tow rope brake practice crash, what can we learn... [Archive]

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

July 11th 11, 11:39 PM

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:38:10 -0700, rocketsientist001 wrote:

> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz crashed
> during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The instructor
> (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. It was a tow rope
> brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind landing from
> about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet). What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules? Can pilot request
> opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight Review to avoid getting
> killed?
>
Been there, done that - and in a Puchacz too. I was doing the usual
commentary for the instructor about fields ahead, etc as we climbed out.
As soon as we hit 400 ft and I was half-way through saying "400 ft -
should be high enough to get back to the field" there was a BANG as the
instructor pulled the release. I flew a steep, well-banked turn with the
nose low enough that if anything we gained a little speed (I knew/know
the Puchacz fairly well), flew the approach and landed without incident
downwind. There was never any question that we would get back or, with
the Puchacz' brakes, that we would get stopped on the ground.

> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
Sounds somewhat low to me, considering that was for practise, not for
real.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Grider Pirate[_2_]

July 11th 11, 11:41 PM

On Jul 11, 3:01*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-.......
>
> I doubt we can learn anythng from it without knowing the circustances
> of the crash. *Did they spin in? *Did they land under control in an
> unlandable area? *Something else?
>
> The instructor should be sure the turn back can be accomplished safely
> considering wind, altitude, and distance from the airport. *In your
> case it seems his judgement was ok.
>
> Andy

When I was a student my instructor discussed rope breaks with me, then
demonstrated a 'rope break' at 200 feet. After the landing, we
discussed it some more. By the time he ever pulled the release on me,
I was well prepared to deal with it.

BobW

July 11th 11, 11:45 PM

On 7/11/2011 3:38 PM, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?

First, my sincere condolences to everyone affected by this tragedy.

Without intending disrespect to the dead or to their families and friends, and
without intending flippancy in any way, shape or form, one of the things I
have concluded about these sorts of accidents in ~37 years of (mostly western
U.S.-based) soaring participation and personally-motivated (in a
self-preservational sense) incident/accident interest, is that this particular
scenario deserves the utmost respect from both student and instructor, and
demands from the instructor 'nearly perfect judgment' if it is to be conducted
safely, yet meaningfully. The 'need for it' is one of the (many) reasons I
have great respect for everyone who decides to instruct others in the art of
soaring.

Soaring is inherently risky because it involves energies easily capable of
ending human life. Failure to acknowledge that is - at the very least -
intellectually short-sighted, if not outright dishonest. That said, nearly a
century's worth of humankind indulging in the soul-enriching sporting activity
has provided today's practitioners much risk-reducing (not eliminating) knowledge.

I know zero of the circumstances of this sad and terrible accident, and can
only hope it was avoidable in the sense that - done 100 times under 'exactly
the same circumstances' - it would largely have resulted in a successfully
concluded downwind landing. If that was not the case, then (if we presume the
release was intentional) likely the instructor erred in his decision to pull
the release, regardless of the nature or seriousness of the eventual accident.
By (my) definition, an instructor should 'never' induce something which is
'accidentally-problematic' (e.g. an intentional departure from controlled
flight on the base-to-final turn...almost certain to be fatal, no matter the
glider type, or the pilots' skills).

If we presume the release circumstances were *not* 'accidentally-problematic'
(per the above definition), then the nature of the mistake(s) made become
murkier - and almost entirely speculative - in a hurry. Readers will note,
here, that - by my definition - any 'not accidentally problematic' premature
rope release resulting in an accident *does* involve pilot error. This is the
way I have always chosen to view fatal glider accidents, because it shines the
harshest light on my own potential actions in similar circumstances. I've long
sought to avoid others' mistakes - fatal or otherwise - when it comes to
acting as PIC, and laying accident causes on the pilot is, in my view, the
most conservative mental approach insofar as affecting my own decision-making
is concerned. If I die in a sailplane accident I sincerely hope it will be
obvious to my surviving friends and family that my death was *not* the result
of a 'stupid pilot trick,' i.e. the circumstances were unforeseeable and
unavoidable.

In this particular instance for example, the student might have reacted badly
and so rapidly and forcefully the instructor could not override the student's
stick forces in sufficient time. Or the instructor may not have been 'guarding
the stick' as closely as the situation/student 'naturally warranted.' Or the
PIC may have been flying 'by eye too much' (as distinct from also using the
ASI and yaw string as cross checks to the sight picture). You get the
idea...we can never know for sure.

> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?

I believe so, but have never pretended to memorize the FARs/CFRs. I expect
others will correct me if I'm wrong, but in any case, I *expect* to cover this
scenario in some form or other in any flight review, simply because it's an
unavoidable - and none too unlikely - scenario when taking aerotows. My
approach when taking (the still mandatory, but) what were originally called
'biennial flight reviews' has always been to discuss the premature release
scenario prior to getting into the glider. Most of my experience has been in
settings with not-very-pretty options in the case of premature aerotow
releases, so I tend to be paranoid about the possibility of it happening. I
believe Murphy is real.

That noted, my own 'Plan B/fail safe' as a pilot is 'Hit the ground
horizontally, not vertically.' Only then will I have a fighting chance of
surviving.

> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?

I don't think so, but s/he should definitely avoid any instructor who doesn't
take them life-/glider-threateningly seriously, and who is not also willing
beforehand to discuss them in detail, not only as a 'theoretical thing' but in
the circumstances pertaining to the airfield in question. Many airfields in
the western U.S. *will* result in broken sailplanes, if a premature release
from aerotow occurs 'too low.'

> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre

And you were probably correct!

Best Regards,
Bob W.

Craig[_2_]

July 12th 11, 12:13 AM

On Jul 11, 3:45*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 3:38 PM, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
>
> First, my sincere condolences to everyone affected by this tragedy.
>
> Without intending disrespect to the dead or to their families and friends, and
> without intending flippancy in any way, shape or form, one of the things I
> have concluded about these sorts of accidents in ~37 years of (mostly western
> U.S.-based) soaring participation and personally-motivated (in a
> self-preservational sense) incident/accident interest, is that this particular
> scenario deserves the utmost respect from both student and instructor, and
> demands from the instructor 'nearly perfect judgment' if it is to be conducted
> safely, yet meaningfully. The 'need for it' is one of the (many) reasons I
> have great respect for everyone who decides to instruct others in the art of
> soaring.
>
> Soaring is inherently risky because it involves energies easily capable of
> ending human life. Failure to acknowledge that is - at the very least -
> intellectually short-sighted, if not outright dishonest. That said, nearly a
> century's worth of humankind indulging in the soul-enriching sporting activity
> has provided today's practitioners much risk-reducing (not eliminating) knowledge.
>
> I know zero of the circumstances of this sad and terrible accident, and can
> only hope it was avoidable in the sense that - done 100 times under 'exactly
> the same circumstances' - it would largely have resulted in a successfully
> concluded downwind landing. If that was not the case, then (if we presume the
> release was intentional) likely the instructor erred in his decision to pull
> the release, regardless of the nature or seriousness of the eventual accident.
> By (my) definition, an instructor should 'never' induce something which is
> 'accidentally-problematic' (e.g. an intentional departure from controlled
> flight on the base-to-final turn...almost certain to be fatal, no matter the
> glider type, or the pilots' skills).
>
> If we presume the release circumstances were *not* 'accidentally-problematic'
> (per the above definition), then the nature of the mistake(s) made become
> murkier - and almost entirely speculative - in a hurry. Readers will note,
> here, that - by my definition - any 'not accidentally problematic' premature
> rope release resulting in an accident *does* involve pilot error. This is the
> way I have always chosen to view fatal glider accidents, because it shines the
> harshest light on my own potential actions in similar circumstances. I've long
> sought to avoid others' mistakes - fatal or otherwise - when it comes to
> acting as PIC, and laying accident causes on the pilot is, in my view, the
> most conservative mental approach insofar as affecting my own decision-making
> is concerned. If I die in a sailplane accident I sincerely hope it will be
> obvious to my surviving friends and family that my death was *not* the result
> of a 'stupid pilot trick,' i.e. the circumstances were unforeseeable and
> unavoidable.
>
> In this particular instance for example, the student might have reacted badly
> and so rapidly and forcefully the instructor could not override the student's
> stick forces in sufficient time. Or the instructor may not have been 'guarding
> the stick' as closely as the situation/student 'naturally warranted.' Or the
> PIC may have been flying 'by eye too much' (as distinct from also using the
> ASI and yaw string as cross checks to the sight picture). You get the
> idea...we can never know for sure.
>
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
>
> I believe so, but have never pretended to memorize the FARs/CFRs. I expect
> others will correct me if I'm wrong, but in any case, I *expect* to cover this
> scenario in some form or other in any flight review, simply because it's an
> unavoidable - and none too unlikely - scenario when taking aerotows. My
> approach when taking (the still mandatory, but) what were originally called
> 'biennial flight reviews' has always been to discuss the premature release
> scenario prior to getting into the glider. Most of my experience has been in
> settings with not-very-pretty options in the case of premature aerotow
> releases, so I tend to be paranoid about the possibility of it happening. I
> believe Murphy is real.
>
> That noted, my own 'Plan B/fail safe' as a pilot is 'Hit the ground
> horizontally, not vertically.' Only then will I have a fighting chance of
> surviving.
>
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
>
> I don't think so, but s/he should definitely avoid any instructor who doesn't
> take them life-/glider-threateningly seriously, and who is not also willing
> beforehand to discuss them in detail, not only as a 'theoretical thing' but in
> the circumstances pertaining to the airfield in question. Many airfields in
> the western U.S. *will* result in broken sailplanes, if a premature release
> from aerotow occurs 'too low.'
>
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> And you were probably correct!
>
> Best Regards,
> Bob W.

Condolences to everyone involved. An unfortunately similar accident
over the weekend in Montana.
http://www.kpax.com/news/strong-winds-may-have-played-a-role-in-friday-s-fatal-plane-crash/

Craig

brianDG303[_2_]

July 12th 11, 12:26 AM

On Jul 11, 3:45*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 3:38 PM, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
>
> First, my sincere condolences to everyone affected by this tragedy.
>
> Without intending disrespect to the dead or to their families and friends, and
> without intending flippancy in any way, shape or form, one of the things I
> have concluded about these sorts of accidents in ~37 years of (mostly western
> U.S.-based) soaring participation and personally-motivated (in a
> self-preservational sense) incident/accident interest, is that this particular
> scenario deserves the utmost respect from both student and instructor, and
> demands from the instructor 'nearly perfect judgment' if it is to be conducted
> safely, yet meaningfully. The 'need for it' is one of the (many) reasons I
> have great respect for everyone who decides to instruct others in the art of
> soaring.
>
> Soaring is inherently risky because it involves energies easily capable of
> ending human life. Failure to acknowledge that is - at the very least -
> intellectually short-sighted, if not outright dishonest. That said, nearly a
> century's worth of humankind indulging in the soul-enriching sporting activity
> has provided today's practitioners much risk-reducing (not eliminating) knowledge.
>
> I know zero of the circumstances of this sad and terrible accident, and can
> only hope it was avoidable in the sense that - done 100 times under 'exactly
> the same circumstances' - it would largely have resulted in a successfully
> concluded downwind landing. If that was not the case, then (if we presume the
> release was intentional) likely the instructor erred in his decision to pull
> the release, regardless of the nature or seriousness of the eventual accident.
> By (my) definition, an instructor should 'never' induce something which is
> 'accidentally-problematic' (e.g. an intentional departure from controlled
> flight on the base-to-final turn...almost certain to be fatal, no matter the
> glider type, or the pilots' skills).
>
> If we presume the release circumstances were *not* 'accidentally-problematic'
> (per the above definition), then the nature of the mistake(s) made become
> murkier - and almost entirely speculative - in a hurry. Readers will note,
> here, that - by my definition - any 'not accidentally problematic' premature
> rope release resulting in an accident *does* involve pilot error. This is the
> way I have always chosen to view fatal glider accidents, because it shines the
> harshest light on my own potential actions in similar circumstances. I've long
> sought to avoid others' mistakes - fatal or otherwise - when it comes to
> acting as PIC, and laying accident causes on the pilot is, in my view, the
> most conservative mental approach insofar as affecting my own decision-making
> is concerned. If I die in a sailplane accident I sincerely hope it will be
> obvious to my surviving friends and family that my death was *not* the result
> of a 'stupid pilot trick,' i.e. the circumstances were unforeseeable and
> unavoidable.
>
> In this particular instance for example, the student might have reacted badly
> and so rapidly and forcefully the instructor could not override the student's
> stick forces in sufficient time. Or the instructor may not have been 'guarding
> the stick' as closely as the situation/student 'naturally warranted.' Or the
> PIC may have been flying 'by eye too much' (as distinct from also using the
> ASI and yaw string as cross checks to the sight picture). You get the
> idea...we can never know for sure.
>
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
>
> I believe so, but have never pretended to memorize the FARs/CFRs. I expect
> others will correct me if I'm wrong, but in any case, I *expect* to cover this
> scenario in some form or other in any flight review, simply because it's an
> unavoidable - and none too unlikely - scenario when taking aerotows. My
> approach when taking (the still mandatory, but) what were originally called
> 'biennial flight reviews' has always been to discuss the premature release
> scenario prior to getting into the glider. Most of my experience has been in
> settings with not-very-pretty options in the case of premature aerotow
> releases, so I tend to be paranoid about the possibility of it happening. I
> believe Murphy is real.
>
> That noted, my own 'Plan B/fail safe' as a pilot is 'Hit the ground
> horizontally, not vertically.' Only then will I have a fighting chance of
> surviving.
>
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
>
> I don't think so, but s/he should definitely avoid any instructor who doesn't
> take them life-/glider-threateningly seriously, and who is not also willing
> beforehand to discuss them in detail, not only as a 'theoretical thing' but in
> the circumstances pertaining to the airfield in question. Many airfields in
> the western U.S. *will* result in broken sailplanes, if a premature release
> from aerotow occurs 'too low.'
>
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> And you were probably correct!
>
> Best Regards,
> Bob W.

