GLIDING INTERNATIONAL -- RESEARCH

[[email protected]]

We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.

We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.

We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.

Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.

JOHN ROAKE
EDITOR

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 08:04 03 November 2019, wrote:
>We at Gliding International have just completed a three months
study on
>the=
> accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in
detail)
>th=
>e 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of
soaring
>fl=
>ight relates to the landing phase.
>
>We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which
indicates
>f=
>or sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar
year
>of=
> 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye
to
>what=
> is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>
>We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to
discussion and
>=
>be a catalyst for change.
>
>Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who
has
>personal=
>ly set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing
into
>=
>a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be
complimented
>=
>for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He
tells
>=
>all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident
>emanat=
>ed from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the
number of
>exp=
>eriences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has
started
>=
>a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally
unreliable.
>
>JOHN ROAKE
>EDITOR
>

One should never rely on the motor to start.........

[[email protected]]

"No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation."
It is acceptable otherwise we wouldn't do it. If it is totally unacceptable we should have an immediate indefinite worldwide glider grounding. Be careful how you think and speak about these things.

[Dan Marotta]

The engine's failure to start did not cause the accident.Â* The reliance
on the engine to start was one link in the accident chain.

On 11/3/2019 5:23 AM, Paul T wrote:
> At 08:04 03 November 2019, wrote:
>> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months
> study on
>> the=
>> accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in
> detail)
>> th=
>> e 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of
> soaring
>> fl=
>> ight relates to the landing phase.
>>
>> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which
> indicates
>> f=
>> or sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar
> year
>> of=
>> 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye
> to
>> what=
>> is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>>
>> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to
> discussion and
>> =
>> be a catalyst for change.
>>
>> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who
> has
>> personal=
>> ly set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing
> into
>> =
>> a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be
> complimented
>> =
>> for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He
> tells
>> =
>> all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident
>> emanat=
>> ed from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the
> number of
>> exp=
>> eriences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has
> started
>> =
>> a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally
> unreliable.
>> JOHN ROAKE
>> EDITOR
>>
> One should never rely on the motor to start.........
>

--
Dan, 5J

[jfitch]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 7:49:12 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> The engine's failure to start did not cause the accident.Â* The reliance
> on the engine to start was one link in the accident chain.
>
> On 11/3/2019 5:23 AM, Paul T wrote:
> > At 08:04 03 November 2019, wrote:
> >> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months
> > study on
> >> the=
> >> accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in
> > detail)
> >> th=
> >> e 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of
> > soaring
> >> fl=
> >> ight relates to the landing phase.
> >>
> >> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which
> > indicates
> >> f=
> >> or sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar
> > year
> >> of=
> >> 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye
> > to
> >> what=
> >> is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
> >>
> >> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to
> > discussion and
> >> =
> >> be a catalyst for change.
> >>
> >> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who
> > has
> >> personal=
> >> ly set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing
> > into
> >> =
> >> a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be
> > complimented
> >> =
> >> for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He
> > tells
> >> =
> >> all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident
> >> emanat=
> >> ed from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the
> > number of
> >> exp=
> >> eriences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has
> > started
> >> =
> >> a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally
> > unreliable.
> >> JOHN ROAKE
> >> EDITOR
> >>
> > One should never rely on the motor to start.........
> >
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

From the Schleicher ASH26E manual: "The powerplant of a powered sailplane must not be regarded as life insurance, for instance when crossing unlandable areas. One must always be prepared for the possibility that the engine will fail to deliver the hoped for propulsion". This was a clear case of pilot error, the sailplane performed as expected.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
>
> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>
> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
>
> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
>
> JOHN ROAKE
> EDITOR

The accident did not emanate from the failure of the motor to start. The accident emanated from the fact that the pilot entered into a situation in which there was not a security field for landing within reach of the glider.

[Mike C]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:56:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
> >
> > We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
> >
> > We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
> >
> > Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
> >
> > JOHN ROAKE
> > EDITOR
>
> The accident did not emanate from the failure of the motor to start. The accident emanated from the fact that the pilot entered into a situation in which there was not a security field for landing within reach of the glider.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-8, Mike C wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:56:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
> > >
> > > We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
> > >
> > > We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
> > >
> > > Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable..
> > >
> > > JOHN ROAKE
> > > EDITOR
> >
> > The accident did not emanate from the failure of the motor to start. The accident emanated from the fact that the pilot entered into a situation in which there was not a security field for landing within reach of the glider.
>
> I thought that electric systems were very dependable.
>
> Mike

So what?

Nobody is saying they are not. Even if you think a motorglider/sustainer engine will start reliably do you think it's sensible to assume it absolutely will and not have a landout option/plan B?

This is the most elementary basic safe operation of a motorglider 101 stuff..

Pretty stupid wording on "cause" used by Gliding International.

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:58:29 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> Nobody is saying they are not. Even if you think a motorglider/sustainer
> engine will start reliably do you think it's sensible to assume it absolutely
> will and not have a landout option/plan B?
>
> This is the most elementary basic safe operation of a motorglider 101 stuff.

No, you are flying a GLIDER.
**Plan A** must always be a safe land-out.
Plan B is in the event everything works as intended,
which certainly does not always happen...

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> I thought that electric systems were very dependable.

Really? Have I got a deal for you!!

[Mike C]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 12:58:29 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-8, Mike C wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:56:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > > We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
> > > >
> > > > We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
> > > >
> > > > We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
> > > >
> > > > Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
> > > >
> > > > JOHN ROAKE
> > > > EDITOR
> > >
> > > The accident did not emanate from the failure of the motor to start. The accident emanated from the fact that the pilot entered into a situation in which there was not a security field for landing within reach of the glider.
> >
> > I thought that electric systems were very dependable.
> >
> > Mike
>
> So what?
>
> Nobody is saying they are not. Even if you think a motorglider/sustainer engine will start reliably do you think it's sensible to assume it absolutely will and not have a landout option/plan B?
>
> This is the most elementary basic safe operation of a motorglider 101 stuff.
>
> Pretty stupid wording on "cause" used by Gliding International.

Chuckle.

Never said I thought that. Never have been in a motor glider just thought that the electric system was very reliable, and am surprised to hear that they are not.

Mike

[Mike C]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:17:27 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > I thought that electric systems were very dependable.
>
> Really? Have I got a deal for you!!

Really. Not interested.

Thanks anyway.

Mike

[Ventus_a]

We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.

We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.

We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.

Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.

JOHN ROAKE
EDITOR

After having previous experience of motors failing to deliver, it seem overly optimistic of SK to rely on one to save himself from a tricky situation.

A classic example of this sort of mentality observed by a close friend was a very low glider firing up over a strip in a forest and then proceeding to fly a direct track home over said forest without first gaining enough altitude to safely glide to the next landable area or return to the strip in the event of an engine failure after the start.

[Branko Stojkovic]

"We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents..."

I would argue that only one accident was examined in detail - Kawa's. There can't be any meaningful discussion about the causes of the other 95 accidents.

The basic idea of compiling meaningful accident reports is sound. BGA has done a fantastic job of publishing in-depth accident reports (https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/investigation-reports/), which could serve as the gold standard for glider accident reporting for other countries.

In addition to the accident report database, it would be very helpful to have a database of voluntary near miss reports.

Branko XYU

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:28:04 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> Chuckle.
> ...thought that the electric system was very reliable,
> and am surprised to hear that they are not.

Reliable compared to what?
Why would you expect them to be reliable?
How much testing do you think has been done on these things?
Do you think the designs have all had 3rd-party review by qualified engineers?
What do you think the reliability is going to be with minimal testing and no serious checking of engineering?

Think it through and you'll see what happens...

[Charlie Quebec]

In this case I believe the motor was not the issue, but the extension mechanism either didn’t fully extend, or the position sensor switch failed to work.
It’s one reason to like FES, as extension only needs motor to drive..

[jfitch]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 12:44:18 PM UTC-8, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> In this case I believe the motor was not the issue, but the extension mechanism either didn’t fully extend, or the position sensor switch failed to work.
> It’s one reason to like FES, as extension only needs motor to drive.

Less to go wrong - but still plenty to go wrong. I'm curious if the pilots who do this (expect the motor to save them from unlandable terrain) would fly low across a sea in a single engine Cessna. Most people won't, and that is a fully tested, commercially produced, running power plant. Yet these guys will fly across rocks with a not running, prototype powerplant, with their fingers crossed.

[Mike C]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:41:22 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:28:04 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
> > Chuckle.
> > ...thought that the electric system was very reliable,
> > and am surprised to hear that they are not.
>
> Reliable compared to what?
> Why would you expect them to be reliable?
> How much testing do you think has been done on these things?
> Do you think the designs have all had 3rd-party review by qualified engineers?
> What do you think the reliability is going to be with minimal testing and no serious checking of engineering?
>
> Think it through and you'll see what happens...

Dave,

I will leave it with your sage advice. You were a Sales Rep and owned an Electic Antares, you know best.

Best regards.

Mike

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 9:04:36 PM UTC+13, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
>
> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>
> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
>
> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
>
> JOHN ROAKE
> EDITOR

TO CLARIFY: The Kawa accident was totally unrelated to our initial research work. We had almost completed our stage one of the research when we learnt of the Kawa issue. We list 96 accidents in our November issue with most briefs supported by photos of accident damage. Sobering!

[Charles Longley]

I just realized you’re trying to sell magazines.

