48.4 hours !?

[[email protected]]

NTSB Identification: LAX05LA131
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, April 06, 2005 in Mokuleia, HI
Aircraft: Schweizer SGS 2-32, registration: N693U
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On April 6, 2005, at 1300 Hawaiian standard time, a Schweizer SGS 2-32
glider, N693U, impacted mountainous terrain 0.4 miles south of the
Dillingham Airfield, Mokuleia, Hawaii. The commercial glider pilot was
fatally injured and the two passengers sustained minor injuries. The
glider sustained substantial damaged. Sailplane Ride Adventures, Inc.,
owned and operated the glider under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 as
a scenic sailplane ride. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed,
and a flight plan had not been filed for the local flight. The
20-minute scenic flight was in the air approximately 17 minutes.

According to an interview summary provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the passengers reported that they were circling
around a hill and thought that they were returning to the airport. The
glider crossed over a ridge to a valley to look at a waterfall. The
glider turned left then right in a gentle but accelerating manner. The
glider also pitched up and down, and the passengers felt like they were
falling. The pilot announced that they were "going in." The glider
impacted trees and terrain, and came to rest upside down.

Another witness, who was a glider pilot flying at the time of the
accident, observed the accident glider behind her, heading east
approximately 400-500 feet above the ridge. She checked back on the
glider's position relative to hers and noticed the glider "turn right
(toward the ridge) and its nose come up slightly." The glider turned
"approximately 45 degrees to the right, then turned back to the left
and immediately entered a spin to the left." The witness reported that
the glider rotated twice before it entered a spin to the right. The
witness then lost sight of the glider behind trees before it completed
a rotation to the right.

The accident site was at 21 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds north
latitude and 158 degrees 12 minutes and 54 seconds west longitude at an
elevation of approximately 1,000 feet msl. The glider came to rest on
the east side of a gulch that cut through the east-west running
ridgeline situated to the south of Dillingham Airfield. Review of
photographs of the accident site revealed that the glider fuselage came
to rest inverted with the left and right inboard wings intact. The left
and right outboard wing sections were detached; however, the left
outboard wing section remained attached to the main wreckage via flight
control cables. The right outboard wing section came to rest
approximately 40 feet from the main wreckage at the base of freshly
broken trees. The wing leading edges displayed circular indentations
similar in size to the diameter of the surrounding trees. The tail
section folded over the belly of the airplane.

The glider was recovered to Dillingham Airfield on April 8, 2005.
According to the FAA inspectors that responded to the accident site,
flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to the flight
control surfaces.

The pilot received his student pilot certificate on March 16, 2005. On
March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate with a glider
rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial pilot certificate
with a glider rating. According to the pilot's logbook, as of April 5,
2005 (the day before the accident), he accumulated a total of 48.4
hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours were as pilot-in-command.

[John Doe]

31.2 hours P1? To me that seems a little low? What
are the US requirements for a commercial rating? Here
in the UK you need 50 and silver before you can get
a Basic Instructor rating (To give first lessons, but
not past turning, so I think about equivalent..).
Is this a normal requirement or is this exceptional?

Jamie

At 16:30 21 April 2005, wrote:
>NTSB Identification: LAX05LA131
>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>Accident occurred Wednesday, April 06, 2005 in Mokuleia,
>HI
>Aircraft: Schweizer SGS 2-32, registration: N693U
>Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Minor.
>
>This is preliminary information, subject to change,
>and may contain
>errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected
>when the final
>report has been completed.
>
>On April 6, 2005, at 1300 Hawaiian standard time, a
>Schweizer SGS 2-32
>glider, N693U, impacted mountainous terrain 0.4 miles
>south of the
>Dillingham Airfield, Mokuleia, Hawaii. The commercial
>glider pilot was
>fatally injured and the two passengers sustained minor
>injuries. The
>glider sustained substantial damaged. Sailplane Ride
>Adventures, Inc.,
>owned and operated the glider under the provisions
>of 14 CFR Part 91 as
>a scenic sailplane ride. Visual meteorological conditions
>prevailed,
>and a flight plan had not been filed for the local
>flight. The
>20-minute scenic flight was in the air approximately
>17 minutes.
>
>According to an interview summary provided by the Federal
>Aviation
>Administration (FAA), the passengers reported that
>they were circling
>around a hill and thought that they were returning
>to the airport. The
>glider crossed over a ridge to a valley to look at
>a waterfall. The
>glider turned left then right in a gentle but accelerating
>manner. The
>glider also pitched up and down, and the passengers
>felt like they were
>falling. The pilot announced that they were 'going
>in.' The glider
>impacted trees and terrain, and came to rest upside
>down.
>
>Another witness, who was a glider pilot flying at the
>time of the
>accident, observed the accident glider behind her,
>heading east
>approximately 400-500 feet above the ridge. She checked
>back on the
>glider's position relative to hers and noticed the
>glider 'turn right
>(toward the ridge) and its nose come up slightly.'
>The glider turned
>'approximately 45 degrees to the right, then turned
>back to the left
>and immediately entered a spin to the left.' The witness
>reported that
>the glider rotated twice before it entered a spin to
>the right. The
>witness then lost sight of the glider behind trees
>before it completed
>a rotation to the right.
>
>The accident site was at 21 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds
>north
>latitude and 158 degrees 12 minutes and 54 seconds
>west longitude at an
>elevation of approximately 1,000 feet msl. The glider
>came to rest on
>the east side of a gulch that cut through the east-west
>running
>ridgeline situated to the south of Dillingham Airfield.
>Review of
>photographs of the accident site revealed that the
>glider fuselage came
>to rest inverted with the left and right inboard wings
>intact. The left
>and right outboard wing sections were detached; however,
>the left
>outboard wing section remained attached to the main
>wreckage via flight
>control cables. The right outboard wing section came
>to rest
>approximately 40 feet from the main wreckage at the
>base of freshly
>broken trees. The wing leading edges displayed circular
>indentations
>similar in size to the diameter of the surrounding
>trees. The tail
>section folded over the belly of the airplane.
>
>The glider was recovered to Dillingham Airfield on
>April 8, 2005.
>According to the FAA inspectors that responded to the
>accident site,
>flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit
>to the flight
>control surfaces.
>
>The pilot received his student pilot certificate on
>March 16, 2005. On
>March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate
>with a glider
>rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial
>pilot certificate
>with a glider rating. According to the pilot's logbook,
>as of April 5,
>2005 (the day before the accident), he accumulated
>a total of 48.4
>hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours were as pilot-in-command
>>.
>
>

[Stefan]

wrote:

> The pilot received his student pilot certificate on March 16, 2005. On
> March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate with a glider
> rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial pilot certificate
> with a glider rating.

