Cle Elum crash on NTSB

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20111013X31821&key=1

NTSB Identification: WPR12FA010
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, October 13, 2011 in Cle Elum, WA
Aircraft: DG FLUGZEUGBAU GMBH DG 1000S, registration: 7760A
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On October 13, 2011, about 1558 Pacific daylight time, a Flugzeugbau
DG 1000 S glider, N7760A, impacted terrain while being ground launched
from a tow vehicle at Cle Elum Municipal Airport (S93), Cle Elum,
Washington. The commercial pilot, the sole occupant, was fatally
injured and the 2-seat glider sustained substantial damage. The glider
was registered to Northwest Eagle Soaring LLC, and operated under the
provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed.

The NTSB investigator-in-charge and law enforcement officials
interviewed multiple witnesses located adjacent to the departure
runway. The witnesses reported that the first stage of auto-tow launch
appeared normal, and the glider became airborne within the first one-
third of the runway. Shortly thereafter, about three-quarters of the
way down the asphalt runway, the glider pitched to a steep nose-high
attitude. As the glider ascended through about 100 – 125 feet above
the ground, the rope slackened. The glider continued to ascend, and
then leveled off about 200 feet above the end of the runway. Shortly
after, the glider entered a steep right bank and descended into the
ground. As it descended, the glider turned approximately 300 degrees
from its initial departure heading before it impacted terrain.

A full-size sport utility vehicle was towing the glider. The nylon tow
rope used measured approximately 234 feet and was 5/16-inch in
diameter.

Runway 07/25 is 2,552 feet in length and 40 feet wide. The runway is
bordered to the north by large conifer trees.

[Bob Kuykendall]

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but if that
report is correct the basic facts that emerged previously are
confirmed:

* Auto tow with SUV
* Tow rope of 230-foot length
* Tow rope of 5/16" nylon
* Runway length of 2500 feet
* Glider achieved a max alt of 200 feet near the departure end of
runway
* Glider appeared to initiate a right spin near the departure end of
runway

That still leaves in question what they were trying to accomplish, and
how.

Bob K.

[db_sonic[_2_]]

On Oct 26, 4:10*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but if that
> report is correct the basic facts that emerged previously are
> confirmed:
>
> * Auto tow with SUV
> * Tow rope of 230-foot length
> * Tow rope of 5/16" nylon
> * Runway length of 2500 feet
> * Glider achieved a max alt of 200 feet near the departure end of
> runway
> * Glider appeared to initiate a right spin near the departure end of
> runway
>
> That still leaves in question what they were trying to accomplish, and
> how.
>
> Bob K.

Unfortunately, no mention of the speed obtained by the SUV. Maybe
that will come out in the follow-on reports..

[Ramy]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but if that
> report is correct the basic facts that emerged previously are
> confirmed:
>
> * Auto tow with SUV
> * Tow rope of 230-foot length
> * Tow rope of 5/16" nylon
> * Runway length of 2500 feet
> * Glider achieved a max alt of 200 feet near the departure end of
> runway
> * Glider appeared to initiate a right spin near the departure end of
> runway
>
> That still leaves in question what they were trying to accomplish, and
> how.
>
> Bob K.

The main question, as Bob said, was not answered. What was their
intention? If it was to land straight ahead, than why did he stay on
tow so long and pulled up at the end? Or perhaps the intention was to
land in a field past the end of the runway? There is mention of trees
at the north side of the runway but no mention of what was ahead.
However if the intention was to do a 180 and land then he was pretty
much doomed before he left the ground as Gary said. Unfortunately it
will probably take a year until we get these answers from the NTSB
final report, IF they will address it. But there are likely people who
read this and know the answers but will rather not share it.

Ramy

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
state in a preliminary accident report? Were you expecting them to
detail the entire planned flight path, launch sequence, acceleration
rate, tow car speed for the climb, film crew briefings? Not gonna
happen with with the NTSB. They provided some eye-witness information
which may or may not be misleading, and some facts about the airport,
the registered owner of the plane, etc. We have been told what their
intentions were. We have been told they were filming a commercial
for Cadillac. We have been told they used the vehicle for the ground
launch. We have been told they planned to tow the DG up with their
rope (which the NTSB reports as 234 feet long, made from 5/16th
nylon. Although, I suspect it is polypropylene.), do a 180, and land
back the other direction. As for the rest of the sequence, I was not
there, but am presenting what I believe is a plausible explanation of
how the events may have transpired.

We can assume that the rope was intact after the launch, as the NTSB
report reports the length of the rope, and makes no comments about it
being broken, or rings found in the glider, etc. They would have
stated the rope was broken it if had been. So, this does not appear
to be any sort of rope overload, as some were presuming.

The witnesses stated that the takeoff appeared normal. There is
enough confusing information after this if you start putting the math
to it about distance down the runway, altitude, etc to make one
suspicious of the distance and height observations. The witnesses
reported that the plane "pitched to a steep nose high attitude." We
know that at some point in the climb (estimated to be 100 to 125
feet), the rope “slackend”. Three ways the rope can "slacken". Tow
vehicle slows down, glider pushes over, or rope disconnects. They say
the glider continued to ascend to about 200 feet of altitude and
leveled off. Based on what they say happened next, I believe the rope
disconnected and the pilot pushed over.

In an auto tow launch, you lift off, bring the nose up a little, get
some altitude, then bring the nose on up. As you near the top of the
climb, the nose comes back down to pretty close to level. Watch any
video of a winch launch on YouTube. Very similar, but on car tow, you
don't accelerate as rapidly. Depending on how the launch is
conducted, you will be rotating to full climb between 100 and 200
feet. Unfortunately, if you try for the same profile with a 234 foot
rope as you would with a 2000 foot rope (be rotating to full climb
angle at 100 feet AGL), the rope to hitch angle will likely hit the
"back release" angle at somewhere between 100 and 150 feet AGL. So,
if you try to fly a "normal" launch profile on a short rope, you will
likely get a low altitude back release, as the pilot in this accident
probably got.

So, here you are, about 100 to 150 or so feet AGL, 35-40 degrees or so
nose up, about right on speed for the climb, and the release does its
backrelease thing. You are surprised, but put the stick on the
forward stop as you are trained. The plane keeps going up and keeps
slowing down as you are going over the top. By the time you go over
the top at about 200 feet or so, and have the nose back down to normal
gliding attitude, your airspeed is pretty well gone. Do the math to
see how much altitude you will gain in slowing from 60 to 30 knots or
so, no drag losses. Unless you keep the stick forward to get the nose
well below the normal gliding attitude to get flying speed back (and
give up what precious little altitude you have), you will stall.
Pilot probably came across the top at about two hundred or so feet
after this, less than one g and slower than 1 g stall speed. He then
likely attempted to initiate the turn, as things were "back to normal,
per the plan." Meaning, he was near the far end of the runway, at
about 200 feet, ready to turn around. Trouble is, he was below stall
speed. Attempted to turn and entered a spin.

As to the max speed the towcar attained, I would be very surprised if
they were attempting other than a "normal" ground launch sequnce, but
with a very short rope. "Normal" being accelerate the car to flying
speed for the plane plus safety margin (no wind, say 65 MPH or so for
the DG? Remember, his airspeed would go up as soon as he starts to
climb, and the intention was to climb), hold that speed, drive to near
the end, and stop.

A very sad and tragic accident.

Respectfully,
Steve Leonard

[Paul Tribe[_2_]]

My condolences go out to the family and friends of the pilot.

I have no opinion on the accident as I don't have all the facts and
I'm no expert flight dynamicist.

However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
informative:

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm

[Paul Tribe[_2_]]

My condolences go out to the family and friends of the pilot.

I have no opinion on the accident as I don't have all the facts and
I'm no expert flight dynamicist.

However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
informative:

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm

[Paul Tribe[_2_]]

At 10:49 28 October 2011, Paul Tribe wrote:
>My condolences go out to the family and friends of the pilot.
>
>I have no opinion on the accident as I don't have all the facts and
>I'm no expert flight dynamicist.
>
>However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
>some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
>experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
>informative:
>
>http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm
>
>
>
>
>
Huh? - I definitely only clicked the "post" button once (via
gliderpilot.net).

Let's see what happens to this message.

[Mike the Strike]

On Oct 28, 3:49*am, Paul Tribe > wrote:
> My condolences go out to the family and friends of the pilot.
>
> I have no opinion on the accident as I don't have all the facts and
> I'm no expert flight dynamicist.
>
> However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
> some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
> experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
> informative:
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm

Looking at the Google Earth image of the airport, there are fields at
both east and west ends, although the west one is a bit small. At 200
feet altitude with only 600 feet of runway in front of you and,
presumably, an SUV sitting in the middle of it, landing ahead seems to
be ruled out. This leaves landing in the small field ahead or a 180
to land back on the asphalt. Neither option looks really wonderful,
but it's increasingly looking as if the pilot opted for the turn.

Mike

[Ramy]

On Oct 27, 9:28*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> state in a preliminary accident report? *Were you expecting them to
> detail the entire planned flight path, launch sequence, acceleration
> rate, tow car speed for the climb, film crew briefings? *Not gonna
> happen with with the NTSB. *They provided some eye-witness information
> which may or may not be misleading, and some facts about the airport,
> the registered owner of the plane, etc. *We have been told what their
> intentions were. * We have been told they were filming a commercial
> for Cadillac. *We have been told they used the vehicle for the ground
> launch. *We have been told they planned to tow the DG up with their
> rope (which the NTSB reports as 234 feet long, made from 5/16th
> nylon. *Although, I suspect it is polypropylene.), do a 180, and land
> back the other direction. *As for the rest of the sequence, I was not
> there, but am presenting what I believe is a plausible explanation of
> how the events may have transpired.
>
> We can assume that the rope was intact after the launch, as the NTSB
> report reports the length of the rope, and makes no comments about it
> being broken, or rings found in the glider, etc. *They would have
> stated the rope was broken it if had been. *So, this does not appear
> to be any sort of rope overload, as some were presuming.
>
> The witnesses stated that the takeoff appeared normal. *There is
> enough confusing information after this if you start putting the math
> to it about distance down the runway, altitude, etc to make one
> suspicious of the distance and height observations. *The witnesses
> reported that the plane "pitched to a steep nose high attitude." *We
> know that at some point in the climb (estimated to be 100 to 125
> feet), the rope “slackend”. *Three ways the rope can "slacken". *Tow
> vehicle slows down, glider pushes over, or rope disconnects. *They say
> the glider continued to ascend to about 200 feet of altitude and
> leveled off. *Based on what they say happened next, I believe the rope
> disconnected and the pilot pushed over.
>
> In an auto tow launch, you lift off, bring the nose up *a little, get
> some altitude, then bring the nose on up. *As you near the top of the
> climb, the nose comes back down to pretty close to level. *Watch any
> video of a winch launch on YouTube. *Very similar, but on car tow, you
> don't accelerate as rapidly. *Depending on how the launch is
> conducted, you will be rotating to full climb between 100 and 200
> feet. *Unfortunately, if you try for the same profile with a 234 foot
> rope as you would with a 2000 foot rope (be rotating to full climb
> angle at 100 feet AGL), the rope to hitch angle will likely hit the
> "back release" angle at somewhere between 100 and 150 feet AGL. *So,
> if you try to fly a "normal" launch profile on a short rope, you will
> likely get a low altitude back release, as the pilot in this accident
> probably got.
>
> So, here you are, about 100 to 150 or so feet AGL, 35-40 degrees or so
> nose up, about right on speed for the climb, and the release does its
> backrelease thing. *You are surprised, but put the stick on the
> forward stop as you are trained. *The plane keeps going up and keeps
> slowing down as you are going over the top. *By the time you go over
> the top at about 200 feet or so, and have the nose back down to normal
> gliding attitude, your airspeed is pretty well gone. *Do the math to
> see how much altitude you will gain in slowing from 60 to 30 knots or
> so, no drag losses. *Unless you keep the stick forward to get the nose
> well below the normal gliding attitude to get flying speed back (and
> give up what precious little altitude you have), you will stall.
> Pilot probably came across the top at about two hundred or so feet
> after this, less than one g and slower than 1 g stall speed. *He then
> likely attempted to initiate the turn, as things were "back to normal,
> per the plan." *Meaning, he was near the far end of the runway, at
> about 200 feet, ready to turn around. *Trouble is, he was below stall
> speed. *Attempted to turn and entered a spin.
>
> As to the max speed the towcar attained, I would be very surprised if
> they were attempting other than a "normal" ground launch sequnce, but
> with a very short rope. *"Normal" being accelerate the car to flying
> speed for the plane plus safety margin (no wind, say 65 MPH or so for
> the DG? *Remember, his airspeed would go up as soon as he starts to
> climb, and the intention was to climb), hold that speed, drive to near
> the end, and stop.
>
> A very sad and tragic accident.
>
> Respectfully,
> Steve Leonard


> What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> state in a preliminary accident report?