[6PK]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:04:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
>
> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>
> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
>
> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
>
> JOHN ROAKE
> EDITOR

This thread has gone awry...The primary topic was about an unusually hi fatality rate of 43 out of 96 reported accidents.
Mr Kawa's unfortunate (or fortunate outcome in this case) was an example brought up by Gliding International, it matters but what most concerns me is the rest of the statistics and what we the soaring community could do about it.
The reliability or unreliability of available powerplants at least in my case concerns me none.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Are the numbers quoted worldwide?

Ramy

[[email protected]]

All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
1. False dependance on aux engine
2.aging of general soaring populous
3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.

1. The rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents speaks for itself and is Fricking up the insurance rates for all of us. Flying such that ya depend on that aux power is just plain criminal.

2. Guys are getting old me included and need to know when to reevaluate their declining skills. Some need to just know when to stop, or dial back into less complex flying and back into less complex machines.

3. Situational Specific experience refers to having experience in the specific type of flying one is doing. 10,000 hours flying airliners has ZERO application to flying a sailplane! My worse students are airline types! 10000 hours of flying a sailplane has zero application to flying jets. I hate the bull**** of guys claiming gobs of hours as if they mean something. They only count if they apply to the type of flying your doing on a given day. Example, a guys got 3,000 hours of glider time but its most all flying over the home field with little or no off field landing experience. That guy is an accident waiting to happen when he finds himself in an unusual off field landing situation. The guy who has been pursuing his gold badge and had only a couple hundred hours but has had to make 5 off field landings this past year had a hell of a lot more “situational experience�.

4. Related to the point above, even if I have 4,000 hours of xc flying time, if they are all from 20 years ago, I am at a dissadvantage. Whats needed is currant applicable time in order to keep the skills sharp.

My two cents worth.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 04:52:22 -0800, uneekcowgirl wrote:

> 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.
>
That's easily fixed. In my club you won't get a launch without doing a
checkride if you haven't flown for more than 6 weeks and there is always
a duty instructor on the field when we're active.

Do the same and watch the currency-related accidents diminish.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

That was worth well more thanÂ* 2 cents.

On 11/4/2019 5:52 AM, wrote:
> All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
> The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
> 1. False dependance on aux engine
> 2.aging of general soaring populous
> 3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
> 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.
>
> 1. The rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents speaks for itself and is Fricking up the insurance rates for all of us. Flying such that ya depend on that aux power is just plain criminal.
>
> 2. Guys are getting old me included and need to know when to reevaluate their declining skills. Some need to just know when to stop, or dial back into less complex flying and back into less complex machines.
>
> 3. Situational Specific experience refers to having experience in the specific type of flying one is doing. 10,000 hours flying airliners has ZERO application to flying a sailplane! My worse students are airline types! 10000 hours of flying a sailplane has zero application to flying jets. I hate the bull**** of guys claiming gobs of hours as if they mean something. They only count if they apply to the type of flying your doing on a given day. Example, a guys got 3,000 hours of glider time but its most all flying over the home field with little or no off field landing experience. That guy is an accident waiting to happen when he finds himself in an unusual off field landing situation. The guy who has been pursuing his gold badge and had only a couple hundred hours but has had to make 5 off field landings this past year had a hell of a lot more “situational experience�.
>
> 4. Related to the point above, even if I have 4,000 hours of xc flying time, if they are all from 20 years ago, I am at a dissadvantage. Whats needed is currant applicable time in order to keep the skills sharp.
>
> My two cents worth.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:04:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport... JOHN ROAKE EDITOR >

Thank you, John Roake for the study. This was an interesting edition.

The old saying is "Live to fly another day." Your magazine's study on glider accidents helps support the additional version: "Fly to live another day."

Raul Boerner

[jfitch]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:52:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
> The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
> 1. False dependance on aux engine
> 2.aging of general soaring populous
> 3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
> 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.
>
> 1. The rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents speaks for itself and is Fricking up the insurance rates for all of us. Flying such that ya depend on that aux power is just plain criminal.
>
> 2. Guys are getting old me included and need to know when to reevaluate their declining skills. Some need to just know when to stop, or dial back into less complex flying and back into less complex machines.
>
> 3. Situational Specific experience refers to having experience in the specific type of flying one is doing. 10,000 hours flying airliners has ZERO application to flying a sailplane! My worse students are airline types! 10000 hours of flying a sailplane has zero application to flying jets. I hate the bull**** of guys claiming gobs of hours as if they mean something. They only count if they apply to the type of flying your doing on a given day. Example, a guys got 3,000 hours of glider time but its most all flying over the home field with little or no off field landing experience. That guy is an accident waiting to happen when he finds himself in an unusual off field landing situation. The guy who has been pursuing his gold badge and had only a couple hundred hours but has had to make 5 off field landings this past year had a hell of a lot more “situational experience�.
>
> 4. Related to the point above, even if I have 4,000 hours of xc flying time, if they are all from 20 years ago, I am at a dissadvantage. Whats needed is currant applicable time in order to keep the skills sharp.
>
> My two cents worth.

For experienced pilots, you missed Number Zero: Leaving inadequate margin for error. This is a disease mostly specific to the experienced pilot, who has gotten away with it for a long time.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-8, Mike C wrote:

> I thought that electric systems were very dependable.

In the Kawa case under discussion, it appears that the motor control system would not energize the motor because it did not detect that the mast was fully deployed. The culprit appears to be either the mast extension system which did not fully extend the mast, or the limit switch which did not properly detect that the mast was fully extended.

Either way, it is a reminder that the more complicated your system is, the more potential points of failure it embodies.

--Bob K.

[Branko Stojkovic]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:52:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
> The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
> 1. False dependance on aux engine
> 2.aging of general soaring populous
> 3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
> 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.

I beg to differ - IMHO this IS a complex problem because human psychology is complex. The 4 general categories listed above don't include psychological causes (usually referred to as human factors or human errors), which are at least a contributing factor in most accidents.

A good example of an accident caused by the interplay of several psychological factors (loss aversion, plan continuation bias, confirmation bias and peer pressure), can be found here: https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/2019005-BGA-Accident-Investigation-Report-22-Feb-19-Duo-Discus-G-CJUM.pdf

Branko XYU

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dave Nadler wrote on 11/3/2019 12:17 PM:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
>> I thought that electric systems were very dependable.
>
> Really? Have I got a deal for you!!

Do you think they are relatively dependable, compared to the gasoline powered
systems? I suspect they are at least equal, and believe they will be better
(maybe much better) than the gasoline users in the future; regardless, it's very
difficult to know the dependability of either type, as we have no statistics on
successful and failed starts. Personally, I've kept track, and it's over 170
inflight restart attempts during 25 years of owning my ASH26E, with one failure
(cause unknown).

--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/4/2019 4:52 AM:
> All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
> The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
> 1. False dependance on aux engine
> 2.aging of general soaring populous
> 3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
> 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.
>
> 1. The rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents speaks for itself and is Fricking up the insurance rates for all of us. Flying such that ya depend on that aux power is just plain criminal.

I'm not aware of a "rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents", at least in the
USA, and I know a lot of motorglider pilots. How many accidents are you talking
about, and what is the time period?

--
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

[[email protected]]

The good old days, when you didn’t have to worry about a motor starting and there was NO chance of dying in a fiery crash, unless you hit a fuel truck.

[[email protected]]

Eric 6 i know of personally in the last 2 years

[[email protected]]

I have to disagree branko, saying accidents are complex is the usual dodge we have been using for yeats. Just like stall/spin, weve been discussing this for decades ad nausium. Simple, fly the Fin aircraft properly and as someone here stated always fly in such a way as to give yourself options.

Psychological factors ALWAYS come into play but when its all boiled down you end up with crappy airmanship and, improper decisions irreguardless of what precipitated them be it cockiness or fear or inexperience.

[Branko Stojkovic]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 11:01:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> I have to disagree branko, saying accidents are complex is the usual dodge we have been using for yeats. Just like stall/spin, weve been discussing this for decades ad nausium. Simple, fly the Fin aircraft properly and as someone here stated always fly in such a way as to give yourself options.
>
> Psychological factors ALWAYS come into play but when its all boiled down you end up with crappy airmanship and, improper decisions irreguardless of what precipitated them be it cockiness or fear or inexperience.

If we don't analyze the psychological factors that precipitate bad decisions and if we don't learn how to recognize them and remedy them, we won't make much progress in avoiding future bad decisions.

Branko XYU

[[email protected]]

I agree its not an eigher-or but needs to be a both-and, however I feel the fundamental problem doesnot lie in the psychological factors. Those are gonna be with us forever. The problem lies in diminished airmanship skills. There is an overdependance of technology (aux motors, high L/D) at the expense of actually knowing how to properly handle your machine, the wx, the terrain. These more elemental factors are imop bigger determining perimeters in accident creation and accident avoidance.

[Branko Stojkovic]

Those are all significant contributing factors, it would be hard to argue otherwise.

My original point was that we usually make up our minds about the main causes of accidents based on anecdotal evidence, personal experience and personal inclinations. A better, scientific, approach would be to look at the statistics based on reliable data, and analyzing the root causes.

What Gliding International published does not qualify as scientific approach, not by a long shot. Saying that "our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase" says nothing about what causes these types of accidents, nor how to avoid them, given that "the landing phase" itself is generally unavoidable.

