How does one land upside down following a PT3?

[son_of_flubber]

According to article: Released 100-200 feet AGL. Minor injuries to pilot.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/06/17/pilot-trapped-for-40-minutes-after-long-mynd-glider-crash/4147432/

The photo show tail boom broken behind wings. Tail and wings and nose appear intact. Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 3:18:48 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> According to article: Released 100-200 feet AGL. Minor injuries to pilot.
Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?

High energy ground loop?

Andy (GY)

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 22:30 20 June 2014, Andy wrote:
>On Friday, June 20, 2014 3:18:48 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> According to article: Released 100-200 feet AGL. Minor injuries to
>pilot.
> Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?
>
>High energy ground loop?
>
>Andy (GY)
>
>

Mainly winch at the Myndd.
Wing drop at start of winch launch- glider cartwheeled? Spun off failed
launch? Turning low off failed launch - wing clipped ground - glider went
inverted? Who knows -but it time the accident report will tell us.

[waremark]

Speculation that winch launch commenced with elevator not connected.

[POPS]

According to article: Released 100-200 feet AGL. Minor injuries to pilot.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/06/17/pilot-trapped-for-40-minutes-after-long-mynd-glider-crash/4147432/

The photo show tail boom broken behind wings. Tail and wings and nose appear intact. Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?

It's super simple ... you land on your roof .... geez

[GM]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 7:02:53 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
> Speculation that winch launch commenced with elevator not connected.

If the CG is within the allowable range, most gliders with a CG hook actually perform a fairly decent winch launch w/o elevator input.
We don't have any real info so everything about this accident is pure speculation.
Uli

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 3:18:48 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> According to article: Released 100-200 feet AGL. Minor injuries to pilot.
>
>
>
> http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/06/17/pilot-trapped-for-40-minutes-after-long-mynd-glider-crash/4147432/
>
>
>
> The photo show tail boom broken behind wings. Tail and wings and nose appear intact. Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?

...."which was being towed approximately 100 to 200 feet in the air, plummeted to the ground before skidding and overturning on to its roof." looks like it flipped during the ground loop

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 15:28 21 June 2014, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
>On Friday, June 20, 2014 3:18:48 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> According to article: Released 100-200 feet AGL. Minor injuries to
>pilot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2014/06/17/pilot-trapped-for-40-minutes-after-long-mynd-glider-crash/4147432/
>>
>>
>>
>> The photo show tail boom broken behind wings. Tail and wings and nose
>appear intact. Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?
>
>...."which was being towed approximately 100 to 200 feet in the air,
>plummeted to the ground before skidding and overturning on to its roof."
>looks like it flipped during the ground loop
>
Related by someone not at the scene who probably has little if no aviation
background. Wait for the accident report.

[Mark628CA]

Waiting for the accident report goes against every principle of RAS.

Release the hounds! Experts are everywhere!

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 11:58:21 PM UTC-4, POPS wrote:

> It's super simple ... you land on your roof .... geez

But how do one land inverted without breaking wings, nose, or tail AND walk away?

I'm more interested in well-dissected historical cases where this has happened, than in this particular undocumented accident.

[Chris Rollings[_2_]]

No one was killed, the accident report, on current UK AAIB practice, will
probably simply be the pilot's report with a bit of window dressing.

At 23:59 21 June 2014, Mark628CA wrote:
>Waiting for the accident report goes against every principle of RAS.
>
>Release the hounds! Experts are everywhere!
>

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 8:59:22 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Friday, June 20, 2014 11:58:21 PM UTC-4, POPS wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's super simple ... you land on your roof .... geez
>
>
>
> But how do one land inverted without breaking wings, nose, or tail AND walk away?
>
>
>
> I'm more interested in well-dissected historical cases where this has happened, than in this particular undocumented accident.

This is a serious question then?

It's not possible to "land" (i.e. in a controlled fashion) a glider inverted. Wing incidence, camber and dihedral are all against you. If you were to try this, the glider would touch down on the tail with the nose pitched rather high and the fuselage would drop hard on the cockpit, still with significant forward speed. It's a call-911 event. And there probably won't be any need to hurry.

When someone crawls out of a wreck that stops inverted, it's because the glider flopped on its back at the end of some sort of tumble and it happened to do so in a relatively gentle fashion. It's not a high percentage play.

