Texas Tragedy Info?

[Linwood]

Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
Glider type? Situation?

Linwood

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:37:03 AM UTC-5, Linwood wrote:
> Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> Glider type? Situation?
>
> Linwood

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/

Leah and I met Fred and Matilda at Region 10 last year. Great people. What a Tragedy.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:33:04 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:37:03 AM UTC-5, Linwood wrote:
> > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > Glider type? Situation?
> >
> > Linwood
>
> http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/
>
> Leah and I met Fred and Matilda at Region 10 last year. Great people. What a Tragedy.

edit that, we met Fred and his wife. Re-reading the article Matilda is younger, perhaps a daughter.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:37:03 AM UTC-5, Linwood wrote:
> Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> Glider type? Situation?
>
> Linwood

The glider was an IAR Twin Lark belonging to the Greater Houston Soaring Association. The PIC was a GHSA instructor and the flight occurred late in the day in good weather conditions. Accounts vary but the consistent one is the glider departed the tow at 150-200 feet AGL, rolled right into a nose-down position and impacted the ground. FAA and NTSB are on the scene and no other details are confirmed.

[Bill D]

On Jun 18, 8:35*am, wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:37:03 AM UTC-5, Linwood wrote:
> > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > Glider type? Situation?
>
> > Linwood
>
> The glider was an IAR Twin Lark belonging to the Greater Houston Soaring Association. The PIC was a GHSA instructor and the flight occurred late in the day in good weather conditions. Accounts vary but the consistent one is the glider departed the tow at 150-200 feet AGL, rolled right into a nose-down position and impacted the ground. FAA and NTSB are on the scene and no other details are confirmed.

Obvious question. The IS28b2 Twin Lark is definitely not a three
person glider. What's with that?

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:49:25 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:35*am, wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:37:03 AM UTC-5, Linwood wrote:
> > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > Glider type? Situation?
> >
> > > Linwood
> >
> > The glider was an IAR Twin Lark belonging to the Greater Houston Soaring Association. The PIC was a GHSA instructor and the flight occurred late in the day in good weather conditions. Accounts vary but the consistent one is the glider departed the tow at 150-200 feet AGL, rolled right into a nose-down position and impacted the ground. FAA and NTSB are on the scene and no other details are confirmed.
>
> Obvious question. The IS28b2 Twin Lark is definitely not a three
> person glider. What's with that?

Heard second hand from a club member passengers were Daughter-in-law and grandson .

[Tony[_5_]]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57455215/boy-3-among-3-dead-in-texas-glider-crash/

Tail Dolly?

[Ramy]

How awefull!! I am speechless! A grandfather, daughter in law and 3 years old grandson all gone! It doesn't get any more tragic than that!
My heart goes to the families. I didn't know them but I am already feeling sick.

Sigh!!!

Ramy

[cuflyer]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> Glider type? Situation?
>
> Linwood

Kid on his mother's lap - ? Affecting control - ?
This is really ugly.

1FL

[Paul Remde]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ramy" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Texas Tragedy Info?


> How awful!! I am speechless! A grandfather, daughter in law and 3 years
> old grandson all gone! It doesn't get any more tragic than that!
> My heart goes to the families. I didn't know them but I am already feeling
> sick.
>
> Sigh!!!
>
> Ramy


Well said Ramy. My thoughts exactly. Wow. Deeply saddened.

Paul Remde

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > Glider type? Situation?
> >
> > Linwood
>
> Kid on his mother's lap - ? Affecting control - ?
> This is really ugly.
>
> 1FL

It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/#5891-7

Ramy

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 11:13:38 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > Glider type? Situation?
> > >
> > > Linwood
> >
> > Kid on his mother's lap - ? Affecting control - ?
> > This is really ugly.
> >
> > 1FL
>
> It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
> http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/#5891-7
>
> Ramy

I meant to say frigging tail dolly!
Of course it is just a speculation, but quiet evident in these photos!
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/#5891-7
Definitely not the first time a tail dolly is forgotten, but I never heard of it bringing down the glider!

Sigh!

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:13:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > Glider type? Situation?
> > >
> > > Linwood
> >
> > Kid on his mother's lap - ? Affecting control - ?
> > This is really ugly.
> >
> > 1FL
>
> It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
> http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/#5891-7
>
> Ramy

Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
Terribly sad
UH

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:13:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > > Glider type? Situation?
> > > >
> > > > Linwood
> > >
> > > Kid on his mother's lap - ? Affecting control - ?
> > > This is really ugly.
> > >
> > > 1FL
> >
> > It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
> > http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/#5891-7
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> Terribly sad
> UH

If it is not the cause, must be to main contributing factor. I just find it hard to believe that it is unrelated.
What a tragedy

Ramy

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

>
> Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> Terribly sad
> UH

Photos do clearly show the tail dolly on. That can't help a cg, though
as Hank says unlikely to move it too far aft unless already at the
back limit. It does suggest things getting hurried in the preflight.

Photos also show both spoilers full open. That could happen in a crash
of course, but might also be indicative of things going wrong. There
was a spoler-open crash earlier this year where the pilots
interepreted the rudder waggle as a wing rock (NTSB). This is a very
dangerous combination. If you don't know the spoilers are open, you
won't know to use the much lower-nose pitch attitude that spoilers
require. You're at 200 feet, not aware your spoilers are open, and in
a pitch attitude that will lead quickly to loss of airspeed. I've been
having towplanes waggle rudders at BFR rides for a while, quite a few
of them release.

And I have to agree with Hank. They let you carry kids on airliners,
but this ain't an airliner -- there's no stick in seat 37E either.
Small children won't get that much out of a glider ride that can't
wait until they can sit alone. I don't let rides even bring video
cameras any more. They won't produce good footage, they'll just get
sick looking through the camera, and it can drop in uncomfortable
places.

John Cochrane

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:55:21 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:13:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > > > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > > > Glider type? Situation?
> > > > >
> > > > > Linwood
> > > >
> > > > Kid on his mother's lap - ? Affecting control - ?
> > > > This is really ugly.
> > > >
> > > > 1FL
> > >
> > > It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
> > > http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-investigation/#5891-7
> > >
> > > Ramy
> >
> > Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> > I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> > Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> > Terribly sad
> > UH
>
> If it is not the cause, must be to main contributing factor. I just find it hard to believe that it is unrelated.
> What a tragedy
>
> Ramy

Lark manual with scratched in hard to read W&B numbers for that particular ship:
http://www.clubplaneadoresbari.com.ar/docs/IS28B2_Lark_Manual.pdf

Seems to me that a tail dolly heavy enough to put it out of the aft limit would have to be very heavy.

[Frank Whiteley]

> If it is not the cause, must be to main contributing factor. I just find it hard to believe that it is unrelated.
> What a tragedy
>
> Ramy

From the images, it appears the tail dolly may have been attached so the handle could be used as a lift point for one of the straps.

FW

[glider12321]

On Jun 18, 12:35*pm, wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:13:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > > Glider type? Situation?
>
> > > > Linwood
>
> > > Kid on his mother's lap - ? *Affecting control - ?
> > > This is really ugly.
>
> > > 1FL
>
> > It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
> >http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-inve...
>
> > Ramy
>
> Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> Terribly sad
> UH

I remember my 3 year old would reach out and pull any yellow "toy" on
a string.

[[email protected]]

Truly tragic. Condolences to the family and friends. Fred

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:07:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > If it is not the cause, must be to main contributing factor. I just find it hard to believe that it is unrelated.
> > What a tragedy
> >
> > Ramy
>
> From the images, it appears the tail dolly may have been attached so the handle could be used as a lift point for one of the straps.
>
> FW

the CBS link that i posted first does show the tail dolly on before it was being lifted out of the field. but you are right it could've been put there post-crash to help with moving.

[cloudbase]

This picture from the Houston Chronicle

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/13/60/75/3084132/4/628x471.jpg

shows the ship being removed from the field after the crash. Note that the tail dolly is attached. While it could have been replaced post-accident, it's not likely.

[Bill D]

On Jun 18, 12:35*pm, wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:13:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 10:54:30 AM UTC-7, cuflyer wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:03 AM UTC-4, Linwood wrote:
> > > > Anyone have any knowledge of the three fatality glider crash in Texas?
> > > > Glider type? Situation?
>
> > > > Linwood
>
> > > Kid on his mother's lap - ? *Affecting control - ?
> > > This is really ugly.
>
> > > 1FL
>
> > It was indeed the freaking tail dolly!!!
> >http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06/fatal-glider-crash-under-inve...
>
> > Ramy
>
> Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> Terribly sad
> UH

Probably true, but I've seen some monster Lark dollies which were so
heavy one person could barely lift them. Even with the CG in the
allowable range, the Twin Lark demands respect. It might not take
much weight on the tail boom for it to turn nasty.

This accident has all the earmarks of one which will drive changes to
the FAR's. The FAA has been grumbling for years the requirements to
get a Commercial-Glider or CFI-G are way too easy to meet. I think
fair warning is in order that we may see changes to Part 61.

My deepest sympathies go to the family and friends of the mother and
daughter.

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:21:22 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 2:07:03 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > > If it is not the cause, must be to main contributing factor. I just find it hard to believe that it is unrelated.
> > > What a tragedy
> > >
> > > Ramy
> >
> > From the images, it appears the tail dolly may have been attached so the handle could be used as a lift point for one of the straps.
> >
> > FW
>
> the CBS link that i posted first does show the tail dolly on before it was being lifted out of the field. but you are right it could've been put there post-crash to help with moving.

