Fatal glider/tow plane accident, France [Archive]

BobW

May 8th 12, 04:40 AM

On 5/7/2012 9:23 AM, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 14:47 07 May 2012, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 8:35:23 AM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
>>>> What happened in TN?
>>>
>>> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>>>
>>> Pilot surname is Miller, erroneously reported as Smith.
>>
>> I see they've now corrected the name in the report. The new Google
> Groups
>> remains pretty yucky8^p
>>
> Thanks for the update I hoped you were wrong,on the plus side there has not
>
> been a lot of publicity ,but I do find the endless fatalities upsetting.
> Jon
>

Jon,

You're not alone in finding 'the endless fatalities upsetting.' If you're like
me - and probably like a whole lot of other gliderpilots - you probably find
the endless *accident* litany upsetting, too, whether minor or major.

There's nothing any of us can do about past accidents, but I submit there
*ARE* things each of us can (and should) do to help prevent future ones.

Risking upsetting some readers by using the most recent USA accident of which
I'm aware as a discussional point of departure...

http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html

....I give the crashed glider's co-owner credit for positing what he thought
might have gone wrong. If we assume the quotes are accurate as reported, and
further assume the observations in them are accurate, this 'immediately'
becomes a pilot-induced (and therefore quite preventable) accident. In any
event, this particular pilot is luckier than most in that he at least gets the
chance of a 'do-over' should he decide to continue with the sport. Most pilots
in the pattern-stall-spin scenario die.

Here's my point about what this pilot could (should?) have done differently
had he ever vaguely suspected beforehand that he might one day set him up for
a low, slow pattern (and thus heighten his chances for a whole host of
possibilities associated with an inadvertent stall-spin to insinuate
themselves into his pattern)...
1) Don't do it!!! (Don't make a low pattern entry.)
2) Don't do it!!! (Don't lower your pattern speeds; if anything increase 'em.)
3) Work extra hard on your coordination!!!
4) Never - EVER - depart controlled flight in the pattern.

All 'Duh!' stuff, right? Except people continue to make these sorts of
depressing (to everyone), easily preventable errors. I submit that if pilots
really and truly thought beforehand (and here I mean while sipping a beer on
the patio, not just as they're sinking inexorably toward a
low-pattern-entry-point) they might just possibly some day crash their
sailplane in a particular way (e.g. departure from controlled flight in the
pattern), then they might work that much harder to NOT do precisely that.

Where pilots 'need to be' when it comes to predictable, 'stupid pilot tricks',
is in the place where the Navy pilot was when he responded to an ignorant
reporter's amazed question/statement after he ejected during a low-energy
catapult shot. The question/statement was to the effect: "Wow! How amazing you
could make that sort of decision so quickly!" The response was: "That was a
decision made long ago."

I submit that many (most?) 'stupid pilot tricks' come about precisely because
Joe Pilot - for whatever reason(s)...ignorance, mis-placed superhero attitude,
whatever - has NOT pre-decided to 'actively work' to avoid them.

Is this a harsh view? If anyone thinks so, then it is. But it's the view I've
long had in my own flying, and (so far) it has worked for me. I can honestly
say I've never had an insurance claim resulting from one of my own 'stupid
pilot tricks.' Knock on wood...

As the co-owner of the TN glider now knows too well, sometimes it's not always
'some other guy' (whom you don't know) who has the accident. Pilots who crash
are from our little, highly interconnected community. If you think it's
upsetting when strangers crash (even from 'chance' or from some previously
undetectable airframe defect), it's an order of magnitude worse when it's
someone you know...or worst yet, yourself.

Flying inherently contains sufficient kinetic energy that to indulge in it
without *actively* respecting the twin facts: a) gravity never quits, and b)
Mother Nature doesn't care *what* Joe Pilot's experience is, is setting
oneself up for higher chances of committing a stupid pilot trick.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

P.S. Earlier this year there was a fatal private charter approach crash in
western CO. Some survived, but not the 70,000+ hour pilot (not a
typo!)/(active-)glider pilot. They hit the ground, apparently under control,
apparently in a localized snow shower, in daylight, at an airport not
constricted by nearby mountains. Why? I don't know, but you'll have to look a
ways to find a more experienced pilot dying at the controls. Mother Nature and
physics are a relentless, powerful combination demanding ceaseless respect
from all pilots. To presume every pilot who pulls a 'stupid pilot trick'
suffered (for example) medical incapacitation would be an example of
ostrichian thinking in my view, maybe even denial. Compared to light twins
(the plane in this particular accident), gliders are simple airplanes, flown
entirely (in the USA) in VFR conditions. The NTSB database (and personal
observation) strongly suggests (to me, anyway) the loosest nut in the whole
glider is likely to be the one holding the top of the stick.

