TA

[Gary Adams]

Did my soul good to see and talk to Frank Paynter last night at the gliderport (CCSC). Walking 'just' a little slow but none the worst for wear!

Gary 'GB'

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 8:52:04 AM UTC-6, Gary Adams wrote:
> Did my soul good to see and talk to Frank Paynter last night at the gliderport (CCSC). Walking 'just' a little slow but none the worst for wear!
>
>
>
> Gary 'GB'

Gary, when you see TA again tell him that all of us here at Moriarty are glad he is OK - and hope he gets back on that horse again soon!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

So glad Frank got off "easy" - as in practically uninjured.

I have a question about the glider and hope he or someone with whom he's
spoken can shed some light: What about the glider?

We were told on this site that he immediately left for home. What about the
wreckage? Was that abandoned on the mountain side? Did he return with a
trailer and a gang of people and remove the wreck? Is the FAA somehow
involved?

When my former partner crashed our LS-6 many years ago, he wasn't so
fortunate as to walk away. He left the scene by helicopter and spent many
months in rehab. I called the FAA after he was taken to the hospital and
gave them the story and then got some help and loaded the wreckage into the
trailer and headed for home (we were on safari). I learned that the
officials were "annoyed" that I took the wreck before they could examine it,
but I witnessed the crash and gave them the full story. There was nothing
wrong with the glider that caused the crash. It was a low altitude
stall/spin.

I'm just curious about how the wreckage of TA was handled. The glider can
be replaced, Frank couldn't be. Again - I'm so glad he made it home safely.

Dan


"Gary Adams" > wrote in message
...
> Did my soul good to see and talk to Frank Paynter last night at the
> gliderport (CCSC). Walking 'just' a little slow but none the worst for
> wear!
>
> Gary 'GB'

[mike]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:42:31 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> So glad Frank got off "easy" - as in practically uninjured.
>
>
>
> I have a question about the glider and hope he or someone with whom he's
>
> spoken can shed some light: What about the glider?
>
>
>
> We were told on this site that he immediately left for home. What about the
>
> wreckage? Was that abandoned on the mountain side? Did he return with a
>
> trailer and a gang of people and remove the wreck? Is the FAA somehow
>
> involved?
>
>
>
> When my former partner crashed our LS-6 many years ago, he wasn't so
>
> fortunate as to walk away. He left the scene by helicopter and spent many
>
> months in rehab. I called the FAA after he was taken to the hospital and
>
> gave them the story and then got some help and loaded the wreckage into the
>
> trailer and headed for home (we were on safari). I learned that the
>
> officials were "annoyed" that I took the wreck before they could examine it,
>
> but I witnessed the crash and gave them the full story. There was nothing
>
> wrong with the glider that caused the crash. It was a low altitude
>
> stall/spin.
>
>
>
> I'm just curious about how the wreckage of TA was handled. The glider can
>
> be replaced, Frank couldn't be. Again - I'm so glad he made it home safely.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gary Adams" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Did my soul good to see and talk to Frank Paynter last night at the
>
> > gliderport (CCSC). Walking 'just' a little slow but none the worst for
>
> > wear!
>
> >
>
> > Gary 'GB'

Think its the insurance companies problem as far as the retrieve and storage of the glider.

[Gary Adams]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 8:52:04 AM UTC-6, Gary Adams wrote:
>
> > Did my soul good to see and talk to Frank Paynter last night at the gliderport (CCSC). Walking 'just' a little slow but none the worst for wear!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Gary 'GB'
>
>
>
> Gary, when you see TA again tell him that all of us here at Moriarty are glad he is OK - and hope he gets back on that horse again soon!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

I'll see him again in the morning and will pass that along. We had a chance to talk a little more today and I'm sure in a week or two (if not sooner) he'll fill everybody in....I don't feel it's my place to speak for him re: the plane and it's recovery.

Gary 'GB'

[Bob Kuykendall]

I just read Frank's post-accident report on Soaring Cafe. By and large, I'm impressed with the preparations and clear rational thinking that he applied to effect his self-rescue.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Sean F (F2)]

Though accidents are awful, Frank has essentially set the standard to how pilots should communicate with fellow pilots and debrief us objectively on the circumstance so that we all have a chance to avoid the same mistakes in the future...

Bravo Frank. Courageous and thank you!

