Glider Fatality in WA

[Mark Nyberg]

On Sunday afternoon June 19th Joseph Patton died in a glider accident
at Bergseth Field near Enumclaw, WA. Joe had been flying for a few
hours in his motorglider, came in for landing with too much altitude,
stalled and crashed. Joe died instantly.

There will be a visitation (opportunity to pay last respects and talk
with his family) on Friday June 25th from 4 to 8 PM at the
Bonney-Watson Funeral Home. The funeral home is located at 1732
Broadway (between Denny and Pine, across the street from the Seattle
Central Community College) in Seattle on Capitol Hill. Parking is
available on the north side of the funeral home.

Funeral Services will be held in the chapel at that same funeral home
on Saturday June 26th at 11:00 AM.

[Hal]

I am new to sport (2 years). Because seems so difficult to stall a
glider when intentionally practicing both straight ahead and turning
stalls I have a hard time understanding why it is such a common reason
for a tragic incident like this.

(Mark Nyberg) wrote in message >...
> On Sunday afternoon June 19th Joseph Patton died in a glider accident
> at Bergseth Field near Enumclaw, WA. Joe had been flying for a few
> hours in his motorglider, came in for landing with too much altitude,
> stalled and crashed. Joe died instantly.
>
> There will be a visitation (opportunity to pay last respects and talk
> with his family) on Friday June 25th from 4 to 8 PM at the
> Bonney-Watson Funeral Home. The funeral home is located at 1732
> Broadway (between Denny and Pine, across the street from the Seattle
> Central Community College) in Seattle on Capitol Hill. Parking is
> available on the north side of the funeral home.
>
> Funeral Services will be held in the chapel at that same funeral home
> on Saturday June 26th at 11:00 AM.

[Richard Branch]

I don't normally comment on these posts for fear of upsetting someone, but
in this instance it is clear the report is confused, one does not crash
after a stall because of having too "much" altitude. Rich...

< Joe had been flying for a few hours in his motorglider, came in for
landing with too much altitude, stalled and crashed. >

[Jean]

It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. This obviously is
not the right way to react with a glider (or any ship with decent
airbrakes), and has caused some other accidents already ...
Jean

"Richard Branch" > a écrit dans
le message de ...
> I don't normally comment on these posts for fear of upsetting someone, but
> in this instance it is clear the report is confused, one does not crash
> after a stall because of having too "much" altitude. Rich...
>
> < Joe had been flying for a few hours in his motorglider, came in for
> landing with too much altitude, stalled and crashed. >
>
>
>
>

[Richard Branch]

Fair enough...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glider Pilot Network" >
To: "Richard Branch" >
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: [r.a.s] Re: Glider Fatality in WA


> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
> Subject: Re: Glider Fatality in WA
> Author: Jean >
> Date/Time: 14:10 24 June 2004
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
> altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. This obviously
> is
> not the right way to react with a glider (or any ship with decent
> airbrakes), and has caused some other accidents already ...
> Jean
>
> "Richard Branch" a écrit dans
> le message de ...
> > I don't normally comment on these posts for fear of upsetting someone,
> but
> > in this instance it is clear the report is confused, one does not crash
> > after a stall because of having too "much" altitude. Rich...
> >
> > landing with too much altitude, stalled and crashed. >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Bill Daniels]

Over the years I have become convinced that the way accidental stalls happen
is very different than the way stalls are frequently taught. Pulling the
nose way up and waiting for the break is just not how it happens. If stalls
are taught this way the student forms the impression that nobody but an
idiot would accidentally stall a glider.

Reducing the airspeed very slowly until the glider stalls is more like a
real situation. With a slow airspeed reduction the glider will begin to
settle in a level attitude so that the AOA increases without the nose
getting very high. The break, when it comes, is likely to be more
"interesting".

Even better is teaching stalls starting from slow flight. Flying a square
pattern at minimum controllable airspeed before applying enough backpressure
to induce a stall gives a much better demonstration of what an accidental
stall looks like. This is more likely to produce an impression that, "this
could really happen". If a pilot thinks it could happen, he will be more
cautious.

Bill Daniels


"Jean" > wrote in message
...
> It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
> altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. This obviously is
> not the right way to react with a glider (or any ship with decent
> airbrakes), and has caused some other accidents already ...
> Jean
>
> "Richard Branch" > a écrit
dans
> le message de ...
> > I don't normally comment on these posts for fear of upsetting someone,
but
> > in this instance it is clear the report is confused, one does not crash
> > after a stall because of having too "much" altitude. Rich...
> >
> > < Joe had been flying for a few hours in his motorglider, came in for
> > landing with too much altitude, stalled and crashed. >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[COLIN LAMB]

It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. This obviously is
not the right way to react with a glider (or any ship with decent
airbrakes), and has caused some other accidents already ...

