Too many accidents

[[email protected]]

I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.

I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.

Greig

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.
>
> I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.
>
> Greig

Unfortunately, accidents have always been part of the sport. We have more slippery gliders, fly at higher wing loadings, and deal with more stresses of everyday life than any of the previous generations.
I narrowly avoided similar faith at the age of 16. It was a lesson for life that taught me a lot about how I should approach flying. That lesson was also reinforced soon after by loss of a dear friend at a very young age. Then there were many more losses and each loss made me more determined to stay focused. Flying has its risks and it demands from us proper risk mitigation techniques and learning from mistakes of others. We as glider pilots are not doing enough of it.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:35:53 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.
> >
> > I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.
> >
> > Greig
>
> Unfortunately, accidents have always been part of the sport. We have more slippery gliders, fly at higher wing loadings, and deal with more stresses of everyday life than any of the previous generations.
> I narrowly avoided similar faith at the age of 16. It was a lesson for life that taught me a lot about how I should approach flying. That lesson was also reinforced soon after by loss of a dear friend at a very young age. Then there were many more losses and each loss made me more determined to stay focused. Flying has its risks and it demands from us proper risk mitigation techniques and learning from mistakes of others. We as glider pilots are not doing enough of it.

Well said.

[Pete[_9_]]

Many of these pilots have many hundreds if not thousands of hours in gliders.
That is the most sobering aspect; experience seems to make little difference in 2018.

Otherwise, I think we are seeing statistics play out pretty morbidly.

Hopefully, 2019 and beyond will statistically average out a horrible year for fatalities in our beautiful sport.

[Ben Hirashima]

Some random variation in the accident rate over the years is natural, and expected. It is tragic that we have had more than usual this year, but one bad year doesn't necessarily signal a trend.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

This is a terrible topic to be sure so I hesitate to get analytical.

Sadly, this year is not yet out of the ordinary. Over the past ten years the average number of glider accidents per year reported to the NTSB is 25.2. So far this year we are at 17 (including the tragic event over the weekend). Fatal accidents over ten years have averaged 5.2. This year we are at 6. The probable causes this year seem not inconsistent with the overall trend, though obviously we have less information about more recent accidents. The mix of aircraft type/performance has not been significantly different from a casual review.

I think we tend to block bad memories out over time, but we have always paid a terrible price for our beautiful sport.

Respectfully,

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:06:28 PM UTC-7, Pete wrote:
> Many of these pilots have many hundreds if not thousands of hours in gliders.
> That is the most sobering aspect; experience seems to make little difference in 2018.
>
> Otherwise, I think we are seeing statistics play out pretty morbidly.
>
> Hopefully, 2019 and beyond will statistically average out a horrible year for fatalities in our beautiful sport.



A glider pilot is experienced when s/he no longer makes small mistakes.

[Tim Taylor]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:54:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:

> A glider pilot is experienced when s/he no longer makes small mistakes.

I guess I don't know any experienced pilots.

[Ramy[_2_]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> This is a terrible topic to be sure so I hesitate to get analytical.
>
> Sadly, this year is not yet out of the ordinary. Over the past ten years the average number of glider accidents per year reported to the NTSB is 25.2. So far this year we are at 17 (including the tragic event over the weekend). Fatal accidents over ten years have averaged 5.2. This year we are at 6. The probable causes this year seem not inconsistent with the overall trend, though obviously we have less information about more recent accidents. The mix of aircraft type/performance has not been significantly different from a casual review.
>
> I think we tend to block bad memories out over time, but we have always paid a terrible price for our beautiful sport.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

We need to count passengers as well. I counted 10 so far in the US which were mentioned on RAS:
Avenal - 1
Grand Teton - 2
Arizona - 2
Vermont - 3
Truckee - 2

This is not just an anomaly. This is double the average.
Also the seemingly trend of decline in fatality rate over the years is an illusion. The number of participants declining in even faster rate.

Ramy

Ramy

[sisu1a]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > This is a terrible topic to be sure so I hesitate to get analytical.
> >
> > Sadly, this year is not yet out of the ordinary. Over the past ten years the average number of glider accidents per year reported to the NTSB is 25.2. So far this year we are at 17 (including the tragic event over the weekend). Fatal accidents over ten years have averaged 5.2. This year we are at 6. The probable causes this year seem not inconsistent with the overall trend, though obviously we have less information about more recent accidents.. The mix of aircraft type/performance has not been significantly different from a casual review.
> >
> > I think we tend to block bad memories out over time, but we have always paid a terrible price for our beautiful sport.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> We need to count passengers as well. I counted 10 so far in the US which were mentioned on RAS:
> Avenal - 1
> Grand Teton - 2
> Arizona - 2
> Vermont - 3
> Truckee - 2
>
> This is not just an anomaly. This is double the average.
> Also the seemingly trend of decline in fatality rate over the years is an illusion. The number of participants declining in even faster rate.
>
> Ramy
>
> Ramy

Not trying to derail, but can you elaborate on the passenger thing at Avenal? I'm only aware of the one accident their from last May, which was a pilot in his personal single place. Other than that an owner in a single place (HP-14) in the 90's spun in from a rigging error.

[Ramy[_2_]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:44:09 PM UTC-7, sisu1a wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > This is a terrible topic to be sure so I hesitate to get analytical.
> > >
> > > Sadly, this year is not yet out of the ordinary. Over the past ten years the average number of glider accidents per year reported to the NTSB is 25.2. So far this year we are at 17 (including the tragic event over the weekend). Fatal accidents over ten years have averaged 5.2. This year we are at 6. The probable causes this year seem not inconsistent with the overall trend, though obviously we have less information about more recent accidents. The mix of aircraft type/performance has not been significantly different from a casual review.
> > >
> > > I think we tend to block bad memories out over time, but we have always paid a terrible price for our beautiful sport.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Andy Blackburn
> > > 9B
> >
> > We need to count passengers as well. I counted 10 so far in the US which were mentioned on RAS:
> > Avenal - 1
> > Grand Teton - 2
> > Arizona - 2
> > Vermont - 3
> > Truckee - 2
> >
> > This is not just an anomaly. This is double the average.
> > Also the seemingly trend of decline in fatality rate over the years is an illusion. The number of participants declining in even faster rate.
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > Ramy
>
> Not trying to derail, but can you elaborate on the passenger thing at Avenal? I'm only aware of the one accident their from last May, which was a pilot in his personal single place. Other than that an owner in a single place (HP-14) in the 90's spun in from a rigging error.

Avenal was a single pilot. so are the fatalities in Arizona and Moriarty. I mistakenly counted them both as Arizona.
So the correct list is:
Avenal - 1
Grand Teton - 2 (pilot + passenger)
Arizona - 1
Moriarty - 1
Vermont - 3 (pilot + 2 passengers)
Truckee - 2 (pilot + passenger who was also a pilot)
Total 10

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:54:44 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:44:09 PM UTC-7, sisu1a wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:44:55 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > This is a terrible topic to be sure so I hesitate to get analytical..
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, this year is not yet out of the ordinary. Over the past ten years the average number of glider accidents per year reported to the NTSB is 25.2. So far this year we are at 17 (including the tragic event over the weekend). Fatal accidents over ten years have averaged 5.2. This year we are at 6. The probable causes this year seem not inconsistent with the overall trend, though obviously we have less information about more recent accidents. The mix of aircraft type/performance has not been significantly different from a casual review.
> > > >
> > > > I think we tend to block bad memories out over time, but we have always paid a terrible price for our beautiful sport.
> > > >
> > > > Respectfully,
> > > >
> > > > Andy Blackburn
> > > > 9B
> > >
> > > We need to count passengers as well. I counted 10 so far in the US which were mentioned on RAS:
> > > Avenal - 1
> > > Grand Teton - 2
> > > Arizona - 2
> > > Vermont - 3
> > > Truckee - 2
> > >
> > > This is not just an anomaly. This is double the average.
> > > Also the seemingly trend of decline in fatality rate over the years is an illusion. The number of participants declining in even faster rate.
> > >
> > > Ramy
> > >
> > > Ramy
> >
> > Not trying to derail, but can you elaborate on the passenger thing at Avenal? I'm only aware of the one accident their from last May, which was a pilot in his personal single place. Other than that an owner in a single place (HP-14) in the 90's spun in from a rigging error.
>
> Avenal was a single pilot. so are the fatalities in Arizona and Moriarty. I mistakenly counted them both as Arizona.
> So the correct list is:
> Avenal - 1
> Grand Teton - 2 (pilot + passenger)
> Arizona - 1
> Moriarty - 1
> Vermont - 3 (pilot + 2 passengers)
> Truckee - 2 (pilot + passenger who was also a pilot)
> Total 10

11. One in FL.

This year is off the charts. Uncomfortably aware of other events that were "this close".

Evan Ludeman

[[email protected]]

It’s the “unknown reason� ones that scare me.
Arcus at Nephi?? I understand the NTSB, lawyers, slander liability, etc., but the waiting is horrible.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 5:30:06 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:

> This is not just an anomaly. This is double the average.
> Also the seemingly trend of decline in fatality rate over the years is an illusion. The number of participants declining in even faster rate.
>
> Ramy
>
> Ramy

Not to over-engage in statistical analysis, but I think the number of fatal incidents is the relevant metric, not the average number of people on board - unless you are asserting that two-seaters is a relevant factor. In this case that would be a Blanik, a 2-32 and a Duo. Hard to see a trend or pattern in that.

The numbers are too high, but they are not statistically out of the historical range.

Andy

[[email protected]]

Every time an aircraft leaves the ground, the potential for a fatal accident exists. There is no denying that Gravity and Aerodynamics are essentially mortal enemies. We use our hard won skills to deal with aerodynamics, but patiently and inexorably, the Law of Gravity awaits our tiniest mistake.

Since millions of flights are attempted each year, by millions of pilots, there will always be accidents. Education and ongoing training may mitigate some accidents, but statistically, they will happen more or less often, and there is simply no way to predict whether there is an increasing or decreasing trend from year to year.

This has been a bad year. Next year might be worse. Or, there might be no fatalities at all. The basic rule is that no single accident directly affects the likelihood of YOU having an accident yourself. In fact, the subconscious memory of a friend who succumbed to an aircraft accident "might" make you more cognizant of your limitations. A year with no fatalities "might" make you more complacent, and encourage less than perfect cockpit performance and judgment.

Think sharp at all times. Remember your friends. Learn, and don't fall into the trap that a safe year means that accidents will finally go away. They won't. We do this, hopefully, by recognizing that aviation is inherently risky, but the rewards of flight somehow make it worth the expense and effort.. Try to keep in mind that we don't NEED to do this. We do it by choice, and the desire to fly must always be tempered by things that may affect our ability to fly well.