Indeed the tail dolly is seen in earlier photo. I find it very hard to believe that someone had the presence of mind to put the tail dolly on after the crash.
I speculate that it was the main contributing factor, which perhaps caused a distraction and wrong pilot action. This reminds us again that we all human and we all do mistakes, no matter how experienced we are (my understanding he was a high time instructor). Most of the time we get away with them, but sometime we don't. The most unfortunate thing is that it happen when giving a ride to 2 family members. This really really sucks!


Ramy

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:04:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
> > Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> > I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> > Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> > Terribly sad
> > UH
>
> Photos do clearly show the tail dolly on. That can't help a cg, though
> as Hank says unlikely to move it too far aft unless already at the
> back limit. It does suggest things getting hurried in the preflight.
>
> Photos also show both spoilers full open. That could happen in a crash
> of course, but might also be indicative of things going wrong. There
> was a spoler-open crash earlier this year where the pilots
> interepreted the rudder waggle as a wing rock (NTSB). This is a very
> dangerous combination. If you don't know the spoilers are open, you
> won't know to use the much lower-nose pitch attitude that spoilers
> require. You're at 200 feet, not aware your spoilers are open, and in
> a pitch attitude that will lead quickly to loss of airspeed. I've been
> having towplanes waggle rudders at BFR rides for a while, quite a few
> of them release.
>
> And I have to agree with Hank. They let you carry kids on airliners,
> but this ain't an airliner -- there's no stick in seat 37E either.
> Small children won't get that much out of a glider ride that can't
> wait until they can sit alone. I don't let rides even bring video
> cameras any more. They won't produce good footage, they'll just get
> sick looking through the camera, and it can drop in uncomfortable
> places.
>
> John Cochrane

While may not related to this accident, I understand there was another rudder waggle accident recently??
Just to show how confusing it is, I specifically asked in my last BFR to get a rudder waggle (I know, it is not as effective when you ask for it) - the instructor or tow pilot misunderstood and gave me a wing rock instead. It was still effective, since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake.

Ramy

[[email protected]]

I'm a member of GHSA and it's clear we need more investigative information than speculation.

Certain comments from witnesses at the field (and I WAS NOT one of them) indicate there were controllability issues seconds after rotating. The towpilot is said to have been feeling the excessive pulls on the rope increase, and was seeing the glider pitching around (in the mirror) far more than usual. One witness said he was about to release the rope at his end when it broke. Either way the glider was free of the rope at 75-100 feet AGL according to the preliminary statements of the NTSB official at the crash site.

Our Twin Lark had taken off once long ago with the tail dolly attached, and landed without incident (it's a light dolly). My "opinion" is the dolly likely didn't contribute to the instability issue, but it tells another story: the PIC didn't thoroughly preflight the glider. It will require the official investigation by NTSB to determine if anything else was not addressed prior to takeoff.

Obviously a key attention point is the child. I've heard the media comments (local TV) that the child WAS strapped in using the same belts/harness as his mother… AND he was not. Again--we have to wait for the official finding. Also not officially determined: the sitting positions of the pilot and the mother/child (who was in the front and who was in the back?). I'm in agreement with the comments that there is no way you go flying with an unrestrained passenger on board. I'm also of the opinion that it's not prudent to take someone that young up simply because the cockpits are very confining, controls are in easy reach, and children that young can be prone to instant panic and physical anguish. That, in of itself, would be a severe distraction to the PIC.

There are a number of points NTSB will have to examine:

(1) weight and balance loading
(2) aircraft condition
(3) towpilot comments
(4) ground witnesses
(5) radio calls
(6) physical condition of the pilot.

Again--the tail dolly points to inattention on the part of the PIC, but nothing more until the NTSB reports on the preceding. I know for a fact that when I was out there Saturday, there were no squawks reported on the Twin Lark, which had been flying that day.

I've known the pilot since jointing the club in 1997. He's been a senior instructor since that time and he signed me off for my transition pilot practical. I considered him an attentive and conservative pilot. I've personally never known him to have any medical conditions; he seemed in good shape when I talked to him Saturday. You have to remember: This was his daughter-in-law and grandson that he took flying, so his typical preflight routine MAY--REPEAT--MAY have been distracted by the family aspect of the moment. It's likely another club member was ground crewing and standing near the glider as they were loading, so we'll need to wait for those eyewitness comments.

For now that's all we know and we must keep the speculation down and await the NTSB's report. Fred will be greatly missed. It's tough all around since GHSA has had a pretty good safety record. We haven't had a major accident since 1999 and in that one the pilot walked away from his low-time, lack-of-judgement landing approach decisions that caused him to go off the end of the runway and total the glider.

[[email protected]]

Eye witness accounts are that the nose pitched down, and maybe there was some roll involved too. Neither is consistent with CG too far aft. I'm wondering if the child was secured or free to wriggle forward into the stick? Or just kick the stick forward with feet? Terrible to contemplate, no matter what. Fred

[bill palmer]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake. "

My control (including rudder check) is before hookup. If I understand what you're saying, you work the rudder before release.
1) how does that eliminate this deadly mistake?
2)What do you do if you discover it to be jammed at that time? Tow back to a landing? That's hardly the best time to discover that, I would think. {that may sound a little snarky, but I don't mean it that way - just a genuine inquiry}


On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:46:53 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:04:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > >
> > > Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> > > I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> > > Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> > > Terribly sad
> > > UH
> >
> > Photos do clearly show the tail dolly on. That can't help a cg, though
> > as Hank says unlikely to move it too far aft unless already at the
> > back limit. It does suggest things getting hurried in the preflight.
> >
> > Photos also show both spoilers full open. That could happen in a crash
> > of course, but might also be indicative of things going wrong. There
> > was a spoler-open crash earlier this year where the pilots
> > interepreted the rudder waggle as a wing rock (NTSB). This is a very
> > dangerous combination. If you don't know the spoilers are open, you
> > won't know to use the much lower-nose pitch attitude that spoilers
> > require. You're at 200 feet, not aware your spoilers are open, and in
> > a pitch attitude that will lead quickly to loss of airspeed. I've been
> > having towplanes waggle rudders at BFR rides for a while, quite a few
> > of them release.
> >
> > And I have to agree with Hank. They let you carry kids on airliners,
> > but this ain't an airliner -- there's no stick in seat 37E either.
> > Small children won't get that much out of a glider ride that can't
> > wait until they can sit alone. I don't let rides even bring video
> > cameras any more. They won't produce good footage, they'll just get
> > sick looking through the camera, and it can drop in uncomfortable
> > places.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> While may not related to this accident, I understand there was another rudder waggle accident recently??
> Just to show how confusing it is, I specifically asked in my last BFR to get a rudder waggle (I know, it is not as effective when you ask for it) - the instructor or tow pilot misunderstood and gave me a wing rock instead. It was still effective, since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake.
>
> Ramy

[kirk.stant]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:55:21 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
>
> If it is not the cause, must be to main contributing factor. I just find it hard to believe that it is unrelated.

Ramy, unless the glider was stalled and spun and couldn't recover, the tail dolly likely didn't have anything to do with it.

Aft CG makes a plane sensitive in pitch and possibly hard (or impossible) to recover from a stall/spin. But on tow you are way above stall speed.

Biggest problem with a tail dolly left on (on most gliders with a normal CG) is lack of directional control on takeoff or landing.

But again, this is all speculation.

Sad, whatever the cause. But Tom K may have to add number 45 to his list...

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 3:13:11 PM UTC-5, Bill Palmer wrote:
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake. "
>
> My control (including rudder check) is before hookup. If I understand what you're saying, you work the rudder before release.
> 1) how does that eliminate this deadly mistake?
> 2)What do you do if you discover it to be jammed at that time? Tow back to a landing? That's hardly the best time to discover that, I would think. {that may sound a little snarky, but I don't mean it that way - just a genuine inquiry}
>
>
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:46:53 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:04:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> > > > I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> > > > Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> > > > Terribly sad
> > > > UH
> > >
> > > Photos do clearly show the tail dolly on. That can't help a cg, though
> > > as Hank says unlikely to move it too far aft unless already at the
> > > back limit. It does suggest things getting hurried in the preflight.
> > >
> > > Photos also show both spoilers full open. That could happen in a crash
> > > of course, but might also be indicative of things going wrong. There
> > > was a spoler-open crash earlier this year where the pilots
> > > interepreted the rudder waggle as a wing rock (NTSB). This is a very
> > > dangerous combination. If you don't know the spoilers are open, you
> > > won't know to use the much lower-nose pitch attitude that spoilers
> > > require. You're at 200 feet, not aware your spoilers are open, and in
> > > a pitch attitude that will lead quickly to loss of airspeed. I've been
> > > having towplanes waggle rudders at BFR rides for a while, quite a few
> > > of them release.
> > >
> > > And I have to agree with Hank. They let you carry kids on airliners,
> > > but this ain't an airliner -- there's no stick in seat 37E either.
> > > Small children won't get that much out of a glider ride that can't
> > > wait until they can sit alone. I don't let rides even bring video
> > > cameras any more. They won't produce good footage, they'll just get
> > > sick looking through the camera, and it can drop in uncomfortable
> > > places.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > While may not related to this accident, I understand there was another rudder waggle accident recently??
> > Just to show how confusing it is, I specifically asked in my last BFR to get a rudder waggle (I know, it is not as effective when you ask for it) - the instructor or tow pilot misunderstood and gave me a wing rock instead.. It was still effective, since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake.
> >
> > Ramy

Friends ..
Being so crushed and speechless sitting "mind empty" at my desk .. not be able to gather thoughts, I decided to share with you something I am gathering keen observation on , which may or may not played a rule here but it may be equally important preventing another tragic accident.
I have been flying glass ships for a while, and kind of the ship I fly requires solid 60-65 knots on the tow. This is what makes me comfortable and provides me full control over her..
I have been flying in different places, and I noticed NOT A ONE TIME when tow pilot slowed down so dramatically in a deep turn (intentionally or not) ... that my stick become very.. very.. mushy (and some oscillation my shows up when getting in-and-out of the wake.
To cut some comments right away .. YES - I always ask for 65kts - 60kts min .. on the radio before a take off as a part of my pre-takeoff routine ..
Nerveless, things happen as I learned to live with unexpected ... My method is stay close to the wake (and hide there at the earliest speed drop) especially during early part of the takeoff and watching my release handle just-in-case .. before my wings drop beyond recovery ..
Believe me when I say then one tow pilot had a ASI in miles .. and did not translated my "knoted" requests to proper speed...
And sometimes tow pilots wants to pull me up as quickly as they possibly could ... since the weather is so nice ..and the WAITING LINE is long.

