{"id":13631,"date":"2016-12-07T15:22:06","date_gmt":"2016-12-07T14:22:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dg-flugzeugbau.de\/en\/?page_id=13631"},"modified":"2016-12-07T15:22:06","modified_gmt":"2016-12-07T14:22:06","slug":"safety-does-not-sell","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.dg-aviation.de\/en\/library\/safety-does-not-sell","title":{"rendered":"Safety does not sell"},"content":{"rendered":"
This is the text of a lecture from the German Glider Pilot Symposium held November 21, 2000 in Stuttgart\u00a0as well as Febr. 3rd 2001 in Unterw\u00f6ssen for members of the German National Contest Groupn.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It has been seven years since I founded DG Flugzeugbau and began our first Internet appearance. Via the Internet, I received an e-mail with a lapidary text from the representative of a US competitor who wrote:<\/p>\n
\u201cFriedel, you are learning a very important thing: Safety does not sell.\u201d<\/p>\n
Being new to the business, and full of energy, I thought I really wanted to prove them wrong!<\/p>\n
Yes, and four years later, I am addressing a lecture on this very topic. I have drawn on my personal experience and can\u2019t help but ponder if it is worthwhile for a glider manufacturer to produce safety devices like, for example the automobile industry. They have been doing it for years, it has become second nature.<\/p>\n
We begin therefore with a little trip into a neighboring industry:
\nNo automaker can take the liberty today to not equip their vehicles with the latest safety equipment, following engineering tests. If a Norwegian auto tester performs one completely non-practical test and the new car almost flips over, the whole world laughs at the \u201cmoose test\u201d and a new buzzword of the year is born.<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t always like that. In the 1970, all cars came equipped with seatbelts, but almost no one used them. Then the law enabled penalties for those not wearing seatbelts, and the following year there were 1500 fewer deaths! This safety consciousness in the car industry has steadily increased, with fewer accidents despite the rising number of vehicles on the road. Can such a shift of consciousness occur with us?<\/p>\n
Another example: Everyone knows that driving a motorcycle is dangerous. And each motorcyclist wears a protective helmet and special clothes. In addition modern machines have an aerodynamic design giving wind protection, also the shin guards of today are much better designed to protect more than in former times. A motorcyclist acknowledges the fact that his hobby is dangerous and therefore voluntarily buys very expensive protective clothing. And us? It is nevertheless actually possible to develop mechanisms to increase security in the glider and to market them. There would just have to actually be a demand for it .<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
If we want to examine this topic a little closer, ask yourself these questions:
\nWhat is this really about?
\nIs it a valid statement?
\nWhat are the reasons?
\nWhat can and should we do?
\nFirst let\u2019s take a glance at some of DG’s safety developments of the past seven years. Some of these will even be new to you:<\/p>\n
Emergency egress assistance. Many of the visitors to our website have already downloaded the spectacular video-clip of one of our apprentices at the time being thrown out of the cockpit of a DG-808.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
he idea is actually quite simple. In case of emergency, a pilot can egress quickly and reliably from the cockpit by way of an inflatable air cushion. The system will only function if the canopy has been released – thus during normal flight, it is blocked. Pulling the release will release the seat and shoulder belts, after which the air pillow inflates, lifting the pilot to the edge of the cockpit. Actual \u201cstepping out\u201d is then limited to a lateral rollout by the pilot.<\/p>\n
Also a parachute jump would have to actually be possible at airfield traffic circuit height – and in still lower heights neither collisions with other gliders nor other reasons for an emergency exit are probable.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, we could gain knowledge in the inconceivable case that the NOAH system would release unintentionally. Would it break all the pilot\u2019s ribs? What would happen if he remained seated with the belts buckled?<\/p>\n
Someone in the plant made the seat buckle nonfunctional, and a visitor wanted to try out the NOAH……..<\/p>\n
So, we are in the fortunate position of being able to interview the \u201cdummy\u201d after the test. He said that he was pressed into the belts no more harshly than when pulling negative G\u2019s in a loop. There is a secondary capillary opening allowing the pillow to deflate within about 30 seconds. Therefore, in the \u201cimpossible case\u201d of a malfunction, nothing bad happens at all.<\/p>\n
