another crash

[kinsell]

https://www-1.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article234517642.html

Seems to be an unusually bad season for accidents.

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

Is it just me.....or do others click the link, see a bit, then locks up trying to load some other site?

Regardless, sucks another broken glider....

[Charlie Quebec]

On DG with the one piece canopy, the head rest is mounted on the canopy, and one can imagine the effect of the canopy flying forward into the back of the pilots head, I removed mine from the canopy for exactly this reason after reading a previous accident report.

[kinsell]

On 8/31/19 8:38 PM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Is it just me.....or do others click the link, see a bit, then locks up trying to load some other site?
>
> Regardless, sucks another broken glider....
>

It still works for me. Fatal crash of motorglider, Aug 25 at Buckley
Washington, near Tacoma. Clipped trees after takeoff. I'm not finding
anything else.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:19:15 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>
> It still works for me. Fatal crash of motorglider, Aug 25 at Buckley
> Washington, near Tacoma. Clipped trees after takeoff. I'm not finding
> anything else.

Registry shows owner has a DG-300. Don't see any evidence of a motor in the pictures. Maybe a low altitude release? Condolences to the family and all his friends.

Steve Leonard

[Craig Funston[_3_]]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 8:33:02 PM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:19:15 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> >
> > It still works for me. Fatal crash of motorglider, Aug 25 at Buckley
> > Washington, near Tacoma. Clipped trees after takeoff. I'm not finding
> > anything else.
>
> Registry shows owner has a DG-300. Don't see any evidence of a motor in the pictures. Maybe a low altitude release? Condolences to the family and all his friends.
>
> Steve Leonard

Departed from a nearby gliding field. Crash occurred while out-landing at a nearby private airfield. Very sad news indeed. This has been a tough summer.

Craig Funston

[John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net]

Very sad indeed.

There is another newsarticle with a clearer picture of the glider which seems to show an extended engine mast.

http://www.yelmonline.com/news/article_004c7d5a-ca9e-11e9-856a-17fb731bf84a.html

[800]

Only DG aircraft I see registered to that name and state is a -300.
My respectful condolences to family and friends.

[kinsell]

On 8/31/19 11:27 PM, John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
> Very sad indeed.
>
> There is another newsarticle with a clearer picture of the glider which seems to show an extended engine mast.
>
> http://www.yelmonline.com/news/article_004c7d5a-ca9e-11e9-856a-17fb731bf84a.html
>

That's what I had seen, but Kathryn's Report is saying it's a DG-300.
Another sad day for soaring in any case.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 12:27:36 AM UTC-5, John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
> Very sad indeed.
>
> There is another newsarticle with a clearer picture of the glider which seems to show an extended engine mast.
>
> http://www.yelmonline.com/news/article_004c7d5a-ca9e-11e9-856a-17fb731bf84a.html

I think you will discover that is a person walking along the tree line in the background, and not an extended engine mast.

https://www.asias.faa.gov/apex/f?p=100:96:2922435862163::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_FAT AL_FLG:26-AUG-19,YES

Third one in the list. Agree, Craig. This has been a very tough season.

Steve Leonard

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Steve Leonard wrote on 8/31/2019 8:33 PM:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:19:15 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>>
>> It still works for me. Fatal crash of motorglider, Aug 25 at Buckley
>> Washington, near Tacoma. Clipped trees after takeoff. I'm not finding
>> anything else.
>
> Registry shows owner has a DG-300. Don't see any evidence of a motor in the pictures. Maybe a low altitude release? Condolences to the family and all his friends.
>
> Steve Leonard

I was told by a person that knows people in the affected club that the pilot was
attempting a landing at the airfield, because he was unable to stay aloft. He was
launched from Bergseth field a few miles away.

--
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

[BG[_4_]]

With the plane and cockpit mostly intact, I am curious what kills you in this impact. Would a airbag under the pilots save him in this situation. Looks to be he pancaked in and broke off cockpit and tail boom section where the attach to the metal tube frame that holds wings and main landing gear.

BG




On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 3:04:49 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Steve Leonard wrote on 8/31/2019 8:33 PM:
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:19:15 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> >>
> >> It still works for me. Fatal crash of motorglider, Aug 25 at Buckley
> >> Washington, near Tacoma. Clipped trees after takeoff. I'm not finding
> >> anything else.
> >
> > Registry shows owner has a DG-300. Don't see any evidence of a motor in the pictures. Maybe a low altitude release? Condolences to the family and all his friends.
> >
> > Steve Leonard
>
> I was told by a person that knows people in the affected club that the pilot was
> attempting a landing at the airfield, because he was unable to stay aloft.. He was
> launched from Bergseth field a few miles away.
>
> --
> 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

[Charlie Quebec]

As I previously stated, the canopy mounted head rest would have hit the back of the pilots head with some force when the canopy departed during the crash.

[John Foster]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:00:49 PM UTC-6, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> As I previously stated, the canopy mounted head rest would have hit the back of the pilots head with some force when the canopy departed during the crash.

And this could break the pilot's neck. Or, the sudden deceleration of the crash could tear the aorta off the root at the hear or some other location, causing a rapid internal hemorrhage. Or there could be whiplash from crash which could break the neck.

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

Without a medical report, any suggestion of what made this accident fatal is purely speculation.