This is precisely the problem with NTSB reports, they don't provide
enough facts to make any conclusion. The final report usually come a
year later and often does not have much more information than the
preliminary reports. So so much for the requests to "wait for the NTSB
report". We waited, and now we need the facts so we can draw our own
conclusions and learn the lessons.
And I am pretty sure that some of the readers know more.

As for the plan to do a 180 to land, there is no mention of it in the
NTSB report, only from Gary's comment. I think this is the key to be
able to categorize this accident as "something went terribly wrong" vs
"someone made a terrible decision" or did not know what they were
doing. There is no much we can do to prevent the "something went
terribly wrong" type of accidnets, but there is much we can do to
prevent the later and learn the lessons. Perhaps someone reading this
will, as a result, think twice before attempting an auto tow with a
short rope on a short runway with limited straight ahead options.
Incidentally, I recently visited such an airport were they attempted
an autolaunch on a short runway, slightly uphill with no straight
ahead option, and quickly learned they will be better off finding a
tow plane.

Ramy

[JohnDeRosa]

On Oct 28, 5:49*am, Paul Tribe > wrote:
>
> However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
> some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
> experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
> informative:
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm

Fascinating Condor (I assume) simulations.

It would appear that "Spin Clip 2" is a candidate for what might have
occured at Cle Elum.

"Spin Clip 1" is a cockpit view which is especially chilling.

Condor seems to be a very nice tool to experience what you don't ever
want to experience, just like the ATP's do in the big simulators.

[mattm[_2_]]

On Oct 28, 1:55*pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
> On Oct 28, 5:49*am, Paul Tribe > wrote:
>
>
>
> > However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
> > some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
> > experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
> > informative:
>
> >http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm
>
> Fascinating Condor (I assume) simulations.
>
> It would appear that "Spin Clip 2" is a candidate for what might have
> occured at Cle Elum.
>
> "Spin Clip 1" is a cockpit view which is especially chilling.
>
> Condor seems to be a very nice tool to experience what you don't ever
> want to experience, just like the ATP's do in the big simulators.

Sailors of the Sky, I think. There's an article someplace about
the Lasham setup. These planes are different from what are in
Condor, also. Still, I'd expect Condor will show the same.

-- Matt

[Tony[_5_]]

On Oct 28, 2:32*pm, mattm > wrote:
> On Oct 28, 1:55*pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 5:49*am, Paul Tribe > wrote:
>
> > > However, given what I've read on here over the last few days,
> > > some of you, particularly the pilots with no winch launch
> > > experience, will find the BGA winch launch safety initiative
> > > informative:
>
> > >http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm
>
> > Fascinating Condor (I assume) simulations.
>
> > It would appear that "Spin Clip 2" is a candidate for what might have
> > occured at Cle Elum.
>
> > "Spin Clip 1" is a cockpit view which is especially chilling.
>
> > Condor seems to be a very nice tool to experience what you don't ever
> > want to experience, just like the ATP's do in the big simulators.
>
> Sailors of the Sky, I think. *There's an article someplace about
> the Lasham setup. *These planes are different from what are in
> Condor, also. *Still, I'd expect Condor will show the same.
>
> -- Matt

Condor does an excellent job of simulating stall/spin sequences.
Scary good. The SSF has several videos on their website produced using
Condor. They do a really nice job, I think, of illustrating a bad day
at the gliderport.

http://www.soaringsafety.org/school/badvideo.html

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Oct 28, 10:23*am, Ramy > wrote:
> On Oct 27, 9:28*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
>
>
> > What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> > state in a preliminary accident report? *Were you expecting them to
> > detail the entire planned flight path, launch sequence, acceleration
> > rate, tow car speed for the climb, film crew briefings? *Not gonna
> > happen with with the NTSB. *They provided some eye-witness information
> > which may or may not be misleading, and some facts about the airport,
> > the registered owner of the plane, etc. *We have been told what their
> > intentions were. * We have been told they were filming a commercial
> > for Cadillac. *We have been told they used the vehicle for the ground
> > launch. *We have been told they planned to tow the DG up with their
> > rope (which the NTSB reports as 234 feet long, made from 5/16th
> > nylon. *Although, I suspect it is polypropylene.), do a 180, and land
> > back the other direction. *As for the rest of the sequence, I was not
> > there, but am presenting what I believe is a plausible explanation of
> > how the events may have transpired.
>
> > We can assume that the rope was intact after the launch, as the NTSB
> > report reports the length of the rope, and makes no comments about it
> > being broken, or rings found in the glider, etc. *They would have
> > stated the rope was broken it if had been. *So, this does not appear
> > to be any sort of rope overload, as some were presuming.
>
> > The witnesses stated that the takeoff appeared normal. *There is
> > enough confusing information after this if you start putting the math
> > to it about distance down the runway, altitude, etc to make one
> > suspicious of the distance and height observations. *The witnesses
> > reported that the plane "pitched to a steep nose high attitude." *We
> > know that at some point in the climb (estimated to be 100 to 125
> > feet), the rope “slackend”. *Three ways the rope can "slacken". *Tow
> > vehicle slows down, glider pushes over, or rope disconnects. *They say
> > the glider continued to ascend to about 200 feet of altitude and
> > leveled off. *Based on what they say happened next, I believe the rope
> > disconnected and the pilot pushed over.
>
> > In an auto tow launch, you lift off, bring the nose up *a little, get
> > some altitude, then bring the nose on up. *As you near the top of the
> > climb, the nose comes back down to pretty close to level. *Watch any
> > video of a winch launch on YouTube. *Very similar, but on car tow, you
> > don't accelerate as rapidly. *Depending on how the launch is
> > conducted, you will be rotating to full climb between 100 and 200
> > feet. *Unfortunately, if you try for the same profile with a 234 foot
> > rope as you would with a 2000 foot rope (be rotating to full climb
> > angle at 100 feet AGL), the rope to hitch angle will likely hit the
> > "back release" angle at somewhere between 100 and 150 feet AGL. *So,
> > if you try to fly a "normal" launch profile on a short rope, you will
> > likely get a low altitude back release, as the pilot in this accident
> > probably got.
>
> > So, here you are, about 100 to 150 or so feet AGL, 35-40 degrees or so
> > nose up, about right on speed for the climb, and the release does its
> > backrelease thing. *You are surprised, but put the stick on the
> > forward stop as you are trained. *The plane keeps going up and keeps
> > slowing down as you are going over the top. *By the time you go over
> > the top at about 200 feet or so, and have the nose back down to normal
> > gliding attitude, your airspeed is pretty well gone. *Do the math to
> > see how much altitude you will gain in slowing from 60 to 30 knots or
> > so, no drag losses. *Unless you keep the stick forward to get the nose
> > well below the normal gliding attitude to get flying speed back (and
> > give up what precious little altitude you have), you will stall.
> > Pilot probably came across the top at about two hundred or so feet
> > after this, less than one g and slower than 1 g stall speed. *He then
> > likely attempted to initiate the turn, as things were "back to normal,
> > per the plan." *Meaning, he was near the far end of the runway, at
> > about 200 feet, ready to turn around. *Trouble is, he was below stall
> > speed. *Attempted to turn and entered a spin.
>
> > As to the max speed the towcar attained, I would be very surprised if
> > they were attempting other than a "normal" ground launch sequnce, but
> > with a very short rope. *"Normal" being accelerate the car to flying
> > speed for the plane plus safety margin (no wind, say 65 MPH or so for
> > the DG? *Remember, his airspeed would go up as soon as he starts to
> > climb, and the intention was to climb), hold that speed, drive to near
> > the end, and stop.
>
> > A very sad and tragic accident.
>
> > Respectfully,
> > Steve Leonard
> > What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> > state in a preliminary accident report?
>
> This is precisely the problem with NTSB reports, they don't provide
> enough facts to make any conclusion. The final report usually come a
> year later and often does not have much more information than the
> preliminary reports. So so much for the requests to "wait for the NTSB
> report". We waited, and now we need the facts so we can draw our own
> conclusions and learn the lessons.
> And I am pretty sure that some of the readers know more.
>
> As for the plan to do a 180 to land, there is no mention of it in the
> NTSB report, only from Gary's comment. I think this is the key to be
> able to categorize this accident as "something went terribly wrong" vs
> "someone made a terrible decision" or did not know what they were
> doing. There is no much we can do to prevent the "something went
> terribly wrong" type of accidnets, *but there is much we can do to
> prevent the later and learn the lessons. Perhaps someone reading this
> will, as a result, *think twice before attempting an auto tow with a
> short rope on a short runway with limited straight ahead options.
> Incidentally, I recently visited such an airport were they attempted
> an autolaunch on a short runway, slightly uphill with no straight
> ahead option, and quickly learned they will be better off finding a
> tow plane.
>
> Ramy


Ramy,
Being very close to this and in the information stream has not been a
lot of fun. The first glider I ever flew in was this DG1000 and the
pilot was this pilot, Lynn, who became my primary CFIG. I have 50
flights in the glider and soloed in it and my logbook is full of sign-
offs from Lynn who was a very careful pilot and seemed very risk
adverse. As the current president of the club he was part of (and a
CFIG for) I have been copied on most of the information and if there
is a smoking gun I am not aware of it. If this occurred because of a
defect or problem with the glider we won't know until the final NTSB
report comes out. Even when you are close to the details there is a
lot of confusion. I was told several times that the tow row was 1"
nylon 200' long, the NTSB says it was 230' and 5/16". From
eyewitnesses to the accident and to the 4 video feeds that the NTSB
has the rope broke before it released (or was released) from the
glider. Multiple accounts also describe a complete cycle prior to the
accident where the glider was launched and landed ahead of the SUV and
that this was another take. The information from the witness on the
youtube video appears to be describing the previous days shooting in
which the glider was areo-towed so it could be filmed with a
helicopter, and the idea that there was a plan to turn around and land
back I have only seen or heard about here on RAS, although there could
have been such a plan.

This weekend I was talking to a glider pilot who was there that day
and his comment was that this probably will not be an accident where
some mysterious aerodynamic factor or aircraft defect is discovered.
The lesson will most likely be found in so many examples where complex
human factors having nothing to do with aviation influenced highly
skilled and trained professionals to start cutting the margins closer
and closer. The book "Into Thin Air" comes to mind. When I first got
into gliding I was surprised by how many accidents involved high time
pilots, but it seems that at some point pilots stop being scared and
start accepting more risks. Sort of like russian roulette where you
pull the trigger 5 times and start to feel like it isn't very
dangerous after all.

Or, maybe it will turn out that something in the glider broke at the
worst possible moment. In any case, one thing I would change about
the set up going in is: Lynn should not have been the one to get all
the credit, take all the blame, make all the decisions, and fly all
the tasks. That was just too much workload. There should have been
one or two other people making the go/nogo decisions free of ego and
careless of blame or any outcome other than a living pilot at the end
of the day. There was no shortage of people with vast auto tow and
aerodynamic knowledge to choose from.

I hope this doesn't come off as trying to lecture or pontificate, but
after this year and all the accidents, maybe all it comes down to is
trying to increase the margin of safety of every part of flying.

Please fly safe,
Brian

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:55:24 -0700, JohnDeRosa wrote:

> It would appear that "Spin Clip 2" is a candidate for what might have
> occured at Cle Elum.
>
> "Spin Clip 1" is a cockpit view which is especially chilling.
>
Both show what we are exhaustively trained against: assuming that you're
OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude. You're not of
course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted IMMEDIATELY
and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over you'll be
below stall speed, from where any turn will spin immediately.

The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude is as steep
as you were going up and then hold the attitude without attempting to
turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd chosen for the
day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space to land ahead or
whether you need to turn.

unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a lawn dart if
you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always have plenty of
specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once you're
combortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need to turn.