Jordan Pollock

May 9th 12, 01:07 AM

On May 7, 10:40*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 5/7/2012 9:23 AM, Jonathon May wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 14:47 07 May 2012, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 7, 2012 8:35:23 AM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
> >>>> What happened in TN?
>
> >>>http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>
> >>> Pilot surname is Miller, erroneously reported as Smith.
>
> >> I see they've now corrected the name in the report. *The new Google
> > Groups
> >> remains pretty yucky8^p
>
> > Thanks for the update I hoped you were wrong,on the plus side there has not
>
> > been a lot of publicity ,but I do find the endless fatalities upsetting..
> > Jon
>
> Jon,
>
> You're not alone in finding 'the endless fatalities upsetting.' If you're like
> me - and probably like a whole lot of other gliderpilots - you probably find
> the endless *accident* litany upsetting, too, whether minor or major.
>
> There's nothing any of us can do about past accidents, but I submit there
> *ARE* things each of us can (and should) do to help prevent future ones.
>
> Risking upsetting some readers by using the most recent USA accident of which
> I'm aware as a discussional point of departure...
>
> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>
> ...I give the crashed glider's co-owner credit for positing what he thought
> might have gone wrong. If we assume the quotes are accurate as reported, and
> further assume the observations in them are accurate, this 'immediately'
> becomes a pilot-induced (and therefore quite preventable) accident. In any
> event, this particular pilot is luckier than most in that he at least gets the
> chance of a 'do-over' should he decide to continue with the sport. Most pilots
> in the pattern-stall-spin scenario die.
>
> Here's my point about what this pilot could (should?) have done differently
> had he ever vaguely suspected beforehand that he might one day set him up for
> a low, slow pattern (and thus heighten his chances for a whole host of
> possibilities associated with an inadvertent stall-spin to insinuate
> themselves into his pattern)...
> 1) Don't do it!!! (Don't make a low pattern entry.)
> 2) Don't do it!!! (Don't lower your pattern speeds; if anything increase 'em.)
> 3) Work extra hard on your coordination!!!
> 4) Never - EVER - depart controlled flight in the pattern.
>
> All 'Duh!' stuff, right? Except people continue to make these sorts of
> depressing (to everyone), easily preventable errors. I submit that if pilots
> really and truly thought beforehand (and here I mean while sipping a beer on
> the patio, not just as they're sinking inexorably toward a
> low-pattern-entry-point) they might just possibly some day crash their
> sailplane in a particular way (e.g. departure from controlled flight in the
> pattern), then they might work that much harder to NOT do precisely that.
>
> Where pilots 'need to be' when it comes to predictable, 'stupid pilot tricks',
> is in the place where the Navy pilot was when he responded to an ignorant
> reporter's amazed question/statement after he ejected during a low-energy
> catapult shot. The question/statement was to the effect: "Wow! How amazing you
> could make that sort of decision so quickly!" The response was: "That was a
> decision made long ago."
>
> I submit that many (most?) 'stupid pilot tricks' come about precisely because
> Joe Pilot - for whatever reason(s)...ignorance, mis-placed superhero attitude,
> whatever - has NOT pre-decided to 'actively work' to avoid them.
>
> Is this a harsh view? If anyone thinks so, then it is. But it's the view I've
> long had in my own flying, and (so far) it has worked for me. I can honestly
> say I've never had an insurance claim resulting from one of my own 'stupid
> pilot tricks.' Knock on wood...
>
> As the co-owner of the TN glider now knows too well, sometimes it's not always
> 'some other guy' (whom you don't know) who has the accident. Pilots who crash
> are from our little, highly interconnected community. If you think it's
> upsetting when strangers crash (even from 'chance' or from some previously
> undetectable airframe defect), it's an order of magnitude worse when it's
> someone you know...or worst yet, yourself.
>
> Flying inherently contains sufficient kinetic energy that to indulge in it
> without *actively* respecting the twin facts: a) gravity never quits, and b)
> Mother Nature doesn't care *what* Joe Pilot's experience is, is setting
> oneself up for higher chances of committing a stupid pilot trick.
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. Earlier this year there was a fatal private charter approach crash in
> western CO. Some survived, but not the 70,000+ hour pilot (not a
> typo!)/(active-)glider pilot. They hit the ground, apparently under control,
> apparently in a localized snow shower, in daylight, at an airport not
> constricted by nearby mountains. Why? I don't know, but you'll have to look a
> ways to find a more experienced pilot dying at the controls. Mother Nature and
> physics are a relentless, powerful combination demanding ceaseless respect
> from all pilots. To presume every pilot who pulls a 'stupid pilot trick'
> suffered (for example) medical incapacitation would be an example of
> ostrichian thinking in my view, maybe even denial. Compared to light twins
> (the plane in this particular accident), gliders are simple airplanes, flown
> entirely (in the USA) in VFR conditions. The NTSB database (and personal
> observation) strongly suggests (to me, anyway) the loosest nut in the whole
> glider is likely to be the one holding the top of the stick.

It's interesting how sporty it is to speculate on an accident, the
individuals in question...until it's your home field and your own club
members. My only suggestion is we all keep it in our minds who reads
these boards, and how silly we can look playing armchair quarterback,
when we don't even have the playbook.

Jordan
ASW20 E

Ramy

May 9th 12, 04:37 AM

Unfortunately we have to speculate to learn lessons since there is one thing in common across almost all accidents whether they are fatal or not - those who knows the details, including the clubs and pilots involved, almost never share the details. The recent bailout was a welcome change. NTSB reports are usually useless.
Luckily the pilot involved in the stall/spin incident survived so am looking forward to read his timely report. It will be extremely valuable to learn from someone who survived a low altitude stall/spin what went wrong and how.

Ramy

Frank Whiteley

May 9th 12, 06:13 AM

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:37:39 PM UTC-6, Ramy wrote:
> Unfortunately we have to speculate to learn lessons since there is one thing in common across almost all accidents whether they are fatal or not - those who knows the details, including the clubs and pilots involved, almost never share the details. The recent bailout was a welcome change. NTSB reports are usually useless.
> Luckily the pilot involved in the stall/spin incident survived so am looking forward to read his timely report. It will be extremely valuable to learn from someone who survived a low altitude stall/spin what went wrong and how.
>
> Ramy

Agreed, that would be enlightening. We are still awaiting final reports on two fatal accidents here in Colorado from over a year ago. I broke bread with someone in the know Saturday night, and we may be waiting a good while longer.

