Nimbus 4DT accident 31 July 2000 in Spain. [Archive]

M B

June 21st 05, 09:55 AM

Neither this report nor the Minden report it references
mentions anything about the ASI installed.

Were they the wrap-around types which cause
the pilot to not know if the glider is in a spin or
a spiral?

I personally have been in a spiral in a glider, and
not knowing it was a spin or spiral, have done the

spin recovery. Fortunately the glider performance
was low enough this wasn't a problem.

To verify this, I replicated the same situation twice
more
on the same flight. It was surprising how little
onformation I could get through windspeed noise.
I was relying on the ASI, and it was ambiguously
reading either 30kts or 100kts.

Only after landing and seeing the GPS info did I fully
believe that I was spiralling, and not spinning, even
though
I watched the ASI go only from 'fast' to 'really fast.'

Are these gliders regularly installed with
the wrap-around type ASIs? Could 1.8 seconds of confusion
be a contributing factor in these cases?

Of course, assume for the moment that the translation
to
english is awkward and the mention of 'spin' may
be mistranslated...

Has anyone else on this group ever looked at a
wrap-around ASI and wondered what it said?

Have you tried this with students, having them close
their eyes and violently shake their heads and then

try to recover the glider in an unusual attitude?
And have them get confused?

I certainly see the value of the wrap-around ASI and
the added precision it allows during normal flight,
but
I'm not terribly fond of them for spin vs.
spiral recognition. I don't trust my hearing as
an airspeed indicator during stressful situations.

At 22:42 20 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>
>> The Spanish report in English translation may be found
>>at
>> http://www.gliding.co.uk/accidents/reports/nimbus4dtreport.pdf
>>(3MB).
>
>Thanks for the link. Very educational, indeed. I think
>this answers the
>question whether spins and spiral dives should be demonstrated
>and
>recovery should be regularly trained.
>
>Stefan
>
Mark J. Boyd

Stefan

June 21st 05, 10:01 AM

M B wrote:

> Neither this report nor the Minden report it references
> mentions anything about the ASI installed.
>
> Were they the wrap-around types which cause
> the pilot to not know if the glider is in a spin or
> a spiral?

I understand you're an instructor? I shudder at the thought that a
licensed pilot, let alone an instructor would rely on the ASI to tell
whether he's in a spin or a spiral.

Stefan

HL Falbaum

June 21st 05, 12:30 PM

Yes, indeed. If anything, the spiral dive recovery is more critical from a
structural standpoint. A modern glider is more likely to progress to spiral
dive anyway. The pilot, by his own admission, did the wrong recovery for
either case.

However, since the Spanish report refers heavily to the Minden report, with
many similarities, I wonder if there is something peculiar about the Nimbus
4 DT. Both apparently departed into a stall and incipient spin in a strong
thermal. This pilot had sufficient recent flight experience, and total time,
to have developed good "survival" reflexes, including the "stick forward"
manuver. He had little time in the Nimbus 4, but quite enough in the Nimbus
3 to know how to fly it.

If it was purely the fault of very strong thermals, then the other gliders
in common use at places like Minden would also have similar accidents. This
does not seem to be the case.

Obviously, I have never flown a Nimbus of any kind. I have a few hours in
the Duo-Discus, but nothing larger. The Duo is certainly not malignant in
any way.

So my question is to those with Nimbus D experience. Is there some handling
characteristic that will bite a fairly experinced and competent, but
unsuspecting pilot?

I am thinking that the (biennial USA) Flight Review should include spiral
dive recovery routinely, in addition to the usual other "emergency"
maneuvers.
--
Hartley Falbaum
CFIG USA

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>
>> The Spanish report in English translation may be found at
>> http://www.gliding.co.uk/accidents/reports/nimbus4dtreport.pdf (3MB).
>
> Thanks for the link. Very educational, indeed. I think this answers the
> question whether spins and spiral dives should be demonstrated and
> recovery should be regularly trained.
>
> Stefan

Mark Wright

June 21st 05, 12:37 PM

Please tell me that this posting is a wind up !

At 09:12 21 June 2005, M B wrote:
>Neither this report nor the Minden report it references
>mentions anything about the ASI installed.
>
>Were they the wrap-around types which cause
>the pilot to not know if the glider is in a spin or
>a spiral?
>
>I personally have been in a spiral in a glider, and
>not knowing it was a spin or spiral, have done the
>
>spin recovery. Fortunately the glider performance
>was low enough this wasn't a problem.
>
>To verify this, I replicated the same situation twice
>more
>on the same flight. It was surprising how little
>onformation I could get through windspeed noise.
>I was relying on the ASI, and it was ambiguously
>reading either 30kts or 100kts.
>
>Only after landing and seeing the GPS info did I fully
>believe that I was spiralling, and not spinning, even
>though
>I watched the ASI go only from 'fast' to 'really fast.'
>
>Are these gliders regularly installed with
>the wrap-around type ASIs? Could 1.8 seconds of confusion
>be a contributing factor in these cases?
>
>Of course, assume for the moment that the translation
>to
>english is awkward and the mention of 'spin' may
>be mistranslated...
>
>Has anyone else on this group ever looked at a
>wrap-around ASI and wondered what it said?
>
>Have you tried this with students, having them close
>their eyes and violently shake their heads and then
>
>try to recover the glider in an unusual attitude?
>And have them get confused?
>
>I certainly see the value of the wrap-around ASI and
>the added precision it allows during normal flight,
>but
>I'm not terribly fond of them for spin vs.
>spiral recognition. I don't trust my hearing as
>an airspeed indicator during stressful situations.
>

Mark Wright

June 21st 05, 12:39 PM

Don Johnstone

June 21st 05, 01:53 PM

I don't think it is.

from the accident report
The pilot realized that they had started to spin and
that, in order to come out of the spin, he pulled back
hard on the control stick and applied full flaps, without
regaining control (no surprise there then)..........the
glider quickly gathered speed (?)....and the flaps
got heavier and heavier.
....the flap position was 2 deg positive.

I fly an ASW17 and in my conversion brief I was told
that the first action is spin recovery was flaps to
neutral. If this action was not carried out then recovery
was not certain. It would appear from the exerpt from
the Nimbus manual that the same applied. It is to be
hoped that some of the above passage is the result
of iffy translation, if not it is a very strange sequence
of events.

The report conclusions do not help. I am no expert
on the 4DM but is it possible to exceed VNe in a spin?

At 11:54 21 June 2005, Mark Wright wrote:
>Please tell me that this posting is a wind up !
>
>At 09:12 21 June 2005, M B wrote:
>>Neither this report nor the Minden report it references
>>mentions anything about the ASI installed.
>>
>>Were they the wrap-around types which cause
>>the pilot to not know if the glider is in a spin or
>>a spiral?
>>
>>I personally have been in a spiral in a glider, and
>>not knowing it was a spin or spiral, have done the
>>
>>spin recovery. Fortunately the glider performance
>>was low enough this wasn't a problem.
>>
>>To verify this, I replicated the same situation twice
>>more
>>on the same flight. It was surprising how little
>>onformation I could get through windspeed noise.
>>I was relying on the ASI, and it was ambiguously
>>reading either 30kts or 100kts.
>>
>>Only after landing and seeing the GPS info did I fully
>>believe that I was spiralling, and not spinning, even
>>though
>>I watched the ASI go only from 'fast' to 'really fast.'
>>
>>Are these gliders regularly installed with
>>the wrap-around type ASIs? Could 1.8 seconds of confusion
>>be a contributing factor in these cases?
>>
>>Of course, assume for the moment that the translation
>>to
>>english is awkward and the mention of 'spin' may
>>be mistranslated...
>>
>>Has anyone else on this group ever looked at a
>>wrap-around ASI and wondered what it said?
>>
>>Have you tried this with students, having them close
>>their eyes and violently shake their heads and then
>>
>>try to recover the glider in an unusual attitude?
>>And have them get confused?
>>
>>I certainly see the value of the wrap-around ASI and
>>the added precision it allows during normal flight,
>>but
>>I'm not terribly fond of them for spin vs.
>>spiral recognition. I don't trust my hearing as
>>an airspeed indicator during stressful situations.
>
>
>
>
>

Stefan

June 21st 05, 02:08 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

> It is to be
> hoped that some of the above passage is the result
> of iffy translation, if not it is a very strange sequence
> of events.

Perfectly correct translation. No strange sequence at all.

> The report conclusions do not help. I am no expert

Yes, they do. Know your airplane, know the emergency procedures and
particlarly know its behaviour in regading to spins. Practice spin
recoveries, practice spiral dive recoveries. And any pilot who is even
tempted to pull back the stick in a spin is not airworthy.

> on the 4DM but is it possible to exceed VNe in a spin?

Certainly not. But many gliders will not stay in the spin but go into a
spiral dive. Which was obviously the case here.

Stefan

Stefan

June 21st 05, 02:11 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

> It is to be
> hoped that some of the above passage is the result
> of iffy translation, if not it is a very strange sequence
> of events.

Perfectly correct translation. No strange sequence at all.

> The report conclusions do not help. I am no expert

Yes, they do. Know your airplane, know the emergency procedures and
particlarly know its behaviour in regading to spins. Practice spin
recoveries, practice spiral dive recoveries. And any pilot who is even
remotely tempted to pull back the stick in a spin is not airworthy.

> on the 4DM but is it possible to exceed VNe in a spin?

Certainly not. But many gliders will not stay in the spin but go into a
spiral dive. Which was obviously the case here.

Stefan

Bill Daniels

June 21st 05, 02:13 PM

None of these big gliders are very good at diving. I don't believe there
is anything sinister about the N4DM. They're just not built for diving.
Any time the nose is well below the horizon, they will pick up speed
rapidly. Don't do that.

Large span gliders will fly slowly and that means that there is a large
airspeed difference across their span when circling - my "little" Nimbus 2C
can develop a 15 knot difference. This, plus a thermal gust, can make them
roll into a spiral dive.

Recognizing this and taking prompt action when it happens is actually easy
once you experience it a few times. Just allow the speed to increase a bit
to increase control authority, then stop the turn and then recover normal
airspeed.

If the glider is allowed to progress into a full spiral dive, the options
narrow considerably. Only very gentle and precise control inputs will save
the day. Try not to apply large aileron and elevator inputs
simultaneously - bending and twisting the wing at the same time can break
it.

Reading the Spanish report made it seem that the pilot did not have complete
control of his glider. That's a shame when it's a two seater and there are
a lot of experienced pilots who would have been willing to ride with him and
help him master it.

Bill Daniels

"HL Falbaum" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, indeed. If anything, the spiral dive recovery is more critical from a
> structural standpoint. A modern glider is more likely to progress to
spiral
> dive anyway. The pilot, by his own admission, did the wrong recovery for
> either case.
>
> However, since the Spanish report refers heavily to the Minden report,
with
> many similarities, I wonder if there is something peculiar about the
Nimbus
> 4 DT. Both apparently departed into a stall and incipient spin in a strong
> thermal. This pilot had sufficient recent flight experience, and total
time,
> to have developed good "survival" reflexes, including the "stick forward"
> manuver. He had little time in the Nimbus 4, but quite enough in the
Nimbus
> 3 to know how to fly it.
>
> If it was purely the fault of very strong thermals, then the other gliders
> in common use at places like Minden would also have similar accidents.
This
> does not seem to be the case.
>
> Obviously, I have never flown a Nimbus of any kind. I have a few hours in
> the Duo-Discus, but nothing larger. The Duo is certainly not malignant in
> any way.
>
> So my question is to those with Nimbus D experience. Is there some
handling
> characteristic that will bite a fairly experinced and competent, but
> unsuspecting pilot?
>
> I am thinking that the (biennial USA) Flight Review should include spiral
> dive recovery routinely, in addition to the usual other "emergency"
> maneuvers.
> --
> Hartley Falbaum
> CFIG USA
>
>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> >
> >> The Spanish report in English translation may be found at
> >> http://www.gliding.co.uk/accidents/reports/nimbus4dtreport.pdf (3MB).
> >
> > Thanks for the link. Very educational, indeed. I think this answers the
> > question whether spins and spiral dives should be demonstrated and
> > recovery should be regularly trained.
> >
> > Stefan
>
>

Don Johnstone

June 21st 05, 02:39 PM

At 13:24 21 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> It is to be
>> hoped that some of the above passage is the result
>> of iffy translation, if not it is a very strange sequence
>> of events.
>
>Perfectly correct translation. No strange sequence
>at all.
>
>> The report conclusions do not help. I am no expert
>
>Yes, they do. Know your airplane, know the emergency
>procedures and
>particlarly know its behaviour in regading to spins.
>Practice spin
>recoveries, practice spiral dive recoveries. And any
>pilot who is even
>tempted to pull back the stick in a spin is not airworthy.

I agree entirely. But was this glider ever spinning?
The report does make the point that intentional spinning
of the 4DM is prohibited.
>
>> on the 4DM but is it possible to exceed VNe in a spin?
>
>Certainly not. But many gliders will not stay in the
>spin but go into a
>spiral dive. Which was obviously the case here.

I don't see that as obvious. How did it get from spin
to spiral dive. The action taken by the pilot would
not have prevented the auto-rotation, in fact it should
have ensured that it continued and that the glider
remained stalled. Stall plus autorotation =spin.

The question is was the glider ever in a spin. Reading
Bill's post that is a pertinent question? My point
about the conclusions not helping is that they say
that the structural failure was from a 'spiral dive
OR spin'. I have to accept that the recovery action
taken by the pilot was incorrect but what was he trying
to recover from?
>
>Stefan
>

Stefan

June 21st 05, 03:06 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

>> spiral dive. Which was obviously the case here.

> I don't see that as obvious.

"Meanwhile, the glider quickly gathered speed until it exceeded Vne."
(Page 2 of the report.)

> How did it get from spin
> to spiral dive.

By itself. Just as many gliders do.

> The question is was the glider ever in a spin.

I don't know (I'm tempted to say: nobody does) whether the glider was
technically ever in a spin or started right into the spiral dive. The
question is pretty pointless, pulling back the stick is a bad move in
either case.

Stefan

M B

June 21st 05, 05:25 PM

During my experiments with the wrap-around ASI,
I too started with the controls in a clasic spin entry,
and felt the stall, and then ended up in what
I could not discern was a spin or a spiral.
So I'd release the elevator pressure (assumed it
was a spin) and recover from the dive.

I did spins both before and after this in the
Blanik (with a non-wrap ASI) and they seemed
very easy to tell the difference from a spiral, and
quite easy to sustain as a spin for 4 turns or whatever
you wanted, with a subsequent quite well defined
spin recovery.

The spins in the other glider were at fairly forward
CG, so
after looking at it, I wasn't that surprised it didn't
stay in a spin.

I think Hartley was correct, that spins and spirals
ought
to be part of a flight review. From the report, however,
it seems this pilot got spin entry training. In all
of my spin entry training, this means crossed controls,
and a full stall, with recovery by flaps/dive brakes/power

to correct position, ailerons neutral, rudder opposite,
stick
pressure released or briefly forward to break the stall.

I can see value in doing full 2 turn spins left and
right,
however, instead of just spin entries (which can be
too mild,
or not give a good sense of spin vs. spiral indications).

I must think, however, that actually doing this in
some gliders
may be either prohibited or may damage the glider or
actually cause structural failure.

A slow reaction with flaps by the student might be
a
big problem. Likewise, practicing spins and recoveries
with
the engine extended in a motorglider might be
prohibited or damaging, but this might be exactly
the training needed to prevent a 180 turn back to the
airport from becoiming a stall/spin for example.

And how many instructors regularly spin a Nimbus or
a DG1000 with extensions or the like?
Honestly I don't know, since
I generally fly 18m or less spans myself...

What a shame to lose your own son though.
Geesh, what a tragedy.

At 13:24 21 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> It is to be
>> hoped that some of the above passage is the result
>> of iffy translation, if not it is a very strange sequence
>> of events.
>
>Perfectly correct translation. No strange sequence
>at all.
>
>> The report conclusions do not help. I am no expert
>
>Yes, they do. Know your airplane, know the emergency
>procedures and
>particlarly know its behaviour in regading to spins.
>Practice spin
>recoveries, practice spiral dive recoveries. And any
>pilot who is even
>tempted to pull back the stick in a spin is not airworthy.
>
>> on the 4DM but is it possible to exceed VNe in a spin?
>
>Certainly not. But many gliders will not stay in the
>spin but go into a
>spiral dive. Which was obviously the case here.
>
>Stefan
>
Mark J. Boyd

Stefan

June 21st 05, 05:56 PM

M B wrote:

> to be part of a flight review. From the report, however,
> it seems this pilot got spin entry training. In all

Read it again. His last spin training was 20 years ago and he swore to
never do it again. A pilot who panics when he hears the S-word is not
airworthy. (Respect, yes. Panic, no.)

> of my spin entry training, this means crossed controls,

Then improve your spin training. Spin doesn't necessairily mean crossed
controls.

> I can see value in doing full 2 turn spins left and
> right,
> however, instead of just spin entries (which can be
> too mild,
> or not give a good sense of spin vs. spiral indications).

Which it doesn't need. At this early stage, recovery actions are the same.

> A slow reaction with flaps by the student might be
> a
> big problem.

Then the student needs more training.

> Likewise, practicing spins and recoveries
> with
> the engine extended in a motorglider might be
> prohibited or damaging, but this might be exactly
> the training needed to prevent a 180 turn back to the
> airport from becoiming a stall/spin for example.

You never explored how your glider drops the wing with the engine
extended/running? Gee, I wouldn't let my son be your student.

Stefan

Eric Greenwell

June 21st 05, 06:08 PM

M B wrote:

> To verify this, I replicated the same situation twice
> more
> on the same flight. It was surprising how little
> onformation I could get through windspeed noise.
> I was relying on the ASI, and it was ambiguously
> reading either 30kts or 100kts.

Don't the controls feel differently at 30 knots and 100 knots? That
should be a good clue as you begin the spin recovery.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

M B

June 21st 05, 08:10 PM

At 17:12 21 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>M B wrote:
>
>> to be part of a flight review. From the report, however,
>> it seems this pilot got spin entry training. In all
>
>Read it again. His last spin training was 20 years
>ago

Three months before the accident 'the pilot
had carried out some flights with the test pilot
(including diving at Vne and the start of spins.'

20 years ago may have been the last time he did fully
developed spins, but 'start of spins' sounds like
'spin entries' to me.

If your point was that his training was inadequate,
or
that perhaps the spin entries were demonstrated rather
than
trained, these are both possibilities, and I would
agree.

I recently had a student do some spin training with
me
and was happy to see him seek it out before flying
a very tautly spinning single-seater. I recommended
another
aerobatic glider instructor for further aerobatics
if
he wanted more interesting training. Some exposure

to aerobatics every so often seems to be good
for pilots.

>
>> I can see value in doing full 2 turn spins left and
>> right,
>> however, instead of just spin entries (which can be
>> too mild,
>> or not give a good sense of spin vs. spiral indications).
>
>Which it doesn't need. At this early stage, recovery
>actions >are the same.

I might have this out of context. Please elucidate.
Spiral and spin recovery actions are quite differently
spelled out in our US manuals. I've also found that
students
'get it' after doing some 2-turn or more spins, but
don't necessarily 'get it' after only spin entry
recoveries.

>
>> Likewise, practicing spins and recoveries
>> with
>> the engine extended in a motorglider might be
>> prohibited or damaging, but this might be exactly
>> the training needed to prevent a 180 turn back to
>>the
>> airport from becoiming a stall/spin for example.
>
>You never explored how your glider drops the wing with
>the engine
>extended/running? Gee, I wouldn't let my son be your
>student.

I do not plan to teach spins with the engine extended
in contravention to a flight manual, such as the DG500MB,
paragraph 2.9

I know you weren't suggesting teaching spins in contravention
to the flight manual. I certainly agree with exploring
non-prohibited edges of the
performance envelope to get a feel for the aircraft
(including the control stiffness felt at higher speeds).

But why don't you do this with your son yourself, Stephan,
aren't you an instructor?

>
>Stefan
>
Mark J. Boyd

M B

June 21st 05, 08:25 PM

AFTER I did it, yes I thought back and yes, the
control pressure was definitely more than expected
at low airspeeds.

But WHEN I did it, I think the surprise of
looking at an ASI and having it tell me...
ambiguous garbage...
distracted my keenness to listen for airflow
or feel for control pressures.

The controls on this glider were quite light to
begin with. The airflow sound was actually
easier to detect for me than control pressures
in this (fairly noisy) glider.

I just distinctly remember it was the very
first time I had ever looked at an ASI where it
was impossible to read as a stand-alone indication
of airspeed. That was very, very strange for me.
Before that, I'd never flown any aircraft with a
wrap-around ASI and done intentional spins.

Part of why I'm writing this now is because the
was quite fascinating. I had to do it many times and
study the ASI to really believe I was in a spiral and
recovery and not a spin. The ASI needle whipped
around in a flash.

I tried spins later with further aft CG and was able
to
sustain spins, with the expected noise and control
feel
indications.

