Glider Crash in CA

[Tom (2NO)]

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140316/pilot-passenger-okay-following-miraculous-glider-crash-landing-near-wrightwood

Glad everyone is okay!

[Dan Marotta]

What's miraculous to me is that the newspaper only used the word
"miraculous" three times, while the word "crash" was used eleven times.

A little better information would be much appreciated. I won't count on the
NTSB report and, if it was a commercial ride, I won't expect the pilot to be
talking much, either.


"Tom (2NO)" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140316/pilot-passenger-okay-following-miraculous-glider-crash-landing-near-wrightwood
>
> Glad everyone is okay!

[Roy Clark, \B6\]

"The glider, described as a DG Flugzeugbau DG100S, 'reportedly crashed in rugged terrain 5.6 miles north of Wrightwood under unknown circumstances," FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said. "The aircraft sustained substantial damage.'"

So easy and quick to get correct and complete basic information from the same FAA Databases the reporter seems to have used to identify the registered owner:
N624RM is assigned to DG FLUGZEUGBAU GMBH DG-1000S registered to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOARING ACADEMY INC.

Using " DG-100S" for Make / Model Inquiry generates: "No records found for your request please try again"

[Bob Kuykendall]

As I read the article, the reporter is quoting a Sheriff's department spokesperson on the "Miraculous" thing. One of the occurrences of that word in the article is in the lead, which sums up the entire article in a single 30 or so word sentence. The second is in a direct quote from the spokesperson.

The other two occurrences on the page are in the headline, which the hapless reporter has absolutely no control over, and the other is in a link to the article, citing it by its headline.

As for the description of the incident as a crash, I think that a layman's interpretation of 14CFR§830 would side with the reporter. The people on board sustained injuries and the aircraft is said to have sustained substantial damage, so this isn't the kind of thing where a routine off-field landing is reported as a "crash."

Yes, the reporter might have done a better job identifying the aircraft type. But again, they are probably quoting the Sheriff's department. As for why they didn't confirm with the FAA registry database, yes, that is a bit sloppy. Feel free to contact the reporter and set them straight.

Thanks, Bob K.


, and the



On Monday, March 17, 2014 7:39:34 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What's miraculous to me is that the newspaper only used the word
>
> "miraculous" three times, while the word "crash" was used eleven times.
>
>
>
> A little better information would be much appreciated. I won't count on the
>
> NTSB report and, if it was a commercial ride, I won't expect the pilot to be
>
> talking much, either.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tom (2NO)" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140316/pilot-passenger-okay-following-miraculous-glider-crash-landing-near-wrightwood
>
> >
>
> > Glad everyone is okay!

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:01:08 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> As for the description of the incident as a crash, I think that a layman's interpretation of 14CFR§830 would side with the reporter...

My bad, it is actually 49CFR§830.

Also, I apologize about the tone of my earlier post. I would just like to stress that reporters aren't necessarily out to get us. They are just in a tough business that gives them little control over how their stories appear and precious little time to do research.

If this guy got the time and place right, spelled the names right, and got the aircraft ID in the ballpark, then he is doing better than the NTSB sometimes does for glider accidents and incidents.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 5:54:40 PM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Also, I apologize about the tone of my earlier post. I would just like to stress that reporters aren't necessarily out to get us. They are just in a tough business that gives them little control over how their stories appear and precious little time to do research. If this guy got the time and place right, spelled the names right, and got the aircraft ID in the ballpark, then he is doing better than the NTSB sometimes does for glider accidents and incidents. Thanks, Bob K.

That's OK, Bob. And when you read the article carefully, the most humorous part is the National Transportation Safety Boar. Yes, we have one of those. They bring him to the site of an accident. He roots around, kicks up a lot of dirt, snorts a lot, and in general messes things up. Tends to eat the evidence, too. Or, is that the National Transportation Safety Goat? I get them confused all the time.

Steve

[Dan Marotta]

Can't argue with that, Bob. ...And no offense taken. I was only
complaining about the hype and hysteria breathless type of reporting. Think
Joe Friday...


"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 17, 2014 1:01:08 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> As for the description of the incident as a crash, I think that a layman's
> interpretation of 14CFR§830 would side with the reporter...

My bad, it is actually 49CFR§830.

Also, I apologize about the tone of my earlier post. I would just like to
stress that reporters aren't necessarily out to get us. They are just in a
tough business that gives them little control over how their stories appear
and precious little time to do research.

If this guy got the time and place right, spelled the names right, and got
the aircraft ID in the ballpark, then he is doing better than the NTSB
sometimes does for glider accidents and incidents.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Sean Fidler]

Glad all were OK.

[CindyB[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:05:42 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Glad all were OK.