Branko XYU

[[email protected]]

LoL “landing phase generally unavoidable� very well said. Definitely agree, study of a more detailed approach definitely needed.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/4/2019 11:44 AM:
> I agree its not an eigher-or but needs to be a both-and, however I feel the
> fundamental problem doesnot lie in the psychological factors. Those are gonna
> be with us forever. The problem lies in diminished airmanship skills. There is
> an overdependance of technology (aux motors, high L/D) at the expense of
> actually knowing how to properly handle your machine, the wx, the terrain.
> These more elemental factors are imop bigger determining perimeters in accident
> creation and accident avoidance.
>
Pilots with diminished skills can (and often do) compensate by increasing their
margins. Low skills do not inevitably lead to an unsafe pilot. We all know of many
very experienced, current pilots that died in glider accidents. Psychological
factors affect the selection of margins and the obedience to them - two reasons
psychological factors are important.


--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/4/2019 10:53 AM:
> Eric 6 i know of personally in the last 2 years
>
All in the US, and all due to false dependence on aux power? Who?

--
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

[nbnbn]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 5:15:17 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 11/4/2019 10:53 AM:
> > Eric 6 i know of personally in the last 2 years
> >
> All in the US, and all due to false dependence on aux power? Who?
>
> --
> 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

There were 2 in the Northeast this year. Not a secret, both previously reported to the world at large.

[[email protected]]

As a wise instructor once told me "Its not the fall that kills you its the sudden stop at the end"!

CH

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

nbnbn wrote on 11/4/2019 3:02 PM:
> There were 2 in the Northeast this year. Not a secret, both previously reported to the world at large.

Can you supply more information? My search of the NTSB accident database did not
find any fatal motorglider accidents in the Northeast for the last 24 months. It
did find two motorglider accidents, but those were in Utah and NV, and three
fatalities in Vermont, but in a 2-32.


--
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

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 6:53:29 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> nbnbn wrote on 11/4/2019 3:02 PM:
> > There were 2 in the Northeast this year. Not a secret, both previously reported to the world at large.
>
> Can you supply more information? My search of the NTSB accident database did not
> find any fatal motorglider accidents in the Northeast for the last 24 months. It
> did find two motorglider accidents, but those were in Utah and NV, and three
> fatalities in Vermont, but in a 2-32.
>
>
> --
> 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

I know of 3 in the Northeast this year.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190704X84511&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA

The other is a motor glider that ran out of gas and landed (with substantial damage but no injuries) in a swamp. That one isn't in the database.

T8

[2G]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:52:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
> The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
> 1. False dependance on aux engine
> 2.aging of general soaring populous
> 3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
> 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.
>
> 1. The rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents speaks for itself and is Fricking up the insurance rates for all of us. Flying such that ya depend on that aux power is just plain criminal.
>
> 2. Guys are getting old me included and need to know when to reevaluate their declining skills. Some need to just know when to stop, or dial back into less complex flying and back into less complex machines.
>
> 3. Situational Specific experience refers to having experience in the specific type of flying one is doing. 10,000 hours flying airliners has ZERO application to flying a sailplane! My worse students are airline types! 10000 hours of flying a sailplane has zero application to flying jets. I hate the bull**** of guys claiming gobs of hours as if they mean something. They only count if they apply to the type of flying your doing on a given day. Example, a guys got 3,000 hours of glider time but its most all flying over the home field with little or no off field landing experience. That guy is an accident waiting to happen when he finds himself in an unusual off field landing situation. The guy who has been pursuing his gold badge and had only a couple hundred hours but has had to make 5 off field landings this past year had a hell of a lot more “situational experience�.
>
> 4. Related to the point above, even if I have 4,000 hours of xc flying time, if they are all from 20 years ago, I am at a dissadvantage. Whats needed is currant applicable time in order to keep the skills sharp.
>
> My two cents worth.

I searched for all glider accidents in the US this year - there were 18. Two involved motorgliders - NEITHER involved an attempted restart in flight, BOTH involved a landing accident.

So, your premise that motorgliders driving up insurance costs because of failed engine restarts is JUST FLAT WRONG!

Tom

[[email protected]]

2G Your welcome to pay my insurance for next year. The majority of fatal accidents this past year have involved high performance machines, some with aux power some without. Not 1-26’s, not 2-33’s, not dusters or cherokees or phoebus or libelles. But the very fact that I now have to pay thru the nose for my very low performance machine due to the idiocy of “pilots� with way more money than aeronautic sense is very graiting!

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:58:39 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 4:52:25 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > All this hand ringing... THIS IS NOT a complex problem!
> > The vast majority of accidents can be crammed into 4 general catagories:
> > 1. False dependance on aux engine
> > 2.aging of general soaring populous
> > 3. Lack of “situational specific “ experience
> > 4. Lack of currancy, not flying regularly ( related to #3.
> >
> > 1. The rash of motor equiped sailplane accidents speaks for itself and is Fricking up the insurance rates for all of us. Flying such that ya depend on that aux power is just plain criminal.
> >
> > 2. Guys are getting old me included and need to know when to reevaluate their declining skills. Some need to just know when to stop, or dial back into less complex flying and back into less complex machines.
> >
> > 3. Situational Specific experience refers to having experience in the specific type of flying one is doing. 10,000 hours flying airliners has ZERO application to flying a sailplane! My worse students are airline types! 10000 hours of flying a sailplane has zero application to flying jets. I hate the bull**** of guys claiming gobs of hours as if they mean something. They only count if they apply to the type of flying your doing on a given day. Example, a guys got 3,000 hours of glider time but its most all flying over the home field with little or no off field landing experience. That guy is an accident waiting to happen when he finds himself in an unusual off field landing situation. The guy who has been pursuing his gold badge and had only a couple hundred hours but has had to make 5 off field landings this past year had a hell of a lot more “situational experience�.
> >
> > 4. Related to the point above, even if I have 4,000 hours of xc flying time, if they are all from 20 years ago, I am at a dissadvantage. Whats needed is currant applicable time in order to keep the skills sharp.
> >
> > My two cents worth.
>
> I searched for all glider accidents in the US this year - there were 18. Two involved motorgliders - NEITHER involved an attempted restart in flight, BOTH involved a landing accident.
>
> So, your premise that motorgliders driving up insurance costs because of failed engine restarts is JUST FLAT WRONG!
>
> Tom

Semantics. Running out of gas/battery power is not a mechanical engine failure. They are engine operator failure same results. Without the engine present something different would have happened. The professional odds makers don't have a lot of faith in motorglider reliability- doesn't matter if it is mechanical or meat bag failure costs the insurance company the same.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Eric Greenwell wrote on 11/4/2019 3:53 PM:
> nbnbn wrote on 11/4/2019 3:02 PM:
>> There were 2 in the Northeast this year.* Not a secret, both previously reported
>> to the world at large.
>
> Can you supply more information? My search of the NTSB accident database did not
> find any fatal motorglider accidents in the Northeast for the last 24 months. It
> did find two motorglider accidents, but those were in Utah and NV, and three
> fatalities in Vermont, but in a 2-32.

I think I see my problem: I've been filtering on "Fatal" instead of "All". I now
see the Silent that landed on house, and the others. I'm looking through the
complete list, trying to pick out the aux-engine related incidents.



--
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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/4/2019 5:23 PM:
> 2G Your welcome to pay my insurance for next year. The majority of fatal
> accidents this past year have involved high performance machines, some with
> aux power some without. Not 1-26’s, not 2-33’s, not dusters or cherokees or
> phoebus or libelles. But the very fact that I now have to pay thru the nose
> for my very low performance machine due to the idiocy of “pilots� with way more
> money than aeronautic sense is very graiting!
>
Is it possible the insurance companies know that, and set the rates accordingly?
And why wouldn't they know that - obviously, they have lots of data on the
situation! And, we know they adjust their rates, based on the pilot's hours,
rating, and - I believe - the kind of glider he flies. If so, you are not paying
more because a high performance glider has an accident. Perhaps you have some
evidence that an accident to a $200,000 motorglider raises the rate on a 1-26?

Mr. Costello has had articles in Soaring and given talks on insurance company
costs. AT times, ground damage has been the major cost, not crashes. Stuff like
trailer accidents, cars hitting gliders, canopies damaged, wings dropped during
assembly, hangar fires (Barstow!), wind damage, etc.

--
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

[Ramy[_2_]]

My glider insurance premiums with Costello are pretty much the same every year except when I upgrade my glider. The only insurance premiums I have which are not rising by nearly 10% a year from one reason or another.
So blaming rates increase on the pilots of recent crashes is uncalled for.

Ramy

[ian]

On 11/3/19 10:04 AM, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.

> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. ... Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start.

Could you prepare a detailed study on the reliability of "means of
propulsion" of sailplanes?

What percentage of in flight start attempts are unsuccessful?

Eg: Self launch verses sustainer. Internal combustion verses jet verses
electric. Failure to start verses running out of fuel/energy. Failure
rates of control, deploy and retract systems. Fires and electrical
faults, while flying and on the ground. Recharging and refueling
incidents, etc.

[2G]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 5:23:51 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> 2G Your welcome to pay my insurance for next year. The majority of fatal accidents this past year have involved high performance machines, some with aux power some without. Not 1-26’s, not 2-33’s, not dusters or cherokees or phoebus or libelles. But the very fact that I now have to pay thru the nose for my very low performance machine due to the idiocy of “pilots� with way more money than aeronautic sense is very graiting!

You are WELCOME TO PAY MINE! You didn't address a SINGLE point that I made!! PM me and I will give you my address to send the check to - $3k should cover it.

Tom

[[email protected]]

And 2G you missed dang near the ENTIRE point of my posts but so be it. I will make you a deal, you step down from the lofty heights of high performance soaring and race in the 1-26 nationals this year (I will even supply you with the machine) and whoever wins pays the other guys insurance for the year.

