View Full Version : The aerodynamics of a towplane in a kiting glider situation
Tom BravoMike
May 17th 20, 11:48 PM
I know there is a thread going on about and around the latest tragic accident from 5-9-2020 and I preferred to start a new thread as I felt uncomfortable going into a dry technical discussion in the context. So the issue is:
I would like to know more about the aerodynamics of the towplane in all those accident situations (and I mean above certain altitude minimum): Statistically, do they crash being stalled or in a deep dive? What is the usual reaction to the tail being pulled up - does the towpilot try to overrule the pulling glider and he gets into a stall? He cannot dive until the rope breaks. Recovering from a stall he has to get out of a dive anyway. So it seems that pushing down into a dive instead of trying to pull up would result in a smaller loss of altitude (and cause the rope to break earlier), rather than in the sequence: struggle to overrule the pulling glider - stalling (loss of height) - pulling out of a dive (loss of height).
Just thinking loud, curious if any research has been done and if so, to what conclusions? Does anybody know?
The tow cable pulls on the tow plan with some force (F) and angle (theta). When the glider balloons, both the force and angle increase. This lifts the tail of the tow plane with a force Fsin(theta). When Fsin(theta) exceeds the control authority of the tow plane, the tow plane is forced into a dive.
Presumably, cable force has an upper bound of 80% to 200% of the glider gross weight (FAR 91.309).
It might be possible to design a tow plane release mechanism with something similar to a back release. I'm thinking of a torsion spring-loaded mechanism with some length (x) such that the tow cable tension exerts a torque xFsin(theta) on it.
Shaun Wheeler
May 18th 20, 03:16 AM
On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> I know there is a thread going on about and around the latest tragic accident from 5-9-2020 and I preferred to start a new thread as I felt uncomfortable going into a dry technical discussion in the context. So the issue is:
>
> I would like to know more about the aerodynamics of the towplane in all those accident situations (and I mean above certain altitude minimum): Statistically, do they crash being stalled or in a deep dive? What is the usual reaction to the tail being pulled up - does the towpilot try to overrule the pulling glider and he gets into a stall? He cannot dive until the rope breaks. Recovering from a stall he has to get out of a dive anyway. So it seems that pushing down into a dive instead of trying to pull up would result in a smaller loss of altitude (and cause the rope to break earlier), rather than in the sequence: struggle to overrule the pulling glider - stalling (loss of height) - pulling out of a dive (loss of height).
>
> Just thinking loud, curious if any research has been done and if so, to what conclusions? Does anybody know?
Excellent topic.
Thank you.
On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 6:20:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> The tow cable pulls on the tow plan with some force (F) and angle (theta).. When the glider balloons, both the force and angle increase. This lifts the tail of the tow plane with a force Fsin(theta). When Fsin(theta) exceeds the control authority of the tow plane, the tow plane is forced into a dive.
>
> Presumably, cable force has an upper bound of 80% to 200% of the glider gross weight (FAR 91.309).
>
> It might be possible to design a tow plane release mechanism with something similar to a back release. I'm thinking of a torsion spring-loaded mechanism with some length (x) such that the tow cable tension exerts a torque xFsin(theta) on it.
During towplane upset fatal accident in Ephrata (1999) the rope did break, but the attitude of the towplane was such that a recovery was impossible. What I envision (which will probably draw the boo-birds) is a state estimation computer that monitors pitch rate of change, along with other flight parameters, to predict an upset in progress. If an upset isn't detected early there is no hope of recovery by any means.
Tom
Marton KSz
May 18th 20, 08:40 AM
I found this diagram last week:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/nLpWwLHFmgwE5dEM9
Here's my interpretation:
The system of the connected towplane + glider has a center of gravity, somewhere along the towrope, closer the towplane.
When the kiting begins, the system of the two connected masses start rotating around this CG (just like groundlooping a tailwheel aircraft).
However, since the glider is lighter, it rotates faster, which makes the impression that the towplane slingshots it.
Also, the glider has wings, and faster airspeed on the wings means more lift - the glider wants to go even higher.
All the energy for the extra lift + speed has to come from somewhere: the supply is the kinetic energy of the towplane. As the kiting aggravates, the towplane drastically slows down. First it runs out of elevator control, then stalls.
Sci Fi
May 18th 20, 11:11 AM
At 06:18 18 May 2020, 2G wrote:
>On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 6:20:53 PM UTC-7,
>w=
>rote:
>> Presumably, cable force has an upper bound of 80% to 200% of the glider
>g=
>ross weight (FAR 91.309).
>>=20
If that 80-200% is correct it could mean any weak link, for a 350kg glider
could be from 280 kg to 700kg breaking strain. Perhaps the lower figure
should be used for aero-tows, as it is sooo much safer. However I don't
know if weak links of less than 500kg are made.
Jonathon May[_2_]
May 18th 20, 01:26 PM
At 10:11 18 May 2020, Sci Fi wrote:
>At 06:18 18 May 2020, 2G wrote:
>>On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 6:20:53 PM UTC-7,
>>w=
>>rote:
>>> Presumably, cable force has an upper bound of 80% to
200% of the glider
>>g=
>>ross weight (FAR 91.309).
>>>=20
>
>If that 80-200% is correct it could mean any weak link, for a
350kg glide
>could be from 280 kg to 700kg breaking strain. Perhaps the
lower figur
>should be used for aero-tows, as it is sooo much safer.
However I don'
>know if weak links of less than 500kg are made.
>
>
I have seen a 4 ton winch moved on a 2 seater launch(1000Kg)
links you can stop a tug and strip it of all its airspeed quite easily.
Tost make a series of links down to 80kg for hang-gliders ,but I
do not think that is the answer.
The only way I can see it working is an ,and+and+and system.
If the elevator is hard up+the angle is above a set figure +the
load is above set figure the rope is released.
You would need a load sensor ,a light beam over the rope to limit
the deflection and a micro switch on the elevator.If all 3 occurred
together the rope is released.You would probably need a
magnetic coupling.
And you would still get nuisance releases.
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:30:04 AM UTC-4, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 10:11 18 May 2020, Sci Fi wrote:
> >At 06:18 18 May 2020, 2G wrote:
> >>On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 6:20:53 PM UTC-7,
>
> >>w=
> >>rote:
> >>> Presumably, cable force has an upper bound of 80% to
> 200% of the glider
> >>g=
> >>ross weight (FAR 91.309).