T8

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 19:06 21 June 2014, Paul T wrote:
>At 15:28 21 June 2014, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:

>>> The photo show tail boom broken behind wings. Tail and wings and nose
>>appear intact. Speculations on how the pilot landed like this?

Without considering this particular accident what possible circumstance
would result in the majority of the aircraft being intact but the tail boom
broken off and why? Which particular types of glider are more prone to this
happening than others, which are they? You work it out or as I believe you
say over there, go figure.

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> If you were to try this (ed. landing inverted), the glider would touch down on the tail with the nose pitched rather high and the fuselage would drop hard on the cockpit, still with significant forward speed.

Then maybe the fuselage would break behind the wings, thus dissipating a great deal of energy and the pieces would come to rest relatively intact like in the photo of the Long Mynd landing. I conclude that 'flying the glider' until it stops is the better option even if the glider is inverted.

>When someone crawls out of a wreck that stops inverted, it's because the glider flopped on its back at the end of some sort of tumble and it happened to do so in a relatively gentle fashion....

Tumbling a glider in 'a relatively gentle fashion' is a possibility??

Related: Does anyone know of a case where a glider was flipped inverted on turn to final in rotor-in-pattern conditions? I'm curious because I got thrashed severely on turn to final a few weeks ago.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:29:11 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > If you were to try this (ed. landing inverted), the glider would touch down on the tail with the nose pitched rather high and the fuselage would drop hard on the cockpit, still with significant forward speed.
>
>
>
> Then maybe the fuselage would break behind the wings, thus dissipating a great deal of energy and the pieces would come to rest relatively intact like in the photo of the Long Mynd landing. I conclude that 'flying the glider' until it stops is the better option even if the glider is inverted.
>
>
>
> >When someone crawls out of a wreck that stops inverted, it's because the glider flopped on its back at the end of some sort of tumble and it happened to do so in a relatively gentle fashion....
>
>
>
> Tumbling a glider in 'a relatively gentle fashion' is a possibility??

No, of course not. It's violent as hell. However it does sometimes happen that *after* most of the energy is dissipated the glider goes over the nose in a less violent fashion and *that* is sometimes survivable.

T8

[BobW]

On 6/24/2014 6:29 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
<Snip...>
>
> Related: Does anyone know of a case where a glider was flipped inverted on
> turn to final in rotor-in-pattern conditions? I'm curious because I got
> thrashed severely on turn to final a few weeks ago.
>

I don't, but when I began flying from a site (Boulder, CO) well-known for
'dynamic pattern conditions' I began worrying about this sort of thing,
myself. My concern was uncommanded rolling motion on short final sufficient to
cause a wingtip to hit/drag-on the ground. (I figured the inverted bit would
then take care of itself!) My experience at the time was that even on the
worst sort of thrashy days, as I neared the ground, the thrashiness tended to
diminish, though never as early/high above the ground as my brain desired.

My 'research' involved flying and brain picking. The most experienced person
on the airport told me in essence: There are two types of soaring pilots who
fly from Boulder: those who WILL fly in the wave, and those who won't. MY
experience has been that the violence tends to diminish about the time
roundout altitude is reached. BUT...anything is possible, so each pilot has to
decide if the return is worth the risk.

I continued to soar from Boulder, experienced eyeball-rattling turbulence (not
necessarily on 'classically wavish days'), worked really hard to stay out of
the pattern when the winds at pattern heights were changing to westerly (a
time my experience showed tended to have genuinely roily
conditions...actually, climbing or descending through the shearing layer when
the west wind had any 'oomph' to it at all it tended to be enthusiastically
roily, but so long as I wasn't near anything I could hit, I didn't worry much
about it. The farthest I ever got rolled against full opposite aileron was
~90-degrees. It got my attention, especially the first time, but only rarely
did uncommanded rolls ever go past 45-degrees, and I've never met anyone who
said they'd been rolled past 90-degrees when flying from Boulder.

You can find in "Soaring" mag's archives an article by Paul Bikle who wrote
(working from ancient memory, here) he'd been rolled inverted 'flying the
mountains bordering the Owens Valley.' I've forgotten the details, but I
remember thinking - when reading it - I'd probably have died under similar
circumstances, lacking the piloting skills in 'unusual attitudes' to have the
wherewithal to continue to roll without horribly dishing out or more stupidly
attempting a split-S. Ground clearance - lack of - was an issue, obviously...