Frank W

pfb

May 9th 12, 12:52 PM

On May 7, 10:35*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
> > What happened in TN?
>
> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>
> Pilot surname is Miller, erroneously reported as Smith.

The old "low and slow" thing once again.

Walt Connelly

May 9th 12, 10:53 PM

Glad the guy in Tennessee survived and perhaps as previously stated we can learn something from him when he recovers and responds. I remember getting off tow in 800 FPM of sink (3000 foot tow) and intuitively knew not to stray too far from the airport. In about 3 minutes I found myself at pattern altitude at the IP, downwind, descending as if I had the spoilers deployed. I maintained good airspeed, turned a close base and final and didn't deploy the spoilers until I was right over the end of the runway. Never experienced a gravity storm like that before, haven't experienced one since. Bottom line is that sometimes things happen and while they are not completely beyond our control, they can be difficult to overcome. I was lucky considering my lack of experience at the time. Experience is the great teacher, one can only hope to live long enough and fly long enough to gain a level of experience that will keep us out of trouble. What I have learned thus far is that low and slow in the pattern is not good.

Walt

Gilbert Smith[_2_]

May 9th 12, 11:23 PM

pfb > wrote:

>On May 7, 10:35*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
>> > What happened in TN?
>>
>> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>>
>> Pilot surname is Miller, erroneously reported as Smith.
>
>The old "low and slow" thing once again.

Interesting that the pilot of the glider that was spinning when it hit
the ground has survived, whereas the pilot who stopped the spin did
not. (I am not talking of a marginal difference in outcome here).
Maybe if you are too low to recover from the ensuing dive it is better
to hold the spin.

Chris Nicholas[_2_]

May 9th 12, 11:55 PM

I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts to
bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first absorbs
some energy.

This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have known
at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.

I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.

Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to the
crash if short of energy.

Chris N.

At 22:23 09 May 2012, Gilbert Smith wrote:
>pfb wrote:
>
>>On May 7, 10:35�pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
>>> > What happened in TN?
>>>
>>> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>>>
>>> Pilot surname is Miller, erroneously reported as Smith.
>>
>>The old "low and slow" thing once again.
>
>Interesting that the pilot of the glider that was spinning when it hit
>the ground has survived, whereas the pilot who stopped the spin did
>not. (I am not talking of a marginal difference in outcome here).
>Maybe if you are too low to recover from the ensuing dive it is better
>to hold the spin.
>

Gilbert Smith[_2_]

May 10th 12, 03:14 PM

Chris Nicholas > wrote:

>I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
>than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts to
>bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
>spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first absorbs
>some energy.
>
>This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have known
>at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
>recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.
>
>I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
>and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.
>
>Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to the
>crash if short of energy.
>
>Chris N.
>
>
>At 22:23 09 May 2012, Gilbert Smith wrote:
>>pfb wrote:
>>
>>>On May 7, 10:35�pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
>>>> > What happened in TN?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html
>>>>
>>>> Pilot surname is Miller, erroneously reported as Smith.
>>>
>>>The old "low and slow" thing once again.
>>
>>Interesting that the pilot of the glider that was spinning when it hit
>>the ground has survived, whereas the pilot who stopped the spin did
>>not. (I am not talking of a marginal difference in outcome here).
>>Maybe if you are too low to recover from the ensuing dive it is better
>>to hold the spin.
>>

I fear that my question may be academic, because a pilot who is
experienced enough to make this call will most likely not get into the
situation in the first place.

My CFI's response was the same as yours - keep the glider flying no
matter what lies ahead.

Gilbert.

Don Johnstone[_4_]

May 10th 12, 10:39 PM

At 22:55 09 May 2012, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
>than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts
to
>bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
>spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first
absorbs
>some energy.
>
>This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have
known
>at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
>recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.
>
>I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
>and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.
>
>Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to
the
>crash if short of energy.
>
>Chris N.
>
>
There is absolutely no doubt that the chances of survival are greater if
the aircraft hits the ground in a full spin rather than a partially
recovered one. This is is why I have always said that teaching spin
recovery will do nothig to save one from harm in the most common spins,
final turns and launch failures. Teaching people to recognise and recover
BEFORE the spin occurs is much more valuable and will save you.