At 17:24 21 June 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>M B wrote:
>
>> To verify this, I replicated the same situation twice
>> more
>> on the same flight. It was surprising how little
>>
>> onformation I could get through windspeed noise.
>>
>> I was relying on the ASI, and it was ambiguously
>> reading either 30kts or 100kts.
>
>Don't the controls feel differently at 30 knots and
>100 knots? That
>should be a good clue as you begin the spin recovery.
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
Mark J. Boyd

Stefan

June 21st 05, 08:45 PM

M B wrote:

> I recently had a student do some spin training with
> me
> and was happy to see him seek it out before flying
> a very tautly spinning single-seater.

We ask it from ours before transitioning them to the first single seater.

> I might have this out of context. Please elucidate.
> Spiral and spin recovery actions are quite differently
> spelled out in our US manuals.

Luckily, gliders cannot read. :-) Recovering from a developed spin is
certainly different from recovering from a developed spiral dive. But at
the early stage, when the glider just drops a wing and pitches forward,
your neither in a spiral nor in a spin yet. At this early stage,
corrective action is quite simple: Immediately stick forward and
opposite rudder. In most cases, this will do the trick just fine, and
you won't even know whether it would have developed into a spiral or a
spin. If a spin or spiral develops, you're in a different situation, of
course.

> I do not plan to teach spins with the engine extended
> in contravention to a flight manual, such as the DG500MB,
> paragraph 2.9

Dropping a wing with the engine extended is part of our "club syllabus"
for transitioning to the DG505M/22m. If you have never done it, it's a
real eye opener how aggessively the wing will drop. Of course, we don't
let the spin develop but take immediate action. (The glider will recover
after about a quarter of a turn.)

Try it! You don't need to cross the controls, just pitch up with the
engine running until the glider ceases to fly. It *will* drop a wing
then, you have no chance to hold it with the rudder. As I said, an eye
opener.

Stefan

Stefan

June 21st 05, 08:55 PM

M B wrote:

> But WHEN I did it, I think the surprise of
> looking at an ASI and having it tell me...
> ambiguous garbage...

I find it even more surprizing that somebody in this situation would
look at the ASI at all...

> I tried spins later with further aft CG and was able
> to
> sustain spins, with the expected noise and control
> feel
> indications.

See? You *can* tell a spin from a dive if you have familiarisized (?)
yourself with the glider. Which you should (must, according to the
legislation where I live and fly) in your first couple of flights, anyway.

Stefan

Mark Dickson

June 21st 05, 11:34 PM

I've read your entries, MB, and, in common with Stefan,
have been dismayed by your comments on recognising
and recovering from spins and spiral dives. Rather
than teaching these exercises and trying to impart
your 'knowledge' on this forum, you should have a bit
of remedial instruction yourself. Your reactions to
spinning should be automatic, there should be absolutely
no need to check your ASI to see if your spinning or
in a spiral dive. If you are in a spin you should
positively move the stick forward, not 'release the
back pressure'. Releasing the back pressure at the
buffet should prevent a spin developing.

Kilo Charlie

June 22nd 05, 05:30 AM

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
>M B wrote:

> Don't the controls feel differently at 30 knots and 100 knots? That should
> be a good clue as you begin the spin recovery.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State

I am a partner in a Nimbus 3D. I have not had a lot of time in it but have
flown aircraft of all kinds for 36 years including hundreds of glider and
powered aerobatic hours. In order to get the Nimbus to go beyond the green
arc it takes a very large amount of forward stick even with the trim all the
way to the forward stop.....with flaps in -2. I absolutely disagree that it
would be easy to let it get away from you and end up in a spiral with the
exception of possibly entering it from a spin. The spin enty on the other
hand is docile and easy to recover from. As has been pointed out, if one is
clueless re incipient spins then the scenario in these 2 accidents might
easily unfold. Only education, planning and practice will prevent similar
accidents.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

mev

June 22nd 05, 05:32 AM

Crap Mark, do you think before you press *send*? It rarely seems so.

Mark Dickson wrote:
> I've read your entries, MB, and, in common with Stefan,
> have been dismayed by your comments on recognising
> and recovering from spins and spiral dives. Rather
> than teaching these exercises and trying to impart
> your 'knowledge' on this forum, you should have a bit
> of remedial instruction yourself. Your reactions to
> spinning should be automatic, there should be absolutely
> no need to check your ASI to see if your spinning or
> in a spiral dive. If you are in a spin you should
> positively move the stick forward, not 'release the
> back pressure'. Releasing the back pressure at the
> buffet should prevent a spin developing.
>
>
>

Don Johnstone

June 22nd 05, 09:42 AM

I see nothing crap in Mark's post. Could you perhaps
explain?

At 04:48 22 June 2005, Mev wrote:
>Crap Mark, do you think before you press *send*? It
>rarely seems so.
>
>
>Mark Dickson wrote:
>> I've read your entries, MB, and, in common with Stefan,
>> have been dismayed by your comments on recognising
>> and recovering from spins and spiral dives. Rather
>> than teaching these exercises and trying to impart
>> your 'knowledge' on this forum, you should have a
>>bit
>> of remedial instruction yourself. Your reactions
>>to
>> spinning should be automatic, there should be absolutely
>> no need to check your ASI to see if your spinning
>>or
>> in a spiral dive. If you are in a spin you should
>> positively move the stick forward, not 'release the
>> back pressure'. Releasing the back pressure at the
>> buffet should prevent a spin developing.
>>
>>
>>
>

[email protected]

June 22nd 05, 01:54 PM

KC, yup.

I wonder at the thread though. Everyone discussing recognition of a
fully developed spin versus spiral dive.

Years ago, Al Blackburn pointed out to me that long span gliders need
to be treated gingerly at speed. His concern had to do with the
application of aileron during dive recovery. While he felt that most
pilots could manage the elevator to avoid structural damage, aileron
asymmetry (and the resulting squatcheloid assymetry) presented a
complicating factor. The longer the span, the more critical its
effects. Add a partial load of water, a yaw moment, and/or spoiler caps
deploying with wing bend and it's not hard to see how things might
quickly get to the breaking point.

Bert Willing

June 22nd 05, 02:33 PM

As long as a 26m glider is certified under JAR22, there is no issue of
control inputs versus speed other than for a 15m glider.

What changes drastically with a long wing is the entry into a spin or a
spiral dive. The long wing makes that you can have large discrepancies of
effective angle of attack along the wingspan (which can make the spin entry
under g-load quite interesting). Long wings also have much more angular
momentum once the spin/spiral dive is developped - it can be as much as 5
times the angular momentum of a 15m glider, and that makes that recovery
will take a certain time even if correct counter procedures are undertaken.
And during that time, the glider will accelerate like hell so that you are
likely to operate you final recovery well beyond what's written in the
flight manual.

I think that training of instant recovery of a spin entry (or spiral dive
entry) is mandatory if you want to fly a 25+m ship safely. But in contrary
to short wings, it would be plain stupid to train the recovery of a fully
developed spin/spiral dive in these ships (beyond fligh testing for
certification) and that's the reason that a flight manual will usually call
it illegal.

Been there, done it, and don't feel that I want to get there again.
--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

> a écrit dans le message de news:
om...
> KC, yup.
>
> I wonder at the thread though. Everyone discussing recognition of a
> fully developed spin versus spiral dive.
>
> Years ago, Al Blackburn pointed out to me that long span gliders need
> to be treated gingerly at speed. His concern had to do with the
> application of aileron during dive recovery. While he felt that most
> pilots could manage the elevator to avoid structural damage, aileron
> asymmetry (and the resulting squatcheloid assymetry) presented a
> complicating factor. The longer the span, the more critical its
> effects. Add a partial load of water, a yaw moment, and/or spoiler caps
> deploying with wing bend and it's not hard to see how things might
> quickly get to the breaking point.
>

For Example John Smith

June 22nd 05, 05:32 PM

"the resulting squatcheloid assymetry"?
What the heck is that?
Anything like the yeti dihedral?

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> KC, yup.
>
> I wonder at the thread though. Everyone discussing recognition of a
> fully developed spin versus spiral dive.
>
> Years ago, Al Blackburn pointed out to me that long span gliders need
> to be treated gingerly at speed. His concern had to do with the
> application of aileron during dive recovery. While he felt that most
> pilots could manage the elevator to avoid structural damage, aileron
> asymmetry (and the resulting squatcheloid assymetry) presented a
> complicating factor. The longer the span, the more critical its
> effects. Add a partial load of water, a yaw moment, and/or spoiler caps
> deploying with wing bend and it's not hard to see how things might
> quickly get to the breaking point.
>

M B

June 22nd 05, 05:52 PM

I'm not as interested in spins and spirals. This is
important, but covered adequately already on RAS and
elsewhere.

To me, I'm more interested in the less commonly discussed
human factors. Specifically what factors contribute
to accidents?

Both Eric and Bert's posts made me think about some
things
along with what Stefan and Casey wrote.

In my experience, I have seen and been a part of confusion
in
the cockpit. One pilot is saying one thing and the
other is
contradicting it. I've also had both pilots on the
controls at the same time, with opposite pressures
applied.

I've seen and felt myself during critical moments both
a
narrowing of perceptions and a loss of sense of time.
Seconds seem like hours and vice versa. In aerobatic
training,
the focus was not on control inputs, but correctly
applying
the RATE of control changes.

I've also noted that I use trim extensively when flying,
and this
reduces the feedback I get about airspeed from the
stiffness of
the elevator controls. Casey wrote about how trim
(and maybe flaps) change the behavior of a spin, and
require different control pressures. Flaps, water,
a second passenger, trim,
quite a different 'feel' depending on these factors.

Bert mentioned that training in fully developed spins
in one of these ships might be (ahem) hard to find.
And what ships are similar to these which ARE certified
for full spin training?

If I put all these observations into this accident,
the
post-accident debrief reads as a bit of fiction, none
of
which is in either of the real accident reports:

*****fictional report begins****

We were tight in a thermal, with my dad at the controls.
It was bumpy, and the vario was turned up loud and
beeping.
I was scanning for traffic over my shoulder, and my
dad
was telling a story. When I looked forward, we were
nose down.
I said 'I got it' and took the controls. I was trying
to pull back but something was stopping the stick,
so I paused
for a second. My dad said 'it's spinning!' again and
again very loud.
I think he may have been trying to push forward while
I was pulling.
Between the vario, his yelling, and me thinking about
the flap lever,
I don't remember hearing any airspeed indications.

I glanced at the wrap-around ASI, and couldn't tell
if we were stalling or
going through 140kts. I wasn't the one who'd done
the trim, so
I couldn't tell if the pressures were light on the
elevator or
if that was just trim. I was distracted by my Dad's
yelling.

It had been a while since I had done full spin training.
I flew with
the test pilot when I got the glider, but he didn't
demonstrate
any full spins or spiral dives with recovery. I did
some
wing drops, but nothing like a full spiral or spin
like this.

I think my dad finally let go of the stick, and when
he did
it came back. I thought I did it slowly, but I might
have done it faster than I should have, because there
was a loud
snap and then the glider was rotating violently. I
popped
off the canopy and parachuted out.

*******fictional report ends*****

From this made up sequence of events, if I were getting
training
for such a glider, I'd want to focus on

1. positive exchange of controls, with the control
change echoed back
2. CRM agreement that whoever is on the stick handles
the emergency
(assuming both are fairly similarly qualified pilots).
3. reduction of distractions (radio, vario volume,
wrap-around ASI)
4. training in a glider certified for full spins that
is as alike
the glider I want to fly as possible.
5. enough acro and unusual attitude training to control
my rate of
control inputs during recovery, without panic.

Is this fictional report what actually happened? Probably
not,
but it is a fusion of my own experiences and what I
have read in
various fatal accident reports in various aircraft.

I don't believe just going up and doing some spin/spiral
recovery
training is specific enough. CRM issues and distractions
have
happened enough to fully 'trained' and 'experienced'
airline
and aerobatic pilots that I think human factors are
as important as
time on the stick feeling the pressures and hearing
the wind.

All right, kids, flame away! For the rest, if you
have specific
constructive insights that are on topic, I'd like to
hear them.
Thank you to Bert and Eric and Stefan for your useful
discussions.

As far as my wrap-around ASI confusion theory goes,
I can't ell if it is a good one or not. Clearly these
pilots
either didn't accurately know their airspeed, or they
DID, and just
misapplied corrective action. There is a subtle
difference there...

At 04:48 22 June 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>'Eric Greenwell' wrote in message
...
>>M B wrote:
>
>> Don't the controls feel differently at 30 knots and
>>100 knots? That should
>> be a good clue as you begin the spin recovery.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>>
>> Eric Greenwell
>> Washington State
>
>I am a partner in a Nimbus 3D. I have not had a lot
>of time in it but have
>flown aircraft of all kinds for 36 years including
>hundreds of glider and
>powered aerobatic hours. In order to get the Nimbus
>to go beyond the green
>arc it takes a very large amount of forward stick even
>with the trim all the
>way to the forward stop.....with flaps in -2. I absolutely
>disagree that it
>would be easy to let it get away from you and end up
>in a spiral with the
>exception of possibly entering it from a spin. The
>spin enty on the other
>hand is docile and easy to recover from. As has been
>pointed out, if one is
>clueless re incipient spins then the scenario in these
>2 accidents might
>easily unfold. Only education, planning and practice
>will prevent similar
>accidents.
>
>Casey Lenox
>KC
>Phoenix
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

Stefan

June 22nd 05, 10:27 PM

M B wrote:

> In my experience, I have seen and been a part of confusion
> in
> the cockpit. One pilot is saying one thing and the
> other is
> contradicting it. I've also had both pilots on the
> controls at the same time, with opposite pressures
> applied.

I'm more and more, well, surprized, what you have been experiencing
while flying. I've never seen, even less been part of such a thing.
Communicate before the flight, define the roles and adhere to it. Who
will do what? Who will fly in an emergency? Communicate during the
flight, and do so clearly.

And, you may ask, if the other pilot is doing something I don't like?
Well, if I don't trust the other pilot, I won't fly with him. If he
doesn't trust me, I don't want him to fly with me. Simple as that, very
basic CRM stuff. (It needn't be offensive when I say I don't like his
way of flying, because I'm not implying that he's a bad pilot, I'm just
saying our styles are incompatible.)

I'm surprized that, as it seems, you can become an instructor in the USA
without knowing such basic stuff.

Stefan

Bob Kuykendall

June 22nd 05, 11:51 PM

Earlier, Stefan wrote:

> I'm more and more, well, surprized,
> what you have been experiencing
> while flying.

I have seen all of this and much, much worse. I don't say that it's
good or right, because obviously it's suboptimal. But it is what it is,
and everybody has to come to terms with it one way or another.

> ...And, you may ask, if the other pilot
> is doing something I don't like?
> Well, if I don't trust the other
> pilot, I won't fly with him...

Hypothetical question: Suppose it's your _job_ to fly with this person?
Say, the person is your boss, and if you continue to decline then you
get fired with a bad fitness report that derails your flying career?

And, please, spare us the TS that such situations never happen, or that
they only happen in third-world countries. The records of the NTSB and
other national safety boards show that it happens with depressing
regularity.

I just finished reading an interesting book on the topic: "Darker Shade
of Blue," about rogue pilots in general and their effect on others. I
think it might go a bit over the top, since every pilot has a bit of
rogue to them, and sometimes it is that rogue element that carries the
day. But it is a valuable read regardless.

Furthermore, I'm pleased to see this thread directed more towards human
factors and the real world of soaring flight operations. I think it is
generally too easy to use "pilot error" as an excuse to not look deeper
into accidents and find their root causes. Peter Ladkin has a lot more
to say on that topic, and I generally agree with his assessments.

Following a slightly different tangent, as sailplanes become more
extreme in their complexity and dimension, the margins between early
adopters and the edges of the proven envelope will continue to shrink,
and will more often go negative in unexpected ways. Certification
doesn't _prove_ that a design is safe; it only demonstrates it under
carefully controlled conditions.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

Kilo Charlie

June 23rd 05, 02:57 AM

Hi Chris-

Thanks for herding the discussion toward more science and less emotion.

I apologize to anyone that may have been offended by my comments above re
"clueless". One person wrote a nice note pointing out that the family is
grieving enough without that type of thing.

The point I was trying to make was that those of us that choose to fly these
very long winged aircraft need to be keenly aware of impending problems and
react to them immediately should they begin to develop. If you decide to
thermal in turbulent conditions at just above stall speed then you should be
on edge every second you are doing so and if a gust begins to push you into
a spin or spiral then you should execute your already planned out and
hopefully second nature, correction. If you haven't thought of this plan or
possibility then you have no business flying at those speeds in that
aircraft.

Will having a plan ALWAYS get you out of trouble? No. But as others have
pointed out, in these birds you only have a very short time before there is
not any amount of skill that will save the aircraft.

Sorry to digress Chris.....I'd still really like to hear more about the
aerodynamic reasons that things go awry.....can only help to formulate the
best plan of action!

Casey

Ian Johnston

June 23rd 05, 09:32 AM

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:54:44 UTC, wrote:

> I wonder at the thread though. Everyone discussing recognition of a
> fully developed spin versus spiral dive.

Isn't it generally more useful to recognize the difference between a
just-developing spin and a just-developing spiral dive?

Which reminds me of Johnston's Test Question for BGA Instructors
Number Three:

"The offical recovery from a stall with wing drop is different from
the official recovery from a spin. At what point do you, personally,
transition from one to the other?"

Ian

--

Ian Johnston

June 23rd 05, 09:35 AM

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:11:53 UTC, Stefan >
wrote:

> And any pilot who is even
> remotely tempted to pull back the stick in a spin is not airworthy.

I suspect that many or all of us are to some extent tempted to do just
that. That's why we need training and practice in the right thing ...

Ian

--

Bill Daniels

June 23rd 05, 01:51 PM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-39ddFD9pBSKp@localhost...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:54:44 UTC, wrote:
>
> > I wonder at the thread though. Everyone discussing recognition of a
> > fully developed spin versus spiral dive.
>
> Isn't it generally more useful to recognize the difference between a
> just-developing spin and a just-developing spiral dive?
>
> Which reminds me of Johnston's Test Question for BGA Instructors
> Number Three:
>
> "The offical recovery from a stall with wing drop is different from
> the official recovery from a spin. At what point do you, personally,
> transition from one to the other?"
>
> Ian
>

As often happens, the BGA comes through with some useful wisdom. Thanks,
Ian.

As for the difference in sensations between an incipient spin and incipient
spiral, the former seems to me to be like an uncommanded yaw and the later
like an uncommanded roll. To me, at least, they clearly say that if the
situation is allowed to continue without intervention, the uncommanded yaw
will become a spin and the uncommanded roll will become a spiral.

I wish I could capture the sensations and record them. They would be very
useful in training.

As for a spinable trainer with similar characteristics, the venerable IS28b2
would do a creditable job of either spin or spiral and build up speed like
crazy in the ensuing dive. It had the requisite large inertia about all
axes. I found it taught me a lot about how to fly a Nimbus.

Bill Daniels

Bill Gribble

June 23rd 05, 04:28 PM

Bill Daniels > writes
>> "The offical recovery from a stall with wing drop is different from
>> the official recovery from a spin. At what point do you, personally,
>> transition from one to the other?"

I'm curious. Although in practical terms I'm quite confident (through
practice) that I can tell one from the other and react and recover
accordingly, but how would you phrase the answer to that?

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Don Johnstone

June 23rd 05, 05:18 PM

The answer is simple: Stall with a wing drop the first
action is to reduce the AoA, move the stick forward
to unstall the wing.
The action for a spin is: opposite rudder (to stop
the yaw/rotation) and then move the stick progressively
forward to unstall the wing. The recovery from there
is the same.

The important point is that with the wing down stall
the stick forward comes first and rudder may be used
to conteract any yaw present. With the spin the rudder
MUST come first.

In flapped gliders the first action should be flaps
to neutral, well with my flapped glider it should be.

At 16:18 23 June 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>Bill Gribble
>wrote:
>
>>>> 'The offical recovery from a stall with wing drop
>>>>is different from
>>>> the official recovery from a spin. At what point do
>>>>you, personally,
>>>> transition from one to the other?'
>>
>>I'm curious. Although in practical terms I'm quite
>>confident (through
>>practice) that I can tell one from the other and react
>>and recover
>>accordingly, but how would you phrase the answer to
>>that?
>
>I'd phrase my answer in terms of pitch down and rotation
>angles.
>
>T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>

Ian Johnston

June 23rd 05, 09:22 PM

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:18:58 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

> The answer is simple: Stall with a wing drop the first
> action is to reduce the AoA, move the stick forward
> to unstall the wing.
> The action for a spin is: opposite rudder (to stop
> the yaw/rotation) and then move the stick progressively
> forward to unstall the wing. The recovery from there
> is the same.

Of course. But how far does the wing have to drop - how much does the
glider have to roll at the stall - before you take spin recovery
action rather than stall with wing drop recovery action?

In real life, on the final turn, you have approximately 0.3 seconds to
answer this question ...

ian

Don Johnstone

June 23rd 05, 10:27 PM

The answer is again simple and goes to recognition.
A stall with wing drop is just that and provided action
is taken to solve that problem, unstall the wing, the
a spin will be prevented. A spin is the result of failure
at the first step for whatever reason. Everyone properly
trained will know the difference.