Currency, weather conditions, peer pressure, mental attitude and a myriad of other factors may suggest that, perhaps "today" should be dedicated to some neglected maintenance, maybe a wash and wax job and a reconnect to why we want to fly, as well as a reflection of the lessons we might learn from the untimely passing of our pilot brethren.

Be safe my friends, but FLY!

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 6:06:20 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Every time an aircraft leaves the ground, the potential for a fatal accident exists. There is no denying that Gravity and Aerodynamics are essentially mortal enemies. We use our hard won skills to deal with aerodynamics, but patiently and inexorably, the Law of Gravity awaits our tiniest mistake.
>
> Since millions of flights are attempted each year, by millions of pilots, there will always be accidents. Education and ongoing training may mitigate some accidents, but statistically, they will happen more or less often, and there is simply no way to predict whether there is an increasing or decreasing trend from year to year.
>
> This has been a bad year. Next year might be worse. Or, there might be no fatalities at all. The basic rule is that no single accident directly affects the likelihood of YOU having an accident yourself. In fact, the subconscious memory of a friend who succumbed to an aircraft accident "might" make you more cognizant of your limitations. A year with no fatalities "might" make you more complacent, and encourage less than perfect cockpit performance and judgment.
>
> Think sharp at all times. Remember your friends. Learn, and don't fall into the trap that a safe year means that accidents will finally go away. They won't. We do this, hopefully, by recognizing that aviation is inherently risky, but the rewards of flight somehow make it worth the expense and effort. Try to keep in mind that we don't NEED to do this. We do it by choice, and the desire to fly must always be tempered by things that may affect our ability to fly well.
>
> Currency, weather conditions, peer pressure, mental attitude and a myriad of other factors may suggest that, perhaps "today" should be dedicated to some neglected maintenance, maybe a wash and wax job and a reconnect to why we want to fly, as well as a reflection of the lessons we might learn from the untimely passing of our pilot brethren.
>
> Be safe my friends, but FLY!

I have had a moment with these spat of mishaps. I am troubled by the experience/competence level of the pilots in these accidents. I knew Sergio, his energy was a gift to soaring and to the friends at Truckee. Losing commercial pilots, with their faire's, whom fly daily. I lost a good friend last week in east county of San Diego in a power airplane. He was one of those special pilots whom could just make any plane dance, a real Bob Hoover type who ran a sterile cockpit. He was a CFI taking another CFI up to do a few spins in a Citabria. Did one spin all the way to the deck. Thanks Mark, for your words of encouragement to keep flying and keep safe.

[[email protected]]

I don't think a high level of experience or competence will ever protect us against an insidious form of complacency that makes us sometimes forget the most elementary safety procedures. The slightest disturbance during the pre-flight or the checklist can make us forget to do something we allways took for granted. This summer, for the first time in almost 40 years of gliding, I took off with airbrakes unlocked. I had been disturbed during the preflight and hadn't followed my ususal checklist procedure while taking a winch launch at another airfield.

When you look at gliding accidents, it seems to me there are three kinds of pilots who are most susceptible to be involved in accidents: the very inexperienced, the ones who begin to think of themselves as being experienced, and the too experienced (look at the list in the well known Gantenbrink paper on safety)... Not much room between those three, I'm afraid.

Stéphane

[[email protected]]

This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.

And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.

I would include my favorite question:

Why does an aircraft have a rudder?

Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.

It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.

Tom Knauff

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:11:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.
>
> And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.
>
> It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.
>
> I would include my favorite question:
>
> Why does an aircraft have a rudder?
>
> Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.
>
> It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.
>
> Tom Knauff

An aircraft has a rudder for positive control about the yaw axis, of course. The primary reason we need such control is adverse yaw. Next?

So Tom... are you still claiming that a glider cannot be stalled without first bringing the nose above the horizon?

Just curious.

Evan Ludeman (student pilot since 1986, instructor since 2015)

[2KA]

Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.

Instead, the themes that seem to jump out are:

- Experienced or highly experienced pilots
- Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
- Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model

I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.

I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

Lynn Alley
"2KA"

[Jonathon May]

At 14:44 06 September 2018, 2KA wrote:
>Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last
>n=
>ight I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and
>i=
>t appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I
>c=
>ould only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours
>tota=
>l time.
>
>Instead, the themes that seem to jump out are:
>
> - Experienced or highly experienced pilots
> - Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
> - Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model
>
>I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining
>physica=
>l ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.
>
>I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For
>e=
>xample, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps
>i=
>t is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for
>tho=
>ught, especially when I look in the mirror.
>
>I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.
>
>Lynn Alley
>"2KA"
>
>Try this link to a very good spin demo
Jon

https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Ko2Gmdv-yqo&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJeI2LlEzOT4%26feature%3Dshare

[[email protected]]

I haven't flown in a while, but a pilot friend of mine and I were recently discussing accidents, and he sent me this thread. I'd like to share a story which may help clubs out there.

Our club had pricing for 1k, 1.5k and 2k tows (extra height when needed). Of course, the 1K was cheapest. There was a typical scenario where a glass ship was filled with water, and the pilot popped off at 1K to save a few bucks, and then tried to scratch away. One day, a student was on the porch with me and an instructor had just launched in his 15m. He had told the student before launch that the most important thing of his flight that day was to be at IP at 800ft when landing. Yet there he was, being blown straight down the middle of the field circling at 600ft. The student actually approached me and told me the story... that it was a really bad example that the instructor was setting.

I was VP for a while, and suggested that the 1K tow be a restricted access tow, only for students that are practicing circuits. This was adopted, and there were no more cases of gliders starting their day with an unscheduled low altitude recovery. It wasn't only the instructor. It was many experienced, private ship owners doing this. Almost to the point of taking a 2K tow meant you didn't have the skills to squeak away from low altitude. This was never said, of course, but actions were certainly speaking louder in that situation. You know who NEVER ended up circling down the middle of a runway at low altitude... students... inexperienced students. They new better.

Sometimes the structure of the system has to be altered to help guide pilots into an environment that is helpful and not detrimental. I think that the 1.5K minimum release altitude for non training flights was a huge step improvement in safety at the club.

Related... I flew a few region 10 contests over the years and in the morning meetings there was a safety moment put on by a selected pilot. These were so helpful. One that was great was to kick a rudder when approaching a thermal where a glider was circling, to see who was below the pilot you were seeing, as that glider is below the nose. Yes, it cost a few feet of altitude, but in one contest a glider ended up sitting 10 feet above another in a glider. I still remember the voice of the pilot of the lower plane, letting the pilot clearly in the wrong know that they would have a discussion on the ground. This was after he pulled full spoilers to clear his tail section to dive out of the way. Scary stuff.

Lots of good ideas out there...

[john firth]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.
>
> I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.
>
> Greig

The topic is depressing and worrying; However , there is a small
positive factor; when you are flying, you are not at risk of
a highway accident. Perhaps we should subtract from the fatalities the
risk of dying in a road accident.

John F

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
> Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.
>
> Instead, the themes that seem to jump out are:
>
> - Experienced or highly experienced pilots
> - Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
> - Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model
>
> I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.
>
> I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.
>
> I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.
>
> Lynn Alley
> "2KA"

My Father used to teach a college course "The Psychology of Aging". Never took it, too bad. I usually shave in the shower so I don't look at that old man I don't recognize in the mirror. I still see myself as a strapping 40 year old. Age might have something to do failure to get out of a doomed aircraft.

While I respect Tom Knauff, his teachings and writings, I know my CFI friend Dave, whom died in a planned spin with another CFI last week, knew what a rudder does, Sergio, Don, all very experienced. These are not the guys whom skills or knowledge are questioned. For that matter how did Peter Maask spin in, he knew what a rudder does, and I had heard that his trace showed safe speeds. I am afraid we will not know what caused these accidents so we can learn how not to experience these accidents. Why did Matt Wright still have max turn puts at 60 degrees bank on that day?

[Tango Whisky]

Le jeudi 6 septembre 2018 17:00:07 UTC+2, Jonathon May a écritÂ*:

> https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Ko2Gmdv-yqo&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJeI2LlEzOT4%26feature%3Dshare

This is an excellent video.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 7:54:59 PM UTC-4, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Not to over-engage in statistical analysis...

Thanks for being analytical, Andy. It encourages us to think rationally about the risks of soaring. You started early, too, and have been through this before. I soloed in 1965 but it was 15 years before someone I knew was killed in a glider crash. In the 38 years since, another 14 have died. Does that mean soaring has gotten more risky? Or have I just met a lot more people in the sport over the years? Are older, more experienced pilots more prone to fatal mistakes? Or--more than less-experienced pilots--are they just exposed to more hours, more types of risks, more chances to make a small mistake that becomes a big mistake?

This year does seem to be worse, but I recall other years where the same thing seemed to be happening. Ours is a tiny sport. One or two accidents can swing the "trend" but aren't necessarily statistically significant.

Saying that this year is within the norm is not the same as saying we don't have a problem. On the other hand, recognizing that soaring will always be riskier than most things we do isn't necessarily a reason to stop doing it..

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden
67 years old, 53 years/3000 hours in soaring, 15 friends/acquaintances dead in gliding accidents

[[email protected]]

Hi Everyone,

This is my first time posting here. I'm a student up at Williams who has recently started to solo. I have a total of 12 hours in gliders (2hr solo). So, needless to say, I'm rather inexperienced.

I had the privilege of meeting one of the pilots of XC this summer up in Truckee. His passion for soaring and his willingness to answer even my most basic questions was a kind welcome to the community. My sincere condolences to the soaring community, friends, and family.

This is the first time I've personally known a pilot we have tragically lost in a flight-related accident. I once was a serious cyclist, and tragic events have hit close to home, but it doesn't help any.

As a student, I don't know what the learning is here. I may be getting too analytical too soon, but I feel that the best thing we can do to remember lost pilots is to learn from these tragic events as much as possible.

Before I started my training, I read through every NTSB report related to fatal glider accidents from 1996 to 2016. Please take my analysis with a big grain of salt. I'm not an NTSB examiner, an experienced pilot, and categorizing accidents is difficult.

https://addisonhuddy.com/post/flying/handling-risk/

My biggest takeaways are nothing new: have personal limits, don't show off, use checklists, consistent emergency scenario training, know and maintain the glider, no low saves, and always be learning.

The accidents that shake me the most are the ones that we know little about, which is the majority. Take XC, for example, experienced pilots in a modern glider, at 14k waiting to begin a task, and then all of a sudden descend 5000ft and overstress the plane. The NTSB will do the best they can, but as a student who is trying to learn, what am I to take away from this?

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

Take away?
Mother nature is a bitch.
While not biting you the first, second, etc. time......Mother Nature and gravity WILL make you pay eventually.
Period.
The fall is not bad, the sudden stop at the end can at least ruin your day if not kill you.
Taken from someone that has broken their back twice, neither in any aircraft.