Ramy

May 11th 12, 01:20 AM

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 6:45:42 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
> On May 9, 3:53*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> > wrote:
> > Glad the guy in Tennessee survived and perhaps as previously stated we
> > can learn something from him when he recovers and responds. I remember
> > getting off tow in 800 FPM of sink (3000 foot tow) and intuitively knew
> > not to stray too far from the airport. *In about 3 minutes I found
> > myself at pattern altitude at the IP, downwind, descending as if I had
> > the spoilers deployed. *I maintained good airspeed, turned a close base
> > and final and didn't deploy the spoilers until I was right over the end
> > of the runway. *Never experienced a gravity storm like that before,
> > haven't experienced one since. *Bottom line is *that sometimes things
> > happen and while they are not completely beyond our control, they can be
> > difficult to overcome. *I was lucky considering my lack of experience at
> > the time. Experience is the great teacher, one can only hope to live
> > long enough and fly long enough to gain a level of experience that will
> > keep us out of trouble. *What I have learned thus far is that low and
> > slow in the pattern is not good.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> > --
> > Walt Connelly
>
> Heavy sink in the pattern is SOP for mountain flying. I try hard to
> get pilots to keep the vario in their scan while in the pattern.
> Sounds like you did.
>
> Sometimes it works the other way. I rode around a pattern with a
> student who didn't notice the vario was pegged up! We entered the
> pattern at 800' AGL but when he rolled out on final he was 2000' AGL
> where he finally decided the pattern wasn't going to work. I told him
> to glide back to the IP and start over. After that, he kept the vario
> in his scan.
>
> It seems every year someone (or several someones) wind up landing
> short. Often it's an airplane pilot with a glider "add-on" who is
> subconsciously treating spoilers like 'set and forget' flaps on a
> Cessna - and then flying a Cessna pattern. I've had to take the
> controls many times in this situation.

I never look at the vario (or altimeter) in the pattern. The only instrument you need to scan is the ASI. You should easily recognize strong sink or lift in the pattern without the vario. In fact, you shouldn't think in terms of sink or lift, but in terms of your angle relative to your planned touch down. If your angle getting too low faster than you expect - close spoilers or abbreviate the pattern, if it is increasing than open spoilers, extend the pattern or put it in a slip.

Ramy

BobW

May 11th 12, 01:31 AM

On 5/10/2012 3:39 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 22:55 09 May 2012, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>> I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
>> than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts
> to
>> bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
>> spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first
> absorbs
>> some energy.
>>
>> This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have
> known
>> at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
>> recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.
>>
>> I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
>> and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.
>>
>> Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to
> the
>> crash if short of energy.
>>
>> Chris N.
>>
>>
> There is absolutely no doubt that the chances of survival are greater if
> the aircraft hits the ground in a full spin rather than a partially
> recovered one. This is is why I have always said that teaching spin
> recovery will do nothig to save one from harm in the most common spins,
> final turns and launch failures. Teaching people to recognise and recover
> BEFORE the spin occurs is much more valuable and will save you.
>

Being a simple-minded kind of guy, I like to keep things simple (KISS),
especially fundamental aspects of our sport. Using ground contact as an example...

If you're going to hit the ground, hit it as horizontally as possible. Under
control is nice, too, but - if survival is high on Joe Pilot's wish list -
being under control is more of an option than the verticality of ground
contact is.

Bob - Duh :-) - W.

T[_2_]

May 11th 12, 01:46 AM

On May 7, 7:44*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2012 7:06:22 AM UTC-6, Sean F2 wrote:
> > What happened in TN?
>
> http://www.t-g.com/story/1845882.html

I've read the newspaper accounts and saw the pictures.. scary.
I also tried to research for a club in the area, but nothing shows up
on the SSA Where to Fly pages. The two TN clubs that do show are far
away.

Is there an SSA club there? Looks like a nice place to retire at.
T

Ramy

May 11th 12, 02:33 AM

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:31:05 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 3:39 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> > At 22:55 09 May 2012, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> >> I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
> >> than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts
> > to
> >> bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
> >> spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first
> > absorbs
> >> some energy.
> >>
> >> This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have
> > known
> >> at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
> >> recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.
> >>
> >> I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
> >> and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.
> >>
> >> Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to
> > the
> >> crash if short of energy.
> >>
> >> Chris N.
> >>
> >>
> > There is absolutely no doubt that the chances of survival are greater if
> > the aircraft hits the ground in a full spin rather than a partially
> > recovered one. This is is why I have always said that teaching spin
> > recovery will do nothig to save one from harm in the most common spins,
> > final turns and launch failures. Teaching people to recognise and recover
> > BEFORE the spin occurs is much more valuable and will save you.
> >
>
> Being a simple-minded kind of guy, I like to keep things simple (KISS),
> especially fundamental aspects of our sport. Using ground contact as an example...
>
> If you're going to hit the ground, hit it as horizontally as possible. Under
> control is nice, too, but - if survival is high on Joe Pilot's wish list -
> being under control is more of an option than the verticality of ground
> contact is.
>
> Bob - Duh :-) - W.

Better than just horizontal - if you are going to crash, try hit with the wing first. The wing will observe energy and may save your life.
Easy said than done though.

Ramy

Ramy

May 17th 12, 04:13 AM

On Sunday, May 6, 2012 3:49:29 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> The way I read it (and there are conflicting reports) the two-place glider, with one instructor and another pilot (both Air France pilots) on board, was in the process of taking an auto launch when it collided with a Pawnee returning from a tow. Altitude is given as 200 meters but one commenter thinks they might have confused feet with meters, which sounds plausible. The Pawnee pilot and both glider pilots were killed. The Pawnee had collision avoidance equipment (FLARM) but the glider did not. Fred

Any new info on this tragic accident in France which claimed 3 lives? In particular, will be helpful to get a confirmation on the Flarm situation, and if radios were used.