[Charlie Quebec]

Speculation is the norm here Nick, but I stand by my comment. Head rest mounted on canopy is a recipe for disaster.

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

Do you have any data to back that statement up?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Charlie Quebec wrote on 9/3/2019 4:54 PM:
> Speculation is the norm here Nick, but I stand by my comment. Head rest mounted on canopy is a recipe for disaster.

I wonder if the headrest causes any injury or other problem when the canopy is
ejected.

--
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

[Charlie Quebec]

Can’t find it again right now, but there was a pilot killed by the headrest in one accident. Will try to find.

[Charlie Quebec]

To be clear, I am refering only to the one piece DG canopy not the 2 piece. It’s clear in a nose first crash, the canopy would fly forwards, there is nowhere else for it to go, it’s not even in the picture of this crash.
I removed mine from my 200 after reading the crash report. I just use a feather pillow stuffed into the turtle deck area, works nicely.

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 8:10:53 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> To be clear, I am refering only to the one piece DG canopy not the 2 piece. It’s clear in a nose first crash, the canopy would fly forwards, there is nowhere else for it to go, it’s not even in the picture of this crash.
> I removed mine from my 200 after reading the crash report. I just use a feather pillow stuffed into the turtle deck area, works nicely.

A typical approach speed is 55 kt, or 63 mph. Does ANYBODY really think you can survive a frontal impact at that speed in a glider fuselage, which has minimal energy absorbing?

[Charlie Quebec]

Well I do, going by the YouTube vid that shows the pilot surviving exactly that sort of crash.

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

Which YouTube video? An example of one person surviving doesn’t mean everyone does. There are also the obvious considerations such as impact surface, angle, etc.

The DG website states that :

“Since there is no crush zone in a glider as there is in an auto, a crash at higher velocities – mostly over 60 knots – is not survivable. In actual crash tests at “only� 30 knots and only directly on the nose, high loadings were measured with dire results for the pilot.�

I’m certain DG has added that headrest as part of the design of their sailplane - which is a certified aircraft. Removing it without proper authority may not be legal (or smart).

Nick

[Jim White[_3_]]

G Dale had a mid air in his DG100 in 2012 and bailed out. He said that the
canopy smashed him in the back of the head when he ejected it and
momentarily knocked him out.

[Tom Edwards]

In an incident/crash/accident there are typically three impacts;

The initial where the glider gets hit by something or hits something.
Secondly the body of the person hitting the inside of the glider whether
at force or not.
Thirdly the bodies internal organs hitting the skeleton or being
torn/ripped out from their normal position, that's the one that potentially
kills /damages the pilot.

[John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net]

The DG/LS folks are really pushing the Roeger hook to prevent a DG canopy from smacking you in the back of the head by forcing the canopy to rotate at the rear and then up and out of the way.

Rear more here:
https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/the-roeger-hook

[john firth]

Does anyone know of a bailout from a PIK 20 D or E ( one piece canopy)

John F

[Dan Marotta]

Not having read the report, I wonder:Â* As the canopy rotates upward and
aft about the Roeger hook, given the position of the headrest, does it
rotate forward and upward hitting the pilot in the back of the head?Â* It
would be interesting to simulate this on the ground with a few people
and a bunch of hands to insure no damage.

On 9/4/2019 4:37 AM, John DeRosa OHM Ω http://aviation.derosaweb.net wrote:
> The DG/LS folks are really pushing the Roeger hook to prevent a DG canopy from smacking you in the back of the head by forcing the canopy to rotate at the rear and then up and out of the way.
>
> Rear more here:
> https://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/en/library/the-roeger-hook

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 9:34:50 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Well I do, going by the YouTube vid that shows the pilot surviving exactly that sort of crash.

I noticed you didn't provide a link to said video...

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Charlie Quebec wrote on 9/3/2019 8:10 PM:
> To be clear, I am refering only to the one piece DG canopy not the 2 piece. It’s clear in a nose first crash, the canopy would fly forwards, there is nowhere else for it to go, it’s not even in the picture of this crash.
> I removed mine from my 200 after reading the crash report. I just use a feather pillow stuffed into the turtle deck area, works nicely.

I've been told by Schleicher designers that the headrest should not be soft, as
it's main function is to restrain rearward head motion.

--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote on 9/3/2019 9:29 PM:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 at 8:10:53 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
>> To be clear, I am refering only to the one piece DG canopy not the 2 piece. It’s clear in a nose first crash, the canopy would fly forwards, there is nowhere else for it to go, it’s not even in the picture of this crash.
>> I removed mine from my 200 after reading the crash report. I just use a feather pillow stuffed into the turtle deck area, works nicely.
>
> A typical approach speed is 55 kt, or 63 mph. Does ANYBODY really think you can survive a frontal impact at that speed in a glider fuselage, which has minimal energy absorbing?
>
That depends very much on the definition of "frontal impact". A perpendicular
impact into a strong wall made of boulders would be much more serious than a 30
degree impact on dirt. What specifically did you have in mind?

--
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

[Charlie Quebec]

I didn’t provide a link because the video was taken down, but here it is from another angle retard boy.

[6PK]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
> On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 9:00:49 PM UTC-6, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > As I previously stated, the canopy mounted head rest would have hit the back of the pilots head with some force when the canopy departed during the crash.
>
> And this could break the pilot's neck. Or, the sudden deceleration of the crash could tear the aorta off the root at the hear or some other location, causing a rapid internal hemorrhage. Or there could be whiplash from crash which could break the neck.