A few years back I was at a SSA CFIG re-validation seminar in Seattle
and there was a discussion of rope break training prior to solo sign-
offs. I was a solo student at the time, just there to learn. I
mentioned that I had never done a rope break but had been signed off
solo and was made to stand and repeat that while the SSA safety team
(Carlson and Wander I think it was) listened with horror. The next
weekend I went to the field and performed 4 down to 200' and still try
to do 3 or 4 every year. Once you do a few and get it down it's a non-
event and probably good to have as a skill.

On the other hand during my check ride in a 2-22 the DE pulled the
release at 200' into a strong headwind and it was pretty exciting
getting that bird down when I had been doing them in a DG303 up to
then. That same DE is in a local hospital today after crashing while
performing a rope break in Montana last week, the other pilot was
killed. Those are two very different data points to try and reconcile.

Brian

Bart[_4_]

July 12th 11, 12:58 AM

On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?

Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
something about this accident that we do not know yet.

> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?

FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
rope break. Weather permitting, of course.

By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."

Bart

Frank Paynter[_2_]

July 12th 11, 02:49 AM

On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
>
> Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
> something about this accident that we do not know yet.
>
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
>
> FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
> the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
> would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
> rope break. Weather permitting, of course.
>
> By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
> which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
> it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
> pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
> glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
> in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."
>
> Bart

This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
training in the power world. So many students and instructors were
killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
banished from the required training curriculum. We in the soaring
community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. I
would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. We don't do base-
to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor. If we feel we must
continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
should ONLY be done in Condor. The military, GA, and corporate/
airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. If you
haven't tried this in Condor, you should.

TA

Tony V

July 12th 11, 03:05 AM

Students learn several very valuable things during a simulated rope break.
1. they have (at least) a 3 second "oh, ****", factor where they don't
do anything until the reality sets in. I had one student that froze and
did nothing at all.
2. they don't get the nose down fast enough, far enough - even after
they recognize and react to the situation.

As others have pointed out, you have to be careful. On a hot humid day
when you're still far away from the airport at 200, the exercise might
best be postponed. I've found that on a normal day, a rope break at 275
(which is what I typically do)or so gives you an extra margin of safety
and still gets the point across - and spoilers will be needed to not
over-run the airport.

Tony

T[_2_]

July 12th 11, 03:06 AM

On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-...http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozb...

Not enough is known about this tragic event. Our condolences to the
families.
But to answer the question, a rope break event is in the US Practical
Test Standards and references the Glider Pilots Handbook which
identifies 200ft AGL as a minimum altitude for the event, WEATHER
PERMITING.

It is one of the last events I teach before solo, knowing the pilot is
well briefed for the first event and is well versed and has no
problems maintaining coordinated flight and airspeed during turns.

T

Tony V

July 12th 11, 03:11 AM

On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:
> Students learn several very valuable things during a simulated rope break.
> 1. they have (at least) a 3 second "oh, ****", factor where they don't
> do anything until the reality sets in. I had one student that froze and
> did nothing at all.
> 2. they don't get the nose down fast enough, far enough - even after
> they recognize and react to the situation.

Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
turn back to the airport. You have to wait until you have enough
airspeed to pull that off. Something that gets drilled into every winch
student (I hope).

Tony

Tony[_5_]

July 12th 11, 04:05 AM

I always teach a multitude of tow failures to pre-solo students
ranging from turn backs at low-ish altitude to abbreviate patterns at
mid altitude to full patterns once high enough. I always sort of grin
when people call it a "simulated rope break". There is nothing
simulated about it! Frankly i find it the most stressful sort of
training that i've ever given because it requires an incredibly high
level of oversight and everything has to be done just right, there
isn't a lot of room for error. I've had a few exciting
ones...probably earned a few early gray hairs as a result.

The more downwind turnarounds i've done the more I realize that in
reality at the airports I usually fly from a landing straight ahead
into the wind off airport is probably at least as safe if not safer
than turning back. I always make sure that my students are not
married to the idea of having to make it back to the runway too. IMO
there is a pretty narrow window of wind/temperature/takeoff
performance and however many other factors that make turning back the
truly best all around option. Remember this is me flying out of
midwest runways with miles of landable fields off the departure ends.

I usually enforce a basic three step process after the rope "breaks".
1: nose down 2: turn (if you need to) 3: land. Lots of pilots forget
#1.

I've also learned over the years that sometimes the most difficult tow
failures are the mid altitudes where you have multiple options
(especially if there is more than one runway at your airport). could
make a short pattern and land into the wind, could pick another runway
for a crosswind landing, could land downwind. sometimes options are a
bad thing and people wait too long to make a decision and then they
are out of options and ideas.

Frank Whiteley

July 12th 11, 06:01 AM

On Jul 11, 4:01*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-.......
>
> I doubt we can learn anythng from it without knowing the circustances
> of the crash. *Did they spin in? *Did they land under control in an
> unlandable area? *Something else?
>
> The instructor should be sure the turn back can be accomplished safely
> considering wind, altitude, and distance from the airport. *In your
> case it seems his judgement was ok.
>
> Andy

The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
No other info.

Frank Whiteley

July 12th 11, 06:06 AM

On Jul 11, 11:01*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 4:01*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > > What can we learn from this?
> > > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> > >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-.......
>
> > I doubt we can learn anythng from it without knowing the circustances
> > of the crash. *Did they spin in? *Did they land under control in an
> > unlandable area? *Something else?
>
> > The instructor should be sure the turn back can be accomplished safely
> > considering wind, altitude, and distance from the airport. *In your
> > case it seems his judgement was ok.
>
> > Andy
>
> The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. *The pilot
> that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. *It's been reported that
> it was gusty. *The commercial operation was in its first year of
> operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> No other info.

Sorry, replied to the wrong post. My comments are in response to the
Montana accident of last Friday.

Frank Whiteley

[email protected]

July 12th 11, 07:30 AM

>*Did they spin in? *Did they land under control in an
> unlandable area? *Something else?
> Andy

Yes Andy, the article said that Puchacz was in a spin.
I think that from towing attitude quick push stick forward with wings
level into the headwind would get speed faster plus 10-20 mph before
starting 180 downwind turn, that would prevent the spin.
Starting 180 downwind turn with high nose attitude at the moment of
release from tow may cause a rapid loss of airspeed and spin. There is
no problem at higher altitude, there is a big problem at low altitude.
Puchacz has a momentum, demands respect or it will bite.
Some pilots survived collisions with ground in full spin, did not
survive when rotation was stopped close to the ground.

[email protected]

July 12th 11, 07:43 AM

On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-...http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozb...

The article sais that Puchacz was in a spin.

I think that from towing attitude quick push stick forward with wings
level into the headwind would get speed faster plus 10-20 mph before
starting 180 downwind turn, that would prevent stall and spin.
Starting 180 downwind turn with high nose attitude at the moment of
release from tow may cause a rapid loss of airspeed and spin. There is
no problem at higher altitude, there is a big problem at low altitude.
Puchacz has a momentum, demands respect or it will bite.
Some pilots survived collisions with ground in full spin, did not
survive when rotation was stopped close to the ground.

Pete Brown

July 12th 11, 08:03 AM

On 7/11/2011 1:38 PM, wrote:

> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre

Is this inherently dangerous? Not necessarily at all. Is it a useful
skill to have when used with judgment? Absolutely.

When is it dangerous? Like a lot of things in flying, "It depends."

As a CFIG, I insist and the FAA's PTS (amended 9/1/10) require that the
student be familiar with a variety of aero tow launch failures and must
demonstrate simulated aero tow failures "as required by the examiner."

The student needs to know how to do this safely and also needs to know
what under what conditions it's not safe. Further, he needs to evaluate
the field conditions before launch, not at 200' when the rope goes "ping."

At our field, on a calm, warm day, with two fat old guys in a Blanik and
a tow plane that has just had the long range tanks topped off, a
release at 200 feet would definitely make me a bit uncomfortable,
especially when I look at the trees. If the tow pilot continues straight
ahead, when I get to 300 ft. I might be in a worse position.

On the other hand, here comes the "it depends part", on a cool day with
a 10 kt breeze, quarter tanks in the tow plane and a petite student, the
maneuver is safe, fun, and an important skill to have.

On a long runway, in lots of wind, behind a powerful tow plane, in a
Schweizer 2-22 (Euro guys think Ka-4) landing straight a head may be a
better option.

It depends... Instructors must have this discussion with students.

The instructor has to impart equal parts of skill and judgment so the
students can be safe pilots.

--

Pete Brown
Anchorage Alaska

Going home after a long day
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1415/1325102827_f322928754_b.jpg

The fleet at Summit. Mt. McKinley is about 45nm away at 20,320 msl.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/437346531_a9cb8d2482_b.jpg

The 170B at Bold near Eklutna Glacier
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/437324742_a216d7bb75.jpg

Andreas Maurer

July 12th 11, 12:55 PM

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Paynter
> wrote:

>BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
>other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
>altitude and weather configuration in Condor.

Bullsh**.

Andreas

jcarlyle

July 12th 11, 01:09 PM

Rope breaks are definitely exciting. I vividly remember my first one,
six years ago prior to solo. It had me so worked up I had trouble
sleeping the night before, but the actual event was no where near as
bad as I'd imagined. The worst one I've experienced was when the tow
plane had "engine failure" and started slowing down after I was flying
but before it left the ground. Realistic, but my heart still beats
faster when I think of it. Another high stress situation, as pointed
out above, is when you're just below pattern altitude about to turn
downwind and you have lots of choices of what to do. But for all the
drama, I believe rope break practice is very necessary - in my short
soaring career I've seen 3 unintentional rope breaks. All turned out
just fine, because the pilots knew what they had to do.

-John

[email protected]

July 12th 11, 01:34 PM

On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > > What can we learn from this?
>
> > Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
> > something about this accident that we do not know yet.
>
> > > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > > Review to avoid getting killed?
>
> > FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
> > the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
> > would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
> > rope break. Weather permitting, of course.
>
> > By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
> > which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
> > it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
> > pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
> > glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
> > in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."
>
> > Bart
>
> This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
> training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
> killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
> banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
> community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
> injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
> how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
> would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
> the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
> to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
> saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
> demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.
>
> BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
> other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
> altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
> continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
> should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
> airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
> have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
> haven't tried this in Condor, you should.
>
> TA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
not see how it will simulate the real world stress
that occurs during an emergency situation.
My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
mistake during their first PTTT. Some of these include.
1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
the "what would I do?" scenario.
2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the right
because "that's what we always do".
3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
wings rocking?"
4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
with your glider".
9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
must continue to train and retrain these skills.
UH

Frank Paynter[_2_]

July 12th 11, 02:43 PM

On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
> On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > > > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > > > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > > > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > > > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > > > What can we learn from this?
>
> > > Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
> > > something about this accident that we do not know yet.
>
> > > > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > > > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > > > Review to avoid getting killed?
>
> > > FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
> > > the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
> > > would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
> > > rope break. Weather permitting, of course.
>
> > > By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
> > > which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
> > > it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
> > > pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
> > > glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
> > > in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."
>
> > > Bart
>
> > This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
> > training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
> > killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
> > banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
> > community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
> > injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
> > how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
> > would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
> > the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
> > to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
> > saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
> > demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.
>
> > BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
> > other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
> > altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
> > continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
> > should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
> > airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
> > have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
> > haven't tried this in Condor, you should.
>
> > TA- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
> not see how it will simulate the real world stress
> that occurs during an emergency situation.
> My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
> mistake during their first PTTT. *Some of these include.
> 1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
> the "what would I do?" scenario.
> 2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the *right
> because "that's what we always do".
> 3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
> wings rocking?"
> 4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
> adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
> 5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
> 6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
> 7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
> 8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
> with your glider".
> 9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
> energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
> Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
> must continue to train and retrain these skills.
> UH

Hank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures, and is MUCH safer than airborne training. In a simulator,
bad situations and/or bad decisions by the student can be allowed to
play out to bad endings, something that can't be done safely in flight
and is usually much more effective in getting the point across.

You may make the point that since the student knows he can't die in a
simulator, the real stresses can't be duplicated. However, I would
argue that with airborne training most students think they can't die
because there is an instructor right there to save them, so the same
argument applies.

A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
landing area, etc) as in real life. I can pretty much guarantee you
that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
indistinguishable from their reaction in real life. Moreover, the
situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
off-airport landing - try that in real life! After 10 or 20 (or 100)
SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

TA

n7ly

July 12th 11, 03:03 PM

On Jul 12, 6:55*am, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Paynter
>
> > wrote:
> >BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
> >other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
> >altitude and weather configuration in Condor.
>
> Bullsh**.
>
> Andreas

Have to agree - if you aren't there, you aren't there.

HOWEVER, I do have some difficulty with trying to come up with a bunch
of canned answers on how to handle each emergency.
In fact, I would suggest that the cure is worse than the disease. Too
many variations of problems.

I have had personal involvement in, or first hand knowledge of, at
least 6 events that could have been very serious. The solution to each
emergency was "fly the airplane-save yourself". After that is
established, say inside the first 2 seconds, the next common
denominator is "get rid of the rope". To heck with signals. In many
cases there is no way for the rope to back release. I have personally
witnessed a case where this was the difference between life and death.
Life won. I have personally been involved in a case where if the rope
had not released we would have been in big, big trouble. Signals in
NONE of these events would have had any effect on a safe outcome, in
fact they would have likely been detrimental due to the short time
limit involved.

I might emphasize - the same "save yourself first" applies to BOTH
ends of the rope.

Dan Marotta

July 12th 11, 03:42 PM

An excellent discussion following a tragic event.