Ramy

Gilbert Smith[_2_]

May 17th 12, 04:36 PM

Ramy > wrote:

>On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:31:05 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
>> On 5/10/2012 3:39 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> > At 22:55 09 May 2012, Chris Nicholas wrote:
>> >> I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
>> >> than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts
>> > to
>> >> bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
>> >> spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first
>> > absorbs
>> >> some energy.
>> >>
>> >> This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have
>> > known
>> >> at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
>> >> recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.
>> >>
>> >> I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
>> >> and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.
>> >>
>> >> Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to
>> > the
>> >> crash if short of energy.
>> >>
>> >> Chris N.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > There is absolutely no doubt that the chances of survival are greater if
>> > the aircraft hits the ground in a full spin rather than a partially
>> > recovered one. This is is why I have always said that teaching spin
>> > recovery will do nothig to save one from harm in the most common spins,
>> > final turns and launch failures. Teaching people to recognise and recover
>> > BEFORE the spin occurs is much more valuable and will save you.
>> >
>>
>> Being a simple-minded kind of guy, I like to keep things simple (KISS),
>> especially fundamental aspects of our sport. Using ground contact as an example...
>>
>> If you're going to hit the ground, hit it as horizontally as possible. Under
>> control is nice, too, but - if survival is high on Joe Pilot's wish list -
>> being under control is more of an option than the verticality of ground
>> contact is.
>>
>> Bob - Duh :-) - W.
>
>Better than just horizontal - if you are going to crash, try hit with the wing first. The wing will observe energy and may save your life.
Was that "absorb" ?
>Easy said than done though.
>
>Ramy

Ramy

May 17th 12, 11:56 PM

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:36:45 AM UTC-7, Gilbert Smith wrote:
> Ramy > wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:31:05 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> >> On 5/10/2012 3:39 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> >> > At 22:55 09 May 2012, Chris Nicholas wrote:
> >> >> I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
> >> >> than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts
> >> > to
> >> >> bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
> >> >> spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first
> >> > absorbs
> >> >> some energy.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have
> >> > known
> >> >> at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
> >> >> recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
> >> >> and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.
> >> >>
> >> >> Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to
> >> > the
> >> >> crash if short of energy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Chris N.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > There is absolutely no doubt that the chances of survival are greater if
> >> > the aircraft hits the ground in a full spin rather than a partially
> >> > recovered one. This is is why I have always said that teaching spin
> >> > recovery will do nothig to save one from harm in the most common spins,
> >> > final turns and launch failures. Teaching people to recognise and recover
> >> > BEFORE the spin occurs is much more valuable and will save you.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Being a simple-minded kind of guy, I like to keep things simple (KISS),
> >> especially fundamental aspects of our sport. Using ground contact as an example...
> >>
> >> If you're going to hit the ground, hit it as horizontally as possible. Under
> >> control is nice, too, but - if survival is high on Joe Pilot's wish list -
> >> being under control is more of an option than the verticality of ground
> >> contact is.
> >>
> >> Bob - Duh :-) - W.
> >
> >Better than just horizontal - if you are going to crash, try hit with the wing first. The wing will observe energy and may save your life.
> Was that "absorb" ?
> >Easy said than done though.
> >
> >Ramy

Yes, I meant absorb energy. Thanks for the correction.

Ramy

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

May 18th 12, 11:02 PM

On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:22:15 -0700, Papa3 wrote:

> He chose to believe that the altimeter was
> right despite what his eyes must have been telling him.
>
That sounds odd to me: here in the UK I was taught that, although you
might use the altimeter before high key and that you *never* use local
landmarks for high key or to indicate where the base leg is. Instead, you
fly the circuit using angles and distances relative to your chosen touch-
down point and how that looks on this flight.

There's a good reason for this: if you're landing out you won't have any
landmarks and the altimeter will be lying because you won't know the
field height or (possibly) the pressure setting. IOW from when I first
started to fly landings I was taught to treat each one as a potential
field landing.

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

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

May 18th 12, 11:19 PM

On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:20:35 -0700, Ramy wrote:

> I never look at the vario (or altimeter) in the pattern. The only
> instrument you need to scan is the ASI. You should easily recognize
> strong sink or lift in the pattern without the vario. In fact, you
> shouldn't think in terms of sink or lift, but in terms of your angle
> relative to your planned touch down. If your angle getting too low
> faster than you expect - close spoilers or abbreviate the pattern, if it
> is increasing than open spoilers, extend the pattern or put it in a
> slip.
>
Spot on.

The business of treating the airbrakes like flaps also strikes me as dead
wrong / bad instruction. Flaps is flaps, but the airbrakes/spoilers
aren't flaps, don't have the same effect, and shouldn't be used that way.
Rather, they should be used to control the glide slope in exactly the
same way as a power pilot (which I'm not) uses the throttle. I really
question whether an instructor who lets a student use them like flaps
should keep his rating.

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

Bob Whelan[_3_]

May 19th 12, 02:32 AM

On 5/18/2012 4:19 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:

<Snip...>
>
> The business of treating the airbrakes like flaps also strikes me as dead
> wrong / bad instruction.

Martin,

From the perspective of someone with far more time in
large-deflection-landing-flap-equipped sailplanes than spoilered ones, I'm
uncertain what you mean by the phrase, "...treating airbrakes like flaps..."

What's below makes perfectly good sense (and is sensible) to me.

Could you elaborate on the 'airbrakes like flaps' phraseology, please? Thanks!

Bob W.