Comment:

I am an old power pilot and I do not know anyone who ever used that method.
The forward slip has been used by pilots since about WW I to lose altitude.
Some of today's new motorgliders do not have spoilers and slips may be used
in their place.

I do not know the facts about the accident, and cannot comment on what
actually happened.

There are few or no "old" pilots who lose altitude close to the ground by
mushing the aircraft near a stall. That might work for Ercoupes, where it
was impossible to cross-control.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 6/14/04

[Tony Verhulst]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
> altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. ...
>
> Comment:
>
> I am an old power pilot and I do not know anyone who ever used that method.

I was taught this method when I was getting checked out in a Citabria.
It was principally used while still "reasonably" high on final when
there was a headwind and you were too high. It worked well enough when
it was demonstrated to me but I've never done it on my own - nor do I
intend to. Slow and close to the ground on a windy day seems unwise, to
say the least.

Tony V.

[Hal]

(Mark Nyberg) wrote in message >...
> On Sunday afternoon June 19th Joseph Patton died in a glider accident
> at Bergseth Field near Enumclaw, WA. Joe had been flying for a few
> hours in his motorglider, came in for landing with too much altitude,
> stalled and crashed. Joe died instantly.
>
> There will be a visitation (opportunity to pay last respects and talk
> with his family) on Friday June 25th from 4 to 8 PM at the
> Bonney-Watson Funeral Home. The funeral home is located at 1732
> Broadway (between Denny and Pine, across the street from the Seattle
> Central Community College) in Seattle on Capitol Hill. Parking is
> available on the north side of the funeral home.
>
> Funeral Services will be held in the chapel at that same funeral home
> on Saturday June 26th at 11:00 AM.

Having been involved with gliding for only two years I find it
difficult to understand this type of landing/stall accident. Of
course we do not have very much information but stalling a glider in
practice seems to give plenty of warning yet this type of landing
accident seems to be happening very frequently.

[Mark Nyberg]

> I am new to sport (2 years). Because seems so difficult to stall a
> glider when intentionally practicing both straight ahead and turning
> stalls I have a hard time understanding why it is such a common reason
> for a tragic incident like this.

Hal,
A credible witness observed that by the time Joe realized he was in
trouble, he was too high, had a slight tailwind and had too much
energy for a normal landing. If he proceeded straight ahead he was
certainly going to overrun the runway and end up rolling into the
trees. For some reason he made a hard turn to the right followed by a
hard turn to the left. He ended up low (about 50' AGL) and slow near
midfield.

Out training teaches us to keep our speed up, but at very-low
altitudes our human nature tells us to pull back on the stick in a
turn to stay away from the ground. I didn't understand this very well
until I went up with and instructor who had me practice some slow
skidding turns (like the kind of turn we might be tempted to make from
base to final if we don't have much altitude). I found that stalling
and spin entry can be much easier and more dramatic than I thought. I
am glad you asked about this.

Mark Nyberg

[Eric Greenwell]

Richard Branch wrote:
> I don't normally comment on these posts for fear of upsetting someone, but
> in this instance it is clear the report is confused, one does not crash
> after a stall because of having too "much" altitude. Rich...
>
> < Joe had been flying for a few hours in his motorglider, came in for
> landing with too much altitude, stalled and crashed. >

I interpreted the report to mean "too much altitude [for a normal
landing - an overshoot situation]", but this can still be too low to
make safe turns or recover from a stall. This is especially true for a
2100' long runway.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Brian Case]

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message . net>...
> It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
> altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. This obviously is
> not the right way to react with a glider (or any ship with decent
> airbrakes), and has caused some other accidents already ...
>


While not a commonly used technique it is a trick that many
experienced power pilots have up there sleeve. It works very well in
large Flapped cessna's where slips are not recommended. While
increasing drag is a secondary affect of slowing down on final. The
primary effect is a twist on the Speed to Fly that glider pilots
should be well aware of. It is not very effective in no wind and can
even be counter productive in a tailwind situation but by slowing down
on final with a headwind the approach angle can be significantly
steepened by slowing down to a minimum airspeed on final. At about
200-300 feet AGL the nose is lowered to bring the airspeed back up to
a normal approach speed to allow enough energy to flare with.

