How Low to Spin?? [Archive]

Bill Daniels

August 23rd 04, 06:49 PM

"Paul M. Cordell" > wrote in message
...
> How Low to Spin??
>
> I was proudly shown a IGC file this weekend. This file show the aero tow
> thru a thermal and a release into sink. Our proud pilot was unable to
> find the thermal and started a downwind leg for a landing. As he turned
> base leg, he flew into a 2-5 kt thermal. Instead of completing the
> pattern and landing, he turned and climbed in this thermal. The IGC file
> showed that his altitude at the time of encountering lift was 300 ft. I
> asked him 1 question as he displayed this flight on See You. How Low do
> you want to spin?
>
> His response scared me silly&&..My glider does not spin and there was no
> wind.
>
> He then continued to display the same flight where he bragged of
> spending a considerable amount of time in the mountains within 500 feet
> of the terrain. I am doubtful as to his ability to reach a landable area
> during this portion of the flight.
>
> This pilot is in his first year of private ownership, cross county
> soaring and may have almost 200 hours of total time. He has embraced
> soaring completely. I left the gliderport feeling that my suggestions as
> to his safety practices were just hollow words. I know that he reads RAS
> and would hope that the response to this post may give him some food for
> thought.
>

I heard the following comment at an informal gathering of older pilots:

"We old, cautious pilots were once young, bold pilots who scared ourselves
badly enough to engender some wisdom before the youth and boldness killed
us." And, "Good judgement is the distillation of bad experiences."

Perhaps your pilot simply hasn't experienced the silent, deadly spin
departure that can result from a turning stall in turbulent air. Maybe we
just have to hope that he scares himself into wisdom.

Maybe he needs a flight with a good instructor in an easily spinable trainer
like a Blanik L-23 or most any eastern European two-seater. Practicing
cross-controlled stalls in rough, mid-afternoon thermals will usually do the
trick.

By way of setting some perspective, I won't universally condemn low altitude
saves. Sometimes thermalling away is the best option available. However,
they are almost always the result of earlier bad decisions that placed the
pilot in that situation. Getting low is the most common way of losing a
contest day.

Still, there are many pilots with whom I would feel comfortable as a
passenger riding in the back seat as they thermalled up from 300 feet. They
are good enough at sensing the early symptoms of a stall/spin that they
would relax the backpressure for a moment and then continue the thermal turn
without anyone but the most perceptive noticing what had happened. Usually,
these are not pilots trained in 2-33's.

Bill Daniels

Stewart Kissel

August 23rd 04, 07:59 PM

Well 300'agl sounds about right for a proper base leg,
and if he had landable fields in all directions....so
that if he circled in sink on the outside of the thermal...then
in theory he might have been able to land even if he
had not centered it and could not make the runway.
I have experimented thermalling low right next to
a runway when conditions and traffic permit...and u
can burn 300' in one orbit. IMHO 600'-800'agl gives
you more leeway, take another tow if u get below that...it
is cheaper then funeral expenses.

And never thermal in the pattern without thorough knowledge
of the field and traffic procedures, and with a working
radio I would think :)

Stewart Kissel

August 23rd 04, 08:16 PM

Part 2 of response-

Pushing limits safely is one of the appealing aspects
of our sport...once one can actually stay up, this
progression seems to be...

1.) How long(duration)
2.) How high
3.) How far
4.) How fast

(How low) seems to fit in there somewhere...but it
can bite harder then the others. One drill I was taught..figure
out what the sink rate might be for a particular day
if you hit the wrong part of a thermal...at a safe
altitude pop your spoilers to that sink rate...then
start circling to learn how much altitude you loose.

As with many learning guidelines...the best instructors/mentors
can relay this sort of information in a non-confrontional
tone...which may aid learning. Sometimes RAS is lacking
in this area :)

scurry

August 23rd 04, 09:11 PM

Paul M. Cordell wrote:

> How Low to Spin??
>
> I was proudly shown a IGC file this weekend. This file show the aero tow
> thru a thermal and a release into sink. Our proud pilot was unable to
> find the thermal and started a downwind leg for a landing. As he turned
> base leg, he flew into a 2-5 kt thermal. Instead of completing the
> pattern and landing, he turned and climbed in this thermal. The IGC file
> showed that his altitude at the time of encountering lift was 300 ft. I
> asked him 1 question as he displayed this flight on See You. How Low do
> you want to spin?
>
> His response scared me silly&&..My glider does not spin and there was no
> wind.
>
> He then continued to display the same flight where he bragged of
> spending a considerable amount of time in the mountains within 500 feet
> of the terrain. I am doubtful as to his ability to reach a landable area
> during this portion of the flight.
>
> This pilot is in his first year of private ownership, cross county
> soaring and may have almost 200 hours of total time. He has embraced
> soaring completely. I left the gliderport feeling that my suggestions as
> to his safety practices were just hollow words. I know that he reads RAS
> and would hope that the response to this post may give him some food for
> thought.

While getting shot down west of Boulder the other day, I was
contemplating the "How low to circle?" equation. While always within
EASY glide of the airport, I was low over the foothills. It wasn't a
particularly "sinky" day, but down low the thermals were really just
narrow threads of lift coming off the rocks. I realized that I'd need
500' or so to recover from a spin in a panic situation, and still need
glide to the airport once I recovered my composure. If I got into a
spin I'd also better have room to maneuver on the heading I recovered
with. How many of us practice spin recovery to a heading, low, over
rocks? =0
Circling down low whether over hills or flat ground presents
complications in visual perspective that have been thoroughly addressed
here in the past (Google some or Eric June's posts about his crash for a
start) As Stu said, 600-800 feet of air underneath is a pretty good
recommendation to *live* by.
Interesting thing about the flight; By following the ridge lines
keeping wind and sun in mind, I was able to run out of the hills at
300-400 feet over the ridges, maintaining my altitude until I had enough
altitude to circle comfortably (which, remember includes the thermals
spreading out enough to be useful).
Just for good measure, later in the flight I did some practice turning
stalls, to make sure my stall warning calibration was reasonable.
YMMV, but for recreational pilots like me, these are good guidelines.

Shawn

Ted Wagner

August 23rd 04, 09:44 PM

Paul,

First and foremost, I was not "proud" of the flight I showed you, and I'm
disappointed (in fact, a little shocked) that you took it that way. Maybe I
should work on my presentation a little (I know it can be a little eager
sometimes). I learn from my experiences (positive and negative) by being
honest and open about them, not by pretending they didn't happen, and this
was no different (if I couldn't take the slings and arrows, I'd just keep
everything to myself). I had already told two other highly experienced
pilots (GY and AZ2) that I wondered at the time if I'd made the right
decisions. That isn't pride; it's concern about wanting to do it better
next time.

When I made my statement "My glider doesn't spin", you quickly (and
appropriately) noted that they were the famous last words of many a dead
pilot. I immediately recognized the ridiculousness of my statement and
offered you an honest correction: I haven't been able to get *my* glider to
spin (which is certainly not to say that it can't happen). Now, we can
argue about the relative safety value of that attitude, but I was
maintaining minimum 58 knots AIS, much higher than my normal dry thermaling
speed, so the stall/spin risk at that point was no higher than at any point
in any normal landing pattern.

(My CFIGs were very good at instilling in me the importance of maintaining
airspeed close to the ground. I have read all the stories about pilots
flying low, looking at the ground and thinking they have lots of airspeed,
and learning the hard way they didn't, and of pilots flying low over
mountains and getting bit by wind sheer. Not for a second am I so proud to
think that these things can't happen to me.)

The IGC file shows the lowest point on my downwind leg at 310'. I was up to
400' when I turned onto base. (There is a big difference between 300' and
400'.) At 58 knots AIS, 4 knots up, no traffic anywhere, and no wind, I
simply continued the turn as I had started it. If it turned into sink, there
was still plenty of altitude to finish the turn and land. Did I make the
right decision? I will eagerly absorb any and all constructive feedback I
get on that question, positive and negative (the "you-stupid-idiot" lectures
some people so enjoy giving are more entertaining than they are useful).

As far as I'm concerned, the most glaring mistake I made was allowing myself
to get into the position of being at 300' AGL halfway through my downwind
leg. Now *that* was dumb, and I need no feedback on that count.

About the mountain flying: at no point in my flight was I not within easy
gliding distance of at least two safe landing areas (one dirt strip and one
airport). If you had a question about that, I wish you would have asked. If
there's anything I consistently do right in my flying, it's staying within
safe distance of good landing areas (see previous paragraph); I always have
the nearest landing spot dialed in on my flight computer, maintaining a
positive arrival at MC 3. I am particularly satisfied with this aspect of
my x/c flying -- I can even call myself "proud" on this count, though it
usually puts a damper on my contest speeds

Paul, the next time I say something that scares you silly, just call me on
it, *especially* if it looks like my pride is in the way. I have a
tremoundous amount of respect for the feedback I get from guys like you and
GY and you will NOT hurt my feelings by speaking up in person.

That I promise, my friend --

-ted

P.s. At the time of the flight I had 232 hours total time in the glider and
340 total PIC.

scurry

August 23rd 04, 10:10 PM

Ted Wagner wrote:
> Paul,

Snip 1st hand account.

I can understand the temptation to keep turning. Its *safe* to say
everyone should land in under same circumstances. Doesn't mean it can't
be done, just that IMHO (and most everyone else's too) it shouldn't.
The trail of blood is pretty compelling in this case, Ted.
Scroll to the bottom for a survivor's account.
http://tinyurl.com/3jw2w

Shawn

Steve Hill

August 23rd 04, 10:36 PM

Ted,
in my humble opinion you are doing one of the healthiest things you can
do for yourself for your long term survival as a sailplane pilot. Expose
your mistakes and share them. As a cross over hang glider pilot, I have made
all sorts of small mistakes, I like to think I learned from most of them.
What I am completely convinced of is the need to not evaluate your successes
or failures at this early point in your soaring by the "how high, how far,
how fast" methodology, but instead, to evaluate your process...download your
flights and determine how many of your decisions were ones that could have
had bad conclusions, and then use those as a means to improve your decision
making with each subsequent flight...I generally don't say much here, it's
more fun to simply watch the banter, but on this front I do feel compelled
to suggest that ALL cross country soaring pilots should be trying to share
more of the information we use in our own process. To me, 300 feet is WAY
too low to be trying to climb back up...once in awhile you'll get away with
it...but not every time. And the one time it kills you, the pundits here
will have more fodder for the tireless " Well anyone could see it was gonna
happen sooner or later"'s...My two cents worth ain't worth what it used to
be, but keep sharing those flights...if you aren't sure if it was dumb...ask
somebody.."Hey would YOU have done this..?" and then be prepared for the
outcome.

In this case you got away with something. We've probably ALL gotten away
with something ourselves...but if we share a bit more of what was going
through our head, we can hopefully relegate some of the future visits to
funerals...

Steve
DG-400
4-93

Ted Wagner

August 23rd 04, 11:12 PM

Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look.

Btw, so say "It's *safe* to say everyone should land (blah blah blah)" is,
well, stating the obvious (kinda like saying "It's safe to stay on the
ground"). The pertinent question is whether it was *unsafe* for me to
continue the turn in the precise circumstances in which I found myself. I
remain open to the possibility that it was not, but in the same spirit,
being over tiger country out of reach of landable points is questionably
unsafe, yet I hear regularly of pilots doing this as a matter of routine,
especially in contests, and if I continue flying contests long enough (and I
hope to be doing them for many years), I will have to take that step many
times myself. I want to err on the side of safety, but at the same time, I
want to be reasonable and competitive.

I treat my flights like I do my skydives (4500 safe ones and counting, knock
on wood) -- from the time the plane leaves the ground, I am a dead man,
until my feet are safely back upon it; it is my responsibility to make the
right decisions and pull the right handles at the right times to avert that
fate.

-ted

"scurry" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Wagner wrote:
> > Paul,
>
> Snip 1st hand account.
>
> I can understand the temptation to keep turning. Its *safe* to say
> everyone should land in under same circumstances. Doesn't mean it can't
> be done, just that IMHO (and most everyone else's too) it shouldn't.
> The trail of blood is pretty compelling in this case, Ted.
> Scroll to the bottom for a survivor's account.
> http://tinyurl.com/3jw2w
>
> Shawn

Ted Wagner

August 23rd 04, 11:27 PM

Thanks Steve, good feedback and I like the process evaluation you describe.
Tools like SeeYou are terrific for that.

For the record, 300 feet is way too low for me too!

-ted

"Steve Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Ted,
> in my humble opinion you are doing one of the healthiest things you
can
> do for yourself for your long term survival as a sailplane pilot. Expose
> your mistakes and share them. As a cross over hang glider pilot, I have
made
> all sorts of small mistakes, I like to think I learned from most of them.
> What I am completely convinced of is the need to not evaluate your
successes
> or failures at this early point in your soaring by the "how high, how far,
> how fast" methodology, but instead, to evaluate your process...download
your
> flights and determine how many of your decisions were ones that could have
> had bad conclusions, and then use those as a means to improve your
decision
> making with each subsequent flight...I generally don't say much here, it's
> more fun to simply watch the banter, but on this front I do feel compelled
> to suggest that ALL cross country soaring pilots should be trying to share
> more of the information we use in our own process. To me, 300 feet is WAY
> too low to be trying to climb back up...once in awhile you'll get away
with
> it...but not every time. And the one time it kills you, the pundits here
> will have more fodder for the tireless " Well anyone could see it was
gonna
> happen sooner or later"'s...My two cents worth ain't worth what it used to
> be, but keep sharing those flights...if you aren't sure if it was
dumb...ask
> somebody.."Hey would YOU have done this..?" and then be prepared for the
> outcome.
>
> In this case you got away with something. We've probably ALL gotten away
> with something ourselves...but if we share a bit more of what was going
> through our head, we can hopefully relegate some of the future visits to
> funerals...
>
>
> Steve
> DG-400
> 4-93
>
>
>
>

ADP

August 24th 04, 12:09 AM

In the late '70s, Airlines began to examine why certain accidents occurred.
They came to the conclusion that Cockpit culture needed to change.
Thus were born courses like "Cockpit Leadership and Resource Management"
Or CLR. It is now often called CRM for "Cockpit Resource Management"

It changed the premise of Airline Cockpit management from "The Captain is
always
right" to " The Captain is responsible for the final decision but will
gratefully accept
any and all input from any source to help him/her arrive at the safest
decision".

It was a remarkable event and, in my view, is responsible for the avoidance
of many accidents.

To do this Airline Pilots had to learn and embrace the difference between
critique
and criticism. Criticism is personality based and can be perceived as a
personal
attack on an individual. Critique, on the other hand, is situation based
and can and
should be based on events as they happened and how to learn from them.

As Steve suggests, it is better to critique than to criticize.

In the instant case, the question is, could Ted have landed at his intended
Airport
on his intended runway without thermal intervention? If the answer is yes,
then
ergo, he was not too low. If the answer is no, then ergo, he should
reevaluate
his decision making process. In any case, sharing the event with us
benefits all
and no one here should forget the difference between critique and criticism.

It has been my experience here that most do know the difference and I, for
one,
am thankful for that.

Allan

"Steve Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Ted,
> in my humble opinion you are doing one of the healthiest things you can
> do for yourself for your long term survival as a sailplane pilot. Expose
> your mistakes and share them. As a cross over hang glider pilot, I have
> made
> all sorts of small mistakes, I like to think I learned from most of them.
> ...Snip...

BTIZ

August 24th 04, 12:33 AM

want to hear about the very experienced pilot.. who in his first season with
his NEW ASW27B, found a thermal on downwind, thought he had it hooked.. only
to get left low and dry and forced into a downwind landing.. and totaled it
when it ground looped..

that extra tow back to that "found thermal" is cheap insurance

Anyone found "thremaling out" from 300ft in the traffic pattern would not be
asked to return. How many pilots did he block in the pattern while he
climbed above pattern altitude.

BT

"Paul M. Cordell" > wrote in message
...
> How Low to Spin??
>
> I was proudly shown a IGC file this weekend. This file show the aero tow
> thru a thermal and a release into sink. Our proud pilot was unable to
> find the thermal and started a downwind leg for a landing. As he turned
> base leg, he flew into a 2-5 kt thermal. Instead of completing the
> pattern and landing, he turned and climbed in this thermal. The IGC file
> showed that his altitude at the time of encountering lift was 300 ft. I
> asked him 1 question as he displayed this flight on See You. How Low do
> you want to spin?
>
> His response scared me silly&&..My glider does not spin and there was no
> wind.
>
> He then continued to display the same flight where he bragged of
> spending a considerable amount of time in the mountains within 500 feet
> of the terrain. I am doubtful as to his ability to reach a landable area
> during this portion of the flight.
>
> This pilot is in his first year of private ownership, cross county
> soaring and may have almost 200 hours of total time. He has embraced
> soaring completely. I left the gliderport feeling that my suggestions as
> to his safety practices were just hollow words. I know that he reads RAS
> and would hope that the response to this post may give him some food for
> thought.
>

Ted Wagner

August 24th 04, 02:01 AM

> that extra tow back to that "found thermal" is cheap insurance

A good point, and not forgotten at the time. I haven't shied away from
relights in the past, but I wasn't out to volunteer for one either.

> How many pilots did he block in the pattern while he
> climbed above pattern altitude.

None. As I told GY and Paul (before his post), I was careful to note as I
entered the pattern that I was the only one near it.

I'd noted when I launched that the entire commercial fleet was on the
ground. In the air (when I entered the pattern) were one tow plane with
which I had visual and radio contact, a motorglider several thousand feet
higher, and another glider just off tow two miles to the west.

Also, I didn't thermal at 300 feet -- that was the low point of the
downwind leg (it was actually a little more than 300', but why split hairs).
I was more than 100 feet higher when I started my first turn, to base. When
the lift continued, I simply decided to continue the turn (over 400 feet
now), plenty of altitude, airspeed and yaw string straight. At no point was
it any more dangerous than a normal landing pattern, and if I'm wrong on
that evaluation, I'm the first person who wants to know where why and how,
because if it was a mistake for those particular circumstances, I care not
to repeat it.

I was far more scared when my CFIG pulled the tow release at 200' without
warning in a heavily loaded trainer and I had to turn, line up on the same
runway we launched from, all while managing the airspeed, and land downwind.
(That's more than 180 degrees of turning, those of you who haven't enjoyed
this exercise before.) I had to perform that maneuver twice, once before 1st
solo and again just before my license exams. Was it safe? If so, then how is
what I did less safe, with twice the altitude and no surprises? I'm not
trying to be argumentive here -- I'm trying to understand what I should
consider next time that I did not consider this time, if there is anything.

Still I can't imagine "thermaling" at 300 feet unless there was terrain
underneath me I could imagine landing on even less. I hope that goes without
saying!

-ted

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 02:19 AM

In article >,
Stewart Kissel > wrote:
>Part 2 of response-
>
>Pushing limits safely is one of the appealing aspects
>of our sport...once one can actually stay up, this
>progression seems to be...
>
>1.) How long(duration)
>2.) How high
>3.) How far
>4.) How fast

An excellent list...how true...

>
>(How low) seems to fit in there somewhere...but it
>can bite harder then the others.

I saw an accident report that noted the cause:
"Pilot's inability to maintain terrain clearance."
Boy, that is SOME lazy investigator...I laughed a tiny bit,
and then was embarrassed at myself because it was a fatality...

I read a lot of reports about accidents caused not by
lack of lift, but presence of sink. In my close calls,
I was always glide ratio or better to an airport, but this
meant absolutely nothing. Sink is the killer.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 02:30 AM

In article >,
scurry > wrote:
>Paul M. Cordell wrote:
>
>> How Low to Spin??

When I flew my minature CA state record, at one point I had
picked a field and was on downwind for landing. The
stupid road on the field was 2000 ft long, but there
were trees 50-100ft+ on both ends, and a tree right in the
middle of the packed dirt road. I remember grumbling
to myself that this could very possibly suck.

I caught some lift on the downwind at about 500 ft AGL,
right over the field. I circled fast and with shallow bank
right over the field, in a wide arc. At every moment, I said
I wouldn't get slow and tight close to the ground, and if
I wasn't going up, I would go back to the downwind.

1 knot became 2, and soon I was at 1500AGL. I looked around a bit
more, and found that I had set up for a tailwind landing (about
5 knots). I hadn't seen any flags or such on the way in, and
the wind was 120 deg from what I expected.

I tightened up and took a breath, and eventually held the same thermal
up 10,000 ft, 4-6 knots.

So mediocre landing field vs. 500ft shallow circle at
higher speed? I'm gonna say that if I'm always in a position to make
a safe landing, I'm ok. The real question is if someone
flys slow and steep close to the ground. I do it high all the
time, but never below 1000 feet AGL...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 02:52 AM

Ted Wagner > wrote:
>yaw string straight.

We've had this discussion on RAS before. I'm still
gonna say that yaw string straight doesn't prevent a spin
entry. Spins are when you're stalled and one wing is more
stalled than the other.

One wing is more stalled than the other if one wing
has less AOA/more airspeed than the other. With the yawstring
straight, this is still true in a steep bank, especially
with long wings. It's also true if you're in a slip and
then with a punchy foot coarsely correct it to
center.

The steeper the bank, the higher the stall speed AND
the greater the difference in wing speeds, even with a straight
yaw string.

When I teach rope breaks, I do them at 300 ft and 30-45
degrees of bank, and best L/D for that bank angle.
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
is a start. I also caution against super rapid roll rates
and coarse use of rudder.

I'm open to thoughts on this. I didn't do the math to
see how MUCH the factor affects spins (somebody else did and
came up with 3 degrees diff or so for 50 deg and 18m wings),
but it sure surprised me.

Now when I do spins in the L-13, I do them from string centered
flight, and sure enough it always spins in the direction of the
steep bank, and in a hurry too...

P.S. Of course this assumes the rigging is right. If
flaps are lower on one side than the other, hey man, there's
yet another factor...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Paul M. Cordell

August 24th 04, 05:26 AM

Ted,
I am pleased with the discussion that has occurred today.. As you
suggest, we must have experienced a failure to communicate. It
certainly is my intention to help you become a safer and better glider
pilot. As a side note, it has been a great pleasure to watch you
completely embrace this sport. I can only hope that we collectively
as a group will attract more people of your caliber. See ya @ the
gliderport!

Paul

[email protected]

August 24th 04, 08:00 AM

scurry > wrote:
> Interesting thing about the flight; By following the ridge lines
> keeping wind and sun in mind, I was able to run out of the hills at
> 300-400 feet over the ridges, maintaining my altitude until I had enough
> altitude to circle comfortably (which, remember includes the thermals
> spreading out enough to be useful).
>

Ridge flying is practised currently *much* closer to the ridge than that, in
fact so close than not touching some tree is the real problem.

--
Michel Talon

Bruce Hoult

August 24th 04, 11:50 AM

In article <OrwWc.1538$4o.536@fed1read01>,
"Ted Wagner" > wrote:

> Still I can't imagine "thermaling" at 300 feet unless there was terrain
> underneath me I could imagine landing on even less. I hope that goes without
> saying!

How about the opposite? I can't see much wrong with thermalling at 300
ft or lower if the ground underneath you is landable and unobstructed
such that you can roll level and land in any direction. Or on one of
those occasions where there is almost no lift about but no strong sink
either.

If conditions were at all boisterous then I wouldn't even consider it --
both because of the risk of a pin upset, and because of the risk of
hitting horrid 500+ fpm sink just as you're facing away from the field
-- but in the late evening when it's calm? Why not?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Chris OCallaghan

August 24th 04, 12:43 PM

Interesting problem. I would suggest that the primary danger faced by
a competent pilot isn't a spin, but a midair collision. One can choose
to increase speed near the ground. However, a low save requires extra
attention to airspeed control, coordination, and thermal centering.
Myopic focus on a thermal in the high density traffic of a landing
pattern is inappropriate. Pilots entering the pattern depend on others
already in it to act predictably. And once in the pattern, special
attention has to be given to traffic aviodance, since gliderports (and
especially mixed traffic airports) can produce unusual conflicts under
the best of conditions.

I assume your club has a safety officer. If a pilot chooses to thermal
in the pattern, that pilot needs talking too. Part of the discussion
might include the addition of variables during low altitude saves and
their effect on maintaining appropriate safety margins, but the
primary focus should be on the poor judgement that led a pilot to
operate unpredictably (and thereby unsafely) in the landing pattern,
where he may be a danger to others as well as himself.

scurry

August 24th 04, 05:06 PM

Ted Wagner wrote:

> Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look.
>
> Btw, so say "It's *safe* to say everyone should land (blah blah blah)" is,
> well, stating the obvious (kinda like saying "It's safe to stay on the
> ground"). The pertinent question is whether it was *unsafe* for me to
> continue the turn in the precise circumstances in which I found myself. I
> remain open to the possibility that it was not, but in the same spirit,
> being over tiger country out of reach of landable points is questionably
> unsafe, yet I hear regularly of pilots doing this as a matter of routine,
> especially in contests, and if I continue flying contests long enough (and I
> hope to be doing them for many years), I will have to take that step many
> times myself. I want to err on the side of safety, but at the same time, I
> want to be reasonable and competitive.

Was it unsafe? No, not that time. Here you are! Definitely risky though.
Thermalling at low altitude isn't like thermalling aloft. Thermals are
less consolidated and much smaller in area. Wind shear due to ground
features alters the way thermals behave relative to higher up on the
same day, in the same wind. Perspective is different as well. The
ground appears to disappear under the lower wing near the ground (moving
front to back), whereas at altitude it appears from under the lower
wing. If you try to "fix" this picture automatically, you'll keep
finding yourself in a skidding turn every time you scan past the yaw string.
Do most pilots routinely fly over tiger country out of glide of anywhere
landable? I think people talk it up more than they do it. Plus, being
at 19,000 feet (by GPS) over Nevada desert with cloud streets as far as
the eye can see is a different judgment call than being 2000 feet over a
Louisiana swamp with a wisp of a cloud dome up ahead.
The way I'll keep looking at it, is how I was trained. Once I commit to
landing, I'll land. And yes, I can imagine exceptions, but they would
involve the landing option being very very bad anyway (e.g. trees).
Much better not to get into such a situation in the first place.
FWIW its very good you're asking these questions now, and not the next
time you're in lift on downwind.

Shawn

scurry

August 24th 04, 05:19 PM

wrote:

> scurry > wrote:
>
>>Interesting thing about the flight; By following the ridge lines
>>keeping wind and sun in mind, I was able to run out of the hills at
>>300-400 feet over the ridges, maintaining my altitude until I had enough
>>altitude to circle comfortably (which, remember includes the thermals
>>spreading out enough to be useful).
>>
>
>
> Ridge flying is practised currently *much* closer to the ridge than that, in
> fact so close than not touching some tree is the real problem.
>
Right, but I didn't want to burn up 300 feet just to get down to the
ridges. The terrain west of Boulder, CO drops rapidly to the east (and
the airport). I was just wanting to get over lower ground so I could
thermal. I'm pretty sure I was using thermal and orographic lift as I
snuck out of the foothills.
Later in that flight after regaining some altitude, I was ridge soaring
much closer to the Flatirons. Very nice views.
http://tinyurl.com/4zotd

Shawn

Bert Willing

August 24th 04, 05:27 PM

Circling at 400ft while being able to land anywhere doesn't mean unsafe
operations by definition. I frequently start circling over a ridge at less
than half of this altitude. But not always.
Everything depends on experience (with that glider), current training level
(with that glider), personal daily fitness, wind conditions and lift
conditions.
And you have to put the question "is it safe" every single time - but then,
this does hold for every manoeuvre.
You just have to accept that sometimes the answer to this question is "no".

