IDAHO FATALITY [Archive] - AviationBanter

BobW

August 21st 11, 02:23 PM

On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
> Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
>> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
>> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
>> for gliding!-
>>
>> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 559Y Make/Model: EXP Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> BG-12B GLIDER
> Date: 08/18/2011 Time: 2243
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N
> Missing: N
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: MOORE State: ID Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
> # Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0
> Unk:
> # Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
> Unk:
> # Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
> Unk:
>
> WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> OTHER DATA
> Activity: Unknown Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER
>
>
> FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID (NM11) Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
>
> Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> much faith in the outcome of these investigations.

Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
control for unknown reasons.

And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
context'...time will tell.

However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.

Bob W.

Ramy

August 21st 11, 03:54 PM

On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW > wrote:
> On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
> >> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
> >> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
> >> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
> >> for gliding!-
>
> >> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
> > IDENTIFICATION
> > Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> > BG-12B GLIDER
> > Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243
>
> > Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
> > Missing: N
> > Damage: Substantial
>
> > LOCATION
> > City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US
>
> > DESCRIPTION
> > A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> > ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> > INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
> > # Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > Unk:
> > # Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > Unk:
> > # Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > Unk:
>
> > WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> > OTHER DATA
> > Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER
>
> > FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
> > Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> > much faith in the outcome of these investigations.
>
> Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database.. My
> working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
> investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
> obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
> fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
> control for unknown reasons.
>
> And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
> context'...time will tell.
>
> However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
> inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
> do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
> becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.
>
> Bob W.

Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
'wait for the NTSB report'.
And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
speed.
This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
possible from every accident to increase our safety.

Ramy

Free Flight 107[_2_]

August 21st 11, 05:21 PM

On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
> > > Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
> > >> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
> > >> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
> > >> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
> > >> for gliding!-
>
> > >> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
> > > IDENTIFICATION
> > > Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> > > BG-12B GLIDER
> > > Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243
>
> > > Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
> > > Missing: N
> > > Damage: Substantial
>
> > > LOCATION
> > > City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US
>
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > > A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> > > ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> > > INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
> > > # Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
> > > # Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
> > > # Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
>
> > > WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> > > OTHER DATA
> > > Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER
>
> > > FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
> > > Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> > > much faith in the outcome of these investigations.
>
> > Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
> > working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
> > investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
> > obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
> > fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
> > control for unknown reasons.
>
> > And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
> > context'...time will tell.
>
> > However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
> > inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
> > do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
> > becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.
>
> > Bob W.
>
> Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
> 'wait for the NTSB report'.
> And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
> spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
> I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
> again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
> speed.
> This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
> tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
> possible from every accident to increase our safety.
>
> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
mystery.

He may have ben low coming in and didn't want to do a downwind landing
in 10-12k winds.

We may never know, but it is a tragedy, and my or may not have been
preventable.

Let's fly safe out there.

BTW, I completely agree with using the RADIO to convey information vs.
the old-fashioned and ambigous waggle signals, and won't fly at an
airport that doesn't have radios in the tow planes.

Wayne

August 21st 11, 07:58 PM

On Aug 21, 6:07*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > The rudder waggle does not mean "release now." How terribly sad
>
> > John Cochrane
>
> If radios were required by that club or FBO and a com-check had been
> performed before takeoff, the tragic sequence of events would have
> been stopped with a simple, "Close your spoilers" call from the tow
> pilot. All the clubs & FBO's in region 11 have got the word, but it
> took 4 preventable fatalities to do it. When is the SSA going to get
> the word?
> JJ Sinclair

I for one know and understand the SSA signals on tow. However one must
be a realist and accept the fact of human nature as such, that not
everyone else does or maybe remembers. Therefore it would be wise to
continue using the signals on tow only as an alternate means of
communication to radio. 6PK

August 21st 11, 08:37 PM

On Aug 21, 12:21*pm, Free Flight 107 > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW > wrote:
>
> > > On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
> > > > Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
> > > >> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
> > > >> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
> > > >> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
> > > >> for gliding!-
>
> > > >> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
> > > > IDENTIFICATION
> > > > Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> > > > BG-12B GLIDER
> > > > Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243
>
> > > > Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
> > > > Missing: N
> > > > Damage: Substantial
>
> > > > LOCATION
> > > > City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US
>
> > > > DESCRIPTION
> > > > A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> > > > ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> > > > INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
> > > > # Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > > Unk:
> > > > # Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > > Unk:
> > > > # Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > > Unk:
>
> > > > WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> > > > OTHER DATA
> > > > Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER
>
> > > > FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
> > > > Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> > > > much faith in the outcome of these investigations.
>
> > > Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
> > > working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
> > > investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
> > > obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
> > > fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
> > > control for unknown reasons.
>
> > > And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
> > > context'...time will tell.
>
> > > However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
> > > inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
> > > do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
> > > becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.
>
> > > Bob W.
>
> > Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
> > 'wait for the NTSB report'.
> > And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
> > spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
> > I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
> > again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
> > speed.
> > This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
> > tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
> > possible from every accident to increase our safety.
>
> > Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
> mystery.
>
> He may have ben low coming in and didn't want to do a downwind landing
> in 10-12k winds.
>
> We may never know, but it is a tragedy, and my or may not have been
> preventable.
>
> Let's fly safe out there.
>
> BTW, I completely agree with using the RADIO to convey information vs.
> the old-fashioned and ambigous waggle signals, and won't fly at an
> airport that doesn't have radios in the tow planes.
>
> Wayne- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Of course this accident was preventable!!

Cookie

August 21st 11, 08:44 PM

Sure looks like you guys have "hijacked" this thread and are, for some
reason, back on the "glider signals and radio thread again"

It was all pretty much said in the earlier, long thread.............

As for this incident....I already see the blame being directed away
from the PIC.....some hint at the NTSB doing poor investigations...as
if that has anything to to with this......somebody else hinted that
the accident was "unavoidable"....Come on guys....

I figured you all would come up with some reasons why this guys should
have been in radio contact with somebody...that would have prevented
the accident..

Or I expected you to come up with something like..."If only he had one
of those electronic angle of attack indicators, and an audible stall
warning (horn) and a visual stall warning (light) and some sort of
automatic yaw controller......"

Hmmmmm.....

Cookie

August 21st 11, 08:49 PM

On Aug 21, 10:54*am, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
> > > Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
> > >> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
> > >> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
> > >> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
> > >> for gliding!-
>
> > >> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
> > > IDENTIFICATION
> > > Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> > > BG-12B GLIDER
> > > Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243
>
> > > Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
> > > Missing: N
> > > Damage: Substantial
>
> > > LOCATION
> > > City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US
>
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > > A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> > > ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> > > INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
> > > # Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
> > > # Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
> > > # Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
>
> > > WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> > > OTHER DATA
> > > Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER
>
> > > FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
> > > Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> > > much faith in the outcome of these investigations.
>
> > Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
> > working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
> > investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
> > obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
> > fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
> > control for unknown reasons.
>
> > And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
> > context'...time will tell.
>
> > However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
> > inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
> > do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
> > becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.
>
> > Bob W.
>
> Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
> 'wait for the NTSB report'.
> And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
> spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
> I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
> again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
> speed.
> This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
> tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
> possible from every accident to increase our safety.
>
> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I am not sure what happened in this incident....but I have heard of
MANY stall spins from high speed low pass followed by sharp pull
up......I also saw a video of wing flutter during a too fast fast
pass, (and wing depart.)...I have also heard of coutless airplane
accidents attributed to "buzzing"....

The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
of the above!!

Cookie

John Cochrane[_2_]

August 21st 11, 09:47 PM

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am not sure what happened in this incident....but I have heard of
> MANY stall spins from high speed low pass followed by sharp pull
> up......I also saw a video of wing flutter during a too fast fast
> pass, (and wing depart.)...I have also heard of coutless airplane
> accidents attributed to "buzzing"....
>
> The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
> greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
> of the above!!
>
> Cookie

I've seen two detailed analyses of fatalities from low passes. In both
cases, it was not the high speed pass itself or the sharp pull up that
caused problems. Instead it was the low speed turn after the pass that
led to a stall spin. After going straight down the runway, both pilots
turned around, didn't get as much altitude as they thought, and were
displaced from the runway by the radius of the turn. A little rudder
to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
as we thought, and in the glider goes.

This isn't a defense of high speed passes. Just pointing out that if
you do choose to do one, the big trap is what happens when it gets
quiet after the pass and the pull up.

There have also been many crashes from high speed passes that weren't
so high speed. 70 knots, 50 feet, right over the middle of the airport
is a bad place to be.

I hope we get some more details on this one. Does anyone even have a
story?

John Cochrane

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 21st 11, 09:49 PM

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:49:36 -0700, Cookie wrote:

> The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
> greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
> of the above!!
>
Agreed.

A pull-up from 50ft is no problem *if*:
- you have at least 125 kts on the clock as you cross the line
- know you can comfortably get back to 500 ft afterwards
- because you've have practiced the pull-up at a safe altitude
*in the same glider*.

If any of these three preconditions is missing, don't even think about
trying it.

What you're flying is also important: I'd do a competition finish in a
Pegase, Discus or ASW-20: I've flown all three and done such a finish
for real in a Pegase 90. But I'd only tackle it if the circuit was clear
and I was starting high enough to cross the line at Vne. However, there's
no way I'd try it in my Std Libelle because the combination of a lowish
Vne (118 kts), light weight and draggy polar at those speeds casts a lot
of doubt on its ability to zoom climb 400+ ft without dropping below the
50 kts which is needed to safely fly a normal circuit.

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

Ventus_a

August 21st 11, 10:01 PM

On Aug 21, 6:07*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
The rudder waggle does not mean "release now." How terribly sad

John Cochrane

If radios were required by that club or FBO and a com-check had been
performed before takeoff, the tragic sequence of events would have
been stopped with a simple, "Close your spoilers" call from the tow
pilot. All the clubs & FBO's in region 11 have got the word, but it
took 4 preventable fatalities to do it. When is the SSA going to get
the word?
JJ Sinclair

I for one know and understand the SSA signals on tow. However one must
be a realist and accept the fact of human nature as such, that not
everyone else does or maybe remembers. Therefore it would be wise to
continue using the signals on tow only as an alternate means of
communication to radio. 6PK

I would like point out that a blind reliance on radios alone is not the answer. I have seen a very near miss between a Ventus on a final glide/beatup and a launching G109. The Ventus called his intentions and because he didn't get a reply proceeded with his finish.

Radio calls are not infallable just the same as visual signals and are also subject to interference from other sources as well as mis-interpretation

Colin

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

August 21st 11, 10:03 PM

Wayne wrote.........
> I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
> mystery.

It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
watched it all.
There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
everyone.
If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
Flame suit on,
JJ

[email protected]

August 21st 11, 10:31 PM

On Aug 21, 2:03*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Wayne wrote.........
> > I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
> > mystery.
>
> It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
> guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
> BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
> he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
> low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
> fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
> spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
> from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
> watched it all.
> There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
> was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
> longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
> cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
> miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
> called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
> came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
> a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
> hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
> into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
> RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
> cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
> everyone.
> *If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
> would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
> Flame suit on,
> JJ

Totally agree with JJ, I learned from other's mistakes and my own
analysis of hazards and quit doing low passes many, many years ago,

NK

August 21st 11, 11:11 PM

On Aug 21, 4:49*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:49:36 -0700, Cookie wrote:
> > The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
> > greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
> > of the above!!
>
> Agreed.
>
> A pull-up from 50ft is no problem *if*:
> - you have at least 125 kts on the clock as you cross the line
> - know you can comfortably get back to 500 ft afterwards
> - because you've have practiced the pull-up at a safe altitude
> * *in the same glider*.
>
> If any of these three preconditions is missing, don't even think about
> trying it.
>
> What you're flying is also important: I'd do a competition finish in a
> Pegase, Discus or ASW-20: I've flown all three and done such a finish *
> for real in a Pegase 90. But I'd only tackle it if the circuit was clear
> and I was starting high enough to cross the line at Vne. However, there's
> no way I'd try it in my Std Libelle because the combination of a lowish
> Vne (118 kts), light weight and draggy polar at those speeds casts a lot
> of doubt on its ability to zoom climb 400+ ft without dropping below the
> 50 kts which is needed to safely fly a normal circuit.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I have a better idea....just don't do low passes....duh....

Cookie

August 21st 11, 11:26 PM

On Aug 21, 5:03*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Wayne wrote.........
> > I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
> > mystery.
>
> It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
> guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
> BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
> he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
> low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
> fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
> spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
> from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
> watched it all.
> There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
> was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
> longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
> cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
> miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
> called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
> came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
> a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
> hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
> into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
> RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
> cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
> everyone.
> *If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
> would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
> Flame suit on,
> JJ

JJ....finally I have to agree with you!!! (except the part about it's
OK to do a low pass if you talk on the radio)....

Any pilot who does a low pass increases he chances of killing himself
(and possibly somebody else) by a huge factor....

There is no reason for this behavior......The onus for safety falls on
the PIC.....you can have all the safety comittees and investigations
and rules you want.....if pilots continue to do dumb things...they
will continue to have mishaps...

BTW can anybody tell me of any books which teach the low pass
manuever? Is this maneuver in the PTS? Is this maneuver in the
Curriculum used by any flight instructor, anywhere??? No....because
it is a stupid thing to do!!!

Cookie

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 21st 11, 11:41 PM

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:43 -0700, Cookie wrote:

> I have a better idea....just don't do low passes....duh....
>
I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that in some gliders you
can do things reasonably safely that are plain stupid in others.

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

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

August 21st 11, 11:54 PM

On Aug 21, 12:44*pm, Cookie > wrote:
> Sure looks like you guys have "hijacked" this thread and are, for some
> reason, back on the "glider signals and radio thread again"
>
> It was all pretty *much said in the earlier, long thread.............

Yes, but not every club or FBO has made the commitment to get radios
for all gliders & tow planes. I lost my best friend in a mid-air with
a tow plane that wasn't radio equipped, so the tow pilot didn't hear
the call that a glider was trying to land on the same runway at the
same time. I'm trying to get the SSA to recommend we all get radios
and I'll keep beating this drum until everyone has a radio.

> As for this incident....I already see the blame being directed away
> from the PIC.....some hint at the NTSB doing poor investigations...as
> if that has anything to to with this......somebody else hinted that
> the accident was "unavoidable"....Come on guys....

Nobody's saying it wasn't the PIC fault, we're trying to come up with
a way to break the tragic string of events that lead to the crash.
Radios would do just that!

> I figured you all would come up with some reasons why this guys should
> have been in radio contact with somebody...that would have prevented
> the accident.
..
Yes, in contact with the tow plane right in front of him and trying
desperately to convey the message that YOUR SPOILERS ARE OPEN, what
better way to do this than by radio?

> Or I expected you to come up with something like..."If only he had one
> of those electronic angle of attack indicators, and an audible stall
> warning (horn) and a visual stall warning (light) and some sort of
> automatic yaw controller......"
>
> Hmmmmm.....
>
> Cookie

Cookie, I'm not just entertaining myself on a boaring Sunday
afternoon, I"M TRYING TO PREVENT THE NEXT ACCIDENT, what is your
purpose in posting?
JJ

August 22nd 11, 12:25 AM

On Aug 21, 6:54*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 12:44*pm, Cookie > wrote:
>
> > Sure looks like you guys have "hijacked" this thread and are, for some
> > reason, back on the "glider signals and radio thread again"
>
> > It was all pretty *much said in the earlier, long thread.............
>
> Yes, but not every club or FBO has made the commitment to get radios
> for all gliders & tow planes. I lost my best friend in a mid-air with
> a tow plane that wasn't radio equipped, so the tow pilot didn't hear
> the call that a glider was trying to land on the same runway at the
> same time. I'm trying to get the SSA to recommend we all get radios
> and I'll keep beating this drum until everyone has a radio.
>
> > As for this incident....I already see the blame being directed away
> > from the PIC.....some hint at the NTSB doing poor investigations...as
> > if that has anything to to with this......somebody else hinted that
> > the accident was "unavoidable"....Come on guys....
>
> Nobody's saying it wasn't the PIC fault, we're trying to come up with
> a way to break the tragic string of events that lead to the crash.
> Radios would do just that!
>
> > I figured you all would come up with some reasons why this guys should
> > have been in radio contact with somebody...that would have prevented
> > the accident.
>
> .
> *Yes, in contact with the tow plane right in front of him and trying
> desperately to convey the message that YOUR SPOILERS ARE OPEN, what
> better way to do this than by radio?
>
> > Or I expected you to come up with something like..."If only he had one
> > of those electronic angle of attack indicators, and an audible stall
> > warning (horn) and a visual stall warning (light) and some sort of
> > automatic yaw controller......"
>
> > Hmmmmm.....
>
> > Cookie
>
> Cookie, I'm not just entertaining myself on a boaring Sunday
> afternoon, I"M TRYING TO PREVENT THE NEXT ACCIDENT, what is your
> purpose in posting?
> JJ

To show a different way to increase safety than to introduce the next
electronic "gadget". To put the onus of safety where it
belongs.....on the pilot(s) and not shift the blame to signals, lack
of radio, the instructors, the SAA , accident investigators, or "it
was unavoidable"...etc.

Now the discussion has gone from one accident to another and then to
another.......we should look at each issue separetly, since the
solution is probably different in each case.....I'm not sure why you
and others keep bringing up the spoiler open incident on a thread
about low pass....now you bring up a tow plane mid air....all good for
discussion...but one at a time please...

In this particular discussion about a death due to a low pass followed
by a stall spin...the answer to increasing safety is so simple.....

Gee, this guy killed himself doing a low pass.....hmmmmm....If I don't
do low passes, I have just improved my odds of not killing
myself.....In fact I will prevent stall spin after low pass 100%.

You got a better way to prevent the next low pass accident???

Cookie

BobW

August 22nd 11, 12:56 AM

On 8/21/2011 3:31 PM, wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2:03 pm, JJ > wrote:
>> Wayne wrote.........
>>> I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
>>> mystery.
>>
>> It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
>> guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
>> BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
>> he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
>> low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
>> fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
>> spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
>> from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
>> watched it all.
>> There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
>> was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
>> longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
>> cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
>> miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
>> called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
>> came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
>> a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
>> hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
>> into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
>> RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
>> cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
>> everyone.
>> If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
>> would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
>> Flame suit on,
>> JJ
>
> Totally agree with JJ, I learned from other's mistakes and my own
> analysis of hazards and quit doing low passes many, many years ago,
>
> NK

I've no idea exactly why this now-dead pilot did a low-altitude pass, but
human nature strongly suggests to me 'because I can and it'll be cool!' may
well have been part of the thought process...just as JJ and Gary believe. (If
we're honest with ourselves, most of us exhibit such a glider piloting phase,
usually earlier in our 'gliding career.')

The *problems* with this sort of thinking on ANY Joe Pilot's part lie in the
thin margins (e'g' the nearby earth), and what early Muroc/Edwards test pilots
called the 'ugh-knowns.' Of course the Muroc guys were talking about
mach-related ugh-knowns not yet experienced outside a wind tunnel, whereas I'm
talking about Joe Pilot's personal ugh-knowns, but the risks are fundamentally
similar in that whatever happens may well be completely new to Joe Pilot...who
is now suddenly Joe TEST Pilot.

Would you rather be JTP far away from the ground, or close to it? Why?

If we assume what's been posited previously about this terrible tragedy, in
this thread, is fundamentally accurate, who among us doubts that this now-dead
pilot, if he had had the one-time ability to peer into his immediate future,
would have chosen to fly a different sort of landing pattern? Please note that
this question makes zero assumptions about any individual's ability to learn
how to safely do a low-altitude pass, or the desirability of so doing, or
anything else.

Sadly,
Bob - mindset matters - W.

Bruce Hoult

August 22nd 11, 03:27 AM

On Aug 22, 8:47*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> A little rudder
> to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
> as we thought, and in the glider goes.

I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
instructor's patter during training.

hretting

August 22nd 11, 04:02 AM

You're all girliemen who can't accept that there will always be lousy
airmen. Low passes are loved by those who enjoy the rush of one's ship
'Stored Energy' being use in a most thrilling way, carefully trading
this energy for a unique flight profile.
Limit my airmanship because of an act by a poor pilot....? S__t no.
Let's set the speed limit to 45 on the interstate and see how you
would react.
Did I write you're all girliemen? Yep, above .....go eat your
broccoli.
R

Best low pass I ever saw was HW in his Nimbus 4 at Perry. Down the
entire runway at 5' pulling up into a loop. Now there's an airman!
It was the most fantastic soaring event I have ever witness and would
never attempt such a feat caus' I ain't that good.

Walt Connelly

August 22nd 11, 09:36 AM

My dad once told me that if I ever heard myself saying "hey, watch this," (or even thinking "hey watch this," for that matter), whatever the hell it was you were going to do, DON'T.

For the record, I was one of the posters who questioned the investigations chances of getting things right. My purpose for doing so is based on two incidents which i personally observed and reported on and one glider incident that I was intimately familiar with, all three of which were misreported. If we are to learn from the mistakes of others it is imperative that the mistake be clearly and accurately reported.

Where I fly there are a couple of guys who frequently do low passes and thankfully thus far without incident. They are high time pilots flying high performance glass and I must admit that I enjoy and admire what they do. I also have some nice videos of their exploits. My major concern is for a situation where someone else might be in the pattern and suddenly confronted by another glider joining then in close proximity, hopefully not TOO close.

Oh, and ROMEO. I love broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, a nice big steak and a huge baked potato smothered in butter and sour cream with a massive slab of pie and ice cream.

Walt

August 22nd 11, 01:10 PM

On Aug 21, 10:27*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:47*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > A little rudder
> > to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
> > as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>
> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
> instructor's patter during training.

What!!! Are you ou are suggesting that there are instructors out
there who advocate raising the nose and over ruddering in the
pattern! ?

Cookie

August 22nd 11, 01:17 PM

On Aug 21, 11:02*pm, hretting > wrote:
> You're all girliemen who can't accept that there will always be lousy
> airmen. Low passes are loved by those who enjoy the rush of one's ship
> 'Stored Energy' being use in a most thrilling way, carefully trading
> this energy for a unique flight profile.
> Limit my airmanship because of an act by a poor pilot....? S__t no.
> Let's set the speed limit to 45 on the interstate and see how you
> would react.
> Did I write you're all girliemen? Yep, above .....go eat your
> broccoli.
> R
>
> Best low pass I ever saw was HW in his Nimbus 4 at Perry. Down the
> entire runway at 5' pulling up into a loop. Now there's an airman!
> It was the most fantastic soaring event I have ever witness and would
> never attempt such a feat caus' I ain't that good.

Well there you go...........this says it all.........Why do we even
bother?

Hint: Whenever somebody says "Hey everybody, watch this!" You know
its probably not going to end well!

Cookie

PS (I am assuming the post above is "tongue in cheek" right??)

August 22nd 11, 01:52 PM

On Aug 21, 11:02*pm, hretting > wrote:
> You're all girliemen who can't accept that there will always be lousy
> airmen. Low passes are loved by those who enjoy the rush of one's ship
> 'Stored Energy' being use in a most thrilling way, carefully trading
> this energy for a unique flight profile.
> Limit my airmanship because of an act by a poor pilot....? S__t no.
> Let's set the speed limit to 45 on the interstate and see how you
> would react.
> Did I write you're all girliemen? Yep, above .....go eat your
> broccoli.
> R
>
> Best low pass I ever saw was HW in his Nimbus 4 at Perry. Down the
> entire runway at 5' pulling up into a loop. Now there's an airman!
> It was the most fantastic soaring event I have ever witness and would
> never attempt such a feat caus' I ain't that good.

For all you "he-man, show off, airshow, stunt pilot, amateur,
wannabee's" ....maybe a sobering dose of reality....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airshow_accidents_and_incidents

Growing up in Northern NJ, I had the great pleasure of attending the
Sussex airshow for twenty something of the 30 something years it was
held. Anybody and everybody in the airshow business performed there
over those years. These were the top stunt pilots in the world..The
most professional, the most talented...simply the best...

I occasionally pull out the old programmes from these shows......the
sad reality is that just about 50% of those pilots are dead...

