2009 Lawsuit

[[email protected]]

Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?

Rick Lake

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 8:31:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
>
>
> Rick Lake

Below is a copy of the court. Below that is a link which you will need to scroll down several before you get this.

Bar News - April 13, 2012.
The plaintiffs brought suit against the German manufacturer of a glider and the manufacturer’s distributor in this country after Timothy Donovan was killed when the glider crashed. The distributor, located in Ohio, moved to dismiss the claims due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs asserted specific personal jurisdiction based on Donovan’s residence in New Hampshire and Donovan’s dealings, from New Hampshire, with the distributor and the manufacturer. The court granted the motion, concluding that the distributor’s contacts with New Hampshire were insufficient to support specific jurisdiction for purposes of the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and negligence claims. 10 pp. Judge Paul Barbadoro.

http://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-news-issue.asp?id=6374

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 10:31:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Not looking to open old wounds. One question. Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful? Rick Lake

The case has been settled.
UH

[Kevin Christner]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 10:31:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
>
>
> Rick Lake

Tom Kelley posted a link to some court proceedings that appears to have been deleted by google groups (i.e. someone clicking "abusive post.")

Per the court proceedings I found the contentions were:

1) The wing main pins were defective and were rusting (two sets)
2) The plane enters an unrecoverable spiral dive after entering a spin (problem with all ships of model)

Can any ASG-29 drivers comment?

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:03:17 AM UTC-7, Kevin Christner wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 10:31:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> >
>
> > Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rick Lake
>
>
>
> Tom Kelley posted a link to some court proceedings that appears to have been deleted by google groups (i.e. someone clicking "abusive post.")
>
>
>
> Per the court proceedings I found the contentions were:
>
>
>
> 1) The wing main pins were defective and were rusting (two sets)
>
> 2) The plane enters an unrecoverable spiral dive after entering a spin (problem with all ships of model)
>
>
>
> Can any ASG-29 drivers comment?

Here is the link again. Its the 11th one down when you scroll. Also, the complete courts response...again.

The 2 points posted are from the plaintiff's case trying to get the court to even hear the case. It might be best to say its not what the court ruled on.

UH also posted its been settled.

http://www.nhbar.org/publications/archives/display-news-issue.asp?id=6374


PERSONAL JURISDICTION
3/15/12
Michael Slocum, Executor of the Estate of Timothy Donovan and Cathy Carter v. Alexander Schleicher, GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau, et al.
Case No. 11-cv-317-PB, Opinion No. 2012 DNH 055

The plaintiffs brought suit against the German manufacturer of a glider and the manufacturer’s distributor in this country after Timothy Donovan was killed when the glider crashed. The distributor, located in Ohio, moved to dismiss the claims due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs asserted specific personal jurisdiction based on Donovan’s residence in New Hampshire and Donovan’s dealings, from New Hampshire, with the distributor and the manufacturer. The court granted the motion, concluding that the distributor’s contacts with New Hampshire were insufficient to support specific jurisdiction for purposes of the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and negligence claims. 10 pp. Judge Paul Barbadoro.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:03:17 AM UTC-7, Kevin Christner wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 10:31:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> >
>
> > Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rick Lake
>
>
>
> Tom Kelley posted a link to some court proceedings that appears to have been deleted by google groups (i.e. someone clicking "abusive post.")
>
>
>
> Per the court proceedings I found the contentions were:
>
>
>
> 1) The wing main pins were defective and were rusting (two sets)
>
> 2) The plane enters an unrecoverable spiral dive after entering a spin (problem with all ships of model)
>
>
>
> Can any ASG-29 drivers comment?

My first post I deleted because of my typing skills. #711.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Here's the accident synopsis on the NTSB website:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090629X04921&key=1

And the full narrative of the synopsis:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20090629X04921&ntsbno=WPR09LA318&akey=1

The toxicology results are declared inconclusive, but depict an individual who probably should not have self-certified themself as fit to fly. The failure to recognize and recover from a spiral dive (roll first, then pull) also suggests an impaired individual.

We can argue till the cows come home how safe soaring really is, but the statistics clearly show that it is not as safe as more common activities such as driving or riding in a car. I think that we should be honest about that among ourselves, and that it should be generally understood that when we partake of this activity, we do it knowing what we are getting into.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:28:54 AM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
>...
> UH also posted its been settled.

The way I read those filings, the motion to dismiss means that Murray and Eastern Sailplane are no longer part of the lawsuit. However, it appears to me from this and other filings that the case is still pending against Alexander Schleicher. Which, if true, sucks.

Thanks, Bob K.

[darrylr]

As UH said the case has been dismissed.