> >>>=20
> >
> >If that 80-200% is correct it could mean any weak link, for a
> 350kg glide
> >could be from 280 kg to 700kg breaking strain. Perhaps the
> lower figur
> >should be used for aero-tows, as it is sooo much safer.
> However I don'
> >know if weak links of less than 500kg are made.
> >
> >
> I have seen a 4 ton winch moved on a 2 seater launch(1000Kg)
> links you can stop a tug and strip it of all its airspeed quite easily.
> Tost make a series of links down to 80kg for hang-gliders ,but I
> do not think that is the answer.
>
> The only way I can see it working is an ,and+and+and system.
>
> If the elevator is hard up+the angle is above a set figure +the
> load is above set figure the rope is released.
>
> You would need a load sensor ,a light beam over the rope to limit
> the deflection and a micro switch on the elevator.If all 3 occurred
> together the rope is released.You would probably need a
> magnetic coupling.
> And you would still get nuisance releases.
Commendable that such thought is being put in but it's design, creation, approval and implementation at the end of the day. There is a point below which nothing is going to save the life of a tow pilot, human nature being what it is. I would have thought the potential for such an upset being caused by a flight instructor would be near zero... The old duffers YES, (and they abound) 15 year old students, YES but not instructors. The USAFA and Front Royal incidents are proof positive that there is a disconnect when it comes to recognizing the need to release when you kite above the tow plane, reaction time is everything. If the glider doesn't release it is necessary that the tow pilot has an unfettered system, at least not a system that has been proven in the past to fail. That would be the TOST system or at least if a Schweizer hook is used it be inverted and a release handle with adequate mechanical advantage and accessibility. Again this would not have helped the most recent accident victim but the next time a glider kites at a recoverable altitude let's hope the tow pilot has an out.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Marton KSz wrote:
> I found this diagram last week:
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/nLpWwLHFmgwE5dEM9
>
> Here's my interpretation:
>
Great picture for discussion, but it is lacking a critical part of the aerodynamics at the glider.
Consider recovering from a slack rope situation with nose a little high and a bit above the tow but still in sight. If you do it with a jerk, there is a sudden lot of force in the tow rope pulling the bottom of the glider forward and down. Given that the CG hook is below the center of lift, this puts a pitch up torque on the glider. Even with the pilot putting stick full forward, some gliders can go quickly into a nose high attitude with the elevator stalled.
At this point, the only glider control inputs left are to lean forward to move the CG or pull the yellow handle.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Stay lowish and don't take up slack nose high. Understand this sequence and no matter what happens in the cockpit, fly to avoid it. If all else fails, be ready to use the yellow handle.
Tom BravoMike
May 18th 20, 04:04 PM
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Marton KSz wrote:
> I found this diagram last week:
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/nLpWwLHFmgwE5dEM9
>
> Here's my interpretation:
>
> The system of the connected towplane + glider has a center of gravity, somewhere along the towrope, closer the towplane.
>
> When the kiting begins, the system of the two connected masses start rotating around this CG (just like groundlooping a tailwheel aircraft).
>
> However, since the glider is lighter, it rotates faster, which makes the impression that the towplane slingshots it.
>
> Also, the glider has wings, and faster airspeed on the wings means more lift - the glider wants to go even higher.
>
> All the energy for the extra lift + speed has to come from somewhere: the supply is the kinetic energy of the towplane. As the kiting aggravates, the towplane drastically slows down. First it runs out of elevator control, then stalls.
That's quite an interesting picture, helping to understand the process and the discussion about the (initially) small angles.
The 800 ft minimum for the towplane to recover from a dive seems a lot. Could speak for using eg. touring motorgliders as tugs in hope they could recover faster.
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 18th 20, 05:11 PM
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 12:40:26 AM UTC-7, Marton KSz wrote:
> I found this diagram last week:
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/nLpWwLHFmgwE5dEM9
>
> Here's my interpretation:
>
> The system of the connected towplane + glider has a center of gravity, somewhere along the towrope, closer the towplane.
>
> When the kiting begins, the system of the two connected masses start rotating around this CG (just like groundlooping a tailwheel aircraft).
>
> However, since the glider is lighter, it rotates faster, which makes the impression that the towplane slingshots it.
>
> Also, the glider has wings, and faster airspeed on the wings means more lift - the glider wants to go even higher.
>
> All the energy for the extra lift + speed has to come from somewhere: the supply is the kinetic energy of the towplane. As the kiting aggravates, the towplane drastically slows down. First it runs out of elevator control, then stalls.
I fail to see the rational of designing a system that places a tow rope in front of the the tail feathers. Aren't you are just changing one failure mechanism for another?
Confused
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 11:05:00 AM UTC-4, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Marton KSz wrote:
> > I found this diagram last week:
> >
> > https://photos.app.goo.gl/nLpWwLHFmgwE5dEM9
> >
> > Here's my interpretation:
> >
> > The system of the connected towplane + glider has a center of gravity, somewhere along the towrope, closer the towplane.
> >
> > When the kiting begins, the system of the two connected masses start rotating around this CG (just like groundlooping a tailwheel aircraft).
> >
> > However, since the glider is lighter, it rotates faster, which makes the impression that the towplane slingshots it.
> >
> > Also, the glider has wings, and faster airspeed on the wings means more lift - the glider wants to go even higher.
> >
> > All the energy for the extra lift + speed has to come from somewhere: the supply is the kinetic energy of the towplane. As the kiting aggravates, the towplane drastically slows down. First it runs out of elevator control, then stalls.
>
> That's quite an interesting picture, helping to understand the process and the discussion about the (initially) small angles.
> The 800 ft minimum for the towplane to recover from a dive seems a lot. Could speak for using eg. touring motorgliders as tugs in hope they could recover faster.