I've always thought that the requirements to get a US glider rating are
ridiculously low. While we can argue whether they should or should not
be raised for private pilots, they are definitely much too low for the
commercial rating. (Form what I understand, you can get the commercial
riating and even the instructor rating without ever having flown cross
country!) We know nothing about this accident yet, and I may be wrong,
but reading the description, I attribute this accident to his low
experience. (Flew into a lee and got nervous by the presence of
passengers or something similiar.)

Stefan

[ttaylor at cc.usu.edu]

The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring experience
required. I think that all ratings should be required to demonstrate
real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This is about the third
accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics into the
trees.

Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
* Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English.
* Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for heavier-than-air
aircraft.)
For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge test (FAR
61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s) endorsed in
the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which type of launch(s)
the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
*
There are two levels of experience required for issuance of a
commercial certificate;
1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders, including;
1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in command; and,
2. 3 hours of flight training or 10 training flights in
gliders; and,
3. 2 hours of solo flight to include not less than 10
solo flights; and,
4. 3 training flights in preparation for the flight
test.

[Ramy]

One word to describe this: ABSURD.
Thinking of those unsuspecting passengers who put their lives in the
hands of someone they believe is very experienced.

Ramy

ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
> The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring experience
> required. I think that all ratings should be required to demonstrate
> real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This is about the third
> accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics into the
> trees.
>
> Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
> Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
> * Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English.
> * Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for heavier-than-air
> aircraft.)
> For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge test (FAR
> 61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s) endorsed in
> the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which type of launch(s)
> the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
> *
> There are two levels of experience required for issuance of a
> commercial certificate;
> 1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders, including;
> 1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in command; and,
> 2. 3 hours of flight training or 10 training flights
in
> gliders; and,
> 3. 2 hours of solo flight to include not less than 10
> solo flights; and,
> 4. 3 training flights in preparation for the flight
> test.

[Ramy]

As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
the cause for the accident.

[Don Johnstone]

When all else fails blame the pilot, especially a dead
one, he ain't going to argue is he. You may of course
be right but just think about the assumption you have
all made. Would you want someone to think that of you?
I think you might have the common decency to wait for
the result of the official enquiry before sentence.
Shame on you all.


At 18:00 21 April 2005, Ramy wrote:
>One word to describe this: ABSURD.
>Thinking of those unsuspecting passengers who put their
>lives in the
>hands of someone they believe is very experienced.
>
>Ramy
>
>ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
>> The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring
>>experience
>> required. I think that all ratings should be required
>>to demonstrate
>> real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This
>>is about the third
>> accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics
>>into the
>> trees.
>>
>> Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
>> Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
>> * Be able to read, speak, write, and understand
>>English.
>> * Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for
>>heavier-than-air
>> aircraft.)
>> For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge
>>test (FAR
>> 61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s)
>>endorsed in
>> the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which
>>type of launch(s)
>> the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
>> *
>> There are two levels of experience required for issuance
>>of a
>> commercial certificate;
>> 1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders,
>>including;
>> 1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot
>>in command; and,
>> 2. 3 hours of flight training or 10
>>training flights
>in
>> gliders; and,
>> 3. 2 hours of solo flight to include
>>not less than 10
>> solo flights; and,
>> 4. 3 training flights in preparation
>>for the flight
>> test.
>
>

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Would you want someone to think that of you?

If I had made a fatal error: Yes. Yes, I would want people to not only
think, but talk about my error and learn something.

But I agree, by now it's only speculation. However, spinning into the
ground smells like pilot error.

Stefan

[Ramy]

Who blames the pilot? The FAA or the commercial opperation is to be
blamed!
Do you think the passengers would have take the ride if they knew their
pilot soloed just 3 weeks ago? Would you send a loved one to take a
ride with a pilot who just soloed?
And which other official inquiry you expect to get? The NTSB report
*is* the official inquiry.
My condolences to the pilot's family and friends.

Ramy

[5Z]

The first paragraph of the NTSB statement:
--
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.
--
It will be weeks or months before they produce conclusions. The report
we are seeing is a summary of the facts as they know them at the time
of initial investigation.

Unfortunately, the NTSB generaly only puts out two reports. The
original, usually very sketchy, and the final, factual one. In
between, we just wait.

-Tom

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Ramy wrote:

> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't
> even attempt to analyze the cause for the accident.

Let's remember that what we're seeing here is _not_ an NTSB report. It
is a synopsis, and a preliminary one at that. Synopses with Preliminary
status will never state more than the basic facts of the accident
(date, time, location, and basic on-scene findings such as control
continuity).

When the synopsis is updated to Probable Cause status, it will state
the probable cause as determined in the investigation and offer
pertinent analysis of the accident and surrounding events. I think that
the synopses typically go to Probable Cause status when the full
accident report is finalized. Typically, reports for non-fatal
accidents are finalized 6 months after the accident. Reports for fatal
accidents take a year or sometimes more.

You can see the full NTSB accident report if you want, when it is
completed. The last time I did this, it cost about $35 for the records
duplication.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Bob Kuykendall]

That this pilot seems to have gone from pre-solo student to commercial
ride pilot in the space of a few weeks doesn't really surprise me. It's
unusual, but I can see it happening in a concentrated program such as
the one at the USAF academy, and when using fairly basic equipment like
2-33s.

What does surprise me is that such a low-hour pilot got turned loose in
a 2-32 in ride-for-two configuration. Back in the day, when I worked at
Sky Sailing, the 2-32 was considered a Hot Ship, and it definitely
hotted up from there when loaded to near max gross as rides for two
would do. That ship seemed to demand careful energy management, and
would smite you mightily if you didn't keep an eye on the airspeed. At
Sky Sailing (Fremont), they difinitely didn't turn you loose on 2-32
rides until you had many more hours than the pilot in this accident.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[M B]

You're confusing rating and FAA requirements with insurance
requirements.