[Tom BravoMike]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 12:51:38 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is my first time posting here. I'm a student up at Williams who has recently started to solo. I have a total of 12 hours in gliders (2hr solo). So, needless to say, I'm rather inexperienced.
>
> I had the privilege of meeting one of the pilots of XC this summer up in Truckee. His passion for soaring and his willingness to answer even my most basic questions was a kind welcome to the community. My sincere condolences to the soaring community, friends, and family.
>
> This is the first time I've personally known a pilot we have tragically lost in a flight-related accident. I once was a serious cyclist, and tragic events have hit close to home, but it doesn't help any.
>
> As a student, I don't know what the learning is here. I may be getting too analytical too soon, but I feel that the best thing we can do to remember lost pilots is to learn from these tragic events as much as possible.
>
> Before I started my training, I read through every NTSB report related to fatal glider accidents from 1996 to 2016. Please take my analysis with a big grain of salt. I'm not an NTSB examiner, an experienced pilot, and categorizing accidents is difficult.
>
> https://addisonhuddy.com/post/flying/handling-risk/
>
> My biggest takeaways are nothing new: have personal limits, don't show off, use checklists, consistent emergency scenario training, know and maintain the glider, no low saves, and always be learning.
>
> The accidents that shake me the most are the ones that we know little about, which is the majority. Take XC, for example, experienced pilots in a modern glider, at 14k waiting to begin a task, and then all of a sudden descend 5000ft and overstress the plane. The NTSB will do the best they can, but as a student who is trying to learn, what am I to take away from this?

Good job, thank you. Two things: 'FLARM, radios, and ADS-B save lives'. My recent experience is that yes, you need as many sources of information as possible. I could hear radio announcements and didn't see anything on the screen (or outside in the air), and vice-versa: nothing seen nor heard but showing on the ADS-B In screen. And I would add: Look out! With more and more displays/instruments we tend to spend too much time watching them.


Second thought: with regards to the 'spin recovery training', you actually limit your remarks to spin avoidance training. How about real life spin and recovery training? I find it indispensable to create automatic, spontaneous reaction to a stall. In my ground school group (11 students) one student pilot stalled and entered initial spin on downwind leg in his 3rd solo flight, as we were all watching. He recovered immediately, automatically, because we had trained it with the instructor.

[[email protected]]

I'm a little concerned about the way the data are displayed geographically. Maybe it's the software but three fatal accidents I'm very familiar with and that are in the NTSB database are missing from the map: two in southwestern OH in 1980-1981 and one in Middletown, NY in 1986.

Yours is a good approach. I'd push back on one conclusion, however: "keep banks to 30 degrees or less in the pattern". Trying to keep the bank angle to a minimum (I know you didn't say this exactly) while still making the turn to final is one of the classic high-risk scenarios. I'd much rather use whatever angle of bank is necessary in a coordinated turn than to risk ruddering it around in a shallower bank. As you point out, keeping the speed up is most important.

Chip Bearden

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
> Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.
>
> Instead, the themes that seem to jump out are:
>
> - Experienced or highly experienced pilots
> - Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
> - Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model
>
> I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.

I've been suspecting for a while that this is the case.

Slower reactions. Worse tolerance of physical and mental stress. Reversion to habit from a familiar aircraft when in a different one. Sometimes even actual medical events.

> I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.

55 with 400-and-something, and haven't flown much since getting a new job and moving to Moscow at 51. It's a worry if/when I get a chance to fly again..

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 9/6/2018 7:11 AM:
> This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.
>
> And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.
>
> It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.
>
> I would include my favorite question:
>
> Why does an aircraft have a rudder?
>
> Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.
>
> It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.
>
It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Roy B.]

". . . there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents. And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

Tom:
We can only wish that it were just so simple - that we could buy and study some book(s) and pass some silly test and know we are "safe".

Think of Helmut Reichman, Klaus Holighaus , Bill Ivans and many other masters of our sport that are gone. Did they have a "demonstrable lack of knowledge"? I do not pretend to have the answers to the difficult question of the cause of fatal accidents in our sport. But I distrust those who say that they do have it.
ROY

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:44:44 AM UTC-7, 2KA wrote:
> Actually, it appears to me that it is sort of the other way around. Last night I did an informal survey of accident data over the last 5 years, and it appears to me that inexperienced pilots rarely have fatal accidents. I could only find a couple that involved pilots with less than 1000 hours total time.
>
> Instead, the themes that seem to jump out are:
>
> - Experienced or highly experienced pilots
> - Older pilots (most were in their 60s or 70s)
> - Perhaps somewhat limited experience in make/model
>
> I think it is possible that overconfidence in the face of declining physical ability is a big contributor to fatal accidents.
>
> I don't know if this would hold up to rigorous statistical analysis. For example, the NTSB reports only total time, not total glider time. Perhaps it is just a reflection of our pilot demographic. Still, it is food for thought, especially when I look in the mirror.
>
> I'm 62 years old with 4000 hours.
>
> Lynn Alley
> "2KA"

Just received this timely notice of a Wings event in San Diego:
"Physiology of Aging for Pilots - How to Slow It Down and Fly Longer" reminder
When
Thursday, 06 September 2018
07:00 PM to 09:00 PM
(GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
Where
4200 Ruffin Rd Titan Conference Room
Notes
Contact Information: Paul Kortopates 619-560-8980 Event Date/Time: Thursday, September 6, 2018, starting at 19:00 Pacific Daylight Time
From
Calendar Calendar

[Tom BravoMike]

> It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
> was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
> offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
> they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
> to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
> where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
> was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell

IIRC, one of the principal rules Tom Knauff has been teaching is expressed by the acronym: TLAR - This Looks About Right.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

john firth wrote on 9/6/2018 8:06 AM:
> The topic is depressing and worrying; However , there is a small
> positive factor; when you are flying, you are not at risk of
> a highway accident. Perhaps we should subtract from the fatalities the
> risk of dying in a road accident.
>
> John F

You are also not at risk of slipping in a bathtub or falling down the stairs, but
that doesn't affect the risk of soaring, does it? More flying doesn't
automatically mean less driving (or less of most other things); in fact, a pilot
that flies a lot might also drive a lot to get to the airport.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[George Haeh]

I saw a fatal accident from 50' on an acceptable approach when the student and friend on her first flight in a single seater suddenly got messed up with the spoilers.

There's differences between an L-23 and a Junior that the student had not been briefed on.

Coming out of a vortex / downburst encounter on final, I missed a wire by just enough to avoid becoming a statistic.

You can establish margins, but Mother Nature at any time can blow right through them and put you into a totally new aerodynamic situation.

The operative word is blow.

[bumper[_4_]]

It's clearly not, as Eric says, just about knowledge. Sparky Imeson wrote the book on Mountain Flying, and yet died doing that. Of course terrain and weather are only part of it, but play a big part of many accidents and are at least a contributing factor in most.

Always remember Mother Nature can always dish out more than we or our little aircraft can handle. Safe mountain flying is knowing where and when she might do that and staying clear.

[krasw]

keskiviikko 5. syyskuuta 2018 23.35.53 UTC+3 Andrzej Kobus kirjoitti:
>
> Unfortunately, accidents have always been part of the sport. We have more slippery gliders, fly at higher wing loadings...

We have been preached about dangers of slippery gliders since late 60's. Would this, 2018, be a good year to finally forget this? There has been several pilot generations that have flown only slippery gliders without any indication that they are dangerous. In fact, dangerous would be to let these pilots fly non-slippery vintage without proper briefing.

Modern gliders are safer to fly (and crash) than older gliders.

[[email protected]]

Several posters have raised the issue of declining reflexes with advancing age. Especially so in flying and particularly in gliding.
This surely must be at least a causal factor in many accidents and even more incidents. I don't believe its so much a matter of complacency amongst aging pilots (>50). More a failure to recognize that continuing to do what we have been doing for some years is no longer good enough. Aging requires positive compensatory/offsetting action to counter waning reflexes and senses so as to maintain a high standard of inflight analysis, and situational awareness.
A highly experienced glider engineer friend is now in his 50's. He says that he longer double check his work...he triple checks it.
I recognise that I now need to be extra thorough with my flight planning, checks, lookout and overall self discipline and airmanship if I want to continue in this great sport for as long as safely possible.
Laurence Hoffman
Sydney Australia

[[email protected]]

Le vendredi 7 septembre 2018 02:55:44 UTC+2, Roy B. a écritÂ*:

> Think of Helmut Reichman, Klaus Holighaus , Bill Ivans and many other masters of our sport that are gone. Did they have a "demonstrable lack of knowledge"?

Interstingly, three completely different accidents, by the way:
Reichmann: collision with another glider
Holighaus: collision with a mountain side
Ivans: loss of control at high altitude and break-up in mid-air

[Mike Schumann[_2_]]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 9/6/2018 7:11 AM:
> > This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.
> >
> > And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.
> >
> > It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.
> >
> > I would include my favorite question:
> >
> > Why does an aircraft have a rudder?
> >
> > Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.
> >
> > It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.
> >
> It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
> was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
> offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
> they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
> to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
> where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
> was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

I suspect that flying is a lot like riding a bike. Most bike riders have no idea of the physics of how a bike stays upright while riding.

Some pilots fly by the numbers. Others seem to have an instinctive connection to the aircraft, where they can feel what it is doing and immediately respond without necessarily understanding what they are doing. I'm not sure you can teach that.

If you fly by the numbers, get in trouble at low altitude and have to think about how to recover, you are probably doomed.

[WB]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:33:35 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Several posters have raised the issue of declining reflexes with advancing age. Especially so in flying and particularly in gliding.

Certainly declining reflexes contribute to accidents. No question about it. However, general aviation does not often require lightning quick reflexes. I think there's a story about some famous pilot who was asked what he would do in an emergency and his answer was something like "First, I'd wind my watch..." meaning he would take a few seconds to think before acting. I suspect the aging related decline that is more relevant to accidents is a decline in our situational awareness. One specific decline is in our ability to perceive how a situation is changing. How long does it take us to recognize that our airspeed is decaying? How quickly do we perceive changes in yaw rate or pitch rate? We may do pretty well and compensate by being mindful of our growing deficits as we age, but as we approach some threshold of function, we might begin to have episodes where we momentarily jump well beyond a threshold of critically reduced function due to fatigue, dehydration, low blood sugar, whatever. I've seen old guys who would fly 9 of 10 flights flawlessly, then inexplicably drive a ship onto the runway or into a field at high speed and end up in a pile of busted fiberglass.

Maybe we need the advice of some folks who specialize in studying and treating cognitive decline in aging.

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:11:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.
>
> And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.

Bring forth the data Tom. Show us how this is a proximate factor in some significant fraction of gliding accidents. I'm skeptical. Clearly I'm not alone.