Sadly, I think Steve Leonard has probably called this about right. IMO
whether the rope broke or not isn't relevant, but the fact that no
witnesses reported an immediate push-over into a speed recovery attitude
is.


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

[db_sonic[_2_]]

Those clips are quite good. We used to do RC aerotow and winching
with scale ships and occasionally it would go bad. If you werent
keeping wings level, the grass could grab a wing tip and look exactly
like that if you didnt pull the release(or the release servo was weak
and failed).

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

‘There is no much we can do to prevent the "something went terribly
wrong" type of accidents . . . ‘

Sorry, don’t agree, other than such things a wings folding up through
e.g. structural failure, or collision coming from an intruder in the
blind spot.

A properly conducted autotow or winch launch should be conducted such
that ANY eventuality can be handled safely. If there is some
circumstance where that is not possible, it should be foreseeable and
the flight not commenced.

At any stage of the launch, the nose should not be raised to a greater
angle than will allow push over and resumption of normal flying
attitude AND SPEED before needing to commence round out.

I was taught that on autotow, for the first 100 feet, the nose should
be raised very little – the far end of the runway should still be
visible. If power fails or rope breaks, as Martin said, lowering the
nose to the same angle that it was raised (in this case only a small
change of attitude) should therefore be possible.

Higher up, more pitch up is OK because there is more height to
recover. If you can’t, you were too steep too low, and it is the
second kind of accident (‘"someone made a terrible decision" or did
not know what they were doing.’)

That is not to say we don’t have such accidents in the UK. Such UK
accidents have become thankfully more rare But you never HAVE TO have
an accident, if you do it right.

Chris N.
* |

[Ramy]

On Oct 28, 2:29*pm, brianDG303 > wrote:
> On Oct 28, 10:23*am, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 9:28*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
> > > What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> > > state in a preliminary accident report? *Were you expecting them to
> > > detail the entire planned flight path, launch sequence, acceleration
> > > rate, tow car speed for the climb, film crew briefings? *Not gonna
> > > happen with with the NTSB. *They provided some eye-witness information
> > > which may or may not be misleading, and some facts about the airport,
> > > the registered owner of the plane, etc. *We have been told what their
> > > intentions were. * We have been told they were filming a commercial
> > > for Cadillac. *We have been told they used the vehicle for the ground
> > > launch. *We have been told they planned to tow the DG up with their
> > > rope (which the NTSB reports as 234 feet long, made from 5/16th
> > > nylon. *Although, I suspect it is polypropylene.), do a 180, and land
> > > back the other direction. *As for the rest of the sequence, I was not
> > > there, but am presenting what I believe is a plausible explanation of
> > > how the events may have transpired.
>
> > > We can assume that the rope was intact after the launch, as the NTSB
> > > report reports the length of the rope, and makes no comments about it
> > > being broken, or rings found in the glider, etc. *They would have
> > > stated the rope was broken it if had been. *So, this does not appear
> > > to be any sort of rope overload, as some were presuming.
>
> > > The witnesses stated that the takeoff appeared normal. *There is
> > > enough confusing information after this if you start putting the math
> > > to it about distance down the runway, altitude, etc to make one
> > > suspicious of the distance and height observations. *The witnesses
> > > reported that the plane "pitched to a steep nose high attitude." *We
> > > know that at some point in the climb (estimated to be 100 to 125
> > > feet), the rope “slackend”. *Three ways the rope can "slacken". *Tow
> > > vehicle slows down, glider pushes over, or rope disconnects. *They say
> > > the glider continued to ascend to about 200 feet of altitude and
> > > leveled off. *Based on what they say happened next, I believe the rope
> > > disconnected and the pilot pushed over.
>
> > > In an auto tow launch, you lift off, bring the nose up *a little, get
> > > some altitude, then bring the nose on up. *As you near the top of the
> > > climb, the nose comes back down to pretty close to level. *Watch any
> > > video of a winch launch on YouTube. *Very similar, but on car tow, you
> > > don't accelerate as rapidly. *Depending on how the launch is
> > > conducted, you will be rotating to full climb between 100 and 200
> > > feet. *Unfortunately, if you try for the same profile with a 234 foot
> > > rope as you would with a 2000 foot rope (be rotating to full climb
> > > angle at 100 feet AGL), the rope to hitch angle will likely hit the
> > > "back release" angle at somewhere between 100 and 150 feet AGL. *So,
> > > if you try to fly a "normal" launch profile on a short rope, you will
> > > likely get a low altitude back release, as the pilot in this accident
> > > probably got.
>
> > > So, here you are, about 100 to 150 or so feet AGL, 35-40 degrees or so
> > > nose up, about right on speed for the climb, and the release does its
> > > backrelease thing. *You are surprised, but put the stick on the
> > > forward stop as you are trained. *The plane keeps going up and keeps
> > > slowing down as you are going over the top. *By the time you go over
> > > the top at about 200 feet or so, and have the nose back down to normal
> > > gliding attitude, your airspeed is pretty well gone. *Do the math to
> > > see how much altitude you will gain in slowing from 60 to 30 knots or
> > > so, no drag losses. *Unless you keep the stick forward to get the nose
> > > well below the normal gliding attitude to get flying speed back (and
> > > give up what precious little altitude you have), you will stall.
> > > Pilot probably came across the top at about two hundred or so feet
> > > after this, less than one g and slower than 1 g stall speed. *He then
> > > likely attempted to initiate the turn, as things were "back to normal,
> > > per the plan." *Meaning, he was near the far end of the runway, at
> > > about 200 feet, ready to turn around. *Trouble is, he was below stall
> > > speed. *Attempted to turn and entered a spin.
>
> > > As to the max speed the towcar attained, I would be very surprised if
> > > they were attempting other than a "normal" ground launch sequnce, but
> > > with a very short rope. *"Normal" being accelerate the car to flying
> > > speed for the plane plus safety margin (no wind, say 65 MPH or so for
> > > the DG? *Remember, his airspeed would go up as soon as he starts to
> > > climb, and the intention was to climb), hold that speed, drive to near
> > > the end, and stop.
>
> > > A very sad and tragic accident.
>
> > > Respectfully,
> > > Steve Leonard
> > > What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> > > state in a preliminary accident report?
>
> > This is precisely the problem with NTSB reports, they don't provide
> > enough facts to make any conclusion. The final report usually come a
> > year later and often does not have much more information than the
> > preliminary reports. So so much for the requests to "wait for the NTSB
> > report". We waited, and now we need the facts so we can draw our own
> > conclusions and learn the lessons.
> > And I am pretty sure that some of the readers know more.
>
> > As for the plan to do a 180 to land, there is no mention of it in the
> > NTSB report, only from Gary's comment. I think this is the key to be
> > able to categorize this accident as "something went terribly wrong" vs
> > "someone made a terrible decision" or did not know what they were
> > doing. There is no much we can do to prevent the "something went
> > terribly wrong" type of accidnets, *but there is much we can do to
> > prevent the later and learn the lessons. Perhaps someone reading this
> > will, as a result, *think twice before attempting an auto tow with a
> > short rope on a short runway with limited straight ahead options.
> > Incidentally, I recently visited such an airport were they attempted
> > an autolaunch on a short runway, slightly uphill with no straight
> > ahead option, and quickly learned they will be better off finding a
> > tow plane.
>
> > Ramy
>
> Ramy,
> Being very close to this and in the information stream has not been a
> lot of fun. *The first glider I ever flew in was this DG1000 and the
> pilot was this pilot, Lynn, who became my primary CFIG. *I have 50
> flights in the glider and soloed in it and my logbook is full of sign-
> offs from Lynn who was a very careful pilot and seemed very risk
> adverse. *As the current president of the club he was part of (and a
> CFIG for) I have been copied on most of the information and if there
> is a smoking gun I am not aware of it. If this occurred because of a
> defect or problem with the glider we won't know until the final NTSB
> report comes out. *Even when you are close to the details there is a
> lot of confusion. *I was told several times that the tow row was 1"
> nylon 200' long, the NTSB says it was 230' and 5/16". *From
> eyewitnesses to the accident and to the 4 video feeds that the NTSB
> has the rope broke before it released (or was released) from the
> glider. *Multiple accounts also describe a complete cycle prior to the
> accident where the glider was launched and landed ahead of the SUV and
> that this was another take. *The information from the witness on the
> youtube video appears to be describing the previous days shooting in
> which the glider was areo-towed so it could be filmed with a
> helicopter, and the idea that there was a plan to turn around and land
> back I have only seen or heard about here on RAS, although there could
> have been such a plan.
>
> This weekend I was talking to a glider pilot who was there that day
> and his comment was that this probably will not be an accident where
> some mysterious aerodynamic factor or aircraft defect is discovered.
> The lesson will most likely be found in so many examples where complex
> human factors having nothing to do with aviation influenced highly
> skilled and trained professionals *to start cutting the margins closer
> and closer. *The book "Into Thin Air" comes to mind. *When I first got
> into gliding I was surprised by how many accidents involved high time
> pilots, but it seems that at some point pilots stop being scared and
> start accepting more risks. *Sort of like russian roulette where you
> pull the trigger 5 times and start to feel like it isn't very
> dangerous after all.
>
> Or, maybe it will turn out that something in the glider broke at the
> worst possible moment. *In any case, one thing I would change about
> the set up going in is: *Lynn should not have been the one to get all
> the credit, take all the blame, make all the decisions, and fly all
> the tasks. *That was just too much workload. *There should have been
> one or two other people making the go/nogo decisions free of ego and
> careless of blame or any outcome other than a living pilot at the end
> of the day. *There was no shortage of people with vast auto tow and
> aerodynamic knowledge to choose from.
>
> I hope this doesn't come off as trying to lecture or pontificate, but
> after this year and all the accidents, maybe all it comes down to is
> trying to increase the margin of safety of every part of flying.
>
> Please fly safe,
> Brian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brian, thanks for your comments and your thoughts, which are perhaps
the most relevant and most informative about this accident so far (far
more than the NTSB report will likely ever be) and I am glad you came
forward and shared it with us. As you say, chances are that this is a
classic case of "human factors having nothing to do with aviation
influenced highly skilled and trained professionals to start cutting
the margins closer and closer." This is what I believe most of us
suspected. And the lesson learned for all of us is not to cut margins,
but instead, as you said, increase the margin of safety.

Ramy

[Vsoars]