What a deal! Who knows you might even have a whole lot of fun and that insurance bill you will be paying of mine won’t put that big of a dent in your wallet.

[[email protected]]

.....no wait.....with only 23/1 L/D, you are probably gonna need at least twice that to get anywhere.... never mind...I don’t want the CD to under task us all on your account.

[Charlie Quebec]

It is utterly ludicrous to claim that insurance premiums don’t rise when there are more accidents. Typical 2G bull****.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 11:00:19 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 11/4/2019 5:23 PM:
> > 2G Your welcome to pay my insurance for next year. The majority of fatal
> > accidents this past year have involved high performance machines, some with
> > aux power some without. Not 1-26’s, not 2-33’s, not dusters or cherokees or
> > phoebus or libelles. But the very fact that I now have to pay thru the nose
> > for my very low performance machine due to the idiocy of “pilots� with way more
> > money than aeronautic sense is very graiting!
> >
> Is it possible the insurance companies know that, and set the rates accordingly?
> And why wouldn't they know that - obviously, they have lots of data on the
> situation! And, we know they adjust their rates, based on the pilot's hours,
> rating, and - I believe - the kind of glider he flies. If so, you are not paying
> more because a high performance glider has an accident. Perhaps you have some
> evidence that an accident to a $200,000 motorglider raises the rate on a 1-26?
>
> Mr. Costello has had articles in Soaring and given talks on insurance company
> costs. AT times, ground damage has been the major cost, not crashes. Stuff like
> trailer accidents, cars hitting gliders, canopies damaged, wings dropped during
> assembly, hangar fires (Barstow!), wind damage, etc.
>
> --
> 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

One set of data-
From my shop the last 2 years. Insurance claims only;
1-34- Accident in the pattern. Hit Soccer goal- Not economical to repair
1-26E Land in trees on ridge. Not economical to repair
1-26D- Blew out of tie down. Not economical to repair
Twin Grob- Replace rear canopy- left unlocked
ASW-24- Replace canopy and repair wings- gun shots while in trailer
ASW-20 - Replace canopy- Rock from lawn mower
PIK-20- Replace canopy and repair hinges- owner error on ground
304S Shark. Water landing in marsh after engine non start. Likely out of fuel.

FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:34:04 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 11:00:19 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > wrote on 11/4/2019 5:23 PM:
> > > 2G Your welcome to pay my insurance for next year. The majority of fatal
> > > accidents this past year have involved high performance machines, some with
> > > aux power some without. Not 1-26’s, not 2-33’s, not dusters or cherokees or
> > > phoebus or libelles. But the very fact that I now have to pay thru the nose
> > > for my very low performance machine due to the idiocy of “pilots� with way more
> > > money than aeronautic sense is very graiting!
> > >
> > Is it possible the insurance companies know that, and set the rates accordingly?
> > And why wouldn't they know that - obviously, they have lots of data on the
> > situation! And, we know they adjust their rates, based on the pilot's hours,
> > rating, and - I believe - the kind of glider he flies. If so, you are not paying
> > more because a high performance glider has an accident. Perhaps you have some
> > evidence that an accident to a $200,000 motorglider raises the rate on a 1-26?
> >
> > Mr. Costello has had articles in Soaring and given talks on insurance company
> > costs. AT times, ground damage has been the major cost, not crashes. Stuff like
> > trailer accidents, cars hitting gliders, canopies damaged, wings dropped during
> > assembly, hangar fires (Barstow!), wind damage, etc.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> One set of data-
> From my shop the last 2 years. Insurance claims only;
> 1-34- Accident in the pattern. Hit Soccer goal- Not economical to repair
> 1-26E Land in trees on ridge. Not economical to repair
> 1-26D- Blew out of tie down. Not economical to repair
> Twin Grob- Replace rear canopy- left unlocked
> ASW-24- Replace canopy and repair wings- gun shots while in trailer
> ASW-20 - Replace canopy- Rock from lawn mower
> PIK-20- Replace canopy and repair hinges- owner error on ground
> 304S Shark. Water landing in marsh after engine non start. Likely out of fuel.
>
> FWIW
> UH

Is there a good story behind the ASW-24 getting shot? Ex wife, golf cart drive by shooting, redneck rampage, unlucky parking spot, wildlife scene painted on trailer?

[Dan Marotta]

The Rotax 914F2/S1 in my Stemme has never failed to start.Â* That said,
I'm never outside of gliding distance of a paved airport. True, this
limits me some but, should I ever need the engine and it should fail to
start, it'll be a non event.

On 11/4/2019 9:56 PM, ian wrote:
> On 11/3/19 10:04 AM, wrote:
>> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study
>> on the accident sitution in regard to our sport.Â* We have examined
>> (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic
>> area of soaringÂ* flight relates to the landing phase.
>
>> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has
>> personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. ...
>> Basically the accident emanated from the failure of hisÂ* motor to start.
>
> Could you prepare a detailed study on the reliability of "means of
> propulsion" of sailplanes?
>
> What percentage of in flight start attempts are unsuccessful?
>
> Eg: Self launch verses sustainer. Internal combustion verses jet
> verses electric. Failure to start verses running out of fuel/energy.
> Failure rates of control, deploy and retract systems. Fires and
> electrical faults, while flying and on the ground. Recharging and
> refueling incidents, etc.

--
Dan, 5J

[Craig Reinholt]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 8:00:19 PM UTC-8, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Is it possible the insurance companies know that, and set the rates accordingly?
> And why wouldn't they know that - obviously, they have lots of data on the
> situation! And, we know they adjust their rates, based on the pilot's hours,
> rating, and - I believe - the kind of glider he flies. If so, you are not paying
> more because a high performance glider has an accident. Perhaps you have some
> evidence that an accident to a $200,000 motorglider raises the rate on a 1-26?
>
> Mr. Costello has had articles in Soaring and given talks on insurance company
> costs. AT times, ground damage has been the major cost, not crashes. Stuff like
> trailer accidents, cars hitting gliders, canopies damaged, wings dropped during
> assembly, hangar fires (Barstow!), wind damage, etc.
>
> --
> 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

One issue that hasn't been mentioned is that almost every new glider coming into the US has some type of propulsion system. Generally, that should will increase the percentage of motorglider accidents annually.
Eric, one comment on trashing expensive gliders. When I bought my 31, I was going to cancel my insurance on my D2 to save a few hundred dollars. The insurance broker cautioned against that because getting a "new" policy for the 31 instead of making a change on an existing policy may not happen and rates (higher) would reflect a new policy. Why? Because of a JS-1c (among others) that had recently been totaled. Rates were adjusted up a tick as a result.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:12:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 9:34:04 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 11:00:19 PM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > wrote on 11/4/2019 5:23 PM:
> > > > 2G Your welcome to pay my insurance for next year. The majority of fatal
> > > > accidents this past year have involved high performance machines, some with
> > > > aux power some without. Not 1-26’s, not 2-33’s, not dusters or cherokees or
> > > > phoebus or libelles. But the very fact that I now have to pay thru the nose
> > > > for my very low performance machine due to the idiocy of “pilots� with way more
> > > > money than aeronautic sense is very graiting!
> > > >
> > > Is it possible the insurance companies know that, and set the rates accordingly?
> > > And why wouldn't they know that - obviously, they have lots of data on the
> > > situation! And, we know they adjust their rates, based on the pilot's hours,
> > > rating, and - I believe - the kind of glider he flies. If so, you are not paying
> > > more because a high performance glider has an accident. Perhaps you have some
> > > evidence that an accident to a $200,000 motorglider raises the rate on a 1-26?
> > >
> > > Mr. Costello has had articles in Soaring and given talks on insurance company
> > > costs. AT times, ground damage has been the major cost, not crashes. Stuff like
> > > trailer accidents, cars hitting gliders, canopies damaged, wings dropped during
> > > assembly, hangar fires (Barstow!), wind damage, etc.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > One set of data-
> > From my shop the last 2 years. Insurance claims only;
> > 1-34- Accident in the pattern. Hit Soccer goal- Not economical to repair
> > 1-26E Land in trees on ridge. Not economical to repair
> > 1-26D- Blew out of tie down. Not economical to repair
> > Twin Grob- Replace rear canopy- left unlocked
> > ASW-24- Replace canopy and repair wings- gun shots while in trailer
> > ASW-20 - Replace canopy- Rock from lawn mower
> > PIK-20- Replace canopy and repair hinges- owner error on ground
> > 304S Shark. Water landing in marsh after engine non start. Likely out of fuel.
> >
> > FWIW
> > UH
>
> Is there a good story behind the ASW-24 getting shot? Ex wife, golf cart drive by shooting, redneck rampage, unlucky parking spot, wildlife scene painted on trailer?

Shot at TSA last year during Std nationals for no obvious reason besides "hold my beer and watch this". May have thought(stretch here) that they were just shooting at the trailer. Got trailer, both wings, canopy, and instrument panel.
We left the bullet hole in the panel to retain the history of the glider. Owner was crushed, having just spent his winter time off doing a refinish.
You can not think this **** up.
UH

[Waveguru]

In the British Gliding Association Aircraft Accident Report: Ref 2019005 they never talk about why they never attempted to start the motor. Does anybody know why they never started the motor and decided to land in the ocean instead?

Boggs

[jfitch]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:53:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Eric 6 i know of personally in the last 2 years

The NTSB database of glider accidents makes interesting - if sobering - reading. There is however nothing in it to suggest that motorgliders are overrepresented or that low performance gliders are underrepresented. There is the usual rash of spin-stalls on landing. For 2018-2019 I count 4-5 that involved dependence on motors. There are 13 non-motorgliders involved in off field landing accidents and probably several others too low to find an off field site to crash in (but no witnesses survive so I did not count). Certainly it cannot be said that motorglider pilots are alone in hoping for miracles (whether it be that elusive thermal or a motor start). One can rationally argue that if the engine start success rate is 90% and those 13 gliders had been motorgliders, there would have been 10+ fewer accidents and perhaps motorgliders should have lower insurance rates. The very best insurance for either type remains staying within easy glide of an airfield.

Of the engine involved ones, 3 were electric, 1 jet, and one R912 engine, which suggests that electric (in their current state of development) is not a silver bullet for reliability. Or perhaps that those pilots believed too much in their reliability.

[[email protected]]

Ahh UH, nothing a few pieces of white tape wont fix lol

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:17:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Ahh UH, nothing a few pieces of white tape wont fix lol

Owner did not want to keep the bullet hole stickers on it.
Why didn't the Kevlar wing skins stop the bullet?
Sigh
UH

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 7:03:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Why didn't the Kevlar wing skins stop the bullet?

Obviously, armor piercing rounds,
'cause Texans don't mess around, silly.

[2G]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:28:49 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> And 2G you missed dang near the ENTIRE point of my posts but so be it. I will make you a deal, you step down from the lofty heights of high performance soaring and race in the 1-26 nationals this year (I will even supply you with the machine) and whoever wins pays the other guys insurance for the year.
>
> What a deal! Who knows you might even have a whole lot of fun and that insurance bill you will be paying of mine won’t put that big of a dent in your wallet.

That's because you DIDN'T HAVE A POINT, just a baseless accusation not backed by the facts. I believe Costello, and the other insurance companies, do a good job of pricing the policies to reflect the risks. After all, they have the claims data.

Tom

[2G]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:06:30 AM UTC-8, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> It is utterly ludicrous to claim that insurance premiums don’t rise when there are more accidents. Typical 2G bull****.

What is "utterly ludicrous" is to claim that events that NEVER HAPPENED will raise insurance premiums, which is the bull**** you're dealing.

Tom

[Charlie Quebec]

You don’t do reading comprehension do you? I’d call you a half with, but that would be insulting to half Wii’s.

[Charlie Quebec]

Do you not understand the English language, try googling reading comprehension, another abject failure of the US education system?

[[email protected]]

Hi John,
I wrote you an email at the office@gliding ... adress - didi it get through?
Kind regards,
Michail

[Charlie Quebec]

How could anyone think 2G is anything other than a Trumplthinskin, it’s easy to tell, aggressive, low IQ, poor education, gun owner overcompensating, it’s the full set.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

We are all members of a small international group that come here to share, learn, teach. We should be thankful that for the most part we are are respectful and civil to one another, let's please keep this a group for all. Thank you

[2G]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 3:16:39 PM UTC-8, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> How could anyone think 2G is anything other than a Trumplthinskin, it’s easy to tell, aggressive, low IQ, poor education, gun owner overcompensating, it’s the full set.

Thanks for the endorsement.

[Paul B[_2_]]

On Friday, 8 November 2019 09:16:39 UTC+10, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> How could anyone think 2G is anything other than a Trumplthinskin, it’s easy to tell, aggressive, low IQ, poor education, gun owner overcompensating, it’s the full set.

"it’s easy to tell, aggressive, low IQ, poor education"

Interesting those are my thoughts about you. I would also add a failure of your parents to bring up a decent human being. Way too late for the education system to correct.

Paul

[Roy B.]

We are all members of a small international group that come here to share, learn, teach. We should be thankful that for the most part we are are respectful and civil to one another, let's please keep this a group for all. Thank you


Jonathan:
Thank you for that needed reminder.
ROY

[Dan Marotta]

Some of us are highly educated and accomplished and don't like
socialists and communists, either.Â* Using epithets like Trumplthinskin,
while imaginative, simply identifies you as an idiot.



On 11/7/2019 4:16 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> How could anyone think 2G is anything other than a Trumplthinskin, it’s easy to tell, aggressive, low IQ, poor education, gun owner overcompensating, it’s the full set.

--
Dan, 5J

[Charlie Quebec]

Ah, the good old reds under the bed, personally I don’t dislike those with other views, how typical of US right wingers to do so.
The modern conservative is practicing the oldest moral deflection, making excuses for selfishness. Can you show us on this doll where the socialist hurt you princess?

[Steve Bralla]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 11:02:08 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> Using epithets like Trumplthinskin,
> while imaginative, simply identifies you as an idiot.

Half the people reading this will not get the irony of this statement, the other half will.
Sorry but I had to say it.
Steve

[Paul B[_2_]]

On Sunday, 10 November 2019 06:58:32 UTC+10, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Ah, the good old reds under the bed, personally I don’t dislike those with other views, how typical of US right wingers to do so.
> The modern conservative is practicing the oldest moral deflection, making excuses for selfishness. Can you show us on this doll where the socialist hurt you princess?

CQ

"How could anyone think 2G is anything other than a Trumplthinskin, it’s easy to tell, aggressive, low IQ, poor education, gun owner overcompensating, it’s the full set"

Interesting that anyone who would post such a statement would call someone else aggressive.

CQ a bit later

"personally I don’t dislike those with other views"

CQ, do you not read your own posts or do you just forget them from session to session?


Cheers

Paul

[John Foster]

On Saturday, November 9, 2019 at 1:58:32 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
> Ah, the good old reds under the bed, personally I don’t dislike those with other views, how typical of US right wingers to do so.
> The modern conservative is practicing the oldest moral deflection, making excuses for selfishness. Can you show us on this doll where the socialist hurt you princess?

You should just listen to yourself. Wow!

[[email protected]]

Once again, a post drug off into never never land after having some pretty good discusions regarding risk and safety.

We get it that 2G and this canadian guy have an ongoing war. We get it that CQ does’nt think much of USA conservative politics.

Yes I also react to posts when they rile me, but always try to get back to the topic at hand, this case being assessing risk and maybe modifying behavior, setting personal do’s n don’ts. Its interesting that these same risk comparisons were made during the early rash of fatal accidents we were seeing in the 80’s. Some things just dont change.

[Charles Ethridge]

>On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 7:52:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>Example, a guys got 3,000 hours of glider time but its most all flying over the >home field with little or no off field landing experience. That guy is an >accident waiting to happen when he finds himself in an unusual off field >landing situation. The guy who has been pursuing his gold badge and had only a >couple hundred hours but has had to make 5 off field landings this past year >had a hell of a lot more “situational experience�.

So then logically, wasn't the guy (or girl) with the 5 off-field landings an accident waiting to happen BEFORE she made them?

I mean, off-field landings aren't something that we get to practice with an instructor onboard.

Ben

[[email protected]]

Hi Ben, true, the guy doing his first few off field landings is at greater risk. But the point being, the guy who has been doing alot of recent off field landings now has a body of experience to draw from when confronted with his next one. The guy who is just a local flier, is not as 1. Tuned up to accessing a field etc and 2. Doesnt have any experience to draw from.

[Paul T[_4_]]

>
>I mean, off-field landings aren't something that we get to practice
with
>an=
> instructor onboard.
>
>Ben
>

only in NA. Never understood why the motorglider wasn't more
accepted in the USA and Canada for this kind of training - almost every
western European club has one in the fleet.....

[Charles Ethridge]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 6:07:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Hi Ben, true, the guy doing his first few off field landings is at greater risk. But the point being, the guy who has been doing alot of recent off field landings now has a body of experience to draw from when confronted with his next one. The guy who is just a local flier, is not as 1. Tuned up to accessing a field etc and 2. Doesnt have any experience to draw from.

Agree, but it seems like a bit of a "Catch-22" until we have reliable, long-distance sustainer engines and/or reliable self-launching gliders, I just don't see how we can get from "point A" (no off-field landing experience) to "point B" (lots of off-field landing experience) without becoming an accident statistic (i.e. an accident-waiting-to-happen that consequently happened).

Condor2 with Oculus Rift VR (Virtual Reality - which I have and use almost daily) helps with off-field landing procedures, but the landscape scenery is not yet detailed enough to show boulders, fences, haystacks, potholes, etc., so it's not all that valuable for this purpose.

I suppose the FAA could require us all to take off-field landing instruction in motor gliders, as some high-time glider instructors have suggested before, but that would add a lot to the cost of a glider rating. Does the accident rate warrant that?

[[email protected]]

Yes Charles there is a little catch 22 involved but it can be minimized. Getting some instr in motorglider is not really necessary. Any power plane will do. Really the essential skill involved is field selection and evaluation. Flying in a power plane at say 1500 ft agl will give a guy the perspective he will be seeing when confronted with an outlanding. A guy can get experience making a field selection and evaluation and simulated approach then both go up and relook it over to cat h what he might have missed in an actual landing and/or then drive over there and apraise that same field from the ground. Thats what an old timer did with me when I was a kid preparing for mu first xc.

[[email protected]]

Additionally, a guy can do the same excercise on every glider flight he makes. While even thermaling at height a guy can look and see where he thinks he maybe could put her down then later take a closer look at a google earth shot of that same field and zoom in to whatever altitude he wants to check it out. While not being able to see rocks in the field, the google earth shot does show the hedge rows many of the wires, their support poles and the field slope. This is a great and pain free excercise to help a guy on off field decision making.
Dan

[john firth]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
>
> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>
> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
>
> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
>
> JOHN ROAKE
> EDITOR


You do not have to fly to evaluate fields.
As you drive to the airport, briefly, survey the fields and assess them for
suitability; ie length, slope, crop, hazards; this has been one of my habits for 60 years.
ohn F

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:07:32 -0800, john firth wrote:

> You do not have to fly to evaluate fields.
> As you drive to the airport, briefly, survey the fields and assess them
> for suitability; ie length, slope, crop, hazards; this has been one of
> my habits for 60 years.
>
That depends a lot on where you live: if most roadsides have only wire
fences or crash barriers, that works, but in places where there's
extensive ribbon development or major roads have either walls or rows of
trees on both sides to reduce road noise, its a bit harder.

The majority of my drive from home to the glider field is on roads
bounded by trees or hedges, and traffic is generally heavy enough to make
staring through farm gateways rather a bad idea.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[[email protected]]

Now that would be irony..... get killed in a car wreck due to inattention caused by trying to scout landing fields so as not to kill ones self on an off field landing lol.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:19:57 -0800, uneekcowgirl wrote:

> Now that would be irony..... get killed in a car wreck due to
> inattention caused by trying to scout landing fields so as not to kill
> ones self on an off field landing lol.

Actually, its not that bad. Our field is surrounded by crops of various
types - typically maize(corn), cereals, setaside or rapeseed(canola), so
the final half mile of entrance track lets us assess crop state, and once
in the air, the green&growing/ripe/harvested field split is obvious and
setaside is generally OK since its formerly ploughed land thats been left
to grow weeds., i.e. flat surface with stalky stuff on it. Big Scotch
thistles would be a problem but they're easily seen from the air if
they're on setaside fields.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[john firth]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.
>
> We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.
>
> We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.
>
> Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.
>
> JOHN ROAKE
> EDITOR

Agreed, nature of one's drive to the airfield can be tense or relaxing.Here, in
central Onario, outside the cities and off major highways, one can survey the fields. It is important to note the colour difference between say, corn (maize)
and soybeans.
JMF

[Ramy[_2_]]

Maybe this is why most cross country pilots started with hang gliders. In a hang glider almost every cross country flight end with an off field landing. One must be totally comfortable with the idea of off field landing to be able to fly cross country safely.

Ramy

[David Shelton]

Electric motor gliders are much more reliable than my Pik-20E. However, even these can suffer from a single failure.

Most electric VTOL designs use multiple motors and completely redundant systems. They can resume safe flight after the failure of a motor, prop, battery, or speed controller.

I think that it would be game-changer to have this type of redundancy in an electric motor glider. With sufficient reliability, it would be possible to soar in some amazing places, without the need for safe landing options.

[[email protected]]

I think its a reach to say “ most xc fliers started with hang gliders�. Out of about 40 guys I know who fly xc on a regular basis, theres only one who did any hang glided. But your point about being comfortable with out field landings is spot on.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

David Shelton wrote on 11/10/2019 2:44 PM:
> Electric motor gliders are much more reliable than my Pik-20E. However, even these can suffer from a single failure.
>
> Most electric VTOL designs use multiple motors and completely redundant systems. They can resume safe flight after the failure of a motor, prop, battery, or speed controller.
>
> I think that it would be game-changer to have this type of redundancy in an electric motor glider. With sufficient reliability, it would be possible to soar in some amazing places, without the need for safe landing options.
>
An FES system and a mast mounted electric motor system that are completely
independent: separate motors, batteries, controllers, wiring. Expensive but
redundant.

--
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

[jfitch]

On Sunday, November 10, 2019 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-8, Ramy wrote:
> Maybe this is why most cross country pilots started with hang gliders. In a hang glider almost every cross country flight end with an off field landing. One must be totally comfortable with the idea of off field landing to be able to fly cross country safely.
>
> Ramy

Big difference though, between an off field landing in a hang glider and one in a sailplane as you know. Some of the newer hang gliders are a little hotter landing, but back in the day - if necessary - a tree landing in a hang glider was considered a landing, not a crash. You can put even a high aspect Rogallo into a very small and confined space in relative safety. A 21m sailplane, not so much.

Out west, even an airfield landing can be treacherous: there may be berm on the sides, the sage may have grown 4' tall since you walked it last, the snow stakes might be set up for a Cessna or small span power plane.

[Ramy[_2_]]

No doubt a hang glider can land in much more restricted area. But the idea is that you don’t have this umbilical cord from day one. At least this is how I felt. The longer you stay connected to your airfield (or couple airfields in the area) the harder it gets to get comfortable to cut the umbilical cord. You need to get comfortable flying cross country and land out from early on. (But never too comfortable which may turn into complacency).

Ramy

[Paul T[_4_]]

FFS most of the rest of the world uses a tried and tested way of
training for off airport landings - the use of a motorglider -why do you
North Americans have to do everything the hard way.........

[[email protected]]

Why? Because we can and we always do things our independent way lol.

EU uses motorgliders because GA aviation is only for the very rich over there and your not gonna find any tom-dick-harry with a light plane, only clubs, rick guys and partnerships.

Here in North America for $150 bucks or a bbq lunch for a friend with a plane, a guy can spend an hour up in the air scouting fields and simulating off field approaches. It being a motor glider is not essential.

[[email protected]]

And we dont have two place motor gliders at every club but EVERY club over here does have members who also own a light GA aircraft.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/11/2019 4:42 AM:
> And we dont have two place motor gliders at every club but EVERY club over here
> does have members who also own a light GA aircraft.
>
And many clubs own a multi-seat towplane that could be used for field selection
experience in the morning before launches, or anytime it's not soarable. No
multi-seater? Pay the rent for one, and have a tow pilot (or CFIG with a power
rating) fly the students around the area for an hour or so, as needed.

--
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

[[email protected]]

On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote on 11/11/2019 4:42 AM:
> > And we dont have two place motor gliders at every club but EVERY club over here
> > does have members who also own a light GA aircraft.
> >
> And many clubs own a multi-seat towplane that could be used for field selection
> experience in the morning before launches, or anytime it's not soarable. No
> multi-seater? Pay the rent for one, and have a tow pilot (or CFIG with a power
> rating) fly the students around the area for an hour or so, as needed.
>
> --
> 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

I've been teaching field selection and land out planning using a Super Cub for about 20 years.
Works fine.
UH

[[email protected]]

You guys are both right and we dont need no stinking Europian ideas, but we will still accept their sailplanes and sailplane engineering lol.

[Mike N.]

"North Americans have to do everything the hard way........."

Really? I'm not sure what part of Europe or South America you might be from, but this type of comment is so simplistic it becomes irrelevant and laughable.

In the U.S.A. flying gliders or powered aircraft is open to a broader population than other countries where recreational flying is typically only obtainable by the wealthy.

Being able to enjoy the wonders of flight, without having to be wealthy as in other countries, is a fantastic opportunity in the U.S.A. not available in many other parts of the world. I appreciate that aspect of american life.

That does mean however that those of us who fly on a budget may not be in a club that owns an expensive motor glider. We have a mixture of clubs in the U.S., some with more resources than others.

The previous post that suggested taking a powered flight and training in off airport landings makes the most sense in the U.S. market in my opinion.

Even if you are not a power pilot, spending a few hours with a power instructor just practicing off airport landing procedures will benefit glider pilots.

That training is all about the fundamentals of off airport landings (land outs). Determining wind direction, picking a suitable field, slope, setting up a pattern, etc. Then actually simulating an approach to land.

$.02 paid in full. YMMV.

[Dan Marotta]

Well, I don't think it has anything to do with North American
independent thinking.Â* More likely, it's that clubs in the US, at least
the ones I've been familiar with, are very poor financially as compared
to what I see on line about European clubs.Â* And motor gliders are
expensive.Â* As a board member of a club 20+ years ago, it was very
difficult to get membership approval of even the most useful expenditures.

On 11/11/2019 1:18 AM, Paul T wrote:
> FFS most of the rest of the world uses a tried and tested way of
> training for off airport landings - the use of a motorglider -why do you
> North Americans have to do everything the hard way.........
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Just as I can't understand how the European clubs have such nice glider fleets, I suspect many Europeans don't understand how many general aviation airplanes litter America.

[[email protected]]

Gregg its one of the benefits of a free and capitalist based society. I make a nice side living collecting these neglected ships and restoring them. Sure don’t have that opportunity anywhere else.

[Peter F[_2_]]

OK, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite anyway..

What freedom do you think you have in the US that we in Western Europe
don't?



At 23:30 11 November 2019, wrote:
>Gregg its one of the benefits of a free and capitalist based society. I
>mak=
>e a nice side living collecting these neglected ships and restoring them.
>S=
>ure don=E2=80=99t have that opportunity anywhere else.
>

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:15:05 AM UTC-5, Peter F wrote:
> OK, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite anyway..
>
> What freedom do you think you have in the US that we in Western Europe
> don't?
Guns, speech, moreso than Europe, though they are coming hard for both here. More airspace freedom. Probably more land use freedom in general, big country lots of variable rules. We're still freer than Western Europe but we are catching up quick.

[Peter F[_2_]]

In the UK "Freedom of expression" is guaranteed under the European
Convention on Human rights. The only real restriction is that it's illegal
to incite hate crimes.

You've got more Airspace, cos you've got more area away from airports

Interesting that the *first* on your list was guns.