In my low kiting incident I don't believe it started any more than 350 feet AGL. The 800 ft minimum appears to be if you are at 90 degrees nose down and stalled. I can't say exactly what angle I was at but It was beyond 60 I am sure, I recall no horizon in the wind screen. When the rope broke (which sounded like a mass of sheet metal hitting the ground) I realized I needed proper airspeed before I could fly and I didn't quite have it. I slowly eased out of the dive using what altitude I had and came in with power (which for some reason as I remember seemed a bit hesitant, I'm told maybe the G force on the float in the carb) and recovered slightly below the trees being visible in my peripheral vision off to the left. IF I was over the stand of trees, If it wasn't clear below me I would not have made it. At one point I thought I was going into the trees. That feeling sucks big time.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow PIlot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
John McLaughlin
May 18th 20, 05:31 PM
The idea of deliberately diving the tug when this situation is
recognised is interesting - maintain energy, maintain elevator
authority, get rid of the glider, avoid the stall - sounds good. But I
guess the upset has already happened when the tug pilot first
recognises the situation. And who'd want to push into an even
steeper dive at 200'?
At 15:04 18 May 2020, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 2:40:26 AM UTC-5, Marton KSz
wrote:
>> I found this diagram last week:
>>
>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/nLpWwLHFmgwE5dEM9
>>
>> Here's my interpretation:
>>
>> The system of the connected towplane + glider has a center of
gravity,
>somewhere along the towrope, closer the towplane.
>>
>> When the kiting begins, the system of the two connected masses
start
>rotating around this CG (just like groundlooping a tailwheel
aircraft).
>>
>> However, since the glider is lighter, it rotates faster, which makes
the
>impression that the towplane slingshots it.
>>
>> Also, the glider has wings, and faster airspeed on the wings
means more
>lift - the glider wants to go even higher.
>>
>> All the energy for the extra lift + speed has to come from
somewhere: the
>supply is the kinetic energy of the towplane. As the kiting
aggravates, the
>towplane drastically slows down. First it runs out of elevator
control,
>then stalls.
>
>That's quite an interesting picture, helping to understand the
process and
>the discussion about the (initially) small angles.
>The 800 ft minimum for the towplane to recover from a dive seems
a lot.
>Could speak for using eg. touring motorgliders as tugs in hope
they could
>recover faster.
>
The thing that seems to be missing from these discussions (except for the tow from the CG) is the fact that the problem is the up force of the towline exceeds the ability of the tow plane elevator to resist. I do not know how much downforce the elevator can create, but it is a LOONG way from the breaking strength of the rope or even any weak link you can reasonably tow with. Near the breaking strength of the rope, I think you will find the angle that will provide enough lift on the tail to "win" over the elevator, will be quite shallow. And of course, that angle at the tail is the same change in angle that might happen from the tow pilot reacting to turbulence. All the thought of angle detection, make me think the inventors have never towed in rotor, where we see lock to lock control movement fairly regularly.
My favorites in this thread, are pushbutton release, no effort, fast, accessible, and yes, in bad cases, too slow. And perhaps the integrating load cell to look for a sustained high load, but we have no data to know if that is a valid condition to look for. A few of our upsets (thankfully at altitude) we from a glider release, in a climbing turn, that resulted in an instantaneous nose down of the tow plane, not the sustained load that is thought to happen in a kiting situation.
I am afraid, without a means to tow from a point on the tow craft that does not influence pitch, we are stuck with better, and recurring training.
RR
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
May 18th 20, 08:13 PM
On Mon, 18 May 2020 09:11:51 -0700, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> I fail to see the rational of designing a system that places a tow rope
> in front of the the tail feathers. Aren't you are just changing one
> failure mechanism for another?
> Confused
>
At least some of the C47 glider tugs did just that.
An illustrated article: "GLIDER SNATCHING", THE AEROPLANE, JUNE 15, 1945
shows detail of the arrangement used to recover Hadrian troop gliders
from France, often with casualties on board.
The C47 had an electric winch with a variable braking system mounted at
the front of the troop/cargo area with the cab;e exiting from the
underside just behind the wing root fairings.
The glider being recovered had a short row rope ending on a large loop of
nylon rope supported on two light poles on front of the glider. The C47
did a low pass with a dangling hook, snagged the horizontal bit of the
rope between the poles and paid out line as the glider accelerated and
took off. Then the winch wound in the cable until the glider was at
normal towing distance and flew back to base towing the Hadrian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68O_ZHCOjwk
The next video shows both conventional glider towing, with the line
attached to the extreme rear of the C47 fuselage, and snatching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfYSmGl8io8
....so anybody who'd been snatched low tow for the whole flight.
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
Kandiru
May 19th 20, 12:19 AM
Winchlaunches for the entire USA.
I can't really contribute much to this discussion, as I am not a tow pilot and my engineering skills are more in line with less complex functions, but with current technology, target tracking (as previously suggested) has become more available and reliable. Perhaps a laser tracker at the tow hitch and a reflector at the glider end of the tow rope could be used to trigger either a guillotine or release actuator. Parameters could be set so that normal "boxing the wake" maneuvers would be permitted and ignored, but a high tow angle relative to the tow plane longitudinal axis would trigger the rope cut or release actuation. Of course, this implies a sudden and dramatic increase in the vertical positions of the ends of the tow rope prior to upsetting the tow plane axis. A gradual "kiting" motion may pull the tow plane tail up at a rate that the angle does not exceed the preselected deviance angle.
I also have to mention that getting any auto-release device approved by the FAA is the "elephant in the room" that nobody so far on this thread has considered. When Walt Connelly proposed banning Schweizer releases, I mentioned that there are some tow planes that are ONLY allowed to use Schweizer releases, and converting to a Tost system could (and would) require a lot of agonizing bureaucratic adventures with the FAA to get an STC or field approval to change the "approved" release to another "untested" installation.
I can only imagine the testing and documentation required to get an automatic release certified and approved. At best, the FAA is like a supertanker on course, and you are the guy in font of them in the rowboat furiously waving your handkerchief to make them turn. The Captain may see you and order an avoidance maneuver, but it's going to take a LOOOOONG time for the course to deviate one tiny little bit. Sort of like booting the rudder in a Grob 103.
Go ahead. Flame suit on.
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:18:29 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 6:21:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I also have to mention that getting any auto-release device approved by the FAA is the "elephant in the room" that nobody so far on this thread has considered. When Walt Connelly proposed banning Schweizer releases, I mentioned that there are some tow planes that are ONLY allowed to use Schweizer releases, and converting to a Tost system could (and would) require a lot of agonizing bureaucratic adventures with the FAA to get an STC or field approval to change the "approved" release to another "untested" installation..