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"scurry" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Was it unsafe? No, not that time. Here you are! Definitely risky
though.
> Thermalling at low altitude isn't like thermalling aloft. Thermals are
> less consolidated and much smaller in area. Wind shear due to ground
> features alters the way thermals behave relative to higher up on the
> same day, in the same wind. Perspective is different as well. The
> ground appears to disappear under the lower wing near the ground (moving
> front to back), whereas at altitude it appears from under the lower
> wing. If you try to "fix" this picture automatically, you'll keep
> finding yourself in a skidding turn every time you scan past the yaw
string.
> Do most pilots routinely fly over tiger country out of glide of anywhere
> landable? I think people talk it up more than they do it. Plus, being
> at 19,000 feet (by GPS) over Nevada desert with cloud streets as far as
> the eye can see is a different judgment call than being 2000 feet over a
> Louisiana swamp with a wisp of a cloud dome up ahead.
> The way I'll keep looking at it, is how I was trained. Once I commit to
> landing, I'll land. And yes, I can imagine exceptions, but they would
> involve the landing option being very very bad anyway (e.g. trees).
> Much better not to get into such a situation in the first place.
> FWIW its very good you're asking these questions now, and not the next
> time you're in lift on downwind.
>
> Shawn

Kirk Stant

August 24th 04, 05:47 PM

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412a9f4a$1@darkstar>...
> Ted Wagner > wrote:
> >yaw string straight.
>
> We've had this discussion on RAS before. I'm still
> gonna say that yaw string straight doesn't prevent a spin
> entry. Spins are when you're stalled and one wing is more
> stalled than the other.
>
> One wing is more stalled than the other if one wing
> has less AOA/more airspeed than the other. With the yawstring
> straight, this is still true in a steep bank, especially
> with long wings. It's also true if you're in a slip and
> then with a punchy foot coarsely correct it to
> center.
>
> The steeper the bank, the higher the stall speed AND
> the greater the difference in wing speeds, even with a straight
> yaw string.
>
> When I teach rope breaks, I do them at 300 ft and 30-45
> degrees of bank, and best L/D for that bank angle.
> http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/
> is a start. I also caution against super rapid roll rates
> and coarse use of rudder.
>
> I'm open to thoughts on this. I didn't do the math to
> see how MUCH the factor affects spins (somebody else did and
> came up with 3 degrees diff or so for 50 deg and 18m wings),
> but it sure surprised me.
>
> Now when I do spins in the L-13, I do them from string centered
> flight, and sure enough it always spins in the direction of the
> steep bank, and in a hurry too...
>
> P.S. Of course this assumes the rigging is right. If
> flaps are lower on one side than the other, hey man, there's
> yet another factor...

I disagree with your conclusion about steep bank angles. It is
usually a lot harder to spin from a steep turn, and a lot easier to
recover from an incipient spin, for a simple reason (see Piggott for
more details): a properly flown steep turn is flown at a
significantly higher speed, and the elevator is limited, making it
harder to reach stalling angle of attack, and much easier to reduce
the angle of attack if needed due to the higher speed.

You mention in an earlier post about making shallow, fast turns during
a low save. Why shallow? If the thermal is narrow, you usually need
to be steep (and fast) to stay in the (probably a bit turbulent) core.
A shallow turn is asking for the classic base-to-final spin entry,
unless you fly so fast that any climb is more luck than skill!

Methinks your power background is showing (all those shallow turns!).
Even though I also have a power past going way back, I now find my
glider bias showing when I fly a stinkpot; I find myself whipping into
nice 45 to 60 degree banks, scaring the daylights out of my power-only
friends...

Kirk

Eric Greenwell

August 24th 04, 07:42 PM

Ted Wagner wrote:

> Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look.
>
> Btw, so say "It's *safe* to say everyone should land (blah blah blah)" is,
> well, stating the obvious (kinda like saying "It's safe to stay on the
> ground"). The pertinent question is whether it was *unsafe* for me to
> continue the turn in the precise circumstances in which I found myself. I
> remain open to the possibility that it was not, but in the same spirit,
> being over tiger country out of reach of landable points is questionably
> unsafe, yet I hear regularly of pilots doing this as a matter of routine,
> especially in contests,

We must know entirely different groups of pilots, because I sure don't
hear pilots talking about this, unless it starts out "Boy, did I screw
up today...". The story often ends with "... so I ended up ground
looping (or "scaring myself sh--less", "hitting the fence", "breaking
the tail", etc)".

> and if I continue flying contests long enough (and I
> hope to be doing them for many years), I will have to take that step many
> times myself.

No, you certainly don't have to. Pilot's choice, you know. It some areas
in some conditions, the lift can be so reliable that you can actually
count on it, but if done regularly, you will find the times when you
misjudge the weather.

I want to err on the side of safety, but at the same time, I
> want to be reasonable and competitive.

Take a look at the flight traces from the top pilots. See if they are
really taking these chances. The ones I've flown with didn't seem to
take these kinds of chances. I think the philosophy for many of them is
"there is always another day and another contest, and if you break your
glider, you won't even win this day or this contest".

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 07:56 PM

scurry > wrote:
wrote:
>
>> scurry > wrote:
>>
>> Ridge flying is practised currently *much* closer to the ridge than that, in
>> fact so close than not touching some tree is the real problem.

Carl Herold has stated he no longer does ridge soaring because
he finds it too dangerous. On the other hand, he has so many other
forms of lift available in the Sierras, I suspect this isn't
a problem ;)

If you land with pine needles in your ailerons, you are
too close...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 08:00 PM

scurry > wrote:
>Ted Wagner wrote:
>
>> Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look.
>>
>Was it unsafe? No, not that time. Here you are! Definitely risky though.
>Thermalling at low altitude isn't like thermalling aloft. Thermals are
>less consolidated and much smaller in area. Wind shear due to ground
>features alters the way thermals behave relative to higher up on the
>same day, in the same wind. Perspective is different as well. The
>ground appears to disappear under the lower wing near the ground (moving
>front to back), whereas at altitude it appears from under the lower
>wing. If you try to "fix" this picture automatically, you'll keep
>finding yourself in a skidding turn every time you scan past the yaw string.

An excellent point. I've found myself more than once skidding
because of wind creating an illusion close to the ground. The
only way I've found to counter it is being aware of the wind, and
using slow roll rates and shallow banks close to the ground (so I don't
need much rudder anyway).
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Marc Ramsey

August 24th 04, 08:25 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> An excellent point. I've found myself more than once skidding
> because of wind creating an illusion close to the ground. The
> only way I've found to counter it is being aware of the wind, and
> using slow roll rates and shallow banks close to the ground (so I don't
> need much rudder anyway).

*Listen* to what Kirk (and others) have said about this. The last thing
you want to do when thermalling down low is use a shallow bank angle.
It is just too easy to lose track of what you are doing, and end up a
bit too slow in a skidding turn. It is far safer to be in a properly
coordinated turn with a 40 to 50 degree bank angle. Every glider I've
ever flown gives a much better warning of impending departure in a tight
turn, plus the visual (nose above horizon) and physical (G forces
slacking off) cues are much more pronounced.

Marc

BMacLean

August 24th 04, 08:34 PM

I fly with the same group as you Ted and I wonder where you get the idea
that it is "routine" to fly with no landing options, even in hardcore
competition. I don't believe this to be the case and I agree with Eric. I
have found that when a pilot is relating a story of some scary situation
they got themselves into and I ask them where they would have landed, 99% of
the time they have an answer.

Barb

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 08:52 PM

Kirk Stant > wrote:

>I disagree with your conclusion about steep bank angles. It is
>usually a lot harder to spin from a steep turn, and a lot easier to
>recover from an incipient spin, for a simple reason (see Piggott for
>more details): a properly flown steep turn is flown at a
>significantly higher speed, and the elevator is limited, making it
>harder to reach stalling angle of attack, and much easier to reduce
>the angle of attack if needed due to the higher speed.

Not always true. An aircraft that has done a complete 180 during the
spin still has momentum, and is now to some degree flying backwards.
The excess forward momentum translates into excess reduction of airspeed.

Think about it for a minute. If you're going 50 knots in one direction,
and then one-half second later the nose of the glider is 180 degrees
pointed the other way, does this mean you are doing 50 knots in the other
direction? That's some G's, and I don't feel them in a spin.

This is why aircraft oscillate pitch up and down for a few turns before
stabilizing in a spin. For the first few turns, the aircraft momentum
is still slogging through the air.

But some of what you point out is true. Aircraft without enough
elevator authority to stall, and with forward CG, won't have the
ability to stall in a steep bank. But if the CG is back a bit, the
elevator has a lot of authority because the glider is designed for a
wide range of speeds, and the pilot has in aileron to resist overbanking,
then whoa nellie!

A properly flown steep turn at higher speed isn't what I'm talking about.
I'm considering a 30-45 degree bank turn at low speed.

>You mention in an earlier post about making shallow, fast turns during
>a low save. Why shallow? If the thermal is narrow, you usually need
>to be steep (and fast) to stay in the (probably a bit turbulent) core.

This thermal was very smooth and regular and wide. I was feeling it
out on the first turn, and was not eager to make any coarse inputs or
lose sight of my landing site or get vertigo during the circle.

> A shallow turn is asking for the classic base-to-final spin entry,
The classic spin entry from a shallow bank is uninteresting.
I won't be jamming in the rudder for a skid at some obviously
low speed close to the ground. I think the focus on the classic case
is niave and dangerous. Yes, it's easy to teach and demonstrate,
but it ignores too much. The more complex, less discussed
spin entry is the one in the accident reports: tight pattern,
higher speed, steep bank, lots of inside rudder, pilot focussed on
keeping the yaw string straight, quite a bit of opposite aileron
in the steep bank, in vertigo, pulling stick back to tighten up the
turn, and then wham! I'll look back through the accident reports, but
the ones I recall, and the B-52 and the DG spin I saw on video, involved
stabilized, 30-45 deg bank turns before each of the spins. In each,
it looked like the craft was overbanking, and the pilot put in more
opposite aileron and more elevator and WHAM! Instant spin...

Too much rudder, maybe, but it wasn't because he moved it. It was
because the pilot put in more dragging aileron without RELEASING
inside rudder.

>unless you fly so fast that any climb is more luck than skill!

This is usually the case for me on cloudless days (like that one).
High over the terrain, I usually just bump into a thermal. Of course,
at altitude, while thermalling, slow is good, and trim is your friend...

>Methinks your power background is showing (all those shallow turns!).

Shallow turns in power? Why? Just jam the throttle all the way in,
full flaps, and yo-yo base to final at 60 degrees. Gas is a good
substitute for brains ;PPPP

Power planes (except maybe the DA-20) often have lower
aspect ratios. Some even have frieze ailerons. And if the left turns
are flown with power off, there's even a little slip provided by the
P-factor of the prop. There's enough differences between the two
that the USA CFI practical tests require training and evaluation in each
category seperately (CFI transition from one to the other requires
spin training in the new class, except for Sport Pilots, but that's
another thread).

>Even though I also have a power past going way back, I now find my
>glider bias showing when I fly a stinkpot; I find myself whipping into
>nice 45 to 60 degree banks, scaring the daylights out of my power-only
>friends...

Power flying can be boring. If an autopilot can do it, why do they
need me?

Anyway Kirk, I welcome some more discussion. As you can see, there
are quite a few points where we agree, and a few nuanced ones where
we don't. I hope you have time to continue another response...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Bruce Greeff

August 24th 04, 08:57 PM

Bert Willing wrote:
> Circling at 400ft while being able to land anywhere doesn't mean unsafe
> operations by definition. I frequently start circling over a ridge at less
> than half of this altitude. But not always.
> Everything depends on experience (with that glider), current training level
> (with that glider), personal daily fitness, wind conditions and lift
> conditions.
> And you have to put the question "is it safe" every single time - but then,
> this does hold for every manoeuvre.
> You just have to accept that sometimes the answer to this question is "no".
>
Experience is no panacea.

F1 - Francois De Klerk died in his Ventus 2cx. He entered a spin trying to save
a launch at 450". He was a national champion and one of the most experienced
contest pilots. Unfortunately he can't tell us whether it was disorientation,
turbulence, or wind shear that stalled him.

Unless the landing options are certain to include serious injury it must be
considered unwise to even think of trying to thermal under your safe spin
recovery altitude. It used to be with the draggy wodd and fabric jobs that
people generally got away with it low down, but a modern glass glider with
elliptical lift distribution departs violently into a spin and does not recover
in less than 500-600" (altitude loss after recovery is irrelevant)

So - my opinion is - the answer is always no, unless you have already put
yourself in the position where you are effectively already dead, and all the
possible outcomes are no worse. Personally I would prefer to avoid getting into
the situation in the first place...

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 08:59 PM

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>How about the opposite? I can't see much wrong with thermalling at 300
>ft or lower if the ground underneath you is landable and unobstructed
>such that you can roll level and land in any direction. Or on one of
>those occasions where there is almost no lift about but no strong sink
>either.

I've thermalled fairly low before. The main issues for me were to ensure
there was no traffic nearby, and avoid wires and towers. But yes, we
have a lot of flat, wide open dry plowed fields, so a landout is a
no-brainer.

I don't usually bother that low, however, because where I am, if I'm that
low, it's usually because it's early and the thermals aren't really cooking
yet. So that low there's often an inversion, and I'm gonna land anyway...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Stefan

August 24th 04, 09:02 PM

I wasn't there, didn't see the event nor know the place or the pilot.
(But then I guess most other posters don't, either.) This said...

> thru a thermal and a release into sink. Our proud pilot was unable to
> find the thermal

It might have been just a bubble. Happens a lot where I fly.

> pattern and landing, he turned and climbed in this thermal. The IGC file
> showed that his altitude at the time of encountering lift was 300 ft.

I more than once saved the day with a thermalling exercise at 300 ft
(with a chosen and reachable outlanding field, of course). Every serious
cross country pilot will enconter this situation sooner or later.
Whether it is appropriate in the circuit depends on the local situation
and the actual traffic, which I don't know.

> asked him 1 question as he displayed this flight on See You. "How Low do
> you want to spin?"

Why should he spin just because he thermals? Fly fast and carefully
enough and there's no reason why you should spin out of a thermal,
unless it's not extremly gusty.

> spending a considerable amount of time in the mountains within 500 feet
> of the terrain.

Which I consider absolutely normal in the mountains.

> I am doubtful as to his ability to reach a landable area
> during this portion of the flight.

In the mountains, the terrain often descends much faster than the
glider. So those 500 ft may be good for 20 miles. (Again, depends on the
local situation which I don't know.)

> This pilot is in his first year of private ownership, cross county
> soaring and may have almost 200 hours of total time.

If this is 200 hours in one year and cross country, then I would
consider this pilot as fairly current. 200 hours TT isn't exactly high
time, but it isn't beginner level, neither.

Again, I don't know the pilot. He may or may not be a bold, dumb and
reckless idiot. I'm just saying that your "facts" don't say anything
about the safety of the situation.

Stefan

Mark James Boyd

August 24th 04, 09:19 PM

Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
>*Listen* to what Kirk (and others) have said about this. The last thing
>you want to do when thermalling down low is use a shallow bank angle.
>It is just too easy to lose track of what you are doing, and end up a
>bit too slow in a skidding turn.

Kinda mixing apples and oranges here, aren't you Marc? If you're saying
that an uncoordinated slow shallow turn is less safe than a properly
coordinated 40-50 degree bank angle, that's not very interesting.

>It is far safer to be in a properly
>coordinated turn with a 40 to 50 degree bank angle. Every glider I've
>ever flown gives a much better warning of impending departure in a tight
>turn, plus the visual (nose above horizon) and physical (G forces
>slacking off) cues are much more pronounced.

And how many pilots did this save from a spin? How many pilots
have died because of spins from the 40-50 degree bank angle vs.
the shallow bank angle?

What makes you think that the pilot who gets too slow in a shallow bank
won't do the exact same thing in a steep bank? Not enough elevator
authority? Maybe in a training ship, and then negative transfer to
a more controllable faster glass one?

Look at the fatal accidents and describe to me the "typical" spin
fatality. Then see if it matches the classic one (shallow bank).
In my reading, it does not...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Steve Hill

August 24th 04, 09:44 PM

I have read and re-read a couple of these postings and feel that while every
single one of us can point out a single instance when it may be okay for
this kind of behavior, I feel that if you ask yourself if you were the
instructor on the ground, watching a student pull this off, how would you
react? I think even the pilot who got away with it, should ask himself the
same question quietly while staring in the mirror...

I am not an instructor in sailplanes...but if my student did that,
well...we'd have a substantial "chat"...a "critique", if you will.

I think the whole thing boils down to one thing. How long do you wish to
participate in this sport? If it's a long time, then not contacting the
ground in a stall or spin will benefit that goal. If you have a blatant
disregard for you health and well being ( or mortality) then carry on. But
under no circumstance in my book, in a modern sailplane is this low of a
"save" a normal or good plan of action. The fact that the argument is
carrying on about how is it different from a rope break, is exactly how we
view autorotations in helicopter flying...we need to be prepared for the
worst, and so we practice them with instructors for checkrides...do you ever
see people go practice rope breaks on their own???

If you want to stay alive in this sport, you will adjust your assessment of
yourself to a more sustainable plan of action. I fly a DG-400, and once the
gear is down, the flaps down and the spoilers are cracked...we're
landing...no biggie...that's just the way it is. I commit to that act of
landing much higher away from the ground than some people...but I think it's
smart. 1000 feet is just a good all around safe AGL place to fully and
completely commit to land...can you be closer to the ground in the
mountains...or while ridge soaring....well...duh!!! that's not really the
point here though is it...?

I think I've added a full three cents worth now...I completely agree with
Eric Greenwell on the topic of the top competitors carrying safety to
amazing levels in their planning and throughout their flying...we should
too.

Steve.

Marc Ramsey

August 24th 04, 10:16 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
>>*Listen* to what Kirk (and others) have said about this. The last thing
>>you want to do when thermalling down low is use a shallow bank angle.
>>It is just too easy to lose track of what you are doing, and end up a
>>bit too slow in a skidding turn.
>
> Kinda mixing apples and oranges here, aren't you Marc? If you're saying
> that an uncoordinated slow shallow turn is less safe than a properly
> coordinated 40-50 degree bank angle, that's not very interesting.

No, I'm saying (based on experience) it's a lot easier to let yourself
slip (well, actually skid) into a dangerous uncoordinated turn from a
shallow bank, than it is from a steeper bank.

>>It is far safer to be in a properly
>>coordinated turn with a 40 to 50 degree bank angle. Every glider I've
>>ever flown gives a much better warning of impending departure in a tight
>>turn, plus the visual (nose above horizon) and physical (G forces
>>slacking off) cues are much more pronounced.
>
> And how many pilots did this save from a spin? How many pilots
> have died because of spins from the 40-50 degree bank angle vs.
> the shallow bank angle?

Most pilots die spinning on the base to final turn, and they almost
always manage to do it from a slow shallow turn, rather than a slow
steep turn.

But, hey, we can agree to disagree, as long as we're not in the same
glider...

Marc

Andy Durbin

August 24th 04, 11:17 PM

wrote in message >...
> He definitely sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
>
> Not so much the fact that he did some questionable things, but the fact
> that he brags about them.
>
> Eventually he will hit some big sink while over the mountains, and
> realize he doesn't have an escape route. Hopefully the sink will let
> up before he crashes, and it will cause him to reevaluate his risk
> taking practices.
>
> Of course, it might just be occasion for him to brag again about what
> he got away with.

I have had the pleasure of seeing Ted get started in his cross country
flying. I don't consider him an overt risk taker and most, if not
all, of the advice he receives from our club members encourages
caution. I am pleased he wanted to discuss this experience with me.
He wanted my honest feedback, I gave it, and he accepted it. I saw no
bragging.

Andy (GY)

Chris OCallaghan

August 24th 04, 11:22 PM

Eric,

Well said.

To reemphasize, contest pilots do not put their aircraft or lives at
risk for the sake of points. They make balanced decisions. If they
appear to some to be "dangerous," it probably points to a difference
in skill and experience between the performer and the observer. Don't
get into the habit of assuming that the only way to win is to take
unreasonable risks. Such thinking can get you into far more trouble
than you (or any other pilot) could hope to handle.

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Ted Wagner wrote:
>
> > Thanks Shawn, I'll take a look.
> >
> > Btw, so say "It's *safe* to say everyone should land (blah blah blah)" is,
> > well, stating the obvious (kinda like saying "It's safe to stay on the
> > ground"). The pertinent question is whether it was *unsafe* for me to
> > continue the turn in the precise circumstances in which I found myself. I
> > remain open to the possibility that it was not, but in the same spirit,
> > being over tiger country out of reach of landable points is questionably
> > unsafe, yet I hear regularly of pilots doing this as a matter of routine,
> > especially in contests,
>
> We must know entirely different groups of pilots, because I sure don't
> hear pilots talking about this, unless it starts out "Boy, did I screw
> up today...". The story often ends with "... so I ended up ground
> looping (or "scaring myself sh--less", "hitting the fence", "breaking
> the tail", etc)".
>
> > and if I continue flying contests long enough (and I
> > hope to be doing them for many years), I will have to take that step many
> > times myself.
>
> No, you certainly don't have to. Pilot's choice, you know. It some areas
> in some conditions, the lift can be so reliable that you can actually
> count on it, but if done regularly, you will find the times when you
> misjudge the weather.
>
> I want to err on the side of safety, but at the same time, I
> > want to be reasonable and competitive.
>
> Take a look at the flight traces from the top pilots. See if they are
> really taking these chances. The ones I've flown with didn't seem to
> take these kinds of chances. I think the philosophy for many of them is
> "there is always another day and another contest, and if you break your
> glider, you won't even win this day or this contest".

Eric Greenwell

August 25th 04, 12:19 AM

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> And how many pilots did this save from a spin? How many pilots
> have died because of spins from the 40-50 degree bank angle vs.
> the shallow bank angle?
>
> What makes you think that the pilot who gets too slow in a shallow bank
> won't do the exact same thing in a steep bank? Not enough elevator
> authority? Maybe in a training ship, and then negative transfer to
> a more controllable faster glass one?

I suggest the elevator authority isn't any greater on a faster glass
ship because there is no need for it. My experiences in a Blanik L13,
Ka-6e, Libelle h301, Std Cirrus, ASW 20C, and an ASH 26 E were the same:
they were much harder to stall at 30-35 degrees than 10 or 15, and I
couldn't stall them above 45 degrees. This is in coordinated circling
flight.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark James Boyd

August 25th 04, 05:07 AM

Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>
>No, I'm saying (based on experience) it's a lot easier to let yourself
>slip (well, actually skid) into a dangerous uncoordinated turn from a
>shallow bank, than it is from a steeper bank.

Hmmm...this could be true. It may be that rudder authority is pretty
good at low speeds, and with light foot pressures. At higher speeds,
the foot pressure required to really change the airspeeds dramatically
on the wingtips may make skids less likely to happen by mistake.

If one believes uncoordinated flight is the sole cause of stall/spin/spiral
close to the ground, then only rudder is the culprit. I don't think
this is the case...

>>>It is far safer to be in a properly
>>>coordinated turn with a 40 to 50 degree bank angle. Every glider I've
>>>ever flown gives a much better warning of impending departure in a tight
>>>turn, plus the visual (nose above horizon) and physical (G forces
>>>slacking off) cues are much more pronounced.

The US Glider Flying Handbook recommends medium banks in the
pattern, and 1/4 to 1/2 mile pattern legs (distance from runway).
I'm gonna stick with this myself.

>> And how many pilots did this save from a spin? How many pilots
>> have died because of spins from the 40-50 degree bank angle vs.
>> the shallow bank angle?
>
>Most pilots die spinning on the base to final turn, and they almost
>always manage to do it from a slow shallow turn, rather than a slow
>steep turn.

Hmmm...you made me look at the accident reports again. A third
possibility came up. In some cases it seems that the glider may
have never fully stalled, but simply overbanked, and the pilot
didn't stop the overbanking tendency, and went into a steep
spiral nose down.

There were 11 fatal accidents in the pattern caused by stall/spin/spiral
since 1990. One, on Aug 10, 1996, was simply a C.G. to rearward.

Aug 12, 01 bank, stall/spin, downwind to base, tight pattern
Jan 28, 01 60 deg left bank, 45 down, but ailerons were right turn
Oct 4, 96 45 deg bank, 60 deg dive
Jul 31, 96 sharp left turn, then steep descent
Jun 29, 96 steep left turn, stall
Sep 14, 95 left turn, stall during 180 after contest
May 21, 94 steep right turn, then spin
May 3, 94 flat skidding downwind to base, two month old pilot license
May 12, 91 left turn to final, stall
Sep 2, 90 180 deg climbing 180 after contest

One flat skidding turn, the others were in a bank. At least one
looks like an aileron spin (this can be done with feet off the rudders
completely, but is very hard to time correctly). Several don't
look like spins at all, but overbanking that led to a steep spiral
close to the ground. In others, it seems possible the steep bank was
after the spin entry, perhaps not before it.

Eric pointed out that past 45 degrees, many gliders just don't
have enough elevator to stall. This may be true, but it seems
at least some of these were overbanking, a dragging aileron,
and steep spirals instead.

>
>But, hey, we can agree to disagree, as long as we're not in the same
>glider...

Well, for now anyway, I can't see myself doing steep banks in the
pattern. And since the FAA says so, I'm gonna teach no more than
medium banks, and mild or moderate roll rates. At the recommended
pattern size, I don't see why this isn't sufficient.

I think we all agree that low and slow is no way to have a
long life...we just disagree whether most of these accidents
are caused by bad rudder(I don't think so) or by
coarse application of dragging aileron/overbanking...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 25th 04, 05:15 AM

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>I suggest the elevator authority isn't any greater on a faster glass
>ship because there is no need for it. My experiences in a Blanik L13,
>Ka-6e, Libelle h301, Std Cirrus, ASW 20C, and an ASH 26 E were the same:
>they were much harder to stall at 30-35 degrees than 10 or 15, and I
>couldn't stall them above 45 degrees. This is in coordinated circling
>flight.

What do you weigh? In the 2-33 with 230# forward, we can't
make it stall even straight ahead without an accelerated pullup.
But alone at 160#, I can stall it, but just barely.

I'd like to see C.G. calculations on all the stall/spin accidents
the NTSB investigates. I'd be willing to bet this is a
huge factor.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Marc Ramsey

August 25th 04, 05:17 AM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Well, for now anyway, I can't see myself doing steep banks in the
> pattern. And since the FAA says so, I'm gonna teach no more than
> medium banks, and mild or moderate roll rates. At the recommended
> pattern size, I don't see why this isn't sufficient.

In my mind (for gliders), a shallow bank is anything less than 30
degrees, moderate/medium is 30 to 45, steep is 45 to 55, and from 55 on
up you're in aerobatic territory. I use moderate turns for patterns and
most thermals, and steep turns only when needed for thermals (almost
always down low). I simply reject the notion that one is in any way
"safer" by using shallow turns near the ground...

