Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)

ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots, then started a
climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot sees another ship
in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
conflict.....................Let's stop the action for a moment and
discuss some things. This pilot may have been suffering from the
affects of dehydration, but his senses were working well enough to find
the airport (per GPS) and make his high speed, low altitude pass
through the finish gate. He responded to the "Good Finish" from the
gate. He should have been able to complete the flight and make a safe
landing. Why didn't he?

Resume action...................Pilot leaves airport boundries and
crashes in a housing area about 2 blocks north of the airport. He
struck power lines and then hit a pick up truck squarely in the drivers
door. The door collapsed inward absorbing a lot of energy. The whole
truck then moved sideways until the wheels hit the curb, breaking both
axles. The pilot received serious injuries to his feet and legs, but
made a full recovery. I believe he owes his life to the great big shock
absorber he ran into (truck).

Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that crashed, severly
dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything after breakfast.
What does that mean? It means he functioned all day long, right up to
the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew some 60 miles
cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny. What does all this
have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated mind is still
functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed, tasks. It's the
unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.

Had the GPS Finish Cylinder been available, would the outcome of this
accident been any different? The pilot was functioning well enough to
find the airport and he had a plan. It was to finish and pull-up. Had
the finish cylinder been in use, his plan would have been to finish (1
mile) and land. Doc Cannon (NT) will tell you the simple act of pulling
up is enough to shut down a dehydrated mind. I know, some still make a
hard pull-up at the 1 mile mark. I don't, because it is no longer
necessary. I am most likely to make a gentle pull-up and then just
allow any excess speed to bleed off as I fly the remaining mile to the
airport.

JJ Sinclair
(2 of 5)

>Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086

I thought soaring was more recent than that.

Colin

JJ, what you are saying is that after a day of contest flying, it's possible
that any pilot will be tired and dehydrated so why not make it as easy as
possible for them to finish and land. I can't argue with that.

However, pilots manage to crash on landings without either a finish gate or
cylinder to contend with when they are flying locally. Our overall accident
record suggests that we have a larger problem with pilot skills in general.

Landing a glider safely anywhere, anytime, requires a sharp pilot who is
concentrating on the task. I'd like to know how many landings the Uvalde
pilot had done in the previous year. I suspect a part of the larger problem
is that we are accepting contestants whose skills have deteriorated through
lack of practice.

The thing that troubles me is lowering the bar by 'dumbing down' the rules
to accommodate inadequate skills effectively institutionalizes the problem.
I think it's far better is to concentrate on improving pilot skills and not
on the arcane finishes that are tripping up the unprepared. Competition is
supposed to improve the breed.

Screening pilots for acceptable skills will be a tough (and politically
sensitive) task which is probably why it isn't done. But if we don't,
Mother Nature will do it for us and we all know she can be a bitch. The
screening could be as simple as requiring a yearly flight check by a SRA
approved instructor who would use some tough test standards created by the
SRA.

One example of a test would be to insure that the pilot can make a takeoff
in his glider configured as it would be for a contest (ballast, etc..)
without dragging a wing or allowing the glider to track more than 2 meters
to the side of the runway centerline. Remember that accident, JJ?

Bill Daniels


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)
>
> ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots, then started a
> climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot sees another ship
> in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
> conflict.....................Let's stop the action for a moment and
> discuss some things. This pilot may have been suffering from the
> affects of dehydration, but his senses were working well enough to find
> the airport (per GPS) and make his high speed, low altitude pass
> through the finish gate. He responded to the "Good Finish" from the
> gate. He should have been able to complete the flight and make a safe
> landing. Why didn't he?
>
> Resume action...................Pilot leaves airport boundries and
> crashes in a housing area about 2 blocks north of the airport. He
> struck power lines and then hit a pick up truck squarely in the drivers
> door. The door collapsed inward absorbing a lot of energy. The whole
> truck then moved sideways until the wheels hit the curb, breaking both
> axles. The pilot received serious injuries to his feet and legs, but
> made a full recovery. I believe he owes his life to the great big shock
> absorber he ran into (truck).
>
> Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that crashed, severly
> dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything after breakfast.
> What does that mean? It means he functioned all day long, right up to
> the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew some 60 miles
> cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny. What does all this
> have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated mind is still
> functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed, tasks. It's the
> unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.
>
> Had the GPS Finish Cylinder been available, would the outcome of this
> accident been any different? The pilot was functioning well enough to
> find the airport and he had a plan. It was to finish and pull-up. Had
> the finish cylinder been in use, his plan would have been to finish (1
> mile) and land. Doc Cannon (NT) will tell you the simple act of pulling
> up is enough to shut down a dehydrated mind. I know, some still make a
> hard pull-up at the 1 mile mark. I don't, because it is no longer
> necessary. I am most likely to make a gentle pull-up and then just
> allow any excess speed to bleed off as I fly the remaining mile to the
> airport.
>
> JJ Sinclair
> (2 of 5)
>

But, if the accidents occur due to dehydration, then passing a test while
fully hydrated may not reduce the risk of the accident at the end of the
flight.

If we are serious about the dehydration at the conclusion of the flight as
being the problem, then while the pilot is approaching, ground control at
the finish line could ask a few math questions that require the ability to
reason quickly. Failing those tests, the pilot is not authorized to do the
high speed approach, and must simply land.

Although not a contest pilot, I have suffered from noise fatigue (11 hour
flight in an airplane), dehydration and extreme bowel enlargement syndrome.
However, I must admit that if the high speed pass is expected, I would
certainly consider it - unless I had an out. Peer pressure certainly
affects men who have not entirely grown up.

Perhaps we could do the high speed pass at the start of the contest?

Colin

We do screen pilots that are accepted into our contests,
To get into a nationals they must be on the seeding
list (has flown in a contest within the last 3 years
and obtained at least 30% of winners score). To get
into a regionals they must be on the list or show a
gold badge and or recent cross country experience.
You make a good point and every now and then someone
slips through, but I can say the skill level I see
in contests is outstanding and among the best 'Jocks'
I have seen in 50 years of flying.
JJ
>Screening pilots for acceptable skills will be a tough
>(and politically
>sensitive) task which is probably why it isn't done.
> But if we don't,
>Mother Nature will do it for us and we all know she
>can be a bitch. The
>screening could be as simple as requiring a yearly
>flight check by a SRA
>approved instructor who would use some tough test standards
>created by the
>SRA.
>
>One example of a test would be to insure that the pilot
>can make a takeoff
>in his glider configured as it would be for a contest
> (ballast, etc..)
>without dragging a wing or allowing the glider to track
>more than 2 meters
>to the side of the runway centerline. Remember that
>accident, JJ?
>
>Bill Daniels

It is simply not true that the only people who crash are inexperienced
"poor pilots" who could be "weeded out" by any entry criteria. Peter
Masak, Clem Bowman, Gene Carpetyan etc. were among the most highly
skilled and experienced pilots around. Many of our world team pilots
have a crash or two behind them. If these guys were not skilled enough
to enter a contest, few of the rest of us belong there either.

John Cochrane
BB

There is an alternate, more plausible explanation for the lack of memory.
Fairly minor concussions can produce a phenomenon called retrograde amnesia.
This is seen in motor vehicle accidents and falls from heights. So the brain
would be functioning fairly normally, and not on "autopilot" untill the
accident. Then after consciouness is regained, the person reccalls nothing
for a variable period of time prior to the accident. BTW how do we know then
that the spped was 85 kt?