Bob W.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:04:59 PM UTC+12, BobW wrote:
> I don't, but when I began flying from a site (Boulder, CO) well-known for
> 'dynamic pattern conditions' I began worrying about this sort of thing,
> myself. My concern was uncommanded rolling motion on short final sufficient to
> cause a wingtip to hit/drag-on the ground. (I figured the inverted bit would
> then take care of itself!) My experience at the time was that even on the
> worst sort of thrashy days, as I neared the ground, the thrashiness tended to
> diminish, though never as early/high above the ground as my brain desired..

We get some pretty nasty thrash at times at most sites in New Zealand. When using rotor to try to climb into the wave it's a constant tradeoff between flying slowing to not get banged around too much, and flying fast to not get stalled by tail gusts or rolled despite full opposite aileron.

I tend to go for somewhat slow. 60 or 65 knots, say.

For approaches in those conditions I try to get into the downwind much higher than normal -- 1500 or 2000 ft AGL, say (which is often out of the worst of the thrash here) and then use something near the top of the white (80 or 90 knots) and maximum airbrake (and flap if available) to descend steeply and continuously until it's time to start the roundout. You spend minimum time in the worst of it, have maximum resistance against unwanted rolls, maximum resistance against windshear, and since you've probably got 30 knots on the nose the ground speed is the same as a calm day approach and it's no problem to slow down (low enough that falling won't hurt) and get stopped.

If you can handle an "airbrakes stuck open" exercise on a calm day then this is easy to do. I've never even had a hint of overshooting, and you've got massive margin to do something about any developing undershoot.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8:29:11 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > If you were to try this (ed. landing inverted), the glider would touch down on the tail with the nose pitched rather high and the fuselage would drop hard on the cockpit, still with significant forward speed.
>
>
>
> Then maybe the fuselage would break behind the wings, thus dissipating a great deal of energy and the pieces would come to rest relatively intact like in the photo of the Long Mynd landing. I conclude that 'flying the glider' until it stops is the better option even if the glider is inverted.
>
>
>
> >When someone crawls out of a wreck that stops inverted, it's because the glider flopped on its back at the end of some sort of tumble and it happened to do so in a relatively gentle fashion....
>
>
>
> Tumbling a glider in 'a relatively gentle fashion' is a possibility??
>
>
>
> Related: Does anyone know of a case where a glider was flipped inverted on turn to final in rotor-in-pattern conditions? I'm curious because I got thrashed severely on turn to final a few weeks ago.

I've been rolled hard and fast enough to consider keeping the roll going.
Didn't do it.
UH

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 25/06/14 01:29, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>> If you were to try this (ed. landing inverted), the glider would touch down on the tail with the nose pitched rather high and the fuselage would drop hard on the cockpit, still with significant forward speed.
>
> Then maybe the fuselage would break behind the wings, thus dissipating a great deal of energy and the pieces would come to rest relatively intact like in the photo of the Long Mynd landing. I conclude that 'flying the glider' until it stops is the better option even if the glider is inverted.
>
>> When someone crawls out of a wreck that stops inverted, it's because the glider flopped on its back at the end of some sort of tumble and it happened to do so in a relatively gentle fashion....
>
> Tumbling a glider in 'a relatively gentle fashion' is a possibility??
>
> Related: Does anyone know of a case where a glider was flipped inverted on turn to final in rotor-in-pattern conditions? I'm curious because I got thrashed severely on turn to final a few weeks ago.

Similar but different...

An acquaintance told me he had been the K13 pilot in the accident below.
He stated that he plowed into the grid upside down. I didn't quite believe
him - because I couldn't quite understand why he was unscathed.

Perhaps someone with less tenuous connection to the accident can comment.

http://www.lakesgc.co.uk/mainwebpages/Sailplane%20&%20Gliding%201971%20to%201980/Volume%2028%20No%203%20Jun-Jul%201977.pdf
page 128
VORTEX CREATES HAVOC AT LASHAM
One air scout hurt (two broken ribs), four badly
and one slightly damaged gliders were the
result when a K-13 on finals was 'hit' by the
vortex of a Boeing 727 at Lasham on Saturday,
April 30, and lost control.
The K-13 came in to land just after the 727
had taken off from the opposite direction (in
cross-wind conditions) and flew into the take-off
vortex at its worst point of turbulence. It dived
or spun in towards the gliders in the aero-tow
queue and others parked along the side
damaging a K- 7. K·8, Astir and Std Libelle in
the process. luckily the K-13 pilots were un-
hurt. 'The accident is under investigation. but
the cost of this mishap is estimated to be in the
region of £25000.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, June 20, 2014 5:02:53 PM UTC-6, waremark wrote:
> Speculation that winch launch commenced with elevator not connected.