When the NOAH system<\/a> came out 7 years ago, Glaser-Dirks (our predecessor company) received 5 orders, one of them from me. Since then we sold about 20 systems, and with about 45 new single-seaters per year, the NOAH system wasn\u2019t exactly a \u201csales hit\u201d.<\/p>\n By the way, the NOAH system could in itself fill an entire lecture. If you\u2019re interested, please see our website.<\/p>\n The safety conscious surely know the investigations of Martin Sperber of the TUEV Rheinland \u00a0crash tests with glider cockpits. He had asked the different manufacturers for a test cockpit and my predecessor had at that time been ready to supply one. The results were simply terrible!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n That is also the reason, why Martin Sperber only showed the high-speed film of the crash to us and does not publicize it. Naturally such pictures can be business damaging. Then Professor Roeger repeated the test with a falling speed of 8 m\/sec. ! It is the opinion that with the parachute sizes, the following impact would occur. The result was such that one shows no pictures of it. So what\u2019s 8 m\/sec? Only 29 km\/hour! The cockpit would never survive a real crash.<\/p>\n So, what is to be done? Martin Sperber suggested a set of measures, in order to make a fuselage clearly more crash resistant: Two very strong stringers from the front to the rear transverse force pipe are to direct the collision forces around the pilot – just like a sturdy cage around the passenger space in the automobile.<\/p>\n There is additional reinforcements to prevent bursting of the fuselage and an additional frame in the back of the fuselage against indenting. A fuselage so equipped passed the same test and bored itself “only” deeply into the container. Due to these tests we developed a “consistently safe cockpit” and we offer exactly these additional reinforcements as an option.<\/p>\n This is the most expensive of our developments in addition, the most important, because a cockpit always breaks open in a crash. It uses up an additional 2 cm of space in the workstation in the shoulder width, because somewhere the strong stringers must be fixed to the workstation. And then some pilots say to me, that it\u2019s already tight without the reinforcement. My standard response then always is: “True, but the fit is closer still in the coffin!” – well, I believe so anyway! Possibly these are the same people squeezing themselves into so-called “competition cockpits” from other manufacturers, which are still smaller. However, perhaps 0.2 points of lift\/drag ratio less resistance the result! The Piggott Hook<\/a> is now something completely new however one cannot buy it at all: It is included in all our new glider series.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Albuquerque in spring 2000 the well-known Glider Instructor, Derek Piggott from England addressed me and explained the idea:<\/p>\n “An inadvertently unlocked air brake can work it\u2019s way open during takeoff and bring the pilots into serious danger even resulting in a crash.\u201d<\/p>\n That can be prevented by metal flange on the inside wall of the cockpit with several teeth and an appropriate hook at the linkage. The hook intervenes in a tooth and cannot run any longer automatically to the rear. The pilot needs only to grasp the handle and turn only a little and the hooks is released. That is ingeniously easy – to build and develop at low cost and is a reliable means to eliminate a frequent cause of accidents.<\/p>\n It personally annoyed me that we had not come up with the idea! Is it not depressing that Derek Piggott said to me, he brought this suggestion via the different SSA Conventions to all German manufacturers described and nobody so far has taken up the suggestion!? <\/p>\n You are surely familiar with the functioning of the Roeger Hook<\/a>: If the pilot must leave an airplane by parachute, it will generally be falling downward in a completely uncontrollable flight attitude. The wind pressure against the canopy makes it difficult to eject.\u00a0 If however the canopy is to be thrown off, there is a great danger that it will strike the pilot in the side of the head if there is any lateral motion. Only about 50% of all attempted parachute jumps succeed. The other half ends deadly and often is due to the fact that the pilot is temporarily knocked out by a contact with at least the canopy framework and was therefore not able to exit.<\/p>\n The Roeger Hook holds the canopy in the back, so that it can open only in front and fly in a high arc over the pilot’s head before rotating away. This is such an elementary safety device that the Roeger Hook is now logical with all newly certified airplanes with forward opening canopies.\u00a0 But what about the many older gliders and those, which are built still with old certifications?<\/p>\n Unfortunately there was an accident in the United States, in which exactly the operational sequence described above occurred: And in such a way we developed the canopy safety lock pin and by way of a Technical Note<\/a> to all owners of older DG gliders we advise them\u00a0 of the optional retrofitting. In order to promote the sales of this important safety device, we established also quite a cheap price – 50 Euro for the complete set.<\/p>\n And now\u00a0 guess how many canopy safety lock pins we sold in one year after the publication?\u00a0 Of a possible 1,400 airplanes concerned:<\/p>\n 28 canopy safety lock pins were sold within two years – That\u2018s 2 % of owners.