--
Hartley Falbaum, M.D., FAAOS
ASW27B "KF" USA
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)
>
> ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots, then started a
> climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot sees another ship
> in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
>
> Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that crashed, severly
> dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything after breakfast.
> What does that mean? It means he functioned all day long, right up to
> the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew some 60 miles
> cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny. What does all this
> have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated mind is still
> functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed, tasks. It's the
> unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.
>
>
> JJ Sinclair
> (2 of 5)
>

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> But, if the accidents occur due to dehydration, then passing a test while
> fully hydrated may not reduce the risk of the accident at the end of the
> flight.
>
> If we are serious about the dehydration at the conclusion of the flight as
> being the problem, then while the pilot is approaching, ground control at
> the finish line could ask a few math questions that require the ability to
> reason quickly. Failing those tests, the pilot is not authorized to do
the
> high speed approach, and must simply land.
>
> Although not a contest pilot, I have suffered from noise fatigue (11 hour
> flight in an airplane), dehydration and extreme bowel enlargement
syndrome.
> However, I must admit that if the high speed pass is expected, I would
> certainly consider it - unless I had an out. Peer pressure certainly
> affects men who have not entirely grown up.
>
> Perhaps we could do the high speed pass at the start of the contest?
>
> Colin
>
>
Dehydration is an easy problem to solve - drink water. Lost pilots skills
is harder to fix, that requires constant practice.

Bill Daniels

Ten miles out he finds himself low over marginal terrain. He starts
scratching around getting lower and lower and finally picks a poor
sport to land, catches a wingtip and cartwheels in.

This person had an airport under him and for some reason he "blew it".
So what is he going to do over some wild countryside. Looks like we
now have to figure out how to disallow low "saves".

The 50' finish at the gate is a MINIMUM. The pilot chooses how low to
go. A smart pilot will find the discipline to practice until the
finish altitude/speed decision is second nature. A dumb pilot will
find many ways to hurt/kill himself no matter what restrictions we
place on the contestants.

The cylinder has some merits and so does the line. I just don't see
"safety" as one of these.

-Tom

"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> We do screen pilots that are accepted into our contests,
> To get into a nationals they must be on the seeding
> list (has flown in a contest within the last 3 years
> and obtained at least 30% of winners score). To get
> into a regionals they must be on the list or show a
> gold badge and or recent cross country experience.
> You make a good point and every now and then someone
> slips through, but I can say the skill level I see
> in contests is outstanding and among the best 'Jocks'
> I have seen in 50 years of flying.
> JJ

Is that really enough to assure currency? What about Regionals?

I'd be more interested in the number of flights in the glider the contestant
plans to fly in the last 90 days. I've watched 1/3 of the grid at a
Regional drag a wing on takeoff. A similar number drifted 30 feet or so
from the centerline. That's not confidence inspiring.

I'd like to hear of a safety official making a radio call like."[contest
number] return and land - you're black flagged for the day," after a muffed
takeoff. If that happened once, it wouldn't happen very often after that.

You are right, the majority of the pilots at the national level are superb
pilots. They are very rarely involved in an incident or accident either.

Bill Daniels

5Z wrote:
> Ten miles out he finds himself low over marginal terrain. He starts
> scratching around getting lower and lower and finally picks a poor
> sport to land, catches a wingtip and cartwheels in.
>
> This person had an airport under him and for some reason he "blew it".
> So what is he going to do over some wild countryside. Looks like we
> now have to figure out how to disallow low "saves".

The rules do have an incentive for avoiding these: the airport bonus and
aerotow retrives. It's hard to estimate how many accidents these rules
have prevented, but I think it helps.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
>It is simply not true that the only people who crash
>are inexperienced
>'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
>criteria.

I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel better,
but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement, but
most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
that was both unpleasant and inevitable.

Those who don't learn from the past...

9B

Yesterday, about the first soaring day we have had in Houston, I
decided to fly. I had taken a 1-hour walk that morning. I had done some
things around the house. I went to the airport and helped someone else
assemble a ship, then assembled mine. I drank normal amounts of fluids.
I drank a 16 oz. bottle of water just prior to takeoff. I flew only 49
minutes. Someone had to tell me to raise my gear after launch. I felt
fine at first, but soon began to make little mistakes. I couldn't seem
to keep up with the thermals. I did some cruising around and some
dolphin flying, and realized I was getting airsick. I've never felt
airsick in my life. I couldn't put it together. I found 8 knots up and
flew a couple of minutes in that before finally realizing I was not
feeling better, and not flying better. Finally I pulled the flaps down
at 4600 feet and made a bee line for the airport IP. I got there fast
with 90 degrees of flap. I declared my intent to land and proceeded to
do so. At about 10 feet, my radio crackeld "LANDING GEAR!" and I barely
got it down in time.

Some facts: I am taking a medication that can cause these effects. I
had no lunch. I haven't flown seriously for a dozen years. This is my
first ship with a retractable gear. I am certain I was dehydrated.

Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT DOES! I should have
been more familiar with the medication. I should have had lunch. I
should have come down at the first sign that things weren't going well.
Actually, I shouldn't have flown at all, though the beginning of the
flight went fine.

True self-evaluation can possibly save your life. I won't fly again
until I know the effects of this medicine are gone. I will fly a lot
more before attending Region 10 this year. Unfortunately, people make
bad decisions. I got away with it... this time.

Jack Womack


Andy Blackburn wrote:
> At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
> >It is simply not true that the only people who crash
> >are inexperienced
> >'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
> >criteria.
>
> I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
> we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
> pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel better,
> but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
> the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement, but
> most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
> decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
> fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
> that was both unpleasant and inevitable.
>
> Those who don't learn from the past...
>
> 9B

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
> >It is simply not true that the only people who crash
> >are inexperienced
> >'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
> >criteria.
>
> I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
> we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
> pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel better,
> but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
> the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement, but
> most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
> decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
> fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
> that was both unpleasant and inevitable.
>
> Those who don't learn from the past...
>
> 9B
>
So, we shouldn't weed out anybody because we can't prevent all the accidents
with one set of entry criteria? If just one marginal pilot is counseled to
get more current, it's a win.

Big misjudgments or a bunch of little ones will kill you just as dead. Good
pilots recognize either before they get hurt. It's the guy who thinks that
his misjudgments are " fairly benign" that crashes. What we do isn't that
forgiving.

Bill Daniels

Two different accidents here, the Uvalde ASW-20 driver
didn't loose consciouness and remembered things like
85 knots. Another crash that I know about the pilot
didn't remember anything after breakfast.
JJ

At 18:00 26 March 2005, Hl Falbaum wrote:
>There is an alternate, more plausible explanation for
>the lack of memory.
>Fairly minor concussions can produce a phenomenon called
>retrograde amnesia.
>This is seen in motor vehicle accidents and falls from
>heights. So the brain
>would be functioning fairly normally, and not on 'autopilot'
>untill the
>accident. Then after consciouness is regained, the
>person reccalls nothing
>for a variable period of time prior to the accident.
>BTW how do we know then
>that the spped was 85 kt?
>
>--
>Hartley Falbaum, M.D., FAAOS
>ASW27B 'KF' USA
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)
>>
>> ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots,
>>then started a
>> climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot
>>sees another ship
>> in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
>>
>> Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that
>>crashed, severly
>> dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything
>>after breakfast.
>> What does that mean? It means he functioned all day
>>long, right up to
>> the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew
>>some 60 miles
>> cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny.
>>What does all this
>> have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated
>>mind is still
>> functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed,
>>tasks. It's the
>> unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.
>>
>>
>> JJ Sinclair
>> (2 of 5)
>>
>
>
>

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> But, if the accidents occur due to dehydration, then passing a test while
> fully hydrated may not reduce the risk of the accident at the end of the
> flight.
>
Sounds like we need a mandatory water consumption rule. Perhaps there is
some electronic monitoring device that can send information the the flight
logger to help enforce the rule...

At 20:00 26 March 2005, Jack wrote:

>Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT
>DOES!

Okay, I'll make an exception for you...

...my point was (deep breath), if we insist on looking
no further than calling
someone stupid as the root cause of an accident, we
won't learn anything.
Furthermore, if we believe most accidents are caused
by low intelligence
(or some other inherent trait) then we should be able
to give pilots
some sort of test to see if they have what it takes
to fly.