Looking at the picture in the news article the front portion of the fuselage seems "almost" intact and there is no sign of the canopy...hmmm?
I happen to own a DG300.. My headrest is factory installed, it is adjustable via a handle and honestly I could never really get it tight enough for it to stay in the same place too long although its not much of a problem. If I were to bump it hard enough it will just tilt back.
I very much doubt it to be the culprit and kill someone. However the absence of the Roger hook could be a culprit?

[rudolph stutzmann]

My DG 303 has the headrest attached to the backrest.
I certainly can see the force of impact and immediate deceleration sending the canopy forward and away from the rest of the cockpit. Another possibility for the canopy not being visible is rescue crews throwing it out of the way to allow easier access?? Doesn't rule in/out it causing injury, just possibly why it's not in immediate vicinity of cockpit??

[Charlie Quebec]

In the interest of disclosure, it should be noted that Nick Gilbert’s fathers business is the DG agent in Australia.

[[email protected]]

If you enter spin low 20-50 meters you may survive if you don't stop rotation. I know one case like that, one turn of spin, inner wing softened the crash on plowed field, pilot broke both legs but survived (on Jantar Standard). The spin had dynamic entry in other direction then turn. Just keep extra speed and don't spin.

[Charlie Quebec]

Interesting, just got a call from an airworthiness official about removing the headrest. It appears some ****tard has dogged me in.
Typical of the pathetic pedantry of Gliding here in SA. Too many people with their heads up their own rear.

[Charlie Quebec]

There’s some nasty little pedant out there who must be so proud of himself for his dobbing. Chicken **** *******

[Charlie Quebec]

On the photos I could find on google, all the later DG singles have a seat back mounted headrest, at least the 300/600/800 I found.
100/200/400 are the only ones I can find with canopy mount. It appears DG themselves changed it.
It’s only common sense to see no good is going to come from the headrest in a canopy ejection scenario.
I do want to have a headrest I’m going to contact DG about fitting a later model seat back, might as well get something for the blackmail contract.
When I talked to my CFI just a couple of months ago he was quite insistent that having no headrest was better from a lookout point of view.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> On DG with the one piece canopy, the head rest is mounted on the canopy, and one can imagine the effect of the canopy flying forward into the back of the pilots head, I removed mine from the canopy for exactly this reason after reading a previous accident report.

I have repaired a number of ships that have had hard nose down impacts. Not one of them had the canopy come off. The canopy frame, in all cases, stayed with the fuselage and broke in line with the other fuselage structural failures. The canopies broke away from the frame in many pieces. To get the pilot out one needs to get that frame, and the shards of canopy, out of the way.
FWIW
UH

[6PK]

I'm not sure about the rest but all 300 and 303's has the headrest mounted on the back of the canopy rail...that also includes my 300.

[6PK]

BTW
At least in my glider but I'm sure in just about any; in regards to the headrest blocking vision there is is no frigging way I could even twist my head to see it let alone it blocking my sight.
This unless one has a neck of a giraffe:-)

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Charlie Quebec wrote on 9/6/2019 12:58 AM:
> When I talked to my CFI just a couple of months ago he was quite insistent that having no headrest was better from a lookout point of view.

That's not true for the ASW20C I used to fly, nor the ASH26E I currently fly. Did
he mention any specifics? For example, was he thinking of pilots that adjust the
headrest so it is touching their heads during normal flight? That might interfere
with looking upwards.

--
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

[Charlie Quebec]

He felt that headrests limit lookout, and with 37,000 hours gliding and a world champion, seems uniquely qualified.

[Charlie Quebec]

Examples of none canopy headrest.
DG 300. https://www.sfg-wershofen.de/verein/flugzeuge/dg-300-club-d-4578/
Dg800 https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/model/Glaser-Dirks%20DG-800S
It appears early model 300 had the canopy mounted head bashed.

[Charlie Quebec]

He felt that any headrest limits the movement of the head for lookout, particularly to the rear, not a matter of blocking the view as mush as limiting head movement.
He is possibly the most experienced instrauctor in the world, with 30,000 hours as a professional paid instructor, and winner of multiple world champs..
It’s been a pleasure flying with a real professional.

[Richard DalCanto]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 6:02:37 AM UTC-6, kinsell wrote:
> https://www-1.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article234517642.html
>
> Seems to be an unusually bad season for accidents.

My 303 has the headrest as part of the seatback, not the canopy.

[BobW]

On 9/6/2019 10:16 AM, 6PK wrote:
> BTW At least in my glider but I'm sure in just about any; in regards to the
> headrest blocking vision there is is no frigging way I could even twist my
> head to see it let alone it blocking my sight. This unless one has a neck
> of a giraffe:-)

There's always one in the crowd!

Believe it or not, giraffes can turn their heads no farther than humans, since
both species have the same (7) number of neck vertebrae (or so I seem to
remember reading somewhere, somewhen).

Birds, on the other hand, are reputed to have 13 neck vertebrae, which is
allegedly why (say) owls can turn their heads 180-degrees, whereas we poor
humans and giraffes are limited to 90-degrees. Combine 180-degree range of
motion with birds/owls' quick reflexes, and thus the old wives' tale that you
can kill an owl watching you simply by walking around and around it until it
twists it head off.