Settled out of court, and parties filed for dismissal.

US District Court District of New Hampshire Case 1:11-cv-00317-PB dismissed August 9, 2013.

While utterly tragic somebody died, the claims here were just silly. I hope the (confidential) settlement was small.

[[email protected]]

Some things about this accident just don't add up.

What's with unintentional spin entries while thermaling? This pilot reported one earlier in the contest, had apparently had continuing problems with it, and of course it was what led to the accident.

I have about 1,000 hours in my ASW 27. Unintentional spin entries = 0. Unintentional stalls = 0. I keep my CG at 85% back. Even wild horsing around on the controls during normal contest thermaling -- especially at Ephrata where you're thermaling fast and tight -- doesn't produce a spin entry. Was there something mis rigged with this glider, or CG out of whack? We may never know, but many unintentional spin entries is very, very unusual in properly rigged and CG ASW gliders.

What's the business about main pins? What did main pins even remotely have to do with this accident? The complaint references something about main pins rusting and being replaced. WTF? OK, I've seen some surface rust on some main pins, but nothing that remotely comes close to a structural issue. Is there an allegation the pins came out on their own?

Without rehashing things, these seem like two potential maintenance/inspection issues that Schleicher owners ought to be aware of.

John Cochrane

[Boise Pilot]

Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.





On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:00:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Some things about this accident just don't add up.
>
>
>
> What's with unintentional spin entries while thermaling? This pilot reported one earlier in the contest, had apparently had continuing problems with it, and of course it was what led to the accident.
>
>
>
> I have about 1,000 hours in my ASW 27. Unintentional spin entries = 0. Unintentional stalls = 0. I keep my CG at 85% back. Even wild horsing around on the controls during normal contest thermaling -- especially at Ephrata where you're thermaling fast and tight -- doesn't produce a spin entry. Was there something mis rigged with this glider, or CG out of whack? We may never know, but many unintentional spin entries is very, very unusual in properly rigged and CG ASW gliders.
>
>
>
> What's the business about main pins? What did main pins even remotely have to do with this accident? The complaint references something about main pins rusting and being replaced. WTF? OK, I've seen some surface rust on some main pins, but nothing that remotely comes close to a structural issue. Is there an allegation the pins came out on their own?
>
>
>
> Without rehashing things, these seem like two potential maintenance/inspection issues that Schleicher owners ought to be aware of.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:00:40 AM UTC-8, wrote:

> I have about 1,000 hours in my ASW 27. Unintentional spin entries = 0. Unintentional stalls = 0. I keep my CG at 85% back. Even wild horsing around on the controls during normal contest thermaling -- especially at Ephrata where you're thermaling fast and tight -- doesn't produce a spin entry. Was there something mis rigged with this glider, or CG out of whack? We may never know, but many unintentional spin entries is very, very unusual in properly rigged and CG ASW gliders.

I have no personal experience in the matter, but I can imagine that an extra three meters of span (among other modifications) might make a substantial difference in the spin characteristics. But, yeah, both the spin and spiral dive that followed seem uncharacteristic.

> What's the business about main pins? What did main pins even remotely have to do with this accident? The complaint references something about main pins rusting and being replaced. WTF? OK, I've seen some surface rust on some main pins, but nothing that remotely comes close to a structural issue. Is there an allegation the pins came out on their own?

The NTSB synopsis makes it pretty clear that the pins were not an issue at all, and the plaintiff's assertion that they were defective was just another piece of slimy legalistic maneuvering.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:11:56 AM UTC-8, darrylr wrote:
> As UH said the case has been dismissed...

> ...While utterly tragic somebody died, the claims here were just silly. I hope the (confidential) settlement was small.

Thanks, Darryl! I hadn't found that last bit of paperwork.

Bob K.

[Soartech]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:47:53 AM UTC-5, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.

I knew Tim and he was a skilled machinist who worked his way up to owning his own company (which is why he could buy such nice toys). He was also a pilot for many years. He started in hang gliding, got into power planes, flew and owned his own twin engine and one or two sailplanes previous to the ASG 18 meter.
I would think he understood that the CG must be measured with the fuselage at a certain angle. It sounds like this particular ship may have had something wrong with it CG-wise.

[darrylr]

On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:47:53 AM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.


Well that is depressing.

It is tragic when anybody is killed in an aviation accident, but it is more tragic to not work to understand what exactly happened and try to use that information to reduce future accidents. The NTSB report is also just depressing in what it does not try to investigate, it is just a statement of the bleeding obvious "The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the glider during flight and his exceedance of the glider’s design limits during an attempted recovery from a spin.". Well Duh. It does not discuss anything useful to do with W&B, pilot spin training or experience, etc. It does not even state whether the glider was water ballasted on the accident flight.