My experience informs me that more significant factors are complacency, (failure to maintain) situational awareness & risk taking.

best,
Evan Ludeman

[WB]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:50:18 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > wrote on 9/6/2018 7:11 AM:
> > > This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.
> > >
> > > And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.
> > >
> > > It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.
> > >
> > > I would include my favorite question:
> > >
> > > Why does an aircraft have a rudder?
> > >
> > > Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.
> > >
> > > It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.
> > >
> > It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
> > was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
> > offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
> > they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
> > to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
> > where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
> > was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
> >
> > http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
>
> I suspect that flying is a lot like riding a bike. Most bike riders have no idea of the physics of how a bike stays upright while riding.
>
> Some pilots fly by the numbers. Others seem to have an instinctive connection to the aircraft, where they can feel what it is doing and immediately respond without necessarily understanding what they are doing. I'm not sure you can teach that.
>
> If you fly by the numbers, get in trouble at low altitude and have to think about how to recover, you are probably doomed.

I've successfully avoided helicopters my whole life. Flying a helicopter has got to be like the bike. How could anyone consciously process everything going on in a helicopter and fly by rote? In fact, I think helicopter instructors just keep one alive long enough for one to develop the "muscle memory".

[Roy B.]

"First, I'd wind my watch..." meaning he would take a few seconds to think before acting.

The problem, WB, is that we are old enough to remember watches that wind.
Most of our students have never seen one.

I was doing a ground school once and mentioned a "slide rule" and one of the kids piped up "What's a slide rule?" And before I could answer another kid said, "It was this old calculating thing - kinda like an abacus". We really are old.
Roy

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 10:51:38 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is my first time posting here. I'm a student up at Williams who has recently started to solo. I have a total of 12 hours in gliders (2hr solo). So, needless to say, I'm rather inexperienced.
>
> I had the privilege of meeting one of the pilots of XC this summer up in Truckee. His passion for soaring and his willingness to answer even my most basic questions was a kind welcome to the community. My sincere condolences to the soaring community, friends, and family.
>
> This is the first time I've personally known a pilot we have tragically lost in a flight-related accident. I once was a serious cyclist, and tragic events have hit close to home, but it doesn't help any.
>
> As a student, I don't know what the learning is here. I may be getting too analytical too soon, but I feel that the best thing we can do to remember lost pilots is to learn from these tragic events as much as possible.
>
> Before I started my training, I read through every NTSB report related to fatal glider accidents from 1996 to 2016. Please take my analysis with a big grain of salt. I'm not an NTSB examiner, an experienced pilot, and categorizing accidents is difficult.
>
> https://addisonhuddy.com/post/flying/handling-risk/
>
> My biggest takeaways are nothing new: have personal limits, don't show off, use checklists, consistent emergency scenario training, know and maintain the glider, no low saves, and always be learning.
>
> The accidents that shake me the most are the ones that we know little about, which is the majority. Take XC, for example, experienced pilots in a modern glider, at 14k waiting to begin a task, and then all of a sudden descend 5000ft and overstress the plane. The NTSB will do the best they can, but as a student who is trying to learn, what am I to take away from this?

Addison, I am impressed with your analytical skills and motivation for knowledge. Thank you for your work. You might want to speak with your CFIG about limiting banks to 30 degrees in pattern for gliders, and conduct some more training and reading (Tom Knauff's books are great). The 30 degrees applies to powered aircraft, not gliders. Also, while you cite Bruno's video as an example of not stretching glide, after the ridge turn away, his flight is NOT, I repeat NOT, an example of good decision making in not stretching a glide. Bruno is a highly experienced pilot and the scrapping he can get away with verses what someone else could is the matter of life and death or damage. No disrespect meant to Bruno, this post is for the less experienced.

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

Like me and others teaching basic mechanics.....
How do I tighten this?
Turn clockwise 95% of the time
What is clockwise on a digital watch?!?!

Times change.

Before Knauff was teaching TLAR....I was taught sorta, does it look right, does it sound right, does if feel right? If no to anything, fix it NOW!
Same idea, just not promoted to the masses in a book. No stealing thunder from Tom, but good basic stuff. I have done flights of many hours with instrument issues, always went back to look/feel/sound, fix as needed. Not every pilot is wired that way though.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:58:29 AM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:50:18 AM UTC-5, Mike Schumann wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > wrote on 9/6/2018 7:11 AM:
> > > > This is a recurring topic since the beginning of aviation. The irony is there is a well known and recognized, fundamental reason for glider (all aviation) accidents.
> > > >
> > > > And that is, a demonstrable lack of knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > It is easy to confirm. Present a group of pilots with a written test of basic, essential knowledge needed to fly safely.
> > > >
> > > > I would include my favorite question:
> > > >
> > > > Why does an aircraft have a rudder?
> > > >
> > > > Some years ago, when I conducted glider CFI revalidation clinics, I presented this question to a group of about 40 glider CFIs. Not a single person got this question correct, and I would bet it is no different today.
> > > >
> > > > It is common for people to avoid obtaining the fundamental knowledge necessary for safe flight.
> > > >
> > > It's not been obvious to me that the pilot with the best aerodynamic understanding
> > > was the best pilot. I had students with poor math and physics abilities and could
> > > offer only a cobbled explanation of lift, adverse yaw, and angle of attack, but
> > > they knew what view out the canopy should look like, and how to move the controls
> > > to keep the view looking correct. That knowledge enabled them to make the plane go
> > > where they wanted it do. They also got worried about their situation while there
> > > was still time to correct the situation - a major factor in staying alive.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> > > - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> > > https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> > > - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
> > >
> > > http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
> >
> > I suspect that flying is a lot like riding a bike. Most bike riders have no idea of the physics of how a bike stays upright while riding.
> >
> > Some pilots fly by the numbers. Others seem to have an instinctive connection to the aircraft, where they can feel what it is doing and immediately respond without necessarily understanding what they are doing. I'm not sure you can teach that.
> >
> > If you fly by the numbers, get in trouble at low altitude and have to think about how to recover, you are probably doomed.
>
> I've successfully avoided helicopters my whole life. Flying a helicopter has got to be like the bike. How could anyone consciously process everything going on in a helicopter and fly by rote? In fact, I think helicopter instructors just keep one alive long enough for one to develop the "muscle memory".

The most amazing flying I have done as been every minute of my over 2100 hours in a helicopter. Man made a magic carpet. You can get into your own descending air so when you pull power to cushion the landing, you are just increasing your decent rate. Half of your wing is flying into the wind and half is flying downwind. If you are hovering near buildings be careful of the swirling wind that can change your stable hover into ring state. I was a natural, not so much with airplanes. For some reason I feel safer in a helicopter, if I am flying, than I do sitting in my living room. I do not feel this level of safe in any type of airplane.

[[email protected]]

I have been flying since 1980, had one heavy landing a number of years ago, when ASI failed in X country flight. 3000 hours in total solo.
I did however purchase a ASH 31 Mi and despite very good training from the agent in Australia.
Very early on in the flying of this glider I had a flight, both engine problems, refusal to start, and LX screen failing.
I switched to flying glider mode but still managed to land wheels up.
After considerable thought i now figure out the problem.
When stressed we go into fight of flight mode. Blood goes to the legs and leaves the brain. We thus go stupid. I recall looking at the undercarriage but did not say "Wheel down according to placard"
How many good pilots have you seen make stupid errors.
Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head, Older, over confident pilots in very complex aircraft

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 8:51:33 AM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:33:35 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Several posters have raised the issue of declining reflexes with advancing age. Especially so in flying and particularly in gliding.
>
> Certainly declining reflexes contribute to accidents. No question about it. However, general aviation does not often require lightning quick reflexes. I think there's a story about some famous pilot who was asked what he would do in an emergency and his answer was something like "First, I'd wind my watch..." meaning he would take a few seconds to think before acting. I suspect the aging related decline that is more relevant to accidents is a decline in our situational awareness. One specific decline is in our ability to perceive how a situation is changing. How long does it take us to recognize that our airspeed is decaying? How quickly do we perceive changes in yaw rate or pitch rate? We may do pretty well and compensate by being mindful of our growing deficits as we age, but as we approach some threshold of function, we might begin to have episodes where we momentarily jump well beyond a threshold of critically reduced function due to fatigue, dehydration, low blood sugar, whatever. I've seen old guys who would fly 9 of 10 flights flawlessly, then inexplicably drive a ship onto the runway or into a field at high speed and end up in a pile of busted fiberglass.
>
> Maybe we need the advice of some folks who specialize in studying and treating cognitive decline in aging.


I'm an older pilot, and the main difference I notice is that my stamina is much reduced. I can perform well initially, but at the end of a long day at the airport, my performance is reduced because I'm tired. I try to guard against this now, and limit my flight lengths and my duty time at my club. I suggest younger people also watch for this in their older friends. Reflexes, I don't notice any reduction, although this may be present, probably because I intentionally act fairly slowly (impulsivity is one of the dangerous attitudes).

[George Haeh]

Now what's the difference between retired and retarded? The new job is staying in shape. My daily walk is some 8 km up and down over hilly terrain in temperatures from +37 to -30 C.

It's not the years that will sideline you. It's the onset of deterioration or a debilitating medical condition. Staying in shape may delay the inevitable - no guarantee.

Errare humanum est. What is an acceptable error rate - given that there's no such thing as a perfect flight? The worst error is the one you don't recognize.

Along with the faulty human component, Mother Nature or mechanical failure can hand you a nasty surprise (many of which are not covered by the training curriculum) at any moment. The more you fly, the more more you are exposed.

[Bob Gibbons[_2_]]

>>>I recall looking at the undercarriage but did not say "Wheel down according to placard"

For what is worth;

38 years flying retractable gear sailplanes.

In addition to the usual landing check list attached to the gear side
of my Ventus.

I put a small patch of red plastic tape at the "retracted" end of the
gear travel slot, and a small patch of green tape at the "down &
locked" end of the slot.

Final check on turning final is always a quick glance to assure the
lever is at the GREEN end of the travel.

Bob

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:05:47 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>I have been flying since 1980, had one heavy landing a number of years ago, when ASI failed in X country flight. 3000 hours in total solo.
>I did however purchase a ASH 31 Mi and despite very good training from the agent in Australia.
>Very early on in the flying of this glider I had a flight, both engine problems, refusal to start, and LX screen failing.
>I switched to flying glider mode but still managed to land wheels up.
>After considerable thought i now figure out the problem.
>When stressed we go into fight of flight mode. Blood goes to the legs and leaves the brain. We thus go stupid. I recall looking at the undercarriage but did not say "Wheel down according to placard"
>How many good pilots have you seen make stupid errors.
>Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head, Older, over confident pilots in very complex aircraft

[SoaringXCellence]

> The 30 degrees applies to powered aircraft, not gliders.