> >
> > I can only imagine the testing and documentation required to get an automatic release certified and approved. At best, the FAA is like a supertanker on course, and you are the guy in font of them in the rowboat furiously waving your handkerchief to make them turn. The Captain may see you and order an avoidance maneuver, but it's going to take a LOOOOONG time for the course to deviate one tiny little bit. Sort of like booting the rudder in a Grob 103.
> >
> > Go ahead. Flame suit on.
>
> That certainly is the elephant in the room. Fortunately, that elephant recently got a little smaller. Along with the recent Part-23 re-write, the FAA implemented a new NORSEE (Non Required Safety Enhancing Equipment) policy.. In many instances, the FAA is now allowing non-certified safety equipment to be installed on certified aircraft.
>
> Here's a NORSEE summary: https://disciplesofflight.com/faa-norsee-policy/
>
> The release mechanism is required equipement for towing gliders. As such, any new tow release mechanism would need to be certified. There would certainly be fewer regulatory hurdles if the existing release system can remain intact. I would explore adding a second release cable, connected to the new actuator/sensors/controller. In this scenario, the new stuff is NORSEE. It might be worthwhile to discuss this with an ACO (Aircraft Certification Office).
If you can install a non-certified autopilot I would consider an alternative tow release actuator to be a no-brainer.
Tom
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:21:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> I also have to mention that getting any auto-release device approved by the FAA is the "elephant in the room" that nobody so far on this thread has considered. When Walt Connelly proposed banning Schweizer releases, I mentioned that there are some tow planes that are ONLY allowed to use Schweizer releases, and converting to a Tost system could (and would) require a lot of agonizing bureaucratic adventures with the FAA to get an STC or field approval to change the "approved" release to another "untested" installation.
>
> I can only imagine the testing and documentation required to get an automatic release certified and approved. At best, the FAA is like a supertanker on course, and you are the guy in font of them in the rowboat furiously waving your handkerchief to make them turn. The Captain may see you and order an avoidance maneuver, but it's going to take a LOOOOONG time for the course to deviate one tiny little bit. Sort of like booting the rudder in a Grob 103.
>
> Go ahead. Flame suit on.
First of all, I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. Just some interesting questions I have asked and as a result have become more confused, but that's lawyers for you.
Interesting that you mentioned dealing with the FAA over an "approved" release and in this case the Schweizer system. So, the FAA has approved this system and this system only for certain aircraft, I'm curious as to what aircraft those might be, not that this is really important. What is important is the concept under the law of "knew or should have known." The FAA had to know (unless the FAA has been living under a rock) that the "approved" system has failed miserably just when it is needed the most resulting in the death of tow pilots in the past.
And what "untested' installation do you mean? The TOST system has been tested thoroughly and although any system can fail the consensus is that the TOST system is superior to the Schweizer. Prove me wrong.
The "Federal Tort Claims Act" allows for legal action being taken against Federal agencies in the event of situations such as this, knew or known or negligence. The old rule that you can't sue the Sovereign (government) no longer applies in all cases. Plenty of suits against VA doctors and other successful legal actions I am told. While these are rare events if a family with standing gets the right legal team going after the major league DEEP POCKET, (the GUBMENT) then things might change. Then again, maybe not. Lawyers only go after cases where they believe they can win and secure a large judgement, a nice percentage of which goes in their pocket.
Additionally I was previously told that Soaring is a sport and that the tow pilot is essentially engaging in the sport and therefore assumes a degree of risk. Perhaps, perhaps not I am informed by another "legal mind" who actually is a pilot. The sport arguably doesn't begin until the gate opens for the "race." Therefore it might be argued that the tow pilot is not a competitor and therefore not engaged in the sport in either towing for a competition or simply launching a glider. (ask four lawyers a question and get 6 different answers) If in the case of the tow pilot in California the family has "standing" meaning that they depend on him for their livelihood they might well have a reasonable chance of prevailing in a law suit. (let that be a lesson to you commercial operators and clubs, only have tow pilots without wives, children, families depending on them or you could lose you ass) The glider pilot in this case was an instructor as we have been informed, someone who "Knew or Should Have Known" that his actions might imperil the tow pilot. In this case the pilot failed to take proper care in doing something resulting in death. No one believes for a moment this was purposeful on his part, but the right lawyer can sue the sun for going down and the tide for going out and prevail.
The real problem is the safety culture of the community as a whole. Until commercial operators and clubs take it upon themselves to recognize failed systems and correct them these things will continue to happen. You can talk about training until hell freezes over but when a human makes an error the tow pilot still has every right to the best reasonable escape mechanism, not one that is proven to have failed when needed the most. People still still make mistakes, nothing will ever make flying or towing completely safe but actions, not words are what makes thing safER. Take action my friends, the life you save may be the tow pilot.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.
Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.
I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.
As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 6:47:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.
>
> Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.
>
> I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.
>
> As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.
STCs have been issued for many different aircraft for many different alterations - it is not an impossible task. Your Pegasus issue is not a valid comparison to an STC. Yes, a different STC would have to be developed for each aircraft type using a KGARS, but so what - you take the same paperwork and change the make and model, and resubmit it. If you have the data to support the superior performance of a KGARS - and you definitely need that data - I think the FAA would be very receptive to approving it.
Tom
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 9:47:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.
>
> Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.
>
> I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.
>
> As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.
MARK, I think you missed my point but that's okay. I understand everything you said, still the FAA is now knowingly insisting on utilization of a device on some airplanes which has been proven to fail to do what it is supposed to do when the feces makes physical contact with the whirling blades of an electrically driven air moving device. Change can be accomplished, someone needs to make the first move. I understand government bureaucracy, I had to deal with OSHA in the Nuclear Power Plant world but I do have to say the OSHA guys were quite reasonable, UNLESS there was a glaring violation and then they insisted on compliance.
Flying with the Schweizer hook is kinda like driving drunk. Happens countless times each day as does towing with the Schweizer hook but nothing happens. Then someone get caught just like a tow pilot gets kited but no one gets killed but lesson learned. The drunk driver gets away with maybe a big fine, license suspended for a period as the tow pilot gets away with his life. Then the s--t hits the fan. The drunk kills someone and perhaps himself, the tow pilot crashes, loses his life. The drunk driver knew he was driving drunk, his family and friends knew he did it but no intervention. The Tug pilot knows he is pulling with a questionable device...