As a part time tow pilot, I've seen uncountable practice rope breaks, all of
which ended successfully. I also had one of our CFIs in his own Libelle
have an actual rope break at about 250 ft on departure; surprised us both!
....But he bade a textbook turn back and landing. I saw about 10 feet of
rope dangling from his nose but decided not to distract him by letting him
know. Instead, when I landed, I thanked him for bringing back the Tost
ring. My only other actual rope break was at about 2,500' AGL due to an
incredibly ham fisted retired commercial pilot. He also brought back about
25 feet of rope wrapped over the right wing of the G-103. That was also a
no-op.

On my commercial glider check ride some 25 years ago, there was a 25 kt wind
directly down the runway and the FAA examiner pulled the release at 200 feet
while we were flying straight out. I made a successful turn back in the
twin Lark (unlandable ahead) and landed about mid field, continued off the
end of the runway, used up all the grass in the field at the end, put a wing
on the ground, full rudder, and ground looped just short of the barbed wire.
He just said, "Nice job." I thought it was an unsafe maneuver ..

John Cochrane[_2_]

July 12th 11, 03:43 PM

On Jul 12, 8:43*am, Frank Paynter > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
>

Frank, Hank:

You're both right. The key here is to separate the two things that are
learned by this training 1) practicing the maneuvers you will execute
to recover from a low-altitude rope break or other PTT event 2)
understanding and practicing the psychological part of reacting to any
emergency situation.

Hank's right that #2 is really not well simulated in Condor. But
Frank is right that #1 can be practiced a lot in Condor, and then
executing maneuvers will be much easier in the air.

The same approach is useful, I think, for flight training. At our
club, most of our instructors no longer do a lot of unannounced 200
foot rope breaks. This mixes #1 and #2, creating a "real" emergency.

Instead, we brief, demonstrate and have students practice 200 foot
rope breaks, so they are comfortable with the maneuver required.
Believe me, the first 4-5 times, "you're going to do a 200 foot rope
break on this flight" keeps the adrenaline level up high enough!

We also give them lots of practice with unplanned emergencies, but
all at reasonable altitude. 500' rope breaks, engine failures,
spoilers coming out; "ok the spoiliers are stuck out/closed, now land
it", pretending half the runway is suddenly unusable, and so on are
all great exercises.

If you've got the mechanical skills to do a planned 200 foot break
flawlessly, and the emergency-handling skills to do all the higher-
altitude emergencies with aplomb, you're fairly prepared. We can
discuss whether practicing an actual combination, an unplanned 200'
rope break, is a useful final sanding, or an invitation to practice
stall/spin recovery from 200 feet. But at least we should get to that
point by practicing the mechanical skill and the emergency-handling
skill separately.

John Cochrane

Berry[_2_]

July 12th 11, 04:10 PM

> > > Andy
> >
> > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. *The pilot
> > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. *It's been reported that
> > it was gusty. *The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > No other info.
>
> Sorry, replied to the wrong post. My comments are in response to the
> Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> Frank Whiteley

Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
think of it. 2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
you get low and slow.

Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
spinning in.

Andy[_1_]

July 12th 11, 05:41 PM

On Jul 11, 7:11*pm, Tony V > wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:
>
> Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
> turn back to the airport.

>You have to wait until you have enough
> airspeed to pull that off.
>

Why? If the simulated break is made at normal tow speed there is
sufficient speed to start the turn immediately.

Andy

Papa3

July 12th 11, 06:03 PM

On Jul 12, 11:10*am, Berry > wrote:
> > > > Andy
>
> > > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
> > > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
> > > it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > > No other info.
>
> > Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
> > Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
> think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
> you get low and slow.
>
> Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
> spinning in.

Was about to post the same thing. Was pondering this very issue
whilst giving 2-32 rides for the local FBO this weekend. I don't
think I'd even contemplate a return to the runway from less than 300
feet in that bird at max gross unless we had TONS of extra
airspeed. As mentioned elswhere, there are so many variables to
this that each flight requires its own plan.

P3

tstock

July 12th 11, 06:36 PM

I agree that this sort of maneuver should be first done in a simulator
(where doing it correctly is not the ONLY option) and then done in
real life. I know I would not want to "bet my life" on the student
doing it correctly the first time (while under pressure), especially
from only 200'.

Bill D

July 12th 11, 06:43 PM

On Jul 11, 8:11*pm, Tony V > wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:
>
> > Students learn several very valuable things during a simulated rope break.
> > 1. they have (at least) a 3 second "oh, ****", factor where they don't
> > do anything until the reality sets in. I had one student that froze and
> > did nothing at all.
> > 2. they don't get the nose down fast enough, far enough - even after
> > they recognize and react to the situation.
>
> Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
> turn back to the airport. You have to wait until you have enough
> airspeed to pull that off. Something that gets drilled into every winch
> student (I hope).
>
> Tony

Actually a 200 foot AGL rope break on a winch is probably safer since
the landing will be straight ahead on the runway. There have been
accidents where aero tow trained pilots turned back from a 200 foot
winch rope break only to find no runway to land on. Of course, both
aero tow and winch recoveries from 200' rope breaks require a fairly
high level of stick and rudder skills.

Hint to students, if your instructor has his head stuck out of the
side window of a 2-33 looking back at the runway, he's probably doing
a 'sanity check' before pulling the release. Sanity checks are highly
recommenced as it's not always possible to return to the runway.

A bit of history; the 200' rope break turn back maneuver was invented
in the early 1960's to show aero tow operations from short runways
surrounded by trees or other unlandable terrain was 'safe'. Since one
can't know what runways a student will fly from in the future,
training them in this maneuver makes sense.

bdbng

July 12th 11, 07:19 PM

> >BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
> >other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
> >altitude and weather configuration in Condor.
> Bullsh**.

We had an inexperienced guy in a tail heavy Phoebus get into PIO's on
tow. The first one was not too bad. The second one had him climbing at
45 degrees. On the third he went over the top. Certainly no higher
than 300'. The tow rope broke, saving the tow pilot's life. Those of
us watching thought we were looking at a dead man. He pulled back on
the stick and while headed straight down he rolled 180 degrees and
pulled out 10 feet above the runway, landing down wind. Later I asked
him how he pulled that off. His answer: "I've flown a lot of
aerobatics in Microsoft Flight Simulator". !!!

Brian Bange

July 12th 11, 08:34 PM

Except in very strong wind conditions a rope break at or above 200' is
hardly an "emergency". It is a circumstance that requires immediate
action, but appropriate training should make this a routine maneuver,
executed with confidence. A real 150’ rope break becomes a true
emergency at many airports where the glider is going to land off-
airport and the outcome is not certain. The level of training needs to
overcome the “surprise” factor to minimize the delay in reaction
should a rope break take place.

Bob

Andreas Maurer

July 13th 11, 12:24 AM

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT), Frank Paynter
> wrote:

Hi Frank,

>Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
>aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
>simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
>procedures

True.
But maybe you noticed that the hardware these guys are using is not
exactly in your $300 price range.... :)

>A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
>assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
>student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
>establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
>landing area, etc) as in real life.

In a real-life rope break, there are two things that save lifes:
1. Before you take off, have a plan. Obvously. Know exactly what you
are going to do - always. Pretty simple to teach.

2. Situation awareness
This is what cannot be simulated on a PC.
Tell the student pilot to lower the nose after release or row break,
and stabilize the glider. I think the US term is "Fly the plane".
so far, so simple - no simulator necessary to teach that.

But now comes the difficult part.
I'd like to list just a couple of points that come to my mind that
need to be judged correctly to get a safe landing:

What's the correct nose-down attitude in reference to the horizon if
there's rising area ahead? Tall trees?
Judge the exact position.
Judge the wind.
Turbulence?

Decide about the maneuver that is going to get you down safely:
Sufficient runway ahead to land safely? Return to runway, shortened
traffic circuit, safe off-field landing ahead?
Or even a controlled crash if a safe landing is not warranted?

Once the pilot has decided which maneuver to fly, he needs to execute
it properly. As we are discussing turns to return to the runway:
What's the direction of the first turn, how many degrees are necessary
for that first turn, when does one start the turn back towards the
runway, what's the correct speed, when to extrend the airbrakes?

All these points need precise judgement - which can only be done
visually. Ever tried to judge heights and distances in Condor? Close
to impossible - at close range things look completely different in
real life.
Quick scanning is absolutely necessary - the pilot needs to turn the
head to get a quick overview. When flying his approach (especially if
he flies a teardrop turn at low altitude in order to turn back to the
runway) he needs to be able to look back over his shoulder and keep
the glider under control at the same time. He must be able to quickly
turn his head, scan horizon position, airspeed indicator, yaw string,
then look back to the runway, judge his position and his turning
radius, and so on.

The ability to do this correctly is going to save his life. This is a
technique that must be practiced.
Simulate this on a 22" screen? No way. You need a dome with a 360
degrees field of view to simulate this.

Any instructor knows that nearly all pilots who are flying a turn at
low altitude tend to keep the wings as level as possible and use the
rudder to turn the nose into the desired heading - the yaw string is
pointing inwards in such a turn. Get too slow, and even the most
benign glider will spin immediately - such an uncoordinated turn is
the classic spin entry maneuvre.

One is never going to see such a mistake on a 22" screen - the
experience on a PC sim is simply missing the imaginary fear that a
wing tip could touch the ground (this is the cause for such an
uncoordinated turn: The pilot wants to keep the lower wing tip as far
as possible from the ground, therefore turns too shallow, therefore he
has to use something else to get his nose pointed into the desired
direction: Voila, the rudder! Usually he's task saturated in such a
situation - he simply does not recognize that the yaw string points
into the wrong direction).

It is incredible what mistakes are being made by task-saturated
pilots, even if there's an instructor on board.
None of these mistakes are made at the desk, steering a glider on a
22" screen with a $50 joystick, a keyboard and no fear of dying.

So the two most important things cannot be taught on a PC sim:
- Precise judgement of the situation, situation awareness
- Fly the plane under severe stress

Of course one can show the student pilot the possible maneuvres on a
PC sim - but as long as there's no access to a flight simulator with a
360 degrees field of view and photo-realistic graphics, the student
pilot MUST experience a rope break simulation in a real glider.

>I can pretty much guarantee you
>that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
>indistinguishable from their reaction in real life.

In my experience - they stay cool, fly whatever maneuvre they have
decided, and try again if it does not work.
In real life they are scared to death and make mistakes they'd never
make on a PC.

> Moreover, the
>situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
>hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
>off-airport landing - try that in real life!

In real life the pilot thinks about the value of the glider he's about
to trash - voila, stress! Won't happen on the PC.

>After 10 or 20 (or 100)
>SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
>procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
>corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
>a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

..... and after he's done some real-life rope-break procedures.
I think that a PC based simulator like Condor could support real-life
training, but never replace it.

>For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
>have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
>effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

What is effective in saving lives is to teach the student pilot the
correct techniques to master such a situation. Show him in a realistic
enviroment how to keep things under control.

Let him experience that even a rope-break at a critical height is
something that gives him enough time to assess a situation and make a
decision for a safe landing. Once he has got the feeling that he is
always in control, he'll loose most of his nervousness - stay calm,
and fly a lot better.

This self-confidence can only be taught inflight, not in a $300 PC
game on a 22" screen.

I am pretty sure that this could also be taught in a simulator with a
cockpit and a view system that closele resembles reality - but then we
are talking about an impressive five-digit $ sum.

I tend to think that such a sum would better be used to (re-)train
instructors to perform *safe* rope-break training.
I have to admit that some of the stories I read in this thread made my
hairs stand up.

Andreas

Tony V

July 13th 11, 12:33 AM

On 7/12/2011 7:24 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
>> Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
>> aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
>> simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
>> procedures
>
> True.
> But maybe you noticed that the hardware these guys are using is not
> exactly in your $300 price range.... :)

When you tell a student to push the nose down when he's already seeing
individual leaves in stunning detail..... well, I'd like to see that
simulated effectively. As others have said - there's a place for both.

Tony V.

Tony V

July 13th 11, 12:36 AM

On 7/12/2011 12:41 PM, Andy wrote:

>> Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
>> turn back to the airport.
>
>> You have to wait until you have enough
>> airspeed to pull that off.
>>
>
> Why? If the simulated break is made at normal tow speed there is
> sufficient speed to start the turn immediately.

Because most students don't start the turn immediately. Tye typical
reaction time is 3 seconds - with the nose high. The nose pointing down
does not necessarily mean that you can turn safely is all that I'm saying.

Tony

Bruce Hoult

July 13th 11, 01:48 AM

On Jul 13, 11:36*am, Tony V > wrote:
> On 7/12/2011 12:41 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> >> Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
> >> turn back to the airport.
>
> >> You have to wait until you have enough
> >> airspeed to pull that off.
>
> > Why? *If the simulated break is made at normal tow speed there is
> > sufficient speed to start the turn immediately.
>
> Because most students don't start the turn immediately. Tye typical
> reaction time is 3 seconds - with the nose high. The nose pointing down
> does not necessarily mean that you can turn safely is all that I'm saying..

That's far too long a reaction time and can surely be reduced.

The nose pointed up doesn't mean you can't turn safely. A typical
glass glider with 40 knot stall being towed at 65 - 70 knots can do a
chandelle[1] to accomplish the turn, for heaven's sake!

Stall/spin isn't about nose attitude, it isn't about speed, it's ALL
about stick position.

[1] "wing over" to USians I think -- I don't mean hammerhead/stall
turn.

glider LT

July 13th 11, 02:06 AM

On 7/11/2011 5:38 PM, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-targu-jedna-osoba-nie-zyj,1,4788508,region-wiadomosc.html
> http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozbil_sie_przy_lotnisku _w_Nowym_Targu.html

While there will be some interesting discussions about the
safety/usefulness of this type of emergency training, I've recently
become a fan. Last weekend we had the a Pawnee suddenly become a glider
when the engine seized at 800' on tow. Fortunately, we had a well
trained glider pilot in the tow plane, and he made a successful 180 to
downwind dead-stick landing. The glider flew a full pattern to normal
landing.