Marc

Mark James Boyd

August 25th 04, 05:58 AM

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> Well, for now anyway, I can't see myself doing steep banks in the
>> pattern. And since the FAA says so, I'm gonna teach no more than
>> medium banks, and mild or moderate roll rates. At the recommended
>> pattern size, I don't see why this isn't sufficient.
>
>In my mind (for gliders), a shallow bank is anything less than 30
>degrees, moderate/medium is 30 to 45, steep is 45 to 55, and from 55 on
>up you're in aerobatic territory. I use moderate turns for patterns and
>most thermals, and steep turns only when needed for thermals (almost
>always down low). I simply reject the notion that one is in any way
>"safer" by using shallow turns near the ground...

I reread the posts, and I used a shallow bank in my case because of
a lack of horizon (in the mountains) and because I saw no point
banking more (and thereby increasing sink rate) unless it was to
better center a known thermal (which I didn't have at that point).

So I think we agree on everything except the use of steep turns
(over 45 of bank) down low in a thermal. And this is merely
dependent on your definition of "low." I imagine you, like
several other posters who have said the same thing, have a lot of time
in the glider you are flying, and are quite familiar with it's
airspeeds, control pressures, and have it loaded to a
consistent C.G. For you, 55 degree banks at 300 feet can
be precisely done, and successful.

For some of us with less currency and less practice in type,
this could be quite dangerous. Vertigo, inadvertent coarse use
of controls (including roll), imperfect centering technique,
visual illusions due to wind and movement of the ground,
different pressure feel caused by different gliders or
C.G.'s, etc. can make this more hazardous.

I think, for me, all of the things I've listed above are much more
critical at 45+ degrees of bank and 300 ft, than 20-30 degrees
of bank. So I am limited in the performance I can get out of
my flying, and won't feel competent to make a save at the
altitudes and bank angles you can. Perhaps with more experience
at steeper bank angles, this will change. It's just that
I seldom have exceeded 45 degrees of bank while coring any thermal
so far...perhaps I'll try some steeper banks next time...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Eric Greenwell

August 25th 04, 06:02 AM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>I suggest the elevator authority isn't any greater on a faster glass
>>ship because there is no need for it. My experiences in a Blanik L13,
>>Ka-6e, Libelle h301, Std Cirrus, ASW 20C, and an ASH 26 E were the same:
>>they were much harder to stall at 30-35 degrees than 10 or 15, and I
>>couldn't stall them above 45 degrees. This is in coordinated circling
>>flight.
>
>
> What do you weigh? In the 2-33 with 230# forward, we can't
> make it stall even straight ahead without an accelerated pullup.
> But alone at 160#, I can stall it, but just barely.

About 180 lbs with the parachute I'd wear in these gliders, but they
were all balanced to about 60-70% of CG range.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Marc Ramsey

August 25th 04, 06:05 AM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> One flat skidding turn, the others were in a bank. At least one
> looks like an aileron spin (this can be done with feet off the rudders
> completely, but is very hard to time correctly). Several don't
> look like spins at all, but overbanking that led to a steep spiral
> close to the ground. In others, it seems possible the steep bank was
> after the spin entry, perhaps not before it.

I've witnessed three stall/spin accidents over the years, two gliders
turning base to final, and one power plane during departure. At the
end, all of them looked like a steeply banked turn into the ground.
Most eyewitnesses, particularly non-pilots, aren't going to notice
anything is wrong until after the spin has started, at which point it
will look very much like an abnormally steep turn.

I've also been in a G103 that was about to depart into a spin from a low
shallow left turn after a botched low finish at a contest. I was PIC,
but a CFIG (!) in back was flying. I noticed things were getting a bit
quiet, the left wing was starting to drop, and the stick was moving
toward the right. I reflexively slammed the stick forward, which was
probably what prevented us from making like a cartwheel.

In most gliders (and there are exceptions), when you stall in a turn the
inner wing is going to start dropping. If you release back pressure at
this point, you'll be fine. But, the natural reaction of too many
pilots is to try to pick up the low wing with aileron, which increases
the angle of attack on the already stalled wing, increasing drag and
decreasing lift, resulting in more bank, until the nose drops and you're
spinning for real.

Marc

Marc Ramsey

August 25th 04, 06:25 AM

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> For some of us with less currency and less practice in type,
> this could be quite dangerous. Vertigo, inadvertent coarse use
> of controls (including roll), imperfect centering technique,
> visual illusions due to wind and movement of the ground,
> different pressure feel caused by different gliders or
> C.G.'s, etc. can make this more hazardous.

Well, I disagree, and I strongly believe that a well-trained glider
pilot, in any glider, low or high, should be every bit as comfortable
and safe (if not more so) in a 50 degree bank as in a 20 degree bank.

Marc

Bert Willing

August 25th 04, 09:07 AM

Putting spin behaviour of a modern glass ship in this general way is pure
nonsense. Spin behaviour is different for every model, and even a model with
and without winglets enters differently. I wouldn't think about 300ft
revoveries with a Ventus b, but on my 20 w/ winglets I would at least think
about it.
But as a general rule, I avoid flying ships in the mountains which depart
violently and use 500ft to recover.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Bruce Greeff" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> >
, but a modern glass glider with
> elliptical lift distribution departs violently into a spin and does not
recover
> in less than 500-600" (altitude loss after recovery is irrelevant)
>
> So - my opinion is - the answer is always no, unless you have already put
> yourself in the position where you are effectively already dead, and all
the
> possible outcomes are no worse. Personally I would prefer to avoid getting
into
> the situation in the first place...

Bruce Hoult

August 25th 04, 09:32 AM

In article <412c108b$1@darkstar>,
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> >>>It is far safer to be in a properly
> >>>coordinated turn with a 40 to 50 degree bank angle. Every glider I've
> >>>ever flown gives a much better warning of impending departure in a tight
> >>>turn, plus the visual (nose above horizon) and physical (G forces
> >>>slacking off) cues are much more pronounced.
>
> The US Glider Flying Handbook recommends medium banks in the
> pattern, and 1/4 to 1/2 mile pattern legs (distance from runway).
> I'm gonna stick with this myself.

Uhhh ... in a glider, 40 - 50 degrees *is* a medium bank. 30 or less is
shallow. 60 or more is steep.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Bruce Greeff

August 25th 04, 12:47 PM

Bert Willing wrote:
> Putting spin behaviour of a modern glass ship in this general way is pure
> nonsense. Spin behaviour is different for every model, and even a model with
> and without winglets enters differently. I wouldn't think about 300ft
> revoveries with a Ventus b, but on my 20 w/ winglets I would at least think
> about it.
> But as a general rule, I avoid flying ships in the mountains which depart
> violently and use 500ft to recover.
>
Sorry all - I was generalising, but even the ASW20 spins interestingly, and will
sometimes reverse it's spin direction instead of recovering if the pilot's
technique is poor. Under the right (wrong) conditions even a K13 will depart
violently.

My point is that you should have a very good idea of exactly how much height
your aircraft uses in a spin, including the half second or more it takes you to
realise you have lost it, for you to recover in. Not the absolute minimum, in a
factory perfect example in still conditions with a test pilot at the controls.
Winglets, repairs, control wear and slop and build variations all change the
behaviour.

I think if you set up a logger and tested you might be a little more
conservative close to the ground.

Bert Willing

August 25th 04, 01:02 PM

Don't get me wrong: I am very cautious close to the ground, even though I
did extensive spin testing with my ship. I actually very often do not come
to the conclusion that this or that low level IS safe, and then I don't do
it.
It's just statements like "never thermal below 400ft" which I don't like,
although I agree that in many (maybe most) cases it would be unsafe. "Never"
and "always" don't help people to practise actively thinking about every
single situation they're in, and I think that it this lack of active
situational awareness which is a main cause of fatal accidents.
If you keep telling that "never below x feet", some will think "well my
alti reads x+100ft, so I can safely thermal" - and that might be totally
wrong for a special situation.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Bruce Greeff" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bert Willing wrote:
> > Putting spin behaviour of a modern glass ship in this general way is
pure
> > nonsense. Spin behaviour is different for every model, and even a model
with
> > and without winglets enters differently. I wouldn't think about 300ft
> > revoveries with a Ventus b, but on my 20 w/ winglets I would at least
think
> > about it.
> > But as a general rule, I avoid flying ships in the mountains which
depart
> > violently and use 500ft to recover.
> >
> Sorry all - I was generalising, but even the ASW20 spins interestingly,
and will
> sometimes reverse it's spin direction instead of recovering if the pilot's
> technique is poor. Under the right (wrong) conditions even a K13 will
depart
> violently.
>
> My point is that you should have a very good idea of exactly how much
height
> your aircraft uses in a spin, including the half second or more it takes
you to
> realise you have lost it, for you to recover in. Not the absolute minimum,
in a
> factory perfect example in still conditions with a test pilot at the
controls.
> Winglets, repairs, control wear and slop and build variations all change
the
> behaviour.
>
> I think if you set up a logger and tested you might be a little more
> conservative close to the ground.

Bruce Greeff

August 25th 04, 05:06 PM

Bert Willing wrote:
> Don't get me wrong: I am very cautious close to the ground, even though I
> did extensive spin testing with my ship. I actually very often do not come
> to the conclusion that this or that low level IS safe, and then I don't do
> it.
> It's just statements like "never thermal below 400ft" which I don't like,
> although I agree that in many (maybe most) cases it would be unsafe. "Never"
> and "always" don't help people to practise actively thinking about every
> single situation they're in, and I think that it this lack of active
> situational awareness which is a main cause of fatal accidents.
> If you keep telling that "never below x feet", some will think "well my
> alti reads x+100ft, so I can safely thermal" - and that might be totally
> wrong for a special situation.
>
Hi Bert

In this case I am entirely in agreement - situational awareness and evaluation
of the possible outcomes is fundamental. The "I will never spin THIS plane
unintentionally so it is always safe" is equally dangerous to the "never thermal
below x feet rule"

Know your aircraft, evaluate the situation and the weather and make a reasoned
decision as to how much risk to take. This is OK, and some people will accept
different risk levels, and what is dangerous for a low timer may be safer for an
experienced pilot. Note I did not say safe - just safer. Flying gliders is
dangerous - accepting that and managing the risk is the key step to being safer.

There has to be some motivation to take risk though, and hubris is a poor
reason. The complications arise with objectivity - most people are less
objective about their own capabilities than they think (me included)

If you are low and in the circuit I still believe you should land unless there
is some hazard on the runway that increases the risk of landing above the risk
involved in thermalling low down, possibly below spin recovery height, where
there is the probability of conflicting traffic. Under pressure objectivity
tends to decrease - rather err on the side of caution, as you said.

To paraphrase a bumper sticker - A bad day retrieving beats a good day in hospital.

Bruce

Kirk Stant

August 25th 04, 05:59 PM

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412b9c97
>
> Not always true. An aircraft that has done a complete 180 during the
> spin still has momentum, and is now to some degree flying backwards.
> The excess forward momentum translates into excess reduction of airspeed.

> Think about it for a minute. If you're going 50 knots in one direction,
> and then one-half second later the nose of the glider is 180 degrees
> pointed the other way, does this mean you are doing 50 knots in the other
> direction? That's some G's, and I don't feel them in a spin.

Oh cmon, that's about the oddest explanation of what happens during a
spin entry I can imagine! Try this: a spin happens when both wings
are stalled, with one stalled more than the other. Stalled means a
lot less lift, so the flight path curves down (gravity is a wonderful
thing). If you do a snap roll, which is a spin in the horizontal
plane, you initially go pretty much level until speed is lost then
your flight path curves down. And what do you mean by doing "a
complete 180 during the spin ...and is now to some degree flying
backwards." That isn't a spin, it's a frisbee! As far as G's, if you
enter a spin at low speed (not accelerated), you can't pull any G's -
as the plane unloads and goes down there is actually a decrease in
G's!

> This is why aircraft oscillate pitch up and down for a few turns before
> stabilizing in a spin. For the first few turns, the aircraft momentum
> is still slogging through the air.

I don't have a spin text handy, but I would think the oscillation is
more due to angular momentum and changing AOA as the glider rotates
around it's pitch and roll axes than from "flying backwards".
>
> But some of what you point out is true. Aircraft without enough
> elevator authority to stall, and with forward CG, won't have the
> ability to stall in a steep bank. But if the CG is back a bit, the
> elevator has a lot of authority because the glider is designed for a
> wide range of speeds, and the pilot has in aileron to resist overbanking,
> then whoa nellie!

Even with an aft CG, any glider is fully controllable up to the spin -
it's recovering that would be interesting. It's not going to make you
spin more. And I feel the whole aft CG is a bit of a bogyman to scare
people - It's pretty hard to get the CG that far aft (it can be done,
especially if you are light, but any sort of preflight should find it)
and if discovered the plane is still fully controllable - unlike a too
far forward CG that can lead to a heavy landing. Just my opinion, but
I bet there have been very few spin accidents caused by aft CGs (CG
out of the aft limit, not just at the aft limit). As far as
overbanking - It's not going to roll you over in a turn! You need to
hold off some aileron to compensate, but it's never so strong as to
cause control problems. It's a secondary result of use of the flight
controls (actually of the glider's attitude), like adverse yaw.
Coarse use of controls at or near stall speed IS a problem, that
reflects serious lack of knowledge by the pilot of how a plane works!

If we are not teaching pilots to do steep (60 degree) windup turns
until they recognize the approach of a stall/spin, then immediately
recover by releasing backpressure and continuing the turn, then we are
setting then up to be a statistic. Oh, BTW, try that in a 2-33!

> A properly flown steep turn at higher speed isn't what I'm talking about.
> I'm considering a 30-45 degree bank turn at low speed.

> This thermal was very smooth and regular and wide. I was feeling it
> out on the first turn, and was not eager to make any coarse inputs or
> lose sight of my landing site or get vertigo during the circle.

Sounds like trying to turn via ground references down low - a big
no-no and probably the real reason for low altitude "stall-spin"
accidents. Airspeed, yaw string, bank angle, vario, altimeter, clear
the airspace - then check where you are. The ground isn't going
anywhere fast, so don't stare at it!!

> The classic spin entry from a shallow bank is uninteresting.
> I won't be jamming in the rudder for a skid at some obviously
> low speed close to the ground. I think the focus on the classic case
> is niave and dangerous. Yes, it's easy to teach and demonstrate,
> but it ignores too much. The more complex, less discussed
> spin entry is the one in the accident reports: tight pattern,
> higher speed, steep bank, lots of inside rudder, pilot focussed on
> keeping the yaw string straight, quite a bit of opposite aileron
> in the steep bank, in vertigo, pulling stick back to tighten up the
> turn, and then wham! I'll look back through the accident reports, but
> the ones I recall, and the B-52 and the DG spin I saw on video, involved
> stabilized, 30-45 deg bank turns before each of the spins. In each,
> it looked like the craft was overbanking, and the pilot put in more
> opposite aileron and more elevator and WHAM! Instant spin...

Again, you are describing a pilot who has no clue how to fly his
glider. A stabilized steep turn doesn't call for a lot of inside
rudder. When rolling the glider, you use as much as you need to
coordinate. An you ALWAYS make sure you have enough airspeed
(actually AOA, which is why I would love to have an audio AOA
intrument, set to replace the vario when the gear is down, that would
always indicate the optimum AOA regardless of bankangle and gross
weight - like a lot of military jets have). The solution is not to
take away a tool (steep turns) but to teach the proper use of all a
pilots tools. And I am a bit confused by your reference to vertigo -
again, this is avoidable (don't stare at the ground, no rapid head
movements, etc) and should be taught. If a pilot continually gets
vertigo in steep turns (and I have some really good friends who do,
unfortunately) they need to seriously consider the ramifications of it
and fly accordingly!
>
> Too much rudder, maybe, but it wasn't because he moved it. It was
> because the pilot put in more dragging aileron without RELEASING
> inside rudder.

Practice, practice, practice...
>
> This is usually the case for me on cloudless days (like that one).
> High over the terrain, I usually just bump into a thermal. Of course,
> at altitude, while thermalling, slow is good, and trim is your friend...

So true out here in AZ, too...

> Shallow turns in power? Why? Just jam the throttle all the way in,
> full flaps, and yo-yo base to final at 60 degrees. Gas is a good
> substitute for brains ;PPPP

And burning JP-4 was so much more satisfying than AVGAS - especially
at the taxpayers expense! Noisier, too.

> Power planes (except maybe the DA-20) often have lower
> aspect ratios. Some even have frieze ailerons. And if the left turns
> are flown with power off, there's even a little slip provided by the
> P-factor of the prop. There's enough differences between the two
> that the USA CFI practical tests require training and evaluation in each
> category seperately (CFI transition from one to the other requires
> spin training in the new class, except for Sport Pilots, but that's
> another thread).

And some power planes are rolled primarily with rudder at low speeds,
including in the pattern! (F-4 comes to mind) In fact, the rudder is
also used to adjust pattern altitude during steep turns, such as the
90 degree break turn to downwind. It sure looks better and was easier
than trying to adjust altitude by changing bank angle.

> Power flying can be boring. If an autopilot can do it, why do they
> need me?

To feed the dog. His job is to keep you from touching the autopilot
controls.

> Anyway Kirk, I welcome some more discussion. As you can see, there
> are quite a few points where we agree, and a few nuanced ones where
> we don't. I hope you have time to continue another response...

Fun discussion. Back to work, the dog looks hungry...

Kirk

Ted W

August 25th 04, 06:01 PM

Barb ,

Perhaps "routine" isn't the right word, as like you, it's not something I
see our fellow (local) pilots doing. I have however heard several of them
talk about contests where the only way to a particular turnpoint was to fly
a stretch with no known landing options from the top of the lift, and I
*have* heard at least a couple of them talk about "no option" situations
they knowingly entered. (There are parts of GW's flight from Turf to
Moriarty in April where I have no idea where he could have landed without
another thermal, and I recall him mentioning something to that effect in his
discussion of that remarkable flight.)

Of course, I've participated in only one sanctioned contest, so the
frequency that competitive pilots (not to be confused with me!) actually do
this, and how they handle it, is something I have to accept at face value
from other competitors.

-ted

"BMacLean" > wrote in message
news:zJMWc.60231$wo.50491@okepread06...
> I fly with the same group as you Ted and I wonder where you get the idea
> that it is "routine" to fly with no landing options, even in hardcore
> competition. I don't believe this to be the case and I agree with Eric.
I
> have found that when a pilot is relating a story of some scary situation
> they got themselves into and I ask them where they would have landed, 99%
of
> the time they have an answer.
>
> Barb
>
>

Mark James Boyd

August 25th 04, 08:04 PM

Kirk Stant > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412b9c97
>
>> Think about it for a minute. If you're going 50 knots in one direction,
>> and then one-half second later the nose of the glider is 180 degrees
>> pointed the other way, does this mean you are doing 50 knots in the other
>> direction? That's some G's, and I don't feel them in a spin.
>
>And what do you mean by doing "a
>complete 180 during the spin ...and is now to some degree flying
>backwards." That isn't a spin, it's a frisbee! As far as G's, if you
>enter a spin at low speed (not accelerated), you can't pull any G's -
>as the plane unloads and goes down there is actually a decrease in
>G's!

Some aircraft have a very nose low spin (Blanik), others have a much
flatter spin (Katana). The Katana, which spins very flat on the horizon,
is going North at 30 knots. I stall it and spin. Over the course of
a second, the nose is now pointed South. Is the Katana moving
South with an airspeed of 30 knots? No, it is not. This is
part of the reason why, during the first turn or two, the
pitch oscillates more violently than in a fully developed spin.

Because of momentum, the airspeed from front to back of the
wings is less during the South pointed nose part of the spin than
during the entry of North.

And yes, this is a frisbee. At least for the first 180 anyway...

>> This is why aircraft oscillate pitch up and down for a few turns before
>> stabilizing in a spin. For the first few turns, the aircraft momentum
>> is still slogging through the air.
>
>I don't have a spin text handy, but I would think the oscillation is
>more due to angular momentum and changing AOA as the glider rotates
>around it's pitch and roll axes than from "flying backwards".

Yes, and part of this changing AOA is due to momentum in the
Northerly direction.

>Even with an aft CG, any glider is fully controllable up to the spin -
>it's recovering that would be interesting.

True, true. The more aft the CG, the more controllability.

>It's pretty hard to get the CG that far aft (it can be done,
>especially if you are light, but any sort of preflight should find it)

Ms. Campbell is the Hawaii state altitude record holder. She
worked at Dillingham as a CFI. She told me during a ground session
she was in an uncontrolled spin for more than 5,000 feet at one point,
with a passenger, before recovering.
She said after landing, she weighed the glider and the CG
was well aft of what was on the 10+ year old "official" form.
And her new calculated CG for that flight was well aft of limits.

In my experience, the older the calculation, the further back
the actual CG is from it. Dirt and crap on the long lever arm
of the tail do a lot more than crap in the short nose.

>and if discovered the plane is still fully controllable - unlike a too
>far forward CG that can lead to a heavy landing. Just my opinion, but
>I bet there have been very few spin accidents caused by aft CGs (CG
>out of the aft limit, not just at the aft limit).

Except for that 1 in 10 case, I'd guess aft CG is just a contributing
factor, not a cause. But I'd like to see data. When I hear of
a winch launch by an experienced pilot during the first
flight of the season, ending in a fatality, I have to wonder if
he took something out of the nose, or put something in the
tail, and so his stick pressure feel and initial trim setting
were off... Of the stall spin fatalities on record, I'd
bet most, if not all, had CG further back than the 60-70%
forward that Eric described...

>Sounds like trying to turn via ground references down low - a big
>no-no

This is required to fly a rectangular pattern with wind correction,
and still part of the PTS...

>and probably the real reason for low altitude "stall-spin"
>accidents.

Clearly true. If one weren't trying to land on a particular
bit of ground, and the world was just one big flat runway,
I'm certain landing accidents would be more rare.

>> The classic spin entry from a shallow bank is uninteresting.
>> I won't be jamming in the rudder for a skid at some obviously
>> low speed close to the ground. I think the focus on the classic case
>> is niave and dangerous. Yes, it's easy to teach and demonstrate,
>> but it ignores too much. The more complex, less discussed
>> spin entry is the one in the accident reports: tight pattern,
>> higher speed, steep bank, lots of inside rudder, pilot focussed on
>> keeping the yaw string straight, quite a bit of opposite aileron
>> in the steep bank, in vertigo, pulling stick back to tighten up the
>> turn, and then wham! I'll look back through the accident reports, but
>> the ones I recall, and the B-52 and the DG spin I saw on video, involved
>> stabilized, 30-45 deg bank turns before each of the spins. In each,
>> it looked like the craft was overbanking, and the pilot put in more
>> opposite aileron and more elevator and WHAM! Instant spin...
>
>Again, you are describing a pilot who has no clue how to fly his
>glider.

Hard to quiz them, the dead are VERY quiet...

>A stabilized steep turn doesn't call for a lot of inside
>rudder.

Many of the 10 reports seem to indicate the spirals/spins happened
during the roll, not the turn. High roll rates require a lot of
rudder (and then rudder release), used quite precisely.

>And I am a bit confused by your reference to vertigo -
>again, this is avoidable (don't stare at the ground, no rapid head
>movements, etc) and should be taught.

I commonly induce vertigo in students to demonstrate unusual attitude
recovery. Although easiest to induce by rapid head movements,
I can also induce it with nothing more than a rapid, perfectly
coordinated roll into a steep bank, and then a rapid coordinated
roll to level flight. I've done this with pilots from 10-30,000 hours.
In all of them, if I cover all the instruments on a nice dark night
with foggles on, they get vertigo. Not staring at the ground and
avoiding rapid head movements is a start, but is an incomplete
solution...rapid roll rates and dramatic G changes are another
factor.

When I fly gliders, I have to remind myself to fly at least a 1/4 mile
out pattern. I normally fly a power plane (day VFR only) with a 5:1
glide ratio, and a tight pattern, with steeper banks and
faster roll rates at higher airspeed. I don't do this when
in a glider approaching an unmarked landout field with mountains and
no horizon around.

>If a pilot continually gets
>vertigo in steep turns (and I have some really good friends who do,
>unfortunately) they need to seriously consider the ramifications of it
>and fly accordingly!

I see we are agreeing again ;)
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 25th 04, 08:24 PM

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> One flat skidding turn, the others were in a bank. At least one
>> looks like an aileron spin (this can be done with feet off the rudders
>> completely, but is very hard to time correctly). Several don't
>> look like spins at all, but overbanking that led to a steep spiral
>> close to the ground. In others, it seems possible the steep bank was
>> after the spin entry, perhaps not before it.
>
>I've witnessed three stall/spin accidents over the years, two gliders
>turning base to final, and one power plane during departure. At the
>end, all of them looked like a steeply banked turn into the ground.
>Most eyewitnesses, particularly non-pilots, aren't going to notice
>anything is wrong until after the spin has started, at which point it
>will look very much like an abnormally steep turn.
>
>I've also been in a G103 that was about to depart into a spin from a low
>shallow left turn after a botched low finish at a contest. I was PIC,
>but a CFIG (!) in back was flying. I noticed things were getting a bit
>quiet, the left wing was starting to drop, and the stick was moving
>toward the right. I reflexively slammed the stick forward, which was
>probably what prevented us from making like a cartwheel.
>
>In most gliders (and there are exceptions), when you stall in a turn the
>inner wing is going to start dropping. If you release back pressure at
>this point, you'll be fine. But, the natural reaction of too many
>pilots is to try to pick up the low wing with aileron, which increases
>the angle of attack on the already stalled wing, increasing drag and
>decreasing lift, resulting in more bank, until the nose drops and you're
>spinning for real.
>
>Marc

It's too bad we can't tell the "well-trained" from the "poorly-trained"
pilots until after they've done something wrong, don't you
think?

;P
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Eric Greenwell

August 25th 04, 08:48 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Some aircraft have a very nose low spin (Blanik), others have a much
> flatter spin (Katana). The Katana, which spins very flat on the horizon,
> is going North at 30 knots. I stall it and spin. Over the course of
> a second, the nose is now pointed South.

Why do you think it takes only one second? Even a aerobatic glider can't
reverse direction that quickly - that would be such a violent manuever.
Think about it: a 60 knot change in one second takes over 3 gs, and a
spin entry produces nothing like that.

Try timing a spin entry sometime with stopwatch or a recorder on board.

Is the Katana moving
> South with an airspeed of 30 knots? No, it is not.

It's probably still got about 30 knots airspeed (do they really stall at
such a low speed?), but because it is pointed down, the southerly
component is less than 30 knots.

snip

> Except for that 1 in 10 case, I'd guess aft CG is just a contributing
> factor, not a cause. But I'd like to see data. When I hear of
> a winch launch by an experienced pilot during the first
> flight of the season, ending in a fatality, I have to wonder if
> he took something out of the nose, or put something in the
> tail, and so his stick pressure feel and initial trim setting
> were off... Of the stall spin fatalities on record, I'd
> bet most, if not all, had CG further back than the 60-70%
> forward that Eric described...

Just to be clear here, the convention is: 0% is at the front of the
range; 100% is at the aft end of the range. It sounds like you have it
backwards.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark James Boyd

August 25th 04, 09:42 PM

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>Just to be clear here, the convention is: 0% is at the front of the
>range; 100% is at the aft end of the range. It sounds like you have it
>backwards.