It's easier to look the other way and decide to do nothing than to take action and correct a known deficit. Easier until someone dies. Granted the Byron example might not have been avoided by any current release system, the pilot didn't have time to release and recover but another tow pilot will die in the future due to a system which is known to fail when it is needed the most. And what is the value of a life?
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
I invite anyone who thinks getting an STC approval is a simple process to just download this handy 96 page guide from the FAA.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_21-40A.pdf
And, no, you can't just change the make/model on the paperwork and resubmit it. The process is the same for a different aircraft. (Pawnee vs. Cessna 185 etc.) You CAN apply for an STC within certain parameters for aircraft of a similar "family," like Cessna 180, 182, 185, but there are still differences that must be defined for each model unless the equipment, processes, installation and materials are IDENTICAL.
Hightime
May 21st 20, 03:27 PM
On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-6, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> I know there is a thread going on about and around the latest tragic accident from 5-9-2020 and I preferred to start a new thread as I felt uncomfortable going into a dry technical discussion in the context. So the issue is:
>
> I would like to know more about the aerodynamics of the towplane in all those accident situations (and I mean above certain altitude minimum): Statistically, do they crash being stalled or in a deep dive? What is the usual reaction to the tail being pulled up - does the towpilot try to overrule the pulling glider and he gets into a stall? He cannot dive until the rope breaks. Recovering from a stall he has to get out of a dive anyway. So it seems that pushing down into a dive instead of trying to pull up would result in a smaller loss of altitude (and cause the rope to break earlier), rather than in the sequence: struggle to overrule the pulling glider - stalling (loss of height) - pulling out of a dive (loss of height).
>
> Just thinking loud, curious if any research has been done and if so, to what conclusions? Does anybody know?
Dont forget people Towing is not that dangerous and there are plenty of Happy towpilots out there and not just happy helicopter pilots
Folks
If anyone thinks getting an STC is easy or even moderately difficult you are badly mistaken. Having gone thru the attempt on two separate occasions, I can tell you unless an STC has been approved year’s previously addressing a similar application, your chances of getting an approval are next to nil! The dirty little secret is, the FAA is not interested in helping the process. In fact, they do not want to involve themselves at all. Maybe if you have a very friendly fsdo, you could possibly get a one time field approval but those are even very difficult to obtain nowadays.
Is the schweizer hook an issue? Possibly but Karl Streideck addressed the modifications suggested in a very succinct post earlier. Or switch to a tost hook and move on. We’ve been towing for decades now and once again it comes down to proper airmanship. Get the idiots be they experienced or not OUT of the cockpit or beat some sense into them. As a tow pilot, insist on a release that is easy and immediately at hand, be ready to pop it the very MOMENT someone starts a kiting action. Absolute diligence is required from both glider guy and tow pilot the first 1,000 ft of a tow.
Dan
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:27:39 AM UTC-7, Hightime wrote:
> On Sunday, May 17, 2020 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-6, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> > I know there is a thread going on about and around the latest tragic accident from 5-9-2020 and I preferred to start a new thread as I felt uncomfortable going into a dry technical discussion in the context. So the issue is:
> >
> > I would like to know more about the aerodynamics of the towplane in all those accident situations (and I mean above certain altitude minimum): Statistically, do they crash being stalled or in a deep dive? What is the usual reaction to the tail being pulled up - does the towpilot try to overrule the pulling glider and he gets into a stall? He cannot dive until the rope breaks. Recovering from a stall he has to get out of a dive anyway. So it seems that pushing down into a dive instead of trying to pull up would result in a smaller loss of altitude (and cause the rope to break earlier), rather than in the sequence: struggle to overrule the pulling glider - stalling (loss of height) - pulling out of a dive (loss of height).
> >
> > Just thinking loud, curious if any research has been done and if so, to what conclusions? Does anybody know?
>
> Dont forget people Towing is not that dangerous and there are plenty of Happy towpilots out there and not just happy helicopter pilots
The loss in airspeed during a kiting incident must be significant. Chris Rollings notes that a 'marked deceleration' was observed by the towpilot in his report from kiting tests in 1978 and 1982, but focusses on the pitch down. I've had two kiting incidents as an aerotow pilot, both above 2000agl, when the glider didn't release as desired. In both cases it felt like a mild aerobatic maneuver, not alarming to me due to the safe altitude, and my attention was so focussed on the pitch-down that I didn't notice any airspeed decrease, although it probably occurred. In those experiences, the kiting did not seem at all dangerous to me, at altitude, and might even be a good thing for all aerotow pilots to experience, at altitude and intentionally, as part of training. It would be best if the towpilot was comfortable with mild aerobatics before trying it however. Chris Rollings did not mention any danger in his kiting tests. Such intentional kiting might build up a better body of knowledge, and would increase the awareness of tow and glider pilots to the danger.
Reducing the towrope breaking tension seems desirable. I don't know the reason for the FAA 80% rule, maybe that should be reduced. Most glider manufacturers only specify a maximum breaking tension.
Another interesting consideration is the time taken for rope tension to rise to breaking tension. The tension in the rope will probably rise gradually during kiting, probably over a few seconds. The rise in tension is probably non-linear, and at some angle, but its easier to do a calculation if the rope tension is assumed to rise linearly and to act directly backwards. If the rope tension builds up linearly to 1800lbs (a typical rope break strength) and then breaks, a Pawnee with full tanks (say weighing 1800lbs) will decelerate linearly, reaching a maximum deceleration of 32ft/sec2 ie about 20kts per second, at the instant the rope breaks. The longer it takes for the rope tension to build up to breaking, the greater the total Pawnee airspeed loss will be, since the rope forces on the Pawnee will be the same but last for a longer time. Calculation shows the Pawnee total airspeed loss varies as t^2, where t is the time taken for the rope tension to rise to the breaking point. If the rope breaks in 1 sec, the Pawnee in this example would slow by about 10kts by the time the rope breaks. If the rope takes 2 secs to break, the Pawnee airspeed loss would be about 40kts. In a non-kiting rope-break, eg due to a slack line suddenly snatching tight, the time t would be very short, maybe 0.1sec, and the airspeed loss probably unnoticable.