The only W&B related thing that was mentioned was "The left wing ballast plug was in place and the drain hole tape was still secure." and "The right wing ballast plug and drain were not identified" which does not tell you much, unless you know the glider was ballasted before flight (if it was it likely shows it was still ballasted at the time of the accident or of water had been dumped it might raise the remote possibility that water had been dumped asymmetrically since one drain hole and plug was not recovered).

I would have *hoped* that an though investigation might have include some of the following....

What was the factory W&B measurements for this glider?

Was it possible to determine the flap lever position from the wreckage? (e.g. image damage marks on the flap detent mechanism). That might show if flap reduction was part of a spin recovery used.

What W&B calculation did the pilot ever conduct? (review documentation that the pilot had in the glider and trailer or at home etc, pick up the phone and call A&Ps, fellow glider pilots, Schleicher distributor, etc. folks who might know what he did.)

Did the W&B information in the flight manual and placarded in the glider agree with the factory W&B, if not where did it come from?

What W&B measurements did the pilot and/or his A&P do with the pilot and all his own equipment in the glider as flown?

What W&B measurements exist from the glider and pilot from this or past contest weightings and what might they infer for CG position. (e.g. corrected for wrong fuselage inclination).

Was the glider modified after delivery (e.g. installation of tail batteries, other batteries, brass tail wheel or anything else that might affect W&B). Was the glider reweighed or W&B recalculated after these modifications of made?

What was the CG impacts of fuel (basically none, but mention for thoroughness) and with of other equipment on board.

What other equipment from the aircraft accident scene was collected and weighed by the accident investigators? (e.g. did they recover all batteries, tail wheel, lead weights (possible tail or nose weights), etc.).

Did the glider have provision for nose weights? Were any weights installed?

Was the glider water ballasted on the accident flight? Is so how much? And if so...

What was the pilots water ballast filling procedure? Drums? Taps and hose? Was it known if he fully filled tanks or how did he measure the fill amount? Did he have a water meter? Was it possible to infer how much the glider was ballasted that day?

It there any history of the pilot/aircraft having problem with things like ballast filling, leaking or water dumping in this glider.

Has the ballast fill or drain system been worked on after glider delivery?

Did the glider have a optional tail ballast tank? Is it possible to determine if that was filled on the day.

And no mention of pilot training in spin recovery and actual demonstration of this in flight, e.g. recent BFRs from a review of his log book or discussion with instructors.

The pilot toxicology report raises the issues of apparent use of both both Nordazepam and marijuana. Yet there is no discussion of this in the NTSB report. No discussion of possible impairment. No discussion of whether the Nordazepam was prescribed or not (and if so what the prescription dosage was).. No interviews or research to discover possible last use of these drugs that would help in an impairment discussion. Apparently no interviews on whether the pilot may be self-medicating and any reasons why. And that discussion might very well help exclude this toxicology findings as an issue in this accident.

And I'm not at all suggesting we blame the pilot, a more thorough NTSB investigation might well have helped exclude _any_ possible question of pilot issues with W&B, spin/spiral dive recovery technique, the toxicology report etc.

I'm so frustrated by this NTSB report I'm putting most of this in a letter to NTSB Chairman Hersman (yes her correct title is Chairman).

So what we are left with is folks who get to file a lawsuit and subject a glider manufacturer to detailed internal document discovery requests, possibly to the point they just need to settle to avoid the harassment. I looked though some of the key court records, nothing out of the usual stood out to me. If you assume the worst about liability lawsuits it just looks like a fishing expedition based on the idea that a high performance glider can spin and quickly enter a spiral dive and the manufacture is responsive for this and/or not warning owners/pilots enough. My look over this was pretty cursory, but nothing I could see in the documents indicates any specific smoking gun but neither would that be expected, since the case never went to trial. Either possible extreme of what happened here is bad for the soaring community, at one extreme a glider manufacturer is getting harassed and ending up settling a lawsuit that we all end up paying for though purchase price of our gliders, or the other possible extreme of an actual liability that is not made public because of a confidential settlement. My gut feel is its much more likely a case of the earlier than the later. Court records are available on PACER, US District Court New Hampshire. Case 3:1990-cv-30232.

And for disclosure, I own an ASH-26E, and would have no hesitation in purchasing any future Schleicher glider. And I am familiar with spin and spiral dive behavior of modern gliders (I used to own an DG-303 Acro which I would do aerobatics in, including spinning). I have no other connection to Schleicher or anybody else involved.