Kinda makes you wonder how's come the stories of gliders being able to "sneak
up" on soaring birds in flight! There might BE something to this situational
awareness theory!

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming. You're welcome!

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Nick Kennedy[_3_]]

The RAS thread drift light is stuck on in this thread.
Guy hit the ground hard during a botched landing.
That's what I see at least.
Nose first impacts are hard to survive.
Aviate.
Navigate.
Communicate.
Keep the speed up no matter what.
IMHO
RIP

[Charlie Quebec]

In news, some no life low life has reported me to the airworthiness authorities for removing the headrest.
It’s interesting, if a tall pilot removes the seat back with an integrated headrest to fit in the glider, that must be illegal too.
I’m waiting a response from the authority as to whether removing the head rest is allowable ot not.
I can find no reference to it in the manuals, and it’s certainly not required equipment as per the risk.
I wonder if my accuser has the guts to admit it here, or will just crawl back under their rock. Perhaps they can show their source for the claim of illegality?
I’m not holding my breath, this kind of petty pedant is a sad fact of live In the parochial backwater in which I live.
I’m pretty sure I know who it is, and the laughable thing is I know damn well if I was one of his mates, doing an illegal mod, he would have said nothing.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Charlie Quebec wrote on 9/6/2019 5:01 PM:
> He felt that any headrest limits the movement of the head for lookout, particularly to the rear, not a matter of blocking the view as mush as limiting head movement.
> He is possibly the most experienced instrauctor in the world, with 30,000 hours as a professional paid instructor, and winner of multiple world champs..
> It’s been a pleasure flying with a real professional.

I understand he felt that way, but without knowing why he thought that way, or
hearing some specifics of his experiences, I will continue to use a headrest in my
glider. After all, the Schleicher designer (Martin Heide) said it was an important
safety improvement, and I've flown the glider for 25 seasons without vision
impairment. I'm not just making it up :^)

--
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

[2G]

On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:36:15 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> In news, some no life low life has reported me to the airworthiness authorities for removing the headrest.
> It’s interesting, if a tall pilot removes the seat back with an integrated headrest to fit in the glider, that must be illegal too.
> I’m waiting a response from the authority as to whether removing the head rest is allowable ot not.
> I can find no reference to it in the manuals, and it’s certainly not required equipment as per the risk.
> I wonder if my accuser has the guts to admit it here, or will just crawl back under their rock. Perhaps they can show their source for the claim of illegality?
> I’m not holding my breath, this kind of petty pedant is a sad fact of live In the parochial backwater in which I live.
> I’m pretty sure I know who it is, and the laughable thing is I know damn well if I was one of his mates, doing an illegal mod, he would have said nothing.

Hey CQ, WHERE is your SO-CALLED VIDEO?

[Charlie Quebec]

THIS IS AS CLOSE AS I can find, the more revealing video, it appears it has been taken down, clearly showing the aerobatic glider striking the ground at a 60 degree angle.
This video only shows the crash up until ground contact even you 2G should be able to work out what happened next.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig
This link shows screen captures from the video showing every stage of the crash.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311828/Shoreham-air-crash-pilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html
Stick that where the sun don’t shine.

[Charlie Quebec]

I actually do want to have a headrest, I’m not in any way saying a headrest is not a good thing, just the opposite.
I have a rare form of muscular dystropy that is much aided by correct neck support provided by a decent headrest.
The only glider I have been able to fly for long periods was and LS4 with its large well shaped headrest.
It’s literally the difference between my only being able to fly for a couple of hours maximum and 5 hours maximum.

The nature of my FSH muscular dystrophy that I still have strength in my forearms, so flying isn’t a phisical strength limit, the
limit is the pain I get later after overexertion. It’s very difficult, as my disability is none visible, and despite being told, there is zero help or understanding for my condition amongst my local
administrators, though I have found much more receptive and tolerant people interstate.

I’m sure people at times think I’m lazy, which for someone who has been a doer their entire life, is very frustrating, so I tend to do and regret later,
not to mention the effect pain levels have on my mood.

I can’t stand by and watch someone struggle without helping. Currently I’m suffering an injury from overexertion during a course from helping move a wing, that has me at 8 out of 10 on the pain scale.
It will take several weeks for me to recover and fly again.


I have to carefully manage myself phisically and mentally for flying, and I take it very seriously. I only fly when I’m fit enough, which is rather limiting,
hoping for a good day and one where I do not need to take strong pain relief.

[Charlie Quebec]

Correction, the series of pictures was what I originally saw back in 2010, not video apparently,
the video shows events prior to the actual crash, my apologies.
Those who doubt about the canopy departing in a crash should take careful note of the pictures, It clearly departs in an uncontrolled manner.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311828/Shoreham-air-crash-pilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 20:32:19 -0600, BobW wrote:

> Kinda makes you wonder how's come the stories of gliders being able to
> "sneak up" on soaring birds in flight! There might BE something to this
> situational awareness theory!
>
I put that down to birds that regularly soar in flocks (gulls, kites,
vultures) having good, and quite obvious, traffic awareness while
solitary raptors don't. When I've had gulls join my thermal they've
always turned the same way as me but three times now I've had a smallish
hawk (kestrel or similar) come round the thermal the wrong way, suddenly
spot my glider about the same time I saw them, close wings and plummet.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

Check the type certificate data sheet for your glider and the equipment
list.Â* The TCDS for my Stemme said words something like, "Everything in
the equipment list PLUS a canopy breaker tool".

