News Flash: You don't need elevator control !

[nowhere]

Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or for that matter any
other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically no
different from what occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the
stick."

I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15 now. Imagine
how the reduction in drag will improve the performance! Not having to
worry about pitch control will certainly cut down on the cockpit
workload as well. The benefits are endless!

[tango4]

In this case the NTSB is wrong!

With the elevator disconnected the run of the control rods are not connected
to the flying surface. Therefore the mass balance of the system is different
to that which was certified, the trim system is also disconnected!
Definately *not* the same as just removing the pilots hand from the stick!

:-)

PS: I'll bet that they don't comment on whether having the mainpin in or not
makes the aircraft *flyable* either!

Ian


"nowhere" > wrote in message
m...
> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
> issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
> quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or for that matter any
> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically no
> different from what occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the
> stick."
>
> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15 now. Imagine
> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance! Not having to
> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down on the cockpit
> workload as well. The benefits are endless!

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 08:06 30 October 2003, Tango4 wrote:
>In this case the NTSB is wrong!
>
>With the elevator disconnected the run of the control
>rods are not connected
>to the flying surface. Therefore the mass balance of
>the system is different
>to that which was certified, the trim system is also
>disconnected!
>Definately *not* the same as just removing the pilots
>hand from the stick!
>

Mind the flaps are the major pitch control in the ASW20,
the elevator is there more for fine adjustment. A number
of pilots have produced 'landings' using the flaps
for pitch control in 20's with disconnected elevators.

>:-)
>
>PS: I'll bet that they don't comment on whether having
>the mainpin in or not
>makes the aircraft *flyable* either!
>
Strange you should mention that. I understand that
a long time ago someone took a Libelle for a local
soaring flight and after a while became uncomfortable.
After loosening his straps and having a fish around
he produced the main pin, the only thing holding the
wings together was friction on the spigots. I believe
that some very gentle well co-ordinated flying ensued
and he landed without incident.


>
>
>'nowhere' wrote in message
m...
>> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
>>in the November
>> issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your elevator
>>control! I
>> quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
>>that a
>> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
>>for that matter any
>> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically
>>no
>> different from what occurs when the pilot removes
>>his hand from the
>> stick.'
>>
>> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15
>>now. Imagine
>> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance!
>>Not having to
>> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down
>>on the cockpit
>> workload as well. The benefits are endless!
>
>
>

[JJ Sinclair]

> A number
>of pilots have produced 'landings' using the flaps
>for pitch control in 20's with disconnected elevators.

And I have the remains of a 20 in the barn, that was unable to control pitch
with the elevator disconnected. There isn't one piece of the ship any larger
than 3 feet long.
Hook up your controls and then do a Critical Assembly Check.
JJ Sinclair

[Mark Grubb]

..> >
> >'nowhere' wrote in message
> m...
> >> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
> >>in the November 7issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your elevator
> >>control! I quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
> >>that a disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
> >>for that matter any other airplane, unflyable.

This is correct. I personally know of Several -20's and even a PIK-20
(no spoiers) that were flown and successfully landed without elevator
control. I tested this mode in a -20C by "locking" the pitch at the
stick with tape (that would break should I need it to). It was not
pretty, but I towed to 2K ft, released and landed with flaps and
spoilers only. Not a huge deal.

Keep your wits about you, practice, and you needn't die because of a
disabled/disconnected control!

[Chris Nicholas]

Depends on the glider type. In a Ka6E you will certainly crash. If on
tow, you will kill the tug pilot and then crash yourself. Which part of
the phugoid you are in when you hit the ground will play a large part in
determining whether your crash is fatal or just very serious.

Chris N.

[Ole]

Wasn't there a PW that attempted take-off without the main pin (or
whatever it is that keeps the wings stuck on'em) at the World Soaring
Championships this past summer?

[Scott Correa]

Oh please dear god.....
Don't let that Marske guy tell us all we didn't
need tails after all...............

Scott

[John Galloway]

At 10:00 30 October 2003, Andrew Warbrick wrote:
>
>Mind the flaps are the major pitch control in the ASW20,
>the elevator is there more for fine adjustment.
>>

I'd like to see a 20 completing a loop with flaps alone
before I accept that oft stated view:-) A spin recovery
would be interesting too.

John Galloway

[Buck Wild]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> > A number
> >of pilots have produced 'landings' using the flaps
> >for pitch control in 20's with disconnected elevators.
>
> And I have the remains of a 20 in the barn, that was unable to control pitch
> with the elevator disconnected. There isn't one piece of the ship any larger
> than 3 feet long.
> Hook up your controls and then do a Critical Assembly Check.
> JJ Sinclair

And the pilot was not your average weekender. Very capable/professional pilot.
-Dan

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

And, in related news:
http://www.news.com.au/common/printpage/0,6093,7628206,00.html
See ya, Dave

"nowhere" > wrote in message
m...
> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
> issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
> quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or for that matter any
> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically no
> different from what occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the
> stick."
>
> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15 now. Imagine
> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance! Not having to
> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down on the cockpit
> workload as well. The benefits are endless!