I would suggest that if you get to the point of a fully
developed spin on the final turn the chances of recovery
before the ground gets in the way are very remote,
unless you final turn above 600 feet that is, so you
better recognise and deal with that stall\wing drop.

I have thought about this and decided that if I ever
get to the point where I do get to a fully developed
spin at final turn height I am going to spin in, rather
that than tent peg half way through the recovery. My
philosophy teaches recognition of the approach of the
problem so it can be prevented and this is still not
given sufficient emphasis in training. Yes train people
to recover from fully developed spins but if you do
the job right and train so that they recognise the
approach and take the correct preventative action they
will never need to recover from a spin.

Now here's a question. Given the answer above why when
the wing drops at the start of a take off run (winch
or aero-tow) does everyone almost without exception
try and lift the downgoing wing with aileron?

At 20:42 23 June 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:18:58 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> The answer is simple: Stall with a wing drop the first
>> action is to reduce the AoA, move the stick forward
>> to unstall the wing.
>> The action for a spin is: opposite rudder (to stop
>> the yaw/rotation) and then move the stick progressively
>> forward to unstall the wing. The recovery from there
>> is the same.
>
>Of course. But how far does the wing have to drop -
>how much does the
>glider have to roll at the stall - before you take
>spin recovery
>action rather than stall with wing drop recovery action?
>
>In real life, on the final turn, you have approximately
>0.3 seconds to
>answer this question ...
>
>ian
>

Bob Johnson

June 23rd 05, 10:34 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:18:58 UTC, Don Johnstone
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The answer is simple: Stall with a wing drop the first
>>action is to reduce the AoA, move the stick forward
>>to unstall the wing.
>>The action for a spin is: opposite rudder (to stop
>>the yaw/rotation) and then move the stick progressively
>>forward to unstall the wing. The recovery from there
>>is the same.
>
>
> Of course. But how far does the wing have to drop - how much does the
> glider have to roll at the stall - before you take spin recovery
> action rather than stall with wing drop recovery action?
>
> In real life, on the final turn, you have approximately 0.3 seconds to
> answer this question ...
>
> ian

Has anyone mentioned the yaw string on these wide birds? What's it doing
during incipient diving vs. spinning?

Bob

Ian Johnston

June 23rd 05, 11:05 PM

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:27:25 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

> The answer is again simple and goes to recognition.
> A stall with wing drop is just that and provided action
> is taken to solve that problem, unstall the wing, the
> a spin will be prevented. A spin is the result of failure
> at the first step for whatever reason. Everyone properly
> trained will know the difference.

OK, so how would you described the difference. How far does the wing
have to drop before /you/ use spin recovery rather than stall
recovery? I'm genuinely interested: it's not supposed to be a trick
question in any way.

Ian

Ian Johnston

June 23rd 05, 11:05 PM

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:27:25 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

> Now here's a question. Given the answer above why when
> the wing drops at the start of a take off run (winch
> or aero-tow) does everyone almost without exception
> try and lift the downgoing wing with aileron?

Define "drops". How do you keep your wings level on the takeoff run?

Ian
--

nimbusgb

June 23rd 05, 11:24 PM

I'll bite Ian

I suspect that keeping the wing off the ground with aileron in the
initial part of the ground run works because with the tailwheel/ skid
on the deck the effects of adverse yaw & secondary effect roll are
negated.

There is no way on Gods earth that the rudder of the Nimbus is going to
accelerate a dropping wing at the beginning of the ground run.
Personally I thing the rudder of the
Nimbus is there because us pilot types wouldnt but an hairyplane
without one :)

Ian

Don Johnstone

June 23rd 05, 11:37 PM

OK. For the wing drop I take the recovery action for
that. Spinning is more than stalling with the wing
down or indeed with wing drop. A spin involves the
aircraft autorotating with yaw, roll and pitch movement.
I suppose you could say that if there significant yaw
present then that needs to be stopped. I think the
important point is that the angle of attack needs to
be reduced. If that can be achieved by use of the elevator
then that is all that is required.
I am not sure that I can explain satisfactorily in
words, but I could definitely demonstrate the difference.

At 22:24 23 June 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:27:25 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> The answer is again simple and goes to recognition.
>> A stall with wing drop is just that and provided action
>> is taken to solve that problem, unstall the wing,
>>the
>> a spin will be prevented. A spin is the result of
>>failure
>> at the first step for whatever reason. Everyone properly
>> trained will know the difference.
>
>OK, so how would you described the difference. How
>far does the wing
>have to drop before /you/ use spin recovery rather
>than stall
>recovery? I'm genuinely interested: it's not supposed
>to be a trick
>question in any way.
>
>Ian
>

Andreas Maurer

June 24th 05, 02:46 AM

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:34:41 -0500, Bob Johnson >
wrote:

>Has anyone mentioned the yaw string on these wide birds? What's it doing
>during incipient diving vs. spinning?

During lots of spin training flights (that include spiral dives to
show the difference) I *never* looked at the yaw string. Even in a big
bird the diffrence between a dive and a stall/spin is easy to detect
(and recover) if you have a little experience in this glider and
halfways correct spin training.

Frankly spoken, pulling the stick back hard enough to break off the
wings shows that the pilot was lacking the most basic skills to fly
that bird.

Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer

June 24th 05, 02:48 AM

On 23 Jun 2005 21:27:25 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

>Now here's a question. Given the answer above why when
>the wing drops at the start of a take off run (winch
>or aero-tow) does everyone almost without exception
>try and lift the downgoing wing with aileron?

.... because it works in 99 percent of the cases?

Bye
Andreas

Robert William

June 24th 05, 08:43 AM

At 02:06 24 June 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:34:41 -0500, Bob Johnson
>wrote:
>
>Frankly spoken, pulling the stick back hard enough
>to break off the
>wings shows that the pilot was lacking the most basic
>skills to fly
>that bird.
>
>
well, possibly, but having got to the position where
you could either go through Vd or pull back what would
YOU do?

jonnyboy

June 24th 05, 10:05 AM

Bob Johnson:
> pulling the stick back hard enough to break the wings
> shows pilot .. lacking .. skills to fly that bird.
> >
Robert William wrote:
>> having got to the position where you could either go
>> through Vd or pull back what would YOU do?

Is, 'Not getting into that position', an allowed response?

Jon.

Stefan

June 24th 05, 10:44 AM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> In real life, on the final turn, you have approximately 0.3 seconds to
> answer this question ...

I've always wondered about those "final turn spins". Yes, I know they
happen. I'm wondering nonetheless. It has been hammered in my heat right
from day one to watch that approach speed and to stay coordinated on
approach. Tolerance on the slow side: None. We won't let a student solo
before we are absolutely, positively sure he can and will acomplish
this. And when he gets his license, this will have become second nature
to him (just as not pulling back in a spin).

I'm not a great pilot and I'm making mistakes all the time. I can think
of a lot of ways how I could loose my life in a glider. But I'm
absolutely, positively sure that stalling/spinning in the final turn
will *not* be one of them.

Stefan

Stefan

June 24th 05, 10:48 AM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> In real life, on the final turn, you have approximately 0.3 seconds to
> answer this question ...

I've always wondered about those "final turn spins". Yes, I know they
happen. I'm wondering nonetheless. It has been hammered into my head
right from day one to watch that approach speed and to stay coordinated
on approach. Tolerance on the slow side: None. We won't let a student
solo before we are absolutely, positively sure he can and will acomplish
this. And when he gets his license, this will have become second nature
to him (just as not pulling back in a spin).

I'm not a great pilot and I'm making mistakes all the time. I can think
of a lot of ways how I could loose my life in a glider. But I'm
absolutely, positively sure that stalling/spinning in the final turn
will *not* be one of them.

Stefan

Bill Gribble

June 24th 05, 10:52 AM

Don Johnstone writes
>The answer is again simple and goes to recognition.

I think that was the point of the BGA's question ;)

>A stall with wing drop is just that and provided action is taken to
>solve that problem, unstall the wing, the a spin will be prevented. A
>spin is the result of failure at the first step for whatever reason.
>Everyone properly trained will know the difference.

I know the theoretical and practical difference between a spin and a
stall with or without a wing drop, and understand the difference in
recovery for each. However,

The BGA Instructor's Course question asked:
>> "The offical recovery from a stall with wing drop is different from
>> the official recovery from a spin. At what point do you, personally,
>> transition from one to the other?"

At what point do you NOT put the stick forward to reduce AoA and
alleviate the stall and instead centre the controls then kick a boot
full of opposite rudder in to stop the spin? Assuming no flaps, that
is...

Or is the question, and the suggestion that you transit from one
recovery procedure through to the other at some definite point in time,
intrinsically wrong? Should it be, "What is the difference between a
stall with wing drop and a fully developed spin?"

>I have thought about this and decided that if I ever get to the point
>where I do get to a fully developed spin at final turn height I am
>going to spin in, rather that than tent peg half way through the
>recovery.

Presumably working on the grounds that impacting at the lower, stable
velocity of a spin is going to hurt less than doing so at the higher,
increasing velocity of the initial part of the recovering dive? I can
appreciate the sense in that argument, though personally I doubt I could
accept the inevitability of the impact without putting up a struggle and
trying to recover despite the futility of the situation.

> My philosophy teaches recognition of the approach of the problem so it
>can be prevented and this is still not given sufficient emphasis in
>training.

It was in mine. Repeatedly hammered into me through graphic description
and demonstration by a number of different instructors throughout the
period of my training.

>Yes train people to recover from fully developed spins but if you do
>the job right and train so that they recognise the approach and take
>the correct preventative action they will never need to recover from a
>spin.

Though that overlooks the other essential advantage of spin training. It
teaches familiarity and confidence with the aircraft in unusual and
discomforting attitudes, which, IMHO, makes you far less likely to panic
and make a potentially bad situation terminally worse if you ever find
yourself there, whether through fault of your own or otherwise.

Besides which, as one of my favourite instructors was once quoted as
saying when asked why he had spun on a certain occasion; "Well, it's
just about one of the most exiting things you can do in a glider".

That is, of course, unless the glider concerned is a Fox ;)

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Don Johnstone

June 24th 05, 11:17 AM

I would question the 99% but surely theproblem is that
the 1% tend to be spectacular, and stings a bit.

At 02:06 24 June 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 23 Jun 2005 21:27:25 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>
>>Now here's a question. Given the answer above why when
>>the wing drops at the start of a take off run (winch
>>or aero-tow) does everyone almost without exception
>>try and lift the downgoing wing with aileron?
>
>.... because it works in 99 percent of the cases?
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

Edward Lockhart

June 24th 05, 11:18 AM

At 22:24 23 June 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:

snip

>OK, so how would you described the difference. How
>far does the wing
>have to drop before /you/ use spin recovery rather
>than stall
>recovery? I'm genuinely interested: it's not supposed
>to be a trick question in any way.
>
>Ian

Its not about how far the wing has dropped, its about
whether the glider has started to rotate about the
dropped wing.

A wing drop stall has a lot of roll, some pitch but
not much yaw so your first action is to unstall the
wings by moving the stick forward.

If you've been slow to intiate the recovery, the glider
will start to yaw/rotate around the dropped wing and
once this has happened, your first action should be
full opposite rudder.

Ed
>

Bill Gribble

June 24th 05, 12:10 PM

Edward Lockhart > writes
>Its not about how far the wing has dropped, its about whether the
>glider has started to rotate about the dropped wing.

I think //that's// the answer the question was looking for.

>If you've been slow to intiate the recovery, the glider will start to
>yaw/rotate around the dropped wing and once this has happened, your
>first action should be full opposite rudder.

Or the nose drop self-corrects the stall and the glider develops into a
spiral dive, in which case centring the controls and kicking in a
boot-full of opposite rudder is only going to delay recovery in the face
of a now rapidly approaching Vne.

Despite knowing the difference, being practised and familiar with the
characteristics, recovery and differences of both, it's the prospect of
mistaking a spiral dive for a spin in the adrenaline rush of the moment
that actually still scares me, despite the fact that I quite enjoy being
upside down in a glider ;)

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

HL Falbaum

June 24th 05, 01:16 PM

A careful read of the Minden accident report will reveal what two very
experinced pilots did. The owner P1 was a famous glider pilot, and P2 was a
WW II trained Naval Aviator, also famous. Eyewitness reports (in the NTSB
report) stated that the rotation had stopped, the glider nosed down, then
the wings bent up to about 45 deg, then failed. The spoilers were found
actuated. The wings broke just outboard of the spoiler. The report refers to
an interconnction between the flaps and the spoiler, full spoiler also
produces full flap. The report also states time for the glider to accelerate
to Vne and Vd, indicating quite rapid acceration.

Further in the report it is indicated that the N4DM was certified by JAR
with exceptions for stall/spin behavior.

The implication is that the pilot(s) stopped the yaw, the glider dropped
it's nose and started accelerating as expected, and then at or above Vd,
spoilers were actuated, and the wings broke. Neither pilot got out.

The Spanish accident reports notes that the spoilers were found in the
locked position.

So, in summary, one pilot pulled the stick and broke the aircraft, and one
pilot pulled the spoilers and broke the aircraft. Faced with going through
Vd and breaking the aircraft, or trying to recover and breaking the
aircraft--maybe the best chioce is to jump while it's still intact?

--
Hartley Falbaum

"Robert William" > wrote in message
...
> At 02:06 24 June 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:34:41 -0500, Bob Johnson
>>wrote:
>>
>>Frankly spoken, pulling the stick back hard enough
>>to break off the
>>wings shows that the pilot was lacking the most basic
>>skills to fly
>>that bird.
>>
>>
> well, possibly, but having got to the position where
> you could either go through Vd or pull back what would
> YOU do?
>
>
>
>

Stephen

June 24th 05, 02:13 PM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-QjvLCM11RPHz@localhost...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:27:25 UTC, Don Johnstone
> > wrote:
>
>> The answer is again simple and goes to recognition.
>> A stall with wing drop is just that and provided action
>> is taken to solve that problem, unstall the wing, the
>> a spin will be prevented. A spin is the result of failure
>> at the first step for whatever reason. Everyone properly
>> trained will know the difference.
>
> OK, so how would you described the difference. How far does the wing
> have to drop before /you/ use spin recovery rather than stall
> recovery? I'm genuinely interested: it's not supposed to be a trick
> question in any way.
>
> Ian

What do we think about picking up the wing with rudder when in a stall with
wing drop? It's not the BGA method and I'm troubled by someone who
recommends it.

Stephen

[email protected]

June 24th 05, 03:32 PM

Hmmm,

disagree in practice if not in principle. Bending and twisting moments
are much greater with increasing span. And a certain degree of symmetry
is assumed in measuring load limits. Contol inputs will significanly
change the lift distribution across the span (the squatcheloid). So
will twist in the wing. Al Blackburn's point, and I take it to heart,
is that design requirements don't look at failure modes under a variety
of assymetric lift distributions.

Consider the deployment of one spoiler cap during the spiral dive
recovery with deflected ailerons to recover from a steep bank.

The lesson I take away is to be very thoughful in applying the controls
under high load.

Stefan

June 24th 05, 03:53 PM

HL Falbaum wrote:

> Further in the report it is indicated that the N4DM was certified by JAR
> with exceptions for stall/spin behavior.

How so? You cannot get a glider certificated without adhering to all JAR
22 requirements.

> So, in summary, one pilot pulled the stick and broke the aircraft, and one
> pilot pulled the spoilers and broke the aircraft.

Wrong. Neither of the two would have done any damage. They broke the
glider by doing both things at the same time.

Stefan

[email protected]

June 24th 05, 03:56 PM

Most important is recognition of prestall and initial departure. Since
the spin is a product of yaw moment at departure, you can prevent a
spin with coordinated controls alone. IE, modern aircraft must be
"helped" into the spin. (Put another way, the vertical stabilizer
creates enough yaw dampening to prevent autorotaion at stall so long no
pro spin control imputs are made. Since there are two yaw controls,
that would mean pro rudder or anti stick.) Thus, any prestall or
initial departure that is met with a release of back pressure and use
of coordinated controls to level the wings will produce the desired
effect before a spin or spiral dive can develop. Even if you choose not
to release back pressure, you shouldn't spin. Instead, you might find
yourself in a secondary stall. The longer it takes to apply these
simple actions, the less likely that it will produce an immediate
remedy, as the aircraft will continue into either a spin or spiral dive.

[email protected]

June 24th 05, 04:01 PM

That would be sasquatcheloid assymetry, typically only encountered in
the high Sierra during the winter. It would be much more manageable (if
not entirely polite), if they hitched their rides in pairs.

Bill Gribble

June 24th 05, 04:10 PM

Stephen ]> writes
>What do we think about picking up the wing with rudder when in a stall
>with wing drop? It's not the BGA method and I'm troubled by someone
>who recommends it.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Say, right wing drops in a
stall so this "method" would advocate kicking in left rudder as you move
the stick forwards to alleviate the stall?

Personally, the last thing I'd do when the aircraft was in a stalled
state, whether or not a wing drop was involved, would be to
intentionally use the rudder in an uncoordinated fashion. That is,
unless I actually wanted to spin.

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Bill Gribble

June 24th 05, 04:35 PM

Stefan > writes
>Wrong. Neither of the two would have done any damage. They broke the
>glider by doing both things at the same time.

No. With the Spanish tragedy the pilots didn't open the airbrakes but
the P1 broke the wings by pulling back too hard. Presumably it wasn't
necessarily Vne that broke the wings but excessive load (pulling back
too hard in a panic) once past maximum maneuvouring speed? Given the
P1's self-confessed lack of currency in spin-training (paraphrased from
memory; "did it once twenty years ago and swore never again") is it fair
to say that without the panic from an unpractised situation the spin and
resulting dive recovery might not have broken the wings? Limiting your
spin recovery to just pulling back hard is going to have unfortunate
consequences which ever way it turns out. That said, it was a terrible
thing to happen and my heart really does go out to the pilot and his
family.

The Minden tragedy involved opened airbrakes which in turn contributed
to breaking the wing. Still from pulling back too hard, but in quite
different circumstances where "too hard" might not have been so apparent
because of the reduction in wing area and thus perceived wing-loading.
But had the airbrakes not been out the wing might have sustained the
load. Though Vne may then have been passed.

So it would seem the answer is to not open the airbrakes but respect the
yellow band on your ASI when loading the aircraft with g. Even if this
means passing through Vne?

Or, if you do open the airbrakes in a last ditch attempt to avoid
breaching Vne be even more respectful with the loading when pulling out
of the dive. But, between the devil and the deep blue sea you're better
off not having stepped out onto the gunwale in the first place :(

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Andrew Warbrick

June 24th 05, 04:38 PM

At 15:12 24 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>HL Falbaum wrote:
>
>> Further in the report it is indicated that the N4DM
>>was certified by JAR
>> with exceptions for stall/spin behavior.
>
>How so? You cannot get a glider certificated without
>adhering to all JAR
>22 requirements.
>
>> So, in summary, one pilot pulled the stick and broke
>>the aircraft, and one
>> pilot pulled the spoilers and broke the aircraft.
>
>Wrong. Neither of the two would have done any damage.
>They broke the
>glider by doing both things at the same time.
>
>Stefan
>
No, in the accident in Spain which started this thread,
all evidence points to the brakes not being deployed,
at all.

Stefan

June 24th 05, 06:53 PM

Andrew Warbrick wrote:

> No, in the accident in Spain which started this thread,
> all evidence points to the brakes not being deployed,
> at all.

Please read the thread before commenting. HLF, to whom I was responding,
was explicitely referring to the Minden accident.

Stefan

Stefan

June 24th 05, 06:58 PM

Bill Gribble wrote:

> But, between the devil and the deep blue sea you're better

JAR 22 requires that a glider can be recovered from a spin of at least 5
full turns (or the number at which the spin transfers to a spiral, if
that number is smaller) by applying the "standard procedure" and without
exceeding the load limits. Last I've heard there are a couple of Nimbi
4DT registered in Germany and other European countries. Which means they
are JAR certificated, hence...

Stefan

Chris Reed

June 24th 05, 07:01 PM

I think it's misleading to say that modern aircraft "must be 'helped'
into the spin". There are some circumstances when a spin entry can be
made without any "odd" control inputs at all.

One of my favourite exercises for my annual checkouts as a UK Basic
Instructor is the spin off a simulated winch launch (only try this at
height with an appropriate instructor with you!). Simulate a winch
launch by diving to 90 kt and then pulling up at 45 degrees. As the
speed drops to about 60 kt cry "BANG - cable break", and push over into
the normal flying attitude. The moment normal attitude is reached, begin
a co-ordinated turn.

All will be fine for a second or so, as you are flying at reduced G.
However, once the G comes back on many gliders will roll smoothly (no
buffeting) into a spin so fast that there is little you can do about it
(though the purpose of the exercise is to show the spin entry and then a
recovery, so I've not tried reducing back pressure as the wing drops).
The Puchacz is excellent for this.

My understanding is that although everything looks fine, in fact you are
flying below 1G stall speed (possible because of the reduced G resulting
from the pushover, which is why BGA training requires you to push over
beyond the normal attitude after a cable break, monitor the airspeed and
not turn until a safe speed is regained). When 1G is restored the wings
stall, but because you're already in a turn the down wing stalls earlier
and autorotation ensues.