There was no canopy breaker tool in my 12-year old ship when I imported
it into the US and the Designated Airworthiness Representative issued an
Airworthiness Certificate for the ship, anyway.

As soon as I noticed the requirement, I installed a canopy breaker in
the cockpit.Â* Perhaps you'll find similar wording about the headrest or
lack of same.Â* With no stated requirement, I'd argue with the
authorities.Â* Probably a losing battle, but one worth fighting.

On 9/6/2019 9:36 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> In news, some no life low life has reported me to the airworthiness authorities for removing the headrest.
> It’s interesting, if a tall pilot removes the seat back with an integrated headrest to fit in the glider, that must be illegal too.
> I’m waiting a response from the authority as to whether removing the head rest is allowable ot not.
> I can find no reference to it in the manuals, and it’s certainly not required equipment as per the risk.
> I wonder if my accuser has the guts to admit it here, or will just crawl back under their rock. Perhaps they can show their source for the claim of illegality?
> I’m not holding my breath, this kind of petty pedant is a sad fact of live In the parochial backwater in which I live.
> I’m pretty sure I know who it is, and the laughable thing is I know damn well if I was one of his mates, doing an illegal mod, he would have said nothing.

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:50:44 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> THIS IS AS CLOSE AS I can find, the more revealing video, it appears it has been taken down, clearly showing the aerobatic glider striking the ground at a 60 degree angle.
> This video only shows the crash up until ground contact even you 2G should be able to work out what happened next.
>
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig
> This link shows screen captures from the video showing every stage of the crash.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311828/Shoreham-air-crash-pilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html
> Stick that where the sun don’t shine.

I beg to differ: this video (which I have seen before) does not show the impact at all, which is blocked by the crowd. It is apparent that the wing tip strikes first, then the fuselage. This is not a "frontal impact," but a cart-wheel, which is survivable as the wing is taking most of the energy. A friend of mine survived such an impact in the Alvord Desert with basically no injuries.

The physics are pretty simply: gliders don't have a crush zone - your feet and legs are the crush zone. A vertical impact is not survivable, but a shallow angled crash can be. Here is an example of the former:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170526X21127&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=FA
https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/61500-61999/61854/620585.pdf
and here is an example of the later:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20140714X53809&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=CA
https://www.danlj.org/~danlj/Soaring/SoaringRx/2015-03_I_Crashed_Gawthrop-12-17.pdf
Both of these pilots were friends of mine (Bill Gawthrop succumbed to cancer last year).

Tom

[Charlie Quebec]

Then you have reading comprehension of vision problems, the photos show a small impact on the wing and clearly from the damage, the bulk of the force was on the nose, you can tell clearly from the pictures where the main forces were.
The whole sequence is there. By all means though, keep up your amusing attempt to deflect.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dan Marotta wrote on 9/7/2019 7:06 AM:
> As soon as I noticed the requirement, I installed a canopy breaker in the
> cockpit.* Perhaps you'll find similar wording about the headrest or lack of same.
> With no stated requirement, I'd argue with the authorities.* Probably a losing
> battle, but one worth fighting.

What does a canopy breaker look like? I've never heard of one.

--
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

[Charlie Quebec]

Had you bothered to click the link to the picture, the second one down shows clearly the glider was in a 65 degree nose down attitude when it hit.
The small damage to the wingtip and large damage to the nose show clearly where the force are. the sequencevof photos is quite clear.
I have personally seen the wreckage of a twin astir that struck nose first and both pilots survived, albeit one of them with a serious injury.
Here’s the link again to the pictures.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311828/Shoreham-air-crash-pilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html

[Darryl Ramm]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dan Marotta wrote on 9/7/2019 7:06 AM:
> > As soon as I noticed the requirement, I installed a canopy breaker in the
> > cockpit.Â* Perhaps you'll find similar wording about the headrest or lack of same.
> > With no stated requirement, I'd argue with the authorities.Â* Probably a losing
> > battle, but one worth fighting.
>
> What does a canopy breaker look like? I've never heard of one.
>
> --
> 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

This video has been around for a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRvQxGl4kt4

Lots of options available if you search online but I suspect those cheap plastic handle breakers seem pretty good (I have several of them, got them for cars first). Secure them well so they don't come and get you during a crash. .. some of the heavier knife blade style breakers would worry me more about that. The dinky little sharp impact breakers ah not so useful as the video shows... heck you can shatter car glass with a tiny piece of ceramic..

Being trapped inverted in a crashed motorglider with potentially fuel leaking everywhere is not a pretty thought. Not really sure likely a breaker is is to be actually used/able to help (e.g. canopy is still intact, and breaking it will let you get out), but its cheap insurance.

