RE: Soaring Accident in Washington State

[Michael Dewitt Allen]

No License, Butt, plenty of experience
Florida man here... Lived in NW, flown in more than several Gliders.
Been winched up, car towed up, Pawnee towed up, worked the winch on
way more than 20 flights alone, lots of hours in everything from a
Stearman to F-4, 3 place gliders and 2 place gliders... How could
anyone use a 200' tow rope on a Automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
perfection ?... sounds like a serious lack of EXPERIENCE met an eager
CREW trying to perform on camera. And... where is this Precious Video
that surely will shed more than light on this tragic accident?... This
Boggs Guy seems to have called it...
You do not know what You have not experienced

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, Michael Dewitt Allen >
wrote:

> You do not know what You have not experienced

H'okay...

[BobW]

> How could anyone use a 200' tow rope on an automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
> hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
> perfection?

Indeed...and those deviations will all occur more quickly in time as the rope
shortens, whether on an aerotow or ground launch, as any kid who has ever
launched a kite would be likely to know.

Sadly,
Bob W.

[VentusA]

On Oct 15, 5:43*pm, BobW > wrote:
> > How could anyone use a 200' tow rope on an automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
> > hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
> > perfection?
>
> Indeed...and those deviations will all occur more quickly in time as the rope
> shortens, whether on an aerotow or ground launch, as any kid who has ever
> launched a kite would be likely to know.
>
> Sadly,
> Bob W.

I have many times launched with a 200' rope on a 1500 foot runway
(Torrey Pines) - but I was not attempting to climb! - only to get 50
feet off the ground and make it to the cliff edge on a blowing day; no
problem. (I have also launched with 1500' rope on a mile-long dry
lake; also fine)
If he attempted to climb, he would immediately find himself at an
extremely high angle of attack - the glider is not in free flight but
is subject to the force along the rope, which, with a short rope, will
very rapidly be at a very large angle to the glider's attitude.
Perhaps when we see the video from the helicopter we will understand
exactly what happened.

[Caterina Jardini]

if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
the runway....

[Liam]

On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini > wrote:
> if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
> the runway....

The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
their few seconds of footage.

[Gary Boggs]

No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
hit the gas.


On Oct 15, 9:53*pm, Liam > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini > wrote:
>
> > if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
> > the runway....
>
> The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
> their few seconds of footage.

[Michael Dewitt Allen]

Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
Washington State

Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...

If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
on a tooo short rope...
on a tooo short Runway...

The Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
Had to be smokin something serious.
This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.

On Oct 16, 2:35*am, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
> No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
> hit the gas.
>
> On Oct 15, 9:53*pm, Liam > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini > wrote:
>
> > > if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
> > > the runway....
>
> > The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
> > their few seconds of footage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, Michael Dewitt Allen >
wrote:
> How could
> anyone use a 200' tow rope on a Automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
> hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
> perfection ?

Since this is all speculation I'll add mine. Differences between
starting a launch on a 200ft rope behind a tow plane and the same
launch behind a powerful truck are:

1. the lack of prop wash and
2. the potential for greatly increased initial acceleration

A reasonable scenario for the shoot would have been for the glider to
become airborne for a few seconds and then release to land ahead while
the truck accelerated out of the way. On the face of it the risks
seem manageable and no worse than the initial segment of an aerotow
from the same runway.

I wonder how much the combination of high initial acceleration and
short rope contributed to this accident. A key factor may be whether
the launch used a nose hook or a CG hook. If the plan was to land
ahead with no attempt to gain significant altitude then the nose hook
may have been the right choice.

People are questioning the experience of the glider pilot. Maybe the
experience of the truck driver is just as important?

Andy
(aerotow, winch and ground launch in my log)

[2G]

On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
wrote:
> Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> Washington State
>
> Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> on a tooo short rope...
> on a tooo short Runway...
>
> The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> Had to be smokin something serious.
> This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>

While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
likely.

[Walt Connelly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biS1ncqw-g8&feature=player_embedded

[Liam]

On Oct 15, 11:35*pm, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
> No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
> hit the gas.

Oh my.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>
> While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> likely.

This is the most sensible of our current speculations.