Oh, give me a break!! The 30 degree bank applies to NOTHING!

As a DPE I see too many pilots who fly by rules like that. I've failed a few of them for lack of good judgement and misuse of the rudder. They keep the bank under thirty and try to increase the rate of turn with rudder! Classic cross-control turn to final, pull back on the elevator because the nose is dropping and we spin. Whee!!

1. The aircraft doesn't fly any differently in a 30 degree bank in the pattern or 1000 feet higher. Basically the same can be said of any other bank angle you choose without going beyond the extremes (45-60 degrees).

2. If you're flying faster it takes more bank to make the same rate of turn..

3. Clearance between the wing tip and the ground is the only thing that limits the bank in the pattern and "most" of the time we're on final with the wings mostly level close to the ground.

Putting it all together: Use the bank angle that allows you to make the heading change you need. If you chose to fly a close-in pattern you'll need a steeper bank angle to make the corners without overshooting the final.

We seem to have no problem doing 45 degree banks during rope-break practice, but tell the student they shouldn't do that if the need arises at altitudes above that? Baloney!

Stepping down from the soapbox,

Mike

[Retting]

I would have thought the ASH 31Mi would have a gear warning.
R

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:04:18 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
> Now what's the difference between retired and retarded? The new job is staying in shape. My daily walk is some 8 km up and down over hilly terrain in temperatures from +37 to -30 C.
>
> It's not the years that will sideline you. It's the onset of deterioration or a debilitating medical condition. Staying in shape may delay the inevitable - no guarantee.
>
> Errare humanum est. What is an acceptable error rate - given that there's no such thing as a perfect flight? The worst error is the one you don't recognize.
>
> Along with the faulty human component, Mother Nature or mechanical failure can hand you a nasty surprise (many of which are not covered by the training curriculum) at any moment. The more you fly, the more more you are exposed.

Very good points. I would add that the biggest problem might be modern diet.. Meals full of starches and easy sugar that drive glucose levels of healthy people high followed by a crash. This keeps repeating all day long. Along with this roller coaster goes our concentration. Of course the roller coaster is not only with glucose level but also with hormones. Eat well without loading on starches, sugars and fruit juices and you will be able to perform much better. Very are very few people who can handle the modern diet, especially once they cross into their 40s. Treat yourself to a full fat cheese as a snack, nuts, proteins and other healthy snack and you will find your brain working like in your 20s, but that takes time.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:18:32 AM UTC-4, Retting wrote:
> I would have thought the ASH 31Mi would have a gear warning.
> R

Yep, it does if you don't get cheap :). I have two of them, one on LX9000 and one independent buzzer.

[RFH]

> You can establish margins, but Mother Nature at any time
> can blow right through them and put you into a totally
> new aerodynamic situation.

Margins are not static, and need to be adjusted for Mother Nature.

Margins on a clear, light wind day differ greatly from those on a day with, e.g., thunderstorms in the vicinity.

[Dan Marotta]

Someone asked me recently, "Why do you always say, 'Gear down and
locked', over the radio when you turn base?"Â* The stupidity of the
question meant to me that there was no answer which would satisfy him.

And yes, more flying means more exposure but it also means more
experience.Â* I'm much more practiced and proficient and less likely to
make the mistakes that someone flying 20 hours per year is likely to make.

I think the green and red tape on the landing gear lever slot is a
terrific idea, especially if you fly an LS-6; in my opinion the sweetest
flying glider ever produced.Â* The pure logic of pushing the gear up and
pulling it down (everything forward for fast and everything back for
slow (flaps, dive brakes, stick, and gear)) is the exact opposite of
every other glider I've flown.

On 9/7/2018 9:18 PM, Bob Gibbons wrote:
>>>> I recall looking at the undercarriage but did not say "Wheel down according to placard"
> For what is worth;
>
> 38 years flying retractable gear sailplanes.
>
> In addition to the usual landing check list attached to the gear side
> of my Ventus.
>
> I put a small patch of red plastic tape at the "retracted" end of the
> gear travel slot, and a small patch of green tape at the "down &
> locked" end of the slot.
>
> Final check on turning final is always a quick glance to assure the
> lever is at the GREEN end of the travel.
>
> Bob
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:05:47 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>> I have been flying since 1980, had one heavy landing a number of years ago, when ASI failed in X country flight. 3000 hours in total solo.
>> I did however purchase a ASH 31 Mi and despite very good training from the agent in Australia.
>> Very early on in the flying of this glider I had a flight, both engine problems, refusal to start, and LX screen failing.
>> I switched to flying glider mode but still managed to land wheels up.
>> After considerable thought i now figure out the problem.
>> When stressed we go into fight of flight mode. Blood goes to the legs and leaves the brain. We thus go stupid. I recall looking at the undercarriage but did not say "Wheel down according to placard"
>> How many good pilots have you seen make stupid errors.
>> Perhaps you have hit the nail on the head, Older, over confident pilots in very complex aircraft

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:30:29 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Someone asked me recently, "Why do you always say, 'Gear down and
> locked', over the radio when you turn base?"Â* The stupidity of the
> question meant to me that there was no answer which would satisfy him.
>
>

I suppose a radio call adds another check, that a ground observer might hear, look up, notice something, and have a radio at hand. I personally doubt it adds very much, and radio congestion detracts from overall safety.

'There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers'

[Dan Marotta]

Fair enough, but I haven't landed gear up because I have had great
training and have good habits in the landing pattern.Â* And "5J, left
base, gear down, 26" is a lot less congestive than a lot of
dissertations I've heard on the radio.

On 9/8/2018 8:37 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:30:29 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Someone asked me recently, "Why do you always say, 'Gear down and
>> locked', over the radio when you turn base?"Â* The stupidity of the
>> question meant to me that there was no answer which would satisfy him.
>>
>>
> I suppose a radio call adds another check, that a ground observer might hear, look up, notice something, and have a radio at hand. I personally doubt it adds very much, and radio congestion detracts from overall safety.
>
> 'There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers'
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:09:48 AM UTC-6, Roy B. wrote:
> "First, I'd wind my watch..." meaning he would take a few seconds to think before acting.
>
> The problem, WB, is that we are old enough to remember watches that wind.
> Most of our students have never seen one.
>
> I was doing a ground school once and mentioned a "slide rule" and one of the kids piped up "What's a slide rule?" And before I could answer another kid said, "It was this old calculating thing - kinda like an abacus". We really are old.
> Roy

THAT is funny...

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 08 Sep 2018 10:08:05 -0700, archerzulu wrote:

> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:09:48 AM UTC-6, Roy B. wrote:
>> "First, I'd wind my watch..." meaning he would take a few seconds to
>> think before acting.
>>
>> The problem, WB, is that we are old enough to remember watches that
>> wind.
>> Most of our students have never seen one.
>>
>> I was doing a ground school once and mentioned a "slide rule" and one
>> of the kids piped up "What's a slide rule?" And before I could answer
>> another kid said, "It was this old calculating thing - kinda like an
>> abacus". We really are old.
>> Roy
>
> THAT is funny...

If you have or can borrow a Curta calculator, it would be fun to see what
the kids make of that!

If you've never seen a Curta, it was an small, not quite pocket sized,
mechanical calculator, designed prewar and produced from 1945/46 on and a
must-have device until electronic calculators started to appear in the
'70s. The rally car folks loved them. Photos and description here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote on 9/8/2018 8:49 AM:
> Fair enough, but I haven't landed gear up because I have had great training and
> have good habits in the landing pattern.* And "5J, left base, gear down, 26" is a
> lot less congestive than a lot of dissertations I've heard on the radio.
>
> On 9/8/2018 8:37 AM, wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:30:29 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
>>> Someone asked me recently, "Why do you always say, 'Gear down and
>>> locked', over the radio when you turn base?"* The stupidity of the
>>> question meant to me that there was no answer which would satisfy him.
>>>
>>>
>> I suppose a radio call adds another check, that a ground observer might hear,
>> look up, notice something, and have a radio at hand. I personally doubt it adds
>> very much, and radio congestion detracts from overall safety.
>>
>> 'There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers'

Have you considered a gear warning device of some sort? I haven't landed gear up,
either, and I don't say anything on the radio, but I have used a variety of gear
up warnings, including a welding clamp, a buzzer, and a vario. The systems have
saved me three times so far.

The radio call works best when someone on the ground enforces it, as we did at our
recent motorglider camp at Parowan, UT. If your entry to downwind didn't include
the "gear down and locked" phrase, a friendly voice on the radio asked you about
your gear position.

I also have a spoilers unlocked warning. It activates when the spoilers aren't
locked as the airspeed exceeds 25 knots.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
I

[MNLou]

"I personally doubt it adds very much"

I believe a radio call does add value. I added that to my routine last year.

By making the call every time, I double check before I make the call. I notice if I don't make the call as I make it mid downwind every flight. Pass midfield, no call - oops - I missed something.

YMMV -

Lou

[George Haeh]

"> You can establish margins, but Mother Nature at any time
> can blow right through them and put you into a totally
> new aerodynamic situation.

Margins are not static, and need to be adjusted for Mother Nature.

Margins on a clear, light wind day differ greatly from those on a day with, e.g., thunderstorms in the vicinity. "

Question: With a windsock showing 8 kt and wind of 15 kt at 300' on a cross country day, how much provision should be made for possible windshear?


After some answers have been submitted, I will share the windshear I once encountered in these conditions.

[[email protected]]

I've had great training and good habits, too. But after 50 years of flying, I landed gear up the first time. It was a long (50+ miles) final glide into Harris Hill at the nationals a few years ago, below glide path nearly the entire way. To my knowledge, no one had been ridge soaring that task but I thought the wind favored it as I approached across the valley. I connected with the Hill just below the crest and turned left to run across it. I gained enough on one short pass that when the finish line/taxiway came into view out my right wing, I simply turned right on very short final to land/finish. I appeared low from behind the trees and turned in so suddenly that no one had a chance to radio a warning. My primary concern was that I was flying downwind and needed to get it down so I didn't roll off the back of the Hill, and also avoiding the crop of finishers landing (properly) in the opposite direction.

I never shifted into "landing" mode. Call it tunnel vision: I was focused completely on finishing until the last few seconds and didn't even think about my landing checklist. There's an emergency field below the Hill that was available if the ridge hadn't worked; I deduced later that probably gave me one less reason to think about landing vs. finishing.

I'd had a gear warning horn in another glider but landed one day in the early 70s with it going off in my ear anyway (the wheel was down but the lever wasn't locked all the way over against the cockpit wall, which didn't cause a problem). I always figured: why have a system if I was going to subconsciously ignore it anyway?