If you think about it, an aggressive pull up into a thermal coupled with
turning a little later than normal might produce similar effects.

I believe there are a number of other modes of spin entry without
unusual control movements, though you would need a far more experienced
pilot than me to explain them.

This is not to say that a glider in normal flight will depart into a
spin without abuse of the controls, but I think it important to
recognise that co-ordinated flight is not an *absolute* protection and
to understand when extra precautions are required (and what those
precautions are).

wrote:
> Most important is recognition of prestall and initial departure. Since
> the spin is a product of yaw moment at departure, you can prevent a
> spin with coordinated controls alone. IE, modern aircraft must be
> "helped" into the spin. (Put another way, the vertical stabilizer
> creates enough yaw dampening to prevent autorotaion at stall so long no
> pro spin control imputs are made. Since there are two yaw controls,
> that would mean pro rudder or anti stick.) Thus, any prestall or
> initial departure that is met with a release of back pressure and use
> of coordinated controls to level the wings will produce the desired
> effect before a spin or spiral dive can develop. Even if you choose not
> to release back pressure, you shouldn't spin. Instead, you might find
> yourself in a secondary stall. The longer it takes to apply these
> simple actions, the less likely that it will produce an immediate
> remedy, as the aircraft will continue into either a spin or spiral dive.
>

Don Johnstone

June 24th 05, 08:41 PM

I agrre with most of this except the exceed VNe bit.
The damger from exceeding VNe is flutter and flutter
WILL break the aircraft. I think the last paragraph
is the only option.

The only time a pilot (test pilots excepted) is likely
to experience a spin in a big wing aeroplane is if
it happens accidentally. Non aerobatic means no deliberate
spinning (in the UK anyway) which means there is no
opportunity to practice. Makes prevention and early
recognition even more vital.

At 16:00 24 June 2005, Bill Gribble wrote:
>Stefan writes
>>Wrong. Neither of the two would have done any damage.
>>They broke the
>>glider by doing both things at the same time.
>
>No. With the Spanish tragedy the pilots didn't open
>the airbrakes but
>the P1 broke the wings by pulling back too hard. Presumably
>it wasn't
>necessarily Vne that broke the wings but excessive
>load (pulling back
>too hard in a panic) once past maximum maneuvouring
>speed? Given the
>P1's self-confessed lack of currency in spin-training
>(paraphrased from
>memory; 'did it once twenty years ago and swore never
>again') is it fair
>to say that without the panic from an unpractised situation
>the spin and
>resulting dive recovery might not have broken the wings?
>Limiting your
>spin recovery to just pulling back hard is going to
>have unfortunate
>consequences which ever way it turns out. That said,
>it was a terrible
>thing to happen and my heart really does go out to
>the pilot and his
>family.
>
>The Minden tragedy involved opened airbrakes which
>in turn contributed
>to breaking the wing. Still from pulling back too hard,
>but in quite
>different circumstances where 'too hard' might not
>have been so apparent
>because of the reduction in wing area and thus perceived
>wing-loading.
>But had the airbrakes not been out the wing might have
>sustained the
>load. Though Vne may then have been passed.
>
>So it would seem the answer is to not open the airbrakes
>but respect the
>yellow band on your ASI when loading the aircraft with
>g. Even if this
>means passing through Vne?
>
>Or, if you do open the airbrakes in a last ditch attempt
>to avoid
>breaching Vne be even more respectful with the loading
>when pulling out
>of the dive. But, between the devil and the deep blue
>sea you're better
>off not having stepped out onto the gunwale in the
>first place :(
>
>
>--
>Bill Gribble
>http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
>- Learn from the mistakes of others.
>- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.
>

[email protected]

June 25th 05, 02:08 AM

Interesting set of circumstances. I'll try it, before I comment at
length. However, I will not recover to see if it really is a spin. I
suspect I'll see it become a spiral dive based on previous flight
testing in this regime. But experimentation will tell.

By the way, I do this often, though not in quite the order you state or
for the same reason. I enjoy pointing the nose up 60 degrees or so,
then letting it park. The stall and pitch through is typically well
past vertical. Great fun, and completely self recovering after the
stall break. And much, much more exciting than a wing over.

Chris Reed wrote:
> I think it's misleading to say that modern aircraft "must be 'helped'
> into the spin". There are some circumstances when a spin entry can be
> made without any "odd" control inputs at all.
>
> One of my favourite exercises for my annual checkouts as a UK Basic
> Instructor is the spin off a simulated winch launch (only try this at
> height with an appropriate instructor with you!). Simulate a winch
> launch by diving to 90 kt and then pulling up at 45 degrees. As the
> speed drops to about 60 kt cry "BANG - cable break", and push over into
> the normal flying attitude. The moment normal attitude is reached, begin
> a co-ordinated turn.
>
> All will be fine for a second or so, as you are flying at reduced G.
> However, once the G comes back on many gliders will roll smoothly (no
> buffeting) into a spin so fast that there is little you can do about it
> (though the purpose of the exercise is to show the spin entry and then a
> recovery, so I've not tried reducing back pressure as the wing drops).
> The Puchacz is excellent for this.
>
> My understanding is that although everything looks fine, in fact you are
> flying below 1G stall speed (possible because of the reduced G resulting
> from the pushover, which is why BGA training requires you to push over
> beyond the normal attitude after a cable break, monitor the airspeed and
> not turn until a safe speed is regained). When 1G is restored the wings
> stall, but because you're already in a turn the down wing stalls earlier
> and autorotation ensues.
>
> If you think about it, an aggressive pull up into a thermal coupled with
> turning a little later than normal might produce similar effects.
>
> I believe there are a number of other modes of spin entry without
> unusual control movements, though you would need a far more experienced
> pilot than me to explain them.
>
> This is not to say that a glider in normal flight will depart into a
> spin without abuse of the controls, but I think it important to
> recognise that co-ordinated flight is not an *absolute* protection and
> to understand when extra precautions are required (and what those
> precautions are).
>
> wrote:
> > Most important is recognition of prestall and initial departure. Since
> > the spin is a product of yaw moment at departure, you can prevent a
> > spin with coordinated controls alone. IE, modern aircraft must be
> > "helped" into the spin. (Put another way, the vertical stabilizer
> > creates enough yaw dampening to prevent autorotaion at stall so long no
> > pro spin control imputs are made. Since there are two yaw controls,
> > that would mean pro rudder or anti stick.) Thus, any prestall or
> > initial departure that is met with a release of back pressure and use
> > of coordinated controls to level the wings will produce the desired
> > effect before a spin or spiral dive can develop. Even if you choose not
> > to release back pressure, you shouldn't spin. Instead, you might find
> > yourself in a secondary stall. The longer it takes to apply these
> > simple actions, the less likely that it will produce an immediate
> > remedy, as the aircraft will continue into either a spin or spiral dive.
> >

Andrew Warbrick

June 25th 05, 10:49 AM

At 18:12 24 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Andrew Warbrick wrote:
>
>> No, in the accident in Spain which started this thread,
>> all evidence points to the brakes not being deployed,
>> at all.
>
>Please read the thread before commenting. HLF, to whom
>I was responding,
>was explicitely referring to the Minden accident.
>
>Stefan
>
I'll let that pass with the suggestion that you read
the thread more carefully before flaming people. Enough
said.

[email protected]

June 25th 05, 01:54 PM

A little consideration before I go try this in the air. First, it is
possible to stall a glider while coordinated. No epiphany there. If you
stall in a bank, you are likely to have the low wing drop, for the
reasons Chris gave. This, however, should not result in a spin.
UNLESS... given the variables Chris has introduced, we have a glider
that is potentially flying well below its 1G stall speed. This means
that the force available to the vertical stabilizer to dampen a yawing
motion is significantly diminished. So then is the power of the rudder.
Adverse yaw of the ailerons is increased at the stall. Harmonization
(ie, required pilot control inputs to maintain coordinated flight)
changes as the horizontal stab is now operating at less than design
speeds. Interesting. There would seem to be a crossover in this regime,
where even if the contols are harmonized (given the relative torques
available to VS and ailerons), there simply may not be enough
weathervaning potential in the VS to prevent autorotation if a stall
develops at the wingtip.

Is it safe to say that winch launching is an aerobatic maneuver, and
therefore requires very specific training techniques since the glider
is likely to be flown outside its design limits? Also, it seems the key
to avoiding this situation is to avoid the stall, which means no sudden
snatching back of the stick (even to neutral) once a "normal" attitude
is achieved. Since this situation is likely to occur near the ground,
where the horizon is not a particularly useful airspeed indicator, do
you teach close monitoring of airspeed throughout the recovery? And a
complicating factor... if there is already a bank during the recovery,
how do you address it? You've noted that AOA differential is enough to
snap the glider into a spin. Attempting to level the wings would seem
to only aggrevate any impending tip stall.

I'm not unfamiliar with this regime. Though I typically don't turn at
the top of a hard pull into a thermal (I generally start the turn
during the pull, if I'm going to turn at all), I do on occasion decide
that I've misjudged the thermal's size and its worth a turn. However,
the glider's roll is typically so slow, I find myself moving the stick
well forward (and sometimes dumping flaps) to increase the roll rate...
a normal reaction to sluggish controls near the stall. So again, I'm
wondering that the pilot isn't introducing an aggrevating factor
(misuse of the elevator), though admittedly, I hadn't considered this
narrow flight band when addressing the first, best recovery to an
unaticipated loss of control.

Chris Reed wrote:
> I think it's misleading to say that modern aircraft "must be 'helped'
> into the spin". There are some circumstances when a spin entry can be
> made without any "odd" control inputs at all.
>
> One of my favourite exercises for my annual checkouts as a UK Basic
> Instructor is the spin off a simulated winch launch (only try this at
> height with an appropriate instructor with you!). Simulate a winch
> launch by diving to 90 kt and then pulling up at 45 degrees. As the
> speed drops to about 60 kt cry "BANG - cable break", and push over into
> the normal flying attitude. The moment normal attitude is reached, begin
> a co-ordinated turn.
>
> All will be fine for a second or so, as you are flying at reduced G.
> However, once the G comes back on many gliders will roll smoothly (no
> buffeting) into a spin so fast that there is little you can do about it
> (though the purpose of the exercise is to show the spin entry and then a
> recovery, so I've not tried reducing back pressure as the wing drops).
> The Puchacz is excellent for this.
>
> My understanding is that although everything looks fine, in fact you are
> flying below 1G stall speed (possible because of the reduced G resulting
> from the pushover, which is why BGA training requires you to push over
> beyond the normal attitude after a cable break, monitor the airspeed and
> not turn until a safe speed is regained). When 1G is restored the wings
> stall, but because you're already in a turn the down wing stalls earlier
> and autorotation ensues.
>
> If you think about it, an aggressive pull up into a thermal coupled with
> turning a little later than normal might produce similar effects.
>
> I believe there are a number of other modes of spin entry without
> unusual control movements, though you would need a far more experienced
> pilot than me to explain them.
>
> This is not to say that a glider in normal flight will depart into a
> spin without abuse of the controls, but I think it important to
> recognise that co-ordinated flight is not an *absolute* protection and
> to understand when extra precautions are required (and what those
> precautions are).
>
> wrote:
> > Most important is recognition of prestall and initial departure. Since
> > the spin is a product of yaw moment at departure, you can prevent a
> > spin with coordinated controls alone. IE, modern aircraft must be
> > "helped" into the spin. (Put another way, the vertical stabilizer
> > creates enough yaw dampening to prevent autorotaion at stall so long no
> > pro spin control imputs are made. Since there are two yaw controls,
> > that would mean pro rudder or anti stick.) Thus, any prestall or
> > initial departure that is met with a release of back pressure and use
> > of coordinated controls to level the wings will produce the desired
> > effect before a spin or spiral dive can develop. Even if you choose not
> > to release back pressure, you shouldn't spin. Instead, you might find
> > yourself in a secondary stall. The longer it takes to apply these
> > simple actions, the less likely that it will produce an immediate
> > remedy, as the aircraft will continue into either a spin or spiral dive.
> >

Bill Daniels

June 25th 05, 02:50 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> Is it safe to say that winch launching is an aerobatic maneuver, and
> therefore requires very specific training techniques since the glider
> is likely to be flown outside its design limits?

Absolutely not true. Winch launch and the associated maneuvers are well
within the design limits of any modern glider. Winch launch is not an
aerobatic maneuver.

>
> Chris Reed wrote:
> > One of my favourite exercises for my annual checkouts as a UK Basic
> > Instructor is the spin off a simulated winch launch (only try this at
> > height with an appropriate instructor with you!). Simulate a winch
> > launch by diving to 90 kt and then pulling up at 45 degrees. As the
> > speed drops to about 60 kt cry "BANG - cable break", and push over into
> > the normal flying attitude. The moment normal attitude is reached, begin
> > a co-ordinated turn.

One of my favorites too but it needs to be understood that, in Chris Reed's
example, the glider is at a very high AOA and deeply stalled, or will be as
soon as 1G is re-established. The ASI will only be indicating 10 - 15
knots. Initiating a turn while in a deep stall will cause a wing drop and a
spin entry - no surprise here. This 'feels' normal only because of the
normal glide attitude. It is a variant of an accelerated stall.

This maneuver is for instructors so they can anticipate the results if a
student botches a wire break recovery. I've sometimes used it with student
to demonstrate WHY the nose needs to be well down and the airspeed seen to
be above best L/D and increasing before initiating a turn. In all cases,
this practice maneuver is done at a safe altitude.

To further explain, if a wire break occurs during the nose high part of a
winch launch, it's very likely that the best landing option is straight
ahead. When the glider is high enough that a turn is needed, the nose
attitude will be lower and the height AGL will be much greater.

Bill Daniels

Chris Gadsby

June 26th 05, 01:14 AM

> Chris Reed wrote:
>
>>> > One of my favourite exercises for my annual checkouts as a UK Basic
>>> > Instructor is the spin off a simulated winch launch (only try this at
>>> > height with an appropriate instructor with you!). Simulate a winch
>>> > launch by diving to 90 kt and then pulling up at 45 degrees. As the
>>> > speed drops to about 60 kt cry "BANG - cable break", and push over into
>>> > the normal flying attitude. The moment normal attitude is reached, begin
>>> > a co-ordinated turn.

I've recently been doing this as a student and personally I found it a very
valuable lesson as (a) it required no "forcing" from the instructor to initiate
the spin and (b) it makes you realise how quickly you can transition from an
apparently normal flying attitude into a serious situation.

Chris Gadsby

[email protected]

June 26th 05, 12:57 PM

Bill,

In fact, at least according to US regs, a winch launch IS an aerobatic
manuever. But that wasn't my point. If normal recovery from a normal
operation places the pilot on the ragged edge of a deep stall, then I
think it best to characterize the operation as "ab"normal., requiring
reactions unique to that environment. And thus my toying with the term
aerobatic.

There remains a problem with this argument, however. Maybe the subject
of a different thread.

BTW, have you demonstrated this maneuver without revocery? IE, have you
left the controls in place to let the spin fully develop?

Bill Daniels

June 26th 05, 02:51 PM

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Bill,
>
> In fact, at least according to US regs, a winch launch IS an aerobatic
> manuever.

I believe you are referring to the +-30 degrees pitch and +-45 degrees bank
definition of aerobatics. I believe there is an exclusion for aircraft for
which these are normal maneuvers. Gliders routinely exceed these values
thus they are not considered aerobatic for gliders.

> But that wasn't my point. If normal recovery from a normal
> operation places the pilot on the ragged edge of a deep stall, then I
> think it best to characterize the operation as "ab"normal., requiring
> reactions unique to that environment. And thus my toying with the term
> aerobatic.

Normal winch operation does not place the glider on the ragged edge of a
stall. A normal launch places the max AOA very near that for best L/D. A
wire break handled properly with a prompt pushover is flown at a still lower
AOA with the airspeed not dropping below 1.3 x Vs or so. The margin is even
greater when you consider that the pushover is at less than one G so the
stall airspeed is lower.

The wire break training maneuver described by Chris is to show an instructor
candidate what can happen if the student is allowed to mis-handle the wire
break and is WAY outside normal operation.

The whole point is to drum into the instructors who will then insist that
his students learn that the nose must be promptly lowered well below normal
glide and the airspeed seen to be at a safe value and increasing before any
thought is given to a turn. This is to establish and maintain a large
safety margin. In many cases no turn is necessary and the glider lands on
the remaining runway.
>
>
> BTW, have you demonstrated this maneuver without recovery? IE, have you
> left the controls in place to let the spin fully develop?

Yes, It is a normal spin with a normal recovery at least with the trainers
in common use.

The wire break recovery being discussed here is safer and less dramatic than
the equivalent airtow maneuver consisting of a 200 foot AGL release on
departure and a turn back to the runway.

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

June 27th 05, 12:38 PM

Silly me, playing too loosely with terms.

What interests me is that recovery from a cable break, if misapplied,
appears to place the pilot in a very unusual situation. This flight
condition was presented to put into question the abolutism of some
simple control movements that should keep pilots out of danger of loss
of control. So my question becomes one of instructional emphasis. Since
some problems evolve so quickly that thoughtful consideration isn't
always a best first course, some absolutes are needed. But if you are
flying outside normal flight conditions (IE, aerobatics or cable break
recoveries), those absolutes might not apply. Yanking the stick back to
neutral to fix the horizon on the canopy at the top of a cable break
recovery qualifies as departing from normal flight conditions. But I
certainly see the problem you face. We train pilots to take note of a
stick well aft as one sign of an imminent stall. They might not so
quickly recognize that the glider can be stalled with the stick at
neutral under these conditions. Nor might they realize that
coordination of ailerons and rudder has changed at extremely low
airpseed. Thus the opportunity to enter a wing low stall with your
hands and feet in a position that should normally signal safe flight.

All that said, I spent about 15 minutes on Sunday afternoon
experimenting with this maneuver. The results weren't as previously
published, so I'll need to take some time to write up the results. I'll
start this as a new thread.

Bill Daniels wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Bill,
> >
> > In fact, at least according to US regs, a winch launch IS an aerobatic
> > manuever.
>
> I believe you are referring to the +-30 degrees pitch and +-45 degrees bank
> definition of aerobatics. I believe there is an exclusion for aircraft for
> which these are normal maneuvers. Gliders routinely exceed these values
> thus they are not considered aerobatic for gliders.
>
> > But that wasn't my point. If normal recovery from a normal
> > operation places the pilot on the ragged edge of a deep stall, then I
> > think it best to characterize the operation as "ab"normal., requiring
> > reactions unique to that environment. And thus my toying with the term
> > aerobatic.
>
> Normal winch operation does not place the glider on the ragged edge of a
> stall. A normal launch places the max AOA very near that for best L/D. A
> wire break handled properly with a prompt pushover is flown at a still lower
> AOA with the airspeed not dropping below 1.3 x Vs or so. The margin is even
> greater when you consider that the pushover is at less than one G so the
> stall airspeed is lower.
>
> The wire break training maneuver described by Chris is to show an instructor
> candidate what can happen if the student is allowed to mis-handle the wire
> break and is WAY outside normal operation.
>
> The whole point is to drum into the instructors who will then insist that
> his students learn that the nose must be promptly lowered well below normal
> glide and the airspeed seen to be at a safe value and increasing before any
> thought is given to a turn. This is to establish and maintain a large
> safety margin. In many cases no turn is necessary and the glider lands on
> the remaining runway.
> >
> >
> > BTW, have you demonstrated this maneuver without recovery? IE, have you
> > left the controls in place to let the spin fully develop?
>
> Yes, It is a normal spin with a normal recovery at least with the trainers
> in common use.
>
> The wire break recovery being discussed here is safer and less dramatic than
> the equivalent airtow maneuver consisting of a 200 foot AGL release on
> departure and a turn back to the runway.
>
> Bill Daniels

Stefan

June 27th 05, 01:01 PM

wrote:

> But if you are
> flying outside normal flight conditions (IE, aerobatics or cable break
> recoveries),

A cable brake during a winch launch is a perfectly normal flight
condition, and as such, is regulariliy trained. Maybe I'm wrong, but it
seems you didn't do many winch launches, did you?

Stefan

Don Johnstone

June 27th 05, 01:49 PM

Sorry I do not see that finding yourself in a condition
where the nose is well up above the horizon, airspeed
rapidly decaying with the possibility of increase wing
load from hanging cable can be described as 'normal'.
It is a situation we train pilots to recover from but
it also goes against the normal training in that the
reference to the horizon means less than normal.
During the launch the attitude to of the glider to
the relative airflow is within the normal parameters.
As soon as the launch fails, for whatever reason, the
situation becomes abnormal. Lowering the nose to an
attitude relative to the horizon will not result in
instant recovery.
My way of teaching was for the student to carry out
the corrective action and then ask a simple questions.
Do I have the approach attitude? Answer no, correct,
answer yes then 'Do I have the approach airspeed? answer
no, check response to answer yes, if that is still
yes then wait until the answer to the airspeed question
is yes. When the answer to both questions is yes, then
and only then decide on the most appropriate course
of action and implement.

