RIP Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube)

[Stephan van den Berg]

Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.

I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.

RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

[AS]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 5:54:30 AM UTC-5, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

Sad news, indeed. I always enjoyed his well made and edited videos.
Are any insights on what happened beyond the local news-blips out yet?
RIP, Matt!
Uli
AS

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 10:54 05 December 2016, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
>Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube)
>was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend.
I
>believe he collided with a power plane.
>
>I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and
>over. He will be sorely missed.
>
>RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark
>
sadly missed,condolences
jon

[Colin Rule]

At 11:19 05 December 2016, Jonathon May wrote:
>At 10:54 05 December 2016, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
>>Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube)
>>was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend
>I
>>believe he collided with a power plane.
>>
>>I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and
>>over. He will be sorely missed.
>>
>>RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark
>>
>sadly missed,condolences
>jon
>
>
I believe there may be an element of confusion here as I believe there were
2 Fatal Gliding accident on 4 Dec in UK one on/near Dartmoor which may be
Ballleka and another near Hus Bos which involved a mid air with a Cessna
150
RIP to both Aviators

[Colin Rule]

At 11:19 05 December 2016, Jonathon May wrote:
>At 10:54 05 December 2016, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
>>Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube)
>>was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend
>I
>>believe he collided with a power plane.
>>
>>I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and
>>over. He will be sorely missed.
>>
>>RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark
>>
>sadly missed,condolences
>jon
>
>
I believe there may be an element of confusion here as I believe there were
2 Fatal Gliding accident on 4 Dec in UK one on/near Dartmoor which may be
Ballleka and another near Hus Bos which involved a mid air with a Cessna
150
RIP to both Aviators

[krasw]

Terrible loss, absolutely shocking. Balleka's Youtube videos were the best.

[John Trubridge]

At 12:26 05 December 2016, krasw wrote:
>Terrible loss, absolutely shocking. Balleka's Youtube videos were the
best.
> I am in shock, this is terrible news and a huge loss. I will miss Matt
and his awesome videos. RIP JT

[John Trubridge]

At 12:26 05 December 2016, krasw wrote:
>Terrible loss, absolutely shocking. Balleka's Youtube videos were the
best.
I am in shock, and agree, this is a terrible news and a great loss. I will

miss Matt and his awesome videos. RIP Matt JT

[Stephan van den Berg]

Hi, to correct my initial post, I've been informed that Matt was not involved in the mid-air. This from the BGA:

"Two experienced glider pilots tragically died on Sunday in two separate accidents; a collision involving a glider and an aeroplane, and separately a takeoff accident. Our thoughts are with friends and family. The AAIB are investigating."

RIP to both aviators. Sympathies to family and friends.

[ND]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:26:30 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> Terrible loss, absolutely shocking. Balleka's Youtube videos were the best.

they still are the best! and although we've lost him, he lives on through his videos, you can still see his happiness through the canopy while gliding. His videos still serve as an awesome example of why we do this,and why more people should.

i agree, a terrible loss.

[Daniel Sazhin[_3_]]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 8:21:48 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:26:30 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > Terrible loss, absolutely shocking. Balleka's Youtube videos were the best.
>
> they still are the best! and although we've lost him, he lives on through his videos, you can still see his happiness through the canopy while gliding. His videos still serve as an awesome example of why we do this,and why more people should.
>
> i agree, a terrible loss.

Great pilot, extraordinary artist. Many of us have been touched by his work. Really sad.

[John Carlyle]

I'm really sad to learn about Matt's death. I've enjoyed many, many hours watching his wonderful videos. I'll miss his infectious laugh and love of life. I wish his family all the best. RIP, Matt.

-John, Q3

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 5:54:30 AM UTC-5, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:54:30 PM UTC+3, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

Holy ****. Stunned.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:44:11 PM UTC+3, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Hi, to correct my initial post, I've been informed that Matt was not involved in the mid-air. This from the BGA:
>
> "Two experienced glider pilots tragically died on Sunday in two separate accidents; a collision involving a glider and an aeroplane, and separately a takeoff accident. Our thoughts are with friends and family. The AAIB are investigating."
>
> RIP to both aviators. Sympathies to family and friends.

Takeoff accident! It's not what I'd be afraid of for Matt. And such an experienced pilot, obviously with the commercial flying in heavy jets too.

[[email protected]]

This is so tragic. Matt was a huge inspiration to so many including myself. My condolences to his family and friends. Rest in peace my friend.

[Mike C]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:54:30 AM UTC-7, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRx9uNUNer8

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Oh this is terrible news. Matt's videos were the ones I showed to friends who are interested in gliding.

My condolences to family, friends, and the soaring community.

Jon
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:54:30 AM UTC-8, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

[Sean[_2_]]

I also enjoyed his many videos. He shared a great passion for soaring with the world on YouTube. He effortlessly made his flights look as fun on video as they actually were for him (very hard to do).

I also loved the music he used in his videos. I think great music is very important to soaring videos. I often downloaded the songs he used on iTunes after watching his video ;-). Great taste!

Sincere thoughts for Matt's family and friends.

I'll watch his videos for many, many years I imagine! Thanks Matt!

Sean

[Casey[_2_]]

"Because I fly
I laugh more than other men
I look up and see more than they,
I know how the clouds feel,
What it's like to have the blue in my lap,
to look down on birds,
to feel freedom in a thing called a stick...

who but I can slice between God's billowed legs,
and feel then laugh and crash with his step
Who else has seen the unclimbed peaks?
The rainbow's secret?
The real reason birds sing?
Because I Fly,
I envy no man on earth."