Anyone intentionally performing this maneuver should be well all aware
of the dangers of stalling at low altitude and should be well prepared
to recover from it. I doubt many accidents can be attributed to pilot
intentionally performing this maneuver.

With Dive Brakes it is questionable if this technique is any better
than just speeding up and using the additional drag caused by the
excess speed on the dive brakes. Remember Drag goes exponentially with
speed.

IMO: Most Stall Spin Accidents are caused more by the Illusion of
speed and/or a nose low attitude. These can be caused by flying
downwind, close to the ground and unfamiliar or obscured horizons. In
these situations the pilot is not thinking a stall is even a
possibility. The airplane stalls and the pilot responds with the
incorrect control inputs because the possibility of the aircraft
stalling when it appears to be nose down and moving fast does not even
seem possible to the pilot. I think most of these pilots hit the
ground wondering what is wrong with the airplane or that something
broke. Perhaps there are a few survivors that can confirm or debunk
my theory.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[mat Redsell]

Bill Daniels,
You may find stall testing on the most recent version of the Pioneer IId
found on our web site which we did yesterday. I did post two interesting
photos on the Pioneer IId site accessed from our home page. This glider is
equiped with a moveable CG. The plane was tested in the rear most CG
position.


http://www.continuo.com/marske


We filmed the attempt stalls and have numerous stills from that filming. I
had great difficulty doing a gradual stall at first and had to resort to an
accelerated stall to get it to break. We now have the stall starting at the
tips and progressing slowly down the wing. Surprisingly the stalled wing
does not break immediately, and even with a down aileron to increase the
angle of attack, the wing experiences more of a yawing motion and
eventually dropping. As the pilot in this testing I felt very comfortable
and in control at all times even in the a turning stall.

I have also investigated the death rate in gliders and it does indicate that
those gliders that will spin will kill more pilots. Something to be said for
gliders that do not stall!

Something of note in the filming of the Pioneer was the fact that the Chase
plane, a grob 103 could not keep up in the lift to the Pioneer and I had to
repeatedly deploy the spoilers or move outside any lift. On a run to about
90 mph the Grob and Pioneer seemed fairly well matched. This is actually
very good considering the wing loading of the Pioneer IId at about 3.8
lbs/sq ft compared the the Grob at over 7 lbs/sq ft.

-mat
Marske Flying Wings
http://www.continuo.com/marske

[Martin Gregorie]

On 24 Jun 2004 13:14:39 -0700, (Brian Case) wrote:

....snippage...

>With Dive Brakes it is questionable if this technique is any better
>than just speeding up and using the additional drag caused by the
>excess speed on the dive brakes. Remember Drag goes exponentially with
>speed.
>
My guess is that stuffing the nose down while holding full airbrake
only works well with a really draggy glider. It works a treat in an
ASW-20, which doesn't slip well in landing flap, but OTOH full brakes
and a decent slip while maintaining normal approach airspeed works
well in a Discus, Pegase or DG-300.

>IMO: Most Stall Spin Accidents are caused more by the Illusion of
>speed and/or a nose low attitude. These can be caused by flying
>downwind, close to the ground and unfamiliar or obscured horizons. In
>these situations the pilot is not thinking a stall is even a
>possibility.
>
Get into the habit of monitoring your ASI and ignoring the apparent
speed of the scenery on finals.

I'm also tempted to say that if the ASI isn't near the centre of the
top row in the panel (and top centre in an ASW-19 or 20) then its time
to redesign and rebuild the panel.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Shawn Curry]

Mark Nyberg wrote:

> A credible witness observed that by the time Joe realized he was in
> trouble, he was too high, had a slight tailwind and had too much
> energy for a normal landing. If he proceeded straight ahead he was
> certainly going to overrun the runway and end up rolling into the
> trees. For some reason he made a hard turn to the right followed by a
> hard turn to the left. He ended up low (about 50' AGL) and slow near
> midfield.
>
> Out training teaches us to keep our speed up, but at very-low
> altitudes our human nature tells us to pull back on the stick in a
> turn to stay away from the ground. I didn't understand this very well
> until I went up with and instructor who had me practice some slow
> skidding turns (like the kind of turn we might be tempted to make from
> base to final if we don't have much altitude). I found that stalling
> and spin entry can be much easier and more dramatic than I thought. I
> am glad you asked about this.
>
> Mark Nyberg