On Oct 28, 4:29*pm, brianDG303 > wrote:
> On Oct 28, 10:23*am, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 9:28*pm, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
> > > What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> > > state in a preliminary accident report? *Were you expecting them to
> > > detail the entire planned flight path, launch sequence, acceleration
> > > rate, tow car speed for the climb, film crew briefings? *Not gonna
> > > happen with with the NTSB. *They provided some eye-witness information
> > > which may or may not be misleading, and some facts about the airport,
> > > the registered owner of the plane, etc. *We have been told what their
> > > intentions were. * We have been told they were filming a commercial
> > > for Cadillac. *We have been told they used the vehicle for the ground
> > > launch. *We have been told they planned to tow the DG up with their
> > > rope (which the NTSB reports as 234 feet long, made from 5/16th
> > > nylon. *Although, I suspect it is polypropylene.), do a 180, and land
> > > back the other direction. *As for the rest of the sequence, I was not
> > > there, but am presenting what I believe is a plausible explanation of
> > > how the events may have transpired.
>
> > > We can assume that the rope was intact after the launch, as the NTSB
> > > report reports the length of the rope, and makes no comments about it
> > > being broken, or rings found in the glider, etc. *They would have
> > > stated the rope was broken it if had been. *So, this does not appear
> > > to be any sort of rope overload, as some were presuming.
>
> > > The witnesses stated that the takeoff appeared normal. *There is
> > > enough confusing information after this if you start putting the math
> > > to it about distance down the runway, altitude, etc to make one
> > > suspicious of the distance and height observations. *The witnesses
> > > reported that the plane "pitched to a steep nose high attitude." *We
> > > know that at some point in the climb (estimated to be 100 to 125
> > > feet), the rope “slackend”. *Three ways the rope can "slacken". *Tow
> > > vehicle slows down, glider pushes over, or rope disconnects. *They say
> > > the glider continued to ascend to about 200 feet of altitude and
> > > leveled off. *Based on what they say happened next, I believe the rope
> > > disconnected and the pilot pushed over.
>
> > > In an auto tow launch, you lift off, bring the nose up *a little, get
> > > some altitude, then bring the nose on up. *As you near the top of the
> > > climb, the nose comes back down to pretty close to level. *Watch any
> > > video of a winch launch on YouTube. *Very similar, but on car tow, you
> > > don't accelerate as rapidly. *Depending on how the launch is
> > > conducted, you will be rotating to full climb between 100 and 200
> > > feet. *Unfortunately, if you try for the same profile with a 234 foot
> > > rope as you would with a 2000 foot rope (be rotating to full climb
> > > angle at 100 feet AGL), the rope to hitch angle will likely hit the
> > > "back release" angle at somewhere between 100 and 150 feet AGL. *So,
> > > if you try to fly a "normal" launch profile on a short rope, you will
> > > likely get a low altitude back release, as the pilot in this accident
> > > probably got.
>
> > > So, here you are, about 100 to 150 or so feet AGL, 35-40 degrees or so
> > > nose up, about right on speed for the climb, and the release does its
> > > backrelease thing. *You are surprised, but put the stick on the
> > > forward stop as you are trained. *The plane keeps going up and keeps
> > > slowing down as you are going over the top. *By the time you go over
> > > the top at about 200 feet or so, and have the nose back down to normal
> > > gliding attitude, your airspeed is pretty well gone. *Do the math to
> > > see how much altitude you will gain in slowing from 60 to 30 knots or
> > > so, no drag losses. *Unless you keep the stick forward to get the nose
> > > well below the normal gliding attitude to get flying speed back (and
> > > give up what precious little altitude you have), you will stall.
> > > Pilot probably came across the top at about two hundred or so feet
> > > after this, less than one g and slower than 1 g stall speed. *He then
> > > likely attempted to initiate the turn, as things were "back to normal,
> > > per the plan." *Meaning, he was near the far end of the runway, at
> > > about 200 feet, ready to turn around. *Trouble is, he was below stall
> > > speed. *Attempted to turn and entered a spin.
>
> > > As to the max speed the towcar attained, I would be very surprised if
> > > they were attempting other than a "normal" ground launch sequnce, but
> > > with a very short rope. *"Normal" being accelerate the car to flying
> > > speed for the plane plus safety margin (no wind, say 65 MPH or so for
> > > the DG? *Remember, his airspeed would go up as soon as he starts to
> > > climb, and the intention was to climb), hold that speed, drive to near
> > > the end, and stop.
>
> > > A very sad and tragic accident.
>
> > > Respectfully,
> > > Steve Leonard
> > > What else about their “intentions” were you hoping the NTSB would
> > > state in a preliminary accident report?
>
> > This is precisely the problem with NTSB reports, they don't provide
> > enough facts to make any conclusion. The final report usually come a
> > year later and often does not have much more information than the
> > preliminary reports. So so much for the requests to "wait for the NTSB
> > report". We waited, and now we need the facts so we can draw our own
> > conclusions and learn the lessons.
> > And I am pretty sure that some of the readers know more.
>
> > As for the plan to do a 180 to land, there is no mention of it in the
> > NTSB report, only from Gary's comment. I think this is the key to be
> > able to categorize this accident as "something went terribly wrong" vs
> > "someone made a terrible decision" or did not know what they were
> > doing. There is no much we can do to prevent the "something went
> > terribly wrong" type of accidnets, *but there is much we can do to
> > prevent the later and learn the lessons. Perhaps someone reading this
> > will, as a result, *think twice before attempting an auto tow with a
> > short rope on a short runway with limited straight ahead options.
> > Incidentally, I recently visited such an airport were they attempted
> > an autolaunch on a short runway, slightly uphill with no straight
> > ahead option, and quickly learned they will be better off finding a
> > tow plane.
>
> > Ramy
>
> Ramy,
> Being very close to this and in the information stream has not been a
> lot of fun. *The first glider I ever flew in was this DG1000 and the
> pilot was this pilot, Lynn, who became my primary CFIG. *I have 50
> flights in the glider and soloed in it and my logbook is full of sign-
> offs from Lynn who was a very careful pilot and seemed very risk
> adverse. *As the current president of the club he was part of (and a
> CFIG for) I have been copied on most of the information and if there
> is a smoking gun I am not aware of it. If this occurred because of a
> defect or problem with the glider we won't know until the final NTSB
> report comes out. *Even when you are close to the details there is a
> lot of confusion. *I was told several times that the tow row was 1"
> nylon 200' long, the NTSB says it was 230' and 5/16". *From
> eyewitnesses to the accident and to the 4 video feeds that the NTSB
> has the rope broke before it released (or was released) from the
> glider. *Multiple accounts also describe a complete cycle prior to the
> accident where the glider was launched and landed ahead of the SUV and
> that this was another take. *The information from the witness on the
> youtube video appears to be describing the previous days shooting in
> which the glider was areo-towed so it could be filmed with a
> helicopter, and the idea that there was a plan to turn around and land
> back I have only seen or heard about here on RAS, although there could
> have been such a plan.
>
> This weekend I was talking to a glider pilot who was there that day
> and his comment was that this probably will not be an accident where
> some mysterious aerodynamic factor or aircraft defect is discovered.
> The lesson will most likely be found in so many examples where complex
> human factors having nothing to do with aviation influenced highly
> skilled and trained professionals *to start cutting the margins closer
> and closer. *The book "Into Thin Air" comes to mind. *When I first got
> into gliding I was surprised by how many accidents involved high time
> pilots, but it seems that at some point pilots stop being scared and
> start accepting more risks. *Sort of like russian roulette where you
> pull the trigger 5 times and start to feel like it isn't very
> dangerous after all.
>
> Or, maybe it will turn out that something in the glider broke at the
> worst possible moment. *In any case, one thing I would change about
> the set up going in is: *Lynn should not have been the one to get all
> the credit, take all the blame, make all the decisions, and fly all
> the tasks. *That was just too much workload. *There should have been
> one or two other people making the go/nogo decisions free of ego and
> careless of blame or any outcome other than a living pilot at the end
> of the day. *There was no shortage of people with vast auto tow and
> aerodynamic knowledge to choose from.
>
> I hope this doesn't come off as trying to lecture or pontificate, but
> after this year and all the accidents, maybe all it comes down to is
> trying to increase the margin of safety of every part of flying.
>
> Please fly safe,
> Brian

Brian mentioned INTO THIN AIR, a book glider pilots, or anyone who
participates in activities that have a higher than average risks,
ought to read.

On Everest, the real pros didn’t make a push for the summit. They
possessed unwavering safety principles. They did not put others at
risk. In fact, they were in the position to save many people who put
personal goals ahead of safety concerns. I do not draw any conclusions
about the recent tragedies. Rather, I am suggesting that we goal-
oriented pilots could use this book as a reminder that part of being
an expert is knowing when to abandon high risk tasks. Most of us have
felt moments when it's not easy to think safety when the goal is so
very close. We have to rely on our own code of conduct and remember
that sometimes there are higher rewards for not doing something
instead of being “brave enough” to do it..

Val

[BobW]

On 10/28/2011 3:29 PM, brianDG303 wrote:

> On Oct 28, 10:23 am, > wrote:

<Major snip of another's excellent 'possible accident contributors' analysis...>

>>
>> This is precisely the problem with NTSB reports, they don't provide
>> enough facts to make any conclusion.

<Additional valid grousing snipped...>

>>
>> Ramy
>
>
> Ramy,
> Being very close to this and in the information stream has not been a
> lot of fun. The first glider I ever flew in was this DG1000 and the
> pilot was this pilot, Lynn, who became my primary CFIG. I have 50
> flights in the glider and soloed in it and my logbook is full of sign-
> offs from Lynn who was a very careful pilot and seemed very risk
> adverse. As the current president of the club he was part of (and a
> CFIG for) I have been copied on most of the information and if there
> is a smoking gun I am not aware of it. If this occurred because of a
> defect or problem with the glider we won't know until the final NTSB
> report comes out. Even when you are close to the details there is a
> lot of confusion. I was told several times that the tow row was 1"
> nylon 200' long, the NTSB says it was 230' and 5/16". From
> eyewitnesses to the accident and to the 4 video feeds that the NTSB
> has the rope broke before it released (or was released) from the
> glider. Multiple accounts also describe a complete cycle prior to the
> accident where the glider was launched and landed ahead of the SUV and
> that this was another take. The information from the witness on the
> youtube video appears to be describing the previous days shooting in
> which the glider was areo-towed so it could be filmed with a
> helicopter, and the idea that there was a plan to turn around and land
> back I have only seen or heard about here on RAS, although there could
> have been such a plan.
>
> This weekend I was talking to a glider pilot who was there that day
> and his comment was that this probably will not be an accident where
> some mysterious aerodynamic factor or aircraft defect is discovered.
> The lesson will most likely be found in so many examples where complex
> human factors having nothing to do with aviation influenced highly
> skilled and trained professionals to start cutting the margins closer
> and closer. The book "Into Thin Air" comes to mind. When I first got
> into gliding I was surprised by how many accidents involved high time
> pilots, but it seems that at some point pilots stop being scared and
> start accepting more risks. Sort of like russian roulette where you
> pull the trigger 5 times and start to feel like it isn't very
> dangerous after all.
>
> Or, maybe it will turn out that something in the glider broke at the
> worst possible moment. In any case, one thing I would change about
> the set up going in is: Lynn should not have been the one to get all
> the credit, take all the blame, make all the decisions, and fly all
> the tasks. That was just too much workload. There should have been
> one or two other people making the go/nogo decisions free of ego and
> careless of blame or any outcome other than a living pilot at the end
> of the day. There was no shortage of people with vast auto tow and
> aerodynamic knowledge to choose from.
>
> I hope this doesn't come off as trying to lecture or pontificate, but
> after this year and all the accidents, maybe all it comes down to is
> trying to increase the margin of safety of every part of flying.
>
> Please fly safe,
> Brian

Thank you for this (and all your) post(s) on this sad and painful accident,
Brian. By way of psychological preparation...IME, future exposure to (fatal or
otherwise) accidents involving your soaring friends and acquaintances won't
get any easier...

FWIW, I think you've touched above upon a couple of fundamental and crucial
points worth bearing continually in mind (and - hopefully - presumably in
related action) by all practicing soaring pilots, regardless of experience,
currency or anything else:

1) (referencing your thoughts...)
> The lesson will most likely be found in so many examples where complex
> human factors having nothing to do with aviation influenced highly
> skilled and trained professionals to start cutting the margins closer
> and closer. The book "Into Thin Air" comes to mind. When I first got
> into gliding I was surprised by how many accidents involved high time
> pilots, but it seems that at some point pilots stop being scared and
> start accepting more risks. Sort of like russian roulette where you
> pull the trigger 5 times and start to feel like it isn't very
> dangerous after all.

Indeed the acceptance of increasing risks is 'the natural progression' of
increasing soaring pilot knowledge and activity. IMO, the "trick" (if there is
one) is for Joe Growing Pilot to always/continually/actively remain *aware*
that such a process and progression is occurring, and to recognize and act in
ways respecting his/her ever-changing margins. Be vary aware/wary of any
thoughts touching upon 'my growing experience is my protection.'

Which leads to...

2) (also referencing your thoughts...)
> In any case, one thing I would change about
> the set up going in is: Lynn should not have been the one to get all
> the credit, take all the blame, make all the decisions, and fly all
> the tasks. That was just too much workload. There should have been
> one or two other people making the go/nogo decisions free of ego and
> careless of blame or any outcome other than a living pilot at the end
> of the day. There was no shortage of people with vast auto tow and
> aerodynamic knowledge to choose from.

"Spot on!" (I'd *still* say the same thing even had everything turned out
as-planned.) Knowing nothing of the particulars, but also knowing very few
people (much less soaring pilots) with direct 'film industry experience,' I'd
be statistically astounded if 'all of this situation' was NOT essentially new
ground for the pilot involved. It sure would've been for me. If proposed to
me, the whole 'dynamic' of a situation as this would have instantly raised
multiple alarm bells in my mind, entirely for 'newness' - and therefore safety
- reasons. Clint Eastwood was right: "A man's got to know his limitations." I
like to imagine that - as a minimum - I'd've done as you suggest. Soaring is
sufficiently demanding an activity withOUT complicating the situation with
hopes and desires of folks experienced enough in their own fields, but (almost
certainly) 100% ignorant about the things they'll be requesting of Joe Pilot.