I'll bow out now before this gets messy

PF

At 11:59 12 November 2019, wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:15:05 AM UTC-5, Peter F wrote:
>> OK, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite anyway..
>>
>> What freedom do you think you have in the US that we in Western Europe
>> don't?
>Guns, speech, moreso than Europe, though they are coming hard for both
>here. More airspace freedom. Probably more land use freedom in general,
>big country lots of variable rules. We're still freer than Western
Europe
>but we are catching up quick.
>

[Tango Whisky]

Le lundi 11 novembre 2019 18:39:21 UTC+1, Mike N. a écritÂ*:

> In the U.S.A. flying gliders or powered aircraft is open to a broader population than other countries where recreational flying is typically only obtainable by the wealthy.
>

Maybe you should visit Europe once to see what it means to have soaring open to a broader population AND to provide decent club gliders.

[[email protected]]

Been there, done that. And it depends on what your definition of “ decent� club gliders is. In a club setting my definition is ships which are inexpensive to fly and operate.
Due to the ridiculously high cost of personal aircraft ownership in EU, the club scene is essential for folks of modest means to get to fly. Thankfully here in the states, we are not forced into that situation. Any tom-dick-harry can, for modest means, own and operate his own ship! Can’t say that about EU. Have fun with your “decent� club ships over there, I’d rather own and fly my own ship, even if its of lower performance here, wherever and whenever I choose.

[Stephen Struthers]

I am a member of a small UK club, I use to own an IS29 D2
outright but stopped flying in early 2000, came back to soaring in
2015 and have a half share in a nice Standard Cirrus. Most club
members own or have a share in gliders of similar or better
performance ranging from Jet powered Shark, ASH 25, DG 400 M
DG 600 M Slingsby Skylark 4 Dart 17 a number of Ventus 1 and 2.
Nimbus and mini Nimbus. Club fleet is Puchacz , Grob Twin Acro 2
and Grob 102 Astir , we own a Robin DR400 for Areotows.

Launch fees are

Aerotow to 2000' £24.00
Aerotow - each additional 200' above 2000' £1.50
Aerotow to 1000' - only available for dual training £14.00
Aerotow to 1500' - only available for dual training £20.00
Winch launch Fee - all launches before 11:00 hrs £4
Winch launch Fee - after 11:00 hrs - non-soaring flights £6
Winch launch Fee - after 11:00 hrs - soaring flights £8
Self launch fee- including members' powered aircraft £3

Rental for club aircraft

Annual members - 2 seaters,
per minute for first hour £0.35 (£21 for first hour)
Annual members - 2 seaters,
per minute after first hour £0.25 (£15 per subsequent hour)
Annual members - 2 seaters,
after 3 hours. Free (approved flights)
Annual members - Astir single seater, 30p per minute first hour, 20p
per minute second hour. Free after second hour (consistent with the
needs of other members)

I think those costs mean it is financially accessible to the majority.

I was a Registered nurse with a family and in the UK we are not paid
as well as in the USA however it has always been affordable for me.

I would be interested to hear how that compares with USA


Been there, done that. And it depends on what your definition of
decent club gliders is. In a club setting my definition is ships which
are inexpensive to fly and operate.

Due to the ridiculously high cost of personal aircraft ownership in
EU,
the club scene is essential for folks of modest means to get to fly.

Thankfully here in the states, we are not forced into that situation.
Any
tom-dick-harry can, for modest means, own and operate his own
ship! Cant say that about EU. Have fun with your decent club ships
overthere, Id rather own and fly my own ship, even if its of lower
performance here, wherever and whenever I choose.

[Tango Whisky]

Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 17:51:07 UTC+1, a écritÂ*:
> Been there, done that. And it depends on what your definition of “ decent� club gliders is. In a club setting my definition is ships which are inexpensive to fly and operate.
> Due to the ridiculously high cost of personal aircraft ownership in EU, the club scene is essential for folks of modest means to get to fly. Thankfully here in the states, we are not forced into that situation. Any tom-dick-harry can, for modest means, own and operate his own ship! Can’t say that about EU. Have fun with your “decent� club ships over there, I’d rather own and fly my own ship, even if its of lower performance here, wherever and whenever I choose.

In Europe, you can get a single seater Astir or a Standard Cirrus for less than 10k€, and ownership will cost you a couple of hundred bucks per year. If you don't have that budget, some wooden ships like Ka6 etc go for 2.5k to 5k (and there are plenty available). If that's incredibly expensive for you...

I fly a Ventus cM, and I prefer to have my personal glider for various reasons, but cost and performance are not part of them. In my club, for far less money than my Ventus costs me, I can chose between 2 LS4, 2 DuoDiscus and 2 LS18-18 and fly almost as much as I want... Ok, I live in Switzerland, and club flying being affordable is relative.
So yes, the club scene is mainly for people who can't or don't want to invest into their own glider. And that makes that we have a very strong gliding community, with clubs about everywhere. We had a new club member changing over from a neighbouring club (50 km away) because he had moved and didn't want to drive more than 30 km to the airfield.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/12/2019 8:51 AM:
> Been there, done that. And it depends on what your definition of “ decent� club
> gliders is. In a club setting my definition is ships which are inexpensive to
> fly and operate. Due to the ridiculously high cost of personal aircraft
> ownership in EU, the club scene is essential for folks of modest means to get
> to fly. Thankfully here in the states, we are not forced into that situation.
> Any tom-dick-harry can, for modest means, own and operate his own ship! Can’t
> say that about EU. Have fun with your “decent� club ships over there, I’d
> rather own and fly my own ship, even if its of lower performance here, wherever
> and whenever I choose.
>
Unfortunately, that does not make it as appealing to nearly as many US
tom-dick-harry as the European club system makes it their tom-dick-harry. The
situation in Germany, for example, is much different than here. Germany alone has
more glider pilots than we do, and it has a quarter the population. I think the
Germans, and Europeans in general, have more choices about when and where to fly
than US pilots, because there are so many clubs within driving range. They can buy
gliders cheaply, too, if ownership is really desired, and it's lots easier to get
a launch.

--
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

[[email protected]]

Its true, there are many more numerous opportunities to soar in EU, and I am in no way denigrating the soaring there. The scene in north america is just very different. We have never been blessed with soaring integral to our culture like germany has had. Soaring is just one of many aspects of aviation available to us. It has been private powered flight and the freedom of the home building movement and the aviation entrepenurial spirit that we are blessed with. We can fly dang near anywhere we want, anytime we want. We can build and fly and modify dang near anything we can think up. That freedom exists nowhere else in the world. In addition, we have every type of soaring a guy would want to engage in be it monster wave, increadable ridges and convective conditions second to none except africa and australia. Except here, you don’t need multiple permits from different countries to move and fly in different conditions. IMOP there is no free’r place in the world to fly gliders.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 3:59:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:15:05 AM UTC-5, Peter F wrote:
> > OK, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite anyway..
> >
> > What freedom do you think you have in the US that we in Western Europe
> > don't?
> Guns, speech, moreso than Europe, though they are coming hard for both here. More airspace freedom. Probably more land use freedom in general, big country lots of variable rules. We're still freer than Western Europe but we are catching up quick.

November 7th was one year since I lost my former neighbor and outstanding community member to a mass shooter. https://www.foxla.com/video/622936?fbclid=IwAR1A9bgalUJTaIqZeMjesMzmYK2hJIxe1_ XSiFXH_5eGmxB_X2bmiujVzFk

Justin was a teenager when we were neighbors. I in my late fifties Justin was in his High School years. While a child in age this young man was the type of community member you would want in your neighborhood. He would chat me up about my thrice weekly open water swims with my dog. He would help carry furniture to my second floor. He carried groceries into the house while I was recovery from knee surgery. He told me his plans for college and beyond. Hs Father a Career Navy SEAL officer. I cannot tell you enough how much of an asset Justin was to any community he would have been in. Justin died to the hot lead of one of you precious ****ing guns, while breaking windows to help other escape. In his final moment he was still helping the community.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 17:39 11 November 2019, Mike N. wrote:
>"North Americans have to do everything the hard way........."
>
>Really? I'm not sure what part of Europe or South America you
might be
>from, but this type of comment is so simplistic it becomes
irrelevant and
>laughable.
>
>In the U.S.A. flying gliders or powered aircraft is open to a broader
>population than other countries where recreational flying is
typically only
>obtainable by the wealthy.
>
>Being able to enjoy the wonders of flight, without having to be
wealthy as
>in other countries, is a fantastic opportunity in the U.S.A. not
available
>in many other parts of the world. I appreciate that aspect of
american
>life.
>
>That does mean however that those of us who fly on a budget may
not be in a
>club that owns an expensive motor glider. We have a mixture of
clubs in the
>U.S., some with more resources than others.
>
>The previous post that suggested taking a powered flight and
training in
>off airport landings makes the most sense in the U.S. market in my
opinion.
>
>Even if you are not a power pilot, spending a few hours with a
power
>instructor just practicing off airport landing procedures will benefit
>glider pilots.
>
>That training is all about the fundamentals of off airport landings
(land
>outs). Determining wind direction, picking a suitable field, slope,
>setting up a pattern, etc. Then actually simulating an approach to
land.
>
>$.02 paid in full. YMMV.
>

Maybe Africa or Asia eh? they soar there too. Just an opinion from
many years of observation...when it comes to soaring.
Your statement that flying gliders is open to a broader population
than other countries where recreational flying is typically only
obtainable by the wealthy is just pure B/S. There are many more
clubs in Europe that allow cheap glider flying in decent equipment.
Have you ever actually visited a European gliding club?
Look at the active youth scene in Europe compared with the USA for
example, look at some of the club gliders that most Europeans can
fly at reasonable cost, off a cheap winch launches - then compare it
with the POS Schweizers most clubs use in the USA. Power flying is
another matter granted- its cheaper in the USA, but then that's not
gliding - but a Scheibe motorglider is hardly what I'd call an
expensive aircraft and cheap to run. Derek Piggott did try to convert
you all many years ago.