Cookie

John Cochrane[_2_]

August 22nd 11, 02:50 PM

On Aug 21, 9:27*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:47*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > A little rudder
> > to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
> > as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>
> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
> instructor's patter during training.

I don't think any instructor suggests this sort of thing actively.
Instructors try to remove these bad thoughts and unconscious habits,
and sometimes are not able completely to do so.

Becoming an instructor has been a great learning experience, as I have
been able to see these things happen. You can have a student with
great coordination and glidepath control at altitude, and who can
explain everything perfectly on oral quizzing. Then, things get a
little tight in the pattern, like he's too close and too low. His
attention gets focused elsewhere and stress goes up, and next thing
you know the yaw string is right over to the side on base to final and
he wants to pull the stick back. Instructing makes you a better
pilot: If he can do this, I can do it too, and helping the student
avoid the bad thought patterns helps the instructor as well

Tom Knauff has been very insightful on this. It's not bad ideas put
there by instructors. It's subconscious bad ideas that only bubble to
the surface in times of stress and attention focused elsewhere. And
detecting these, giving students experiences with high stress
situations, purging the bad thoughts, and all of this safely, is quite
hard.

John Cochrane

Dan Marotta

August 22nd 11, 03:47 PM

So much reliance on radios!

I'm continually told that the radio in the tug I fly is "unreadable",
"garbled", etc. I have no control over it. The operation has no money to
fix the problem. Should they shut down, instead? What I *do* have control
over is looking over the glider that I'm going to tow and refusing to take
up slack if I'm not happy with the condition of the glider.

Some glider pilots (myself included, depending on the glider) begin the
takeoff roll with the spoliers open. Likewise, everyone hauling water tells
me so (the receiver works just fine). They don't need to tell me - I know
the second I advance power if they're light or heavy. I still appreciate
the call. Likewise, I always inform the tow pilot that I have water on
board, though I'm sure he can feel it.

I'm still hearing excuses for poor pilot technique and lack of knowledge of
signals.

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The rudder waggle does not mean "release now." How terribly sad
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
> If radios were required by that club or FBO and a com-check had been
> performed before takeoff, the tragic sequence of events would have
> been stopped with a simple, "Close your spoilers" call from the tow
> pilot. All the clubs & FBO's in region 11 have got the word, but it
> took 4 preventable fatalities to do it. When is the SSA going to get
> the word?
> JJ Sinclair
>

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 22nd 11, 04:08 PM

On 8/22/2011 5:52 AM, Cookie wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airshow_accidents_and_incidents
>
> Growing up in Northern NJ, I had the great pleasure of attending the
> Sussex airshow for twenty something of the 30 something years it was
> held. Anybody and everybody in the airshow business performed there
> over those years. These were the top stunt pilots in the world..The
> most professional, the most talented...simply the best...
>
> I occasionally pull out the old programmes from these shows......the
> sad reality is that just about 50% of those pilots are dead...

And another fatality on Aug 20 at a Kansas City airshow.

I used to do low passes during contest finishes, but even before we
switched to GPS finishes, I realized there were many ways it could go
wrong (fortunately always from watching others botch it), that I had no
training in it, and since I did it only a few times a year, maybe it
wasn't something I should keep doing. So, despite the excitement it
generates, I don't do it any more.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Mike[_32_]

August 22nd 11, 05:12 PM

On Aug 21, 10:27*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:47*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > A little rudder
> > to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
> > as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>
> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
> instructor's patter during training.

I'm with JJ on this topic. I find it incredible that just about every
glider with retractable gear has a gear warning alarm to keep from
damaging the gelcoat or a couple of layers of carbon on the belly, but
we don't have an "Open Spoiler" alarm to prevent someone from dying on
tow..

Brian[_1_]

August 22nd 11, 05:56 PM

On Aug 21, 9:02*pm, hretting > wrote:
> You're all girliemen who can't accept that there will always be lousy
> airmen. Low passes are loved by those who enjoy the rush of one's ship
> 'Stored Energy' being use in a most thrilling way, carefully trading
> this energy for a unique flight profile.
> Limit my airmanship because of an act by a poor pilot....? S__t no.
> Let's set the speed limit to 45 on the interstate and see how you
> would react.
> Did I write you're all girliemen? Yep, above .....go eat your
> broccoli.
> R
>
> Best low pass I ever saw was HW in his Nimbus 4 at Perry. Down the
> entire runway at 5' pulling up into a loop. Now there's an airman!
> It was the most fantastic soaring event I have ever witness and would
> never attempt such a feat caus' I ain't that good.

While I love watching a properly done low pass a much as the next guy.
My problem with them is that it you don't know which pilot is watching
it that doesn't realize he "ain't that good". Then someone gets to
watch an improperly done low pass with that isn't nearly as much fun
to watch.:(
It seems to me that the low pass pull up accident seems to happen with
all to much frequency although my gut feeling is that they have
tapered off some since we have gone to the higher altitude finishes is
contests. Would be interesting to see if the numbers support this
feeling.

Brian

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

August 22nd 11, 10:38 PM

> Best low pass I ever saw was HW in his Nimbus 4 at Perry. Down the
> entire runway at 5' pulling up into a loop. Now there's an airman!
> It was the most fantastic soaring event I have ever witness and would
> never attempt such a feat caus' I ain't that good.

I remember a young lieutenant that was going through RF-4 training
with me. On a sortie working with an Army detachment, he was asked for
a low pass after providing the recon they had requested.. He came by
slow with gear and flaps down then lit both burners, pulled the nose
up and rolled the ship. The Army guys said he almost made it, but
dished-out and made a spectacular fireball for the troops!
In going through his personal effects, they found a tape of the
Thunderbirds doing the same maneuver in the F-4, but without the dish-
out and fireball.
We have seen all too many of these type of copycat accidents and who
are they copying? I'm afraid its us competition pilots.
Monkey see, monkey do,
JJ

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

August 22nd 11, 10:46 PM

> I'm continually told that the radio in the tug I fly is "unreadable",
> "garbled", etc. *I have no control over it. *The operation has no money to
>
Don't know what to tell you Dan, is the radio garbled with engine off?
Could be a place to start.

I have aften thought that my friend Hal would have willingly bought a
radio for every tow plane in the country, had he only known the tragic
events that awaited him and his tow pilot that November day, 2 years
ago.
JJ

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 22nd 11, 10:47 PM

On 8/22/2011 9:12 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:27 pm, Bruce > wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, John >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A little rudder
>>> to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
>>> as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>>
>> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
>> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
>> instructor's patter during training.
>
> I'm with JJ on this topic. I find it incredible that just about every
> glider with retractable gear has a gear warning alarm to keep from
> damaging the gelcoat or a couple of layers of carbon on the belly, but
> we don't have an "Open Spoiler" alarm to prevent someone from dying on
> tow..

I think a "open spoiler on tow" is a great idea, and I've had one for
several years, as do some other people. If you have a Cambridge 302
vario, it's easy to add one, especially if it's already used for your
gear warning.

Operation is simple: if your spoilers are still unlocked as the airspeed
increases past ~25 knots, you get an audible warning. It works for towed
gliders and motorgliders, using the same gear and spoiler switches used
for the gear warning - no changes in wiring needed.

Perhaps even better than a warning device is one that prevents them from
opening in the first place. DG gliders can do a retrofit of the "Piggot
hook" that prevents the spoilers from opening if they are left unlocked.
Get the info from DG. Many gliders (at least experimental licensed ones)
can be easily fitted with a similar device.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

kirk.stant

August 22nd 11, 11:41 PM

"A man has to know his limitations..."

I'm with JJ on radios. It's stupid not to have one and use it.

More importantly, it's about being responsible for one's actions, to
include training, currency, proficiency...

That being said;

I still do low passes. In the right conditions, they are a blast.
But I treat them as a potentially very dangerous maneuver, and plan
them carefully - to include making sure there is no one in the
pattern, the weather is good (not gusty or too windy), I have
sufficient energy for the pass, etc. Then I fly them as a low
approach, down the runway, avoiding overflying people or structures.

I rarely do them at a contest, because the pattern is almost always
too full. Maybe on a late aero retrieve, to give the beer-drinking
crowd something to bitch about...

But if the opportunity arises, and the conditions are right - yeah,
I'll do a worm burner -Yee Haa!

Unsafe? Thermalling is unsafe in a gaggle. Landing out is unsafe -
look at all the broken gliders. Winch launching is unsafe.
Practicing PTT is unsafe if you screw it up.

SOARING IS UNSAFE - LOOK AT THE STATS!

But it isn't a low pass that is dangerous - or any of the other things
mentioned above - it's the pilot that is dangerous. And a lot of us
(probably all of us, at some time or another) are DANGEROUS.

So the answer is actually pretty simple.

Fly safe, don't crash.

Kirk
66

Don Burns[_2_]

August 22nd 11, 11:46 PM

A bungee cord can be attached to the air brake handle and the other end
attached to a forward location. This will keep the air brakes closed even
though they are not locked. I have used this system on several gliders.

At 21:47 22 August 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 8/22/2011 9:12 AM, Mike wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:27 pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, John Cochrane
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A little rudder
>>>> to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
>>>> as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>>>
>>> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
>>> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
>>> instructor's patter during training.
>>
>> I'm with JJ on this topic. I find it incredible that just about every
>> glider with retractable gear has a gear warning alarm to keep from
>> damaging the gelcoat or a couple of layers of carbon on the belly, but
>> we don't have an "Open Spoiler" alarm to prevent someone from dying on
>> tow..
>
>I think a "open spoiler on tow" is a great idea, and I've had one for
>several years, as do some other people. If you have a Cambridge 302
>vario, it's easy to add one, especially if it's already used for your
>gear warning.
>
>Operation is simple: if your spoilers are still unlocked as the airspeed
>increases past ~25 knots, you get an audible warning. It works for towed
>gliders and motorgliders, using the same gear and spoiler switches used
>for the gear warning - no changes in wiring needed.
>
>Perhaps even better than a warning device is one that prevents them from
>opening in the first place. DG gliders can do a retrofit of the "Piggot
>hook" that prevents the spoilers from opening if they are left unlocked.
>Get the info from DG. Many gliders (at least experimental licensed ones)
>can be easily fitted with a similar device.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>
>- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
>you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>

Don Burns[_2_]

August 23rd 11, 12:01 AM

At 21:47 22 August 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 8/22/2011 9:12 AM, Mike wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:27 pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, John Cochrane
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A little rudder
>>>> to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
>>>> as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>>>
>>> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
>>> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
>>> instructor's patter during training.
>>
>> I'm with JJ on this topic. I find it incredible that just about every
>> glider with retractable gear has a gear warning alarm to keep from
>> damaging the gelcoat or a couple of layers of carbon on the belly, but
>> we don't have an "Open Spoiler" alarm to prevent someone from dying on
>> tow..
>
>I think a "open spoiler on tow" is a great idea, and I've had one for
>several years, as do some other people. If you have a Cambridge 302
>vario, it's easy to add one, especially if it's already used for your
>gear warning.
>
>Operation is simple: if your spoilers are still unlocked as the airspeed
>increases past ~25 knots, you get an audible warning. It works for towed
>gliders and motorgliders, using the same gear and spoiler switches used
>for the gear warning - no changes in wiring needed.
>
>Perhaps even better than a warning device is one that prevents them from
>opening in the first place. DG gliders can do a retrofit of the "Piggot
>hook" that prevents the spoilers from opening if they are left unlocked.
>Get the info from DG. Many gliders (at least experimental licensed ones)
>can be easily fitted with a similar device.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>
>- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
>you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>

A bungee cord can be fastened to the air brake handle with the other end
fastened to a forward location. This will keep the air brakes closed even
though they are not locked. I have used this system on several gliders.

Don Burns

August 23rd 11, 12:10 AM

At 21:47 22 August 2011, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>On 8/22/2011 9:12 AM, Mike wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:27 pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 8:47 am, John Cochrane
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A little rudder
>>>> to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
>>>> as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>>>
>>> I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
>>> to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
>>> instructor's patter during training.
>>
>> I'm with JJ on this topic. I find it incredible that just about every
>> glider with retractable gear has a gear warning alarm to keep from
>> damaging the gelcoat or a couple of layers of carbon on the belly, but
>> we don't have an "Open Spoiler" alarm to prevent someone from dying on
>> tow..
>
>I think a "open spoiler on tow" is a great idea, and I've had one for
>several years, as do some other people. If you have a Cambridge 302
>vario, it's easy to add one, especially if it's already used for your
>gear warning.
>
>Operation is simple: if your spoilers are still unlocked as the airspeed
>increases past ~25 knots, you get an audible warning. It works for towed
>gliders and motorgliders, using the same gear and spoiler switches used
>for the gear warning - no changes in wiring needed.
>
>Perhaps even better than a warning device is one that prevents them from
>opening in the first place. DG gliders can do a retrofit of the "Piggot
>hook" that prevents the spoilers from opening if they are left unlocked.
>Get the info from DG. Many gliders (at least experimental licensed ones)
>can be easily fitted with a similar device.
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>email me)
>
>- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
>you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz
>

A bungee cord can be attached to the air brake handle with the other end
fastened to a forward location. This will keep the air brakes closed even
though they are not locked. I have used this system on several gliders.

Don, 70

Andreas Maurer

August 23rd 11, 12:57 AM

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:36:36 +0000, Walt Connelly
> wrote:

>Where I fly there are a couple of guys who frequently do low passes and
>thankfully thus far without incident. They are high time pilots flying
>high performance glass and I must admit that I enjoy and admire what
>they do. I also have some nice videos of their exploits. My major
>concern is for a situation where someone else might be in the pattern
>and suddenly confronted by another glider joining then in close
>proximity, hopefully not TOO close.

Hi Walt,

I'd suggest to widen your concerns to those high-time pilots, too. :)
However controlled a low pass might look like, one doesn't have it
completely under control.

Among a couple of really impressive things done by top pilots at low
altitudes (which amazingly all ended without an accident), I once had
the doubtful pleasure to see a current German champion do a perfectly
controlled, beautiful low pass on his (and my) home airfield... a
thing that he's done dozens of times before.

Unfortunately this time he managed to overlook a complete 35ft-high
club house (that's been standing there since 1960) and its surrounding
50ft tall trees, missing it by a couple (much less than ten) of feet.
He simply didn't think that he was THAT close........................
Amazing example of tunnel vision.

Best regards from Germany
Andreas

BobW

August 23rd 11, 01:18 AM

On 8/22/2011 5:57 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:36:36 +0000, Walt Connelly
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Where I fly there are a couple of guys who frequently do low passes and
>> thankfully thus far without incident. They are high time pilots flying
>> high performance glass and I must admit that I enjoy and admire what
>> they do. I also have some nice videos of their exploits. My major
>> concern is for a situation where someone else might be in the pattern
>> and suddenly confronted by another glider joining then in close
>> proximity, hopefully not TOO close.
>
>
> Hi Walt,
>
> I'd suggest to widen your concerns to those high-time pilots, too. :)
> However controlled a low pass might look like, one doesn't have it
> completely under control.
>
> Among a couple of really impressive things done by top pilots at low
> altitudes (which amazingly all ended without an accident), I once had
> the doubtful pleasure to see a current German champion do a perfectly
> controlled, beautiful low pass on his (and my) home airfield... a
> thing that he's done dozens of times before.
>
> Unfortunately this time he managed to overlook a complete 35ft-high
> club house (that's been standing there since 1960) and its surrounding
> 50ft tall trees, missing it by a couple (much less than ten) of feet.
> He simply didn't think that he was THAT close........................
> Amazing example of tunnel vision.
>
>
>
> Best regards from Germany
> Andreas

Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.

Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to ever
do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to intentionally take a
completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?

While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only once.
While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I personally had
zero justification for doing one (though I used the 'future contest practice'
rationalization). I quit after the 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself
(yet again) the question posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it
was a grownup form of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers
exhibit the highest forms of good human judgment, right?

I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale. What
others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?

Curiously,
Bob W.

Greg Arnold[_2_]

August 23rd 11, 01:33 AM

On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:

> Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>
> Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
> ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
> intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?

Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." So, in the interests of
safely, should we terminate that activity?

I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
it is fun. It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?

>
> While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
> low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
> once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
> personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
> 'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
> 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
> posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
> of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
> highest forms of good human judgment, right?
>
> I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale.
> What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>
> Curiously,
> Bob W.

Ramy

August 23rd 11, 01:49 AM

On Aug 22, 5:33*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>
> > Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>
> > Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
> > ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
> > intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>
> Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
> who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." *So, in the interests of
> safely, should we terminate that activity?
>
> I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
> it is fun. *It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>
>
>
>
>
> > While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
> > low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
> > once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
> > personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
> > 'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
> > 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
> > posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
> > of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
> > highest forms of good human judgment, right?
>
> > I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale.
> > What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>
> > Curiously,
> > Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
outweight the risk. This works for me.
Although this discussion is now focused on high speed low pass, it is
not clear that this is what indeed happened in Idaho. As someone else
pointed out it may have been a case of missjudged pattern altitude.
But what I found most disturbing in all the recent fatalities
including this one is that almost all involved where either CFIGs,
examiners, ATP, commerical pilots etc. Very experienced pilots and not
some clueless who did not know what he was doing.

Ramy

August 23rd 11, 02:06 AM

On Aug 22, 8:49*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:33*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>
> > > Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>
> > > Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
> > > ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
> > > intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>
> > Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
> > who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." *So, in the interests of
> > safely, should we terminate that activity?
>
> > I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
> > it is fun. *It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>
> > > While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
> > > low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
> > > once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
> > > personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
> > > 'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
> > > 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
> > > posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
> > > of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
> > > highest forms of good human judgment, right?
>
> > > I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale..
> > > What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>
> > > Curiously,
> > > Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
> loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
> only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
> doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
> will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
> will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
> outweight the risk. This works for me.
> Although this discussion is now focused on high speed low pass, it is
> not clear that this is what indeed happened in Idaho. As someone else
> pointed out it may have been *a case of missjudged pattern altitude.
> But what I found most disturbing in all the recent fatalities
> including this one is that almost all involved where either CFIGs,
> examiners, ATP, commerical pilots etc. Very experienced pilots and not
> some clueless who did not know what he was doing.
>
> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Expereinced? well maybe......Clueless? Yep clueless!

Taking off with spoiler open...clueless
Spinning in the pattern....clueless
Running out of fuel...clueless
Should I go on?

Cookie

Mike Schumann

August 23rd 11, 03:09 AM

On 8/22/2011 7:49 PM, Ramy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:33 pm, Greg > wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>>
>>> Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
>>> ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
>>> intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>>
>> Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
>> who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." So, in the interests of
>> safely, should we terminate that activity?
>>
>> I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
>> it is fun. It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
>>> low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
>>> once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
>>> personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
>>> 'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
>>> 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
>>> posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
>>> of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
>>> highest forms of good human judgment, right?
>>
>>> I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale.
>>> What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>>
>>> Curiously,
>>> Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
> loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
> only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
> doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
> will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
> will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
> outweight the risk. This works for me.
> Although this discussion is now focused on high speed low pass, it is
> not clear that this is what indeed happened in Idaho. As someone else
> pointed out it may have been a case of missjudged pattern altitude.
> But what I found most disturbing in all the recent fatalities
> including this one is that almost all involved where either CFIGs,
> examiners, ATP, commerical pilots etc. Very experienced pilots and not
> some clueless who did not know what he was doing.
>
> Ramy

Just because you have lots of experience doesn't mean that you are not
clueless. Just look at AF447 for an example.

--
Mike Schumann

ray conlon

August 23rd 11, 03:15 AM

On Aug 22, 10:09*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 7:49 PM, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 5:33 pm, Greg > *wrote:
> >> On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>
> >>> Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>
> >>> Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
> >>> ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
> >>> intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>
> >> Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
> >> who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." *So, in the interests of
> >> safely, should we terminate that activity?
>
> >> I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
> >> it is fun. *It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>
> >>> While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
> >>> low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
> >>> once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
> >>> personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
> >>> 'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
> >>> 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
> >>> posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
> >>> of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
> >>> highest forms of good human judgment, right?
>
> >>> I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale..
> >>> What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>
> >>> Curiously,
> >>> Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
> > loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
> > only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
> > doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
> > will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
> > will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
> > outweight the risk. This works for me.
> > Although this discussion is now focused on high speed low pass, it is
> > not clear that this is what indeed happened in Idaho. As someone else
> > pointed out it may have been *a case of missjudged pattern altitude.
> > But what I found most disturbing in all the recent fatalities
> > including this one is that almost all involved where either CFIGs,
> > examiners, ATP, commerical pilots etc. Very experienced pilots and not
> > some clueless who did not know what he was doing.
>
> > Ramy
>
> Just because you have lots of experience doesn't mean that you are not
> clueless. *Just look at AF447 for an example.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

I think it was Stan Hall who commented years ago " a pilot who flys
with his glands rather than his brain does the sport no favors"

Bruce Hoult

August 23rd 11, 03:26 AM

On Aug 23, 12:10*am, Cookie > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:27*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> > On Aug 22, 8:47*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > A little rudder
> > > to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
> > > as we thought, and in the glider goes.
>
> > I can't help but wonder how many fewer people would ever have the idea
> > to try the above if it hadn't been suggested to them by their
> > instructor's patter during training.
>
> What!!! *Are you ou are suggesting that there are instructors out
> there who advocate raising the nose and over ruddering in the
> pattern! * ?

"suggesting" is literally "putting the thought into your mind"

It is not the same as advocating.

Someone can be saying "don't do this" while you're thinking "wtf? I'd
have never thought of trying to 'help' a turn with rudder!"

And there it is. The thought is now in your mind, ready to recall
goodness knows when under stress, when that thought would never
otherwise have entered your head.

Bruce Hoult

August 23rd 11, 03:34 AM

On Aug 23, 1:50*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> You can have a student with
> great coordination and glidepath control at altitude, and who can
> explain everything perfectly on oral quizzing. Then, things get a
> little tight in the pattern, like he's too close and too low. His
> attention gets focused elsewhere and stress goes up, and next thing
> you know the yaw string is right over to the side on base to final and
> he wants to pull the stick back.

That's another one which I've asked about here before, but no one has
ever answered.

Around here we have ridges and students are very likely to have quite
a bit of practice at doing well-banked coordinated turns while a lot
closer to the ground than normal base-to-final turns, in the presence
of considerable wind drift, groundspeed higher than airspeed
(approaching the ridge from upwind) etc.

Is there correlation between screwed-up base to final turns and
flatland fliers?

Mike Schumann

August 23rd 11, 10:48 AM

On 8/22/2011 9:15 PM, ray conlon wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:09 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 7:49 PM, Ramy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 22, 5:33 pm, Greg > wrote:
>>>> On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>>
>>>>> Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>>
>>>>> Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
>>>>> ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
>>>>> intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>>
>>>> Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
>>>> who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." So, in the interests of
>>>> safely, should we terminate that activity?
>>
>>>> I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
>>>> it is fun. It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>>
>>>>> While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
>>>>> low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
>>>>> once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
>>>>> personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
>>>>> 'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
>>>>> 'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
>>>>> posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
>>>>> of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
>>>>> highest forms of good human judgment, right?
>>
>>>>> I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale.
>>>>> What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>>
>>>>> Curiously,
>>>>> Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
>>> loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
>>> only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
>>> doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
>>> will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
>>> will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
>>> outweight the risk. This works for me.
>>> Although this discussion is now focused on high speed low pass, it is
>>> not clear that this is what indeed happened in Idaho. As someone else
>>> pointed out it may have been a case of missjudged pattern altitude.
>>> But what I found most disturbing in all the recent fatalities
>>> including this one is that almost all involved where either CFIGs,
>>> examiners, ATP, commerical pilots etc. Very experienced pilots and not
>>> some clueless who did not know what he was doing.
>>
>>> Ramy
>>
>> Just because you have lots of experience doesn't mean that you are not
>> clueless. Just look at AF447 for an example.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
> I think it was Stan Hall who commented years ago " a pilot who flys
> with his glands rather than his brain does the sport no favors"

The AF447 guys were flying with neither. How can you be flying at 70
knots and worry about exceeding VNE rather than realizing that you are
stalled? The wind noise alone (or lack there of) should have been an
obvious clue.