[Dan Marotta]

I have a military style breaker mounted to the left arm rest, under the
side pocket.Â* It is heavy and will make short work of a canopy if
properly used.Â* These were mounted to the canopy rails of all the jets I
flew in the Air Force (though they were painted flat black).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dgzz4ji49mh5sl/Canopy%20Breaker.jpg?dl=0

On 9/7/2019 11:44 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dan Marotta wrote on 9/7/2019 7:06 AM:
>> As soon as I noticed the requirement, I installed a canopy breaker in
>> the cockpit.Â* Perhaps you'll find similar wording about the headrest
>> or lack of same.Â* With no stated requirement, I'd argue with the
>> authorities.Â* Probably a losing battle, but one worth fighting.
>
> What does a canopy breaker look like? I've never heard of one.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

"Canopy breakers" are different from the automotive "window breakers" in that the surfaces to be destroyed are also quite different. Automotive glass is tempered, meaning the entire surface is under a manufactured strain. It is quite durable and strong, but, because of the inherent stresses induced in the manufacturing process, it is susceptible to a sharp blow from a pointed object. Thus, a window breaker can (when properly used) shatter the entire surface into small chunks that pose minimal risk to occupants of the vehicle and allow for escape through the window frame.

Plexiglass glider canopies (as well as many other aviation windows) are much more flexible, and do not incorporate the tempered glass internal structure, Beating on the inside of a plastic canopy with the tiny pointed hammer that does so well on tempered glass is a basic exercise in futility, especially if the canopy has been partially broken, say, after a crash. There are specially designed tools that are intended for use with plastic canopies, like this one:

https://www.flyboyaccessories.com/Chisel-Style-Canopy-Breaker-p/2201.htm

[Darryl Ramm]

Yes except the video I linked to showed somebody cracking open an acrylic aircraft canopy exactly with on of those cheap hammers. Don't think they will works I'll come and try one out on your glider. I won't even charge for the lesson, but I will pay for any minor damage I create that does not shatter the canopy.

The little click style breakers won't work well as that video prove, they rely on minimal force and just the point stress of a carbide or similar point on the tempered glass. As does chucking a tiny piece of broken spark plug ceramic against a car window (go on try it). So yet they would be a very bad ad choice. A rescue hammer, OTOH I expect to have little difficulty against a thin acrylic canopy. These are not fight jet canopies and are pretty dammed fragile.


On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 5:37:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> "Canopy breakers" are different from the automotive "window breakers" in that the surfaces to be destroyed are also quite different. Automotive glass is tempered, meaning the entire surface is under a manufactured strain. It is quite durable and strong, but, because of the inherent stresses induced in the manufacturing process, it is susceptible to a sharp blow from a pointed object. Thus, a window breaker can (when properly used) shatter the entire surface into small chunks that pose minimal risk to occupants of the vehicle and allow for escape through the window frame.
>
> Plexiglass glider canopies (as well as many other aviation windows) are much more flexible, and do not incorporate the tempered glass internal structure, Beating on the inside of a plastic canopy with the tiny pointed hammer that does so well on tempered glass is a basic exercise in futility, especially if the canopy has been partially broken, say, after a crash. There are specially designed tools that are intended for use with plastic canopies, like this one:
>
> https://www.flyboyaccessories.com/Chisel-Style-Canopy-Breaker-p/2201.htm

[2G]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Had you bothered to click the link to the picture, the second one down shows clearly the glider was in a 65 degree nose down attitude when it hit.
> The small damage to the wingtip and large damage to the nose show clearly where the force are. the sequencevof photos is quite clear.
> I have personally seen the wreckage of a twin astir that struck nose first and both pilots survived, albeit one of them with a serious injury.
> Here’s the link again to the pictures.
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311828/Shoreham-air-crash-pilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html

You CLAIMED that the video showed a vertical impact, which it didn't. This picture DOESN'T show the impact either, but it looks very much like the wing tip hit first, causing a cartwheel - which is what I said before. A cartwheel is a VERY MUCH different type of impact from a frontal impact. I illustrated this with TWO SEPARATE ACCIDENTS. Go back and EDUCATE yourself!

Tom

[2G]

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 7:14:41 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> > Had you bothered to click the link to the picture, the second one down shows clearly the glider was in a 65 degree nose down attitude when it hit.
> > The small damage to the wingtip and large damage to the nose show clearly where the force are. the sequencevof photos is quite clear.
> > I have personally seen the wreckage of a twin astir that struck nose first and both pilots survived, albeit one of them with a serious injury.
> > Here’s the link again to the pictures.
> > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311828/Shoreham-air-crash-pilot-escapes-stunt-glider-smashes-runway.html
>
> You CLAIMED that the video showed a vertical impact, which it didn't. This picture DOESN'T show the impact either, but it looks very much like the wing tip hit first, causing a cartwheel - which is what I said before. A cartwheel is a VERY MUCH different type of impact from a frontal impact. I illustrated this with TWO SEPARATE ACCIDENTS. Go back and EDUCATE yourself!
>
> Tom

I scrolled down and saw the 2nd photo, which CLEARLY shows the wing tip impacting first and absorbing much of the energy as it disintegrates. This is much more like a cartwheel than a frontal impact, where the cockpit hits first.

Tom

[Charlie Quebec]

You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is, due to angular momentum the fuselage would have accelerated when the wing touched. The glider clearly did not cartwheel, it just touched a tip then the picture clearly shows that the tmpact was close to vertical .You must be blind if you can’t see the nose striking the ground at a near vertical position. Get your vision checked Your appeal to dubious authority of your so called experience is laughable.

