Low pass

[Cookie]

After giving it just a little thought...

Not to deflate some of those egos out there...but.....the low pass is
a maneuver requiring no particular pilot skills whatsoever! I mean
it's...go fast...slow down...turn around......duh...not particularly
dangerous.....I mean anybody can do it....Especially if you don't mind
the occasional fatality..........

Now glider pilots with real skill....they do the low pass
inverted.......got to be more fun, right?


Cookie

[kirk.stant]

On Aug 25, 7:07*am, Cookie > wrote:
> After giving it just a little thought...
>
> Not to deflate some of those egos out there...but.....the low pass is
> a maneuver requiring no particular pilot skills whatsoever! * I mean
> it's...go fast...slow down...turn around......duh...not *particularly
> dangerous.....I mean anybody can do it....Especially if you don't mind
> the occasional fatality..........
>
> Now glider pilots with real skill....they do the low pass
> inverted.......got to be more fun, right?
>
> Cookie

Who ever said any particular skills were required for a low pass?

It does require judgment and proper equipment.

Neither of which you appear to possess.

Kirk
66

[Guy Byars[_3_]]

On Aug 25, 8:07*am, Cookie > wrote:
>
> Now glider pilots with real skill....they do the low pass
> inverted.......got to be more fun, right?
>

I saw that done in Germany. After witnessing the low inverted pass, I
was shocked and commented to a bystander that "We don't do that in my
country". He replied that the pilots were part of the German
aerobatic sailplane team and were practicing for an upcoming event.

[Roberto Waltman[_2_]]

Guy Byars wrote:

> Cookie wrote:
>> Now glider pilots with real skill....they do the low pass
>> inverted.......got to be more fun, right?
>
>I saw that done in Germany. After witnessing the low inverted pass, I
>was shocked and commented to a bystander that "We don't do that in my
>country". He replied that the pilots were part of the German
>aerobatic sailplane team and were practicing for an upcoming event.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS7y2B9sgBg

[Walt Connelly]

After giving it just a little thought...

Not to deflate some of those egos out there...but.....the low pass is
a maneuver requiring no particular pilot skills whatsoever! I mean
it's...go fast...slow down...turn around......duh...not particularly
dangerous.....I mean anybody can do it....Especially if you don't mind
the occasional fatality..........

Now glider pilots with real skill....they do the low pass
inverted.......got to be more fun, right?


Cookie

Cookie, I learn a great deal by reading web sites such as this, listening to my instructors, (I have a commercial certificate, airplanes and gliders but John Henderson, Andy Bodner, Bill Sherman, Ron Chastain, Jim Wherley, Jim Gager and Jan Driessen are still my INSTRUCTORS) listening to other pilots, observing, asking questions and trying to understand. Opinions are like behinds, we all have one and some are more attractive than others.

There are REASONS for things happening and EXCUSES for things that happened. Failing to coordinate a turn low and slow in the pattern is a REASON for a stall/spin fatality, not an excuse. Being dehydrated might be a REASON for an accident, not an excuse, failing to properly interpret a rudder wag and releasing is a reason for an accident, not an excuse. Carb ice might be the REASON for an engine failure but failure to recognize the conditions, use carb heat properly and clear the engine adequately is not an excuse. An excuse is when one tries to justify something which was done that resulted in a less than acceptable outcome when there was a known remedy which would have eliminated the potential problem. Many of the comments on these and other incidents from posters are good faith attempts to identify the cause of the mishap which is beneficial to all. These comments make me think, thinking makes me a better pilot.

I have been most fortunate in my flying endeavors over the years. The guy who taught me to fly power was a grizzled old fart with 25K hours and a no nonsense approach to flying. No hotdogging, no showing off, fly the way you are taught or get the hell out of Dodge. I remember his first words to me when we sat down in his office and I told him I wanted to learn how to fly. "Flying is a lot of fun, BUT IT'S SERIOUS BUSINESS."

My glider flight instructors and my examiner were from the same mold. Old guys with tons of experience who did a great job of imparting to me the importance of learning to fly properly and using ones head. I love this sport, I love everything about it with the exception of the accidents and especially the fatalities. When we quit using our heads bad things can happen. Bad press results from accidents and this is not beneficial to our sports growth and long term viability.

I've read most of the information available on the recent rash of accidents. Amazing that many of the pilots were highly experienced, CFI-G's, an designated examiner and others with high time. I've not seen or read what I would have interpreted as anyone making excuses for what happened.

The real danger in flying is when we as individuals become so arrogant as to think that we have all the answers and no one else does. The key for those of us such as myself is to be able to weed out the common sense, logical, sensible answers from the less than helpful information. Not an easy task at times but worth making the effort. JMHO.