--
Mike Schumann

Walt Connelly

August 23rd 11, 03:16 PM

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:36:36 +0000, Walt Connelly
wrote:

Where I fly there are a couple of guys who frequently do low passes and
thankfully thus far without incident. They are high time pilots flying
high performance glass and I must admit that I enjoy and admire what
they do. I also have some nice videos of their exploits. My major
concern is for a situation where someone else might be in the pattern
and suddenly confronted by another glider joining then in close
proximity, hopefully not TOO close.

Hi Walt,

I'd suggest to widen your concerns to those high-time pilots, too. :)
However controlled a low pass might look like, one doesn't have it
completely under control.

Among a couple of really impressive things done by top pilots at low
altitudes (which amazingly all ended without an accident), I once had
the doubtful pleasure to see a current German champion do a perfectly
controlled, beautiful low pass on his (and my) home airfield... a
thing that he's done dozens of times before.

Unfortunately this time he managed to overlook a complete 35ft-high
club house (that's been standing there since 1960) and its surrounding
50ft tall trees, missing it by a couple (much less than ten) of feet.
He simply didn't think that he was THAT close........................
Amazing example of tunnel vision.

Best regards from Germany
Andreas

Andreas,

I agree, high time pilots can make mistakes too, I've seen it happen. The one crash that happened at my glider port since I started flying was by a 67 year old retired airline captain. A real eye opener because one would think a pilot of such experience would be less apt to err than someone such as myself. I am really surprised at the number of accidents recently and even more amazed that these were frequently with high time pilots, in one case a designated examiner and a CFI-G recertification ride. Another in Europe with an instructor and student and so on. It humbles someone such as myself with a commercial rating and 120 hours in gliders.

Walt

Walt Connelly

August 23rd 11, 03:30 PM

On Aug 22, 5:33*pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:

Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.

Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?

Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." *So, in the interests of
safely, should we terminate that activity?

I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
it is fun. *It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?

While you're pondering, back in the early 1980's I went through my
low-altitude, pattern zoomie phase, 100% safely, and got 'startled' only
once. While in that phase, I was actively/uncomfortably aware that I
personally had zero justification for doing one (though I used the
'future contest practice' rationalization). I quit after the
'startlement-included' zoomie, asked myself (yet again) the question
posed at the start of this comment, and concluded it was a grownup form
of 'teenager-istic' showing off. We all know teenagers exhibit the
highest forms of good human judgment, right?

I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale.
What others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?

Curiously,
Bob W.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
outweight the risk. This works for me.
Although this discussion is now focused on high speed low pass, it is
not clear that this is what indeed happened in Idaho. As someone else
pointed out it may have been a case of missjudged pattern altitude.
But what I found most disturbing in all the recent fatalities
including this one is that almost all involved where either CFIGs,
examiners, ATP, commerical pilots etc. Very experienced pilots and not
some clueless who did not know what he was doing.

Ramy

Ramy,

I went thru the aerobatic phase of my life. I learned to fly in power and had the opportunity to get some good instruction in aerobatics from a highly qualified instructor. We were at significant altitude, never below 3000 feet when we started a loop or roll. We were wearing parachutes and discussed the egress procedure. I learned to fly these maneuvers to improve my flying overall. Let's face it, If your level of skill exceeds the minimum requirements you should be safer than average.

Obviously the safest thing would be to sit at home on our hands and do nothing but watch TV. There were two fatalities in air shows in the last few days. A guy spun in and a wing walker trying to transfer from a plane to a helicopter fell to his death. They do those things at least in part for the thrill and people go to watch for the same reasons, at least vicariously.

With all the fatalities in recent weeks I ask the following question. Who among us will discontinue flying as a result? We will continue to fly, the important thing is that we learn from the mistakes of others. Low pass? Not a great idea but I don't think it's going to stop. Does doing one go thru my mind? Yes it does. Will I do one? I don't think so, I'm older, smarter and less prone to the irrational acts of youth. That being said, if an opportunity to fly some acro at altitude comes along, chute on and let's do it.

Walt

Bill D

August 23rd 11, 05:32 PM

On Aug 22, 8:34*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:50*am, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
> > You can have a student with
> > great coordination and glidepath control at altitude, and who can
> > explain everything perfectly on oral quizzing. Then, things get a
> > little tight in the pattern, like he's too close and too low. His
> > attention gets focused elsewhere and stress goes up, and next thing
> > you know the yaw string is right over to the side on base to final and
> > he wants to pull the stick back.
>
> That's another one which I've asked about here before, but no one has
> ever answered.
>
> Around here we have ridges and students are very likely to have quite
> a bit of practice at doing well-banked coordinated turns while a lot
> closer to the ground than normal base-to-final turns, in the presence
> of considerable wind drift, groundspeed higher than airspeed
> (approaching the ridge from upwind) etc.
>
> Is there correlation between screwed-up base to final turns and
> flatland fliers?

Quite possibly. Mountain pilots know they can't trust the horizon so
they learn to control pitch attitude with airspeed and bank with rate
of turn. Mountain flying requires a bit of instrument skills. I've
ridden with pilots who were trying to keep their wings parallel to
sloping ground and point their nose at mountain peaks. Airports like
Leadville and Teluride in Colorado are notorious for inducing false
attitude illusions.

Taking this a bit further into the technical - I've set up turn-to-
final stall/spin scenarios while practicing stalls at altitude. The
result is almost always a wing drop followed by a spiral dive. The
glider is designed to resist spinning so it recovers from the
incipient spin on it's own it the first eighth of a turn leading to a
spiral dive.

If the student applies spin recovery control inputs in a spiral dive,
it gets VERY "interesting". This has led me to wonder if some so
called "stall/spin" accidents are really mis-handled spiral dive
recoveries. Maybe we should take a careful look at what we are
teaching.

hretting

August 23rd 11, 06:49 PM

On Aug 22, 8:17*am, Cookie > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:02*pm, hretting > wrote:
>
> > You're all girliemen who can't accept that there will always be lousy
> > airmen. Low passes are loved by those who enjoy the rush of one's ship
> > 'Stored Energy' being use in a most thrilling way, carefully trading
> > this energy for a unique flight profile.
> > Limit my airmanship because of an act by a poor pilot....? S__t no.
> > Let's set the speed limit to 45 on the interstate and see how you
> > would react.
> > Did I write you're all girliemen? Yep, above .....go eat your
> > broccoli.
> > R
>
> > Best low pass I ever saw was HW in his Nimbus 4 at Perry. Down the
> > entire runway at 5' pulling up into a loop. Now there's an airman!
> > It was the most fantastic soaring event I have ever witness and would
> > never attempt such a feat caus' I ain't that good.
>
> Well there you go...........this says it all.........Why do we even
> bother?
>
> Hint: *Whenever somebody says "Hey everybody, watch this!" * You know
> its probably not going to end well!
>
> Cookie
>
> PS (I am assuming the post above is "tongue in cheek" *right??)

No, it wasn't and to believe that all flying is for everyone else
shows how you have failed to have fun for YOUR sake. You need to
change your name to Cupcake, and buy yourself a pink dress.

R

Dave Nadler

August 23rd 11, 06:59 PM

On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:32:43 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> If the student applies spin recovery control inputs in a spiral dive,
> it gets VERY "interesting". This has led me to wonder if some so
> called "stall/spin" accidents are really mis-handled spiral dive
> recoveries. Maybe we should take a careful look at what we are
> teaching.

That's how an Eta was destroyed during spin testing IIRC...

BobW

August 23rd 11, 07:06 PM

On 8/22/2011 6:49 PM, Ramy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:33 pm, Greg > wrote:
>> On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>>
>>> Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
>>> ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
>>> intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>>
>> Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
>> who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." So, in the interests of
>> safely, should we terminate that activity?
>>
>> I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
>> it is fun. It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>>
>>
<Snip...>

Greg,

I agree 100% with you there's also zero functional need to fly sailplanes,
so...fair question, "Why do it?" And I submit the question deserves a
reasonably soul-searching answer from each and every individual opting to
pursue this grand and soul-enriching sport...

However, would you not agree there's at least one huge, fundamental difference
between committing soaring and performing a low-altitude zoomie, i.e. that the
former *requires* (government-overseen) instruction before you can put
yourself or anyone else at risk, and the latter does not?

Stated another way, any soloed glider pilot can opt to self-teach zoomies,
whereas no amount of self-taught glider flying skill will get you a glider
license.

So once again I'd ask, why intentionally perform a thin-margin, zero
functional utility maneuver, whose (only) Plan B is itself, by the combination
of aerodynamics and physics, a thinnish-margin option? At least (to take one
more or less self-taught, thin-margin, common, accepted soaring activity as an
example) in ridge flying, Plan B (the turn away from the ridge) rapidly (or at
least within Joe Pilot's control, anyway) increases one's margins, if he gets
a chance to perform it. Every way I look at a zoomie, I see thin margins, high
risk, and some form of 'showing off' self-gratification. I'll delete the
'showing off' if you do your zoomies only immediately prior to your off-field
landings, of course.

> I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
> loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
> only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
> doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
> will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
> will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
> outweight the risk. This works for me.

Ramy,

Again, I agree. However...

Who teaches themselves low-altitude, thin margin, aerobatics in gliders?

Where's the self-taught syllabus for performing zoomies?

Why not limit ourselves to above-pattern zoomies if they're so much fun?

What is it about being near the ground that makes zoomies more fun down there
than aloft?

Why not do them before all your off-field landings if 'ground-nearness' is a
crucial element? (Heck, *there* Joe Pilot can even rationalize he gets a
better look at the landing surface beforehand.)

Do you recommend self-taught glider aerobatics even well clear of the ground?
(If you do, I'll bet you great gobs of my own money that if you told some
newbie-to-aero to "Go for it," you'd also throw out lots of caveats, ship
limitations, etc., etc., etc.)
- - - - - -

Given we DO choose to self-gratify through soaring, I submit there are certain
'generally accepted' activities 'the group as a whole' decides are generally
better off not done. These undoubtedly change over time. For one example, in
the 1930's teaching soaring via solo-only primary trainers was the norm in the
U.S. Where is that the norm today? Why isn't it? What is it about zoomies that
should make them sacrosanct against similar safety concerns?

Yeah, I admit that last question has more than a whiff of rhetoric about it,
but I do believe that the time of the zoomie has come and gone, for reasons of
potential harm to the activity we all love. For the record, I cannot off the
top of my head recollect a zoomie-related fatality (the present case, for me,
still being 'not-governmentally-unconfirmed'/speculative), but I *do* remember
at least 3 contest-related finish gate zoomies noted in "Soaring" magazine in
which elevator flutter occurred. Oddly, not one of those pilots, nor any of
the observers (if one can believe what was reported) found those incidents fun
or emulatively entertaining.

Regards,
Bob W.

Ramy

August 23rd 11, 08:26 PM

On Aug 23, 11:06*am, BobW > wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 6:49 PM, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 5:33 pm, Greg > *wrote:
> >> On 8/22/2011 5:18 PM, BobW wrote:
>
> >>> Here's a non-rhetorical question for everyone to ponder.
>
> >>> Since there remains in the soaring world exactly zero functional need to
> >>> ever do a low-altitude high speed pass, and, to do so is to
> >>> intentionally take a completely avoidable risk, why ever do one?
>
> >> Of course, there also is zero functional need to fly sailplanes -- those
> >> who do it "take a completely avoidable risk." *So, in the interests of
> >> safely, should we terminate that activity?
>
> >> I think pilots do low passes for the same reason they fly sailplanes --
> >> it is fun. *It all is a weighing process -- does the fun outweigh the risks?
>
> <Snip...>
>
> Greg,
>
> I agree 100% with you there's also zero functional need to fly sailplanes,
> so...fair question, "Why do it?" And I submit the question deserves a
> reasonably soul-searching answer from each and every individual opting to
> pursue this grand and soul-enriching sport...
>
> However, would you not agree there's at least one huge, fundamental difference
> between committing soaring and performing a low-altitude zoomie, i.e. that the
> former *requires* (government-overseen) instruction before you can put
> yourself or anyone else at risk, and the latter does not?
>
> Stated another way, any soloed glider pilot can opt to self-teach zoomies,
> whereas no amount of self-taught glider flying skill will get you a glider
> license.
>
> So once again I'd ask, why intentionally perform a thin-margin, zero
> functional utility maneuver, whose (only) Plan B is itself, by the combination
> of aerodynamics and physics, a thinnish-margin option? At least (to take one
> more or less self-taught, thin-margin, common, accepted soaring activity as an
> example) in ridge flying, Plan B (the turn away from the ridge) rapidly (or at
> least within Joe Pilot's control, anyway) increases one's margins, if he gets
> a chance to perform it. Every way I look at a zoomie, I see thin margins, high
> risk, and some form of 'showing off' self-gratification. I'll delete the
> 'showing off' if you do your zoomies only immediately prior to your off-field
> landings, of course.
>
> > I was going to say the same thing about aerobatics as well. Why do
> > loops and rolls and spins? Because it is fun! Contests are not the
> > only reason people do low passes. Just make sure you know what you are
> > doing and ask yourself if it worth the risk. Perhaps this discussion
> > will remind some people what the are the risks and next time when they
> > will consider a low pass they may decide that the fun does not
> > outweight the risk. This works for me.
>
> Ramy,
>
> Again, I agree. However...
>
> Who teaches themselves low-altitude, thin margin, aerobatics in gliders?
>
> Where's the self-taught syllabus for performing zoomies?
>
> Why not limit ourselves to above-pattern zoomies if they're so much fun?
>
> What is it about being near the ground that makes zoomies more fun down there
> than aloft?
>
> Why not do them before all your off-field landings if 'ground-nearness' is a
> crucial element? (Heck, *there* Joe Pilot can even rationalize he gets a
> better look at the landing surface beforehand.)
>
> Do you recommend self-taught glider aerobatics even well clear of the ground?
> (If you do, I'll bet you great gobs of my own money that if you told some
> newbie-to-aero to "Go for it," you'd also throw out lots of caveats, ship
> limitations, etc., etc., etc.)
> - - - - - -
>
> Given we DO choose to self-gratify through soaring, I submit there are certain
> 'generally accepted' activities 'the group as a whole' decides are generally
> better off not done. These undoubtedly change over time. For one example, in
> the 1930's teaching soaring via solo-only primary trainers was the norm in the
> U.S. Where is that the norm today? Why isn't it? What is it about zoomies that
> should make them sacrosanct against similar safety concerns?
>
> Yeah, I admit that last question has more than a whiff of rhetoric about it,
> but I do believe that the time of the zoomie has come and gone, for reasons of
> potential harm to the activity we all love. For the record, I cannot off the
> top of my head recollect a zoomie-related fatality (the present case, for me,
> still being 'not-governmentally-unconfirmed'/speculative), but I *do* remember
> at least 3 contest-related finish gate zoomies noted in "Soaring" magazine in
> which elevator flutter occurred. Oddly, not one of those pilots, nor any of
> the observers (if one can believe what was reported) found those incidents fun
> or emulatively entertaining.
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bob, while I understand your sentiments about zoomies, and I myself
rarely do them and will think twice before I consider making another
one, you can't be seriously suggesting to make them above pattern
altitude. All the fun is the ground rush at nearly 150 knots few feet
of the ground. It makes perfectly sense to do them for those enjoying
doing them, the same as it makes sense for some people to do BASE
jumping. It also made sense to change competition rules in such a way
of not encouraging pilots to do them. The point is that if one
consider doing a low pass, he/she should be sure they know how to
perform it, how much energy they need, how fast they should go, their
ship limitations, traffic etc. They should also consider all the risks
involved, which includes things like spoilers popping open at fast
speed that some ships has tendency for. If this happens few feet above
the ground it is very bad news.

Back to the subject, I heard some reports that the low pass was so
slow it may have not been a low pass but a botched downwind...

Ramy

kirk.stant

August 23rd 11, 09:48 PM

Hmm, we recently had a lot of talk about practicing rope breaks, down
to 200' or so, with opinions that any self respecting pilot should
have no problem with a rope break at 200-300ft.

Gee, I have no problem getting higher than that on a well planned and
executed low pass, in everything from an ASK-21 and G-103 to an LS4 or
LS6.

So some of you guys are OK springing a sudden low altitude pattern on
a guy in training, but tell others that they shouldn't do low passes
at any time because they are "dangerous"?

You guys are hypocrites.

We soar because it's "fun". Nobody forces us to do it. For some, the
fun is in hanging around the airport in a 1-26 or 2-33, never out of
gliding range. Some enjoy bashing along the ridges in freezing
weather. Some like to see how high the wave will take them. Some
like to race against others, flying in marginal weather over marginal
terraing to see who is best. Some like pulling Gs.

None of it is necessary - we do it because we ENJOY doing it!

I enjoy pulling off a safe (yes, safe) low pass. I avoid getting into
a position where I intentionally try an unsafe low pass. The same can
be said about any other maneuver we do in gliders.

And I don't do it for you ******s on the ground who don't like them.
I do it for me, and my friends who enjoy the beauty of a skillfully
flown maneuver.

And you aint lived till you do a double formation low pass over an FAA
examiner...

He was cool about it!

Kirk
66

hretting

August 24th 11, 01:20 AM

Talk of getting kicks......I enjoy watching others do low passes as
much as doing them myself. Better if they are open class ships. I
don't know....something about long legs and big ...ah ....well lets
move on.
The idea that the guy flying is having a great fantastic rip-snorting
time cashing in all his altitude letting his glider take him on a
magic carpet ride for a few seconds is simply a joy to watch. You get
to see his airmanship at work.....simply applying what he knows with
confidence to the art of flying.
Hey...I don't think I've ever seen a girl do a pass. Now that would be
a thrill.....perhaps in a Nimbus. A tall girl, in a Nimbus doing a
worm burner and... she wears glasses. What kind of beer???hmmm...

Learn to enjoy the ride boys, the asteroid is only getting closer.

R

BobW

August 24th 11, 01:42 AM

It was noted...

> Hmm, we recently had a lot of talk about practicing rope breaks, down to
> 200' or so, with opinions that any self respecting pilot should have no
> problem with a rope break at 200-300ft.
>
> Gee, I have no problem getting higher than that on a well planned and
> executed low pass, in everything from an ASK-21 and G-103 to an LS4 or
> LS6.
>
> So some of you guys are OK springing a sudden low altitude pattern on a guy
> in training, but tell others that they shouldn't do low passes at any time
> because they are "dangerous"?
>
> You guys are hypocrites.

Ummmm...what're the chances of having an unplanned, low-altitude rope
break/premature termination of tow (for any reason) vs. having an unplanned
zoomie suddenly appear?

Why is one mandated to be practiced (with instructors) and the other not?

Might not the answers to the preceding two question be fundamentally related?

Careful reading of my previous posts won't reveal me *telling* others they
shouldn't do zoomies; trying to *convince* them not to is quite a different
thing where I come from.

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines hypocrite as: "one who
feigns to be what he is not; especially one who pretends to be pious,
virtuous, etc. without really being so." As I noted in another thread about
zoomies: BTDT; stopped doing them ~1980; have seen (and enjoyed
watching) many since (while simultaneously mentally cringing and
hoping/praying nothing bad happens); wouldn't consider my future significantly
poorer if I never see another one; sincerely hope I don't personally know
(even via RAS) anyone who may be a part of a zoomie gone bad in the future.

>
> We soar because it's "fun". Nobody forces us to do it. For some, the fun
> is in hanging around the airport in a 1-26 or 2-33, never out of gliding
> range. Some enjoy bashing along the ridges in freezing weather. Some like
> to see how high the wave will take them. Some like to race against others,
> flying in marginal weather over marginal terrain to see who is best. Some
> like pulling Gs.
>
> None of it is necessary - we do it because we ENJOY doing it!
>
> I enjoy pulling off a safe (yes, safe) low pass. I avoid getting into a
> position where I intentionally try an unsafe low pass. The same can be
> said about any other maneuver we do in gliders.
>
> And I don't do it for you ******s on the ground who don't like them. I do
> it for me, and my friends who enjoy the beauty of a skillfully flown
> maneuver.
>
> And you aint lived till you do a double formation low pass over an FAA
> examiner...
>
> He was cool about it!

Good for him and good for you, and may all your future zoomies continue to be
trouble-free.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

Bruce Hoult

August 24th 11, 02:28 AM

On Aug 24, 4:32*am, Bill D > wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:34*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 23, 1:50*am, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > You can have a student with
> > > great coordination and glidepath control at altitude, and who can
> > > explain everything perfectly on oral quizzing. Then, things get a
> > > little tight in the pattern, like he's too close and too low. His
> > > attention gets focused elsewhere and stress goes up, and next thing
> > > you know the yaw string is right over to the side on base to final and
> > > he wants to pull the stick back.
>
> > That's another one which I've asked about here before, but no one has
> > ever answered.
>
> > Around here we have ridges and students are very likely to have quite
> > a bit of practice at doing well-banked coordinated turns while a lot
> > closer to the ground than normal base-to-final turns, in the presence
> > of considerable wind drift, groundspeed higher than airspeed
> > (approaching the ridge from upwind) etc.
>
> > Is there correlation between screwed-up base to final turns and
> > flatland fliers?
>
> Quite possibly. *Mountain pilots know they can't trust the horizon so
> they learn to control pitch attitude with airspeed and bank with rate
> of turn. *Mountain flying requires a bit of instrument skills.

Hmm. I don't think that's true, at least for me.

You don't need an actual horizon, all you need is something far enough
away that if it moves in the canopy it's because the aircraft attitude
changed. It doesn't even have to be straight ahead -- well out to the
side is fine.

Even with a true horizon available, you're only using the horizon for
short term attitude stability and cross-referencing it to something
else (wind noise, control feel, airspeed indicator) to calibrate what
attitude you should be holding.

I've had the very interesting experience of flying with a friend doing
overnight freight runs in small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan). When
you're ostensibly flying on instruments and using the artificial
horizon for attitude control, it's quite astounding how much
difference there is between having even two or three external points
of light from stars or farmhouses and not having them. When you're
deep in IMC in the middle of nowhere you are working very very hard.
When you have even the slightest external references that you may not
even be consciously aware of it gets 10x easier.

Your theory sounds more appropriate for people flying in severe haze
or cloud.

Alfaest

August 24th 11, 02:39 AM

I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
Idhao flying get-together. Anyone got any specifics? Tough summer
for gliding!
More and more people are using cell phones at the cost of public interests. What can we do to avoid those terrible dins produced by mobile phones?Are you still boring with the noises of phones at midnight? I have suffered it for a long time, for my peaceful family life. i bought a cell phone jammer from http://www.jammerall.com/ which is introduced by my friend. it is really cool, so share my happiness with you. Especially for your trip, you will have a happy holiday life with it.

Bruce Hoult

August 24th 11, 04:11 AM

On Aug 24, 12:42*pm, BobW > wrote:
> Ummmm...what're the chances of having an unplanned, low-altitude rope
> break/premature termination of tow (for any reason) vs. having an unplanned
> zoomie suddenly appear?

The very fact that zoomies are planned in advance makes them less
surprising, and therefore less prone to panic, rushing things etc than
unplanned rope breaks.

> Why is one mandated to be practiced (with instructors) and the other not?

You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
maneuver.

Frank Whiteley

August 24th 11, 05:58 AM

On Aug 21, 8:54*am, Ramy > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
> > > Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
> > >> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
> > >> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
> > >> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
> > >> for gliding!-
>
> > >> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
> > > IDENTIFICATION
> > > Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> > > BG-12B GLIDER
> > > Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243
>
> > > Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
> > > Missing: N
> > > Damage: Substantial
>
> > > LOCATION
> > > City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US
>
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > > A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> > > ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> > > INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
> > > # Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
> > > # Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
> > > # Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > Unk:
>
> > > WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> > > OTHER DATA
> > > Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER
>
> > > FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
> > > Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> > > much faith in the outcome of these investigations.
>
> > Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
> > working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
> > investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
> > obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
> > fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
> > control for unknown reasons.
>
> > And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
> > context'...time will tell.
>
> > However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
> > inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
> > do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
> > becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.
>
> > Bob W.
>
> Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
> 'wait for the NTSB report'.
> And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
> spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
> I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
> again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
> speed.
> This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
> tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
> possible from every accident to increase our safety.
>
> Ramy

Without attribution to anyone, I've gathered the following.