<\/p>\n Is it because it\u2018s not fun? Safety\u00a0 does NOT sell!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There are probably many ways to increase the safety of gliders.\u00a0 As a glider manufacturer, however, the development of such mechanisms has not been worthwhile so far.\u00a0 In order to describe it in monetary terms, we spent about 250,000 Euro on development costs of the described mechanisms. <\/p>\n Well, this cannot be the case, as proven by the story of the canopy safety lock pin.\u00a0 But Martin Volck had a much better and more general response in glider symposium in Stuttgart with his lecture:<\/p>\n “How much is a glider pilot\u2019s life worth?”<\/a><\/p>\n Many will have read that it delivered the costs of a set of measures added and the estimate that the number of deaths could be reduced by 40%, if all airplanes were provided with these mechanisms.<\/p>\n Since we with the Noah<\/a> and the Piggott hook<\/a> offer still more,\u00a0 I estimate a survival or an accident avoidance chance of even 50%.<\/p>\n The remainder is then mathematics: All DG measures cost together about 9,000 Euro. With 19 of the 20 aircraft, an unnecessary investment – however with the twentieth, a 50% probability life-saving. Thus it costs about 360,000 Euro to save a glider pilot\u2019s life (9,000 X 20 \/ 0.5). Dear pilots – there is hardly a life-saving measure, which would be cheaper in the world.<\/p>\n Or perhaps: A pilot buys the machine of his dreams and pays all together easily more than 120,000 Euro. However it does not even estimate his own life to be three times as valuable as the value of his toy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Now I am not a psychologist, but much speaks for the fact that it is like that. If a pilot thinks about safety questions, he must also admit that gliding it is not harmless – that perhaps the car ride to the airfield is not the most dangerous part.<\/p>\n I cannot express it better than the well-known Bruno Gantenbrink in his lecture \u201cSafety comes first<\/a>\u201d, which you should really\u00a0 re-read on our web page.<\/p>\n Obviously many pilots are subject to the internal conflict, over safety questions and – to not want to think of mechanisms, because that confession results in the knowledge of partaking in a dangerous sport.\u00a0\u00a0 A “cognitive dissonance” for you – a contradiction between own conviction and the reality. Each pilot knows not to take\u00a0 any unnecessary risks. Additionally one “knows” that certain errors simply don\u2019t happen and that accidents only happen to other people. On the other hand he knows that this cannot actually be correct. Even experienced and careful pilots sometimes make \u201csuch stupid\u201d mistakes. But can he\/she admit that?<\/p>\n My friend was a surgeon and chief doctor at an ophthalmologic clinic. By his occupation, he was an extremely meticulous person. And so were also his pre-flight checks. I always said: ” Jens, you are my life insurance. If you checked my airplane, it is completely safe.” And that\u2019s how he flew too.\u00a0 From him I first heard the advice of what to do in an aborted launch, \u201cThink down! Stuff the nose down!\u201d<\/p>\n And that\u2019s exactly what happened to him at an altitude of 90 meters, after releasing the launch cable.\u00a0 He did not stuff the nose down, and he probably did not think.\u00a0 When he hung quietly in the air, he rolled and spun, four seconds into a black hole.<\/p>\n Why exactly did I tell you this? It is a small psychological experiment: Or do you feel a little uncomfortable?\u00a0 Nevertheless, we are all alone with our answers.\u00a0 \u201cI do not want to hear this! ”\u00a0 See when we say “cognitive dissonance”?:<\/p>\n You know very well that this could happen to you, but you do not want to admit that because it doesn\u2019t fit into your idea of the world order.\u00a0 And such a conflict overcomes all humans simply by us ignoring reality. And in such a way safety consciousness is something to ponder in the distance.<\/p>\n I can point out three solutions to you. Two would not be feasible. One is feasible however will not be successful. And if you are of the opinion that this result is depressing, then consider this:<\/p>\n 1. Are we to make all available safety devices simply the standard in each series? If we would make this strategic decision alone, our airplanes would be more expensive, by the amount mentioned above, than the competitors, and we could not absorb that. It would save human lives however at the cost of the existence of our company. In order for all manufacturers to offer together these technically and economically feasible safety components, they must be convinced only of the fact that the development is also worthwhile itself. 2. Are we to call after the state and request the Federal Office of Aviation to make these safety components obligatory? 3. Or are we to continue as before and trust in our customers? Therefore, there is only one real solution. It\u2018s all in your hands.<\/p>\n Always, happy landings! This article was a lead article taken from the pilots’ magazine “Luftsport”
\nThe Consummate Safety Cockpit<\/a><\/h3>\n
\nReally?