[waremark]

Frank was amazingly well equipped for such an eventuality and his management of the situation after the crash was excellent. However, there are a couple of aspects not present in his analysis which I might have expected to see, and discussion of which may help keep others of us safer in future.

In preparation for a flight over unfamiliar territory, I would have expected to ask for a local briefing, of which there is no mention. If the flight was over hostile territory, I might have looked at marked landout options on Google Earth. Either of these just might have told him something relevant about the airstrip which he failed to find.

Then there is no discussion about the handling which resulted in the crash. He could have been in comfortable glide of a safe airfield and still have crashed in the same way. I think this is about the caution with which it is appropriate to make an initial approach to an unfamiliar ridge - speed, angle of approach, degree of closeness all come into this. Pilots with more experience than me in mountain flying will be more competent to comment here..

[Brad Alston]

Just finished reading TA's Soaring Cafe account of his crash experience.

First, and well ahead of everything else, I would like to add my sentiments to others that express relief that the pilot survived in good shape; we are blessed to have this experienced pilot still with us.

Second, I do not know TA, other than through reading his posts on Soaring Cafe, but wish him well is his recovery from the accident and hope to read more from him in the future as he re-mounts and gives us more first-hand accounts from the cockpit.

Third, just a big thank you to TA for his offering us a look into this accident from which we can learn. I am one who will never second guess someone else in a circumstance like this one...because it was not I who was there. Nor am I much of a cross-country sailplane pilot...yet. I am grateful to TA for conveying not only the fact buts also the thoughts and feelings of this flight and its unfortunate termination. There is much to learn from this event and I hope any discussion of the flight and crash will be with the spirit of learning and not of blame or fault finding.

Hats off to TA for his sharing such a detailed account of this personal event. And, he reads this post...TA glad you're home safe!

[Brad Alston]

Just finished reading TA's Soaring Cafe account of his crash experience.

First, and well ahead of everything else, I would like to add my sentiments to others that express relief that the pilot survived in good shape; we are blessed to have this experienced pilot still with us.

Second, I do not know TA, other than through reading his posts on Soaring Cafe, but wish him well is his recovery from the accident and hope to read more from him in the future as he re-mounts and gives us more first-hand accounts from the cockpit.

Third, just a big thank you to TA for his offering us a look into this accident from which we can learn. I am one who will never second guess someone else in a circumstance like this one...because it was not I who was there. Nor am I much of a cross-country sailplane pilot...yet. I am grateful to TA for conveying not only the fact buts also the thoughts and feelings of this flight and its unfortunate termination. There is much to learn from this event and I hope any discussion of the flight and crash will be with the spirit of learning and not of blame or fault finding.

Hats off to TA for his sharing such a detailed account of this personal event. And, he reads this post...thank you TA, glad you're home safe!

[Ramy]

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:31:13 PM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> Frank was amazingly well equipped for such an eventuality and his management of the situation after the crash was excellent. However, there are a couple of aspects not present in his analysis which I might have expected to see, and discussion of which may help keep others of us safer in future.
>
>
>
> In preparation for a flight over unfamiliar territory, I would have expected to ask for a local briefing, of which there is no mention. If the flight was over hostile territory, I might have looked at marked landout options on Google Earth. Either of these just might have told him something relevant about the airstrip which he failed to find.
>
>
>
> Then there is no discussion about the handling which resulted in the crash. He could have been in comfortable glide of a safe airfield and still have crashed in the same way. I think this is about the caution with which it is appropriate to make an initial approach to an unfamiliar ridge - speed, angle of approach, degree of closeness all come into this. Pilots with more experience than me in mountain flying will be more competent to comment here.

My thoughts exactly. His writeup is excellent and very helpful and cover all aspects of what happened *except* the crash itself. There is only one line describing it. Surely we cant blame the 20 knots wind for the crash, nor did he apparently tried to circle in it or turned into the ridge, from what he described he did the right thing by initiating S turns so I am puzzled what cause the actual crash? This is important to understand since there were quiet a few fatal accidents when experienced pilots flew into the mountain, at least this time thankfully we can learn some valuable lesson. From the write up it sounds like he believes being over unlandable terrain contributed to the accident, but I dont see the connection unless he believes the stress impaired his judgment.

Ramy

[kirk.stant]

As others have mentioned, TA had given us an excellent account of his accident and rescue. In particular, his actions after the crash should be studied by all of us who fly in similar terrain and could be subject to the same situation. I, for example, need to rethink my SPOT installation and my survival gear, neither of which would have provided nearly the same level of help that TA's did.