Works for me and I have survived 10000 winch launches

At 12:18 27 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
wrote:
>
>> But if you are
>> flying outside normal flight conditions (IE, aerobatics
>>or cable break
>> recoveries),
>
>A cable brake during a winch launch is a perfectly
>normal flight
>condition, and as such, is regulariliy trained. Maybe
>I'm wrong, but it
>seems you didn't do many winch launches, did you?
>
>Stefan
>

Bill Daniels

June 27th 05, 01:52 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
Yanking the stick back to
> neutral to fix the horizon on the canopy at the top of a cable break
> recovery qualifies as departing from normal flight conditions.

We agree. This is the reason for the training scenario which teaches
avoidance of this situation.

> But I certainly see the problem you face. We train pilots to take note of
a
> stick well aft as one sign of an imminent stall. They might not so
> quickly recognize that the glider can be stalled with the stick at
> neutral under these conditions.

To stop the nose at the normal gliding attitude after a wire break requires
a powerful elevator and full back stick. This is definitely a pilot induced
stall resulting from a mis-use of the elevator. However, accident records
show that this has occasionally been the cause of a spin accident so the
training scenario was added. To repeat what I wrote earlier, this is merely
a slight variant of an accelerated stall. If the stick were held neutral,
the nose would fall through to a steep nose down attitude. This is not the
best technique but it wouldn't result in a deep stall.

Bill Daniels

Andreas Maurer

June 27th 05, 02:07 PM

On 26 Jun 2005 04:57:20 -0700, wrote:

>In fact, at least according to US regs, a winch launch IS an aerobatic
>manuever. But that wasn't my point. If normal recovery from a normal
>operation places the pilot on the ragged edge of a deep stall, then I
>think it best to characterize the operation as "ab"normal., requiring
>reactions unique to that environment. And thus my toying with the term
>aerobatic.

LMAO.

Bye
Andreas

Stefan

June 27th 05, 02:16 PM

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Sorry I do not see that finding yourself in a condition
> where the nose is well up above the horizon, airspeed
> rapidly decaying with the possibility of increase wing
> load from hanging cable can be described as 'normal'.

We can argue the meaning of the word normal. For me, everything which
happens from time to time and is no surprize is normal. In winch
launches, cable breakes do occur and are to be expected. So they are
normal me, just a variant. But there's no need to argue about this word.

> It is a situation we train pilots to recover from but
> it also goes against the normal training in that the
> reference to the horizon means less than normal.

Again, what is normal? In flat land, during normal flight, the horizon
is the reference, so that's normal. In mountains, having no natural
horizon but only an imaginary one is normal. And in a winch launch, not
referring to the horizon is normal, at least to me.

> Lowering the nose to an
> attitude relative to the horizon will not result in
> instant recovery.

Exactly, that's why, after a cable break (or after "normal" release, for
that matter), ist "normal" not to refer to the horizon in the same way
as during free flight. Different conditions, different techniques.
Nothing abnormal.

> My way of teaching was for the student to carry out

I'm sure you instruct your students correctly. The only thing I jumped
on was the statement that there was something "abnormal" in a winch
launch. Again, different conditions require different techniques, which
means different normalities.

This is the approach I take: Normality depends on cirumstance, so
broaden your view and your repertoire of techniques.

Stefan

[email protected]

June 27th 05, 02:38 PM

No. Several dozen.

BTW,

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional
maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an
abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal
flight. This is from the US FARs. While we can discuss ad nauseum
whether a winch launch is an aerobatic maneuver... (and really it
isn't), it clearly requries control motions that constitute aerobatic
flight, and as such represent a "special" set of circumstances.

Note that Chris introduced me to a manuever which can be accurately
described as outside the parameters of normal flight (IE, abrupt change
in aircraft attitude). In preparing to defend the efficacy of winch
launching, you're missing my point. There is a disconnect between the
control actions required for safe recovery from a cable break and the
correction of a stall and/or dropping wing during normal flight. My
point is that the cable break recovery is a special case and needs to
be discussed in depth, and differentiated from the "normal" control
movements to establish and maintain controlled flight. But I digress.
This is the subject of new thread.

BTW, I learned to winch launch under the tutelage of a BGA instructor
in Britain. This concern of the snap spin was never discussed. Recovery
of airspeed, certainly, but no warning against starting a turn.

Per the particulars of earlier notes in this thread, I'll offer some
opinions at length based on what I experienced in my glider yesterday,
but it'll be a few days before I can take the time to document them.

Stefan wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > But if you are
> > flying outside normal flight conditions (IE, aerobatics or cable break
> > recoveries),
>
> A cable brake during a winch launch is a perfectly normal flight
> condition, and as such, is regulariliy trained. Maybe I'm wrong, but it
> seems you didn't do many winch launches, did you?
>
> Stefan

Bill Daniels

June 27th 05, 02:48 PM

I want to thank Don and Stefan and others from Europe and the UK for
stepping in here.

I am fighting a lonely battle to convince my fellow USA pilots that winch
launch is a perfectly normal way to launch gliders and not some invention of
the devil. Those few US pilots who have experienced a winch launch have
most likely done so using horrendously inadequate equipment that would not
have been allowed to operate in your countries. There is no standard
training manuals so each instructor makes up their own. The results range
from hilarious to deadly.

With oil prices exceeding $60US/barrel in the last few days, and aviation
fuel prices heading into uncharted territory, the viability of our 'air tow
only' soaring operations comes into question. If oil prices continue on to
$100/barrel, as the world bank and many investment houses predict, the US
soaring community is in for some rough times if we don't quickly adopt a
more fuel efficient launch method.

To quickly shift to winch launch means that we will have to adopt the best
practices of other countries who have developed winch launch to a high level
of performance and safety.

I appreciate your continued inputs.

Bill Daniels

Bill Gribble

June 27th 05, 02:56 PM

Stefan > writes
>I'm sure you instruct your students correctly. The only thing I jumped
>on was the statement that there was something "abnormal" in a winch
>launch. Again, different conditions require different techniques, which
>means different normalities.

I think we're generally agreed that the conditions during a routine
winch launch are quite "normal" for a glider and its usual modes of
flight.

The assertion, which I agree with, is that the conditions of a launch
failure are abnormal to the normal modes of operation for the glider and
so need peculiar training and discipline to handle safely. But that's no
more a slur against winch launching than the risk of a turbulence
induced incipient spin is a discouragement to thermalling a glider. As
long as you know better than to just "pull back hard on the stick" to
prevent the spin developing and don't try to scratch away from stupidly
low heights it's a non-issue.

>This is the approach I take: Normality depends on cirumstance, so
>broaden your view and your repertoire of techniques.

However, the obvious extension of such a relativistic view is to argue
that abnormality is a fabrication of perception and that everything can
be termed "normal" within the context of itself. Which may be all well
and good but is catastrophically useless when it comes to defining
anything in terms that are any more than halfway useful.

That said, I can't say I don't agree with you ;)

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

[email protected]

June 27th 05, 03:02 PM

I found it difficult, in practice, to pull the stick back far enough to
park the nose on the horizon. Very couterintuitive (for me, at least),
though I can see how any pilot at low altitude might let a canopy full
of terrain misinform his better judgement.

BTW, throughout a dozen or more of these maneuvers, the glider never
spun. I'll give details. And remember, the point of the exercise wasn't
to show how misapplied controls might cause a sudden spin (this was
more than clear throughout the maneuver), but what would happen if I
paid accute attention to coordination.

[email protected]

June 27th 05, 03:05 PM

Glad to inject some humor into your life.

I too am amused by the risks we accept through habituation. I regularly
take off in tailwinds exceeding 15 knots, with water, on a runway only
2,600 feet long. I'm used to it, and accept the risk as a byproduct of
where I fly. Most pilots would consider these practices insane. As a
result, I stood in a amazement at a US Nationals when pilots were
showing grave concern over the safety of a launch with less than 7
miles per hour of tail wind.

For pilots who winch launch regularly, the definition of normal flight
attitudes is greatly expanded. But I think you'll all agree that it is
a highly specialized type of flying (even if you are used to it). Pull
on the stick to go faster. Push to go slower. If the cable breaks, no
messing around... stick right forward until the nose is well below the
horizon, then ease it back gently, paying attention to your airspeed.
Abrupt control motions, significantly reduced g, large angles of nose
up and nose down, close to the ground, special considerations regarding
turns... sounds to me like a pretty threatening environment, sort of
like taking off downwind at gross from a short runway. Deserves some
special consideration. And occasional reexamination to prevent the
complacency of experience.

Chuckle.

OC

[email protected]

June 27th 05, 03:19 PM

I missed your last paragraph. As I noted to Andreas, it's all a matter
of what you are used to. A 200 foot rope break in the absence of
strong winds or turbulence is completely benign, at least for me,
having done hundreds of them.

What I'm finding interesting is the need to make fairly dramatic
motions of the controls as part of a cable break recovery. So again,
I'll flirt with the term aerobatic, not as a maneveur designed to
thrill and excite and audience or a passenger, but as a way to
differentiate use of the controls given these circumstances.

Even if you fail to observe the moment the rope breaks on aerotow, and
only become aware of it as you fail to maintain position behind the tow
plane, use of the controls is not nearly so dramatic as post cable
break. Nor, apparently, quite as critical. Though I think we can both
agree that they each represent real emergencies demanding preplanned
action.

Don Johnstone

June 27th 05, 04:23 PM

I know we are getting off the original thread but winch
launching holds no fear for me. On the other hand a
rope break on aero tow is something that I have little
experience of. I do however have a plan and that I
believe is the key.

Understanding the problems, the differences if you
like is what training should all be about. In many
ways with the right training winch launching is safer
than aero tow, if it goes wrong you always have the
airfield to land on.

At 14:24 27 June 2005, wrote:
>Glad to inject some humor into your life.
>
>I too am amused by the risks we accept through habituation.
>I regularly
>take off in tailwinds exceeding 15 knots, with water,
>on a runway only
>2,600 feet long. I'm used to it, and accept the risk
>as a byproduct of
>where I fly. Most pilots would consider these practices
>insane. As a
>result, I stood in a amazement at a US Nationals when
>pilots were
>showing grave concern over the safety of a launch with
>less than 7
>miles per hour of tail wind.
>
>For pilots who winch launch regularly, the definition
>of normal flight
>attitudes is greatly expanded. But I think you'll all
>agree that it is
>a highly specialized type of flying (even if you are
>used to it). Pull
>on the stick to go faster. Push to go slower. If the
>cable breaks, no
>messing around... stick right forward until the nose
>is well below the
>horizon, then ease it back gently, paying attention
>to your airspeed.
>Abrupt control motions, significantly reduced g, large
>angles of nose
>up and nose down, close to the ground, special considerations
>regarding
>turns... sounds to me like a pretty threatening environment,
>sort of
>like taking off downwind at gross from a short runway.
>Deserves some
>special consideration. And occasional reexamination
>to prevent the
>complacency of experience.
>
>Chuckle.
>
>OC
>
>

Stefan

June 27th 05, 04:48 PM

wrote:

> What I'm finding interesting is the need to make fairly dramatic
> motions of the controls as part of a cable break recovery. So again,
> I'll flirt with the term aerobatic,

Last weekend I flew in the mountains. Conditions were rough and I had to
make fairly dramatic motions of the controls to keep the blue side up.
I'll log it as an aerobatic flight, then.

> Even if you fail to observe the moment the rope breaks on aerotow, and
> only become aware of it as you fail to maintain position behind the tow
> plane,

Awareness and prompt reaction are indispensable to survive which
launches. A winch launch *is* dangerous, in the way as there is a very
small margin for errors and it asks for your full focus.

Stefan

Ian Johnston

June 27th 05, 04:48 PM

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:23:05 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

: I know we are getting off the original thread but winch
: launching holds no fear for me.

It bleeding terrifies me - but I think that's pretty healthy!

I spend quite a lot of time each year introducing children to the joys
of soldering. After I have explained how hot the iron is, how
important it is not to touch the metal bits, and so on, I ask if
anyone is scared. A few timid hands always go up - at which point I
say "Well done! You've been listening - there are some things in life
which it is right to be scared of, and soldering is one of them".

"Anything to do with aviation, and especially winch launching" is one
of the others, I suggest!

Ian

--

Stefan

June 27th 05, 04:56 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:

> I am fighting a lonely battle to convince my fellow USA pilots that winch
> launch is a perfectly normal way to launch gliders and not some invention of
> the devil.

Just three things to consider:

A which launch brings you to a certain altitude above the site. At some
places, this gives you enough options to find a thermal, at other sites,
it does not.

A winch operation doesn't mix well with other traffic. It's doable, if
everybody is willing.

And, most important: If done correctly, a winch launch is safe. But
there is an extremely small margin for errors. I love winch launches,
but they are dead serious, literally.

Stefan

Ian Johnston

June 27th 05, 05:52 PM

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:48:07 UTC, Stefan >
wrote:

: Last weekend I flew in the mountains. Conditions were rough and I had to
: make fairly dramatic motions of the controls to keep the blue side up.
: I'll log it as an aerobatic flight, then.

All this seems to hinge on what's meant by "aerobatic". Frankly, it
seems like a pretty pointless term to me, since it seems to depend on
the intention of the pilot rather on the manoevres flown. Why, for
example, is a loop aerobatic yet a tight thermalling turn, involving
similar stresses on the glider, is not?

To me, it makes more sense to categorize manoevres as high load / low
load and high risk / low risk, where "load" relates to forces on the
glider and "risk" relates to the speed with which things will go wrong
if the pilot misreacts.

That gives four permutations:

1) low load / low risk (normal flight)
2) low load / high risk (inverted flight)
3) high load / low risk (loop, tight thermalling)
4) high load / high risk (spin or spiral dive recovery)

This is off the top of my head, and I am sure we could argue about the
categories (should there be a "medium" in each case?) and
categorisations (how hard is a loop) for ages.

However, I think I would put many display aerobatic manoevres and
winch launching together in the high load / high risk category: it's
not that winch launching is aerobatic (whatever that means) but it is
also a time when the glider is being flown with higher than normal
structural loadings and when pilot error can cause things to go very
nasty very quickly.

I'd put mountain flying, from the little I have done, in the low load
/ high risk category at the very least, and probably high / high on
rough days.

Ian

--

[email protected]

June 27th 05, 06:34 PM

Ian,

I like your train of thought. As well as decoupling from a term that
has such strong connotations.

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:48:07 UTC, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
> : Last weekend I flew in the mountains. Conditions were rough and I had to
> : make fairly dramatic motions of the controls to keep the blue side up.
> : I'll log it as an aerobatic flight, then.
>
> All this seems to hinge on what's meant by "aerobatic". Frankly, it
> seems like a pretty pointless term to me, since it seems to depend on
> the intention of the pilot rather on the manoevres flown. Why, for
> example, is a loop aerobatic yet a tight thermalling turn, involving
> similar stresses on the glider, is not?
>
> To me, it makes more sense to categorize manoevres as high load / low
> load and high risk / low risk, where "load" relates to forces on the
> glider and "risk" relates to the speed with which things will go wrong
> if the pilot misreacts.
>
> That gives four permutations:
>
> 1) low load / low risk (normal flight)
> 2) low load / high risk (inverted flight)
> 3) high load / low risk (loop, tight thermalling)
> 4) high load / high risk (spin or spiral dive recovery)
>
> This is off the top of my head, and I am sure we could argue about the
> categories (should there be a "medium" in each case?) and
> categorisations (how hard is a loop) for ages.
>
> However, I think I would put many display aerobatic manoevres and
> winch launching together in the high load / high risk category: it's
> not that winch launching is aerobatic (whatever that means) but it is
> also a time when the glider is being flown with higher than normal
> structural loadings and when pilot error can cause things to go very
> nasty very quickly.
>
> I'd put mountain flying, from the little I have done, in the low load
> / high risk category at the very least, and probably high / high on
> rough days.
>
> Ian
>
>
> --

Kilo Charlie

June 28th 05, 12:22 AM

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>I want to thank Don and Stefan and others from Europe and the UK for
> stepping in here.
>
> I am fighting a lonely battle to convince my fellow USA pilots that winch
> launch is a perfectly normal way to launch gliders and not some invention
> of
> the devil.

Bill-

I think that you have a chip on your shoulder re winch launches. I have not
seen a single thread that tries to make winch launches sound like they are
an "invention of the devil". Chris' (OC)point is only pertaining to the
aerodynamics unique to the situation that a glider may be in during a winch
launch cable break. He does not seem to be making any a priori assumptions
that anything is dangerous about winch launching. I think that the
discussion re that unique situation is not only interesting but may also
possibly pertain to some other scenarios such as a hard pull and turn into a
thermal, so would like to have a more detailed understanding of it.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Andreas Maurer

June 28th 05, 12:31 AM

On 27 Jun 2005 07:05:00 -0700, wrote:

>
>For pilots who winch launch regularly, the definition of normal flight
>attitudes is greatly expanded. But I think you'll all agree that it is
>a highly specialized type of flying (even if you are used to it). Pull
>on the stick to go faster. Push to go slower. If the cable breaks, no
>messing around... stick right forward until the nose is well below the
>horizon, then ease it back gently, paying attention to your airspeed.
>Abrupt control motions, significantly reduced g, large angles of nose
>up and nose down, close to the ground, special considerations regarding
>turns... sounds to me like a pretty threatening environment, sort of
>like taking off downwind at gross from a short runway. Deserves some
>special consideration. And occasional reexamination to prevent the
>complacency of experience.

Well...
1. Have you ever flown a model glider without radio control? The one
that you pull up with a rope, simulating a winch launch?
Works like a charm. In *any* halfways correctly trimmed real-size
glider you can let go the stick - and your glider will do the launch
for you. Try that in an aerotow.
How many tow pilots did you say have been victims due to
overcontrolled gliders in the last 50 years?

2. It looks as if you are simply afraid of winch launching due to lack
of training/experience. Having more winch launches than I care to
count, my experience is that *any* student pilot learns winch
launching a lot easier than aerotowing.

3. I had more than enough aerotows where any engine problem of the tow
plane would have led to a bad crash because we were low over an
unlandable area. I prefer by far the winch launch where the complete
airfield is head of me in case of a low cable-break.

4. Recovery from cable-breaks is an extremely straight forward
procedure. Very easy to perform with some training.
What did you say you are doing if you have a rope break in an aerotow
at the end of the runway in 100 ft with unlandable area in front of
you?

5. Sure a winch launch is a highly specialized type of flying. But
isn't flying without any engine at all even more highly specialized?
Imagine that - no engine means that you cannot perform a go-around if
you misjudged your landing approach...

6. Accident statistics definitely prove that winch launching is by far
one of the less risky things you can do if you fly gliders.

Bye
Andreas

Bill Daniels

June 28th 05, 12:55 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> For pilots who winch launch regularly, the definition of normal flight
> attitudes is greatly expanded. But I think you'll all agree that it is
> a highly specialized type of flying (even if you are used to it).

Probably nine out of ten glider launches world wide are by winch. I think
we are the minority using air tow.

> Pull on the stick to go faster. Push to go slower.
Wrong. With a tension controlled winch, pull to slow and push to go faster
just like in free flight. If the glider speeds up when you pull, the winch
driver is giving WAY too much throttle.

> If the cable breaks, no messing around... stick right forward until the
nose is well below the
> horizon, then ease it back gently, paying attention to your airspeed.

No abrupt control inputs are needed. Just lower the nose without undue
delay, insure safe airspeed and land normally

> Abrupt control motions, significantly reduced g, large angles of nose
> up and nose down, close to the ground, special considerations regarding
> turns... sounds to me like a pretty threatening environment, sort of
> like taking off downwind at gross from a short runway. Deserves some
> special consideration. And occasional reexamination to prevent the
> complacency of experience.
>
OC, you really need to get a modern winch checkout. You have some very
strange and wrongheaded ideas about winch launch.

Bill Daniels

a name

June 28th 05, 01:00 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>In article . com>,
says...
>>
>...and I returned only to find out that hantavirus had infected each and
>every member of the household.

Dude. That is saddest thing I have ever heard.

You poor *******.

a name

June 28th 05, 01:11 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>In article >,
says...
>>
>>In article . com>,
says...
>>>
>>...and I returned only to find out that hantavirus had infected each and
>>every member of the household.
>
> Dude. That is saddest thing I have ever heard.
>
> You poor *******.
>
>

Bill Daniels

June 28th 05, 01:50 AM

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:WS%ve.3566$Qo.977@fed1read01...
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I want to thank Don and Stefan and others from Europe and the UK for
> > stepping in here.
> >
> > I am fighting a lonely battle to convince my fellow USA pilots that
winch
> > launch is a perfectly normal way to launch gliders and not some
invention
> > of
> > the devil.
>
> Bill-
>
> I think that you have a chip on your shoulder re winch launches. I have
not
> seen a single thread that tries to make winch launches sound like they are
> an "invention of the devil". Chris' (OC)point is only pertaining to the
> aerodynamics unique to the situation that a glider may be in during a
winch
> launch cable break. He does not seem to be making any a priori
assumptions
> that anything is dangerous about winch launching. I think that the
> discussion re that unique situation is not only interesting but may also
> possibly pertain to some other scenarios such as a hard pull and turn into
a
> thermal, so would like to have a more detailed understanding of it.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>
Point accepted. Without thinking, I was responding to opinions expressed
elsewhere and not in this forked thread or elsewhere on RAS. My apology to
anyone thus offended.