The full analysis should consider both pitchdown and airspeed loss, and perhaps negative g effect on the pilot, and then the height needed to recover. This might be too complicated, and be too dependent on particular towplane types. Maybe intentional practice at altitude might give practical data more quickly.
Tom BravoMike
May 21st 20, 06:55 PM
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:47:42 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Folks
> If anyone thinks getting an STC is easy or even moderately difficult you are badly mistaken. Having gone thru the attempt on two separate occasions, I can tell you unless an STC has been approved year’s previously addressing a similar application, your chances of getting an approval are next to nil! The dirty little secret is, the FAA is not interested in helping the process. In fact, they do not want to involve themselves at all. Maybe if you have a very friendly fsdo, you could possibly get a one time field approval but those are even very difficult to obtain nowadays.
> Is the schweizer hook an issue? Possibly but Karl Streideck addressed the modifications suggested in a very succinct post earlier. Or switch to a tost hook and move on. We’ve been towing for decades now and once again it comes down to proper airmanship. Get the idiots be they experienced or not OUT of the cockpit or beat some sense into them. As a tow pilot, insist on a release that is easy and immediately at hand, be ready to pop it the very MOMENT someone starts a kiting action. Absolute diligence is required from both glider guy and tow pilot the first 1,000 ft of a tow.
> Dan
It almost sounds like we are orphans here in the US, no SSA, no AOPA, no EAA - of which many of us are members and pay the dues. Is there any support and lobbying on part of those organizations when dealing with the FAA? Don't the other countries' national gliding organizations take care of talking to their aviation administrations in similar cases? BGA, DAeC, FFVP ...
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 10:01:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I invite anyone who thinks getting an STC approval is a simple process to just download this handy 96 page guide from the FAA.
>
> https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_21-40A.pdf
>
> And, no, you can't just change the make/model on the paperwork and resubmit it. The process is the same for a different aircraft. (Pawnee vs. Cessna 185 etc.) You CAN apply for an STC within certain parameters for aircraft of a similar "family," like Cessna 180, 182, 185, but there are still differences that must be defined for each model unless the equipment, processes, installation and materials are IDENTICAL.
Yes, it is not easy, no one has said it is easy, obviously it is hard and unnecessarily so...BUT many things in life are hard and still worth doing. Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, NOT because hey are easy but because they are hard." As a kid I saw a man save a life, what he did was hard and dangerous but he saved a life, what can we do better than that? Some choose to discuss why it can't be done, I choose to see things from another perspective. I am not in a position to take the necessary steps, I don't own or fly a tow plane, I'm not an employee or an operation or club but I can see my hand in front of my face. If these comments and rantings move ONE more club or commercial operator to take the obvious necessary steps and replace a proven failed system for a proven better one then it's worth it.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
> Dont forget people Towing is not that dangerous and there are plenty of Happy towpilots out there and not just happy helicopter pilots
Hightime, you're kidding right? Towing is not that dangerous? Please tell that to the poor chap who died recently in California. Or to the tow pilot at Front Royal Virginia or any of the tow pilots who have perished due to a mistake on the part of the glider pilot in tow only to then be amplified by the failure of a device meant to save their life. Towing is not "that" dangerous until it become THAT dangerous.
It's not THAT dangerous until someone in back of the tow plane makes a big, stupid mistake. It's not THAT dangerous until a poorly trained student (in my case) or an inattentive, distracted instructor or one of the many squirrels who abound in the soaring community SCREW UP. Then it becomes THAT dangerous and for the record, how do you define "that?"
Plenty of Happy tow pilots? I'm sure there are and they will be happy until the s--t hits the fan and they find themselves a second or two from the end of their life, happy will go out the window. The fact of the matter is we don't know what we don't know and what we don't know can kill us. Every tow has the potential to end in disaster. Towing
Towing is not that dangerous, what a dumb f--king statement to make. Flying helicopters is dangerous too but not THAT dangerous? The difference is that I am responsible for my mistakes.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, NOT because hey are easy but because they are hard."
I remember that speech well, and have listened to it a number of times over the years. It galvanized and inspired America to take the challenge, and it also inspired Congress to fund the space program. It was one of our Nation's finest accomplishments and well worth every penny, in my mind. But I wasn't even 10 years old, so I couldn't contribute either expertise or funding.
So, if you can't contribute expertise, can you at least contribute funding? I am sure we can find someone with the necessary skills and expertise. But they won't do it for free. 2G says he'll do it if we start by sending him a million bucks. Maybe there is someone who will consider the problem for less.
Simply pointing out a problem and demanding a change in no way constitutes a solution. If you feel so strongly, help fund a solution.
Hightime
May 21st 20, 11:43 PM
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 2:30:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > Dont forget people Towing is not that dangerous and there are plenty of Happy towpilots out there and not just happy helicopter pilots
>
> Hightime, you're kidding right? Towing is not that dangerous? Please tell that to the poor chap who died recently in California. Or to the tow pilot at Front Royal Virginia or any of the tow pilots who have perished due to a mistake on the part of the glider pilot in tow only to then be amplified by the failure of a device meant to save their life. Towing is not "that" dangerous until it become THAT dangerous.
>
> It's not THAT dangerous until someone in back of the tow plane makes a big, stupid mistake. It's not THAT dangerous until a poorly trained student (in my case) or an inattentive, distracted instructor or one of the many squirrels who abound in the soaring community SCREW UP. Then it becomes THAT dangerous and for the record, how do you define "that?"
>
> Plenty of Happy tow pilots? I'm sure there are and they will be happy until the s--t hits the fan and they find themselves a second or two from the end of their life, happy will go out the window. The fact of the matter is we don't know what we don't know and what we don't know can kill us. Every tow has the potential to end in disaster. Towing
>
> Towing is not that dangerous, what a dumb f--king statement to make. Flying helicopters is dangerous too but not THAT dangerous? The difference is that I am responsible for my mistakes.
>
> Walt Connelly
> Former Tow Pilot
> Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
No Its not dangerous, I have been part of a club for many years , we have high standards of training, so no student or pilot ever does this, its trained out of them from a very early on . When I solo them Im confident in their abilities. Sure it can happen by a pudknoker but its not statistically "dangerous" to tow a glider. Its statistically dangerous to fly helicopters , come back to towing you will be much safer
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:01:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I invite anyone who thinks getting an STC approval is a simple process to just download this handy 96 page guide from the FAA.