Grover C. Norwood

[[email protected]]

A Facebook post I saw said it was a winch launching accident. Condolences to the family.

[[email protected]]

I am very saddened by this news. I loved Matt's videos from afar and I am sure I would have been happy to be his friend. As another poster said - his videos were the ones I sent to others to explain the wonder of soaring. He captured it perfectly

Condolences to his family, friends and colleagues

AE

[pstrzel]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 3:54:30 AM UTC-7, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

Here's an interview with Matt from a while back:

https://audioboom.com/posts/1552789-matt-wright-what-s-a-balleka-and-why-s-there-no-video-of-your-in-famous-watery-landing

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Thanks.

Here is his YouTube link..... https://m.youtube.com/results?q=balleka&sm=1

Note, some videos just have "Balleka" in the name, but are NOT Matts videos.

[[email protected]]

Damn. He his videos have motivated me to drop weight to get back onto flying after an 8 year hiatus. Tragic.

[Duster]

This accident is being investigated by the AAIB, but has there been any eyewitness reports on what might have happened? Initial posting had this as a possible winch-related incident?

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=191862

[James Thomson[_2_]]

At 16:55 22 December 2016, Duster wrote:
>This accident is being investigated by the AAIB, but has there been any
>eyewitness reports on what might have happened? Initial posting had this
as
>a possible winch-related incident?
>
>https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=191862
>
Published to-day:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a5f158c40f0b652634c6f36
/Schleicher_ASW_24_G-CFNG_02-18.pdf

[Mike the Strike]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:45:05 AM UTC-7, James Thomson wrote:
> At 16:55 22 December 2016, Duster wrote:
> >This accident is being investigated by the AAIB, but has there been any
> >eyewitness reports on what might have happened? Initial posting had this
> as
> >a possible winch-related incident?
> >
> >https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=191862
> >
> Published to-day:
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a5f158c40f0b652634c6f36
> /Schleicher_ASW_24_G-CFNG_02-18.pdf

From the report, it looks as if, after the weak link broke early in the launch, that Matt attempted an abbreviated pattern from below 300 feet in strong wind with rotor and turbulence and stalled/spun in. His three cameras provided lots of data.

The report also says he had enough runway to land straight ahead. Yet another experienced pilot bitten by turbulent conditions near the ground. A sombre message for all of us glider pilots.

Mike

[Matt Herron Jr.]

this just appeared in my "Flipboard" feed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/glider-crash-death-investigation-pilot-matt-wright-brentor-airfield-dartmoor-devon-a8200056.html

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 9:13:54 AM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:45:05 AM UTC-7, James Thomson wrote:
> > At 16:55 22 December 2016, Duster wrote:
> > >This accident is being investigated by the AAIB, but has there been any
> > >eyewitness reports on what might have happened? Initial posting had this
> > as
> > >a possible winch-related incident?
> > >
> > >https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=191862
> > >
> > Published to-day:
> > https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a5f158c40f0b652634c6f36
> > /Schleicher_ASW_24_G-CFNG_02-18.pdf
>
> From the report, it looks as if, after the weak link broke early in the launch, that Matt attempted an abbreviated pattern from below 300 feet in strong wind with rotor and turbulence and stalled/spun in. His three cameras provided lots of data.
>
> The report also says he had enough runway to land straight ahead. Yet another experienced pilot bitten by turbulent conditions near the ground. A sombre message for all of us glider pilots.
>
> Mike

What an incredibly detailed and expert accident report. Given the vast amount of data and eye-witness reports this seems to be the most complete account one can envision. The easy and predictable reaction is: 'why didn't he land straight ahead, I would never have turned to downwind'. For this highly experienced pilot to make such a mistake should give us all pause. A very avoidable winch launch accident with lessons also for us aero-tow pilots. In 1980 in my winch launch training the instructor released at 400' and only if you flew a straight-in landing toward the winch would he let you solo. I'm sure the same is practiced in the UK but human nature seems to nudge us to fly the pattern.
Another question: why go flying in such conditions? Speak up at your club if you feel conditions are unsafe for operations.
Herb

[Dan Marotta]

On 2/8/2018 9:05 AM, wrote:
> <snip>
> Another question: why go flying in such conditions? Speak up at your club if you feel conditions are unsafe for operations.
> Herb
Uhhh...Â* Because that's when you can get some of the best flights. If
you don't like the conditions, don't fly.Â* It's as simple as that.Â* Why
should I not fly if you don't like the conditions?Â* Let me make that
decision for myself.

I have taken off in similar conditions many times.Â* Most often I land
quickly due to not finding the lift, but sometimes there's a spectacular
flight in the works!Â* Is this going to turn into the next "Hard Deck"
thread?

And, BTW, our NTSB could learn a lot from the Brits when it comes to
accident reporting of general aviation accidents.
--
Dan, 5J

[Tango Whisky]

Le jeudi 8 février 2018 17:05:30 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
In 1980 in my winch launch training the instructor released at 400' and only if you flew a straight-in landing toward the winch would he let you solo. I'm sure the same is practiced in the UK but human nature seems to nudge us to fly the pattern.
> Herb

All this depends on terrain and wind conditions. At most places in Europe you start to enter the downwind leg at 500-700 ft AGL, so 400 ft would well make for an abbreviated pattern (in standard conditions).

But this is an extremely well researched and written report.