[BobW]

>> Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for
>> the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship
>> involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I
>> asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure
>> where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as
>> the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not
>> sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or
>> anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the
>> only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.
>
> I knew Tim and he was a skilled machinist who worked his way up to owning
> his own company (which is why he could buy such nice toys). He was also a
> pilot for many years. He started in hang gliding, got into power planes,
> flew and owned his own twin engine and one or two sailplanes previous to
> the ASG 18 meter. I would think he understood that the CG must be measured
> with the fuselage at a certain angle. It sounds like this particular ship
> may have had something wrong with it CG-wise.
>
Topic - CG Location.
Sub-topic - Pilot Knowledge (or not) Thereof.
Primary Point: PIC Responsibilities (common-sense-based, not "merely" FAA-based).

The following is offered respectfully, with no judgments intended beyond those
explicitly expressed. It's offered because the subject was raised, I believe
the subject is important, and I also believe some things do NOT go without
saying, especially when the possible audience is worldwide with unknowable
backgrounds and experience in soaring.

I'll stipulate - even though I'm not a lawyer and have never played one on
stage or on camera - everything in both posts above is factually accurate .

Both posts indicate the pilot was aware - at some level - of the importance of
in-flight CG. The first post suggests the pilot *may* not have known the
ship's actual in-flight CG. The second post by a person with personal contact
and knowledge of the pilot, indirectly suggests: 1) the pilot understood the
importance of, and correct techniques for, measuring (and presumably
calculating) ship CG; and states 2) "It sounds like this particular ship may
have had something wrong with it CG-wise."

I'll stipulate it DID have "something wrong with it CG-wise."

It's a possible, possibly unspoken, inference regarding this "something wrong"
statement that I think bears mentioning...

So what if the ship DID have "something wrong with it CG-wise?" Any
minimally-taught, self-respecting licensed pilot (glider or otherwise) - at
least in the US - will have been introduced to the concept of CG, will have
heard some words as to why it's important, and will also have heard words to
the effect that the PIC is responsible for assuring the ship is fundamentally
airworthy and any flight be flown responsibly.

Reason the statement, "It sounds like this particular ship may have had
something wrong with it CG-wise" raises a little Red Worry Flag in my mind is
because I believe it's possible some pilot, somewhere, might stop thinking
about possible influences and possible causes for this accident - and maybe
others like it - once having concluded the statement is correct (as it could
be). So what? Should you be flying a ship in such a condition? In ignorance?
With knowledge aforethought?

Any way I look at it, it's up to the PIC to *know* his (especially self-owned)
ship's state, before he decides to fly it. Makes no difference if it's an
intentional test flight or "simply a normal soaring flight." Again, whether
this pilot did or did not know his ship's CG state, I've no way of knowing.
But the responsibility was his. No exculpatory inferences ought be made about
any ship having any responsibility for its CG or CG-related flight
characteristics. (Note: The preceding paragraph in no way is intended to lay
the blame on the pilot in this case. Insufficient information. That said, I do
think there are useful lessons most of us can draw from known facts in this
case, and I hope thoughtful pilots do.)

Respectfully,
Bob - flame suit on - W.

[Dan Marotta]

A very thoughtful post. Thank you.

I'm simply appalled, that any "experienced" pilot would not be able to
recover from a spin or spiral dive at altitude without pulling the wings off
the aircraft and, based upon the eye witness testimony, it appears that he
did exactly that.

"darrylr" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:47:53 AM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the
> contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved
> the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him
> why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG
> was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was
> not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he
> understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else
> during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight
> that was important to the contest was the total weight.


Well that is depressing.

It is tragic when anybody is killed in an aviation accident, but it is more
tragic to not work to understand what exactly happened and try to use that
information to reduce future accidents. The NTSB report is also just
depressing in what it does not try to investigate, it is just a statement of
the bleeding obvious "The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the glider
during flight and his exceedance of the glider’s design limits during an
attempted recovery from a spin.". Well Duh. It does not discuss anything
useful to do with W&B, pilot spin training or experience, etc. It does not
even state whether the glider was water ballasted on the accident flight.

The only W&B related thing that was mentioned was "The left wing ballast
plug was in place and the drain hole tape was still secure." and "The right
wing ballast plug and drain were not identified" which does not tell you
much, unless you know the glider was ballasted before flight (if it was it
likely shows it was still ballasted at the time of the accident or of water
had been dumped it might raise the remote possibility that water had been
dumped asymmetrically since one drain hole and plug was not recovered).

I would have *hoped* that an though investigation might have include some of
the following....

What was the factory W&B measurements for this glider?

Was it possible to determine the flap lever position from the wreckage?
(e.g. image damage marks on the flap detent mechanism). That might show if
flap reduction was part of a spin recovery used.