Really, it makes no sense that anyone would plan to auto tow to 200
feet and do a 180 degree turn to landing. If they had planned to turn
around, they would have used the whole runway, and a much longer rope.
if they were using a 200 foot rope, the most sensible conclusion is
that they planned to land straight ahead over the tow car. So the turn
is likely unintentional.

I can well imagine that at 150 feet and 60 mph, you haul out spoilers
on a long-winged glider and only one side comes out -- and perhaps
stays out - you have a huge problem on your hands; possibly not
recoverable at all.

Reading accident reports, it seems the NTSB checks control systems
routinely, so we'll know pretty soon if this is the cause.

John Cochrane

[Gary Boggs]

The controls got all f-ed up when he hit the ground nose first. This
is not speculation. He pulled up to hard. The rope broke because he
pulled up too hard. He was too nose high and too low to recover. He
had no chance of recovering in that scenario. I wonder if we will
ever be able to see the footage from the hilocopter. All the rest of
the stories are just a guess or an attempt to cover their asses. I
have this info from a Wittness who was there. Or maybe I am wrong? I
hope we get to see and use the video to save lives eventually....

Boggs

[Mark]

The accident was filmed by two separate professional camera crews.
All the video been given to the NTSB and the FAA, so I am sure it will
become available to show all details of the accident.

In the meantime, I find myself thinking about our loss. Lynn was an
excellent instructor and a skilled & experienced pilot. I never heard
him brag about his accomplishments, but he was always willing to share/
teach what he knows. With his professional instructing in his
beautiful glider - he truly delivered what I consider the promise of
soaring: accomplishment while flying something cool. We have lost a
significant member of our tribe and a big contributor to our sport.

Mark

[Ventus_a]

;787526']On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, Michael Dewitt Allen
wrote:
How could
anyone use a 200' tow rope on a Automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
perfection ?

Since this is all speculation I'll add mine. Differences between
starting a launch on a 200ft rope behind a tow plane and the same
launch behind a powerful truck a

1. the lack of prop wash and
2. the potential for greatly increased initial acceleration

A reasonable scenario for the shoot would have been for the glider to
become airborne for a few seconds and then release to land ahead while
the truck accelerated out of the way. On the face of it the risks
seem manageable and no worse than the initial segment of an aerotow
from the same runway.

I wonder how much the combination of high initial acceleration and
short rope contributed to this accident. A key factor may be whether
the launch used a nose hook or a CG hook. If the plan was to land
ahead with no attempt to gain significant altitude then the nose hook
may have been the right choice.

People are questioning the experience of the glider pilot. Maybe the
experience of the truck driver is just as important?

Andy
(aerotow, winch and ground launch in my log)

I do wonder if high initial acceleration would be an issue as I have not seen any vehicle that can accelerate a glider as fast as a medium to high powered winch. The one at my club will accelerate a light glider to 60 mph in about 3.5 seconds (super car territory) if given abrupt full throttle and a Dg 1000 isn't that light

Colin

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 16, 6:24*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> > accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> > show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> > to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> > what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> > pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> > These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> > likely.
>
> This is the most sensible of our current speculations.
>
> Really, it makes no sense that anyone would plan *to auto tow to 200
> feet and do a 180 degree turn to landing. If they had planned to turn
> around, they would have used the whole runway, and a much longer rope.
> if they were using a 200 foot rope, the most sensible conclusion is
> that they planned to land straight ahead over the tow car. So the turn
> is likely unintentional.
>
> I can well imagine that at 150 feet and 60 mph, you haul out *spoilers
> on a long-winged glider and only one side comes out -- and perhaps
> stays out - you have a huge problem on your hands; possibly not
> recoverable at all.
>
> Reading accident reports, it seems the NTSB checks control systems
> routinely, so we'll know pretty soon if this is the cause.
>
> John Cochrane

To all you posting on this thread.

About a month ago, I was contacted by e member of the DGA Directors
Guild of America.
He and I are both SAG members and we both have movie manuals to film
this sort of thing.

It is required by insurance.

The director told the production company that he did not want to film
this without anyone
other than me because he knew my background in soaring.

We went thorugh extensive detail about location scouting safety
briefings etc. etc. plans
for the film shoot. For those of you who do not know me, I have about
3000 hours in
sailpanes flew in the worlds a few nationals, womn a few regionals and
am a 2nd
generation sailplane pilot, SSA life member.