But what I immediately noticed in TA's account of the flight up to the crash was his apparent "comfort" at altitudes above the terrain that those of us who fly out west would consider really scary. I flew the same task on the same day as TA and it was a weak day - I didn't even try to go down to the last turn area (having started late) and barely avoided a landout on the way back to Moriarty - digging out from 1300 agl over Estancia - a nice little airstrip which already had a glider on it). Looking at my trace, I worked really hard to stay at least 3000' agl, and below that went into survival mode - because in my experience in Arizona, if you are that low you are just about to land somewhere unless you get really serious about digging out, and better have a good place to land within easy reach.

Having also flown a bit in eastern and midwest conditions, I understand how one can get used to working a lower lift band - often you have to work down to 2000 agl or lower to get anywhere, and with fields available and thermals weaker but more frequent, can afford to push lower with the expectation of finding something. That just isn't going to work out west!

Thank-you to TA for sharing his experiences with us, and I hope he gets back into the game again soon - after all, isn't walking away from a broken glider the first step to getting a better one?

Kirk
66

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:26:16 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>>from what he described he did the right thing by initiating S turns so I am puzzled what cause the actual crash? <<

From TA's article:
" ...Unfortunately, as I completed the turn with my right wing *****parallel***** to the mountain, I discovered that I was being pushed right into the mountain, and almost immediately hit two very tall pine trees..."

By my understanding of a correctly executed S-turn, the right wing would never be PARALLEL to the face of the mountain (the ridge). If I understand what Frank is trying to say, he intended to turn 225 degrees to execute the first half of a classic S-turn, but the glider turned 270 degrees and thus lost the advantages of a classic S-turn (whereby the glider approaches the ridge 45 degrees from perpendicular thus allowing more time, and requiring less time, to turn away from the ridge.)

[Andy[_1_]]

I don't understand why anyone would even consider an "S" turn to be appropriate. All turns should be *away* from the ridge. The only safe way I know to attempt to thermal off a ridge below ridge top is to fly "figure eight" turns. This never points you at the ridge at a steep angle.

I just didn't understand the accident report when I read it first. A figure 8 turn puts the wings parallel to the ridge twice every complete turn but the glider is headed *away* from the ridge each time and NEVER towards it.

Andy

[Dan Marotta]

To comment on a couple of previous posts:

I believe TA simply misspoke when he said "S" turns and that he was actually
describing a figure 8, the proper procedure. Gallinas Peak does not have a
very steep slope, however, and having a wing tip close enough to ridge soar
does not yield much altitude AGL. Any loss of altitude could easily put you
into the trees.

I agree with the comment about his apparent comfort with low altitudes AGL
and having faith that that strip would be where the GPS said it would be. I
started soaring in the Dallas area and, like most midwest pilots, was used
to flying low because there was always a handy field to drop into. Not so
here!

As to asking for a local briefing: We currently have three pilots from
North Carolina flying with us. Shortly after their arrival, they came to me
with a sectional chart and asked me to point out all the landable fields in
the area. I did the same shortly after arriving in Moriarty when I saw that
I couldn't find several of the fields called out in my turn point database.
There are some that I *still* can't find...

Frank's narrative of his experience post crash was straight out of Air Force
survival school. It appears to me that he was well prepared, innovative
with the use of his Spot, and did everything else right. Job well done, and
glad he's still with us.


"Andy" > wrote in message
...
I don't understand why anyone would even consider an "S" turn to be
appropriate. All turns should be *away* from the ridge. The only safe way
I know to attempt to thermal off a ridge below ridge top is to fly "figure
eight" turns. This never points you at the ridge at a steep angle.

I just didn't understand the accident report when I read it first. A figure
8 turn puts the wings parallel to the ridge twice every complete turn but
the glider is headed *away* from the ridge each time and NEVER towards it.