HEAVY TAIL (with a dolly -- but STILL FLYABLE) ... suddenly reduced speed on tow in a first turn ... maybe not much but enough to stall "out of balance" glider ... and pitching may be just a desperate case to wrestling last bits of control from stalling glider ... until the rope broke ..

Respectfully Yours - KiloCharlie

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jun 18, 10:54*am, cuflyer > wrote:

> Kid on his mother's lap - ? *Affecting control - ?
> This is really ugly.

In the course of figuring out how to design a glider, I have picked
through the wreckage of many sailplanes, including no few stall/spins.
And I don't think I've ever seen a stall/spin result in that much
forward fuselage damage. At least not in a metal glider.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Mark Dickson[_2_]]

Controls not connected seems obvious cause.

At 21:24 18 June 2012, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Jun 18, 10:54=A0am, cuflyer wrote:
>
>> Kid on his mother's lap - ? =A0Affecting control - ?
>> This is really ugly.
>
>In the course of figuring out how to design a glider, I have picked
>through the wreckage of many sailplanes, including no few
stall/spins.
>And I don't think I've ever seen a stall/spin result in that much
>forward fuselage damage. At least not in a metal glider.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.
>

[JohnDeRosa]

Very sad, especially so on Father's Day and with three members of the
same family.

Some other links with photos and video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57455215/boy-3-among-3-dead-in-texas-glider-crash/

http://www.khou.com/home/3-family-members-killed-in-glider-crash-near-Wallis-159435165.html?gallery=y&img=1&c=y#/home/3-family-members-killed-in-glider-crash-near-Wallis-159435165.html?gallery=y&img=1&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y

In image 2 of 8 at the KHOU site the (orange) tail dolly is clearly
visible in a picture taken at what might have been very soon after the
accident.

- John

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 5:12:27 PM UTC-5, Mark Dickson wrote:
> Controls not connected seems obvious cause.
>

I looked at the local Lark after work today and I think it would be tough to swing the Horizontal/Elevator halves into place and pin them together without having the controls connected. Like any attempt at a fool-proof system I'm sure it is possible though. That doesn't discount the possibility of a problem somewhere else in the control system.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 6/18/2012 1:57 PM, wrote:
> I'm a member of GHSA and it's clear we need more investigative information
> than speculation.
>
> Certain comments from witnesses at the field (and I WAS NOT one of them)
> indicate there were controllability issues seconds after rotating. The
> towpilot is said to have been feeling the excessive pulls on the rope
> increase, and was seeing the glider pitching around (in the mirror) far
> more than usual. One witness said he was about to release the rope at his
> end when it broke. Either way the glider was free of the rope at 75-100
> feet AGL according to the preliminary statements of the NTSB official at
> the crash site.
>
> Our Twin Lark had taken off once long ago with the tail dolly attached, and
> landed without incident (it's a light dolly). My "opinion" is the dolly
> likely didn't contribute to the instability issue, but it tells another
> story: the PIC didn't thoroughly preflight the glider. It will require the
> official investigation by NTSB to determine if anything else was not
> addressed prior to takeoff.
>
> Obviously a key attention point is the child. I've heard the media comments
> (local TV) that the child WAS strapped in using the same belts/harness as
> his mother… AND he was not. Again--we have to wait for the official
> finding. Also not officially determined: the sitting positions of the pilot
> and the mother/child (who was in the front and who was in the back?). I'm
> in agreement with the comments that there is no way you go flying with an
> unrestrained passenger on board. I'm also of the opinion that it's not
> prudent to take someone that young up simply because the cockpits are very
> confining, controls are in easy reach, and children that young can be prone
> to instant panic and physical anguish. That, in of itself, would be a
> severe distraction to the PIC.
>
> There are a number of points NTSB will have to examine:
>
> (1) weight and balance loading (2) aircraft condition (3) towpilot
> comments (4) ground witnesses (5) radio calls (6) physical condition of the
> pilot.
>
> Again--the tail dolly points to inattention on the part of the PIC, but
> nothing more until the NTSB reports on the preceding. I know for a fact
> that when I was out there Saturday, there were no squawks reported on the
> Twin Lark, which had been flying that day.
>
> I've known the pilot since jointing the club in 1997. He's been a senior
> instructor since that time and he signed me off for my transition pilot
> practical. I considered him an attentive and conservative pilot. I've
> personally never known him to have any medical conditions; he seemed in
> good shape when I talked to him Saturday. You have to remember: This was
> his daughter-in-law and grandson that he took flying, so his typical
> preflight routine MAY--REPEAT--MAY have been distracted by the family
> aspect of the moment. It's likely another club member was ground crewing
> and standing near the glider as they were loading, so we'll need to wait
> for those eyewitness comments.
>
> For now that's all we know and we must keep the speculation down and await
> the NTSB's report. Fred will be greatly missed. It's tough all around since
> GHSA has had a pretty good safety record. We haven't had a major accident
> since 1999 and in that one the pilot walked away from his low-time,
> lack-of-judgement landing approach decisions that caused him to go off the
> end of the runway and total the glider.

Bob,

Thanks for the above. It takes real skill to inform sensitively. Tough to do
at a time like this, I know. It's also tough for me to imagine a more horrific
loss scenario than this...for the families involved, for friends, for the
Club, for soaring. My heart goes out to everyone.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[Ramy]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:13:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Palmer wrote:
> Can you elaborate on what you mean by "since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake. "
>
> My control (including rudder check) is before hookup. If I understand what you're saying, you work the rudder before release.
> 1) how does that eliminate this deadly mistake?
> 2)What do you do if you discover it to be jammed at that time? Tow back to a landing? That's hardly the best time to discover that, I would think. {that may sound a little snarky, but I don't mean it that way - just a genuine inquiry}
>
>
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:46:53 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:04:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> > > > I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> > > > Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever.
> > > > Terribly sad
> > > > UH
> > >
> > > Photos do clearly show the tail dolly on. That can't help a cg, though
> > > as Hank says unlikely to move it too far aft unless already at the
> > > back limit. It does suggest things getting hurried in the preflight.
> > >
> > > Photos also show both spoilers full open. That could happen in a crash
> > > of course, but might also be indicative of things going wrong. There
> > > was a spoler-open crash earlier this year where the pilots
> > > interepreted the rudder waggle as a wing rock (NTSB). This is a very
> > > dangerous combination. If you don't know the spoilers are open, you
> > > won't know to use the much lower-nose pitch attitude that spoilers
> > > require. You're at 200 feet, not aware your spoilers are open, and in
> > > a pitch attitude that will lead quickly to loss of airspeed. I've been
> > > having towplanes waggle rudders at BFR rides for a while, quite a few
> > > of them release.
> > >
> > > And I have to agree with Hank. They let you carry kids on airliners,
> > > but this ain't an airliner -- there's no stick in seat 37E either.
> > > Small children won't get that much out of a glider ride that can't
> > > wait until they can sit alone. I don't let rides even bring video
> > > cameras any more. They won't produce good footage, they'll just get
> > > sick looking through the camera, and it can drop in uncomfortable
> > > places.
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > While may not related to this accident, I understand there was another rudder waggle accident recently??
> > Just to show how confusing it is, I specifically asked in my last BFR to get a rudder waggle (I know, it is not as effective when you ask for it) - the instructor or tow pilot misunderstood and gave me a wing rock instead.. It was still effective, since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake.
> >
> > Ramy

I mistyped, I meant I am looking at my spoilers, not checking my rudder...
So I'll repeat again what I was trying to say:
"my decision is to always look at my spoilers first before deciding to release no matter what the tow plane is doing (waggle the rudder or rock the wings). If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake."

This may have nothing to do with this tragic accident, but worth repeating.