[Charlie Quebec]

Further, Nick Gilbert as you have chosen to claim that removing the headrest is illegal, I’m sure you can show the documentation to back your claim that a headrest is part
of the standard configuration of a DG 200. I’m sure the airworthiness people would be interested as they can find nothing definitive either way so far in the LBA certification. I imagine they really appreciate the waste of time on this rank triviality.
Lastly, regarding the construction of the headrest, I decided to take a quick look, to see what this marvel of safety is made of. It consists of a piece of 5mm ply, 50mm of soft springy foam, covered in cloth bolted thru the ply to a 50mm long 3mm steel plate 12mm wide, which is then welded to a 10mm square tube which carries the attachment arm to the canopy. It’s easy to imagine under load, the steel plate punching straight thru the low grade ply and into the back of the pilots head. It’s blatantly obvious that it’s poor construction method, and the obvious to anyone who isn’t a half wit hazard it presents should ejection by necessary, there is literally no way the canopy could leave the glider without striking the pilots head, or cause further injury in a whiplash situation.
Put up or shut up Nick.

[[email protected]]

As the guy that sold the pilot that nicely turned out 300, it's a sad day indeed.

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

Dave, what I said was "Removing it without proper authority may not be legal (or smart)". This is a far cry from "you have chosen to claim that removing the headrest is illegal".

Also, you appear to be pinpointing me as the reason for the GFA looking into this matter. That is incorrect.

Nick.

[Charlie Quebec]

Yeh right.

[2G]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 1:41:38 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is, due to angular momentum the fuselage would have accelerated when the wing touched. The glider clearly did not cartwheel, it just touched a tip then the picture clearly shows that the tmpact was close to vertical .You must be blind if you can’t see the nose striking the ground at a near vertical position. Get your vision checked Your appeal to dubious authority of your so called experience is laughable.

You are the one "spinning" it - your video DID NOT show the impact and the article only had one photo of the impact, so stating that it did not cartwheel is unsupported. In any event, it IS NOT a frontal impact as the wing tip struck first, which is a HUGE difference from what you claimed.

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

believe whatever you like. If you're concerned about this sort of blowback, perhaps be more careful what you broadcast in a public forum, and consider who might be reading it.

[2G]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 6:29:56 PM UTC-7, Nick Gilbert wrote:
> believe whatever you like. If you're concerned about this sort of blowback, perhaps be more careful what you broadcast in a public forum, and consider who might be reading it.

Believe me, I don't give a **** about "blowback" - the facts will speak for themselves. Perhaps you, too, should review the two accidents that I posted links to. After all, physics also don't give a **** about opinions.

Tom

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

Hi Tom - my post regarding "blowback" was aimed at Charlie Quebec, not you.

Cheers,
Nick.

[2G]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 6:52:13 PM UTC-7, Nick Gilbert wrote:
> Hi Tom - my post regarding "blowback" was aimed at Charlie Quebec, not you.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.

Sorry, I made a bad assumption!

Tom

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

One should learn to sit back and observe. Not everything needs a reaction.

[Paul B[_2_]]

More to the point, why does anyone bother engaging with Charlie Quebec is beyond me. So much anger and aggression. Would hate to have him in my club.

Cheers

Paul

[Charlie Quebec]

I assumed that it’s best to discuss safety related issues publicly, but then I should have learned from my previous experience with a club that is a safety disaster area,
so much so a previous CFI, when critiquing its claim to be low cost, described it as receiving a bi annual subsidy from its insurers due to the number of write offs they have.
If it wasn’t you Nick, I apologise, and my suspicions turn to a nasty bitter little leather faced turd I call D moaner, or perhaps a recent OAM winner.
Of course the gutless piece of **** won’t own up.
Luckily, my club officials are right behind me and taking up,the issue on my behalf.

[Charlie Quebec]

Once again 2G claims his own infallibility, and ignores the evidence of his eyes.

[Charlie Quebec]

An update on the bun fight at the headrest corral.
5 days later the airworthiness people still will not decide whether removing the headrest is legal or not.
Luckily, my wonderful club officials managed to bring the issue to the attention of the most experienced senior airworthiness person in the country, who is a CASA rated specialist on glider modifications,
and is responsible for the issue of engineering orders for such mods.
Below is his response to the inquiry re legality. Of particular note is the statement regarding reports of this headrest striking pilots heads during ejection.

“Your DG200 was certified by the German LBA under “ LFSM 1975 Airworthiness Requirements for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes. � Perusal of that document shows no mention of “Head Rests�. That means it was not needed for Certification. An optional extra if you like.

The current CS22 Design Requirements do have a mandatory fitment of Head Rests with strong emphasis being attached 2 or part of the seat.�

We also know that there are findings from accident reports that the original headrest may strike the pilot in the back of the head when the canopy is jettison. When Design Requirements are updated retrospectivity is not applied.

Based on all of the above, you can do what you like with the headrest. Being there, or not being there, has no influence on operations or airworthiness and the increased pilot safety is a key issue.

So it appears the pathetic bitter little person who reported me has failed utterly in their attempt to inconvenience me, however they have caused condiderable wasted time for the airworthiness authorities.
Stick that where the sun don’t shine.