>
> https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_21-40A.pdf
>
> And, no, you can't just change the make/model on the paperwork and resubmit it. The process is the same for a different aircraft. (Pawnee vs. Cessna 185 etc.) You CAN apply for an STC within certain parameters for aircraft of a similar "family," like Cessna 180, 182, 185, but there are still differences that must be defined for each model unless the equipment, processes, installation and materials are IDENTICAL.
LOL! A few days ago you suggested that I should develop a KGARS and go into the business of selling it for a profit, hinting that this is easy-peasy. But you had no response when I said it would cost $1M. I have no illusions as to what the effort is to develop such a device. But, on the other hand, what is a life worth?
Tom
>
> LOL! A few days ago you suggested that I should develop a KGARS and go into the business of selling it for a profit, hinting that this is easy-peasy.
I most definitely did NOT imply it was "easy-peasy." In fact my comment was "Great. Design it. Build it. Test it. Get it approved." And then I used Dave Nadler's trademark comment when anyone suggests something that is more complex than it appears.
"How hard can it be?"
Your comments implied that you could whip it out no problem, but just didn't have the time.
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 8:53:41 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > LOL! A few days ago you suggested that I should develop a KGARS and go into the business of selling it for a profit, hinting that this is easy-peasy.
>
> I most definitely did NOT imply it was "easy-peasy." In fact my comment was "Great. Design it. Build it. Test it. Get it approved." And then I used Dave Nadler's trademark comment when anyone suggests something that is more complex than it appears.
>
> "How hard can it be?"
>
> Your comments implied that you could whip it out no problem, but just didn't have the time.
Mark, you get everything ass-backwards: I said I have the time, I'm retired.. What I DON'T have is a towplane. I NEVER "implied" that I could "whip it out no problem." I also said that flight testing would be involved. Does $1M sound like it is "no problem?"
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 5:17:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, NOT because hey are easy but because they are hard."
>
> I remember that speech well, and have listened to it a number of times over the years. It galvanized and inspired America to take the challenge, and it also inspired Congress to fund the space program. It was one of our Nation's finest accomplishments and well worth every penny, in my mind. But I wasn't even 10 years old, so I couldn't contribute either expertise or funding.
>
> So, if you can't contribute expertise, can you at least contribute funding? I am sure we can find someone with the necessary skills and expertise. But they won't do it for free. 2G says he'll do it if we start by sending him a million bucks. Maybe there is someone who will consider the problem for less.
>
> Simply pointing out a problem and demanding a change in no way constitutes a solution. If you feel so strongly, help fund a solution.
I have been making large donations to a local food bank these days, otherwise I would be happy to donate to a fund that might at some point result in the saving of a life. However it would appear to me that it is and should be incumbent upon those operating tow planes to realize the necessity for change and protection of the tow pilot and take the steps both financially and mechanically to bring about those changes.
The real problem is a failure of understanding the big picture and the long term ramifications. People take more time deciding why they can't do something as opposed to why they can.
My contribution in part has been my experience with a very low kiting situation and my willingness to loudly voice that experience in an attempt to generate action. I'm out of the towing and gliding arena but those still involved need to take action or pay the ultimate price.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 6:43:52 PM UTC-4, Hightime wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 2:30:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > Dont forget people Towing is not that dangerous and there are plenty of Happy towpilots out there and not just happy helicopter pilots
> >
> > Hightime, you're kidding right? Towing is not that dangerous? Please tell that to the poor chap who died recently in California. Or to the tow pilot at Front Royal Virginia or any of the tow pilots who have perished due to a mistake on the part of the glider pilot in tow only to then be amplified by the failure of a device meant to save their life. Towing is not "that" dangerous until it become THAT dangerous.
> >
> > It's not THAT dangerous until someone in back of the tow plane makes a big, stupid mistake. It's not THAT dangerous until a poorly trained student (in my case) or an inattentive, distracted instructor or one of the many squirrels who abound in the soaring community SCREW UP. Then it becomes THAT dangerous and for the record, how do you define "that?"
> >
> > Plenty of Happy tow pilots? I'm sure there are and they will be happy until the s--t hits the fan and they find themselves a second or two from the end of their life, happy will go out the window. The fact of the matter is we don't know what we don't know and what we don't know can kill us. Every tow has the potential to end in disaster. Towing
> >
> > Towing is not that dangerous, what a dumb f--king statement to make. Flying helicopters is dangerous too but not THAT dangerous? The difference is that I am responsible for my mistakes.
> >
> > Walt Connelly
> > Former Tow Pilot
> > Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
>
> No Its not dangerous, I have been part of a club for many years , we have high standards of training, so no student or pilot ever does this, its trained out of them from a very early on . When I solo them Im confident in their abilities. Sure it can happen by a pudknoker but its not statistically "dangerous" to tow a glider. Its statistically dangerous to fly helicopters , come back to towing you will be much safer
I remember well my first day sitting in a college statistics class, the Prof said he could make any group of numbers mean anything he wished them to. To say that flying tow is "statistically" not dangerous denies the fact that each tow brings with it the potential for disaster.
Tell the chap who died recently about your "statistics." I'm sure he would feel better or perhaps better still, tell his family. Curious as to how you would word that.
I'm always amused when "instructors" claim how well their students are prepared. As my dad would say, if you do something long enough, bad things will happen. I knew a guy in Vietnam who was shot down on his first mission and another guy who was shot down on his last. You never know when your number is up.
Helicopters have their own "dangerous" characteristics, difference is I'm not dependent on another pilot hooked up to me not making a mistake. If I screw up it's on me. I'm willing to take that chance.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
Walt, no offense friend, but I would rather take my chances as a tow pilot than fly in choppers lol. Way too many moving parts. Last time I was in one they kicked me out on a zip line (army rotc).
On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 8:53:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Walt, no offense friend, but I would rather take my chances as a tow pilot than fly in choppers lol. Way too many moving parts. Last time I was in one they kicked me out on a zip line (army rotc).