My mistake. I wasn't expecting you to have flown
aircraft in such an aft CG range, and inverted it in my mind.

Really. So the aircraft were in the aft 1/3 of the range?
And still wouldn't stall at 45 deg bank? Interesting...

I believe you, I'd just like to see this myself as well.

As far as stalls in a steep bank, without uncoordinated
inputs, I've noticed many aircraft roll wings level,
just like the GFH and AFH (and Marc, it seems) say...

One thing I haven't tried that I recall is banking into
a turn and then just failing to take rudder out
while rolling level at a high rate (all while at low
airspeed). This should get a nice spin entry too...

Maybe there are spin fatalities in this category too...steep
bank close to the ground, more elevator to tighten the
turn to final, then an attempt at a quick roll to level wings...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Eric Greenwell

August 25th 04, 09:59 PM

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>Just to be clear here, the convention is: 0% is at the front of the
>>range; 100% is at the aft end of the range. It sounds like you have it
>>backwards.
>
>
> My mistake. I wasn't expecting you to have flown
> aircraft in such an aft CG range, and inverted it in my mind.
>
> Really. So the aircraft were in the aft 1/3 of the range?
> And still wouldn't stall at 45 deg bank? Interesting...

70% is a common CG location, because (for many/most gliders, especially
the newer they are) the glider handles pleasantly, recovers easily from
spins, and is close to the optimum CG for cross-country performance.

>
> I believe you, I'd just like to see this myself as well.

The limit on elevator "authority" isn't so much the force it can
generate (except at the most forward positions) but more the angle of
attack reduction on the elevator that occurs in steep turns. I'm sure
the bank angle you can stall at is higher with a more aft CG, but in the
commonly used 60-80% range, you do run out of elevator in the steeper turns.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Kirk Stant

August 26th 04, 12:24 AM

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412ce2c4$1@darkstar>...

> Some aircraft have a very nose low spin (Blanik), others have a much
> flatter spin (Katana). The Katana, which spins very flat on the horizon,
> is going North at 30 knots. I stall it and spin. Over the course of
> a second, the nose is now pointed South. Is the Katana moving
> South with an airspeed of 30 knots? No, it is not. This is
> part of the reason why, during the first turn or two, the
> pitch oscillates more violently than in a fully developed spin.

I still don't buy your explanation. A spin is a combination of roll,
pitch, and yaw, all happening at the same time. As a result, the
actual flight path (motion of the CG through space) is hard to see,
especially from inside the cockpit, but conservation of momentum
cannot be violated. From 30 knots, the first half turn/half roll
(which probably takes a bit more than one second, I would think) will
corkscrew the nose down and around, but you are not flying backward!
And until you are established is a steady spin, you will get pitch
motion due to the inclination of the spin axis to the horizon. Once
you are established in the spin, with your CG motion basically
straight down, the spin is usually pretty stabilized (with the usual
exceptions, including Maverick's F-14 spinning out to sea after
departing over the desert - I would have loved to have seen that for
real!)

It's normal for a power plane to spin flatter than a glider - more
weight in the nose (and probably tail) makes for more inertial weight
tending to level the fuselage.
>
> Because of momentum, the airspeed from front to back of the
> wings is less during the South pointed nose part of the spin than
> during the entry of North.

Still a bad analogy, in my opinion. Think of the snap roll example -
at what point do you stop "rolling" and start "frisbeeing"? You
don't, your flightpath just curves more downward as you initiate the
spin slower.

It sure would be fun to take up a nice spinning glider (a 2-32 for
example), instument it, then take turns trying to make each other
sick!
>
> And yes, this is a frisbee. At least for the first 180 anyway...

Nope. Although, look up Zurakowski Cartwheel - some testpilot used to
do 540 degree rotation hammerheads in a Gloster Meteor, long before
the current airshow acts started doing it in monster Pitts (which I
think are about as interesting to watch as a radio controlled model).
Not a stalled maneuver, though.

> Ms. Campbell is the Hawaii state altitude record holder. She
> worked at Dillingham as a CFI. She told me during a ground session
> she was in an uncontrolled spin for more than 5,000 feet at one point,
> with a passenger, before recovering.
> She said after landing, she weighed the glider and the CG
> was well aft of what was on the 10+ year old "official" form.
> And her new calculated CG for that flight was well aft of limits.

Must have been in a 2-32. <G>
>
> In my experience, the older the calculation, the further back
> the actual CG is from it. Dirt and crap on the long lever arm
> of the tail do a lot more than crap in the short nose.

Broken glass ships have the same problem with weight in the tail...
G-103s are notorious for it. Othewise, instruments, batteries,
cheeseburgers, and beer tend to move the CG forward.

> Except for that 1 in 10 case, I'd guess aft CG is just a contributing
> factor, not a cause. But I'd like to see data. When I hear of
> a winch launch by an experienced pilot during the first
> flight of the season, ending in a fatality, I have to wonder if
> he took something out of the nose, or put something in the
> tail, and so his stick pressure feel and initial trim setting
> were off... Of the stall spin fatalities on record, I'd
> bet most, if not all, had CG further back than the 60-70%
> forward that Eric described...

Again, the aft CG doesn't cause the spin, it just make it easier to
initiate, and maybe harder to recover. You still have to exceed the
stalling AOA, regardless of CG location. Winch launching is probably
a lot safer overall than aerotowing (from my limited experience in
Germany), with fewer potential gotcha's - plus it's really hard to
kill the winch operator (unless you crash on the winch, of course).

> >Sounds like trying to turn via ground references down low - a big
> >no-no
>
> This is required to fly a rectangular pattern with wind correction,
> and still part of the PTS...

Not the same as max performance low altitude turning (thermalling),
which are definitely NOT ground reference maneuvers. Pattern turns,
on the otherhand, should always have enough airspeed to be safe - so
are not really "max performance" turns, and are usually no more than
90 - 100 degrees (unless you prefer the 180 degree one turn to final
approach, which I do).

> Clearly true. If one weren't trying to land on a particular
> bit of ground, and the world was just one big flat runway,
> I'm certain landing accidents would be more rare.
> Hard to quiz them, the dead are VERY quiet...

Well, most glider landing accidents only break the glider, or maybe a
bush or two - and the reasons are usually pretty consistent. The main
thread seems to be a certain rigidity in the pattern, reliance on
ground references and the altimeter for turns, and failure to engage
brain and remember to fly the plane.

> Many of the 10 reports seem to indicate the spirals/spins happened
> during the roll, not the turn. High roll rates require a lot of
> rudder (and then rudder release), used quite precisely.

Again, AOA is the key. By itself, high roll rates shouldn't lead to a
spin. There is a situation where it can: Initiate a rapid roll after
a push-over from a steep climb to below stall speed. More of a winch
launch cable break scenario, and hard to duplicate while just flying
around, as it requires a transient airspeed below 1-G stall speed
(but at less than 1-G, so not stalled) then increasing the angle of
attack coupled with a lot of aileron. I've tried to get there in my
glider but haven't been sucessful yet.

> I commonly induce vertigo in students to demonstrate unusual attitude
> recovery. Although easiest to induce by rapid head movements,
> I can also induce it with nothing more than a rapid, perfectly
> coordinated roll into a steep bank, and then a rapid coordinated
> roll to level flight. I've done this with pilots from 10-30,000 hours.
> In all of them, if I cover all the instruments on a nice dark night
> with foggles on, they get vertigo. Not staring at the ground and
> avoiding rapid head movements is a start, but is an incomplete
> solution...rapid roll rates and dramatic G changes are another
> factor.

Not necessarily - the key is the lack of outside references, coupled
with moving the head too much so as to confuse the inner ear. Then
again, it is also person dependent - some people are very susceptible
to vertigo (and get sick during acro, or just thermalling), I think of
them as inner-ear dependent. Their bodies believe their inner ears,
not their eyes - not good in a plane. Other people are eye-dependent,
and could care less what their inner ear is saying, as long as they
have a good visual reference. I'm in the latter group, I can thermal
all day long and do acro and feel fine, but I have had the leans in
formation in cloud - interesting when you pop out and your internal
gyros cage up!

> When I fly gliders, I have to remind myself to fly at least a 1/4 mile
> out pattern. I normally fly a power plane (day VFR only) with a 5:1
> glide ratio, and a tight pattern, with steeper banks and
> faster roll rates at higher airspeed. I don't do this when
> in a glider approaching an unmarked landout field with mountains and
> no horizon around.

I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the
pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight,
fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout!
It helps that my glider can get rid of a lot of energy fast when I
need to.

> I see we are agreeing again ;)

On the whole, just a different interpretation of the same facts.

Kirk

Eric Greenwell

August 26th 04, 06:38 AM

Kirk Stant wrote:

>
> I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the
> pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight,
> fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout!

And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you
are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you
as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you
have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind.

I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Andy Blackburn

August 26th 04, 07:38 AM

I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
on field slope, power lines and other features that
my not be visible at higher view angles.

There is practically nothing worse than having those
hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you
are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice of
experience from the person who had to pick up the wreck).
A little extra energy can be useful - assuming you
have good divebrakes. It also helped me this summer
at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right
in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final.
I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't
have to flare in the middle of the sucker.

I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.

9B

At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Kirk Stant wrote:
>
>>
>> I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down,
>>and adjust the
>> pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer
>>low, tight,
>> fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into
>>during a landout!
>
>And if you don't like what you are getting into, how
>do you avoid if you
>are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will
>eventually have you
>as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in
>the mean time, you
>have a lot more time to look things over and change
>your mind.
>
>I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

Andreas Maurer

August 26th 04, 11:15 AM

On 25 Aug 2004 12:24:25 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>It's too bad we can't tell the "well-trained" from the "poorly-trained"
>pilots until after they've done something wrong, don't you
>think?

Alll the people that I knew personally who were killed in a glider
fell under the category "extremely well-trained".

Bye
Andreas

Kirk Davis

August 26th 04, 04:13 PM

If you had of said you used your extra speed to take
you to the dust devil and climb away I would have been
far more impressed!

At 07:00 26 August 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
>as well.
It also helped me this summer
>at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right
>in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final.
>I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't
>have to flare in the middle of the sucker.
>
>I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
>approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.
>
>9B
>
>
>
>
>At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>Kirk Stant wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down,
>>>and adjust the
>>> pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer
>>>low, tight,
>>> fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into
>>>during a landout!
>>
>>And if you don't like what you are getting into, how
>>do you avoid if you
>>are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will
>>eventually have you
>>as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in
>>the mean time, you
>>have a lot more time to look things over and change
>>your mind.
>>
>>I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.
>>
>>--
>>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Andy Blackburn

August 26th 04, 04:33 PM

Nice reference to the original topic!

:-)

At 15:36 26 August 2004, Kirk Davis wrote:
>If you had of said you used your extra speed to take
>you to the dust devil and climb away I would have been
>far more impressed!
>
>At 07:00 26 August 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
>>as well.
> It also helped me this summer
>>at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right
>>in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final.
>>I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't
>>have to flare in the middle of the sucker.
>>
>>I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
>>approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.
>>
>>9B
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>Kirk Stant wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down,
>>>>and adjust the
>>>> pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer
>>>>low, tight,
>>>> fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into
>>>>during a landout!
>>>
>>>And if you don't like what you are getting into, how
>>>do you avoid if you
>>>are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will
>>>eventually have you
>>>as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in
>>>the mean time, you
>>>have a lot more time to look things over and change
>>>your mind.
>>>
>>>I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>>
>>>Eric Greenwell
>>>Washington State
>>>USA
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

Tony Verhulst

August 26th 04, 05:03 PM

Slightly off topic but the following is pretty good reading, IMHO.

pdf:

http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/landings/SaferLandings.pdf

If you prefer html:

http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/landings/safer_landings.htm

Tony V.

--

Even popularity can be overdone. In Rome, along at first, you are
full of regrets that Michelangelo died; but by and by you only regret
that you didn't see him do it.

Mark Twain

Kirk Stant

August 26th 04, 06:15 PM

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...

> And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you
> are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you
> as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you
> have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind.
>
> I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

Eric, what I want is to have the best look at the potential landout
field before actually landing on it. That means picking the field
early, looking at it carefully while making a last attempt to climb
out (if possible, then setting up a pattern close enough to be able to
see terrain details and pick the exact point to touch down at. That
usually means being downwind at about 500' or so, and that means being
pretty close in.

By fast, I mean about 60 to 70 knots (depending on wind, etc) in my
LS6 dry. That is plenty enough for aggresive turning if necessary to
adjust my pattern, and to float over a last minute fence, but slow
enough that with full divebrakes I can quickly slow down on short
final for a low energy tail first landing.

And I practice this often at my home field, using different runways
when possible to get used to different patterns. And it has worked on
my actual landouts, when necessary (obviously not a good idea when
landing at a big controlled field - that requires a totally different
pattern technique!).

I shudder when I watch 2-33s flying wide bomber patterns, downwind at
1000', and flying long finals. It may be FAA approved textbook, but I
think it is bad technique. I like the BGA's idea of the angled base
leg, which approaches my preferred military-style one turn to final
pattern.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Kirk

Chris OCallaghan

August 26th 04, 09:43 PM

Since discussion isn't blossoming yet, here's some compost...

Once within a thousand feet of the ground, I'm generally doing two
things: dumping water and increasing speed. My thermal search
continues, but will typically be limited to an easy pattern entry for
my first choice in available fields. As I work bits of lift, the water
gets turned off and back on based on my sense of whether I can make a
save. But my airspeed stays elevated (pattern speed rather than
thermalling speed). While working on the save, I am also paying
particularly close attention to my primary and secondary fields.

I've never applied a close-in, higher speed approach for the sake of a
closer look at a field. A typical search for lift will give me a very
good look at the field from different angles for at least several
minutes. I base my understanding of obstructions on what I can see and
what I "know" about obstructions. Poles mean wires. I never assume
that just because I can see a second pole that wires don't go in some
other direction as well. Changes in crop color, even slight, are a
sign of potential obstructions. I always assume that there is a wire
between any structure and any road. I assume that every road has a
wire running along it.

I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop
searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on
conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the
gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at
least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift).
This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above
and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline.

I think base leg is the most critical part of the landing pattern.
I've had several minutes to look at the field. I have decided on its
suitablity. Base leg gives me a parallax view. This is when I can most
accurately judge slope(s) and irregularities. Once I've turned base,
only under the most extraordinary circumstances would I consider
another field. Instead, I measure the problems revealed during base
leg and adjust to suit. Here's my logic for this: we've proved time
and again at local aiports that a poor pattern into a good field can
produce the very worst of results. The success of a landing is based
more, I believe, on the quality of your pattern than the quality of
the field. Of course, there's a standard to be applied. A perfect
approach into a rock scramble will yield less than happy results. But
in general, I'd rather make a good pattern into a challenging (but
landable) field than a poor pattern into an ideal field.
Unfortunately, in the search for lift (and for some, under the
psychological duress of laning out), it's the pattern that usually
suffers.

If there are problems, the closer you are to a standard pattern, the
better you'll be able to address them. If you are doing something
unusual (lower and faster than usual), you've added another variable
to deal with.

Here's a simple formula to consider:

No lower than 1000 feet agl: dump water, increase speed, start
assessing the particulars of your two best choice fields. Keep
searching for lift (the best way to guarantee an uneventful landing is
to get home!).

700 feet agl: select the best of available options and start moving
into your pattern. Continue your search for lift within the limits of
the landing pattern until you reach your own personal minimum altitude
based on conditions, skill, confidence, etc., and your ability to
execute a proper base leg.

Commit to a landing before you turn base. At this point, you will not,
under any circumstances, work lift. You recognize that to do so
unsuccessfully could lead to an accident. (When my wheel goes down,
the soaring portion of my flight is complete.)

Throughout the base leg, take advantage of the parallax view to verify
your earlier assessment of the field. Pay attention to the edges of
the field as well. Add new variables as they appear and deal with
them. Make adjustments as needed on final to avoid observed or
suspected obstructions.

Once you have cleared all known obstructions, land! Don't extend your
glide down the field to get closer to a road, house, or gate. The
longer you spend at wire altitudes, the more likely it is that you'll
find one.

Land with minimum enegery. If you've failed to observe a ground
obstruction, you'll want to hit it at the lowest possible speed. Apply
your brakes immediately on touchdown.

Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What
did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your
assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into.

Bill Daniels

August 26th 04, 10:41 PM

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Since discussion isn't blossoming yet, here's some compost...
>
> Once within a thousand feet of the ground, I'm generally doing two
> things: dumping water and increasing speed. My thermal search
> continues, but will typically be limited to an easy pattern entry for
> my first choice in available fields. As I work bits of lift, the water
> gets turned off and back on based on my sense of whether I can make a
> save. But my airspeed stays elevated (pattern speed rather than
> thermalling speed). While working on the save, I am also paying
> particularly close attention to my primary and secondary fields.
>
> I've never applied a close-in, higher speed approach for the sake of a
> closer look at a field. A typical search for lift will give me a very
> good look at the field from different angles for at least several
> minutes. I base my understanding of obstructions on what I can see and
> what I "know" about obstructions. Poles mean wires. I never assume
> that just because I can see a second pole that wires don't go in some
> other direction as well. Changes in crop color, even slight, are a
> sign of potential obstructions. I always assume that there is a wire
> between any structure and any road. I assume that every road has a
> wire running along it.
>
> I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop
> searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on
> conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the
> gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at
> least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift).
> This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above
> and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline.
>
> I think base leg is the most critical part of the landing pattern.
> I've had several minutes to look at the field. I have decided on its
> suitablity. Base leg gives me a parallax view. This is when I can most
> accurately judge slope(s) and irregularities. Once I've turned base,
> only under the most extraordinary circumstances would I consider
> another field. Instead, I measure the problems revealed during base
> leg and adjust to suit. Here's my logic for this: we've proved time
> and again at local aiports that a poor pattern into a good field can
> produce the very worst of results. The success of a landing is based
> more, I believe, on the quality of your pattern than the quality of
> the field. Of course, there's a standard to be applied. A perfect
> approach into a rock scramble will yield less than happy results. But
> in general, I'd rather make a good pattern into a challenging (but
> landable) field than a poor pattern into an ideal field.
> Unfortunately, in the search for lift (and for some, under the
> psychological duress of laning out), it's the pattern that usually
> suffers.
>
> If there are problems, the closer you are to a standard pattern, the
> better you'll be able to address them. If you are doing something
> unusual (lower and faster than usual), you've added another variable
> to deal with.
>
> Here's a simple formula to consider:
>
> No lower than 1000 feet agl: dump water, increase speed, start
> assessing the particulars of your two best choice fields. Keep
> searching for lift (the best way to guarantee an uneventful landing is
> to get home!).
>
> 700 feet agl: select the best of available options and start moving
> into your pattern. Continue your search for lift within the limits of
> the landing pattern until you reach your own personal minimum altitude
> based on conditions, skill, confidence, etc., and your ability to
> execute a proper base leg.
>
> Commit to a landing before you turn base. At this point, you will not,
> under any circumstances, work lift. You recognize that to do so
> unsuccessfully could lead to an accident. (When my wheel goes down,
> the soaring portion of my flight is complete.)
>
> Throughout the base leg, take advantage of the parallax view to verify
> your earlier assessment of the field. Pay attention to the edges of
> the field as well. Add new variables as they appear and deal with
> them. Make adjustments as needed on final to avoid observed or
> suspected obstructions.
>
> Once you have cleared all known obstructions, land! Don't extend your
> glide down the field to get closer to a road, house, or gate. The
> longer you spend at wire altitudes, the more likely it is that you'll
> find one.
>
> Land with minimum enegery. If you've failed to observe a ground
> obstruction, you'll want to hit it at the lowest possible speed. Apply
> your brakes immediately on touchdown.
>
> Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What
> did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your
> assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into.

Chris has a lot of good points but let me suggest something else.

Most of us pretty well know the routes we will use on XC flying. Get your
handheld GPS, a digital camera and a good map with a Lat/Long grid and go
driving. Looking over fields from ground level is much better than from
1000' feet while stressed out.

You don't need to find many fields, just enough to fill in the gaps between
airports. When you find a good one, note the GPS coordinates and take
photos and notes. Maybe include the name of the landowner and a phone
number. If you can, walk the landing area. Then, post them on your club
web site. The Albuquerque Soaring Club is a good example of this.

Scratching for a save when within an easy glide of a known safe landing site
is a lot less stressful.

Bill Daniels

Andy Durbin

August 26th 04, 11:35 PM

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message

>Not the same as max performance low altitude turning (thermalling),
>which are definitely NOT ground reference maneuvers.

Thermalling close to the ground is not intended to be a ground
reference maneuver, but the visual feedback from the ground can have a
strong influence on control inputs. It is very important to keep
airspeed in the scan and not to be influenced by ground speed. The
input from ground reference can be very compelling, and misleading,
when thermalling low in a strong wind.

Andy

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 01:34 AM

Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>Slightly off topic but the following is pretty good reading, IMHO.
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/landings/safer_landings.htm

It really points out one of the largest differences between
power and glider flight: the increased need for no altimeter
approaches.

The Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH) suggests rectangular field engine failure
landouts just for this reason (to
eliminate the problem, just fly further on base).

I must say, however, that I vaguely recall that other countries don't
fly rectangles, but a V and then a 45 deg turn onto final.
Is this true? It seems like a better way to avoid looking
back over the shoulder for the touchdown spot...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 01:36 AM

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>I like the BGA's idea of the angled base
>leg, which approaches my preferred military-style one turn to final
>pattern.

Yep, I think this is a better pattern too. I wonder
where the rectangle came from in the USA?
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 01:45 AM

Andy Durbin > wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote in message
>
>>Not the same as max performance low altitude turning (thermalling),
>>which are definitely NOT ground reference maneuvers.
>
>Thermalling close to the ground is not intended to be a ground
>reference maneuver, but the visual feedback from the ground can have a
>strong influence on control inputs. It is very important to keep
>airspeed in the scan and not to be influenced by ground speed. The
>input from ground reference can be very compelling, and misleading,
>when thermalling low in a strong wind.

We had this discussion before. If the thermal is coming from a
stationary ground source, and the best performance is
zero sink in the thermal, doing it exactly as a ground
reference manuever (shallow upwind, steep tailwind) is correct.

Otherwise one is blown downwind of the thermal.

This was well discussed in threads about a year ago.

If one starts at 60 degree banks on the upwind, with
10+ knots of wind and zero sink, trying to core the thermal
on the downwind will be exciting...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 01:55 AM

Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
>as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
>for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
>on field slope, power lines and other features that
>my not be visible at higher view angles.
>
>I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
>approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.

Effective airbrakes do a great job of dissapating speed too.
In a Lancair IVP recently, without them it was really
a headache to land. The glide angle even with power off
was at such a high speed that to clear terrain we were
way too fast every time. Speed brakes 4 miles out
got us to the airport at the right approach speed every time.

Having extra energy is great, if you can get rid of it
when you need to. But I've seen some manuals where the
best full spoiler descent rate is at a pretty slow speed.

And it seems different gliders respond very differently to slips.
So I'd definitely test out the slips too...

Some of my more exciting landings have been when I got a
lot of unforseen lift right before touchdown, rather than
problems with sink. At shorter runways, or with weak
spoilers, this could have been a big issue.

You guys in your flap only PIKs and such get my respect.
Adjustments on short final must be "interesting."
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 02:08 AM

Chris OCallaghan > wrote:
>
>I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop
>searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on
>conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the
>gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at
>least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift).
>This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above
>and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline.

Yep, this is what happened to me. On downwind got a sniff of a thermal.
Was VERY leery.

>Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What
>did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your
>assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into.

Or while climbing away. I've found roads really suck, because they
always seem to have fences and signs and wires. Dirt roads
in fields are a little better, because if I don't like it (POLE!),
I can go left or right and still land in the field.

On this one particular downwind, and then climb away, I was most surprised
by my misjudgement of the wind. A flag below showed I had
set up for a tailwind landing. The winds aloft over the
ridge I'd gotten into the lee of were SW, and a nearby
flag (which I noticed only climbing away) said Northerly.

Maybe the field had convergence too, eh? :) But I was very
concerned that I'd not found any wind cues on the approach,
although I'd looked hard...

I think figuring out wind direction visually is sometimes VERY
hard. With no lakes, no flags, no tilling, no smoke, no
leaves on the trees, and no cow butts, I've sometimes
been visually stumped...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Eric Greenwell

August 27th 04, 04:47 AM

Andy Blackburn wrote:

> I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
> as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
> for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
> on field slope, power lines and other features that
> my not be visible at higher view angles.

I might not be visulizing this right: as you go down final approach, you
reduce the spoilers and speed up, so you end up on a lower glide path
but with an a more shallow approach?

At what altitude do you begin this speed/altitude trade?
>
> There is practically nothing worse than having those
> hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you
> are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice of
> experience from the person who had to pick up the wreck).

So, the lines are hidden in the ground clutter, but by coming in at a
more shallow angle, you can see them above the horizon sooner (i.e.,
from farther away than with steeper approach)?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 05:07 AM

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>
>(which probably takes a bit more than one second, I would think) will
>corkscrew the nose down and around, but you are not flying backward!

I agree. I don't think I am flying backward. I think I am,
to some degree, flying backward. What I mean is that some of the momentum
carrying me into the spin will cause a reduction of airspeed
which is most pronounced at 180 degrees from the entry heading.

>including Maverick's F-14 spinning out to sea after
>departing over the desert - I would have loved to have seen that for
>real!)

Art Scholl lost his life in a fatal inverted spin into the Pacific
Ocean with no parachute (while filming for Top Gun).
Some say the weight of the cameras on the wingtips made the
spin unrecoverable...

>Still a bad analogy, in my opinion. Think of the snap roll example -
>at what point do you stop "rolling" and start "frisbeeing"? You
>don't, your flightpath just curves more downward as you initiate the
>spin slower.

At the 180 snap-roll point from entry, the nose isn't pointing in the other
cardinal direction. It simply isn't comparable.

> It sure would be fun to take up a nice spinning glider (a 2-32 for
>example), instument it, then take turns trying to make each other
>sick!

Hmmm...on a calm wind day with a cheap GPS with a time track
set to every 1 second, if the GPS is synchronised with a
stopwatch and observer, it may get interesting. A
logger might do the same...

But don't you ever wonder why the most nose down part of a positive
spin is at the 1/2 spin point? Lowest airspeed perhaps? And
why IS that...

>Broken glass ships have the same problem with weight in the tail...
>G-103s are notorious for it. Othewise, instruments, batteries,
>cheeseburgers, and beer tend to move the CG forward.

You have a BBQ and beer cooler in the nose? How inventive...
I suppose your landouts are quite a party...

>Again, the aft CG doesn't cause the spin, it just make it easier to
>initiate, and maybe harder to recover.

NASA thought it sometimes made it easier, and sometimes
harder to recover, depending on the aircraft. Go figure.

>You still have to exceed the
>stalling AOA, regardless of CG location. Winch launching is probably
>a lot safer overall than aerotowing (from my limited experience in
>Germany), with fewer potential gotcha's - plus it's really hard to
>kill the winch operator (unless you crash on the winch, of course).