You can see some of my film credits at www.americabyair.com. Select
Demo reels.
We filmed the entire lower 48 every city, landmark, hovel, national
park in HD, beta and
35MM. I have extensive flying and filming in Alaska as well. I am
embarassed to admit I
also I fly (whore around) private jets i.e. Gulfstreams, etc.etc.
which makes me a sailplane
pilot sell out. I can remember a day when I had more glider time than
jet time and I see jets
as big fast glider pigs compared to soaring. Enough about me. I say
this because I have
soaring in my veins and I sleep and drink the stuff.

Well after we gave the production company all this data, with
suggestions on how to
do the shoot and we offered to location scout etc etc. We were told
that we were
essentially the 'it team' for this shoot.

Last friday we were contacted, put on hold indefinitely and suddenly
told the production
company had procured another 'it team' to do the filmwork. We were
like Ok easy come
easy go, that is the way these things usually go.

This thursday my team called me as the news filtered down while I was
busy working on some
other mundane task. I was shocked to learn the pilot elected to do
this in a beast on a 2500
foot strip. The problem is obvious. I have done about 4-5000 launches
and about 2-3000 have
been some sort of ground launch. Those who know me know I specialize
in ground launches
and have volunteered for clubs as a chief CFIG for about 20 years. We
have moved from the
days of the steel cable to Spectra. Cars also produce a wind shadow. A
vacuum of sorts.
Gliders do not fly well in a vacuum. Having a vehicle in front of you
sucking the life out of the
wing root area can get ugly. They also are very picky about down
drafts caused by
'fling wings' (Helicopters). One must carefully take all of this into
consideration much like flying
up close behind a B-757, or A-380 (Scarebus). Helicopters, cars, short
runways, there is a lot
going on with little real estate to bail out on and thus, It can get
you into a world of hurt really fast.

A beast like a DG-1000 needs a lot of breathing room like fine wine.
Cars do not accelerate fast
and eat up prescious remaining runway fast. That leaves little in the
event of an emergency or should the
driver have a freak panic attack and stop in front of you at a speed
where you cannot get out of the
way. It is simply not possible at say 50 knots or less. The glider has
mass and energy and is tough
to stop on a dime with a tiny tire. For example in a jet, every 10
knots you add to the vref speeds eats
another 1000 feet of runway. With an L/D of 50:1, or 60:1 you have the
same problem. cases like
Southwest at BUR are all examples of this and there are many glider
example of a pilots inability to
control energy.

This accident did not have to happen. Had the production crew listened
to pilots who have done this
type of work before the outcome would have been far different. I am
truly saddened to see yet
another glider accident. 2011 has been another bad year for accidents.
We need to do all we can to
improve safety.

Harold Katinszky

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 16, 9:40*pm, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
> The controls got all f-ed up when he hit the ground nose first. This
> is not speculation. He pulled up to hard. *The rope broke because he
> pulled up too hard. *He was too nose high and too low to recover. *He
> had no chance of recovering in that scenario. *I wonder if we will
> ever be able to see the footage from the hilocopter. * All the rest of
> the stories are just a guess or an attempt to cover their asses. I
> have this info from a Wittness who was there. Or maybe I am wrong? *I
> hope we get to see and use the video to save lives eventually....
>
> Boggs

To all you posting on this thread.

About a month ago, I was contacted by e member of the DGA Directors
Guild of America.
He and I are both SAG members and we both have movie manuals to film
this sort of thing.

It is required by insurance.

The director told the production company that he did not want to film
this without anyone
other than me because he knew my background in soaring.

We went thorugh extensive detail about location scouting safety
briefings etc. etc. plans
for the film shoot. For those of you who do not know me, I have about
3000 hours in
sailpanes flew in the worlds a few nationals, womn a few regionals and
am a 2nd
generation sailplane pilot, SSA life member.

You can see some of my film credits at www.americabyair.com. Select
Demo reels.
We filmed the entire lower 48 every city, landmark, hovel, national
park in HD, beta and
35MM. I have extensive flying and filming in Alaska as well. I am
embarassed to admit I
also I fly (whore around) private jets i.e. Gulfstreams, etc.etc.
which makes me a sailplane
pilot sell out. I can remember a day when I had more glider time than
jet time and I see jets
as big fast glider pigs compared to soaring. Enough about me. I say
this because I have
soaring in my veins and I sleep and drink the stuff.