The PIC was familiar with the site, having flown rides there last year
with a 2-32 (the one in the earlier MT fatal crash).

He owned the BG-12b since 2007. However, this was apparently his
first outing with the glider and his fifth flight in it. He'd flown
it earlier in the week. Stall tests showed a tendency for right wing
to break first.

The downwind was apparently described as slow (and low) despite an
estimated 10-15mph tail wind. If that's ground wind, it's likely to
be somewhat higher at 100ft, 200ft, and 300ft above the ground.
Turning 180 for a landing in a wind gradient reverses the wind speed
differential between the lower and higher wings and maybe allowed the
lowered wing to stall.

Some may recall the Derek Piggott story of doing a 180 to a down wind
landing being the only thing that allowed enough aileron authority in
the wind gradient to be able to level the wings for landing.

Frank Whiteley

BobW

August 24th 11, 06:47 PM

On 8/23/2011 9:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, > wrote:
>> Ummmm...what're the chances of having an unplanned, low-altitude rope
>> break/premature termination of tow (for any reason) vs. having an unplanned
>> zoomie suddenly appear?
>
> The very fact that zoomies are planned in advance makes them less
> surprising, and therefore less prone to panic, rushing things etc than
> unplanned rope breaks.

Thanks for helping make my point more clear. The planned aspect to zoomies is
all the more reason not to bugger one up...yet it would seem possible that
this *might* have been the case here.

>> Why is one mandated to be practiced (with instructors) and the other not?
>
> You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
> do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
> maneuver.

Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are their sites in
NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in the U.S. that
advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard offerings.

Regards,
Bob W.

Gilbert Smith[_2_]

August 24th 11, 10:11 PM

Martin Gregorie > wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:43 -0700, Cookie wrote:
>
>> I have a better idea....just don't do low passes....duh....
>>
>I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that in some gliders you
>can do things reasonably safely that are plain stupid in others.

There is a famous CFI at an Austrian club I visit regularly who enjoys
aerobatics after a day teaching soaring in the Tyrolean Alps.
Sometimes he uses the ASK21, but his favourite is a Pilatus (Swiss
glider). His Pilatus routine always finishes with a high speed very
low inverted pass followed by a push up to level flight (half outside
loop). Thrilling enough to watch in itself, but made especially so as
he continues the push-over until you think he is going to do it again.

Radio contact is maintained with all local traffic, power and
sailplanes.

In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
airfield boundary was killed, but prior to this they were commonplace.
It was not unusual to see six gliders in various stages of pull-up,
all talking to each other on the radio, and then flying a full normal
circuit to land. I don't recall any spin accidents in these scenarios
- is this because European pilots are better trained ?

B4soaring

August 25th 11, 12:33 AM

On 24/08/2011 22:11, Gilbert Smith wrote:
> Martin > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:11:43 -0700, Cookie wrote:
>>
>>> I have a better idea....just don't do low passes....duh....
>>>
>> I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that in some gliders you
>> can do things reasonably safely that are plain stupid in others.
>
> There is a famous CFI at an Austrian club I visit regularly who enjoys
> aerobatics after a day teaching soaring in the Tyrolean Alps.
> Sometimes he uses the ASK21, but his favourite is a Pilatus (Swiss
> glider). His Pilatus routine always finishes with a high speed very
> low inverted pass followed by a push up to level flight (half outside
> loop). Thrilling enough to watch in itself, but made especially so as
> he continues the push-over until you think he is going to do it again.
>
> Radio contact is maintained with all local traffic, power and
> sailplanes.
>

Superb flying in a 40 year old design with a best-glide similar to a K6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4pNkq5lQ5Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs_ePxC20fU&feature=related

> In UK high speed low finishes were banned

Not remotely true. I'd give you a link but the BGA website is currently
unavailable.

after a photographer on the
> airfield boundary was killed, but prior to this they were commonplace.
> It was not unusual to see six gliders in various stages of pull-up,
> all talking to each other on the radio, and then flying a full normal
> circuit to land. I don't recall any spin accidents in these scenarios
> - is this because European pilots are better trained ?
>

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 25th 11, 01:22 AM

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:47:35 -0600, BobW wrote:

> Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are their
> sites in NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in
> the U.S. that advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard
> offerings.
>
Come to think of it, we did an 80 kt low pass over the Mynd in a DG 505
on my checkout flight for that site back in April. The instructor was
flying and demonstrating a low level way back to the site from the south
ridge. We were running fast because we didn't intend to stop and low
because that's where I'd be if I needed to use that way back onto the
field. Of course, there was no pull-up needed because the Mynd is a ridge-
top site, so we just swung left and out over the working ridge....

If you want to try find out about flying there and the techniques they
use, I'm certain the Midland gliding club would be delighted to have you
visit them.

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

Bruce Hoult

August 25th 11, 07:05 AM

On Aug 25, 5:47*am, BobW > wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 9:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
> > do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
> > maneuver.
>
> Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are their sites in
> NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in the U.S. that
> advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard offerings.

We had some problems with our airfield owners a couple of years ago
about low passes. I was on the committee at the time and the club
president and CFI made representations to the airfield owners that
competition finishes were a standard maneuver that should be trained
for and practiced for proficiency just like any other.

As I understand it, we have agreed to ask our pilots not to practice
them at our home field, which has several powered aircraft flying
schools and (until very recently) a helicopter school, but they are
certainly practiced at away camps.

I'm sure that any of the operators at Omarama would be happy to teach
you to do competition finishes safely.

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

August 25th 11, 02:12 PM

> Martin Gregorie wrote.........
> In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
> airfield boundary was killed,

US Rules Committee please take note.
JJ

GC[_2_]

August 25th 11, 02:40 PM

On 25/08/2011 03:47, BobW wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 9:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, > wrote:
>> ...
>> You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
>> do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
>> maneuver.
>
> Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are their
> sites in NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in
> the U.S. that advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard
> offerings.

Well, come out to Oz. Glider pilots need an instructor's signature in
their log book before they can do a competition low finish and most
reasonable sized clubs will provide the briefing and flight instruction
needed to allow your proficiency to be certified.

If you have the signature, you'll probably have to demonstrate you're
still proficient during your annual check ride(s).

GC
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 25th 11, 06:12 PM

On 8/25/2011 6:12 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>> Martin Gregorie wrote.........
>> In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
>> airfield boundary was killed,
>
> US Rules Committee please take note.
> JJ

I don't know if they have banned low passes, but the accident was not
the result of a low pass, but a low energy finish where the glider had
to pull up to clear a fence.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Dave Nadler

August 25th 11, 06:21 PM

Wrong accident Eric.

BobW

August 25th 11, 06:27 PM

On 8/25/2011 7:40 AM, GC wrote:
> On 25/08/2011 03:47, BobW wrote:
>> On 8/23/2011 9:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>> On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, > wrote:
>>> ...
>>> You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
>>> do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
>>> maneuver.
>>
>> Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are there
>> sites in NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in
>> the U.S. that advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard
>> offerings.
>
> Well, come out to Oz. Glider pilots need an instructor's signature in their
> log book before they can do a competition low finish and most reasonable sized
> clubs will provide the briefing and flight instruction needed to allow your
> proficiency to be certified.
>
> If you have the signature, you'll probably have to demonstrate you're still
> proficient during your annual check ride(s).
>
> GC

How about that, zoomie fans?!? And good on whomever the controlling entity
mandating this, in this setting, is.

Thanks for the (usable!) info, GC.

Regards,
Bob W.

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

August 25th 11, 06:39 PM

On Aug 25, 10:12*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 8/25/2011 6:12 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Martin Gregorie wrote.........
> >> In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
> >> airfield boundary was killed,
>
> > US Rules Committee please take note.
> > JJ
>
> I don't know if they have banned low passes, but the accident was not
> the result of a low pass, but a low energy finish where the glider had
> to pull up to clear a fence.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

No it wasn't a low energy finish. The photographer was in radio
contact with the glider and urging him to get "lower, lower" in order
to get a better picture. The photographer was standing on top of his
car behind a row of bushes.This had been going on all week and ended
when the lad flew right into the guy. The low finishes were in a
contest. The above post clearly states that "high speed low finishes
were banned in the UK." The line finish is still in the US Rules and I
believe it gives legitimacy to the low finishes (aka buzz jobs) that
keep on showing up in accident reports.
JJ

kirk.stant

August 25th 11, 06:42 PM

> How about that, zoomie fans?!? And good on whomever the controlling entity
> mandating this, in this setting, is.
>
> Thanks for the (usable!) info, GC.
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.

I think it's a great idea.

Along with more training on gaggle flying, XC flying, etc.

Of course, that would require that US instructors actually have some
gaggle, XC, high performance experience and training themselves.

Unfortunately, that is somewhat rare in the US (with many notable
exceptions, of course).

How about mandating Silver badge as a prereq for a CFIG rating - kinda
like a CFI has to have an instrument rating...

Kirk
66

Tony[_5_]

August 25th 11, 06:48 PM

On Aug 25, 12:42*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > How about that, zoomie fans?!? And good on whomever the controlling entity
> > mandating this, in this setting, is.
>
> > Thanks for the (usable!) info, GC.
>
> > Regards,
> > Bob W.
>
> I think it's a great idea.
>
> Along with more training on gaggle flying, XC flying, etc.
>
> Of course, that would require that US instructors actually have some
> gaggle, XC, high performance experience and training themselves.
>
> Unfortunately, that is somewhat rare in the US (with many notable
> exceptions, of course).
>
> How about mandating Silver badge as a prereq for a CFIG rating - kinda
> like a CFI has to have an instrument rating...
>
> Kirk
> 66

i thought the standard RAS CFI pre-req was a gold badge. I finally
qualified late last season.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 25th 11, 07:25 PM

On 8/25/2011 10:39 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:12 am, Eric > wrote:
>> On 8/25/2011 6:12 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Martin Gregorie wrote.........
>>>> In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
>>>> airfield boundary was killed,
>>
>>> US Rules Committee please take note.
>>> JJ
>>
>> I don't know if they have banned low passes, but the accident was not
>> the result of a low pass, but a low energy finish where the glider had
>> to pull up to clear a fence.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>> email me)
>
> No it wasn't a low energy finish. The photographer was in radio
> contact with the glider and urging him to get "lower, lower" in order
> to get a better picture. The photographer was standing on top of his
> car behind a row of bushes.This had been going on all week and ended
> when the lad flew right into the guy. The low finishes were in a
> contest. The above post clearly states that "high speed low finishes
> were banned in the UK." The line finish is still in the US Rules and I
> believe it gives legitimacy to the low finishes (aka buzz jobs) that
> keep on showing up in accident reports.

I remember the incident, but did not know the photographer was in
contact with the glider, or that it was at high speed.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Frank Whiteley

August 25th 11, 08:06 PM

On Aug 25, 11:42*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> > How about that, zoomie fans?!? And good on whomever the controlling entity
> > mandating this, in this setting, is.
>
> > Thanks for the (usable!) info, GC.
>
> > Regards,
> > Bob W.
>
> I think it's a great idea.
>
> Along with more training on gaggle flying, XC flying, etc.
>
> Of course, that would require that US instructors actually have some
> gaggle, XC, high performance experience and training themselves.
>
> Unfortunately, that is somewhat rare in the US (with many notable
> exceptions, of course).
>
> How about mandating Silver badge as a prereq for a CFIG rating - kinda
> like a CFI has to have an instrument rating...
>
> Kirk
> 66

That is/was a UK requirement, and a good one in my opinion.

Frank Whiteley

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

August 25th 11, 09:13 PM

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:25:34 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I remember the incident, but did not know the photographer was in
> contact with the glider, or that it was at high speed.
>
That it was at high speed was well-known and reported, but not the 'Radio
contact' story: this is the first I've heard of it.

BTW: mentioning this incident is mis-attributed. I didn't mention it, but
its only the very low passes, as in below hedge/head height, that have
been banned, not high speed finishes above 50-100 feet.

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

Ramy

August 31st 11, 02:08 AM

On Aug 23, 9:58*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Aug 21, 8:54*am, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW > wrote:
>
> > > On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
>
> > > > Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
> > > >> On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
> > > >> I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
> > > >> Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
> > > >> for gliding!-
>
> > > >> BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.
>
> > > > IDENTIFICATION
> > > > Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
> > > > BG-12B GLIDER
> > > > Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243
>
> > > > Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
> > > > Missing: N
> > > > Damage: Substantial
>
> > > > LOCATION
> > > > City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US
>
> > > > DESCRIPTION
> > > > A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
> > > > ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID
>
> > > > INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
> > > > # Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > > Unk:
> > > > # Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > > Unk:
> > > > # Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
> > > > Unk:
>
> > > > WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003
>
> > > > OTHER DATA
> > > > Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER
>
> > > > FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011
>
> > > > Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
> > > > much faith in the outcome of these investigations.
>
> > > Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
> > > working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
> > > investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
> > > obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
> > > fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
> > > control for unknown reasons.
>
> > > And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
> > > context'...time will tell.
>
> > > However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
> > > inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
> > > do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
> > > becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.
>
> > > Bob W.
>
> > Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
> > 'wait for the NTSB report'.
> > And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
> > spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
> > I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
> > again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
> > speed.
> > This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
> > tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
> > possible from every accident to increase our safety.
>
> > Ramy
>
> Without attribution to anyone, I've gathered the following.
>
> The PIC was familiar with the site, having flown rides there last year
> with a 2-32 (the one in the earlier MT fatal crash).
>
> He owned the BG-12b since 2007. *However, this was apparently his
> first outing with the glider and his fifth flight in it. *He'd flown
> it earlier in the week. *Stall tests showed a tendency for right wing
> to break first.
>
> The downwind was apparently described as slow (and low) despite an
> estimated 10-15mph tail wind. *If that's ground wind, it's likely to
> be somewhat higher at 100ft, 200ft, and 300ft above the ground.
> Turning 180 for a landing in a wind gradient reverses the wind speed
> differential between the lower and higher wings and maybe allowed the
> lowered wing to stall.
>
> Some may recall the Derek Piggott story of doing a 180 to a down wind
> landing being the only thing that allowed enough aileron authority in
> the wind gradient to be able to level the wings for landing.
>
> Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

NTSB report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110818X01703&key=1

Ramy

Dan Marotta

August 31st 11, 04:58 AM

Radio checks on the ground, engine running or off, are always "Five By". In
flight, I can receive all transmissions, it's *my* transmissions which are
garbled. I've tried different headsets, wiggled connections (under the
panel), etc. Sometimes I'm clear and sometimes nobody hears. It's a very
sleepy airport with only a few operations per week other than gliders so not
much of a problem.

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...

> I'm continually told that the radio in the tug I fly is "unreadable",
> "garbled", etc. I have no control over it. The operation has no money to
>
Don't know what to tell you Dan, is the radio garbled with engine off?
Could be a place to start.

I have aften thought that my friend Hal would have willingly bought a
radio for every tow plane in the country, had he only known the tragic
events that awaited him and his tow pilot that November day, 2 years
ago.
JJ

Dan Marotta

August 31st 11, 05:13 AM

Most practicing instructors I've known don't know how to safely do a low
pass (or fly or teach cross country, for that matter). Not intending to
cast aspersions on any instructors, just relating my personal experience in
learning to fly gliders... Cross country (and other bad habits) I learned
by watching, listening, following, asking questions, reading, etc. There
was nobody qualified to teach me.

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, BobW > wrote:
> Ummmm...what're the chances of having an unplanned, low-altitude rope
> break/premature termination of tow (for any reason) vs. having an
> unplanned
> zoomie suddenly appear?

The very fact that zoomies are planned in advance makes them less
surprising, and therefore less prone to panic, rushing things etc than
unplanned rope breaks.

> Why is one mandated to be practiced (with instructors) and the other not?

You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
maneuver.

Alan[_6_]

August 31st 11, 09:05 AM

In article > "Dan Marotta" > writes:
>So much reliance on radios!
>
>I'm continually told that the radio in the tug I fly is "unreadable",
>"garbled", etc. I have no control over it.

Many things could cause it. Wind or engine noise overcoming the headset
noise cancelling microphone, SWR causing RF on the microphone and radio
wiring, a broken radio, perhaps from internal condensation if it has been
around for a while.

> The operation has no money to
>fix the problem. Should they shut down, instead?

I would suggest that they find money to fix the radio. It is cheap insurance
against another accident report because one of the rare visitors doesn't understand
what the glider operation is doing, and cannot understand your radio.

>I'm still hearing excuses for poor pilot technique and lack of knowledge of
>signals.

Is that like excuses for bad radios? (You are not alone. A good fraction of
the gliders where I fly have unreadable radios.)

Alan

Bruce Hoult

August 31st 11, 10:49 AM

On Aug 31, 4:13*pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> Most practicing instructors I've known don't know how to safely do a low
> pass (or fly or teach cross country, for that matter). *Not intending to
> cast aspersions on any instructors, just relating my personal experience in
> learning to fly gliders... *Cross country (and other bad habits) I learned
> by watching, listening, following, asking questions, reading, etc. *There
> was nobody qualified to teach me.

What kind of glider are they training in?

We do rides and initial training here in a pair of DG1000s. Before
that we used two Grob Twin Astirs (and a Janus) for about a dozen
years, and before that Blaniks. All were capable of cross country
training, though of course the later ones are better...

I don't think you'd want to try a low pass in the Blanik. The Vne is
plenty high, but you'd lose speed very quickly.

Dan Marotta

September 1st 11, 04:42 AM

Twenty-six years ago, when I started gliding, it was the Schweizer 2-33 and
the Lark IS-28B2. None of the instructors where I learned flew cross
country, they just instructed over the local area. I had a friend lead me
around farther and farther from the airport until I gained the confidence to
head out on my own. DG1000? Not invented yet!

I have seen Blaniks doing routine low passes with paying passengers on
board. I won't mention the operation where this is done...

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 31, 4:13 pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> Most practicing instructors I've known don't know how to safely do a low
> pass (or fly or teach cross country, for that matter). Not intending to
> cast aspersions on any instructors, just relating my personal experience
> in
> learning to fly gliders... Cross country (and other bad habits) I learned
> by watching, listening, following, asking questions, reading, etc. There
> was nobody qualified to teach me.

What kind of glider are they training in?

We do rides and initial training here in a pair of DG1000s. Before
that we used two Grob Twin Astirs (and a Janus) for about a dozen
years, and before that Blaniks. All were capable of cross country
training, though of course the later ones are better...

I don't think you'd want to try a low pass in the Blanik. The Vne is
plenty high, but you'd lose speed very quickly.

Mike Schumann

September 1st 11, 05:00 AM

Why not mention names? If the operation is unsafe then it should be
publicized, just like you should intercede if someone was taking off
with the spoilers open.

If the operation is safe (not necessarily my opinion), then the operator
would probably appreciate the publicity.

Mike Schumann

On 8/31/2011 10:42 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Twenty-six years ago, when I started gliding, it was the Schweizer 2-33
> and the Lark IS-28B2. None of the instructors where I learned flew cross
> country, they just instructed over the local area. I had a friend lead
> me around farther and farther from the airport until I gained the
> confidence to head out on my own. DG1000? Not invented yet!
>
> I have seen Blaniks doing routine low passes with paying passengers on
> board. I won't mention the operation where this is done...
>
>
> "Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Aug 31, 4:13 pm, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>> Most practicing instructors I've known don't know how to safely do a low
>> pass (or fly or teach cross country, for that matter). Not intending to
>> cast aspersions on any instructors, just relating my personal
>> experience in
>> learning to fly gliders... Cross country (and other bad habits) I learned
>> by watching, listening, following, asking questions, reading, etc. There
>> was nobody qualified to teach me.
>
> What kind of glider are they training in?
>
> We do rides and initial training here in a pair of DG1000s. Before
> that we used two Grob Twin Astirs (and a Janus) for about a dozen
> years, and before that Blaniks. All were capable of cross country
> training, though of course the later ones are better...
>
> I don't think you'd want to try a low pass in the Blanik. The Vne is
> plenty high, but you'd lose speed very quickly.

--
Mike Schumann

Andy[_10_]

September 1st 11, 07:25 AM

On Aug 22, 5:18*pm, BobW > wrote:
>
> I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale. What
> others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?

You might ask yourself the same question about contest flying in
general, cross-country soaring in general or soaring in general. They
answer in every case is "because of the enjoyment". Winning a contest
day is the ultimate "hey look at me", moment.

In every phase of soaring we need to look at the risk/reward -
remembering that each is, after all, in the name of a prima facie
frivolous activity.

Michael Vickery

September 1st 11, 08:50 AM

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
From the description at the beginning of the string the glider was
approaching the airfield low and slow, this does not read like the
description of someone doing a 'competition finish' but rather someone who
had stretched his glide to return to the airfield. If indeed this was the
case the pilots better altern
ative would have been to perform a downwind landing when he had crossed the
upwind boundary of the airfield.
I must admit to a similar experience myself when returning in this state
but only (thankfuly) managed to turn through ninety degrees for a cross
wind landing to the sighs of relief from the onlookers.

Regards Mike V.

At 04:00 01 September 2011, Mike Schumann wrote:
>Why not mention names? If the operation is unsafe then it should be
>publicized, just like you should intercede if someone was taking off
>with the spoilers open.
>
>If the operation is safe (not necessarily my opinion), then the operator
>would probably appreciate the publicity.
>
>Mike Schumann
>
>
>On 8/31/2011 10:42 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Twenty-six years ago, when I started gliding, it was the Schweizer 2-33
>> and the Lark IS-

None of the instructors where I learned flew cross
>> country, they just instructed over the local area. I had a friend lead
>> me around farther and farther from the airport until I gained the
>> confidence to head out on my own. DG1000? Not invented yet!
>>
>> I have seen Blaniks doing routine low passes with paying passengers on
>> board. I won't mention the operation where this is done...
>>
>>
>> "Bruce Hoult" wrote in message
>>
...
>> On Aug 31, 4:13 pm, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
>>> Most practicing instructors I've known don't know how to safely do a
low
>>> pass (or fly or teach cross country, for that matter). Not intending
to
>>> cast aspersions on any instructors, just relating my personal
>>> experience in
>>> learning to fly gliders... Cross country (and other bad habits) I
>learned
>>> by watching, listening, following, asking questions, reading, etc.
There
>>> was nobody qualified to teach me.
>>
>> What kind of glider are they training in?
>>
>> We do rides and initial training here in a pair of DG1000s. Before
>> that we used two Grob Twin Astirs (and a Janus) for about a dozen
>> years, and before that Blaniks. All were capable of cross country
>> training, though of course the later ones are better...
>>
>> I don't think you'd want to try a low pass in the Blanik. The Vne is
>> plenty high, but you'd lose speed very quickly.
>
>
>--
>Mike Schumann
>

Darryl Ramm

September 1st 11, 04:14 PM

Michael Vickery > wrote:
> Hi
> I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this
> accident?
> From the description at the beginning of the string the glider was
> approaching the airfield low and slow, this does not read like the
> description of someone doing a 'competition finish' but rather someone
> who
> had stretched his glide to return to the airfield. If indeed this was
> the
> case the pilots better altern
> ative would have been to perform a downwind landing when he had
> crossed the
> upwind boundary of the airfield.
> I must admit to a similar experience myself when returning in this
> state
> but only (thankfuly) managed to turn through ninety degrees for a
> cross
> wind landing to the sighs of relief from the onlookers.
>
> Regards Mike V.

You should read the NTSB preliminary report. I think witnesses
description there make pretty clear this was a high speed pass.

So what the pilot was doing is clear, exactly why we don't know. Was the
inexperience on type an issue, showing off, hypoxia (there was a
non-fatal DG-300 crash a few years ago with bizarre pre-landing/crash
behavior where hypoxia was expected), dehydration, etc. I certainly hope
the NTSB looks at those possible factors and given the
knowledge/experience of some of the other pilots interviewed by the NTSB
I expect those possibilities to have been mentioned.