What W&B calculation did the pilot ever conduct? (review documentation that
the pilot had in the glider and trailer or at home etc, pick up the phone
and call A&Ps, fellow glider pilots, Schleicher distributor, etc. folks who
might know what he did.)

Did the W&B information in the flight manual and placarded in the glider
agree with the factory W&B, if not where did it come from?

What W&B measurements did the pilot and/or his A&P do with the pilot and all
his own equipment in the glider as flown?

What W&B measurements exist from the glider and pilot from this or past
contest weightings and what might they infer for CG position. (e.g.
corrected for wrong fuselage inclination).

Was the glider modified after delivery (e.g. installation of tail batteries,
other batteries, brass tail wheel or anything else that might affect W&B).
Was the glider reweighed or W&B recalculated after these modifications of
made?

What was the CG impacts of fuel (basically none, but mention for
thoroughness) and with of other equipment on board.

What other equipment from the aircraft accident scene was collected and
weighed by the accident investigators? (e.g. did they recover all batteries,
tail wheel, lead weights (possible tail or nose weights), etc.).

Did the glider have provision for nose weights? Were any weights installed?

Was the glider water ballasted on the accident flight? Is so how much? And
if so...

What was the pilots water ballast filling procedure? Drums? Taps and hose?
Was it known if he fully filled tanks or how did he measure the fill amount?
Did he have a water meter? Was it possible to infer how much the glider was
ballasted that day?

It there any history of the pilot/aircraft having problem with things like
ballast filling, leaking or water dumping in this glider.

Has the ballast fill or drain system been worked on after glider delivery?

Did the glider have a optional tail ballast tank? Is it possible to
determine if that was filled on the day.

And no mention of pilot training in spin recovery and actual demonstration
of this in flight, e.g. recent BFRs from a review of his log book or
discussion with instructors.

The pilot toxicology report raises the issues of apparent use of both both
Nordazepam and marijuana. Yet there is no discussion of this in the NTSB
report. No discussion of possible impairment. No discussion of whether the
Nordazepam was prescribed or not (and if so what the prescription dosage
was). No interviews or research to discover possible last use of these drugs
that would help in an impairment discussion. Apparently no interviews on
whether the pilot may be self-medicating and any reasons why. And that
discussion might very well help exclude this toxicology findings as an issue
in this accident.

And I'm not at all suggesting we blame the pilot, a more thorough NTSB
investigation might well have helped exclude _any_ possible question of
pilot issues with W&B, spin/spiral dive recovery technique, the toxicology
report etc.

I'm so frustrated by this NTSB report I'm putting most of this in a letter
to NTSB Chairman Hersman (yes her correct title is Chairman).

So what we are left with is folks who get to file a lawsuit and subject a
glider manufacturer to detailed internal document discovery requests,
possibly to the point they just need to settle to avoid the harassment. I
looked though some of the key court records, nothing out of the usual stood
out to me. If you assume the worst about liability lawsuits it just looks
like a fishing expedition based on the idea that a high performance glider
can spin and quickly enter a spiral dive and the manufacture is responsive
for this and/or not warning owners/pilots enough. My look over this was
pretty cursory, but nothing I could see in the documents indicates any
specific smoking gun but neither would that be expected, since the case
never went to trial. Either possible extreme of what happened here is bad
for the soaring community, at one extreme a glider manufacturer is getting
harassed and ending up settling a lawsuit that we all end up paying for
though purchase price of our gliders, or the other possible extreme of an
actual liability that is not made public because of a confidential
settlement. My gut feel is its much more likely a case of the earlier than
the later. Court records are available on PACER, US District Court New
Hampshire. Case 3:1990-cv-30232.

And for disclosure, I own an ASH-26E, and would have no hesitation in
purchasing any future Schleicher glider. And I am familiar with spin and
spiral dive behavior of modern gliders (I used to own an DG-303 Acro which I
would do aerobatics in, including spinning). I have no other connection to
Schleicher or anybody else involved.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 7:31:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
>
>
> Rick Lake

I just finished reading the tox- report. Looks to me like this lawsuit will succeed when pigs fly. What was the pilot thinking with that stuff circulating thru his system.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:53:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 7:31:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> >
>
> > Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rick Lake
>
>
>
> I just finished reading the tox- report. Looks to me like this lawsuit will succeed when pigs fly. What was the pilot thinking with that stuff circulating thru his system.

Do you have a url for that report? Sounds like it could make for interesting / informative reading.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:53:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 7:31:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> >
>
> > Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rick Lake
>
>
>
> I just finished reading the tox- report. Looks to me like this lawsuit will succeed when pigs fly. What was the pilot thinking with that stuff circulating thru his system.