Well after we gave the production company all this data, with
suggestions on how to
do the shoot and we offered to location scout etc etc. We were told
that we were
essentially the 'it team' for this shoot.

Last friday we were contacted, put on hold indefinitely and suddenly
told the production
company had procured another 'it team' to do the filmwork. We were
like Ok easy come
easy go, that is the way these things usually go.

This thursday my team called me as the news filtered down while I was
busy working on some
other mundane task. I was shocked to learn the pilot elected to do
this in a beast on a 2500
foot strip. The problem is obvious. I have done about 4-5000 launches
and about 2-3000 have
been some sort of ground launch. Those who know me know I specialize
in ground launches
and have volunteered for clubs as a chief CFIG for about 20 years. We
have moved from the
days of the steel cable to Spectra. Cars also produce a wind shadow. A
vacuum of sorts.
Gliders do not fly well in a vacuum. Having a vehicle in front of you
sucking the life out of the
wing root area can get ugly. They also are very picky about down
drafts caused by
'fling wings' (Helicopters). One must carefully take all of this into
consideration much like flying
up close behind a B-757, or A-380 (Scarebus). Helicopters, cars, short
runways, there is a lot
going on with little real estate to bail out on and thus, It can get
you into a world of hurt really fast.

A beast like a DG-1000 needs a lot of breathing room like fine wine.
Cars do not accelerate fast
and eat up prescious remaining runway fast. That leaves little in the
event of an emergency or should the
driver have a freak panic attack and stop in front of you at a speed
where you cannot get out of the
way. It is simply not possible at say 50 knots or less. The glider has
mass and energy and is tough
to stop on a dime with a tiny tire. For example in a jet, every 10
knots you add to the vref speeds eats
another 1000 feet of runway. With an L/D of 50:1, or 60:1 you have the
same problem. cases like
Southwest at BUR are all examples of this and there are many glider
example of a pilots inability to
control energy.

This accident did not have to happen. Had the production crew listened
to pilots who have done this
type of work before the outcome would have been far different. I am
truly saddened to see yet
another glider accident. 2011 has been another bad year for accidents.
We need to do all we can to
improve safety.

Harold Katinszky

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 16, 9:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
wrote:
> Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> Washington State
>
> Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> on a tooo short rope...
> on a tooo short Runway...
>
> The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> Had to be smokin something serious.
> This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> On Oct 16, 2:35*am, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
>
>
>
> > No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
> > hit the gas.
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:53*pm, Liam > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini > wrote:
>
> > > > if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
> > > > the runway....
>
> > > The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
> > > their few seconds of footage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 16, 9:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
wrote:
> Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> Washington State
>
> Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> on a tooo short rope...
> on a tooo short Runway...
>
> The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> Had to be smokin something serious.
> This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> On Oct 16, 2:35*am, GARY BOGGS > wrote:
>
>
>
> > No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
> > hit the gas.
>
> > On Oct 15, 9:53*pm, Liam > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini > wrote:
>
> > > > if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
> > > > the runway....
>
> > > The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
> > > their few seconds of footage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

To all you posting on this thread.

About a month ago, I was contacted by e member of the DGA Directors
Guild of America.
He and I are both SAG members and we both have movie manuals to film
this sort of thing.

It is required by insurance.

The director told the production company that he did not want to film
this without anyone
other than me because he knew my background in soaring.

We went thorugh extensive detail about location scouting safety
briefings etc. etc. plans
for the film shoot. For those of you who do not know me, I have about
3000 hours in
sailpanes flew in the worlds a few nationals, womn a few regionals and
am a 2nd
generation sailplane pilot, SSA life member.

You can see some of my film credits at www.americabyair.com. Select
Demo reels.
We filmed the entire lower 48 every city, landmark, hovel, national
park in HD, beta and
35MM. I have extensive flying and filming in Alaska as well. I am
embarassed to admit I
also I fly (whore around) private jets i.e. Gulfstreams, etc.etc.
which makes me a sailplane
pilot sell out. I can remember a day when I had more glider time than
jet time and I see jets
as big fast glider pigs compared to soaring. Enough about me. I say
this because I have
soaring in my veins and I sleep and drink the stuff.