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably
bright
person with the minimum hours can pilot a doggy glider
like
a 2-33 with a passenger on a sled ride. FAA minimums
are just that: minimums. Neither the FAA nor anyone
else I know
believes that having a license and being legal to fly
X or Y or Z makes it safe to fly any aircraft with
any passengers with no further type specific training
whatsoever. Even the greenest
private pilots in airplanes don't jump straight into
a
GeeBee.

At the exaggeration of what you are suggesting is that
all pilots should be required to fly a 2-32 and demonstrate
they can safely fly it in maximally difficult wave,
thermal, ridge, etc.
Oh, and demonstrate spins and recoveries in the 2-32
with 300# in the back. All before getting the FAA

glider rating. Quite a full plate indeed.

This is NOT an FAA requirement. BUT, this can be
an INSURANCE requirement. As it should be, the
insurer for this accident will be much more interested
and responsive to the findings than the FAA. A blanket
FAA regulatory change from this accident seems neither
prudent nor likely.

A 2-32 is a hot enough ship that I am personally aware
of a
several thousand hour commercial pilot destroying one
within the past two years. Pilot and passengers uninjured,

fortunately.

Which is perhaps one of the greatest things one can
say about
these aircraft: they seem to do a pretty good job
protecting the innocent passengers in the back.

They seem to also do a fairly good job protecting the
pilot in the front too, generally. It's a shame that
this
particular pilot didn't make it.

Despite whether the eventual findings cite X or Y or
Z...

...the most surprising part of the 48.4 hours is that
the commercial insurer would accept that. In my experience
commercial insurers are pretty draconian about their
experience requirements, including some pretty
heavy requirements for time in type. To the point
they
don't even quote a rate (even an exorbinant one)
unless one has some pretty extensive experience in
some aircraft types.

I'd be very interested to see not so much how the
FAA reacts, but how the insurers react to this unfortunate
accident.

On a different note, I think this was a young, 20ish
pilot.
How terrible to lose a young soul like this...

At 18:00 21 April 2005, Ttaylor At Cc.Usu.Edu wrote:
>The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring
>experience
>required. I think that all ratings should be required
>to demonstrate
>real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This
>is about the third
>accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics
>into the
>trees.
>
>Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
> Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
> * Be able to read, speak, write, and understand
>English.
> * Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for
>heavier-than-air
>aircraft.)
> For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge
>test (FAR
>61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s)
>endorsed in
>the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which
>type of launch(s)
>the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
> *
>There are two levels of experience required for issuance
>of a
>commercial certificate;
> 1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders,
>including;
> 1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in
>command; and,
> 2. 3 hours of flight training or 10
>training flights in
>gliders; and,
> 3. 2 hours of solo flight to include
>not less than 10
>solo flights; and,
> 4. 3 training flights in preparation
>for the flight
>test.
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

"Ramy" > wrote:
> Do you think the passengers would have take the ride if they knew their
> pilot soloed just 3 weeks ago? Would you send a loved one to take a
> ride with a pilot who just soloed?

This issue that was touched on slightly in another thread asking if
we've ever refused to fly with someone we felt was not entire safe.

Having worked at an airplane flight school, I am *still* surprised that
NO ONE coming in for a Discovery Flight ever asked about the credentials
of the pilots. They likely wonder, but they don't ask. There *is* an
IMPLIED ASSUMPTION (accurate or not, obviously) that if he/she is
working there and you are offering the service, the pilot is
experienced, qualified and competent to handle routine flights and
possible emergencies; there is also the obvious *implied risk*, but
neither side talks about either of these implications.

If/When you went for a Discovery or demo flight, would you, or *did*
you, ask about the qualifications and experience of your pilot? Would
you have gone for the ride if the establishment informed you that their
pilot soloed, got his license and his commercial rating in less than one
month just over a week ago? If you owned the establishment, would you
hire someone who was *legally* qualified for the job but who had almost
*no* experience?

Doesn't the insurance for such an operation require a certain amount of
experience *in addition to the required ratings* for pilots providing
rides, or for giving rides in various aircraft?

[Stefan]

M B wrote:

> The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan

[F.L. Whiteley]

Ramy wrote:

> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
> the cause for the accident.

One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of stints.
He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or lack of
it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

IIRC, there was a 2-32 spin-in at Calistoga about 1980 or so where the
suspected cause was the PAX hiking boot jammed between the rudder pedal and
fuselage.

Frank Whiteley

[M B]

Stefan,

Setting aside for the moment charged phrases like
'trust' and 'put your life in his hands'

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

In my experience it has been the insurance companies.
They
get the profits and guide flying through there rates
at a level of detail that I can't see any government
accomplishing as well.
I get customers for flying specifically on my doorstep
because their insurer said 'get some spin training
in a XYZ' or
'x number of hours in high L/D glass' etc.

Same for towpilots. The requirements I've seen from
insurers are 5 times what the FAA minimums are, and
then go from there in detail depending on the type
of aircraft used (Pawnee, 235, C-182, etc.)

Absolute statements about the responsibility of government
to protect customers and shine truth and provide the
impenetrable shield of absolute safety on all within
its bounds are certainly lofty ideals.

But in the end the insurers do a far better practical
job of tracking and guiding the nuances of pilots,
locations, and aircraft to provide a practical level
of safety.

The best question right before a ride as a passenger
isn't
about the pilot's ratings or accident record or hours
or
time in type. The best question to evaluate the safety

of a flight is to ask 'how much are you paying for
insurance?'
If the number is astronomical, then take a ride elsewhere...

The actuaries have spoken...

At 21:00 21 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
>M B wrote:
>
>> The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably
>
>No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect
>the customer.
>A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this
>pilot and put
>your life in his hands.
>
>Stefan
>
Mark J. Boyd

[BTIZ]

based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
minimum experience.. lack of spin training...

I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
BT

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Ramy wrote:
>
>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
>> the cause for the accident.
>
> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of
> stints.
> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or lack
> of
> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

[F.L. Whiteley]

I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.

2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a tight
turn.

I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating, requiring some
referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in the
ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
continue.

Different operator, same location
http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm

FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed limiting dive
to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this would be a
big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load. Shoe-horning
them in was the order of the day.