Andy

[jfitch]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:54:38 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
> As others have mentioned, TA had given us an excellent account of his accident and rescue. In particular, his actions after the crash should be studied by all of us who fly in similar terrain and could be subject to the same situation. I, for example, need to rethink my SPOT installation and my survival gear, neither of which would have provided nearly the same level of help that TA's did.
>
>
>
> But what I immediately noticed in TA's account of the flight up to the crash was his apparent "comfort" at altitudes above the terrain that those of us who fly out west would consider really scary. I flew the same task on the same day as TA and it was a weak day - I didn't even try to go down to the last turn area (having started late) and barely avoided a landout on the way back to Moriarty - digging out from 1300 agl over Estancia - a nice little airstrip which already had a glider on it). Looking at my trace, I worked really hard to stay at least 3000' agl, and below that went into survival mode - because in my experience in Arizona, if you are that low you are just about to land somewhere unless you get really serious about digging out, and better have a good place to land within easy reach.
>
>
>
> Having also flown a bit in eastern and midwest conditions, I understand how one can get used to working a lower lift band - often you have to work down to 2000 agl or lower to get anywhere, and with fields available and thermals weaker but more frequent, can afford to push lower with the expectation of finding something. That just isn't going to work out west!
>
>
>
> Thank-you to TA for sharing his experiences with us, and I hope he gets back into the game again soon - after all, isn't walking away from a broken glider the first step to getting a better one?
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

I also think (after reading the narrative) that the willingness to work at very low AGLs is a main proximate cause. I am unfamiliar with Moriarty, but quite familiar with high western desert flying, and I will assume that Moriarty is similar. Where I fly, at 1500 ft over the valleys your soaring day is done, and you should be in the pattern of a known good airport. In fact even 3000 or 4000 ft over the valleys and you should be looking for a place to land, as you are below the ridges where the lift is likely to be and might be 20 miles from the nearest landing site. I understand this might be quite different in the flat east. He writes:

"I have an absolute rule about never doing a dead glide to an airport that I have not personally inspected unless I sufficient altitude to get to the airport location at least 1000’ agl. This gives me time to find the airport if it isn’t exactly where the database says it is, and to pick an alternate landing field if the airport can’t be found."

In the western desert, you do not arrive 1000' AGL at an unknown field and expect to find another landing site nearby. There may not be another one for 30 miles. Many airstrips, dirt roads, and highways are also not suitable to land as they were created by pushing a berm up to the sides higher that a glider's wings. Some remote highways have pickets for snow removal or drug interdiction. Desert sage brush is not hospitable to glider landings, and often conceals very rocky and uneven ground. Dry lakes are a better choice but can have their own problems.

I am also uncomfortable with flying close to (and below) an unknown ridge in gusty 17 - 20 knot conditions in the mountains.

I do applaud TA for being open about his experiences, it helps us all.

[Greg Arnold]

On 6/24/2013 4:13 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:26:16 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
>> >from what he described he did the right thing by initiating S turns so I am puzzled what cause the actual crash? <<
>
> From TA's article:
> " ...Unfortunately, as I completed the turn with my right wing *****parallel***** to the mountain, I discovered that I was being pushed right into the mountain, and almost immediately hit two very tall pine trees..."
>
> By my understanding of a correctly executed S-turn, the right wing would never be PARALLEL to the face of the mountain (the ridge). If I understand what Frank is trying to say, he intended to turn 225 degrees to execute the first half of a classic S-turn, but the glider turned 270 degrees and thus lost the advantages of a classic S-turn (whereby the glider approaches the ridge 45 degrees from perpendicular thus allowing more time, and requiring less time, to turn away from the ridge.)
>
>

I think he means he was in, for example, a 30 degree bank away from the
mountain, and the mountain at that point had a 30 degree slope. That is
what he means by "parallel."

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:10:02 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I believe TA simply misspoke when he said "S" turns and that he was actually
> describing a figure 8, the proper procedure.

I assumed that TA intended to execute a figure 8 and then accidentally executed (half of) an S turn.

I've heard S-turn and figure-8-turn used interchangeably (and incorrectly) by glider-only pilots (myself included), but of course they different geometries, and yes, a true S-turn is incorrect on a ridge.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:45:02 AM UTC-4, Andy wrote:
>A figure 8 turn puts the wings parallel to the ridge twice every complete turn but the glider is headed *away* from the ridge each time and NEVER towards it.<

An incorrectly executed figure-8-turn (turn 45 degrees too far) becomes an S-turn and will result in the glider wings being parallel to the ridge (and the glider pointed towards the ridge). I don't know what TA did, but I could certainly make that mistake, especially if I was tired and stressed.

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:24:16 PM UTC-4, Greg Arnold wrote:

> I think he means he was in, for example, a 30 degree bank away from the
> mountain, and the mountain at that point had a 30 degree slope. That is
> what he means by "parallel."

Perhaps TA will clarify at some appropriate time and place.