By that logic, you would have to believe that your
specific problems really
had nothing to do with medication, dehydration, heat,
currency - you're just
a pilot who can't fly and we should be able to give
you the test and find
that out so we can exclude you from competition. This
seems to be the
argument.

I guess it's comforting to say about some poor unfortunate
- 'oh, he was a
moron - I'd NEVER to that!' It's too easy - and false
- logic.

So you guys believe that pilots like Klaus Holighaus,
Helmut Reichmann,
Robbie Robertson, Peter Masak, Bill Ivans (I could
go on and on) were all
just knuckleheads. Wow.

9B

Sorry--closer read shows you were indeed talking about two different
accidents, but the point still stands.
Dehydration indeed does strange things to the brain. Everyone should know
and use the IMSAFE checklist as a personal preflight checklist.

I=Illness
M=Medication
S=Stress
A=Alcohol (even small amounts produce long lasting effects)
F=Fatigue
E=Emotion
--
Hartley Falbaum


"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Two different accidents here, the Uvalde ASW-20 driver
> didn't loose consciouness and remembered things like
> 85 knots. Another crash that I know about the pilot
> didn't remember anything after breakfast.
> JJ
>
> At 18:00 26 March 2005, Hl Falbaum wrote:
>>There is an alternate, more plausible explanation for
>>the lack of memory.
>>Fairly minor concussions can produce a phenomenon called
>>retrograde amnesia.
>>This is seen in motor vehicle accidents and falls from
>>heights. So the brain
>>would be functioning fairly normally, and not on 'autopilot'
>>untill the
>>accident. Then after consciouness is regained, the
>>person reccalls nothing
>>for a variable period of time prior to the accident.
>>BTW how do we know then
>>that the spped was 85 kt?
>>
>>--
>>Hartley Falbaum, M.D., FAAOS
>>ASW27B 'KF' USA
>> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)
>>>
>>> ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots,
>>>then started a
>>> climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot
>>>sees another ship
>>> in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
>>>
>>> Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that
>>>crashed, severly
>>> dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything
>>>after breakfast.
>>> What does that mean? It means he functioned all day
>>>long, right up to
>>> the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew
>>>some 60 miles
>>> cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny.
>>>What does all this
>>> have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated
>>>mind is still
>>> functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed,
>>>tasks. It's the
>>> unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.
>>>
>>>
>>> JJ Sinclair
>>> (2 of 5)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

At 23:00 26 March 2005, Michael McNulty wrote:
>
>'COLIN LAMB' wrote in message
ink.net...
>> But, if the accidents occur due to dehydration, then
>>passing a test while
>> fully hydrated may not reduce the risk of the accident
>>at the end of the
>> flight.
>>
>Sounds like we need a mandatory water consumption rule.
> Perhaps there
is
>some electronic monitoring device that can send information
>the the flight
>logger to help enforce the rule...
>

Measure the color of the liquid in the pee tube - if
it gets too dark alarms
go off! (I was trying to make a joke, but that almost
makes sense).

9B

At 21:00 26 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

>So, we shouldn't weed out anybody because we can't
>prevent all the
accidents
>with one set of entry criteria? If just one marginal
>pilot is counseled to
>get more current, it's a win.
>

I also never said that there aren't pilots in need
of better technical skill or
judgement, or that we shouldn't try to weed out pilots
who are dangerous
due to deficiencies in these areas. The hard part it
how.

I would add that it seems to me even harder to come
up with a standard
test for competence in something as complex as competition
soaring,
particularly given all the exogenous factors in flying.
The 'drop a wing on
takeoff and you're out' rule is a good example of how
hard this could be.
How do you allow for glider type, ballast, crosswind,
density altitude, wing
runner skill? I had a bad wing run (didn't take a single
step) on a cross-
wind day in and ASW-27B full of water. I had to abort
when the wing went
down. Did I flunk? I can just see the screaming match.

Best to empower the CD to check pilots informally -
particularly the
unknown/unseeded ones.

9B

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 21:00 26 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> >So, we shouldn't weed out anybody because we can't
> >prevent all the
> accidents
> >with one set of entry criteria? If just one marginal
> >pilot is counseled to
> >get more current, it's a win.
> >
>
> I also never said that there aren't pilots in need
> of better technical skill or
> judgement, or that we shouldn't try to weed out pilots
> who are dangerous
> due to deficiencies in these areas. The hard part it
> how.
>
> I would add that it seems to me even harder to come
> up with a standard test for competence in something as complex as
competition
> soaring, particularly given all the exogenous factors in flying.
> The 'drop a wing on takeoff and you're out' rule is a good example of how
> hard this could be.

> How do you allow for glider type, ballast, crosswind,
> density altitude, wing runner skill? I had a bad wing run (didn't take a
single
> step) on a cross-wind day in and ASW-27B full of water. I had to abort
> when the wing went down. Did I flunk? I can just see the screaming match.
>
> Best to empower the CD to check pilots informally -
> particularly the
> unknown/unseeded ones.
>
> 9B

The wing drop thing is easy to judge. Just watch the ailerons. If they
don't start to move until the wing hits the ground or nearly so, it's pilot
error. If they move to the stop as soon as the glider tilts a tiny bit yet
the wing still goes down, he gets a pass. Any good instructor, towpilot, or
any good pilot for that matter, can watch a takeoff and get a good idea of
how well a pilot flies.

BTW, there's a lot of heat AND light in this thread. I'll bet some folks
are thinking about dehydration and how well they fly takeoffs. Thinking's a
good thing.

Bill Daniels

August 4, 1086..............John you really are older than I
thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)
>
> ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots, then started a
> climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot sees another ship
> in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
> conflict.....................Let's stop the action for a moment and
> discuss some things. This pilot may have been suffering from the
> affects of dehydration, but his senses were working well enough to find
> the airport (per GPS) and make his high speed, low altitude pass
> through the finish gate. He responded to the "Good Finish" from the
> gate. He should have been able to complete the flight and make a safe
> landing. Why didn't he?
>
> Resume action...................Pilot leaves airport boundries and
> crashes in a housing area about 2 blocks north of the airport. He
> struck power lines and then hit a pick up truck squarely in the drivers
> door. The door collapsed inward absorbing a lot of energy. The whole
> truck then moved sideways until the wheels hit the curb, breaking both
> axles. The pilot received serious injuries to his feet and legs, but
> made a full recovery. I believe he owes his life to the great big shock
> absorber he ran into (truck).
>
> Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that crashed, severly
> dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything after breakfast.
> What does that mean? It means he functioned all day long, right up to
> the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew some 60 miles
> cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny. What does all this
> have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated mind is still
> functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed, tasks. It's the
> unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.
>
> Had the GPS Finish Cylinder been available, would the outcome of this
> accident been any different? The pilot was functioning well enough to
> find the airport and he had a plan. It was to finish and pull-up. Had
> the finish cylinder been in use, his plan would have been to finish (1
> mile) and land. Doc Cannon (NT) will tell you the simple act of pulling
> up is enough to shut down a dehydrated mind. I know, some still make a
> hard pull-up at the 1 mile mark. I don't, because it is no longer
> necessary. I am most likely to make a gentle pull-up and then just
> allow any excess speed to bleed off as I fly the remaining mile to the
> airport.
>
> JJ Sinclair
> (2 of 5)
>

Andy,

I was not implying that anyone is stupid. I would never do that,
either. I was trying in my poor manner to suggest that I was a
knucklehead for flying at all. I've been around soaring most of my life
and I'll tell you some of the most gifted people I know are glider
pilots. I'm not a stupid man, myself. I made a dumbass decision to fly
yesterday, and the results could have been really bad. So, thanks for
making an exception for me. The medication was Naproxen, an
anti-inflamatory with some known side effects. From the days
activities, I was definitely dehydrated. If urine color is a good
indicator of that, it was darker than I remember it for some time. My
blood sugar was probably low, and I have low blood pressure on top of
all of that. Not a good combination, but I'm here to talk about it.
Again, I made a bonehead decision, and got away with it... this time.