Respectfully and Sadly,
Bob W.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Oct 29, 12:22*pm, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against: assuming that you're
> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude. You're not of
> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted IMMEDIATELY
> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over you'll be
> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin immediately.
>
> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude is as steep
> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without attempting to
> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd chosen for the
> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space to land ahead or
> whether you need to turn.

Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply keeping
the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall through as
the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the wing
operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.

Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and actually
cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a small
amount of positive G.


> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a lawn dart if
> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always have plenty of
> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once you're
> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need to turn.

I don't agree.

Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive back
at the release height with the same speed you had on the way up. We
know you made the pull up into the climb from just above ground level,
with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower speed
than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you can't
safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.

[Paul Tribe[_2_]]

At 05:54 30 October 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>On Oct 29, 12:22=A0pm, Martin Gregorie
>wrote:
>> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against:
assuming that you're
>> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude.
You're not of
>> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted
IMMEDIATELY
>> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over
you'll be
>> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin
immediately.
>>
>> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude
is as steep
>> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without
attempting to
>> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd
chosen for the
>> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space
to land ahead or
>> whether you need to turn.
>
>Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply
keeping
>the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall
through as
>the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the
wing
>operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.

That is incorrect and sounds positively dangerous - the speed
will drop off to well below the stall speed before the nose comes
down sufficiently for the airspeed to increase due to gravity. You
are, in effect, doing a steep stall, which is means that the
aircraft goes through a phase of not being positively controlled!

>
>Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
>unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and
actually
>cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a
small
>amount of positive G.
>

While there may be slightly less drag with neutral control rather
than with the elevator pointing down, this is a moot point. you
may save a little potential energy, but this will be at the expense
of airspeed and it will take longer to regain it than if you push
the stick over. The idea is to rectify the "unusual" undesirable
attitude before it becomes an issue. Near the ground, airspeed is
everything.

>
>> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a
lawn dart if
>> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always
have plenty of
>> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once
you're
>> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need
to turn.
>
>I don't agree.
>
>Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive
back
>at the release height with the same speed you had on the way
up. We
>know you made the pull up into the climb from just above
ground level,
>with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower
speed
>than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you
can't
>safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
>even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.
>

Again, I'd rather have the positive control that pushing the stick
forwards (obviously without being a lawn-dart) gives than
wallowing about at less that 100' agl.
I'm totally with Martin and the BGA (and all of the winch qualified
instructors!) on this. If I demonstrated this laissez-faire attitude
to winch launch failures (in the UK at least), I would not be
allowed to fly solo!

This explains it in much more detail (and with greater authority)
than I can here:
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safewinchbr
ochure-0210.pdf

[Bill D]

On Oct 30, 6:58*am, Paul Tribe > wrote:
> At 05:54 30 October 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:>On Oct 29, 12:22=A0pm, Martin Gregorie
> >wrote:
> >> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against:
>
> assuming that you're
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude.
> You're not of
> >> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted
> IMMEDIATELY
> >> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over
> you'll be
> >> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin
> immediately.
>
> >> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude
> is as steep
> >> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without
> attempting to
> >> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd
> chosen for the
> >> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space
> to land ahead or
> >> whether you need to turn.
>
> >Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply
> keeping
> >the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall
> through as
> >the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the
> wing
> >operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.
>
> That is incorrect and sounds positively dangerous - the speed
> will drop off to well below the stall speed before the nose comes
> down sufficiently for the airspeed to increase due to gravity. You
> are, in effect, doing a steep stall, which is means that the
> aircraft goes through a phase of not being positively controlled!
>
>
>
>
>
> >Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
> >unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and
> actually
> >cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a
> small
> >amount of positive G.
>
> While there may be slightly less drag with neutral control rather
> than with the elevator pointing down, this is a moot point. you
> may save a little potential energy, but this will be at the expense
> of airspeed and it will take longer to regain it than if you push
> the stick over. The idea is to rectify the "unusual" undesirable
> attitude before it becomes an issue. Near the ground, airspeed is
> everything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a
> lawn dart if
> >> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always
> have plenty of
> >> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once
> you're
> >> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need
> to turn.
>
> >I don't agree.
>
> >Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive
> back
> >at the release height with the same speed you had on the way
> up. We
> >know you made the pull up into the climb from just above
> ground level,
> >with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower
> speed
> >than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you
> can't
> >safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
> >even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.
>
> Again, I'd rather have the positive control that pushing the stick
> forwards (obviously without being a lawn-dart) gives than
> wallowing about at less that 100' agl.
> I'm totally with Martin and the BGA (and all of the winch qualified
> instructors!) on this. If I demonstrated this laissez-faire attitude
> to winch launch failures (in the UK at least), I would not be
> allowed to fly solo!
>
> This explains it in much more detail (and with greater authority)
> than I can here:http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safewinchbr
> ochure-0210.pdf

Addressing the two previous posts which are somewhat misguided.

The minimum height loss in a winch launch failure is determined by the
airspeed at the top of the ballistic trajectory. The proper action is
that which maintains as much airspeed as possible. The airspeed over
the top is greatest if the recovery is flown at slightly negative G
but zero G is 99% as good and is readily teachable without a G-
Meter.

Why zero G? The glider has no induced drag and is therefore losing
airspeed at the minimum rate. It is also impossible to stall a glider
whose wings are not producing lift regardless how low the airspeed
goes - stall is determined by AoA, not airspeed.

If the pilot is very skilled, or uses an AOA indicator, the wing may
be gently reloaded to an angle of attack corresponding to best L/D
starting at the top of the trajectory for even less height loss.
Otherwise, it's better to go for greater stall margin by diving to
about 1.5 x Vs before starting to level out.

Pushing the nose down to a dive angle equal to the climb angle at the
rope break is easy to teach and provides a large stall margin but
burns up height. If the landing is to be made ahead, this is fine -
especially on large airfields where the maximum height at which a
landing ahead is possible is large. On smaller airfields, max land-
ahead height will be much lower so retaining enough height for a
circle to land maneuver has to be considered.

Now commenting on the BGA Condor derived video.

Fully developed 4-turn spins to impact are rare - especially with
modern, spin-resistant gliders. Far more common is a 180 degree
rolling dive into terrain starting with a stall and wing drop. These
unfortunate pilots could have simply stopped the roll with ailerons
then recovered from the dive. Check the ASI. If airspeed is swiftly
increasing, you're not in a spin.

Modern gliders require full-aft stick to spin. If the entry is with
less than full-back stick - likely in inadvertent situations - the
resulting incipient spin will instantly transition into a spiral dive
which, to a less than spin-current pilot, will look and feel like a
spin. If the pilot delays spiral dive recovery - or worse, applies
spin recovery controls - the result is the all too familiar
unsurvivable dive into terrain.

[JohnDeRosa]

I will not comment on any of the important technical discussion points
above - I know enough to say I don't know squat. The comment about
"the natural progression' of increasing soaring pilot knowledge...Joe
Growing Pilot to always/continually/actively..." seems very apt.

What I can say, knowing a few people in the "arts", is that they find
it *VERY* easy to get someone to be in a commercial or a film. Our
whole culture pushes us to want to be "... world-famous for 15
minutes..." (Andy Warhol). Couple that with a financial incentive
and the desire to try something that pushes our envelope can be
overwhelming. The non-technical producers/directors push for what
they see in their mind's eye - which is exactly what they are paid to
do. They also push for getting it done quickly before they run out of
money, light or both.

The producer/director pushes the responsibilty for the safety of the
stunt on the stunt pilot. The onus is now on the stunt pilot, which
is exactly what the glider pilot was in this situation, to tell the
director what needs to happen, coupled with "no" or "wait a minute -
let's think this through." But people want to please and not get
yelled at by the director/producer for not being cooperative, wasting
time/money, or whatever else is important at that moment. Have you
ever been on a set? There sure seems to be a lot of yelling going on
and what seems to be angry words. Maybe "Hollywood" types are used to
this environment but pilots are not in their realm. The entire
aviation community is a hierarchy in a military sense. The FAA tells
the examiner what to do (how to examine). The examiner tells the CFIG
what to do (to get his rating). The CFIG tells me what to do (for a
bi-annual). And the producer/director tells everyone what to do. It
is in a pilot's human nature to salute and get the job done. "Ours is
not to question why..."

I am reminded of the biography "Hollywood Pilot" of Paul Mantz (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Mantz). Fascinating read. While he did do
a few spur of the moment crazy things (like flying into an active
volcano and having his engines sputter), he more often than not took a
great amount of time thinking through what he was going to do. He had
experts around him to advise him. Importantly, he had enough
credibility to make the producers/directors wait for him rather than
the other way around. The unfortunate Cadillac commercial glider
pilot seems to have had neither the needed experts nor credibility.
Or he may just have wanted to please, salute and go forth. Paul Mantz
did die due to his trade in the original "Flight of the Phoenix", so
even the pinacle of the trade can fail at what they do best.

Its a dangerous aviation world out there. Unnecessary risks seem more
and more reckless as I grow older.

Thanks, John

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 15:56 30 October 2011, Bill D wrote:
>On Oct 30, 6:58=A0am, Paul Tribe wrote:
>> At 05:54 30 October 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:>On Oct 29, 12:22=3DA0pm,
>Mar=
>tin Gregorie
>> >wrote:
>> >> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against:
>>
>> assuming that you're
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude.
>> You're not of
>> >> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted
>> IMMEDIATELY
>> >> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over
>> you'll be
>> >> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin
>> immediately.
>>
>> >> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude
>> is as steep
>> >> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without
>> attempting to
>> >> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd
>> chosen for the
>> >> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space
>> to land ahead or
>> >> whether you need to turn.
>>
>> >Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply
>> keeping
>> >the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall
>> through as
>> >the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the
>> wing
>> >operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.
>>
>> That is incorrect and sounds positively dangerous - the speed
>> will drop off to well below the stall speed before the nose comes
>> down sufficiently for the airspeed to increase due to gravity. You
>> are, in effect, doing a steep stall, which is means that the
>> aircraft goes through a phase of not being positively controlled!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
>> >unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and
>> actually
>> >cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a
>> small
>> >amount of positive G.
>>
>> While there may be slightly less drag with neutral control rather
>> than with the elevator pointing down, this is a moot point. you
>> may save a little potential energy, but this will be at the expense
>> of airspeed and it will take longer to regain it than if you push
>> the stick over. The idea is to rectify the "unusual" undesirable
>> attitude before it becomes an issue. Near the ground, airspeed is
>> everything.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a
>> lawn dart if
>> >> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always
>> have plenty of
>> >> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once
>> you're
>> >> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need
>> to turn.
>>
>> >I don't agree.
>>
>> >Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive
>> back
>> >at the release height with the same speed you had on the way
>> up. We
>> >know you made the pull up into the climb from just above
>> ground level,
>> >with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower
>> speed
>> >than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you
>> can't
>> >safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
>> >even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.
>>
>> Again, I'd rather have the positive control that pushing the stick
>> forwards (obviously without being a lawn-dart) gives than
>> wallowing about at less that 100' agl.
>> I'm totally with Martin and the BGA (and all of the winch qualified
>> instructors!) on this. If I demonstrated this laissez-faire attitude
>> to winch launch failures (in the UK at least), I would not be
>> allowed to fly solo!
>>
>> This explains it in much more detail (and with greater authority)
>> than I can
>here:http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safewin=
>chbr
>> ochure-0210.pdf
>
>Addressing the two previous posts which are somewhat misguided.
>
>The minimum height loss in a winch launch failure is determined by the
>airspeed at the top of the ballistic trajectory. The proper action is
>that which maintains as much airspeed as possible. The airspeed over
>the top is greatest if the recovery is flown at slightly negative G
>but zero G is 99% as good and is readily teachable without a G-
>Meter.
>
>Why zero G? The glider has no induced drag and is therefore losing
>airspeed at the minimum rate. It is also impossible to stall a glider
>whose wings are not producing lift regardless how low the airspeed
>goes - stall is determined by AoA, not airspeed.
>
>If the pilot is very skilled, or uses an AOA indicator, the wing may
>be gently reloaded to an angle of attack corresponding to best L/D
>starting at the top of the trajectory for even less height loss.
>Otherwise, it's better to go for greater stall margin by diving to
>about 1.5 x Vs before starting to level out.
>
>Pushing the nose down to a dive angle equal to the climb angle at the
>rope break is easy to teach and provides a large stall margin but
>burns up height. If the landing is to be made ahead, this is fine -
>especially on large airfields where the maximum height at which a
>landing ahead is possible is large. On smaller airfields, max land-
>ahead height will be much lower so retaining enough height for a
>circle to land maneuver has to be considered.
>
>Now commenting on the BGA Condor derived video.
>
>Fully developed 4-turn spins to impact are rare - especially with
>modern, spin-resistant gliders. Far more common is a 180 degree
>rolling dive into terrain starting with a stall and wing drop. These
>unfortunate pilots could have simply stopped the roll with ailerons
>then recovered from the dive. Check the ASI. If airspeed is swiftly
>increasing, you're not in a spin.
>
>Modern gliders require full-aft stick to spin. If the entry is with
>less than full-back stick - likely in inadvertent situations - the
>resulting incipient spin will instantly transition into a spiral dive
>which, to a less than spin-current pilot, will look and feel like a
>spin. If the pilot delays spiral dive recovery - or worse, applies
>spin recovery controls - the result is the all too familiar
>unsurvivable dive into terrain.