Well, ya better duck, cause pigs are now flying and they do sh++t. Yes, it was dropped against the Dealer, but best to remember that attorney fees can be very expensive. Settlement out of court for...1.1m US bucks.

I was their. I spoke with Tim each morning before we flew. Our talk time each morning was around 10 minutes and included where I had my cg at. We also discussed other topics. He also flew out from the East Coast, in his complex twin turbo prop Cessna, as a single pilot. He shared with me that he had been spinning the 29 numerous times and was comfortable doing so. Tim never appeared impaired to me during this time.
When the accident happened, I was very close by and entering a thermal. I saw something as I started to turn. About that time, the pilot on top of Tim began calling over his radio to no avail. When I came around, it was over.. I called contest ground, but only the tow pilot heard me. She then relayed the information. I requested EMT and an air rescue. I was informed they would be on their way to the crash site. I did a roll call over the air, everyone responded except for Tim.
I was planning on landing, but when told they were on their way, I decided it was best to stay in the air.
Several hours later, a motor glider pilot radio that he was still over the area and when was the EMT planning on getting their. I was shocked to hear this and headed back to the airport. I flew back so fast I almost landed out.
The crash impacted so hard, the pieces were very, very small. So small some things could not be decided on with any certain. Such as flap handle position, rudder pedal location, etc.
It may be best to think here for a moment. The pilot on top stated that he saw no control movement. He spoke with me when we were back on the ramp. Both pilots spoke with me. But no control movements were seen. Both have been around for sometime and are very respected, no less than any of us.

This was an accident and we shall never have all the facts. With well over 1100 hours in my 29, mine has always behaved showing no adverse flight conditions. Out of all the 29 pilots I know, no one reports any adverse flight conditions.

We also all know its best not to assume anything in aviation.

I won't respond anymore to this thread, as I wish for Tim to RIP.

Best regards, #711.

[[email protected]]

BobW:

Assuming a condition where the C of G is out of limits, how would that affect the flight characteristics in a way that would result in the accident as it played out (unintentional stall-spin transforming into a spiral dive which then wound up tight enough to generate g-forces sufficiently high so as to break the wings)? - I'm currently going through the reference material I have on hand as I found, to my embarrassment, that I wasn't at all certain about the various effects of C of G on flight characteristics.

I assume that only a too far aft C of G could be a problem in this case. An aft C of G makes a stall-spin easier to get into and can result in the spin being unrecoverable in extreme situations correct? I would think that an aft C of G would also make it easier to induce positive g's with the elevator and would make the elevator control lighter and "twitchier" making it easier to overstress the glider during the subsequent spiral. I can't see how the C of G would lead to the spiral dive being unrecoverable though.

I recall a Nimbus 4DM accident in which it was suggested that after a certain number of turns in a spiral dive when g forces and airspeed had built up high enough that it would be impossible to roll level and recover - I wonder if the lawsuit was suggesting something similar about the 29? It doesn't seem too likely that that would be the case though.

Not knowing the C of G position for sure, especially in a glider which lets you alter wing loading and tail weight to the degree a modern competition ship would seem to be a prerequisite for flight to me. Even my old 15b (without ballast bags) has been up on the scales, leveled and weighed during an annual just to put my mind at ease. (it was imported from Germany to Canada in 1998 and the German records indicate that it was reweighed every 48 months when it was there!)

[[email protected]]

Many flight manuals of newer gliders say that a spin will turn in to a spiral dive on its own after a few turns. Spin and spiral dive recovery are, of course, quite different. If you've lost situational awareness enough to inadvertently spin, not noticing the subtle transition from spin to spiral dive might happen too. Also, reading flight manuals, a few of them recommend somewhat different recovery than "standard" that we were all taught.

This has little to do with speculation about this accident, but it's an interesting related fact. Reading the flight manual about spins is a useful winter pastime.

John Cochrane

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:28:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Many flight manuals of newer gliders say that a spin will turn
> in to a spiral dive on its own after a few turns.
> Spin and spiral dive recovery are, of course, quite different.

Please note this probably has NOTHING to do with Tim's accident:
Experienced pilots have become confused and thought they were
in a spin when in fact they were in a spiral dive.
IIRC a prominent example was the crash of an Eta during
a spin test...

Quick:
- how do you tell the difference?
- recovery technique?