[waremark]

Perhaps experienced mountain pilots would write about how they would approach an unfamiliar ridge below the top in gusty conditions. I wonder about angle of approach, speed, when you would pull up, how close you would get on the first approach, etc.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:25:18 AM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
> Perhaps experienced mountain pilots would write about how they would approach an unfamiliar ridge below the top in gusty conditions. I wonder about angle of approach, speed, when you would pull up, how close you would get on the first approach, etc.

Google >>> Don't smack the mountain-101<<< and click on DG Flugzeugbau to read my take on 5 unexplained mountain accidents. I also misused the S turn term, when I meant figure 8.
Cheers,
JJ

[BobW]

On 6/25/2013 1:25 AM, waremark wrote:
> Perhaps experienced mountain pilots would write about how they would
> approach an unfamiliar ridge below the top in gusty conditions. I wonder
> about angle of approach, speed, when you would pull up, how close you would
> get on the first approach, etc.
>

My intermountain west close-to-the-rocks (USA) education began along the
"Flatirons" immediately west of Boulder (CO), and the early part of it was
from above the ridge, as distinct from equal to/below the top. All of it was
tentative, and always with the obvious dump-out away from the ridge to regain
clearance from it.

Over time, and flying from different sites and to different areas, I began to
encounter the need to approach new ridges from below peak/ridge top levels.
"Cautiously" was key.

If on tow - meaning, without previous "local air experiences" other than the
tow itself - I was mentally primed to pull the plug and implement my escape
plan if the tug encountered anything seriously worrisome to me. I considered
myself cowardly, but with the tenacity of someone wishing/needing to soar
until the day quit.

Presuming I hung on until I felt I could remain aloft, I'd sidle (at a shallow
approach angle) toward/along the ridge seeking a feel for conditions, winds,
upwellings, possible thermals, etc., with extra speed in hand for good aileron
control and as guard against wind shear from strong, narrow thermals (not
uncommon below [steep] ridge top on any thermic day). The shallow approach
angle reduced the "turn-away angle" required for escape and simultaneously
provides some feel for the horizontal depth of the micro-convective field of
the ridge.

Did the same thing when approaching ridges on XC's, in which cases I was
usually more interested in bumping along - as distinct from rolling into a
(usually tiny-cored) thermal - until I could bump my way to atop the ridge in
straight flight, or, the end of it forced a turn-around for a pass in the
opposite direction. Multiple passes were commonly needed before I either got
high enough to tap into thermals disconnecting from the spine, or a
"sufficiently large/strong thermal in a suitably benign locale" warranted
thermalling below ridgetop. Success wasn't a given, of course.

As to closeness to the ridge, the more thermic the day/time, the farther away
(contrasted, say, to evening conditions) my initial passes would be. "Sticking
a wingtip into the rocks" wasn't anything I'd do on strongly thermic days,
because of risk and lack of potential rewards (in my assessment) in the
Colorado/New Mexico mountains. If "bumping along with cautious acceptable
clearance" didn't work, there likely weren't sufficiently organized
"squirters" closer to the rocks.

When above the ridge spine, but "vertically close to it" (in my estimation) I
was prepared/primed to thermal to an altitude permitting straight ahead
cruising or whatever circumstances suggested was in my future. That said, I
never "mentally relaxed" (with respect to the dangers posed by hitting the
rocks) until sufficient clearance was in hand to "no-brainerly recover" from
an upset.

Prolixly/YMMV,
Bob W.

[Mike the Strike]

I fly a lot further away from rocks than I used to after a couple of sobering experiences with thermals. In thirty years of soaring, I've had a couple of frights, but a few years ago I got unceremoniously tossed out of the side of a thermal. I apparently flew into the rolling outflow that was strong enough to kill all my air speed (my yaw string reversed!) and my glider fell out of the sky until I gained enough airspeed to recover. That took several hundred feet of altitude and if I'd been close to a ridge I would have been eating rocks.

I should perhaps also mention that, after flying at Logan contest for the first time, a couple of experienced pilots decided that the close ridge flying was too risky and they packed up and left. I wasn't too thrilled to have pine needles tickling the belly of my glider either!

The short answer to the poster who asked what our approach to ridge flying is in the west is that most of us don't do it. With all the strong conditions we have, why push your luck on a weak day?