Walt Connelly
Fledgling Glider Pilot

[jsbrake[_2_]]

Kirk, I think Cookie was being rather tongue-in-cheek... reference his
line: "Especially if you don't mind the occasional fatality..........
"

One of my club's members, Manfred Radius, is an airshow aerobatic
glider pilot who ends his show with an inverted pass to cut a ribbon
with his V-tail (Salto).
http://www.radiusairshows.com/

[kirk.stant]

On Aug 25, 4:53*pm, jsbrake > wrote:
> Kirk, I think Cookie was being rather tongue-in-cheek... reference his
> line: "Especially if you don't mind the occasional fatality..........
> "
>
> One of my club's members, Manfred Radius, is an airshow aerobatic
> glider pilot who ends his show with an inverted pass to cut a ribbon
> with his V-tail (Salto).http://www.radiusairshows.com/

"tongue-in-cheek" and "fatality" don't usually go together.

Sarcasm, on the other hand...

Personally, I think Cookie is just being a jerk, with a hard-on about
"low passes", "contest finishes", whatever you want to call them.

If he really put a little thought into it, he would realize that the
real problem with our apalling safety record is that so many glider
pilots in the US are poorly trained, lack currency, or do not take the
time to improve their skills.

And our gliding culture has split us into groups that regard the
others with disdain; Twirlybirds vs glassholes, local fun flyers vs
fanatical racers, high-tech vs old school simple.

Instead of enjoying the range of adventures that soaring allows, and
learning (and respecting) what other glider pilots do, instead we
accuse them, without basis usually, of "unsafe activities" if they
don't fit our definition of a glider pilot.

Final comment on low passes, then I'll shut up: How many documented
accidents, in the US, can be directly blamed on low passes in recent
years (say, since the end of their use in contest finishes)? OTOH,
how many due to botched PTTs, taking off with spoilers open, midairs,
landouts, stall spins on final, botched final glides,etc?

Statistically, it's probably safer to finish a flight with a low pass
than a conventional pattern!

Kirk
66

[Brad[_2_]]

On Aug 25, 2:53*pm, jsbrake > wrote:
> Kirk, I think Cookie was being rather tongue-in-cheek... reference his
> line: "Especially if you don't mind the occasional fatality..........
> "
>
> One of my club's members, Manfred Radius, is an airshow aerobatic
> glider pilot who ends his show with an inverted pass to cut a ribbon
> with his V-tail (Salto).http://www.radiusairshows.com/

Here in Arlington Washington our club regularly provides free tows to
an aerobatic sailplane pilot that for the last 2 years has given a
great performance that ends with a gear up landing. The idea behind
the free tows is that it's good for soaring..............sorta like
landing gear up in front of hundreds of spectators.

Brad

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 25, 5:07*am, Cookie > wrote:
> After giving it just a little thought...
>
> Not to deflate some of those egos out there...but.....the low pass is
> a maneuver requiring no particular pilot skills whatsoever! * I mean
> it's...go fast...slow down...turn around......duh...not *particularly
> dangerous.....I mean anybody can do it....Especially if you don't mind
> the occasional fatality..........
>
> Now glider pilots with real skill....they do the low pass
> inverted.......got to be more fun, right?
>
> Cookie

Can you please define what you mean by a low pass. I've been flying
gliders for well over 30 years and flew contests for many years where
the line finish was the only way to end the task, but I'm still not
sure if I ever did a low pass.

Andy

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>
> Final comment on low passes, then I'll shut up: *How many documented
> accidents, in the US, can be directly blamed on low passes in recent
> years (say, since the end of their use in contest finishes)? *OTOH,
> how many due to botched PTTs, taking off with spoilers open, midairs,
> landouts, stall spins on final, botched final glides,etc?

Well, quite a few, actually. Here is the last time I put together the
numbers (see slide 5)

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

Uvalde and wurstboro in 2001 were the most recent, both fatal, both
following a low pass.

The much larger danger has been "low energy at the finish" which is
easy to confuse with "screwing up a high speed low pass." The accident
reports are littered with gliders 1-2 miles from the finish line that
didn't quite make it. The excellent UK accident reports on Sailplane
and Gliding continue with a few of these every year. The accident
reports (see above) are also full of pilots arriving at 50 feet and 50
knots with few ideas and then crashing on the airport.

The accident that started all this sounds now less like "show off low
pass" and more like one of these, "very low energy pattern." Reports
were a very low slow downwind fololwed by stall spin on base and
final. Perhaps the discussion should move to "you don't have to do a
big square pattern every time."

John Cochrane

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

> Final comment on low passes, then I'll shut up: *How many documented
> accidents, in the US, can be directly blamed on low passes in recent
> years (say, since the end of their use in contest finishes)? *OTOH,
>
> Kirk
> 66

Kirt, I can remember 2 right off the top of my head, not counting the
recent one in Idaho.
Uvalde '86 and Cal City ? date.
Type in "finish line accidents" or "low pass accidents" in "search
this group" above and you'll get an afternoons worth of reading.
BTW, the 50 foot line finish is still in the US Rules.
Cheers,
JJ

[hretting]

Bravo Kirk......

Well put......in your two post. Some simply don't get it or haven't
found it. As to Cupcake.....maybe he's not cut out for low passes or
they frighten him and hasn't come to terms with it.
He sees it as a 'show off maneuver' while we fly it to enjoy a part of
the performance envelope not always available. I bet he has never done
one followed by practicing a low altitude save climbing back to
altitude. Every serious racer has climbed out of a 400-500' hole.
I practice this manuever often, but I have the benefit of operating
out of a private strip.
Bottom line.....enjoy the magic....enjoy all that the sport has to
offer.