It got me thinking about what I would do in the same situation. It
sounds like he made a reasonable choice by adding some length to his
final by doing some turns. Someone mentioned the field was 2000 feet or
so. Being able to loose enough energy to be slow and midfield at 50
feet sounds like he achieved his goal all too well. 1000 feet to land
from 50 feet sounds tight but doable especially if you're already slow
and need to speed up to do a proper flare. The thing I figured is that
it would *look* tight and maybe impossible especially if the drill at
that field is to land on the numbers (I don't know this). I do know
I've never been drilled with "Fly over most of the runway and stop with
the nose at the far end of the runway." If this was the situation he
was in, I could see how it ended badly.
My condolences to his family and friends

Shawn

[OscarCVox]

In an overshoot situation in a glider I was taught that it is better to be on
the ground overunning the landing area at 20mph rather than be too clever
trying fancy S turns at low altitude. Having said that if he had a tail wind
component wast a 180 an option?
Condolances

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn Curry wrote:

>
> It got me thinking about what I would do in the same situation. It
> sounds like he made a reasonable choice by adding some length to his
> final by doing some turns. Someone mentioned the field was 2000
> feet or so.

Airnav lists the runway length at 2100'. The Terraserver image from
1998 shows it is about 2300'-2400' from the trees at one end to the
trees at the other end. I've never been there, but the lengths and
images suggest a field with very small margins for error.

> Being able to loose enough energy to be slow and midfield at 50 feet
> sounds like he achieved his goal all too well. 1000 feet to land
> from 50 feet sounds tight but doable especially if you're already
> slow and need to speed up to do a proper flare. The thing I figured
> is that it would *look* tight and maybe impossible especially if the
> drill at that field is to land on the numbers (I don't know this). I
> do know I've never been drilled with "Fly over most of the runway and
> stop with the nose at the far end of the runway." If this was the
> situation he was in, I could see how it ended badly.

In the situation described above, I think the only option left is full
spoiler, dive steeply and put it on the ground as soon as possible, then
use full wheel brake and full forward stick. If that didn't stop the
glider in time, aiming between the trees as they approach might avoid
serious injury, as likely the speed would be slow by the time of collsion.

I'm not sure I would think of this if I were in that situation, as the
ground would seem to be going by rapidly with the tailwind, and the
trees would likely look very threatening.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Vaughn]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not sure I would think of this if I were in that situation, as the
> ground would seem to be going by rapidly with the tailwind, and the
> trees would likely look very threatening.

It is the fences that scare the hell out of me. Post 9/11, barbed wire is
probably much more prevalent on airport fences than it once was, just about neck
high when you are seated in a glider.

Vaughn

[Mike Muncey]

A 180 can only be safely done above 200 ft with good energy--just like a
rope-break. Even then, doing a 180 after over-shooting final is a good way
to stall/spin. One time while instructing, a student was way too high on
final and hadn't recognized how bad the problem was yet. By the time he
realized, he developed complete tunnel vision on the glider runway that was
now impossible to make. As we over-flew the glider runway, he wanted to try
a 180 from 100ft and 60mph. I took over, closed the spoilers, and few
straight ahead to the field you would use for a rope-break at 50 or 100 ft.
Just like planning for rope-breaks, you need to plan your missed-approach
options before you fly (or during instruction) what to do about being too
low or too high to make the usual runway.

"OscarCVox" > wrote in message
...
> In an overshoot situation in a glider I was taught that it is better to be
on
> the ground overunning the landing area at 20mph rather than be too clever
> trying fancy S turns at low altitude. Having said that if he had a tail
wind
> component wast a 180 an option?
> Condolances

[Mark Navarre]

>Airnav lists the runway length at 2100'. The Terraserver image from
>1998 shows it is about 2300'-2400' from the trees at one end to the
>trees at the other end. I've never been there, but the lengths and
>images suggest a field with very small margins for error.

This reminds me of why I am thankful for the short field landing practice I was
urged to do when I first started flying my ASW-20.
My instructor told me to put traffic cones next to the runway 300-400 feet
apart and practice touching down at the first cone and stopping before the
second. Repeat three times every visit to the glider port the first month or
so.
Now a 2000 foot runway looks like Los Angeles International.
-
Mark Navarre
2/5 black ace
LoCal, USA
remove brain to reply
-

[Joeri Cools]

I've been thaught the two methods. In Belgium an instructor told me to make
S-turns when high on final, in France this seems to be illegal and a steep
dive with full spoilers is recommended. About aiming between the trees, this
makes me wonder. In a glider with a span of let's say 15 to 18 m you
probably end up hitting a tree with one or two wings. An article in our club
magazine about outlanding mentioned that stick full forward and
intentionally ground-looping as the method of choice. The stick forward
would bring the tail up and prevent it from snapping off. Speed would be
down and the glider and more importantly yourself would survive. Anyway,
there is no more damage than hitting a tree with a wing.