Since then I've used a clip that I move from the gear handle to the dive brake handle when I release, and back again after the gear goes down. I could probably ignore this one, too, but it would be more difficult. That doesn't mean I couldn't make the same mistake again and I'll take all the help I can get. I called "gear down" in the pattern for a while after that. I may start doing it again. Or install the microswitches and connect it to my ClearNav vario this winter.

I was very depressed the night after I bellied in. I was gratified but amazed by the number of experienced pilots who dropped by the hangar to reassure me by confessing they had done it, too, some of them twice, one at an airshow in front of spectators. If the saying about "there are those who have and those who will" applies, there are a lot fewer of "those who will" remaining. :)

I don't scoff at anything pilots do to avoid making mistakes. None of us is perfect.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

I landed gear up last May, and I am (rightfully) embarrassed about it. I was on a long final glide into Moriarty, attempting to set the "digital inputs" from my airbrake and landing gear switches into my new LXNAV S80 properly to give me the lovely British lady's voice to "Check Gear" when the airbrakes were opened with the landing gear retracted. I couldn't get them to operate correctly, and I concluded that one of the two microswitches on the airbrake rod or landing gear mechanism was faulty or misaligned.

So I drop into the pattern, and make my radio call, "Moriarty Traffic, MSM over the Water Tower turning left downwind. Gear is down. Moriarty Traffic."

Whereupon, I operated the gear handle in the opposite direction from what is recommended in every flight manual, hangar flying session or other basic discussion of dumbass maneuvers involving aircraft. Yep, the gear was already down after I gave up on the futile attempt to make the S80 talk to me.

After the disconcerting scraping noises had stopped (short of the taxiway turnoff, as you might expect) and my supply of four letter words was depleted, helpful friends got me off the runway.

So while undergoing repairs, and talking to the LXNAV distributor, I discover that the "digital inputs" for airbrake and landing gear switches, while mentioned in the LXNAV S80 manual, are not actually SUPPORTED by the software!

Silly me! Learned a lesson, and installed a set of flashing red/blue LED lights in the panel. No mistaking those, and I believe they are superior to another beeping/honking/tweeting audio noises that modern instruments like to inflict.

But, as is my practice, I had called "Gear is down!" so the folks on the ground would recognize me as a Superior Aviator who always follows a set procedure and never would do something as stupid as landing gear up. Therefore, there was no reason for anyone on the ground (with access to a radio) to visually check my gear status and perhaps make me aware that financial difficulty was in my immediate future.

Yup, a painful experience, but fortunately, only to my ego and wallet. No animals were harmed during this event.

[2G]

On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:32:30 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> I landed gear up last May, and I am (rightfully) embarrassed about it. I was on a long final glide into Moriarty, attempting to set the "digital inputs" from my airbrake and landing gear switches into my new LXNAV S80 properly to give me the lovely British lady's voice to "Check Gear" when the airbrakes were opened with the landing gear retracted. I couldn't get them to operate correctly, and I concluded that one of the two microswitches on the airbrake rod or landing gear mechanism was faulty or misaligned.
>
> So I drop into the pattern, and make my radio call, "Moriarty Traffic, MSM over the Water Tower turning left downwind. Gear is down. Moriarty Traffic."
>
> Whereupon, I operated the gear handle in the opposite direction from what is recommended in every flight manual, hangar flying session or other basic discussion of dumbass maneuvers involving aircraft. Yep, the gear was already down after I gave up on the futile attempt to make the S80 talk to me.
>
> After the disconcerting scraping noises had stopped (short of the taxiway turnoff, as you might expect) and my supply of four letter words was depleted, helpful friends got me off the runway.
>
> So while undergoing repairs, and talking to the LXNAV distributor, I discover that the "digital inputs" for airbrake and landing gear switches, while mentioned in the LXNAV S80 manual, are not actually SUPPORTED by the software!
>
> Silly me! Learned a lesson, and installed a set of flashing red/blue LED lights in the panel. No mistaking those, and I believe they are superior to another beeping/honking/tweeting audio noises that modern instruments like to inflict.
>
> But, as is my practice, I had called "Gear is down!" so the folks on the ground would recognize me as a Superior Aviator who always follows a set procedure and never would do something as stupid as landing gear up. Therefore, there was no reason for anyone on the ground (with access to a radio) to visually check my gear status and perhaps make me aware that financial difficulty was in my immediate future.
>
> Yup, a painful experience, but fortunately, only to my ego and wallet. No animals were harmed during this event.

I have added a prominent, green, gear down LED on the panel of my new ASH 31Mi. I prefer the idea of a positive confirmation that I am OK to land vs a warning that something is wrong.

Tom

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.
>
> I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.
>
> Greig
Two videos you should view to heighten your safety. The first is especially an eye opener regarding the inadvertant spin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeI2LlEzOT4&feature=share

Bruno shares two thoughts about mountain flying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alk-q4golx0

Fly safely, my friends,

November Bravo

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 7:45:23 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.
> >
> > I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.
> >
> > Greig
> Two videos you should view to heighten your safety. The first is especially an eye opener regarding the inadvertant spin:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeI2LlEzOT4&feature=share

Are there seriously people who don't train such incipient spins? We certainly did in the Blanik in New Zealand in the mid 80s. Incipient spins were always demonstrated from a normal cruising nose-below-the-horizon attitude.

[Dan Marotta]

I have two lights on my panel, one for each gear leg.Â* When both are
green, the gear are down.Â* When the gear is in transit, they alternately
flash red.Â* If I open the dive brakes and the wheels are not down and
locked (two green), an annoying wavering horn sounds.

I still make a gear check call and I actually check the indications
(gear switch down, two green lights, silence) as I start my base turn.Â*
It's worked for me for 45 years.Â* I think I'll keep doing it.

On 9/8/2018 9:32 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:32:30 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>> I landed gear up last May, and I am (rightfully) embarrassed about it. I was on a long final glide into Moriarty, attempting to set the "digital inputs" from my airbrake and landing gear switches into my new LXNAV S80 properly to give me the lovely British lady's voice to "Check Gear" when the airbrakes were opened with the landing gear retracted. I couldn't get them to operate correctly, and I concluded that one of the two microswitches on the airbrake rod or landing gear mechanism was faulty or misaligned.
>>
>> So I drop into the pattern, and make my radio call, "Moriarty Traffic, MSM over the Water Tower turning left downwind. Gear is down. Moriarty Traffic."
>>
>> Whereupon, I operated the gear handle in the opposite direction from what is recommended in every flight manual, hangar flying session or other basic discussion of dumbass maneuvers involving aircraft. Yep, the gear was already down after I gave up on the futile attempt to make the S80 talk to me.
>>
>> After the disconcerting scraping noises had stopped (short of the taxiway turnoff, as you might expect) and my supply of four letter words was depleted, helpful friends got me off the runway.
>>
>> So while undergoing repairs, and talking to the LXNAV distributor, I discover that the "digital inputs" for airbrake and landing gear switches, while mentioned in the LXNAV S80 manual, are not actually SUPPORTED by the software!
>>
>> Silly me! Learned a lesson, and installed a set of flashing red/blue LED lights in the panel. No mistaking those, and I believe they are superior to another beeping/honking/tweeting audio noises that modern instruments like to inflict.
>>
>> But, as is my practice, I had called "Gear is down!" so the folks on the ground would recognize me as a Superior Aviator who always follows a set procedure and never would do something as stupid as landing gear up. Therefore, there was no reason for anyone on the ground (with access to a radio) to visually check my gear status and perhaps make me aware that financial difficulty was in my immediate future.
>>
>> Yup, a painful experience, but fortunately, only to my ego and wallet. No animals were harmed during this event.
> I have added a prominent, green, gear down LED on the panel of my new ASH 31Mi. I prefer the idea of a positive confirmation that I am OK to land vs a warning that something is wrong.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[Charlie Quebec]

My DVS voice announces “the landing gear is not extended� can’t miss that.

[2G]

On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 7:45:23 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > I have been soaring since the late 70's and can recall many accidents in the past. It seems, however, that recently the accident rate has spiked. While I don't have exact data to confirm this (I'm sure our friends at the SSF have it), it seems that we are experiencing higher than average accidents and fatalities.
> >
> > I find myself wondering what is causing this. Is it the complexity of gliders emerging in recent years? Is it the age/experience of the pilots? Lack of training? I don't have the answers but I would be interested in other's thoughts on the issue. One accident is too many and loss of any life is tragic.
> >
> > Greig
> Two videos you should view to heighten your safety. The first is especially an eye opener regarding the inadvertant spin:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeI2LlEzOT4&feature=share
>
> Bruno shares two thoughts about mountain flying:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alk-q4golx0
>
> Fly safely, my friends,
>
> November Bravo

The first video demonstrates that most stall-spin accidents are due to uncoordinated flight and misuse of the rudder. A contributing factor is fear of seeing the ground at low altitudes. I would concentrate on detecting that, rather than angle of attack. Perhaps we need an audible yaw string (all that it would take is an accelerometer).

Bruno has a history of histrionics (glider breaks the rule of gravity, Glider Pilot Gets Desperately Low in Teton Mountains), so I wouldn't put much weight on the 2nd video.

Tom

[Charlie Quebec]

I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you have to say.

[Jonathon May]

At 07:37 10 September 2018, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you
>have to say.
>
Just a thought
If most 1 seat gliders spin just from over ruddering a turn ,andK21's are
almost un-spinable.
Why don't they make a First single seat glider that handles like a K21,is
the performance loss so different?

[[email protected]]

Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look up the USAF report conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY

[Jonathon May]

At 13:54 10 September 2018, wrote:
>Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look up the USAF report
>conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY
>
I know they will spin,but the amount of abuse it takes is way beyond "a bit
of in-attention"
The latest K21B is going to be made so it can be spun.

I have had some pupils do terrible things and as long as they don't "deep
stall" it just gets on with it.

By deep stall I mean ,pull up then push over so you are left with the
normal attitude but only 20 kt,if you put rudder or aileron in then you are
going to spin.
>

[2G]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:37:36 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you have to say.

So, are you saying that misuse of the rudder is ok? If so, I TRULY wish you luck because you will NEED IT!

Here is another Bruno bad example video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCr-H_ZkBOo

Tom

[George Haeh]

So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder?