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 10:28:12 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Many flight manuals of newer gliders say that a spin will turn in to a spiral dive on its own after a few turns. Spin and spiral dive recovery are, of course, quite different. If you've lost situational awareness enough to inadvertently spin, not noticing the subtle transition from spin to spiral dive might happen too. Also, reading flight manuals, a few of them recommend somewhat different recovery than "standard" that we were all taught. This has little to do with speculation about this accident, but it's an interesting related fact. Reading the flight manual about spins is a useful winter pastime. John Cochrane

Also worth noting is that T tail sailplanes commonly do surprising(to those not familiar)things in pitch during spin recovery. Commonly, as the stick is moved forward to unstall, the nose will pitch down, followed by pitching up a bit as the horizontal tail goes through the wake, followed again by pitch down(sometimes a LOT) as the tail comes out of the wake and becomes more effective pushing the nose way down. This easily leads to a very low nose with speed building at a very high rate. Add to this the autorotation associated with the spin entry and you have a very disorienting situation. You are in a high speed spiral before you know it.
This is why many flight manuals, and I directly quote the ASW-27 manual, say to apply opposite rudder and ease the stick forward until the rotation stops.
Jamming the stick full forward, as some pilots have been incorrectly taught, makes the end of the recovery much more difficult due to the behavior described above.
FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

> Jamming the stick full forward, as some pilots have been incorrectly taught, makes the end of the recovery much more difficult due to the behavior described above.

Really? Recovering from an inverted loop sounds easy... :)

John Cochrane

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> BobW:
>
> Assuming a condition where the C of G is out of limits, how would that
> affect the flight characteristics in a way that would result in the
> accident as it played out (unintentional stall-spin transforming into a
> spiral dive which then wound up tight enough to generate g-forces
> sufficiently high so as to break the wings)? - I'm currently going through
> the reference material I have on hand as I found, to my embarrassment, that
> I wasn't at all certain about the various effects of C of G on flight
> characteristics.

Good on you for refreshing your CG-related book knowledge! General reply to
your 1st-sentence-question below next paragraph...


> I assume that only a too far aft C of G could be a problem in this case. An
> aft C of G makes a stall-spin easier to get into and can result in the spin
> being unrecoverable in extreme situations correct? I would think that an
> aft C of G would also make it easier to induce positive g's with the
> elevator and would make the elevator control lighter and "twitchier" making
> it easier to overstress the glider during the subsequent spiral. I can't
> see how the C of G would lead to the spiral dive being unrecoverable
> though.

You seem to've sussed out the correct (as I understand things) general answer
to your lead-in question...based on what's expressed in sentence 1 of the
immediately-preceding paragraph. Same comment applies to the second sentence
of para. 2.

As the CG is shifted aft, the aircraft stability decreases until
(definitionally) when the CG and ship/pilot neutral point coincide, the ship
is "neutrally stable." With a CG aft of the neutral point, the ship is
definitionally (stick-free) unstable. "Unstable" doesn't mean "instant
uncontrollability and certain death" but it DOES have sufficient import that
designers almost certainly define their ships' POH's aft CG limit "somewhat
forward" of the neutral point. You'd have to know the ship's designer to know
for certain how he addressed this aspect of the ship's design.

Ease of/possibly inadvertent entry to the spin, non-pilot-commanded transition
from a (generally recoverable) nose-down spin to a (sometimes not recoverable)
not-so-nose-down "flat spin", "twitchy" pitch characteristics...that about
covers the broad brush downsides to "too far aft" CG considerations.

Considering the topic of a glider transitioning from a spin to a spiral dive
greatly complicates an already complex situation (i.e. spin dynamics), and my
general response to the implicit question in para. 2's final sentence is, "The
devil is in the details/it just depends (on the ship, the air, on the system
CG, on pilot input, on LOTS of things)." There are reasons every glider POH
(of which I'm aware) limits their spin recovery verbiage "simply" to spins,
and don't consider aspects extending to botched or delayed spin recoveries. (A
line has to be drawn somewhere...)

Every pilot is free to explore those limits on their own, ideally in an
intentional manner, as opposed to doing so unintentionally. Not that I've
flown a wide variety of gliders, but I have flown or taken BFRs in 3 different
ATC-ed gliders approved for spins, spun each, and noted each had widely
varying spin characteristics and (to a lesser extent) varying recommended (and
actual) spin recovery techniques. The single-seater in that mix actually had
completely different spin characteristics in opposite spin directions...yet
was the most eager to recover "on its own" in either direction.

I've also flown 3 1st-generation high performance single seaters, none of
which I ever spun, each of which I intentionally and fairly extensively
explored departure (from controlled flight) characteristics as part of
"routine self-education." One of those 3 I know had been spun (not my
particular ship, though) during factory test flying, so I'd reason to expect
my example would spin/recover similarly...but I never wanted to put that clean
a ship that nose down out of simple (unpaid!) curiosity, given that my example
gave all sorts of aerodynamic warnings - long before departure - that if Joe
Pilot continued to do as he was, ship departure was nearing. Simply exploring
"near-departure" flight characteristics at my normal CG location satisfied my
curiosity in that particular ship. Never experienced an unexpected departure
from controlled flight in any ship (yet)...