Joeri.

"Eric Greenwell" > schreef in bericht
...
> Shawn Curry wrote:
>
> >
> > It got me thinking about what I would do in the same situation. It
> > sounds like he made a reasonable choice by adding some length to his
> > final by doing some turns. Someone mentioned the field was 2000
> > feet or so.
>
> Airnav lists the runway length at 2100'. The Terraserver image from
> 1998 shows it is about 2300'-2400' from the trees at one end to the
> trees at the other end. I've never been there, but the lengths and
> images suggest a field with very small margins for error.
>
> > Being able to loose enough energy to be slow and midfield at 50 feet
> > sounds like he achieved his goal all too well. 1000 feet to land
> > from 50 feet sounds tight but doable especially if you're already
> > slow and need to speed up to do a proper flare. The thing I figured
> > is that it would *look* tight and maybe impossible especially if the
> > drill at that field is to land on the numbers (I don't know this). I
> > do know I've never been drilled with "Fly over most of the runway and
> > stop with the nose at the far end of the runway." If this was the
> > situation he was in, I could see how it ended badly.
>
> In the situation described above, I think the only option left is full
> spoiler, dive steeply and put it on the ground as soon as possible, then
> use full wheel brake and full forward stick. If that didn't stop the
> glider in time, aiming between the trees as they approach might avoid
> serious injury, as likely the speed would be slow by the time of collsion.
>
> I'm not sure I would think of this if I were in that situation, as the
> ground would seem to be going by rapidly with the tailwind, and the
> trees would likely look very threatening.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[ADP]

I am both saddened and angered by the recent carnage in the glider
community. There is no excuse for a stall-spin accident during an approach.
None, nada, zilch! Not in a glider, not in any aircraft.
Folks, see that little yellow triangle on your airspeed indicator? That is
the manufacturers recommended minimum approach speed. You should not go
below that speed on approach unless you are over the numbers and prepared to
land. For winds and gusts, you can add up to 10 knots to that speed but do
not allow your speed to go below it.
If you have a motor glider and you are landing with power on, after setting
up to land and reducing power to idle, do not touch the power lever. If you
have to use power to complete the landing, you have failed and should not be
flying motor gliders.

If you don't have a little yellow triangle, find out your stall speed in a
turn in your normal landing configuration. (Normally with partial spoilers
and gear down.) Add 30% to that speed and use that as your
never-go-below-on-approach speed.

I don't entirely buy the close-to-the-ground airspeed illusion but I can't
entirely discount it either.

In any aircraft, fly by airspeed and attitude. If the airspeed isn't where
it should be, adjust the glider attitude to make it so. A personal attitude
adjustment may be in order, as well. If you are not pleased with the
precision of your approach, practice, practice and practice until you are.

Be careful out there.

Allan


"Joeri Cools" > wrote in message
...
> I've been thaught the two methods. In Belgium an instructor told me to
make
> S-turns when high on final, in France this seems to be illegal and a steep
> dive with full spoilers is recommended. About aiming between the trees,
this
> makes me wonder.
>...Snip...
>
> Joeri.
>

[Bill Daniels]

Here, here!

Bill Daniels

"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> I am both saddened and angered by the recent carnage in the glider
> community. There is no excuse for a stall-spin accident during an
approach.
> None, nada, zilch! Not in a glider, not in any aircraft.
> Folks, see that little yellow triangle on your airspeed indicator? That
is
> the manufacturers recommended minimum approach speed. You should not go
> below that speed on approach unless you are over the numbers and prepared
to
> land. For winds and gusts, you can add up to 10 knots to that speed but
do
> not allow your speed to go below it.
> If you have a motor glider and you are landing with power on, after
setting
> up to land and reducing power to idle, do not touch the power lever. If
you
> have to use power to complete the landing, you have failed and should not
be
> flying motor gliders.
>
> If you don't have a little yellow triangle, find out your stall speed in a
> turn in your normal landing configuration. (Normally with partial
spoilers
> and gear down.) Add 30% to that speed and use that as your
> never-go-below-on-approach speed.
>
> I don't entirely buy the close-to-the-ground airspeed illusion but I can't
> entirely discount it either.
>
> In any aircraft, fly by airspeed and attitude. If the airspeed isn't
where
> it should be, adjust the glider attitude to make it so. A personal
attitude
> adjustment may be in order, as well. If you are not pleased with the
> precision of your approach, practice, practice and practice until you
are.
>
> Be careful out there.
>
> Allan
>
>
> "Joeri Cools" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've been thaught the two methods. In Belgium an instructor told me to
> make
> > S-turns when high on final, in France this seems to be illegal and a
steep
> > dive with full spoilers is recommended. About aiming between the trees,
> this
> > makes me wonder.
> >...Snip...
> >
> > Joeri.
> >
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Joeri Cools wrote:
> I've been thaught the two methods. In Belgium an instructor told me to make
> S-turns when high on final, in France this seems to be illegal and a steep
> dive with full spoilers is recommended. About aiming between the trees, this
> makes me wonder. In a glider with a span of let's say 15 to 18 m you
> probably end up hitting a tree with one or two wings.