I must say it's a LOT of fun teaching aerotow. Formation flight
where you don't have to worry about airspeed is a real thrill for
a lot of folks. But yep, aerotow might be more complicated...
But I wouldn't know, I've never done a wench launch...

>are not really "max performance" turns, and are usually no more than
>90 - 100 degrees (unless you prefer the 180 degree one turn to final
>approach, which I do).

I do rectangular bases, so others know I'm landing instead of
thermalling at the end of the runway :PPP

>Well, most glider landing accidents only break the glider, or maybe a
>bush or two - and the reasons are usually pretty consistent.

Shoulder harnesses probably have brought the stats down a
huge amount, and the lower stall speed, and fuselage shape,
of gliders compared to, say a Cherokee. Trike landing gear and
rough fields do not mix...

>Not necessarily - the key is the lack of outside references, coupled
>with moving the head too much so as to confuse the inner ear.

In an aileron roll, the head is moved. In max dutch rolls
45 to 45, the head is moved. So again, I guess you are agreeing with
me that high roll rates and steep banks can induce vertigo.
If you don't agree. Take a pax at night cover all instruments.
Head perfectly straight ahead. Close eyes. Then max roll rate
left 45 bank, then 90 degrees of turn, slow roll right,
and tell them to open eyes while level and recover. Fun, huh?

And yes, lack of coherent outside reference is important too.
Pretty easy to get when looking at clouds and fog and mountainsides...
And sometimes tough to correct without...
wait for it...moving your head :p

>I have had the leans in
>formation in cloud - interesting when you pop out and your internal
>gyros cage up!

I've had them almost uncontrollably on several occasions, night IMC,
and straight and level on a rollout to a heading.
Absolutely bloodcurdling...

>I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the
>pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight,
>fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout!
>It helps that my glider can get rid of a lot of energy fast when I
>need to.

The only disadvantages I can find of very effective spoilers are:

1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio
2) If they don't have very fine controls, hard to be precise
about glide slope.
3) If at max out, landing flare is VERY fast, and stall speed
increased
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 05:15 AM

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>> I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
>> as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
>> for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
>> on field slope, power lines and other features that
>> my not be visible at higher view angles.
>
>I might not be visulizing this right: as you go down final approach, you
>reduce the spoilers and speed up, so you end up on a lower glide path
>but with an a more shallow approach?
>
>At what altitude do you begin this speed/altitude trade?
>>
>> There is practically nothing worse than having those
>> hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you
>> are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice of
>> experience from the person who had to pick up the wreck).
>
>So, the lines are hidden in the ground clutter, but by coming in at a
>more shallow angle, you can see them above the horizon sooner (i.e.,
>from farther away than with steeper approach)?

I think he's saying to use a flatter, faster glide slope on
far out final, until 50-100 ft AGL, and then use a steeper glide slope.
Remember he mentioned it wasn't a stabilized approach.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[email protected]

August 27th 04, 12:42 PM

Kirk ... I couldn't agree with you more.

I guess it was all that training in the PI.

On 26 Aug 2004 10:15:33 -0700, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

>Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>> And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you
>> are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you
>> as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you
>> have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind.
>>
>> I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.
>
>Eric, what I want is to have the best look at the potential landout
>field before actually landing on it. That means picking the field
>early, looking at it carefully while making a last attempt to climb
>out (if possible, then setting up a pattern close enough to be able to
>see terrain details and pick the exact point to touch down at. That
>usually means being downwind at about 500' or so, and that means being
>pretty close in.
>
>By fast, I mean about 60 to 70 knots (depending on wind, etc) in my
>LS6 dry. That is plenty enough for aggresive turning if necessary to
>adjust my pattern, and to float over a last minute fence, but slow
>enough that with full divebrakes I can quickly slow down on short
>final for a low energy tail first landing.
>
>And I practice this often at my home field, using different runways
>when possible to get used to different patterns. And it has worked on
>my actual landouts, when necessary (obviously not a good idea when
>landing at a big controlled field - that requires a totally different
>pattern technique!).
>
>I shudder when I watch 2-33s flying wide bomber patterns, downwind at
>1000', and flying long finals. It may be FAA approved textbook, but I
>think it is bad technique. I like the BGA's idea of the angled base
>leg, which approaches my preferred military-style one turn to final
>pattern.
>
>Hope this clarifies things a bit.
>
>Kirk

Andy Blackburn

August 27th 04, 06:10 PM

Mark got it right.

Rather than fly from IP to the threshold at 55 knots
with, say, 1/2 spoiler, I will fly at 70-75 knots at
1/4 spoiler. This way I make all my turns at well above
stall speed and can handle gusts, etc better. I end
up on short final at a lower angle (better view), but
with more energy. If everything looks good, I go to
3/4 spoiler and bleed the energy down at constant altitude
(say 50-75'), then land as usual. If there is some
obstacle or other issue, I can close the spoilers and
have enough energy to pick a different touchdown point.
This requires that you have good spoilers and that
you don't over-do the extra speed - that could run
up the risk of over-shooting.

This is how I normally land, so it's not making everything
different just for outlandings.

Thoughts?

9B

At 04:30 27 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>
>>> I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
>>> as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
>>> for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
>>> on field slope, power lines and other features that
>>> my not be visible at higher view angles.
>>
>>I might not be visulizing this right: as you go down
>>final approach, you
>>reduce the spoilers and speed up, so you end up on
>>a lower glide path
>>but with an a more shallow approach?
>>
>>At what altitude do you begin this speed/altitude trade?
>>>
>>> There is practically nothing worse than having those
>>> hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you
>>> are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice
>>>of
>>> experience from the person who had to pick up the
>>>wreck).
>>
>>So, the lines are hidden in the ground clutter, but
>>by coming in at a
>>more shallow angle, you can see them above the horizon
>>sooner (i.e.,
>>from farther away than with steeper approach)?
>
>I think he's saying to use a flatter, faster glide
>slope on
>far out final, until 50-100 ft AGL, and then use a
>steeper glide slope.
>Remember he mentioned it wasn't a stabilized approach.
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

Kirk Stant

August 27th 04, 07:02 PM

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412eb379$1@darkstar>...

> You have a BBQ and beer cooler in the nose? How inventive...
> I suppose your landouts are quite a party...

You bet!

> In an aileron roll, the head is moved. In max dutch rolls
> 45 to 45, the head is moved. So again, I guess you are agreeing with
> me that high roll rates and steep banks can induce vertigo.
> If you don't agree. Take a pax at night cover all instruments.
> Head perfectly straight ahead. Close eyes. Then max roll rate
> left 45 bank, then 90 degrees of turn, slow roll right,
> and tell them to open eyes while level and recover. Fun, huh?

No, I do not agree with you that high roll rates and steep banks
induce vertigo. It's the disconnect between what you see, and what
the inner ear feels, that causes vertigo. If you can see the horizon,
then as long as you don't make a sudden movement of your head in a
"wrong" direction (which depends on which way the plane is moving"),
you should not experience vertigo. But close your eyes, or fly into a
cloud, and even a small roll or pitch rate can induce vertigo. Unless
you are thermalling with your eyes closed (reminds me of some pilots I
know!) or in a cloud (not common in the US), vertigo should not be a
problem in a glider, no matter how fast you roll or steep you turn.
Now, I will caveat that statement with the observation that it is
possible to trigger vertigo in some individuals by a sudden (and I
mean unusually rapid) head movement at the same time as the plane is
rolling - and that should be taught to pilots, just like IFR pilots
are shown how lack of outside references can lead to vertigo. But you
shouldn't be jerking your head around while flying!

> And yes, lack of coherent outside reference is important too.
> Pretty easy to get when looking at clouds and fog and mountainsides...
> And sometimes tough to correct without...
> wait for it...moving your head :p

You don't need a lot of outside references to maintain your attitude -
but yes (as I say above), when you lose outside references, you are
vulnerable to vertigo. But to get a glider into a situation where
there are no useful outside references is a bad thing.

> The only disadvantages I can find of very effective spoilers are:
>
> 1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio
> 2) If they don't have very fine controls, hard to be precise
> about glide slope.
> 3) If at max out, landing flare is VERY fast, and stall speed
> increased

1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder
at me?
2. G-103s are horrible in this respect. Most gliders are fine.
3. You don't have to land with them all the way out, but it's nice to
have the option.

Kirk

Robert Ehrlich

August 27th 04, 08:19 PM

Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
> > For some of us with less currency and less practice in type,
> > this could be quite dangerous. Vertigo, inadvertent coarse use
> > of controls (including roll), imperfect centering technique,
> > visual illusions due to wind and movement of the ground,
> > different pressure feel caused by different gliders or
> > C.G.'s, etc. can make this more hazardous.
>
> Well, I disagree, and I strongly believe that a well-trained glider
> pilot, in any glider, low or high, should be every bit as comfortable
> and safe (if not more so) in a 50 degree bank as in a 20 degree bank.
>
> Marc

Agreed for feeling safe, but when comfortable is the question, I think
most pilots would find 1.02g is much more comfortable than 1.75g.

Mike Lindsay

August 27th 04, 08:29 PM

>I must say, however, that I vaguely recall that other countries don't
>fly rectangles, but a V and then a 45 deg turn onto final.
>Is this true? It seems like a better way to avoid looking
>back over the shoulder for the touchdown spot...
>
>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA

Not in this country (UK). But I was taught to do a 45 degree approach at
Minden.

--
Mike Lindsay

Mike Lindsay

August 27th 04, 08:43 PM

In article <mOsXc.187980$8_6.23896@attbi_s04>, Bill Daniels
> writes
>
>Most of us pretty well know the routes we will use on XC flying. Get your
>handheld GPS, a digital camera and a good map with a Lat/Long grid and go
>driving. Looking over fields from ground level is much better than from
>1000' feet while stressed out.
>
>You don't need to find many fields, just enough to fill in the gaps between
>airports. When you find a good one, note the GPS coordinates and take
>photos and notes. Maybe include the name of the landowner and a phone
>number. If you can, walk the landing area. Then, post them on your club
>web site. The Albuquerque Soaring Club is a good example of this.
>
>Scratching for a save when within an easy glide of a known safe landing site
>is a lot less stressful.
>
>Bill Daniels
>

Excellent idea. But the trouble is, what might be a good field in August
2004 might be terrible in June 2005, with a rape or potato crop..
--
Mike Lindsay

Mark James Boyd

August 27th 04, 10:38 PM

Kirk Stant > wrote:
>>
>> 1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio
>
>1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder
>at me?

LOL! "use a checklist."
Kind of covers everything, huh?

"Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he
didn't use the checklist!"

<everyone nods solemnly in agreement, and the
speaker passes Leadership 101 for saying the most obvious,
non-controversial thing anyone can think of>

ROFL! Man, I remember my MEI and his checklists.
We added so much stuff, I think there was
something about taking our pulse and blood pressure
in the runup to ensure we weren't overstressed
for the flight. Oh, and zipper check and
make sure we had chewing gum in case ATC gave us a
real fast descent. I think we had to taxi back for
fuel one time because we'd drained the tanks in
the runup area doing the checklist.

But hey, Kirk, I'm just teasin ya'. Just one of my
pet peeves, the checklist with the important
points buried.

How about just three critical safety items in the PW-5:

1. Airbrakes locked
2. Trim forward
3. Belts on tight

I'm a big fan of the prioritized checklist.
Do the three most important items first.
Do the nine most important items next.
Do the 27 most important items next.
Do the 81 most important items next.
And so on...

To figure out what the priority list should be, I
follow this advice:

You should learn from the mistakes of others, because you?ll
never have enough time to make all those mistakes yourself.
--- Ben Franklin

So I scour the accident reports, and see what killed
other pilots, and put that at the top three. Then I see
what caused non-fatal accidents, and put that in the
next 6-9. Then I add in the stuff from the
factory checklist. Then I add the piddly stuff that just
prevents a nuisance (vent closed to avoid dust, for example,
or towrope attached. It's hard for me to imagine why
an unattached towrope would be a safety hazard ;)

Despite my best efforts, I've found myself getting sleepy
after the 45th item on the checklist. So this has worked
best for me.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

ADP

August 28th 04, 12:13 AM

That means that the NTSB can add to the accident report:
1. Failed to use proper check list.

Along with my favorite:
2. The aircraft had not filed a flight plan.

As in: A sharp wind blew up and destroyed the properly secured glider
while the operator was home in bed. The operator had NOT filed a flight
plan.

The NTSB finds the probable cause to be the Pilot's failure to use a proper
check list and file a flight plan. Contributing factors were the 100 knot
wind and the fact that the pilot was home in bed at the time of the
accident.

Allan

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:412fa9ba$1@darkstar...
> Kirk Stant > wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio
>>
>>1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder
>>at me?
>
> LOL! "use a checklist."
> Kind of covers everything, huh?
>
>... Snip ...

Bruce Hoult

August 28th 04, 12:20 AM

In article >,
Robert Ehrlich > wrote:

> > Well, I disagree, and I strongly believe that a well-trained glider
> > pilot, in any glider, low or high, should be every bit as comfortable
> > and safe (if not more so) in a 50 degree bank as in a 20 degree bank.
> >
> > Marc
>
> Agreed for feeling safe, but when comfortable is the question, I think
> most pilots would find 1.02g is much more comfortable than 1.75g.

That's 1.06 vs 1.56, actually.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Chris OCallaghan

August 28th 04, 04:06 PM

Andy,

I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really make any
difference in what you see? Framing wires against the sky (if that's
your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which in turn means
you are at risk of hitting other wires.

What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires advanced
energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for low time pilots
(the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was it suggested by
someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time and experience?

I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next few flights. But I
guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage I have by
flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you apply the same
method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it meant losing sight
of your intended touch down point during much of the final leg?

As an aside, I'll suggest that best way to avoid wires is to land in
the very center of the biggest appropriately textured field you can
find. If the field is more than 500 feet wide and you see no poles,
you'll find no wires (unless of course, they're marked on your
sectional!). Alas, we can't get farmers to grow turf in such
proportions in appropriately spaced fields.

Chris OCallaghan

August 28th 04, 04:31 PM

Marc,

Per earlier discussions, the spin is avoided by coordinating rudder
with aileron input. The stall is avoided by decreasing angle of
attack. Yes, aileron input will increase angle of attack at the tip,
but in modern sailplanes, if you use an equal deflection of rudder,
even on the cusp of a stall, a certified aircraft will not spin. Of
course, this ignores other variables, and there's nothing like a few
extra knots (read lower AOA) to keep things manageable. But we really
should start discarding some of the old axioms. Or at least replacing
them with more accurate ones.

Let me give you an example for the sake of continuing the discussion
on an interesting tangent. You are very close to the ground, turning
base to very short final. In a twenty degree bank, you sense your
speed has decreased and your bank is suddenly steepening. You fear
that your wingtip will touch the tree tops before completing the turn.
What do you do?

Think this one through. According to an axiomatic approach, you make
no aileron input because your fear entering a spin (or your muscle
memory keeps you from doing it). Lowering your angle of attack means a
momentary increase in sink rate. Kicking the rudder exclusively will
also increase your sink rate, even if manages to slow or stop your
roll momentarily.

There's only one effective solution.

Maybe we should spawn a new thread.

Cheers,

Chris

Mark James Boyd

August 29th 04, 12:01 AM

ADP > wrote:
>1. Failed to use proper check list.
>2. The aircraft had not filed a flight plan.

3. Pilot failed to maintain proper terrain clearance.

<everyone nods heads solemnly in agreement with
the wise sage who figured this one out too>
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

August 29th 04, 12:08 AM

Chris OCallaghan > wrote:
>Andy,
>
>I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really make any
>difference in what you see? Framing wires against the sky (if that's
>your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which in turn means
>you are at risk of hitting other wires.
>
>What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires advanced
>energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for low time pilots
>(the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was it suggested by
>someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time and experience?
>
>I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next few flights. But I
>guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage I have by
>flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you apply the same
>method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it meant losing sight
>of your intended touch down point during much of the final leg?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Andy yet, but
let's consider for a moment the psychological effect of
this idea: perhaps it helps focus the pilot on the
objects between the glider and the intended touchdown.
Or helps orient the pilot to the type of terrain found
on the way in, or gets him lower so it's easier to determine wind
direction from small cues on the ground.

Again, I'm not advocating the idea, but there are some more
subtle points...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Ian Johnston

August 29th 04, 08:19 AM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:44 UTC, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

: But you
: shouldn't be jerking your head around while flying!

Except to scan for other aircraft.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston

August 29th 04, 08:22 AM

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:38:02 UTC, (Mark James
Boyd) wrote:

: "Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he
: didn't use the checklist!"

I once had someone try to persuade me to use a checklist for a winch
cable break. Yes, great, run through a list of actions which have to
be started within a second and completed within a few ... the idiot's
an instructor now, and feedback tells me that he's no less of an
idiot...

Ian

--

Andy Durbin

August 29th 04, 03:30 PM

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412e8424$1@darkstar>...

>
> We had this discussion before. If the thermal is coming from a
> stationary ground source, and the best performance is
> zero sink in the thermal, doing it exactly as a ground
> reference manuever (shallow upwind, steep tailwind) is correct.
>
> Otherwise one is blown downwind of the thermal.
>
> This was well discussed in threads about a year ago.
>
> If one starts at 60 degree banks on the upwind, with
> 10+ knots of wind and zero sink, trying to core the thermal
> on the downwind will be exciting...

Thermalling at any height is a thermal referenced maneuver. The
thermal is in the air, the maneuver is not ground referenced.

Visual inputs from changing ground speed must not be allowed to take
priority over airspeed control, and they will if you are not very
careful to keep airspeed in the scan.

Andy

Andy Blackburn

August 29th 04, 05:41 PM

I guess the question comes down to energy management.
At one extreme, if you come in low and slow on a long
final you run the risk of not being able to extend
your touchdown point should an obstacle become apparent.
At the opposite extreme, a short, high and fast approach
runs the risk of running too long on touchdown, even
with full spoilers.

I've opted for being a bit faster in the pattern to
keep some extra margin for wind gusts and to allow
more margin for moments of distraction turning base
or final. To keep total energy under control, this
means flying a bit lower pattern. Flying 70 knots instead
of 60 knots means about 50' lower in the pattern for
the same total energy. Obviously you'd start to slow
down before getting to treetops or other obstacles.

In a 'standard' approach you have to lose about 20
knots from final approach to touchdown. I need lose
30 knots, which means starting that process a few seconds
sooner. The flatter glidepath on short final means
that you are, for a brief period, at a lower angle
to your final touchdown point, so you do get a peek
at potential obstacles. I can't say that this has ever
directly benefitted me, but I do know of cases where
pilots have been too slow on final, with bad results.

9B

At 23:24 28 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Chris OCallaghan wrote:
>>Andy,
>>
>>I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really
>>make any
>>difference in what you see? Framing wires against the
>>sky (if that's
>>your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which
>>in turn means
>>you are at risk of hitting other wires.
>>
>>What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires
>>advanced
>>energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for
>>low time pilots
>>(the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was
>>it suggested by
>>someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time
>>and experience?
>>
>>I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next
>>few flights. But I
>>guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage
>>I have by
>>flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you
>>apply the same
>>method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it
>>meant losing sight
>>of your intended touch down point during much of the
>>final leg?
>
>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Andy yet, but
>let's consider for a moment the psychological effect
>of
>this idea: perhaps it helps focus the pilot on the
>objects between the glider and the intended touchdown.
>Or helps orient the pilot to the type of terrain found
>on the way in, or gets him lower so it's easier to
>determine wind
>direction from small cues on the ground.
>
>Again, I'm not advocating the idea, but there are some
>more
>subtle points...
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

Eric Greenwell

August 29th 04, 10:35 PM

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> I guess the question comes down to energy management.
> At one extreme, if you come in low and slow on a long
> final you run the risk of not being able to extend
> your touchdown point should an obstacle become apparent.
> At the opposite extreme, a short, high and fast approach
> runs the risk of running too long on touchdown, even
> with full spoilers.

In between, I suppose there is "high and slow" (perhaps the "normal"
pattern), and "low and fast" (what you seem to be using). I am curious
about how you decided "low and fast" was the best choice: conversations
with other pilots, testing both methods on fields (maybe with a
motorglider?), or ...?

>
> I've opted for being a bit faster in the pattern to
> keep some extra margin for wind gusts and to allow
> more margin for moments of distraction turning base
> or final.

What are you flying "a bit faster" than? The glider handbook
recommendation? The club instructor's opinion? Or just what you used to use?

To keep total energy under control, this
> means flying a bit lower pattern. Flying 70 knots instead
> of 60 knots means about 50' lower in the pattern for
> the same total energy. Obviously you'd start to slow
> down before getting to treetops or other obstacles.

What glider are you flying? 60 knots in calm air already sounds "a bit
faster" than most gliders would have to fly. Where is the yellow
triangle on your airspeed indicator?

How much wind would it take before you'd use _more_ than 70 knots? My
glider has the yellow triangle at 50 knots, and normally I wouldn't use
70 knots on final unless the wind was over 30 knots.

>
>
> In a 'standard' approach you have to lose about 20
> knots from final approach to touchdown. I need lose
> 30 knots, which means starting that process a few seconds
> sooner. The flatter glidepath on short final means
> that you are, for a brief period, at a lower angle
> to your final touchdown point, so you do get a peek
> at potential obstacles.

This "fast and low" approach sounds like something easily done at the
home airport, but would be tricky to do right going into a field you've
never seen before. Have you used this method at airports and into fields
you've been landed at before?

I can't say that this has ever
> directly benefitted me, but I do know of cases where
> pilots have been too slow on final, with bad results.

And there have been cases where pilots have been too fast on final, with
bad results.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Mark James Boyd

August 29th 04, 11:22 PM

Andy Durbin > wrote:
>>
>> We had this discussion before. If the thermal is coming from a
>> stationary ground source, and the best performance is
>> zero sink in the thermal, doing it exactly as a ground
>> reference manuever (shallow upwind, steep tailwind) is correct.
>>
>> Otherwise one is blown downwind of the thermal.
>>
>> This was well discussed in threads about a year ago.
>>
>> If one starts at 60 degree banks on the upwind, with
>> 10+ knots of wind and zero sink, trying to core the thermal
>> on the downwind will be exciting...
>
>Thermalling at any height is a thermal referenced maneuver. The
>thermal is in the air, the maneuver is not ground referenced.

Well, we went over this last year. I don't know how to look
up old RAS threads. Perhaps someone else does.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Andy Blackburn

August 30th 04, 05:26 AM

At 21:54 29 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>I am curious
>about how you decided 'low and fast' was the best choice:
>>conversations with other pilots, testing both methods
>on fields >(maybe with a
>motorglider?), or ...?

After seeing too many friends die in stall/spin accidents
- it's purely a consequence of my own paranoia with
flying too slow in the pattern.

>What are you flying 'a bit faster' than? The glider
>handbook
>recommendation?

Yes.

>What glider are you flying?

ASW-27B

>This 'fast and low' approach sounds like something
>easily done at the
>home airport, but would be tricky to do right going
>into a field you've
>never seen before. Have you used this method at airports
>and into fields
>you've been landed at before?

Yes.

Stewart Kissel

August 30th 04, 05:27 AM

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&group=rec.aviat
ion.soaring

Mark-

Just make sure to click the 'RAS only' bullet, and
use the standard google search techniques...

>
>Well, we went over this last year. I don't know how
>to look
>up old RAS threads. Perhaps someone else does.
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

Eric Greenwell

August 30th 04, 05:47 AM

Andy Blackburn wrote:

> At 21:54 29 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>I am curious
>>about how you decided 'low and fast' was the best choice:
>>
>>>conversations with other pilots, testing both methods
>>
>>on fields >(maybe with a
>>motorglider?), or ...?
>
>
> After seeing too many friends die in stall/spin accidents
> - it's purely a consequence of my own paranoia with
> flying too slow in the pattern.

I can see how the "fast" part can help, but not the "low" part. Being
low doesn't seem like an asset if you are worried about stalls and spins.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Andy Blackburn

August 30th 04, 01:38 PM

Lower, but not low. You can carry the same total energy
throughout the pattern.

9B

At 05:06 30 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>I can see how the 'fast' part can help, but not the
>'low' part. Being low doesn't seem like an asset if
you are worried about stalls and spins.

Chris OCallaghan

August 30th 04, 04:18 PM

With the big spoilers on modern gliders, there's not much risk in
adding 10 extra knots, and while your argument that it adds an
increased cushion before stall is unarguable, I guess the measure of
value comes in whether that reduced risk is a justified departure from
the "correct" pattern airspeed. I'm with Mark... it deserves some more
discussion.

BTW, as I noted in another thread, spins are not caused by lack of
airspeed, but uncoordinated use of the controls -- at least in modern
sailplanes. Two things must happen to enter a spin: 1) you must
stall, and 2) you must fail to apply sufficient rudder during your
attempt to pick up the low wing with aileron. That is, the sailplane
is designed with enough rudder to stop autorotation, even with full
deflection of the aileron throughout the stall break.

As demonstrated by my thread last fall, a Ventus 2 won't spin if the
controls remain coordinated (half stick/half rudder... full
stick/rudder). It enters a controlable spiral, instead. However, half
rudder and full stick (or half stick and no rudder) would induce a
spin if the stick is held full back throughout the stall break.

Avoiding the stall is the first most important step, but thorough
training of the appropriate response during an inadvertent stall is a
close, close second. And I could even argue that it's more important,
since once you've stalled by accident, the outcome is determined by
how well you've been trained to recover (that is, it becomes the
failsafe for your stall avoidance error).

Though I'm not a fan of axiomatic training, there's some value in
remembering that you can stall at any attitude and any speed. If you
wear that axiom on your sleeve, then you'd be best served by
understanding and practicing superlative stall recovery technique in
addition to practicing stall avoidance.

That so many capable pilots have stall/spun in relatively docile
aircraft indicates to me that there is a training gap. We are clearly
handling the controls diffently at low altitudes. Why? If we can agree
that this is the case, then adding speed is good insurance. But it
doesn't address the cause.

Andy, apologies for being the pedant. I'm spitting this stuff out at
60 words per minute, so I'm not giving much thought to "balance."

Kirk Stant

August 30th 04, 04:55 PM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-BdEMqrRprN20@localhost>...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:44 UTC, (Kirk Stant)
> wrote:
>
> : But you
> : shouldn't be jerking your head around while flying!
>
> Except to scan for other aircraft.
>
> Ian

It's tough to see other aircraft by rapidly moving your head - you
need to stop and methodically scan areas of the sky.

No disagreement about the need to keep looking around at all times.
But scanning, like just about everything else in flying, is a skill
that needs to be taught, learned, and practiced to be effective.

Kirk

Ian Johnston

August 30th 04, 05:14 PM

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:55:11 UTC, (Kirk Stant)
wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-BdEMqrRprN20@localhost>...
: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:44 UTC, (Kirk Stant)
: > wrote:
: >
: > : But you
: > : shouldn't be jerking your head around while flying!
: >
: > Except to scan for other aircraft.

: It's tough to see other aircraft by rapidly moving your head - you
: need to stop and methodically scan areas of the sky.

Exactly. It's done with rapid movements and pauses rather than a
smooth motion. Which for many of us is the best way of inducing
nausea. I suspect that this is why so many people thermal with their
heads rigidly held in position. I find that rotating my head around a
true vertical axis, rather than the local one, works to reduce this -
ie scan across the hosiron, not across the wings.