[krasw]

torstai 8. helmikuuta 2018 18.43.01 UTC+2 Tango Whisky kirjoitti:
>
> All this depends on terrain and wind conditions. At most places in Europe you start to enter the downwind leg at 500-700 ft AGL, so 400 ft would well make for an abbreviated pattern (in standard conditions).
>
> But this is an extremely well researched and written report.

Agreed, report is excellent. From 280ft even 180 degree turn is not without risks, depending on obstacles on the ground. I wouldn't even try 360 turn from under 500ft. Many airfields are so small that for a moment you cannot land straight or turn 360 if you break the rope or winch cable.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 10:19:43 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 9:05 AM, wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Another question: why go flying in such conditions? Speak up at your club if you feel conditions are unsafe for operations.
> > Herb
> Uhhh...Â* Because that's when you can get some of the best flights. If
> you don't like the conditions, don't fly.Â* It's as simple as that.Â* Why
> should I not fly if you don't like the conditions?Â* Let me make that
> decision for myself.
>
> I have taken off in similar conditions many times.Â* Most often I land
> quickly due to not finding the lift, but sometimes there's a spectacular
> flight in the works!Â* Is this going to turn into the next "Hard Deck"
> thread?
>
> And, BTW, our NTSB could learn a lot from the Brits when it comes to
> accident reporting of general aviation accidents.
> --
> Dan, 5J

But you are God's test pilot, Dan. Nobody's business to tell you when not to fly, oh Almighty. For the mere mortals and especially the dummies who don't know better, I suggest some friendly advice might be appropriate. Might save a life here and there...

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 10:19:43 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 2/8/2018 9:05 AM, wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Another question: why go flying in such conditions? Speak up at your club if you feel conditions are unsafe for operations.
> > Herb
> Uhhh...Â* Because that's when you can get some of the best flights. If
> you don't like the conditions, don't fly.Â* It's as simple as that.Â* Why
> should I not fly if you don't like the conditions?Â* Let me make that
> decision for myself.
>
> I have taken off in similar conditions many times.Â* Most often I land
> quickly due to not finding the lift, but sometimes there's a spectacular
> flight in the works!Â* Is this going to turn into the next "Hard Deck"
> thread?
>
> And, BTW, our NTSB could learn a lot from the Brits when it comes to
> accident reporting of general aviation accidents.
> --
> Dan, 5J

[George Haeh]

My compliments to the AAIB for taking advantage of the data. I had a very
narrow escape from a low level vortex / downburst encounter and am most
grateful.

My Oudie and Air Glide S enabled me to determine the horizontal and
vertical
wind shears.

A vortex can produce a shear of twice the wind aloft.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1NeKc6B2S3XeDY0Q1Z6NXdsd2s

With other similar accidents I am aware of, the windshear is downwind of
higher terrain or a large building. This accident is different in that the
higher
terrain is absent, but the air flow disturbance seems to have been
generated by
the change in slope profile.

[Nick Kennedy]

Well this detailed accident report gives closure, at least to me, on what exactly happened to Matt.
I kinda of felt I got to know him through his awesome videos that I watched again and again.
There is a tough lesson to learn here, however one wants to read into it.
RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark.

[[email protected]]

Well said.

The pictures from Belleka's GoPro cameras in the report had quite an effect on me. They are hard for me to look at, being simultaneously so familiar yet so foreboding. I must admit feeling dumbstruck when I saw them.

The report was exceptionally informative and thoroughly researched. It is a something of a relief to finally have an answer to the question of how this could have happened. Its sad to lose a friend, even one that you never met.

Matt

[Dan Marotta]

Well, Herb, I guess you told me.Â* And revealed a lot about yourself in
the process.

On 2/8/2018 1:19 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 10:19:43 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> On 2/8/2018 9:05 AM, wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> Another question: why go flying in such conditions? Speak up at your club if you feel conditions are unsafe for operations.
>>> Herb
>> Uhhh...Â* Because that's when you can get some of the best flights. If
>> you don't like the conditions, don't fly.Â* It's as simple as that.Â* Why
>> should I not fly if you don't like the conditions?Â* Let me make that
>> decision for myself.
>>
>> I have taken off in similar conditions many times.Â* Most often I land
>> quickly due to not finding the lift, but sometimes there's a spectacular
>> flight in the works!Â* Is this going to turn into the next "Hard Deck"
>> thread?
>>
>> And, BTW, our NTSB could learn a lot from the Brits when it comes to
>> accident reporting of general aviation accidents.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> But you are God's test pilot, Dan. Nobody's business to tell you when not to fly, oh Almighty. For the mere mortals and especially the dummies who don't know better, I suggest some friendly advice might be appropriate. Might save a life here and there...
>
> On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 10:19:43 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> On 2/8/2018 9:05 AM, wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> Another question: why go flying in such conditions? Speak up at your club if you feel conditions are unsafe for operations.
>>> Herb
>> Uhhh...Â* Because that's when you can get some of the best flights. If
>> you don't like the conditions, don't fly.Â* It's as simple as that.Â* Why
>> should I not fly if you don't like the conditions?Â* Let me make that
>> decision for myself.
>>
>> I have taken off in similar conditions many times.Â* Most often I land
>> quickly due to not finding the lift, but sometimes there's a spectacular
>> flight in the works!Â* Is this going to turn into the next "Hard Deck"
>> thread?
>>
>> And, BTW, our NTSB could learn a lot from the Brits when it comes to
>> accident reporting of general aviation accidents.
>> --
>> Dan, 5J

--
Dan, 5J

[Frank Whiteley]

Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught in the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is nearly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects of the event.

Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video.