The situation envisioned in the beginning of this thread is a very
specialized case where a pilot fails to lower the nose below what appears to
be normal glide attitude after a wire break real or simulated and then
attempts a turn with the wing deeply stalled. That this sometimes results
in a spin departure should surprise no one.

Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
until the student performs them instinctively. If this training is done
correctly, the pilot will have no difficulty lowering the nose the right
amount after a cable break.

Experimenting with this can expose some 'interesting' glider behaviors.
Only those gliders with the largest up elevator authority can stop the nose
from falling through at the normal glide attitude once the fall-through
starts - it requires full aft stick. Arresting the fall through in this
manner with very little forward speed results in a deeply stalled wing with
the angle of attack possibly exceeding 45 degrees. Small asymmetric control
inputs will induce a spin departure that resembles a snap roll about the
vertical axis. I am always surprised by the very low G forces - the glider
seems to 'fall' into the spin with great ease. Once in the spin, normal
recovery methods work fine.

Bill Daniels

Tony Verhulst

June 28th 05, 02:10 AM

> All this seems to hinge on what's meant by "aerobatic". Frankly, it
> seems like a pretty pointless term to me, since it seems to depend on
> the intention of the pilot rather on the manoevres flown.

In the U.S., it (aerobatic definition - bank greater than 60 degrees,
pitch greater than +/- 30 degrees) determines whether or not parachutes
are required. Other than that, I agree with you.

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

Kilo Charlie

June 28th 05, 04:38 AM

Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp for those of us that
have never done one!

Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches but through this
thread there has not been any mention of what happens at the critical low
level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly also a zone of real
problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert with few, if any
landing options straight ahead. What do you guys teach re breaks at 100
feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but how much altitude does
it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to control the glider for
landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if this is too obvious for
those of you that do it all the time!

Casey

Bill Daniels

June 28th 05, 05:15 AM

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...
> Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp for those of us
that
> have never done one!
>
> Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches but through this
> thread there has not been any mention of what happens at the critical low
> level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly also a zone of
real
> problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert with few, if any
> landing options straight ahead. What do you guys teach re breaks at 100
> feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but how much altitude
does
> it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to control the glider for
> landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if this is too obvious for
> those of you that do it all the time!
>
> Casey
>

Thanks, Casey.

The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery with generous margins be
possible from any height that a cable break occurs. Safety is the product
of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.

If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the runway lies ahead to
receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have full climb airspeed,
approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only be 20 - 30 degrees. A
prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed is all that is
needed to land straight ahead.

If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then the straight ahead
landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight 360 pattern is also
possible. The two options overlap by a good amount of height depending on
the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will be about 45 degrees
nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like 60 degrees) so a more
aggressive pushover is needed.

All these situations will be practiced over and over until the instructor
feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly to each. The student
must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is observed to be at a
safe value and increasing before establishing a glide for a straight ahead
landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.

I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS scary to the
uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally tens of millions of
launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer than air tow.

As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever the tow plane takes you,
I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files, that most air tow
releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point and the glider is rarely
in a thermal at release but must glide around looking for one just like with
a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch re-light will cost you
less than $10.

The latest European winches are getting even heavy gliders to over 1000
meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.

Bill Daniels

Mike I Green

June 28th 05, 06:33 AM

41 years ago I joined the Vultures club in Michigan, a winch only club
where I learned to fly gliders and soar. It was interesting how often a
couple of circles after releasing resulted in a gain in altitude. It
seems that the turbulence of the tow often released a thermal. Our tows
were fifty cents and did we bitch when it went up to seventy five cents.

It is too bad that so many influential pilots in the US have been
knocking winch towing for such a long time. I would guess that half my
aero tows at the 2005 Sports Class Nationals were more difficult than my
typical winch tow. Taking off with a quartering tailwind, flying
through gusts that blew me across the runway, 50 ft above the ground at
the end of the runway and making a slow turn to avoid home sites at 50
knots is not my idea of fun. The tow pilots were fantastic, the line
crews were great, the tasking was extraordinary, interesting and
challenging and every day was a different challenge. John Good, the CD
was not a magician, he was a wizard at setting tasks with the aid of Sam
Zimmerman and the task advisers john Sinclair and Walt Cannon. It was
one hell of a contest, probably the best run and organized that it has
been my privilege to fly.

mg
Bill Daniels wrote:
> "Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
> news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...
>
>>Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp for those of us
>
> that
>
>>have never done one!
>>
>>Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches but through this
>>thread there has not been any mention of what happens at the critical low
>>level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly also a zone of
>
> real
>
>>problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert with few, if any
>>landing options straight ahead. What do you guys teach re breaks at 100
>>feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but how much altitude
>
> does
>
>>it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to control the glider for
>>landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if this is too obvious for
>>those of you that do it all the time!
>>
>>Casey
>>
>
>
> Thanks, Casey.
>
> The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery with generous margins be
> possible from any height that a cable break occurs. Safety is the product
> of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.
>
> If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the runway lies ahead to
> receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have full climb airspeed,
> approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only be 20 - 30 degrees. A
> prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed is all that is
> needed to land straight ahead.
>
> If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then the straight ahead
> landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight 360 pattern is also
> possible. The two options overlap by a good amount of height depending on
> the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will be about 45 degrees
> nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like 60 degrees) so a more
> aggressive pushover is needed.
>
> All these situations will be practiced over and over until the instructor
> feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly to each. The student
> must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is observed to be at a
> safe value and increasing before establishing a glide for a straight ahead
> landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.
>
> I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS scary to the
> uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally tens of millions of
> launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer than air tow.
>
> As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever the tow plane takes you,
> I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files, that most air tow
> releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point and the glider is rarely
> in a thermal at release but must glide around looking for one just like with
> a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch re-light will cost you
> less than $10.
>
> The latest European winches are getting even heavy gliders to over 1000
> meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

M B

June 28th 05, 08:03 AM

At 21:42 22 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>M B wrote:
>
>> In my experience, I have seen and been a part of confusion
>> in
>> the cockpit. One pilot is saying one thing and the
>> other is
>> contradicting it. I've also had both pilots on the
>> controls at the same time, with opposite pressures
>> applied.
>
>I'm more and more, well, surprized, what you have been
>experiencing
>while flying. I've never seen, even less been part
>of such a thing.

Quite common in US accident reports, especially among
very experienced pilots. Airline black box transcripts
almost always
show there was some CRM problem that contributed to
a difficulty. I've seen CRM miscommunications result
in less-than-perfect results several times with others,
too.
Most commonly I've seen it when instructors initiate
emergency procedures as a 'surprise.' Gear-up landing,
and a
landout when too far from the end of the runway on
a
'rope break' procedure where the student was too slow
reacting.

As pilots become more skilled, the reasons for accidents
seem to shift from pure stick skill issues to
other things, particularly CRM. I would guess that
if there
was a black box in every two-seat glider accident,
some CRM problem would be listed as contributing.

>Communicate before the flight, define the roles and
>adhere to it. Who
>will do what? Who will fly in an emergency? Communicate
>during the
>flight, and do so clearly.

Excellent, excellent advice. Something I think that
is not
done formally very often in some places...

>
>And, you may ask, if the other pilot is doing something
>I don't like?
>Well, if I don't trust the other pilot, I won't fly
>with him. If he
>doesn't trust me, I don't want him to fly with me.
>Simple as that, very
>basic CRM stuff. (It needn't be offensive when I say
>I don't like his
>way of flying, because I'm not implying that he's a
>bad pilot, I'm just
>saying our styles are incompatible.)

The trouble is: you have to fly with him once to find
out.
Hopefully it is a benign flight...

>
>I'm surprized that, as it seems, you can become an
>instructor in the USA
>without knowing such basic stuff.

You're not supposed to be able to. CRM is an emphasis

area for all practical tests for all pilot ratings
in the USA.

However, there are something like 14 'emphasis areas'
so
it ends up getting buried, and trivially tested.

And despite the test standards being very specific
in the
'you have the controls' phrase for exchanging controls,

I've had examiners say 'I've got the airplane' and
have
students say other arcane phrases, and sometimes just
release all of the controls completely in a challenging
situation,
with no words at all!

So now I rehearse the 'you have the controls' stuff

for the first flight with everyone, even other instructors!
It seems funny (they should know that, right?) but
I haven't had problems since.

It seems like a lot of non-instructors fly together
in two-seaters,
and don't formalize the CRM stuff. And hey, what are
you gonna
do if one is more experienced than the other? If the
newbie is flying and gets into an emergency, have the
more experienced guy take over? Kind of hard to do
in a split second.

Another post suggested that one of these Nimbus accidents
may have been from one guy doing one thing and the
other guy doing something else unexpected. I wouldn't
be surprised.

My point here is that I think CRM is maybe a bigger
factor in a
lot of 2-seat accidents than the reports show. The
stuff you
talk about as being obvious isn't taught and tested
as
textbook here in the USA, or perhaps just turns into
one among many 'emphasis areas.'

It sounds like in your training this recieved more
emphasis.
Was that formally required for license, or was that
just
informal common-sense? In the USA, in our
Glider Flying Handbook, there isn't anything at all
that I am aware of which talks about tandem seating
and sticks and
dangers of simultaneous pressures on dual controls/CRM
brief before takeoff.

This is a bit of a training gap, in my opinion...

>
>Stefan
>
Mark J. Boyd

Don Johnstone

June 28th 05, 09:05 AM

Just to add to what Bill has said, the really low launch
failure <100 is one of the minor problem areas. If
the launch is flown correctly it can be quite safely
handled. The good point is, as Bill has pointed out
that there is a large amount of airfield still in front
of you. The bad news is that by the time the nose has
been lowered the airspeed may be below the minimum
allowed for the deployment of airbrakes. It may not
be possible to lower the nose any further to increase
the speed because of the proximity to the ground and
therefore a touchdown has to be achieved without using
airbrake. Patience is required as most modern gliders
float a long way even at 50 kts in ground effect. (Grob
103 will travel the length of the 10000ft runway at
Marham from 20ft/60kts) Simulating a launch failure
at this height is not recomended as there is a real
danger that the drogue will inflate as the winch driver
cuts the power and drape itself over the cockpit. The
good news is that such breaks are rare as the strain
on the cable is reducing before increasing again. The
procedure can be simulated by carrying out a faster
than normal approach, pulling up and closing the airbrakes
and then recovering from that situation which puts
the glider in the same situation as a low break but
without the cable in the way.

At 04:30 28 June 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'Kilo Charlie' wrote in message
>news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...
>> Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp
>>for those of us
>that
>> have never done one!
>>
>> Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches
>>but through this
>> thread there has not been any mention of what happens
>>at the critical low
>> level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly
>>also a zone of
>real
>> problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert
>>with few, if any
>> landing options straight ahead. What do you guys
>>teach re breaks at 100
>> feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but
>>how much altitude
>does
>> it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to
>>control the glider for
>> landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if
>>this is too obvious for
>> those of you that do it all the time!
>>
>> Casey
>>
>
>Thanks, Casey.
>
>The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery
>with generous margins be
>possible from any height that a cable break occurs.
> Safety is the product
>of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.
>
>If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the
>runway lies ahead to
>receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have
>full climb airspeed,
>approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only
>be 20 - 30 degrees. A
>prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed
>is all that is
>needed to land straight ahead.
>
>If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then
>the straight ahead
>landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight
>360 pattern is also
>possible. The two options overlap by a good amount
>of height depending on
>the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will
>be about 45 degrees
>nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like
>60 degrees) so a more
>aggressive pushover is needed.
>
>All these situations will be practiced over and over
>until the instructor
>feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly
>to each. The student
>must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is
>observed to be at a
>safe value and increasing before establishing a glide
>for a straight ahead
>landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.
>
>I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS
>scary to the
>uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally
>tens of millions of
>launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer
>than air tow.
>
>As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever
>the tow plane takes you,
>I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files,
>that most air tow
>releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point
>and the glider is rarely
>in a thermal at release but must glide around looking
>for one just like with
>a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch
>re-light will cost you
>less than $10.
>
>The latest European winches are getting even heavy
>gliders to over 1000
>meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>

Marian Aldenhövel

June 28th 05, 01:02 PM

Hi,

> Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
> zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
> until the student performs them instinctively.

Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.

We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
these altitudes and actions out loud.

Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.

Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal speed
and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan as to
what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not heard
of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney
Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest
sweeping majestically across the prairie!" Basil Fawlty

Bill Gribble

June 28th 05, 02:58 PM

Marian Aldenhövel > writes
>We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
>preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
>pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
>these altitudes and actions out loud.

Here in the UK, the last part of our pre-flight check-list is
"Eventualities", the main part of which is planning in advance what to
do in the event of a launch failure. This includes deciding on the
approach speed, and what you are going to do if you can't land ahead,
such as turning downwind, for example, in which case you confirm which
direction such a turn would be in.

It specifically doesn't mention altitude, however (disclaimer: at least
not the way I've been taught!).

The drill if the cable breaks is to put the nose down and hold it down
until you reach the pre-decided speed and assess whether or not you can
land ahead. This specifically isn't done in reference to the altimeter
but visually by how the field looks in front of you, and the preference
is always to land ahead if at all possible. I understand most accidents
from the winch happen after the actual failure, subsequent to the
decision not to land ahead and instead turn.

Though I'm quite compulsive in monitoring my height as I climb during
the launch so always know how high the aircraft //thinks// it is if
there is a failure, the only role the altimeter plays for me after a
cable break will be after I've already established the attitude of the
aircraft to gain flying speed and decided what I'm going to do, at which
point I might back up the decision with a glance at the dial.

I'm fortunate in that the field I fly from is of a size where,
generally, if you can't land ahead you have ample height to turn
downwind and fly an abbreviated circuit. Of course, it doesn't change
the fact that I may not always have this luxury if I fly from elsewhere.

Like you, I approach every winch launch with the expectation it will
fail, and on the occasion that it has have recovered quite
instinctively. That said, on each occasion (whether practised or real),
there has always been the comfort of the drill playing over the rush of
adrenaline in my head, " hold the nose down", "check the speed", "clear
the cable", "land ahead?", "check the speed" even as "instinct" flew the
recovery. I'm of the opinion that instinct alone leads very easily to
complacency, and I suspect that this is the real killer in these
situations.

>Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
>pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
>nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at
>altitude.

I remember when first being taught the recovery, the initial
demonstration was at altitude, which was useful, but it was then
followed up with the instructor pulling the release and demonstrating
for real, from about 100' as I recall.

After that, you could guarantee that if you missed the "Eventualities"
out of your pre-flight checks, the instructor would use that as an
object lesson and pull the release on you, and it was then practised
intermittently at various heights and in various versions in the same
way throughout the rest of your training whenever a mischievous
instructor felt like a change :)

It was also one of the last things emphasised and re-practiced (always
with the instructor pulling the release on the launch, typically without
warning) before you were sent solo - actually, it was the emphasis on
this and noticing my instructor making discrete requests of the ground
crew to go find ballast that led me to guessing what it was he had up
his sleeve when that time came!

Cable-break practice also features heavily in our various check-flights,
especially, I've noticed if we happen to be operating that day from the
shorter cross-runway, where the "land ahead" options are some what
brutally curtailed in comparison to our normal luxury of space!

>Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal speed
>and then attitude the natural thing to do.

The BGA's apparent emphasis on safe winch launch operation is such that
it featured so heavily in my training that even though I still get a
twinge of apprehensive adrenaline when sat attached to the cable
contemplating the launch ahead, I do feel very safe and prepared to deal
with any thing that might go wrong on the launch, backed up by the fact
that on a couple of occasions I've since had cause to prove I myself
able to do just that since going solo.

On the other hand, the idea of a badly timed cable break on aerotow
terrifies me! Then again, I have about 170 wire launches to my name now
compared to just two aerotows ;)

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

F.L. Whiteley

June 28th 05, 03:08 PM

M B wrote:

> At 21:42 22 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>>M B wrote:
>>
>>> In my experience, I have seen and been a part of confusion
>>> in
>>> the cockpit. One pilot is saying one thing and the
>>> other is
>>> contradicting it. I've also had both pilots on the
>>> controls at the same time, with opposite pressures
>>> applied.
>>
>>I'm more and more, well, surprized, what you have been
>>experiencing
>>while flying. I've never seen, even less been part
>>of such a thing.
>
> Quite common in US accident reports, especially among
> very experienced pilots. Airline black box transcripts
> almost always
> show there was some CRM problem that contributed to
> a difficulty. I've seen CRM miscommunications result
> in less-than-perfect results several times with others,
> too.
> Most commonly I've seen it when instructors initiate
> emergency procedures as a 'surprise.' Gear-up landing,
> and a
> landout when too far from the end of the runway on
> a
> 'rope break' procedure where the student was too slow
> reacting.
>
> As pilots become more skilled, the reasons for accidents
> seem to shift from pure stick skill issues to
> other things, particularly CRM. I would guess that
> if there
> was a black box in every two-seat glider accident,
> some CRM problem would be listed as contributing.
>
>>Communicate before the flight, define the roles and
>>adhere to it. Who
>>will do what? Who will fly in an emergency? Communicate
>>during the
>>flight, and do so clearly.
>
> Excellent, excellent advice. Something I think that
> is not
> done formally very often in some places...
>
>>
>>And, you may ask, if the other pilot is doing something
>>I don't like?
>>Well, if I don't trust the other pilot, I won't fly
>>with him. If he
>>doesn't trust me, I don't want him to fly with me.
>>Simple as that, very
>>basic CRM stuff. (It needn't be offensive when I say
>>I don't like his
>>way of flying, because I'm not implying that he's a
>>bad pilot, I'm just
>>saying our styles are incompatible.)
>
> The trouble is: you have to fly with him once to find
> out.
> Hopefully it is a benign flight...
>
>>
>>I'm surprized that, as it seems, you can become an
>>instructor in the USA
>>without knowing such basic stuff.
>
> You're not supposed to be able to. CRM is an emphasis
>
> area for all practical tests for all pilot ratings
> in the USA.
>
> However, there are something like 14 'emphasis areas'
> so
> it ends up getting buried, and trivially tested.
>
> And despite the test standards being very specific
> in the
> 'you have the controls' phrase for exchanging controls,
>
> I've had examiners say 'I've got the airplane' and
> have
> students say other arcane phrases, and sometimes just
> release all of the controls completely in a challenging
> situation,
> with no words at all!
>
> So now I rehearse the 'you have the controls' stuff
>
> for the first flight with everyone, even other instructors!
> It seems funny (they should know that, right?) but
> I haven't had problems since.
>
When I learned in the UK, the practice was

Statement: "You have control"
Response: "I have control"

or

Statement: "I have control" (usually instructor)
Response: "You have control"

It's clear and there is no confusion. Why add a fourth word? Since
presumably if you have the controls, you also have control of the aircraft.
Personally I think it should be the standard between instructor and student
and between pilots flying dual. When I fly dual with another pilot or with
a passenger that might get the stick for a while, I brief this during
pre-flight checks and reiterate it before changing control.

At my club we do something similar with winch launch radio signals during
the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.

"Up slack, up slack, up slack"
"Go, go, go"
"Stop, stop, stop"

I have known of an instructor and tow pilot flying together where no one was
in control and the glider exceeded VNe slightly in a dive and was recovered
gently once the situation was realized. It could have ended otherwise.

Frank

Mark Dickson

June 28th 05, 03:17 PM

At 14:36 27 June 2005, wrote:
>I missed your last paragraph. As I noted to Andreas,
>it's all a matter
>of what you are used to. A 200 foot rope break in
>the absence of
>strong winds or turbulence is completely benign, at
>least for me,
>having done hundreds of them.
>
>What I'm finding interesting is the need to make fairly
>dramatic
>motions of the controls as part of a cable break recovery.
>So again,
>I'll flirt with the term aerobatic, not as a maneveur
>designed to
>thrill and excite and audience or a passenger, but
>as a way to
>differentiate use of the controls given these circumstances.
>
>Even if you fail to observe the moment the rope breaks
>on aerotow, and
>only become aware of it as you fail to maintain position
>behind the tow
>plane, use of the controls is not nearly so dramatic
>as post cable
>break. Nor, apparently, quite as critical. Though
>I think we can both
>agree that they each represent real emergencies demanding
>preplanned
>action.
>

Under no stretch of the imagination can a winch launch
be considered aerobatic. I don't consider that you
need to make any dramatic movements of the controls
to cope with a cable break, you just need to react
promptly by lowering the nose to the approach attitude
and waiting until the approach speed/normal flying
speed is attained before turning. There is nothing
dramatic about the movement of the stick. I find it
hard to believe (I don't believe it) that you were
not warned about turning before attaining the approach
speed. There is nothing complicated about winch launching,
it's not rocket science, you just need more experience
of it.
>

F.L. Whiteley

June 28th 05, 03:18 PM

Marian AldenhÃ¶vel wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
>> zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
>> until the student performs them instinctively.
>
> Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.
>
> We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
> preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
> pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
> these altitudes and actions out loud.
>
> Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
> pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
> nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.
>
> Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal
> speed and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan
> as to what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not
> heard of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.
>
> Ciao, MM
I was first introduced to the push-over at altitude while being checked out
for winch launch at RAF Bicester. It's a useful exercise for experiencing
the amount of push over required and to see the amount of dirt and dust
that might float up from the floor. It can be alarming the first time and
ignored subsequently.