> Flaps is flaps, but the airbrakes/spoilers
> aren't flaps, don't have the same effect, and shouldn't be used that way.
> Rather, they should be used to control the glide slope in exactly the
> same way as a power pilot (which I'm not) uses the throttle. I really
> question whether an instructor who lets a student use them like flaps
> should keep his rating.
>
>

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

May 19th 12, 02:17 PM

On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:32:45 -0600, Bob Whelan wrote:

> Could you elaborate on the 'airbrakes like flaps' phraseology, please?
> Thanks!
>
I was referring to Bill D's previous comment "Often it's an airplane
pilot with a glider 'add-on' who is subconsciously
treating spoilers like 'set and forget' flaps on a Cessna - and then
flying a Cessna pattern."

I agree that you do exactly this with the flaps on a flapped glider but
should not use the airbrakes that way: they are for glide slope
adjustment.

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

BobW

May 19th 12, 07:01 PM

On 5/19/2012 7:17 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:32:45 -0600, Bob Whelan wrote:
>
>> Could you elaborate on the 'airbrakes like flaps' phraseology, please?
>> Thanks!
>>
> I was referring to Bill D's previous comment "Often it's an airplane
> pilot with a glider 'add-on' who is subconsciously
> treating spoilers like 'set and forget' flaps on a Cessna - and then
> flying a Cessna pattern."
>
> I agree that you do exactly this with the flaps on a flapped glider but
> should not use the airbrakes that way: they are for glide slope
> adjustment.
>
>
Ah, so. I didn't pick up on that comment, and not being an instructor have
never experienced that sort of behavior. If it happens, it must be possible,
but I'd sure hope any glider instructor ever minted (since ca. 1970, anyway)
would quickly suss out this sort of incorrect ignorance...and instruct away!

If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required to
make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden assumption:
Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps, and NOT to
large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most common in the USA.

Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary glidepath
control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and forget" devices
[maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).

Gliders which have ONLY large-deflection landing flaps for glidepath control
are another kettle of fish...as most regular RAS readers are aware. Curious
readers can search for threads with "flaps" or "V-tailed" for earlier
discussions of large-deflection landing flap characteristics...

Bob W.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

May 19th 12, 09:11 PM

On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:

> If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
> to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
> incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
> assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
> and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
> common in the USA.
>
You're right: I should have spotted that.

> Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
> should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
> reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
> glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
> forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).
>
The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.

I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.

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

Terence Wilson[_2_]

May 19th 12, 10:10 PM

> I have never seen any of this information in any aviation manual. I have asked several prominent SSA members and instructors to research this and publish an article in SOARING. Complete silence. The problem just does not exist according to the powers that be.
>
> Brian Bange

Tunnel Vision referred to as "fixation" in books dealing with CRM (Crew Resource Management):

"Fixation on a single objective or nonperforming strategy: Fixation is common when there are multiple distractions. One method humans use to improve performance is to consciously block out things that are not directly tied to our primary objective."

My recollection is that it is covered in the FAA books (but perhaps not glider), but I couldn't give you a precise citation.

Good discussion.

Terence

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:25:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:17:53 AM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> > Both are classic examples of tunnel vision we all may develope under stress. I'll go as far as claim that tunnel vision is one of the leading cause of accidents. I am sure most of us can identify a time they got tunnel vision due to stress and did not consider a better alternative even if there was no bad outcome. This is precisely why we need to speculate and learn from accidents so we can identify the problems and perhaps find a solution.
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Tunnel Vision is really an adrenaline dump. The individual suddenly realizes they are in trouble and the body dumps adrenaline into the bloodstream as a natural response. Tunnel vision, an inability to think or solve problems and blood moving to the internal organs are some of the results. I talked to the head of the psychiatric unit of the Houston Police Department about this and he enlightened me: the police know all about it and train their officers accordingly. We pilots refuse to acknowledge that we are susceptible and pay the price. The accepted practice in police departments when in a high speed chase or similar situation is to breath in and out on the slow count of four. This seems to abate or counter the effect of the adrenaline. It is all about the perceived threat. A low time pilot might feel more threatened than a high time pilot in a given situation, but any pilot can have this happen. The pilot will only be able to act on what they have been trained to do in that situation. If all they know is to fly a full pattern, then that is what they will do. The reasoning function can't work, so they can not run through other scenarios and choose the best one. This is why we have the saying, "in an emergency, pilots do not rise to the occasion, they revert to their training".
>
> I have never seen any of this information in any aviation manual. I have asked several prominent SSA members and instructors to research this and publish an article in SOARING. Complete silence. The problem just does not exist according to the powers that be.
>
> Brian Bange

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:25:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:17:53 AM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> > Both are classic examples of tunnel vision we all may develope under stress. I'll go as far as claim that tunnel vision is one of the leading cause of accidents. I am sure most of us can identify a time they got tunnel vision due to stress and did not consider a better alternative even if there was no bad outcome. This is precisely why we need to speculate and learn from accidents so we can identify the problems and perhaps find a solution.
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Tunnel Vision is really an adrenaline dump. The individual suddenly realizes they are in trouble and the body dumps adrenaline into the bloodstream as a natural response. Tunnel vision, an inability to think or solve problems and blood moving to the internal organs are some of the results. I talked to the head of the psychiatric unit of the Houston Police Department about this and he enlightened me: the police know all about it and train their officers accordingly. We pilots refuse to acknowledge that we are susceptible and pay the price. The accepted practice in police departments when in a high speed chase or similar situation is to breath in and out on the slow count of four. This seems to abate or counter the effect of the adrenaline. It is all about the perceived threat. A low time pilot might feel more threatened than a high time pilot in a given situation, but any pilot can have this happen. The pilot will only be able to act on what they have been trained to do in that situation. If all they know is to fly a full pattern, then that is what they will do. The reasoning function can't work, so they can not run through other scenarios and choose the best one. This is why we have the saying, "in an emergency, pilots do not rise to the occasion, they revert to their training".
>
> I have never seen any of this information in any aviation manual. I have asked several prominent SSA members and instructors to research this and publish an article in SOARING. Complete silence. The problem just does not exist according to the powers that be.
>
> Brian Bange