Darryl

Judy Ruprecht

September 1st 11, 04:33 PM

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>Hi
>I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Judy Ruprecht

September 1st 11, 04:35 PM

Frank Whiteley

September 1st 11, 07:25 PM

On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
> At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>
> >Hi
> >I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>
> Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
> possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
> report:
>
> "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
> north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
> pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
> for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
> flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
> an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
> glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
> airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
> startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.
>
> "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
> pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
> slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
> continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
> point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
> 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
> nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
> of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
> point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
> knots out of the south.
>
> "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
> for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
> accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
> arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
> glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
> reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
> time he had flown it since purchase."
>
> -- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. (The pilots notice it
too) The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. I once asked him why he moved it. He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

BobW

September 1st 11, 07:26 PM

On 9/1/2011 12:25 AM, Andy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:18 pm, > wrote:
>>
>> I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale. What
>> others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?
>
> You might ask yourself the same question about contest flying in
> general, cross-country soaring in general or soaring in general.

Agreed. And I have/do.

They
> answer in every case is "because of the enjoyment".

And maybe that's entirely sufficient. However...

Winning a contest
> day is the ultimate "hey look at me", moment.

No argument - or philosophic problem - on this point, either.

....however - and perhaps the intended nuance which follows will not convey
very well - I think a good argument can be made that contest flying vs. a
'look at me' zoomie at the home field is somewhat similar to (say) driving
your (gotta abide by the organizers' rules/guidelines) car in an
autocross/gymkhana/'semi-sanctioned/organized' event vs. peeling out or
otherwise drawing (often, juvenile) attention to oneself and vehicle on the
street. There are probably a fair proportion of Dads who wish their teenage
sons nearing driving age had never been exposed to the latter, while sighing
and using such exposure as teachable moments.

>
> In every phase of soaring we need to look at the risk/reward -
> remembering that each is, after all, in the name of a prima facie
> frivolous activity.
>

Yup and yup. Indeed risk vs. reward needs to be intelligently considered
beforehand...

Regards,
Bob W.

Bill D

September 1st 11, 10:44 PM

On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>
> > >Hi
> > >I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>
> > Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
> > possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
> > report:
>
> > "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
> > north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
> > pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
> > for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
> > flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
> > an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
> > glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
> > airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
> > startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.
>
> > "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
> > pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
> > slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
> > continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
> > point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
> > 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
> > nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
> > of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
> > point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
> > knots out of the south.
>
> > "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
> > for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
> > accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
> > arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
> > glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
> > reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
> > time he had flown it since purchase."
>
> > -- Judy
>
> Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
> indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
> component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
> the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
> is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
> turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
> increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
> exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
> perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
> affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
> shear into another wind direction.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient
>
> Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
> observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
> first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
> agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
> too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
> miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
> mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
> due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
> puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
> later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
> from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
> temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
> layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
> 'local' effect.
>
> Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.
>
> Frank Whiteley

This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. Tiny cellphone/pager
vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
warning.

glider12321

September 1st 11, 11:40 PM

On Sep 1, 3:44*pm, Bill D > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>
> > > At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>
> > > >Hi
> > > >I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>
> > > Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
> > > possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
> > > report:
>
> > > "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
> > > north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
> > > pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
> > > for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
> > > flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
> > > an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
> > > glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
> > > airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
> > > startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.
>
> > > "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
> > > pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
> > > slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
> > > continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
> > > point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
> > > 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
> > > nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
> > > of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
> > > point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
> > > knots out of the south.
>
> > > "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
> > > for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
> > > accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
> > > arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
> > > glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
> > > reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
> > > time he had flown it since purchase."
>
> > > -- Judy
>
> > Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
> > indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
> > component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
> > the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
> > is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
> > turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
> > increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
> > exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
> > perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
> > affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
> > shear into another wind direction.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient
>
> > Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
> > observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
> > first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
> > agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
> > too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
> > miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
> > mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
> > due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
> > puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
> > later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
> > from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
> > temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
> > layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
> > 'local' effect.
>
> > Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
> warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
> vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
> warning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From what I recall... many SZD55-1 gliders have a stall warning as
standard equipment in some countries.

jim wynhoff

September 1st 11, 11:49 PM

On Sep 1, 2:44*pm, Bill D > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>
> > > At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>
> > > >Hi
> > > >I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>
> > > Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
> > > possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
> > > report:
>
> > > "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
> > > north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
> > > pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
> > > for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
> > > flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
> > > an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
> > > glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
> > > airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
> > > startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.
>
> > > "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
> > > pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
> > > slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
> > > continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
> > > point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
> > > 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
> > > nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
> > > of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
> > > point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
> > > knots out of the south.
>
> > > "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
> > > for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
> > > accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
> > > arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
> > > glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
> > > reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
> > > time he had flown it since purchase."
>
> > > -- Judy
>
> > Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
> > indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
> > component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
> > the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
> > is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
> > turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
> > increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
> > exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
> > perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
> > affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
> > shear into another wind direction.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient
>
> > Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
> > observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
> > first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
> > agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
> > too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
> > miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
> > mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
> > due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
> > puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
> > later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
> > from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
> > temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
> > layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
> > 'local' effect.
>
> > Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
> warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
> vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
> warning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I respectfully disagree. Not attempting a high speed pass in a slow
glider might have saved a life. Flying THAT glider more frequently may
have saved a life. I don't think having the stick buzz a second before
the stall/spin would have helped given the pilot's lack of experience
in THAT glider.

Bill D

September 2nd 11, 12:12 AM

On Sep 1, 4:49*pm, jim wynhoff > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2:44*pm, Bill D > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>
> > > > At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>
> > > > >Hi
> > > > >I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>
> > > > Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
> > > > possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
> > > > report:
>
> > > > "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
> > > > north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
> > > > pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
> > > > for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
> > > > flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
> > > > an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
> > > > glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
> > > > airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
> > > > startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location..
>
> > > > "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
> > > > pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
> > > > slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
> > > > continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
> > > > point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
> > > > 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
> > > > nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
> > > > of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
> > > > point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
> > > > knots out of the south.
>
> > > > "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
> > > > for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
> > > > accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
> > > > arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
> > > > glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
> > > > reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
> > > > time he had flown it since purchase."
>
> > > > -- Judy
>
> > > Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
> > > indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
> > > component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
> > > the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
> > > is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
> > > turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
> > > increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
> > > exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
> > > perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
> > > affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
> > > shear into another wind direction.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient
>
> > > Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
> > > observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
> > > first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
> > > agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
> > > too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
> > > miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
> > > mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
> > > due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
> > > puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
> > > later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
> > > from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
> > > temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
> > > layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
> > > 'local' effect.
>
> > > Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.
>
> > > Frank Whiteley
>
> > This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
> > warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
> > vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
> > warning.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I respectfully disagree. *Not attempting a high speed pass in a slow
> glider might have saved a life. Flying THAT glider more frequently may
> have saved a life. I don't think having the stick buzz a second before
> the stall/spin would have helped given the pilot's lack of experience
> in THAT glider.

Shoving the stick forward one second before a stall break will prevent
it in any glider.

Ventus_a

September 2nd 11, 02:19 AM

On 8/23/2011 9:11 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:42 pm, wrote:
Ummmm...what're the chances of having an unplanned, low-altitude rope
break/premature termination of tow (for any reason) vs. having an unplanned
zoomie suddenly appear?

The very fact that zoomies are planned in advance makes them less
surprising, and therefore less prone to panic, rushing things etc than
unplanned rope breaks.

Thanks for helping make my point more clear. The planned aspect to zoomies is
all the more reason not to bugger one up...yet it would seem possible that
this *might* have been the case here.

Why is one mandated to be practiced (with instructors) and the other not?

You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
maneuver.

Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are their sites in
NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in the U.S. that
advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard offerings.

Regards,
Bob W.

Hi

Final glides are part of the Qualified Glider Pilot syllabus and competition finishes are part of the Advanced Training syllabus available in NZ

http://www.gliding.co.nz/sites/gliding.co.nz/images/documents/Training/s_qgp.pdf

http://www.gliding.co.nz/sites/gliding.co.nz/images/documents/Training/s_adv.pdf

Regards
Colin

John Cochrane[_2_]

September 2nd 11, 04:47 PM

On Sep 1, 10:35*am, Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
> At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>
> >Hi
> >I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>
> Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
> possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
> report:
>
> "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
> north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
> pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
> for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
> flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
> an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
> glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
> airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
> startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.
>
> "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
> pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
> slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
> continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
> point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
> 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
> nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
> of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
> point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
> knots out of the south.
>
> "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
> for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
> accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
> arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
> glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
> reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
> time he had flown it since purchase."
>
> -- Judy

Now that this report is out, it sounds like a tragic replay of the
2001 accident in Uvalde. See slides 6 and 7 here for analysis

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/ppts/contest_safety.ppt

We'll never know exactly what went through the pilots' minds, but the
ingredients are the same

Little recent time -- little recent experience landing in a variety of
conditions
Low pass down the middle of the runway, but not very high speed. (And
in this case, an older glider with less energy retention)
Downwind illusion - less airspeed than groundspeed in a decently
strong tailwind
Pull up give less altitude than expected
180 degree turn leaves the pilot off the edge of the runway, lower
than expected and drifting downwind -- need for suddenly greater turn
Possible dehydration -- no pee system installed; high temperatures

The downwind illusion is very powerful. It's interesting to watch
students want to run the downwind at 40 knots when there is a strong
tailwind blowing.

I think our discussion here has drifted too far off to contest low
passes -- higher performance gliders, and 120 knots -- and less to
basics like downwind illusion, glider turns on a point illusion, and
ruddering a panicked turn from base to final.

I guess instructors have some items to stress on BFRs.

These are basics, but they are tricky basics. Learning to anticipate
how wind will affect a pattern and how fast the ground will be going
by are things that even quite experienced pilots get wrong. Adding a
"nonstandard" pattern adds to the list of things that need to be
anticipated, for example that the 180 degree turn will use up some
radius.

John Cochrane

jimboffin

September 2nd 11, 05:04 PM

On Aug 25, 2:12*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > Martin Gregorie wrote.........
> > In UK high speed low finishes were banned after a photographer on the
> > airfield boundary was killed,
>
> US Rules Committee please take note.
> JJ

No he didn't JJ. He said 'not remotely true'. Low passes below 30ft
are banned in competition. High energy go arounds are still the norm.

Jim

BobW

September 2nd 11, 06:54 PM

On 9/1/2011 7:19 PM, Ventus_a wrote:

<Snip...>

>> You have several times now ignored the possibility of training how to
>> do a low pass with an instructor on board, just like any other gliding
>> maneuver.-
>>
>> Uhh...of *course* it's a (theoretical only?) possibility. Are there
>> sites in
>> NZ where folks could travel to do this? I'm unaware of any in the U.S.
>> that
>> advertise zoomie instruction is part of their standard offerings.

<Snip...>

> Hi
>
> Final glides are part of the Qualified Glider Pilot syllabus and
> competition finishes are part of the Advanced Training syllabus
> available in NZ
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3z7a6mh
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3s9p6eu
>
> Regards
> Colin

More (apparently) good/usable input on the subject of zoomie instruction. (I
use 'apparently' because when I tried to use the links, I was unable to obtain
connections.)

So now RAS readers have been informed zoomie instruction is available both in
NZ and OZ...and we're told mandatory, prior to contest involvement, in OZ.

From my perspective (given the severally-thin-margins associated with
safe-and-sane zoomie execution [pun not intended]), the NZ and OZ approaches
seem prudent, if not outright wise.

Regards,
Bob W.

JJ Sinclair[_2_]

September 2nd 11, 10:07 PM

No he didn't JJ. He said 'not remotely true'. Low passes below 30ft
> are banned in competition. High energy go arounds are still the norm.
>
> Jim

Yeah, I stand corrected. Time was that John & I were pushing for
elimination of the finish line altogether and just use the finish
circle to end the race. Looks like I'm alone with the safer
alternative. I have done my last low pass some years back. Too bad it
is seen as the "thing" to do by newbies. I believe most contests are
opting for the finish cylinder for liability reasons.

On the down-wind illusion, I can still remember one of my first out-
landings. Picked a road in the desert near Flanigan, NV. As I started
to flare, the feel of the ship was slow, but a very powerfull force
was telling me, "Your going much too fast, slow her down", because I
was going fast over the ground, but all I could do was to hold my
attitude and accept a high speed landing. We lost a pilot at Air
Sailing to this, Rope break at 800 feet on a wave tow into a 30 knot
wind. He made a good 180 turn, then stalled and spun-in going down-
wind. The ground was going by at 70, but he was stalling at 40.
Stay safe,
JJ

Mike Schumann

September 3rd 11, 06:27 PM

On 9/1/2011 6:12 PM, Bill D wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:49 pm, jim > wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2:44 pm, Bill > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 1, 12:25 pm, Frank > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 1, 9:35 am, Judy > wrote:
>>
>>>>> At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
>>
>>>>> Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
>>>>> possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
>>>>> report:
>>
>>>>> "A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
>>>>> north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
>>>>> pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
>>>>> for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
>>>>> flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
>>>>> an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
>>>>> glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
>>>>> airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
>>>>> startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.
>>
>>>>> "The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
>>>>> pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
>>>>> slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
>>>>> continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
>>>>> point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
>>>>> 300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
>>>>> nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
>>>>> of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
>>>>> point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
>>>>> knots out of the south.
>>
>>>>> "Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
>>>>> for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
>>>>> accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
>>>>> arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
>>>>> glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
>>>>> reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
>>>>> time he had flown it since purchase."
>>
>>>>> -- Judy
>>
>>>> Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
>>>> indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
>>>> component. Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
>>>> the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
>>>> is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
>>>> turbulence also. In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
>>>> increasing tail wind component. The described wind would also
>>>> exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
>>>> perceived speed across the ground. I doubt it would have had an
>>>> affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
>>>> shear into another wind direction.
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient
>>
>>>> Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
>>>> observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. The
>>>> first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
>>>> agl. Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. (The pilots notice it
>>>> too) The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
>>>> miles closer to the foot hills. I once asked him why he moved it. He
>>>> mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
>>>> due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. Of course, this often
>>>> puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
>>>> later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
>>>> from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
>>>> temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. This surface
>>>> layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
>>>> 'local' effect.
>>
>>>> Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.
>>
>>>> Frank Whiteley
>>
>>> This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
>>> warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. Tiny cellphone/pager
>>> vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
>>> warning.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I respectfully disagree. Not attempting a high speed pass in a slow
>> glider might have saved a life. Flying THAT glider more frequently may
>> have saved a life. I don't think having the stick buzz a second before
>> the stall/spin would have helped given the pilot's lack of experience
>> in THAT glider.
>
> Shoving the stick forward one second before a stall break will prevent
> it in any glider.
The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
and it didn't seem to help them. More gadgets won't compensate for a
lack of basic airmanship.

--
Mike Schumann

kirk.stant

September 4th 11, 05:47 PM

On Sep 3, 12:27*pm, Mike Schumann >
> The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
> and it didn't seem to help them. *More gadgets won't compensate for a
> lack of basic airmanship.

True, but the point of the "gadgets" as you call them is to attract
attention to a condition so that the pilot can apply basic airmanship
and save the day (and his life).

Just saying "gadgets wont help" is like saying "ban all low passes" -
it totally ignores the fact that stick shakers have in the past and
will continue in the future save many lives - and that low passes are
done all the time in perfect safety by careful pilots without any
problem, while other pilots continue to crash while attempting a
simple landing.

I agree, though, that at the bottom of all this (and to our appalling
safety record in soaring) lies an amazing lack of discipline and
"airmanship" in our glider pilot population, coupled with what I
consider a haphazard system of instruction - good individual
instructors hampered by a lack of standardization, etc...

Kirk
66

CLewis95

September 4th 11, 07:14 PM

On Sep 4, 11:47*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 12:27*pm, Mike Schumann >
>
> > The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
> > and it didn't seem to help them. *More gadgets won't compensate for a
> > lack of basic airmanship.
>
> True, but the point of the "gadgets" as you call them is to attract
> attention to a condition so that the pilot can apply basic airmanship
> and save the day (and his life).
>
> Just saying "gadgets wont help" is like saying "ban all low passes" -
> it totally ignores the fact that stick shakers have in the past and
> will continue in the future save many lives - and that low passes are
> done all the time in perfect safety by careful pilots without any
> problem, while other pilots continue to crash while attempting a
> simple landing.
>
> I agree, though, that at the bottom of all this (and to our appalling
> safety record in soaring) lies an amazing lack of discipline and
> "airmanship" in our glider pilot population, coupled with what I
> consider a haphazard system of instruction - good individual
> instructors hampered by a lack of standardization, etc...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirk - "haphazard system of instruction" ... BINGO

Mike Schumann

September 6th 11, 01:54 AM

On 9/4/2011 11:47 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sep 3, 12:27 pm, Mike >
>> The commuter plane that crashed in Buffalo last year had a stick shaker
>> and it didn't seem to help them. More gadgets won't compensate for a
>> lack of basic airmanship.
>
> True, but the point of the "gadgets" as you call them is to attract
> attention to a condition so that the pilot can apply basic airmanship
> and save the day (and his life).
>
> Just saying "gadgets wont help" is like saying "ban all low passes" -
> it totally ignores the fact that stick shakers have in the past and
> will continue in the future save many lives - and that low passes are
> done all the time in perfect safety by careful pilots without any
> problem, while other pilots continue to crash while attempting a
> simple landing.
>
> I agree, though, that at the bottom of all this (and to our appalling
> safety record in soaring) lies an amazing lack of discipline and
> "airmanship" in our glider pilot population, coupled with what I
> consider a haphazard system of instruction - good individual
> instructors hampered by a lack of standardization, etc...
>
> Kirk
> 66
I am not against all "gadgets". I just think that we need to
prioritize, given the limited amount of panel space, and equally
importantly, the limited ability of people to learn how to use all the
stuff they are putting into their cockpits.

At the top of my list would be collision avoidance gear (PowerFlarm /
ADS-B / transponder type stuff). This will potentially save a properly
trained pilot. My personal feeling is that you really aren't trained
properly if you can't sense and feel a stall coming on and don't
instinctively know what to do about it. Adding another instrument to
tell you what you should already know, just adds another item to your
scan, which distracts you from more important stuff, like looking for
traffic.

--
Mike Schumann

kirk.stant

September 6th 11, 02:00 PM

On Sep 5, 7:54*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> I am not against all "gadgets". *I just think that we need to
> prioritize, given the limited amount of panel space, and equally
> importantly, the limited ability of people to learn how to use all the
> stuff they are putting into their cockpits.

I agree with respect to a lot of the fancy PNA programs - they have
the potential to display so much useless info!

However, we were discussing stick shakers/stall warning systems
specifically - which are pretty bone-simple - even a caveman can
understand how they work!

> At the top of my list would be collision avoidance gear (PowerFlarm /
> ADS-B / transponder type stuff). *This will potentially save a properly
> trained pilot. *My personal feeling is that you really aren't trained
> properly if you can't sense and feel a stall coming on and don't
> instinctively know what to do about it. *Adding another instrument to
> tell you what you should already know, just adds another item to your
> scan, which distracts you from more important stuff, like looking for
> traffic.

Apparently the FAA, NASA, Air Force, Boeing, Airbus, and airlines do
not share you opinion...

Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). Add
a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. Add
to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
warning system becomes even more clear.

Kirk
66

Jim White[_3_]

September 6th 11, 04:11 PM

I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.

I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
dada...recovered.
None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.

I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
kept shaking!

And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
very tight field in a light head wind!

This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
747s with passengers down the back.

Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
gadget to go wrong.

At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
>why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). Add
>a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
>and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. Add
>to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
>warning system becomes even more clear.
>
>Kirk
>66
>

Bill D

September 6th 11, 05:38 PM

I think there are several misconceptions in Jim's post below.

First, we are not talking about "stick shakers" which produce large,
low frequency shaking. No glider would have the electrical power to
operate one. We are talking about "stick vibrators" using tiny cell
phone vibrator motors. These are carefully designed to get your
attention so you answer a call.

Second, if you routinely thermal in the AoA range where they would
activate, you're flying way too slow. There is a fairly large AoA
range between minimum sink and stall so the warning should not
activate in smooth air and rarely in rough air. If it activates
often, you could climb better by lowering the nose and flying a little
faster. For performance, there is no reason to operate in the
airspeed/AoA range between min sink and stall.

Third, I have no doubt Jim can detect an impending stall by feel and
aircraft behavior as he says. Most of us can do that, but we're not
the ones involved in stall/spin accidents - yet. As has been pointed
out, distractions can interfere with our perceptions of impending
stall. Who would say there could not be a situation where they might
benefit from a "buzz in the hand" reminder to lower the nose.

I spent the weekend instructing in an ASK 21 - arguably one of the
most docile gliders ever built. Not one pilot could detect an
impending stall unless I carefully pointed out the glider's
symptomatic pre-stall behavior - it's very subtle and requires some
mental concentration to detect it. It's so docile, a few couldn't
even detect a stall even as it was happening.

For those objecting to a AoA/stall warner, carefully read this story:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110903142411.htm

Not all objections are based on logic.

Bill Daniels

On Sep 6, 9:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
> I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> dada...recovered.
> None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> kept shaking!
>
> And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> gadget to go wrong.
>
> At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> >Kirk
> >66

Mike Philpott

September 6th 11, 05:46 PM

Jim,

This is spooky. For once, I find myself agreeing with you.

Stall and spin awareness and stall and spin handling is a vital
part of a glider pilot's training. We routinely operate only a few
knots above the stall and this is one of the reasons why we add
a few more knots for the wife and kids when below around 500
feet.

The DG1000 has a stall warner and it is bloody annoying when it
keeps going off. It's a real distraction, it reacts to gusts and
doesn't really work. It is totally counterproductive.

In my view, those who cannot recognise the fact that their glider
is near the stall or is about to spin are not yet adequately
trained or lack adequate currency to be able to fly safely.

The remedy is in training, not in unreliable extra gadgets. My
sympathies go out to the unfortunate people who lost their lives
in spinning accidents as well as their families. There was a spate
of spinning accidents around twenty five years ago in the UK.
The BGA training syllabus got changed at that time and
thankfully- touch wood, we have far fewer spinning accidents
now.

Mike

At 15:11 06 September 2011, Jim White wrote:
>I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
>I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern
gliders:
>ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead
of a stall.
>When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit,
dada...stall
>recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21
shouldn't with
>normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of
pedal, and
>dada...recovered.
>None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered
straight away.
>
>I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the
stall. You
>feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually
happens well
>before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if
the stick
>kept shaking!
>
>And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also
be a bit
>****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as
possible into a
>very tight field in a light head wind!
>
>This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are
not flying
>747s with passengers down the back.
>
>Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient
speed and
>well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This
all should be
>natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another
mechanical
>gadget to go wrong.
>
>
>At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>>Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another
reason
>>why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is
counterproductive). Add
>>a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the
cockpit!)
>>and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware
of it. Add
>>to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
>>warning system becomes even more clear.
>>
>>Kirk
>>66
>>
>
>

Bill D

September 6th 11, 07:26 PM

Comments interspersed below.

On Sep 6, 10:46*am, Mike Philpott <@> wrote:
> Jim,
>

> Stall and spin awareness and stall and spin handling is a vital
> part of a glider pilot's training. We routinely operate only a few
> knots above the stall and this is one of the reasons why we add
> a few more knots for the wife and kids when below around 500
> feet.

True - but also a good reason to have a stall warning device.
>
> The DG1000 has a stall warner and it is bloody annoying when it
> keeps going off. It's a real distraction, it reacts to gusts and
> doesn't really work. It is totally counterproductive.

Only one example and generalizing it to all stall warning devices in
inappropriate and inaccurate. It's also possible, even likely,
you're just flying the DG1000 too slow.

>
> In my view, those who cannot recognise the fact that their glider
> is near the stall or is about to spin are not yet adequately
> trained or lack adequate currency to be able to fly safely.

'Trained to recognize' and 'will recognize' in a stressful situation
are two different things.

>
> The remedy is in training, not in unreliable extra gadgets.

Training is good but why should stall warnings be unreliable? Every
aircraft has a stall warning system except gliders. Complaints of
unreliability with these systems are essentially zero.