Ian

Kirk Stant

August 30th 04, 05:23 PM

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412fa9ba$1@darkstar>...
> Kirk Stant > wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio
> >
> >1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder
> >at me?
>
> LOL! "use a checklist."
> Kind of covers everything, huh?
>
> "Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he
> didn't use the checklist!"

So Mark, you don't use any checklist before taking off? Yeah right,
bull****. What is it, not macho enough for you?

I use CBSIFTCBE (instead of the useless SSA ABCCCDDEEEEFGHHHwhatever)
RELIGIOUSLY before every takeoff. It's as sacred as the old GUMP
checklist. No paper required, only need one brain cell awake to run
it. And even with that, I've managed to get airborne twice with my
spoilers unlocked - in an LS4 and my current LS6. Both due to
interrupted/rushed launches. No big deal, the tow didn't even notice
(because LS brakes don't suck open, they just stay cracked) the
decreased climb rate. I caught them both below 100', closed the
boards, swore a bunch, then went on to convincingly blow the task of
the day.

Seriously, if your students aren't going through a "last chance" check
before commiting to takeoff, they have really bad instructors, to say
the least. And that is "using a checklist". And it will usually
prevent brainfade idiotic accidents from happening. Usually.

Kirk

Robert Ehrlich

August 30th 04, 06:37 PM

Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>
> > > Well, I disagree, and I strongly believe that a well-trained glider
> > > pilot, in any glider, low or high, should be every bit as comfortable
> > > and safe (if not more so) in a 50 degree bank as in a 20 degree bank.
> > >
> > > Marc
> >
> > Agreed for feeling safe, but when comfortable is the question, I think
> > most pilots would find 1.02g is much more comfortable than 1.75g.
>
> That's 1.06 vs 1.56, actually.
>

I agree, some mistyping probably in my previous calculation.

Robert Ehrlich

August 30th 04, 07:37 PM

Chris OCallaghan wrote:
>
> BTW, as I noted in another thread, spins are not caused by lack of
> airspeed, but uncoordinated use of the controls -- at least in modern
> sailplanes. Two things must happen to enter a spin: 1) you must
> stall, and 2) you must fail to apply sufficient rudder during your
> attempt to pick up the low wing with aileron. That is, the sailplane
> is designed with enough rudder to stop autorotation, even with full
> deflection of the aileron throughout the stall break.
>

Well, you have to precise what you are calling "uncoordinated use". I
remember an incipient spin in an ASH25 (can be considered as a modern
sailplane, although it existed well before I started gliding 9 years ago).
My mistake was only a to high nose up attitude while circling, which was
not obvious to me as it was my first flight in the aircraft (with an
instructor of course). Due to its high inertia, the sailplane was slowing
down very slowly to the speed corresponding to its attitude, and needed
while slowing down more and more action on controls to counter induced
roll and induced bank up to the point where I had almost full out stick
and a lot of inner rudder when the inner wing dropped. Of course the controls
were badly crossed, but some amount of cross control is normal in order
to counter induced roll and induced yaw, this is not an uncoordinated
flight, the yaw string is is the middle. The excess in cross control
was due to the fact that both induced effects increase when speed decrease,
not to a lack of coordination.

Another experience I had, which is also in contradiction with this opinion
(i.e. spin can only occur by lack of coordination) was when I was
preparing my instructor rating. As there was no other spinable glider
available, we had to demonstrate spin entry and recovery in a Fox, an
aerobatic glider. My instructor was Katona, a well known aerobatic
pilot, and he explained that in order to spin this glider I should
slow it down just very close to the stall and then have stick and rudder
to the same side. I objected that I had always be taught to push the
rudder to the side I want to spin ans the stick to the opposite side.
He said that in this case the Fox would do a flat spin, which is difficult
to exit and was not the objective of the present exercise.

Tom Seim

August 30th 04, 08:37 PM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-8OXf57VN35wC@localhost>...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:38:02 UTC, (Mark James
> Boyd) wrote:
>
> : "Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he
> : didn't use the checklist!"
>
> I once had someone try to persuade me to use a checklist for a winch
> cable break. Yes, great, run through a list of actions which have to
> be started within a second and completed within a few ... the idiot's
> an instructor now, and feedback tells me that he's no less of an
> idiot...

I recently read the accident report of the ASW20 crash (fatal) at
Williams, CA. Per the check list, they did a positive control check of
the elevator by having the assistant (co-owner) hold the elevator
while the pilot applied force on the stick. Resistance was felt, check
list passed. Only problem was the elevator was not hooked up and what
the pilot felt was the push rod hitting the bottom of the elevator.
Now, if the guy just LOOKED at the connection it would have been
obvious that it was not hooked up (it is in plain site).

Still, he had a second chance to save himself. When the glider decided
to launch itself he could have immediately released and delt with the
situation at a more survivable attitude (the tow pilot released him
instead).

Check lists are not substitutes for plain common sense. If you use
them, do another walk around the glider without the list, looking for
things you might have missed. Following a list may give you tunnel
vision. A DC-9 was landed gear up by two experienced pilots following
a check list (they missed one step). They were so certain that they
had done everything right that they ignored the lack of the sound and
thump of the gear lowering (common sense, again).

Tom

Andy Blackburn

August 31st 04, 12:43 AM

Chris - always thoughtful and articulate - even when
pedantic. ;-)

Seriously, I agree with your point about avoidance
AND early, reflexive recovery to avoid a full-on spin.
I used to work on wing-drop recovery in an early S/N
Ventus A/16.6 - which had the most pronounced stall
break of any glider I can recall. The control input
was stick forward and into the turn plus top rudder.
It takes some practice to make it reflexive.

I recall the main reasons for teaching stabilized approach
are to provide a consistent visual reference for the
pilot and to keep from changing too many flight variables
at the same time. Honestly, I don't know how they
come up with recommended 'correct' pattern speeds -
nor how scientific or precise the algorithm. My assumption
is that the speed is picked as a tradeoff between stall
margin and approach energy - but that there is an acceptable
range. We regularly add 1/2 the wind speed - how exact
is that?

My personal experience is that it's quite easy to bleed
off 5-10 knots by accident in a moment of distraction,
but 15-20 knots takes longer and is more apparent.

9B

At 15:36 30 August 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>With the big spoilers on modern gliders, there's not
>much risk in
>adding 10 extra knots, and while your argument that
>it adds an
>increased cushion before stall is unarguable, I guess
>the measure of
>value comes in whether that reduced risk is a justified
>departure from
>the 'correct' pattern airspeed. I'm with Mark... it
>deserves some more
>discussion.
>
>BTW, as I noted in another thread, spins are not caused
>by lack of
>airspeed, but uncoordinated use of the controls --
>at least in modern
>sailplanes. Two things must happen to enter a spin:
>1) you must
>stall, and 2) you must fail to apply sufficient rudder
>during your
>attempt to pick up the low wing with aileron. That
>is, the sailplane
>is designed with enough rudder to stop autorotation,
>even with full
>deflection of the aileron throughout the stall break.
>
>As demonstrated by my thread last fall, a Ventus 2
>won't spin if the
>controls remain coordinated (half stick/half rudder...
>full
>stick/rudder). It enters a controlable spiral, instead.
>However, half
>rudder and full stick (or half stick and no rudder)
>would induce a
>spin if the stick is held full back throughout the
>stall break.
>
>Avoiding the stall is the first most important step,
>but thorough
>training of the appropriate response during an inadvertent
>stall is a
>close, close second. And I could even argue that it's
>more important,
>since once you've stalled by accident, the outcome
>is determined by
>how well you've been trained to recover (that is, it
>becomes the
>failsafe for your stall avoidance error).
>
>Though I'm not a fan of axiomatic training, there's
>some value in
>remembering that you can stall at any attitude and
>any speed. If you
>wear that axiom on your sleeve, then you'd be best
>served by
>understanding and practicing superlative stall recovery
>technique in
>addition to practicing stall avoidance.
>
>That so many capable pilots have stall/spun in relatively
>docile
>aircraft indicates to me that there is a training gap.
>We are clearly
>handling the controls diffently at low altitudes. Why?
>If we can agree
>that this is the case, then adding speed is good insurance.
>But it
>doesn't address the cause.
>
>Andy, apologies for being the pedant. I'm spitting
>this stuff out at
>60 words per minute, so I'm not giving much thought
>to 'balance.'
>

Chris OCallaghan

August 31st 04, 12:55 AM

Knowing your glider is the key. Open class ships are built to the
limits of acceptable flying characteristics, as is the case with
aerobatic aircraft (one reason they are typically certified
"experimental"). You must read and understand the flight manual,
noting the divergence from the norm, which is what I cited in this and
previous threads.

I suspect that many pilots are simply not used to the difference in
force required to displace the rudder equally with the aileron. A
tendency to underrudder at flying speed is common. Applying the same
"balance" near the stall would produce much less rudder force, which
means that the greatly increased and unbalanced aileron drag will
produce a skid, and the angular momentum required to start
autorotation.

Flying your glider at MCA and experimenting with various displacements
of the controls is a good exercise. Gentle turning stalls while using
coordinated aileron and rudder (not solely determined by the yaw
string but also by percentage of travel applied) to pick up the lower
wing will help you understand what your glider can and cannot do in
the stall.

In previous threads, we discussed intentionally spinning at pattern
altitudes to acclimate pilots to this "view." Such practices are
patently absurd. However, regular practice flying on the edge of the
stall while applying coordinated aileron and rudder should have real
(and much more valuable) benefits. Does your yaw string act differntly
at low speed? Are you able to accurately judge onset of the stall?
During a stall, are you applying sufficient rudder? We all make
assumptions that we will react correctly, but I'd guess that without
regular practice of the type I descibed above, we're probably not
flying as efficiently near the stall as we think. So if we get there
by accident, is it possible that we might not be aggrevating the
situation through improper control inputs?

BTW, recall that during my test flights, I was able to avoid a spin
while holding full back stick throughout the stall and ensuing spiral.
Simultaneous release of back pressure and coordinated use of aileron
and rudder is the key. Flying MCA and reacting this way to any sign of
an impending stall is the best training you can give yourself. Then
add 15 knots in the pattern to be sure you won't have to exercise
those skills.

Honestly, how many of you really practice stall recognition and
recovery as a regular flight proficiency routine? I typically only fly
on the cusp of a stall for several seconds each flight: as I take off
(I get impatient) and just before I touch down. That's not a whole lot
of opportunity to experience a critically important flight regime.

Over my quota for the week. I'll check in next week.

OC

Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message >...
> Chris OCallaghan wrote:
> >
> > BTW, as I noted in another thread, spins are not caused by lack of
> > airspeed, but uncoordinated use of the controls -- at least in modern
> > sailplanes. Two things must happen to enter a spin: 1) you must
> > stall, and 2) you must fail to apply sufficient rudder during your
> > attempt to pick up the low wing with aileron. That is, the sailplane
> > is designed with enough rudder to stop autorotation, even with full
> > deflection of the aileron throughout the stall break.
> >
>
> Well, you have to precise what you are calling "uncoordinated use". I
> remember an incipient spin in an ASH25 (can be considered as a modern
> sailplane, although it existed well before I started gliding 9 years ago).
> My mistake was only a to high nose up attitude while circling, which was
> not obvious to me as it was my first flight in the aircraft (with an
> instructor of course). Due to its high inertia, the sailplane was slowing
> down very slowly to the speed corresponding to its attitude, and needed
> while slowing down more and more action on controls to counter induced
> roll and induced bank up to the point where I had almost full out stick
> and a lot of inner rudder when the inner wing dropped. Of course the controls
> were badly crossed, but some amount of cross control is normal in order
> to counter induced roll and induced yaw, this is not an uncoordinated
> flight, the yaw string is is the middle. The excess in cross control
> was due to the fact that both induced effects increase when speed decrease,
> not to a lack of coordination.
>
> Another experience I had, which is also in contradiction with this opinion
> (i.e. spin can only occur by lack of coordination) was when I was
> preparing my instructor rating. As there was no other spinable glider
> available, we had to demonstrate spin entry and recovery in a Fox, an
> aerobatic glider. My instructor was Katona, a well known aerobatic
> pilot, and he explained that in order to spin this glider I should
> slow it down just very close to the stall and then have stick and rudder
> to the same side. I objected that I had always be taught to push the
> rudder to the side I want to spin ans the stick to the opposite side.
> He said that in this case the Fox would do a flat spin, which is difficult
> to exit and was not the objective of the present exercise.

Bob Korves

August 31st 04, 04:06 AM

We have a pilot/owner where I fly that has this tidbit as the first item on
his takeoff checklist:
1. Remove canopy cover
8<)
-Bob

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41310ed8$1@darkstar...
> ADP > wrote:
> >1. Failed to use proper check list.
> >2. The aircraft had not filed a flight plan.
>
> 3. Pilot failed to maintain proper terrain clearance.
>
> <everyone nods heads solemnly in agreement with
> the wise sage who figured this one out too>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

Herbert Kilian

August 31st 04, 03:08 PM

(Tom Seim) wrote in message >...
>
> I recently read the accident report of the ASW20 crash (fatal) at
> Williams, CA. Per the check list, they did a positive control check of
> the elevator by having the assistant (co-owner) hold the elevator
> while the pilot applied force on the stick. Resistance was felt, check
> list passed. Only problem was the elevator was not hooked up and what
> the pilot felt was the push rod hitting the bottom of the elevator.
> Now, if the guy just LOOKED at the connection it would have been
> obvious that it was not hooked up (it is in plain site).
>
Tom and all,

Your report triggers my a "Pavlov's dog" reaction in me. Rather than
salivating like the dog I shake my head in sorrow that in the US we
are practicing placing the pilot in the cockpit for a positive control
check. If the pilot in your example had done the walk-around combined
with the PCC he would most likely have noticed the disconnected
elevator. In most other countries (input from Europe, Australia, S.
Africa etc. welcome) they put a helper at the controls (in the
cockpit) and the pilot asks for specific movements i.e. 'elevator full
up, elevator full down' with the helper repeating the words and
applying force to the controls. I have talked about this to many
pilots here in the US including instructors and the reaction was
always that most here think the pilot needs to "feel" the controls
from the cockpit to know what's going on. I think that's incorrect
mainly because different helpers will apply different forces to the
control surfaces leading to inconsistent feedback.
Another observation in the same vein: most US pilots fail to do the
walk-around check with the justification that they just taped wings
and tail and looked over the glider while doing so.
Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
is very unfortunate.

Herb, J7

Ian Johnston

August 31st 04, 04:06 PM

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:08:05 UTC, (Herbert
Kilian) wrote:

: In most other countries (input from Europe, Australia, S.
: Africa etc. welcome) they put a helper at the controls (in the
: cockpit) and the pilot asks for specific movements i.e. 'elevator full
: up, elevator full down' with the helper repeating the words and
: applying force to the controls.

The general custom in the UK seems to be to do positive control checks
with the pilot in the cockpit at, or just before, the launch point. I
like this, myself, as the tow across the field gives loose things a
good chance to fall off. At least one club I have flown at - following
a fatal accident - requires the PCC to be noted in the flying log
before a launch is given. This seems a thoroughly sound idea to me.

In the unfortunate case described, the error seems to have been in
assuming that a connection which can push can also pull.

I am all against over dependence on check lists and, in particular,
against using them to replace airmanship. However, I can't see how the
accident in question can be blamed on check list use. It would seem to
be due to a mixture of a) rigging error b) poorly carried out control
check and c) poor training in rigging and carrying out control checks.

Ian

Jack

August 31st 04, 04:54 PM

Herbert Kilian wrote:

[....]

> Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
> is very unfortunate.

Herb,

I see the main thrust of references to checklists in this thread as a
denigration of overly detailed checklists, and as a warning against
using checklists in situations where time is of the essence in
responding to an abnormal attitude or condition of flight.

I hope that everyone understands it is the misuse of checklists and not
their proper and very necessary uses at which fun was being poked. Some
immediate action steps must be committed to memory and become second
nature. In many phases of flight, both normal and abnormal, a checklist
is best used as a review.

I think you are right about the conduct of control checks. Anybody
should be able to move the stick as instructed, but only the pilot can
be expected to know the feel of a properly connected system and that
feel is best gained at the control surface.

Assembly, control, and walk-around checks (always performed separately)
seem to me to be the best examples of the "menu" approach to using a
checklist.

Jack

Tom Seim

August 31st 04, 07:19 PM

> Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
> is very unfortunate.

Exactly which part of my post was "poking fun"? I thought that I was
being dead (pardon the pun) serious.

I have 4 opportunities to catch an error on control linkages:
1. The initial hookup.
2. An immediate check of each control linkage after hookup.
3. The walk-around inspection.
4. Visual observation of control movement standing by the cockpit.

Missing all 4 falls into the "being hit by an asteroid" category.

Tom

Finbar

August 31st 04, 11:06 PM

The discussion of a) overly-long checklists that don't get used and,
on the other hand, b) the need for checklists reminds me of a
discussion with a power instructor (instrument), who made a
distinction I hadn't encountered before, but it made sense. He
distinguished between a written procedure, a written checklist and an
oral checklist. Here's the idea:

Written procedure: a written sequence of steps to take.
Written checklist: a written list of things to check.
Oral checklist: a memorized checklist. Should be very short, and
memorable, used only for a few last-minute and "death/destruction"
items.

A written procedure may be quite long and can be detailed. It may
contain some lower-importance items. It is used for setting up the
aircraft and should be used when there is time for it. Sitting next
in line for takeoff on the runway, barreling down final approach, or
right after a rope break - not good times for a written procedure.

A written checklist may also be quite long. Often it's the same as
the procedure list, but it should contain only short reminders of only
the important items: its purpose is to confirm that the aircraft is
already properly set up. Written checklists should also be used when
there is time for them. They provide a double-check; their
disadvantage is that they rarely identify anything wrong, so human
nature makes it easy to miss something. It's mostly for that reason
that a checklist should be as short as possible and should stick to
truly important items: no zipper-checks.

In 2-pilot operations, the written procedure and checklist can be
combined in a single document, but the functions are separated by the
challenge-response between the two pilots. For single pilot
operation, this instructor did NOT like the approach of
read-it-do-it-confirm-it all in one pass. It's too easy to either
skip a line, or skip an action (to avoid missing a line, pilots have a
tendency to touch the control but keep their eyes on the list, so they
don't actually confirm the step or even think about what they're
doing). Hence his preference for separating the roles of the two
pilots - read it (copilot role), do it (pilot role), check it (copilot
role) - into entirely separate sequences.

An oral checklist should be short and memorable. It should contain
only last-minute items and the few items most likely to cause death
and/or destruction. It can be used when the pilot is busy, because
it's short and doesn't require reading. In fact, busy moments - when
something may get overlooked - can be a good place to insert one! The
takeoff and landing checklists are the best examples.

I'm still working on how this translates for gliders. I think those
long checklists ("zipper check / chewing gum quantity check / attach
tow rope") are actually procedures: most pilots probably don't need to
keep using the written version (how likely is it that you'll forget to
attach the tow rope? - and if you do, what will happen?). Shorter
checklists have their place - "task set up on the nav computer" - but
probably should be done before you become #1 in line for takeoff. And
oral checklists should be used right before takeoff
("brakes-trim-belts" or whatever) and landing (USTALL, or your own
favorite) as a last-minute confirmation that nothing really stupid is
going to cause something really bad.

There's a somewhat separate question of what the right contents for
the procedures and checklists should be!

W.J. $Bill$ Dean $U.K.$.

September 1st 04, 12:20 AM

Derek Piggott has written as follows:

"I think lots of people still think that pro-spin controls means having a
lot of rudder or aileron on and don't realise that the important thing is
the stick position. If the stick is well back, spinable machines spin:
without the stick being back they don't spin.

"I don't need to tell you that many other gliders will spin a turn or two if
the stick is kept back on the stop, the c.g. is well aft and a wing drops,
even if the aileron and rudder are still central."

Even if the pilot coordinates perfectly, and string and ball remain exactly
central, a gust or turbulence may cause enough asymmetry to start a wing
drop. Gustiness, gradient, shear and turbulence are particularly likely
close to the ground.

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

>
> "Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> <snip>
>
> BTW, as I noted in another thread, spins are not caused by lack of
> airspeed, but uncoordinated use of the controls -- at least in modern
> sailplanes. Two things must happen to enter a spin: 1) you must
> stall, and 2) you must fail to apply sufficient rudder during your
> attempt to pick up the low wing with aileron. That is, the sailplane
> is designed with enough rudder to stop autorotation, even with full
> deflection of the aileron throughout the stall break.
>
> <snip>
>

Bob Korves

September 1st 04, 12:42 AM

"Herbert Kilian" > wrote in message
(snip)
> Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
> is very unfortunate.
>
> Herb, J7

I wasn't making fun of using a checklist. Using a checklist is important
and I use a fairly detailed one religiously before each flight. I do not,
however, need a line item telling me to remove the canopy cover before
flight!
-Bob Korves

Ian Johnston

September 1st 04, 07:28 AM

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:19:55 UTC, (Tom Seim)
wrote:

: 2. An immediate check of each control linkage after hookup.

Which I always get someone else to do.

Ian

--

Chip Bearden

September 1st 04, 03:28 PM

> There's a somewhat separate question of what the right contents for
> the procedures and checklists should be!

With apologies to pilots whose memories never fail even under stress,
I'm one of those guys who does use a very detailed written checklist.
Chewing gum isn't on it but things like food, drinking water, reading
glasses, and landout jacket are. But I don't wait until I'm #1 on the
takeoff line to use it.

One reason is that it's in sections. The first and longest section is
the post-assembly checklist with all the stuff on the glider, arranged
in the proper walkaround order. I can do that immediately after
rigging. Then there's another list of all the stuff that should be in
the cockpit--things that wouldn't kill me if I forgot but which might
make life less comfortable.

Then there are sections for task items (applies only to contests: task
sheet, retrieve telephone #, etc.), on the grid (tail dolly, etc.),
and pre-takeoff (I use the very old SSA A-B-C-C-C-D sequence that I
committed to memory back in the mid 1960s).

I've got a section for landing out: remove multi-probe, download trace
to CF card, etc., since in the pre-cellular world I once got to a pay
telephone without my wallet or the retrieve #.

There's even a section for my crew to use for hooking up the trailer.

I keep a copy in the cockpit at all times. If I do things out of
sequence, I literally check off each item with a pencil. On a normal
day at the gliderport, I just run my thumb down the list and make sure
I'm not interrupted during one of the sections.

OK, maybe this is overkill. But whether I'm crewless or accompanied by
my wife and two 10-year-old daughters, it seems like I'm always rushed
before takeoff. Having a written checklist not only guarantees I won't
forget something but gives me peace of mind when I launch that I've
done everything right and lets me focus on flying safely.

And in the post-Clem Bowman/Genesis accident era, it gives my family
the same peace of mind. I'll confess that in the past 40 years, I've
taken off without my map (pre-GPS days), with my dive brakes open,
without taping, and with a landing gear door hanging loose. And that
doesn't count the time I was on the line ready to launch with the tail
dolly still attached.

It's fun to scoff about obsessive/compulsive types reaching for their
checklist and pencil during a spin recovery. :) But I'll continue to
use my written checklist before every flight, as I noted in the safety
talk I gave at this year's U.S. Standard Class Nationals.

Chip Bearden

Peter Wyld

September 1st 04, 05:35 PM

At 14:48 01 September 2004, Chip Bearden wrote:
>> There's a somewhat separate question of what the right
>>contents for
>> the procedures and checklists should be!
>
>With apologies to pilots whose memories never fail
>even under stress,
>I'm one of those guys who does use a very detailed
>written checklist.
>Chewing gum isn't on it but things like food, drinking
>water, reading
>glasses, and landout jacket are. But I don't wait until
>I'm #1 on the
>takeoff line to use it.
>
etcetera

>
>It's fun to scoff about obsessive/compulsive types
>reaching for their
>checklist and pencil during a spin recovery. :) But
>I'll continue to
>use my written checklist before every flight, as I
>noted in the safety
>talk I gave at this year's U.S. Standard Class Nationals.
>
>Chip Bearden
>

At the World Gliding Championships many years ago,
I crewed for a guy who presented my fellow crewman
and I with a checklist containing 19 items regarding
the setting up of the glider ready for him to fly.
After about two days of practice we added two extra
items. #0 get rid of pilot, #20 ensure pilot in glider
before launching. We got on just fine after that (and
it was always just how he wanted it).

Tom Seim

September 1st 04, 06:35 PM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-uRi7CmzCveOr@localhost>...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:19:55 UTC, (Tom Seim)
> wrote:
>
> : 2. An immediate check of each control linkage after hookup.
>
> Which I always get someone else to do.

I have mixed feelings about this. Nobody knows your glider as well as
you do (save, perhaps, by someone flying-or flown-the identical
model). I certainly am not going to trust my life to someone who is
unfamiliar with my glider.

Additionally, flying a motorglider, I am often times the only one at
the airport, so I have to do the complete assembly unaided.

It wouldn't hurt to have someone else review the assembled glider
after you had done all of your own checks, however.

BTW: I check my Hottellier connections by simultaneously pressing on
the release plunger and pulling on the rod. Of course, the connection
has to be safetied first. I know of accidents where the connection was
only part way on, passed a PCC, only to come off in (attempted)
flight.

Tom

Chris OCallaghan

September 1st 04, 07:00 PM

Bill,

Can't say I agree, but at least from my point of view, you are erring
on the side of safety.

Here is a simple argument that I have backed up with experiment in
many types of gliders. An aircraft that is capable of spinning during
a stall while aileron and rudder are held neutral (and within
published cg limits) is inherently unsafe. This means that such a
glider flown into a strong, turbulent wind gradient 50 feet above the
ground is likely to autorotate. Since recovery from an insipient spin
requires much more altitude than a straight ahead stall, there is a
very good chance that such a glider would see very few flights before
being retired.

I have proven to myself many times that stalling a glider without
abusing the controls results not in a spin but a spiral dive. While we
can all point to experiences of having a wing drop and losing control
in a stall, I doubt very seriously that any of us were holding
coordinated controls throughout the stall break. It takes a very
determined effort not to move the stick throughout the stall and
self-recovery.

Here's another argument. The vertical stabilizer provides a great deal
of yaw stability, even at very low speeds. To start autorotation, you
need a source of drag at the tip greater than the normal differential
to be expected resulting from span effect in a turn. That we don't
kill ourselves everytime the glider approaches stall is testament to
the stability provided by the tail. That we occasionally do screw
gliders into the ground makes me think that the cause lies more in the
way we are applying the controls under stress than any inherent
tendency of the glider snap into a spin at the least external
provocation. Yes, outside factors can influence how the glider flies,
but I think they do more damage by causing pilots to react in
unacceptable ways.

Go back and read through my reports on control use during stall in my
Ventus. What it drives home in my mind is that spins are the result of
control abuse. You're right, don't stall land you won't spin. But it's
just as right to say that a stall needn't develop into a spin so long
as the controls are not abused.

Chris OCallaghan

September 1st 04, 07:06 PM

I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing a pattern speed.
First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other was to place the
glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to put the spoilers
away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance. If I recall,
the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed plus 1/2 the
headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained though. Just
seemed to fit.