Frank Whiteley

May 20th 12, 01:09 AM

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:
>
> > If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
> > to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
> > incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
> > assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
> > and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
> > common in the USA.
> >
> You're right: I should have spotted that.
>
> > Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
> > should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
> > reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
> > glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
> > forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).
> >
> The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
> a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
> flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.
>
> I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
> ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Kestrel 19's (at least series 3 & 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the chord.. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch will add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees and is enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes. Full inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag when landing.

Frank Whiteley

BruceGreeff

May 20th 12, 10:49 AM

All 19m Kestrels have the same control setup as far as I know. My Series
1 is the same as the 3 & 4 as far as airbrake and drag chute are
concerned. The only difference I am aware of is that there is only one
landing flap setting at 35 degrees.

Throw it all out and the landing point is going to be really close by.

Arguably, because the effect on the Kestrel glide path is so
"noticeable" when you deploy the landing flap, you could argue that the
primary glidepatnh control is the flaps. However, it is unwise to raise
the landing flap unless you have a lot of excess height. So glidepath
control is still finessed by means of the airbrakes, which are
reasonably effective. Ok - my standards may be low given that I the
previous toy was a Std Cirrus.

On 2012/05/20 2:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:
>>
>>> If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
>>> to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
>>> incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
>>> assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
>>> and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
>>> common in the USA.
>>>
>> You're right: I should have spotted that.
>>
>>> Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
>>> should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
>>> reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
>>> glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
>>> forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).
>>>
>> The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
>> a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
>> flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.
>>
>> I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
>> ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.
>>
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org |
>
> Kestrel 19's (at least series 3& 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the chord. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch will add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees and is enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes. Full inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag when landing.
>
> Frank Whiteley

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

May 20th 12, 11:56 AM

On Sat, 19 May 2012 17:09:03 -0700, Frank Whiteley wrote:

> Kestrel 19's (at least series 3 & 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the
> chord. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second
> handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch
> will add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees
> and is enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes.
> Full inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag
> when landing.
>
Thanks for the correction. I thought the Kestrel wing was the same as the
Mosquito/MiniNimbus wing despite the lever collection in the cockpit.

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

Frank Whiteley

May 20th 12, 05:48 PM

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:49:39 AM UTC-6, BruceGreeff wrote:
> All 19m Kestrels have the same control setup as far as I know. My Series
> 1 is the same as the 3 & 4 as far as airbrake and drag chute are
> concerned. The only difference I am aware of is that there is only one
> landing flap setting at 35 degrees.
>
> Throw it all out and the landing point is going to be really close by.
>
> Arguably, because the effect on the Kestrel glide path is so
> "noticeable" when you deploy the landing flap, you could argue that the
> primary glidepatnh control is the flaps. However, it is unwise to raise
> the landing flap unless you have a lot of excess height. So glidepath
> control is still finessed by means of the airbrakes, which are
> reasonably effective. Ok - my standards may be low given that I the
> previous toy was a Std Cirrus.
>
I didn't want to mention the raising of the 19's landing flaps once deployed because if starts a discussion about whether it can be done safely (in general, not specifically). In my discussions with other Kestrel 19 pilots, it has been suggested that dumping the landing flaps will cost about 150ft in altitude. My impression is that's a fair estimate, so as you say, have plenty of altitude in hand.

Ian Kennedy

May 20th 12, 06:25 PM

"BruceGreeff" wrote in message ...

All 19m Kestrels have the same control setup as far as I know. My Series
1 is the same as the 3 & 4 as far as airbrake and drag chute are
concerned. The only difference I am aware of is that there is only one
landing flap setting at 35 degrees.

Throw it all out and the landing point is going to be really close by.

Arguably, because the effect on the Kestrel glide path is so
"noticeable" when you deploy the landing flap, you could argue that the
primary glidepatnh control is the flaps. However, it is unwise to raise
the landing flap unless you have a lot of excess height. So glidepath
control is still finessed by means of the airbrakes, which are
reasonably effective. Ok - my standards may be low given that I the
previous toy was a Std Cirrus.

On 2012/05/20 2:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:
>>
>>> If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
>>> to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
>>> incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
>>> assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
>>> and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
>>> common in the USA.
>>>
>> You're right: I should have spotted that.
>>
>>> Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
>>> should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
>>> reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
>>> glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
>>> forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).
>>>
>> The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
>> a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
>> flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.
>>
>> I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
>> ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.
>>
>>
>> --
>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>> org |
>
> Kestrel 19's (at least series 3& 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the
> chord. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second
> handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch will
> add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees and is
> enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes. Full
> inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag when
> landing.
>
> Frank Whiteley

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Talk about thread creep.
I quote from the Kestrel 19 Pilot Notes
" Approach and landing is possible in many configurations, the best being
with the flaps set to landing flap and +2
or landing flap and 0, using the not very effective airbrakes as a final
approach control"
Ian Kennedy
Kestrel 19 575.
And now owner of Kestrel 22 G BDWZ

Andrew[_12_]

May 21st 12, 01:25 AM

about the statement "it is unwise to raise the landing flap unless
you have a lot of excess height":

one has to be careful doing this, but its safe to do this so long as
the nose is raised at the same time (to increase the angle of
attack and compensate the loss of lift otherwise produced by the
reduced flap setting). The glide angle flattens out and the
approach speed remains the same. I used to practice exactly this
in my Kestrel 19, at height, in case I ever needed to do it if a bad
undershoot developed on a real approach. I never had to do it for
real, but after practicing it, it was very comfortable. Its not
something normally taught, so it needs to be practiced well above
the ground initially. If the airspeed remains constant, its being
done right.