Mike

Mike

[John Galloway[_1_]]

There is an excellent guide to safety in mountain flying
published by the CNVV at Saint-Auban.

http://www.cnvv.net/Programme_fr_CNVV2012/stage/theoriqu
e/presentation.pdf/Securit%C3%A9volVSANGLAISE%20ULTIME
%20BD.pdf

John Galloway



At 13:46 25 June 2013, Mike the Strike wrote:
>I fly a lot further away from rocks than I used to after a couple
of
>soberi=
>ng experiences with thermals. In thirty years of soaring, I've
had a
>coupl=
>e of frights, but a few years ago I got unceremoniously tossed
out of the
>s=
>ide of a thermal. I apparently flew into the rolling outflow that
was
>stro=
>ng enough to kill all my air speed (my yaw string reversed!)
and my glider
>=
>fell out of the sky until I gained enough airspeed to recover.
That took
>s=
>everal hundred feet of altitude and if I'd been close to a ridge
I would
>ha=
>ve been eating rocks.
>
>I should perhaps also mention that, after flying at Logan
contest for the
>f=
>irst time, a couple of experienced pilots decided that the close
ridge
>flyi=
>ng was too risky and they packed up and left. I wasn't too
thrilled to
>hav=
>e pine needles tickling the belly of my glider either!
>
>The short answer to the poster who asked what our approach
to ridge flying
>=
>is in the west is that most of us don't do it. With all the strong
>conditi=
>ons we have, why push your luck on a weak day?
>
>Mike
>
>Mike
>

[John Galloway[_1_]]

There is an excellent guide to safety in mountain flying
published by the CNVV at Saint-Auban.

http://www.cnvv.net/Programme_fr_CNVV2012/stage/theoriqu
e/presentation.pdf/Securit%C3%A9volVSANGLAISE%20ULTIME
%20BD.pdf

John Galloway



At 13:46 25 June 2013, Mike the Strike wrote:
>I fly a lot further away from rocks than I used to after a couple
of
>soberi=
>ng experiences with thermals. In thirty years of soaring, I've
had a
>coupl=
>e of frights, but a few years ago I got unceremoniously tossed
out of the
>s=
>ide of a thermal. I apparently flew into the rolling outflow that
was
>stro=
>ng enough to kill all my air speed (my yaw string reversed!)
and my glider
>=
>fell out of the sky until I gained enough airspeed to recover.
That took
>s=
>everal hundred feet of altitude and if I'd been close to a ridge
I would
>ha=
>ve been eating rocks.
>
>I should perhaps also mention that, after flying at Logan
contest for the
>f=
>irst time, a couple of experienced pilots decided that the close
ridge
>flyi=
>ng was too risky and they packed up and left. I wasn't too
thrilled to
>hav=
>e pine needles tickling the belly of my glider either!
>
>The short answer to the poster who asked what our approach
to ridge flying
>=
>is in the west is that most of us don't do it. With all the strong
>conditi=
>ons we have, why push your luck on a weak day?
>
>Mike
>
>Mike
>

[John Galloway[_1_]]

There is an excellent guide to safety in mountain flying
published by the CNVV at Saint-Auban.

http://www.cnvv.net/Programme_fr_CNVV2012/stage/theoriqu
e/presentation.pdf/Securit%C3%A9volVSANGLAISE%20ULTIME
%20BD.pdf

John Galloway



At 13:46 25 June 2013, Mike the Strike wrote:
>I fly a lot further away from rocks than I used to after a couple
of
>soberi=
>ng experiences with thermals. In thirty years of soaring, I've
had a
>coupl=
>e of frights, but a few years ago I got unceremoniously tossed
out of the
>s=
>ide of a thermal. I apparently flew into the rolling outflow that
was
>stro=
>ng enough to kill all my air speed (my yaw string reversed!)
and my glider
>=
>fell out of the sky until I gained enough airspeed to recover.
That took
>s=
>everal hundred feet of altitude and if I'd been close to a ridge
I would
>ha=
>ve been eating rocks.
>
>I should perhaps also mention that, after flying at Logan
contest for the
>f=
>irst time, a couple of experienced pilots decided that the close
ridge
>flyi=
>ng was too risky and they packed up and left. I wasn't too
thrilled to
>hav=
>e pine needles tickling the belly of my glider either!
>
>The short answer to the poster who asked what our approach
to ridge flying
>=
>is in the west is that most of us don't do it. With all the strong
>conditi=
>ons we have, why push your luck on a weak day?
>
>Mike
>
>Mike
>