Frank Whiteley

[Mike the Strike]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught in the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is nearly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects of the event.
>
> Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video.
>
> Frank Whiteley

"The Clutching Hand"!

Mike

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught in the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is nearly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions.. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects of the event.
> >
> > Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> "The Clutching Hand"!
>
> Mike


Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and known control inputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised about what is not included in this report.

[Dave Walsh]

You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.

At 06:17 10 February 2018, wrote:
>On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike
the Strike wrote:
>> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7,
Frank Whiteley wrote:
>> > Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can
create what I
>cal=
>l 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a
partner got
>caug=
>ht in the downside of such curl on his downwind and
despite abbreviating
>th=
>e circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the
valley. This was
>=
>in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon
turning final chased
>t=
>he ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short
of the runway
>in=
> standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site.
There is
>ne=
>arly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river
bottom west of
>Exete=
>r and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty
squirrelly
>conditions=
>.. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised
about some
>aspects=
> of the event.
>> >=20
>> > Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched
Chasing Diamonds a
>few=
> days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from
Lleweni Parc a
>f=
>ew times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed
this video.
>> >=20
>> > Frank Whiteley
>>=20
>> "The Clutching Hand"!
>>=20
>> Mike
>
>
>Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and
known control
>i=
>nputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised
about what is
>no=
>t included in this report.
>

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9:17:17 AM UTC+3, wrote:
> On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > > Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught in the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is nearly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects of the event.
> > >
> > > Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video.
> > >
> > > Frank Whiteley
> >
> > "The Clutching Hand"!
> >
> > Mike
>
>
> Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and known control inputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised about what is not included in this report.

Yes. That's an extremely low airspeed to commence a turn in such known boisterous conditions. I'd probably be wanting to fly finals at 65-70, and the same in the circuit. With that kind of headwind, your ground speed (into wind) is the same or lower than on a calm day and much steeper descent angles are available due to more effective airbrakes at speed, so there's no good reason *not* to.

It's very puzzling that such an experienced pilot would do that.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:45:06 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
> You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
> "hill top site": it's enormous and flat.
>
> At 06:17 10 February 2018, wrote:
> >On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike
> the Strike wrote:
> >> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7,
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >> > Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can
> create what I
> >cal=
> >l 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a
> partner got
> >caug=
> >ht in the downside of such curl on his downwind and
> despite abbreviating
> >th=
> >e circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the
> valley. This was
> >=
> >in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon
> turning final chased
> >t=
> >he ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short
> of the runway
> >in=
> > standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site.
> There is
> >ne=
> >arly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river
> bottom west of
> >Exete=
> >r and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty
> squirrelly
> >conditions=
> >.. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised
> about some
> >aspects=
> > of the event.
> >> >=20
> >> > Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched
> Chasing Diamonds a
> >few=
> > days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from
> Lleweni Parc a
> >f=
> >ew times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed
> this video.
> >> >=20
> >> > Frank Whiteley
> >>=20
> >> "The Clutching Hand"!
> >>=20
> >> Mike
> >
> >
> >Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and
> known control
> >i=
> >nputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised
> about what is
> >no=
> >t included in this report.
> >

I'll give you that, but there are 200+/- foot rolling variations in the area which may result in turbulent air when it's windy. It's been many years, but I've flown some of the ridge at Challock and it's generally around 300ft, less in spots, as I recall. Near the ground doesn't take much. Looked pretty flat also.

Frank Whiteley

[Dan Marotta]

On 2/9/2018 12:41 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:

<snip>
> I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley.
</snip>

I'd say you did that absolutely correctly.Â* Trying to make the field
might well have killed you.Â* Well done!

--
Dan, 5J

[Waveguru]

I know of a winch site that sighs off pilots for solo without doing a single rope break practice, and only a hand full of dual tows. I wonder how Matt was trained?

Boggs

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:46:59 AM UTC-7, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9:17:17 AM UTC+3, wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> > > > Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught in the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is nearly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects of the event.
> > > >
> > > > Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video..
> > > >
> > > > Frank Whiteley
> > >
> > > "The Clutching Hand"!
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
> > Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and known control inputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised about what is not included in this report.
>
> Yes. That's an extremely low airspeed to commence a turn in such known boisterous conditions. I'd probably be wanting to fly finals at 65-70, and the same in the circuit. With that kind of headwind, your ground speed (into wind) is the same or lower than on a calm day and much steeper descent angles are available due to more effective airbrakes at speed, so there's no good reason *not* to.
>
> It's very puzzling that such an experienced pilot would do that.

In turbulent air near the ground, I think it's quite possible he was descending into a curl, vortex, or rolling air that momentarily could have been a gradient with a tail wind component, thus no gain in airspeed despite the nose down attitude.

As I described in my Enstone experience, I kept pushing the stick forward, chasing the ASI until all I could do was round out. The ASI never got above 50kts despite the steep nose down attitude and the sensation was like falling out of the sky. The pilot behind me, Libelle 201B, said he was pegged at -10kts. Thus I was 150 yards short of the intended touch down point.

Frank Whiteley

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 6:13:24 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 2/9/2018 12:41 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in standing barley.
> </snip>
>
> I'd say you did that absolutely correctly.Â* Trying to make the field
> might well have killed you.Â* Well done!

In strong westerly wave/ridge conditions in New Zealand we often fly the base leg inside the (landable) airfield boundary, even in high performance gliders, planning to land well inside the airfield. Getting down and stopped in the available space is *not* a problem, even if it's only 500 meters total available.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Several weeks ago I was downwind of a mountain range in strong wind when I encountered rotor at 1400 ft AGL. Since I was flying a ride, thought I would get out of rotor, and immediately turned downwind. I lost 400 ft in a 180 degree turn. Speed dropped, much more than expected and I found myself pushing and pushing on the stick to keep flying. I thought the report said Matt was flying at about 70 kts when he hit. I wonder if the downdraft was so strong he felt as if in a stall but he was actually flying?

Matt's mishap was a terrible tragedy, and Matt added so much to the sport. He is missed and I never even met him.

[Paul Rice]

Frank,
I'm curious, was the E Anglian incident @ Whatfield & what/who was
glider/pilot. ?



At 19:41 09 February 2018, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call
>'c=
>url' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught
>i=
>n the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the
>ci=
>rcuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in
>E=
>ast Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the
>A=
>SI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in
>sta=
>nding barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is
>nearly=
> a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter
>an=
>d the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions.
>H=
>aving learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects
of
>=
>the event.
>
>Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few
>day=
>s prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few
>t=
>imes, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>

[Kiwi User]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:42:27 -0800, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 6:13:24 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> On 2/9/2018 12:41 PM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the ASI to
>> > the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in
>> > standing barley.
>> </snip>
>>
>> I'd say you did that absolutely correctly.Â* Trying to make the field
>> might well have killed you.Â* Well done!
>
> In strong westerly wave/ridge conditions in New Zealand we often fly the
> base leg inside the (landable) airfield boundary, even in high
> performance gliders, planning to land well inside the airfield. Getting
> down and stopped in the available space is *not* a problem, even if it's
> only 500 meters total available.

Yep. Done that in Cambridgeshire too in an SZD Junior on a rather windy
day - 70kts on base along the downwind edge of the field and speed
retained on finals plus a fair amount of brake had me down and stopped
100m past the threshold. Juniors turn into bricks at that speed with
brakes open.


--

[AS]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10:14:30 AM UTC-5, Waveguru wrote:
> I know of a winch site that sighs off pilots for solo without doing a single rope break practice, and only a hand full of dual tows. I wonder how Matt was trained?
>
> Boggs

Boggs,
that may hold true for the US but in Europe, winching is the predominant launch method for gliders due to the high cost of AVGAS and operating power planes. It is very likely that Matt was trained on the winch up to first solo, which would have included launch failure training ad nausea - at least that's how it was handled in my club in Germany.
Uli
'AS'

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 11:15:07 AM UTC-7, Paul Rice wrote:
> Frank,
> I'm curious, was the E Anglian incident @ Whatfield & what/who was
> glider/pilot. ?
>
>
>
> At 19:41 09 February 2018, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can create what I call
> >'c=
> >url' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a partner got caught
> >i=
> >n the downside of such curl on his downwind and despite abbreviating the
> >ci=
> >rcuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the valley. This was in
> >E=
> >ast Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon turning final chased the
> >A=
> >SI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short of the runway in
> >sta=
> >nding barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site. There is
> >nearly=
> > a 400ft difference in elevation between the river bottom west of Exeter
> >an=
> >d the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty squirrelly conditions.
> >H=
> >aving learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised about some aspects
> of
> >=
> >the event.
> >
> >Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched Chasing Diamonds a few
> >day=
> >s prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from Lleweni Parc a few
> >t=
> >imes, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed this video.
> >
> >Frank Whiteley
> >

Yes, Whatfield. Other info by PM.

Frank

[Kiwi User]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 16:51:26 -0800, AS wrote:

> On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10:14:30 AM UTC-5, Waveguru wrote:
>> I know of a winch site that sighs off pilots for solo without doing a
>> single rope break practice, and only a hand full of dual tows. I wonder
>> how Matt was trained?
>>
>> Boggs
>
> Boggs,
> that may hold true for the US but in Europe, winching is the predominant
> launch method for gliders due to the high cost of AVGAS and operating
> power planes. It is very likely that Matt was trained on the winch up to
> first solo, which would have included launch failure training ad nausea
> - at least that's how it was handled in my club in Germany.
> Uli 'AS'

..... and in my UK club we do an annual refresher that includes a high
aero tow for stalls and spins and two winch launch failures. No solo
flying allowed in the new season without getting sign-offs for these.


--

[Michael Opitz]

At 12:36 10 February 2018, Dave Walsh wrote:
>You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
>"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.

I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.
That is, unless one overthinks it and decides that doing so would
mean a long ground retrieve back to the start point for another
launch. Could he have been thinking that he could just squeak out
a tight pattern so as to land back at the start point in order to
quickly get into the air again? I guess we will never know for sure.

I remember one instance back in the 1960's when George Moffat
was flying his SH-1 out of Wurtsboro on an "iffy" day. He got low
down by the sister glider field at Middletown and decided to land
there to get a re-light back to Wurtsboro. Being by himself with
no ground crew, etc, he decided to land just short of the take-off
staging area so that he would be able to launch from where he
rolled out and stopped. Except, George misjudged his approach
and wound up in the bushes just short of the runway. He had
also punched a good sized hole in the underside of one wing, so
he wound up having to get it trailered back to Wurtsboro to get
repaired. An example of very good pilot making a convenience
related decision that went wrong....

Thermalling low in order to avoid a retrieve or possible off-field
landing damage? -- a convenience factor from another thread.

Making an abbreviated pattern to avoid a long tow on the ground?
-- another possible "convenience related" decision?

We will never know for sure, but it is probably worth mentioning
during training for these types of events.

RO

[BobW]

> I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
> if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
> screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
> of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
> brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.
> That is, unless one overthinks it and decides that doing so would
> mean a long ground retrieve back to the start point for another
> launch. Could he have been thinking that he could just squeak out
> a tight pattern so as to land back at the start point in order to
> quickly get into the air again? I guess we will never know for sure.
>
> I remember one instance back in the 1960's when George Moffat
> was flying his SH-1 out of Wurtsboro on an "iffy" day. He got low
> down by the sister glider field at Middletown and decided to land
> there to get a re-light back to Wurtsboro. Being by himself with
> no ground crew, etc, he decided to land just short of the take-off
> staging area so that he would be able to launch from where he
> rolled out and stopped. Except, George misjudged his approach
> and wound up in the bushes just short of the runway. He had
> also punched a good sized hole in the underside of one wing, so
> he wound up having to get it trailered back to Wurtsboro to get
> repaired. An example of very good pilot making a convenience
> related decision that went wrong....
>
> Thermalling low in order to avoid a retrieve or possible off-field
> landing damage? -- a convenience factor from another thread.
>
> Making an abbreviated pattern to avoid a long tow on the ground?
> -- another possible "convenience related" decision?
>
> We will never know for sure, but it is probably worth mentioning
> during training for these types of events.

I did not know Matt W. and am not a knee-jerk fan of video watching, but I
*had* thoroughly enjoyed 2 or 3 of his videos prior to his saddening death,
and his joy of participation in soaring - and skill - was evident. Sincere
condolences to his family and friends.

+1 to the above post.

Like every other self-interested reader/poster in this thread, I can only
surmise what was in Matt's mind when he made the "turn now!" decision, but
"the dreaded convenience decision?" possibility appeared early-on in my mind.

Maybe I was lucky, but I was first exposed to "the dreaded convenience
decision" in my pre-solo days, after making ad admiring comment to my
instructor about how skillfully someone had taxied the club's 1-26 off the
active runway, stopping right outside the hangar door. My instructor
laughingly replied to the effect of: Yeah! Really nifty...when it works! We
then discussed it, natch, until he was satisfied I understood his point. Since
then, I've seen many a convenience decision that has NOT worked as hoped (as
distinct from planned, because many of them are - to be kind - ill considered).

Worse, I bent a landing gear attach bulkhead one time by indulging in my own
ill-considered "dreaded convenience decision"...sort of the reverse of the
decision facing Matt. I'd fallen out on a wave day, flown the gnarly-condition
pattern to land near from where I'd launched, then acted upon a
"short-final-inspiration (not!)." Rather than planning on landing at the far
end of the field - where I'd rigged and left the trailer, because that was
convenient to non-west-wind days which were the site's statistical norm - I
came in "inconveniently short" even though not planning a 2nd tow, then acted
on the late-appearing impulse to land longer. No big deal, save for the fact
the flaps in that ship were hydraulic, and thus not amenable to flap
reductions short of being more or less instantaneously being blown back to the
in-trail position. (Doh!) I was lucky I didn't suffer worse consequences from
losing full flaps at about 70' agl...

*Much* worse (in the sense of repeating a dumb "convenience driven" choice),
many years later I repeated George Moffat's convenience-driven mistake...in
benign conditions at a benign site...subsequently learning how to re-glass a
G-103's tail wheel boat. (Doh!) My lack of being "tuned in" that morning
amazes and dismays me to this day, some 20 years later...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[krasw]

maanantai 12. helmikuuta 2018 17.00.06 UTC+2 Michael Opitz kirjoitti:
> At 12:36 10 February 2018, Dave Walsh wrote:
> >You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
> >"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.
>
> I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
> if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
> screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
> of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
> brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.

ASW 24 has weakest airbrakes of pretty much any standard class made after 70's. You might easily get used to doing shallow angle finals, and suddenly seeing runway end at steep angle could cause reaction to do a 360 turn. Just speculating, of course.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I, s well, didn't know the main person in this thread.
Yes, I like the potential gains to the sport of Soaring that others may have seen.

Going to a post I made in another thread here, planning every landing at the home field as an off field landing (pick where you want to be, then do it!) is paramount.
As mentioned in the other thread, look to the rules for the Elmira/HHSC Snowbird contest. The main goal is "energy management", both in time as well as where to land at what speed.

It can be eye opening to peeps that, "land wherever, they will get me, or, I can roll to wherever.....".
This is NOT off field landing practice. Plan on where you want to touch down, then do it.
Yes, it's nice to rollout out of the way, maybe close to a tie down or a hanger.
Yes, when I was sharp and doing rides, the ground crew knew to just stand there with their left hand out facing the incoming glider. Our (commercial ride pilots) knew to land, shed speed, S-turn to the side, drop the left wingtip into the hand of the ground crew, mentioning to the ride that this is what we were going to do.

Yes, I have seen "contest pilots" land on a contest field and even with great brakes manage to over run the pavement and coast down a hill (visiting pilot at HHSC) or "taxi to tiedown" and hit both a towplane and tied up glider!

Sheesh.

None of us know what Matt was thinking that day, I am only trying to point out some of the mindset you SHOULD be doing every landing.

Train as you do, do as you train.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Really?
I will admit I have limited experience in "newer" other brand standard ships, but I can't say I EVER had an issue with the divebrakes in a -24 (couple hundred hours flying it, numerous off airport landings, nothing broken....).

Granted, I prefer 15M or longer with landing flaps AND dive brakes to a short field.......
Go back to my previous comment on, "how do you normally land at a known field?".

[Papa3[_2_]]

Fairly early in my racing career (year 3) I made a decision of convenience that came back to haunt me. After a long, low, stressful final glide into Lancaster SC for the regional, I finished and entered the pattern. My brother was crewing, and we had the trailer all hooked up to the car. It would be really convenient to just land short on the taxiway and roll up to the trailer rather than landing on the huge/long runway and rolling up to the first big intersection. Mind you, I was already really tired from 30 minutes of stressful low-level flying and navigating (the days before GPS). Since my decision (if it was really even a decision) came kind of late in the game, I ended up in a high/tight/steep approach. At some point on short final I realized things weren't all that well stabilized. All I remember next was the crunching sound as the gear ripped out and the horizontal stab released from the spring-loaded retainer. Known for ever more by the Charlie Spratt label as the "in flight derigging incident." Since then, I always chose the landing direction and location that makes sense given the conditions and not to save a few minutes of ground handling.

Erik Mann (P3)

[Michael Opitz]

At 17:41 12 February 2018, krasw wrote:
>maanantai 12. helmikuuta 2018 17.00.06 UTC+2 Michael Opitz
kirjoitti:
>> At 12:36 10 February 2018, Dave Walsh wrote:
>> >You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
>> >"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.
>>
>> I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
>> if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
>> screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
>> of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
>> brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.
>
>ASW 24 has weakest airbrakes of pretty much any standard class
made after
>70's. You might easily get used to doing shallow angle finals, and
suddenly
>seeing runway end at steep angle could cause reaction to do a 360
turn.
>Just speculating, of course.
>


I had 2 ASW-24's and flew numerous nationals and one WGC
(Austria) in them. I didn't have any complaints about the airbrakes
in that glider. When I fly my own ship, I make virtually every
landing approach with full dive brakes simulating coming in over
tall trees at an off airport landing site. The ASW-24 gave me no
issues when I did this. From that screen grab, (and the headwind)
it appeared to me that it would have been very easy to put it down
straight ahead with room to spare... Apparently, the accident board
came to the same conclusion too... We will never know why he
chose not to do so.

RO

[krasw]

On Monday, 12 February 2018 20:33:00 UTC+2, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Really?
> I will admit I have limited experience in "newer" other brand standard ships, but I can't say I EVER had an issue with the divebrakes in a -24 (couple hundred hours flying it, numerous off airport landings, nothing broken.....).
>

I know couple pilots with over 1000hrs in '24, competing decades without a hitch, and trust their opinion that it has weak airbrakes. You cannot do same manouvers with '24 that you could get away with LS or Discus (of same vintage). It does not mean that it is unsafe or problematic to fly, of course..

[Paul Agnew]

The ASW-19 has anemic, but adequate, speed brakes. I've never heard a complaint about the -24 before.

Paul A.

[Michael Opitz]

At 20:17 12 February 2018, Paul Agnew wrote:
>The ASW-19 has anemic, but adequate, speed brakes. I've never
heard a
>complaint about the -24 before.
>
>Paul A.
>
If your ASW-19 doesn't have the 2 stage dive brake mod, get
it done. If it already has it, you should have seen what it was like
before. I had one for 5 years from 1978 - 1983.

RO

[George Haeh]

Even in a G-103 you can steepen the approach by increasing airspeed with
full
spoilers. The drag increases with the square of the airspeed.

Mind you it takes a bit of time in ground effect to get rid of the airspeed
in
something with puny spoilers. But any headwind helps with the groundspeed.


The AAIB report does not discuss whether windshear might have overpowered
the ailerons or whether Matt attempted to decrease the bank.

At a 60° bank there's some 42' of height difference between the wingtips.
In
active air, that's lots of room for a shear. Landing straight ahead in such

conditions would limit the chances of getting into a bank you can't get out
of.

[Kiwi User]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:55:41 +0000, Michael Opitz wrote:

> If your ASW-19 doesn't have the 2 stage dive brake mod, get it done. If
> it already has it, you should have seen what it was like before. I had
> one for 5 years from 1978 - 1983.
>
I've never seen one without the double brake plate mod, let alone flown
one. How do the original brakes compare with a Std Libelle?

I had been going to say that, though I'd been warned about Libelle brakes
before I ever flew one, I initially found them to be a bit weak but not
terrible. then again, post solo I spent a year flying SZD Juniors (up to
Silver) and then another two years in a Pegase90 (both club gliders)
before I first flew a Libelle and a PW-5. Neither were problematic,
though I much preferred the Libelle.

[[email protected]]

I've owned my ASW 24 for 26 years and have about 1,500 hours, including many national and regional contests. Lots of field landings (haha). The air brakes, in my opinion, are hardly "weak". I know there are other Std. Class gliders with bigger air brakes (the LS-4 comes to mind). And I know you said "weakest" and not "weak". But your implication is unfortunate and I disagree. No Standard Class glider that I'm aware of can rival a 15M ship with landing flaps and dive brakes (e.g., ASW 20). But the '24 brakes are perfectly adequate. And if you want a much steeper approach angle, it slips beautifully, with or without full dive brakes and with or without winglets.

I wasn't there that day nor do I know the airfield or the pilot. But I agree with Mike's assessment based on the accident report that the pilot could easily have landed straight ahead with no drama. It's dangerous to speculate but I, too, thought of the convenience factor when I first read the report. It's something all of us have considered many times, occasionally unwisely.

The convenience practice that makes me cringe is watching a glider rolling out briskly towards other gliders/trailers/vehicles/structures/people in near total reliance on the wheel brake. Those fail occasionally.