Well after we gave the production company all this data, with
suggestions on how to
do the shoot and we offered to location scout etc etc. We were told
that we were
essentially the 'it team' for this shoot.

Last friday we were contacted, put on hold indefinitely and suddenly
told the production
company had procured another 'it team' to do the filmwork. We were
like Ok easy come
easy go, that is the way these things usually go.

This thursday my team called me as the news filtered down while I was
busy working on some
other mundane task. I was shocked to learn the pilot elected to do
this in a beast on a 2500
foot strip. The problem is obvious. I have done about 4-5000 launches
and about 2-3000 have
been some sort of ground launch. Those who know me know I specialize
in ground launches
and have volunteered for clubs as a chief CFIG for about 20 years. We
have moved from the
days of the steel cable to Spectra. Cars also produce a wind shadow. A
vacuum of sorts.
Gliders do not fly well in a vacuum. Having a vehicle in front of you
sucking the life out of the
wing root area can get ugly. They also are very picky about down
drafts caused by
'fling wings' (Helicopters). One must carefully take all of this into
consideration much like flying
up close behind a B-757, or A-380 (Scarebus). Helicopters, cars, short
runways, there is a lot
going on with little real estate to bail out on and thus, It can get
you into a world of hurt really fast.

A beast like a DG-1000 needs a lot of breathing room like fine wine.
Cars do not accelerate fast
and eat up prescious remaining runway fast. That leaves little in the
event of an emergency or should the
driver have a freak panic attack and stop in front of you at a speed
where you cannot get out of the
way. It is simply not possible at say 50 knots or less. The glider has
mass and energy and is tough
to stop on a dime with a tiny tire. For example in a jet, every 10
knots you add to the vref speeds eats
another 1000 feet of runway. With an L/D of 50:1, or 60:1 you have the
same problem. cases like
Southwest at BUR are all examples of this and there are many glider
example of a pilots inability to
control energy.

This accident did not have to happen. Had the production crew listened
to pilots who have done this
type of work before the outcome would have been far different. I am
truly saddened to see yet
another glider accident. 2011 has been another bad year for accidents.
We need to do all we can to
improve safety.

Harold Katinszky

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 16, 12:35*pm, 2G > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> wrote:
>
> > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > Washington State
>
> > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > on a tooo short rope...
> > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> likely.

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 15, 7:49*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> wrote:
>
> > You do not know what You have not experienced
>
> H'okay...

[Ventus_a]

On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen
wrote:
Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
Washington State

Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...

If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
on a tooo short rope...
on a tooo short Runway...

The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
Had to be smokin something serious.
This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.


While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
likely.

FYI

http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dsweb/Get/Document-8957/2008-085-EASA-AD-2007-0316R1-E%20COR.pdf

Colin

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 16, 9:35*am, 2G > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> wrote:
>
> > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > Washington State
>
> > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > on a tooo short rope...
> > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> likely.

One does a positive control check on this sort of stuff several times
It is my theory the spoliers popped out from the force of the accident
not prematurely as you may suggest. It is nice to blame the
manufacturer
on this sort of stuff however, I have my doubts and the sailplane
should
still be able to manuever with one open.
VI

[2G]

On Oct 17, 12:41*am, Harold Katinszky > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 9:35*am, 2G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > > Washington State
>
> > > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > > on a tooo short rope...
> > > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> > While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> > accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> > show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> > to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> > what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> > pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> > These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> > likely.
>
> One does a positive control check on this sort of stuff several times
> It is my theory the spoliers popped out from the force of the accident
> not prematurely as you may suggest. It is nice to blame the
> manufacturer
> on this sort of stuff however, I have my doubts and the sailplane
> should
> still be able to manuever with one open.
> VI

Nobody is "blaming the manufacturer"; the existence of the AD is a
matter of fact, not fiction.

The wings and the portion of the fuselage aft of the cockpit are
intact, absent of any crushing. In any event, inspection of the
wreckage will confirm or deny the theory, and has probably already
been done.