Sorry if my post sounded bad, as it wasn't intended.

Jack Womack

It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide at
the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
points, but which is both:

1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
and
2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.

Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
points and safety of the landing?

Or am I misconstuing this.

At 22:00 26 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Two different accidents here, the Uvalde ASW-20 driver
>didn't loose consciouness and remembered things like
>85 knots. Another crash that I know about the pilot
>didn't remember anything after breakfast.
>JJ
>
>At 18:00 26 March 2005, Hl Falbaum wrote:
>>There is an alternate, more plausible explanation for
>>the lack of memory.
>>Fairly minor concussions can produce a phenomenon called
>>retrograde amnesia.
>>This is seen in motor vehicle accidents and falls from
>>heights. So the brain
>>would be functioning fairly normally, and not on 'autopilot'
>>untill the
>>accident. Then after consciouness is regained, the
>>person reccalls nothing
>>for a variable period of time prior to the accident.
>>BTW how do we know then
>>that the spped was 85 kt?
>>
>>--
>>Hartley Falbaum, M.D., FAAOS
>>ASW27B 'KF' USA
>> wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)
>>>
>>> ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots,
>>>then started a
>>> climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot
>>>sees another ship
>>> in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
>>>
>>> Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that
>>>crashed, severly
>>> dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything
>>>after breakfast.
>>> What does that mean? It means he functioned all day
>>>long, right up to
>>> the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew
>>>some 60 miles
>>> cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny.
>>>What does all this
>>> have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated
>>>mind is still
>>> functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed,
>>>tasks. It's the
>>> unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.
>>>
>>>
>>> JJ Sinclair
>>> (2 of 5)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

Jack,

Maybe as much as a half-dozen times this has happened
to me before or during a flight.

I pride myself on a very good 'mission go' record,
perhaps 98-99%. But several times I have flown on
super hot days, and just not been able to well above
the inversion layer, and I'm hot, and I got some nasty
water or a bad sandwich or something.

Landed, and had to explain to a bunch of folks that
I wasn't gonna fly any more that day because I just
wasn't feeling great.

No specific thing, just knew I was off. Maybe didn't
drink enough before the flight, maybe too much, maybe
I just hadn't had a good run or bikeride for a while
and was just weirdly out of shape.

So there's other people who are in the same boat
sometimes.

At 20:00 26 March 2005, Jack wrote:
>Yesterday, about the first soaring day we have had
>in Houston, I
>decided to fly. I had taken a 1-hour walk that morning.
>I had done some
>things around the house. I went to the airport and
>helped someone else
>assemble a ship, then assembled mine. I drank normal
>amounts of fluids.
>I drank a 16 oz. bottle of water just prior to takeoff.
>I flew only 49
>minutes. Someone had to tell me to raise my gear after
>launch. I felt
>fine at first, but soon began to make little mistakes.
>I couldn't seem
>to keep up with the thermals. I did some cruising around
>and some
>dolphin flying, and realized I was getting airsick.
>I've never felt
>airsick in my life. I couldn't put it together. I found
>8 knots up and
>flew a couple of minutes in that before finally realizing
>I was not
>feeling better, and not flying better. Finally I pulled
>the flaps down
>at 4600 feet and made a bee line for the airport IP.
>I got there fast
>with 90 degrees of flap. I declared my intent to land
>and proceeded to
>do so. At about 10 feet, my radio crackeld 'LANDING
>GEAR!' and I barely
>got it down in time.
>
>Some facts: I am taking a medication that can cause
>these effects. I
>had no lunch. I haven't flown seriously for a dozen
>years. This is my
>first ship with a retractable gear. I am certain I
>was dehydrated.
>
>Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT
>DOES! I should have
>been more familiar with the medication. I should have
>had lunch. I
>should have come down at the first sign that things
>weren't going well.
>Actually, I shouldn't have flown at all, though the
>beginning of the
>flight went fine.
>
>True self-evaluation can possibly save your life. I
>won't fly again
>until I know the effects of this medicine are gone.
>I will fly a lot
>more before attending Region 10 this year. Unfortunately,
>people make
>bad decisions. I got away with it... this time.
>
>Jack Womack
>
>
>Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
>> >It is simply not true that the only people who crash
>> >are inexperienced
>> >'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
>> >criteria.
>>
>> I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
>> we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
>> pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel
>>better,
>> but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
>> the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement,
>>but
>> most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
>> decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
>> fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
>> that was both unpleasant and inevitable.
>>
>> Those who don't learn from the past...
>>
>> 9B
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

Jack,
Thanks for sharing this experience with the rest of us. I really
respect you for being so honest about your flight. I know many pilots
who would not. It is always a great reminder that ALL pilots have bad
days and that the good ones recognize it and are honest about it so the
rest of us can learn from their experiences.

Bruno

In article >,
M B > wrote:

> It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide at
> the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
> 85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
> points, but which is both:
>
> 1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
> and
> 2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.
>
> Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
> pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
> points and safety of the landing?

It seems to me that 85 knots is a little too slow to do a full circuit
from, but plenty do do a 180, or a 360, or an abbreviated circuit
similar to a rope-break exercise.

Someone gave a figure of 9 ft of pullup for each knot of speed. That's
about right for speeds around 110 knots, but is a gross overestimate for
speeds around 80 or 90 knots (and an underestimate for higher speeds).

The true numbers are quadratic. If you want a rule of thumb I suggest
the following:

take speed in knots, double it, drop off the last digit,
square what is left giving height for a pull-up in feet.

This calculation gives just over 90% of the theoretical maximum pull-up,
which is proabably not a bad figure taking into the drag loses.

Note that this is for a pull up to a zero speed hammerhead. For a pull
up to flying speed you need to subtract the appropriate height for your
circuit speed e.g. 100 ft for 50 knots.


examples, from zero-height finish, 50 knot circuit speed:

50 knots -> 100 -> 10, squared = 100 ft gain, 0 ft AGL @ 50 kt
60 knots -> 120 -> 12, squared = 144 ft gain, 44 ft AGL @ 50 kt
80 knots -> 160 -> 16, squared = 256 ft gain, 156 ft AGL @ 50 kt
90 knots -> 180 -> 18, squared = 324 ft gain, 224 ft AGL @ 50 kt
100 knots -> 200 -> 20, squared = 400 ft gain, 300 ft AGL @ 50 kt
120 knots -> 240 -> 24, squared = 576 ft gain, 476 ft AGL @ 50 kt
150 knots -> 300 -> 30, squared = 900 ft gain, 800 ft AGL @ 50 kt

A pull up from 85 knots to 50 knots will give you about a 200 ft height
gain, plus whatever height your finish was at. We give students rope
breaks at 200 ft, right? So a competent and alert pilot should have no
trouble deciding whether to land straight ahead after the pull up or do
an abbreviated circuit.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