Ramy

[bill palmer]

Ramy,
Thanks, I'm much less confused now.
:-)


On Monday, June 18, 2012 4:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:13:11 PM UTC-7, Bill Palmer wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on what you mean by "since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing.. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake. "
> >
> > My control (including rudder check) is before hookup. If I understand what you're saying, you work the rudder before release.
> > 1) how does that eliminate this deadly mistake?
> > 2)What do you do if you discover it to be jammed at that time? Tow back to a landing? That's hardly the best time to discover that, I would think. {that may sound a little snarky, but I don't mean it that way - just a genuine inquiry}
> >
> >
> > On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:46:53 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 18, 2012 12:04:38 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope- If the tail dolly was on, glider is still flyable. Most likely speculation on may part-#1 rule broken here which is FLY THE AIRPLANE.
> > > > > I have seen a few tail dolly incidents or the years, and in every case, the pilot had to be told that the tail dolly was still on.
> > > > > Other bad rule broken- NO unrestrained people in the glider- ever..
> > > > > Terribly sad
> > > > > UH
> > > >
> > > > Photos do clearly show the tail dolly on. That can't help a cg, though
> > > > as Hank says unlikely to move it too far aft unless already at the
> > > > back limit. It does suggest things getting hurried in the preflight..
> > > >
> > > > Photos also show both spoilers full open. That could happen in a crash
> > > > of course, but might also be indicative of things going wrong. There
> > > > was a spoler-open crash earlier this year where the pilots
> > > > interepreted the rudder waggle as a wing rock (NTSB). This is a very
> > > > dangerous combination. If you don't know the spoilers are open, you
> > > > won't know to use the much lower-nose pitch attitude that spoilers
> > > > require. You're at 200 feet, not aware your spoilers are open, and in
> > > > a pitch attitude that will lead quickly to loss of airspeed. I've been
> > > > having towplanes waggle rudders at BFR rides for a while, quite a few
> > > > of them release.
> > > >
> > > > And I have to agree with Hank. They let you carry kids on airliners,
> > > > but this ain't an airliner -- there's no stick in seat 37E either.
> > > > Small children won't get that much out of a glider ride that can't
> > > > wait until they can sit alone. I don't let rides even bring video
> > > > cameras any more. They won't produce good footage, they'll just get
> > > > sick looking through the camera, and it can drop in uncomfortable
> > > > places.
> > > >
> > > > John Cochrane
> > >
> > > While may not related to this accident, I understand there was another rudder waggle accident recently??
> > > Just to show how confusing it is, I specifically asked in my last BFR to get a rudder waggle (I know, it is not as effective when you ask for it) - the instructor or tow pilot misunderstood and gave me a wing rock instead. It was still effective, since my decision is to always check my rudder first before releasing no matter what the tow plane is doing. If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake.
> > >
> > > Ramy
>
> I mistyped, I meant I am looking at my spoilers, not checking my rudder....
> So I'll repeat again what I was trying to say:
> "my decision is to always look at my spoilers first before deciding to release no matter what the tow plane is doing (waggle the rudder or rock the wings). If we always trained that way, we could eliminate this deadly but common mistake."
>
> This may have nothing to do with this tragic accident, but worth repeating.
>
> Ramy

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 4:23:39 PM UTC-6, JohnDeRosa wrote:
> Very sad, especially so on Father's Day and with three members of the
> same family.
>
> Some other links with photos and video.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57455215/boy-3-among-3-dead-in-texas-glider-crash/
>
> http://www.khou.com/home/3-family-members-killed-in-glider-crash-near-Wallis-159435165.html?gallery=y&img=1&c=y#/home/3-family-members-killed-in-glider-crash-near-Wallis-159435165.html?gallery=y&img=1&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y&c=y
>
> In image 2 of 8 at the KHOU site the (orange) tail dolly is clearly
> visible in a picture taken at what might have been very soon after the
> accident.
>
> - John
Report verifying that the tail dolly was on the glider.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Cause-of-glider-accident-that-killed-3-still-under-investigation-159501035.html

[Nigel Pocock[_2_]]

If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run would
be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached. Could
this have had any control effects on tow?
If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be straight
out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.

[Bill D]

On Jun 19, 9:35*am, Nigel Pocock > wrote:
> If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run would
> be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached. Could
> this have had any control effects on tow?
> If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be straight
> out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.

The IS28b2 manual calls for +10 degree flap for aero tow takeoff and
the normal technique is to lift the tail early so the dolly probably
had no effect on liftoff speed. If the dolly was light it very likely
didn't shift the CG enough to provide a probable cause or even a
contributory factor in this accident - the Twin Lark is a big, heavy
and stable bird. Most likely the dolly is significant only in that it
provides evidence of carelessness.

If you put a small child in the cockpit of a glider, they will almost
invariably start yanking, pulling and twisting everything they can
reach making them unsafe as passengers. A child in a mother's lap
would be able to reach everything except the rudder pedals.

[soartech[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 11:35*am, Nigel Pocock > wrote:
> If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run would
> be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached. Could
> this have had any control effects on tow?
> If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be straight
> out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.

Are the wing runners trained to check for extra big orange things
hanging off the glider
before takeoff? I know it is not their fault, but at the critical
launch the pilot is helpless to
see this mistake.

[BobW]

On 6/19/2012 11:06 AM, soartech wrote:
> On Jun 19, 11:35 am, Nigel > wrote:
>> If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run would
>> be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached. Could
>> this have had any control effects on tow?
>> If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be straight
>> out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.
>
> Are the wing runners trained to check for extra big orange things
> hanging off the glider
> before takeoff? I know it is not their fault, but at the critical
> launch the pilot is helpless to
> see this mistake.

Making zero speculation as to root cause(s) of this tragedy, and considering
only the presence of the tail dolly at the start of aerotow, it's clear to any
informed soaring participant that this item was missed by at least one person
(PIC), and presumably two (wing runner).

I was "lucky enough" to witness a dolly-on takeoff prior to my solo (Phoebus
A; PIC's initial flight in it; it ended well), and the more experienced people
around at the time gave me a thorough exposure to all the myriad errors made
along the way to such a launch. The lessons were obvious...once they'd been
pointed out to me.

I've also begun one takeoff roll with my tail dolly attached (haste;
inexperienced wing-runner), realized ~when tuggie applied power I couldn't
remember having checked for tail dolly removal, listened (no joy one way or
the other), tried a tentative rudder input (inconclusive), pulled the plug
(listening to that little voice in my skull). There it was, on the fuselage,
in all its international orange glory. (What an idiot!)

Point being - others having already touched upon likely
CG/directional-stability issues associated with its presence - that every
reader who's hearing little voices in his/her head about the presence of the
tail dolly in this terribly sad instance ought to be actively listening to
that voice against the future day it may (will?) need to be acted upon.
Clearly, beginning a takeoff roll with the taildolly attached is an avoidable
mistake...even if in a very few designs it may be self-correcting (e.g. G-102).

Bob W.

[Bill D]

On Jun 18, 4:49*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2012 5:12:27 PM UTC-5, Mark Dickson wrote:
> > Controls not connected seems obvious cause.
>
> I looked at the local Lark after work today and I think it would be tough to swing the Horizontal/Elevator halves into place and pin them together without having the controls connected. *Like any attempt at a fool-proof system I'm sure it is possible though. *That doesn't discount the possibility of a problem somewhere else in the control system.

As a one-time Lark owner, I agree that it would be difficult to
assemble the tail improperly. However the trim tab is very powerful
and the two solid wires which operate it are easily damaged. More
likely is the child yanking the trim lever back and forth.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:26:51 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 11:06 AM, soartech wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 11:35 am, Nigel > wrote:
> >> If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run would
> >> be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached. Could
> >> this have had any control effects on tow?
> >> If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be straight
> >> out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.
> >
> > Are the wing runners trained to check for extra big orange things
> > hanging off the glider
> > before takeoff? I know it is not their fault, but at the critical
> > launch the pilot is helpless to
> > see this mistake.
>
> Making zero speculation as to root cause(s) of this tragedy, and considering
> only the presence of the tail dolly at the start of aerotow, it's clear to any
> informed soaring participant that this item was missed by at least one person
> (PIC), and presumably two (wing runner).
>
> I was "lucky enough" to witness a dolly-on takeoff prior to my solo (Phoebus
> A; PIC's initial flight in it; it ended well), and the more experienced people
> around at the time gave me a thorough exposure to all the myriad errors made
> along the way to such a launch. The lessons were obvious...once they'd been
> pointed out to me.
>
> I've also begun one takeoff roll with my tail dolly attached (haste;
> inexperienced wing-runner), realized ~when tuggie applied power I couldn't
> remember having checked for tail dolly removal, listened (no joy one way or
> the other), tried a tentative rudder input (inconclusive), pulled the plug
> (listening to that little voice in my skull). There it was, on the fuselage,
> in all its international orange glory. (What an idiot!)
>
> Point being - others having already touched upon likely
> CG/directional-stability issues associated with its presence - that every
> reader who's hearing little voices in his/her head about the presence of the
> tail dolly in this terribly sad instance ought to be actively listening to
> that voice against the future day it may (will?) need to be acted upon.
> Clearly, beginning a takeoff roll with the taildolly attached is an avoidable
> mistake...even if in a very few designs it may be self-correcting (e.g. G-102).
Bob W

> A real risk also, and I say this without speculation in this case, is for some really helpful person to start screaming right away on the radio about the tail dolly. In a situation like this, it is FAR better to let the pilot get high enough to terminate the tow reasonably, than panic him into a low premature dangerous release. This also permits him to organize his landing allowing for the almost inevitable spin around the wheel groud loop.
UH

[Bill D]