Frank





BTIZ wrote:

> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>
> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
> BT
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ramy wrote:
>>
>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
>>> the cause for the accident.
>>
>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of
>> stints.
>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or lack
>> of
>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

[BTIZ]

I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly after it happened..

I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the one I flew I felt it was
very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall with rumbling and
stick shaking..

one report that came from our local witness.. that is not addressed in the
preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of salt or sand...is that
the passengers reported that the stick was full back the entire time when
the spin started... no forward movement to stop the spin..

In less than one month.. this individual went from Student Pilot certificate
issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and crashed. No mention is
made of his experience prior to receiving his student pilot certificate. But
based on the documentation provided, one can expect that he had worked up to
pre-solo before getting his student certificate and quickly completed two
written exams and check rides. Not a good position to put an insurance
company in.

BT

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>
> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a tight
> turn.
>
> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating, requiring
> some
> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in the
> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
> continue.
>
> Different operator, same location
> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>
> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed limiting
> dive
> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this would be
> a
> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load. Shoe-horning
> them in was the order of the day.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
> BTIZ wrote:
>
>> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
>> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>>
>> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
>> BT
>>
>> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ramy wrote:
>>>
>>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
>>>> the cause for the accident.
>>>
>>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of
>>> stints.
>>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
>>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or lack
>>> of
>>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

I don't disagree that this was a real rookie and from the initial
description it wasn't airframe.

Frank

BTIZ wrote:

> I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly after it happened..
>
> I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the one I flew I felt it
> was very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall with rumbling
> and stick shaking..
>
> one report that came from our local witness.. that is not addressed in the
> preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of salt or sand...is
> that the passengers reported that the stick was full back the entire time
> when the spin started... no forward movement to stop the spin..
>
> In less than one month.. this individual went from Student Pilot
> certificate
> issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and crashed. No mention
> is made of his experience prior to receiving his student pilot
> certificate. But based on the documentation provided, one can expect that
> he had worked up to pre-solo before getting his student certificate and
> quickly completed two written exams and check rides. Not a good position
> to put an insurance company in.
>
> BT
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>>
>> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
>> tight turn.
>>
>> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating, requiring
>> some
>> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in the
>> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
>> continue.
>>
>> Different operator, same location
>> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>>
>> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed limiting
>> dive
>> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this would be
>> a
>> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load. Shoe-horning
>> them in was the order of the day.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTIZ wrote:
>>
>>> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
>>> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>>>
>>> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
>>> BT
>>>
>>> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ramy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
>>>>> the cause for the accident.
>>>>
>>>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of
>>>> stints.
>>>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
>>>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or
>>>> lack of
>>>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
>>

[Stefan]

M B wrote:

> Do you think the government or the insurance company
> does a better job of protecting the customer?

This was not the point. The point was that the whole idea of a
commercial rating should be to protect the costomer. A commercial rating
should be a certificate that I can trust somebody. That's the idea.

That this is not achived by the ridiculous requirements to get such a
rating (in the USA) was exactly my point.

Stefan

[Bill Daniels]

A few points.

It's unlikely that the pax knew where the stick was since it's SOP to remove
the rear stick when flying with two pax. You can't see the front stick from
the back.

Most 2-32's will give easily recognizable pre-stall buffet but not all of
them. There was variation in SN to SN. As would be expected, two pax in
the rear seat will put the CG forward quite a bit and that tends to tame the
2-32's stall/spin behavior.

Should an incipient spin departure develop, prompt anti-spin control inputs
will stop the spin.

I agree that the US commercial glider pilot experience requirements are a
joke. I hope that glider ride operations everywhere take this accident as a
warning to demand far higher experience from prospective ride pilots.

Bill Daniels
2-32 driver

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:YL_9e.16042$%c1.5975@fed1read05...
> I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly after it happened..
>
> I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the one I flew I felt it
was
> very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall with rumbling and
> stick shaking..
>
> one report that came from our local witness.. that is not addressed in the
> preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of salt or sand...is
that
> the passengers reported that the stick was full back the entire time when
> the spin started... no forward movement to stop the spin..
>
> In less than one month.. this individual went from Student Pilot
certificate
> issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and crashed. No mention
is
> made of his experience prior to receiving his student pilot certificate.
But
> based on the documentation provided, one can expect that he had worked up
to
> pre-solo before getting his student certificate and quickly completed two
> written exams and check rides. Not a good position to put an insurance
> company in.
>
> BT
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
> >
> > 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
> > turn.
> >
> > I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating, requiring
> > some
> > referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in the
> > ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
> > continue.
> >
> > Different operator, same location
> > http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
> >
> > FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed limiting
> > dive
> > to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this would
be
> > a
> > big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load. Shoe-horning
> > them in was the order of the day.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BTIZ wrote:
> >
> >> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
> >> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
> >>
> >> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
> >> BT
> >>
> >> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Ramy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
> >>>> the cause for the accident.
> >>>
> >>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of
> >>> stints.
> >>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
> >>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or
lack
> >>> of
> >>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
> >
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

Heresay evidence, blind assumption and lack of experience
in the glider concerned all put together is enough
for a hanging is it.
If the poor bloke was still alive you could lock him
up in Guantánamo. He may have been al-Qaida, a mass
murderer perhaps or anything else you care to pull
out of the air.

Why can you not wait for the results of the enquiry
and decide on the evidence instead of speculating about
the guilt of someone who cannot defend himself. Land
of the Free? Prove it.