Which would perhaps lead to a steep climb, stall/spin and rotation in a near vertical attitude resulting in an inverted impact, usually fatal. Happened on auto launch in Georgia several years ago with an all-flying tail stall on a Phoebus C. Pilot hurt but survived.

Recognized hazard in winch launching whatever the cause. Like all accidents, preventable.

Frank Whiteley

[ND]

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:48:14 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 8:59:22 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 20, 2014 11:58:21 PM UTC-4, POPS wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > It's super simple ... you land on your roof .... geez
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > But how do one land inverted without breaking wings, nose, or tail AND walk away?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm more interested in well-dissected historical cases where this has happened, than in this particular undocumented accident.
>
>
>
> This is a serious question then?
>
>
>
> It's not possible to "land" (i.e. in a controlled fashion) a glider inverted. Wing incidence, camber and dihedral are all against you. If you were to try this, the glider would touch down on the tail with the nose pitched rather high and the fuselage would drop hard on the cockpit, still with significant forward speed. It's a call-911 event. And there probably won't be any need to hurry.
>
>
>
> When someone crawls out of a wreck that stops inverted, it's because the glider flopped on its back at the end of some sort of tumble and it happened to do so in a relatively gentle fashion. It's not a high percentage play..
>
>
>
> T8

agreed!

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

We had an accident at Siskiyou County a few years back that looked a lot like the posted photo. Wind was blowing a good 40 knots direct crosswind to the N-S runway, so the pilot wisely decided to land into the wind on a taxiway. GPS trace showed touched down at 40 ground speed which would have been about 80 IAS!
Probably flying something like 70 for potential wind-shear, he turned final and felt the ground wasn't going by as fast as it usually did, so he sped up! Anyway, he caught a wing tip shortly after touch down and did a full blown flying ground-loop. Boom broke during the first 90 degrees, but it wasn't over. Left wing was stopped, but the right wing was accelerating. This resulted in a rolling-turning maneuver that left the ship upside down with a relatively undamaged wing on top of the inverted fuselage. Pilot is still with us with nothing more than a broken foot!
JJ

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 8:25:31 PM UTC-4, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> he caught a wing tip shortly after touch down and did a full blown flying ground-loop. Boom broke during the first 90 degrees, but it wasn't over. Left wing was stopped, but the right wing was accelerating. This resulted in a rolling-turning maneuver that left the ship upside down with a relatively undamaged wing on top of the inverted fuselage.

Now I understand one way that a ground loop can come to rest with the fuselage inverted. The tail breaks off before the flip and maybe that explains why the tail in the photo is right side up and relatively undamaged.

[Dan Marotta]

Excellent point about not looking fast enough.

We always joke about "helicopter landings" in high winds, but the
subconscious mind wants to see the ground moving past at a familiar
rate. We also used to laugh at how "flatlanders" would come in too
slowly at high altitude airports and drop it in because the ground
seemed to be moving by too quickly. A few weeks ago I was landing in 32
kt winds in Salida, CO and the urge to push the nose down was very
strong due to my low ground speed. Fortunately, I got a glimpse of the
airspeed indicator...

Dan Marotta

On 7/2/2014 6:25 PM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> We had an accident at Siskiyou County a few years back that looked a lot like the posted photo. Wind was blowing a good 40 knots direct crosswind to the N-S runway, so the pilot wisely decided to land into the wind on a taxiway. GPS trace showed touched down at 40 ground speed which would have been about 80 IAS!
> Probably flying something like 70 for potential wind-shear, he turned final and felt the ground wasn't going by as fast as it usually did, so he sped up! Anyway, he caught a wing tip shortly after touch down and did a full blown flying ground-loop. Boom broke during the first 90 degrees, but it wasn't over. Left wing was stopped, but the right wing was accelerating. This resulted in a rolling-turning maneuver that left the ship upside down with a relatively undamaged wing on top of the inverted fuselage. Pilot is still with us with nothing more than a broken foot!
> JJ

[Jonathon May]

I have spoken to a member of the club concerned.
The elevator was not correctly connected ,it was a winch launch and the
pilot
pulled the release as soon as he he realised .no confirmation on how it
ended
up inverted .
Privately owned ask19
The club have formal double control checks but the pilot some how managed
to ovoid them .
The lesson is clear
GET SOME ONE TO DO POSSITIVE CHECKS

Jon





At 14:26 03 July 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
>Excellent point about not looking fast enough.
>
>We always joke about "helicopter landings" in high winds, but the
>subconscious mind wants to see the ground moving past at a familiar
>rate. We also used to laugh at how "flatlanders" would come in too
>slowly at high altitude airports and drop it in because the ground
>seemed to be moving by too quickly. A few weeks ago I was landing in 32
>kt winds in Salida, CO and the urge to push the nose down was very
>strong due to my low ground speed. Fortunately, I got a glimpse of the
>airspeed indicator...
>
>Dan Marotta
>
>On 7/2/2014 6:25 PM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>> We had an accident at Siskiyou County a few years back that looked a
lot
>like the posted photo. Wind was blowing a good 40 knots direct crosswind
to
>the N-S runway, so the pilot wisely decided to land into the wind on a
>taxiway. GPS trace showed touched down at 40 ground speed which would
have
>been about 80 IAS!
>> Probably flying something like 70 for potential wind-shear, he turned
>final and felt the ground wasn't going by as fast as it usually did, so
he
>sped up! Anyway, he caught a wing tip shortly after touch down and did a
>full blown flying ground-loop. Boom broke during the first 90 degrees,
but
>it wasn't over. Left wing was stopped, but the right wing was
accelerating.
>This resulted in a rolling-turning maneuver that left the ship upside
down
>with a relatively undamaged wing on top of the inverted fuselage. Pilot
is
>still with us with nothing more than a broken foot!
>> JJ
>
>

[GM]

On Friday, July 4, 2014 3:10:33 PM UTC-4, Jonathon May wrote:
> I have spoken to a member of the club concerned.
>
> The elevator was not correctly connected ,it was a winch launch and the
>
> pilot
>
> pulled the release as soon as he he realised .no confirmation on how it
>
> ended
>
> up inverted .
>
> Privately owned ask19
>
> The club have formal double control checks but the pilot some how managed
>
> to ovoid them .
>
> The lesson is clear
>
> GET SOME ONE TO DO POSSITIVE CHECKS
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>

Thanks for the update and clarification, Jon!

Uli








>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 14:26 03 July 2014, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> >Excellent point about not looking fast enough.
>
> >
>
> >We always joke about "helicopter landings" in high winds, but the
>
> >subconscious mind wants to see the ground moving past at a familiar
>
> >rate. We also used to laugh at how "flatlanders" would come in too
>
> >slowly at high altitude airports and drop it in because the ground
>
> >seemed to be moving by too quickly. A few weeks ago I was landing in 32
>
> >kt winds in Salida, CO and the urge to push the nose down was very
>
> >strong due to my low ground speed. Fortunately, I got a glimpse of the
>
> >airspeed indicator...
>
> >
>
> >Dan Marotta
>
> >
>
> >On 7/2/2014 6:25 PM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>
> >> We had an accident at Siskiyou County a few years back that looked a
>
> lot
>
> >like the posted photo. Wind was blowing a good 40 knots direct crosswind
>
> to
>
> >the N-S runway, so the pilot wisely decided to land into the wind on a
>
> >taxiway. GPS trace showed touched down at 40 ground speed which would
>
> have
>
> >been about 80 IAS!
>
> >> Probably flying something like 70 for potential wind-shear, he turned
>
> >final and felt the ground wasn't going by as fast as it usually did, so
>
> he
>
> >sped up! Anyway, he caught a wing tip shortly after touch down and did a
>
> >full blown flying ground-loop. Boom broke during the first 90 degrees,
>
> but
>
> >it wasn't over. Left wing was stopped, but the right wing was
>
> accelerating.
>
> >This resulted in a rolling-turning maneuver that left the ship upside
>
> down
>
> >with a relatively undamaged wing on top of the inverted fuselage. Pilot
>
> is
>
> >still with us with nothing more than a broken foot!
>
> >> JJ
>
> >
>
> >