Yesterday(Saturday) I did my 5 year instructor test in a DG1000 with short
wing tips and maximum aft Cof G.In that configeration it is very easy to
spin,just pulling in a normal thermal turn will cause it to spin in less
than 90degrees.This is not the configeration that you would normally use
but it is an example of the characteristics of this glider;a good ship but
it bites.
>

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

On Oct 30, 1:13*pm, Jonathon May > wrote:
> At 15:56 30 October 2011, Bill D wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 30, 6:58=A0am, Paul Tribe *wrote:
> >> At 05:54 30 October 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:>On Oct 29, 12:22=3DA0pm,
> >Mar=
> >tin Gregorie
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against:
>
> >> assuming that you're
>
> >> >> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude.
> >> You're not of
> >> >> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted
> >> IMMEDIATELY
> >> >> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over
> >> you'll be
> >> >> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin
> >> immediately.
>
> >> >> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude
> >> is as steep
> >> >> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without
> >> attempting to
> >> >> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd
> >> chosen for the
> >> >> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space
> >> to land ahead or
> >> >> whether you need to turn.
>
> >> >Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply
> >> keeping
> >> >the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall
> >> through as
> >> >the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the
> >> wing
> >> >operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.
>
> >> That is incorrect and sounds positively dangerous - the speed
> >> will drop off to well below the stall speed before the nose comes
> >> down sufficiently for the airspeed to increase due to gravity. You
> >> are, in effect, doing a steep stall, which is means that the
> >> aircraft goes through a phase of not being positively controlled!
>
> >> >Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
> >> >unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and
> >> actually
> >> >cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a
> >> small
> >> >amount of positive G.
>
> >> While there may be slightly less drag with neutral control rather
> >> than with the elevator pointing down, this is a moot point. you
> >> may save a little potential energy, but this will be at the expense
> >> of airspeed and it will take longer to regain it than if you push
> >> the stick over. The idea is to rectify the "unusual" undesirable
> >> attitude before it becomes an issue. Near the ground, airspeed is
> >> everything.
>
> >> >> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a
> >> lawn dart if
> >> >> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always
> >> have plenty of
> >> >> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once
> >> you're
> >> >> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need
> >> to turn.
>
> >> >I don't agree.
>
> >> >Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive
> >> back
> >> >at the release height with the same speed you had on the way
> >> up. We
> >> >know you made the pull up into the climb from just above
> >> ground level,
> >> >with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower
> >> speed
> >> >than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you
> >> can't
> >> >safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
> >> >even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.
>
> >> Again, I'd rather have the positive control that pushing the stick
> >> forwards (obviously without being a lawn-dart) gives than
> >> wallowing about at less that 100' agl.
> >> I'm totally with Martin and the BGA (and all of the winch qualified
> >> instructors!) on this. If I demonstrated this laissez-faire attitude
> >> to winch launch failures (in the UK at least), I would not be
> >> allowed to fly solo!
>
> >> This explains it in much more detail (and with greater authority)
> >> than I can
> >here:http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safewin=
> >chbr
> >> ochure-0210.pdf
>
> >Addressing the two previous posts which are somewhat misguided.
>
> >The minimum height loss in a winch launch failure is determined by the
> >airspeed at the top of the ballistic trajectory. *The proper action is
> >that which maintains as much airspeed as possible. *The airspeed over
> >the top is greatest if the recovery is flown at slightly negative G
> >but zero G is 99% as good and is readily teachable without a G-
> >Meter.
>
> >Why zero G? *The glider has no induced drag and is therefore losing
> >airspeed at the minimum rate. *It is also impossible to stall a glider
> >whose wings are not producing lift regardless how low the airspeed
> >goes - stall is determined by AoA, not airspeed.
>
> >If the pilot is very skilled, or uses an AOA indicator, the wing may
> >be gently reloaded to an angle of attack corresponding to best L/D
> >starting at the top of the trajectory for even less height loss.
> >Otherwise, it's better to go for greater stall margin by diving to
> >about 1.5 x Vs before starting to level out.
>
> >Pushing the nose down to a dive angle equal to the climb angle at the
> >rope break is easy to teach and provides a large stall margin but
> >burns up height. *If the landing is to be made ahead, this is fine -
> >especially on large airfields where the maximum height at which a
> >landing ahead is possible is large. *On smaller airfields, max land-
> >ahead height will be much lower so retaining enough height for a
> >circle to land maneuver has to be considered.
>
> >Now commenting on the BGA Condor derived video.
>
> >Fully developed 4-turn spins to impact are rare - especially with
> >modern, spin-resistant gliders. *Far more common is a 180 degree
> >rolling dive into terrain starting with a stall and wing drop. *These
> >unfortunate pilots could have simply stopped the roll with ailerons
> >then recovered from the dive. *Check the ASI. *If airspeed is swiftly
> >increasing, you're not in a spin.
>
> >Modern gliders require full-aft stick to spin. *If the entry is with
> >less than full-back stick - likely in inadvertent situations - *the
> >resulting incipient spin will instantly transition into a spiral dive
> >which, to a less than spin-current pilot, will look and feel like a
> >spin. *If the pilot delays spiral dive recovery - or worse, applies
> >spin recovery controls - the result is the all too familiar
> >unsurvivable dive into terrain.
>
> Yesterday(Saturday) I did my 5 year instructor test in a DG1000 with short
> wing tips and maximum aft Cof G.In that configeration it is very easy to
> spin,just pulling in a normal thermal turn will cause it to spin in less
> than 90degrees.This is not the configeration that you would normally use
> but it is an example of the characteristics of this glider;a good ship but
> it bites.
>
>
>
>

A couple observatons based on 44 years of auto launching.

Bill D's last post makes the most sense to me.

My guess is that the rope did not rear release. Unless there is little
to no tension on the rope they will not rear release. The rope has to
"blow" back a good ways and having a draggy parachute makes this more
likely. But even with the chute pulling back and little rope tension
it is interesting how far to the rear the rope angle is when it rear
releases. (I can send pics of this to anyone interested.) The rope
either broke or was released under tension.

Jonathan May's observations ring a bell with me regarding spin
characteristics. About 10 years ago I was flying with the winner of
the SSA sweep stakes in a DG-1000. I was in the back seat observing
the front seater working a thermal when, presto, we were pointing
straight down (at a comfortable altitude). Curious, I took over and
reentered the thermal to see what happened. It became clear
immediately that the ship did not like the combination of slow speed,
a little pro rudder and top aileron. As has been observed in prior
posts, modern ships are more tolerant of this sort of sloppy flying,
the Duo for example, but there are exceptions. Recovery from the
upsets were immediate and straight forward with standard control
movements, but 200' isn't enough altitude if you find yourself pointed
earthwards.

Each decade I seem to add another 10 knots to the pattern speed as an
antidote for geezerazation. As long as I can get the Duo speed down to
60 knots over the fence I have a cushion in the pattern for sort of
thing that might have figured in this accident.

Karl Striedieck

[BruceGreeff]

I agree - except that:

A Tost release will let go when the cable vector is approximately 85-87
degrees to the longitudinal axis. Amount of tension will affect how hard
it releases, not whether it will release.

So- in this case, with the very short rope it is quite possible
geometrically that the cable would back release at around 180 foot into
the climb. Even allowing for a perfectly straight rope with no catenary,
and the glider in level flight - the release angle would have been
reached by 226 feet.

If the glider is climbing in the normal steep climb - at ~40 degrees to
the ground, the geometry for release happens at 171 feet. So the release
height was , as far as I can tell entirely predictable.

Having experienced a cable break at such low height I can vouch that you
have to push over well past the normal flying attitude and WAIT while
the airspeed builds, and the brown stuff gets closer. Once you have
recovered a safe airspeed there is precious little height left for
anything other than landing in whatever is directly in front of you.

Trying to level off at the top will have you down somewhere in the <30kt
airspeed, and any glass such as a DG1000 is not going be able to turn at
that kind of speed. Even my Kestrel loses it's manners below 34kt...