R

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/26/2011 3:42 PM, hretting wrote:
> Bravo Kirk......
>
> Well put......in your two post. Some simply don't get it or haven't
> found it. As to Cupcake.....maybe he's not cut out for low passes or
> they frighten him and hasn't come to terms with it.
> He sees it as a 'show off maneuver' while we fly it to enjoy a part of
> the performance envelope not always available. I bet he has never done
> one followed by practicing a low altitude save climbing back to
> altitude. Every serious racer has climbed out of a 400-500' hole.
> I practice this manuever often, but I have the benefit of operating
> out of a private strip.
> Bottom line.....enjoy the magic....enjoy all that the sport has to
> offer.
>
> R
There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
someone hotdogging in the pattern.

--
Mike Schumann

[[email protected]]

On Aug 26, 10:47*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > Final comment on low passes, then I'll shut up: *How many documented
> > accidents, in the US, can be directly blamed on low passes in recent
> > years (say, since the end of their use in contest finishes)? *OTOH,
> > how many due to botched PTTs, taking off with spoilers open, midairs,
> > landouts, stall spins on final, botched final glides,etc?
>
> Well, quite a few, actually. Here is the last time I put together the
> numbers (see slide 5)
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/ppts/contest_sa...
>
> Uvalde and wurstboro in 2001 were the most recent, both fatal, both
> following a low pass.
>
> The much larger danger has been "low energy at the finish" which is
> easy to confuse with "screwing up a high speed low pass." The accident
> reports are littered with gliders 1-2 miles from the finish line that
> didn't quite make it. The excellent UK accident reports on Sailplane
> and Gliding continue with a few of these every year. The accident
> reports (see above) are also full of pilots arriving at 50 feet and 50
> knots with few ideas and then crashing on the airport.
>
> The accident that started all this sounds now less like "show off low
> pass" and more like one of these, "very low energy pattern." Reports
> were a very low slow downwind fololwed by stall spin on base and
> final. Perhaps the discussion should move to "you don't have to do a
> big square pattern every time."
>
> John Cochrane

Went through your power point, well thought out. Lots of good lessons
to learn.

gary kemp

[BobW]

On 8/26/2011 11:47 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>>
>> Final comment on low passes, then I'll shut up: How many documented
>> accidents, in the US, can be directly blamed on low passes in recent
>> years (say, since the end of their use in contest finishes)? OTOH,
>> how many due to botched PTTs, taking off with spoilers open, midairs,
>> landouts, stall spins on final, botched final glides,etc?
>
> Well, quite a few, actually. Here is the last time I put together the
> numbers (see slide 5)
>
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/ppts/contest_safety.ppt
>
> Uvalde and Wurtsboro in 2001 were the most recent, both fatal, both
> following a low pass.
>
> The much larger danger has been "low energy at the finish" which is
> easy to confuse with "screwing up a high speed low pass." The accident
> reports are littered with gliders 1-2 miles from the finish line that
> didn't quite make it. The excellent UK accident reports on Sailplane
> and Gliding continue with a few of these every year. The accident
> reports (see above) are also full of pilots arriving at 50 feet and 50
> knots with few ideas and then crashing on the airport.

Great Stuff, John..even withOUT the benefit of presentational commentary.
Thanks for posting the link!

Working strictly from memory, most of the crunches John mentions were noted in
some way or other in "Soaring" magazine down the years. Heckuva resource for
readers willing to pay attention to the details...

>
> The accident that started all this sounds now less like "show off low
> pass" and more like one of these, "very low energy pattern." Reports
> were a very low slow downwind followed by stall spin on base and
> final. Perhaps the discussion should move to "you don't have to do a
> big square pattern every time."

Here's a start...

http://www.ssa.org/magazine/archive/ViewIssue.aspx?year=2006&month=11&page=36

Link may not work for non-SSA members.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 27, 9:15*am, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
> private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
> doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
> may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
> someone hotdogging in the pattern.

Missed approaches are a standard thing that is practiced by power
pilots all the time. It is true that glider low passes are a bit
faster followed by a steeper climb than Cessna missed approaches, but
they're a very similar speed and climb angle to 737 ones.

So It all just depends on how mixed your traffic is.

I learned to fly Tomahawks at Wellington International (110,000
movements/year), where most of the traffic was in fact 737's,
WhisperJets, A320s plus the odd 747SP/767/777 depending on exactly
which year you're talking about. But there aren't gliders there.

At our actual glider field there is a lot of light aircraft and
helicopter training, plus small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan), plus
a Q300 ("Dash 8") service starting in October.

If you're flying somewhere that's only got single-engine 1950's spam
cans from Wichita or Vero Beach flying around fat dumb and happy then,
yeah, gliders could exceed their expectations.