On Jun 19, 1:13*pm, wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:26:51 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
> > On 6/19/2012 11:06 AM, soartech wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 11:35 am, Nigel > *wrote:
> > >> If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run would
> > >> be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached. Could
> > >> this have had any control effects on tow?
> > >> If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be straight
> > >> out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.
>
> > > Are the wing runners trained to check for extra big orange things
> > > hanging off the glider
> > > before takeoff? I know it is not their fault, but at the critical
> > > launch the pilot is helpless to
> > > see this mistake.
>
> > Making zero speculation as to root cause(s) of this tragedy, and considering
> > only the presence of the tail dolly at the start of aerotow, it's clear to any
> > informed soaring participant that this item was missed by at least one person
> > (PIC), and presumably two (wing runner).
>
> > I was "lucky enough" to witness a dolly-on takeoff prior to my solo (Phoebus
> > A; PIC's initial flight in it; it ended well), and the more experienced people
> > around at the time gave me a thorough exposure to all the myriad errors made
> > along the way to such a launch. The lessons were obvious...once they'd been
> > pointed out to me.
>
> > I've also begun one takeoff roll with my tail dolly attached (haste;
> > inexperienced wing-runner), realized ~when tuggie applied power I couldn't
> > remember having checked for tail dolly removal, listened (no joy one way or
> > the other), tried a tentative rudder input (inconclusive), pulled the plug
> > (listening to that little voice in my skull). There it was, on the fuselage,
> > in all its international orange glory. (What an idiot!)
>
> > Point being - others having already touched upon likely
> > CG/directional-stability issues associated with its presence - that every
> > reader who's hearing little voices in his/her head about the presence of the
> > tail dolly in this terribly sad instance ought to be actively listening to
> > that voice against the future day it may (will?) need to be acted upon.
> > Clearly, beginning a takeoff roll with the taildolly attached is an avoidable
> > mistake...even if in a very few designs it may be self-correcting (e.g. G-102).
>
> Bob W
>
> > A real risk also, and I say this without speculation in this case, is for some really helpful person to start screaming right away on the radio about the tail dolly. In a situation like this, it is FAR better to let the pilot get high enough to terminate the tow reasonably, than panic him into a low premature dangerous release. This also permits him to organize his landing allowing for the almost inevitable spin around the wheel groud loop.
>
> UH

We once had a rental pilot take off with the tail dolly on a Genesis.
Another pilot landed saying he thought he saw the G2 with the dolly on
it. Then we had to make a decision - make a radio call or not. We
decided not to make the call so as not to panic the pilot and because
we didn't think the dolly would hit the ground on landing anyway.

The pilot landed without incident and, as I had been elected to talk
with him, I sauntered out to the glider with the pilot still sitting
in it. "How was your flight?", I asked. "Outstanding", he answered,
"the glider handled better than ever". "Well", I said, "we told you
it would handle better with the CG further aft but we'd prefer you did
it with the internal weights not the tail dolly." It took a few
seconds for that to soak in then his face went grey.

[Tim Mara]

I've see the Lark being flown with the tail dolly on before
had one of our club members (a commercial pilot) do this with passengers on
board
He would have never even known this "Daaa"if I hadn't been there to greet
him when it returned........
tim



> wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:26:51 PM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 11:06 AM, soartech wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 11:35 am, Nigel > wrote:
> >> If the tail dolly was left on the angle of attack on the ground run
> >> would
> >> be less so it wouldnt lift off till a higher speed had been reached.
> >> Could
> >> this have had any control effects on tow?
> >> If the toddler was sitting on his mothers lap his feet would be
> >> straight
> >> out in an ideal place to interfere with the stick. Bad bad idea.
> >
> > Are the wing runners trained to check for extra big orange things
> > hanging off the glider
> > before takeoff? I know it is not their fault, but at the critical
> > launch the pilot is helpless to
> > see this mistake.
>
> Making zero speculation as to root cause(s) of this tragedy, and
> considering
> only the presence of the tail dolly at the start of aerotow, it's clear to
> any
> informed soaring participant that this item was missed by at least one
> person
> (PIC), and presumably two (wing runner).
>
> I was "lucky enough" to witness a dolly-on takeoff prior to my solo
> (Phoebus
> A; PIC's initial flight in it; it ended well), and the more experienced
> people
> around at the time gave me a thorough exposure to all the myriad errors
> made
> along the way to such a launch. The lessons were obvious...once they'd
> been
> pointed out to me.
>
> I've also begun one takeoff roll with my tail dolly attached (haste;
> inexperienced wing-runner), realized ~when tuggie applied power I couldn't
> remember having checked for tail dolly removal, listened (no joy one way
> or
> the other), tried a tentative rudder input (inconclusive), pulled the plug
> (listening to that little voice in my skull). There it was, on the
> fuselage,
> in all its international orange glory. (What an idiot!)
>
> Point being - others having already touched upon likely
> CG/directional-stability issues associated with its presence - that every
> reader who's hearing little voices in his/her head about the presence of
> the
> tail dolly in this terribly sad instance ought to be actively listening to
> that voice against the future day it may (will?) need to be acted upon.
> Clearly, beginning a takeoff roll with the taildolly attached is an
> avoidable
> mistake...even if in a very few designs it may be self-correcting (e.g.
> G-102).
Bob W

> A real risk also, and I say this without speculation in this case, is for
> some really helpful person to start screaming right away on the radio
> about the tail dolly. In a situation like this, it is FAR better to let
> the pilot get high enough to terminate the tow reasonably, than panic him
> into a low premature dangerous release. This also permits him to organize
> his landing allowing for the almost inevitable spin around the wheel groud
> loop.
UH

[FreeFlight107]

My real simple way to keep the dolly from being missed;

If I didn't remove it myself, or see a ground person carry it away, I
always ask the wing runner "Is the tail dolly removed?", before I
close the canopy.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 5:07*pm, FreeFlight107 > wrote:
> My real simple way to keep the dolly from being missed;
>
> If I didn't remove it myself, or see a ground person carry it away, I
> always ask the wing runner "Is the tail dolly removed?", before I
> close the canopy.

My pretakeoff checklist

Altimeter (check all instruments)
Belts
Canopy (push up and really check. Guess how I know to do that)
Controls
Cable
wind Direction (plan for wind)
Dive Brakes (check flap setting at this time)
Tail Dolly (Do I really remember removing it? If not ask wing runner
to check)
Trim
Traffic (did wing runner look?)
Emergency plan

Though dolly usually is not a big cg issue, the combination of dolly
and lightweight passengers in the front seat could be.

[Alpha Eight]

There is an element of a good safety culture which involves a team.
Train the wing runners to visually check the glider over incluing a
pilots dive brakes and tail dolly when approaching the glider and
before leveling the wings. A simple word to the pilot just after
hooking up, dive brakes and dolly check can save tha day. Same with
noticing that low tire on the tug or a new oil slick on the fuselage.
A heads up wing runner can save they day but they need to be trained
to do this kind of thing in a culture that permits it.

Many years ago I moved wiggled the elavator of a friends ASW-20, now I
do not toch other peoples gliders as a rule, but in this case it was
disconnected - he was strapped in and next to launch on the grid. Now
that was an interesting conversation.

John Seaborn
A8

[T[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 4:13*pm, Alpha Eight > wrote:
> There is an element of a good safety culture which involves a team.
> Train the wing runners to visually check the glider over incluing a
> pilots dive brakes and tail dolly when approaching the glider and
> before leveling the wings. A simple word to the pilot just after
> hooking up, dive brakes and dolly check can save tha day. Same with
> noticing that low tire on the tug or a new oil slick on the fuselage.
> A heads up wing runner can save they day but they need to be trained
> to do this kind of thing in a culture that permits it.
>
> Many years ago I moved wiggled the elavator of a friends ASW-20, now I
> do not toch other peoples gliders as a rule, but in this case it was
> disconnected - *he was strapped in and next to launch on the grid. Now
> that was an interesting conversation.
>
> John Seaborn
> A8

Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
away that the wing runner will not trip over it. Many will call out
loud to the pilot, "TAIL DOLLY REMOVED!" and then hold it up for the
pilot to see and wait form an acknowledgement. Yes, this is at the
risk of interrupting the pilots checklist. Others simply place it
where it can be seen and they tell the wing runner, then quietly
remove it from the launch line (side of the runway) after the glider
is gone.

I've seen a Janus C fly and land safely with a tail dolly. I also like
the "fall away" design of the Grob 104. Listening to the Grob 104 tail
dolly slide down a paved runway gets your attention.

Condolences to the family with this tragic event.
T

[Bill D]

> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.

YES! This is the way to do it. When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. It helps if
your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.

[Ben Brand]

At 02:30 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:
>> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
>> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
>> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.
>
>YES! This is the way to do it. When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
>checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. It helps if
>your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.
>
I'm new to gliding so excuse my ignorance, but shouldnt the D(olly) check
be done before you get into the plane or is there no standard on the ABCD
checks?
Rather than checking that the Dolly (or someone elses that looks like
yours) is on the grass to the side it would make more sense that you
confirm, regardless of whos Dolly it is... it isnt attached to the back of
your plane?

[Walt Connelly]

We talk about how fatigue and dehydration can lead to a reduction in the pilots ability to think and fly the glider....I can assure you that chasing rope and hooking up gliders in the hot sun all day long without proper attention to hydration can have the same effect. This tragedy was the last flight of the day and I can well imagine that everyone was tired and not at their best. Not making an excuse here, just suggesting that we all pay attention to this debilitating situation.

While it is always the responsibility of the PIC to insure that his glider is airworthy, the ground crew is the last line of insurance against such mistakes. On many occasions I have spent a few hours launching gliders in the hot Florida sun and then flew myself. I found myself sucking most of the water from my Camelbak before I took off and was amazed at how thirsty I had become. When you feel thirsty, your level of dehydration is already excessive potentially reducing your attention to critical details. Clubs and commercial operations need to pay attention to such potentialities and take actions to insure that no one pushes things too far.

I had the opportunity to learn first hand how lack of nutrition and hydration can affect ones performance under controlled situations in Air Force Combat Crew Survival Schools. We can go a long time without food but H20 is critical.

Condolences to the family.

Walt

[T[_2_]]

On Jun 19, 8:25*pm, Ben Brand > wrote:
> At 02:30 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:>> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
> >> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
> >> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.
>
> >YES! *This is the way to do it. *When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
> >checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. *It helps if
> >your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.
>
> I'm new to gliding so excuse my ignorance, but shouldnt the D(olly) check
> be done before you get into the plane or is there no standard on the ABCD
> checks?
> Rather than checking that the Dolly (or someone elses that looks like
> yours) is on the grass to the side it would make more sense that you
> confirm, regardless of whos Dolly it is... it isnt attached to the back of
> your plane?