On 2011/10/31 4:43 AM, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:13 pm, Jonathon > wrote:
>> At 15:56 30 October 2011, Bill D wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 6:58=A0am, Paul Tribe wrote:
>>>> At 05:54 30 October 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:>On Oct 29, 12:22=3DA0pm,
>>> Mar=
>>> tin Gregorie
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against:
>>
>>>> assuming that you're
>>
>>>>>> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude.
>>>> You're not of
>>>>>> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted
>>>> IMMEDIATELY
>>>>>> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over
>>>> you'll be
>>>>>> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin
>>>> immediately.
>>
>>>>>> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude
>>>> is as steep
>>>>>> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without
>>>> attempting to
>>>>>> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd
>>>> chosen for the
>>>>>> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space
>>>> to land ahead or
>>>>>> whether you need to turn.
>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply
>>>> keeping
>>>>> the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall
>>>> through as
>>>>> the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the
>>>> wing
>>>>> operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.
>>
>>>> That is incorrect and sounds positively dangerous - the speed
>>>> will drop off to well below the stall speed before the nose comes
>>>> down sufficiently for the airspeed to increase due to gravity. You
>>>> are, in effect, doing a steep stall, which is means that the
>>>> aircraft goes through a phase of not being positively controlled!
>>
>>>>> Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
>>>>> unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and
>>>> actually
>>>>> cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a
>>>> small
>>>>> amount of positive G.
>>
>>>> While there may be slightly less drag with neutral control rather
>>>> than with the elevator pointing down, this is a moot point. you
>>>> may save a little potential energy, but this will be at the expense
>>>> of airspeed and it will take longer to regain it than if you push
>>>> the stick over. The idea is to rectify the "unusual" undesirable
>>>> attitude before it becomes an issue. Near the ground, airspeed is
>>>> everything.
>>
>>>>>> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a
>>>> lawn dart if
>>>>>> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always
>>>> have plenty of
>>>>>> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once
>>>> you're
>>>>>> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need
>>>> to turn.
>>
>>>>> I don't agree.
>>
>>>>> Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive
>>>> back
>>>>> at the release height with the same speed you had on the way
>>>> up. We
>>>>> know you made the pull up into the climb from just above
>>>> ground level,
>>>>> with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower
>>>> speed
>>>>> than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you
>>>> can't
>>>>> safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
>>>>> even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.
>>
>>>> Again, I'd rather have the positive control that pushing the stick
>>>> forwards (obviously without being a lawn-dart) gives than
>>>> wallowing about at less that 100' agl.
>>>> I'm totally with Martin and the BGA (and all of the winch qualified
>>>> instructors!) on this. If I demonstrated this laissez-faire attitude
>>>> to winch launch failures (in the UK at least), I would not be
>>>> allowed to fly solo!
>>
>>>> This explains it in much more detail (and with greater authority)
>>>> than I can
>>> here:http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safewin=
>>> chbr
>>>> ochure-0210.pdf
>>
>>> Addressing the two previous posts which are somewhat misguided.
>>
>>> The minimum height loss in a winch launch failure is determined by the
>>> airspeed at the top of the ballistic trajectory. The proper action is
>>> that which maintains as much airspeed as possible. The airspeed over
>>> the top is greatest if the recovery is flown at slightly negative G
>>> but zero G is 99% as good and is readily teachable without a G-
>>> Meter.
>>
>>> Why zero G? The glider has no induced drag and is therefore losing
>>> airspeed at the minimum rate. It is also impossible to stall a glider
>>> whose wings are not producing lift regardless how low the airspeed
>>> goes - stall is determined by AoA, not airspeed.
>>
>>> If the pilot is very skilled, or uses an AOA indicator, the wing may
>>> be gently reloaded to an angle of attack corresponding to best L/D
>>> starting at the top of the trajectory for even less height loss.
>>> Otherwise, it's better to go for greater stall margin by diving to
>>> about 1.5 x Vs before starting to level out.
>>
>>> Pushing the nose down to a dive angle equal to the climb angle at the
>>> rope break is easy to teach and provides a large stall margin but
>>> burns up height. If the landing is to be made ahead, this is fine -
>>> especially on large airfields where the maximum height at which a
>>> landing ahead is possible is large. On smaller airfields, max land-
>>> ahead height will be much lower so retaining enough height for a
>>> circle to land maneuver has to be considered.
>>
>>> Now commenting on the BGA Condor derived video.
>>
>>> Fully developed 4-turn spins to impact are rare - especially with
>>> modern, spin-resistant gliders. Far more common is a 180 degree
>>> rolling dive into terrain starting with a stall and wing drop. These
>>> unfortunate pilots could have simply stopped the roll with ailerons
>>> then recovered from the dive. Check the ASI. If airspeed is swiftly
>>> increasing, you're not in a spin.
>>
>>> Modern gliders require full-aft stick to spin. If the entry is with
>>> less than full-back stick - likely in inadvertent situations - the
>>> resulting incipient spin will instantly transition into a spiral dive
>>> which, to a less than spin-current pilot, will look and feel like a
>>> spin. If the pilot delays spiral dive recovery - or worse, applies
>>> spin recovery controls - the result is the all too familiar
>>> unsurvivable dive into terrain.
>>
>> Yesterday(Saturday) I did my 5 year instructor test in a DG1000 with short
>> wing tips and maximum aft Cof G.In that configeration it is very easy to
>> spin,just pulling in a normal thermal turn will cause it to spin in less
>> than 90degrees.This is not the configeration that you would normally use
>> but it is an example of the characteristics of this glider;a good ship but
>> it bites.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> A couple observatons based on 44 years of auto launching.
>
> Bill D's last post makes the most sense to me.
>
> My guess is that the rope did not rear release. Unless there is little
> to no tension on the rope they will not rear release. The rope has to
> "blow" back a good ways and having a draggy parachute makes this more
> likely. But even with the chute pulling back and little rope tension
> it is interesting how far to the rear the rope angle is when it rear
> releases. (I can send pics of this to anyone interested.) The rope
> either broke or was released under tension.
>
> Jonathan May's observations ring a bell with me regarding spin
> characteristics. About 10 years ago I was flying with the winner of
> the SSA sweep stakes in a DG-1000. I was in the back seat observing
> the front seater working a thermal when, presto, we were pointing
> straight down (at a comfortable altitude). Curious, I took over and
> reentered the thermal to see what happened. It became clear
> immediately that the ship did not like the combination of slow speed,
> a little pro rudder and top aileron. As has been observed in prior
> posts, modern ships are more tolerant of this sort of sloppy flying,
> the Duo for example, but there are exceptions. Recovery from the
> upsets were immediate and straight forward with standard control
> movements, but 200' isn't enough altitude if you find yourself pointed
> earthwards.
>
> Each decade I seem to add another 10 knots to the pattern speed as an
> antidote for geezerazation. As long as I can get the Duo speed down to
> 60 knots over the fence I have a cushion in the pattern for sort of
> thing that might have figured in this accident.
>
> Karl Striedieck
>
>
>
>
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 30, 11:16*pm, BruceGreeff > wrote:

> If the glider is climbing in the normal steep climb - at ~40 degrees to
> the ground, the geometry for release happens at 171 feet. So the release
> height was , as far as I can tell entirely predictable.

No argument here. However there is still a question left unanswered.
If the pilot had intended to do a 180 turn back, and had intended to
make that turn back as close to the far end of the runway as possible,
then why would a 40 deg pitch climb have been used? The glider would
have had plenty of time to reach rope limiting altitude if only a
shallow climb had been made. The shallow climb, in conjunction with a
speed higher than normal, but less than winch limit speed, would have
ensured release under pilot control and with the glider at maximum
possible energy.

I wonder if the video will ever be released. It's likely to be far
more informative than the eye witness reports.

Andy

[Bill D]

On Oct 30, 8:43*pm, Karl Striedieck >
wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:13*pm, Jonathon May > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 15:56 30 October 2011, Bill D wrote:
>
> > >On Oct 30, 6:58=A0am, Paul Tribe *wrote:
> > >> At 05:54 30 October 2011, Bruce Hoult wrote:>On Oct 29, 12:22=3DA0pm,
> > >Mar=
> > >tin Gregorie
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >> Both show what we are exhaustively trained against:
>
> > >> assuming that you're
>
> > >> >> OK once you've pushed over to a normal gliding attitude.
> > >> You're not of
> > >> >> course, because you'll be too slow and, unless you reacted
> > >> IMMEDIATELY
> > >> >> and got the stick far enough forward for a zero G push-over
> > >> you'll be
> > >> >> below stall speed, from where any turn will spin
> > >> immediately.
>
> > >> >> The rule of thumb is to push over until your dive attitude
> > >> is as steep
> > >> >> as you were going up and then hold the attitude without
> > >> attempting to
> > >> >> turn until you've reached the landing approach speed you'd
> > >> chosen for the
> > >> >> day. Then, and only then you decide whether you've space
> > >> to land ahead or
> > >> >> whether you need to turn.
>
> > >> >Yes, I agree with this, except there's no need to push. Simply
> > >> keeping
> > >> >the stick roughly in the middle will allow the nose to fall
> > >> through as
> > >> >the speed drops, without any danger of stalling, and with the
> > >> wing
> > >> >operating at an efficient (low drag) angle of attack.
>
> > >> That is incorrect and sounds positively dangerous - the speed
> > >> will drop off to well below the stall speed before the nose comes
> > >> down sufficiently for the airspeed to increase due to gravity. You
> > >> are, in effect, doing a steep stall, which is means that the
> > >> aircraft goes through a phase of not being positively controlled!
>
> > >> >Easing the stick forward enough to get zero G is OK too, but
> > >> >unnecessary. Negative G is likely to be counterproductive and
> > >> actually
> > >> >cause more drag and therefore bleed off more energy than a
> > >> small
> > >> >amount of positive G.
>
> > >> While there may be slightly less drag with neutral control rather
> > >> than with the elevator pointing down, this is a moot point. you
> > >> may save a little potential energy, but this will be at the expense
> > >> of airspeed and it will take longer to regain it than if you push
> > >> the stick over. The idea is to rectify the "unusual" undesirable
> > >> attitude before it becomes an issue. Near the ground, airspeed is
> > >> everything.
>
> > >> >> unless, of course, its a low break where you'd become a
> > >> lawn dart if
> > >> >> you used the above technique. Off a winch you'll always
> > >> have plenty of
> > >> >> specs ahead, so a shallower recovery attitude is OK once
> > >> you're
> > >> >> comfortable above stall speed and anyway you won't need
> > >> to turn.
>
> > >> >I don't agree.
>
> > >> >Assuming you maintain a low drag angle of attack, you'll arrive
> > >> back
> > >> >at the release height with the same speed you had on the way
> > >> up. We
> > >> >know you made the pull up into the climb from just above
> > >> ground level,
> > >> >with an adequate safely margin from stalling, and with lower
> > >> speed
> > >> >than you had in the climb. There's no reason at all that you
> > >> can't
> > >> >safely pull out of the dive, starting from the cable break height,
> > >> >even if the cable broke just as you were entering full climb.
>
> > >> Again, I'd rather have the positive control that pushing the stick
> > >> forwards (obviously without being a lawn-dart) gives than
> > >> wallowing about at less that 100' agl.
> > >> I'm totally with Martin and the BGA (and all of the winch qualified
> > >> instructors!) on this. If I demonstrated this laissez-faire attitude
> > >> to winch launch failures (in the UK at least), I would not be
> > >> allowed to fly solo!
>
> > >> This explains it in much more detail (and with greater authority)
> > >> than I can
> > >here:http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/documents/safewin=
> > >chbr
> > >> ochure-0210.pdf
>
> > >Addressing the two previous posts which are somewhat misguided.
>
> > >The minimum height loss in a winch launch failure is determined by the
> > >airspeed at the top of the ballistic trajectory. *The proper action is
> > >that which maintains as much airspeed as possible. *The airspeed over
> > >the top is greatest if the recovery is flown at slightly negative G
> > >but zero G is 99% as good and is readily teachable without a G-
> > >Meter.
>
> > >Why zero G? *The glider has no induced drag and is therefore losing
> > >airspeed at the minimum rate. *It is also impossible to stall a glider
> > >whose wings are not producing lift regardless how low the airspeed
> > >goes - stall is determined by AoA, not airspeed.
>
> > >If the pilot is very skilled, or uses an AOA indicator, the wing may
> > >be gently reloaded to an angle of attack corresponding to best L/D
> > >starting at the top of the trajectory for even less height loss.
> > >Otherwise, it's better to go for greater stall margin by diving to
> > >about 1.5 x Vs before starting to level out.
>
> > >Pushing the nose down to a dive angle equal to the climb angle at the
> > >rope break is easy to teach and provides a large stall margin but
> > >burns up height. *If the landing is to be made ahead, this is fine -
> > >especially on large airfields where the maximum height at which a
> > >landing ahead is possible is large. *On smaller airfields, max land-
> > >ahead height will be much lower so retaining enough height for a
> > >circle to land maneuver has to be considered.
>
> > >Now commenting on the BGA Condor derived video.
>
> > >Fully developed 4-turn spins to impact are rare - especially with
> > >modern, spin-resistant gliders. *Far more common is a 180 degree
> > >rolling dive into terrain starting with a stall and wing drop. *These
> > >unfortunate pilots could have simply stopped the roll with ailerons
> > >then recovered from the dive. *Check the ASI. *If airspeed is swiftly
> > >increasing, you're not in a spin.
>
> > >Modern gliders require full-aft stick to spin. *If the entry is with
> > >less than full-back stick - likely in inadvertent situations - *the
> > >resulting incipient spin will instantly transition into a spiral dive
> > >which, to a less than spin-current pilot, will look and feel like a
> > >spin. *If the pilot delays spiral dive recovery - or worse, applies
> > >spin recovery controls - the result is the all too familiar
> > >unsurvivable dive into terrain.
>
> > Yesterday(Saturday) I did my 5 year instructor test in a DG1000 with short
> > wing tips and maximum aft Cof G.In that configeration it is very easy to
> > spin,just pulling in a normal thermal turn will cause it to spin in less
> > than 90degrees.This is not the configeration that you would normally use
> > but it is an example of the characteristics of this glider;a good ship but
> > it bites.
>
> A couple observatons based on 44 years of auto launching.
>
> *Bill D's last post makes the most sense to me.
>
> My guess is that the rope did not rear release. Unless there is little
> to no tension on the rope they will not rear release. The rope has to
> "blow" back a good ways and having a draggy parachute makes this more
> likely. But even with the chute pulling back and little rope tension
> it is interesting how far to the rear the rope angle is when it rear
> releases. (I can send pics of this to anyone interested.) The rope
> either broke or was released under tension.
>
> Jonathan May's observations ring a bell with me regarding spin
> characteristics. About 10 years ago I was flying with the winner of
> the SSA sweep stakes in a DG-1000. I was in the back seat observing
> the front seater working a thermal when, presto, we were pointing
> straight down (at a comfortable altitude). Curious, I took over and
> reentered the thermal to see what happened. It became clear
> immediately that the ship did not like the combination of slow speed,
> a little pro rudder and top aileron. As has been observed in prior
> posts, modern ships are more tolerant of this sort of sloppy flying,
> the Duo for example, but there are exceptions. Recovery from the
> upsets were immediate and straight forward with standard control
> movements, but 200' isn't enough altitude if you find yourself pointed
> earthwards.
>
> Each decade I seem to add another 10 knots to the pattern speed as an
> antidote for geezerazation. As long as I can get the Duo speed down to
> 60 knots over the fence I have a cushion in the pattern for sort of
> thing that might have figured in this accident.
>
> Karl Striedieck

To be more specific, I wasn't saying the DG1000 or other gliders
wouldn't depart into a spin, I was saying it is difficult to make them
stay in a spin without pro-spin controls. Almost all gliders will
spin but few will stay in a spin for long without active pilot
assistance. Left to themselves, they quickly transition into spiral
dives.