Chip Bearden

[Branko Stojkovic]

To restate RO's question: Considering the pilot's experience, he should have known that the safest option was to land straight ahead. However, he chose a course of action that was less safe, so the question is what may have motivated him?

The convenience factor is the most obvious one, but there may have been one or more other factors at play, such as:

The copycat factor, which makes you inclined to copy something that you saw someone else do in a similar situation, without thinking things through. In this case the Discus pilot successfully completed an abbreviated circuit a short time before the accident. This factor was mentioned in the AAIB report.

The vanity factor, in the context of which landing straight ahead could have meant an implicit admission that the Discus pilot was more skilful.

The improvisation factor 1, whereby prior to taking off the pilot didn't consider all the relevant circumstances (including turbulence, wind shear, etc.) and didn't come up with a definite and well thought-out plan on how to handle different emergency situations, should one arise during the take-off..

The improvisation factor 2, whereby prior to taking off the pilot did consider all the relevant circumstances and did come up with a definite and well thought-out plan on how to handle different emergency situations, should one arise during the take-off, however, upon encountering the emergency situation decided to change his plan.

Branko
XYU

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:54:30 AM UTC-8, Stephan van den Berg wrote:
> Dreadful news coming from the UK today. Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube) was tragically killed in a mid-air whilst flying his glider this weekend. I believe he collided with a power plane.
>
> I'm sure we have all watched some of Matt's videos on YouTube over and over. He will be sorely missed.
>
> RIP Balleka and the Flying Shark

I read that three cameras were in the glider. Are those videos available?

[Michael Opitz]

At 22:35 12 February 2018, Kiwi User wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:55:41 +0000, Michael Opitz wrote:
>
>> If your ASW-19 doesn't have the 2 stage dive brake mod, get it
done. If
>> it already has it, you should have seen what it was like before. I
had
>> one for 5 years from 1978 - 1983.
>>
>I've never seen one without the double brake plate mod, let alone
flown
>one. How do the original brakes compare with a Std Libelle?
>
>I had been going to say that, though I'd been warned about Libelle
brakes
>before I ever flew one, I initially found them to be a bit weak but
not
>terrible. then again, post solo I spent a year flying SZD Juniors (up
to
>Silver) and then another two years in a Pegase90 (both club
gliders)
>before I first flew a Libelle and a PW-5. Neither were problematic,
>though I much preferred the Libelle.
>
>
Martin,

Frankly I don't know because I have never flown a STD Libelle.
The original single stage ASW-19 air brakes were some-
what better than the single stage STD Cirrus airbrakes, which
were poor. I think they were also a little better than those of an
LS-1C or a DG-100, but close.

I forget the German competition pilot's name who came up with
the mod, but Schleicher started producing kits for the retrofit
pretty quickly. I think that became the basis for the ASW-19B
designation. I obtained one of those kits as soon as it became
available, and it made a pretty dramatic difference once installed
on my bird. My brother and Father bought that -19 from me when
I moved up to one of the first DG-300's. That -19 is now 40 years
old, and my brother still has it.

RO

[Paul Agnew]

I think the simplest factor that may have had a major effect on his decision was seeing the other glider successfully complete a circuit earlier after an early release.

The subconscious correlation between the earlier launch/return and his flight may have influenced him enough to the point where other options didn't come to mind in the heat of the moment.

In the end, he did us all a great service with his videos and helped us all even more with the sharing of our thoughts on his accident. I know my decision making and pre-planning will be sharper because of this thread.

Paul A.
Jupiter, FL
ASW-19 (basic un-modded speed brakes...for now.)

[Michael Opitz]

At 04:15 13 February 2018, Paul Agnew wrote:

>Paul A.
>Jupiter, FL
>ASW-19 (basic un-modded speed brakes...for now.)
>
Paul,

Get on the phone with Rex Mayes at Williams Soaring and
order that kit today. It's a big landing safety improvement,
and it's pretty easy to install with pre-fab clamps, etc. Just
get it done....

RO

[Michael Opitz]

At 14:26 13 February 2018, Michael Opitz wrote:
>At 04:15 13 February 2018, Paul Agnew wrote:
>
>>Paul A.
>>Jupiter, FL
>>ASW-19 (basic un-modded speed brakes...for now.)
>>
>Paul,
>
>Get on the phone with Rex Mayes at Williams Soaring and
>order that kit today. It's a big landing safety improvement,
>and it's pretty easy to install with pre-fab clamps, etc. Just
>get it done....
>
>RO
>
>
I finally remembered the guy's name. It was Stich. IIRC, he was
an engineer with the DVFLR (German flight research institute).
He also made other mods to his ASW-19 (re-profile of the wing
leading edge, etc?), but the two stage dive brake mod was his
contribution to glider safety. Because of his work position, the
regulatory approvals came very quickly. Now, his invention is
pretty much standard issue on new gliders, and retrofit kits have
been made for older ones that were produced without the rear
plates.

RO

[Tango Whisky]

His name is Gerhard Stich (nicknamed "Stichling"), and he re-profiled the leading edge of his ASW20C in 1984. With not much of a result ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 15:14:30 UTC, Waveguru wrote:
> I know of a winch site that sighs off pilots for solo without doing a single rope break practice, and only a hand full of dual tows. I wonder how Matt was trained?
>
> Boggs

Matt was hugely experienced at a wide variety of sites, and will have done check flights including practice cable breaks of all types. He was a very popular visitor to where I fly, which is predominantly winch. I doubt his training was anything less than comprehensive.