Some locations.. to save time on an active shared runway.. shared with
powered aircraft. If there are enough people for ground handling, the
pilot will get in and strap in before being pushed to the runway..
leave the tail dolly off for easier ground movement.
So the dolly may or may not be removed before the pilot gets strapped
in.

T

[Hartley Falbaum]

It has not been mentioned (yet), but did the Lark have a CG hook, or a
nose hook?
Things can get out of hand quickly with a CG hook if attention is
diverted.




On Jun 20, 10:17*am, T > wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:25*pm, Ben Brand > wrote:
>
> > At 02:30 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:>> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
> > >> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
> > >> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.
>
> > >YES! *This is the way to do it. *When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
> > >checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. *It helps if
> > >your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.
>
> > I'm new to gliding so excuse my ignorance, but shouldnt the D(olly) check
> > be done before you get into the plane or is there no standard on the ABCD
> > checks?
> > Rather than checking that the Dolly (or someone elses that looks like
> > yours) is on the grass to the side it would make more sense that you
> > confirm, regardless of whos Dolly it is... it isnt attached to the back of
> > your plane?
>
> Some locations.. to save time on an active shared runway.. shared with
> powered aircraft. If there are enough people for ground handling, the
> pilot will get in and strap in before being pushed to the runway..
> leave the tail dolly off for easier ground movement.
> So the dolly may or may not be removed before the pilot gets strapped
> in.
>
> T

[Bill D]

On Jun 19, 9:25*pm, Ben Brand > wrote:
> At 02:30 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:>> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
> >> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
> >> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.
>
> >YES! *This is the way to do it. *When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
> >checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. *It helps if
> >your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.
>
> I'm new to gliding so excuse my ignorance, but shouldnt the D(olly) check
> be done before you get into the plane or is there no standard on the ABCD
> checks?
> Rather than checking that the Dolly (or someone elses that looks like
> yours) is on the grass to the side it would make more sense that you
> confirm, regardless of whos Dolly it is... it isnt attached to the back of
> your plane?

Many times a glider with pilot in the cockpit must to be pushed onto
the runway to avoid blocking the runway any longer than necessary.
This means the dolly must be left on until the glider is in position
for takeoff then be removed by a crew person. I much prefer this
method since I have generous time to strap in, get comfortable and
prepare the cockpit for takeoff without being rushed but I do need to
see the dolly on the ground.

[BobW]

On 6/19/2012 9:25 PM, Ben Brand wrote:
> At 02:30 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:
>>> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
>>> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
>>> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.
>>
>> YES! This is the way to do it. When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
>> checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. It helps if
>> your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.
>>
> I'm new to gliding so excuse my ignorance, but shouldnt the D(olly) check
> be done before you get into the plane or is there no standard on the ABCD
> checks?
> Rather than checking that the Dolly (or someone elses that looks like
> yours) is on the grass to the side it would make more sense that you
> confirm, regardless of whos Dolly it is... it isnt attached to the back of
> your plane?
>

Ben,

Excellent question.

Since others have already noted situations - and hence operations - vary
depending on lots of things (e.g. runway[s] layout[s], airfield traffic,
available help, etc., this seems a good place to encourage you to visit other
glider operations every excuse you get. It's fun and you'll learn lots.

You'll definitely see lots of variations on 'things.'

Don't assume different ways of skinning cats are equally good! Keep asking,
"Why?" until your rational sense understands the answers...some of which may
surprise you, and not in good ways. (F'r'example "We've always done it this
way," may be accurate - and simultaneously promote procedurally-based accidents.)

Bob W.

[Bill D]

On Jun 20, 8:30*am, Hartley Falbaum > wrote:
> It has not been mentioned (yet), but did the Lark have a CG hook, or a
> nose hook?
> Things can get out of hand quickly with a CG hook if attention is
> diverted.
>
> On Jun 20, 10:17*am, T > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 8:25*pm, Ben Brand > wrote:
>
> > > At 02:30 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:>> Tail dollies and wing wheels, once removed are placed to the side,
> > > >> forward of the wing tip where the pilot can see it, but far enough
> > > >> away that the wing runner will not trip over it.
>
> > > >YES! *This is the way to do it. *When the pilot gets to "Dolly" on the
> > > >checklist, a quick look to the side confirms it is off. *It helps if
> > > >your dolly is a unique color not to be confused with another.
>
> > > I'm new to gliding so excuse my ignorance, but shouldnt the D(olly) check
> > > be done before you get into the plane or is there no standard on the ABCD
> > > checks?
> > > Rather than checking that the Dolly (or someone elses that looks like
> > > yours) is on the grass to the side it would make more sense that you
> > > confirm, regardless of whos Dolly it is... it isnt attached to the back of
> > > your plane?
>
> > Some locations.. to save time on an active shared runway.. shared with
> > powered aircraft. If there are enough people for ground handling, the
> > pilot will get in and strap in before being pushed to the runway..
> > leave the tail dolly off for easier ground movement.
> > So the dolly may or may not be removed before the pilot gets strapped
> > in.
>
> > T

AFAIK, all IS28b2 Twin Larks have both a CG and nose hook.

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 14:30 20 June 2012, Hartley Falbaum wrote:
>It has not been mentioned (yet), but did the Lark have a CG hook, or a
>nose hook?
>Things can get out of hand quickly with a CG hook if attention is
>diverted.
>

Based on Serial #71, formerly in use here in WI, the IS28B2 Lark ex-factory
standard equipment included both hooks.


Judy

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

> > Ramy
>
> Lark manual with scratched in hard to read W&B numbers for that particular ship:http://www.clubplaneadoresbari.com.ar/docs/IS28B2_Lark_Manual.pdf
>
> Seems to me that a tail dolly heavy enough to put it out of the aft limit would have to be very heavy.

The manual is interesting. P. 7 says the minimum front seat weight is
183 lbs. it also gives 22-47% mac range
The chart on the last page--an obvious reference if you're taking
light passengers in the front seat -- says 90 lbs in the front seat is
ok
The calculation on the second to last page says 183 in the front seat
is fine at 37%, and 121 in each seat is fine at 39%
Why is the placard 183 lbs then?
Somebody who knows how much a lark dolly weighs could certainly tell
us minimum front seat weight with dolly on given this chart
I surely hope we're not replaying this one
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001208X06614

John Cochrane

[Bill D]

On Jun 20, 10:36*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> > > Ramy
>
> > Lark manual with scratched in hard to read W&B numbers for that particular ship:http://www.clubplaneadoresbari.com.ar/docs/IS28B2_Lark_Manual.pdf
>
> > Seems to me that a tail dolly heavy enough to put it out of the aft limit would have to be very heavy.
>
> The manual is interesting. P. 7 says the minimum front seat weight is
> 183 lbs. it also gives 22-47% mac range
> The chart on the last page--an obvious reference if you're taking
> light passengers in the front seat -- says 90 lbs in the front seat is
> ok
> The calculation on the second to last page says 183 in the front seat
> is fine at 37%, and 121 in each seat is fine at 39%
> Why is the placard 183 lbs then?
> Somebody who knows how much a lark dolly weighs could certainly tell
> us minimum front seat weight with dolly on given this chart
> I surely hope we're not replaying this onehttp://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001208X06614
>
> John Cochrane

I hope not as well. Both cockpits are well ahead of the aerodynamic
center so I would expect the CG to be well forward with three souls on
board. I don't think the tail dolly had much effect in this accident
as long as it was not unusually heavy. In fact, it may have prevented
a forward-of-limit CG.

That said, the Twin Lark has some 'interesting' trim/pitch stability
behaviors. At higher speeds, even with negative flaps, the glider
becomes progressively nose heavy requiring significant aft stick
pressure to prevent a steeper dive. If re-trimmed for the higher
speed, slowing down causes increasing tail heaviness. This indicates
that pitch stability becomes divergent under normal flight conditions
which is not what I would expect from a standard category glider.

Bill D - former Lark owner.

[Tony[_5_]]

http://www.memorialsolutions.com/sitemaker/sites/Knesek1/obit.cgi?user=653176Blair#

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 17:15 20 June 2012, Bill D wrote:
>On Jun 20, 10:36=A0am, John Cochrane
>wrote:
>> > > Ramy
>>
>> > Lark manual with scratched in hard to read W&B numbers for that
>particu=
>lar
ship:http://www.clubplaneadoresbari.com.ar/docs/IS28B2_Lark_Manual.pdf
>>
>> > Seems to me that a tail dolly heavy enough to put it out of the aft
>lim=
>it would have to be very heavy.
>>
>> The manual is interesting. P. 7 says the minimum front seat weight is
>> 183 lbs. it also gives 22-47% mac range
>> The chart on the last page--an obvious reference if you're taking
>> light passengers in the front seat -- says 90 lbs in the front seat is
>> ok
>> The calculation on the second to last page says 183 in the front seat
>> is fine at 37%, and 121 in each seat is fine at 39%
>> Why is the placard 183 lbs then?
>> Somebody who knows how much a lark dolly weighs could certainly tell
>> us minimum front seat weight with dolly on given this chart
>> I surely hope we're not replaying this
>onehttp://www.ntsb.gov/aviationque=
>ry/brief.aspx?ev_id=3D20001208X06614
>>
>> John Cochrane
>
>I hope not as well. Both cockpits are well ahead of the aerodynamic
>center so I would expect the CG to be well forward with three souls on
>board. I don't think the tail dolly had much effect in this accident
>as long as it was not unusually heavy. In fact, it may have prevented
>a forward-of-limit CG.
>
>That said, the Twin Lark has some 'interesting' trim/pitch stability
>behaviors. At higher speeds, even with negative flaps, the glider
>becomes progressively nose heavy requiring significant aft stick
>pressure to prevent a steeper dive. If re-trimmed for the higher
>speed, slowing down causes increasing tail heaviness. This indicates
>that pitch stability becomes divergent under normal flight conditions
>which is not what I would expect from a standard category glider.
>
>Bill D - former Lark owner.