The intent was to get the fuselage between the trees, not the entire
glider (the trees are too close to do this, judging from the pictures of
the field). The wings would take most of the impact, and the cockpit
might be spared entirely.

> An article in our club
> magazine about outlanding mentioned that stick full forward and
> intentionally ground-looping as the method of choice. The stick forward
> would bring the tail up and prevent it from snapping off. Speed would be
> down and the glider and more importantly yourself would survive. Anyway,
> there is no more damage than hitting a tree with a wing.

A ground loop might be even better, especially if there is a fence. I
also wonder how well the glider could be steered, if the nose is down
and full wheel brake is applied. In that position, a ground loop might
happen even without the pilot's efforts. Since there was a tail wind, a
wing might already be on the ground.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tom Seim]

> Airnav lists the runway length at 2100'. The Terraserver image from
> 1998 shows it is about 2300'-2400' from the trees at one end to the
> trees at the other end. I've never been there, but the lengths and
> images suggest a field with very small margins for error.
>
> > Being able to loose enough energy to be slow and midfield at 50 feet
> > sounds like he achieved his goal all too well. 1000 feet to land
> > from 50 feet sounds tight but doable especially if you're already
> > slow and need to speed up to do a proper flare. The thing I figured
> > is that it would *look* tight and maybe impossible especially if the
> > drill at that field is to land on the numbers (I don't know this). I
> > do know I've never been drilled with "Fly over most of the runway and
> > stop with the nose at the far end of the runway." If this was the
> > situation he was in, I could see how it ended badly.
>
> In the situation described above, I think the only option left is full
> spoiler, dive steeply and put it on the ground as soon as possible, then
> use full wheel brake and full forward stick. If that didn't stop the
> glider in time, aiming between the trees as they approach might avoid
> serious injury, as likely the speed would be slow by the time of collsion.
>
> I'm not sure I would think of this if I were in that situation, as the
> ground would seem to be going by rapidly with the tailwind, and the
> trees would likely look very threatening.

I once landed my DG-400 (1,000 lbs gross) on a 1,200 ft runway,
stopping a little more than halfway. I wanted to clear a stand pipe on
one side of the runway, so I gave up about 200 ft. This means I really
used about 500 ft to stop. This was a real life situation-not a
simulated one. This guy, flying a lighter glider than mine, should
have been able to get down from 50 ft and be fully stopped with 1,000
ft of runway he had left. In any case, going off the end of the runway
at low speed sure as hell beats going in vertical. S turning at 50 ft
is highly unadvisable.

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Stephen Haley]

"Mike Muncey" > wrote in message
...
> A 180 can only be safely done above 200 ft with good energy--just like a
> rope-break. Even then, doing a 180 after over-shooting final is a good
way
> to stall/spin.

Why?
Provided a well banked turn is used and appropriate speed (and 60knts is on
the low side) given the prevailing wind conditions It is perfectly valid
manouver even below 200ft. There are plenty of winch sites in the UK where
in calm conditions this is a recognised recovery from cable breaks
especially where landing straight ahead is not an option. In any sort of
wind a 180 is asking for trouble as you will be landing downwind but a 270
to land cross wind may be valid or even a 360. S Turns are no longer taught
in the UK on the basis that it will rarely help your position with regard to
the remaining landing length and loses more height than a 360. (Each S turn
is effectively a min of 180 and normally 360 + increased drag from the 3
changes in direction) In addition a 360 should increase your landing room
provided it is not calm as the wind will sweep you back down the runway at
the very least you will not be any worse off. The big problem with turns
executed near ground is the tendency to haul back due to ground proximity,
over ruddering to try and get round quicker and the mistaken psycological
belief that a shallow turn is better. It is remarkable how little height a
modern glider loses in a 360 provided it is flown acurately. In the UK great
emphasis is given to low accurate flying before you go solo at a winch site.
My last Aero cable break was 150ft over the end of the runway in calm
conditions and in that scenario a 180 was the right thing to do. That said
the only time you should be executing these sort of manouvers (Low turns)
is off a break or other emergency.
However IMHO the biggest cause of landings going wrong is too short a final
appoach or low circuit leading to the pilot cramping the final leg giving
the pilot a higher workload and less time to realise that things are going
to pot. A high longer final approach is inherently safer as the pilot has
minutes rather than seconds to recognise an over/undershoot and has more
alternatives to correct his/her mistake. Obviously wind sheer, thermals and
turbulance can cause difficulties but if the approach starts off right with
half brakes then you have a reasonable amount of leeway either way in most
gliders. How many of us manage finals on 1/2 brakes as opposed to full every
time? Next time you approach flare with full brakes ask yourself what would
happen if you had hit extra lift and why you had full brakes.
Remember it is rarely the final action that is the real killer but the
events that got you in that position to start with.
Stay Safe Fly High