> I recall a Nimbus 4DM accident in which it was suggested that after a
> certain number of turns in a spiral dive when g forces and airspeed had
> built up high enough that it would be impossible to roll level and recover
> - I wonder if the lawsuit was suggesting something similar about the 29? It
> doesn't seem too likely that that would be the case though.

The discussion is moving into an arena well beyond what most average glider
pilots might consider "routine flight"...but that's never a bad thing, IMHO.
In any event, as complex an aerodynamic condition as is a "simple spin," I
consider the dynamics of "an extending-in-time spiral dive" well into the
nether regions of paid test flying. Simply pondering those same dynamics might
be considered an exercise in "around the campfire engineering"...caveat
emptor? Anyhow...

Clean gliders - when seriously nose down - pick up speed rapidly, and as
"structurally overbuilt" as are "pure glass" gliders and as strong as are
"post-pure-glass gliders" (i.e. those incorporating carbon/possibly-et-al
fibers), I think trying to define (say) time limits beyond which, or speeds
above which, spiral dives might be "problematically recoverable" is
essentially an 0'-beer thirty consideration, akin to pondering how many angels
can fit atop the head of a pin. Point being that spiral dives are known to be
"quickly problematic" for every type of airplane/glider construction whether
considering: 1) exclusively construction (tube-n-rag, wood, all metal,
composite), or 2) documented accident history. Whether the failure mode
initiates with the structure breaking before the pilot even has a chance to
recognize and respond, or structural failure occurs after the pilot recognizes
and responds (even if properly) but for (say) G-load reasons cannot transmit
his response from hands/feet to aerodynamic controls doesn't matter...at least
not given today's state-of-the-art in glider construction material technology.
He's still likely to die in a broken-before-the-ground ship.

I'd put practicing recoveries from developed spiral dives in the same category
as practicing departures from controlled flight in the landing pattern or
practicing playing on the freeway. :-)


> Not knowing the C of G position for sure, especially in a glider which lets
> you alter wing loading and tail weight to the degree a modern competition
> ship [permits] would seem to be a prerequisite for flight to me.

Methinks you intended to write the preceding sentence w/o the "Not..." and if
you did, then we're in 100% agreement!!! That was my essential point in an
earlier "little Red Worry Flag" post.

Bob W.

[Kevin Christner]

> Well, ya better duck, cause pigs are now flying and they do sh++t. Yes, it was dropped against the Dealer, but best to remember that attorney fees can be very expensive. Settlement out of court for...1.1m US bucks.

While not as sad as seeing a good friend lose his life, this is pretty sad. Unfortunately in today's litigious environment, it probably made sense, as trial costs could have run far higher.

2C

[[email protected]]

BobW:

Yeah, I didn't start that last paragraph with the right word did I :-)

Thanks for the response - it answered a lot of questions I had!

Personally I practice spin and spiral recovery every year but I've never experienced an unintentional stall or spin in over 1000 hours of soaring. That is probably a result of the vast majority of those hours being spent ridge soaring very close to the mountains around Hope BC. Not much height for recovery if it happens so one tends to keep the airspeed higher than would be normal when thermalling with a few thousand feet between the glider and the ground.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Saturday, January 11, 2014 7:31:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
>
>
> Rick Lake

Not wishing to muddy the water any further, but we had a 29 with jammed ailerons out here. Thankfully, it was found on the ground. My understanding is a glob of goo from the wing mating process ended up stuck to one of the aileron pushrods.
JJ

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:55:06 PM UTC+1, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Saturday, January 11, 2014 7:31:18 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > Not looking to open old wounds. One question.
>
> >
>
> > Was the case against Eastern Sailplane ( Tim Donovan 2009 ASG-29 accident) successful?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rick Lake
>
>
>
> Not wishing to muddy the water any further, but we had a 29 with jammed ailerons out here. Thankfully, it was found on the ground. My understanding is a glob of goo from the wing mating process ended up stuck to one of the aileron pushrods.
>
> JJ

Hello JJ, and that happened after some flights were made or before first flight?

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Hello JJ, and that happened after some flights were made or before first flight?

The ship had been flown for a couple of years (7V) and then one fine morning the stick jammed! Don't know the details, but Schleicher and Murry should know because flight control malfunctions must be reported to manufacturer and the Federalies.
JJ