I was in a flying camp during a holiday and after 10 days straight
flying 5-8 hrs per day cross country in hot dry weather I took off
in the ASW19 and began to get disorientation and and feeling unwell,
I elected to land back ,I was so unsure of my reaction times etc
set 65-70 knots with full brakes and let her fly to the deck leveled off
at flare height and waited for the ASW19 to settle on the runway
(5000ft long) .I got some odd looks at the way I landed .
One of the club members present was a doctor and he said
sunstroke and dehydration accummulated over the last 10 days .
I did not fly for the rest of the week.
"It was a lesson I won't forget "
"M B" > wrote in message
...
> Jack,
>
> Maybe as much as a half-dozen times this has happened
> to me before or during a flight.
>
> I pride myself on a very good 'mission go' record,
> perhaps 98-99%. But several times I have flown on
> super hot days, and just not been able to well above
> the inversion layer, and I'm hot, and I got some nasty
> water or a bad sandwich or something.
>
> Landed, and had to explain to a bunch of folks that
> I wasn't gonna fly any more that day because I just
> wasn't feeling great.
>
> No specific thing, just knew I was off. Maybe didn't
> drink enough before the flight, maybe too much, maybe
> I just hadn't had a good run or bikeride for a while
> and was just weirdly out of shape.
>
> So there's other people who are in the same boat
> sometimes.
>
> At 20:00 26 March 2005, Jack wrote:
>>Yesterday, about the first soaring day we have had
>>in Houston, I
>>decided to fly. I had taken a 1-hour walk that morning.
>>I had done some
>>things around the house. I went to the airport and
>>helped someone else
>>assemble a ship, then assembled mine. I drank normal
>>amounts of fluids.
>>I drank a 16 oz. bottle of water just prior to takeoff.
>>I flew only 49
>>minutes. Someone had to tell me to raise my gear after
>>launch. I felt
>>fine at first, but soon began to make little mistakes.
>>I couldn't seem
>>to keep up with the thermals. I did some cruising around
>>and some
>>dolphin flying, and realized I was getting airsick.
>>I've never felt
>>airsick in my life. I couldn't put it together. I found
>>8 knots up and
>>flew a couple of minutes in that before finally realizing
>>I was not
>>feeling better, and not flying better. Finally I pulled
>>the flaps down
>>at 4600 feet and made a bee line for the airport IP.
>>I got there fast
>>with 90 degrees of flap. I declared my intent to land
>>and proceeded to
>>do so. At about 10 feet, my radio crackeld 'LANDING
>>GEAR!' and I barely
>>got it down in time.
>>
>>Some facts: I am taking a medication that can cause
>>these effects. I
>>had no lunch. I haven't flown seriously for a dozen
>>years. This is my
>>first ship with a retractable gear. I am certain I
>>was dehydrated.
>>
>>Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT
>>DOES! I should have
>>been more familiar with the medication. I should have
>>had lunch. I
>>should have come down at the first sign that things
>>weren't going well.
>>Actually, I shouldn't have flown at all, though the
>>beginning of the
>>flight went fine.
>>
>>True self-evaluation can possibly save your life. I
>>won't fly again
>>until I know the effects of this medicine are gone.
>>I will fly a lot
>>more before attending Region 10 this year. Unfortunately,
>>people make
>>bad decisions. I got away with it... this time.
>>
>>Jack Womack
>>
>>
>>Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>> At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
>>> >It is simply not true that the only people who crash
>>> >are inexperienced
>>> >'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
>>> >criteria.
>>>
>>> I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
>>> we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
>>> pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel
>>>better,
>>> but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
>>> the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement,
>>>but
>>> most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
>>> decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
>>> fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
>>> that was both unpleasant and inevitable.
>>>
>>> Those who don't learn from the past...
>>>
>>> 9B
>>
>>
> Mark J. Boyd
>
>

Hahaha...

I'l try this in the 2-33 at Vne (about 80 knots) and
see if I get over 200 ft 'regained'

I doubt it. But then again, that's maybe off topic.
I think your calculations are for gliders that don't
fly like they have a parachute attached to the back,
right?
:)

I'm sure even the Blanik will get numbers fairly close
to what you write, but I'lll give it a go (at altitude).

Passengers love to 'zoom' so this should be fun...

At 06:30 27 March 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article ,
> M B wrote:
>
>> It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide
>>at
>> the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
>> 85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
>> points, but which is both:
>>
>> 1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
>> and
>> 2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.
>>
>> Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
>> pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
>> points and safety of the landing?
>
>It seems to me that 85 knots is a little too slow to
>do a full circuit
>from, but plenty do do a 180, or a 360, or an abbreviated
>circuit
>similar to a rope-break exercise.
>
>Someone gave a figure of 9 ft of pullup for each knot
>of speed. That's
>about right for speeds around 110 knots, but is a gross
>overestimate for
>speeds around 80 or 90 knots (and an underestimate
>for higher speeds).
>
>The true numbers are quadratic. If you want a rule
>of thumb I suggest
>the following:
>
> take speed in knots, double it, drop off the last
>digit,
> square what is left giving height for a pull-up in
>feet.
>
>This calculation gives just over 90% of the theoretical
>maximum pull-up,
>which is proabably not a bad figure taking into the
>drag loses.
>
>Note that this is for a pull up to a zero speed hammerhead.
> For a pull
>up to flying speed you need to subtract the appropriate
>height for your
>circuit speed e.g. 100 ft for 50 knots.
>
>
>examples, from zero-height finish, 50 knot circuit
>speed:
>
> 50 knots -> 100 -> 10, squared = 100 ft gain, 0 ft AGL
>>>@ 50 kt
> 60 knots -> 120 -> 12, squared = 144 ft gain, 44 ft
>>>AGL @ 50 kt
> 80 knots -> 160 -> 16, squared = 256 ft gain, 156 ft
>>>AGL @ 50 kt
> 90 knots -> 180 -> 18, squared = 324 ft gain, 224 ft
>>>AGL @ 50 kt
>100 knots -> 200 -> 20, squared = 400 ft gain, 300 ft
>>>AGL @ 50 kt
>120 knots -> 240 -> 24, squared = 576 ft gain, 476 ft
>>>AGL @ 50 kt
>150 knots -> 300 -> 30, squared = 900 ft gain, 800 ft
>>>AGL @ 50 kt
>
>A pull up from 85 knots to 50 knots will give you about
>a 200 ft height
>gain, plus whatever height your finish was at. We
>give students rope
>breaks at 200 ft, right? So a competent and alert
>pilot should have no
>trouble deciding whether to land straight ahead after
>the pull up or do
>an abbreviated circuit.
>
>--
>Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
>Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
>
Mark J. Boyd

Mark,

Wise pilots include a safety margin in their altitude calculations.
This is typically based on the availability of landable fields around
the finish airport, the nature of the day, and the preferences of
individual pilots. (I use +500 feet for airports with safe landing
options.) The wise pilot uses best speed to fly up to a point between 5
and 10 miles from the airport, at which point he assesses his energy
state (altitude and speed), conditions on course, and conditions at the
finish. If no changes were made at this point, he would arrive at the
finish "point" at best speed to fly with his safety altitude between
him and the ground. Assuming the aforementioned conditions favor a
flying finish, the pilot would convert his safety altitude to speed.

This is why the decision to roll to a finish or fly through the gate is
hardly split second. You've been assessing which to pursue for several
minutes based on some very simple rules (how fast am I going, how high
above my safety glide slope am I?).

I know some pilots who have fine tuned this approach into an art. For
example, a
highly successful competitor shared tactics with me after a final glide
we shared at Uvalde (he beat me by about 20 seconds in the last 5
miles). I maintained a typcial safe approach: 90 knots to 3 miles out,
then increasing my speed to roughly 110 knots for arrival at the finish
line, but he dove to nearly redline at 4 miles out. His logic went
like this:

I commited myself to a rolling finish. I new I would cross the
threshold with about 80 knots, at which point I'd pull the brakes, drop
the gear, and get myslef off the runway and stopped as quickly as I
could. This wouldn't cost me very much time. But I aslo knew that the
brown field just this side of the runway had produced noticeable lift
that last few finishes. If it was true to form, it would give me enough
extra energy for a flying finish. It was working, and I was able to
maintain speed across the length of the field, which was more than
enough to get me to the finish line with enough energy for safe pattern
insertion.

This demonstrates a much better understanding of sailplane performance
than is typical. But the lesson here was that this pilot was already
commited to a rolling finish. He was simply waiting a good reason to
change his tactics. It came.

