concerning his willingness to engage the sponsors of this activity was that his web site was a few years out of date, others had been approached and either asked too many questions or were more demanding or perhaps more expensive, but were not contracted. The NTSB report remains preliminary, but there are facts in the report that raise further questions concerning the pilot's qualifications to participate, and presumably supervise said activity. Happy to discuss further on the phone.

I don't need to defend Bob Whelan, but he is one of the most well read and knowledgable aviation enthusiasts I know and often my first contact when seeking clarification, aircaft identification, or a historical data point. He knows a lot more than gliding, and he's published to boot. I'm not sure why he wrote this following the latest thread, but his wife was recently involved in a serious accident when a drunken bastard blew across the highway and collided with her pick-up. She will have her left hand in a cast for five weeks. Hopefully the other driver will spend at least 12 months in county as he has quite a history. The broken bone makes all the difference by the way. So maybe he was also thinking about personal responsibility pretty deeply.

2-3 years ago at my club's safety meeting, a retired FAA accident investigator presented a review of a fatal winch accident he investigated. Included were a number of photos with the pilot's corpse still in the wreckage. The probable cause is here
http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/iaut0uzgtipbi455n4y0hcrz1/V05142012120000.pdf

Bob was a witness to this accident, from the winch end. In discussing this with Bob after the safety meeting over 20 years after the accident, I was able to convey facts that he didn't know, and he supplied facts that the FAA didn't know. One, Bob was unaware that after two failed launches due to weak link breaks, that the pilot DOUBLED the weak link on the third and fatal launch. What Bob knew and the FAA still doesn't know, is that the late Bruce Miller, owner/operator of the then Cloudbase commercial operation in Boulder had refused the pilot additional aero tows after this glider suffered aileron flutter on tow.

Aileron flutter was highly suspected to have occurred on the accident winch launch as the pilot on the third launch appeared to increase and decrease the angle of attack three times. There was a notable headwind. The right wing showed possible flutter damage and the inspection hatch from that wing was found downwind of the impact site.

However, should we wait 20 plus years for all the facts? Of course not. Should we discuss? Of course. Should we speculate? Carefully. Should we hide incidents? Never. I liked the S&G accident and incident lists when I was in the UK.

A couple of years ago I dug through glider wreckage of a fatal with the FAA and NTSB looking for a logger, which they were unlikely to be able to identify. Maybe it comes with the territory, but they displayed a type of gallows humor. If you die in your glider, they are likely to laugh at you. It's their way of coping.

I had 26 years of federal service. No one spends more on safety than the federal government and the DOD. One of the first lessons learned was that all accidents are preventable, even if you are not in motion.

Frank Whiteley
970-330-2050
7am-10pm MDT

[JJ Sinclair]

I view ras accident discussions not unlike the briefing book used in the militery:

Item 1. Not all info is known concerning the recent JS-1 bailout, but for the time being all pilots will inspect the rudder cables at the 'S' tube before each flight.

Item 2. A com-check will be accomplished with the tow pilot before each takeoff.

Item 3. Practice rope breaks will not be initiated below 500 feet.

Item 4. You fill in the items you have gleaned from ras discussions.........

I applaud Bob Whelan and Frank Whiteley for beating the safety drum, my only suggestion would be to use less verbage please!

JJ Sinclair

[Bill D]

In the vast majority of fatal air accidents (not just gliders) the
coroners official COD might as well be be "Terminal Stupidity".
Aviation has a way of eliminating those afflicted with the disease.
This is not the clinical, low IQ kind of stupidity - most pilots are
'smart' people but nonetheless capable of astounding lapses of common
sense.

Being human, there's no known way to eliminate all these lapses. We
can study and train to eliminate the most egregious of them but must
accept that mistakes will still be made. To handle these, we build
systems to trap them before they can hurt us. Checklists are an
example. Warning systems are another - and, in the case of gliders,
warning systems could be much better than they are.

We need to watch each others back. That's what BobW is trying to do -
I hope you all appreciate his efforts. Don't say, "It's not my
problem" because IT IS your problem. If you see something dangerous,
speak up. Some are more afraid of peer pressure than dying.

Aviation, in its various forms, is essentially "messing with Mother
Nature" and She doesn't like to be messed with. She has a plan to
snowball your stupid mistake into really bad day but She's also
capricious - She'll let you get by with it a few times before
springing Her trap. Beware.

Pilots with fat logbooks and long survival records almost universally
prepared themselves with an abundance of knowledge, skill and
caution. This is not to say one never takes risks - just that those
risks must be calculated with a well thought out plan for every
eventuality. The consequences of risks going bad should be small.
For example, the risk of landing out carries a small consequence -
dying is a large one. Smart aviators never deliberately risk dying.

There's always talk of insurance - usually about rising premiums.
There are two types of insurance. One pays off with a check in the
mail - sometimes to survivors. The other pays off with another
sunrise. Parachutes are an example of the latter. Over training and
under-flying that training is another. But the most useful from a
longevity standpoint is a decision made long ago not to fly if "things
aren't right". An old aviator's saying puts it succinctly, "It's
better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air
wishing you were on the ground".

[Bob Whelan]

On 5/13/2012 9:25 PM, Brad wrote:
> On May 13, 4:10 pm, BobW<rfwhe...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

<Prolixity snipped...>

>> Bob - Captain Harsh - W.
>
> I discovered that the auto-tow accident last year during the filming
> of a car commercial was caught on video, and probably a lot more was
> taken by the professionals shooting the take.
>
> If you want to go on a safety jihad, maybe you should start with the
> folks who have this footage and implore upon them to make it
> available. I know I haven't seen any of it, and this happened to
> someone in my club. One would think that this would be an invaluable
> tool for study and discussion.
>
> Pick the low hanging fruit Bob, let's see how far you get with this
> one.
>
> Brad

So call me dense. I'm not sure what you're hoping for from me here, Brad.

If you think I'm on a "safety jihad" so be it. FWIW, I've long asked myself
certain fundamental questions - both when I drive and when I'm PIC - that I
think have served me well in avoiding accidents, both those influenced by
others (the most likely sort every sensible driver "hopes for"), and those
influenced by me (whether driving or piloting).

My fundamental driving question is: "Who can hit me now?" Those are the
vehicles I pay Very Close attention to. I worry a lot less about who I can
hit, for the simple reason I'm pretty much in direct control of those outcomes
and "drive accordingly."

My fundamental PIC questions vary situationally, but are no less to-the-point.
By "situationally" I mean (e.g.) tow, thermalling, while on a ridge, XC over
less-than-benign territory, etc., etc., etc. The vast majority of my PIC
questions - not all, since "fate" can easily intervene a dramatic hand to any
PIC - have as an underlying assumption that *I* - Joe Pilot - am the weak
link, and through the answers to the questions the goal is to detect ASAP if
I'm doing something imprudent, or even downright stupid. If I'm not, then I
keep on keeping on. If I AM being stupid, then I need to begin implementing -
sooner rather than later - Plan B (or C or maybe even D).

Does it work? So far, I've never made an inadvertent (key word) low pattern,
and never come close to an inadvertent departure from controlled flight
(anywhere, not just in the pattern). *I* think it works for me. And, I've
talked to a lot of pilots over the years who've done "inexplicable" stuff -
ranging from the merely "pattern bizarre" to "near accident" - a large
proportion of whom have been unable to come up with sensible answers to "What
were you THINKing?" Some have admitted they were NOT thinking, and were doing
things by rote, suggesting to me that they were not actively engaged in a
mental Q&A. One or two have even changed their fundamental approach (as
learned by continuing interactions/BS sessions over the years)...and have
rarely scared/worried me since.

My conclusion is it works.

And though you didn't ask - but others (indirectly) have - yes, I do
speculate/2nd-guess about incidents/accidents involving people I've known that
have occurred at my home field. It has nothing to do with friendship and
everything to do with learning from others' misfortunes. A lot of my
speculation ended up in our monthly Club Newsletter over the ~9 years I was
Joe Editor...and no letter bombs.

Bob W.

[Ramy]

This thread, and few others recently, is the main reason why I follow RAS since I started soaring 15 years ago. I have no doubts that the collective wisdom as demonstrated here made me a much safer pilot.
Thank you all and keep it coming (the insights, not the accidents)

Ramy

[kirk.stant]

I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.

Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.

It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Some of these new pilots recognize that they are now just barely dangerous, and begin a lifelong quest to learn everything about flying gliders - and if they stick to it they can become self-taught excellent pilots.

But many others just smile when they get their nice new certificate and muddle along, safe in the knowledge that their great instructor taught them all they need to know.

I could talk about many areas where the lack of knowledge is scary (AOA, anybody?) but lets just look at landings - since we apparently aren't very good at them:

Enter the pattern at 1000' over the farm, fly downwind nice and slow to the pond and a nice easy turn to base, half spoilers and a nice long final, aiming to touchdown just past the fence to save having to drag the glider back to the launch point. In the flare, level off, and let the glider settle on the nice big main wheel, then forward stick to pin the nosewheel and brake to a stop.

Sound familiar? You see it everyday at any gliderport, in everything from 1-26s to Grob-103s.

And if you didn't cringe when you read that paragraph - or worse, nodded "yeah, sounds about right", you need some serious remedial training!

Try this - in a modern 2-seater with a good instructor in the back: Enter downwind at about 500' and stop looking at the altimeter. Fly a fast, tight pattern (triangle plus 10 for a start), make steep turns, and setup a final to an aimpoint one third of the way down the runway. On short final, slow to triangle (plus wind) and then set your spoilers and concentrate on a low energy, tail and main (or tail slightly first) landing. Hold the stick all the way back and steer out of the way clear of the active, if possible.

Then go up, and when you pull your spoilers on downwind to check them, have your instructor hold them all the way out. Land. On the airfield.

Do it again until you can land where you want, not where the glider wants.

Go up and setup a nice nose high slip (this works great in a K-21). Smoothly feed in full rudder until it locks over and you feel like you are going sideways. Take you feet off the rudder pedals to prove that the rudder is really locked over. Then recover. It's fun.

Have your towpilot simulate an engine failure and rock you off (prebrief, of course). See how long it takes you to recognize that you are no longer climbing and to SEE that the towplane is rocking his wings.

This is all BASIC AIRMANSHIP, guys! If our instructors won't teach us this stuff, then you need to teach yourself.

You get the idea. I realize I'm making a huge generalization, but the stats seem to back me up, unfortunately.

Okay, you guys are cleared in hot on me.

Pushing it up and takin' it down!

Kirk
66

[JJ Sinclair]

> It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow.

> Kirk
> 66

That was a pretty broad brush you used there, Kirk. While I would agree with some of that concerning the instruction I got 40 years ago, there are some very good instructors out there who produce well quolified glider pilots. Kenny Price at Williams for one! After flying with the Air Force cadets for several years I think the AFA is producing well quolified glider pilots as well!
JJ

[Bill D]

Nicely said. Now, what can we do about those instructors?

[Tony]

You're right, quality of instruction is all across the board. I don't have an answer for it except to do my best to keep turning out new glider pilots and flying with as many students as I can. Of course I, like you, assume that I'm one of the good ones.

I'm guessing if you took a survey about 80-90% of CFI's would say they are above average.

[Bill D]

I suspect revamping the old methods has reached the point of
diminishing returns. Maybe new methods using Condor and other on-line
training methods can improve the training experience.

[Ramy]

Even the best instructor can not possibly teach a student everything they need to know to be safe. Unless someone wants to be an eternal student. Even then, the instructors themselves can not know everything. We can always learn more and strive to learn more on our own, using available resources such as books, publications and online forums such as RAS. The highest risk pilots are those who get their ticket, and never use any other resource to learn more other than a BFR. This usually happens in club environments with no much external exposure.

Ramy

[BobW]

On 5/15/2012 3:26 PM, Ramy wrote:

<Much intervening thoughtful assessment/criticism/discussion of US-centric
instruction snipped...>

> Even the best instructor can not possibly teach a student everything they
> need to know to be safe. Unless someone wants to be an eternal student.

Absolutely spot-on.

- - - - - -

> Even then, the instructors themselves can not know everything. We can
> always learn more and strive to learn more on our own, using available
> resources such as books, publications and online forums such as RAS. The
> highest risk pilots are those who get their ticket, and never use any other
> resource to learn more other than a BFR. This usually happens in club

> environments with no[t] much external exposure.
>
> Ramy

Your final sentence touches upon something that's simultaneously - for a long
time - bugged, pained, perplexed and off-n-on preoccupied the part of my brain
that likes to ponder imponderables.

It's this: Why do soaring groups (clubs, FBOs) often struggle with the concept
of, "Who shall instruct?" It's seemingly a simple question...with answers that
quickly become complex.

Sure, "government approved instructors" are on everyone's lists, whether you
work for the FAA, a law firm or simply wanna obtain a glider rating.

Where I've seen disagreement tending to start is, "Who ELSE?" And what
constitutes "instruction"?

I'll argue from the accident prevention perspective, "instruction" is the
acquisition of knowledge about the sport. Muscle memory and judgement are part
of it too, natch, but it all starts with knowledge. Knowledge in the most
general sense. By my definition, anyone who's ever read a(ny) book about
soaring has undertaken self-instruction, whether it's a flight manual, a book
of retrieve stories, or even a novel (there are some!).

Anyone who's ever engaged in a bull session has instructed (sometimes, in ways
they may not have wanted to!).

Anyone who's shared a 2-seater - whether with a fellow licensed glider-guider
or a member of the great unwashed - has instructed.

In an ideal world, ALL participants in these sorts of "instructional
activities" would recognize and respect the facts of "instruction" having
taken place, no matter the bulk being unloggable. This would - it seems to me
- help more of us focus on the fact that our silly avocation *requires*
knowledge...and also applied focus. Knowledge both 'ad-hoc' (e.g. what the
controls do) and of our own limitations. Applied focus at all times (whether
on acquiring more knowledge or applying what we presently have).

Where the "respect concept" comes in has been easily seen in every soaring
club of which I've knowledge, whenever the topic of peer pressure arose.

Tangentially, I happen to believe peer pressure is a powerful, useful,
often-denigrated if not outright attacked (e.g. because "it infringes on
licensed instructors' authority"), and too often underutilized safety tool.
IMO similar forces tending to limit the use/effectiveness of peer pressure
also exist at glider FBOs. The really perverse part of the equation is that
most people would agree (I'd bet, if they could be engaged in a
'non-threatening' one-on-one discussion about the *idea* of knowledge-based
peer pressure) that peer pressure is a good idea. But the instant egos are
allowed to muddy the picture, feathers get ruffled, and the peer pressure tool
begins losing potential effectiveness. In one club, "the ruling party" people
actively got angry for many years whenever the topic was broached. (For the
record - and unsurprisingly, in my view - this club [which still exists,
though presently and for a couple of years now, inactively] has always had a
very spotty safety record [my characterization] in the 20+ years I've been an
active observer of it. Its "culture" was one of the reasons I never chose to
join it.)

I doubt I've stated things clearly, but I think what I'm really stumbling to
express is an aspect of our glider-sporting culture...an aspect which - if we
improved it - might measurably reduce our group rate of stupid pilot tricks,
as measured by dollar (and sometimes, maybe even *life*) losses.

I'm no Safety Nazi, not a licensed instructor, but like most of us have always
gotten genuinely perturbed whenever directly exposed to real-world effects
associated with the very real risks we take as practicing glider pilots. I was
exposed to my first "I KNEW that person!" death less than two years after
obtaining my rating; I was 26. Death or "mere accident"...all perturb me,
*especially* because I'm of the opinion the vast majority have not only been
avoidable/unnecessary, but self-inflicted. I'm as paranoid as anyone about
"fate" accidents (e.g. a spar failing, mid-air), but to be honest they don't
perturb me in the way self-inflicted ones do. (All are terrible, of course...)
Avoidable ones we can do something about.

Anyone have some "my Club improved its safety culture" stories to share?

Bob - (*I* have a cultural story!) - W.

P.S. It begins with, "...and so, after my Club became non-usuriously
uninsurable, some critical self-assessment became unavoidable..."

P.P.S. One consequence - our "peer pressure quotient" rose distinctly
higher...and the world did not end.

P.P.P.S Costello (a USA glider insurance broker) learned to love us again
about a decade ago now.

[Tony V]

On 5/15/2012 12:04 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.
>
> Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.
>
> It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow. We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.

Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.

Tony "6N"

[Chris Nicholas]

From a UK perspective, I agree that instructors cannot possibly teach
everything. What they can, and I believe do, teach is all of the
essentials to be able to take off, soar locally, return to the
circuit, cope with too low, too high, or otherwise out of position,
cope with launch failures, appreciate stall and spin awareness, and
land safely after any or all of the above. A basic training syllabus
that leaves any of the above out would be defective.

Subsequently, they can and do teach field selection and good field
landing practices.

What I do not think is well taught is risk assessment other than as
covered above. On any one flight, there should not be more than one
major new thing which has risk attached to it, and/or not too many
minor new things. As an example, a young, very competent, but low
experience pilot from my club was visiting another. They offered him a
winch launch, at what was a new site, in a new type. He would probably
have coped all right, but I thought it was at least one new thing too
many. I spoke to their CFI (that is, chief flying instructor, in UK
terminology) and suggested that he should at least have a two seater
winch launch on their winch with which he was not familiar, at their
site which was also new to him, to be given a briefing on suitable
emergency situations and how to cope with them. If all that went okay,
and only then, should he be briefed on and be allowed to fly a new
solo glider type there.

A friend of mine died in his first flight on a new type, trying an
aerobatic manoeuvre (rolling to inverted) which was new to him, and he
then hit the ground trying to recover erect flight.

I keep losing count of how many people I have known personally who
died in gliding accidents, but I think it is between six and 10. It is
far higher than the number I knew who have died in road accidents, for
instance.

Re accident rates, we have fairly good UK data. It is not perfect,
because we know at least a small number of accidents that result in
insurance claims do not appear in our official accidents database. I
have no idea what you have in the USA.

Chris N

[akiley]

A few things I've been thinking about. There are lots of stall/spin
pattern accidents. Power planes do better because they can go around,
or use power to overcome the situation. So we can NOT get in the
situation in the first place. I feel there is no voice in our heads
that automatically screams when we are close to these situations. I
learned by wondering in bewilderment why one wing suddenly dropped
(crash) turning final with my radio control glider. I became very
aware and sensitive to that situation after is happened a few times.
A host of alarms should be going off when a situation is set up that
may lead to the stall/spin. These need to be hard wired into our
memory so that they fire a loud alarm. Knowledge is not enough. It
has to be prioritized knowledge backed up by muscle memory/fear. My
god, that's going to make me spin in! Relax back pressure and fly
into something under control because you are not going to live through
the stall/spin. Just like race car drivers. They always say drive
off the road under control and you are more likely to survive picking
what you will hit head on.

So how do we burn all these dangerous situations into muscle memory
and have the alarms go off that let us know how badly we are about to
be hurt? The airlines use simulators over and over and over again
until these situations are no longer emergencies, they become more
"abnormals". Real emergencies are unpreventable.

I hate to pull the Condor weapon out again, but I think, even though
it doesn't have failures built in, it can be very useful for the
repetition that is required to burn in the muscle/memory danger
awareness thing. If you set Condor to release at 200 AGL the tow will
wag its wings. Have this happen on lots of tows at various altitudes
and practice landing with different patterns, some with very strong
winds. I guarantee a student will instantly recognize the wave off
real world. With Condor, Make the student acknowledge out loud what
the wave off is, also that you have to give yourself a second to
access before you actually release.

In Condor I would make the student talk out loud on tow all the way to
maybe 500 AGL, such as. Continuously calling out where he will land if
the rope breaks. I do this myself both real world and Condor. Guard
the air brakes.

I see gliders drifting sideways on tow before lift off. To the point
where they should be releasing. Condor is fantastic at teaching the
skills to keep the nose straight, balanced on the one wheel, upwind
wing down slightly. Try it with full water and a huge crosswind. You
should be releasing often before airborne when it gets out of hand.
You will become hard wired to release.

All these very dangerous situations need to be burned into memory
somehow or we will keep making the same mistakes we have always made.
Reading helps too. Books, newsgroups, accident statistics, good
instructors, but don't be complacent.

The other thing I think about is competition flying. I may be out of
place, because I don't compete.. Yet. I would not dream of formation
flying in a gaggle of power planes, some with very little formation
flying experience. (PowerFlarm should help though) I would not have
a very casual attitude about landing out in a power plane. I do not
put myself in situations with power flying that gives me get home-
itis. Competition flying is a monumental example of this. I could
see competition flying with course lines over lots of airports with
finish lines off airport, large ant at altitude which I think being
implemented. I would fly that kind of competition flying.

Lastly there are a lot of old glider pilots. I'm one. Face it, our
memories are getting worse. Just another reason to adjust our
personal minimums.

Soaring puts us in a precarious situation by what it is, how we are
taught, and human nature. If we don't realize this and are not pro-
active, or we have one of the "hazardous attitudes". Our likelihood
of not surviving goes up. There is no one on this earth that should
have the attitude that they know it all. I walked out of a check ride
based on this hazardous attitude. I wasn't going to fly with him. ...
Aaron

[noel.wade]

On May 15, 6:23 pm, Tony V <verhu...@cRoEmMcOaVsEt.net> wrote:

> Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
> else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.
>
> Tony "6N"

Tony - Gliding International did a spread on this a few issues back
and compared accident rates (as well as pilot population sizes so you
could see "per capita" numbers). From what I recall, the US was not
stellar; but also not at the top of the list for accidents, either (by
comparison France was surprisingly high, IIRC).

One big comment I'll make about the quality of instruction in the US:
There are some really talented and dedicated CFIGs out there (and I
humbly hope to join their ranks late this year). But I have also
found a lot of instructors who are no longer interested in making
pilots; all they want to do is get some free air-time and teach stick
and rudder skills. I see these a lot in club operations, where I
think we are loathe to turn away any volunteer help, regardless of its
true value. The result is that you get students who either:
1) Take forever to get to their license and get frustrated (and often
drop out of the club/sport).
2) Go into their Checkride unprepared, leading to them fail (and
getting frustrated and possibly leaving the sport).
3) Pass their checkride, but get into trouble as they do more flying
and/or encounter challenges like rough thermals, mountain conditions,
long XC glides, etc - which require more knowledge and planning than
pure stick-and-rudder reflexes.

While I find those results distasteful, I'm also coming around to the
idea that maybe these stick-and-rudder instructors aren't necessarily
a bad thing - IF they are managed appropriately. I think the club
(and a club's Chief CFIG) needs to keep an eye on these folks and
either provide supplemental instruction or transition students AWAY
from them once they master the basics. But I don't think the proper
people are providing the proper oversight; or they're not willing to
risk offending volunteers by exercising any control over these
processes.

I also see a dearth of ground instruction at some clubs (at least in
my area), even with "good" instructors. I think the flight line is a
HORRIBLE place to talk about theory or discuss the PTS or GFH. Yet I
watch instructors fly with students, then wave goodbye and a jaunty
"see you here next week!" How does the student learn about the theory
and important mental aspects of our sport if we don't guide them to
the knowledge by helping them figure out what reading to focus on,
what topics to study, and encourage the retention of this knowledge
through interaction and questioning? Students need to be self-
motivated; but even enthusiastic ones "don't know what they don't
know". They need a roadmap, some friendly advice, and occasionally a
shove in the right direction to give them some momentum when it comes
to studying on the ground. You don't get that "push" on the flight-
line or in the cockpit - the student is way too busy just trying to
fly the airplane and manage their stress levels!

--Noel

[Bill D]

On May 17, 9:13 am, akiley <kiley.aa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 9:23 pm, Tony V <verhu...@cRoEmMcOaVsEt.net> wrote:
>
> > On 5/15/2012 12:04 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > > I'm going to risk the wrath of the crowd (US, specifically) and make the following personal observation.
>
> > > Glider instruction in the US sucks. Period.
>
> > > It is haphazard, unstructured, and shallow.  We get a new pilot to the point where they can steer a 2-33 around the field and slip it to a landing, then bless them and turn them loose.
>
> > Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs everywhere
> > else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just asking.
>
> > Tony "6N"
>
> A few things I've been thinking about.  There are lots of stall/spin
> pattern accidents.

Actually, while stall/spin accidents happen, most glider landing
accidents are less complicated. They just involve hitting things.

While seeking to avoid stalls and spins in the pattern is laudatory,
it should not be overdone to the extent pilots become so fearful they
carry too much airspeed into the landing flare. Trying to get rid of
excess speed while "floating" down the runway can lead to collisions
with objects.

In most situations, a pattern airspeed of "Yellow Triangle + 1/2 the
gust speed" is safe enough. Once on short final, the airspeed can be
reduced to just above the yellow triangle for a short landing roll.

[db_sonic]

I searched the thread for the word "currency" and didnt see it.
It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between
accidents and lack of currency in these cases.
This applies to currency of basic flight operations and currency of
basic XC principles(harder to measure).
But to clarify, to me, its not how many hours you got, but rather
"where your mind is" with recent experiences.

[Ramy]

Excellent points. Unfortunately, the majority of flight instructors I know never read this forum, and as such will not take notes...

Ramy

[Bill D]

Noel makes some excellent points. The flight line, and by extension
the cockpit, are lousy classrooms. Classroom instruction is a
critical part of learning to become a pilot.

The solution, I'd humbly suggest, is not to build hundreds of
classrooms and find capable instructors to teach in them, it's to use
this medium - the Internet. We need on-line Private Pilot, Glider
courses to teach the knowledge required for the written and oral
exams. I'd think both the student and instructor should create an
account as a pair. The student can do the coursework and the
instructor can log in to see the student's progress.

BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing stick and
rudder skills. Without those, not much else is possible. A lot of
instructors have settled on the approach of first teaching people to
fly, then teaching them the rest. I've seen students become so
frustrated they quit because an instructor was hammering landings when
the student couldn't fly well enough to perform them. If a student
can't fly a straight course in the sky, they can't be expected to fly
a straight final approach.

[Jonathon May]

At 23:00 17 May 2012, Bill D wrote:
>On May 17, 1:13=A0pm, "noel.wade" wrote:

>> On May 15, 6:23=A0pm, Tony V wrote:
>>
>> > Dos anyone have a clue about the accident rate in the U.S. vs

>everywher=

>e
>> > else? This would be the "acid test", I think. I have no clue - just

>ask=

>ing.
>>
>> > Tony "6N"
>>
>> Tony - Gliding International did a spread on this a few issues back
>> and compared accident rates (as well as pilot population sizes so you

>> could see "per capita" numbers). =A0From what I recall, the US was not

>> stellar; but also not at the top of the list for accidents, either (by
>> comparison France was surprisingly high, IIRC).
>>
>> One big comment I'll make about the quality of instruction in the US:
>> There are some really talented and dedicated CFIGs out there (and I

>> humbly hope to join their ranks late this year). =A0But I have also

>> found a lot of instructors who are no longer interested in making
>> pilots; all they want to do is get some free air-time and teach stick

>> and rudder skills. =A0I see these a lot in club operations, where I

>> think we are loathe to turn away any volunteer help, regardless of its

>> true value. =A0The result is that you get students who either:

>> 1) Take forever to get to their license and get frustrated (and often
>> drop out of the club/sport).
>> 2) Go into their Checkride unprepared, leading to them fail (and
>> getting frustrated and possibly leaving the sport).
>> 3) Pass their checkride, but get into trouble as they do more flying
>> and/or encounter challenges like rough thermals, mountain conditions,
>> long XC glides, etc - which require more knowledge and planning than
>> pure stick-and-rudder reflexes.
>>
>> While I find those results distasteful, I'm also coming around to the
>> idea that maybe these stick-and-rudder instructors aren't necessarily

>> a bad thing - IF they are managed appropriately. =A0I think the club

>> (and a club's Chief CFIG) needs to keep an eye on these folks and
>> either provide supplemental instruction or transition students AWAY

>> from them once they master the basics. =A0But I don't think the proper

>> people are providing the proper oversight; or they're not willing to
>> risk offending volunteers by exercising any control over these
>> processes.
>>
>> I also see a dearth of ground instruction at some clubs (at least in

>> my area), even with "good" instructors. =A0I think the flight line is a
>> HORRIBLE place to talk about theory or discuss the PTS or GFH. =A0Yet I

>> watch instructors fly with students, then wave goodbye and a jaunty

>> "see you here next week!" =A0How does the student learn about the

theory
>> and important mental aspects of our sport if we don't guide them to
>> the knowledge by helping them figure out what reading to focus on,
>> what topics to study, and encourage the retention of this knowledge

>> through interaction and questioning? =A0Students need to be self-

>> motivated; but even enthusiastic ones "don't know what they don't

>> know". =A0They need a roadmap, some friendly advice, and occasionally a

>> shove in the right direction to give them some momentum when it comes

>> to studying on the ground. =A0You don't get that "push" on the flight-

>> line or in the cockpit - the student is way too busy just trying to
>> fly the airplane and manage their stress levels!
>>
>> --Noel
>
>Noel makes some excellent points. The flight line, and by extension
>the cockpit, are lousy classrooms. Classroom instruction is a
>critical part of learning to become a pilot.
>
>The solution, I'd humbly suggest, is not to build hundreds of
>classrooms and find capable instructors to teach in them, it's to use
>this medium - the Internet. We need on-line Private Pilot, Glider
>courses to teach the knowledge required for the written and oral
>exams. I'd think both the student and instructor should create an
>account as a pair. The student can do the coursework and the
>instructor can log in to see the student's progress.
>
>BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with emphasizing stick and
>rudder skills. Without those, not much else is possible. A lot of
>instructors have settled on the approach of first teaching people to
>fly, then teaching them the rest. I've seen students become so
>frustrated they quit because an instructor was hammering landings when
>the student couldn't fly well enough to perform them. If a student
>can't fly a straight course in the sky, they can't be expected to fly
>a straight final approach.
>

If the day is less than perfect its our practice to have a general
classroom sestion not too formal .Perhaps the CFI will give the job of
heading it up to a 1/2 cat instructor,very informal with lots of very
expreienced pilots listening in,but inexperienced ears are listening,the
same as here.Hopefully out of that comes the knowlage that is so expensive
if learned by breaking thing.We are all there to learn, it could be how to
land ,but it equally could be which side of the cloud when the sun is here
and the wind here.A pilot who knows it all is just delusional.
Then the front clears through and we all go and try to get it right

[Paul Tribe]

The BGA has this useful "Currency Barometer"
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/bulletins/pilot-briefing-
guidance.htm

[Fox Two]

Hello all. I've been away from RAS for a few years, but after browsing, this looks like a great thread to become reacquainted. As a non-current but experienced CFI in the USA, and now an ex-pat living in France with my Discus2 soaring in the Alps, I have a uniquely pertinent perspective!

I'm going to back-up Kirk "66" and agree with him that the American SYSTEM of instruction is flawed, but not the instructors themselves. To clarify, the typical American club 'instructs' to solo, and then 'brushes-up' to the check ride. This meets the requirements of FAR part 61 for either Private or Commercial Pilot Standards. I have never met a recently-certified American Private Pilot-Glider that can explain to me what a glider polar is, beyond what the two axes on the graph represent. If a particular pilot has the personal desire to further their knowledge or range, it is more or less up to them. To clarify, I purposefully used the word TYPICAL in my description of American clubs; of course there are exceptions.

By contrast, here in France, instruction continues to what they call the "Brevet F," what we in the USA call the Diamond Badge. Yes, you read correctly: it is EXPECTED of pilots to continue training through to the Diamond Badge!

My club in Fayence, which is typical of clubs in France, is different from its American counterparts in many ways. First, we have mandatory briefings every morning. If you want to fly today, you'll be at the briefing at 9am. Gliders are assigned at the briefing, and it will be yours to fly all day. This is a bigger deal than it appears. American clubs typically limit time in a club glider to an hour or two, so that other pilots may fly it too. The problem is that this practice completely discourages cross-country flight.

Each flight intentionally flown beyond gliding range of the home field must be pre-approved by the Chief Instructor. Instructors flying cross-country check-up on cross-country pilots via position/status reports, and offer updates on changing conditions. If a pilot is doing something that the instructor deems ‘unwise,’ instructions are given, and occasionally an instructor will abandon their task, divert to the inexperienced pilot’s location, and then guide them back to safer pastures.

Which glider you're allowed to fly is dependent on how much training you've had. If you want to fly the Pegase or LS4, you'll need to have the equivalent of a Silver Badge, and have done it in the mountains, in a Ka6, and then have been instructed in the ASK21. Want to fly the ASW20? That's only after you've flown 100kms in the Standard Class, and have been instructed in the JanusC. Beyond getting trained in the gliders’ differences, you’re getting trained in glider performance. French pilots know glider polars, and they know how to apply that knowledge.

Here at Fayence, to be approved to fly a task greater than 200kms, you're required to have attended a week-long encampment at Barcelonnette, an extreme Alpine Airfield. Everything here is exaggerated: from the figure-8-turn-tow in gusty mountain breezes in a narrow Alpine valley, to the unnerving initial thermal that has you sharing cliff-side thermals with several other gliders. The most important item on the training agenda though is at the end of each day: the landing. Strong breezes with mountain rotors make every approach critical, and not making the short runway simply isn't an option. If you can make it through the week at Barcelonnette, you're ready for your 300km task.

After your Gold Badge, you're considered trained and qualified. You're now good to take the DuoDiscus beyond local with your friends. After you have your Diamond Badge you're invited to sign up for the ASH25.

To summarize, it isn't the American instructors that are at fault, it's the training culture. New pilots need to be sheparded long after the initial solo, and it is here that American training is grossly inadequate.

It's great to see some familiar names here at RAS! As we say here in France:

A bientôt!
Chris Fleming
'F2' (no, the other Fox Two!)

[Walt Connelly]

'Fox Two[_2_ Wrote:
> ;814862']Hello all. I've been away from RAS for a few years, but after

> browsing, this looks like a great thread to become reacquainted. As a
> non-current but experienced CFI in the USA, and now an ex-pat living in
> France with my Discus2 soaring in the Alps, I have a uniquely pertinent
> perspective!
>
> I'm going to back-up Kirk "66" and agree with him that the American
> SYSTEM of instruction is flawed, but not the instructors themselves. To
> clarify, the typical American club 'instructs' to solo, and then
> 'brushes-up' to the check ride. This meets the requirements of FAR part
> 61 for either Private or Commercial Pilot Standards. I have never met a
> recently-certified American Private Pilot-Glider that can explain to me
> what a glider polar is, beyond what the two axes on the graph represent.
> If a particular pilot has the personal desire to further their
> knowledge or range, it is more or less up to them. To clarify, I
> purposefully used the word TYPICAL in my description of American clubs;
> of course there are exceptions.
>
> By contrast, here in France, instruction continues to what they call the
> "Brevet F," what we in the USA call the Diamond Badge. Yes, you read
> correctly: it is EXPECTED of pilots to continue training through to the
> Diamond Badge!
>
> My club in Fayence, which is typical of clubs in France, is different
> from its American counterparts in many ways. First, we have mandatory
> briefings every morning. If you want to fly today, you'll be at the

> briefing at 9am.. Gliders are assigned at the briefing, and it will be

> yours to fly all day. This is a bigger deal than it appears. American
> clubs typically limit time in a club glider to an hour or two, so that
> other pilots may fly it too. The problem is that this practice
> completely discourages cross-country flight.
>
> Each flight intentionally flown beyond gliding range of the home field
> must be pre-approved by the Chief Instructor. Instructors flying
> cross-country check-up on cross-country pilots via position/status
> reports, and offer updates on changing conditions. If a pilot is doing

> something that the instructor deems &#8216;unwise,&#8217; instructions

> are given, and occasionally an instructor will abandon their task,

> divert to the inexperienced pilot&#8217;s location, and then guide them

> back to safer pastures.
>
> Which glider you're allowed to fly is dependent on how much training
> you've had. If you want to fly the Pegase or LS4, you'll need to have
> the equivalent of a Silver Badge, and have done it in the mountains, in
> a Ka6, and then have been instructed in the ASK21. Want to fly the
> ASW20? That's only after you've flown 100kms in the Standard Class, and
> have been instructed in the JanusC. Beyond getting trained in the

> gliders&#8217; differences, you&#8217;re getting trained in glider

> performance. French pilots know glider polars, and they know how to
> apply that knowledge.
>
> Here at Fayence, to be approved to fly a task greater than 200kms,
> you're required to have attended a week-long encampment at
> Barcelonnette, an extreme Alpine Airfield. Everything here is
> exaggerated: from the figure-8-turn-tow in gusty mountain breezes in a
> narrow Alpine valley, to the unnerving initial thermal that has you
> sharing cliff-side thermals with several other gliders. The most
> important item on the training agenda though is at the end of each day:
> the landing. Strong breezes with mountain rotors make every approach
> critical, and not making the short runway simply isn't an option. If
> you can make it through the week at Barcelonnette, you're ready for your
> 300km task.
>
> After your Gold Badge, you're considered trained and qualified. You're
> now good to take the DuoDiscus beyond local with your friends. After
> you have your Diamond Badge you're invited to sign up for the ASH25.
>
> To summarize, it isn't the American instructors that are at fault, it's
> the training culture. New pilots need to be sheparded long after the
> initial solo, and it is here that American training is grossly
> inadequate.
>
> It's great to see some familiar names here at RAS! As we say here in
> France:
>

> A bient�t!

> Chris Fleming
> 'F2' (no, the other Fox Two!)

Always good to know how the French do things......what's next? Telling
us to go to England to get our teeth fixed? Once again American Culture
taking it on the chin.

Walt
A lowly American glider pilot sheep looking for a shepherd.




--
Walt Connelly

[Walt Connelly]

'Brad[_2_ Wrote:
> ;814885']On May 18, 2:44*pm, Walt Connelly Walt.Connelly.
> 9fcb...@aviationbanter.com wrote:-
> 'Fox Two[_2_ Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ;814862']Hello all. *I've been away from RAS for a few years, but
> after
> browsing, this looks like a great thread to become reacquainted. *As

> a
> non-current but experienced CFI in the USA, and now an ex-pat living
> in
> France with my Discus2 soaring in the Alps, I have a uniquely
> pertinent

> perspective!-
> -

> I'm going to back-up Kirk "66" and agree with him that the American
> SYSTEM of instruction is flawed, but not the instructors themselves.

> *To

> clarify, the typical American club 'instructs' to solo, and then

> 'brushes-up' to the check ride. *This meets the requirements of FAR
> part
> 61 for either Private or Commercial Pilot Standards. *I have never met

> a
> recently-certified American Private Pilot-Glider that can explain to
> me
> what a glider polar is, beyond what the two axes on the graph

> represent..

> If a particular pilot has the personal desire to further their

> knowledge or range, it is more or less up to them. *To clarify, I

> purposefully used the word TYPICAL in my description of American
> clubs;

> of course there are exceptions.-
> -

> By contrast, here in France, instruction continues to what they call
> the

> "Brevet F," what we in the USA call the Diamond Badge. *Yes, you read
> correctly: *it is EXPECTED of pilots to continue training through to
> the
> Diamond Badge!-
> -

> My club in Fayence, which is typical of clubs in France, is different

> from its American counterparts in many ways. *First, we have
> mandatory
> briefings every morning. *If you want to fly today, you'll be at the
> briefing at 9am.. *Gliders are assigned at the briefing, and it will
> be
> yours to fly all day. *This is a bigger deal than it appears.
> *American

> clubs typically limit time in a club glider to an hour or two, so
> that

> other pilots may fly it too. *The problem is that this practice
> completely discourages cross-country flight.-
> -

> Each flight intentionally flown beyond gliding range of the home
> field

> must be pre-approved by the Chief Instructor. *Instructors flying

> cross-country check-up on cross-country pilots via position/status

> reports, and offer updates on changing conditions. *If a pilot is
> doing
> something that the instructor deems �unwise,� instructions

> are given, and occasionally an instructor will abandon their task,

> divert to the inexperienced pilot�s location, and then guide them
> back to safer pastures.-
> -

> Which glider you're allowed to fly is dependent on how much training

> you've had. *If you want to fly the Pegase or LS4, you'll need to

> have
> the equivalent of a Silver Badge, and have done it in the mountains,
> in

> a Ka6, and then have been instructed in the ASK21. *Want to fly the
> ASW20? *That's only after you've flown 100kms in the Standard Class,
> and
> have been instructed in the JanusC. *Beyond getting trained in the
> gliders� differences, you�re getting trained in glider
> performance. *French pilots know glider polars, and they know how to
> apply that knowledge.-
> -

> Here at Fayence, to be approved to fly a task greater than 200kms,
> you're required to have attended a week-long encampment at

> Barcelonnette, an extreme Alpine Airfield. *Everything here is

> exaggerated: from the figure-8-turn-tow in gusty mountain breezes in
> a
> narrow Alpine valley, to the unnerving initial thermal that has you

> sharing cliff-side thermals with several other gliders. *The most

> important item on the training agenda though is at the end of each
> day:

> the landing. *Strong breezes with mountain rotors make every approach
> critical, and not making the short runway simply isn't an option. *If

> you can make it through the week at Barcelonnette, you're ready for
> your

> 300km task.-
> -

> After your Gold Badge, you're considered trained and qualified.

> *You're
> now good to take the DuoDiscus beyond local with your friends. *After
> you have your Diamond Badge you're invited to sign up for the ASH25.-
> -

> To summarize, it isn't the American instructors that are at fault,
> it's

> the training culture. *New pilots need to be sheparded long after the

> initial solo, and it is here that American training is grossly

> inadequate.-
> -
> It's great to see some familiar names here at RAS! *As we say here in
> France:-
> -

> A bient�t!
> Chris Fleming

> 'F2' (no, the other Fox Two!)-

>
> Always good to know how the French do things......what's next?

> *Telling
> us to go to England to get our teeth fixed? *Once again American

> Culture
> taking it on the chin.
>
> Walt
> A lowly American glider pilot sheep looking for a shepherd.
>
> --

> Walt Connelly-
>
> I dunno.............do they have pundits telling them all their about
> "stupid pilot tricks" too?
>
> Brad

The bottom line is that accidents are ubiquitous and happen irrespective
of ones nationality, culture or for that matter, level of experience and
training. I remember reading about a number of accidents recently which
happened to highly experience pilots including CFIG's and Examiners. I
applaud the French Club method but at the same time I am sure that there
are well run, safe and effective clubs here in the US of A. I would not
doubt that there are shoddy clubs in France and elsewhere.

A club is no better nor any worse than the club members and their
adherence to safety principles and common sense. I fly at a commercial
operation but I see advantages that clubs enjoy including a requirement
for members to work the flight line, hooking up, checking the pattern,
running wings. There are times at a commercial operation when one must
hope that there are others around to do the ancillary things required
for launch. Involvement is the key, a willingness to open ones mouth
when unsafe practices happen.

Regarding 2nd-guessing accidents, the original though of this posting, I
have no problem with this. All too often accidents occur, the FAA
investigates, months to years later a report is published and how often
do those reports accurately reflect what happened? Of the handful of
incidents, both powered and gliders which I have either observed first
hand or heard about from a first hand observer, rarely does the FAA get
it right. So what can we learn from information like this? Very
little. It is imperative that we all learn as much as possible from the
mistakes of others in an attempt to reduce the chances of those mistakes
happening to ourselves. Most accidents have multiple potential causes
and to think about those things, to have an action plan in our minds to
avoid as many such circumstances as possible is a good thing.

Walt
( I wish I was soaring right now)




--
Walt Connelly

[kirk.stant]

Chris, thanks for expressing what I was trying to get across much more succinctly!

JJ, it isn't that our instructors are necessarily bad, it's the system they are themselves trained in that is flawed.

Walt, yes, there is a lot we could learn from the French - just as there is a lot they could learn from us (economics being one of them, right now!) Think wine, bread, small cars, diet, raising kids (look it up), to name a few. They also build the sexiest looking fighters, IMO!

But it's not only the French who have what appears to be a more structured system of teaching gliding - reading Sailplane & Gliding make me think the British system has a lot to offer, also.

That being said - accident statistics are not that good in those countries, either.

So maybe this is just a damn dangerous sport, and we just have to accept the risk and enjoy it to the max!

Cheers, got to get ready to race today (CD for a local contest in Phoenix).

Fly safe, don't crash.

Kirk
66

[Fox Two]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:44:35 PM UTC+2, Walt Connelly wrote:
> >
> > Always good to know how the French do things......what's next?
> > *Telling
> > us to go to England to get our teeth fixed? *Once again American
> > Culture
> > taking it on the chin.
> >
> > Walt
> > A lowly American glider pilot sheep looking for a shepherd.
> >

Walt,

I’m sorry if I’ve offended your nationalistic pride or your personal ego; that was not my intention. The fact is that new, low-time pilots need guidance, and that guidance isn’t available at the typical American club. Yes, accidents transcend all skill and experience levels, and certainly all nationalities, but higher quality training is unarguably the best solution to preventing accidents and improving pilots’ skills.

My favorite quote from my British winch instructor at Lasham Field was how he described low-experience pilots: he called them “unconsciously incompetent;” they simply don’t know what they don’t know. The German instructor at the Schempp-Hirth factory directly attributed the safety and success of German glider pilots to that country’s comprehensive training program. And my French mountain instructor here at Fayence opined that there is so much to learn that it would take many lifetimes to learn without guidance; we simply don’t have that much time. Whether the subject is launches & landings or MacCready theory, a new pilot is simply oblivious to the countless risks and nuances of our sport. We as Americans should embrace the successful training techniques of others, and not be quick to dismiss them simply because of our nationalistic pride or personal ego.

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that it is unrealistic to change the American system of training glider pilots. As an instructor, after congratulating my students on a successful check-ride, I did my best to delicately explain that they had only achieved the MINIMUM requirements to be a certified pilot; a lifetime of learning awaited them. I, for one, practice what I preach.

I wish I was soaring too!

Chris Fleming
F2

[Tom Kelley]

Well, something may been overlooked here. As a past SSA instructor
from the 1970's, continued soaring guidance is available thru many
American clubs and schools. They do care and do offer continued
training to the newly soloed/licensed pilot thru the SSA ABC badge
program. The SSA has SSA instructors. These SSA instructors have to
meet certain requirements. They can then issue A, B, and C badges
which help the student/new glider pilot towards his/her quest of
continued soaring skills.
Over 18 thousand "C" badges have been issued. These badges are a
stepping stone towards other badges, etc. In Texas alone their are
over 50 SSA instructors. All this can be found on the SSA website
which lists SSA instructors and their location. I have never met one
which wasn't willing to help out in the program.
This continued training after solo has been going on for many, many
years. We had it back in the 1970's. Some may never go x country, but
this ABC program helps them step in that dirrection. It has been well
thought out.
Accidents do happen, everywhere. Whats best now is we can share
quicker and hopefully educate all towards better awareness of what may
or can go wrong.

Regards, Tom Kelley. #711.

[Walt Connelly]

'Fox Two[_2_ Wrote:
> ;814907']On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:44:35 PM UTC+2, Walt Connelly
> wrote:--

>
> Always good to know how the French do things......what's next?
> *Telling
> us to go to England to get our teeth fixed? *Once again American
> Culture
> taking it on the chin.
>
> Walt
> A lowly American glider pilot sheep looking for a shepherd.

> --

Chris, my nationalist pride is intact, I am an American..'nuff said.
We, like every other country in the world have changes to make and I am
confident that we will make them come November. Good luck to the French
with their newly elected Socialist leader. My ego is fine, I keep it in
check especially when I am flying. To do otherwise is to invite
calamity and I avoid calamity at every coordinated turn.

I agree with much of what you say but I look to examples other than the
French most of the time. I've had many encounters with the French, none
of them good. The Spanish, Italians, Germans, Brits, Swedes, Japanese,
Vietnamese, Koreans and others have sustained my faith in humanity
otherwise.

Lets face it though, the two Air France pilots who collided with a tow
plane of late did not do your cause any good. While learning to fly
cross country is an admirable accomplishment....learning to fly with
your head on a swivel and outside the cockpit is equally important.
This is a dangerous sport considering the number of accidents per number
of participants. We should be doing a better job of identifying the
cause of these accidents in a more timely manner and insuring that those
who wish to be kept informed have access to the why, what and how.

Soar on my friend and try to understand that the French amuse me and
keeping me amused is a good thing.

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

[gotovkotzepkoi]

Walt Connelly;814912 Wrote:
> Chris, my nationalist pride is intact, I am an American..'nuff said.
> We, like every other country in the world have changes to make and I am
> confident that we will make them come November. Good luck to the French
> with their newly elected Socialist leader. My ego is fine, I keep it in
> check especially when I am flying. To do otherwise is to invite
> calamity and I avoid calamity at every coordinated turn.
>
> I agree with much of what you say but I look to examples other than the
> French most of the time. I've had many encounters with the French, none
> of them good. The Spanish, Italians, Germans, Brits, Swedes, Japanese,
> Vietnamese, Koreans and others have sustained my faith in humanity
> otherwise.
>
> Lets face it though, the two Air France pilots who collided with a tow
> plane of late did not do your cause any good. While learning to fly
> cross country is an admirable accomplishment....learning to fly with
> your head on a swivel and outside the cockpit is equally important.
> This is a dangerous sport considering the number of accidents per number
> of participants. We should be doing a better job of identifying the
> cause of these accidents in a more timely manner and insuring that those
> who wish to be kept informed have access to the why, what and how.
>
> Soar on my friend and try to understand that the French amuse me and
> keeping me amused is a good thing.
>
> Walt

Some time ago, before getting into sailplanes, I flew hang gliders in
the Alps. For many years I was in the Army in Germany and used to going
hang gliding in Provence in southern France for 2 or 3 weeks every
summer. I always found the French to be friendly and gracious. About the
same as other Europeans. That's why the American tendency to bash the
French always bothers me. Why does it exist? Here's my theory: American
conservatives associate France with cuisine, culture, perfume, fashion,
wine...subjects essentially feminine in nature. Take Germany. Why don't
the Germans get hammered by American conservatives? Simple, it's because
Germany in the neocon weltanschauing is associated with spiked helmets,
tanks, BMWs, engineering, Krupp steel, beer....masculine stuff. Bottom
line, the poorly developed and threatened masculinity of many Americans
causes fears that a positive nod toward anything French threatens their
machismo. Utter anything slightly positve about France in the US and
your political career as a republican is dead. Example: Kerry spoke
French?! Into windsurfing and not football? How dare him, must be a
eurof..g! That's the train of thought. In my rambles in the French Alps
I found the French to be hard core adventurers. There aren't signs
everywhere to watch your step, etc. People there are treated as adults.
Furthermore, you could hang glide off pretty much anything and never
worry about some land owner forbidding your because of liability risks.
The French and most other Europeans accept that they are responsible if
they screw up and hurt themselves doing something dangerous. If they
break a leg crashking into a field or burn their lips on too hot coffee
they don't run off an whine to some judge that the land owner or coffee
shop owner now owes them 1 million dollars. Not so for many of the
pampered, spoiled, whiners in the US.




--
gotovkotzepkoi

[Fox Two]

While I’m tempted to take the bait, Walt, I’m not going to bite on any of the off-topic subjects you’ve left hanging. I will point out, however, that your prejudice against the French (what is this anyway, 1760?!) is a textbook barrier to communication, and therefore safety. If anyone has a better and safer way of doing something, you check your pride and ego at the door, and listen to what it is they have to say, regardless of where they’re from, what language they speak, their gender or the color of their skin.

Moving on: I agree completely with Tom’s perspective of the SSA’s ABC Badge program: it offers the greatest opportunity for a new pilot to get that desperately needed initial guidance. The problem with the program, though, is that it isn’t mandatory. I myself am one of the Texan SSA Instructors, and I introduced the ABC Program to my former club there to help improve training and safety. The problem was that it wasn’t embraced by the club’s ‘ruling members,’ and it never took hold.

In France, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale’s (FAI) ABC Badge program continues through D, E and F, which basically coincides with the Silver, Gold and Diamond Badges in the USA. Beyond achieving the distance, altitude and duration requirements of each badge, training is required for each badge as well. While not required by the DGAC (French FAA) for pilot certification, the A-F Badges are encouraged by the FFVV (French SSA) through financial incentives to clubs who participate (a benefit of a socialist culture); therefore participation is near 100%.

Tom is correct when he says that additional training is available in the USA for pilots who seek it out, and he practices what he preaches: Tom helped me when I sought him out (Thanks, Tom!), and we each drove many hours to have our discussions. Unfortunately, only a small minority of pilots are willing to make the effort to get high-quality training.

The same accidents repeat themselves every year, and so many die unnecessarily. Tom again is exactly right when he says that we need to educate towards better awareness of what can go wrong. But as long as advanced training remains merely optional, a gaping hole will remain in the safety net.

Chris Fleming
F2

[GC]

On 21/05/2012 02:09, Fox Two wrote:
> While I’m tempted to take the bait, Walt, I’m not going to bite on
> any of the off-topic subjects you’ve left hanging. I will point out,
> however, that your prejudice against the French (what is this anyway,
> 1760?!) is a textbook barrier to communication, and therefore safety.
> If anyone has a better and safer way of doing something, you check
> your pride and ego at the door, and listen to what it is they have to
> say, regardless of where they’re from, what language they speak,
> their gender or the color of their skin.

I don't have a dog in the France/USA fight but it was said earlier that
France's accident record was surprisingly bad - worse in fact than the
US. In this area the proof of a 'better and safer way of doing
something' is in the statistics and it appears they may not support your
case.

I read your description of the French (well, Fayence) system carefully
and it appeared well constructed to allocate scarce - and quite valuable
- club resources with a reasonable appearance of fairness and an eye to
the avoidance of internal disputes.

As a safety system, however, the level of bureaucratic detail seemed to
make it mainly an exercise in credentialism. What is the safety aspect
of arriving by 9am? In a club, cronyism also often undermines many
safety efforts.

What is Fayence's accident record?

GC

[Dan Marotta]

You, sir, are correct on everything you said about American whining,
lawsuits, need for safety, etc., except for Kerry. He's just a plain douche
bag.

BTW, I'm a proud American, but not proud of what our great country is
turning into.


"gotovkotzepkoi" <gotovkotzep...@aviationbanter.com> wrote in
message news:gotovkotzep...@aviationbanter.com...

[gotovkotzepkoi]

'GC[_2_ Wrote:
> ;814942']On 21/05/2012 02:09, Fox Two wrote:-

> While I’m tempted to take the bait, Walt, I’m not going to bite on
> any of the off-topic subjects you’ve left hanging. I will point out,
> however, that your prejudice against the French (what is this anyway,
> 1760?!) is a textbook barrier to communication, and therefore safety.
> If anyone has a better and safer way of doing something, you check
> your pride and ego at the door, and listen to what it is they have to
> say, regardless of where they’re from, what language they speak,

> their gender or the color of their skin.-

>
> I don't have a dog in the France/USA fight but it was said earlier that
>
> France's accident record was surprisingly bad - worse in fact than the
> US. In this area the proof of a 'better and safer way of doing
> something' is in the statistics and it appears they may not support your
>
> case.
>
> I read your description of the French (well, Fayence) system carefully
> and it appeared well constructed to allocate scarce - and quite valuable
>
> - club resources with a reasonable appearance of fairness and an eye to
>
> the avoidance of internal disputes.
>
> As a safety system, however, the level of bureaucratic detail seemed to
>
> make it mainly an exercise in credentialism. What is the safety aspect
>
> of arriving by 9am? In a club, cronyism also often undermines many
> safety efforts.
>
> What is Fayence's accident record?
>
> GC

> -

> Chris Fleming F2-

Safety "record"??? Hmm, can any point toward a really scientific,
mathematically sound anaylysis of country by country safety records? I
have yet to see one. Need an insurance actuary to take this on. Simply
rattling off the body bag count is not enough because it does not take
into account man hours flown, numbers of launches, those listed as
glider pilots who never fly, all kinds of stuff. Keep in mind that a lot
visitors come to France to fly. I met a Russian going this summer, the
Poles go there a lot. When they crack up are they in the accident stats
as French? This whole safety comparison by country is full of holes.




--
gotovkotzepkoi

[Bill D]

On May 19, 12:19 pm, Fox Two <c.j.flem...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think there is some truth in the assertion that instructors with
real soaring experience are better instructors. FAI Badges are a way
to show that experience. Without exception, the best instructors I
have known have Diamond Badges. The worst have no badges.

It's not so much that badges and cross country experience makes
instructors better pilots and teachers, although that may be true. But
it does show that are fully engaged with the sport of soaring. That
engagement changes the way they instruct for the better.

The European insistence that their pilots achieve advanced soaring
skills is a good thing. I, for one, am willing to listen to them.

Changing the subject back to safety. A pilot can make a million
perfect decisions but he will be remembered by the bad one that killed
him. Flying involves placing yourself in an unforgiving situation.
Understanding that at the instinctive, gut level keeps the good
decisions coming.

[Fox Two]

‘Gotov’ is exactly right: it’s impossible to determine a meaningful glider safety record of a country, because it would need to include a ratio of flights and/or flight hours to accidents. For example: If country ‘A’ had only 1 glider flight, and that glider crashed, they would have had only 1 glider accident, and if country ‘B’ had 10,000 glider flights, and 2 of them crashed, they would have had twice as many accidents as country ‘A,’ but they could definitely be considered the safer country. Unfortunately, countries only publish how many accidents they’ve had, and not how many flights or hours flown they’ve had, so we’ll never know who’s safety record is “good” or “bad,” or who’s “better” or “worse.”

With that said, yes, France has a lot of accidents, and there are reasons why. First, we have a lot of glider flights… A LOT! While the total number of flights isn’t published, in just the southeast corner of France alone there are several dozen glider clubs each launching several dozen gliders every day, all year long, weather permitting. Run the numbers: that’s a lot of gliders! Second, the terrain in the Alps is some of the most challenging and unforgiving terrain in the world to soar; it is inherently more dangerous to fly there, and will therefore raise the accident count. Nearly half of all the glider accidents in France occur in the Alps. Third, many foreign pilots come to France to fly. Many of those pilots fly their own gliders and few are members of a French club and therefore don’t benefit from the French training. Nearly one quarter of all accidents in France are by foreign pilots.

‘GC’ asked about the safety benefit of a mandatory 9am pilot briefing. Nearly one quarter of all accidents in France are in some way weather related. The most important feature of the morning pilot briefing is a thorough review of the weather. How many times have you asked a club member what they could expect from the day’s weather and they responded by looking up at the sky? That casual attitude in the mountains is a death sentence.

As you’re a tough crowd, I’ve carefully fact-checked myself against a French safety review which documents the statistics I’ve mentioned. The review is over 10 years old, but it’s better than nothing! If you're interested, follow this link to the review:

http://www.bea.aero/etudes/volavoile19992001/volavoile19992001.pdf

Chris Fleming
F2

[Mike Oliver]

As a brit i can't comment on the US training other than to say I guess
there are good and less good instructors in all countries.

I trained in the UK under the BGA system but have done most of my flying
for the past few years in the French Alps and can second what has
previously been said by Chris Fleming. When I flew at St Auban in late
March this year we were told at morning briefing that there were probably
around 750 gliders flying in the Alps that week! The importance of good
lookout, Flarm, and conspicuity marking are stressed again and again as is
general good airmanship and the need to maintain speed and attitude when
near the ridges. To argue that there is no safety purpose to a morning
briefing is bizarre.

I also know an ex commercial Canadian pilot who flys at St Auban and he has
tried flying gliders in the US and his opinions of the instruction is not
flattering whereas he thinks the instruction he has received in the Alps
is excellent. perhaps he just went to the place where the instructors are
less good.

[Dan Marotta]

More to the point of instruction in the USA, my instruction consisted of
training to solo as I already held an ATP rating. After flying 20 solo
flights and a check flight, I received a commercial add-on to my license.
After that, I was completely on my own to learn cross country.

A friend shephearded me around the sky for a while until I finally got
outside of gliding distance of the field. Again, I was on my own for all my
badges up to and including the Diamond Badge.

It seems that not many of the US instructors are cross country glider
pilots. I know there are some and, where I work, the instructor/DPE also
flies cross country in his glider, but, in my experience, he's the
exception.


"Mike Oliver" <mi...@upperdorrington.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fba8d2e$0$2705$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

[Herbert kilian]

On May 19, 6:57 pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.

Walt,

Your smirking and borderline hateful attitude toward the French is
unfortunately common in this country. Maybe the fact that they have
avowed Socialists in their midst and even allow them to elected office
is a factor. Dont' know how old you are but try and open your mind to
be surprised by the French culture, history, contributions to
aviation, science and art. During my many visits to that country I
have never experienced prejudice of the kind you are indicating in
your posts. As a German who speaks French well I always felt welcome
to share their true love of soaring in beautiful Provence (I miss
those trips).

Herb Kilian

[Andy Fraser]

On 5/21/2012 9:18 PM, Herbert kilian wrote:
> On May 19, 6:57 pm, Walt Connelly<Walt.Connelly.
> 9fe0...@aviationbanter.com> wrote:
>> 'Fox Two[_2_ Wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> ;814907']On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:44:35 PM UTC+2, Walt Connelly
>>> wrote:--
>>
>>> Always good to know how the French do things......what's next?
>>> *Telling
>>> us to go to England to get our teeth fixed? *Once again American
>>> Culture
>>> taking it on the chin.
>>
>>> Walt
>>> A lowly American glider pilot sheep looking for a shepherd.
>>> --
>>
>>> Walt,
>>
>>> I m sorry if I ve offended your nationalistic pride or your personal
>>> ego; that was not my intention. The fact is that new, low-time pilots
>>> need guidance, and that guidance isn t available at the typical American
>>> club. Yes, accidents transcend all skill and experience levels, and
>>> certainly all nationalities, but higher quality training is unarguably
>>> the best solution to preventing accidents and improving pilots skills.
>>
>>
>>

>> Chris, my nationalist pride is intact, I am an American..'nuff said.

>> --
>> Walt Connelly
>
> Walt,
>
> Your smirking and borderline hateful attitude toward the French is
> unfortunately common in this country. Maybe the fact that they have
> avowed Socialists in their midst and even allow them to elected office
> is a factor. Dont' know how old you are but try and open your mind to
> be surprised by the French culture, history, contributions to
> aviation, science and art. During my many visits to that country I
> have never experienced prejudice of the kind you are indicating in
> your posts. As a German who speaks French well I always felt welcome
> to share their true love of soaring in beautiful Provence (I miss
> those trips).
>
> Herb Kilian

Sneering superiority - an actual Ugly American.

Dismissive of other cultures and as for "I am an American..'nuff said."

Oh dear.

Andy (not American, English or French)