Some of the gliders I fly will take a far greater weight of water in the
fin tank than even the heaviest dolly I have seen, getting airborne with
the tail dolly still attached is more embarassing than a danger.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but the NTSB now has a preliminary
synopsis of this accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120618X10736&key=1

One interesting aspect of the accident that I think is worthy of
discussion is this statement:

: As the tow plane and glider accelerated down the runway several
: witnesses noticed that the tail dolly remained attached to the
glider.
: The witnesses immediately advised the glider operations dispatcher,
: who in turn made the radio call “abort, abort, abort”.

Feel free to disagree, but I think that a better approach might have
been to tell the pilot exactly what is known:

"Uh, Lark One Two Three, be advised we have a report your tail dolly
is still on."

That gives the pilot the information they might not have, and leaves
the response to their initiative.

Please note that I am not criticizing. I wasn't there, and I don't
have all the facts. But I do think that this is something that is
worthy of discussion and reflection.

Also, I'm not saying that there isn't ever a situation where an abort
call is the thing to do. A good example of that would be the Clem
Bowman accident at Minden. In that case, the horizontal tailplane fell
off the aircraft right as the towplane was throttling up. In fact,
several people did make radio calls to that effect. Unfortunately, the
calls interfered with each other, and the result was an intelligible
squeal.

A tangential discussion is whether you should even make an advisory
call. I've talked to pilots who have said that they wouldn't even
advise someone that their gear was still retracted on final approach.
The thinking seems to be that the disruption caused by attending to
the gear late in the approach made things more dangerous than the gear-
up landing that would surely otherwise result. Personally, I think I
would generally choose to make that radio call, but would try to do it
in as neutral and informative fashion as possible.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 7/11/2012 2:58 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Sorry to resurrect this thread, but the NTSB now has a preliminary
> synopsis of this accident:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120618X10736&key=1
>
> One interesting aspect of the accident that I think is worthy of
> discussion is this statement:
>
> : As the tow plane and glider accelerated down the runway several
> : witnesses noticed that the tail dolly remained attached to the
> glider.
> : The witnesses immediately advised the glider operations dispatcher,
> : who in turn made the radio call “abort, abort, abort”.
>
> Feel free to disagree, but I think that a better approach might have
> been to tell the pilot exactly what is known:
>
> "Uh, Lark One Two Three, be advised we have a report your tail dolly
> is still on."
>
> That gives the pilot the information they might not have, and leaves
> the response to their initiative.
>
> Please note that I am not criticizing. I wasn't there, and I don't
> have all the facts. But I do think that this is something that is
> worthy of discussion and reflection.

I agree: a) it's worthy of discussion & reflection; b) providing "information"
as distinct from "pure commands" is almost surely "more likely useful" to a
pilot (assuming any message is heard/processed).

FWIW, I remember being distinctly surprised the first time I was in ground
vicinity to "an emergency situation" when someone grabbed a radio and (in a
high alarm tone of voice) radioed something or other about the situation. It
wasn't at all clear to me this was a good thing, for two obvious reasons: 1)
there was no imminent emergency/the glider was in controlled flight and
getting farther away from the ground every second; 2) the radio alarm - while
sensibly intentioned - was (to me) more alarming than the situation it was
intended to mitigate (& thus had potential to be a radio equivalent of Joe
Pilot misinterpreting a low-level rudder waggle from a tuggie). I no longer
even remember WHAT the situation was...but I DO remember my alarm at the
nature (not the intent) of the radio call. Happily, all ended well...

IMO/experience, there are few glider "emergencies" (whether launch or landing)
requiring "instant action" from Joe Pilot in order to avert disaster, and few
of those would likely even be visible to a casual ground observer. (The Clem
Bowman situation is the only one which comes immediately to mind, in fact.
What might be others?)

>
> Also, I'm not saying that there isn't ever a situation where an abort
> call is the thing to do. A good example of that would be the Clem
> Bowman accident at Minden. In that case, the horizontal tailplane fell
> off the aircraft right as the towplane was throttling up. In fact,
> several people did make radio calls to that effect. Unfortunately, the
> calls interfered with each other, and the result was an intelligible
> squeal.
>
> A tangential discussion is whether you should even make an advisory
> call. I've talked to pilots who have said that they wouldn't even
> advise someone that their gear was still retracted on final approach.
> The thinking seems to be that the disruption caused by attending to
> the gear late in the approach made things more dangerous than the gear-
> up landing that would surely otherwise result. Personally, I think I
> would generally choose to make that radio call, but would try to do it
> in as neutral and informative fashion as possible.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

"Know one's audience," probably applies insofar as the desirability (or not)
of making an advisory call. That, and timing. I suspect few pilots would be
able to process and safely act upon an advisory call their gear is up if the
call arrives as the flare is entered, regardless of experience. (And yes, I
know it's been successfully done...) Personally, letting Joe PIC deal with the
consequences of an oversight is likely to be my choice, when I consider the
human reality of the time it takes for a ground observer (me!) to become aware
Joe PIC may be about to forget something desirable (e.g. extending the landing
gear), reaching a radio in a timely fashion, formulating a useful
message/delivering same, in sufficient time for Joe PIC to rectify the
situation safely. Each step requires time...

Bob - YMMV - W.

[BruceGreeff]

Advisory calls are useful in some circumstances - but I advise against a
gear up warning call once the pilot is established on final approach.

Having been the instructor in a situation where a student made a wheels
up approach - and someone overrode my decision - let me share.

We had a low time solo student working on accuracy. His task was to take
a winch launch, make a circuit and land within a set distance of a
reference point adjacent to the runway.

Traffic was a little heavy , and some genius wandered across the runway
as he was on final approach. Distraction happened. I was 50m from the
launch point abeam the reference point observing.

Some students preparing a twin noticed his wheel was up and asked if
they should call. I said no - at worst we were looking at a bit of grass
stain on the belly. They relayed to the launch point.

As he flared the launch marshal suddenly decided that the instructor
should be overruled because a club plane is about to make a wheels up
landing and this can't be right. He made an excited call to the pilot.
Pilot got a fright, left his left hand on the fully deployed airbrakes,
let go of the stick with his right hand to get the gear lever.

I guess I don't need to say the rest, but for information:
A guaranteed minor incident with the major damage being to an ego was
translated into substantial damage with risk of injury:

Big balloon - to about 2m height because the free stick was not trimmed.
Gear lever in the "Down" position but insecurely locked.
Left hand forgotten - so full brakes stay out on a G102.
Hand back on the stick to get the nose attitude right - unfortunately
the glider is no longer actually flying, it is describing a parabola due
to physics not aerodynamics.
First heavy impact on the nose knocked the gear lever off the lock.
Second impact on the wheel destroyed both parts of the cast gear
secondary motion unit.
Third impact and slide took the gear, and doors off and trailed bits
down the runway.

One lucky pilot, he only complained of a sore back. A little more energy
and he would be in a wheelchair.

A few lucky people, if he had put a wingtip in there were lots of people
within range of the missile.

So - from experience. Belly slide is a lot less dangerous. Even if is on
tar, and will result in one of those really expensive white stripes.

If you can make the call early, when the pilot has lots of time, maybe.
If the pilot is competent and you are confident he is attentive, not
dehydrated or distracted, maybe.

The point is - that the fact of the wheel being up, indicates that the
pilot is having difficulty with processing / workload / sequencing. Why
add to the load? Especially when it can go so spectacularly wrong.

Personally, the embarrassment is preferable to the risks.

> squeal.
>
> A tangential discussion is whether you should even make an advisory
> call. I've talked to pilots who have said that they wouldn't even
> advise someone that their gear was still retracted on final approach.
> The thinking seems to be that the disruption caused by attending to
> the gear late in the approach made things more dangerous than the gear-
> up landing that would surely otherwise result. Personally, I think I
> would generally choose to make that radio call, but would try to do it
> in as neutral and informative fashion as possible.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[[email protected]]

Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 22:58:22 UTC+2, Bob Kuykendall a écrit*:
......
> : As the tow plane and glider accelerated down the runway several
> : witnesses noticed that the tail dolly remained attached to the
> glider.
> : The witnesses immediately advised the glider operations dispatcher,
> : who in turn made the radio call “abort, abort, abort”.
> .....
> Feel free to disagree, but I think that a better approach might have
> been to tell the pilot exactly what is known:
> Thanks, Bob K.

We had a similar tail dolly incident some years ago at my club: take-off with the (modified, heavy) tail dolly on a Twin Astir. It turned into an accident when an instructor on the ground noticed this during take-off and radioed to abort. Unfortunately, the pilot did release when already flying and almost at the end of the runway. The sailplane went straight into the opposite bank of the large ditch surrounding the airfield. Result: one pilot seriously wounded, one passenger lightly wounded, the Twin total loss.

Some years before - we had no radio then -, I did fly that sailplane myself with the same tail dolly on (shame on me!), and I never noticed anything out of the ordinary. So I agree: by all means inform the pilot about what is happening, but wait until he has enough altitude to fly the airplane and check the controllability first. A few meters above the ground, you have no options left...