[Mike Schumann]

On 8/26/2011 8:01 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:15 am, Mike >
> wrote:
>> There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
>> private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
>> doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
>> may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
>> someone hotdogging in the pattern.
>
> Missed approaches are a standard thing that is practiced by power
> pilots all the time. It is true that glider low passes are a bit
> faster followed by a steeper climb than Cessna missed approaches, but
> they're a very similar speed and climb angle to 737 ones.
>
> So It all just depends on how mixed your traffic is.
>
> I learned to fly Tomahawks at Wellington International (110,000
> movements/year), where most of the traffic was in fact 737's,
> WhisperJets, A320s plus the odd 747SP/767/777 depending on exactly
> which year you're talking about. But there aren't gliders there.
>
> At our actual glider field there is a lot of light aircraft and
> helicopter training, plus small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan), plus
> a Q300 ("Dash 8") service starting in October.
>
> If you're flying somewhere that's only got single-engine 1950's spam
> cans from Wichita or Vero Beach flying around fat dumb and happy then,
> yeah, gliders could exceed their expectations.
There's a big difference between a missed approach in a power airplane
and a low pass in a glider. A power plane has the option to change
course and/or extend the pattern if unexpected traffic shows up. A
glider doesn't have a lot of options.

I don't care what airport you are flying out of. You never know when
someone unexpected comes out of no where, clueless about the existence
of gliders and their limitations. This was drilled home to me a number
of years ago when I was turning on to base at a remote airfield (after
announcing our pattern on the radio), only to discover a helicopter
hoovering 5' above the ground just off the arrival end of the runway.
We barely avoided a collision. It turns out the helicopter pilot and
his instructor where so engrossed in their BFR they were oblivious that
anyone else was in the pattern, particularly a glider that didn't have
the option to do a go around.

--
Mike Schumann

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Aug 26, 6:01*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Aug 27, 9:15*am, Mike Schumann >
> wrote:
>
> > There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
> > private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
> > doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
> > may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
> > someone hotdogging in the pattern.
>
> Missed approaches are a standard thing that is practiced by power
> pilots all the time. It is true that glider low passes are a bit
> faster followed by a steeper climb than Cessna missed approaches, but
> they're a very similar speed and climb angle to 737 ones.
>
> So It all just depends on how mixed your traffic is.
>
> I learned to fly Tomahawks at Wellington International (110,000
> movements/year), where most of the traffic was in fact 737's,
> WhisperJets, A320s plus the odd 747SP/767/777 depending on exactly
> which year you're talking about. But there aren't gliders there.
>
> At our actual glider field there is a lot of light aircraft and
> helicopter training, plus small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan), plus
> a Q300 ("Dash 8") service starting in October.
>
> If you're flying somewhere that's only got single-engine 1950's spam
> cans from Wichita or Vero Beach flying around fat dumb and happy then,
> yeah, gliders could exceed their expectations.

Bruce,
Would you do a low pass if you knew there was an FAA inspector on the
field? Then try your "missed approach" tale on him?
JJ

[Dave Nadler]

John - While I agree with many of your points...
BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above were:
- outside of competition
- by non competition pilots
- by pilots "emulating the big guys"
Points to training, not banning passes...
Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 27, 3:12*pm, Mike Schumann >
wrote:
> On 8/26/2011 8:01 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 9:15 am, Mike >
> > wrote:
> >> There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
> >> private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
> >> doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
> >> may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
> >> someone hotdogging in the pattern.
>
> > Missed approaches are a standard thing that is practiced by power
> > pilots all the time. It is true that glider low passes are a bit
> > faster followed by a steeper climb than Cessna missed approaches, but
> > they're a very similar speed and climb angle to 737 ones.
>
> > So It all just depends on how mixed your traffic is.
>
> > I learned to fly Tomahawks at Wellington International (110,000
> > movements/year), where most of the traffic was in fact 737's,
> > WhisperJets, A320s plus the odd 747SP/767/777 depending on exactly
> > which year you're talking about. But there aren't gliders there.
>
> > At our actual glider field there is a lot of light aircraft and
> > helicopter training, plus small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan), plus
> > a Q300 ("Dash 8") service starting in October.
>
> > If you're flying somewhere that's only got single-engine 1950's spam
> > cans from Wichita or Vero Beach flying around fat dumb and happy then,
> > yeah, gliders could exceed their expectations.
>
> There's a big difference between a missed approach in a power airplane
> and a low pass in a glider. *A power plane has the option to change
> course and/or extend the pattern if unexpected traffic shows up. *A
> glider doesn't have a lot of options.
>
> I don't care what airport you are flying out of. *You never know when
> someone unexpected comes out of no where, clueless about the existence
> of gliders and their limitations. *This was drilled home to me a number
> of years ago when I was turning on to base at a remote airfield (after
> announcing our pattern on the radio), only to discover a helicopter
> hoovering 5' above the ground just off the arrival end of the runway.
> We barely avoided a collision. *It turns out the helicopter pilot and
> his instructor where so engrossed in their BFR they were oblivious that
> anyone else was in the pattern, particularly a glider that didn't have
> the option to do a go around.

A glider doing a low pass is *precisely* one that has the option to do
a go around! It's the one on a normal approach who doesn't have many
options (but still has options, unless dangerously low on energy).