That's the gotcha.

If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
especially at low altitudes.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Bill D wrote..........
> If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
> nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
> especially at low altitudes.

I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
going straight down right now!
Cheers,
JJ

[Judy Ruprecht]

Seattle Post Intelligencer on 14 October:

CLE ELUM, Wash. (AP) — General Motors says a glider that crashed at a
Washington state airport, killing the pilot, was involved in filming a
commercial for the automaker.

The Kittitas County sheriff's office says the glider was being towed down
the runway at an airport about 75 miles southeast of Seattle and was just
starting to lift off when it crashed Thursday. A helicopter was filming the
glider from above Cle Elum Municipal Airport.


Sad.

Judy

[Ramy]

On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> *Bill D wrote..........
> > If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
> > nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
> > especially at low altitudes.
>
> I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
> a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
> more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
> and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
> controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
> going straight down right now!
> Cheers,
> JJ

One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
you did.
In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
than the pilot.
So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.

Ramy

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > *Bill D wrote..........
> > > If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
> > > nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
> > > especially at low altitudes.
>
> > I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
> > a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
> > more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
> > and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
> > controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
> > going straight down right now!
> > Cheers,
> > JJ
>
> One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
> to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
> recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
> who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
> forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
> you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
> you did.
> In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
> controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
> in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
> than the pilot.
> So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
> practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
> pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
> spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
> control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
> BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
> spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.
>
> Ramy

It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
"improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
"aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
happen next.

Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.

John Cochrane

[Mark]

John,
The accident occurred toward the end of the second (and last) day in
shooting the commercial. The filming involved at least thirty
professionals at the airport location plus some very-expensive
equipment. The glider was the star of the commercial. Also, the
glider pilot was being paid a lot of money. These add up to a lot of
motivation to do the stunts.

I believe that "improper operation of the controls" probably took
place in that the pilot pulled up too sharply and broke the rope.
That being said, the tragic chain of events certainly began a few days
earlier when the pilot (a high-time CFIG) agreed to launch his glider
using a 230' rope on a 2500' runway with a plan to make a 180-degree
turn and land back on the runway.

I agree that the root-cause of the accident was the serious error in
"aeronautical decision making." In terms of hazardous thought
patterns, impulsivity, resignation and macho come to mind.

This accident has reminded me how easy it can be to put safety
concerns aside and how unforgiving aviation can be.

Mark

[Mark Jardini]

As this accident happened at the end of the second day, had he
successfully performed the flight profile earlier or was this the
first go?

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Nov 2, 6:05*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > *Bill D wrote..........
> > > > If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
> > > > nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
> > > > especially at low altitudes.
>
> > > I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
> > > a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
> > > more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
> > > and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
> > > controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
> > > going straight down right now!
> > > Cheers,
> > > JJ
>
> > One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
> > to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
> > recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
> > who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
> > forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
> > you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
> > you did.
> > In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
> > controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
> > in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
> > than the pilot.
> > So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
> > practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
> > pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
> > spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
> > control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
> > BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
> > spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.
>
> > Ramy
>
> It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
> "improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
> "aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
> process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
> with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
> camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
> feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
> whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
> happen next.
>
> Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
> decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
> we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.
>
> John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree strongly with John.
When doing something like this, there is HUGE pressure to do what the
guy running the photo shoot wants done. He is in control of the
"customer" satisfaction and the money. He is also an artist and likely
not a scientist or aviator. He will ask for things that may become
marginal, or worse, and assumes the pilot will say no if there is a
problem with safety.
This is a really hard situation to be in.
We walked away from a partially completed project many years ago when
we were being pushed too far in our judgement in terms of safety. It
was hard, we lost some money, there were tears- but nobody got hurt.
The sub topic of this related to spin recovery has little to do with
this accident. At these altitudes, there is no ability to recover if
the glider departs. The only way not to crash is to maintain
controllability in the first place.
FWIW
UH

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

As regards the "aeronautical decision making", please think about
this. For a long time in the US, there has been the teaching of "Say
200 Feet out loud". Meaning, that this is THE decision point for an
air tow. If you are at or above 200 feet, you can safely make a 180
to land. So, they say. Then, they put on the caveat, "conditions
permitting". This means a lot of things. Airspeed, wind,
obstructions to either side, runway behind (but soon to be ahead of)
you, glide path altering capability, etc. But, things may not be the
same for a ground launch.

Our example. Pressure from the film crew to "just do it". Pilot
knows he can do a 180 to a landing the other direction from 200 feet
in his plane. He has done it many times before, as he instructs in
the plane. Decides he can probably do it from a little less, as he
always has time and altitude for openning the air brakes after the 180
in order to land and not go off the end of the runway. So, it will be
"OK" to do this from a just over 200 foot long rope, and maybe not a
full 200 feet of altitude. More pressure from the film crew, either
real or imagined. Being paid to do this. It will be OK. I believe
he likely had no real concerns about this, as he had done all the
parts before. Ground launch. Low altitude rope breaks. Turn around
to land the other direction. He just had not done them all at the
same time.

I can see in my mind exactly how this could have played out. He ended
up at an altitude that would permit a safe return to landing the
opposite direction, but without the airspeed required to do it.
Please think about this for your training and day to day flying. The
turn around to land the other direction depends not just on potential
energy, but total energy. I think the plan was to be at the end of
the runway, at a bit under 200 feet, but full normal pattern speed.
This is the part that fell short of the plan. With results we have
all read about.

As Hank says, FWIW.
Steve Leonard

[danlj]

On Nov 3, 11:00*am, Steve Leonard > wrote:
....
> I can see in my mind exactly how this could have played out. *He ended
> up at an altitude that would permit a safe return to landing the
> opposite direction, but without the airspeed required to do it.
> Please think about this for your training and day to day flying. *The
> turn around to land the other direction depends not just on potential
> energy, but total energy. *I think the plan was to be at the end of
> the runway, at a bit under 200 feet, but full normal pattern speed.
> This is the part that fell short of the plan. *With results we have
> all read about.

As usual, this thread has 2 topics: What Happened? and Things This
Reminds Me Of.
I continue to think, on the What Happened topic, that something
unanticipated went wrong, either with the glider or the pilot, as
there's no explanation for the "pitched up sharply" phenomenon. No
experienced pilot would deliberately do this. Was there a release
failure followed by an attempt to break the weak link? An elevator-
linkage failure? A seizure or cardiac arrest or sudden vertigo? Other?
Likely unanswerable, except for the elevator-linkage question.

DanlJ

[JohnDeRosa]

On Nov 3, 11:00 am, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
> Our example. Pressure from the film crew to "just do it".

Not to mention that the pilot undoubtably signed a contract that he
would "do it".

So stepping away at the end of the second day (last day?) of shooting
for the "big shot", breaking the contract, and potentially stepping
away from the paycheck, would really take some cahones.

I am glad I was not in this particular pressure cooker situation.

- John

PS (Uneducated opinion alert) - I think that the glider should have
taken off only to 5-10 feet for a long shot from the departure end,
run to the half way point, then settle back down onto the runway.
Going to 100-200 feet takes the Caddy out of the picture - what good
is that? And I would have had a fellow glider pilot driving the tow
vehicle who knows that an aircraft doesn't have wheel brakes until it
is back on the pavement (something non-pilots don't think about).
Worse thing that might have happened would have been a crunched nose
cone from impacting the bumper of the tow vehicle. My $0.02.

[Alex[_5_]]

On Nov 3, 7:03*am, wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:05*pm, John Cochrane >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > > *Bill D wrote..........
> > > > > If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
> > > > > nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
> > > > > especially at low altitudes.
>
> > > > I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
> > > > a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
> > > > more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
> > > > and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
> > > > controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
> > > > going straight down right now!
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > JJ
>
> > > One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
> > > to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
> > > recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
> > > who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
> > > forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
> > > you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
> > > you did.
> > > In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
> > > controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
> > > in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
> > > than the pilot.
> > > So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
> > > practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
> > > pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
> > > spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
> > > control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
> > > BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
> > > spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.
>
> > > Ramy
>
> > It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
> > "improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
> > "aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
> > process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
> > with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
> > camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
> > feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
> > whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
> > happen next.
>
> > Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
> > decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
> > we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.
>
> > John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree strongly with John.
> When doing something like this, there is HUGE pressure to do what the
> guy running the photo shoot wants done. He is in control of the
> "customer" satisfaction and the money. He is also an artist and likely
> not a scientist or aviator. He will ask for things that may become
> marginal, or worse, and assumes the pilot will say no if there is a
> problem with safety.
> This is a really hard situation to be in.
> We walked away from a partially completed project many years ago when
> we were being pushed too far in our judgement in terms of safety. It
> was hard, we lost some money, there were tears- but nobody got hurt.
> The sub topic of this related to spin recovery has little to do with
> this accident. At these altitudes, there is no ability to recover if
> the glider departs. The only way not to crash is to maintain
> controllability in the first place.
> FWIW
> UH

What happened might have looked very similar to these
two videos on YouTube that most of have already seen. How he got
himself into the
situation was different, and the how and why of that is open to
analysis and speculation,
but the end result, a stall/spin from very low,
unrecoverable altitude, was the same. I think the pilots in the
videos survived,
but they were very lucky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFGN-3Yglo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig

[chuck[_2_]]

On Nov 3, 11:13*am, Alex > wrote:
> On Nov 3, 7:03*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 6:05*pm, John Cochrane >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > > > > *Bill D wrote..........
> > > > > > If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
> > > > > > nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
> > > > > > especially at low altitudes.
>
> > > > > I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
> > > > > a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
> > > > > more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
> > > > > and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
> > > > > controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
> > > > > going straight down right now!
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > JJ
>
> > > > One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
> > > > to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
> > > > recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
> > > > who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
> > > > forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
> > > > you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
> > > > you did.
> > > > In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
> > > > controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
> > > > in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
> > > > than the pilot.
> > > > So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
> > > > practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
> > > > pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
> > > > spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
> > > > control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
> > > > BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
> > > > spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.
>
> > > > Ramy
>
> > > It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
> > > "improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
> > > "aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
> > > process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
> > > with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
> > > camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
> > > feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
> > > whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
> > > happen next.
>
> > > Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
> > > decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
> > > we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.
>
> > > John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I agree strongly with John.
> > When doing something like this, there is HUGE pressure to do what the
> > guy running the photo shoot wants done. He is in control of the
> > "customer" satisfaction and the money. He is also an artist and likely
> > not a scientist or aviator. He will ask for things that may become
> > marginal, or worse, and assumes the pilot will say no if there is a
> > problem with safety.
> > This is a really hard situation to be in.
> > We walked away from a partially completed project many years ago when
> > we were being pushed too far in our judgement in terms of safety. It
> > was hard, we lost some money, there were tears- but nobody got hurt.
> > The sub topic of this related to spin recovery has little to do with
> > this accident. At these altitudes, there is no ability to recover if
> > the glider departs. The only way not to crash is to maintain
> > controllability in the first place.
> > FWIW
> > UH
>
> What happened might have looked very similar to these
> two videos on YouTube that most of have already seen. *How he got
> himself into the
> situation was different, and the how and why of that is open to
> analysis and speculation,
> but the end result, a *stall/spin from very low,
> unrecoverable altitude, was the same. *I think the pilots in the
> videos survived,
> but they were very lucky.
>
> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFGN-3Yglo&feature=related
> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig

If this fact has been mentioned previously, I have missed it. This
commercial idea was dreamed up and successfully filmed previously in
Northern California perhaps in the early 90's. The tow vehicle was a
Toyota truck with the same concept of demonstrating the power of the
vehicle by launching a glider from a ground start. I sort of wonder
if Cadillac was aware of that campaign and wanted a similar look. I
think that commercial had a low pass and footage of trailer towing. I
think at the end of the commercial there was a shot of the actor
playing the driver jumping up in slow motion next to the vehicle. I
have tried to find the commercial on you-tube and there are hundreds
of the old spots but this particular one I could not come up with. If
someone can find it and provide a link I would love to see it.
Chuck (99)