Frank

Mark Wright

June 28th 05, 03:23 PM

At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>
>At my club we do something similar with winch launch
>radio signals during
>the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.
>
>'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
>'Go, go, go'
>'Stop, stop, stop'

Forgive me but this must sound like Yogi Bear conducting
the launch ! In the U.K. we have the following system
to help avoid confusion of a mishear

Take up slack ( Three words )
All Out ( Two words )
Stop ( One word )

Andrew Warbrick

June 28th 05, 03:30 PM

At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>When I learned in the UK, the practice was
>
>Statement: 'You have control'
>Response: 'I have control'
>
>or
>
>Statement: 'I have control' (usually instructor)
>Response: 'You have control'
>
>It's clear and there is no confusion. Why add a fourth
>word? Since
>presumably if you have the controls, you also have
>control of the aircraft.
>Personally I think it should be the standard between
>instructor and student
>and between pilots flying dual. When I fly dual with
>another pilot or with
>a passenger that might get the stick for a while, I
>brief this during
>pre-flight checks and reiterate it before changing
>control.
>
>At my club we do something similar with winch launch
>radio signals during
>the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.
>
>'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
>'Go, go, go'
>'Stop, stop, stop'
>
>I have known of an instructor and tow pilot flying
>together where no one was
>in control and the glider exceeded VNe slightly in
>a dive and was recovered
>gently once the situation was realized. It could have
>ended otherwise.
>
>Frank
>
For winch launching in particular I've always favoured.
'Take up Slack,Take up Slack'
'All Out, All Out, All Out'
'Stop, Stop Stop'
It produces three different rythms and makes the three
phrases distinct even when readability is 1. Everybody
gets hot under the collar if you mistake 'stop stop
stop' for 'go go go' with 230hp of diesel screaming
in your ear.
Given the choice I'd go for the BGA 'lights' system
over radio control every time.

Bill Daniels

June 28th 05, 03:54 PM

Good comments, Don.

If the break occurs between the winch and drogue the 'chute will collapse
and pass harmlessly below the glider, releasing automatically from the
glider in most cases.

If the break is between the glider and drogue, (weak link failure) then the
drogue will be open as long as the winch driver maintains power. In this
case, the winch driver is the key. My driving technique is to cut the
throttle and let the drogue collapse and drop to the ground. Comments?

The worst case that is very rarely seen is that somehow the glider gets in
front of the drogue and it overtakes the glider from behind. This is the
equivalent of getting an air tow rope entangled with the glider. Both are
equally rare. This is why once the drogue is on the ground, the winch
driver must not move the cable until he hears that it is safe to do so.

It is very important to point out that almost all the cable breaks were
using the old steel wire. The new Dyneema winch cables rarely break. The
last I heard, Aero Club Landau in Germany had more than 4000 launches on
their 'plastic' cable without a single break. ACL is also getting more than
1200 meters AGL with their winch launches.

Bill Daniels

The pilot is trained not to land on the wire if at all possible.
"Don Johnstone" > wrote in
message ...
> Just to add to what Bill has said, the really low launch
> failure <100 is one of the minor problem areas. If
> the launch is flown correctly it can be quite safely
> handled. The good point is, as Bill has pointed out
> that there is a large amount of airfield still in front
> of you. The bad news is that by the time the nose has
> been lowered the airspeed may be below the minimum
> allowed for the deployment of airbrakes. It may not
> be possible to lower the nose any further to increase
> the speed because of the proximity to the ground and
> therefore a touchdown has to be achieved without using
> airbrake. Patience is required as most modern gliders
> float a long way even at 50 kts in ground effect. (Grob
> 103 will travel the length of the 10000ft runway at
> Marham from 20ft/60kts) Simulating a launch failure
> at this height is not recomended as there is a real
> danger that the drogue will inflate as the winch driver
> cuts the power and drape itself over the cockpit. The
> good news is that such breaks are rare as the strain
> on the cable is reducing before increasing again. The
> procedure can be simulated by carrying out a faster
> than normal approach, pulling up and closing the airbrakes
> and then recovering from that situation which puts
> the glider in the same situation as a low break but
> without the cable in the way.
>
>
> At 04:30 28 June 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
> >
> >'Kilo Charlie' wrote in message
> >news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...
> >> Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp
> >>for those of us
> >that
> >> have never done one!
> >>
> >> Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches
> >>but through this
> >> thread there has not been any mention of what happens
> >>at the critical low
> >> level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly
> >>also a zone of
> >real
> >> problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert
> >>with few, if any
> >> landing options straight ahead. What do you guys
> >>teach re breaks at 100
> >> feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but
> >>how much altitude
> >does
> >> it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to
> >>control the glider for
> >> landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if
> >>this is too obvious for
> >> those of you that do it all the time!
> >>
> >> Casey
> >>
> >
> >Thanks, Casey.
> >
> >The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery
> >with generous margins be
> >possible from any height that a cable break occurs.
> > Safety is the product
> >of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.
> >
> >If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the
> >runway lies ahead to
> >receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have
> >full climb airspeed,
> >approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only
> >be 20 - 30 degrees. A
> >prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed
> >is all that is
> >needed to land straight ahead.
> >
> >If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then
> >the straight ahead
> >landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight
> >360 pattern is also
> >possible. The two options overlap by a good amount
> >of height depending on
> >the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will
> >be about 45 degrees
> >nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like
> >60 degrees) so a more
> >aggressive pushover is needed.
> >
> >All these situations will be practiced over and over
> >until the instructor
> >feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly
> >to each. The student
> >must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is
> >observed to be at a
> >safe value and increasing before establishing a glide
> >for a straight ahead
> >landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.
> >
> >I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS
> >scary to the
> >uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally
> >tens of millions of
> >launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer
> >than air tow.
> >
> >As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever
> >the tow plane takes you,
> >I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files,
> >that most air tow
> >releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point
> >and the glider is rarely
> >in a thermal at release but must glide around looking
> >for one just like with
> >a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch
> >re-light will cost you
> >less than $10.
> >
> >The latest European winches are getting even heavy
> >gliders to over 1000
> >meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> >Bill Daniels
> >
> >
>
>
>

Bill Gribble

June 28th 05, 03:54 PM

F.L. Whiteley > writes
>I was first introduced to the push-over at altitude while being checked
>out for winch launch at RAF Bicester. It's a useful exercise for
>experiencing the amount of push over required and to see the amount of
>dirt and dust that might float up from the floor. It can be alarming
>the first time and ignored subsequently.

On a slightly light-hearted note, I consider the chance to throw all the
dust and junk that accumulates on the cockpit floor up the nose of the
instructor behind me to be a petty but quite fitting vengeance for his
having pulled the plug on a perfectly good launch in the first case for
the sake of drill :p

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Stefan

June 28th 05, 03:59 PM

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> Statement: "You have control"
> Response: "I have control"

> I have known of an instructor and tow pilot flying together where no one was
> in control and the glider exceeded VNe slightly in a dive and was recovered
> gently once the situation was realized. It could have ended otherwise.

The instructors of my club were pretty hardcore with that "my controls /
your controls" thing. I would never have thought somebody would not do
so... until:

Until I got my introduction into mountain soaring. Not a club thing, so
the instructors were unknown to me. Once during a flight, the instructor
demonstrated something, I forgot what. Anyway, after the demonstration,
we flew along gently and quietly. After a while, he made a shallow turn
away from the mountain into the valley. "What is he doing?" I asked
myself, waiting for his explanation. He didn't explain anything, but
after a while, he suddenly asked: Why are you flying over the valley?
Turned out, neither of us had the controls, both thinking the other was
flying. So much for a well trimmed glider.

I've learnt that lesson.

Stefan

[email protected]

June 28th 05, 04:36 PM

LMAO now. Thanks!

[email protected]

June 28th 05, 04:45 PM

Have they changed that much? My ideas were trained into by BGA
instructors in the late 1970s.

Alas, but this discussion wasn't about winch launching. My fault for
letting it descend into something in which I have very limited
experience, and apparently with earlier generation equipment.

What I was responding to was this notion of how a glider might be spun
with coordinated controls during a winch cable break recovery. So let's
get back to that. In another thread.

Marian Aldenhövel

June 28th 05, 06:25 PM

Hi,

> actually, it was the emphasis on this and noticing my instructor making
> discrete requests of the ground crew to go find ballast that led me to
> guessing what it was he had up his sleeve when that time came!

One fellow student made the mistake of telling the instructor that he had
smelled the exercise coming and that it thus was no surprise. He got the
signature in the little leaflet that we use to record training progress...

....and another simulated cable-break without any warning at the very next
launch. Still a perfectly good recovery.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney
Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest
sweeping majestically across the prairie!" Basil Fawlty

Bruce

June 28th 05, 07:42 PM

Marian Aldenhövel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
>> zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
>> until the student performs them instinctively.
>
>
> Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.
>
> We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
> preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
> pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
> these altitudes and actions out loud.
>
> Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
> pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
> nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.
>
> Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal speed
> and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan as to
> what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not heard
> of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.
>
it> Ciao, MM
It comes down to flying the glider.

Winch launches are normal practice, and recovery from launch failures are part
of our normal training. So apply the normal rules.

We teach / have been taught a simple truth - nothing you do is going to improve
matters before you have a safe flying speed. If there is a launch failure, you
have to retain or regain safe flying speed and attitude first.

It does not matter in what part of the flight regime you are in, if you find
yourself below stall speed, you soon find you are not flying. When close to the
ground this can have unpleasant consequences. So we learn to always have enough
energy to regain a safe speed,attitude and height should a cable fail. This
means no "rocket" launches, but rather a smooth progression into the steep
climb, at a safe speed. If the cable then breaks, it is simply a matter of
smoothly but decisively moving the stick forward (no aerobatic bunting required)
and a little patience till the airspeed recovers. Again, there is no point in
getting ahead of things here, once the glider is flying at a normal attitude and
speed is the time to assess your choices. YOu should have planned what your
alternatives would be before the launch, so this should be a time to confirm and
act on them. But you are flying a normal aircraft in a normal way. The only
thing unusual will be how far you are down the runway, and this is dependant on
how high the failure occurred. If you are really low, you land ahead, there is
lots of runway. If there is lots of runway behind you, you should have lots of
height to make a circuit.

There is one field where I fly, where you have to be careful of energy,
launching uphill, with a heavy two seater on a shortish cable, there is an
uncomfortable part of the launch where you have few safe options. But this is
not a usual winch situation and still a lot safer than trying the same thing
behind a tug...

Bad situations, as always come from a sequence of bad choices, or events, and
you can usually avoid them.

As an example:
From personal experience, it can be somewhat unnerving to find yourself having
to keep the stick forward when there is an awful expanse of brown stuff filling
the canopy.
How did I get there - low wing loading trainer, 10kt on the nose and an over
enthusiastic winch driver had me at the upper end of the safe winch speed window
at 20", so I rotated into the steep climb to control the speed. At 60" going
through the wind gradient now, and the winch driver is still poaring on the
power when the weak link goes.
Training and experience take over even for a low time pilot, and I push over
smoothly, (I will admit to lifting the dust... ) Then it is a case of wait ,
seemingly for ever until the speed is back. Nose is well down at this point, but
you are not worried about the outside at this point - only with flying
percisely, and getting the speed back in the green arc. Then a smooth transition
to normal attitude, pop the brakes and the shortest flight of my career is over.

Should have released when I felt the excess power
Should have accepted overspeed rather than pulling so hard to slow the winch
Should have had better situational awareness and realised I was getting into a
dangerous corner

Lots of "should haves", but the point is that because of having enough speed,
even a cable break at very low height in the steep climb was recoverable.
Despite having less than 20kt on the ASI at the top of the push over, the low G
meant the aircraft was still flying. Of course, coarse control movements will
get you into trouble here, but then they aren't advisable any other time either.

For what it is worth - before we fixed our drum, we had such frequent cable
breaks that my instructors were confident of my ability to handle one - I had 9
real failures before going solo...

These days we have to simulate them.
--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Diederik

June 28th 05, 09:12 PM

Mark Wright > wrote in message >...
> At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> >
> >At my club we do something similar with winch launch
> >radio signals during
> >the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.
> >
> >'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
> >'Go, go, go'
> >'Stop, stop, stop'
>
> Forgive me but this must sound like Yogi Bear conducting
> the launch ! In the U.K. we have the following system
> to help avoid confusion of a mishear
>
> Take up slack ( Three words )
> All Out ( Two words )
> Stop ( One word )

To get rid of radio failures, bad transmission, confusion or mishear
etc. etc.
We in the Netherlands generaly do not use radio's at all. We use a
bright light: flashing (take up slack) full (all out), out (stop!) for
any other communication with the winch we use radio if neccesary.
Sometimes a large white board (diameter 1 meter) in a pole is used: up
(take up slak), down (all out), waving left to right, right to left
(stop!!)

If the winch has the sun in the back then sometimes the withe board is
difficult to see but a bright light (from a car for instance) is
always vissible.

Diederik

Andreas Maurer

June 28th 05, 09:20 PM

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:54:18 -0600, "Bill Daniels"
> wrote:

>It is very important to point out that almost all the cable breaks were
>using the old steel wire. The new Dyneema winch cables rarely break. The
>last I heard, Aero Club Landau in Germany had more than 4000 launches on
>their 'plastic' cable without a single break. ACL is also getting more than
>1200 meters AGL with their winch launches.

Flying on the same airfield as the Landau Aero Club, I'd like to add a
few comments:
- There have been lots of cable breaks with Dyneema ropes now (also of
other Dyneema cable users - these plastic cables are used by many
clubs in Germany now). At the moment my club is not sure if the
Dyneema cable is really cheaper to operate than steel cable on the
long run.
- The number of flights that reached more than 1.000 meters can be
counted on one hand, and required to place glider and winch in areas
that were far away from any runway...

Bye
Andreas

Chris Gadsby

June 28th 05, 11:27 PM

> 41 years ago I joined the Vultures club in Michigan, a winch only club
> where I learned to fly gliders and soar.

Off topic I know - but I was on a short visit to the US just recently and spent
a very enjoyable day with the Vultures. It was interesting to compare their
setup to our own club in the UK.

Chris

Chris Gadsby

June 28th 05, 11:34 PM

On the subject of training for Winch failures, personally I found the training
for a winch power failure quite demanding. With a cable break it is a sudden
event you can react instinctively to. With a gradual power loss it is very easy
to get "sucked in" to hanging on too long hoping the winch driver will pick up
speed and then ending up low and quite slow at the wrong end of the runway.

Chris Gadsby

Marian Aldenhövel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
>> zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
>> until the student performs them instinctively.
>
>
> Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.
>
> We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
> preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
> pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
> these altitudes and actions out loud.
>
> Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
> pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
> nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.
>
> Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal speed
> and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan as to
> what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not heard
> of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.
>
> Ciao, MM

F.L. Whiteley

June 29th 05, 12:41 AM

Mark Wright wrote:

> At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>At my club we do something similar with winch launch
>>radio signals during
>>the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.
>>
>>'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
>>'Go, go, go'
>>'Stop, stop, stop'
>
> Forgive me but this must sound like Yogi Bear conducting
> the launch ! In the U.K. we have the following system
> to help avoid confusion of a mishear
>
> Take up slack ( Three words )
> All Out ( Two words )
> Stop ( One word )
The three repetitions are to overcome possible radio interference and range
limitations. GMRS works a lot better than FRS in this regard and sets of
four radios have recently become very cheap, including chargers, and we've
just acquired a set. We also use flags, however, depending on winds, we
may not have visuals from winch to launch point.

I've used the UK method on CB radios when Enstone was operating. Another
site where the launch point was not visible from the winch.

Frank

F.L. Whiteley

June 29th 05, 12:46 AM

Diederik wrote:

> Mark Wright > wrote in message
> >...
>> At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>> >
>> >At my club we do something similar with winch launch
>> >radio signals during
>> >the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.
>> >
>> >'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
>> >'Go, go, go'
>> >'Stop, stop, stop'
>>
>> Forgive me but this must sound like Yogi Bear conducting
>> the launch ! In the U.K. we have the following system
>> to help avoid confusion of a mishear
>>
>> Take up slack ( Three words )
>> All Out ( Two words )
>> Stop ( One word )
>
> To get rid of radio failures, bad transmission, confusion or mishear
> etc. etc.
> We in the Netherlands generaly do not use radio's at all. We use a
> bright light: flashing (take up slack) full (all out), out (stop!) for
> any other communication with the winch we use radio if neccesary.
> Sometimes a large white board (diameter 1 meter) in a pole is used: up
> (take up slak), down (all out), waving left to right, right to left
> (stop!!)
>
> If the winch has the sun in the back then sometimes the withe board is
> difficult to see but a bright light (from a car for instance) is
> always vissible.
>
> Diederik
I've used lights, radios, and flags at both flat and uneven airfields,
including staging an intermediate flag person midway, well off to the side,
when the launch point was not visible. Of the three, lights are probably
the best, but, like flags, are line of sight.

Frank

F.L. Whiteley

June 29th 05, 12:56 AM

Good point, it is certainly more subtle. I've experienced diesel injection
timing go bad, clogged fuel lines, out of fuel, blown radiator hoses
(injecting coolant into the intake), and a few wire snags (on tie downs)
over the years. All resulted in the gradual loss of power, a scenario that
should be trained.

Frank

Chris Gadsby wrote:

> On the subject of training for Winch failures, personally I found the
> training
> for a winch power failure quite demanding. With a cable break it is a
> sudden
> event you can react instinctively to. With a gradual power loss it is
> very easy to get "sucked in" to hanging on too long hoping the winch
> driver will pick up speed and then ending up low and quite slow at the
> wrong end of the runway.
>
> Chris Gadsby
>
> Marian AldenhÃ¶vel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
>>> zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
>>> until the student performs them instinctively.
>>
>>
>> Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.
>>
>> We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
>> preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
>> pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
>> these altitudes and actions out loud.
>>
>> Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
>> pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
>> nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.
>>
>> Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal
>> speed and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan
>> as to what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not
>> heard of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.
>>
>> Ciao, MM

F.L. Whiteley

June 29th 05, 01:09 AM

Andrew Warbrick wrote:

> At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>>When I learned in the UK, the practice was
>>
>>Statement: 'You have control'
>>Response: 'I have control'
>>
>>or
>>
>>Statement: 'I have control' (usually instructor)
>>Response: 'You have control'
>>
>>It's clear and there is no confusion. Why add a fourth
>>word? Since
>>presumably if you have the controls, you also have
>>control of the aircraft.
>>Personally I think it should be the standard between
>>instructor and student
>>and between pilots flying dual. When I fly dual with
>>another pilot or with
>>a passenger that might get the stick for a while, I
>>brief this during
>>pre-flight checks and reiterate it before changing
>>control.
>>
>>At my club we do something similar with winch launch
>>radio signals during
>>the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.
>>
>>'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
>>'Go, go, go'
>>'Stop, stop, stop'
>>
>>I have known of an instructor and tow pilot flying
>>together where no one was
>>in control and the glider exceeded VNe slightly in
>>a dive and was recovered
>>gently once the situation was realized. It could have
>>ended otherwise.
>>
>>Frank
>>
> For winch launching in particular I've always favoured.
> 'Take up Slack,Take up Slack'
> 'All Out, All Out, All Out'
> 'Stop, Stop Stop'
> It produces three different rythms and makes the three
> phrases distinct even when readability is 1. Everybody
> gets hot under the collar if you mistake 'stop stop
> stop' for 'go go go' with 230hp of diesel screaming
> in your ear.
> Given the choice I'd go for the BGA 'lights' system
> over radio control every time.

I liked that verbage, but it didn't catch on in our operation, though I
suggested it. 'All out' isn't a common idiom to us Yanks as far as I can
tell.

Frank

Bert Willing

June 29th 05, 08:11 AM

That might be true in the US, but not necessarily in other countries. If you
want to do aerobatics with passengers in Germany, you need to have 3 solo
aerobatics within the last 90 days, and some number (50?) of solo aerobatic
flights in total. So you actually need to log aerobatic flights.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> "Ian Johnston" >
> wrote:
>
>>: Last weekend I flew in the mountains. Conditions were rough and I had to
>>: make fairly dramatic motions of the controls to keep the blue side up.
>>: I'll log it as an aerobatic flight, then.
>
> You can log it as such. It doesn't mean anything since
> there's no requirement to log aerobatic flight and it's not
> used to meet any license requirements.
>
>>All this seems to hinge on what's meant by "aerobatic".
>
> In the U.S. aerobatic is defined as :
>
> "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an
> aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal
> acceleration, not necessary for normal flight."
>
>> Frankly, it
>>seems like a pretty pointless term to me, since it seems to depend on
>>the intention of the pilot rather on the manoevres flown. Why, for
>>example, is a loop aerobatic yet a tight thermalling turn, involving
>>similar stresses on the glider, is not?
>
> It depends on whether the loop or thermalling turn were
> "necessary for normal flight." IMHO, the thermalling turn
> and winch launch are required, a loop is not. The only
> difference between the two in the U.S is that you can't do
> the loop:
>
> (a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
> (b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
> (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of
> Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated
> for an airport;
> (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any
> Federal airway;
> (e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
> (f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
>
> You could make the turn/winch launch over/in those
> areas/conditions.
>
> A related definition is where you must wear a parachute when
> flying with a passenger:
>
> When you exceed:
> (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
> (2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative
> to the horizon.
>
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Stefan

June 29th 05, 09:37 AM

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> The three repetitions are to overcome possible radio interference and range
> limitations.
....