Speedy work by the Sheriff's Dept. Good to have their equipment available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Jws14t0rk&feature=em-uploademail

[CLewis95]

On Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:05:23 PM UTC-5, CindyB wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:05:42 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
>
> > Glad all were OK.
>
>
>
> Speedy work by the Sheriff's Dept. Good to have their equipment available.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0Jws14t0rk&feature=em-uploademail

Great vid Cindy! .. thx for putting this link up. I will personally use this as another good illustration of superior "crash-worthiness" aspects of our modern glider designs.
Curt Lewis - 95

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:23:50 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Can't argue with that, Bob. ...And no offense taken. I was only
>
> complaining about the hype and hysteria breathless type of reporting. Think
>
> Joe Friday...

Right now we're in the middle of an incredible shift in the information economy. These days the "only the facts" kind of journalism that has prevailed in the past has much weaker currency in the marketplace of ideas--people can get all of the facts they need from the Internet. Of course, they can get a lot of drivel and misinformation as well, but that's a topic for a different day.

These days reporters are increasingly placed in the position of needing to include "value added" content like context, analysis, and commentary into their stories in order increase their perceived worth. So I would not look for reporting of fringe activities such as soaring to get any less breathless (more breathful?) in the near future.

But, yeah, I hear you, and I agree and sympathize.

Thanks again, Bob K.

[Tony V]

On 3/27/2014 4:11 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> Right now we're in the middle of an incredible shift in the information economy. These days the "only the facts" kind of journalism that has prevailed in the past has much weaker currency in the marketplace of ideas--people can get all of the facts they need from the Internet. Of course, they can get a lot of drivel and misinformation as well, but that's a topic for a different day.
>
> These days reporters are increasingly placed in the position of needing to include "value added" content like context, analysis, and commentary into their stories in order increase their perceived worth. So I would not look for reporting of fringe activities such as soaring to get any less breathless (more breathful?) in the near future.
>
> But, yeah, I hear you, and I agree and sympathize.
>
> Thanks again, Bob K.

Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.
Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

[Ramy[_2_]]

Wow, this was certainly more than a landout gone bad.
Any chance we can learn what actually happened (other than NTSB report which is not likely to tell anything useful)?

Ramy

[Greg Delp]

On Friday, March 28, 2014 at 12:34:40 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Wow, this was certainly more than a landout gone bad.
> Any chance we can learn what actually happened (other than NTSB report which is not likely to tell anything useful)?
>
> Ramy

So today I was flipping through Netflix trying to find something to watch. As I'm rolling through the selections the preview thumb nails are lagging behind a bit and suddenly a guy sitting in a glider with the canopy open flashes by. It takes me a bit to go back and find what show it was but I narrow it down to of all things, "The Celebrity Plastic Surgeons of Beverly Hills" So I dig deeper and find that Season 1 episode 3 "To Glide Or Not To Glide" and episode 4 "Crash Landing" both have multiple camera angles and shots of this crash and rescue. Dr. Amron tries to get get his other Dr buddies to go along for glider rides. He's the first to go but doesn't make it back to the airport as he was in the front seat during this crash. The pilot appears to get too low behind a ridge to get back to the airport and can't dig out. As the terrain gets closer you can very clearly see the wings slowly rocking back and forth seeming to indicate flying too slow and then a stall and spin to the left. The stick inputs are easily seen from the external camera view. It appears to have been about one full turn before impact. They both were extremely lucky on multiple levels. I imagine the NTSB has more video evidence of this crash than just about any other glider crash before.

If you have Netflix I suggest you find these episodes and watch them. It's not very often we have in cockpit video evidence of a stall/spin crash to learn from. It's even better that both the occupants survived and we are able to learn from a non fatal crash. Have the remote nearby as you will want to Fast Forward through all the non glider filler and rewind to watch the glider portions in real time and slow motion.

The pilot's NTSB doesn't seem to match up with the video that well.

NTSB Identification: WPR14CA138
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, March 15, 2014 in Wrightwood, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 06/05/2014
Aircraft: DG FLUGZEUGBAU GMBH DG 1000S, registration: N624RM
Injuries: 1 Minor, 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was for him to take his cousin, the sole passenger, around the local ski area. After departure, the glider was towed to about 9,000 feet mean sea level (msl) and adjacent to the ski area. The pilot maneuvered the glider in a 300-degree turn to the right and realized that he was at a lower altitude than the ridge. He continued toward the ridge in an effort to gain lift off of the canyons. As the glider continued to lose altitude, it descended below 6,000 feet msl and the pilot began to look for terrain that would be favorable for an off-airport landing. After deciding on a location, the pilot deployed the airbrakes and with the glider about 10 to 15 feet above ground level (agl), he intentionally stalled. The glider mushed into the ground with little horizontal speed. During the accident sequence the glider incurred substantial damage to the tail boom and wings.

The pilot reported no pre impact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the glider that would have precluded normal operation.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's inadequate in-flight planning/decision to maneuver the glider where the lift was not sufficient to maintain flight, resulting in an off airport landing.