[Chris OCallaghan]

File this one under airfield legend. Flapped gliders with horizontal
stabs (as opposed to full flying) can be manuevered without full
elevator authority, but you're as likely to die as not. As for the
CFI, I suspect his elevator was semi-attached (cup on ball, but not
locked). It is likely that the elevator came disconnected during the
rollout on landing, thus the difficulty with aerotow. (Of course, you
might be able to sell this one, if the cg was up around the rudder
pedals.)


Robert John > wrote in message >...
> A chief flying instructor of my acquaintance flew about
> 300k without realising his elevator was disconnected
> (ASW20). The initial launch was a winch which was
> fine (back-pressure pushing the elevator up). He landed
> out at another airfield and took an aerotow retrieve.
> He had to release quickly and land ahead using trim
> when the glider climbed uncontrollably. The aerotow
> needed forward pressure on the stick (downward 'pull'
> on the elevator when on tow). At no time during the
> previous flight, including on winch launch, was this
> needed, though he did remark that the elevator has
> felt a little 'odd' at times!
>
> Rob
>
> At 16:12 30 October 2003, Mark Grubb wrote:
> >..> >
> >> >'nowhere' wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
> >> >>in the November 7issue of 'Flying' you don't need
> >>>>to connect your elevator
> >> >>control! I quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment
> >>>>on the fact
> >> >>that a disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20,
> >>>>or
> >> >>for that matter any other airplane, unflyable.
> >
> >This is correct. I personally know of Several -20's
> >and even a PIK-20
> >(no spoiers) that were flown and successfully landed
> >without elevator
> >control. I tested this mode in a -20C by 'locking'
> > the pitch at the
> >stick with tape (that would break should I need it
> >to). It was not
> >pretty, but I towed to 2K ft, released and landed with
> >flaps and
> >spoilers only. Not a huge deal.
> >
> >Keep your wits about you, practice, and you needn't
> >die because of a
> >disabled/disconnected control!
> >

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

No. It happened as Rob described it.

He rigged normally, and then put in water ballast including tail ballast.
To put in the tail ballast he had to disconnect the elevator, and he forgot
to re-connect it.

Presumably he got away with it because the C. of G. was very close to the
aft limit, and he changed speed by the correct use of flaps. During the
winch launch the wire would tend to pull the nose down, so he would be
applying up elevator.

The trim would have been no help, because it is a spring acting on the
elevator control circuit and is only connected to the elevator if the
control is connected.

I know the pilot. No-one knows better than he that he was very, very
lucky.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).

>
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> File this one under airfield legend. Flapped gliders with horizontal
> stabs (as opposed to full flying) can be manoeuvred without full
> elevator authority, but you're as likely to die as not. As for the
> CFI, I suspect his elevator was semi-attached (cup on ball, but not
> locked). It is likely that the elevator came disconnected during the
> rollout on landing, thus the difficulty with aerotow. (Of course, you
> might be able to sell this one, if the cg was up around the rudder
> pedals.)
>
> >
> > Robert John > wrote in
> > message >...
> >
> > A chief flying instructor of my acquaintance flew about
> > 300k without realising his elevator was disconnected
> > (ASW20). The initial launch was a winch which was
> > fine (back-pressure pushing the elevator up). He landed
> > out at another airfield and took an aerotow retrieve.
> > He had to release quickly and land ahead using trim
> > when the glider climbed uncontrollably. The aerotow
> > needed forward pressure on the stick (downward 'pull'
> > on the elevator when on tow). At no time during the
> > previous flight, including on winch launch, was this
> > needed, though he did remark that the elevator has
> > felt a little 'odd' at times!
> >
> > Rob
> >

[Chris OCallaghan]

I stand corrected, but still find the story a little dubious. Flying a
three hundred kilometer flight without elevator (and not realizing
it), especially with the cg well aft (less pitch stability), seems
unlikely. Ah well, I suppose this qualifies as one of those "stranger
things have happened." Lucky, indeed.

Can I rub shoulders with him before the nationals next year? I can use
that kind of luck!

Cheers,

OC

"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." > wrote in message >...
> No. It happened as Rob described it.
>
> He rigged normally, and then put in water ballast including tail ballast.
> To put in the tail ballast he had to disconnect the elevator, and he forgot
> to re-connect it.
>
> Presumably he got away with it because the C. of G. was very close to the
> aft limit, and he changed speed by the correct use of flaps. During the
> winch launch the wire would tend to pull the nose down, so he would be
> applying up elevator.
>
> The trim would have been no help, because it is a spring acting on the
> elevator control circuit and is only connected to the elevator if the
> control is connected.
>
> I know the pilot. No-one knows better than he that he was very, very
> lucky.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>
> >
> > Remove "ic" to reply.
> >"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > File this one under airfield legend. Flapped gliders with horizontal
> > stabs (as opposed to full flying) can be manoeuvred without full
> > elevator authority, but you're as likely to die as not. As for the
> > CFI, I suspect his elevator was semi-attached (cup on ball, but not
> > locked). It is likely that the elevator came disconnected during the
> > rollout on landing, thus the difficulty with aerotow. (Of course, you
> > might be able to sell this one, if the cg was up around the rudder
> > pedals.)
> >
> > >
> > > Robert John > wrote in
> > > message >...
> > >
> > > A chief flying instructor of my acquaintance flew about
> > > 300k without realising his elevator was disconnected
> > > (ASW20). The initial launch was a winch which was
> > > fine (back-pressure pushing the elevator up). He landed
> > > out at another airfield and took an aerotow retrieve.
> > > He had to release quickly and land ahead using trim
> > > when the glider climbed uncontrollably. The aerotow
> > > needed forward pressure on the stick (downward 'pull'
> > > on the elevator when on tow). At no time during the
> > > previous flight, including on winch launch, was this
> > > needed, though he did remark that the elevator has
> > > felt a little 'odd' at times!
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >

[JJ Sinclair]

>I suppose this qualifies as one of those "stranger
>things have happened." Lucky, indeed.

I'm with you, Chris. The disconnected elevator push rod can push against the
bottom of the elevator and give somewhat normal up operation, but down is
limited to the airstreem pushing it back down to neutral position. If the push
rod ever slides past the aft end of the elevator, You have just had the snits.
A good CRITICAL ASSEMBLY CHECK, anyone?
JJ Sinclair

[Nils Hoeimyr]

JJ Sinclair wrote:

> If the push
> rod ever slides past the aft end of the elevator, You have just had the snits.
> A good CRITICAL ASSEMBLY CHECK, anyone?


Agree JJ, this cannot be stressed enough!!

Not all pilots are as lucky as the cited fellow. I know of 2 ASW-20
pilots who died after having taken off without connecting the elevator.
One of them was used to an LS with automatic control hookups, thus
forgetting the positive post assembly control...

Always do a positive controls check!

Nils

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Andrew Warbrick" > wrote in message
...
> At 08:06 30 October 2003, Tango4 wrote:
> >In this case the NTSB is wrong!
> >
> >With the elevator disconnected the run of the control
> >rods are not connected
> >to the flying surface. Therefore the mass balance of
> >the system is different
> >to that which was certified, the trim system is also
> >disconnected!
> >Definately *not* the same as just removing the pilots
> >hand from the stick!
> >
>
> Mind the flaps are the major pitch control in the ASW20,
> the elevator is there more for fine adjustment. A number
> of pilots have produced 'landings' using the flaps
> for pitch control in 20's with disconnected elevators.
>
> >:-)
> >
> >PS: I'll bet that they don't comment on whether having
> >the mainpin in or not
> >makes the aircraft *flyable* either!
> >
> Strange you should mention that. I understand that
> a long time ago someone took a Libelle for a local
> soaring flight and after a while became uncomfortable.
> After loosening his straps and having a fish around
> he produced the main pin, the only thing holding the
> wings together was friction on the spigots. I believe
> that some very gentle well co-ordinated flying ensued
> and he landed without incident.
>
I know of a Kestrel 19 that's done the same, twice. The wing attach design
is very much the same. The pin is not load bearing, but only locks the
wings together. As long a 0 to negative G is avoided, they won't come off.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Mark Grubb) wrote:

> ...I tested this mode in a -20C
> by "locking" the pitch at the
> stick with tape (that would
> break should I need it to)...

Um, I believe that they're not the same modes. The one is called
"stick-fixed stability" and the other is called "stick-free
stability."

My HP-18, for example, seems to have plenty of the first, and very
little of the second. In the spring I'm going to try building cambered
ruddervators to improve the situation.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[JJ Sinclair]

>I know of a Kestrel 19 that's done the same, twice. The wing attach design
>is very much the same. The pin is not load bearing, but only locks the
>wings together. As long a 0 to negative G is avoided, they won't come off.
>

Come on guys, this story is getting out of hand. Your asking us to believe that
a Kestrel driver used his neat little wing assembly tool to force his wings
together and then FORGOT to put the main pin in? And you say he did it twice?
That pin is not load bearing, but any turbulance (like what we do to make the
wing come out, on didassembly) will allow the wings to slide out and then our
fictitious Kestrel driver would find himself wingless.
JJ Sinclair

[Doug Haluza]

(nowhere) wrote in message >...
> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
> issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
> quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or for that matter any
> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically no
> different from what occurs when the pilot removes his hand from the
> stick."
>
> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15 now. Imagine
> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance! Not having to
> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down on the cockpit
> workload as well. The benefits are endless!

Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick free phugoid can
get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction of the stick
attached to provide some damping . If you have not tried this, you
should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings level with
rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real roller coaster
ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether you would land or
crash.

There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800 that had a loose
nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the down part of the
phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never flew again.

The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the DC-10-10, that
crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the Sioux City
Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics, they had
no movable flight controls. They were able to fly the aircraft with
differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they could not
control pitch on final approach.

I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that a knowledgable
person would suggest that elevator control is optional.

[Andy Blackburn]

Doug overstates the case a bit. Even without elevator
control it is possible to damp out the phugoid mode.
I tried this on a BFR recently and I encourage the
rest of you to give it a try as well. Since the phugoid
is a function of airspeed/pitching moment coupling,
you can damp it out by applying speedbrakes at the
bottom of the cycle. This take a bit of thinking ahead,
but it can be managed with practice.

The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
control. It was crude put effective enough to get to
the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
conspired a bit.

At 00:48 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
(nowhere) wrote in message
>news:...
>> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
>>in the November
>> issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your elevator
>>control! I
>> quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
>>that a
>> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
>>for that matter any
>> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically
>>no
>> different from what occurs when the pilot removes
>>his hand from the
>> stick.'
>>
>> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15
>>now. Imagine
>> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance!
>>Not having to
>> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down
>>on the cockpit
>> workload as well. The benefits are endless!
>
>Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick
>free phugoid can
>get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction
>of the stick
>attached to provide some damping . If you have not
>tried this, you
>should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings
>level with
>rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real
>roller coaster
>ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether
>you would land or
>crash.
>
>There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800
>that had a loose
>nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the down
>part of the
>phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never
>flew again.
>
>The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the DC-10-10,
>that
>crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the
>Sioux City
>Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics,
>they had
>no movable flight controls. They were able to fly the
>aircraft with
>differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they
>could not
>control pitch on final approach.
>
>I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that
>a knowledgable
>person would suggest that elevator control is optional.
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On 1 Nov 2003 04:25:38 GMT, Andy Blackburn
> wrote:

>
>The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
>pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
>to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
>control. It was crude put effective enough to get to
>the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
>in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
>phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
>conspired a bit.

One might mention that NASA tried to recreate this 232'2 landing
using a simulator (as well as an F-15).
No aircrew *ever* was able to touch down their aircraft soft enough to
make the crash survivable.



Bye
Andreas

[Doug Haluza]

I think it would be difficult to overstate the severity of a total
loss of elevator control. It is possible to damp out the phugoid with
spoiler (and/or flap) but this won't help much close to the ground.
Deploying spoiler on the down part of the phugoid will reduce your
forward speed, but it will increase your vertical speed. The rate of
descent at impact is the real problem. It may be theoretically
possible to do something that could later be classified as a landing,
rather than a crash. But you only have one chance to do this, and the
probability of doing it exactly right on your first try is not very
high.

United 232 did not dig in a wing and cartwheel. The aircraft hit the
ground with a high descent rate (1850 fpm) slightly right wing low.
The right main gear broke through 12" of concrete, and the wing broke
off along with the tail section on impact. The rate of descent, and
loss of the wing, was a direct result of the phugoid mode.

P.S. For a very interesting first hand account of Flight 232 from Capt
Haynes see: http://www.panix.com/~jac/aviation/haynes.html

Andy Blackburn > wrote in message >...
> Doug overstates the case a bit. Even without elevator
> control it is possible to damp out the phugoid mode.
> I tried this on a BFR recently and I encourage the
> rest of you to give it a try as well. Since the phugoid
> is a function of airspeed/pitching moment coupling,
> you can damp it out by applying speedbrakes at the
> bottom of the cycle. This take a bit of thinking ahead,
> but it can be managed with practice.
>
> The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
> pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
> to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
> control. It was crude put effective enough to get to
> the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
> in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
> phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
> conspired a bit.
>
> At 00:48 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
> (nowhere) wrote in message
> >news:...
> >> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
> >>in the November
> >> issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your elevator
> >>control! I
> >> quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
> >>that a
> >> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
> >>for that matter any
> >> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically
> >>no
> >> different from what occurs when the pilot removes
> >>his hand from the
> >> stick.'
> >>
> >> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my ASW-15
> >>now. Imagine
> >> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance!
> >>Not having to
> >> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down
> >>on the cockpit
> >> workload as well. The benefits are endless!
> >
> >Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick
> >free phugoid can
> >get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction
> >of the stick
> >attached to provide some damping . If you have not
> >tried this, you
> >should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings
> >level with
> >rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real
> >roller coaster
> >ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether
> >you would land or
> >crash.
> >
> >There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800
> >that had a loose
> >nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the down
> >part of the
> >phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never
> >flew again.
> >
> >The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the DC-10-10,
> >that
> >crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the
> >Sioux City
> >Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics,
> >they had
> >no movable flight controls. They were able to fly the
> >aircraft with
> >differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they
> >could not
> >control pitch on final approach.
> >
> >I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that
> >a knowledgable
> >person would suggest that elevator control is optional.
> >

[Andy Blackburn]

I would not suggest that loss of elevator is anything
but the most serious of mechanical incidents. However,
if it should ever happen, instead of throwing your
hands into the air and resigning yourself to a certain
fate, there are controls that you might be able to
use to maintain some measure of control - namely speedbrakes
and flaps (if you have 'em). Will it be a pretty
landing? Unlikely. Nevertheless, it beats the alternative.


I recommend practicing this rather than trying to figure
it out in real time in an emergency. I have practiced
flying without the use of each of the controls for
this reason.

Doug's right on UA 232 - the gear hit before the right
wing. The earlier comment was that the crew were unable
to control pitch with thrust. More precisely, they
were not able to adequately control pitch or heading
to make a good landing. If they had totally lost pitch
authority there would have been no survivors - which
I think was the main point. Use whatever control you
have.

9B

At 17:12 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
>I think it would be difficult to overstate the severity
>of a total
>loss of elevator control. It is possible to damp out
>the phugoid with
>spoiler (and/or flap) but this won't help much close
>to the ground.
>Deploying spoiler on the down part of the phugoid will
>reduce your
>forward speed, but it will increase your vertical speed.
>The rate of
>descent at impact is the real problem. It may be theoretically
>possible to do something that could later be classified
>as a landing,
>rather than a crash. But you only have one chance to
>do this, and the
>probability of doing it exactly right on your first
>try is not very
>high.
>
>United 232 did not dig in a wing and cartwheel. The
>aircraft hit the
>ground with a high descent rate (1850 fpm) slightly
>right wing low.
>The right main gear broke through 12' of concrete,
>and the wing broke
>off along with the tail section on impact. The rate
>of descent, and
>loss of the wing, was a direct result of the phugoid
>mode.
>
>P.S. For a very interesting first hand account of Flight
>232 from Capt
>Haynes see: http://www.panix.com/~jac/aviation/haynes.html
>
>Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:...
>> Doug overstates the case a bit. Even without elevator
>> control it is possible to damp out the phugoid mode.
>> I tried this on a BFR recently and I encourage the
>> rest of you to give it a try as well. Since the phugoid
>> is a function of airspeed/pitching moment coupling,
>> you can damp it out by applying speedbrakes at the
>> bottom of the cycle. This take a bit of thinking ahead,
>> but it can be managed with practice.
>>
>> The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
>> pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
>> to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
>> control. It was crude put effective enough to get
>>to
>> the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
>> in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
>> phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
>> conspired a bit.
>>
>> At 00:48 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
>> (nowhere) wrote in message
>> >news:...
>> >> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
>> >>in the November
>> >> issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your
>>>>elevator
>> >>control! I
>> >> quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
>> >>that a
>> >> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
>> >>for that matter any
>> >> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically
>> >>no
>> >> different from what occurs when the pilot removes
>> >>his hand from the
>> >> stick.'
>> >>
>> >> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my
>>>>ASW-15
>> >>now. Imagine
>> >> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance!
>> >>Not having to
>> >> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down
>> >>on the cockpit
>> >> workload as well. The benefits are endless!
>> >
>> >Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick
>> >free phugoid can
>> >get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction
>> >of the stick
>> >attached to provide some damping . If you have not
>> >tried this, you
>> >should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings
>> >level with
>> >rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real
>> >roller coaster
>> >ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether
>> >you would land or
>> >crash.
>> >
>> >There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800
>> >that had a loose
>> >nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the
>>>down
>> >part of the
>> >phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never
>> >flew again.
>> >
>> >The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the
>>>DC-10-10,
>> >that
>> >crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the
>> >Sioux City
>> >Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics,
>> >they had
>> >no movable flight controls. They were able to fly
>>>the
>> >aircraft with
>> >differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they
>> >could not
>> >control pitch on final approach.
>> >
>> >I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that
>> >a knowledgable
>> >person would suggest that elevator control is optional.
>> >
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

Agreed. The problem with thinking through the possibilities for
control is that the pilot's assembly error will put the tow pilot at
risk immediately. Do you have a right to relearn how to fly your
semi-controllable aircraft by putting his or her life in danger? I've
seen several no elevator launches, and in each case, the pilot
discovered his error when he pitched high behind the towplane.

This is a good mental exercise, thinking about how other control
surfaces can be used to manage the aircraft, but I wonder just how
ethical it is to try to apply them at the cost of someone else's life.
I don't have an answer for this one. Just thought I'd throw another
variable into the discussion.

[Karl Striedieck]

An article appeared in Soaring Magazine a few years ago titled "Attitude
Problems" dealing with ways of dealing with an unconnected elevator control.
Pilots of flapped ships can use flaps, spoilers and bank angle to adjust
pitch, standard ships the last two.

Gliders using a tow release in the nose will be more easily controlled on
air tow than those using a cg release, but, if an initial zoom up after take
off can be controlled, the latter can be controlled sufficiently to allow a
high tow and possible bailout as well.

As pointed out in an earlier contribution to this discussion, trying to
simulate a disconnected elevator by allowing the stick to move freely in
pitch won't create the same degree of instability, but it is still a useful
exercise.

Varying the bank angle to arrest phugoid zoomies is very easy to accomplish
(steepen bank to lower nose and vice versa). When a bailout is not an
option, use of this mode alone will result in the glider coming to back to
earth tangentially at a reasonable speed.

Anyone interested in a copy of the mentioned article can contact me.

Karl Striedieck








"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> I would not suggest that loss of elevator is anything
> but the most serious of mechanical incidents. However,
> if it should ever happen, instead of throwing your
> hands into the air and resigning yourself to a certain
> fate, there are controls that you might be able to
> use to maintain some measure of control - namely speedbrakes
> and flaps (if you have 'em). Will it be a pretty
> landing? Unlikely. Nevertheless, it beats the alternative.
>
>
> I recommend practicing this rather than trying to figure
> it out in real time in an emergency. I have practiced
> flying without the use of each of the controls for
> this reason.
>
> Doug's right on UA 232 - the gear hit before the right
> wing. The earlier comment was that the crew were unable
> to control pitch with thrust. More precisely, they
> were not able to adequately control pitch or heading
> to make a good landing. If they had totally lost pitch
> authority there would have been no survivors - which
> I think was the main point. Use whatever control you
> have.
>
> 9B
>
> At 17:12 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
> >I think it would be difficult to overstate the severity
> >of a total
> >loss of elevator control. It is possible to damp out
> >the phugoid with
> >spoiler (and/or flap) but this won't help much close
> >to the ground.
> >Deploying spoiler on the down part of the phugoid will
> >reduce your
> >forward speed, but it will increase your vertical speed.
> >The rate of
> >descent at impact is the real problem. It may be theoretically
> >possible to do something that could later be classified
> >as a landing,
> >rather than a crash. But you only have one chance to
> >do this, and the
> >probability of doing it exactly right on your first
> >try is not very
> >high.
> >
> >United 232 did not dig in a wing and cartwheel. The
> >aircraft hit the
> >ground with a high descent rate (1850 fpm) slightly
> >right wing low.
> >The right main gear broke through 12' of concrete,
> >and the wing broke
> >off along with the tail section on impact. The rate
> >of descent, and
> >loss of the wing, was a direct result of the phugoid
> >mode.
> >
> >P.S. For a very interesting first hand account of Flight
> >232 from Capt
> >Haynes see: http://www.panix.com/~jac/aviation/haynes.html
> >
> >Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:...
> >> Doug overstates the case a bit. Even without elevator
> >> control it is possible to damp out the phugoid mode.
> >> I tried this on a BFR recently and I encourage the
> >> rest of you to give it a try as well. Since the phugoid
> >> is a function of airspeed/pitching moment coupling,
> >> you can damp it out by applying speedbrakes at the
> >> bottom of the cycle. This take a bit of thinking ahead,
> >> but it can be managed with practice.
> >>
> >> The United 232 crew was able to control pitch through
> >> pitch/thrust coupling. They applied collective thrust
> >> to adjust pitch and differential thrust for directional
> >> control. It was crude put effective enough to get
> >>to
> >> the runway threshold. Unfortunately, the dug s wing
> >> in on landing. It was not directly a result of the
> >> phugoid mode, though I suspect all the different modes
> >> conspired a bit.
> >>
> >> At 00:48 01 November 2003, Doug Haluza wrote:
> >> (nowhere) wrote in message
> >> >news:...
> >> >> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's 'Aftermath' column
> >> >>in the November
> >> >> issue of 'Flying' you don't need to connect your
> >>>>elevator
> >> >>control! I
> >> >> quote: 'the NTSB report does not comment on the fact
> >> >>that a
> >> >> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, or
> >> >>for that matter any
> >> >> other airplane, unflyable. The situation is aerodynamically
> >> >>no
> >> >> different from what occurs when the pilot removes
> >> >>his hand from the
> >> >> stick.'
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I'll start leaving the elevators off my
> >>>>ASW-15
> >> >>now. Imagine
> >> >> how the reduction in drag will improve the performance!
> >> >>Not having to
> >> >> worry about pitch control will certainly cut down
> >> >>on the cockpit
> >> >> workload as well. The benefits are endless!
> >> >
> >> >Well, it may be flyable, but not landable! The stick
> >> >free phugoid can
> >> >get pretty dramatic, even with the mass and friction
> >> >of the stick
> >> >attached to provide some damping . If you have not
> >> >tried this, you
> >> >should. Keep hands completely off and keep the wings
> >> >level with
> >> >rudder. Let the phugoid fully develop--it's a real
> >> >roller coaster
> >> >ride. Close to the ground, it's a crap shoot whether
> >> >you would land or
> >> >crash.
> >> >
> >> >There was an accident a few years back in a DG-800
> >> >that had a loose
> >> >nut on the elevator control. The pilot hit on the
> >>>down
> >> >part of the
> >> >phugoid and crashed wings level. He lived, but never
> >> >flew again.
> >> >
> >> >The same thing happened to United Flight 232, the
> >>>DC-10-10,
> >> >that
> >> >crashed while attempting an emergency landing at the
> >> >Sioux City
> >> >Gateway Airport, Iowa, in 1989. After losing all hydraulics,
> >> >they had
> >> >no movable flight controls. They were able to fly
> >>>the
> >> >aircraft with
> >> >differential thrust on the two wing engines, but they
> >> >could not
> >> >control pitch on final approach.
> >> >
> >> >I have not seen the article, but I'm surprised that
> >> >a knowledgable
> >> >person would suggest that elevator control is optional.
> >> >
> >
>
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> >I know of a Kestrel 19 that's done the same, twice. The wing attach
design
> >is very much the same. The pin is not load bearing, but only locks the
> >wings together. As long a 0 to negative G is avoided, they won't come
off.
> >
>
> Come on guys, this story is getting out of hand. Your asking us to believe
that
> a Kestrel driver used his neat little wing assembly tool to force his
wings
> together and then FORGOT to put the main pin in? And you say he did it
twice?
> That pin is not load bearing, but any turbulance (like what we do to make
the
> wing come out, on didassembly) will allow the wings to slide out and then
our
> fictitious Kestrel driver would find himself wingless.
> JJ Sinclair

Nevertheless, the owner admitted to doing this twice.

Frank

[F.L. Whiteley]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >I know of a Kestrel 19 that's done the same, twice. The wing attach
> design
> > >is very much the same. The pin is not load bearing, but only locks the
> > >wings together. As long a 0 to negative G is avoided, they won't come
> off.
> > >
> >
> > Come on guys, this story is getting out of hand. Your asking us to
believe
> that
> > a Kestrel driver used his neat little wing assembly tool to force his
> wings
> > together and then FORGOT to put the main pin in? And you say he did it
> twice?
> > That pin is not load bearing, but any turbulance (like what we do to
make
> the
> > wing come out, on didassembly) will allow the wings to slide out and
then
> our
> > fictitious Kestrel driver would find himself wingless.
> > JJ Sinclair
>
> Nevertheless, the owner admitted to doing this twice.
>
> Frank
>
Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_ enough........

One of our club members also landed his Std Jantar 2 following a winch
launch. A young lady that walked out to look at the glider picked up the
horizontal tail attach pin and handed it to him, as it had fallen out on
landing. He painted it in such a way that if it wasn't properly seated, a
color would show. He then booked a flight to Majorca to 'enjoy life' and
the fact that he was still living it.

Frank

[John Giddy]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
| Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_
enough........

The control linkages on the Glasfluegel ships are automatic,
so won't hold anything in. The tape may have been his
salvation...
Cheers, John G.

[Shaber CJ]

>One of our club members also landed his Std Jantar 2 following a winch
>launch. A young lady that walked out to look at the glider picked up the
>horizontal tail attach pin and handed it to him, as it had fallen out on
>landing.

Where I used to fly, we had a pilot landing his Jantar when I saw the elevator
lift off the vertical tail plane by about a foot and start rotating. The glider
pitched up and banked, a wing dug in the ground and I think I saw that wing
bend about 45 degrees. I took off running as the glider was heading for me. I
had learned to keep an eye out when this pilot landed as twice before I had to
run to avoid ground loops (no offense to the pilot is meant, he is a good pilot
who flies every weekend). After the glider came to a rest I ran up to him and
he was sitting in the glider with a stunned look on his face and the cockpit
was half filled with dirt, the tops of the pilots knees where sticking up out
of the dirt.

Craig

[JJ Sinclair]

Hi Karl,
Welcome to ras. We are being quite civil to each other, lately and a lot of
good information is being passed out. Your vast reservoir of soaring knowledge
is more than welcome. Keep posting.
JJ Sinclair

[JJ Sinclair]

Frank wrote >>>>>>> Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_
enough........

OK, I'll buy the "tape" would be strong enough to do the job. Now, when a
bystander askes, "Is that tape all that holds the wings on?" We can honestly
say, On thes Kestrel, it is.
:>)
JJ Sinclair

[F.L. Whiteley]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Frank wrote >>>>>>> Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_
> enough........
>
> OK, I'll buy the "tape" would be strong enough to do the job. Now, when a
> bystander askes, "Is that tape all that holds the wings on?" We can
honestly
> say, On thes Kestrel, it is.
> :>)
> JJ Sinclair

Two of the control rods are pinned in the Slingsby Kestrel 19. Don't know
about the 17.

Frank

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it to
the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, just as
he got there the wings fell off - no mainpin.

Very lucky the wind was not in the other direction, or the wings would still
have been on when he reached the launch point.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > Frank wrote >>>>>>> Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_
> > enough........
> >
> > OK, I'll buy the "tape" would be strong enough to do the job. Now,
> > when a bystander asks, "Is that tape all that holds the wings on?" we
> > can honestly say, "on the Kestrel, it is".
> >
> > JJ Sinclair
>
> Two of the control rods are pinned in the Slingsby Kestrel 19. Don't
> know about the 17.
>
> Frank
>

[Shaber CJ]

>Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it to
>the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, just as
>he got there the wings fell off - no mainpin.

It seems to me that the wing pins are rather high on the list of things to
remember. Maybe if they are not smart enough to remember wing pins they
shouldn't be in the gene pool.

[F.L. Whiteley]

No, but I'm sure they would if it bounced along the ground very much, even
with the control rods pinned. I'm sure they went to full deflection.

Frank

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it to
> the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, just
as
> he got there the wings fell off - no mainpin.
>
> Very lucky the wind was not in the other direction, or the wings would
still
> have been on when he reached the launch point.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
> >
> > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > Frank wrote >>>>>>> Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_
> > > enough........
> > >
> > > OK, I'll buy the "tape" would be strong enough to do the job. Now,
> > > when a bystander asks, "Is that tape all that holds the wings on?" we
> > > can honestly say, "on the Kestrel, it is".
> > >
> > > JJ Sinclair
> >
> > Two of the control rods are pinned in the Slingsby Kestrel 19. Don't
> > know about the 17.
> >
> > Frank
> >
>
>

[Jim Kellett]

"nowhere" > wrote in message
m...
> Yes, according to Peter Garrison's "Aftermath" column in the November
> issue of "Flying" you don't need to connect your elevator control! I
> quote: "the NTSB report does not comment on the fact that a
> disconnected elevator does not make an ASW-20, . . .

The POH for the ASW-20C includes how to fly in emergencies with no elevator,
using flaps for pitch control.

Jim Kellett
N16AL (H3)

[Stephen Cook]

You may of course be talking about a different incident, but if this is the
event I witnessed it should read like this:

Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it to
the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, took a
launch, flew around for a while, landed and on the ground run the wings fell
off - no mainpin.

Stephen


"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it to
> the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, just
as
> he got there the wings fell off - no mainpin.
>
> Very lucky the wind was not in the other direction, or the wings would
still
> have been on when he reached the launch point.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
> >
> > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > "JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > Frank wrote >>>>>>> Maybe the tape and control linkages are _just_
> > > enough........
> > >
> > > OK, I'll buy the "tape" would be strong enough to do the job. Now,
> > > when a bystander asks, "Is that tape all that holds the wings on?" we
> > > can honestly say, "on the Kestrel, it is".
> > >
> > > JJ Sinclair
> >
> > Two of the control rods are pinned in the Slingsby Kestrel 19. Don't
> > know about the 17.
> >
> > Frank
> >
>
>

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

I did not witness the incident which I related, I am not sure if it is just
an urban legend.

If you witnessed yours you are ahead of me. Are you willing to tell us
where and when?

There is not much to tape on a Slingsby Kestrel 19, I owned one once.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Stephen Cook" ]> wrote in message
> ...
>
> You may of course be talking about a different incident, but if this is
> the event I witnessed it should read like this:
>
> Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it to
> the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, took a
> launch, flew around for a while, landed and on the ground run the wings
> fell off - no mainpin.
>
> Stephen
>
> >
> > "W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it
> > to the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day,
> > just as he got there the wings fell off - no mainpin.
> >
> > Very lucky the wind was not in the other direction, or the wings would
> > still have been on when he reached the launch point.
> >
> > W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> > Remove "ic" to reply.
> >
>

[Janusz Kesik]

I'm not sure if I hit the topic, but I personally know one guy who =
returned to the ground in Bocian with disconnected elevator. He used =
trim knob to get the glider down to earth in a gentle way. :)

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[Stephen Cook]

Aston Down about 15 years ago. The incident was in the S&G accident
reports.

Stephen

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> I did not witness the incident which I related, I am not sure if it is
just
> an urban legend.
>
> If you witnessed yours you are ahead of me. Are you willing to tell us
> where and when?
>
> There is not much to tape on a Slingsby Kestrel 19, I owned one once.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
> >
> > "Stephen Cook" ]> wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > You may of course be talking about a different incident, but if this is
> > the event I witnessed it should read like this:
> >
> > Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed it
to
> > the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day, took
a
> > launch, flew around for a while, landed and on the ground run the wings
> > fell off - no mainpin.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > >
> > > "W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Did you hear the story about the pilot who rigged his Kestrel, towed
it
> > > to the other side of the airfield where the launch point was that day,
> > > just as he got there the wings fell off - no mainpin.
> > >
> > > Very lucky the wind was not in the other direction, or the wings would
> > > still have been on when he reached the launch point.
> > >
> > > W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> > > Remove "ic" to reply.
> > >
> >
>
>
>

[Andy Durbin]

Andreas Maurer > wrote in message >...

>
> One might mention that NASA tried to recreate this 232'2 landing
> using a simulator (as well as an F-15).
> No aircrew *ever* was able to touch down their aircraft soft enough to
> make the crash survivable.
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas


NASA followed up with a test using a modified MD-11. The FADEC
control laws were changed to allow much greater authority in engine
trim and the Flight Control Computer (FCC) software was modified to
control pitch and roll with FADEC thrust commands. (On an MD-11 a
single autothrottle servo drives all engines in parallel but the FCC
to FADEC interface provides independent thrust trim to each engine)

The program demonstrated that it was possible to control the aircraft
in pitch and roll with thrust only using normal inputs from the
autopilot mode control panel. Several approaches were made I think at
least one sucessful landing was demonstrated. (I was only involved
with the lab test and never saw the flight test reports).

Andy

[Andreas Maurer]

On 5 Nov 2003 05:56:22 -0800, (Andy Durbin)
wrote:


>NASA followed up with a test using a modified MD-11. The FADEC
>control laws were changed to allow much greater authority in engine
>trim and the Flight Control Computer (FCC) software was modified to
>control pitch and roll with FADEC thrust commands. (On an MD-11 a
>single autothrottle servo drives all engines in parallel but the FCC
>to FADEC interface provides independent thrust trim to each engine)
>
>The program demonstrated that it was possible to control the aircraft
>in pitch and roll with thrust only using normal inputs from the
>autopilot mode control panel. Several approaches were made I think at
>least one sucessful landing was demonstrated. (I was only involved
>with the lab test and never saw the flight test reports).

You are correct - these tests followed the 232 accident and proved
that custom FCC modes indeed allow a safe landing by engine control
only. Without FCC inut it was not possible to damp the phugoide (sp).

Bye
Andreas