You reinforce my point. All pilots should be aware that there can be
other aircraft around, and perhaps with different performance
characteristics to their own.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 28, 1:13*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 6:01*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 9:15*am, Mike Schumann >
> > wrote:
>
> > > There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
> > > private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
> > > doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
> > > may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
> > > someone hotdogging in the pattern.
>
> > Missed approaches are a standard thing that is practiced by power
> > pilots all the time. It is true that glider low passes are a bit
> > faster followed by a steeper climb than Cessna missed approaches, but
> > they're a very similar speed and climb angle to 737 ones.
>
> > So It all just depends on how mixed your traffic is.
>
> > I learned to fly Tomahawks at Wellington International (110,000
> > movements/year), where most of the traffic was in fact 737's,
> > WhisperJets, A320s plus the odd 747SP/767/777 depending on exactly
> > which year you're talking about. But there aren't gliders there.
>
> > At our actual glider field there is a lot of light aircraft and
> > helicopter training, plus small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan), plus
> > a Q300 ("Dash 8") service starting in October.
>
> > If you're flying somewhere that's only got single-engine 1950's spam
> > cans from Wichita or Vero Beach flying around fat dumb and happy then,
> > yeah, gliders could exceed their expectations.
>
> Bruce,
> Would you do a low pass if you knew there was an FAA inspector on the
> field? Then try your "missed approach" tale on him?

I certainly can't see any reason why not, if it is conducted as a
practice final glide and intentions are announced on the radio at the
standard 10km and/or 5 km out.

At our club airfield (NZPP) we often had the deputy director of the
Civil Aviation Authority (NZ's equiv of your FAA) doing low passes in
his Discus, until he retired and moved to another city.

[Walt Connelly]

John - While I agree with many of your points...
BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above we
- outside of competition
- by non competition pilots
- by pilots "emulating the big guys"
Points to training, not banning passes...
Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave

PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

GREAT article. Considering it was written 24 years ago it appears there has not been much accomplished relative to training for the high speed low pass. The more I read the more I understand how really complicated this sport can be and how little I know. The books you mentioned should be part of every pilots glider library.

Walt

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Aug 27, 9:19*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 1:13*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 26, 6:01*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 27, 9:15*am, Mike Schumann >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > There's a big difference between doing these kinds of maneuvers at a
> > > > private strip where you aren't going to kill anyone but yourself, vs.
> > > > doing them at a public airport where there's lots of other traffic you
> > > > may or not know about who aren't particularly appreciative of having
> > > > someone hotdogging in the pattern.
>
> > > Missed approaches are a standard thing that is practiced by power
> > > pilots all the time. It is true that glider low passes are a bit
> > > faster followed by a steeper climb than Cessna missed approaches, but
> > > they're a very similar speed and climb angle to 737 ones.
>
> > > So It all just depends on how mixed your traffic is.
>
> > > I learned to fly Tomahawks at Wellington International (110,000
> > > movements/year), where most of the traffic was in fact 737's,
> > > WhisperJets, A320s plus the odd 747SP/767/777 depending on exactly
> > > which year you're talking about. But there aren't gliders there.
>
> > > At our actual glider field there is a lot of light aircraft and
> > > helicopter training, plus small turboprops (e.g. Cessna Caravan), plus
> > > a Q300 ("Dash 8") service starting in October.
>
> > > If you're flying somewhere that's only got single-engine 1950's spam
> > > cans from Wichita or Vero Beach flying around fat dumb and happy then,
> > > yeah, gliders could exceed their expectations.
>
> > Bruce,
> > Would you do a low pass if you knew there was an FAA inspector on the
> > field? Then try your "missed approach" tale on him?
>
> I certainly can't see any reason why not, if it is conducted as a
> practice final glide and intentions are announced on the radio at the
> standard 10km and/or 5 km out.
>
> At our club airfield (NZPP) we often had the deputy director of the
> Civil Aviation Authority (NZ's equiv of your FAA) doing low passes in
> his Discus, until he retired and moved to another city.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There are a couple of US regs that could be interpreted either way.
Not flying within 500 feet of people, places or things unless in the
act of landing (your missed approach might work here) and no
acrobatics below 1500 feet where acro in defined as an abrupt maneuver
involving a 30 dergee change in attitude (pull up could be meet this
definition). I saw one top US pilot level off his final glide at 500
feet when the FBO announced there was an FAA inspector on the field.
The accident report from the Idaho crash is posted and it reads like a
botched low pass. He flew down-wind at 75 feet going fairly fast, then
pulled up to an estimated 300 feet, stalled and did a 2 turn spin to
crash. He never got low enough to take advantage of ground effect and
the BG-12 would have slowly bled off his initial speed because of this
and being a good bit more draggy than a glass ship.
Too bad, he probably never knew what was required for a successful hi
speed low pass.
JJ

[Mike I Green]

On 8/27/2011 5:22 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> John - While I agree with many of your points...
> BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above were:
> - outside of competition
> - by non competition pilots
> - by pilots "emulating the big guys"
> Points to training, not banning passes...
> Thanks,
> Best Regards, Dave
>
> PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

Great article Dave. Should be required reading at all cross country
camps and suggested reading at Regionals.