At 04:30 22 April 2005, Btiz wrote:
>I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly
>after it happened..
>
>I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the
>one I flew I felt it was
>very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall
>with rumbling and
>stick shaking..
>
>one report that came from our local witness.. that
>is not addressed in the
>preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of
>salt or sand...is that
>the passengers reported that the stick was full back
>the entire time when
>the spin started... no forward movement to stop the
>spin..
>
>In less than one month.. this individual went from
>Student Pilot certificate
>issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and
>crashed. No mention is
>made of his experience prior to receiving his student
>pilot certificate. But
>based on the documentation provided, one can expect
>that he had worked up to
>pre-solo before getting his student certificate and
>quickly completed two
>written exams and check rides. Not a good position
>to put an insurance
>company in.
>
>BT
>
>'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message
...
>>I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>>
>> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over
>>the top from a tight
>> turn.
>>
>> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
>>requiring
>> some
>> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break
>>one and drop in the
>> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and
>>the rides would
>> continue.
>>
>> Different operator, same location
>> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>>
>> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical
>>speed limiting
>> dive
>> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend
>>thought this would be
>> a
>> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful
>>load. Shoe-horning
>> them in was the order of the day.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTIZ wrote:
>>
>>> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
>>> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>>>
>>> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
>>> BT
>>>
>>> 'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ramy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even
>>>>>attempt to analyze
>>>>> the cause for the accident.
>>>>
>>>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there
>>>>for a couple of
>>>> stints.
>>>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which
>>>>we reckoned may have
>>>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air.
>>>> Airmanship or lack
>>>> of
>>>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
>>
>
>
>

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Why can you not wait for the results of the enquiry
> and decide on the evidence instead of speculating about
> the guilt of someone who cannot defend himself.

I agree (and always said so) that it is speculation. But *if* this
speculation is correct, then that poor young chap is the last person to
blame. He was told by the authority that he's a capble pilot to
commercial standards. The operator, supposedly an experienced pilot, let
im loose with passengers, thus implying the same. So *if* the
speculation is correct, this inexperienced pilot is not guilty, but a
victim himself!

Stefan

[John Doe]

At 13:30 22 April 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>Heresay evidence, blind assumption and lack of experience
>in the glider concerned all put together is enough
>for a hanging is it.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the pilot here
was directly at fault, rather that it was maybe unwise
(even in the absence of an accident) to send passengers
up with a relatively inexperienced pilot. In the case
of an inexperienced pilot coming to grief, you have
to look at the training he received (in this case recently)
to find out what could be done better. This is not
a world champion that pushed his/her luck too far.

>If the poor bloke was still alive you could lock him
>up in Guant�namo. He may have been al-Qaida, a mass
>murderer perhaps or anything else you care to pull
>out of the air.

.....1...2...3...4...5...

>Why can you not wait for the results of the enquiry
>and decide on the evidence instead of speculating about
>the guilt of someone who cannot defend himself. Land
>of the Free? Prove it.

I'd say open speculation (and disagreement) and the
fact that people make it is pretty much proof that
it is land of the free. Any speculation made now is
(in the reasonable persons mind) just that, speculation,
it can (and will) be revised as more evidence comes
to light and the NTSB inquiry progresses.
And as a previous poster said before, if I died in
a glider, I'd rather that the causes were gone over
and any lessons learnt, rather than my case being brushed
under the carpet. Accidents, and there causes shouldn't
be taboo, we can all learn something from them (unfortunately),
even from speculation. If we were all perfect pilots
then we could carry on as normal without looking at
these incidents (but then again there shouldn't be
any incidents then should there?).


I haven't actually expressed an opinion (intentionally
anyway) on the pilots ability and/or failings but to
shout down honest and open speculation is unwise and
possibly foolish....


Jamie



>At 04:30 22 April 2005, Btiz wrote:
>>I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly
>>after it happened..
>>
>>I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the
>>one I flew I felt it was
>>very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall
>>with rumbling and
>>stick shaking..
>>
>>one report that came from our local witness.. that
>>is not addressed in the
>>preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of
>>salt or sand...is that
>>the passengers reported that the stick was full back
>>the entire time when
>>the spin started... no forward movement to stop the
>>spin..
>>
>>In less than one month.. this individual went from
>>Student Pilot certificate
>>issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and
>>crashed. No mention is
>>made of his experience prior to receiving his student
>>pilot certificate. But
>>based on the documentation provided, one can expect
>>that he had worked up to
>>pre-solo before getting his student certificate and
>>quickly completed two
>>written exams and check rides. Not a good position
>>to put an insurance
>>company in.
>>
>>BT
>>
>>'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message
...
>>>I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>>>
>>> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over
>>>the top from a tight
>>> turn.
>>>
>>> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
>>>requiring
>>> some
>>> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break
>>>one and drop in the
>>> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and
>>>the rides would
>>> continue.
>>>
>>> Different operator, same location
>>> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>>>
>>> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical
>>>speed limiting
>>> dive
>>> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend
>>>thought this would be
>>> a
>>> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful
>>>load. Shoe-horning
>>> them in was the order of the day.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTIZ wrote:
>>>
>>>> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
>>>> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>>>>
>>>> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
>>>> BT
>>>>
>>>> 'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Ramy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't
>>>>>>even
>>>>>>attempt to analyze
>>>>>> the cause for the accident.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there
>>>>>for a couple of
>>>>> stints.
>>>>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which
>>>>>we reckoned may have
>>>>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air.
>>>>> Airmanship or lack
>>>>> of
>>>>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Jack]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Heresay evidence, blind assumption and lack of experience
> in the glider concerned all put together is enough
> for a hanging is it.

Check the subject line, Don.

Would you have let your loved ones ride with a pilot who had a comparable
background, in those surroundings? Or even hear over the cornfields of N.
Illinois for that matter? We are all rejoicing that more were not killed.

If anyone is to be condemned out of hand, it is an organization which would
hire someone to do this sort of work who had "48.4 hours". I'm sure that all
of us have great confidence that appropriate measures will be taken via the
civil courts and in the matter of future insurance costs/availability for
the commercial glider operation responsible.

If you have a burr under your saddle concerning certain aspects of US
international policy, why not take it to another newsgroup where someone cares?


Jack

[For Example John Smith]

....and not a lot of experience to be taking PAX on the lee side of a ridge
where there's no place to land. If you go to on the lee side and get below
the ridge line you have no nice options.
Obviously none of us know what happened, but it smells to me like a strong
lee downdraft.