[Puchaz excepted]

[[email protected]]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 3:57:28 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
> So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder?
>
> [Puchaz excepted]

Put the CG behind the aft limit and a gust that hits the two wing tips differently can be enough to cause an asymetrical departure.
UH

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 3:57:28 PM UTC-4, George Haeh wrote:
> So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder?
>
> [Puchaz excepted]

I just read the USAF TP School report on the ASK-21/TG-9. They found cases where at the stall, aileron adverse jaw from an attempt to pick up a wing drop was enough to cause the departure (P. 88 "No Rudder Spin Entry" paragraph). Interesting read... Downloaded from DTIC (AD-A213513 July 1989). dtic..mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213513.pdf

Dan

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:47:39 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:37:36 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you have to say.
>
> So, are you saying that misuse of the rudder is ok? If so, I TRULY wish you luck because you will NEED IT!
>
> Here is another Bruno bad example video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCr-H_ZkBOo
>
I always was filled with mirth when someone walked through the front door of the office and said they wanted a glider flight "like Bruno". I would always say, let's go see how much fun we can have. Bruno does a lot for soaring, be it the excellent yearly fully subscribed Nephi events, or his well viewed videos. I love watching his videos. However, Bruno is a very experienced pilot, some events in his videos should not be tried by less experienced pilots or YOU WILL DIE. YouTube has many videos of experts doing things non-experts should not. "A man's got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

LOL. You do know that Tom is vehemently on the record that he thinks "fully subscribed Nephi events" are dangerous because of the large number of gliders flying in one location. Search back on r.a.s. a couple of seasons.

Not sure what exactly the bee in the bonnet is here as regards Bruno, but there definitely seems to be something funky going on. Time to deploy some grains of salt. The '300' thermalling' video has already been broadly and deeply discussed here, on social media and probably in a hangar or two. The minimum altitude on the altimeter was 5,850'. The field elevation is 5,022'. The difference is marketing.

:-)

9B

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 4:30:18 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:47:39 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:37:36 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > > I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you have to say.
> >
> > So, are you saying that misuse of the rudder is ok? If so, I TRULY wish you luck because you will NEED IT!
> >
> > Here is another Bruno bad example video:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCr-H_ZkBOo
> >
> I always was filled with mirth when someone walked through the front door of the office and said they wanted a glider flight "like Bruno". I would always say, let's go see how much fun we can have. Bruno does a lot for soaring, be it the excellent yearly fully subscribed Nephi events, or his well viewed videos. I love watching his videos. However, Bruno is a very experienced pilot, some events in his videos should not be tried by less experienced pilots or YOU WILL DIE. YouTube has many videos of experts doing things non-experts should not. "A man's got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan

[2G]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 4:56:59 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> LOL. You do know that Tom is vehemently on the record that he thinks "fully subscribed Nephi events" are dangerous because of the large number of gliders flying in one location. Search back on r.a.s. a couple of seasons.
>
> Not sure what exactly the bee in the bonnet is here as regards Bruno, but there definitely seems to be something funky going on. Time to deploy some grains of salt. The '300' thermalling' video has already been broadly and deeply discussed here, on social media and probably in a hangar or two. The minimum altitude on the altimeter was 5,850'. The field elevation is 5,022'. The difference is marketing.
>
> :-)
>
> 9B
>
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 4:30:18 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:47:39 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:37:36 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > > > I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you have to say.
> > >
> > > So, are you saying that misuse of the rudder is ok? If so, I TRULY wish you luck because you will NEED IT!
> > >
> > > Here is another Bruno bad example video:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCr-H_ZkBOo
> > >
> > I always was filled with mirth when someone walked through the front door of the office and said they wanted a glider flight "like Bruno". I would always say, let's go see how much fun we can have. Bruno does a lot for soaring, be it the excellent yearly fully subscribed Nephi events, or his well viewed videos. I love watching his videos. However, Bruno is a very experienced pilot, some events in his videos should not be tried by less experienced pilots or YOU WILL DIE. YouTube has many videos of experts doing things non-experts should not. "A man's got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan

I ASKED a simple question: how many gliders are too many at a single event. Bruno had plans to allow 80 gliders at his event. Everybody points to accidents after the fact and say "Why wasn't something done?" Apparently you think that 80 is just fine - we can just agree to disagree. But many are not happy with that: they want to repress ALL opinions that disagree with theirs. If my insight can save a SINGLE accident from happening, then it is more than worth it to absorb the abuse that I have received from people like you.

Tom

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 4:56:59 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> LOL. You do know that Tom is vehemently on the record that he thinks "fully subscribed Nephi events" are dangerous because of the large number of gliders flying in one location. Search back on r.a.s. a couple of seasons.
>
> Not sure what exactly the bee in the bonnet is here as regards Bruno, but there definitely seems to be something funky going on. Time to deploy some grains of salt. The '300' thermalling' video has already been broadly and deeply discussed here, on social media and probably in a hangar or two. The minimum altitude on the altimeter was 5,850'. The field elevation is 5,022'. The difference is marketing.
>
> :-)
>
> 9B
>
> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 4:30:18 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:47:39 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:37:36 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > > > I would put more weight on anything Bruno has to say, than anything you have to say.
> > >
> > > So, are you saying that misuse of the rudder is ok? If so, I TRULY wish you luck because you will NEED IT!
> > >
> > > Here is another Bruno bad example video:
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCr-H_ZkBOo
> > >
> > I always was filled with mirth when someone walked through the front door of the office and said they wanted a glider flight "like Bruno". I would always say, let's go see how much fun we can have. Bruno does a lot for soaring, be it the excellent yearly fully subscribed Nephi events, or his well viewed videos. I love watching his videos. However, Bruno is a very experienced pilot, some events in his videos should not be tried by less experienced pilots or YOU WILL DIE. YouTube has many videos of experts doing things non-experts should not. "A man's got to know his limitations" Harry Callahan

Thank you for that information Andy, I was not aware of 2G's position on "fully subscribed Nephi events". I usually don not read his posts.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

George Haeh wrote on 9/10/2018 12:57 PM:
> So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder?
>
> [Puchaz excepted]

In my ASW 20C and ASH 26 E, I could easily get a wing drop from coordinated
flight. I never let either enter a full spin, but always recovered at less than a
quarter turn. Easy to do: I circle at about 20 degree bank while continuously
slowing down, always maintaining coordinated flight; at some point as I slow, the
inner wing will drop and can not be picked up with the ailerons. So, spin entry
with no rudder misuse, just flying too slowly in a turn.

The above is harder to do at 30 degree bank, and I couldn't get it too happen at
40-45 degree bank. I did not experiment with different CG positions - mine was a
bit towards the aft side, but not near the rear limit.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Ian[_2_]]

On 06/09/2018 17:16, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> While I respect Tom Knauff, his teachings and writings, I know my CFI
> friend Dave, whom died in a planned spin with another CFI last week,
> knew what a rudder does, Sergio, Don, all very experienced. These
> are not the guys whom skills or knowledge are questioned. For that
> matter how did Peter Maask spin in, he knew what a rudder does, and I
> had heard that his trace showed safe speeds. I am afraid we will not
> know what caused these accidents so we can learn how not to
> experience these accidents. Why did Matt Wright still have max turn
> puts at 60 degrees bank on that day?
>

This is a very worrying question. I wonder what portion of recent
fatalities involve current, highly experienced but older pilots making
unexplained mistakes?

Anecdotally, I notice that quite a few of these accidents involve 2
seaters. Maybe when there are two, experienced, pilots on board, the
dynamics change - both waiting for each other to take control and
recover when things go wrong?

Maybe there have just been so many other advancements in technology like
weather forecasting, self launching, navigation, instrumentation etc
that experienced pilots are flying much further on a regular basis and
they are just more exposed to the next statistically random event?

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 3:15:12 AM UTC-4, Ian wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 17:16, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > While I respect Tom Knauff, his teachings and writings, I know my CFI
> > friend Dave, whom died in a planned spin with another CFI last week,
> > knew what a rudder does, Sergio, Don, all very experienced. These
> > are not the guys whom skills or knowledge are questioned. For that
> > matter how did Peter Maask spin in, he knew what a rudder does, and I
> > had heard that his trace showed safe speeds. I am afraid we will not
> > know what caused these accidents so we can learn how not to
> > experience these accidents. Why did Matt Wright still have max turn
> > puts at 60 degrees bank on that day?
> >
>
> This is a very worrying question. I wonder what portion of recent
> fatalities involve current, highly experienced but older pilots making
> unexplained mistakes?
>
> Anecdotally, I notice that quite a few of these accidents involve 2
> seaters. Maybe when there are two, experienced, pilots on board, the
> dynamics change - both waiting for each other to take control and
> recover when things go wrong?
>
> Maybe there have just been so many other advancements in technology like
> weather forecasting, self launching, navigation, instrumentation etc
> that experienced pilots are flying much further on a regular basis and
> they are just more exposed to the next statistically random event?

There is an old joke, based on a bit of truth like all good jokes, that the most dangerous crew in any aircraft is two instructors.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 12:26:48 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> George Haeh wrote on 9/10/2018 12:57 PM:
> > So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder?
> >
> > [Puchaz excepted]
>
> In my ASW 20C and ASH 26 E, I could easily get a wing drop from coordinated
> flight. I never let either enter a full spin, but always recovered at less than a
> quarter turn. Easy to do: I circle at about 20 degree bank while continuously
> slowing down, always maintaining coordinated flight; at some point as I slow, the
> inner wing will drop and can not be picked up with the ailerons. So, spin entry
> with no rudder misuse, just flying too slowly in a turn.
>
> The above is harder to do at 30 degree bank, and I couldn't get it too happen at
> 40-45 degree bank. I did not experiment with different CG positions - mine was a
> bit towards the aft side, but not near the rear limit.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

It is worth remembering that the inside wing in a turn is flying at a higher angle of attack than the outer wing. They are both descending at the same rate, but the inner wing is slower due to flying a shorter path. Add in the expectation that there is probably a small amount of top aileron to counteract the over banking tendency,and one can see why the inner wing will stall first and an incipient spin can result.
UH

[Dan Marotta]

On 9/11/2018 1:15 AM, Ian wrote:
> Anecdotally, I notice that quite a few of these accidents involve 2
> seaters. Maybe when there are two, experienced, pilots on board, the
> dynamics change - both waiting for each other to take control and
> recover when things go wrong?

Not an accident, but...

I was once in the back of my friend's two seater and we had been in a
straight line cruise towards home for quite some time.Â* At about 5-10
miles out he said that he'd take over now.Â* What?Â* I thought you were
flying!