Bill Daniels

Ramy

September 6th 11, 08:35 PM

On Sep 6, 8:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
> I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> dada...recovered.
> None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> kept shaking!
>
> And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> gadget to go wrong.
>
> At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
>
>
> >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> >Kirk
> >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?

Ramy

Bill D

September 6th 11, 09:29 PM

On Sep 6, 1:35*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 8:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> > I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> > ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> > When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> > recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> > normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> > dada...recovered.
> > None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> > I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> > feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> > before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> > kept shaking!
>
> > And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> > ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> > very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> > This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> > 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> > Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> > well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> > natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> > gadget to go wrong.
>
> > At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> > >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> > >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> > >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> > >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> > >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> > >Kirk
> > >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> Ramy

First, i don't think stall/spins represent the majority of accidents
or even fatalities. Over the years, we've found other ways to kill
ourselves.

As for how the stall/spin actually happens, I think training may be at
fault in at least two areas. Many instructors insist on teaching
stalls as a very nose high attitude followed by a nose drop - this
rarely, if ever, happens in normal operations. Almost all accidental
stalls happen from slow flight carried too far. The most instructive
stalls are approached slowly from prolonged flight in the near-stall
environment. If the glider is allowed to enter a high-sink "mush"
before a skidding turn is initiated, you'll see a more convincing spin
departure. I always teach stalls entered from slow-flight.

Gliders entering service in the last 30 years or so are very resistant
to spins if loaded within the allowable CG range. They will only spin
if the controls are held in the full pro-spin position - full back
stick and pro-spin rudder. This is an unlikely scenario in an
accidental stall/spin. If the controls are elsewhere, the glider will
drop a wing in the stall break and then enter a mild spiral dive. If
the pilot mis-identifies the spiral dive as a spin and applies spin
recovery control inputs, the result can be a rolling dive into the
ground. (If it happens in a very slippery, heavily ballasted open
class glider, it may break up as it exceeds redline.) Excluding those
accidents resulting from an aft of limit CG, I think many 'stall/spin'
accidents follow this scenario and are really spiral dives at impact.

Scott[_7_]

September 7th 11, 12:00 AM

On 9-6-2011 18:26, Bill D wrote:
Every
> aircraft has a stall warning system except gliders. Complaints of
> unreliability with these systems are essentially zero.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>

Untrue. My Corben Junior Ace (experimental) does not have any stall
warning device other than the nose of the aircraft. When it is pointing
straight at the ground, the aircraft has stalled at some time prior to
seeing the ground out in front. No buffet either. However, being open
cockpit, one generally notices the wind noise gets very low and not much
breeze on the face right before stall.

Ace

Darryl Ramm

September 7th 11, 08:46 AM

On 9/1/11 2:44 PM, Bill D wrote:
[snip]

> This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
> warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. Tiny cellphone/pager
> vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
> warning.

I have no idea how you know enough about what was going on with the
aircraft and its pilot (especially inside his head/his perception of the
aircraft situation and flight performance) to know he would have
responded to a stall warning device appropriately and in time to
prevented the crash.

I would like to think maybe there is a stall warning device that might
be developed but I am pessimistic about the effectiveness of these
devices and false alarms while thermalling. And I am a bit bemused by
the mention a small cellphone like shaker device to vibrate the control
stick. Many of our gliders give us some pretty good signals about an
impending stall. And in situations like where people are being killed in
pull-up/turn or flat over-rudder turns to base etc. I expect these
accident pilots are so far behind their aircraft that a subtle warnings
(e.g. vibrating the stick with a small shaker) would not be noticed. A
loud alarm or voice alert might at least have a chance of registering at
all with the pilot but whether the warning can be issued to allow them
enough time to react and whether the pilot will react correctly who
knows... (e.g. in a heading towards the dirt "ground rush" situations
the pilot has to sort out an audible stall alert vs. a pretty strong
visual cue that causes them to likely want to pull back and its not
clear what they will do).

I suspect something that is going to help the pilot who is well behind
their glider will require fairly loud/very obvious warning with a decent
pre-stall margin and that risks being annoying when thermalling slow.
e.g. its unclear if a system would be airspeed or AoA based, but
spoilers open often increase stall speeds by a few knots so does the
stall warning need to know the spoiler position and factor this or do
you just pad the stall warning by a few more knots and further increase
false alarms/disturbances when thermalling? Flap position needs to be
factored as well on flapped gliders. If somebody is far enough behind
the glider and doing something that is about to bite them then how much
warning margin before the stall is actually needed to give the pilot a
good chance of avoiding or recovering faster/more effectively from the
stall/spin? Will those warning margins added together cause lots of
false alerts when thermalling say 10 knots above the stall in a gusty
thermal? And although I want something really obvious like a loud beep
or similar for a stall warning I also don't want noises that might be
confused with a FLARM/PowerFLARM alert while in a thermal.

There are glider stall warning systems available today, so the the
question may really be how do these systems work in practice and why are
there not more of them in use. DG built a visual and audible stall
warning system in the DG-600 and they have a stall warning in the DEI-NT
(and DEI??).

Safe Flight have their vane driven AoA meter which has an audible alarm
but besides seeing one installed in a glider at the SSA show in
Albuquerque a few years ago I have never hear of one of these installed
in the wild, or of a glider manufacturer offering these as options.
Anybody know any different? Or know what these cost? I believe the
fairly large vane is removable but how easy is it to damage e.g. on
ground handling?

The Cambridge 302 has a stall warning based on pitot airspeed, wing
loading (it knows the % ballast) and G-meter (but it does not take into
effect flap or spoiler position). I used a C302 in my DG-303 and ASH-26E
and in both cases turned down the warning airspeed because it produced
too many false alarms while thermalling, based on my own use I don't
think its a useful tool for real stall/spin avoidance. Other pilot's
have experiences/opinions with the C302 stall warning?

So who has actually flies with any of these or other stall warning
indicators today and how useful have they found them? And do you think
they will be useful for preventing some of the
behind-the-aircraft/confused pilot stall/spin accidents we've seen?

I know there are these videos on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000?blend=23&ob=5 , I assume showing the
DG DEI system alerting but without more information like the airspeeds
and seeing the glider thermalling I can't really draw any conclusion at
all from the videos.

In the meantime, looks like instructors doing BFRs and spring checkouts
next year have lots and lots of stuff to go through that may save
lives... from tow-signals to stall/spin aerodynamics, recognition and
recovery.

Darryl

Ramy

September 7th 11, 09:40 AM

On Sep 7, 12:46*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On 9/1/11 2:44 PM, Bill D wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
> > warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
> > vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
> > warning.
>
> I have no idea how you know enough about what was going on with the
> aircraft and its pilot (especially inside his head/his perception of the
> aircraft situation and flight performance) to know he would have
> responded to a stall warning device appropriately and in time to
> prevented the crash.
>
> I would like to think maybe there is a stall warning device that might
> be developed but I am pessimistic about the effectiveness of these
> devices and false alarms while thermalling. And I am a bit bemused by
> the mention a *small cellphone like shaker device to vibrate the control
> stick. Many of our gliders give us some pretty good signals about an
> impending stall. And in situations like where people are being killed in
> pull-up/turn or flat over-rudder turns to base etc. I expect these
> accident pilots are so far behind their aircraft that a subtle warnings
> (e.g. vibrating the stick with a small shaker) would not be noticed. A
> loud alarm or voice alert might at least have a chance of registering at
> all with the pilot but whether the warning can be issued to allow them
> enough time to react and whether the pilot will react correctly who
> knows... (e.g. in a heading towards the dirt "ground rush" situations
> the pilot has to sort out an audible stall alert vs. a pretty strong
> visual cue that causes them to likely want to pull back and its not
> clear what they will do).
>
> I suspect something that is going to help the pilot who is well behind
> their glider will require fairly loud/very obvious warning with a decent
> pre-stall margin and that risks being annoying when thermalling slow.
> e.g. its unclear if a system would be airspeed or AoA based, but
> spoilers open often increase stall speeds *by a few knots so does the
> stall warning need to know the spoiler position and factor this or do
> you just pad the stall warning by a few more knots and further increase
> false alarms/disturbances when thermalling? Flap position needs to be
> factored as well on flapped gliders. If somebody is far enough behind
> the glider and doing something that is about to bite them then how much
> warning margin before the stall is actually needed to give the pilot a
> good chance of avoiding or recovering faster/more effectively from the
> stall/spin? Will those warning margins added together cause lots of
> false alerts when thermalling say 10 knots above the stall in a gusty
> thermal? And although I want something really obvious like a loud beep
> or similar for a stall warning I also don't want noises that might be
> confused with a FLARM/PowerFLARM alert while in a thermal.
>
> There are glider stall warning systems available today, so the the
> question may really be how do these systems work in practice and why are
> there not more of them in use. DG built a visual and audible stall
> warning system in the DG-600 and they have a stall warning in the DEI-NT
> (and DEI??).
>
> Safe Flight have their vane driven AoA meter which has an audible alarm
> but besides seeing one installed in a glider at the SSA show in
> Albuquerque a few years ago I have never hear of one of these installed
> in the wild, or of a glider manufacturer offering these as options.
> Anybody know any different? Or know what these cost? I believe the
> fairly large vane is removable but how easy is it to damage e.g. on
> ground handling?
>
> The Cambridge 302 *has a stall warning based on pitot airspeed, wing
> loading (it knows the % ballast) and G-meter (but it does not take into
> effect flap or spoiler position). I used a C302 in my DG-303 and ASH-26E
> and in both cases turned down the warning airspeed because it produced
> too many false alarms while thermalling, based on my own use I don't
> think its a useful tool for real stall/spin avoidance. Other pilot's
> have experiences/opinions with the C302 stall warning?
>
> So who has actually flies with any of these or other stall warning
> indicators today and how useful have they found them? And do you think
> they will be useful for preventing some of the
> behind-the-aircraft/confused pilot stall/spin accidents we've seen?
>
> I know there are these videos on YouTube athttp://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000?blend=23&ob=5, I assume showing the
> DG DEI system alerting but without more information like the airspeeds
> and seeing the glider thermalling I can't really draw any conclusion at
> all from the videos.
>
> In the meantime, looks like instructors doing BFRs and spring checkouts
> next year have lots and lots of stuff to go through that may save
> lives... from tow-signals to stall/spin aerodynamics, recognition and
> recovery.
>
> Darryl

I came to the exact same conclusion regarding the 302 stall warning
and turned it down after flying with it few times. For such devices to
be effective at all they should have zero false alarm, otherwise the
pilot will learn to ignore them.

Ramy

[email protected]

September 7th 11, 03:01 PM

On Sep 6, 3:35*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Sep 6, 8:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> > I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> > ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> > When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> > recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> > normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> > dada...recovered.
> > None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> > I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> > feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> > before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> > kept shaking!
>
> > And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> > ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> > very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> > This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> > 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> > Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> > well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> > natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> > gadget to go wrong.
>
> > At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> > >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> > >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> > >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> > >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> > >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> > >Kirk
> > >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
out.
A stall does not happen without some warning.
The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
verbalize and demonstrate them.
#1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
#2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
high is almost always there in critical stalls.
#3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
evident.
#4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
or improperly trimmed glider.
#5- Low indicated air speed
#6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
other warnings.
I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
more emphasis and practice.
Off soap box
UH

Dan Marotta

September 7th 11, 03:29 PM

Interviewing the surviving pilot after a stall/spin crash in a glider
equipped with "modern" instruments:

"What happened? Didn't you notice the quiet? The slack controls? The nose
dropping? Slicing?"

"Well, no... There was this annoying, distracting, loud buzzing going on
and I was trying to figure out what it meant when the lights went out."

Maybe we also need an interlock system which prevents opening the release
with weight on the wheel and spoilers or canopy unlocked... Then you
couldn't hook up until properly configured. For motorgliders, the engine
won't start until the configuration is correct for takeoff.

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 7:54 pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> I am not against all "gadgets". I just think that we need to
> prioritize, given the limited amount of panel space, and equally
> importantly, the limited ability of people to learn how to use all the
> stuff they are putting into their cockpits.

I agree with respect to a lot of the fancy PNA programs - they have
the potential to display so much useless info!

However, we were discussing stick shakers/stall warning systems
specifically - which are pretty bone-simple - even a caveman can
understand how they work!

> At the top of my list would be collision avoidance gear (PowerFlarm /
> ADS-B / transponder type stuff). This will potentially save a properly
> trained pilot. My personal feeling is that you really aren't trained
> properly if you can't sense and feel a stall coming on and don't
> instinctively know what to do about it. Adding another instrument to
> tell you what you should already know, just adds another item to your
> scan, which distracts you from more important stuff, like looking for
> traffic.

Apparently the FAA, NASA, Air Force, Boeing, Airbus, and airlines do
not share you opinion...

Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). Add
a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. Add
to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
warning system becomes even more clear.

Kirk
66

Bill D

September 7th 11, 03:29 PM

On Sep 7, 1:46*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On 9/1/11 2:44 PM, Bill D wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
> > warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
> > vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
> > warning.
>
> I have no idea how you know enough about what was going on with the
> aircraft and its pilot (especially inside his head/his perception of the
> aircraft situation and flight performance) to know he would have
> responded to a stall warning device appropriately and in time to
> prevented the crash.
>
> I would like to think maybe there is a stall warning device that might
> be developed but I am pessimistic about the effectiveness of these
> devices and false alarms while thermalling. And I am a bit bemused by
> the mention a *small cellphone like shaker device to vibrate the control
> stick. Many of our gliders give us some pretty good signals about an
> impending stall. And in situations like where people are being killed in
> pull-up/turn or flat over-rudder turns to base etc. I expect these
> accident pilots are so far behind their aircraft that a subtle warnings
> (e.g. vibrating the stick with a small shaker) would not be noticed. A
> loud alarm or voice alert might at least have a chance of registering at
> all with the pilot but whether the warning can be issued to allow them
> enough time to react and whether the pilot will react correctly who
> knows... (e.g. in a heading towards the dirt "ground rush" situations
> the pilot has to sort out an audible stall alert vs. a pretty strong
> visual cue that causes them to likely want to pull back and its not
> clear what they will do).
>
> I suspect something that is going to help the pilot who is well behind
> their glider will require fairly loud/very obvious warning with a decent
> pre-stall margin and that risks being annoying when thermalling slow.
> e.g. its unclear if a system would be airspeed or AoA based, but
> spoilers open often increase stall speeds *by a few knots so does the
> stall warning need to know the spoiler position and factor this or do
> you just pad the stall warning by a few more knots and further increase
> false alarms/disturbances when thermalling? Flap position needs to be
> factored as well on flapped gliders. If somebody is far enough behind
> the glider and doing something that is about to bite them then how much
> warning margin before the stall is actually needed to give the pilot a
> good chance of avoiding or recovering faster/more effectively from the
> stall/spin? Will those warning margins added together cause lots of
> false alerts when thermalling say 10 knots above the stall in a gusty
> thermal? And although I want something really obvious like a loud beep
> or similar for a stall warning I also don't want noises that might be
> confused with a FLARM/PowerFLARM alert while in a thermal.
>
> There are glider stall warning systems available today, so the the
> question may really be how do these systems work in practice and why are
> there not more of them in use. DG built a visual and audible stall
> warning system in the DG-600 and they have a stall warning in the DEI-NT
> (and DEI??).
>
> Safe Flight have their vane driven AoA meter which has an audible alarm
> but besides seeing one installed in a glider at the SSA show in
> Albuquerque a few years ago I have never hear of one of these installed
> in the wild, or of a glider manufacturer offering these as options.
> Anybody know any different? Or know what these cost? I believe the
> fairly large vane is removable but how easy is it to damage e.g. on
> ground handling?
>
> The Cambridge 302 *has a stall warning based on pitot airspeed, wing
> loading (it knows the % ballast) and G-meter (but it does not take into
> effect flap or spoiler position). I used a C302 in my DG-303 and ASH-26E
> and in both cases turned down the warning airspeed because it produced
> too many false alarms while thermalling, based on my own use I don't
> think its a useful tool for real stall/spin avoidance. Other pilot's
> have experiences/opinions with the C302 stall warning?
>
> So who has actually flies with any of these or other stall warning
> indicators today and how useful have they found them? And do you think
> they will be useful for preventing some of the
> behind-the-aircraft/confused pilot stall/spin accidents we've seen?
>
> I know there are these videos on YouTube athttp://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000?blend=23&ob=5, I assume showing the
> DG DEI system alerting but without more information like the airspeeds
> and seeing the glider thermalling I can't really draw any conclusion at
> all from the videos.
>
> In the meantime, looks like instructors doing BFRs and spring checkouts
> next year have lots and lots of stuff to go through that may save
> lives... from tow-signals to stall/spin aerodynamics, recognition and
> recovery.
>
> Darryl

How do I know it works? Because it works and is therefore considered
essential in hundreds of thousands of airplanes.

So, what solution do you propose?

I'm trying to think of ways to save lives. What is your objective?

The "lets train them better" idea has been around 100 years with
generally dismal results. The stall warning device idea has been
around probably 50 years and works well enough it has been widely
adopted throughout the aviation world. Only the gliding world has
successfully resisted stall warning devices and we pay for it in our
accident record.

Stall sensors could be either airspeed or AoA based. A simple and
rugged sensor is a pair of pressure ports on the top and bottom of the
nose cone. The differential pressure between these ports is
proportional to AoA.

Would there be false warnings? Of course there would. It happens on
light airplanes but there's no confusion since a intermittent warning
in rough air has an obvious and benign cause. A steady warning at low
airspeed signals an impending stall. If an AoA display is part of the
system, a glance at it would show the cause of a warning.

It's also possible to set sensitivity depending on the phase of
flight. If the gear is down signaling an impending landing, the
warning could be more sensitive sounding at a lower AoA/higher
airspeed. Our computers detect thermalling and set themselves to that
mode automatically - they could also set the stall warning to be less
sensitive when thermalling.

If a stick vibrator isn't sufficient, adding a bright light to the
glare shield or audible warning would be easy. It could even be set
so the vibration starts early to be followed by a loud warning if the
dangerously high AoA condition persists. This could avoid annoying an
attentive pilot while providing an unmistakeable warning to the
distracted pilot.

It is so easy for people to set back and think of reasons why
something might not work while never putting forward one which would
work. They never have to prove an idea won't work, they just raise
doubts by suggesting it might not work perfectly every time. They're
called "Negative Experts".

A stall warning device doesn't have to work every time. If it saves a
life 10% of the time it would be worthwhile. Good research says it
will work far more often than that.

Jim White[_3_]

September 7th 11, 04:17 PM

Upon reflection I think this device might be really helpful. It would allow
me to fly much closer to the stall without having to think too much when
thermalling and landing. I could just keep pulling until I feel the buzz.
Might still have a problem when I am doing a wing over after a high energy
inverted pass however.

Well trained and practised glider pilots are completely comfortable with
the stall and spin characteristics of their glider(s). Whenever I return to
base high I take the opportunity to stall / spin / and bat my glider to
improve my handling skill and my familiarity with its flight
characteristics. It is also great fun.

In the UK we train pilots to recognise and recover stalls, spins, and
spiral dives before they go solo. Solo pilots at my club are also
encouraged to learn aerobatics to improve their handling and awareness of
the aircraft. Like unclhank, I do not think we should replace training with
gadgets.

Jim

ps: I watched a chap in a brand new Mercedes back into a table yesterday
producing a huge and expensive dent. He had reversing sensors but they
clearly weren't pointing at the table and he new he could rely upon them
because that's what the salesman had said!

At 14:29 07 September 2011, Bill D wrote:
>
>How do I know it works? Because it works and is therefore considered
>essential in hundreds of thousands of airplanes.
>
>So, what solution do you propose?
>
>I'm trying to think of ways to save lives. What is your objective?
>
>The "lets train them better" idea has been around 100 years with
>generally dismal results. The stall warning device idea has been
>around probably 50 years and works well enough it has been widely
>adopted throughout the aviation world. Only the gliding world has
>successfully resisted stall warning devices and we pay for it in our
>accident record.
>
>Stall sensors could be either airspeed or AoA based. A simple and
>rugged sensor is a pair of pressure ports on the top and bottom of the
>nose cone. The differential pressure between these ports is
>proportional to AoA.
>
>Would there be false warnings? Of course there would. It happens on
>light airplanes but there's no confusion since a intermittent warning
>in rough air has an obvious and benign cause. A steady warning at low
>airspeed signals an impending stall. If an AoA display is part of the
>system, a glance at it would show the cause of a warning.
>
>It's also possible to set sensitivity depending on the phase of
>flight. If the gear is down signaling an impending landing, the
>warning could be more sensitive sounding at a lower AoA/higher
>airspeed. Our computers detect thermalling and set themselves to that
>mode automatically - they could also set the stall warning to be less
>sensitive when thermalling.
>
>If a stick vibrator isn't sufficient, adding a bright light to the
>glare shield or audible warning would be easy. It could even be set
>so the vibration starts early to be followed by a loud warning if the
>dangerously high AoA condition persists. This could avoid annoying an
>attentive pilot while providing an unmistakeable warning to the
>distracted pilot.
>
>It is so easy for people to set back and think of reasons why
>something might not work while never putting forward one which would
>work. They never have to prove an idea won't work, they just raise
>doubts by suggesting it might not work perfectly every time. They're
>called "Negative Experts".
>
>A stall warning device doesn't have to work every time. If it saves a
>life 10% of the time it would be worthwhile. Good research says it
>will work far more often than that.
>
>

Bill D

September 7th 11, 04:48 PM

On Sep 7, 8:01*am, wrote:
> On Sep 6, 3:35*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 8:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
>
> > > I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> > > I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> > > ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> > > When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> > > recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> > > normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> > > dada...recovered.
> > > None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> > > I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> > > feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> > > before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> > > kept shaking!
>
> > > And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> > > ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> > > very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> > > This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> > > 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> > > Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> > > well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> > > natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> > > gadget to go wrong.
>
> > > At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > > >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> > > >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> > > >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> > > >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> > > >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> > > >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> > > >Kirk
> > > >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> > had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> > thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> > accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> > rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> > are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> > if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> > accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> > spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> > I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> > survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> > Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> > Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> out.
> A stall does not happen without some warning.
> The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> verbalize and demonstrate them.
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> evident.
> #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> or improperly trimmed glider.
> #5- Low indicated air speed
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> other warnings.
> I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> more emphasis and practice.
> Off soap box
> UH

Excellent review!

I would only add if one or more of these symptoms are present and a
stall warning sounds, it will be clear why it sounded. A stall
warning tends to provide the impetus for action - merely recognizing
the symptoms does not in itself result in stall/spin avoidance - the
pilot must act to lower the AoA.