Andy Blackburn

September 1st 04, 08:22 PM

Could be. I think the approach speed in my flight manual
is several knots below best L/D. I'll have to double-check.
Of course at my home airport (Minden), there's hardly
ever less than 15 knots of wind in the afternoon...

...egads, maybe I'm flying too slow!!!

9B

At 18:24 01 September 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing
>a pattern speed.
>First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other
>was to place the
>glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to
>put the spoilers
>away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance.
>If I recall,
>the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed
>plus 1/2 the
>headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained
>though. Just
>seemed to fit.
>

F.L. Whiteley

September 1st 04, 10:53 PM

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing a pattern speed.
> First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other was to place the
> glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to put the spoilers
> away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance. If I recall,
> the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed plus 1/2 the
> headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained though. Just
> seemed to fit.

up to plus 15 knots is currently being taught around here

gust fronts and micro bursts make 30-50knot gusts relatively common during
summer afternoons here if there's over-development

two years ago we had a member landout in 70+mph cold front winds roaring in
from the north. in some places along the front the winds exceeded 90mph.
the pilot got about 8 miles in 7000ft to a landing about 4 miles south of
the gliderport. he stayed in the glider, flying it on the ground until
someone walked out and phoned for help.

at the time I was playing father/son softball with my boy scout troop about
30 miles southeast of the landout location. large chunks of trees started
flying by almost immediately as the winds hit

we knew the front was coming, but no clue of the strong conditions. we
usually expect some dust, but this was very different

frank whiteley
colorado

Bert Willing

September 2nd 04, 08:23 AM

That's nonsense. Spin/autrotation is all about one wing (partially) stalled,
and the other not. It's not about drag.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Chris OCallaghan" > a écrit dans le message de
m...
>
> Here's another argument. The vertical stabilizer provides a great deal
> of yaw stability, even at very low speeds. To start autorotation, you
> need a source of drag at the tip greater than the normal differential
> to be expected resulting from span effect in a turn. That we don't

Tony Verhulst

September 2nd 04, 03:13 PM

> the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed plus 1/2 the
> headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained though. Just
> seemed to fit.

Not a formula but a rule of thumb that's pretty close - judging by a
number of polars I've looked at. The following article is very
simplistic but was written for a student who had trouble grasping the
concept of needing to stay upwind of the field in strong conditions:
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GBSC/student/headwind.html

Tony

Chris OCallaghan

September 2nd 04, 07:32 PM

Uh, Bert, what happens when a wing stalls? Lift decreases... drag
increases. Something needs to start the spin. Could that be... a
force? I suppose we could call it something other than drag. Gremlins
maybe?

Let's see, perhaps I can offer another explanation. Non-symmetrical,
differential lift across the wingspan produces roll. Non-symmetrical,
differential drag along the wingspan produces yaw (adverse yaw when
actuating the ailerons, for example). The vertical stablizer and
rudder are there to provide stability and yaw authority to counteract
the aileron drag effect (as well as the destabilizing effect of the
fuselage forward of the cg). If the stall (or partial stall) produced
no drag, the glider would simply roll. There would be no yawing
motion. And thus, no spin! (But lots of rolling.) Here's another way
to think about it... if you had an infinitely large vertical
stabilizer (that is, infinite directional stability), would it be
possible to spin? Since the infinitely large tail would produce an
infinitely large counterforce to any adverse yaw, then a spin is not
possible. What's the practical substitute for an infinitely (or very)
large vertical stabilizer? A moveable rudder.

It's all about the flippers, man.

And from a practical standpoint, spins are all about the drag. And
even though a partially stalled wing will display adverse yaw with
neutral control surfaces, so long as you don't move the flippers, the
vertical stabilizer will keep you from spinning. As noted before, I
prove this to myself with every modern model of glider I fly. But if
you move those flippers in an uncoordinated fashion, baby, all bets
are off!

Piggott: "Drag from the badly stalled, falling wing, pulls the glider
down into a steep spiral and the autorotation is speeded up."

There's a graceful way out of your dilemma... we could discuss the
torques brought into play by the rolling motion of a partially stalled
wing. That will introduce a rotation about the yaw axis (the
aerodynamicist's definition of autorotation), but you'll need to prove
to me that it alone is sufficient to overpower the vertical
stabilizer, even at very low airspeeds and relatively high rates of
roll. Since the vast majority of modern aircraft need an additional
yawing moment to enter a spin (pro rudder, counter aileron), it's
going to be a tough sell. But I'd be interested to see you work
through the problem.

Maybe we'll both learn something new.

"Bert Willing" > wrote in message >...
> That's nonsense. Spin/autrotation is all about one wing (partially) stalled,
> and the other not. It's not about drag.
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "Chris OCallaghan" > a écrit dans le message de
> m...
> >
> > Here's another argument. The vertical stabilizer provides a great deal
> > of yaw stability, even at very low speeds. To start autorotation, you
> > need a source of drag at the tip greater than the normal differential
> > to be expected resulting from span effect in a turn. That we don't

Chris OCallaghan

September 2nd 04, 07:49 PM

BTW,

I thought I'd add that "autorotation" is why highly controllable, low
stability aircraft can be spun with ailerons held into the direction
of spin. If you can roll fast enough with stick well back, the
resulting torque about the yaw access is sufficient to overpower a too
small vertical stabilizer (in designs where stability is sacrificed
for greater controlability). But this does not describe a modern,
certified glider. And, after all, we're looking for practical
knowledge we can take into the air. But I remain interested in whether
you can demonstrate that rolling torque alone will make the glider
spin. If it can't, then we can focus on other sources of adverse yaw
that contribute to the autorotation. If it can, then we'd all best be
looking for a new, safer passtime, like freeclimbing solo.

But hey! I'm making your argument for you.

Bert, this could really be fun. Fire away, please!

Ian Johnston

September 3rd 04, 10:16 AM

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 17:35:06 UTC, (Tom Seim)
wrote:

: "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message news:<cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-uRi7CmzCveOr@localhost>...
: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:19:55 UTC, (Tom Seim)
: > wrote:
: >
: > : 2. An immediate check of each control linkage after hookup.
: >
: > Which I always get someone else to do.
:
: I have mixed feelings about this. Nobody knows your glider as well as
: you do (save, perhaps, by someone flying-or flown-the identical
: model).

That's a good point. But all I ask them to do is check the six control
connections, and I tell them exactly what to look for: can you feel
the pin sticking out there? can you see that the clip is on there? and
so on. Sure, if I don't say it won't be checked, but I find it helps
concentrate my mind on what needs done. And, on the topic of this
thread, I do have a printed checklist, but only for other people. I
reckon that if I don't know what needs done to rig such a simple
glider I shouldn't be flying it. I expect opinions will vary on that
...

Ian

Mark James Boyd

September 3rd 04, 09:34 PM

Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>>
>> BTW, as I noted in another thread, spins are not caused by lack of
>> airspeed, but uncoordinated use of the controls -- at least in modern
>
>Well, you have to precise what you are calling "uncoordinated use". I
>remember an incipient spin in an ASH25 (can be considered as a modern
>sailplane, although it existed well before I started gliding 9 years ago).

>Of course the controls
>were badly crossed, but some amount of cross control is normal in order
>to counter induced roll and induced yaw, this is not an uncoordinated
>flight, the yaw string is is the middle.

As I mentioned earlier, as the bank angle increases, and the
wingspan increases, the AOA of the inner and outer wing
can differ by several degrees with the yawstring centered.

I think we calculated for 18m wingspan and 30 deg bank, something
like 3 degrees, and 6 degrees for 50 deg bank. But hey, this
is just a newsgroup, please do the math yourself and tell us what
you get.

It was a bit complex to calculate. Radius of circle for inner vs.
outer wingtip, stall speed and sink rate and... I don't remember
all the details, but it seemed painful...

Eric and Marc (?) I think made good points that at steeper
banks stalls are hard to muster. So perhaps the 10-30 deg banks
are really what we are discussing...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

September 3rd 04, 09:51 PM

Tom Seim > wrote:
>
>I recently read the accident report of the ASW20 crash (fatal) at
>Williams, CA. Per the check list, they did a positive control check of
>the elevator by having the assistant (co-owner) hold the elevator
>while the pilot applied force on the stick. Resistance was felt, check
>list passed. Only problem was the elevator was not hooked up and what
>the pilot felt was the push rod hitting the bottom of the elevator.
>Now, if the guy just LOOKED at the connection it would have been
>obvious that it was not hooked up (it is in plain site).
>
>Following a list may give you tunnel
>vision. A DC-9 was landed gear up by two experienced pilots following
>a check list (they missed one step). They were so certain that they
>had done everything right that they ignored the lack of the sound and
>thump of the gear lowering (common sense, again).

I took my CFIG checkride with the FAA. On it, I told him
"there is no PCC in the schweizer manual for any checklist. The
checklist requires inspection during preflight of the connections.
I find the (over)use of the PCC distracts the pilot from the
more important action: checking the connection itself."

He nodded, and we moved on to other things.

My understanding of contests is that an "assisted PCC" is
required by many CDs. I wonder if an "assisted connection inspection"
wouldn't be a better, higher, priority...

As far as the DC-9, I'd guess this is another example of
information which is lost in the noise.

I remember asking a car dealer about his warranty. He had a
super long list of covered items. He said just about everything was
covered. I asked him to make a nice short list of what WASN'T
covered. He couldn't, and we parted.

Useful information is prioritized. When I write professionally,
I do a 200 word abstract, then a 1000 word introduction/summary,
then a 5000 word detail. And yes, the 200 word abstract is first.
I'd like to see all writing (including the checklists) follow this
idea. A few important points at the front, the nit details at the back.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

September 3rd 04, 10:09 PM

In article >,
Kirk Stant > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412fa9ba$1@darkstar>...
>> Kirk Stant > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio
>> >
>> >1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder
>> >at me?
>>
>> LOL! "use a checklist."
>> Kind of covers everything, huh?
>>
>> "Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he
>> didn't use the checklist!"
>
>So Mark, you don't use any checklist before taking off? Yeah right,
>bull****. What is it, not macho enough for you?

Kirk. I am very sorry that this appeared to be a condemnation of
checklists. It was not, and in fact my intetion was to strongly
support the significance of what you and others have stated. The
elevator connection on preflight, and the dive brakes closed, as you
mention, are very important.

I was simply pointing out that the bland assertion that one should
"use a checklist" can actually cause an accident. If the pilot
now uses that to (wrongly) make a checklist which is very long and
does not prioritize the importance of the items, it can cause
fatigue and inattention.

So yes, I certainly use a checklist, but I ALWAYS use a
prioritized checklist. And I teach students how to make a custom
prioritized checklist for a new aircraft by looking at the
accident reports and starting with that.

Again, Kirk, I apologise if this seemed offensive. I was
only wanting to gently steer us into a more detailed discussion.

>I use CBSIFTCBE (instead of the useless SSA ABCCCDDEEEEFGHHHwhatever)
>RELIGIOUSLY before every takeoff. It's as sacred as the old GUMP
>checklist. No paper required, only need one brain cell awake to run
>it. And even with that, I've managed to get airborne twice with my
>spoilers unlocked - in an LS4 and my current LS6. Both due to
>interrupted/rushed launches. No big deal, the tow didn't even notice
>(because LS brakes don't suck open, they just stay cracked) the
>decreased climb rate. I caught them both below 100', closed the
>boards, swore a bunch, then went on to convincingly blow the task of
>the day.

So CBSIFTCBE. Ok, what are the top 3? Is spoilers locked one
of the top 3 for you? I'm just saying put that one as the FIRST
item, instead of elsewhere if a) it is the number one checklist item
cause of fatal accidents in the type of glider you fly where you fly it
and b) if it is something that you tend to miss more often than other
items. At Truckee, maybe the low rope break briefing is more
important than the trim set. In the PW-5 at Avenal, maybe the
spoilers locked is more important than the emerg. brief. If
the student often reaches out to close the vent on takeoff and this
makes a PIO, then for him, maybe the vent closed for takeoff is the
number one item.

I simply do not believe that there is a correct ordering, or a
correct checklist that can work for all gliderports and all pilots
and all aircraft. I strongly believe in prioritized, personal
checklists. The checklist, and the process to make it, are
really important.

>Seriously, if your students aren't going through a "last chance" check
>before commiting to takeoff, they have really bad instructors, to say
>the least. And that is "using a checklist". And it will usually
>prevent brainfade idiotic accidents from happening. Usually.

I agree with you Kirk, just in a little more detail...ok?
Thanks for the responses...and again sorry if it looked like
I was pickin' on you...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

September 3rd 04, 10:13 PM

In article >,
Finbar > wrote:
>The discussion of a) overly-long checklists that don't get used and,
>on the other hand, b) the need for checklists reminds me of a
>discussion with a power instructor (instrument), who made a
>distinction I hadn't encountered before, but it made sense. He
>distinguished between a written procedure, a written checklist and an
>oral checklist. Here's the idea:
>
>Written procedure: a written sequence of steps to take.
>Written checklist: a written list of things to check.
>Oral checklist: a memorized checklist. Should be very short, and
>memorable, used only for a few last-minute and "death/destruction"
>items.
>
>A written procedure may be quite long and can be detailed. It may
>contain some lower-importance items. It is used for setting up the
>aircraft and should be used when there is time for it. Sitting next
>in line for takeoff on the runway, barreling down final approach, or
>right after a rope break - not good times for a written procedure.

One other item. I've found that numbering the written checklist
helps. Then, even solo, I read it aloud. I read "1", and aloud
then I do "2". I've found that if I skip a step, my brain goes
instantly "3 isn't after 1!" and I'm saved.

Again, I also prioritize it. This makes for an awkward flow
in some aircraft, but I can repeat items to get a good flow.

Anyway, all good stuff...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

September 3rd 04, 10:21 PM

In article >,
Chris OCallaghan > wrote:
>I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing a pattern speed.
>First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other was to place the
>glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to put the spoilers
>away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance. If I recall,
>the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed plus 1/2 the
>headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained though. Just
>seemed to fit.

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr/soaring/spd2fly/

was really useful for me. It sort of drove home the
1/2 headwind idea as being close enough, and was useful for
deciding 30-45 deg of bank was fine for rope breaks.
But look at it yourself. Of course the 2-33 data is in
there, provided by yours truly :)

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Nyal Williams

September 3rd 04, 11:25 PM

At 18:24 01 September 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing
>a pattern speed.
>First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other
>was to place the
>glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to
>put the spoilers
>away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance.
>If I recall,
>the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed
>plus 1/2 the
>headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained
>though. Just
>seemed to fit.

It appears that if you draw a tangent to your glider's
polar beginning, not at zero, but at any given headwind
speed, the line will touch the polar at a point that
is best L/D plus half that headwind.

>

Eric Greenwell

September 4th 04, 06:20 AM

Nyal Williams wrote:
> At 18:24 01 September 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>
>>I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing
>>a pattern speed.
>>First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other
>>was to place the
>>glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to
>>put the spoilers
>>away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance.
>>If I recall,
>>the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed
>>plus 1/2 the
>>headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained
>>though. Just
>>seemed to fit.
>
>
> It appears that if you draw a tangent to your glider's
> polar beginning, not at zero, but at any given headwind
> speed, the line will touch the polar at a point that
> is best L/D plus half that headwind.

I was under the impression it was added to give you a margin for gusts
and turbulence, which are usually less than the average wind speed. The
"half" was likely chosen empirically, as something that was adequate
almost all the time.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Ian Johnston

September 4th 04, 10:02 AM

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 20:51:22 UTC, (Mark James
Boyd) wrote:

: And yes, the 200 word abstract is first.
: I'd like to see all writing (including the checklists) follow this
: idea. A few important points at the front, the nit details at the back.

You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics in use in the
UK. They include things like "trim" - for people who wouldn't normally
think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most bizarrely of all,
"lookout". I'm not sure that I want to share the sky with people who
need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...

Which is not to say that a /short/ list isn't useful, but sticking
more and more things on is just silly. Check lists are not operating
manuals.

Ian

--

Chris Reed

September 4th 04, 04:39 PM

I quite like the "lookout" element of USTALL (though I don't actually chant
the checklist to myself on circuit). What I use it for is a reminder that,
in addition to my normal lookout, I also need to pay attention to the other
side of the circuit, look for aircraft on long, straight in approaches, and
look at what's happening on the ground. This is a different mode of lookout
to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself muttering "lookout" at
some point to remind me of the change of mode.

But I take the point - if the pilot doesn't lookout except in response to a
checklist, I'd like to be in a different part of the sky.

S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind, T (trim) ditto, and A
(airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in trouble,
though if I flew a flapped glider or had the UC lever on the same side as
the airbrake (LS4s excepted) I'd add a mental note to check which lever I
intended to use for approach control.

U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels up once already, and
hoping not to do it again.

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-zikdWvOGpoiF@localhost...
> You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics in use in the
> UK. They include things like "trim" - for people who wouldn't normally
> think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most bizarrely of all,
> "lookout". I'm not sure that I want to share the sky with people who
> need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...
>

F.L. Whiteley

September 4th 04, 05:16 PM

Is this a troll?

Personally I can't believe a UK basic instructor is saying this publicly.
Are you still giving ab-initio lessons? Perhaps you should chant this, or
something like WULFSTALL, in the circuit and think about what each item is
and what the implications are if you don't do each one. You seem to already
know about one, but the others are so embarassing they can kill you.
Doubtless you do this appropriately during your annual club checks, but lack
of clarity of what each item reflects or the need is disturbing. Please
re-read your post, print a copy and hand carry it to your CFI at Rattlesden.

Frank Whiteley
Colorado

"Chris Reed" > wrote in message
...
> I quite like the "lookout" element of USTALL (though I don't actually
chant
> the checklist to myself on circuit). What I use it for is a reminder that,
> in addition to my normal lookout, I also need to pay attention to the
other
> side of the circuit, look for aircraft on long, straight in approaches,
and
> look at what's happening on the ground. This is a different mode of
lookout
> to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself muttering "lookout" at
> some point to remind me of the change of mode.
>
> But I take the point - if the pilot doesn't lookout except in response to
a
> checklist, I'd like to be in a different part of the sky.
>
> S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind, T (trim) ditto, and A
> (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in trouble,
> though if I flew a flapped glider or had the UC lever on the same side as
> the airbrake (LS4s excepted) I'd add a mental note to check which lever I
> intended to use for approach control.
>
> U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels up once already, and
> hoping not to do it again.
>
> "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
> news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-zikdWvOGpoiF@localhost...
> > You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics in use in the
> > UK. They include things like "trim" - for people who wouldn't normally
> > think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most bizarrely of all,
> > "lookout". I'm not sure that I want to share the sky with people who
> > need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...
> >
>
>
>
>

Ian Johnston

September 4th 04, 06:17 PM

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:39:37 UTC, "Chris Reed"
> wrote:

: This is a different mode of lookout
: to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself muttering "lookout" at
: some point to remind me of the change of mode.

Good point. And the lookout I find useful to remember is for the bozo
making a straight in approach, so I have a good hard stare downwind
just before I turn final.

: S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind, T (trim) ditto

You illustarte perfectly one of the problems with long mnemonics (and
I have had WWULFSSTALL recommended to me. Seriously.), which is that
it becomes hard to remember what each letter stands for, and tryting
to remember is a distraction. It's not exactly a stage of the flight
with lots of time for contemplation.

: , and A
: (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in trouble,

I use it to crack 'em open and check that they work. I haven't had
them frozen closed yet, but it has happened to two different friend of
mine (comes of flying in the frozen northern wastes) and while I am
perfectly happy to sideslip to round out - cue long, lomg, thread from
American cousins differentiating between "forward slips" and "side
slips" - I'd rather discover that I need to as early as possible.

: U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels up once already, and
: hoping not to do it again.

I was taught to lower the wheel as soon as I decided to land, even if
that was at 12,000', so U is a check, not an action. I wonder how many
people get used to gabbling "Undercarriagefixedonthisaircraft" (as
they gabble "Flapsnotfittedonthisaircraft" during CBSIFTCB (with a few
E's thrown in if you want)) and continue to do so even when it's not
true...

Ian

Ian Johnston

September 4th 04, 06:27 PM

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 16:16:30 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

: Personally I can't believe a UK basic instructor is saying this publicly.
: Are you still giving ab-initio lessons? Perhaps you should chant this, or
: something like WULFSTALL, in the circuit and think about what each item is
: and what the implications are if you don't do each one.

There is a lot of honest debate about how many of these are truly
necessary. For example, is your "W" for wind? If so, it should have
been checked a hell of a long time before trying to join the
"circuit". And if it has been, and the circuit planned to take account
of it, why specifically check again? Doesn't the practice of good
airmanship imply that this will be done anyway?

Similarly with T for Trim. Surely anyone who has been reasonably
trained with use the trimmer without thinking about it for any long
term change in speed? Why make it a separate item in a check list at a
time when maximum attention should be gven to lookout?

I have had experienced full cat instructors tell me that they didn't
advocate any down wind checks at all, per se, as they claimed that
every single one should be a consequence of good airmanship. I don't
go that far myself, but the only ones which is seems to me might be
seens as circuit extras are Undercarriage (check only, should be down
already), Speed, Airbrakes (in case frozen). Everything else should
have been done before or is plain bleeding obvious. Do you really,
truly, know people who wouldn't check the intended landing area unless
they had a mnemonic? If so, should they be flying? [I think I know
one, and I don't think he should be.]

Ian

PS If the F is for Flaps for the small proportion of gliders with 'em,
what about the other W for Water? Mind you, I had one instructor who
used the F for "Fag (extinguish and chuck out of DV panel)"...
--

Bruce Greeff

September 4th 04, 08:00 PM

Hi Chris
> I quite like the "lookout" element of USTALL (though I don't actually chant
> the checklist to myself on circuit). What I use it for is a reminder that,
> in addition to my normal lookout, I also need to pay attention to the other
> side of the circuit, look for aircraft on long, straight in approaches, and
> look at what's happening on the ground. This is a different mode of lookout
> to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself muttering "lookout" at
> some point to remind me of the change of mode.
You are right in that it should be automatic to be scanning the sky, but that is
not what I was taught the "lookout" item was for.
"Lookout" reminds you to look in different places - you are going to land, check
that the ground condition is good - runway clear, no cars/ gliders/ kids/
microlights or cows. YOu should already be looking for conflicting aerial traffic.

>
> But I take the point - if the pilot doesn't lookout except in response to a
> checklist, I'd like to be in a different part of the sky.
>
> S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind, T (trim) ditto, and A
> (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in trouble,
> though if I flew a flapped glider or had the UC lever on the same side as
> the airbrake (LS4s excepted) I'd add a mental note to check which lever I
> intended to use for approach control.
>
Look at the statistics of experienced pilots damaging aircraft and themselves
because they tried to adjust their descent rate with the flaps or worse
undercarriage. Maybe the hoary old pilots with thousands of hours always know
they have their hand on the blue lever when they want to. Me- I still find it
useful to consciously think "what glider am I in, OK put your hand on the
airbrake lever, and crack them to be sure" Then I know I have my brakes sorted.

Same thing with speed and trim, just helps to think explicitly about how fast
you are landing.

> U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels up once already, and
> hoping not to do it again.
>
> "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
> news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-zikdWvOGpoiF@localhost...
>
>>You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics in use in the
>>UK. They include things like "trim" - for people who wouldn't normally
>>think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most bizarrely of all,
>>"lookout". I'm not sure that I want to share the sky with people who
>>need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...
>>
>
>
The trim thing is also a safety thing, high workload tends to result in people
forgetting things like trim. Flying the circuit with some residual pressure on
the stick can have interesting effects when you get distracted. Tends to happen
after a long fast final glide - to me at any rate. More to the point what speed
are you trimming for - are you sure it is right.

It's a good discipline to use the checklist - much more important to understand
why each item is there. If all you are doing is going "lookout - check I am
looking out" you are wasting your time with the checklist.

No personal slight intended, but as a general comment I have found that if I
find there is a generally accepted practice in flying that one can't see the
value of, it is important to find out why it has become generally accepted
practice. Most glider pilots are not fools. (well with the possible exception of
irrational desire for more span) Generally I have found good reasons for most of
the habits and standards, even if they are not always entirely obvious. Ricardo
Semler claims you should always ask Why? three times at least. Works for me.

Bruce
>
>
>

Eric Greenwell

September 4th 04, 08:22 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> : , and A
> : (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in trouble,
>
> I use it to crack 'em open and check that they work. I haven't had
> them frozen closed yet, but it has happened to two different friend of
> mine (comes of flying in the frozen northern wastes)

I've also had them frozen shut, but another reason for checking them is
to activate the gear warning if the gear isn't down and locked. That has
warned me at least 3 times.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Ian Johnston

September 4th 04, 09:36 PM

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 19:00:35 UTC, Bruce Greeff >
wrote:

: It's a good discipline to use the checklist - much more important to understand
: why each item is there. If all you are doing is going "lookout - check I am
: looking out" you are wasting your time with the checklist.
:
: No personal slight intended, but as a general comment I have found that if I
: find there is a generally accepted practice in flying that one can't see the
: value of, it is important to find out why it has become generally accepted
: practice.

A good point. The difficulty comes from an inherent contradiction: if
safety comes from considering your (ie one's) actions fully, surely
accepting somebody else's checklist is quite the opposite? Not to
mention the problem that - in the UK anyway - there is no genrally
accepted practice. There are lots of different versions of the
downwind check list - which should one use? Should it always be the
longest possible?

Personally, I think the best idea is to work out a personal check
list, where each item appears as a result of thought and decision.
And, of course, discussion with other pilots and instructors,
intelligent reading of accident reports and so on.

I use USTAL. U(ndercarriage) is there because I normally fly wooden
gliders, and it reminds me to think about whether there is a skid
there to use in extremis. It's a good time to rethink my target
S(peed). T(rim) is pointless, I reckon, but I can't forget it, damn
it. A(irbrakes) might freeze shut and L(anding area) is my cue to make
sure that I have Plans A, B and C clear in my mind.

I don't waste time reminding myself that I don't have F(laps) or
W(ater), and I've thought about (W)ind long, long before. And I don't
mutter L(ookout) to myself because it might distract me from the
important business of looking out.

Ian

PS And why on earth do we, before launch, check the controls before
making sure that we're within the weight limits for the glider?

Vaughn

September 4th 04, 11:39 PM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Johnston wrote:

> I've also had them frozen shut, but another reason for checking them is
> to activate the gear warning if the gear isn't down and locked. That has
> warned me at least 3 times.

Damn good point! Also, it allows you to check that your hand is on the
right handle (think Blanik) and also, there is a tiny possibility of assemetric
spoiler deployment (have seen it once), something best delt with at altitude.

Vaughn

Bill Daniels

September 5th 04, 01:07 AM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-V8pRq3LwYqPX@localhost...

>
> Similarly with T for Trim. Surely anyone who has been reasonably
> trained with use the trimmer without thinking about it for any long
> term change in speed? Why make it a separate item in a check list at a
> time when maximum attention should be gven to lookout?
>

> Ian
>
> PS If the F is for Flaps for the small proportion of gliders with 'em,
> what about the other W for Water? Mind you, I had one instructor who
> used the F for "Fag (extinguish and chuck out of DV panel)"...
> --
>

I tend to set trim a bit nose heavy for the landing pattern. That way if my
attention is diverted from airspeed control for a second of two, at least
the glider will want to increase airspeed on its own. That's a different
use of trim than the usual trimming for the exact airspeed.