"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:YL_9e.16042$%c1.5975@fed1read05...
> I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly after it happened..
>
> I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the one I flew I felt it
was
> very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall with rumbling and
> stick shaking..
>
> one report that came from our local witness.. that is not addressed in the
> preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of salt or sand...is
that
> the passengers reported that the stick was full back the entire time when
> the spin started... no forward movement to stop the spin..
>
> In less than one month.. this individual went from Student Pilot
certificate
> issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and crashed. No mention
is
> made of his experience prior to receiving his student pilot certificate.
But
> based on the documentation provided, one can expect that he had worked up
to
> pre-solo before getting his student certificate and quickly completed two
> written exams and check rides. Not a good position to put an insurance
> company in.
>
> BT
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
> >
> > 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
> > turn.
> >
> > I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating, requiring
> > some
> > referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in the
> > ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
> > continue.
> >
> > Different operator, same location
> > http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
> >
> > FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed limiting
> > dive
> > to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this would
be
> > a
> > big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load. Shoe-horning
> > them in was the order of the day.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BTIZ wrote:
> >
> >> based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
> >> minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
> >>
> >> I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
> >> BT
> >>
> >> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Ramy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to analyze
> >>>> the cause for the accident.
> >>>
> >>> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple of
> >>> stints.
> >>> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may have
> >>> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship or
lack
> >>> of
> >>> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

I shocked, truly SHOCKED, to read such rampant speculation. I have
never before heard of such an untoward thing on RAS! In deed, we should
all wait 1-2 years for the OFFICIAL NTSB proclamation that this
accident was caused by pilot error (low PIC time a contributing
factor).

Tom

[Ramy]

Tom, You either completly missed the point or just ignore it. Unless
you consider the pilot experience detailed in the NTSB report as
speculation. This poor fellow just soloed 3 weeks ago and was allowed
to take paid passengers for a ridge soaring ride for god's sake. Don't
you see what's wrong with this picture? The purpose of discussions like
this is to prevent similar things from hapenning again. Waiting 1-2
years for official NTSB report which will most likely be identical is a
waste of time. It will be old news by then. I rather wait for the
accident report in Soaring magazine. But again, this is not the point
of this discussion.

[ttaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Ramy,

Look up the word "Satire".

[John Doe]

Ramy.... cool down....I think he was being sarcastic....
;-)

At 21:30 22 April 2005, Ramy wrote:
>Tom, You either completly missed the point or just
>ignore it. Unless
>you consider the pilot experience detailed in the NTSB
>report as
>speculation. This poor fellow just soloed 3 weeks ago
>and was allowed
>to take paid passengers for a ridge soaring ride for
>god's sake. Don't
>you see what's wrong with this picture? The purpose
>of discussions like
>this is to prevent similar things from hapenning again.
>Waiting 1-2
>years for official NTSB report which will most likely
>be identical is a
>waste of time. It will be old news by then. I rather
>wait for the
>accident report in Soaring magazine. But again, this
>is not the point
>of this discussion.
>
>

[Tony Verhulst]

> If anyone is to be condemned out of hand, it is an organization which
> would hire someone to do this sort of work who had "48.4 hours".

It's worse than that. He had 48.4 hours logged the day before he was
killed. He had even less when he was hired!

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Ramy]

ok, ok, I mixed Don and Tom so I took it seriously. But an emoticon
would have helped ;-)

[M B]

Stefan,

A five year history (including this accident) of
only a single US non-pilot glider fatality suggests
non-pilot passengers are well protected by the status
quo.

This particular accident does nothing to contradict
this conclusion.

I also haven't seen any evidence that more or less
time makes a particular pilot safer, in itself. Of
27 US fatalities in five years, NONE were student pilots,
for example.

Over time, there will be some very experienced pilots,
and some inexperienced pilots killed in accidents.


Concluding that

the inexperienced ones died from inexperience and

the experienced ones died from overconfidence

seems a bit simplistic to me.

I personally think the insurance company method of
paying someone to report their involvement in an accident
, and then raising their premium, is a much more sophisticated
and effective way to improve safety.

At 10:00 22 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
>M B wrote:
>
>> Do you think the government or the insurance company
>> does a better job of protecting the customer?
>
>This was not the point. The point was that the whole
>idea of a
>commercial rating should be to protect the costomer.
>A commercial rating
>should be a certificate that I can trust somebody.
>That's the idea.
>
>That this is not achived by the ridiculous requirements
>to get such a
>rating (in the USA) was exactly my point.
>
>Stefan
>
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider%20on%20the%20beach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>
> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
> turn.
>
> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
requiring some
> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
the
> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
> continue.
>
> Different operator, same location
> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>
> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
limiting dive
> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
would be a
> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
Shoe-horning
> them in was the order of the day.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
> BTIZ wrote:
>
> > based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
> > minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
> >
> > I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
> > BT
> >
> > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Ramy wrote:
> >>
> >>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
analyze
> >>> the cause for the accident.
> >>
> >> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
of
> >> stints.
> >> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
have
> >> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
or lack
> >> of
> >> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

[[email protected]]

About 15 years ago, Dody and I came across a commercial glider
operation in North Carolina. We decided to take a demo flight in their
2-32, and just to see how they treated their walk-ons, we didn't
mention that we both had over ten years of soaring experience at that
point, nor that I was an active CFI-G.

So we snuggled into the back seat (with no control stick) and took off
with a 20-something commercial (I assume) pilot up front. Take off and
flying were fine. As we got near pattern entry postition, our pilot
suddenly put us into a very steep dive, did a buzz job on the airport
and showed us his contest finish pull-up. We were not amused, to put it
mildly. I had no idea of this pilot's glider experience, but we told
the operation manager what had happened and made it clear he needed to
straighten things out. He seemed to get the message. I believe this
operation is no longer in existance.

Sitting in the back without a stick made this the only glider flight,
out of 2000, where I've seriously wondered if I was going to come out
of it alive. Never again.

Jack Wyman

[F.L. Whiteley]

Note that was a different operator.

However, given the amazing number of rides done there, few prior incidents.
IIRC, CAP bent a 2-33 some time back on auto tow(?). The G103 in the surf
and now this. Any others known to RAS regulars and lurkers? Not a bad
record actually. Be interesting to know if there was some lapse.