[2G]

On Monday, March 17, 2014 at 6:56:49 AM UTC-7, Tom (2N0) wrote:
> http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140316/pilot-passenger-okay-following-miraculous-glider-crash-landing-near-wrightwood
>
> Glad everyone is okay!

This is a curious accident in regards to the pilot decision making. He was probably no further away than 18 nm from Llano (the distance to Mt. Baldy, the highest peak in the area). This translates into 2,500 ft for a glide back, or about 6,000 MSL. Why didn't he just glide back to Llano? Also, this is a sustainer - why didn't he try to start the engine?
Bizarre.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 8:28:32 PM UTC-8, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, March 17, 2014 at 6:56:49 AM UTC-7, Tom (2N0) wrote:
> > http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140316/pilot-passenger-okay-following-miraculous-glider-crash-landing-near-wrightwood
> >
> > Glad everyone is okay!
>
> This is a curious accident in regards to the pilot decision making. He was probably no further away than 18 nm from Llano (the distance to Mt. Baldy, the highest peak in the area). This translates into 2,500 ft for a glide back, or about 6,000 MSL. Why didn't he just glide back to Llano? Also, this is a sustainer - why didn't he try to start the engine?
> Bizarre.

A DG-1000S is not a sustainer.

[[email protected]]

18nm glide for 2,500'height loss = glide angle of 43 with no reserve.

[Casey[_2_]]

>
> The pilot's NTSB doesn't seem to match up with the video that well.
>
>
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> The pilot's inadequate in-flight planning/decision to maneuver the glider where the lift was not sufficient to maintain flight, resulting in an off airport landing.

I agree, the pilots statement and NTSB determination do not seem to match up what I saw in the video either. I guess I will have to remember if I happen to fubar and walk away, I will have to say it was a planned off airport landing and I intentionally stalled.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:03:48 AM UTC-5, Casey wrote:
> >
> > The pilot's NTSB doesn't seem to match up with the video that well.

Plastic Surgeon needed to save face.

[[email protected]]

He was not in control at all the final 20 seconds. They are very lucky to have survived spinning into the terrain they did and walk away. I assume the NTSB probably had no clue this footage existed when the report was written and I doubt most TV shows wait two years before airing footage. Guessing the show held it back until the report was finalized. Though I don't believe they mention it in the show, the pilot was supposedly the passengers cousin. He held a private glider license with 200 hours. Guessing they thought it was a cool idea to go shoot a glider flight up in the mountains and he lacked the experience to do it successfully.

[Casey[_2_]]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:11:09 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> He was not in control at all the final 20 seconds. They are very lucky to have survived spinning into the terrain they did and walk away. I assume the NTSB probably had no clue this footage existed when the report was written and I doubt most TV shows wait two years before airing footage. Guessing the show held it back until the report was finalized. Though I don't believe they mention it in the show, the pilot was supposedly the passengers cousin. He held a private glider license with 200 hours. Guessing they thought it was a cool idea to go shoot a glider flight up in the mountains and he lacked the experience to do it successfully.


A question I have is was that a Standard Type cert glider or does it matter about attaching a camera to outside and was there a log book endorsement for camera attachment to outside of glider for test prior to carrying a passenger or is that not needed?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

He was obviously flying too slow because he stalled, then spun. I wonder if the fact that he was approaching rising terrain created the illusion of a more nose down attitude than he really had, so he wasn't aware he had slowed down.

I doubt he was looking for a place to land right there, as he could clearly escape to the flatlands and find a better option.

[[email protected]]

That was the creepiest damn thing I've ever seen. Then that awful crash...

[[email protected]]

I watched that plastic surgeons of beverly hills video, man bad news! Typical stall spin, absolute idiocy and what a way to misspromote soaring! I really hate videos and programs like this, all they do is reinforce public misperceptions of what we do. Whoever was piloting that ride need not ever step into another sailplane!

[[email protected]]

Having a camera rolling, especially for a TV show, probably had some factor in his chain of bad decision making to end up where he did. I've been guilty of it myself and have talked with plenty of other pilots who have put a lump in there throat (or worse) due to an audience or a camera rolling.


On Monday, March 17, 2014 at 6:56:49 AM UTC-7, Tom (TK) wrote:
> http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140316/pilot-passenger-okay-following-miraculous-glider-crash-landing-near-wrightwood
>
> Glad everyone is okay!

[[email protected]]

Yes DR, I can say I am also guilty of some hot dogging when a camera is rolling, i did some stunting in a 2-32 with a passanger and no chutes years ago but we were up at 10k feet, but geesh, a guy has got to know when to draw the line, ok you screwed the pootch by getting on the wrong side of the ridge, ok I guess your gonna land out, so accept the inevidable and set her down, if you can get outta the mtns to the valley, do it, if your really screwed and cant make the valley then set her down in a controlled fashion, ding the ship but walk away. This pilot totally messed up and its a miracle these guys didnt get seriously hurt. The video shows at least one complete revolution in the spin, i dont think this pilot had any clue as to what was happening to him.