There should never be waiting to take over; the pilot flying should take
action when something goes wrong.Â* And there should always be a positive
transfer of control when switching over.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Good point Dan,
The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft!
Food for thought,
JJ

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:33:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Good point Dan,
> The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft!
> Food for thought,
> JJ

I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard. Dave was insistent on positive transfer of control. And when doing a task, it was sterile cockpit, only relevant information for task at hand.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:26:48 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> George Haeh wrote on 9/10/2018 12:57 PM:
> > So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder?
> >
> > [Puchaz excepted]
>
> In my ASW 20C and ASH 26 E, I could easily get a wing drop from coordinated
> flight. I never let either enter a full spin, but always recovered at less than a
> quarter turn. Easy to do: I circle at about 20 degree bank while continuously
> slowing down, always maintaining coordinated flight; at some point as I slow, the
> inner wing will drop and can not be picked up with the ailerons. So, spin entry
> with no rudder misuse, just flying too slowly in a turn.
>
> The above is harder to do at 30 degree bank, and I couldn't get it too happen at
> 40-45 degree bank. I did not experiment with different CG positions - mine was a
> bit towards the aft side, but not near the rear limit.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

Thanks Eric and Hank for this. I recently viewed on YouTube a good video of a K-23 doing spins from coordinated flight. I had a Nimbus 4T start a spin in coordinated thermaling flight. Quick to put stick against forward stop and rudder opposite to rotation was flying in quarter turn and not sure how much altitude loss, but would be surprised if it was more than 75 feet.

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

Great idea!
I do that, I have also flown with other CFIG's and tend to make it obvious whom is flying and whom "may" take control.
In limited cases, the "friendly handshake" is replaced by, grabbing the stick, huge wiggle with a "my ship!" Is crude, but our asses are on the line!

Most "fun" to me was flying power with a towpilot/my GF at the time. Coming in on final in a C-150, short of field, stall warning going off, calm day, they were reaching for yoke, my comment, "Don't **** with the plane!". Hit the numbers, slight tap on brakes, first turnoff.
Stall warning was early, butt and feel said plenty,of margin.

Yes, knowing whom is flying is paramount.
With my mentor or others, a stick nudge or comment is a suggestion to do something else, but, no transfer of PIC.

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:47:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:33:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Good point Dan,
> > The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft!
> > Food for thought,
> > JJ
>
> I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard. Dave was insistent on positive transfer of control. And when doing a task, it was sterile cockpit, only relevant information for task at hand.

"I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard."

That's very interesting because there hasn't been an accident, fatal or otherwise, involving a Citabria since 2006. Was this outside the US?

Tom

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:47:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:33:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Good point Dan,
> > The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft!
> > Food for thought,
> > JJ
>
> I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard. Dave was insistent on positive transfer of control. And when doing a task, it was sterile cockpit, only relevant information for task at hand.

"I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard."

There hasn't been an accident involving a Citabria since 2006.

Tom

[Charlie Ryan]

The NTSB Aviation Accident Database indicates there have been 13 accidents of Champion built aircraft since February of this year.
5 Scouts (8GCBC), 3 fatalities in 2 accidents, 8 Citabrias (7XXXX, several variants) 1 fatality.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), krasw
> wrote:

>maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 16.54.53 UTC+3 kirjoitti:
>> Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look up the USAF report conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY
>
>ASK21 is unspinable unless you equip with spin kit designed to move cg well aft of normal limits. Without this kit you cannot spin 21.

One addition:
The spin weights put the CG to the normal aft limit, but not beyond
it.
This is the same CG that you would have if a light pilot flies without
a copilot.

With the spin weights the ASK-21 is an excellent spin trainer.


Cheers
Andreas

[Steve Thompson[_2_]]

Referring to the ASK21 TM4b, publicly available on the
AS site. I see on page 4 : "By following the spin ballast
table a c.g. of approx. 406 mm (16 inch) is set in for the
flight."

As far as I can tell from other data, this is not the aft
limit. I believe the aft limit is 469mm.

The USAF spinning tests are well documented in the
technical note flight manual and discusses inertia effects
as well as just CG position effects. 406mm is aft enough.



At 23:32 13 September 2018, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), krasw
> wrote:
>
>>maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 16.54.53 UTC+3
kirjoitti:
>>> Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look
up the USAF report
>conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY
>>
>>ASK21 is unspinable unless you equip with spin kit
designed to move cg
>well aft of normal limits. Without this kit you cannot
spin 21.
>
>One addition:
>The spin weights put the CG to the normal aft limit, but
not beyond
>it.
>This is the same CG that you would have if a light pilot
flies without
>a copilot.
>
>With the spin weights the ASK-21 is an excellent spin
trainer.
>
>
>Cheers
>Andreas
>

[Jonathan Walker]

Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and spinning.

It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward CofG.
Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will be to
far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very different
matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing that
can lull trainees into a false sense of security.

As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/210_TM23_E_HB.pdf


If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
will not work for all other aircraft.


At 08:41 14 September 2018, Steve Thompson wrote:
>Referring to the ASK21 TM4b, publicly available on the
>AS site. I see on page 4 : "By following the spin ballast
>table a c.g. of approx. 406 mm (16 inch) is set in for the
>flight."
>
>As far as I can tell from other data, this is not the aft
>limit. I believe the aft limit is 469mm.
>
>The USAF spinning tests are well documented in the
>technical note flight manual and discusses inertia effects
>as well as just CG position effects. 406mm is aft enough.
>
>
>
>At 23:32 13 September 2018, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), krasw
>> wrote:
>>
>>>maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 16.54.53 UTC+3
kirjoitti:
>>>> Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look
>up the USAF report
>>conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY
>>>
>>>ASK21 is unspinable unless you equip with spin kit
>designed to move cg
>>well aft of normal limits. Without this kit you cannot
>spin 21.
>>
>>One addition:
>>The spin weights put the CG to the normal aft limit, but
>not beyond
>>it.
>>This is the same CG that you would have if a light pilot
>flies without
>>a copilot.
>>
>>With the spin weights the ASK-21 is an excellent spin
>trainer.
>>
>>
>>Cheers
>>Andreas
>>
>
>

[Tango Whisky]

Le vendredi 14 septembre 2018 14:30:05 UTC+2, Jonathan Walker a écritÂ*:
> Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and spinning.
>
> It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward CofG..
> Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will be to
> far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very different
> matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing that
> can lull trainees into a false sense of security.
>
> As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
> would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
> at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
> recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
> "Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"
>
> https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/210_TM23_E_HB.pdf
>
>
> If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
> will not work for all other aircraft.
>

I agree with this. With the spin kit, spin entry is not at all like what you would see with an LS4, LS8 or Discus (which can be brought into a spin with the nose not much above the horizon. And I don't like the fact that recovery is non-standard. If the student uses the wrong technique, you will do 3-4 more turns after you've taken over controls. For that reasin, I don't do spin training with the ask below 1000 m AGL.

[Dan Marotta]

So...Â* If you'll only train spins in an aircraft with a "standard"
recovery, what's a solo pilot to do when he encounters a "non-standard"
spin recovery requirement?Â* This sounds to me like something is lacking...

On 9/14/2018 6:44 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Le vendredi 14 septembre 2018 14:30:05 UTC+2, Jonathan Walker a écritÂ*:
>> Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and spinning.
>>
>> It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward CofG.
>> Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will be to
>> far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very different
>> matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing that
>> can lull trainees into a false sense of security.
>>
>> As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
>> would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
>> at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
>> recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
>> "Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"
>>
>> https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/210_TM23_E_HB.pdf
>>
>>
>> If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
>> will not work for all other aircraft.
>>
> I agree with this. With the spin kit, spin entry is not at all like what you would see with an LS4, LS8 or Discus (which can be brought into a spin with the nose not much above the horizon. And I don't like the fact that recovery is non-standard. If the student uses the wrong technique, you will do 3-4 more turns after you've taken over controls. For that reasin, I don't do spin training with the ask below 1000 m AGL.

--
Dan, 5J

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:27:44 +0000, Jonathan Walker
> wrote:


>As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin weights I
>would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent even
>at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the spin
>recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
>"Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"
>
>https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/210_TM23_E_HB.pdf
>
>
>If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery technique that
>will not work for all other aircraft.


So far I have always taught the standard spin recovery - stick neutral
(!!), full opposite rudder, wait, recover. Works for all the gliders
I've flown so far (60+) and I cannot remember any halfways modern
glider where a different procedure is suggested.

Of course, spin entry is not as violent as in other gliders, but in my
opinion is is reasonably easy to give a valid demonstration.


Cheers
Andreas

[Dan Marotta]

I just reread the previous post that I responded to and see that the
poster only mentioned a higher altitude requirement to teach spins in
that aircraft, not only teaching in that aircraft.

On 9/14/2018 8:22 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> So... If you'll only train spins in an aircraft with a "standard"
> recovery, what's a solo pilot to do when he encounters a
> "non-standard" spin recovery requirement?Â* This sounds to me like
> something is lacking...
>
> On 9/14/2018 6:44 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
>> Le vendredi 14 septembre 2018 14:30:05 UTC+2, Jonathan Walker a écritÂ*:
>>> Just to correct a couple of misconceptions about the ASK21 and
>>> spinning.
>>>
>>> It WILL spin without the use of a spin kit, it just needs a rearward
>>> CofG.
>>> Normally (but not always) with an instructor on board the CofG will
>>> be to
>>> far forward but once the pupil goes solo then that can be a very
>>> different
>>> matter! Any talk that an aircraft is unspinable is the type of thing
>>> that
>>> can lull trainees into a false sense of security.
>>>
>>> As for the comment that it make a good spin trainer with the spin
>>> weights I
>>> would have to disagree. Its spin entry and recovery are inconsistent
>>> even
>>> at the same CofG. If you look at the updated flight manual even the
>>> spin
>>> recovery is non-standard. Note the point that says
>>> "Warning: Fall forward stick may retard or even prevent spin recovery"
>>>
>>> https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/210_TM23_E_HB.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> If your not careful you are training pilots with a recovery
>>> technique that
>>> will not work for all other aircraft.
>>>
>> I agree with this. With the spin kit, spin entry is not at all like
>> what you would see with an LS4, LS8 or Discus (which can be brought
>> into a spin with the nose not much above the horizon. And I don't
>> like the fact that recovery is non-standard. If the student uses the
>> wrong technique, you will do 3-4 more turns after you've taken over
>> controls. For that reasin, I don't do spin training with the ask
>> below 1000 m AGL.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

This accident was 8/22/2018, departure field KSEE, aircraft N# 1682G, cotanria 7KCAB

[Duster[_2_]]

Here is a clip of an inadvertent glider stall. It appears the pilot immediatly puts in opposite aileron (not recommended). Can't see enough leg motion to see his rudder input or elevator control. He is very quick to dump the positive flaps (I assume that's what it shows), which is good technique I might have forgot. His text edit of the proper sequence of inputs looks fine.. Kudos to him for sharing.

[Duster[_2_]]

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 9:10:20 PM UTC-5, Duster wrote:
> Here is a clip of an inadvertent glider stall. It appears the pilot immediatly puts in opposite aileron (not recommended). Can't see enough leg motion to see his rudder input or elevator control. He is very quick to dump the positive flaps (I assume that's what it shows), which is good technique I might have forgot. His text edit of the proper sequence of inputs looks fine. Kudos to him for sharing.

https://youtu.be/PpJA53LjarM?t=119