Darryl Ramm

September 7th 11, 05:10 PM

Bill D > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 1:46 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> > On 9/1/11 2:44 PM, Bill D wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with
> > > stall
> > > warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. Tiny
> > > cellphone/pager
> > > vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent
> > > stall
> > > warning.
> >
> > I have no idea how you know enough about what was going on with the
> > aircraft and its pilot (especially inside his head/his perception of
> > the
> > aircraft situation and flight performance) to know he would have
> > responded to a stall warning device appropriately and in time to
> > prevented the crash.
> >
> > I would like to think maybe there is a stall warning device that
> > might
> > be developed but I am pessimistic about the effectiveness of these
> > devices and false alarms while thermalling. And I am a bit bemused
> > by
> > the mention a small cellphone like shaker device to vibrate the
> > control
> > stick. Many of our gliders give us some pretty good signals about an
> > impending stall. And in situations like where people are being
> > killed in
> > pull-up/turn or flat over-rudder turns to base etc. I expect these
> > accident pilots are so far behind their aircraft that a subtle
> > warnings
> > (e.g. vibrating the stick with a small shaker) would not be noticed.
> > A
> > loud alarm or voice alert might at least have a chance of
> > registering at
> > all with the pilot but whether the warning can be issued to allow
> > them
> > enough time to react and whether the pilot will react correctly who
> > knows... (e.g. in a heading towards the dirt "ground rush"
> > situations
> > the pilot has to sort out an audible stall alert vs. a pretty strong
> > visual cue that causes them to likely want to pull back and its not
> > clear what they will do).
> >
> > I suspect something that is going to help the pilot who is well
> > behind
> > their glider will require fairly loud/very obvious warning with a
> > decent
> > pre-stall margin and that risks being annoying when thermalling
> > slow.
> > e.g. its unclear if a system would be airspeed or AoA based, but
> > spoilers open often increase stall speeds by a few knots so does
> > the
> > stall warning need to know the spoiler position and factor this or
> > do
> > you just pad the stall warning by a few more knots and further
> > increase
> > false alarms/disturbances when thermalling? Flap position needs to
> > be
> > factored as well on flapped gliders. If somebody is far enough
> > behind
> > the glider and doing something that is about to bite them then how
> > much
> > warning margin before the stall is actually needed to give the pilot
> > a
> > good chance of avoiding or recovering faster/more effectively from
> > the
> > stall/spin? Will those warning margins added together cause lots of
> > false alerts when thermalling say 10 knots above the stall in a
> > gusty
> > thermal? And although I want something really obvious like a loud
> > beep
> > or similar for a stall warning I also don't want noises that might
> > be
> > confused with a FLARM/PowerFLARM alert while in a thermal.
> >
> > There are glider stall warning systems available today, so the the
> > question may really be how do these systems work in practice and why
> > are
> > there not more of them in use. DG built a visual and audible stall
> > warning system in the DG-600 and they have a stall warning in the
> > DEI-NT
> > (and DEI??).
> >
> > Safe Flight have their vane driven AoA meter which has an audible
> > alarm
> > but besides seeing one installed in a glider at the SSA show in
> > Albuquerque a few years ago I have never hear of one of these
> > installed
> > in the wild, or of a glider manufacturer offering these as options.
> > Anybody know any different? Or know what these cost? I believe the
> > fairly large vane is removable but how easy is it to damage e.g. on
> > ground handling?
> >
> > The Cambridge 302 has a stall warning based on pitot airspeed, wing
> > loading (it knows the % ballast) and G-meter (but it does not take
> > into
> > effect flap or spoiler position). I used a C302 in my DG-303 and
> > ASH-26E
> > and in both cases turned down the warning airspeed because it
> > produced
> > too many false alarms while thermalling, based on my own use I don't
> > think its a useful tool for real stall/spin avoidance. Other pilot's
> > have experiences/opinions with the C302 stall warning?
> >
> > So who has actually flies with any of these or other stall warning
> > indicators today and how useful have they found them? And do you
> > think
> > they will be useful for preventing some of the
> > behind-the-aircraft/confused pilot stall/spin accidents we've seen?
> >
> > I know there are these videos on YouTube
> > athttp://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000?blend=23&ob=5, I assume
> > showing the
> > DG DEI system alerting but without more information like the
> > airspeeds
> > and seeing the glider thermalling I can't really draw any conclusion
> > at
> > all from the videos.
> >
> > In the meantime, looks like instructors doing BFRs and spring
> > checkouts
> > next year have lots and lots of stuff to go through that may save
> > lives... from tow-signals to stall/spin aerodynamics, recognition
> > and
> > recovery.
> >
> > Darryl
>
> How do I know it works? Because it works and is therefore considered
> essential in hundreds of thousands of airplanes.
>
> So, what solution do you propose?
>
> I'm trying to think of ways to save lives. What is your objective?
>
> The "lets train them better" idea has been around 100 years with
> generally dismal results. The stall warning device idea has been
> around probably 50 years and works well enough it has been widely
> adopted throughout the aviation world. Only the gliding world has
> successfully resisted stall warning devices and we pay for it in our
> accident record.
>
> Stall sensors could be either airspeed or AoA based. A simple and
> rugged sensor is a pair of pressure ports on the top and bottom of the
> nose cone. The differential pressure between these ports is
> proportional to AoA.
>
> Would there be false warnings? Of course there would. It happens on
> light airplanes but there's no confusion since a intermittent warning
> in rough air has an obvious and benign cause. A steady warning at low
> airspeed signals an impending stall. If an AoA display is part of the
> system, a glance at it would show the cause of a warning.
>
> It's also possible to set sensitivity depending on the phase of
> flight. If the gear is down signaling an impending landing, the
> warning could be more sensitive sounding at a lower AoA/higher
> airspeed. Our computers detect thermalling and set themselves to that
> mode automatically - they could also set the stall warning to be less
> sensitive when thermalling.
>
> If a stick vibrator isn't sufficient, adding a bright light to the
> glare shield or audible warning would be easy. It could even be set
> so the vibration starts early to be followed by a loud warning if the
> dangerously high AoA condition persists. This could avoid annoying an
> attentive pilot while providing an unmistakeable warning to the
> distracted pilot.
>
> It is so easy for people to set back and think of reasons why
> something might not work while never putting forward one which would
> work. They never have to prove an idea won't work, they just raise
> doubts by suggesting it might not work perfectly every time. They're
> called "Negative Experts".
>
> A stall warning device doesn't have to work every time. If it saves a
> life 10% of the time it would be worthwhile. Good research says it
> will work far more often than that.
>

Good research? What research?

You can hand wave all you want about what might work. But there are
systems out there today--how they work and why they seemingly have not
been adopted are likely worth understanding. Especially if something out
there actually works well then the problem is understanding what is
holding back adoption and that would be a great problem to solve. If
these systems, which have been built by sone pretty skilled folks, don't
work well in practice then that is not encouraging that the problem is
easilly solvable.

My goal is to help avoid accidents like we are seeing and like I said if
a stall warning box could be developed that worked well (esp. few false
alarms) then that is great. But without those boxes known to work
well/be available now I would rather see focus on what seems like some
unfortunately poor flying skills.

Could a stall warning system help save lives? Of course it could but it
is simply impossible to make absolute claims about avoiding a particular
fatal accident. There are many crashes in aircraft where the pilot has
been confused or ignored stall warnings/shakers or fought the stick
pusher. There is no way of knowing what adding a stall warning alert to
a particular accident will do to a pilot who is already behind the
aircraft/confused and facing a variety of what may be in their mind
conflicting signals.

So any more reports from folks who fly with existing stall warning
devices? Any reports on the DG DEI boxes? Anybody know if DG ever
offered this current stall warning system packaged outside the engine
controller (the DG-600 used a different system)?

Darryl

Mike Schumann

September 7th 11, 07:08 PM

On 9/7/2011 9:01 AM, wrote:
> On Sep 6, 3:35 pm, > wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 8:11 am, Jim > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>>
>>> I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
>>> ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
>>> When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
>>> recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
>>> normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
>>> dada...recovered.
>>> None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>>
>>> I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
>>> feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
>>> before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
>>> kept shaking!
>>
>>> And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
>>> ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
>>> very tight field in a light head wind!
>>
>>> This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
>>> 747s with passengers down the back.
>>
>>> Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
>>> well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
>>> natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
>>> gadget to go wrong.
>>
>>> At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>>
>>>> Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
>>>> why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). Add
>>>> a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
>>>> and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. Add
>>>> to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
>>>> warning system becomes even more clear.
>>
>>>> Kirk
>>>> 66- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
>> had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
>> thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
>> accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
>> rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
>> are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
>> if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
>> accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
>> spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
>> I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
>> survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
>> Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>>
>> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> out.
> A stall does not happen without some warning.
> The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> verbalize and demonstrate them.
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> evident.
> #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> or improperly trimmed glider.
> #5- Low indicated air speed
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> other warnings.
> I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> more emphasis and practice.
> Off soap box
> UH

I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
present during a stall.

In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
in the type of stalls we see during landings. This is real obvious if
you start getting a little slow while thermalling. You can feel the
stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.

--
Mike Schumann

[email protected]

September 7th 11, 07:26 PM

On Sep 7, 2:08*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 9/7/2011 9:01 AM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 3:35 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 8:11 am, Jim > *wrote:
>
> >>> I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> >>> I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> >>> ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> >>> When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> >>> recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> >>> normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> >>> dada...recovered.
> >>> None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> >>> I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> >>> feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> >>> before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> >>> kept shaking!
>
> >>> And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> >>> ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> >>> very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> >>> This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> >>> 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> >>> Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> >>> well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> >>> natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> >>> gadget to go wrong.
>
> >>> At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >>>> Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> >>>> why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> >>>> a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> >>>> and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> >>>> to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> >>>> warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> >>>> Kirk
> >>>> 66- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> >> had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> >> thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> >> accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> >> rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> >> are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> >> if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> >> accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> >> spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> >> I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> >> survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> >> Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> >> Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> > out.
> > A stall does not happen without some warning.
> > The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> > I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> > verbalize and demonstrate them.
> > #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> > applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> > #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> > high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> > #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> > evident.
> > #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> > or improperly trimmed glider.
> > #5- Low indicated air speed
> > #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> > It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> > commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> > other warnings.
> > I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> > by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> > noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> > and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> > more emphasis and practice.
> > Off soap box
> > UH
>
> I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
> Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
> present during a stall.
>
> In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
> in the type of stalls we see during landings. *This is real obvious if
> you start getting a little slow while thermalling. *You can feel the
> stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
> starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Someplace in the 9000 or so training flights I've done I figured out
you don't need all of them.
I wasn't trying to give you the whole lesson on RAS.
The point was that there are, in fact, plenty of signs if pilots are
made sensitive to them.
As instructors, we need to continue to train better and really
emphasize this area in flight reviews.
The reason many pilots crash is they either don't recognize these
signals or ignore them.
A bit Crabby
UH

jcarlyle

September 7th 11, 07:52 PM

Mike, I was waiting for UH to answer your primary concern. Now that he
has, am I correct in reading into your original question that this was
the first time you've seen someone present the six signs of an
impending stall?

-John

On Sep 7, 2:08 pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
> Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
> present during a stall.
>
> In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
> in the type of stalls we see during landings. This is real obvious if
> you start getting a little slow while thermalling. You can feel the
> stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
> starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

BDS

September 7th 11, 08:08 PM

The problem with this theory is that there are plenty of airplanes out there
that are equipped with stall warning devices and that also exhibit exactly
the same 6 warning signs when a stall is imminent, and yet pilots still
manage to kill themselves in them after an accident preceded by a stall.
Apparently the stall warning device on top of the 6 other warnings that the
aircraft is screaming at the pilot isn't quite the impetus to action that it
might seem to be in theory.

Instructors will probably agree that they have seen times when a pilot is so
mentally loaded up that no amount of repeatedly telling them to take an
action appropriate to the situation at hand will be sufficient to resolve
the problem. Sometimes, the only solution is to take the controls
temporarily and correct the situation. Therefore, I suspect that if you are
so far behind the curve that you are unaware of all of the other signs of an
impending stall, that one more piled on top of all of the others will have
little or no effect on the outcome.

"Bill D" > wrote in message
...
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> out.
> A stall does not happen without some warning.
> The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> verbalize and demonstrate them.
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> evident.
> #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> or improperly trimmed glider.
> #5- Low indicated air speed
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> other warnings.
> I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> more emphasis and practice.
> Off soap box
> UH

Excellent review!

I would only add if one or more of these symptoms are present and a
stall warning sounds, it will be clear why it sounded. A stall
warning tends to provide the impetus for action - merely recognizing
the symptoms does not in itself result in stall/spin avoidance - the
pilot must act to lower the AoA.

Mike Schumann

September 7th 11, 11:54 PM

On 9/7/2011 1:52 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
> Mike, I was waiting for UH to answer your primary concern. Now that he
> has, am I correct in reading into your original question that this was
> the first time you've seen someone present the six signs of an
> impending stall?
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 7, 2:08 pm, Mike >
> wrote:
>> I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
>> Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
>> present during a stall.
>>
>> In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
>> in the type of stalls we see during landings. This is real obvious if
>> you start getting a little slow while thermalling. You can feel the
>> stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
>> starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Schumann
>
Why would you assume that? My point is that not each of these signs is
always present when you enter a stall. When you teach stall recognition
to students, they need to be able to sense the stall coming on
regardless of the aircraft attitude and other factors.

--
Mike Schumann

September 8th 11, 12:10 AM

On Sep 7, 10:01*am, wrote:

> I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> out.
> A stall does not happen without some warning.
> The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> verbalize and demonstrate them.
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> evident.
> #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> or improperly trimmed glider.
> #5- Low indicated air speed
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> other warnings.
> I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> more emphasis and practice.
> Off soap box
> UH

Yep.

Guess the "others" weren't using Joy of Soaring. Oh, well. It's all
there on page 18. [is that an axe being ground I hear in the
background?] [mutter, mutter, "coffee table book", mutter, mutter]

Every pilot, *especially* every sailplane pilot needs to *be* a sharp,
reliable stall warning device. I honestly don't understand how anyone
can get as far as a Silver C without getting pretty good at this.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

September 8th 11, 12:23 AM

On Sep 7, 6:54*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 9/7/2011 1:52 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mike, I was waiting for UH to answer your primary concern. Now that he
> > has, am I correct in reading into your original question that this was
> > the first time you've seen someone present the six signs of an
> > impending stall?
>
> > -John
>
> > On Sep 7, 2:08 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
> >> Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
> >> present during a stall.
>
> >> In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
> >> in the type of stalls we see during landings. *This is real obvious if
> >> you start getting a little slow while thermalling. *You can feel the
> >> stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
> >> starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> Why would you assume that? *My point is that not each of these signs is
> always present when you enter a stall. *When you teach stall recognition
> to students, they need to be able to sense the stall coming on
> regardless of the aircraft attitude and other factors.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Mike: Why are you trying to school guys who have been *instructing*
over thirty years longer than you've had your A badge?

-T8

jcarlyle

September 8th 11, 03:22 AM

When you're taking exception with a CFIG by saying "I think you need
to be careful on how this is presented to students", it sounds like
you think either (a) he’s inexperienced or (b) he's talking about
something new and you don't believe he's thought this "new" concept
through very carefully. Since most US glider pilots know UH is well
seasoned as an instructor, it sounded to me like you'd never heard of
the six signs of an impending stall.

-John

On Sep 7, 6:54 pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 9/7/2011 1:52 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
>
> > Mike, I was waiting for UH to answer your primary concern. Now that he
> > has, am I correct in reading into your original question that this was
> > the first time you've seen someone present the six signs of an
> > impending stall?
>
> > -John
>
> > On Sep 7, 2:08 pm, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
> >> Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
> >> present during a stall.
>
> >> In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
> >> in the type of stalls we see during landings. This is real obvious if
> >> you start getting a little slow while thermalling. You can feel the
> >> stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
> >> starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.
>
> >> --
> >> Mike Schumann
>
> Why would you assume that? My point is that not each of these signs is
> always present when you enter a stall. When you teach stall recognition
> to students, they need to be able to sense the stall coming on
> regardless of the aircraft attitude and other factors.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

Andy[_10_]

September 8th 11, 05:38 AM

On Aug 22, 2:47*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> I think a "open spoiler on tow" is a great idea, and I've had one for
> several years, as do some other people. If you have a Cambridge 302
> vario, it's easy to add one, especially if it's already used for your
> gear warning.

Is that a configuration option on the 302? I have the gear warning
but don't recall a dive brake warning menu item. If it's not
available on the 302 how do you get an electronic airspeed input?

9B

Brad[_2_]

September 8th 11, 05:50 AM

On Sep 7, 7:22*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> When you're taking exception with a CFIG by saying "I think you need
> to be careful on how this is presented to students", it sounds like
> you think either (a) he’s inexperienced or (b) he's talking about
> something new and you don't believe he's thought this "new" concept
> through very carefully. Since most US glider pilots know UH is well
> seasoned as an instructor, it sounded to me like you'd never heard of
> the six signs of an impending stall.
>
> -John
>
> On Sep 7, 6:54 pm, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/7/2011 1:52 PM, jcarlyle wrote:
>
> > > Mike, I was waiting for UH to answer your primary concern. Now that he
> > > has, am I correct in reading into your original question that this was
> > > the first time you've seen someone present the six signs of an
> > > impending stall?
>
> > > -John
>
> > > On Sep 7, 2:08 pm, Mike >
> > > wrote:
> > >> I think you need to be careful on how this is presented to students.
> > >> Many will interpret this to mean that all of these symptoms need to be
> > >> present during a stall.
>
> > >> In particular, the nose high attitude is not always there, particularly
> > >> in the type of stalls we see during landings. *This is real obvious if
> > >> you start getting a little slow while thermalling. *You can feel the
> > >> stall come on with the mushy controls and eventually the inside wing
> > >> starts to drop, but the nose isn't at any unusual attitude.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Mike Schumann
>
> > Why would you assume that? *My point is that not each of these signs is
> > always present when you enter a stall. *When you teach stall recognition
> > to students, they need to be able to sense the stall coming on
> > regardless of the aircraft attitude and other factors.
>
> > --
> > Mike Schumann

Mnemonic devices are great for pre and post flight scenarios, armchair
discussions and other venues when there is time available to
regurgitate said items................if I had to recite the 6 steps
of an impending stall I might get to number 3 before I planted myself
into the ground.

Brad

Darryl Ramm

September 8th 11, 05:50 AM

On 9/7/11 9:38 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2:47 pm, Eric > wrote:
>
>> I think a "open spoiler on tow" is a great idea, and I've had one for
>> several years, as do some other people. If you have a Cambridge 302
>> vario, it's easy to add one, especially if it's already used for your
>> gear warning.
>
>
> Is that a configuration option on the 302? I have the gear warning
> but don't recall a dive brake warning menu item. If it's not
> available on the 302 how do you get an electronic airspeed input?
>
> 9B

It is a standard feature of the Cambridge 302. Details are hidden away
in the C302 manual in a section deviously titled "The Airbrake and
Landing Gear Warning Switches" :-)

But you are throwing all this out for an LX9000 and presumably LX varios....

Darryl

Andy[_10_]

September 8th 11, 05:51 AM

On Sep 7, 7:01*am, wrote:
> On Sep 6, 3:35*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 8:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
>
> > > I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> > > I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> > > ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> > > When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> > > recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> > > normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> > > dada...recovered.
> > > None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> > > I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> > > feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> > > before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> > > kept shaking!
>
> > > And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> > > ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> > > very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> > > This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> > > 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> > > Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> > > well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> > > natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> > > gadget to go wrong.
>
> > > At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > > >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> > > >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> > > >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> > > >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> > > >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> > > >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> > > >Kirk
> > > >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> > had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> > thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> > accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> > rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> > are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> > if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> > accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> > spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> > I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> > survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> > Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> > Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> out.
> A stall does not happen without some warning.
> The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> verbalize and demonstrate them.
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> evident.
> #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> or improperly trimmed glider.
> #5- Low indicated air speed
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> other warnings.
> I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> more emphasis and practice.
> Off soap box
> UH

What's the instructor's view on spin training?

I spin my ASW-27 every couple of years - in multiple configurations,
both directions, always at a generous altitude and never with ballast
or a c.g. too far aft. I practice spin recognition and recovery and
note the altitude consumed in each case. My philosophy is that if you
know what a spin entry feels like you are more likely to be able to
stop it before or very shortly after it starts.

9B

jcarlyle

September 8th 11, 01:33 PM

It's not a mnemonic, Brad, it's for recognition and awareness
training. You can't defeat the enemy unless you know his tricks. I'll
let others explain it better, since I'm not an instructor.

-John

On Sep 8, 12:50 am, Brad > wrote:
> Mnemonic devices are great for pre and post flight scenarios, armchair
> discussions and other venues when there is time available to
> regurgitate said items................if I had to recite the 6 steps
> of an impending stall I might get to number 3 before I planted myself
> into the ground.
>
> Brad
>
> On Sep 7, 7:22 pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> > When you're taking exception with a CFIG by saying "I think you need
> > to be careful on how this is presented to students", it sounds like
> > you think either (a) he’s inexperienced or (b) he's talking about
> > something new and you don't believe he's thought this "new" concept
> > through very carefully. Since most US glider pilots know UH is well
> > seasoned as an instructor, it sounded to me like you'd never heard of
> > the six signs of an impending stall.
>
> > -John

[email protected]

September 8th 11, 01:34 PM

On Sep 8, 12:51*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 7:01*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 3:35*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 6, 8:11*am, Jim White > wrote:
>
> > > > I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> > > > I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> > > > ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
> > > > When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> > > > recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> > > > normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> > > > dada...recovered.
> > > > None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> > > > I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall.. You
> > > > feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> > > > before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> > > > kept shaking!
>
> > > > And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> > > > ****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> > > > very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> > > > This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> > > > 747s with passengers down the back.
>
> > > > Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> > > > well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> > > > natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> > > > gadget to go wrong.
>
> > > > At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > > > >Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> > > > >why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> > > > >a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> > > > >and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> > > > >to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> > > > >warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> > > > >Kirk
> > > > >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> > > had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> > > thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> > > accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> > > rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> > > are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> > > if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> > > accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> > > spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> > > I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> > > survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> > > Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> > > Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> > out.
> > A stall does not happen without some warning.
> > The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> > I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> > verbalize and demonstrate them.
> > #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> > applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> > #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> > high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> > #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> > evident.
> > #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> > or improperly trimmed glider.
> > #5- Low indicated air speed
> > #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> > It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> > commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> > other warnings.
> > I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> > by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> > noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> > and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> > more emphasis and practice.
> > Off soap box
> > UH
>
> What's the instructor's view on spin training?
>
> I spin my ASW-27 every couple of years - in multiple configurations,
> both directions, always at a generous altitude and never with ballast
> or a c.g. too far aft. I practice spin recognition and recovery and
> note the altitude consumed in each case. My philosophy is that if you
> know what a spin entry feels like you are more likely to be able to
> stop it before or very shortly after it starts.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I violently agree!
UH

Mike[_28_]

September 8th 11, 02:32 PM

I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.

[email protected]

September 8th 11, 03:19 PM

On Sep 8, 9:32*am, Mike > wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.

The first thing that fails is use of the check list, especially under
stress.
UH

Darryl Ramm

September 8th 11, 03:24 PM

Mike > wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>

Another thing then to remember to turn on and get right by pilots who
are failing to do/notice basic things already. Need to be turned on
before takeoff and before the pattern entry/high speed pass so probably
timed before usual landing checks.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

September 8th 11, 03:32 PM

Mike > wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>

Ah and no - for take off this needs to be ON for when the rope breaks or
towplane or winch has a problem and the glider will be landing. This is
a scenario where pilots have fatal stall/spin accidents. False stall
alarms during takeoff are potential distractions that would need to be
at an acceptable level.

Darryl

Dan Marotta

September 8th 11, 04:12 PM

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
> I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.

Good idea, but why have a switch for the pilot to forget to operate? Why
not simply arm/disarm the system via a micro switch on the landing gear?
Fixed gear - put the micro switch on the spoilers.

BTW - I personally think stall warning devices are vastly overrated,
likewise mnemonics, and the opinion that *gasp* instructors are any better
pilots than us mere mortals. They simply took the steps to add another
rating. I've also wondered why folks say we should fly with an instructor
at the beginning of the season because we're "rusty". What about the
instructor? How come he's not rusty? And, yes, I've known some mighty fine
and capable instructors. Likewise, I've known some that I wouldn't fly
with.

(Flame suit on)

Bill D

September 8th 11, 05:01 PM

On Sep 8, 9:12*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>
> Good idea, but why have a switch for the pilot to forget to operate? *Why
> not simply arm/disarm the system via a micro switch on the landing gear?
> Fixed gear - put the micro switch on the spoilers.
>
> BTW - I personally think stall warning devices are vastly overrated,
> likewise mnemonics, and the opinion that *gasp* instructors are any better
> pilots than us mere mortals. *They simply took the steps to add another
> rating. *I've also wondered why folks say we should fly with an instructor
> at the beginning of the season because we're "rusty". *What about the
> instructor? *How come he's not rusty? *And, yes, I've known some mighty fine
> and capable instructors. *Likewise, I've known some that I wouldn't fly
> with.
>
> (Flame suit on)

Glide computers are becoming ubiquitous and they have the ability to
provide data on AGL height (simulated radar altimeter) using their
terrain elevation database. This could automatically set the stall
warning to sensitive when within 1000' of the ground and either turn
it off or set it to insensitive above that.

Darryl Ramm

September 8th 11, 05:07 PM

"Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could
> > it
> > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>
> Good idea, but why have a switch for the pilot to forget to operate?
> Why not simply arm/disarm the system via a micro switch on the landing
> gear? Fixed gear - put the micro switch on the spoilers.