[[email protected]]

Interesting to come across this. I just saw that TV show and decided to search web for info on this. In addition to news stories, NTSB report, and other stuff, I found this video from L.A. County Sherriff of the pax extraction from the site.

https://youtu.be/g0Jws14t0rk

Interesting to note the large GoPro camera rig that was on the left wing at time of crash is gone.

Yes, the account of attempted off-field landing in the report does not jive with the video footage we see in the show. Also, the report would have mentioned video if they had known about it, and thus certainly viewed it. Since there were no major injuries or property damage, an investigator likely did not go to the scene and the report was based on a statement from the pilot.

It appears that what really happened was that the Dr. or show producers probably figured a glider flight would make good footage for the show. So the Dr arranged for his cousin to take them up. Cousin may have wanted to impress with scenery over nearby Angeles Forest mountains. A 9000' tow is pretty high, but in mid March, with still cool-ish weather, there probably was no thermal lift or mountain wave, especially at around 11:00 am. Pilot was past ridge line and sunk right into valley with no hope of making it to a good landing area. So his story is pretty close, except he messed up and spun in. Very fortunate circumstances of terrain and angle plumped him relatively gently onto brush with almost zero forward speed.

My guess is that before rescue came, pilot persuaded Dr to hide the cameras/take with them.

And, as someone already mentioned, once the NTSB report was closed it was safe to put the footage into the show.

The only outstanding issue was if the pilot was asked if there was any photo or video evidence when he gave report, and he said no, that could be trouble for him.

Anyway, everyone was OK after, the show got some great story, and the glider appears to have been sold for salvage (Google it's reg number and you'll see). So it's a somewhat happy ending.

But one more thing: That glider school. The footage we see in the show makes it appear that the flight was expected to be about 30 minutes, yet when they hadn't returned an hour and a half later, the school appears to still not want to call for search and rescue, and that it was only after one of the Dr's friends called the Sherriff - over two hours after departure - did any rescue effort begin. That looks bad.

[2G]

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Interesting to come across this. I just saw that TV show and decided to search web for info on this. In addition to news stories, NTSB report, and other stuff, I found this video from L.A. County Sherriff of the pax extraction from the site.
>
> https://youtu.be/g0Jws14t0rk
>
> Interesting to note the large GoPro camera rig that was on the left wing at time of crash is gone.
>
> Yes, the account of attempted off-field landing in the report does not jive with the video footage we see in the show. Also, the report would have mentioned video if they had known about it, and thus certainly viewed it. Since there were no major injuries or property damage, an investigator likely did not go to the scene and the report was based on a statement from the pilot.
>
> It appears that what really happened was that the Dr. or show producers probably figured a glider flight would make good footage for the show. So the Dr arranged for his cousin to take them up. Cousin may have wanted to impress with scenery over nearby Angeles Forest mountains. A 9000' tow is pretty high, but in mid March, with still cool-ish weather, there probably was no thermal lift or mountain wave, especially at around 11:00 am. Pilot was past ridge line and sunk right into valley with no hope of making it to a good landing area. So his story is pretty close, except he messed up and spun in. Very fortunate circumstances of terrain and angle plumped him relatively gently onto brush with almost zero forward speed.
>
> My guess is that before rescue came, pilot persuaded Dr to hide the cameras/take with them.
>
> And, as someone already mentioned, once the NTSB report was closed it was safe to put the footage into the show.
>
> The only outstanding issue was if the pilot was asked if there was any photo or video evidence when he gave report, and he said no, that could be trouble for him.
>
> Anyway, everyone was OK after, the show got some great story, and the glider appears to have been sold for salvage (Google it's reg number and you'll see). So it's a somewhat happy ending.
>
> But one more thing: That glider school. The footage we see in the show makes it appear that the flight was expected to be about 30 minutes, yet when they hadn't returned an hour and a half later, the school appears to still not want to call for search and rescue, and that it was only after one of the Dr's friends called the Sherriff - over two hours after departure - did any rescue effort begin. That looks bad.

A comparison of this video to the geography from Goggle Earth shows that he was south of Baldy instead of north towards the glider port. This area is a highly populated in the neighborhood of Ontario, CA. Given that, he was, at most, 13 nm and probably just 10 nm from the Brackett Field airport, which he was about 5000 ft above. This is a very easy glide from his crash location. Why didn't he glide into this airport? Who knows, but he may not have known of its location and elected to crash land rather than glide into a densely populated area. If so, the moral of the story is know ALL your options before leaving the ground.

Tom