Frank

wrote:

> You gotta be kidding:
>
> http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider%20on%20the%20beach%202-sm.jpg
>
> hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
> the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
> ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...
>
> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>> I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>>
>> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
> tight
>> turn.
>>
>> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
> requiring some
>> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
> the
>> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
>> continue.
>>
>> Different operator, same location
>> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>>
>> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
> limiting dive
>> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
> would be a
>> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
> Shoe-horning
>> them in was the order of the day.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BTIZ wrote:
>>
>> > based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
>> > minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>> >
>> > I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
>> > BT
>> >
>> > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Ramy wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
> analyze
>> >>> the cause for the accident.
>> >>
>> >> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
> of
>> >> stints.
>> >> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
> have
>> >> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
> or lack
>> >> of
>> >> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

[F.L. Whiteley]

correction

appears it was same operator that had the Grob on the beach. sorry for any
confusion

Frank

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> Note that was a different operator.
>
> However, given the amazing number of rides done there, few prior
> incidents.
> IIRC, CAP bent a 2-33 some time back on auto tow(?). The G103 in the surf
> and now this. Any others known to RAS regulars and lurkers? Not a bad
> record actually. Be interesting to know if there was some lapse.
>
> Frank
>
> wrote:
>
>> You gotta be kidding:
>>
>> http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider%20on%20the%20beach%202-sm.jpg
>>
>> hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
>> the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
>> ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...
>>
>> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>>> I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
>>>
>>> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
>> tight
>>> turn.
>>>
>>> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
>> requiring some
>>> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
>> the
>>> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
>>> continue.
>>>
>>> Different operator, same location
>>> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
>>>
>>> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
>> limiting dive
>>> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
>> would be a
>>> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
>> Shoe-horning
>>> them in was the order of the day.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTIZ wrote:
>>>
>>> > based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
>>> > minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
>>> >
>>> > I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
>>> > BT
>>> >
>>> > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> Ramy wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
>> analyze
>>> >>> the cause for the accident.
>>> >>
>>> >> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
>> of
>>> >> stints.
>>> >> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
>> have
>>> >> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
>> or lack
>>> >> of
>>> >> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

[For Example John Smith]

You gotta keep the tailplane on if your gonna use the elevator to push the
glider. Sheesh!

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> You gotta be kidding:
>
> http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider%20on%20the%20beach%202-sm.jpg
>
> hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
> the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
> ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...
>
> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> > I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
> >
> > 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
> tight
> > turn.
> >
> > I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
> requiring some
> > referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
> the
> > ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
> > continue.
> >
> > Different operator, same location
> > http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
> >
> > FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
> limiting dive
> > to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
> would be a
> > big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
> Shoe-horning
> > them in was the order of the day.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BTIZ wrote:
> >
> > > based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
> > > minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
> > >
> > > I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
> > > BT
> > >
> > > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> Ramy wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
> analyze
> > >>> the cause for the accident.
> > >>
> > >> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
> of
> > >> stints.
> > >> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
> have
> > >> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
> or lack
> > >> of
> > >> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
>

[For Example John Smith]

I flew with them a few years back and before taking their Grob up solo I was
required to watch a video where a visiting pilot PIO'ed on landing so
violently that the tailboom was broken off. They insisted that the ship be
flown onto the runway with full spoilers.


"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Note that was a different operator.
>
> However, given the amazing number of rides done there, few prior
incidents.
> IIRC, CAP bent a 2-33 some time back on auto tow(?). The G103 in the surf
> and now this. Any others known to RAS regulars and lurkers? Not a bad
> record actually. Be interesting to know if there was some lapse.
>
> Frank
>
> wrote:
>
> > You gotta be kidding:
> >
> > http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider%20on%20the%20beach%202-sm.jpg
> >
> > hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
> > the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
> > ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...
> >
> > F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> >> I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.
> >>
> >> 2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
> > tight
> >> turn.
> >>
> >> I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
> > requiring some
> >> referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
> > the
> >> ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
> >> continue.
> >>
> >> Different operator, same location
> >> http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm
> >>
> >> FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
> > limiting dive
> >> to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
> > would be a
> >> big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
> > Shoe-horning
> >> them in was the order of the day.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> BTIZ wrote:
> >>
> >> > based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
> >> > minimum experience.. lack of spin training...
> >> >
> >> > I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
> >> > BT
> >> >
> >> > "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> Ramy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
> > analyze
> >> >>> the cause for the accident.
> >> >>
> >> >> One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
> > of
> >> >> stints.
> >> >> He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
> > have
> >> >> 20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
> > or lack
> >> >> of
> >> >> it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.
>

[Ian Forbes]

wrote:

> The pilot received his student pilot certificate on March 16, 2005. On
> March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate with a
> glider rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial pilot
> certificate with a glider rating. According to the pilot's logbook, as
> of April 5, 2005 (the day before the accident), he accumulated a total
> of 48.4 hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours were as
> pilot-in-command.

Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry passengers in 10
days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had some prior
training/experience that is not reflected above.

My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's Brevet together
do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward here, let
alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides in Hawaii, chances
are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial Glider Pilot's
ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.

The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving on the
Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident happend.


Ian

[Don Johnstone]

At 05:00 27 April 2005, Ian Forbes wrote:
wrote:
>
>> The pilot received his student pilot certificate on
>>March 16, 2005. On
>> March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate
>>with a
>> glider rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his
>>commercial pilot
>> certificate with a glider rating. According to the
>>pilot's logbook, as
>> of April 5, 2005 (the day before the accident), he
>>accumulated a total
>> of 48.4 hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours
>>were as
>> pilot-in-command.
>
>Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry
>passengers in 10
>days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had
>some prior
>training/experience that is not reflected above.
>
>My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's
>Brevet together
>do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward
>here, let
>alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides
>in Hawaii, chances
>are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial
>Glider Pilot's
>ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.
>
>The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving
>on the
>Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident
>happend.
>
>
>Ian
You are right Ian if I went out there I would show
exactly the same profile, my previous 1500 hours would
not show either.
This probably sums the whole thing up, speculation,
rumour, and heresay, almost anything but fact. If much
of what has been said previously had been said about
a pilot who survived the accident a lot of people would
soon become very poor. Dead people can't sue, or even
more to the point defend themselves against scurrilous
attacks by the ignorant.
>

[[email protected]]

Some quotes from a Honolulu newspaper,

"Friends said the pilot had moved to the islands from Wisconsin in
December.

"He was living life to the fullest," said Jesse Savage, a friend of
Nelson's in Madison, Wis., who had spoken to him in the last month. "He
was passionate in all things he did."

Savage said Nelson was survived by his parents and an older sister.

He said Nelson did not have a pilot's license when he left Wisconsin.