MG

[Mike I Green]

On 8/28/2011 12:38 PM, Mike I Green wrote:
>
>
> On 8/27/2011 5:22 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
>> John - While I agree with many of your points...
>> BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above were:
>> - outside of competition
>> - by non competition pilots
>> - by pilots "emulating the big guys"
>> Points to training, not banning passes...
>> Thanks,
>> Best Regards, Dave
>>
>> PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
>> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
> Great article Dave. Should be required reading at all cross country
> camps and suggested reading at Regionals.
>
> MG

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 27, 7:22*pm, Dave Nadler > wrote:
> John - While I agree with many of your points...
> BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above were:
> - outside of competition
> - by non competition pilots
> - by pilots "emulating the big guys"
> Points to training, not banning passes...
> Thanks,
> Best Regards, Dave
>
> PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

Your article is still a classic.

Nobody's banning anything here. Just talking about a maneuver, where
the danger points are (mostly the turn after the pass), and responding
to a previous post that wanted to know whether there have been
documented crashes.

John Cochrane

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave Nadler >
wrote:


>PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
>http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

Hi Dave - scary lecture!

I have to admit I was horrified reading your description of all these
incidents and the nescience of the pilots - how have things progressed
since you wrote this article? Did it get better (and why?)...?


Regards from Germany
Andreas

[Tom Claffey]

Very good article Dave!
Here in Australia we have a low level endorsement before low finishes are
allowed at contests [while keeping a 50' rule]
2km finish ring changes things as well, limiting the "need" for low level
over the airfield. After finishing a logical circuit onto the airfield is
needed, I was surprised at some "interesting" circuits at Uvalde by
experienced pilots! A growing average age and experience helps too.
Training for new comp pilots is the key.
Regards,
Tom

At 20:19 28 August 2011, John Cochrane wrote:
>On Aug 27, 7:22=A0pm, Dave Nadler wrote:
>> John - While I agree with many of your points...
>> BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above were:
>> - outside of competition
>> - by non competition pilots
>> - by pilots "emulating the big guys"
>> Points to training, not banning passes...
>> Thanks,
>> Best Regards, Dave
>>
>> PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987
>article:http://www.nadler.com=
>/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
>Your article is still a classic.
>
>Nobody's banning anything here. Just talking about a maneuver, where
>the danger points are (mostly the turn after the pass), and responding
>to a previous post that wanted to know whether there have been
>documented crashes.
>
>John Cochrane
>

[Tom Claffey]

Very good article Dave!
Here in Australia we have a low level endorsement before low finishes are
allowed at contests [while keeping a 50' rule]
2km finish ring changes things as well, limiting the "need" for low level
over the airfield. After finishing a logical circuit onto the airfield is
needed, I was surprised at some "interesting" circuits at Uvalde by
experienced pilots! A growing average age and experience helps too.
Training for new comp pilots is the key.
Regards,
Tom

At 20:19 28 August 2011, John Cochrane wrote:
>On Aug 27, 7:22=A0pm, Dave Nadler wrote:
>> John - While I agree with many of your points...
>> BOTH of the accidents you mentioned above were:
>> - outside of competition
>> - by non competition pilots
>> - by pilots "emulating the big guys"
>> Points to training, not banning passes...
>> Thanks,
>> Best Regards, Dave
>>
>> PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987
>article:http://www.nadler.com=
>/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
>Your article is still a classic.
>
>Nobody's banning anything here. Just talking about a maneuver, where
>the danger points are (mostly the turn after the pass), and responding
>to a previous post that wanted to know whether there have been
>documented crashes.
>
>John Cochrane
>

[Dave Nadler]

Thanks Tom - Great to fly with you again in Uvalde.

I was surprised Oz isn't yet using a height-limited
finish cylinder (when I flew at Keepit in November).
Led to some interesting finish issues as this encourages
direct approach to landing...

Hope you guys adopt this approach as well !

Hope to fly with you again soon,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

[Evan Ludeman[_2_]]

On Aug 28, 6:03*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave Nadler >
> wrote:
>
> >PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
> >http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>
> Hi Dave - scary lecture!
>
> I have to admit I was horrified reading your description of all these
> incidents and the nescience of the pilots - how have things progressed
> since you wrote this article? Did it get better (and why?)...?
>
> Regards from Germany
> Andreas

I'll chime in because that article was published at a very
impressionable time in my soaring career and it made a substantial
impression at that time. That was the month I passed my PP glider
flight test. Also, I knew several pilots who were at the contest(s)
that article was written about and some of those guys were my
instructors.

First, no one disputes the facts, they are what they are, the friends
no longer with us, the busted ships, the memorial trophies. Some of
the other pilots had a huge issue with how Dave portrayed some of the
things he saw from his cockpit that didn't result in damage. I don't
have an opinion on that (but I have a friend that will still go angry
red in the face if this article is brought up!). However, 24 years
and 20-odd contests later, I do not find Dave's commentary far fetched
*at all*. I've seen all of this crap decision making (and lack of
decision making), first hand.

What's changed is: pilots are older & more experienced (average age
perhaps 10 yrs older now than 1987), ships are better (auto control
hookups, better handling, safety cockpits), procedures are better --
starts and finishes, critical assembly checks for instance, and
tasking is easier. A GPS navigated 2.5 hour AAT is about half the
workload of the camera documented task you were likely to get in the
mid 80s in similar weather. My opinion, anyway.