We are grateful that 2 pilots well-trained in emergency procedures had
such a successful and safe outcome.

T[_2_]

July 13th 11, 02:41 AM

On Jul 12, 6:06*pm, glider LT > wrote:
> On 7/11/2011 5:38 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-...
> >http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozb...
>
> While there will be some interesting discussions about the
> safety/usefulness of this type of emergency training, I've recently
> become a fan. Last weekend we had the a Pawnee suddenly become a glider
> when the engine seized at 800' on tow. Fortunately, we had a well
> trained glider pilot in the tow plane, and he made a successful 180 to
> downwind dead-stick landing. The glider flew a full pattern to normal
> landing.
>
> We are grateful that 2 pilots well-trained in emergency procedures had
> such a successful and safe outcome.

I was towing in the Pawnee with a student pilot, solo, in the 2-33. I
experienced a strong vibration that appeared to generate from the
engine. We were climbing through about 150ft AGL, and climbing the
engine responding to the throttle but not reducing the vibration. I
kept the student on tow until 250 ft AGL and calmly called on the
radio, "call sign, release, release, release". The student pulled his
release and executed a perfect 180 to a downwind landing, I reduced
power, completed my own low downwind, watched him safely land and then
turned close in to land into the wind.

A safe outcome was never in doubt knowing the student had received the
training required. I just had to hope that the engine would hold
together for me to get the student to a safe return altitude.

I had a stuck valve on the Pawnee that received the proper maintenance
before continued towing.

T

Cats

July 13th 11, 08:01 AM

On Jul 12, 3:11*am, Tony V > wrote:
<snip>
>
> Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
> turn back to the airport. You have to wait until you have enough
> airspeed to pull that off. Something that gets drilled into every winch
> student (I hope).

Interesting. In my own glider a typical tow speed is somewhat above
best l/d speed so the first things would be to lift the nose slightly
and trim for approach speed. It's a typical 15m unflapped glass
glider so 60 knots is fine, typical tow speeds are 70-80 knots.

[email protected]

July 13th 11, 12:12 PM

On Jul 13, 3:01*am, Cats > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:11*am, Tony V > wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
> > turn back to the airport. You have to wait until you have enough
> > airspeed to pull that off. Something that gets drilled into every winch
> > student (I hope).
>
> Interesting. *In my own glider a typical tow speed is somewhat above
> best l/d speed so the first things would be to lift the nose slightly
> and trim for approach speed. *It's a typical 15m unflapped glass
> glider so 60 knots is fine, typical tow speeds are 70-80 knots.

Yes, tow speeds are usually greater than approach speeds.....this
means simply that you have "energy" in speed....

In practice at altitude, we often make a 180 degree turn off of tow,
with no loss of altitude.....and just a slight loss of speed...as you
say, staying at or above best l/d speed..We can even do a gently
climbing turn off tow, at altitude, and gain maybe 100' while slowing
from tow speed to best l/d or even slow to min sink. But I would not
recommend this near the ground.

Another point to consider, the faster the speed in a turn, the larger
the radius of turn......there may be some benefit to a slightly slower
turn (but not too slow).

We know that angle of attack is the concern in stall avoidance....any
stall spin accident off of low rope break has to have had too much
angle of attack, one way or another....This means too much stick back
pressure....This is why I like to see an obvious stick forward and
nose pitch down reaction upon rope break.....also smooth control
inputs....

But speed (suffecient speed) is also necessary for good control,
handling, dealing with gusts etc.

I think you did miss one slight concept however, that when we are on
tow, our attitude is slightly more nose up at a given speed, than what
the nose attidude would be at the same speed while not on
tow.......thrust is the variable ....

Most gliders tow with a slight nose up attitude....So if you release
from tow, and maintain the same nose attitude, or even raise the nose
further as you suggest, I think you will find a rapid decrease in
airspeed...not to mention that the thought of raising the nose while
turning, while low, just sends shivers down my spine.....

On a rope break, I instruct my students to establish the same nose
down attitude that would be used in a "normal" pattern. I find that
making the turn seems to work out well for most pilots, but the
decision making after the completion of the 180 is often
lacking......they do not recognize the problems associated with a down
wind landing...(use of spoiler and need for slip for instance)

Cookie

kirk.stant

July 13th 11, 02:21 PM

On Jul 12, 12:03*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 11:10*am, Berry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Andy
>
> > > > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
> > > > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
> > > > it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > > > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > > > No other info.
>
> > > Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
> > > Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
> > think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
> > you get low and slow.
>
> > Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
> > spinning in.
>
> Was about to post the same thing. * *Was pondering this very issue
> whilst giving 2-32 rides for the local FBO this weekend. * *I don't
> think I'd even contemplate a return to the runway from less than 300
> feet in that bird at max gross unless we had TONS of extra
> airspeed. * *As mentioned elswhere, there are so many variables to
> this that each flight requires its own plan.
>
> P3

Several years ago I had PTT at around 200ft while giving a ride in a
2-32. No problem making a smooth steep turn back and rolling back to
the start point. The old beast keeps energy well (it should!) so as
long as you don't waste time, and don't stall in the turn (you'll only
do that once down low in a 2-32...) it's not bad.

It helps to have smart tow pilots who tow nice and fast - there was
absolutely no need to lower the nose!

Do the math about turn rate vs sink rate - 200' is more a
psychological barrier. Practice in a sim helps here, since you can
play "what ifs" and see the results.

Best glider Schweizer ever made, IMO.

Kirk
66

[email protected]

July 13th 11, 02:52 PM

On Jul 12, 12:41*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 7:11*pm, Tony V > wrote:
>
> > On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:
>
> > Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
> > turn back to the airport.
> >You have to wait until you have enough
> > airspeed to pull that off.
>
> Why? *If the simulated break is made at normal tow speed there is
> sufficient speed to start the turn immediately.
>
> Andy

Better response that I teach is to promptly establish the required
gliding attitude, which will no doubt be somewhat mor noe low than
attitude on tow.
UH

Bill D

July 13th 11, 03:28 PM

On Jul 13, 7:21*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:03*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 11:10*am, Berry > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Andy
>
> > > > > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
> > > > > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
> > > > > it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > > > > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > > > > No other info.
>
> > > > Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
> > > > Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> > > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > > Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
> > > think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
> > > you get low and slow.
>
> > > Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
> > > spinning in.
>
> > Was about to post the same thing. * *Was pondering this very issue
> > whilst giving 2-32 rides for the local FBO this weekend. * *I don't
> > think I'd even contemplate a return to the runway from less than 300
> > feet in that bird at max gross unless we had TONS of extra
> > airspeed. * *As mentioned elswhere, there are so many variables to
> > this that each flight requires its own plan.
>
> > P3
>
> Several years ago I had PTT at around 200ft while giving a ride in a
> 2-32. *No problem making a smooth steep turn back and rolling back to
> the start point. *The old beast keeps energy well (it should!) so as
> long as you don't waste time, and don't stall in the turn (you'll only
> do that once down low in a 2-32...) it's not bad.
>
> It helps to have smart tow pilots who tow nice and fast - there was
> absolutely no need to lower the nose!
>
> Do the math about turn rate vs sink rate - 200' is more a
> psychological barrier. *Practice in a sim helps here, since you can
> play "what ifs" and see the results.
>
> Best glider Schweizer ever made, IMO.
>
> Kirk
> 66

BTDT. IIRC the 2-32's front seat occupant was a Delta captain. At
~200 AGL it went like this... What's this gizmo do? Bang! Ooops!

Frank Whiteley

July 13th 11, 06:37 PM

On Jul 12, 9:10*am, Berry > wrote:
> > > > Andy
>
> > > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
> > > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
> > > it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > > No other info.
>
> > Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
> > Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
> think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
> you get low and slow.
>
> Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
> spinning in.

Second hand unattributed report received that eye witnesses (no
comment on whether trained or untrained eyes) said the 2-32 appeared
to pitch nearly vertical after tow release, rolled 270 and went
straight in, so not what we'd normally envision. As the 2-32 has the
all flying stabilator, there are questions about the power of the trim.

Bill D

July 13th 11, 07:57 PM

On Jul 13, 11:37*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:10*am, Berry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Andy
>
> > > > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
> > > > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
> > > > it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > > > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > > > No other info.
>
> > > Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
> > > Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
> > think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
> > you get low and slow.
>
> > Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
> > spinning in.
>
> Second hand unattributed report received that eye witnesses (no
> comment on whether trained or untrained eyes) said the 2-32 appeared
> to pitch nearly vertical after tow release, rolled 270 and went
> straight in, so not what we'd normally envision. *As the 2-32 has the
> all flying stabilator, there are questions about the power of the trim.

If it's functioning correctly, the 2-32 trim is powerful, precise and
easy to use. However, like the rest of the glider, the trim system
needs regular servicing and lubrication. I've encountered some really
stiff 2-32 trim systems.

While I agree the 2-33 was the best glider Schweizer every built, they
are getting very old and need a lot of TLC.

Tony[_5_]

July 13th 11, 08:14 PM

> While I agree the 2-33 was the best glider Schweizer every built, they
> are getting very old and need a lot of TLC.

Bill! You do know that I'm going to save this and keep it for future
use :D In fact I might just get this quote printed and framed.

Frank Whiteley

July 13th 11, 08:21 PM

On Jul 13, 1:14*pm, Tony > wrote:
> > While I agree the 2-33 was the best glider Schweizer every built, they
> > are getting very old and need a lot of TLC.
>
> Bill! *You do know that I'm going to save this and keep it for future
> use :D *In fact I might just get this quote printed and framed.

clearly he fat fingered the key board;^)

Bill D

July 13th 11, 08:52 PM

Frank Whiteley

July 13th 11, 10:17 PM

On Jul 13, 11:37*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:10*am, Berry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Andy
>
> > > > The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
> > > > that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
> > > > it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
> > > > operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
> > > > No other info.
>
> > > Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
> > > Montana accident of last Friday.
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
> > think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
> > you get low and slow.
>
> > Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
> > spinning in.
>
> Second hand unattributed report received that eye witnesses (no
> comment on whether trained or untrained eyes) said the 2-32 appeared
> to pitch nearly vertical after tow release, rolled 270 and went
> straight in, so not what we'd normally envision. *As the 2-32 has the
> all flying stabilator, there are questions about the power of the trim.

http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/bigforkeagle/news/local/article_365ec1f0-aced-11e0-86a0-001cc4c03286.html

Gilbert Smith[_2_]

July 14th 11, 12:29 AM

" > wrote:

>On Jul 13, 3:01*am, Cats > wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 3:11*am, Tony V > wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>Another point to consider, the faster the speed in a turn, the larger
>the radius of turn......there may be some benefit to a slightly slower
>turn (but not too slow).

Have you ever considered a steeply banked side slipping turn ?
You may have a high rate of descent, but the radius of turn is so
small that the duration is very short, making the height loss small,
and you do not need to increase airspeed to do it.

>
>We know that angle of attack is the concern in stall avoidance....any
>stall spin accident off of low rope break has to have had too much
>angle of attack, one way or another....This means too much stick back
>pressure....This is why I like to see an obvious stick forward and
>nose pitch down reaction upon rope break.....also smooth control
>inputs....

Gilbert

Kevin Christner

July 14th 11, 03:52 AM

On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-...http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozb...

Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
even ~400ft. I have never, ever heard of one.

KJC

T[_2_]

July 14th 11, 04:06 AM

On Jul 13, 7:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-.......
>
> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> KJC

I've had a rope part after the glider was airborne but before the tow
plane lifted off. Land straight ahead.
I've had an improperly connected Schweizer hook release at about 50ft
on it's own. Land straight ahead.
And as previously reported, I've had engine problems with the tow
plane and asked the glider to release at 250ft before the engine
outright failed. (It did not fail.)

T

Tony[_5_]

July 14th 11, 06:02 AM

On Jul 13, 9:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-.......
>
> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> KJC

i was towing last year when the rope broke at somewhere about 250 feet
with our 2-22 behind. The pilot made a very excellent choice of
taking the easy more or less straight ahead into the wind landing in a
dirt field just north of the airport.

Bruce Hoult

July 14th 11, 06:07 AM

On Jul 14, 2:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.

I had a rope break 12 days ago. The glider moved about 50 ft before
coming to rest.

I've seen several similar breaks over the years.

As far as I know, our club has had precisely one rope break in the air
in the 25 years I've been a member. It happened at around 1500 or 2000
ft and the glider end or the rope and the rings dropped into an
electrical substation, which caused them to become a little unhappy.

I don't know why people are talking about landing downwind from 200ft.
When I've done practice rope breaks it's been about a 90 degree turn
onto a short downwind for the crosswind runway, but almost invariably
when you get onto base for that you figure you've got plenty of height
to turn that into a close in downwind for the active runway.
Certainly, if there's a reasonable wind (20 - 25 knots, say) then it's
easy (and better) to go right around and land upwind even if you land
a fair way up the active runway and/or still at a 20 or 30 degree
angle to it.

Darryl Ramm

July 14th 11, 07:45 AM

On Jul 13, 10:07*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
>
> > Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> > even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> I had a rope break 12 days ago. The glider moved about 50 ft before
> coming to rest.
>
> I've seen several similar breaks over the years.
>
> As far as I know, our club has had precisely one rope break in the air
> in the 25 years I've been a member. It happened at around 1500 or 2000
> ft and the glider end or the rope and the rings dropped into an
> electrical substation, which caused them to become a little unhappy.
>
> I don't know why people are talking about landing downwind from 200ft.
> When I've done practice rope breaks it's been about a 90 degree turn
> onto a short downwind for the crosswind runway, but almost invariably
> when you get onto base for that you figure you've got plenty of height
> to turn that into a close in downwind for the active runway.
> Certainly, if there's a reasonable wind (20 - 25 knots, say) then it's
> easy (and better) to go right around and land upwind even if you land
> a fair way up the active runway and/or still at a 20 or 30 degree
> angle to it.

Bruce, because many gliderports have shorter single runways. You may
be thinking of operating off long runways at larger airports with
cross runways.

Darryl

Bruce Hoult

July 14th 11, 11:28 AM

On Jul 14, 6:45*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:07*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 2:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
>
> > > Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> > > even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> > I had a rope break 12 days ago. The glider moved about 50 ft before
> > coming to rest.
>
> > I've seen several similar breaks over the years.
>
> > As far as I know, our club has had precisely one rope break in the air
> > in the 25 years I've been a member. It happened at around 1500 or 2000
> > ft and the glider end or the rope and the rings dropped into an
> > electrical substation, which caused them to become a little unhappy.
>
> > I don't know why people are talking about landing downwind from 200ft.
> > When I've done practice rope breaks it's been about a 90 degree turn
> > onto a short downwind for the crosswind runway, but almost invariably
> > when you get onto base for that you figure you've got plenty of height
> > to turn that into a close in downwind for the active runway.
> > Certainly, if there's a reasonable wind (20 - 25 knots, say) then it's
> > easy (and better) to go right around and land upwind even if you land
> > a fair way up the active runway and/or still at a 20 or 30 degree
> > angle to it.
>
> Bruce, because many gliderports have shorter single runways. You may
> be thinking of operating off long runways at larger airports with
> cross runways.

We operate off approximately 450m of grass which forms the long edge
of a right angle triangle. We do have a lot of width or varying
directions available, at the cost of a shorter available distance, but
it's hardly huge.

(the grass is surrounded by tarsealed taxiways (decommissioned
runways) which are theoretically available for undershoot/overrun, at
the cost of a "shout", but past that there is a fence and then km of
very unlandable retail complexes and houses)

[email protected]

July 14th 11, 12:39 PM

>
> Have you ever considered a steeply banked side slipping turn ?
> You may have a high rate of descent, but the radius of turn is so
> small that the duration is very short, making the height loss small,
> and you do not need to increase airspeed to do it.
>
>
> Gilbert

Slipping turn on low rope break???? (We are talking "just a bit above
200' rope break" right?)

No, I have never considered this........I see no benefit and some
serious problems.......

Steep turn (about 45 degrees bank)...yes......if you consider the
two major factors in the 180 turn, time and sink ......you come out
with around 45 degree bank as the optimum combination.....It will
yield the least loss of altitude......remember that you need to "roll
up" to 45 degrees and "roll out" to level....so its steep only in the
middle portion of the turn.

Airspeed should be approx the same as a "normal" pattern.....but no
time to be looking at the indicator, (has too much delay anyway) so
simply establish the "normal" nose slightly down attitude....and
coordinated turn...

But a slipping turn???? I don't want to loose excess altitude in the
turn......I want to complete the turn with the least possible loss of
altitude......once I "know I can make it" I reach for spoilers...
(like 3/4 the way thru the 180) then, on (downwind) final, use
spoiler as nesessary, and add slip if necessary....but no slip in the
turn!

Cookie

July 14th 11, 12:40 PM

On Jul 13, 10:52*pm, Kevin Christner >
wrote:

> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.

I had a rope break at 150' on my seventh student solo flight. I'm
glad we covered this in pre solo training.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Walt Connelly

July 14th 11, 01:52 PM

There are two things important here. 1. The importance of being ready to handle the rope break by practice. Like it or not, this can happen and the importance of planning cannot be overemphasized. Which direction do you turn? Can you make the 180 and then make the field? Do you land straight ahead? Which field do I go for? Do I mush it into the trees? These need to be thought of in advance. The two or three seconds you hesitate might cost you your life. 2. The importance of doing all we can to reduce the possibility of an actual rope break.

This confirms the need for the hook up person to be vigilant in the inspection of the rope AND rings prior to launch. What percentage of a 200 foot rope is inspected prior to each launch? How often do we take a good look at the rings, either the two on a Tost or the one on a Schweizer hook? I try to catch the rope as near to the tow plane as I can and let it flow across my pants and thru my fingers feeling for partial breaks, I have found two in the last two years. I have also seen rings which were beginning to crack, haven't seen one out on the flight line but have been shown them in the past. These things DO happen.

The myriad of things that can go wrong on tow such as drive brakes being open, canopy flying open, tail dolly left on and the like can be reduced or eliminated by using the checklist properly. The hook up guy can help to reduce these problems by being an extra set of eyes.

Maintaining proper position on tow, watching for signals from the tow plane, KNOWING the difference between a wing wag and a rudder wag can save our lives at those critical moments. Remembering too that there are at least two and sometimes three lives at stake on tow. (or 4 in a 2-32.)

To see accidents happen with DPE's, CFI-G's and otherwise experienced pilots drives home the need to remember that this can happen even to the best of pilots. If a current, experienced pilot blows it at a critical moment, what's going to happen to the guy who flies twice a year?

Walt

Berry[_2_]

July 14th 11, 04:43 PM

In article >,
Gilbert Smith > wrote:

>
> Have you ever considered a steeply banked side slipping turn ?
> You may have a high rate of descent, but the radius of turn is so
> small that the duration is very short, making the height loss small,
> and you do not need to increase airspeed to do it.
>
> >
> >We know that angle of attack is the concern in stall avoidance....any
> >stall spin accident off of low rope break has to have had too much
> >angle of attack, one way or another....This means too much stick back
> >pressure....This is why I like to see an obvious stick forward and
> >nose pitch down reaction upon rope break.....also smooth control
> >inputs....
>
> Gilbert

What is the benefit of slipping?

On the topic of a non-coordinated turn at low altitude:

This happened at the Auburn-Opelika Airport (AUO). I was present when an
old-timer CFI was instructing a friend of mine to do this or I wouldn't
have believed it. His advice for making a turn back at low altitude
after an engine failure (aircraft was a Piper Warrior):

"Keep the wings level and turn as tight as you can with just the
rudder".

That has to be the scariest thing I have ever heard an instructor say.
Far worse than the CFI-G in our club who was constantly warning students
about loss of airspeed due to turning downwind...

Brian[_1_]

July 14th 11, 04:58 PM

On Jul 13, 8:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> KJC

Actual rope breaks are pretty rare, but I think what you are trying
ask is who has had a PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) below between
200 and 400 feet. These are much more common.

Last month I terminated a tow at about 200 feet by pulling the
release. The tow plane wasn't climbing and I didn't know why. I
released and returned to the runway before we got too far away from
the runway to do so. Not a big deal since I practice this regularly
and it was a training flight anyway. Turned out the towplane was
experiencing carb ice and was fine after applying the carb heat.

I have hit turbulance on tow in my glider and got a slack rope
condition that caused a back release at about 400 feet.

The previous owner of my glider had the canopy depart the glider at
about 200 feet resulting in a broken rope and a 180 turn back to the
runway.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

BobW

July 14th 11, 05:01 PM

On 7/14/2011 5:40 AM, T8 wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:52 pm, Kevin >
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
>> even ~400ft. I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> I had a rope break at 150' on my seventh student solo flight. I'm
> glad we covered this in pre solo training.
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Per Kevin's question, "I have not," and until reading of Evan's experience,
nor had I ever heard of one since beginning participating in soaring in 1972.

That noted, I *did* experience a rope break in 1975 (15-meter glass), so weird
it stuck firmly in memory. Above 1k agl in benign air, the tug smoothly began
accelerating away/up from me, as what seemed like the entire rope sank out of
sight below. Being overhead the runway, I had no hesitation in pulling the
release (though it had probably already back released), lowered the gear
(there being no hope of remaining aloft in the flat conditions) and landed.
Subsequent inspection revealed the rope had parted where it exited a small
'bell-mouth' at the rear of the fuselage, feeding into a winch...meaning at a
portion of the rope neither wing runner or glider pilot would ever be likely
to see. What seemed weird about it to me was the rope had withstood the
(presumably far) larger tension of accelerating the glider from rest, while
parting under a very light, essentially steady-state load.

If it happens it must be possible. The same thought applies to relatively
perplexing accidents as the recent Montana 2-32 crash. Thoughtful pilots will
draw some appropriate-to-them conclusions...

One of my long-standing conclusions is I *can* screw up. Anywhere in a flight.
Hence I try to fly accordingly, especially where the margins are thin.

Bob W.

Andy[_1_]

July 14th 11, 05:43 PM

On Jul 14, 8:43*am, Berry > wrote:
> Far worse than the CFI-G in our club who was constantly warning students
> about loss of airspeed due to turning downwind...

Many people argue that this is not real and base their argument on the
fact that the glider is moving in the air so the glider does not see
the wind speed difference. While that's true it ignors the very
important point that a pilot will, particularly at low altitude, and
particularly if not monitoring the ASI and yaw string, tend to make
control inputs based on the observed movement of the glider over the
ground.

The effect is real. If you haven't experienced it be thankful. The
two fatal accident after rope breaks in strong wing conditions may be
related to this.

Andy

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

July 14th 11, 05:57 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:52:15 +0000, Walt Connelly wrote:

> There are two things important here.
> 1. The importance of being ready to handle the rope break by practice.
>
No argument here.

> Which direction do you turn?
>
This is an obvious question when winching and the answer is always the
same: downwind if there's any crosswind, because that opens the circuit
out at minimal cost.

I almost asked about it earlier in the thread and then decided that was
obvious - you'd turn the same way as usual because that's what the tow
pilot is expecting. So, is this the correct answer and, if not, what is?

> If a current, experienced pilot blows it at a critical
> moment, what's going to happen to the guy who flies twice a year?
>
At my club he'd be given a mandatory check flight if he hadn't flown for
more than a month and rocked up expecting to fly solo.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Andy[_1_]

July 14th 11, 06:13 PM

On Jul 14, 9:57*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:

>I almost asked about it earlier in the thread and then decided that was
>obvious - you'd turn the same way as usual because that's what the tow
>pilot is expecting. So, is this the correct answer and, if not, what is?

With a crosswind and only the takeoff runway as a landing option the
choice should usually be into the wind.

A turn into a crosswind will reduce the deviation of the glider from
the extended runway centre line and reduce the distance required to
return to the runway centre line for landing. It therefore reduces
the altitude loss for the course reversal.

Imagine a 90 deg cross wind that equals the glider's airspeed. A turn
into wind can be accomplished on the runway extended center line. Now
consider how far the glider must go to complete the turn if made
downwind.

Andy

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

July 14th 11, 09:57 PM

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:13:53 -0700, Andy wrote:

> On Jul 14, 9:57Â*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>>I almost asked about it earlier in the thread and then decided that was
>>obvious - you'd turn the same way as usual because that's what the tow
>>pilot is expecting. So, is this the correct answer and, if not, what is?
>
> With a crosswind and only the takeoff runway as a landing option the
> choice should usually be into the wind.
>
> A turn into a crosswind will reduce the deviation of the glider from the
> extended runway centre line and reduce the distance required to return
> to the runway centre line for landing. It therefore reduces the
> altitude loss for the course reversal.
>
> Imagine a 90 deg cross wind that equals the glider's airspeed. A turn
> into wind can be accomplished on the runway extended center line. Now
> consider how far the glider must go to complete the turn if made
> downwind.
>
I initially thought into wind, i.e. opposite to what I'd mentally run
through in my pre-winch-launch eventualities, was the answer.

Then it occurred to me that, if the cross wind was such that turning into
it caused you to turn opposite to the local aero tow release convention
and the tow pilot wasn't looking or was dealing with a situation at his
end that had forced the tow to be abandoned, you could easily end up in
conflict with the tow plane. Not a good place to be.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Berry[_2_]

July 14th 11, 10:08 PM

In article
>,
Andy > wrote:

> On Jul 14, 8:43*am, Berry > wrote:
> > Far worse than the CFI-G in our club who was constantly warning students
> > about loss of airspeed due to turning downwind...
>
>
> Many people argue that this is not real and base their argument on the
> fact that the glider is moving in the air so the glider does not see
> the wind speed difference. While that's true it ignors the very
> important point that a pilot will, particularly at low altitude, and
> particularly if not monitoring the ASI and yaw string, tend to make
> control inputs based on the observed movement of the glider over the
> ground.
>
> The effect is real. If you haven't experienced it be thankful. The
> two fatal accident after rope breaks in strong wing conditions may be
> related to this.
>
> Andy

Slaps head: I knew I should not have mentioned the "downwind turn".

Ventus_a

July 14th 11, 10:34 PM

;777049']On Jul 14, 9:57*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

I almost asked about it earlier in the thread and then decided that was
obvious - you'd turn the same way as usual because that's what the tow
pilot is expecting. So, is this the correct answer and, if not, what is?

With a crosswind and only the takeoff runway as a landing option the
choice should usually be into the wind.

A turn into a crosswind will reduce the deviation of the glider from
the extended runway centre line and reduce the distance required to
return to the runway centre line for landing. It therefore reduces
the altitude loss for the course reversal.

Imagine a 90 deg cross wind that equals the glider's airspeed. A turn
into wind can be accomplished on the runway extended center line. Now
consider how far the glider must go to complete the turn if made
downwind.

Andy

I can imagine a 90 degree crosswind that equals the gliders speed but I wouldn't be taking off under those conditions. If the wind is that strong I would need to be pointing very much into wind. Had takeoffs and landing in both my Ventus a and Nimbus 3D at 18 - 21 knots at 45 degrees to runway and out landing field alike and there wasn't much directional control left.

Your illustration has little practical value.

Subject to local variations I would agree with Martin that a downwind turn in crosswind conditions is often the better option as it enables you to fly a teardrop pattern to the centreline more easily.

Cheers
Colin

T[_2_]

July 15th 11, 01:40 AM

On Jul 14, 10:13*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:57*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
> >I almost asked about it earlier in the thread and then decided that was
> >obvious - you'd turn the same way as usual because that's what the tow
> >pilot is expecting. So, is this the correct answer and, if not, what is?
>
> With a crosswind and only the takeoff runway as a landing option the
> choice should usually be into the wind.
>
> A turn into a crosswind will reduce the deviation of the glider from
> the extended runway centre line and reduce the distance required to
> return to the runway centre line for landing. *It therefore reduces
> the altitude loss for the course reversal.
>
> Imagine a 90 deg cross wind that equals the glider's airspeed. *A turn
> into wind can be accomplished on the runway extended center line. *Now
> consider how far the glider must go to complete the turn if made
> downwind.
>
> Andy

We have parallel runways, gliders on one side, powered traffic on the
other, with opposite side traffic patterns that separates power from
glider traffic.

We always brief to turn away from the other runway to avoid a possible
headon with traffic you may not have heard on the radio.

T

Bruce Hoult

July 15th 11, 02:02 AM

On Jul 15, 4:43*am, Andy > wrote:
> While that's true it ignors the very
> important point that a pilot will, particularly at low altitude, and
> particularly if not monitoring the ASI and yaw string, *tend to make
> control inputs based on the observed movement of the glider over the
> ground.
>
> The effect is real. *If you haven't experienced it be thankful. *The
> two fatal accident after rope breaks in strong wing conditions may be
> related to this.

Don't you people have ridges?

I don't think anyone would be likely to get to solo here without being
very aware that the direction the glider is pointing has little to do
with the direction it is moving, and having experienced this a number
of times in 20+ knots winds, at low level, while doing a lot of 180
degree turns, with the instructor pointing it out if the string didn't
stay in the middle.

BobW

July 15th 11, 02:47 AM

It was noted...

>> While that's true it ignores the very
>> important point that a pilot will, particularly at low altitude, and
>> particularly if not monitoring the ASI and yaw string, tend to make
>> control inputs based on the observed movement of the glider over the
>> ground.

Not to whip a wounded horse, but this particular form of Darwinism (i.e.
"...not monitoring the ASI and yaw string") - apparently real enough per U.S.
accident lore/history - ought to serve as another reminder to
experienced/complacent/concerned pilots as to the conceptual soundness of
internalizing the fundamental thought, "This sort of accident *could* happen
to me...if I don't [do whatever] properly."

Inertial and vertical-wind-gradient effects noted, the plane does NOT know or
care what the wind-field is doing.

Bob - I believe mindset matters - W.

P.S. No need to quibble over what 'monitoring' means; if you have
useful/usable data available, using it is better than not using it when not
using it increases your chances of dying.

>>
>> The effect is real. If you haven't experienced it be thankful. The
>> two fatal accident after rope breaks in strong wing conditions may be
>> related to this.
>
> Don't you people have ridges?
>
> I don't think anyone would be likely to get to solo here without being
> very aware that the direction the glider is pointing has little to do
> with the direction it is moving, and having experienced this a number
> of times in 20+ knots winds, at low level, while doing a lot of 180
> degree turns, with the instructor pointing it out if the string didn't
> stay in the middle.

Tom Stock

July 15th 11, 03:48 AM

Berry > wrote:
> In article >,
> Gilbert Smith > wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you ever considered a steeply banked side slipping turn ?
>> You may have a high rate of descent, but the radius of turn is so
>> small that the duration is very short, making the height loss small,
>> and you do not need to increase airspeed to do it.
>>
>>>
>>> We know that angle of attack is the concern in stall avoidance....any
>>> stall spin accident off of low rope break has to have had too much
>>> angle of attack, one way or another....This means too much stick back
>>> pressure....This is why I like to see an obvious stick forward and
>>> nose pitch down reaction upon rope break.....also smooth control
>>> inputs....
>>
>> Gilbert
>
> What is the benefit of slipping?
>
>

To keep the inside wing from stalling during the turn? I have read a few
articles which recommend "slightly" slipping in a turn to prevent a tip
stall. A few other articles which pointed out that for the yaw string to
be straight in a turn, too much rudder needed to be input (because addition
of thr the sink rate shows the yaw string offset to the outside)

Tom Stock

July 15th 11, 03:48 AM

> I don't know why people are talking about landing downwind from 200ft.
> When I've done practice rope breaks it's been about a 90 degree turn
> onto a short downwind for the crosswind runway, but almost invariably
> when you get onto base for that you figure you've got plenty of height
> to turn that into a close in downwind for the active runway.
> Certainly, if there's a reasonable wind (20 - 25 knots, say) then it's
> easy (and better) to go right around and land upwind even if you land
> a fair way up the active runway and/or still at a 20 or 30 degree
> angle to it.

How tall are the trees around your glider port?

Bruce Hoult

July 15th 11, 07:48 AM

On Jul 15, 2:48*pm, Tom Stock > wrote:
> > I don't know why people are talking about landing downwind from 200ft.
> > When I've done practice rope breaks it's been about a 90 degree turn
> > onto a short downwind for the crosswind runway, but almost invariably
> > when you get onto base for that you figure you've got plenty of height
> > to turn that into a close in downwind for the active runway.
> > Certainly, if there's a reasonable wind (20 - 25 knots, say) then it's
> > easy (and better) to go right around and land upwind even if you land
> > a fair way up the active runway and/or still at a 20 or 30 degree
> > angle to it.
>
> How tall are the trees around your glider port?

I've flown from a dozen or so gliding sites around New Zealand, plus
in the USA I've visited California City, Tehachapi, Turf Soaring,
Estrella, Chicago GC.

At none of them were trees a significant factor in PTT.

That's not to say that none of them had trees. Far from it, especially
here in NZ, but also at CGC.

Jim Meade

July 15th 11, 02:36 PM

A good friend of mine, Don Gurnett, suffered a rope break at about 150
feet on tow at a competition and he was loaded with water ballast. He
said he turned back and started dumping instantly and was able to land
on a taxi-way in a crowded environement.

Prof. Tom Schnell of the Universtiy of Iowa Operators Performance
Laboratory, a glider pilot, but the way, gave a talk last week about a
training device they are working on with the Navy. It involves real,
simulated and constructed (artificially simulated) flight. He wires
the test pilots with all kinds of electrodes on the head and torso.
They use either a 3 or 1 screen sophisticated simulator and also
actually fly the back seat of an L-29. The test pilots are mostly
National Guard fighter pilots. Dr. Schnell showed a number of
graphics which showed the increased stress level displayed in various
simulated and actual situaitons. He repeated a number of times that
the brain knows when you are truly at risk and that it is very hard to
get the simulator to duplicate the stresses a pilot feels when really
at physical risk. (One way is considerable task overload.)

I was impressed that simulators may let one practice certain maneuvers
or deal with certain situations in a non-risk environment, but
performing a give way in the simulator does not mean the body will
react the same way when it knows there is physical risk. I am not
saying simulators are not useful. I am only saying they are not
necessarily 100% predictive. Yes, I know that new airline pilots get
their training in a simulator and their first real flight is a revenue
flight.

Here is the OPL site. http://www.ccad.uiowa.edu/opl/

Grider Pirate[_2_]

July 15th 11, 03:57 PM

On Jul 13, 7:52*pm, Kevin Christner > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
>
> > On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> > crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> > instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> > tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> > landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> > What can we learn from this?
> > Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> > Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> > Review to avoid getting killed?
> > I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> > the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> > from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> > for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> >http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-.......
>
> Can anyone tell me if they've had an actual rope break below ~200 or
> even ~400ft. *I have never, ever heard of one.
>
> KJC

I have had ONE actual rope break below 400' on Aero tow. I have had
more than a few actual rope breaks below 200' while taking a ground
(auto) tow.

Frank Whiteley

July 16th 11, 07:22 AM

On Jul 15, 11:55*am, Dave White > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 9:43*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 8:43*am, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
>
> > Frank, Hank:
>
> > You're both right. The key here is to separate the two things that are
> > learned by this training 1) practicing the maneuvers you will execute
> > to recover from a low-altitude rope break or other PTT event 2)
> > understanding and practicing the psychological part of reacting to any
> > emergency situation.
>
> > Hank's right that #2 is really not well simulated in Condor. *But
> > Frank is right that #1 can be practiced a lot in Condor, and then
> > executing maneuvers will be much easier in the air.
>
> > The same approach is useful, I think, for flight training. At our
> > club, most of our instructors no longer do a lot of unannounced 200
> > foot rope breaks. This mixes #1 and #2, creating a "real" emergency.
>
> > Instead, we brief, demonstrate and have students practice 200 foot
> > rope breaks, so they are comfortable with the maneuver required.
> > Believe me, the first 4-5 times, "you're going to do a 200 foot rope
> > break on this flight" keeps the adrenaline level up high enough!
>
> > We also *give them lots *of practice with unplanned emergencies, but
> > all at reasonable altitude. 500' rope breaks, engine failures,
> > spoilers coming out; "ok the spoiliers are stuck out/closed, now land
> > it", pretending half the runway is suddenly unusable, and so on are
> > all great exercises.
>
> > If you've got the mechanical skills to do a planned 200 foot break
> > flawlessly, and the emergency-handling skills to do all the higher-
> > altitude emergencies with aplomb, you're fairly prepared. We can
> > discuss whether practicing an actual combination, an unplanned 200'
> > rope break, is a useful final sanding, or an invitation to practice
> > stall/spin recovery from 200 feet. But at least we should get to that
> > point by practicing the mechanical skill and the emergency-handling
> > skill separately.
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> Some additional points--first, like all simulators, Condor is a
> PROCEDURES trainer. *You learn the steps to take so they become
> automatic in the real world, which is far different from a
> simulation. *I have and use Condor for many purposes, and have set up
> a Condor simulator at my club. *It is a great piece of software for
> training and practice, but it is not the real world--hot, noisy,
> bouncing around, and generally not acting like the computer said it
> would.
>
> Second, the best way to avoid being killed in a glider is to stay out
> of them. *Refusing to do a particular event on the basis that you
> might get hurt is simply nonsense (and I would not sign off a flight
> review for someone who refused to do a rope break). *You may convince
> an instructor that you don't wish to do a 200' PT3 (Premature
> Termination of the Tow) but that won't convince the rope or weak link
> or tow hook to protect you at all times. *Would you rather your first
> PT3 in a long time be a solo surprise? *That's why we practice them--
> so training will get you past the "What the *&^%^*#@ just happened?"
> phase to a successful landing!
>
> Third, remember that the glider doesn't know what altitude it's at.
> You do. *If you memorize and do the immediate actions*, then fly a
> coordinated glider through a pre-planned profile, you should be quite
> successful and stress-free during the maneuver. *The previous posters
> have made the point that there is a time and a place for practicing
> 200 foot PT3s--their cautions are to be observed and considered in
> preparing to do one. * Think about it--if the rope breaks at a higher
> altitude and you do an abbreviated downwind return, you still will
> likely end up doing that same 180-degree turn to final from 200 feet
> AGL! *The very same maneuver you would do at the other end of the
> runway, with the same temptations to skid around the turn cause those
> trees are so BIG!
>
> Finally, in teaching PT3s, I believe that the initial ones should
> always be pre-briefed and not surprises until an acceptable level of
> proficiency is reached. *After that, and on flight reviews, it can
> happen at any time. *Just like in the real world! *(BTW, on FRs, a PT3
> does count as a pattern altitude flight, and does in fact satisfy the
> FAR requirement.)
>
> *Here is one version of Immediate Actions for a PT3: *Lower the nose,
> check airspeed. *Verify altitude. *Start a 45-degree bank turn in the
> shortest direction toward the runway. *Pull the release twice. *(Once
> all that stuff is done and you get eyes on the runway, you can *re-
> evaluate your plan and do the pre-landing checklist.)

Appears there was another PTT fatality today.

http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-Crash

Recently reported as sold on W&W

BruceGreeff

July 16th 11, 01:16 PM

Fairly routinely - On my last instruction checkout the CFI wanted to
ensure the trees were not bothering me. So we had an on-purpose PT3 at
300 feet. Then we did some "stuff", then we get sent to land from the
most unbelievable position possible - so we end up doing the approach to
the runway from below treetop level, on the far side of the line of
trees (80 foot Eucalypus) on the property boundary that end at the
threshold. Twin Astir at 50 feet agl - going the wrong way, Rocks and
bushes and fences below, irrigation pivots in the field ahead.
Fly around them and land on the runway is the only option.

Certainly focusses you on flying co-ordinated and getting it right first
time and all that.

Prepares you for those moments when you or a student have just made the
perfectly wrong decision. Far better to be discovering that you can get
home without breaking anything with the 8700 hour noisy baggage in the
back than on your own.
Far better to have done a couple of these so that you know what you can
and can't do.

I have seen a couple of gliders damaged because the pilot was sure that
they had run out of options and HAD to get it down now - when there was
still ample opportunity to make a considered choice and land somewhere
else safely...
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

T[_2_]

July 17th 11, 03:52 AM

On Jul 15, 11:22*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:55*am, Dave White > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 9:43*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 12, 8:43*am, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
>
> > > Frank, Hank:
>
> > > You're both right. The key here is to separate the two things that are
> > > learned by this training 1) practicing the maneuvers you will execute
> > > to recover from a low-altitude rope break or other PTT event 2)
> > > understanding and practicing the psychological part of reacting to any
> > > emergency situation.
>
> > > Hank's right that #2 is really not well simulated in Condor. *But
> > > Frank is right that #1 can be practiced a lot in Condor, and then
> > > executing maneuvers will be much easier in the air.
>
> > > The same approach is useful, I think, for flight training. At our
> > > club, most of our instructors no longer do a lot of unannounced 200
> > > foot rope breaks. This mixes #1 and #2, creating a "real" emergency.
>
> > > Instead, we brief, demonstrate and have students practice 200 foot
> > > rope breaks, so they are comfortable with the maneuver required.
> > > Believe me, the first 4-5 times, "you're going to do a 200 foot rope
> > > break on this flight" keeps the adrenaline level up high enough!
>
> > > We also *give them lots *of practice with unplanned emergencies, but
> > > all at reasonable altitude. 500' rope breaks, engine failures,
> > > spoilers coming out; "ok the spoiliers are stuck out/closed, now land
> > > it", pretending half the runway is suddenly unusable, and so on are
> > > all great exercises.
>
> > > If you've got the mechanical skills to do a planned 200 foot break
> > > flawlessly, and the emergency-handling skills to do all the higher-
> > > altitude emergencies with aplomb, you're fairly prepared. We can
> > > discuss whether practicing an actual combination, an unplanned 200'
> > > rope break, is a useful final sanding, or an invitation to practice
> > > stall/spin recovery from 200 feet. But at least we should get to that
> > > point by practicing the mechanical skill and the emergency-handling
> > > skill separately.
>
> > > John Cochrane
>
> > Some additional points--first, like all simulators, Condor is a
> > PROCEDURES trainer. *You learn the steps to take so they become
> > automatic in the real world, which is far different from a
> > simulation. *I have and use Condor for many purposes, and have set up
> > a Condor simulator at my club. *It is a great piece of software for
> > training and practice, but it is not the real world--hot, noisy,
> > bouncing around, and generally not acting like the computer said it
> > would.
>
> > Second, the best way to avoid being killed in a glider is to stay out
> > of them. *Refusing to do a particular event on the basis that you
> > might get hurt is simply nonsense (and I would not sign off a flight
> > review for someone who refused to do a rope break). *You may convince
> > an instructor that you don't wish to do a 200' PT3 (Premature
> > Termination of the Tow) but that won't convince the rope or weak link
> > or tow hook to protect you at all times. *Would you rather your first
> > PT3 in a long time be a solo surprise? *That's why we practice them--
> > so training will get you past the "What the *&^%^*#@ just happened?"
> > phase to a successful landing!
>
> > Third, remember that the glider doesn't know what altitude it's at.
> > You do. *If you memorize and do the immediate actions*, then fly a
> > coordinated glider through a pre-planned profile, you should be quite
> > successful and stress-free during the maneuver. *The previous posters
> > have made the point that there is a time and a place for practicing
> > 200 foot PT3s--their cautions are to be observed and considered in
> > preparing to do one. * Think about it--if the rope breaks at a higher
> > altitude and you do an abbreviated downwind return, you still will
> > likely end up doing that same 180-degree turn to final from 200 feet
> > AGL! *The very same maneuver you would do at the other end of the
> > runway, with the same temptations to skid around the turn cause those
> > trees are so BIG!
>
> > Finally, in teaching PT3s, I believe that the initial ones should
> > always be pre-briefed and not surprises until an acceptable level of
> > proficiency is reached. *After that, and on flight reviews, it can
> > happen at any time. *Just like in the real world! *(BTW, on FRs, a PT3
> > does count as a pattern altitude flight, and does in fact satisfy the
> > FAR requirement.)
>
> > *Here is one version of Immediate Actions for a PT3: *Lower the nose,
> > check airspeed. *Verify altitude. *Start a 45-degree bank turn in the
> > shortest direction toward the runway. *Pull the release twice. *(Once
> > all that stuff is done and you get eyes on the runway, you can *re-
> > evaluate your plan and do the pre-landing checklist.)
>
> Appears there was another PTT fatality today.
>
> http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-C...
>
> Recently reported as sold on W&W

I saw the video, no sound. But the printed article is worthless. All
speculation, look what we tripped over reporting.
Two seat glider? Tow plane involved? Details?
T

T[_2_]

July 17th 11, 03:56 AM

On Jul 16, 5:16*am, BruceGreeff > wrote:
> Fairly routinely - On my last instruction checkout the CFI wanted to
> ensure the trees were not bothering me. So we had an on-purpose PT3 at
> 300 feet. Then we did some "stuff", then we get sent to land from the
> most unbelievable position possible - so we end up doing the approach to
> the runway from below treetop level, on the far side of the line of
> trees (80 foot Eucalypus) on the property boundary that end at the
> threshold. Twin Astir at 50 feet agl - going the wrong way, Rocks and
> bushes and fences below, irrigation pivots in the field ahead.
> Fly around them and land on the runway is the only option.
>
> Certainly focusses you on flying co-ordinated and getting it right first
> time and all that.
>
> Prepares you for those moments when you or a student have just made the
> perfectly wrong decision. Far better to be discovering that you can get
> home without breaking anything with the 8700 hour noisy baggage in the
> back than on your own.
> Far better to have done a couple of these so that you know what you can
> and can't do.
>
> I have seen a couple of gliders damaged because the pilot was sure that
> they had run out of options and HAD to get it down now - when there was
> still ample opportunity to make a considered choice and land somewhere
> else safely...
> --
> Bruce Greeff
> T59D #1771

A little extreme, but the CFI has obviously done this before. If you
still have L/d to the field, and know you can fit through or around
the trees.

We concentrate on "landing anywhere on the field that's safe" it does
not always have to be "on the runway."
T

Frank Whiteley

July 17th 11, 08:12 AM

On Jul 16, 8:52*pm, T > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 11:22*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:

>
> > Appears there was another PTT fatality today.
>
> >http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-C...
>
> > Recently reported as sold on W&W
>
> I saw the video, no sound. But the printed article is worthless. All
> speculation, look what we tripped over reporting.
> Two seat glider? Tow plane involved? Details?
> T

http://www.somdnews.com/article/20110715/NEWS/707159523/1074/1074/st-mary-8217-s-glider-crash-kills-one-survivor-climbs-to-safety&template=southernMaryland

As always, these articles are poorly written. This one implies a
release at low level shortly after take off.

F

Walt Connelly

July 17th 11, 01:56 PM

On Jul 16, 8:52*pm, T wrote:
On Jul 15, 11:22*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Appears there was another PTT fatality today.

http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-C...

Recently reported as sold on W&W

I saw the video, no sound. But the printed article is worthless. All
speculation, look what we tripped over reporting.
Two seat glider? Tow plane involved? Details?
T

http://www.somdnews.com/article/20110715/NEWS/707159523/1074/1074/st-mary-8217-s-glider-crash-kills-one-survivor-climbs-to-safety&template=southernMaryland

As always, these articles are poorly written. This one implies a
release at low level shortly after take off.

F

Accuracy in reporting does not seem to be important anymore. We can learn from these things but what we learn might be tempered by the inaccuracy of the information. As I pointed out in another post, even the FAA doesn't seem to be able to accurately describe an incident. If it can't get the runway on which the accident occurred correct, how can it be relied upon to get the cause correct?

Walt

Frank Whiteley

July 17th 11, 08:56 PM

On Jul 17, 6:56*am, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Frank Whiteley;777228 Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 8:52*pm, T wrote:-
> > On Jul 15, 11:22*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:-
> > -
> > -
> > Appears there was another PTT fatality today.-
> > -
> >http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-C...
> > -
> > Recently reported as sold on W&W-
>
> > I saw the video, no sound. But the printed article is worthless. All
> > speculation, look what we tripped over reporting.
> > Two seat glider? Tow plane involved? Details?
> > T-
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/4xvnwb4
>
> > As always, these articles are poorly written. *This one implies a
> > release at low level shortly after take off.
>
> > F
>
> Accuracy in reporting does not seem to be important anymore. * We can
> learn from these things but what we learn might be tempered by the
> inaccuracy of the information. *As I pointed out in another post, even
> the FAA doesn't seem to be able to accurately describe an incident. *If
> it can't get the runway on which the accident occurred correct, how can
> it be relied upon to get the cause correct? *
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Victim-in-Fatal-Glider-Crash-Identified-125712073.html
Describes a low level tow release.

From the reports and videos, the crash site can be located on GE to
38°18'49.94"N 76°32'8.78"W

That's about 2075 feet from the end of the runway and about 285 feet
left of the runway center line.
One report mentioned the glider turned left before striking the tree.

There's a line of trees bordering the airport in the GE images.
Summer foliage along Hwy235 is definitely heavier than the GE images,
which are over four years old, dated 3/29/2007.

Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
glider. I'm just sayin'.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

bob goodwin

July 17th 11, 10:32 PM

On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-...http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozb...

My experience with simulated rope breaks is that it is very important.
After crossing 200 AGL you should have plenty of altitude to make a
safe 180. When i got the runway in sight i noticed i was very high
even. It is just important to stay coordinated and keep your speed

Andy[_1_]

July 17th 11, 11:35 PM

On Jul 17, 2:32*pm, bob goodwin > wrote:

> After crossing 200 AGL you should have plenty of altitude to make a
> safe 180.

There is nothing magic about 200ft. It's quite possible that at 200ft
a turn back just isn't possible. Practice rope breaks must be made
at a point where the instructor *knows* a safe turn back can be made.
Instructors who always pull the plug at 200ft, regardless of wind,
sink, and distance from the airport will eventually kill someone.

I have made tows in a ballasted glider where a turn back would not
have been safe for most the tow. At least one of those times the
contest chief tow pilot was persuaded to change the tow pattern.

Andy

BruceGreeff

July 18th 11, 07:26 AM

It is extreme. That is the point of flying with an instructor - you get
to learn by doing things you would not try on your own.

Its the same for the student who flies with me. The first time I shut up
all through the flight and let them make the decisions is probably also
"extreme" for them.

Said instructor has ~9000 hours experience. He has done many things
before - the lesson on this occasion was that I had been waaay too
conservative in my flying with the Twins. So he put me in a position
where it was safe to get home, but I would have no option but to use
pretty much all of the available performance.

Great learning experience. You want to avoid cowboys, but the guy who
has been doing this for 30+ years without injury to person or aircraft
is a good bet. So - I have done many extreme things with this
instructor, but never experienced fear. Some others have scared me with
their lack of judgement doing much more mundane flying...

> A little extreme, but the CFI has obviously done this before. If you
> still have L/d to the field, and know you can fit through or around
> the trees.
>
> We concentrate on "landing anywhere on the field that's safe" it does
> not always have to be "on the runway."
> T

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Frank Whiteley

July 21st 11, 08:26 PM

On Jul 17, 1:56*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 6:56*am, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Frank Whiteley;777228 Wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 8:52*pm, T wrote:-
> > > On Jul 15, 11:22*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:-
> > > -
> > > -
> > > Appears there was another PTT fatality today.-
> > > -
> > >http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-C....
> > > -
> > > Recently reported as sold on W&W-
>
> > > I saw the video, no sound. But the printed article is worthless. All
> > > speculation, look what we tripped over reporting.
> > > Two seat glider? Tow plane involved? Details?
> > > T-
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/4xvnwb4
>
> > > As always, these articles are poorly written. *This one implies a
> > > release at low level shortly after take off.
>
> > > F
>
> > Accuracy in reporting does not seem to be important anymore. * We can
> > learn from these things but what we learn might be tempered by the
> > inaccuracy of the information. *As I pointed out in another post, even
> > the FAA doesn't seem to be able to accurately describe an incident. *If
> > it can't get the runway on which the accident occurred correct, how can
> > it be relied upon to get the cause correct? *
>
> > Walt
>
> > --
> > Walt Connelly
>
> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Victim-in-Fatal-Glider-Cra...
> Describes a low level tow release.
>
> From the reports and videos, the crash site can be located on GE to
> *38°18'49.94"N * 76°32'8.78"W
>
> That's about 2075 feet from the end of the runway and about 285 feet
> left of the runway center line.
> One report mentioned the glider turned left before striking the tree.
>
> There's a line of trees bordering the airport in the GE images.
> Summer foliage along Hwy235 is definitely heavier than the GE images,
> which are over four years old, dated 3/29/2007.
>
> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> Frank Whiteley

The rest of the story
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254

Greg Arnold[_2_]

July 21st 11, 08:39 PM

On 7/21/2011 12:26 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:

>>
>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Victim-in-Fatal-Glider-Cra...
>> Describes a low level tow release.
>>
>> From the reports and videos, the crash site can be located on GE to
>> 38°18'49.94"N 76°32'8.78"W
>>
>> That's about 2075 feet from the end of the runway and about 285 feet
>> left of the runway center line.
>> One report mentioned the glider turned left before striking the tree.
>>
>> There's a line of trees bordering the airport in the GE images.
>> Summer foliage along Hwy235 is definitely heavier than the GE images,
>> which are over four years old, dated 3/29/2007.
>>
>> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
>> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
>> glider. I'm just sayin'.
>>
>> Frank Whiteley
>>
>> Frank Whiteley
>
> The rest of the story
> http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254

How many pilots have died because they thought a rudder waggle meant
they must release?

Walt Connelly

July 21st 11, 10:34 PM

Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
glider. *I'm just sayin'.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley[/i][/color]

The rest of the story
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254[/QUOTE]

Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH pilots. The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot" fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.

We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. We must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. JMHO.