Bzzzzzztttt (sorry that was my r.a.s. bad idea alarm going off. I
normally have to keep it turned off to but...). This idea probably would
not help the fatal crash that started this thread. For fatal stall/spins
turning base/final I expect the spoilers to be closed in most cases. And
we have pilots who forget to put the gear down. I suspect there is some
correlation with not putting the gear down and being harried/behind the
aircraft to start with and therefore maybe more needing of a stall
warning device. It would also be bad to have an alarm sound the moment
the spoiler is pulled or gear goes down--these often happen close to the
ground and at critical times that could distract the pilot. Does the
pilot who gets an alarm on lowering the gear or popping the spoilers
then lower the nose or close the spoilers/raise the gear to stop the
silencing alarm or sit there confused for a few seconds wondering why
they have an alarm for gear up when they just put it down. Remember the
pilot that matters here is already behind the aircraft/confused and may
not react correctly

I am not opposed to the idea of stall warming devices but they have to
be on all the time and need to have a low false alarm/annoyance rate and
be affordable/installable. Again I would love to hear experiences from
folks flying with the currently available stall warning devices. For all
I know might already have usable systems out there...

> BTW - I personally think stall warning devices are vastly overrated,
> likewise mnemonics, and the opinion that *gasp* instructors are any
> better pilots than us mere mortals. They simply took the steps to add
> another rating. I've also wondered why folks say we should fly with
> an instructor at the beginning of the season because we're "rusty".
> What about the instructor? How come he's not rusty? And, yes, I've
> known some mighty fine and capable instructors. Likewise, I've known
> some that I wouldn't fly with.
>
> (Flame suit on)

Well clearly on average that instructor has done many flights recently
before your spring refresher flight with them. In many places they teach
all winter. On some places instructors will check each other out and/or
make sure they have flown themselves early in the season.

If you cannot find an instructor who you want to fly with at the start
of a season or at other times who can help improve your flying skills,
brush you up on emergency procedures or just get a critique of your
flying skill then you are either an amazing pilot or are not looking
around very hard to find some of the great instructors out there.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm

September 8th 11, 05:16 PM

Bill D > wrote:
[snip]
>
> Glide computers are becoming ubiquitous and they have the ability to
> provide data on AGL height (simulated radar altimeter) using their
> terrain elevation database. This could automatically set the stall
> warning to sensitive when within 1000' of the ground and either turn
> it off or set it to insensitive above that.
>

Bzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt.

John Cochrane[_2_]

September 8th 11, 05:16 PM

Maybe the stall warning should actually measure the stall.

A small hole (static sized) on the top skin of the wing, back half,
would indicate a sharp drop in pressure when separation starts ahead
of it, along with characteristc turbulence. Connect it to a pressure
transducer, run wires down the wing to a plug that automatically makes
contact on assembly, and you have a stall warning that measures
exactly that -- stalls.

It would account automatically for water ballast, spoilers, flaps,
landing gear, rain, bugs, and all the other things that make airspeed
or even angle of attack based approaches fail.

It would be useful in a thermal -- you actually don't want to thermal
at the edge of a stall, where separation is already starting. You want
to thermal 1-2 knots more than that. So the ``stall warning'' going
off would be useful feedback "you're thermaling inefficiently" as well
as a last ditch attempt to wake up a distracted pilot in trouble.

And, while I'm dreaming, it should have voice! The famous last words
are always "there was some damn buzzer going off and I was too busy to
figure out how to shut it up." Vario sinking, landing gear warning,
sua airspace warnings, mylar peeling, all make too much the same
sounds.

John Cochrane.

Darryl Ramm

September 8th 11, 06:17 PM

On 9/8/11 9:16 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
> Maybe the stall warning should actually measure the stall.
>
> A small hole (static sized) on the top skin of the wing, back half,
> would indicate a sharp drop in pressure when separation starts ahead
> of it, along with characteristc turbulence. Connect it to a pressure
> transducer, run wires down the wing to a plug that automatically makes
> contact on assembly, and you have a stall warning that measures
> exactly that -- stalls.
>
> It would account automatically for water ballast, spoilers, flaps,
> landing gear, rain, bugs, and all the other things that make airspeed
> or even angle of attack based approaches fail.
>
> It would be useful in a thermal -- you actually don't want to thermal
> at the edge of a stall, where separation is already starting. You want
> to thermal 1-2 knots more than that. So the ``stall warning'' going
> off would be useful feedback "you're thermaling inefficiently" as well
> as a last ditch attempt to wake up a distracted pilot in trouble.
>
> And, while I'm dreaming, it should have voice! The famous last words
> are always "there was some damn buzzer going off and I was too busy to
> figure out how to shut it up." Vario sinking, landing gear warning,
> sua airspace warnings, mylar peeling, all make too much the same
> sounds.
>
> John Cochrane.

John

That was kind of the basis of the DG-600/600M stall warning. However
measuring at the wing roots won't account for things like spoiler
effects. And even if automatic connection still needs to be checked at
assembly, but definitely put the transducers in the wing--but they need
to be accessible/serviceable especially for things like gooping up the
holes with wax/polish or water etc. Designing this to be able to handle
the glider being washed and know the holes/tubes are not full of water
will be interesting. And folks who flew with the DG600 system... how
well did it work?

BTW who else notices the Duo Discus wing root rumbling when thermalling
slow? Just on the edge of that feels really good to me when wanting to
be really slow/tight in a thermal (when not low).

+1 on the need for voice (and likely some ad-hoc standardization on this
across devices). My (motor)glider has the potential to make sounds for
vario lift/sink, spoiler open, slow speed (usually defeated), U/C up,
SUA entry (mostly disabled), OZ entry (C302/303 usually disabled),
engine temps, low fuel, etc... and adding PowerFLARM... far too many
thingies making noises.

Darryl

Frank Whiteley

September 8th 11, 06:17 PM

On Sep 8, 8:19*am, wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:32*am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>
> The first thing that fails is use of the check list, especially under
> stress.
> UH

Too true

Frank Whiteley

Bill D

September 8th 11, 07:01 PM

On Sep 8, 10:16*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Maybe the stall warning should actually measure the stall.
>
> A small hole (static sized) on the top skin of the wing, back half,
> would indicate a sharp drop in pressure when separation starts ahead
> of it, along with characteristc turbulence. Connect it to a pressure
> transducer, run wires down the wing to a plug that automatically makes
> contact on assembly, and you have a stall warning that measures
> exactly that -- stalls.
>
> It would account automatically for water ballast, spoilers, flaps,
> landing gear, rain, bugs, and all the other things that make airspeed
> or even angle of attack based approaches fail.
>
> It would be useful in a thermal -- you actually don't want to thermal
> at the edge of a stall, where separation is already starting. You want
> to thermal 1-2 knots more than that. So the ``stall warning'' going
> off would be useful feedback "you're thermaling inefficiently" as well
> as a last ditch attempt to wake up a distracted pilot in trouble.
>
> And, while I'm dreaming, it should have voice! The famous last words
> are always "there was some damn buzzer going off and I was too busy to
> figure out how to shut it up." Vario sinking, landing gear warning,
> sua airspace warnings, mylar peeling, all make too much the same
> sounds.
>
> John Cochrane.

It might not have to be on the wing. Ever notice vario's in the
ASK-21's with the tail boom mounted TE probe suddenly go to an erratic
down indication as the flow over the wing root separates?

Ramy

September 8th 11, 07:12 PM

On Sep 8, 7:19*am, wrote:
> On Sep 8, 9:32*am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>
> The first thing that fails is use of the check list, especially under
> stress.
> UH

Precisely!

Don Johnstone[_4_]

September 8th 11, 11:18 PM

At 18:12 08 September 2011, Ramy wrote:
>On Sep 8, 7:19=A0am, wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 9:32=A0am, Mike wrote:
>>
>> > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could
it
>> > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
>> > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>>
>> The first thing that fails is use of the check list, especially under
>> stress.
>> UH
>
>Precisely!

Why the complication? (1) Stick shakers and pushers were fitted to aircraft
which presented little or no warning of an approaching stall or the stall
itself. I have yet to fly a glider which does not give a clear indication
of an approaching stall or an even clearer indication that the stall has
occurred and my training made sure I could recognise these indications and
take the necessary action.
(2) Fitting yet another gizzmo that requires electricity throws up the same
problem as there is with all electric items in a glider, the power
available is reliant on an unrenewable source, the battery. When the
battery goes flat all the gizzmos fail. When this happens Bloggs with of
course say, "I could not have stalled, the stall warning did not go off"
I glider does not need such a gizzmo, and if there are pilots flying
gliders who feel that such an instrument is needed perhaps we would all be
better served if they took up golf or gardening.

Tony V

September 8th 11, 11:53 PM

On 9/8/2011 11:12 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:

> BTW - I personally think stall warning devices are vastly overrated,
> ....and the opinion that *gasp* instructors are any
> better pilots than us mere mortals. ....

You are correct, but I've never heard anyone say that instructors are
better pilots. IMHO, the difference is that instructors see far more
piloting errors than you - and see patterns in those errors.

Tony

Bill D

September 9th 11, 02:01 AM

DG 808 stall warning videos

http://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000#p/a/u/0/hLLpCK_F7Cg
http://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000#p/a/u/1/PWJdjBpfvEw
http://www.youtube.com/user/DT38000#p/a/u/2/R5GBzhYEUHw

Mike[_28_]

September 9th 11, 02:34 PM

On Sep 8, 2:12*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 7:19*am, wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 9:32*am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> > > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> > > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>
> > The first thing that fails is use of the check list, especially under
> > stress.
> > UH
>
> Precisely!

Outside of rope breaks, how much stress should a pilot be under when
he makes the decision to land? I wonder how many stall/spin/spiral
dive accidents started out with a relatively normal "I have to land
soon/now" thought. But O.K., leave it turned on all the time or turn
it on as a part of the pre-takeoff list (you don't want the buzzing
while you're just sitting there waiting your turn). I'm not saying its
a magic bullet, just one more layer of protection and that there are
solutions to the false alarm issue.

Andreas Maurer

September 9th 11, 02:45 PM

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:01:40 -0700 (PDT), Bill D >
wrote:

>It might not have to be on the wing. Ever notice vario's in the
>ASK-21's with the tail boom mounted TE probe suddenly go to an erratic
>down indication as the flow over the wing root separates?

Yup - this is a phantastic training device to teach student pilots
about AOA (let them compare the AOA during a winch launch to the AOA
in free flight).

Andreas

[email protected]

September 9th 11, 03:53 PM

On Sep 9, 9:34*am, Mike > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2:12*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 7:19*am, wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 8, 9:32*am, Mike > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could it
> > > > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
> > > > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on..
>
> > > The first thing that fails is use of the check list, especially under
> > > stress.
> > > UH
>
> > Precisely!
>
> Outside of rope breaks, how much stress should a pilot be under when
> he makes the decision to land? I wonder how many stall/spin/spiral
> dive accidents started out with a relatively normal "I have to land
> soon/now" thought. But O.K., leave it turned on all the time or turn
> it on as a part of the pre-takeoff list (you don't want the buzzing
> while you're just sitting there waiting your turn). I'm not saying its
> a magic bullet, just one more layer of protection and that there are
> solutions to the false alarm issue.

The first field landing may well be one of the most stressful events
in the life of a glider pilot.
Even simulating it, some folks are shaking a LOT after it's over,
especially if I've convinced them we
really are landing in a field.
In the real world, many(most?) wait way too long to commit to landing
and that makes it much worse.
UH

Dan Marotta

September 9th 11, 04:47 PM

Good answer. Frankly, I don't stop flying at the end of the season as some
do. I've been called dumb for "wasting" a tow when there's no lift, but I
just love to fly and challenge myself with spot landings (touchdown point)
or stopping at a predetermined location (simulating a fence). I guess that
translates to recent experience. I also tow year round.

I wish there was a winch or auto tow available locally. It's quite fun (as
the Europeans know!) and makes landing practice cheap.

"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
> "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>>
>> "Mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I'm a bit surprised with all the "false alarm" talk. How hard could
>> > it
>> > be to turn the device on with a simple toggle switch as part of the
>> > pre-landing checklist? Take-off and thermalling - off, landing - on.
>>
>> Good idea, but why have a switch for the pilot to forget to operate?
>> Why not simply arm/disarm the system via a micro switch on the landing
>> gear? Fixed gear - put the micro switch on the spoilers.
>
> Bzzzzzztttt (sorry that was my r.a.s. bad idea alarm going off. I
> normally have to keep it turned off to but...). This idea probably would
> not help the fatal crash that started this thread. For fatal stall/spins
> turning base/final I expect the spoilers to be closed in most cases. And
> we have pilots who forget to put the gear down. I suspect there is some
> correlation with not putting the gear down and being harried/behind the
> aircraft to start with and therefore maybe more needing of a stall
> warning device. It would also be bad to have an alarm sound the moment
> the spoiler is pulled or gear goes down--these often happen close to the
> ground and at critical times that could distract the pilot. Does the
> pilot who gets an alarm on lowering the gear or popping the spoilers
> then lower the nose or close the spoilers/raise the gear to stop the
> silencing alarm or sit there confused for a few seconds wondering why
> they have an alarm for gear up when they just put it down. Remember the
> pilot that matters here is already behind the aircraft/confused and may
> not react correctly
>
> I am not opposed to the idea of stall warming devices but they have to
> be on all the time and need to have a low false alarm/annoyance rate and
> be affordable/installable. Again I would love to hear experiences from
> folks flying with the currently available stall warning devices. For all
> I know might already have usable systems out there...
>
>> BTW - I personally think stall warning devices are vastly overrated,
>> likewise mnemonics, and the opinion that *gasp* instructors are any
>> better pilots than us mere mortals. They simply took the steps to add
>> another rating. I've also wondered why folks say we should fly with
>> an instructor at the beginning of the season because we're "rusty".
>> What about the instructor? How come he's not rusty? And, yes, I've
>> known some mighty fine and capable instructors. Likewise, I've known
>> some that I wouldn't fly with.
>>
>> (Flame suit on)
>
> Well clearly on average that instructor has done many flights recently
> before your spring refresher flight with them. In many places they teach
> all winter. On some places instructors will check each other out and/or
> make sure they have flown themselves early in the season.
>
> If you cannot find an instructor who you want to fly with at the start
> of a season or at other times who can help improve your flying skills,
> brush you up on emergency procedures or just get a critique of your
> flying skill then you are either an amazing pilot or are not looking
> around very hard to find some of the great instructors out there.
>
> Darryl

noel.wade

September 9th 11, 11:32 PM

On Sep 9, 8:47*am, "Dan Marotta" > wrote:
>
> I wish there was a winch or auto tow available locally. *It's quite fun (as
> the Europeans know!) and makes landing practice cheap.

This thread really is getting way too long, but you know what else
makes practice cheap? A flight simulator! Something good, like
Condor, is not a "magic bullet" solution; and every training aid has
its strengths and weaknesses... But for the cost of a few tows you
can get the software, a joystick, and a "head-tracker" (so that you
can "look around" with your head and eyes - which is important for
pattern work). The gear will last many years and can be used any time
of the day or night, without regard to weather. You can go in with a
few people - or have your club buy one copy for the clubhouse - to
make the cost even lower. You can use it to practice thermalling,
landing, cross-country decision-making, and all manner of other items
(for example: Including myself I now know at least 3 pilots who have
done VERY well in their first SSA contests, and attribute at least
some of their success to flying tasks in Condor).

I've only been soaring for 5 years now and I make plenty of my own
goof-ups... But time and time again I see people more experienced
than me make easy/stupid mistakes because they are not current, or
they have an attitude that they're so experienced that they don't need
to practice. But RECENCY of experience is just as important as total
experience, IMHO. Anyone who's flown will agree that piloting skills
are really prone to getting "rusty" when they're not used. Studies
have proven, for example, that student pilots learn much faster and do
much better when they have training multiple times a week (versus once
every week or two).

If you haven't performed a skill in a long time, you may be just as
susceptible to missing a step or reacting poorly as a student pilot.
And flying recently does not mean that you are equally practiced at
everything. A CFIG who's flown a lot may be dynamite in the pattern,
but horrible at mountain-flying. Conversely, a cross-country pilot
may be way better at thermalling than the CFIG; yet have trouble with
the landing pattern or emergency procedures. In order to keep a skill
fresh, you have to actually _practice_ it in a purposeful way. You
can integrate this practice into your normal flying (i.e. you don't
need to buy some sled rides and just do these maneuvers one at a
time), but you have to be deliberate and purposeful in attempting the
skills and honestly evaluating your results.

In short: I vehemently believe that neither gadgets nor past
instruction can make up for lack of recent experience and purposeful
practice. And in our sport we have a lot of people who do not
participant on a frequent or regular basis; thus putting a large
portion of our population in a higher risk bracket.

--Noel
P.S. Unlike some of the folks here - I'm an IT professional by day;
so when I argue against extra gadgets in the cockpit you can be
assured that I'm not just being pedantic (no offense, guys)!

Robert Ehrlich

September 11th 11, 12:22 PM

wrote:
> On Sep 6, 3:35 pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>>On Sep 6, 8:11 am, Jim White > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>>
>>>I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
>>>ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall.
>>>When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
>>>recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
>>>normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
>>>dada...recovered.
>>>None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>>
>>>I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
>>>feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
>>>before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
>>>kept shaking!
>>
>>>And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
>>>****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
>>>very tight field in a light head wind!
>>
>>>This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
>>>747s with passengers down the back.
>>
>>>Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
>>>well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
>>>natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
>>>gadget to go wrong.
>>
>>>At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>>
>>>>Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
>>>>why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). Add
>>>>a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
>>>>and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. Add
>>>>to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
>>>>warning system becomes even more clear.
>>
>>>>Kirk
>>>>66- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
>>had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
>>thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
>>accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
>>rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
>>are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
>>if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
>>accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
>>spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
>>I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
>>survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
>>Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>>
>>Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> out.
> A stall does not happen without some warning.
> The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> verbalize and demonstrate them.
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> evident.
> #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> or improperly trimmed glider.
> #5- Low indicated air speed
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> other warnings.
> I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> more emphasis and practice.
> Off soap box
> UH

People partizing winch launches knows that noe of these 6 signs are
present during the launch :

#1- Reduced control effectiveness : as during the launch there is a load
factor of 1.3 to 1.5, speed is higher than in unaccelerated stall and so
the resistance to forces applied is not abnormally low.
#2- Nose high attitude : this is the normal attitude during a winch launch.
#3- Reduced cockpit noise : again due to the load factor and increase in
tall speed, nois is not abnormally low.
#4- Stick pressure is back : normal during a winch launch.
#5- Low indicated air speed : again due to the load factor, speed in not
abnormally low.
#6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall : not all glider
exhibut this effect and it can easily be mistaken with the shaking due
to the glider going quick through the wind gradient.

The point 1 is not totally missing and is in fact the only remaining
sign. Forces and effectiveness of rudder and elevator are not abnormally
low, but there is a significant change on the action of ailerons and the
roll control. As the angle of attack at the wing tips approach the
critical one, changes in this angle of attack have a lower effect. A
consequence of that is the decrease or loss of roll damping and a
consecutive tendency to oscillate left and right.

Bill D

September 11th 11, 05:40 PM

On Sep 11, 5:22*am, Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 3:35 pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 6, 8:11 am, Jim White > wrote:
>
> >>>I have changed the subject as we are well passed Idaho now.
>
> >>>I am having trouble with this stall warning stuff. I fly modern gliders:
> >>>ASW27, Duo Discus, ASK21 etc. All give clear warnings ahead of a stall..
> >>>When they do stall the nose drops, stick forward a bit, dada...stall
> >>>recovered. If they were to start into a spin (and the 21 shouldn't with
> >>>normal C of G positions), stick forward a bit, maybe a bit of pedal, and
> >>>dada...recovered.
> >>>None would lose significant amounts of height if recovered straight away.
>
> >>>I compete in the 27 and regularly fly it in thermals near the stall. You
> >>>feel for the break in laminar flow on the wings. This actually happens well
> >>>before the stall. It would be impossible to climb effectively if the stick
> >>>kept shaking!
>
> >>>And what would happen in a fully held off landing? I would also be a bit
> >>>****ed if the shaker went off when I was landing as slow as possible into a
> >>>very tight field in a light head wind!
>
> >>>This has to be about training and currency in gliders. We are not flying
> >>>747s with passengers down the back.
>
> >>>Final turns should be made at a sensible height with sufficient speed and
> >>>well banked so that they cannot be ruddered into a spin. This all should be
> >>>natural and obvious to a well trained pilot. No need for another mechanical
> >>>gadget to go wrong.
>
> >>>At 13:00 06 September 2011, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> >>>>Modern gliders give very little indications of a stall (another reason
> >>>>why training in old clunkers like the 2-33 is counterproductive). *Add
> >>>>a little distraction or a higher priority task (Bee in the cockpit!)
> >>>>and you can be in a high-AOA situation without being aware of it. *Add
> >>>>to that a pilot who flies infrequently, and the benefit of a stall
> >>>>warning system becomes even more clear.
>
> >>>>Kirk
> >>>>66- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>- Show quoted text -
>
> >>This is the point that puzzles me the most. I am sure that many of us
> >>had never accidentally stalled/spinned a glider even in rough
> >>thermals, due to the ample warnings. Incipient spin is the closest to
> >>accidental spin I ever got, and this is only when grossly skidding in
> >>rough thermal at safe altitude. Yet the majority of glider accidents
> >>are attributed to stall/spin, and usually very experienced pilots, and
> >>if my assumption above is correct, it was probably their first
> >>accidental stall/spin. Which leads me to conclude that those stall/
> >>spin happened without warning from one reason or another.
> >>I think it will be very helpful to hear stories from pilots who
> >>survived a stall/spin accident, and why they think it happened.
> >>Anyone on RAS who survived such an accident care to share their story?
>
> >>Ramy- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > I'm going out on a limb here and somebody out there will get the saw
> > out.
> > A stall does not happen without some warning.
> > The important element in training is understanding the warning signs.
> > I teach 6 signs and require all pilots I oversee to be able to
> > verbalize and demonstrate them.
> > #1- Reduced control effectiveness sensed by lower resistance to forces
> > applied by the pilot and reduced response of the glider.
> > #2- Nose high attitude. Yes we can stall at any attitude, but nose
> > high is almost always there in critical stalls.
> > #3- Reduced cockpit noise- Less noticable in modern gliders but still
> > evident.
> > #4- Stick pressure is back and likely significant- Exception is aft CG
> > or improperly trimmed glider.
> > #5- Low indicated air speed
> > #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall.
> > It is worth noting that pilots previously trained in airplanes will
> > commonly mention #6 first , but almost none have been trained on the
> > other warnings.
> > I also note that the majority of pilots I check that have been trained
> > by others have a few (maybe a half dozen or so) log book entries
> > noting stalls. This, in my view, is completely inadequate. Recognition
> > and response must be automatic and instinctive, and this needs much
> > more emphasis and practice.
> > Off soap box
> > UH
>
> People partizing winch launches knows that noe of these 6 signs are
> present during the launch :
>
> #1- Reduced control effectiveness : as during the launch there is a load
> factor of 1.3 to 1.5, speed is higher than in unaccelerated stall and so
> the resistance to forces applied is not abnormally low.
> #2- Nose high attitude : this is the normal attitude during a winch launch.
> #3- Reduced cockpit noise : again due to the load factor and increase in
> tall speed, nois is not abnormally low.
> #4- Stick pressure is back : normal during a winch launch.
> #5- Low indicated air speed : again due to the load factor, speed in not
> abnormally low.
> #6- Buffet indicating flow separation preceding a stall : not all glider
> exhibut this effect and it can easily be mistaken with the shaking due
> to the glider going quick through the wind gradient.
>
> The point 1 is not totally missing and is in fact the only remaining
> sign. Forces and effectiveness of rudder and elevator are not abnormally
> low, but there is a significant change on the action of ailerons and the
> roll control. As the angle of attack at the wing tips approach the
> critical one, changes in this angle of attack have a lower effect. A
> consequence of that is the decrease or loss of roll damping and a
> consecutive tendency to oscillate left and right.

Agree on all points which is why an AoA indicator with stall warning
would be especially useful for winch launch.