[Dan Marotta]

Sounds like Justin was quite a guy and his loss was tragic.

But, Jonathan why do you blame the gun rather than the shooter?Â* Do you
blame cars for traffic deaths?Â* Unattended camp fires for wild fires?Â*
What makes guns the target when every other tragedy is rightfully blamed
on the person who caused it?

BTW, none of my guns have ever injured anybody and they never will,
unless that body is threatening me or my loved ones.

On 11/12/2019 4:20 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 3:59:37 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:15:05 AM UTC-5, Peter F wrote:
>>> OK, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite anyway..
>>>
>>> What freedom do you think you have in the US that we in Western Europe
>>> don't?
>> Guns, speech, moreso than Europe, though they are coming hard for both here. More airspace freedom. Probably more land use freedom in general, big country lots of variable rules. We're still freer than Western Europe but we are catching up quick.
> November 7th was one year since I lost my former neighbor and outstanding community member to a mass shooter. https://www.foxla.com/video/622936?fbclid=IwAR1A9bgalUJTaIqZeMjesMzmYK2hJIxe1_ XSiFXH_5eGmxB_X2bmiujVzFk
>
> Justin was a teenager when we were neighbors. I in my late fifties Justin was in his High School years. While a child in age this young man was the type of community member you would want in your neighborhood. He would chat me up about my thrice weekly open water swims with my dog. He would help carry furniture to my second floor. He carried groceries into the house while I was recovery from knee surgery. He told me his plans for college and beyond. Hs Father a Career Navy SEAL officer. I cannot tell you enough how much of an asset Justin was to any community he would have been in. Justin died to the hot lead of one of you precious ****ing guns, while breaking windows to help other escape. In his final moment he was still helping the community.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

Were not interested in Dereks conversion, and I have travelled extensively in EU and soared both in germany and in england so careful there with your generalities. Clearly you only read and comprehended the parts you wanted from my last post so for the hard of hearing I will say it again and expound the point a different way, EU has a CULTURE of sailplane flying, North America DOES NOT. We have a CULTURE of power flying. Modern aviation was born in America, and while we played with gliders and used them as stepping stones to develop powered flight, gliding flight is not and has never been our first love, power flying is. We created companies that mass produced power planes for the masses, while EU created companies to produce gliders. And while you continue to dismiss the schweizers and their contribution to soaring, let me remind you that their development of very inexpensive and EASY TO MAINTAIN ships is what really kicked off and sustained American soaring until the fiberglass age. In addition those “pos� schweizers you so flippantly dismiss are flying in the HUNDREDS and will continue to be flying long after your wooden termite attractors are piles of dust. As for modern high performance soaring, one needs to look outside the USA for the best birds, not so much due to the lack of american innovation, but due to the fact that there has never been a big enough market to warrant companies here to invest into tjhis side of aviation in a big way. So we buy our ships from you guys.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 11/12/2019 2:30 PM:
> Except here, you don’t need multiple permits from different countries to move
> and fly in different conditions. IMOP there is no free’r place in the world to
> fly gliders.

So, you were talking about airspace and borders, not clubs.

--
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

[[email protected]]

Yes Eric thats what I was reffering to. That and the relative lack of restrictive federal regulation regarding aviation we enjoy over here.

[[email protected]]

In addition Paul T, try flying one of those “pos� schweizers gold or diamond distance and it will demonstrate to you how little you know about efficiently flying a glider. When you can’t rely on impressive L/D, you have to learn to rely on something else, its called efficient flying. Flying one of those little “pos� schweizers xc will teach you more about flying far and flying fast than any glass ship out there.

[Ramy[_2_]]

Jonathan, I am with you. I feel your pain.
Dan, with all due respect, please respect yourself and stop with the idiotic comparison of guns to cars, hammers, fires, texting and long list of stupid comparisons. None of those things were designed and intended to kill. Why don’t you mention gliders? After all this is the subject of this thread! Gliders kill too. In fact, I know more people who were killed by gliders than by guns. Way more. So by your logic, gliders are probably more dangerous. Maybe we should ban gliders? Yet I love gliders since they were designed to give us pleasure and achievements. They were not designed to kill. It is an unfortunate cost. Yet I hate guns, even though I carried and used guns while in the army. Guns designed to kill. This includes hunting BTW..
I usually avoid politics on RAS. But when folks like Greg bring guns as the reason to want to live in the US just boils my blood. He could have skipped it, but he intentionally brought it up to **** off many, probably most of us. I am glad Jonathan responded. And I am probably going to regret I did. But couldn’t help it. I know quiet a few gun lovers, like you Dan, and I can be their friends, just stop throwing it in our face. There is nothing to be proud of owning a gun. Be proud of your stemme and the great adventures you have in it. Ok, nough said.

Ramy

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 00:30 13 November 2019, wrote:
>In addition Paul T, try flying one of those =E2=80=9Cpos=E2=80=9D
>schweizer=
>s gold or diamond distance and it will demonstrate to you how little
you
>kn=
>ow about efficiently flying a glider. When you can=E2=80=99t rely on
>impres=
>sive L/D, you have to learn to rely on something else, its called
>efficient=
> flying. Flying one of those little =E2=80=9Cpos=E2=80=9D
schweizers xc
>wi=
>ll teach you more about flying far and flying fast than any glass ship
out
>=
>there.
>

Wind your neck in - my post wasn't even addressed to you - thankyou
have flown your POS Schweizers enough - yes I know about efficient
flying thanks - that's why I beat every American pilot in the one and
only competition I have flown in the good ole USA.

[[email protected]]

Paul T lol, my neck is not stuck out, I’m afraid its your neck thats way out there...Thinking that your the best thing since sliced bread due to visiting the States and “ beating everyone over here� in that one contest, is one of the most “neck stretching� comments I’ve heard here on r.a.s.

Thats what makes this discussion group so much fun and interesting. Denigrating ones machine or country is like denigration ones wife. Better not do it or you for sure are gonna get comments, or if one keeps pushing the point, maybe get a bloody nose. If you will notice in my posts I never said diddly squat about EU gliders until your “pos� remark regarding the foundational machines of early american soaring. I even brought forth the fact that we buy most all our ships from abroad now, although the EU does not have a lock on the market anymore. I think the south african JS boys have got you guys beat in more ways then one now.

As for your ridiculously arrogant statement regarding your superiority in the racing department, I will just let that pass for what I hope it was, namely an over-reaction in the heat of argument. Congratulations on your win over here, however winning one contest in no way shows your apparent superiority in the soaring department. I will say, in that department however, until I see you accomplish your diamond badge in a low performance machine or “beat all of us� in a one-class competition, I can’t engender much respect for your self professed unproven “north american� soaring abilities lol.

[[email protected]]

As for our “pos� gliders made by schweizer, I would think as a Europian instead of denigrating american engineering, you would be thanking companies like schweizer and all the “**** poor� american aviators like my father who saved EU from the fate of having to exclusively fly german aircraft for the next thousand year reign. That was accomplished with american engineering and american aviation skill. I’ve waved the flag enough.
I will stand and salute but all we ask from others is a simple, “ thank you�.

[[email protected]]

Some of you are mentally weak, sadly. Gunz was a response to this question:
> What freedom do you think you have in the US that we in Western Europe
> don't?

That's it, nothing more. Wasn't intended to trigger anyone, surprised that it did. Guns, speech, airspace, zoning(someplaces.) Plus our processed food companies have more freedom to put more garbage in our processed food. All freedoms under attack except the last one, that one is probably increasing in Europe as well.

[Dan Marotta]

Hi Ramy,

Jon and I had a private conversation on the topic and I regret that I
did not make my initial response to him private.Â* What most don't
understand is that we gun owners are not "gun lovers", but instead
"freedom lovers".Â* What riles us is the threat of others wanting to
remove our freedoms.Â* If you review all of my posts over the past 30
years or so, I expect you'll not find a single instance of my wanting to
ban anything.Â* All I request is similar consideration.

Please contact me privately if you want to discuss this further. I'll
bow out now.

On 11/12/2019 10:00 PM, Ramy wrote:
> Jonathan, I am with you. I feel your pain.
> Dan, with all due respect, please respect yourself and stop with the idiotic comparison of guns to cars, hammers, fires, texting and long list of stupid comparisons. None of those things were designed and intended to kill. Why don’t you mention gliders? After all this is the subject of this thread! Gliders kill too. In fact, I know more people who were killed by gliders than by guns. Way more. So by your logic, gliders are probably more dangerous. Maybe we should ban gliders? Yet I love gliders since they were designed to give us pleasure and achievements. They were not designed to kill. It is an unfortunate cost. Yet I hate guns, even though I carried and used guns while in the army. Guns designed to kill. This includes hunting BTW.
> I usually avoid politics on RAS. But when folks like Greg bring guns as the reason to want to live in the US just boils my blood. He could have skipped it, but he intentionally brought it up to **** off many, probably most of us. I am glad Jonathan responded. And I am probably going to regret I did. But couldn’t help it. I know quiet a few gun lovers, like you Dan, and I can be their friends, just stop throwing it in our face. There is nothing to be proud of owning a gun. Be proud of your stemme and the great adventures you have in it. Ok, nough said.
>
> Ramy

--
Dan, 5J