Walt

BobW

July 22nd 11, 02:16 AM

On 7/21/2011 1:26 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:

>> > wrote:
>>> Frank Whiteley;777228 Wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 16, 8:52*pm, T wrote:-
>>>> On Jul 15, 11:22*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:-
>>>> -
>>>> -
>>>> Appears there was another PTT fatality today.-
>>>> -
>>>> http://wusa9.com/news/article/158647/44/One-Person-Dead-In-Md-Plane-C...
>>>> -
>>>> Recently reported as sold on W&W-
>>
>>>> I saw the video, no sound. But the printed article is worthless. All
>>>> speculation, look what we tripped over reporting.
>>>> Two seat glider? Tow plane involved? Details?
>>>> T-
>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4xvnwb4
>>
>>>> As always, these articles are poorly written. This one implies a
>>>> release at low level shortly after take off.
>>
>>>> F
>>
>>> Accuracy in reporting does not seem to be important anymore. We can
>>> learn from these things but what we learn might be tempered by the
>>> inaccuracy of the information. As I pointed out in another post, even
>>> the FAA doesn't seem to be able to accurately describe an incident. If
>>> it can't get the runway on which the accident occurred correct, how can
>>> it be relied upon to get the cause correct?
>>
>>> Walt
>>
>>> --
>>> Walt Connelly
>>
>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Victim-in-Fatal-Glider-Cra...
>> Describes a low level tow release.
>>
>> From the reports and videos, the crash site can be located on GE to
>> 38°18'49.94"N 76°32'8.78"W
>>
>> That's about 2075 feet from the end of the runway and about 285 feet
>> left of the runway center line.
>> One report mentioned the glider turned left before striking the tree.
>>
>> There's a line of trees bordering the airport in the GE images.
>> Summer foliage along Hwy235 is definitely heavier than the GE images,
>> which are over four years old, dated 3/29/2007.
>>
>> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
>> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
>> glider. I'm just sayin'.
>>
>> Frank Whiteley
>>
>> Frank Whiteley
>
> The rest of the story
> http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254

(Groan.) Well...sincere praise to the pilot for his honesty 'after the fact.'
How utterly terrible the 'opportunity' to display it, and may no other glider
pilot ever have to make such a choice in the future.

Respectfully (and sorrowfully),
Bob - mental preparation matters! - W.

Marc

July 22nd 11, 04:20 AM

On Jul 21, 6:16*pm, BobW > wrote:
> (Groan.) Well...sincere praise to the pilot for his honesty 'after the fact.'
> How utterly terrible the 'opportunity' to display it, and may no other glider
> pilot ever have to make such a choice in the future.

I'll be honest, the only time I ever experienced a "real" rudder wag
signal, I also released immediately. You're under tow and barely
climbing, there is obviously something quite wrong, you're
anticipating the tow plane to signal for a release any moment, your
hand is already on the release, you're looking around to assess
landing options, then you get a signal (any signal will do by that
point) and reflexively pull the release. In my case, though, the tow
pilot made a big slow circle back over the runway before making the
signal. As soon as I pulled the release, the problem was obvious, I
closed the spoilers and landed normally.

I asked the tow pilot afterwards why he waited, he said that all the
pilots at that operation had been briefed to delay, if possible, until
the glider was in a position to make a normal pattern. Despite
demonstrating the rudder wag during training, asking people about the
signals during every flight reviews, etc., in practice at that site,
well over half the pilots who were given rudder wags for open spoilers
released immediately.

I'm aware of two other fatal accidents following a rudder wag.
Perhaps, we are all too dense to be flying. Perhaps some, like
myself, who were flying long before the rudder wag signal was
"standardized", are confused by the fact that it was once commonly
used as a signal to indicate that this would be a good point to
release. Or, perhaps it is just a bad idea...

Marc

Ramy

July 22nd 11, 05:30 AM

On Jul 21, 2:34*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> The rest of the storyhttp://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> pilots. *The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot"
> fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases. *
>
> We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. *We
> must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. *JMHO.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly[/i][/color]

How many more pilots need to die until the rudder waggle will be
replaced with something more sensible, like a radio call?? No radio,
no tow! and if it is absolutely necessary to waggle the rudder, it
should be delayed until the glider is high enough to land safely!
Obviously the NTSB is not going to do anything about it, it is up to
us, SSA, SSF or whoever the force may be to do something about it!

Sigh!

Ramy

Walt Connelly

July 22nd 11, 01:22 PM

On Jul 21, 2:34*pm, Walt Connelly Walt.Connelly.
wrote:
Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
glider. *I'm just sayin'.

Frank Whiteley

Frank Whiteley

The rest of the storyhttp://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254

Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
pilots. *The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot"
fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases. *

We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. *We
must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. *JMHO.

Walt

--
Walt Connelly[/i][/color]

How many more pilots need to die until the rudder waggle will be
replaced with something more sensible, like a radio call?? No radio,
no tow! and if it is absolutely necessary to waggle the rudder, it
should be delayed until the glider is high enough to land safely!
Obviously the NTSB is not going to do anything about it, it is up to
us, SSA, SSF or whoever the force may be to do something about it!

Sigh!

Ramy

Nothing is perfect, the radio is a good idea, I carry a hand held in a rental ship without a radio. Always do a radio check with the tow plane prior to tow. That being said, it's up to the pilot to carry a radio or not. The signals from the tow plane need to be constantly studied and understood. Human nature being what it is, complacency becomes our enemy and ultimately our undoing. Much of our safety is in our own hands, checklists, understanding signals, use of a radio, remaining proficient. JMHO.

Walt

Walt Connelly

July 22nd 11, 01:25 PM

I'm aware of two other fatal accidents following a rudder wag.
Perhaps, we are all too dense to be flying. Perhaps some, like
myself, who were flying long before the rudder wag signal was
"standardized", are confused by the fact that it was once commonly
used as a signal to indicate that this would be a good point to
release. Or, perhaps it is just a bad idea...

Marc[/QUOTE]

Marc, I was unaware of the rudder wag ever being a signal that this would be a good point to release. How wide spread was this? Was this a local thing? It would seem that such an understanding would be a difficult thing to change considering the law of primacy.

Walt

Dan Marotta

July 22nd 11, 02:42 PM

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was towing a commercial glider checkride and,
per the DPE's request rocked the wings repeatedly at 2,800 AGL. The
applicant said, "Why's he rocking his wings?", and hung on to the tow. The
ride was a bust.

BTW, on the walk out to the launch line, the DPE briefed the applicant on
the signal and what it means.

I've had two engine failures with gliders on tow (blown front engine seal
and failed oil pump) and both times the glider released when I rocked the
wings. Had they not, I'd have dumped them without concern of the terrain
below.

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/21/2011 12:26 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Victim-in-Fatal-Glider-Cra...
>>> Describes a low level tow release.
>>>
>>> From the reports and videos, the crash site can be located on GE to
>>> 38°18'49.94"N 76°32'8.78"W
>>>
>>> That's about 2075 feet from the end of the runway and about 285 feet
>>> left of the runway center line.
>>> One report mentioned the glider turned left before striking the tree.
>>>
>>> There's a line of trees bordering the airport in the GE images.
>>> Summer foliage along Hwy235 is definitely heavier than the GE images,
>>> which are over four years old, dated 3/29/2007.
>>>
>>> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
>>> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
>>> glider. I'm just sayin'.
>>>
>>> Frank Whiteley
>>>
>>> Frank Whiteley
>>
>> The rest of the story
>> http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
>
> How many pilots have died because they thought a rudder waggle meant they
> must release?

Dan Marotta

July 22nd 11, 02:44 PM

One hour or a thousand in type - it doesn't make a bit of difference to the
pilot's required knowledge of signals!. That's just making excuses for
poorly trained pilots (and CFIGs)...

"Walt Connelly" > wrote in message
...
>
> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> The rest of the story
> http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> pilots. The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot"
> fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.
>
> We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. We
> must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. JMHO.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
> --
> Walt Connelly [/i][/color]

Dan Marotta

July 22nd 11, 02:47 PM

In this case the pair were still climbing, though slowly, but what if they
couldn't climb out of ground effect?

There's no substitute for knowledge, skill, and preparation. Please don't
try to legislate safety with more rules.

"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 2:34 pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> The rest of the
> storyhttp://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> pilots. The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot"
> fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.
>
> We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. We
> must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. JMHO.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly[/i][/color]

How many more pilots need to die until the rudder waggle will be
replaced with something more sensible, like a radio call?? No radio,
no tow! and if it is absolutely necessary to waggle the rudder, it
should be delayed until the glider is high enough to land safely!
Obviously the NTSB is not going to do anything about it, it is up to
us, SSA, SSF or whoever the force may be to do something about it!

Sigh!

Ramy

Phillip LaBerge

July 22nd 11, 06:09 PM

On Jul 11, 5:38*pm, wrote:
> On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
> crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
> instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
> tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
> landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
> What can we learn from this?
> Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
> Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
> Review to avoid getting killed?
> I remember once during BFR the instructor pulled the release on me in
> the Blanik at about 200 feet, I had to do 180 turn and land down wind
> from very low altitude. I think it was dangerous and unnecessary even
> for an experienced pilot as me. Andre
>
> http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/regionalne/krakow/wypadek-szybowca-w-nowym-...http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80273,9926204,Szybowiec_rozb...

Can't anyone in this group spell? It's "break" not "brake".

Ramy

July 22nd 11, 06:13 PM

On Jul 22, 6:44*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> One hour or a thousand in type - it doesn't make a bit of difference to the
> pilot's required knowledge of signals!. *That's just making excuses for
> poorly trained pilots (and CFIGs)...
>
> "Walt Connelly" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> > involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> > glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > The rest of the story
> >http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> > Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> > was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> > pilots. *The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot"
> > fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.
>
> > We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. *We
> > must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> > procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. *JMHO.
>
> > Walt
>
> > --
> > Walt Connelly- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/i][/color]

Folks, the problem is not just lack of knowledge or practice, it is
the human nature of confusion and tunnel vision under stress! Imagine
you are on tow and barely climbing (since your spoilers are out),
your first thought is that something is wrong with the tow plane, and
once you see the tow pilot waggle the rudder (which may also cause the
wings to rock a little), I bet over 90% of pilots will release, even
if they just practiced this manuver a week ago. There are many
examples confirming this, luckily not all of them resulted in
accidents.
Bottom line: Use radios! If this doesn't work, do not waggle rudders
until at safe altitude, unless the tow plane can not climb at all.

Ramy

Dan Marotta

July 23rd 11, 01:40 AM

"Ramy" > wrote in message
...
On Jul 22, 6:44 am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> One hour or a thousand in type - it doesn't make a bit of difference to
> the
> pilot's required knowledge of signals!. That's just making excuses for
> poorly trained pilots (and CFIGs)...
>
> "Walt Connelly" > wrote in
> message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> > involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> > glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > The rest of the story
> >http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> > Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> > was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> > pilots. The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the
> > "pilot"
> > fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.
>
> > We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal.
> > We
> > must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> > procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. JMHO.
>
> > Walt
>
> > --
> > Walt Connelly- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/i][/color]

Folks, the problem is not just lack of knowledge or practice, it is
the human nature of confusion and tunnel vision under stress! Imagine
you are on tow and barely climbing (since your spoilers are out),
your first thought is that something is wrong with the tow plane, and
once you see the tow pilot waggle the rudder (which may also cause the
wings to rock a little), I bet over 90% of pilots will release, even
if they just practiced this manuver a week ago. There are many
examples confirming this, luckily not all of them resulted in
accidents.
Bottom line: Use radios! If this doesn't work, do not waggle rudders
until at safe altitude, unless the tow plane can not climb at all.

Ramy

Wow! Don't you know that your spoilers are out? I must have only flown the
best gliders (or the worst) because it's always apparent to me that the
spoilers are open - noise, turbulence, handle out of detent, pitch
attitude...

Ramy

July 23rd 11, 02:22 AM

On Jul 22, 5:40*pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> "Ramy" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Jul 22, 6:44 am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > One hour or a thousand in type - it doesn't make a bit of difference to
> > the
> > pilot's required knowledge of signals!. That's just making excuses for
> > poorly trained pilots (and CFIGs)...
>
> > "Walt Connelly" > wrote in
> > message
>
> ...
>
> > > Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> > > involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> > > glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > > The rest of the story
> > >http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> > > Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> > > was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> > > pilots. The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the
> > > "pilot"
> > > fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.
>
> > > We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal..
> > > We
> > > must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> > > procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. JMHO.
>
> > > Walt
>
> > > --
> > > Walt Connelly- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Folks, the problem is not just lack of knowledge or practice, it is
> the human nature of confusion and tunnel vision under stress! Imagine
> you are on tow *and barely climbing (since your spoilers are out),
> your first thought is that something is wrong with the tow plane, and
> once you see the tow pilot waggle the rudder (which may also cause the
> wings to rock a little), I bet over 90% of pilots will release, even
> if they just practiced this manuver a week ago. There are many
> examples confirming this, luckily not all of them resulted in
> accidents.
> Bottom line: Use radios! If this doesn't work, do not waggle rudders
> until at safe altitude, unless the tow plane can not climb at all.
>
> Ramy
>
> Wow! *Don't you know that your spoilers are out? *I must have only flown the
> best gliders (or the worst) because it's always apparent to me that the
> spoilers are open - noise, turbulence, handle out of detent, pitch
> attitude...[/i][/color]

Of course it is apparent when you open your spoilers. But apparently
it is not always apparent in emergency when the spoilers were either
left open or were sucked open. I know of experience pilots and
instructors who did not realize that the spoilers are open. Otherwise
we wouldn't have this discussion.

Ramy

Ramy

Frank Whiteley

July 23rd 11, 04:53 AM

Agreed, no excuses for no knowing and having practiced the standard
signals. Nothing to do with time in model. IMVHO, 50 hours is needed
for most pilots to development an intimate adaption for the best
performance and subtle nuances and spiteful characteristics of a
particular glider.

On Jul 22, 7:44*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> One hour or a thousand in type - it doesn't make a bit of difference to the
> pilot's required knowledge of signals!. *That's just making excuses for
> poorly trained pilots (and CFIGs)...
>
> "Walt Connelly" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Looking at all 2011 accidents reported thus far, a good portion
> > involved pilots with little apparent time in model or particular
> > glider. *I'm just sayin'.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > The rest of the story
> >http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23254
>
> > Well, after having read the "rest of the story" it is obvious that this
> > was a major misinterpretation of the tow pilots rudder waggle by BOTH
> > pilots. *The "copilot" shouts "release, release, release," and the "pilot"
> > fails to properly interpret the rudder wag and releases.
>
> > We all make mistakes, unfortunately some of our mistakes can be fatal. *We
> > must all continually update our knowledge of emergency signals and
> > procedures to help reduce these kinds of accidents. *JMHO.
>
> > Walt
>
> > --
> > Walt Connelly[/i][/color]