Stephen

[Mark Zivley]

Although we can focus on the maneuvers that occurred in the last seconds
before the crash, we shouldn't forget that there were mistakes leading
up to that point that should be considered. What was his altitude at
the IP, was he checking things along the way (TLAR)? Did he turn in too
soon (turn to base). It's rarely one single mistake that leads to
accidents, but a compilation.

Mark Nyberg wrote:
> On Sunday afternoon June 19th Joseph Patton died in a glider accident
> at Bergseth Field near Enumclaw, WA. Joe had been flying for a few
> hours in his motorglider, came in for landing with too much altitude,
> stalled and crashed. Joe died instantly.
>
> There will be a visitation (opportunity to pay last respects and talk
> with his family) on Friday June 25th from 4 to 8 PM at the
> Bonney-Watson Funeral Home. The funeral home is located at 1732
> Broadway (between Denny and Pine, across the street from the Seattle
> Central Community College) in Seattle on Capitol Hill. Parking is
> available on the north side of the funeral home.
>
> Funeral Services will be held in the chapel at that same funeral home
> on Saturday June 26th at 11:00 AM.

[Vaughn]

"Mark Zivley" > wrote in message
m...
> Although we can focus on the maneuvers that occurred in the last seconds
> before the crash, we shouldn't forget that there were mistakes leading
> up to that point that should be considered. What was his altitude at
> the IP, was he checking things along the way (TLAR)? Did he turn in too
> soon (turn to base). It's rarely one single mistake that leads to
> accidents, but a compilation.

Exactly: Speaking about pattern planning in general, rather than this sad
incident in particular...

One problem with glider flying is that by the time you get in a position to
properly read the wind sock, your options may already be starting to narrow.

But what if you are so sure about the wind direction that you forget to
check the sock at all?

Suppose for just a moment that you manage to enter your downwind leg
without noticing that there has been a 180-degree wind shift since your launch.
On "downwind", you notice excessive altitude loss due to the undiagnosed
headwind and (thinking you had hit sink) turn base early. That headwind on your
"downwind" leg will now turn into an unexpected tailwind as soon as you turn
final from base--a base leg that is suddenly very close to the fence because the
wind has blown you towards the runway, rather than away from it as you expected.
You now find yourself high, with a high groundspeed, and already over the fence
with significant runway quickly disappearing behind you.

Now your options have REALLY narrowed!


Vaughn

[Bob Kuykendall]

At 02:48 26 June 2004, Stephen Haley wrote:

> Why?
> Provided a well banked turn is used and appropriate
> speed (and 60knts is on the low side) given the prevailing
>
> wind conditions It is perfectly valid manouver even
>below
> 200ft.

Rope- and cable breaks occur across a wide variety
of conditions at a wide variety of altitudes. Sometimes
they come with obvious audible and visual cues. Sometimes
you don't know it's happened until you see that you're
not keeping up with the towplane.

The 200-foot altitude is generally chosen as a turnaround
gate because it leaves usually-adequate margin to recognize
the situation and effect a 180-degree turn even under
less-than-perfect conditions. Sometimes it's not enough.
Sometimes, as you point out, it has generous margin.

Going off on a tangent, the thing I observe about too
many of the recent accidents is that maneuvers intended
to protect the aircraft from minor damage are resulting
instead in loss of control with attendant major damage,
injury, dismemberment, and death. It harkens back to
the value trap that Pirsig invokes in _Zen and the
art...,_ where the monkey forgets to value its life
greater than the handful of grain that restrains its
fist in the trap.

More later -

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

[Brad]

> Going off on a tangent, the thing I observe about too
> many of the recent accidents is that maneuvers intended
> to protect the aircraft from minor damage are resulting
> instead in loss of control with attendant major damage,
> injury, dismemberment, and death.