What hasn't changed (enough): lousy decision making leading to
seriously unsafe situations. Most disturbing is that the post
accident interviews often don't yield useful lessons learned (or at
least nothing new). Sometimes even the awareness of the pilot
involved seems to be lacking, he may persist in thinking he was simply
the victim of some outrageously bad luck. At least now if he's flying
a modern ship he's often around to interview. Those fatalities at
Sugarbush involved ships that had no cockpit protection to speak of.

On the other hand, the guys that mentored me starting a quarter
century ago are almost all still flying & still flying contests and
they don't break a lot of stuff. I guess I picked good role models.
Whatever. It's possible to fly competition (and do well) with a sane
safety record.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[BobW]

On 8/29/2011 12:08 PM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Aug 28, 6:03 pm, Andreas > wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:22:45 -0700 (PDT), Dave >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> PS: Not a new problem. Discussed in my 1987 article:
>>> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf
>>
>> Hi Dave - scary lecture!
>>
>> I have to admit I was horrified reading your description of all these
>> incidents and the nescience of the pilots - how have things progressed
>> since you wrote this article? Did it get better (and why?)...?
>>
>> Regards from Germany
>> Andreas
>
> I'll chime in because that article was published at a very
> impressionable time in my soaring career and it made a substantial
> impression at that time. That was the month I passed my PP glider
> flight test. Also, I knew several pilots who were at the contest(s)
> that article was written about and some of those guys were my
> instructors.

I'd been soaring ~13 years when Dave's article appeared, and though in my own
mind considered myself still a newbie/beginner - had ~850 hours and doubt if
any of my club peers considered me a newbie - it also made a favorable,
lasting, helluvan impression on me. IIRC I was sufficiently favorably
impressed I wrote him a snail mail letter thanking him for it; it was/remains
a classic IMHO, and I hope one or two RAS readers may be motivated from
reading it, to improve their own thought processes...because that's what it's
all about. Mere mechanical skill means little without some brains to leaven it.
>
> First, no one disputes the facts, they are what they are, the friends
> no longer with us, the busted ships, the memorial trophies. Some of
> the other pilots had a huge issue with how Dave portrayed some of the
> things he saw from his cockpit that didn't result in damage. I don't
> have an opinion on that (but I have a friend that will still go angry
> red in the face if this article is brought up!).

Wow...

However, 24 years
> and 20-odd contests later, I do not find Dave's commentary far fetched
> *at all*. I've seen all of this crap decision making (and lack of
> decision making), first hand.

And certainly not limited to contests, though I realize we all like to imagine
contest pilots involve a select (better-thinking) subset of the soaring
population. Paying judgmental attention to the antics routinely displayed at
any gliderport on a soaring weekend can be not only entertaining, but
personally *useful*.

>
> What's changed is: pilots are older& more experienced (average age
> perhaps 10 yrs older now than 1987), ships are better (auto control
> hookups, better handling, safety cockpits), procedures are better --
> starts and finishes, critical assembly checks for instance, and
> tasking is easier. A GPS navigated 2.5 hour AAT is about half the
> workload of the camera documented task you were likely to get in the
> mid 80s in similar weather. My opinion, anyway.
>
> What hasn't changed (enough): lousy decision making leading to
> seriously unsafe situations. Most disturbing is that the post
> accident interviews often don't yield useful lessons learned (or at
> least nothing new). Sometimes even the awareness of the pilot
> involved seems to be lacking, he may persist in thinking he was simply
> the victim of some outrageously bad luck.

Just out of curiosity, are there any readers who have NOT experienced what
Evan writes about (presuming you've poked into the thought processes of
others, of course)? "What Evan said," about that being 'disturbing'...and (to
me anyway - here comes the judgmental part) really scary/worrisome.

At least now if he's flying
> a modern ship he's often around to interview. Those fatalities at
> Sugarbush involved ships that had no cockpit protection to speak of.
>
> On the other hand, the guys that mentored me starting a quarter
> century ago are almost all still flying& still flying contests and
> they don't break a lot of stuff. I guess I picked good role models.
> Whatever. It's possible to fly competition (and do well) with a sane
> safety record.

Just to be a bit anal, that last sentence covers a LOT of 'thought ground.'

What makes consistent soaring contest placers and winners isn't willingness to
take more risks than the other guys combined with consistently good luck, but
something far more complex, combining knowledge (of weather, of themselves, of
their ship, of the local geography, of the day's possibilities, etc.) skill,
and good judgment. A good argument can be made 'unintelligent risk-taking'
actually *slows* - and potentially limits - one's gaining of knowledge,
building of skill, and learning good judgment. Anyone taking risks as a means
of 'expanding their knowledge base' without also having in-hand - and being
prepared to immediately implement once certain self-defined limits are reached
- a *good* (safety-increasing) Plan B, a nearly fully-developed good Plan C
and some nascent other good possibilities is, I'd suggest, definitionally
taking 'unintelligent risks.'