No offense taken. I've had close calls in helicopters and they were all as a result of my inexperience. The key is to keep flying, keep putting in inputs to get the outcome you are seeking. Learning to hover is a humbling experience. The helicopter I will assure you takes a much finer touch than any fixed wing airplane I have ever flown. Everything that leaves the ground is dangerous, gravity is a constant as is human failure.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 22nd 20, 06:33 PM
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 3:43:52 PM UTC-7, Hightime wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 2:30:24 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > > Dont forget people Towing is not that dangerous and there are plenty of Happy towpilots out there and not just happy helicopter pilots
> >
> > Hightime, you're kidding right? Towing is not that dangerous? Please tell that to the poor chap who died recently in California. Or to the tow pilot at Front Royal Virginia or any of the tow pilots who have perished due to a mistake on the part of the glider pilot in tow only to then be amplified by the failure of a device meant to save their life. Towing is not "that" dangerous until it become THAT dangerous.
> >
> > It's not THAT dangerous until someone in back of the tow plane makes a big, stupid mistake. It's not THAT dangerous until a poorly trained student (in my case) or an inattentive, distracted instructor or one of the many squirrels who abound in the soaring community SCREW UP. Then it becomes THAT dangerous and for the record, how do you define "that?"
> >
> > Plenty of Happy tow pilots? I'm sure there are and they will be happy until the s--t hits the fan and they find themselves a second or two from the end of their life, happy will go out the window. The fact of the matter is we don't know what we don't know and what we don't know can kill us. Every tow has the potential to end in disaster. Towing
> >
> > Towing is not that dangerous, what a dumb f--king statement to make. Flying helicopters is dangerous too but not THAT dangerous? The difference is that I am responsible for my mistakes.
> >
> > Walt Connelly
> > Former Tow Pilot
> > Now Happy Helicopter Pilot
>
> No Its not dangerous, I have been part of a club for many years , we have high standards of training, so no student or pilot ever does this, its trained out of them from a very early on . When I solo them Im confident in their abilities. Sure it can happen by a pudknoker but its not statistically "dangerous" to tow a glider. Its statistically dangerous to fly helicopters , come back to towing you will be much safer
I would like to see the citation on that statement. I have over two thousand hours in helicopters and felt safer than in my own home. I am a commercial, instrument rated helicopter pilot and the only people I knew that were killed were airplane pilots and glider pilots. Helicopters do have a high incident of incidences, like roll over accidents, but I have never known anyone hurt in a helo crash.
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 22nd 20, 06:54 PM
On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 6:13:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 8:53:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > Walt, no offense friend, but I would rather take my chances as a tow pilot than fly in choppers lol. Way too many moving parts. Last time I was in one they kicked me out on a zip line (army rotc).
>
>
> No offense taken. I've had close calls in helicopters and they were all as a result of my inexperience. The key is to keep flying, keep putting in inputs to get the outcome you are seeking. Learning to hover is a humbling experience. The helicopter I will assure you takes a much finer touch than any fixed wing airplane I have ever flown. Everything that leaves the ground is dangerous, gravity is a constant as is human failure.
>
> Walt Connelly
> Former Tow Pilot
> Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
When I first started flying helicopters, one of the two finest pilots I have had the honor of flying with told me it takes about 500 hours to be a competent helicopter pilot, he was right. Of course all of our flying was in the mountains, little less time in flat lands. For a decade I lived in a 600 sq.ft. condo with a Murphy bed, attached to a 6,000 sq. ft. hangar. My ex-wife had told me I needed to get my priorities right, so I did. In that hangar was a MD520 N with a much stronger than spec engine (spec'd at 450 shaft horse power, but I got 484 shaft horse power, that is a lot). I flew nearly every day and in that decade I put 2,166 hours on that particular helicopter plus about another 200 hours in other helicopters. Just an incredible experience. I always felt at home. Only had one, well maybe a few other exciting experiences. I did have an inflight fire, NiCad runaway at sunset over a deep dark canyon. Worst part of that was getting stalked by a mountain lion. I did get caught in actual severe turbulence in rotor(from wave) turbulence. I did swap paint or almost swapped paint with a United MD 80 out of Burbank in September of 2003. I looked for that incident in the NTSB database but couldn't find it. Very interesting back story on that, but the RD version, I meet an angel that day and she saved myself and 109 soul on the other airplane. Both myself and the United pilot filed NASA reports. NASA called me and said "we are not supposed to do this, but would you like the number of the other pilot. (I have been meaning to write up that story). I learned a lot about life and flying while strapped to that bird. A sad note, my ex-helicopter went to Canada and now a R44 has her N-number, so sad.
>> I would like to see the citation on that statement. I have over two thousand hours in helicopters and felt safer than in my own home. I am a commercial, instrument rated helicopter pilot and the only people I knew that were killed were airplane pilots and glider pilots. Helicopters do have a high incident of incidences, like roll over accidents, but I have never known anyone hurt in a helo crash.
I have twice experienced LTE in the Guimbal Cabri G2 down low, real low. The folks at the plant will tell you that it will not LTE....WELL, when I find myself with the right pedal all the way to the stop and still rotating I call that LTE. All you can down is turn the throttle all the way off and try to stay level while your rectum sucks the seat up into the distal portion of your alimentary canal. I have gone back and forth with the manufacturer and have discovered things they have not been very open about....shame on them. While I was getting my rating there were no accidents at the helicopter school but the local fixed wing school destroyed two 172's.
Walt Connelly
Former Tow PIlot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
Jonathan St. Cloud
May 23rd 20, 02:42 AM
On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 1:46:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> I would like to see the citation on that statement. I have over two thousand hours in helicopters and felt safer than in my own home. I am a commercial, instrument rated helicopter pilot and the only people I knew that were killed were airplane pilots and glider pilots. Helicopters do have a high incident of incidences, like roll over accidents, but I have never known anyone hurt in a helo crash.
>
> I have twice experienced LTE in the Guimbal Cabri G2 down low, real low. The folks at the plant will tell you that it will not LTE....WELL, when I find myself with the right pedal all the way to the stop and still rotating I call that LTE. All you can down is turn the throttle all the way off and try to stay level while your rectum sucks the seat up into the distal portion of your alimentary canal. I have gone back and forth with the manufacturer and have discovered things they have not been very open about....shame on them. While I was getting my rating there were no accidents at the helicopter school but the local fixed wing school destroyed two 172's.
>
> Walt Connelly
> Former Tow PIlot
> Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.
I do have 100 hours in Bell 206's, they are subject to LTE, but I never flew into that envelope. The MD, while any helicopter can experience LTE, I have never heard of an incident.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.