[Bill D]

On Jul 12, 9:21*am, wrote:
> Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 22:58:22 UTC+2, Bob Kuykendall a écrit*:
> .....
>
> > : As the tow plane and glider accelerated down the runway several
> > : witnesses noticed that the tail dolly remained attached to the
> > glider.
> > : The witnesses immediately advised the glider operations dispatcher,
> > : who in turn made the radio call “abort, abort, abort”.
> > .....
> > Feel free to disagree, but I think that a better approach might have
> > been to tell the pilot exactly what is known:
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> We had a similar tail dolly incident some years ago at my club: take-off with the (modified, heavy) tail dolly on a Twin Astir. It turned into an accident when an instructor on the ground noticed this during take-off and radioed to abort. Unfortunately, the pilot did release when already flying and almost at the end of the runway. The sailplane went straight into the opposite bank of the large ditch surrounding the airfield. Result: one pilot seriously wounded, one passenger lightly wounded, the Twin total loss.
>
> Some years before - we had no radio then -, I did fly that sailplane myself with the same tail dolly on (shame on me!), and I never noticed anything out of the ordinary. So I agree: by all means inform the pilot about what is happening, but wait until he has enough altitude to fly the airplane and check the controllability first. A few meters above the ground, you have no options left...

Agreed, a tail dolly doesn't require a panicky radio call.

A few years ago while working at a commercial glider operation, we got
a phone call from someone who had seen our Genesis II happily flying
with the tail dolly on it. The caller didn't want to make a radio
call himself and thoughtfully dropped the problem in our lap. Our
thought process from that point is possibly interesting.

The first thought was the glider is obviously controllable since it
has been in flight for 30 minutes or so with the pilot apparently
unaware of the dolly. We had been suggesting to the pilot he should
add weights to the rear post to move the CG aft for better handling
and climb anyway - the dolly had probably moved the CG just that
amount. We decided there was no urgency.

The second question is should we make the radio call. If we did, what
would we tell him? We discussed the landing and decided the correct
action would be to make a normal landing since the G2 is a nose wheel
glider and the dolly is very unlikely to touch the runway.

We decided the greatest risk was the dolly would fall off the glider
and land on someone. Since the dolly fit securely, we didn't think
this was much of a risk.

We put out word that no one should radio the pilot and just allow him
to make a normal landing. An uneventful landing happened after a
couple of hours. Now it was time to have a little fun at the pilots
expense.

I walked up to the glider with the pilot still in it and still unaware
of the dolly. "How was your flight", I asked. "Great", he said, "It
seemed to handle much better." "Well", I said, "we've been telling
you it would fly better if you moved the CG aft but we'd really prefer
you did it with the internal weights". He looked puzzled, then,
slowly, as he climbed out and saw the dolly, his expression changed to
astonishment and horror. He bought us dinner.

[Squeaky]

Advisory calls are useful in some circumstances - but I advise against a
gear up warning call once the pilot is established on final approach.

Having been the instructor in a situation where a student made a wheels
up approach - and someone overrode my decision - let me share.

We had a low time solo student working on accuracy. His task was to take
a winch launch, make a circuit and land within a set distance of a
reference point adjacent to the runway.

Traffic was a little heavy , and some genius wandered across the runway
as he was on final approach. Distraction happened. I was 50m from the
launch point abeam the reference point observing.

Some students preparing a twin noticed his wheel was up and asked if
they should call. I said no - at worst we were looking at a bit of grass
stain on the belly. They relayed to the launch point.

As he flared the launch marshal suddenly decided that the instructor
should be overruled because a club plane is about to make a wheels up
landing and this can't be right. He made an excited call to the pilot.
Pilot got a fright, left his left hand on the fully deployed airbrakes,
let go of the stick with his right hand to get the gear lever.

I guess I don't need to say the rest, but for information:
A guaranteed minor incident with the major damage being to an ego was
translated into substantial damage with risk of injury:

Big balloon - to about 2m height because the free stick was not trimmed.
Gear lever in the "Down" position but insecurely locked.
Left hand forgotten - so full brakes stay out on a G102.
Hand back on the stick to get the nose attitude right - unfortunately
the glider is no longer actually flying, it is describing a parabola due
to physics not aerodynamics.
First heavy impact on the nose knocked the gear lever off the lock.
Second impact on the wheel destroyed both parts of the cast gear
secondary motion unit.
Third impact and slide took the gear, and doors off and trailed bits
down the runway.

One lucky pilot, he only complained of a sore back. A little more energy
and he would be in a wheelchair.

A few lucky people, if he had put a wingtip in there were lots of people
within range of the missile.

So - from experience. Belly slide is a lot less dangerous. Even if is on
tar, and will result in one of those really expensive white stripes.

If you can make the call early, when the pilot has lots of time, maybe.
If the pilot is competent and you are confident he is attentive, not
dehydrated or distracted, maybe.

The point is - that the fact of the wheel being up, indicates that the
pilot is having difficulty with processing / workload / sequencing. Why
add to the load? Especially when it can go so spectacularly wrong.

Personally, the embarrassment is preferable to the risks.

squeal.

A tangential discussion is whether you should even make an advisory
call. I've talked to pilots who have said that they wouldn't even
advise someone that their gear was still retracted on final approach.
The thinking seems to be that the disruption caused by attending to
the gear late in the approach made things more dangerous than the gear-
up landing that would surely otherwise result. Personally, I think I
would generally choose to make that radio call, but would try to do it
in as neutral and informative fashion as possible.

Thanks, Bob K.


--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

While I agree with your sentiments and those above, after overflying the ODO at thirty feet I received a "glider on Final gear up" call. In my case, being a high hour AF guy, but low hour glider guy, I didn't panic. My aircraft is a Pilatus B4--I released the Airbrakes which collapse in at low to medium speeds (and I knew this), shoved the gear handle full forward and locked down (it's under the Airbrake lever), regrasped the Airbrakes and landed no incident with a nice touch down.

Now the Pilatus is nice in that I never had to take my right hand from the stick, and abrubt airbrake withdrawal adds a little nose up--so I basically leveled off slightly as I lowered the gear, lost about 2-3 knots, and when I puts the boards back out settled nicely back on approach.

I appreciated the save. imho, emergency type calls are good info--IF they are made in normal, non-sphincter tightening, standard comm voice--then they are either processed or ignored. I understand it's sometimes tough depending on the person, but it is the difference between good call and bad call.

Make the call the right way and pilots have a decision. Make it in a paniced, "OMG" type of call and most pilots will feel they have to act to avert disaster (andin a similarly panicked state) as opposed to make a decision.

Just my 2 Cents.

Squeaky

[tstock]

Important to remember who is PIC. I have seen several accident reports where a passenger or person on the ground reports "ABORT! ABORT!" or "RELEASE! RELEASE!". If the aircraft is in control, it is up to the PIC when to release, even in an "emergency"... and at 100ft is not the time to release, especially at my local airfield because you will end up in the trees. If there is truly a problem with the glider, and it does pitch up and stall, you do not want any surprises like this at 100ft! Might as well keep going since you are in control, hopefully to a safe bailout altitude and high enough to buy some time to figure out if the glider can fly or what you need to do to keep it flying. I know if some cool headed chap on the ground reported "Glider XXX your dolly is on, you may have some CG problems", I would definitely climb as high as possible before releasing.

Maybe instructors should suddenly yell RELEASE! RELEASE! at a safe tow altitude to get new pilots thinking about who is PIC?

Wind the clock.
Tom

[Jim[_31_]]

On Sunday, July 15, 2012 11:58:15 PM UTC-4, tstock wrote:
> Important to remember who is PIC. I have seen several accident reports where a passenger or person on the ground reports "ABORT! ABORT!" or "RELEASE! RELEASE!". If the aircraft is in control, it is up to the PIC when to release, even in an "emergency"... and at 100ft is not the time to release, especially at my local airfield because you will end up in the trees. If there is truly a problem with the glider, and it does pitch up and stall, you do not want any surprises like this at 100ft! Might as well keep going since you are in control, hopefully to a safe bailout altitude and high enough to buy some time to figure out if the glider can fly or what you need to do to keep it flying. I know if some cool headed chap on the ground reported "Glider XXX your dolly is on, you may have some CG problems", I would definitely climb as high as possible before releasing.
>
> Maybe instructors should suddenly yell RELEASE! RELEASE! at a safe tow altitude to get new pilots thinking about who is PIC?
>
> Wind the clock.
> Tom

If I suspected CG problems I'd prefer to not release but go around and land with the towplane. No?

[noel.wade]

On Jul 16, 6:41*am, Jim > wrote:

> If I suspected CG problems I'd prefer to not release but go around and land with the towplane. No?

Jim - On tow sometime, try asking the towplane to enter a shallow
descent for 15-30 seconds. Do it near the airfield because I'm
guessing you'll release once you realize you're overrunning the
towplane at a pretty rapid rate. The way to stop the overrrun is to
deploy spoilers and/or slip the aircraft. But if you're concerned
about controlability do you really want to do either?

I'm not advocating any single course of action as the "correct" way to
deal with the situation, but trying to land with the towplane is a
tricky maneuver - and not just during the flare but throughout the
whole pattern & descent. If you haven't done it a bunch before, I
don't think you want to be "learning" in a real emergency. :-P

Take care,

--Noel

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 16, 12:10*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 6:41*am, Jim > wrote:
>
> > If I suspected CG problems I'd prefer to not release but go around and land with the towplane. No?
>
> Jim - On tow sometime, try asking the towplane to enter a shallow
> descent for 15-30 seconds. *Do it near the airfield because I'm
> guessing you'll release once you realize you're overrunning the
> towplane at a pretty rapid rate.

Descent/landing on tow used to be taught in UK but I don't know if it
still is now. It's actaully quite easy to execute and I'd have no
hesitation landing on tow if some unusual circumstance demanded it.

Andy