[Charlie Quebec]

This article by GDale clearly recommends removing the headrest from this style of DG canopy. It very nearly killed him on the way off.
Quote:
“We are going down really fast. The canopy goes off. The headrest, as the canopy pivots upwards like this, because it [the headrest] is attached on the back [of the canopy] quite deliberately so that it can’t slide back, so it goes ‘boom’. The headrest hits me really hard on the back of the head and puts my lights out. And I’m out for seven or eight seconds. So now I’m going down through 1200 feet in the vertical, glider accelerating, unconscious.�
“If you have an old DG with the headrest here [pads back of his head] take it off and put a roll behind your head instead, because if the canopy does that [again shows a canopy rising nose first, swinging round a point at its back] it will swipe you [10:30] really hard.�
https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/01/Video-transcript-bailout-advice.pdf

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

The conversation wasn’t about bailing out - it was about accident impact. Completely different thing.

Nick.

[Charlie Quebec]

Have you ever looked at the construction of the headrest Nick? 5mm ply with 50mm of soft foam attached to a steel plate would not meet even basic automotive standards.
It’s cannot possibly make any contribution to safety in a crash. I get you are trying to protect DG, but really, you are putting reputation ahead of safety, a stance that does you he credit at all.
I think you will find In the near future there will be an AN allowing the headrest to be removed. I have in writing the opinion of the most senior experienced airworthiness person in this country,
who has a CASA delegation to approve mods, that there is no legal reason the headrest cannot be removed.
Quote from email:

Your DG200. VH-CQV was certified by the German LBA under “ LFSM 1975 Airworthiness Requirements for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes. � Perusal of that document shows no mention of “Head Rests�. That means it was not needed for Certification. An optional extra if you like.

The current CS22 Design Requirements do have a mandatory fitment of Head Rests with strong emphasis being attached 2 or part of the seat.

We also know that there are findings from accident reports that the original headrest may strike the pilot in the back of the head when the canopy is jettison. When Design Requirements are updated retrospectivity is not applied.

Based on all of the above, you can do what you like with the headrest. Being there, or not being there, has no influence on operations or airworthiness and the increased pilot safety is a key issue.

Pretty conclusive.

[Charlie Quebec]

t the construction of the headrest Nick? 5mm ply with 50mm of soft foam attached to a steel plate would not meet even basic automotive standards.
It’s cannot possibly make any contribution to safety in a crash. I get you are trying to protect DG, but really, you are putting reputation ahead of safety, a stance that does you he credit at all.
I think you will find In the near future there will be an AN allowing the headrest to be removed. I have in writing the opinion of the most senior experienced airworthiness person in this country,
who has a CASA delegation to approve mods, that there is no legal reason the headrest cannot be removed.
Quote from email:

Your DG200. was certified by the German LBA under “ LFSM 1975 Airworthiness Requirements for Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes. � Perusal of that document shows no mention of “Head Rests�. That means it was not needed for Certification. An optional extra if you like.

The current CS22 Design Requirements do have a mandatory fitment of Head Rests with strong emphasis being attached 2 or part of the seat.

We also know that there are findings from accident reports that the original headrest may strike the pilot in the back of the head when the canopy is jettison. When Design Requirements are updated retrospectivity is not applied.

Based on all of the above, you can do what you like with the headrest. Being there, or not being there, has no influence on operations or airworthiness and the increased pilot safety is a key issue.

Pretty conclusive.

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

You suggested the deceased pilot was killed by his headrest.

Cheers,
Nick.

[2G]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> I can’t find it now, but there was one report that did say the pilot in another incident WAS killed by the headrest.
> My detractors are suffering from “Burns� right now. :)

"I can’t find it now"

That seems to be a pretty common phrase in your posts...

Tom

[Nick Gilbert[_2_]]

Dave - what you're saying may be true. Getting back to the original question, do you have anything to back it up other than your own gut feeling? Bearing in mind your original comments regarding the headrest being the cause of the fatality in question has nothing to do with bailing out.

Cheers,
Nick.

[David Sherrill]

In his bailout lecture posted by the BGA, G Dale says that when he bailed out of his DG the impact of the headrest made him blackout briefly. That remark comes soon after 4:30 in the video.

https://youtu.be/cDXIxHAmSX0

Cheers,
...david

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 9:04:54 PM UTC-4, Nick Gilbert wrote:
> Dave - what you're saying may be true. Getting back to the original question, do you have anything to back it up other than your own gut feeling? Bearing in mind your original comments regarding the headrest being the cause of the fatality in question has nothing to do with bailing out.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.

[Charlie Quebec]

I suggested is was possible, I did not say it was the cause. Can you categorically eliminate it as the cause?
Of course not.

[Charlie Quebec]

Just to be clear this is what I wrote.
On DG with the one piece canopy, the head rest is mounted on the canopy, and one can imagine the effect of the canopy flying forward into the back of the pilots head, I removed mine from the canopy for exactly this reason after reading a previous accident report.
I’m not seeing a statement that it was certainly the headrest.
Nice strawman you got there.

[JS[_5_]]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 8:00:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> As the guy that sold the pilot that nicely turned out 300, it's a sad day indeed.

It's always sad to hear of a fellow pilot's death.

Upsetting to know that any of us meeting a similar fate could have the report to the flying community deteriorate into petty arguments.
Any friend or relative of the deceased who stumbled into it would see a complete lack of respect.
Jim

[[email protected]]

I agree, it's easy to arm chair quarterback especially given the anomymity of a keyboard. The DG-300 was sold in excellent condition, Mike seemed to know his way around gliders. Please let this thread die right after explaining how I can unsubscribe from the floundering.

Photo here.
https://i.imgur.com/JyStggc.jpg