The way I think some pilots may get into trouble is if the trim is set for
thermalling while scratching for that last thermal but then they give up and
turn in to land, and forget to re-trim, that leaves the glider trimmed a bit
nose up for the normal pattern speed. If their attention is diverted, the
airspeed may drop toward stall.

Bill Daniels

Nyal Williams

September 5th 04, 11:54 PM

At 05:42 04 September 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>> At 18:24 01 September 2004, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>>
>>>I'd always assumed there were two factors in choosing
>>>a pattern speed.
>>>First, safety, thus the +5 for turbulence. The other
>>>was to place the
>>>glider at best speed to fly. That way if you have to
>>>put the spoilers
>>>away, you are guaranteed to cover the maximum distance.
>>>If I recall,
>>>the simple formula for best speed was best l/d speed
>>>plus 1/2 the
>>>headwind. Don't recall the second ever being explained
>>>though. Just
>>>seemed to fit.
>>
>>
>> It appears that if you draw a tangent to your glider's
>> polar beginning, not at zero, but at any given headwind
>> speed, the line will touch the polar at a point that
>> is best L/D plus half that headwind.
>
>I was under the impression it was added to give you
>a margin for gusts
>and turbulence, which are usually less than the average
>wind speed. The
>'half' was likely chosen empirically, as something
>that was adequate
>almost all the time.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
Eric,

Chris already accounted for the safety factor (gusts
and turbulence) with his statement about plus 5 knots.
His second factor was best speed to fly if you have
to close spoilers and need the guaranteed best speed
to fly for maximum distance.

My answer was to that part of his statement. One might
add another 5 knots for the gusts, etc., if desired.

Don Johnstone

September 6th 04, 12:06 AM

The current BGA instuctors manual does not recommend
the use of 'downwind checks' or the use of a mnemonic
for pre landing checks. As soon as a pilot decides
to land the glider should be configured for landing.
With the exception of the RAFGSA, who you would think
would know better, (RAF pilots are restricted in the
number of touch and goes they can do because of the
danger of automatic response to checks) this is what
should be taught.
The big problem with 'challenge and response' checklists
where the challenge is chanted automatically is that
the response tends to become automatic too. Given that
most two seat traning gliders in the uk have a fixed
undercarriage, do not carry water and have no flaps
large numbers of students happily chant Water - not
carried, Undercarriage - fixed, Loose articles - stowed
Flaps - not fitted. This is fine until they fly a glider
which carries water, is fitted with a retractable undercarriage
and has flaps. In moments of stress, when it is all
going wrong they can revert to their early days when
they did not have these extras. Personally I would
rather rely on good airmanship to configure the glider
correctly for the phase of flight intended, and teach
that than rely on a chant which can become automatically
wrong.

WULF checks as they were are out. Some bright wag once
told me that they were W Wheel down and locked, Undercariage
- down, Landing gear - extended and Firestones - out
of the bay. :-)

At 16:36 04 September 2004, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>Is this a troll?
>
>Personally I can't believe a UK basic instructor is
>saying this publicly.
>Are you still giving ab-initio lessons? Perhaps you
>should chant this, or
>something like WULFSTALL, in the circuit and think
>about what each item is
>and what the implications are if you don't do each
>one. You seem to already
>know about one, but the others are so embarassing they
>can kill you.
>Doubtless you do this appropriately during your annual
>club checks, but lack
>of clarity of what each item reflects or the need is
>disturbing. Please
>re-read your post, print a copy and hand carry it to
>your CFI at Rattlesden.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>Colorado
>
>'Chris Reed' wrote in message
...
>> I quite like the 'lookout' element of USTALL (though
>>I don't actually
>chant
>> the checklist to myself on circuit). What I use it
>>for is a reminder that,
>> in addition to my normal lookout, I also need to pay
>>attention to the
>other
>> side of the circuit, look for aircraft on long, straight
>>in approaches,
>and
>> look at what's happening on the ground. This is a
>>different mode of
>lookout
>> to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself
>>muttering 'lookout' at
>> some point to remind me of the change of mode.
>>
>> But I take the point - if the pilot doesn't lookout
>>except in response to
>a
>> checklist, I'd like to be in a different part of the
>>sky.
>>
>> S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind,
>>T (trim) ditto, and A
>> (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them
>>you're in trouble,
>> though if I flew a flapped glider or had the UC lever
>>on the same side as
>> the airbrake (LS4s excepted) I'd add a mental note
>>to check which lever I
>> intended to use for approach control.
>>
>> U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels
>>up once already, and
>> hoping not to do it again.
>>
>> 'Ian Johnston' wrote in message
>> news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-zikdWvOGpoiF@localhost...
>> > You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics
>>>in use in the
>> > UK. They include things like 'trim' - for people
>>>who wouldn't normally
>> > think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most
>>>bizarrely of all,
>> > 'lookout'. I'm not sure that I want to share the
>>>sky with people who
>> > need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Andreas Maurer

September 6th 04, 01:39 AM

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:39:48 GMT, "Vaughn"
> wrote:

>> I've also had them frozen shut, but another reason for checking them is
>> to activate the gear warning if the gear isn't down and locked. That has
>> warned me at least 3 times.
>
> Damn good point! Also, it allows you to check that your hand is on the
>right handle (think Blanik)

Very good point!

Think ASW-27 - we had a very experienced pilot land my club's 27 this
weekend with the flap lever only. Touched down at the end of the 2.000
ft runway and used up the (inofficial) 500 ft overrun before he was
barely able to stop it by dropping a wing and doing a quick 110
degrees turn a couple of feet in front of a vineyard.

He never even wondered why his "airbrake" lever didn't have the
slightest braking action.

Second time this has ahappened at my home airfield - the last time was
ten years agon in an ASW-20.

Bye
Andreas

Eric Greenwell

September 6th 04, 05:17 AM

Nyal Williams wrote:

>>>
>>>It appears that if you draw a tangent to your glider's
>>>polar beginning, not at zero, but at any given headwind
>>>speed, the line will touch the polar at a point that
>>>is best L/D plus half that headwind.
>>
>>I was under the impression it was added to give you
>>a margin for gusts
>>and turbulence, which are usually less than the average
>>wind speed. The
>>'half' was likely chosen empirically, as something
>>that was adequate
>>almost all the time.
>>
>>--
>>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>
> Eric,
>
> Chris already accounted for the safety factor (gusts
> and turbulence) with his statement about plus 5 knots.

Unfortunately, +5 knots is not very good insurance against gusts and
turbulence, which typically increase with wind speed. Or was this
supposed to be added on top of the "1/2 the wind speed"? If so, I
suggest the +5 knots is redundant in general (specific sites [hill
sites, for example] may require much higher speeds, of course).

> His second factor was best speed to fly if you have
> to close spoilers and need the guaranteed best speed
> to fly for maximum distance.

I doubt it was chosen this way, though the correspondence with the best
L/D in wind is appealing. Since we routinely fly final approach at well
above best L/D glide slope (typically, the moderately steep glide slope
that is achieved with half spoilers), having "best L/D speed" available
when the spoilers are closed doesn't seem like a good way to pick
approach speed.

I believe, but have no direct evidence for it, that it was chosen
empirically: over many years, people that used that value had it work
out well, so it became the recommendation. I suspect the origin is now
shrouded in the fog of history.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell

September 6th 04, 05:23 AM

Andreas Maurer wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:39:48 GMT, "Vaughn"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I've also had them frozen shut, but another reason for checking them is
>>>to activate the gear warning if the gear isn't down and locked. That has
>>>warned me at least 3 times.
>>
>> Damn good point! Also, it allows you to check that your hand is on the
>>right handle (think Blanik)
>
>
> Very good point!
>
> Think ASW-27 - we had a very experienced pilot land my club's 27 this
> weekend with the flap lever only. Touched down at the end of the 2.000
> ft runway and used up the (inofficial) 500 ft overrun before he was
> barely able to stop it by dropping a wing and doing a quick 110
> degrees turn a couple of feet in front of a vineyard.
>
> He never even wondered why his "airbrake" lever didn't have the
> slightest braking action.
>
> Second time this has ahappened at my home airfield - the last time was
> ten years agon in an ASW-20.

I've had several people recommend having a look at the wing when you
open the airbrakes, to see if they actually appear! I did this while
training students in our Blanik (the flap and airbrakes handles are very
close), but it is good advice for any glider. It is also good advice if
the glider does not seem to be climbing well (on tow or under power)
and, as Andreas mentions, when it is not coming down well!

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Ian Johnston

September 6th 04, 11:46 AM

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 23:06:53 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

: The big problem with 'challenge and response' checklists
: where the challenge is chanted automatically is that
: the response tends to become automatic too.

I agree completely.

I think there is also a problem in confusion between lists of checks
and lists of actions. In other words, don't put the undercarriage down
at "U", check that it is down. Is "S" the time to increase speed to
the approach speed, or to remember what approach speed is? If the
latter, how does that help if, because of the conditions, approach
speed should have been established previously? If the former, the
converse?

Ian
--

Ian Johnston

September 6th 04, 11:48 AM

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 06:35:38 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

: USTALL is brilliant, simply
: because of the implication. You stall, you die. Should focus one's
: thoughts. When it was in wide use, I watched one UK instructor leave
: 3000UKP of glass and gel on the tarmac.

Doesn't that prove that it doesn't work?

Ian
--

Chris Reed

September 6th 04, 02:48 PM

Frank,

Not a troll. There's no BGA-mandated checklist for pre-landing checks, as
far as I know (this kind of thing changes regularly), and in any event as a
basic instructor I'm not permitted to let the student fly below 500 feet or
to teach this stuff, so what I wrote was about my own flying practices.
Certainly, in my pre-solo training (following the then BGA manual) in 1996/7
I wan't taught pre-landing checks.

What I was trying to respond to was the suggestion that consciously checking
Lookout is useless because we should all lookout in any event - I think this
*is* a useful reminder, as it's helpful to recognise the change in lookout
mode.

I believe I have the current BGA position right (though I don't speak for
the BGA in any way!) as follows: landing checklists are potentially
problematic because on training aircraft some parts don't apply - thus, e.g.
learning to say "Undercarriage - fixed" can cement the idea in a student's
mind that there is no need for action, so when moving to retractable
undercarriage they don't lower it. Instead, instructors teach the
appropriate elements which would form a checklist so that they become
entrenched as part of the routine for landing rather than items to be ticked
off on a mental checklist. Water and Flaps carry the same penalty.

(For what it's worth, I understand my wheels-up landing met all the common
criteria - 10th flight on retractable, so I'm just becoming comfortable with
it and not consciously thinking about the differences from previous
aircraft; high workload (trying to scratch away from a winch launch); and
distractions (other aircraft in the circuit and the launch point in an
unfamiliar place). Result - reversion to primary training which, of course,
was on fixed wheel aircraft).

In terms of my own flying (whether with students or solo) the thought
processes go roughly as follows:

W - not considered, as I currently fly nothing which carries water ballast.

U - do I have retractable undercarriage, and if so is it down? This is a
conscious element of my preparation for landing.

F - as for W

S - straps (though I always have to think, if someone asks me what WUFSTALL
means, whether this is not speed - thus in my mind it's a bad acronym
because it's not unique, and different from HASSL for stall/spin manoeuvres
because even if you can't remember which S is straps, one of them has to
be). I check these regularly throughout the flight, so this is an entrenched
item and not one requiring a conscious check

T - as above, I trim for every airspeed change, so this is entrenched
behaviour. I also don't like the way this substitutes for thinking about my
approach speed, as I could instead trim for my current speed. So my
conscious thought here is "What approach speed", which requires me to check
wind direction (not in checks), wind shear/gradient (not in checks), need
for a speed reserve if I might need to land long (aircraft fails to clear
the runway, not in checks) etc. etc.

A - airbrakes need checking if they might have frozen shut, but not
otherwise so far as I can see. Not confusing the airbrake lever with some
other lever is important, and I consciously check this if I'm flying an
aircraft where I could make this mistake.

LL - a conscious element because of the change of lookout mode.

There's also a whole set of other matters to think about which aren't on any
standard checklist, such as should the audio vario be turned off to avoid
distractions, is it appropriate to use my tailchute or not, would a radio
call announcing my presence be helpful, pointless or downright unhelpful (as
recently when a gaggle of competition fliers all lucked out overhead at the
same time and arrived from multiple directions) and so on.

It seems to me that the big question is whether pre-landing checks should be
taught or not. Some think yes, to deal with the pilot who isn't thinking
properly about the landing. Some think no, because the pilot must be taught
to think, rather than follow a list.

I was taught under the second philosophy, and I guess that's what became
entrenched in my approach to the issue, though if the BGA decides to
introduce teaching checklists for this, I'll learn and teach them.

The pre-launch checks (whichever version you use) are different - you
haven't started flying yet, and the brain needs to begin the switch-on
process.

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Is this a troll?
>
> Personally I can't believe a UK basic instructor is saying this publicly.
> Are you still giving ab-initio lessons? Perhaps you should chant this, or
> something like WULFSTALL, in the circuit and think about what each item is
> and what the implications are if you don't do each one. You seem to
already
> know about one, but the others are so embarassing they can kill you.
> Doubtless you do this appropriately during your annual club checks, but
lack
> of clarity of what each item reflects or the need is disturbing. Please
> re-read your post, print a copy and hand carry it to your CFI at
Rattlesden.
>
> Frank Whiteley
> Colorado
>
> "Chris Reed" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I quite like the "lookout" element of USTALL (though I don't actually
> chant
> > the checklist to myself on circuit). What I use it for is a reminder
that,
> > in addition to my normal lookout, I also need to pay attention to the
> other
> > side of the circuit, look for aircraft on long, straight in approaches,
> and
> > look at what's happening on the ground. This is a different mode of
> lookout
> > to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself muttering "lookout" at
> > some point to remind me of the change of mode.
> >
> > But I take the point - if the pilot doesn't lookout except in response
to
> a
> > checklist, I'd like to be in a different part of the sky.
> >
> > S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind, T (trim) ditto, and
A
> > (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in trouble,
> > though if I flew a flapped glider or had the UC lever on the same side
as
> > the airbrake (LS4s excepted) I'd add a mental note to check which lever
I
> > intended to use for approach control.
> >
> > U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels up once already, and
> > hoping not to do it again.
> >
> > "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
> > news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-zikdWvOGpoiF@localhost...
> > > You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics in use in the
> > > UK. They include things like "trim" - for people who wouldn't normally
> > > think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most bizarrely of all,
> > > "lookout". I'm not sure that I want to share the sky with people who
> > > need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

F.L. Whiteley

September 6th 04, 03:25 PM

Thanks for your reply.

S-Speed, appropriate for conditions and glider. Never heard it used for
straps. OBTW, was member over time of four UK clubs, two civil, two RAF,
plus flew irregularly at 9-10 others, last in 1995. Thinking back, hadn't
flown with anyone that had become instructor since sometime in the '80's.

Regards,

Frank

"Chris Reed" > wrote in message
...
> Frank,
>
> Not a troll. There's no BGA-mandated checklist for pre-landing checks, as
> far as I know (this kind of thing changes regularly), and in any event as
a
> basic instructor I'm not permitted to let the student fly below 500 feet
or
> to teach this stuff, so what I wrote was about my own flying practices.
> Certainly, in my pre-solo training (following the then BGA manual) in
1996/7
> I wan't taught pre-landing checks.
>
> What I was trying to respond to was the suggestion that consciously
checking
> Lookout is useless because we should all lookout in any event - I think
this
> *is* a useful reminder, as it's helpful to recognise the change in lookout
> mode.
>
> I believe I have the current BGA position right (though I don't speak for
> the BGA in any way!) as follows: landing checklists are potentially
> problematic because on training aircraft some parts don't apply - thus,
e.g.
> learning to say "Undercarriage - fixed" can cement the idea in a student's
> mind that there is no need for action, so when moving to retractable
> undercarriage they don't lower it. Instead, instructors teach the
> appropriate elements which would form a checklist so that they become
> entrenched as part of the routine for landing rather than items to be
ticked
> off on a mental checklist. Water and Flaps carry the same penalty.
>
> (For what it's worth, I understand my wheels-up landing met all the common
> criteria - 10th flight on retractable, so I'm just becoming comfortable
with
> it and not consciously thinking about the differences from previous
> aircraft; high workload (trying to scratch away from a winch launch); and
> distractions (other aircraft in the circuit and the launch point in an
> unfamiliar place). Result - reversion to primary training which, of
course,
> was on fixed wheel aircraft).
>
> In terms of my own flying (whether with students or solo) the thought
> processes go roughly as follows:
>
> W - not considered, as I currently fly nothing which carries water
ballast.
>
> U - do I have retractable undercarriage, and if so is it down? This is a
> conscious element of my preparation for landing.
>
> F - as for W
>
> S - straps (though I always have to think, if someone asks me what
WUFSTALL
> means, whether this is not speed - thus in my mind it's a bad acronym
> because it's not unique, and different from HASSL for stall/spin
manoeuvres
> because even if you can't remember which S is straps, one of them has to
> be). I check these regularly throughout the flight, so this is an
entrenched
> item and not one requiring a conscious check
>
> T - as above, I trim for every airspeed change, so this is entrenched
> behaviour. I also don't like the way this substitutes for thinking about
my
> approach speed, as I could instead trim for my current speed. So my
> conscious thought here is "What approach speed", which requires me to
check
> wind direction (not in checks), wind shear/gradient (not in checks), need
> for a speed reserve if I might need to land long (aircraft fails to clear
> the runway, not in checks) etc. etc.
>
> A - airbrakes need checking if they might have frozen shut, but not
> otherwise so far as I can see. Not confusing the airbrake lever with some
> other lever is important, and I consciously check this if I'm flying an
> aircraft where I could make this mistake.
>
> LL - a conscious element because of the change of lookout mode.
>
> There's also a whole set of other matters to think about which aren't on
any
> standard checklist, such as should the audio vario be turned off to avoid
> distractions, is it appropriate to use my tailchute or not, would a radio
> call announcing my presence be helpful, pointless or downright unhelpful
(as
> recently when a gaggle of competition fliers all lucked out overhead at
the
> same time and arrived from multiple directions) and so on.
>
> It seems to me that the big question is whether pre-landing checks should
be
> taught or not. Some think yes, to deal with the pilot who isn't thinking
> properly about the landing. Some think no, because the pilot must be
taught
> to think, rather than follow a list.
>
> I was taught under the second philosophy, and I guess that's what became
> entrenched in my approach to the issue, though if the BGA decides to
> introduce teaching checklists for this, I'll learn and teach them.
>
> The pre-launch checks (whichever version you use) are different - you
> haven't started flying yet, and the brain needs to begin the switch-on
> process.
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Is this a troll?
> >
> > Personally I can't believe a UK basic instructor is saying this
publicly.
> > Are you still giving ab-initio lessons? Perhaps you should chant this,
or
> > something like WULFSTALL, in the circuit and think about what each item
is
> > and what the implications are if you don't do each one. You seem to
> already
> > know about one, but the others are so embarassing they can kill you.
> > Doubtless you do this appropriately during your annual club checks, but
> lack
> > of clarity of what each item reflects or the need is disturbing. Please
> > re-read your post, print a copy and hand carry it to your CFI at
> Rattlesden.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
> > Colorado
> >
> > "Chris Reed" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I quite like the "lookout" element of USTALL (though I don't actually
> > chant
> > > the checklist to myself on circuit). What I use it for is a reminder
> that,
> > > in addition to my normal lookout, I also need to pay attention to the
> > other
> > > side of the circuit, look for aircraft on long, straight in
approaches,
> > and
> > > look at what's happening on the ground. This is a different mode of
> > lookout
> > > to XC or local soaring, and I usually find myself muttering "lookout"
at
> > > some point to remind me of the change of mode.
> > >
> > > But I take the point - if the pilot doesn't lookout except in response
> to
> > a
> > > checklist, I'd like to be in a different part of the sky.
> > >
> > > S (straps or speed?) is pretty useless on downwind, T (trim) ditto,
and
> A
> > > (airbrakes I think) is wierd - if you can't find them you're in
trouble,
> > > though if I flew a flapped glider or had the UC lever on the same side
> as
> > > the airbrake (LS4s excepted) I'd add a mental note to check which
lever
> I
> > > intended to use for approach control.
> > >
> > > U is quite clear in my mind, having landed wheels up once already, and
> > > hoping not to do it again.
> > >
> > > "Ian Johnston" > wrote in
message
> > > news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-zikdWvOGpoiF@localhost...
> > > > You should see some of the downwind checklists/mnemonics in use in
the
> > > > UK. They include things like "trim" - for people who wouldn't
normally
> > > > think of using the trimmer, I presume - and, most bizarrely of all,
> > > > "lookout". I'm not sure that I want to share the sky with people who
> > > > need a mnemonic to remind them to look out...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

F.L. Whiteley

September 6th 04, 03:28 PM

All it proved was that he didn't practice what he preached. He admitted to
not having done the checks. He was responsible for at least three other
damage incidents to club aircraft and left instructing for other reasons,
but continued to fly on his own. He was not a thinking pilot.

Frank

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-GI8xdrNCsnVF@localhost...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 06:35:38 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
> : USTALL is brilliant, simply
> : because of the implication. You stall, you die. Should focus one's
> : thoughts. When it was in wide use, I watched one UK instructor leave
> : 3000UKP of glass and gel on the tarmac.
>
> Doesn't that prove that it doesn't work?
>
> Ian
> --
>

Bill Daniels

September 6th 04, 04:09 PM

I've been following this thread with mild interest. It seems to show up
that check lists, while useful, can be misused.

I try to make the distinction between "Check" lists and "Do" lists. If the
list is used as a reminder to do things, it is a "Do" list. This is using
the list as a memory crutch.

If a list is used to check that important things have already been done, it
is a "Check" list. I emphasize that the pre-takeoff and pre-landing tasks
should be done from memory and then checked against the list.

I think this is better in at least two ways. First, the list is done twice,
once from memory and once from the list. Second, in a rushed situation, the
critical tasks can be done from memory with a greater chance of success
since this is the established habit.

For example: BUFSTALL (In downwind)

Ballast: Dump started 7 minutes ago, valve in open position, water should be
gone by now.
Undercarriage: Visually check handle is securely in the down position where
I put it a minute ago.
Flaps: Visually check, securely in landing position where they have been
since pattern entry.
Speed: Still correct for wind and turbulence.
Trim: Still set.
Airbrakes: Visually check, left hand still on correct handle since testing.
Look: Surrounding airspace and landing area are still clear of conflicting
traffic - select aim point.
Landing: Mentally review, touchdown attitude, flaps to negative after
touchdown, stick back to make tailwheel heavy, brake smoothly.

Used in this manner, the BUFSTALL checklist can be done in just a few
seconds.

Bill Daniels

Ian Johnston

September 6th 04, 04:52 PM

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:25:01 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

: S-Speed, appropriate for conditions and glider. Never heard it used for
: straps.

I think the longest downwind checklist I have had recommeneded was
WWULFSSTALL:

Wind, Water, Undercarriage, L (can't remember what this was), Flaps,
Straps, Speed, Trim, Airbrake, Landing area, Lookout.

It required a 2000' entry to the circuit just to get the damn thing
completed.

Ian

--

ADP

September 6th 04, 05:20 PM

This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on this group.
It's a bit like arguing about how many aliens it takes to screw in
a light bulb.

You definitely should use a pre-takeoff check list. I can't imagine
anyone arguing about this.
The only relevant pre-landing item is "Gear down and locked".
Everything else should flow from a normal landing.
Use whatever spoilers you need. Keep the airspeed at or above
the yellow triangle. If you have flaps, use whatever you need.
How can you land without looking out? You don't need a
checklist for that. If you don't know what the wind is, you
ought not to be landing there. The landing pattern is no place to
be dumping ballast.

No stalling on turn to final allowed.

Good luck,

Allan

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:45%_c.386696$%_6.208174@attbi_s01...

>...SNIP...

> For example: BUFSTALL (In downwind)
>
> Ballast: Dump started 7 minutes ago, valve in open position, water should
> be
> gone by now.
> Undercarriage: Visually check handle is securely in the down position
> where
> I put it a minute ago.
> Flaps: Visually check, securely in landing position where they have been
> since pattern entry.
> Speed: Still correct for wind and turbulence.
> Trim: Still set.
> Airbrakes: Visually check, left hand still on correct handle since
> testing.
> Look: Surrounding airspace and landing area are still clear of conflicting
> traffic - select aim point.
> Landing: Mentally review, touchdown attitude, flaps to negative after
> touchdown, stick back to make tailwheel heavy, brake smoothly.
>
> Used in this manner, the BUFSTALL checklist can be done in just a few
> seconds.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Mark James Boyd

September 6th 04, 11:53 PM

Ian Johnston > wrote:

>circuit extras are Undercarriage (check only, should be down
>already), Speed, Airbrakes (in case frozen).

USA! I love it. U (because I've seen several gear-ups).

S (because it reminds one to turn early or late on
downwind, and compensate for headwind/look at the sock),
also, many landing accidents are undershoots.

A (less important, but worthy of a check to ensure you
don't have a flap handle (L-13), and that they actually
unlock)

>Everything else should
>have been done before or is plain bleeding obvious.

Yep, the rest could be further down the list...

>I had one instructor who
>used the F for "Fag (extinguish and chuck out of DV panel)"...

LOL! I had to read this one twice...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd

September 7th 04, 12:06 AM

Chris Reed > wrote:
>Frank,
>
>Not a troll. There's no BGA-mandated checklist for pre-landing checks, as
>far as I know (this kind of thing changes regularly), and in any event as a
>basic instructor I'm not permitted to let the student fly below 500 feet or
>to teach this stuff, so what I wrote was about my own flying practices.
>Certainly, in my pre-solo training (following the then BGA manual) in 1996/7
>I wan't taught pre-landing checks.

I love the BGA instructor levels. Good for you being a basic instructor!

>landing checklists are potentially
>problematic because on training aircraft some parts don't apply - thus, e.g.
>learning to say "Undercarriage - fixed" can cement the idea in a student's
>mind that there is no need for action, so when moving to retractable
>undercarriage they don't lower it.

We call this in the USA "negative transfer." And yep, having a bunch
of items ignored on a checklist is a bad way to introduce checklists.

>(For what it's worth, I understand my wheels-up landing met all the common
>criteria - 10th flight on retractable, so I'm just becoming comfortable with
>it and not consciously thinking about the differences from previous
>aircraft; high workload (trying to scratch away from a winch launch); and
>distractions (other aircraft in the circuit and the launch point in an
>unfamiliar place). Result - reversion to primary training which, of course,
>was on fixed wheel aircraft).

I flew a power plane yesterday where a yoke clip was blocking BOTH
pilot views of the gear indicator. Took that bugger off...

In gliders I use my wife's hair clip: to retract the gear, first take
the clip off the gear handle and put it on the spoiler handle.
Then raise gear. When pulling spoilers for landing, if the clip is
in the way, put the gear down and put it on the gear handle, then use
spoilers.

Not perfect (what if I'm getting sucked into a cloud?) but it's worked
so far...

But how many people have accidentally landed with ballast? And is
it common in gliders to have a limitation that one can only land without
ballast? Kinda makes a rope break interesting...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA