Glider crash near Reno yesterday [Archive]

Ron Gleason

September 4th 18, 01:14 AM

On Monday, 3 September 2018 17:04:24 UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Checking sailplane tracker, there are no gliders indicated that go missing yesterday in that area. Yesterday was obviously a strong soaring day with good altitudes based on the great flights out of Truckee and Minden. So it makes no sense that a cross country sailplane would have any reason to be on the face of Slide Mountain early in the day and especially not doing loops there as suggested by the witness on the news show. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Steve and others, I received this from the Soar Truckee Yahoo Groups 45 minutes ago. Tragic. If it is in appropriate I will remove but it was sent via a public group

Dear TTSA-Soar Truckee Pilots and Family

It is with deep sorrow that I confirm the passing of Sergio Colacevich and Jim Alton in the crash of Sergioâ€™s and Mike Mayoâ€™s Duo Discus yesterday. We have no details of the how or why, only the result, which took place Saturday September 2nd near the base of Slide Mountain in rugged terrain.

We are maintaining constant contact with Amy Colacevich and Millie Alton (who is at the glider port). We will provide updates as they become known.

Please keep both our dear friends in your hearts and prayers.

Richard Pearl
Vice President, TTSA

xcnick

September 4th 18, 01:20 AM

Thanks Ron, I live here and couldn't figure out what happened. Damn, so sorry.

Jonathan St. Cloud

September 4th 18, 04:17 AM

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Monday, 3 September 2018 17:04:24 UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Checking sailplane tracker, there are no gliders indicated that go missing yesterday in that area. Yesterday was obviously a strong soaring day with good altitudes based on the great flights out of Truckee and Minden. So it makes no sense that a cross country sailplane would have any reason to be on the face of Slide Mountain early in the day and especially not doing loops there as suggested by the witness on the news show. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
>
> Steve and others, I received this from the Soar Truckee Yahoo Groups 45 minutes ago. Tragic. If it is in appropriate I will remove but it was sent via a public group
>
> Dear TTSA-Soar Truckee Pilots and Family
>
>
> It is with deep sorrow that I confirm the passing of Sergio Colacevich and Jim Alton in the crash of Sergioâ€™s and Mike Mayoâ€™s Duo Discus yesterday. We have no details of the how or why, only the result, which took place Saturday September 2nd near the base of Slide Mountain in rugged terrain.
>
> We are maintaining constant contact with Amy Colacevich and Millie Alton (who is at the glider port). We will provide updates as they become known.
>
> Please keep both our dear friends in your hearts and prayers.
>
> Richard Pearl
> Vice President, TTSA

So very tragic. I am not sure what is going on but we have lost some very experienced pilots this year. I also lost one of the best pilots I have flown with a week ago when he, a CFI and another CFI were going out in a Citabria to practice spins. This is the worse year for experienced pilots I can remember. My soul hurts and I am confused, do I fly a 2-32 better than the owner of Stowe? Do I fly a 29 better than Sergio could fly a Dou?

Ramy[_2_]

September 4th 18, 08:59 PM

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Monday, 3 September 2018 17:04:24 UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Checking sailplane tracker, there are no gliders indicated that go missing yesterday in that area. Yesterday was obviously a strong soaring day with good altitudes based on the great flights out of Truckee and Minden. So it makes no sense that a cross country sailplane would have any reason to be on the face of Slide Mountain early in the day and especially not doing loops there as suggested by the witness on the news show. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
>
> Steve and others, I received this from the Soar Truckee Yahoo Groups 45 minutes ago. Tragic. If it is in appropriate I will remove but it was sent via a public group
>
> Dear TTSA-Soar Truckee Pilots and Family
>
>
> It is with deep sorrow that I confirm the passing of Sergio Colacevich and Jim Alton in the crash of Sergioâ€™s and Mike Mayoâ€™s Duo Discus yesterday. We have no details of the how or why, only the result, which took place Saturday September 2nd near the base of Slide Mountain in rugged terrain.
>
> We are maintaining constant contact with Amy Colacevich and Millie Alton (who is at the glider port). We will provide updates as they become known.
>
> Please keep both our dear friends in your hearts and prayers.
>
> Richard Pearl
> Vice President, TTSA

Many of us who knew Sergio and Jim are devastated. I lost 2 friend this weekend. We dont know much but we do know it was not due to aerobatics or engine restart as I've seen in the news.
They were last seen at 14K over Mount Rose few minutes before they were observed 5 miles east at around 9500 feet when the glider broke apart either due to flutter or high G. From Mt Rose they were suppose to go west to start the task as it was a local contest day. So we know they had no reason to dive 5 miles east and do acro. Neither of them was known to do acro, especially not low in the mountains and during a contest. What was observed by the witnesses is a glider out of control at its final stage before breaking up in the air which can certainly look like aerobatics. Similarly they had no reason to try an airstart high over the mountains. The flutter noise may have sounded like a motor.
That's all we know and I doubt we will ever know more as the fire consumed the glider.
My deep condolences to the families and all of us who will miss them.
This had been the worst year for glider accidents since I started flying 20 years ago.

Ramy

Andy Blackburn[_3_]

September 4th 18, 09:05 PM

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:59:11 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> > On Monday, 3 September 2018 17:04:24 UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > > Checking sailplane tracker, there are no gliders indicated that go missing yesterday in that area. Yesterday was obviously a strong soaring day with good altitudes based on the great flights out of Truckee and Minden. So it makes no sense that a cross country sailplane would have any reason to be on the face of Slide Mountain early in the day and especially not doing loops there as suggested by the witness on the news show. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
> >
> > Steve and others, I received this from the Soar Truckee Yahoo Groups 45 minutes ago. Tragic. If it is in appropriate I will remove but it was sent via a public group
> >
> > Dear TTSA-Soar Truckee Pilots and Family
> >
> >
> > It is with deep sorrow that I confirm the passing of Sergio Colacevich and Jim Alton in the crash of Sergioâ€™s and Mike Mayoâ€™s Duo Discus yesterday. We have no details of the how or why, only the result, which took place Saturday September 2nd near the base of Slide Mountain in rugged terrain.
> >
> > We are maintaining constant contact with Amy Colacevich and Millie Alton (who is at the glider port). We will provide updates as they become known..
> >
> > Please keep both our dear friends in your hearts and prayers.
> >
> > Richard Pearl
> > Vice President, TTSA
>
> Many of us who knew Sergio and Jim are devastated. I lost 2 friend this weekend. We dont know much but we do know it was not due to aerobatics or engine restart as I've seen in the news.
> They were last seen at 14K over Mount Rose few minutes before they were observed 5 miles east at around 9500 feet when the glider broke apart either due to flutter or high G. From Mt Rose they were suppose to go west to start the task as it was a local contest day. So we know they had no reason to dive 5 miles east and do acro. Neither of them was known to do acro, especially not low in the mountains and during a contest. What was observed by the witnesses is a glider out of control at its final stage before breaking up in the air which can certainly look like aerobatics. Similarly they had no reason to try an airstart high over the mountains. The flutter noise may have sounded like a motor.
> That's all we know and I doubt we will ever know more as the fire consumed the glider.
> My deep condolences to the families and all of us who will miss them.
> This had been the worst year for glider accidents since I started flying 20 years ago.
>
> Ramy

Thanks for some context Ramy.

I am profoundly sad to lose my friends like this. My deepest sympathies to all who knew and cared about them and particularly to their families.

Andy Blackburn
9B

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

September 4th 18, 10:44 PM

I can't say I knew either pilot.
Still, sad for their families and friends, so to that, my condolences.

[email protected]

September 4th 18, 10:47 PM

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:01:25 PM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> In general, how does a glider start a forest fire unless gas is onboard?
>
>
> Sad either way with a wrecked aircraft.
>
> Yep, the west is having a bad forestfire season......

Witnesses say the initial fire began prior to the plane breaking into 2 pieces, so it brought fire with it to the side of Slide Mountain. One of the people on board was my brother-in-law. Pray for peace within the remaining families. Way too Soon.

Darryl Ramm

September 4th 18, 10:51 PM

Ramy,

Thanks for correcting some of the unfortunate claims in local media by folks who saw the last part of the flight by glider and likely did not understand what they were seeing.

What a terrible loss, well known and loved folks in the regional glider community, we will all miss Sergio and Jim.

Darryl

Ramy[_2_]

September 4th 18, 11:02 PM

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:01:25 PM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> > In general, how does a glider start a forest fire unless gas is onboard?
> >
> >
> > Sad either way with a wrecked aircraft.
> >
> > Yep, the west is having a bad forestfire season......
>
> Witnesses say the initial fire began prior to the plane breaking into 2 pieces, so it brought fire with it to the side of Slide Mountain. One of the people on board was my brother-in-law. Pray for peace within the remaining families. Way too Soon.

If this turns out true this will be a key information. The witness I talked to (a paraglider pilot who was at the air the same time) did not see fire before impact. I didn't find reference to fire before impact in the news (only mention of explosion which could be the glider starting to break apart)..
My sincere condolences to you and your family.

Ramy

[email protected]

September 7th 18, 11:12 AM

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 3:02:05 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 12:01:25 PM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> > > In general, how does a glider start a forest fire unless gas is onboard?
> > >
> > >
> > > Sad either way with a wrecked aircraft.
> > >
> > > Yep, the west is having a bad forestfire season......
> >
> > Witnesses say the initial fire began prior to the plane breaking into 2 pieces, so it brought fire with it to the side of Slide Mountain. One of the people on board was my brother-in-law. Pray for peace within the remaining families. Way too Soon.
>
> If this turns out true this will be a key information. The witness I talked to (a paraglider pilot who was at the air the same time) did not see fire before impact. I didn't find reference to fire before impact in the news (only mention of explosion which could be the glider starting to break apart).
> My sincere condolences to you and your family.
>
> Ramy

The fire began about 10 to 15 seconds after the fuselage hit the ground. It did not start in the air.

Ramy[_2_]

September 7th 18, 05:39 PM

Thanks. This is consistent with other eye witnesses.

Ramy

Ramy[_2_]

September 27th 18, 04:12 AM

NTSB preliminary report:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180902X31909&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

Ramy

JS[_5_]

September 27th 18, 06:33 AM

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> NTSB preliminary report:
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180902X31909&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA
>
> Ramy

It's still distressing.
Can't imagine Sergio doing intentional loops.
Paraglider pilots might call something a loop though it looks to you or I like a roll or something else. Two seconds?
But if the fuselage was in the foreground of the NTSB photo we'll never learn more.
Jim

John Cochrane[_3_]

September 27th 18, 04:45 PM

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:12:39 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> NTSB preliminary report:
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180902X31909&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA
>
> Ramy

This is actually quite helpful. "Loops" means up and down, not spiral dive, and paraglider pilots know the difference. Nobody does multiple loops to the point of structural failure intentionally or unintentionally. That pretty much screams elevator control failure, and somehow getting stuck in a rearwards position. It also explains why the pilots might not have been able to bail out. Yes, I'm speculating, but that's likely all we'll get.

John Cochrane

Tango Whisky

September 27th 18, 05:28 PM

> This is actually quite helpful. "Loops" means up and down, not spiral dive, and paraglider pilots know the difference. Nobody does multiple loops to the point of structural failure intentionally or unintentionally. That pretty much screams elevator control failure, and somehow getting stuck in a rearwards position. It also explains why the pilots might not have been able to bail out. Yes, I'm speculating, but that's likely all we'll get.
>
> John Cochrane

I agree. Ripping off the wings in a loop means going up to close to 10 g (5..6 g on the flight envelope, plus a demonstrated security factor of 1.75). Going close to that limit can't be done repeatedly without blacking out (I regularily do aerobatics with sailplanes between -3.5 and 6 g), so this can't have happened intentionally or unintentionally.

Bert TW

Jonathan St. Cloud

September 27th 18, 05:36 PM

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:45:16 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 10:12:39 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
> > NTSB preliminary report:
> > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180902X31909&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA
> >
> > Ramy
>
> This is actually quite helpful. "Loops" means up and down, not spiral dive, and paraglider pilots know the difference. Nobody does multiple loops to the point of structural failure intentionally or unintentionally. That pretty much screams elevator control failure, and somehow getting stuck in a rearwards position. It also explains why the pilots might not have been able to bail out. Yes, I'm speculating, but that's likely all we'll get.
>
> John Cochrane

If I was purchasing a new glider today, I would be getting it with a NOAH system installed.
As for the accident....I still don't have any words, I just can't believe it, just...

krasw

September 27th 18, 06:53 PM

On Thursday, 27 September 2018 19:28:44 UTC+3, Tango Whisky wrote:
> > This is actually quite helpful. "Loops" means up and down, not spiral dive, and paraglider pilots know the difference. Nobody does multiple loops to the point of structural failure intentionally or unintentionally. That pretty much screams elevator control failure, and somehow getting stuck in a rearwards position. It also explains why the pilots might not have been able to bail out. Yes, I'm speculating, but that's likely all we'll get.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> I agree. Ripping off the wings in a loop means going up to close to 10 g (5.6 g on the flight envelope, plus a demonstrated security factor of 1.75).. Going close to that limit can't be done repeatedly without blacking out (I regularily do aerobatics with sailplanes between -3.5 and 6 g), so this can't have happened intentionally or unintentionally.
>
> Bert TW

What if wing was weaker than intended (ref. DuoDiscus wing spar AD years back)? Ripping of wings is impossible at max. rough air speed or less as wing stalls before it breaks but I think is possible at higher speed.

Bruce Hoult

September 27th 18, 07:22 PM

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> NTSB preliminary report:
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180902X31909&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

2 to 3 seconds per loop? G'eeeees!!!

a = v^2/r so r = v^2/a. Based on a 40 knot stall speed, a glider would pull 9G before stalling at about 120 knots, 60 m/s. 9G is 88.2 m/s^2. So loop radius about 41m, circumference 256m, time for a loop 256/88.2 = 2.9 seconds. All neglecting gravity and speed increases and decreases.

Repeating for 10G gives 126 knots, 65 m/s, 43m radius, 4.16 seconds per loop.
Repeating for 8G gives 113 knots, 58 m/s, 43m radius, 4.7 seconds per loop.

Seems the paragliders' reports are plausible if they lost elevator control at a highish but nowhere hear Vne speed.

Ouch.

[email protected]

September 27th 18, 08:01 PM

I agree that this appears to be an elevator failure. What pieces of the wreckage were retrieved? Was the horizontal stabilizer/elevator retrieved? Was the elevator bolt located (ripped out of the elevator, found in a side pocket, found in the trailer, etc). I have the ability to fly my Phoenix low level over the site on a suitable light east wind day and do a close search for the horizontal stab if it is missing. Finding the stab may be the key to solving this tragedy.

Jonathon May

September 27th 18, 10:53 PM

At 19:01 27 September 2018, wrote:
>I agree that this appears to be an elevator failure. What pieces of
the
>wr=
>eckage were retrieved? Was the horizontal stabilizer/elevator
retrieved?
>=
>Was the elevator bolt located (ripped out of the elevator, found in
a side
>=
>pocket, found in the trailer, etc). I have the ability to fly my
Phoenix
>l=
>ow level over the site on a suitable light east wind day and do a
close
>sea=
>rch for the horizontal stab if it is missing. Finding the stab may be
the
>=
>key to solving this tragedy.
>
\
I once saw a glider loose its horizontal stabiliser (hit just below at
the top of the T tail).
The glider bunted ,ie negative nose down ,that would throw you
out.
to do inside loops the stick would have to be hard back but I didn't
think the duo had sufficient elevator authority to loop in 3 seconds.

If the front drag pin failed and changed the angle of attack of the
main wing it might, but why would it.
Saddend and baffled .

waremark

September 27th 18, 11:48 PM

The Duo stab is held on by a sprung bolt which is retained in the fin. Care can be needed to ensure the bolt is fully engaged when rigging but the bolt could not be left out. Anyway, as already said what the paragliders reported is not consistent with a lost stab.

As an Arcus owner I am disturbed by this tragedy which may involve a back end control problem on an S-H 2 seater coming sÃ²on after the loss of Dave Nadler's Arcus. I hope for more information about the Arcus accident in due course.

Bob Kuykendall

September 28th 18, 02:04 AM

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:53:23 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> What if wing was weaker than intended...

The NTSB preliminary report makes it clear that very high load factors were applied to the wings. One witness reported the wingtips at or near vertical, another reported the wingtips almost touching. Even allowing for some exaggeration, it appears that the wings supported loads well above limit or even ultimate load rating.

I agree that this is a very distressing accident. The facts in evidence suggest some sort of pitch control malfunction. But of course there is no proof one way or the other, and the post-accident fire has likely erased the evidence. Though perhaps the cause will be revealed by interference signatures on metal parts.

--Bob K.

James Betker

September 28th 18, 04:58 AM

I've got a question - let's assume that the speculation going on here is right and that the elevator control was locked in a full nose-high station - what is the optimal thing to do if you are ever faced with this? Am I right in assuming that it is to bail as quickly as possible before you start building G-loads which would make bailing impossible? If you somehow got yourself into a scenario where you were endlessly looping the glider, would deploying full airbrakes bleed enough energy to stop the looping (and maybe induce a spin instead)?

This is certainly a nightmare scenario. My condolences go out to the friends and family of the departed.

September 28th 18, 06:13 AM

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-7, James Betker wrote:
> I've got a question - let's assume that the speculation going on here is right and that the elevator control was locked in a full nose-high station - what is the optimal thing to do if you are ever faced with this? Am I right in assuming that it is to bail as quickly as possible before you start building G-loads which would make bailing impossible? If you somehow got yourself into a scenario where you were endlessly looping the glider, would deploying full airbrakes bleed enough energy to stop the looping (and maybe induce a spin instead)?
>
> This is certainly a nightmare scenario. My condolences go out to the friends and family of the departed.

If you are being subjected to 10 g's it would be very difficult to raise your arm to pull the handle - your 10 lb arm suddenly becomes 100 lb.

Tom

Jonathon May

September 28th 18, 07:34 AM

At 05:13 28 September 2018, 2G wrote:
>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-7, James
Betker wrote:
>> I've got a question - let's assume that the speculation going on
here is
>=
>right and that the elevator control was locked in a full nose-high
station
>=
>- what is the optimal thing to do if you are ever faced with this?
Am I
>rig=
>ht in assuming that it is to bail as quickly as possible before you
start
>b=
>uilding G-loads which would make bailing impossible? If you
somehow got
>you=
>rself into a scenario where you were endlessly looping the glider,
would
>de=
>ploying full airbrakes bleed enough energy to stop the looping
(and maybe
>i=
>nduce a spin instead)?
>>=20
>> This is certainly a nightmare scenario. My condolences go out to
the
>frie=
>nds and family of the departed.
>
>If you are being subjected to 10 g's it would be very difficult to
raise
>yo=
>ur arm to pull the handle - your 10 lb arm suddenly becomes 100
lb.
>
>Tom
>

I am posting this for a second time but you should all watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvOKZ1CC8NoSro7U5LkED-Q

It answers some of the questions but not why the Duo failed.

[email protected]

September 28th 18, 09:05 AM

Years ago my brother was involved in a midair collision in his ventus. The other glider ran into his elevator jamming it into a full up position. The ship took him for a series of high speed loops with him attempting to eject. The G load prevented the canopy from seperating, my bro was able to get his feet free to kick out the canopy and get over the side. Speaking with him after the fact, he said if he had to do it again, he would have tried to aileron roll so the G load would have ejected him instead of pinning him in the cockpit.

Tango Whisky

September 28th 18, 11:47 AM

Le vendredi 28 septembre 2018 10:05:31 UTC+2, a Ã©critÂ*:
> Years ago my brother was involved in a midair collision in his ventus. The other glider ran into his elevator jamming it into a full up position. The ship took him for a series of high speed loops with him attempting to eject. The G load prevented the canopy from seperating, my bro was able to get his feet free to kick out the canopy and get over the side. Speaking with him after the fact, he said if he had to do it again, he would have tried to aileron roll so the G load would have ejected him instead of pinning him in the cockpit.

If the glider is looping, you can't decrease the g-loads without the use of the elevator. Putting aileron will just transform it into a barrel row. G-loads are the same, but the wings will break earlier.

Michael Opitz

September 28th 18, 02:09 PM

At 10:47 28 September 2018, Tango Whisky wrote:
>Le vendredi 28 septembre 2018 10:05:31 UTC+2,
a
>=C3=A9c=
>rit=C2=A0:
>> Years ago my brother was involved in a midair collision in his
ventus.
>T=
>he other glider ran into his elevator jamming it into a full up
position.
>T=
>he ship took him for a series of high speed loops with him
attempting to
>ej=
>ect. The G load prevented the canopy from seperating, my bro was
able to
>ge=
>t his feet free to kick out the canopy and get over the side.
Speaking
>with=
> him after the fact, he said if he had to do it again, he would have
tried
>=
>to aileron roll so the G load would have ejected him instead of
pinning
>him=
> in the cockpit.
>
>If the glider is looping, you can't decrease the g-loads without the
use
>of=
> the elevator. Putting aileron will just transform it into a barrel row.
>G-=
>loads are the same, but the wings will break earlier.
>

What am I missing here? Why can't the glider be maneuvered into
something like a constant 80 degree bank turn? Then pull out the
dive brakes to slow it down and reduce G available? As the speed
bleeds off, reduce bank angle to let the nose float up and slow down
more. Then, jump out before the thing stalls and starts spinning.
Get the vertical gravity vector out of the picture so that the speeds
don't accelerate like they might on the back side of a loop. 10 G's?
For how long? I pulled 9+ G's on many occasions in the F-16, and to
sustain it for any length of time required full afterburner which a
DUO doesn't have.
RO

September 28th 18, 03:42 PM

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:15:05 AM UTC-4, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 10:47 28 September 2018, Tango Whisky wrote:
> >Le vendredi 28 septembre 2018 10:05:31 UTC+2,
> a
> >=C3=A9c=
> >rit=C2=A0:
> >> Years ago my brother was involved in a midair collision in his
> ventus.
> >T=
> >he other glider ran into his elevator jamming it into a full up
> position.
> >T=
> >he ship took him for a series of high speed loops with him
> attempting to
> >ej=
> >ect. The G load prevented the canopy from seperating, my bro was
> able to
> >ge=
> >t his feet free to kick out the canopy and get over the side.
> Speaking
> >with=
> > him after the fact, he said if he had to do it again, he would have
> tried
> >=
> >to aileron roll so the G load would have ejected him instead of
> pinning
> >him=
> > in the cockpit.
> >
> >If the glider is looping, you can't decrease the g-loads without the
> use
> >of=
> > the elevator. Putting aileron will just transform it into a barrel row.
> >G-=
> >loads are the same, but the wings will break earlier.
> >
>
> What am I missing here? Why can't the glider be maneuvered into
> something like a constant 80 degree bank turn? Then pull out the
> dive brakes to slow it down and reduce G available? As the speed
> bleeds off, reduce bank angle to let the nose float up and slow down
> more. Then, jump out before the thing stalls and starts spinning.
> Get the vertical gravity vector out of the picture so that the speeds
> don't accelerate like they might on the back side of a loop. 10 G's?
> For how long? I pulled 9+ G's on many occasions in the F-16, and to
> sustain it for any length of time required full afterburner which a
> DUO doesn't have.
> RO

I hear you, Mike and I think your and the other suggestions are all good and valid but hardly any of the folks in the glider community have flown a F16 or similar hardware or are trained for these type of high g-maneuvers. I didn't know either of the crew but would assume they were at an advanced age, i.e. not the fittest and strongest to work their way out of the seat under that high g-load.
Then there is the 'oh-crap - now what' delay since whatever happened was way out of the ordinary and the correct - or any reaction - does take time to formulate and execute. If the g-load built quickly, the seating position in a Duo will not allow one to remain conscious for long and we typically don't wear anti-g flight suits to combat the effects.
Remember the Reno Air Race accidents a few years back, where a P51 got pulverized on the apron? Pictures showed the pilot slumped over unconscious and he was used to higher loads encountered in these races.
One can only hope that the Duo-crew was 'out of it' when they hit the ground. R.I.P!

Uli
'AS'

Tango Whisky

September 28th 18, 04:16 PM

Le vendredi 28 septembre 2018 15:15:05 UTC+2, Michael Opitz a Ã©critÂ*:
> What am I missing here? Why can't the glider be maneuvered into
> something like a constant 80 degree bank turn? Then pull out the
> dive brakes to slow it down and reduce G available? As the speed
> bleeds off, reduce bank angle to let the nose float up and slow down
> more. Then, jump out before the thing stalls and starts spinning.
> Get the vertical gravity vector out of the picture so that the speeds
> don't accelerate like they might on the back side of a loop. 10 G's?
> For how long? I pulled 9+ G's on many occasions in the F-16, and to
> sustain it for any length of time required full afterburner which a
> DUO doesn't have.
> RO

Michael, you are probably right that on the top of the loop, you may try to use aileron and rudder to shift the loop into an high-bank turn. This turn would still have a high g-load, and opening the airbrakes at 80 deg bank would still put the wings beyond ultimate stress load (which is 40% lower than with airbrakes closed).
But then - you'd have to perform this manoeuver a second after you have blacked out at the lower part of the loop. During my early aerobatic training I once blacked out (with the instructor in the back seat) 45 deg nose up because I had relaxed my respiration to early, and it took me a couple of seconds to come around and understand what's happening - during this time, the glider had proceeded through the loop to 20 deg nose down (and it wasn't intended to be a loop).
So if the description of the eye whitnesses is correct, I think that the situation was not survivable, and I join Uli in his wish that by then, the crew was out of it.

Still frightening that such a situation might develop out of the blue.

Bert TW

Dan Marotta

September 28th 18, 04:45 PM

Unfortunately positive G is positive whether you're upside down or right
side up.Â* In the inverted position you'll have the benefit of the
earth's gravity subtracting 1 G from the total, but getting over the
cockpit rail from the semi reclined position in the cockpit will still
be very difficult.Â* On the positive side, at the top of the loop, the G
loading will be significantly less due to the reduced airspeed resulting
from the climb.Â* In the actual situation I don't know if one would
recognize this and plan his bail out at the top of the loop.Â* Most
glider pilots have no experience with aerobatics or high G situations...

On 9/28/2018 2:05 AM, wrote:
> Years ago my brother was involved in a midair collision in his ventus. The other glider ran into his elevator jamming it into a full up position. The ship took him for a series of high speed loops with him attempting to eject. The G load prevented the canopy from seperating, my bro was able to get his feet free to kick out the canopy and get over the side. Speaking with him after the fact, he said if he had to do it again, he would have tried to aileron roll so the G load would have ejected him instead of pinning him in the cockpit.

--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

September 28th 18, 05:03 PM

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 12:01:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I agree that this appears to be an elevator failure. What pieces of the wreckage were retrieved? Was the horizontal stabilizer/elevator retrieved? Was the elevator bolt located (ripped out of the elevator, found in a side pocket, found in the trailer, etc). I have the ability to fly my Phoenix low level over the site on a suitable light east wind day and do a close search for the horizontal stab if it is missing. Finding the stab may be the key to solving this tragedy.

Maybe a tool left under the seat, which eventually jammed the elevator? A close inspection of the burned out wreckage may reveal any unusual metal tool.

Dan Marotta

September 28th 18, 05:06 PM

Thinking through this further and again, one would have to have this
planned out in advance...Â* At the top of the loop, the airspeed will be
considerably lower than at the bottom.Â* So, at the top, one could
perform a half roll (an Immelmann turn), and, since the glider would now
be upright at lower airspeed, it would begin a climb but would stall
near or before reaching vertical.Â* This would result in near zero G and
would be an ideal time to bail out.Â* It might even result in negative G
which would make all the easier.

The half roll could even be done past the top of the loop (half Cuban
Eight).Â* Again, the glider would start to climb but would not have the
energy yet to complete a loop, making bail out rather easy.Â* BUT...Â*
being unprepared for the first high G maneuver, the pilot(s) could
simply be unconsious...

I hope I never get the chance to prove this right or wrong.

On 9/28/2018 9:16 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Le vendredi 28 septembre 2018 15:15:05 UTC+2, Michael Opitz a Ã©critÂ*:
>> What am I missing here? Why can't the glider be maneuvered into
>> something like a constant 80 degree bank turn? Then pull out the
>> dive brakes to slow it down and reduce G available? As the speed
>> bleeds off, reduce bank angle to let the nose float up and slow down
>> more. Then, jump out before the thing stalls and starts spinning.
>> Get the vertical gravity vector out of the picture so that the speeds
>> don't accelerate like they might on the back side of a loop. 10 G's?
>> For how long? I pulled 9+ G's on many occasions in the F-16, and to
>> sustain it for any length of time required full afterburner which a
>> DUO doesn't have.
>> RO
> Michael, you are probably right that on the top of the loop, you may try to use aileron and rudder to shift the loop into an high-bank turn. This turn would still have a high g-load, and opening the airbrakes at 80 deg bank would still put the wings beyond ultimate stress load (which is 40% lower than with airbrakes closed).
> But then - you'd have to perform this manoeuver a second after you have blacked out at the lower part of the loop. During my early aerobatic training I once blacked out (with the instructor in the back seat) 45 deg nose up because I had relaxed my respiration to early, and it took me a couple of seconds to come around and understand what's happening - during this time, the glider had proceeded through the loop to 20 deg nose down (and it wasn't intended to be a loop).
> So if the description of the eye whitnesses is correct, I think that the situation was not survivable, and I join Uli in his wish that by then, the crew was out of it.
>
> Still frightening that such a situation might develop out of the blue.
>
> Bert TW
>

--
Dan, 5J

Tango Whisky

September 28th 18, 05:41 PM

On an ASK 21, a half roll takes 6 seconds, and I wouldn't expect a Duo to roll any faster.

Bob Kuykendall

September 28th 18, 05:50 PM

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:03:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> What pieces of the wreckage were retrieved?...

The NTSB preliminary report contains a picture of the wreckage. Its condition makes clear that only the metal parts, and only some of those, will provide any meaningful clues.

> Maybe a tool left under the seat, which eventually jammed the elevator?

Could be that. Given the facts of the last known location and direction of the glider, and the fact that it had enough kinetic energy to perform the maneuvers described, my speculation would be towards a progressive elevator system interference that first made it difficult to reduce speed (hence enough airspeed to perform two successive loops), and after it was overcome, then locked the elevator in the full nose up deflection.

My thinking, and this is raw speculation based on only a few facts available on the surface, is this: Sergio and Jim might have started experiencing elevator control interference while loitering near Mt. Rose for the start of the task. So they headed for Carson City across the Washoe valley where they would have many more opportunities for landing than in the rough and densely timbered environment around Truckee. At some point the interference got so bad that the speed could not be reduced, and the glider accelerated. At that point, a strong pull to the stick overcame the resistance, and the stick went immediately to the aft stop. Then whatever caused the initial interference locked the stick in that position.

Again, this is pure speculation with little or no intrinsic value. However, it invites the question: What would I do in that situation? How long is it prudent to troubleshoot and explore limits?

> A close inspection of the burned out wreckage may reveal any unusual metal tool.

That is as I am hoping. This is a very disquieting accident, and I hope that the NTSB and interested parties arrive at a clear probable cause.

--Bob K.

Dan Marotta

September 28th 18, 10:08 PM

What's your point?Â* During that time, the G loading would not be nearly
as high as at the bottom of the loop.Â* A quarter roll, then, would take
about 3 seconds, not a big deal.Â* I'm betting they were unconscious or
highly disoriented/disabled after the initial maneuver.

On 9/28/2018 10:41 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> On an ASK 21, a half roll takes 6 seconds, and I wouldn't expect a Duo to roll any faster.

--
Dan, 5J

[email protected]

September 29th 18, 01:02 AM

In my brothers situation it was at the top of the second loop that he was able to get enough of the canopy kicked out to crawl over the side. His bailout was at about 700 ft agl, his chute bairly opened in time to arrest his decent. He ended up with facial lacerations and a busted ankle. The ventus performed two more loops without him aboard and dang near landed itself about 400 ft from where my brother landed. A busted canopy, busted elevator and tail boom is all that was damaged. That bird was flying again in about 6 weeks.

Andreas Maurer

September 29th 18, 03:36 AM

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 09:03:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 12:01:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> I agree that this appears to be an elevator failure. What pieces of the wreckage were retrieved? Was the horizontal stabilizer/elevator retrieved? Was the elevator bolt located (ripped out of the elevator, found in a side pocket, found in the trailer, etc). I have the ability to fly my Phoenix low level over the site on a suitable light east wind day and do a close search for the horizontal stab if it is missing. Finding the stab may be the key to solving this tragedy.
>
>
>Maybe a tool left under the seat, which eventually jammed the elevator? A close inspection of the burned out wreckage may reveal any unusual metal tool.

This year a friend of mine had an incident in an old Duo Discus (not
one with the XL fuselage):

They had been missing sime tool (afaik the tool to assemble the
horizontal tail) for weeks and were unable to find it.

I'm not sure anymore about the details, but they found the tool close
to the forward stick mechanism after they had disassembled the forward
seat pan, and my friend said that anyone had agreed that it could have
easily jammed the stick. It was impossible to find it during the
preflight check.

If someone is interested in the details I could call my friend and
post them here.

I'd be very surprised if something else than a blocked stick by FOD
was the cause for this accident.

Cheers from Germany
Andreas

jfitch

September 29th 18, 05:04 AM

On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-7, bumper wrote:
> Another tragic accident yesterday near Slide Mountain. Responders haven't reached the crash site as of this morning due to fire. There are conflicting reports from witnesses and unconfirmed info. Here's a link to the KOLO TV News report:
>
> http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/Plane-crash-above-Bowers-Mansion-sparks-fire-492294501.html?ref=hvper.com

These were both good friends of mine and I do not with to add to the speculation (and I was not there that specific weekend), but regarding assembly, this Duo was commonly assembled at the beginning of the season and left assembled and covered throughout the season. It is my belief that it was assembled in late May or early June and left that way until the incident. It is possible that some disassembly was done for maintenance or whatever from time to time. According to the people there, the Duo was flown the day before without incident, and was not disassembled overnight. This does not eliminate assembly error entirely, but makes it seemly less likely.

Mike the Strike

September 29th 18, 08:30 AM

I donâ€™t know about the duo, but the standard Discus 2 elevator has a push rod that exits the front fuselage at the left side where it passes through a bulkhead. I experienced partial elevator jamming in level flight in rough air and it was finally found (by Fidel in Moriarty) as a lost antenna (a small telescopic one with a BNC connector). The push rod can be jammed there by relatively small loose objects.

Having said that, I wonder if there would be enough elevator authority to initiate the reported loops?

Mike

[email protected]

September 29th 18, 12:49 PM

On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 04:09:46 UTC+10, bumper wrote:
> Another tragic accident yesterday near Slide Mountain. Responders haven't reached the crash site as of this morning due to fire. There are conflicting reports from witnesses and unconfirmed info. Here's a link to the KOLO TV News report:
>
> http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/Plane-crash-above-Bowers-Mansion-sparks-fire-492294501.html?ref=hvper.com

Since they were, for a long time, well over the height where supplementary oxygen is needed, there is a very real possibility that they both blacked out. This would explain everything. No one at the wheel.

jfitch

September 29th 18, 04:07 PM

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:49:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 04:09:46 UTC+10, bumper wrote:
> > Another tragic accident yesterday near Slide Mountain. Responders haven't reached the crash site as of this morning due to fire. There are conflicting reports from witnesses and unconfirmed info. Here's a link to the KOLO TV News report:
> >
> > http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/Plane-crash-above-Bowers-Mansion-sparks-fire-492294501.html?ref=hvper.com
>
> Since they were, for a long time, well over the height where supplementary oxygen is needed, there is a very real possibility that they both blacked out. This would explain everything. No one at the wheel.

I very much doubt that. XC had MH oxygen equipment which warns of faults including not breathing. Both were experienced mountain pilots who flew almost exclusively there. One was quite fit, and being at 14,500 ft as reported, even for days, would not be incapacitating without oxygen for him.

Bojack J4

September 30th 18, 02:31 AM

A foreign object blocking/jamming a control as a cause in ALL these accidents seems highly unlikely to me.

Mike C

September 30th 18, 04:45 AM

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:31:20 PM UTC-6, Bojack J4 wrote:
> A foreign object blocking/jamming a control as a cause in ALL these accidents seems highly unlikely to me.

Count the number of lamination's in the tail boom, on these long wing sailplanes, against the factory's layup schedule. Check Renny's V3 as well.

Something seems amiss.

Mike

David Salmon[_3_]

September 30th 18, 09:31 AM

At 03:45 30 September 2018, Mike C wrote:
>On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:31:20 PM UTC-6, Bojack J4 wrote:
>> A foreign object blocking/jamming a control as a cause in ALL these
>accidents seems highly unlikely to me.
>
>Count the number of lamination's in the tail boom, on these long wing
>sailplanes, against the factory's layup schedule. Check Renny's V3 as
well.
>
>
>Something seems amiss.
>
>Mike
>
Mention of foreign objects, I had one a few months ago. During annual
inspection a hard plastic square tube end bung was found in the wheel box
area of my Discus bT. No one had any idea where it was from, until it was
identified as coming from my one man rigger. It must have entered through
the fuselage side, where the wings attach, during rigging or de-rigging.
It was totally out of sight during normal pre-flight inspection, and I had
not noticed it missing from the OMR.
Even if it had been seen to be missing, the last place it would be expected
to be was inside the glider, rather than lost in the grass somewhere. I
informed the manufacturer, and mine are now glued in, no longer relying on
the tight fit.
I have no idea how long it had been there, or whether it could have jammed
anything if it got in the wrong place, they are certainly rigid enough.
Dave

krasw

October 1st 18, 08:42 AM

After almost all accidents pilots start to speculate about technical issues, weather, turbulence etc. as a main reason for accident. Statistics show that glider accidents cause by technical reasons are extremely rare, which is logical as glider has basically less moving parts that modern bicycle and reinforced plastic structure is pretty foolproof. Heartbreakingly most accidents are caused by various reasons categorized as pilot error.

[email protected]

October 1st 18, 02:12 PM

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 12:42:15 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> After almost all accidents pilots start to speculate about technical issues, weather, turbulence etc. as a main reason for accident. Statistics show that glider accidents cause by technical reasons are extremely rare, which is logical as glider has basically less moving parts that modern bicycle and reinforced plastic structure is pretty foolproof. Heartbreakingly most accidents are caused by various reasons categorized as pilot error.

Loose objects don't necessarily need to be under the seat. Loose objects in the cockpit can also obstruct the control stick. If the loose object caused a stick jam in the cockpit of the non-flying pilot, it would not be seen by the flying pilot, and the non-flying pilot may not understand that the stick has been jammed.

Ramy[_2_]

October 1st 18, 07:14 PM

I believe many accidents are caused by technical issues, weather and turbulent. As well as pilot errors.
We can completely rule out weather and turbulent in this case.
Jammed stick is high probability in this accident in my opinion. It also explaines the delay in decision to bail out while trying to unjam the stick. You can find on RAS many stories on jammed controls from one reason or another. We only know about those which the pilot survived to tell.

Ramy

Dave White[_2_]

October 1st 18, 10:03 PM

Having participated in a NTSB investigation I doubt anything is ruled out. Generally eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable evidence and a chain of events will usually be uncovered. With that said Iâ€™m curious about the event possibly being on video. Lots of tourists in that area with gopros and camera phones and several webcams around Mt. Rose.

Ramy[_2_]

October 2nd 18, 04:16 AM

We analyzed the Mt Rose webcam archive and have footage of derbies falling from the sky at the time of the accident. The camera did not capture the actual breakup which happened above the frame and the resolution is insufficient to recognize the debris. Probably the fuseledge or wing.

Ramy

Dan Daly[_2_]

October 2nd 18, 12:04 PM

Retitled from "yesterday" to make future searches easier.

bumper[_4_]

October 2nd 18, 04:02 PM

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:04:09 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> Retitled from "yesterday" to make future searches easier.

Dan, Thanks for doing that. I realized how dumb the original title was, but couldn't figure out how to edit it.

bumper

BG[_4_]

October 2nd 18, 04:25 PM

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:04:09 AM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
> Retitled from "yesterday" to make future searches easier.

Unfortunately, medical issues in the cockpit can jam the controls. This happened to a friend of mine when a walk up passenger had a epileptic seizure on tow. The passenger pulled hard back on the stick in a Blanik. It resulted in vertical climb, broke the rope and then impacted the ground killing the passenger in the front seat and severely injuring my friend in the back seat. This happened at El Tiro in the late 80's while I was there. A medical issue can explain several things. Times of control and times of chaos, not bailing out because he is your friend and you are trying to save his life. The high G maneuver at the end certainly caused them to blackout. Remember, the whole thing started at 14,500 when they started heading east away from the direction the contest start line over Truckee. All this we have good records of their flight trace via the PFlarm data from takeoff to heading east over Rose after thermalling with another glider. Then things got crazy as they lost over 4000 ft in 2 minutes and a I witnesses saw them at around 10k doing these crazy maneuvers out of control. This timeline is important to understanding what happened. IF any of this is true, then this brings up the subject of anyone flying with a safety pilot with a known problem. Flying in a two place plane has never been more complicated in my mind. I have and have not flown with people with known medical problems by my choice. Going forward it will never happen again nor will I ever consider asking someone to be that safety pilot.

We might never know what really happened, but all the time and effort to try and understand is a healthy exercise for our community. Imagine if nothing was being said, that would add to this already tragic event.

[email protected]

October 2nd 18, 05:47 PM

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:04:09 AM UTC-4, Dan Daly wrote:
> Retitled from "yesterday" to make future searches easier.

Alas that does not change the thread title if reading RAS via the Google Groups web page.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/rec.aviation.soaring

son_of_flubber

October 3rd 18, 03:29 PM

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:04:09 AM UTC-4, Dan Daly wrote:
> Retitled from "yesterday" to make future searches easier.

A standard date format would work better if you want to facilitate search. For example 9/2/2018

[email protected]

October 3rd 18, 04:09 PM

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 7:04:09 AM UTC-4, Dan Daly wrote:
> > Retitled from "yesterday" to make future searches easier.
>
> A standard date format would work better if you want to facilitate search. For example 9/2/2018

The nice thing about standards is that you have so many of them to choose from. :-)

Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)

October 3rd 18, 04:30 PM

True, many places out of the US use a different format for date (my wife programs for databases worldwide, I get to hear that often.....).
Just like RS-232, there are many standards.

As to mandates, I have ridden motorcycles for 40+ years, I hate mandatory helmet laws, but unless putt-putting in the driveway, I always wear a helmet.

Guess some of this falls under "anti authority" which is a knock in the training that is covered being a CFI of any type.

Dan Marotta

October 3rd 18, 04:54 PM

I am not anti authority, just pro freedom.Â* It's about our Constitution
which all good US citizens should be conversant with. Oh, yeah, I live
in a "no helmet law" state, but I still wear a helmet when I ride.Â* And
I don't have a camera mounted on my helmet, either.

On 10/3/2018 9:30 AM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> True, many places out of the US use a different format for date (my wife programs for databases worldwide, I get to hear that often.....).
> Just like RS-232, there are many standards.
>
> As to mandates, I have ridden motorcycles for 40+ years, I hate mandatory helmet laws, but unless putt-putting in the driveway, I always wear a helmet.
>
> Guess some of this falls under "anti authority" which is a knock in the training that is covered being a CFI of any type.

--
Dan, 5J