\nHe said it to us and I repeat it here: What occurred with a cockpit of the DG-800 in the case of the impact at 70 km\/h, would have occurred also with every other single-seater cockpit offered today. Professor Roeger of Aachen University of Applied Sciences determined similar results: It let a fuselage fall from a rack and strike at a speed of 6 m\/sec. That should simulate the impact that occurs with \u201clanding\u201d with a well-designed total rescue system. The fuselage – a quantity production of a competitor – bore the impact.<\/p>\n
\nHow many safety cockpits did we sell so far? I fly in in one. Other than that, sales have been non-existent<\/p>\n
\nPiggott-Hook<\/h3>\n
\nI accelerated the development, after I found myself taking off while on vacation with an unlocked air brake. My glider launched nevertheless, and nothing serious happened.<\/p>\n
\nWhy not?
\nWhy don’t glider pilots demand safety-increasing developments with their gliders?<\/p>\n
\nCanopy safety lock pin – Roeger Hook<\/h3>\n
\nFrom the pilot\u2019s head wounds it could be proven clearly that he had gotten the canopy framework to release and was knocked out by it. The American Federal Office of Aviation inquired therefore with us whether there would be a re-tooling possibility for a Roeger Hook or something similar.<\/p>\n
\nOr:<\/p>\n
\n
\nPerhaps you work at Airbus Industries and are of the opinion, that this is not very much. But these 250,000 Euro are from my own pocket. I felt a certain responsibility to do what was possible and I am sour now, because it was obviously to a considerable degree futile!<\/p>\n
\nWhat is the situation?<\/h1>\n
1.\u00a0 Are these safety options perhaps too expensive?<\/h4>\n
\nThe number of deaths with gliders over ten years in Germany is as well known as the life span of the airplanes and its number. Hence it follows that each airplane would be involved, on the average each 600 years in a deadly accident. That sounds like a lot, it means that in a thirty-year life span with each 20 airplanes one crash with a fatal outcome occurs.<\/p>\n
\nWe won\u2018t even talk about the reduction in injuries up to wheelchair results.<\/p>\nTell me, are we glider pilots collectively crazy?<\/h3>\n
2. Do we perhaps displace safety questions unconsciously?<\/h4>\n
\nPerhaps you are now feeling a little annoyed, and are thinking, why is Friedel Weber telling us that?\u00a0 What does it have to do with the Lecture? What concerns of ours is his friend? Does he always have to come back to this topic?<\/p>\n3. Is it perhaps also because of the fact that we do not have a lobby, which worries about safety questions?<\/h4>\n
\nSo, what is to be done?<\/h3>\n
\nThat would add approximately 9,000 Euro to the cost of each airplane! And there my personal commitment now unfortunately stops:<\/p>\n
\nAnd I do not have the impression that it will be worthwhile itself in foreseeable time.<\/p>\n
\nI personally would not like to see that either. The state already regulates far too much, and has its hands everywhere, that I would rather leave!<\/p>\n
\nNow, you must be the one to request the glider manufacturer of your choice to initiate the appropriate developments. Then you would have all safety devices that you want at your request. We manufacturers always make exactly what the market demands, that\u2019s how this tough business works.<\/p>\n
\nThe extent of the safety developments in the German glider manufacturing industry rests certainly only with the customer!<\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\nby Holger Back<\/p>\nSafety does not sell<\/h2>\n