The ability to fly with one airbrake out in level flight does not
imply the same in a high G pullup. The unexpected deployment of a
single airbrake in this attitude may be beyond the yaw authority of
the rudder. In any event, the pilot could have been confused long
enough that the glider got into an irrecoverable attitude before he
realized what was happening.

Tom

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 8:46*am, 2G > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:41*am, Harold Katinszky > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 9:35*am, 2G > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > > > Washington State
>
> > > > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > > > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > > > on a tooo short rope...
> > > > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > > > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > > > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > > > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> > > While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> > > accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> > > show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> > > to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> > > what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> > > pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> > > These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> > > likely.
>
> > One does a positive control check on this sort of stuff several times
> > It is my theory the spoliers popped out from the force of the accident
> > not prematurely as you may suggest. It is nice to blame the
> > manufacturer
> > on this sort of stuff however, I have my doubts and the sailplane
> > should
> > still be able to manuever with one open.
> > VI
>
> Nobody is "blaming the manufacturer"; the existence of the AD is a
> matter of fact, not fiction.
>
> The wings and the portion of the fuselage aft of the cockpit are
> intact, absent of any crushing. In any event, inspection of the
> wreckage will confirm or deny the theory, and has probably already
> been done.
>
> The ability to fly with one airbrake out in level flight does not
> imply the same in a high G pullup. The unexpected deployment of a
> single airbrake in this attitude may be beyond the yaw authority of
> the rudder. In any event, the pilot could have been confused long
> enough that the glider got into an irrecoverable attitude before he
> realized what was happening.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I wouldn't read too much into one spoiler open after the crash. The
whole structure can move several inches during the crash, then spring
back to near normal position. I can envision a side load in the wing
root area that could unlock one spoiler, then during spring back, the
push-rod bends or some other control linkage brakes and you get the
photo showing one open and the other closed. I remember the near
normal looking G-103 wing, but when I opened up the wing I found the
aileron push-rod had a 30 degree bend in it.........indicating just
how far the wing had bent before springing back.
If the DG-1000 uses the same hokey torque-tube that they used in the
DG-300 to drive the spoilers with the over-center lock mounted on a
thin root-rib, that flexed easily under load...............the one
open, one closed would be near normal situation.
Cheers,
JJ

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 17, 12:05*am, Harold Katinszky > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 12:35*pm, 2G > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > > Washington State
>
> > > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > > on a tooo short rope...
> > > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> > While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> > accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> > show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> > to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> > what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> > pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> > These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> > likely.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text

If there is in an AD that was not addressed and the bird was
flown, that would not be very good in this matter.

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 17, 2:02*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 8:46*am, 2G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 12:41*am, Harold Katinszky > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 9:35*am, 2G > wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > > > > Washington State
>
> > > > > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > > > > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > > > > on a tooo short rope...
> > > > > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > > > > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > > > > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > > > > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception..
>
> > > > While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> > > > accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> > > > show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> > > > to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> > > > what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> > > > pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.

[Harold Katinszky]

On Oct 17, 8:46*am, 2G > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:41*am, Harold Katinszky > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 9:35*am, 2G > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 16, 6:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
> > > > Washington State
>
> > > > Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...
>
> > > > If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
> > > > on a tooo short rope...
> > > > on a tooo short Runway...
>
> > > > The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
> > > > Had to be smokin something serious.
> > > > This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.
>
> > > While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
> > > accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
> > > show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
> > > to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
> > > what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
> > > pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
> > > These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
> > > likely.
>
> > One does a positive control check on this sort of stuff several times
> > It is my theory the spoliers popped out from the force of the accident
> > not prematurely as you may suggest. It is nice to blame the
> > manufacturer
> > on this sort of stuff however, I have my doubts and the sailplane
> > should
> > still be able to manuever with one open.
> > VI
>
> Nobody is "blaming the manufacturer"; the existence of the AD is a
> matter of fact, not fiction.
>
> The wings and the portion of the fuselage aft of the cockpit are
> intact, absent of any crushing. In any event, inspection of the
> wreckage will confirm or deny the theory, and has probably already
> been done.
>
> The ability to fly with one airbrake out in level flight does not
> imply the same in a high G pullup. The unexpected deployment of a
> single airbrake in this attitude may be beyond the yaw authority of
> the rudder. In any event, the pilot could have been confused long
> enough that the glider got into an irrecoverable attitude before he
> realized what was happening.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 4:59*pm, Harold Katinszky > wrote:
>
> If there is in an AD that was not addressed and the bird was
> flown, that would not be very good in this matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As JJ said, don't put too much faith in a picture that shows one dive
brake out and the other in after a crash. Lots of things flex a LONG
way and then come back to looking almost normal. Especially with a
long lens from 1000 feet away. Are you also noticing that the aileron
on the right tip is trailing edge down, and the aileron inboard of
this is not?