Seems to me some pilots are so fixated on the finish line, they need a
calamity to adjust their thinking, and then don't recognize the
calamity taking shape as they lose altitude and airspeed during the
last several miles to the finish.

At a typcial nationals, 1 minute equals about 5 points. At worst, the
choice of a rolling finish will cost you no more than 10 points. The
decision to fly to the finish line at 85 knots without using your ready
reserve of altitude might cost you 5 to 8 points. Look at your
standings in the last contest you participated in... if you were more
than 200 points behind the winner, you might want to reassess your
priorities. If you're starting to get close, you might want to start
working on your skills as well as your understanding of the risk
/reward formulas for each phase of flight.

At 02:00 27 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

>The wing drop thing is easy to judge. Just watch the
>ailerons. If they
>don't start to move until the wing hits the ground
>or nearly so, it's pilot
>error. If they move to the stop as soon as the glider
>tilts a tiny bit yet
>the wing still goes down, he gets a pass. Any good
>instructor, towpilot, or
>any good pilot for that matter, can watch a takeoff
>and get a good idea of
>how well a pilot flies.
>

I'd be surprised if you'd see many examples of reactions
that slow on the
contest circuit. In my experience 90+% of wing drops
happen despite full
opposite controls. A really experienced pilot will
hold off on control input
until he has enough speed, otherwise the downward deflection
of the
aileron will increase the angle of attack and stall
the tip. So sometimes it's
best to wait until the wing is nearly on the runway.
In this test you'd flunk
the pilots who are really inattentive as well as the
ones who are really
experienced.

I wish it were simple.

9B

At 03:00 27 March 2005, Jack wrote:
>Andy,
>
>I was not implying that anyone is stupid. I would never
>do that,
>either. I was trying in my poor manner to suggest that
>I was a
>knucklehead for flying at all.

Gotcha - we were making basically the same point with
different wording.

Smart, competent pilots can get into trouble because
they don't recognize
that their normally inconsequential decisions can have
potentially adverse
consequences under slightly different circumstances.
Tolerances can
accumulate in the wrong direction on any given day.
Medication +
dehydration + lack of sleep + windy day can make you
a hazard, but any
one or two of these might not.

The important thing is to recognize it.

9B

M B wrote:
> It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide at
> the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
> 85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
> points, but which is both:
>
> 1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
> and
> 2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.
>
> Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
> pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
> points and safety of the landing?

This is exactly right. The mathematically optimal point score comes
when you cross the finish (50 feet, middle of the airport) at the
regular inter-thermal glide speed, 70-80 kts rather than 130. This is
of course about the worst place from which to start a sensible pattern,
especially when 50 other guys are doing the same thing at the same
time. You see fast finishes because most of us are a bit chicken and
hold some reserve, losing a few points in the process.

Everyone in these threads has been advocating "just do a rolling finish
if it seems touchy" but that's a hard decision too. The finish gate is
typically downwind, so the following pattern is only a 180 to land into
the wind. Thus, a rolling finish is a downwind landing, often in a
substantial wind, with a huge fleet landing in the opposite direction.


Furthermore the pilot in the typical marginal situation, with enough
energy to cross the gate at 50-100 feet with 70-80 kts, has to
dissipate a lot of energy to roll a finish at the far end of the
runway. If not, this pilot would cross the runway threshold at say
100-200 feet and 80 kts. At this point it's really too late to roll
(remember all those guys landing into the wind at the other end of the
runway!) and you don't have enough energy to do a proper flying finish.
Coffin corner.

So the decision to roll - accept a downwind landing into the face of
traffic - has to be made at least a mile or two out, while there is
still substantial energy left and a good chance of picking up 50-100
feet of energy, or misjudging your total energy by 50-100 feet. I think
I can start to sympathize with people who get in this mess.

John Cochrane
BB

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 02:00 27 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> >The wing drop thing is easy to judge. Just watch the
> >ailerons. If they
> >don't start to move until the wing hits the ground
> >or nearly so, it's pilot
> >error. If they move to the stop as soon as the glider
> >tilts a tiny bit yet
> >the wing still goes down, he gets a pass. Any good
> >instructor, towpilot, or
> >any good pilot for that matter, can watch a takeoff
> >and get a good idea of
> >how well a pilot flies.
> >
>
> I'd be surprised if you'd see many examples of reactions
> that slow on the
> contest circuit. In my experience 90+% of wing drops
> happen despite full
> opposite controls. A really experienced pilot will
> hold off on control input
> until he has enough speed, otherwise the downward deflection
> of the
> aileron will increase the angle of attack and stall
> the tip. So sometimes it's
> best to wait until the wing is nearly on the runway.
> In this test you'd flunk
> the pilots who are really inattentive as well as the
> ones who are really
> experienced.
>
> I wish it were simple.
>
> 9B
>
>

Depends on where "enough speed" occurs. I think most gliders will have at
least some aileron control at 12 Kts IAS or so. I've watched gliders reach
15-20 knots groundspeed and the ailerons didn't move until the wing touched
the ground. I think experienced pilot/observers can tell when a pilot is
waiting for the ailerons to get a grip on the air.

In the event of an actual test, the pilot could brief the observer that his
particular glider needs a non-standard technique and the observer would make
allowances for it.

Whenever I've made a fully ballasted takeoff in my N2C, I've carefully
briefed both the wing runner and the tow pilot (as well as the peanut
gallery who wanted to see a glider take off with 600 pounds of ballast.) So
far, I haven't dropped a wing.

Bill Daniels

At 06:30 27 March 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:

>A pull up from 85 knots to 50 knots will give you about
>a 200 ft height
>gain, plus whatever height your finish was at. We
>give students rope
>breaks at 200 ft, right? So a competent and alert
>pilot should have no
>trouble deciding whether to land straight ahead after
>the pull up or do
>an abbreviated circuit.

Bruce's numbers are a pretty accurate rule of thumb.
In an earlier thread
there was some doubt expressed as to whether these
'theoretical'
numbers can be achieved in flight. I took a look at
some flight logs and
found most of the time you convert into height ~90%
of your kinetic
energy (+/- the accuracy of my logger). There was one
pull up where I
only got 75% and one case where I got >100% (!). Best
>not to count on
getting every last inch.

I wouldn't recommend anyone try a pull up into a pattern
unless they had
confidence they were going to have at least 120 knots
on the deck. I also
fly my patterns a bit faster than 50 knots.

9B

At 16:00 27 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

>I think experienced pilot/observers can tell when a
>pilot is
>waiting for the ailerons to get a grip on the air.
>
>In the event of an actual test, the pilot could brief
>the observer that his
>particular glider needs a non-standard technique and
>the observer would
make
>allowances for it.
>
>Whenever I've made a fully ballasted takeoff in my
>N2C, I've carefully
>briefed both the wing runner and the tow pilot (as
>well as the peanut
>gallery who wanted to see a glider take off with 600
>pounds of ballast.)
So
>far, I haven't dropped a wing.

My 27B has ailerons with the chord of a popsicle stick.
I don't know what
speed I need to hold a wing up against a gust, but
when I'm full of water at
5,000' on a 95 degree day I want a heck of a fast wing
runner.

I'll take your point that an experienced observer can
pick out poor piloting
technique at any phase of flight.

I remain skeptical of this whole test idea. While you
might flunk some good
pilots, it's principal shortcoming is that you are
trying to catch something
that for even moderately skilled pilots happens relatively
infrequently, so
the odds of it being useful is low, plus you have to
set up the whole test
process on top of whatever else you're doing to run
a contest.

I still think it's best left to the subjective assessment
of the CD to determine
if someone
has a piloting deficiency.

9B

Fantastic. Two great posts, from 59er and from Mr.
Cochrane. I am starting to lean towards the idea of
a 500ft or 1000ft finish.

My remaining question is still whether safety is best
served by the idea of a narrow cylinder, remote 'control
point' at 500-1000ft, or the standard 500-1000ft cylinder
over the airport.

I do think that low passes AFTER the finish as a crowd-pleaser
are at contest organizer discretion, but I don't think
these should be encouraged by extra contest points.

Forgive me for this, but
there is one perhaps morbid and a little tasteless
observation about an advantage of low passes. The
finishers who were dehydrated ended up stall/spinning
somewhere near the airport that was likely unoccupied,
instead of a half-uncoscious landing and swerving off
into the poor spectators lining the runway.

I have been in a situation with a problem aircraft
where I purposely decided to fly over an ocean so that
if anything went wrong further, I wouldn't hurt people
on the ground. So I do take this seriously.

I wonder if we will now see less of these stall/spin
accidents and more of the final approach landing accidents
instead, just shifting the problem.

Well, since by far the most common victim is the pilot,
and survivability seems much better with a miffed landing
than a stall/spin, we're all maybe still better off
with 500-1000ft finish altitudes and miffed landings
instead.

I'll get to watch all this in the coming contest, and
I'm sure I'll see at least a few dehydrated pilots
do 'interesting' things. Hopefully not TOO interesting...

Hmmm...perhaps Alhambra or Evian would be a good contest
sponsor? :)

At 16:00 27 March 2005, Bb wrote:
>
>M B wrote:
>> It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide
>>at
>> the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
>> 85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
>> points, but which is both:
>>
>> 1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
>> and
>> 2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.
>>
>> Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
>> pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
>> points and safety of the landing?
>
>This is exactly right. The mathematically optimal point
>score comes
>when you cross the finish (50 feet, middle of the airport)
>at the
>regular inter-thermal glide speed, 70-80 kts rather
>than 130. This is
>of course about the worst place from which to start
>a sensible pattern,
>especially when 50 other guys are doing the same thing
>at the same
>time. You see fast finishes because most of us are
>a bit chicken and
>hold some reserve, losing a few points in the process.
>
>Everyone in these threads has been advocating 'just
>do a rolling finish
>if it seems touchy' but that's a hard decision too.
>The finish gate is
>typically downwind, so the following pattern is only
>a 180 to land into
>the wind. Thus, a rolling finish is a downwind landing,
>often in a
>substantial wind, with a huge fleet landing in the
>opposite direction.
>
>
>Furthermore the pilot in the typical marginal situation,
>with enough
>energy to cross the gate at 50-100 feet with 70-80
>kts, has to
>dissipate a lot of energy to roll a finish at the far
>end of the
>runway. If not, this pilot would cross the runway threshold
>at say
>100-200 feet and 80 kts. At this point it's really
>too late to roll
>(remember all those guys landing into the wind at the
>other end of the
>runway!) and you don't have enough energy to do a proper
>flying finish.
>Coffin corner.
>
>So the decision to roll - accept a downwind landing
>into the face of
>traffic - has to be made at least a mile or two out,
>while there is
>still substantial energy left and a good chance of
>picking up 50-100
>feet of energy, or misjudging your total energy by
>50-100 feet. I think
>I can start to sympathize with people who get in this
>mess.
>
>John Cochrane
>BB
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

In article >,
Andy Blackburn > wrote:

> Bruce's numbers are a pretty accurate rule of thumb. In an earlier
> thread there was some doubt expressed as to whether these
> 'theoretical' numbers can be achieved in flight. I took a look at
> some flight logs and found most of the time you convert into height
> ~90% of your kinetic energy (+/- the accuracy of my logger). There
> was one pull up where I only got 75% and one case where I got >100%
> (!). Best not to count on getting every last inch.

Agreed, and thanks for the confirmation.

Could headwind account for the >100% example? And tailwind for the 75%?
In other words, your airspeed was not the same as your ground speed?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

At 23:30 27 March 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>Could headwind account for the >100% example? And tailwind
>>for the 75%?
>In other words, your airspeed was not the same as your
>ground speed?

I did a quick check at the time and in most cases there
was a light crosswind of 5-8 knots, so I ignored it.
Obviously a few knots at the high end makes a big difference
in energy (10 knots below redline costs 130 feet).
Maybe I'll do a more rigorous analysis.

9B

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>
> > Bruce's numbers are a pretty accurate rule of thumb. In an earlier
> > thread there was some doubt expressed as to whether these
> > 'theoretical' numbers can be achieved in flight. I took a look at
> > some flight logs and found most of the time you convert into height
> > ~90% of your kinetic energy (+/- the accuracy of my logger). There
> > was one pull up where I only got 75% and one case where I got >100%
> > (!). Best not to count on getting every last inch.
>
> Agreed, and thanks for the confirmation.
>
> Could headwind account for the >100% example? And tailwind for the 75%?
> In other words, your airspeed was not the same as your ground speed?
>
> --
> Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
I doubt it. More likely pulling up into rising/sinking air would account
for the differentials.

Frank Whiteley
40-26N 104-38W

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 16:00 27 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> >I think experienced pilot/observers can tell when a
> >pilot is
> >waiting for the ailerons to get a grip on the air.
> >
> >In the event of an actual test, the pilot could brief
> >the observer that his
> >particular glider needs a non-standard technique and
> >the observer would
> make
> >allowances for it.
> >
> >Whenever I've made a fully ballasted takeoff in my
> >N2C, I've carefully
> >briefed both the wing runner and the tow pilot (as
> >well as the peanut
> >gallery who wanted to see a glider take off with 600
> >pounds of ballast.)
> So
> >far, I haven't dropped a wing.
>
> My 27B has ailerons with the chord of a popsicle stick.
> I don't know what
> speed I need to hold a wing up against a gust, but
> when I'm full of water at
> 5,000' on a 95 degree day I want a heck of a fast wing
> runner.
>
> I'll take your point that an experienced observer can
> pick out poor piloting
> technique at any phase of flight.
>
> I remain skeptical of this whole test idea. While you
> might flunk some good
> pilots, it's principal shortcoming is that you are
> trying to catch something
> that for even moderately skilled pilots happens relatively
> infrequently, so
> the odds of it being useful is low, plus you have to
> set up the whole test
> process on top of whatever else you're doing to run
> a contest.
>
> I still think it's best left to the subjective assessment
> of the CD to determine
> if someone
> has a piloting deficiency.
>
> 9B
>
Agreed. Having been a CD, I do know when a pilot deserves a bollicking or a
refusal, having had to counsel 10000+ hour pilots on safety in the pattern
and refuse a weak link because the chain link was not a suitable substitute
for a Tost ring set. And also having had to call a day, which, in turn,
meant calling the contest.

Frank Whiteley

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> At 23:30 27 March 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>>Could headwind account for the >100% example? And tailwind
>>
>>>for the 75%?
>>
>>In other words, your airspeed was not the same as your
>>ground speed?
>
>
> I did a quick check at the time and in most cases there
> was a light crosswind of 5-8 knots, so I ignored it.
> Obviously a few knots at the high end makes a big difference
> in energy (10 knots below redline costs 130 feet).
> Maybe I'll do a more rigorous analysis.
>
> 9B
>
>
>
Wind gradient?

If you have a speed differential of a couple of knots between the 50' low and
the top of the pull up you are effectively getting "free" energy and will get a
higher apogee.
Since the finish line is generally set up downwind the pull up is into slower
moving air relative to the glider - Faster relative to the ground.
Look at it arithmetically - 100kt 50' up into a 15kt wind.
Pull up into headwind of 35kt - you got to slow an extra 20kt relative to the
ground. Pulling up harder allows you to convert the kinetic energy into
potential, (height)while retaining airspeed.

I know the argument that a glider flies and maintains energy relative to the
body of air it is flying in - but this only holds true if you simplify the model
to assume that the airmass is behaving homogeneously. A rapid transition between
air at different speeds is the technique used by albatrosses etc to soar the
oceans.