FWIW...
Bob W.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 28, 12:33*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>where acro in defined as an abrupt maneuver involving a 30 dergee change in attitude

Where did you find that definition JJ? A lot of people confuse the
requirements for wearing a parachute with the definition of
aerobatics. Are you doing the same?

Sec. 91.303 — Aerobatic flight. - For the purposes of this section,
aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt
change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

Sec. 91.307 — Parachutes and parachuting. -

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved
parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other
than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
horizon.



Andy

[Bart[_4_]]

On Aug 29, 3:32*pm, Andy > wrote:
> Where did you find that definition JJ? *A lot of people confuse the
> requirements for wearing a parachute with the definition of
> aerobatics. *Are you doing the same?

Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.

Bart

[T8]

On Aug 29, 3:01*pm, BobW > wrote:
> A good argument can be made 'unintelligent risk-taking'
> actually *slows* - and potentially limits - one's gaining of knowledge,
> building of skill, and learning good judgment.

Well, we're pretty far OT here, but one more comment to make: taking
on too much risk slows more than learning, it slows racing speeds
too! Nothing quite like flying all the way down to the weeds looking
for a top-10% thermal and having to settle for a bottom 5%-er to stay
airborne, or simply having to land. XC racing is more like running a
business than running a mile. The winners are those that manage risk
intelligently, commit their altitude (capital) to paths forward that
yield efficient progress and a spiffy return on investment (more
altitude, more capital).

But let's try not to take these parallels to their logical conclusion
(phoning up the rules committee in flight to negotiate special favors
at the expense of other competitors).

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 29, 4:50*pm, Bart > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 3:32*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> > Where did you find that definition JJ? *A lot of people confuse the
> > requirements for wearing a parachute with the definition of
> > aerobatics. *Are you doing the same?
>
> Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.
>
> Bart

Can you give me a para reference. All I see, under definitions, is a
re-statement of the regs I quoted.

Andy

[Bart[_4_]]

On Aug 30, 9:33*am, Andy > wrote:
> > Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.
> Can you give me a para reference. All I see, under definitions, *is a
> re-statement of the regs I quoted.

"...that exceeds:
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
horizon.”
b The above bank and pitch tolerances further define the differences
between an acrobatic and nonacrobatic maneuver."

For me, the FARs are clear and I agree with your interpretation. Also,
Advisory Circulars are non-regulatory. But ignore them at your own
peril.

Bart

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Aug 30, 9:52*am, Bart > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:33*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.
> > Can you give me a para reference. All I see, under definitions, *is a
> > re-statement of the regs I quoted.
>
> "...that exceeds:
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
> horizon.”
> b The above bank and pitch tolerances further define the differences
> between an acrobatic and nonacrobatic maneuver."
>
> For me, the FARs are clear and I agree with your interpretation. Also,
> Advisory Circulars are non-regulatory. But ignore them at your own
> peril.
>
> Bart

Back to the Idaho accident,a witness stated (NTSB report) that the
BG-12 pulled up to about 300 feet. This should have been plenty of
altitude to reverse course and put it on the runway. What happened? I
remember reading a FAA report on accidents that happen all the time.
Pilot buys a new ship and decides to buzz his house. Dives down,
buzzes, then pulls up, say 30 degrees. He looses his horizon because
the nose of his ship blocks it. Pilot isn't used to pulling G's and
without realizing it, he relaxes back stick pressure until he gets
back to 1 G. Only problem is,the nose is still up and his horizon is
still blocked. Ship stalls & falls. One happened just like this, here
in Sacramento a few years ago. Experienced buz-job-jockeys know to
lower one wing and pick up the horizon, then finish the maneuver with
nose below the horizon and airspeed 50+.
Did this happen in Idaho?
JJ

[Bruce Hoult]

On Aug 31, 4:52*am, Bart > wrote:
> On Aug 30, 9:33*am, Andy > wrote:
>
> > > Gray area. Advisory Circular 91-48 uses both definitions.
> > Can you give me a para reference. All I see, under definitions, *is a
> > re-statement of the regs I quoted.
>
> "...that exceeds:
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the
> horizon.”
> b The above bank and pitch tolerances further define the differences
> between an acrobatic and nonacrobatic maneuver."
>
> For me, the FARs are clear and I agree with your interpretation. Also,
> Advisory Circulars are non-regulatory. But ignore them at your own
> peril.

While no doubt some pull-ups exceed 30 degrees (and that might be more
fun) there is absolutely no need to, and even 30 degrees looks pretty
steep from the ground and converts speed into height pretty quickly.

120 knots airspeed at 30 degrees nose up is 60 knots vertical speed
(6000 fpm!).

So, we have:

1) missed approaches are standard procedure and fall under the
definition of landing for the purposes of the flying lower than 500 ft
AGL rule.

2) pull ups of 30 degrees or less do not fall under aerobatic rules.

3) at mixed-use airfields there can be other aircraft that normally
approach at 120 - 130 knots on short final.

Hell, where I learned to fly in Traumahawks (PA-38) it was standard
practice to approach at 120 knots until crossing the threshold in
order to keep out of the way of the 737 that was right behind you.
That made for about 1000 m of float slowing down which was perfect for
turning off at the midpoint taxiway.