Nelson has no family in the islands. His father, Richard, said he plans
to come to Hawaii to take his son's body back to his native Wisconsin.
He said his son was an inspiration to a lot of people.

"We lost a good person. He was somebody who enjoyed every bit of life,"
he said.

Nelson said his son received his pilot's license two weeks ago and was
proud of his certification.

His sister, Riana, said her brother started flying with passengers
after he passed a test for his commercial pilot license two to three
weeks ago."



I think the 48.4 hours is probably a true reflection of his experience.


Ben Jeffrey

[Ramy]

Thanks, Don, for finding the facts and summing the whole thing up for
us. Don't forget to also update the NTSB, the friends and families who
all had no prior knowledge about the pilot experience.

Ramy

[M B]

Maybe more to the point is not the hours, but
what could be done to change this?

I don't think hours makes that much difference.
100 hours in a 2-33 doesn't mean a whole lot
towards avoiding inadvertent spin in a 2-32.

I think what helps is:

Spin training, and spin recovery training.
Training in judgement and personal limitations.

Training someone to spin has the opposite effect if
that same pilot has poor judgement. I've
given training to pilots who have then gone out and
abused
it, despite my best efforts at instilling
good judgement too.

Should spin training be required for commercial
privileges? I don't know for sure, but I think it
is the right level to ask the question. I think the

insurers should consider incentives for this
training (for glider and also airplane commercial
pilots).

For airplanes, spins used to be mandatory for
ASEL Private pilots. I don't know about
gliders...

Of course, none of this assumes the pilot in this
accident did or didn't have spin training or
personal minimums well established. As far
as I know, he may have done spins many times,
and been even more meticulous than the half-dozen highly
experienced glider pilots who died in the US near ridges
in
the past 5 years.

I try to spin all of my pre-solos (but I've missed
2 of them).
But I've spun everyone before they get their ratings...

I don't know how anyone can really understand a
spin (and it's dangers) until they've done one personally.
It is a fascinating manuever...

At 13:30 27 April 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 05:00 27 April 2005, Ian Forbes wrote:
wrote:
>>
>>> The pilot received his student pilot certificate on
>>>March 16, 2005. On
>>> March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate
>>>with a
>>> glider rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his
>>>commercial pilot
>>> certificate with a glider rating. According to the
>>>pilot's logbook, as
>>> of April 5, 2005 (the day before the accident), he
>>>accumulated a total
>>> of 48.4 hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours
>>>were as
>>> pilot-in-command.
>>
>>Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry
>>passengers in 10
>>days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had
>>some prior
>>training/experience that is not reflected above.
>>
>>My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's
>>Brevet together
>>do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward
>>here, let
>>alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides
>>in Hawaii, chances
>>are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial
>>Glider Pilot's
>>ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.
>>
>>The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving
>>on the
>>Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident
>>happend.
>>
>>
>>Ian
>You are right Ian if I went out there I would show
>exactly the same profile, my previous 1500 hours would
>not show either.
>This probably sums the whole thing up, speculation,
>rumour, and heresay, almost anything but fact. If much
>of what has been said previously had been said about
>a pilot who survived the accident a lot of people would
>soon become very poor. Dead people can't sue, or even
>more to the point defend themselves against scurrilous
>attacks by the ignorant.
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[ttaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Mark,

Good points on the need for spin training. The other thing that should
be included in the training requirement in the US for a commercial
rating is soaring training. I have seen it often where a pilot is
taught to fly the glider, but has no real world soaring training to
deal with lift and sink environments as well as decision making process
when you are not right over the airport. It is easy to fly a glider if
you take a three thousand foot tow, make a few turns and land again
without ever trying to keep the plane in the air. But are you ready to
handle adverse conditions? No, not when you get your commercial in a
total of 25 to 30 hours and need to meet the 100 flight requirement.

Tim

[Vaughn]

"M B" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe more to the point is not the hours, but
> what could be done to change this?
>
(Disclaimer: I am speaking in generalities and not necessarily about this
accident in particular)

The exercise of good common sense by operators and insurers would go far to
"change this". Let's not insist on the government doing our thinking for us, we
are unlikely to be happy with the result. The exercise of such "common sense"
that goes far beyond the minimum letter of the FARs is very common in the
soaring world. I do not always agree with this "ad hock" regulation (any more
than I agree with every word in the FARs), but I agree that it is a necessary
thing.

A few tiny examples; 1) In a club I was associated with years ago, I saw
new CFIG's (especially those new to the club) told to "watch and wait" for a
period of time before they started instructing. At that same club, you needed
over 100 flights to even be considered to fly some of the equipment. 2) I don't
recall the operator I worked for ever allowing a non-CFIG Commercial pilot to
give commercial rides. 3) I remember when Mile-High came to Florida to sell
rides; they advertised for Commercial pilots and were demanding very significant
2-32 time/# of flights from applicants. 4) I know of no commercial operator
that will rent you a ship without a local checkout, many will not even sell you
a tow. None of this is required by the FARs. 5) Everybody has a story about
insurance company requirements that go far beyond the FARs, insurance companies
are emerging as our new regulators. Their regulation may seem arbitrary, but
they do not operate in a vacuum. We are customers and hold "the power of the
checkbook".

Let us learn from accidents and religiously apply what we learn to prevent
further accidents, but please! let's not ask for more regulation.

Vaughn

[Tony Verhulst]

> The exercise of good common sense by operators and insurers would go far to
> "change this". Let's not insist on the government doing our thinking for us, we
> are unlikely to be happy with the result. The exercise of such "common sense"
> that goes far beyond the minimum letter of the FARs is very common in the
> soaring world.

I agree with this and suggest that this is already the typical case -
and wonder why this did not happen here. The FAA really only certifies
to the minimum standards. When not in my LS6, I fly a Skylane and have
high performance and complex endorsements. As far as the FAA is
concerned, I can quite legally jump into a Bonanza and commit aviation.
But, the insurance company would say "hold on, cowboy".

Tony V.

[Vaughn]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>...The FAA really only certifies to the minimum standards. When not in my LS6,
>I fly a Skylane and have high performance and complex endorsements. As far as
>the FAA is concerned, I can quite legally jump into a Bonanza and commit
>aviation. But, the insurance company would say "hold on, cowboy".

Exactly...and for good reason.

Vaughn


>
> Tony V.