Condolenaces to all involved.

Steve Leonard

[Tom Serkowski]

On 10/16/11 7:19 AM, Andy wrote:
> A reasonable scenario for the shoot would have been for the glider to
> become airborne for a few seconds and then release to land ahead while
> the truck accelerated out of the way. On the face of it the risks
> seem manageable and no worse than the initial segment of an aerotow
> from the same runway.

Perhaps the intent was to do the equivalent of a telephoto compression
looking head on at an auto tow with a reasonable length rope, say 1000'.

But they picked a short field so decided to use a short rope and catch
the first 100' of climb. This would require a reasonable pitch-up in
order to look "cool". But pitching up on a short rope like this will
result in a nearly instant climb ...and the rest is history.

A gentle climb using the nose hook seems like the only sane thing that
could be done with a 200' rope. But I'm not sure it would look very
exciting on video.

-Tom

[Bruce Hoult]

On Oct 18, 10:02*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> If the DG-1000 uses the same hokey torque-tube that they used in the
> DG-300 to drive the spoilers with the over-center lock mounted on a
> thin root-rib, that flexed easily under load...............the one
> open, one closed would be near normal situation.

Hmm. I've rigged and derigged DG1000 a number of times and never had
to do anything special with the airbrake lever and the brakes stay
locked with the wing off the plane so, yeah, the overcenter lock must
be inside each wing. Never thought about that.

Both airbrakes and ailerons are definitely driven (at least initially)
by torque tubes with self-aligning V-shaped slots.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 16, 11:55*pm, Ventus_a >
wrote:
> 'Andy[_1_ Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ;787526']On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, Michael Dewitt Allen
> > wrote:-
> > How could
> > anyone use a 200' tow rope on a Automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
> > hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
> > perfection ?-
>
> > Since this is all speculation I'll add mine. * Differences between
> > starting a launch on a 200ft rope behind a tow plane and the same
> > launch behind a powerful truck a
>
> > 1. the lack of prop wash and
> > 2. the potential for greatly increased initial acceleration
>
> > A reasonable scenario for the shoot would have been for the glider to
> > become airborne for a few seconds and then release to land ahead while
> > the truck accelerated out of the way. *On the face of it the risks
> > seem manageable and no worse than the initial segment of an aerotow
> > from the same runway.
>
> > I wonder how much the combination of high initial acceleration and
> > short rope contributed to this accident. *A key factor may be whether
> > the launch used a nose hook or a CG hook. *If the plan was to land
> > ahead with no attempt to gain significant altitude then the nose hook
> > may have been the right choice.
>
> > People are questioning the experience of the glider pilot. *Maybe the
> > experience of the truck driver is just as important?
>
> > Andy
> > (aerotow, winch and ground launch in my log)
>
> I do wonder if high initial acceleration would be an issue as I have not
> seen any vehicle that can accelerate a glider as fast as a medium to
> high powered winch. *The one at my club will accelerate a light glider
> to 60 mph in about 3.5 seconds (super car territory) if given abrupt
> full throttle and a Dg 1000 isn't that light
>
> Colin
>
> --
> Ventus_a

The comparison was between auto and aero tows, not between auto and
winch.

Andy

[Mitch Polinsky]

Does anyone have, or know where I could find, the remote control unit for
an LX 8000 or 9000 that gets mounted on the stick? I'm interested in a new
or used one. Thanks.

Mitch Polinsky
[for private replies]

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 18, 11:01*am, Mitch Polinsky > wrote:
> Does anyone have, or know where I could find, the remote control unit for
> an LX 8000 or 9000 that gets mounted on the stick? *I'm interested in a new
> or used one. *Thanks.
>
> Mitch Polinsky
> *[for private replies]