The greater the wind speed, and wind gradient the higher you are likely to be
able to pull up. I am not sure but at a guess I would say this would also work
to some degree for coss wind, as the relative wind speed would also tend to
increase (with increased track angle) to maintain ground track.

At 08:30 28 March 2005, Bruce wrote:
>Wind gradient?
>
>If you have a speed differential of a couple of knots
>between the 50' low and
>the top of the pull up you are effectively getting
>'free' energy and will get a
>higher apogee.

On reflection, it'll be pretty hard to figure this
out from flight logs, since even the new SeeYou wind
calculator doesn't work that low in the boundary layer
- so you won't see the gradient directly.

I would presume that you'll do better (higher) finishing
into the prevailing wind than going downwind since
the wind generally picks up with altitude between 0
and 500 feet.

9B

I would like to thank the experienced competion pilots who have shared
their knowledge and methods in this thread.

It concerns me that while I feel I have done a lot of research and have
read everything I have found on this subject, there just isn't a lot of
information out there to help the new competition pilot. Besides the
SRA guide (thanks J. Good) and some outdated books, is there further
and more up to date information available? I don't know any qualified
competitors who sho are wiling to school me personally. Is that the
only way to learn? What am I missing?

Perhaps when asking the question how to qualify pilots, shouldn't we be
looking at how to better train and educate them as well? I have
belonged to two clubs so far and frankly it is hard to get help in XC
let alone competition!

I may very well be missing something here but it seems to me there is a
scarcity of information and training available to help and encourage
those who desire to compete in our sport.

Please correct me (and show me where to gain more knowledge and skill)
if I am wrong in this! I would appreciate the help.

Quote: The greater the wind speed, and wind gradient the higher you are
likely to be
able to pull up. I am not sure but at a guess I would say this would
also work
to some degree for coss wind, as the relative wind speed would also
tend to
increase (with increased track angle) to maintain ground track.

Wouldn't this work only if you were going upwind? Most contest
finishes/pullups I've seen were downwind so a gradient would hurt, not
help you. Am I all wet on this?

Someone spoke earlier of the Albatross and their ability to work the
gradient. They work slightly downwind from true crosswind, gaining
speed (inertia), in the orographic lift at the top of the wave, and
then turn upwind abruptly allowing their inertial force and the wind
gradient to propel them up pretty high. This gives them the ability to
work upwind from wave system to wave system. They are able to soar
great distances at sea this way, and their pullups are into the wind...

Jack Womack

I remember about eight to nine years ago I started contest flying.
It was a very enjoyable transition. I came with the following
qualification to the contest circuit

1) I was comfortable flying my glider.
2) I had numerous land outs prior
3) I have a competitive spirit
After that I just did it.
I must not forget, the Reichman's Book.
You do not need formal training in cross country flying
but you should have attempted a few 300km flights and completed one, It
helps

You only can pickup so much from a book,
Only when flying can you internalize, remember and get better
A regional contest will get you up to speed in the hurry.

Regards
Udo

"Go" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I would like to thank the experienced competion pilots who have shared
> their knowledge and methods in this thread.
>
> It concerns me that while I feel I have done a lot of research and have
> read everything I have found on this subject, there just isn't a lot of
> information out there to help the new competition pilot. Besides the
> SRA guide (thanks J. Good) and some outdated books, is there further
> and more up to date information available? I don't know any qualified
> competitors who sho are wiling to school me personally. Is that the
> only way to learn? What am I missing?
>
> Perhaps when asking the question how to qualify pilots, shouldn't we be
> looking at how to better train and educate them as well? I have
> belonged to two clubs so far and frankly it is hard to get help in XC
> let alone competition!
>
> I may very well be missing something here but it seems to me there is a
> scarcity of information and training available to help and encourage
> those who desire to compete in our sport.
>
> Please correct me (and show me where to gain more knowledge and skill)
> if I am wrong in this! I would appreciate the help.
>

Don't know where you are located, but region 11 has several camps to
help out the new guys. Thermalling camp, cross-country camp, all sports
class contest at Air Sailing, NV.

In a nationals, Charlie will assign an old head to each neophyte. I was
helping my FNG (fine new guy) at Montague, right up until he tried to
get ahead of me on the score sheet. At that point, all assistance
ceased.

Contests seem intimidating, Just strike up a conversation and you will
find some friendly, helpful folks out there.
JJ

Reading about competitions is much more intimidating than actually
doing it.

Pre Requesits.

Be reasonably Confortably Thermaling with other gliders.
Be reasonably Confortable to attempt an off feild landing.
Read The Rules.
Bring a good Crew
Pick a contest area were landouts are pretty easy or at least you are
comfortable with.
Read to Rules.

Then go fly just to complete the tasks. Don't even try to win, just fly
safe and have fun. You might not even come in last.
Rules for the contest.

Understand how and when to start.
Don't Thermal with more gliders than you are comfortable with.
(I always left the gaggle when it got uncomfortable for me,
the only problem with this is everyone thinks I know something they
don't and follow me. I usually find a better thermal on my own anyway,
But then I am on top)

Understand how to know when you are in the turnpoints
Understand how to download you data logger.
Understand where the finish is.

Go have fun flying, don't do anything you are uncomfortable doing. You
will find you do push yourself better knowing there is a crew on the
ground waiting to come get you if you fall down.I have done more cross
country flights at contests than anywhere else and my 1st ones where at
contests with the exception of a few 50 mile X-countries from home.

I have never finished lower than 800 feet and have always flown a
normal pattern.

My standard operating procedure is try to be the 1st to start and not
the last to come back. I get to watch a lot of really good pilots pass
me and I get to thermal/fly with them for a bit until they leave me in
the dust.


I probably missed something, But instead of think of it as a competions
think of it a a bunch of pilots getting together to go flying.You will
learn more in one contest than you can ever read or practice for. I
have done 6 contests and am still just a beginner.


Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL
HP16T N16VP

I appreciate the input. There are some very good points here.

I see I should have qualified my comments a bit. I have competed in
three contests so far. Two Sports and one Nationals. I attended an XC
camp at Air Sailing immediately prior to my first contest. I have been
out there doing it and a lot of the details of preparation and basic
competition flying are now fairly routine. (Although the first time I
was in a gaggle with >10 standard class sailplanes was fantastically
beautiful and intimidating at the same time! What a beautiful ballet.)

I am just looking at my progression and wondering how I can improve my
learning curve. Yes, I am being impatient. But when I see the people in
the top ten of a contest have been flying 20-30 years and I consider
having started when I was 49, I realize I probably don't have that much
time.

Don't get me wrong, I am not looking for an easy way to do this without
putting in the flying time and the effort. I am just looking for
reasources which will help me compete in a safe and competitive manner.


Word of mouth sharing of knowledge can be as bad as it is good.
Especially when you are talking about safety in competition. Consider
that at my next contest I sit down and talk to a pilot who I have just
seen make a few really nice high speed and fairly low finishes and he
tells me how he does it. What if this guy is an accident waiting to
happen, someone who has incorrect assumptions about how this should be
done?

If there is a concern amoungst comp. pilots regarding proper and safe
finish methods perhaps something should be written and posted on the
SRA web page? I have certainly learned something from this thread. Give
people the correct information up front. How about for other topics as
well?

In article om>,
> wrote:
>
>I was
>helping my FNG (fine new guy) at Montague, right up until he tried to
>get ahead of me on the score sheet. At that point, all assistance
>ceased.
>
>JJ

It's kind of bittersweet when your students start getting better
than you are, eh?

Dr. Mark J. Boyd
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:424dea51$1@darkstar...
> In article om>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >I was
> >helping my FNG (fine new guy) at Montague, right up until he tried to
> >get ahead of me on the score sheet. At that point, all assistance
> >ceased.
> >
> >JJ
>
> It's kind of bittersweet when your students start getting better
> than you are, eh?
>
As the student becomes the master, only then have you truly succeeded.
Nothing else should satisfy.

Frank