Hi Bob,

Today we had the service for Joe, it was joyful and tearful......both
emotional states keenely balanced and teeter-tottering back and forth
within moments of each other. It was obvious by the family and friends
that attended, he was loved, repected and cherished.......he WILL be
missed.

Ironic about your tangent statement; since that is what we observed as
well.

Suffice to say that there were several small factors that did lead to
this accident. The sum total resulted in the fatal stall spin......but
taken individually were most likely opportunities for learning, but in
total were overwhelming.

This is not the post to enunerate that list......perhaps we should
start a new thread about lessons learned.

Regards,
Brad

PS.....Bob, your hand-cut fillet file is on the way!

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:22:32 UTC, "Joeri Cools"
> wrote:

: I've been thaught the two methods. In Belgium an instructor told me to make
: S-turns when high on final, in France this seems to be illegal and a steep
: dive with full spoilers is recommended.

I'm a sideslip enthusiast at such times myself. With full brake and a
full rudder slip the Pirat comes down like a parachute...

Ian

--

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:54:36 UTC, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

: Suppose for just a moment that you manage to enter your downwind leg
: without noticing that there has been a 180-degree wind shift since your launch.

I confess. I have been there and done that. Those sea breeze fronts
can come through damn fast. And I did check the windsock, but only to
register the orientation of the wee orange triangle relative to the
runway. Realising that the ground was passing roughly 25 kt faster
than I expected at round out was a character building moment.

Ian


--

[Richard Branch]

Interesting that there has been no mention of side-slipping and yet that
would be my immediate thought if I believed I was too high to get onto the
ground without overshooting?

Rich...

> Mark Nyberg wrote:
>
> > A credible witness observed that by the time Joe realized he was in
> > trouble, he was too high, etc...

[Keith W]

"Richard Branch" > wrote in
message ...
> Interesting that there has been no mention of side-slipping and yet that
> would be my immediate thought if I believed I was too high to get onto the
> ground without overshooting?
>
> Rich...
Ian Johnston did, somewhat earlier in the thread:

"I'm a sideslip enthusiast at such times myself. With full brake and a
full rudder slip the Pirat comes down like a parachute...

Ian

"

[Stefan]

Richard Branch wrote:

> Interesting that there has been no mention of side-slipping and yet that
> would be my immediate thought if I believed I was too high to get onto the
> ground without overshooting?

It depends on the glider. There are gliders which can be slipped very
effectively (e.g. ASK 21), there are gliders which can barely be slipped
(e.g. LS 4) and there are even gliders for which slipping is strongly
decouraged (e.g. LS 7 WL).

Stefan

[Ernie]

could that probably be because you fly aircraft which have efficient
sideslip ? Try to sideslip a Mosquito instead of using full trailing
edge brakes, or an ASW20 instead of using the highly efficient landing
flaps. Of course you could use a 2-33 which has a highly efficient
sideslip even so I think it doesn't matter which direction you move it
through the air, it's always as draggy as it gets ...

Which aircraft type was the accident in ?


Ernie

Richard Branch wrote:

> Interesting that there has been no mention of side-slipping and yet that
> would be my immediate thought if I believed I was too high to get onto the
> ground without overshooting?
>
> Rich...
>
>
>>Mark Nyberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A credible witness observed that by the time Joe realized he was in
>>>trouble, he was too high, etc...
>
>
>
>
>

[Richard Branch]

Good point, good question... don't know. Rich...

> could that probably be because you fly aircraft which have efficient
> sideslip

> Which aircraft type was the accident in ?

> Ernie

[Bob]

From the NTSB it was a TeST TST-10 M

see http://www.test.infoline.cz/us/tst-10.html



Richard Branch > wrote in message >...
> Good point, good question... don't know. Rich...
>
> > could that probably be because you fly aircraft which have efficient
> > sideslip
>
> > Which aircraft type was the accident in ?
>
> > Ernie

[Mark Nyberg]

> Which aircraft type was the accident in?

Ernie
Joe was flying his TsT-10 Motorglider (see
www.test.infoline.cz/us/tst-10.html). It appears to be his seventh
flight in that ship and he liked it a lot.

Joe had the factory-installed ballistic parachute option in his
glider. One of our club members (who is an engineer) suggested that
Joe might have survived by touching down with a lot of speed and then
deploying the ballistic parachute to use up the energy -- like a
dragster. I've never heard anyone talk about using a ballistic
parachutes in this way, but it makes sense.

Mark