At 17:25 20 May 2012, Ian Kennedy wrote:
>
>"BruceGreeff" wrote in message news:jpaenk$i87$1@dont-
email.me...
>
>All 19m Kestrels have the same control setup as far as I know.
My Series
>1 is the same as the 3 & 4 as far as airbrake and drag chute are
>concerned. The only difference I am aware of is that there is
only one
>landing flap setting at 35 degrees.
>
>Throw it all out and the landing point is going to be really close
by.
>
>Arguably, because the effect on the Kestrel glide path is so
>"noticeable" when you deploy the landing flap, you could argue
that the
>primary glidepatnh control is the flaps. However, it is unwise to
raise
>the landing flap unless you have a lot of excess height. So
glidepath
>control is still finessed by means of the airbrakes, which are
>reasonably effective. Ok - my standards may be low given that I
the
>previous toy was a Std Cirrus.
>
>
>
>On 2012/05/20 2:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin
Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden
assumption"
>required
>>>> to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for
readers who may be
>>>> incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use).
Hidden
>>>> assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-
changing flaps,
>>>> and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend
to be most
>>>> common in the USA.
>>>>
>>> You're right: I should have spotted that.
>>>
>>>> Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for
landing
>patterns
>>>> should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to
obtain maximum
>>>> reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their
primary
>>>> glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT
be "set and
>>>> forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect
calm...]).
>>>>
>>> The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct
control
>are
>>> a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use
moderate
>>> flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for
added
>drag.
>>>
>>> I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come
was an early
>>> ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and
airbrakes.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>>> gregorie. | Essex, UK
>>> org |
>>
>> Kestrel 19's (at least series 3& 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on
the
>> chord. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a
second
>> handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One
notch will
>
>> add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14
degrees and is
>> enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and
airbrakes. Full
>> inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and
drag when
>> landing.
>>
>> Frank Whiteley
>
>--
>Bruce Greeff
>T59D #1771
>
>Talk about thread creep.
>I quote from the Kestrel 19 Pilot Notes
>" Approach and landing is possible in many configurations, the
best being
>with the flaps set to landing flap and +2
>or landing flap and 0, using the not very effective airbrakes as a
final
>approach control"
>Ian Kennedy
>Kestrel 19 575.
>And now owner of Kestrel 22 G BDWZ
>
>

C-FFKQ (42)

May 22nd 12, 07:11 PM

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:25:07 PM UTC-4, Ian Kennedy wrote:
> "BruceGreeff" wrote in message ...
>
> All 19m Kestrels have the same control setup as far as I know. My Series
> 1 is the same as the 3 & 4 as far as airbrake and drag chute are
> concerned. The only difference I am aware of is that there is only one
> landing flap setting at 35 degrees.
>
> Throw it all out and the landing point is going to be really close by.
>
> Arguably, because the effect on the Kestrel glide path is so
> "noticeable" when you deploy the landing flap, you could argue that the
> primary glidepatnh control is the flaps. However, it is unwise to raise
> the landing flap unless you have a lot of excess height. So glidepath
> control is still finessed by means of the airbrakes, which are
> reasonably effective. Ok - my standards may be low given that I the
> previous toy was a Std Cirrus.
>
>
>
> On 2012/05/20 2:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >> On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
> >>> to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
> >>> incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
> >>> assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
> >>> and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
> >>> common in the USA.
> >>>
> >> You're right: I should have spotted that.
> >>
> >>> Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
> >>> should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
> >>> reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
> >>> glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
> >>> forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).
> >>>
> >> The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
> >> a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
> >> flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.
> >>
> >> I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
> >> ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes..
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> >> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> >> org |
> >
> > Kestrel 19's (at least series 3& 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the
> > chord. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second
> > handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch will
> > add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees and is
> > enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes. Full
> > inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag when
> > landing.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> --
> Bruce Greeff
> T59D #1771
>
> Talk about thread creep.
> I quote from the Kestrel 19 Pilot Notes
> " Approach and landing is possible in many configurations, the best being
> with the flaps set to landing flap and +2
> or landing flap and 0, using the not very effective airbrakes as a final
> approach control"
> Ian Kennedy
> Kestrel 19 575.
> And now owner of Kestrel 22 G BDWZ

I love that comment about the "not very effective airbrakes" :D

My Kestrel 19's airbrakes make some noise, but not much else. I get about 1 knot of sink out of the them. I rely on judicious setting of flaps and then finesse the glideslope with the airbrakes. If I'm much too high, the drogue comes out and I ride the express elevator to ground level.

Series 1 & 2 had a TI about cutting a notch in the landing flap lever for about 14 degrees of deflection. I don't know if this was factory-done for Series 3 and 4. This helps in take-off for towing and winching, plus for the initial part of the circuit.

-John