The answer is reading back.

Pilot: <type of glider> <number of seats> at <which cable> is ready
Winch driver: I pull <type fo glider> <number of seats> at <which cable>
Pilot: cable is tight
Winch driver: (pulls without saying something)

Before the final pull for launch, the command "stop" is well understood
by the winch driver. As soon as he is pulling, though, aborting the
launch is *no* option for the whinch driver, he has to pull whatever
happens. It's only the pilot who can still abort by releasing.

The radio communication is done by the pilot himself, so waving flags
etc. is no option. Besides, we can't see the other end of the runway anyway.

Stefan

Stefan

June 29th 05, 09:37 AM

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

> Good point, it is certainly more subtle. I've experienced diesel injection
> timing go bad, clogged fuel lines, out of fuel, blown radiator hoses
> (injecting coolant into the intake), and a few wire snags (on tie downs)
> over the years. All resulted in the gradual loss of power, a scenario that
> should be trained.

The answer is: Watch your airspeed.

Stefan

jonnyboy

June 29th 05, 11:56 AM

Stefan wrote:
> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>
> > Good point, it is certainly more subtle. I've experienced diesel injection
> > timing go bad, clogged fuel lines, out of fuel, blown radiator hoses
> > (injecting coolant into the intake), and a few wire snags (on tie downs)
> > over the years. All resulted in the gradual loss of power, a scenario that
> > should be trained.
>
> The answer is: Watch your airspeed.
>
> Stefan

Stefan;
You are an accident looking for a grid ref.
We know to watch the airspeed but what if it is "just adequate" to fly
safeyl but not maintain a full climb - you decide to chop the launch
and it speeds up -for a few seconds and then back to 48 knots?

Huh - chop or stay?

Jonathan

Bert Willing

June 29th 05, 12:02 PM

It's as simple as Stefan stated: You watch your airspeed, and if it's too
low, you abort.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"jonnyboy" > a écrit dans le message de news:
om...
>
>
> Stefan wrote:
>> F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>>
>> > Good point, it is certainly more subtle. I've experienced diesel
>> > injection
>> > timing go bad, clogged fuel lines, out of fuel, blown radiator hoses
>> > (injecting coolant into the intake), and a few wire snags (on tie
>> > downs)
>> > over the years. All resulted in the gradual loss of power, a scenario
>> > that
>> > should be trained.
>>
>> The answer is: Watch your airspeed.
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Stefan;
> You are an accident looking for a grid ref.
> We know to watch the airspeed but what if it is "just adequate" to fly
> safeyl but not maintain a full climb - you decide to chop the launch
> and it speeds up -for a few seconds and then back to 48 knots?
>
> Huh - chop or stay?
>
> Jonathan
>

Stefan

June 29th 05, 12:15 PM

jonnyboy wrote:

> We know to watch the airspeed but what if it is "just adequate" to fly
> safeyl but not maintain a full climb - you decide to chop the launch
> and it speeds up -for a few seconds and then back to 48 knots?

I don't let the speed fall to 48 knots in the first place. Of course it
depends on the glider, but my target speed at the winch is between 100
and 110 km/h (55 to 60 knots). I simply don't let it fall below this.
Simple as that. (50 knots is my personal "red line".) I know others are
climbing routinely with 50 knots, but I'm a bit conservative in this point.

If the airspeed approaches 50 knots, I push as needed to keep the speed
up. If I have to push until the horizon appears in the windshield, I
reckon it's a good idea to release and execute plan B.

If I can't control the speed because of gusty conditions, I go faster as
needed, but never slower.

Stefan

Don Johnstone

June 29th 05, 04:32 PM

At 11:36 29 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
>jonnyboy wrote:
>
>> We know to watch the airspeed but what if it is 'just
>>adequate' to fly
>> safeyl but not maintain a full climb - you decide
>>to chop the launch
>> and it speeds up -for a few seconds and then back
>>to 48 knots?
>
>I don't let the speed fall to 48 knots in the first
>place. Of course it
>depends on the glider, but my target speed at the winch
>is between 100
>and 110 km/h (55 to 60 knots). I simply don't let it
>fall below this.
>Simple as that. (50 knots is my personal 'red line'.)
>I know others are
>climbing routinely with 50 knots, but I'm a bit conservative
>in this point.
>
>If the airspeed approaches 50 knots, I push as needed
>to keep the speed
>up. If I have to push until the horizon appears in
>the windshield, I
>reckon it's a good idea to release and execute plan
>B.
>
>If I can't control the speed because of gusty conditions,
>I go faster as
>needed, but never slower.
>
>Stefan

Personally I am long gone before that, if when I pitch
the nose down I do not feel an immediate acceleration
(the winch driver fails to or is unable to react) its
bye bye cable time. Don't forget you have all the weight
of the cable adding to the weight of the glider and
the margins are getting smaller all the time. Better
to land and discuss the reasons for the failure rather
than waiting until an uncomfortable situation becomes
an 'I haven't seen that happen before ' one.

MaD

June 29th 05, 05:37 PM

Bill Gribble schrieb:
> ...
> I'm fortunate in that the field I fly from is of a size where,
> generally, if you can't land ahead you have ample height to turn
> downwind and fly an abbreviated circuit. Of course, it doesn't change
> the fact that I may not always have this luxury if I fly from elsewhere.
> ...

If not there's the third possibility of turning 45=B0 out and then 225=B0
back again to land opposite to the take-off diretion. That's in fact
the most often trained procedure where I fly because it involves being
in unusual places at even more unusual heights. Of course this
"opposite" option should not be flown in strong wind conditions when it
would force you to turn in to stron tailwind close to the ground. But
then it's not necessary anyway because the "straight ahead" and the
"abbreviated circuit" height overlap considerably.
If they don't your airfield is to short for winch launching anyway.

Stefan

June 29th 05, 06:25 PM

MaD wrote:

> Of course this
> "opposite" option should not be flown in strong wind conditions when it
> would force you to turn in to stron tailwind close to the ground.

Oh pleeease! Not this myth again!

> But
> then it's not necessary anyway because the "straight ahead" and the
> "abbreviated circuit" height overlap considerably.
> If they don't your airfield is to short for winch launching anyway.

It doesn't where I fly. The winch is situated away from the 500m runway,
and you can't land between the runway and the winch.

Stefan

Bob Korves

June 30th 05, 02:12 AM

Stefan > wrote in
:

> MaD wrote:
>
>> Of course this
>> "opposite" option should not be flown in strong wind conditions when it
>> would force you to turn in to stron tailwind close to the ground.
>
> Oh pleeease! Not this myth again!
(snip)

Where I fly it is not too unusual to have 30 knots or more of wind. I am
not afraid of the low 180 degree turn to return to the runway, but the
landing roll out would be "interesting" at best in these conditions. In a
strong wind I am landing into the wind regardless of terrain and
obstructions...
-Bob Korves

Stefan

June 30th 05, 10:20 AM

Bob Korves wrote:

> Where I fly it is not too unusual to have 30 knots or more of wind. I am
> not afraid of the low 180 degree turn to return to the runway, but the
> landing roll out would be "interesting" at best in these conditions.

Yes, of course. I only referred to the "turn into a tailwind".

Stefan

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 11:50 AM

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:02:39 UTC, Marian Aldenh”vel
> wrote:

> Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
> pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
> nothing "emergency-like" there.

Do the instructors have the confidence, though, to pull the bung at
times when there is only one option, and geting it wrong means you're
stuffed?

My experience is that practice cable breaks almost invariably happen
very early, when landing ahead is dead easy, or very late, when a mini
circuit is dead easy. They rarely happen at that awkward in-between
point ...

Not that I'm blaming instructors, you understand - the survival
instinct is pretty natural!

Ian
--

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 11:53 AM

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:25:28 UTC, Marian Aldenh”vel
> wrote:

> One fellow student made the mistake of telling the instructor that he had
> smelled the exercise coming and that it thus was no surprise.

Never trust an instructor who talks to the winch driver out of your
earshot before launch. And if you're flying a Ka2, jam your left knee
hard against the cable release pull rod so s/he can't move it.

Ian

--

Marian Aldenhövel

June 30th 05, 12:46 PM

Hi,

> Do the instructors have the confidence, though, to pull the bung at
> times when there is only one option, and geting it wrong means you're
> stuffed?

Of the three mandatory exercises there is to be a late one (usually
the first), an early one and, yes, one at an intermediate height.
Corresponding to each of the pre-planned choices.

From what I have seen our instructors do I feel absolutely sure they
have the confidence _and_ the ability to recover safely from an abort
at any stage.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney
Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest
sweeping majestically across the prairie!" Basil Fawlty

Bruce Hoult

June 30th 05, 01:09 PM

In article <dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-dS4dGzUePd3d@localhost>,
"Ian Johnston" > wrote:

> Do the instructors have the confidence, though, to pull the bung at
> times when there is only one option, and geting it wrong means you're
> stuffed?
>
> My experience is that practice cable breaks almost invariably happen
> very early, when landing ahead is dead easy, or very late, when a mini
> circuit is dead easy. They rarely happen at that awkward in-between
> point ...

Oh. So you're not supposd to thermal away from a cable break, then?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 01:10 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:46:39 UTC, Marian Aldenh”vel
> wrote:

> From what I have seen our instructors do I feel absolutely sure they
> have the confidence _and_ the ability to recover safely from an abort
> at any stage.

Ah, but do they have the confidence and ability to recover safely from
a failed attempt to recover safely from an attempt at any stage?

Ian

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 01:12 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:09:41 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:

> In article <dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-dS4dGzUePd3d@localhost>,
> "Ian Johnston" > wrote:

> > My experience is that practice cable breaks almost invariably happen
> > very early, when landing ahead is dead easy, or very late, when a mini
> > circuit is dead easy. They rarely happen at that awkward in-between
> > point ...
>
> Oh. So you're not supposd to thermal away from a cable break, then?

Only if you're too low to do a circuit.

Ian

Andreas Maurer

June 30th 05, 01:22 PM

On 30 Jun 2005 10:50:59 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 12:02:39 UTC, Marian Aldenh”vel
> wrote:
>
>> Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
>> pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
>> nothing "emergency-like" there.
>
>Do the instructors have the confidence, though, to pull the bung at
>times when there is only one option, and geting it wrong means you're
>stuffed?

Such a situation does not exist during a winch launch. The worst thing
that can happen is a long way to the other end of the runway to get
the glider back for its next launch.

We are doing such an exercise pretty oftern, I have to admit. :)

Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer

June 30th 05, 01:26 PM

On 30 Jun 2005 12:10:56 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:46:39 UTC, Marian Aldenh”vel
> wrote:
>
>> From what I have seen our instructors do I feel absolutely sure they
>> have the confidence _and_ the ability to recover safely from an abort
>> at any stage.
>
>Ah, but do they have the confidence and ability to recover safely from
>a failed attempt to recover safely from an attempt at any stage?

Yup. :)
There is no failed first attempt to recover - during a halfways
properly executed winch-launch the glider is always in a situation
where recovery is *alway* going to work on the first attempt, even if
you execute the recovery with only 75 percent perfection.

On the other hand: If you have failed the first attempt to recover,
you usually don't get a second chance in a winch launch...

Bye
Andreas

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 01:33 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:26:35 UTC, (Andreas Maurer)
wrote:

> On 30 Jun 2005 12:10:56 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> > wrote:

> >Ah, but do they have the confidence and ability to recover safely from
> >a failed attempt to recover safely from an attempt at any stage?
>
> Yup. :)
> There is no failed first attempt to recover - during a halfways
> properly executed winch-launch the glider is always in a situation
> where recovery is *alway* going to work on the first attempt, even if
> you execute the recovery with only 75 percent perfection.
>
>
> On the other hand: If you have failed the first attempt to recover,
> you usually don't get a second chance in a winch launch...

Sorry, I was being unclear. What I meant was "... a failed attempt /by
the student/ to recover safely..." There are some places and heights
where the decision about where to go after the Big Bang hs to be made
very quickly, and right first time. And if the student gets it wrong
....

Ian

Bill Gribble

June 30th 05, 01:37 PM

Ian Johnston > writes
>My experience is that practice cable breaks almost invariably happen
>very early, when landing ahead is dead easy, or very late, when a mini
>circuit is dead easy. They rarely happen at that awkward in-between
>point

Contrary to my experience. As I recall, my last cable break practice
came earlier in the year, and the cable was pulled (without any
forewaring) specifically at that "awkward" height, an opportunity we
rarely get because of the amount of space we typically have but, on that
occasion, we were flying from the shorter cross-runway, so the
instructor intentionally jumped on the chance.

As I understand it from the explanation afterwards, the instructor had
already mapped out the available options and decided the rather tight
parameters that were going to prompt him to say "I have control" if I
failed to keep within them in handling the failure.

It was a valuable experience. Though I suspect that my decision to land
ahead (I rolled out next to the winch, safely under control, but
uncomfortably close to the airfield boundary, though I always had the
opt-out of closing the airbrakes and floating over the boundary into the
field beyond) would have been different had I been flying solo. It was a
very uncomfortable choice, and in the seconds I had to choose I think I
chose knowing that the guy in the back seat was poised ready to usurp my
control and take over if I chose was wrong. Solo and without that
backup, I'd have probably opted for a ninety degree turn and a crosswind
landing into our "south field" to my left.

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Bill Gribble

June 30th 05, 01:39 PM

Bruce Hoult > writes
>Oh. So you're not supposd to thermal away from a cable break, then?

I believe it's considered bad form to do so from below about 20' as it
holds up the next launch :p

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Stefan

June 30th 05, 01:41 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> the student/ to recover safely..." There are some places and heights
> where the decision about where to go after the Big Bang hs to be made
> very quickly, and right first time. And if the student gets it wrong

Then the instructor gives him exactly two tenths of a second to do the
right thing. Otherwise the instructor takes over and the student can try
again at the next launch.

Stefan

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 01:45 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:41:44 UTC, Stefan >
wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> > the student/ to recover safely..." There are some places and heights
> > where the decision about where to go after the Big Bang hs to be made
> > very quickly, and right first time. And if the student gets it wrong
>
> Then the instructor gives him exactly two tenths of a second to do the
> right thing. Otherwise the instructor takes over and the student can try
> again at the next launch.

And that is my point: a practice winch launch failure isn't like a
real one, because ultimately you know that you won't be allowed to do
anything really stupid.

Ian

Stefan

June 30th 05, 02:04 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> And that is my point: a practice winch launch failure isn't like a
> real one, because ultimately you know that you won't be allowed to do
> anything really stupid.

Your solution then for a more realistic training?

Stefan

Bert Willing

June 30th 05, 02:08 PM

Your point doesn't hold. If during the winch launch failure exercise the
instructor has to take the controls and/or overrule the student's input, the
student won't go solo and he will have this game played over and over again.

If an instructor doesn't feel comfortable to train winch failure on a proper
winch launch at *any* height, he shouldn't be instructing winch launches.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Ian Johnston" > a écrit dans le message de news:
dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-Pk4JoJw3pd71@localhost...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:41:44 UTC, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
>> Ian Johnston wrote:
>>
>> > the student/ to recover safely..." There are some places and heights
>> > where the decision about where to go after the Big Bang hs to be made
>> > very quickly, and right first time. And if the student gets it wrong
>>
>> Then the instructor gives him exactly two tenths of a second to do the
>> right thing. Otherwise the instructor takes over and the student can try
>> again at the next launch.
>
> And that is my point: a practice winch launch failure isn't like a
> real one, because ultimately you know that you won't be allowed to do
> anything really stupid.
>
> Ian

Bill

June 30th 05, 04:02 PM

Stan Hall presented his analysis of the Nimbus-4DB accident in Minden,
NV, 1999. Stan's analysis is scary, to say the least.

The article, Probing for the Smoking Gun, was reprinted in the Soaring
Association of Canada's free flight, 2/04. Go to the link below. Click
on free flight on the side bar. Go to free flight back issues - 2004 -
issue 2. Down load the PDF file.

http://www.sac.ca/

Bill Feldbaumer 09

Marian Aldenhövel

June 30th 05, 04:02 PM

Hi,

> Ah, but do they have the confidence and ability to recover safely from
> a failed attempt to recover safely from an attempt at any stage?

I believe they do or I would not want to get in the glider with any
of the lot :-).

I am not even ready to fly solo so who am I to judge, though? One interesting
bit of information I gleaned is that some instructors keep a hand on the
brake handle. Just in case a student makes the decision to land NOW and pops
the brakes before making the aircraft fly properly.

I am not aware of any problems or even accidents caused by this mode of
training. I believe it is standard procedure in germany and not an invention
by our instructors.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney
Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest
sweeping majestically across the prairie!" Basil Fawlty

Marian Aldenhövel

June 30th 05, 04:20 PM

Hi,

> And that is my point: a practice winch launch failure isn't like a
> real one, because ultimately you know that you won't be allowed to do
> anything really stupid.

That is true of every critical phase of flight while in training.

I firmly believe that my instructor is going to save himself. There are
situations where he can let mistakes evolve and the student face the
consequences before fixing the problem and times where he can't.

My instructors so far have let me try to fix my mistakes on my own wherever
safely possible. I have cried for help a few times at the start BEFORE they
did, though :-).

Trust in the instructor has no effect on the reality of the failure. If the
student takes right and prompt action he has proven he would have survived
at this occasion and hopefully will react the same the next time. If he
doesn't take the right action he can be sure there are many more such
exercises in his future before he has any chance to try it without someone
watching from the back seat.

Also there is not much to be learned from NOT taking the right action. I am
sure I could talk an instructor into simulating it at altitude but all I
could find out is that there is no safe alternative to the procedure we train
for. And possibly have some fun doing so, I admit.

Ciao, MM

PS.: I have read somewhere that flight instructors do not teach anyone how to
fly. They just keep students alive while they learn on their own. This
very accurately reflects my current experience.
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney
Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest
sweeping majestically across the prairie!" Basil Fawlty

Don Johnstone

June 30th 05, 05:55 PM

If Stans analysis is right, and I can see no obvious
flaw, once the spiral dive/spin situation is met then
the chances of a sucessful recovery are slim. The 4DT
would not be unique in this. Perhaps a tail parachute
is an essential item of equipment.

Food for thought

At 15:18 30 June 2005, Bill wrote:
>
>Stan Hall presented his analysis of the Nimbus-4DB
>accident in Minden,
>NV, 1999. Stan's analysis is scary, to say the least.
>
>The article, Probing for the Smoking Gun, was reprinted
>in the Soaring
>Association of Canada's free flight, 2/04. Go to the
>link below. Click
>on free flight on the side bar. Go to free flight back
>issues - 2004 -
>issue 2. Down load the PDF file.
>
>http://www.sac.ca/
>
>Bill Feldbaumer 09
>
>

M B

June 30th 05, 06:54 PM

The article was very interesting. The idea of aileron
stiffness at high bending was thought-provoking.

'Abandoning ailerons for a more effective way of starting
and stopping roll...' Perhaps a reference to
full span spoilers for roll?

'the smoking gun was the aircraft's incredibly high
performance.' This is consistent with, but not a proof
of, the things I've written before about USA fatalities
and L/D.
Of course, this was however NOT a ridge flying accident.

The article didn't mention the possibility that the
other
pilot may have popped the airbrakes/two pilots on the
controls working at odds with each other. Of course
there
is absolutely no way to confirm or deny this.

Lastly, I liked the article's end, and the idea of
big bold red letters in the AFM. It also occered to
me that some of the
'seconds to accelerate from stall speed to ...' and
a lot
of the ideas we have, and how we practice spins and
spirals, is in STILL AIR. I generally don't go up
in huge
thermals/turbulence to practice spins, specifically
so I don't exceed Va and gust loads and 1/3 deflection,
etc.

Does a spin turn into a spiral on it's own sometimes
in turbulent air? Can AOAs be changed by turbulence
alone,
with no movement of controls? Oh, yes.

Start throwing in severe turbulence (which we love,
when it
suits us) and I think we are closer to the 'naked edge
of safety'
than is obvious.

The 2-32 accident in Hawaii was anectdotally in 'the
toilet bowl' there in turbulent air, too. Shear 10/20/30
knots in a few
seconds and 1/4 mile vertically or horizontally, and
our
still air analysis can't be done with a pristine slide-rule...
At 17:12 30 June 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>If Stans analysis is right, and I can see no obvious
>flaw, once the spiral dive/spin situation is met then
>the chances of a sucessful recovery are slim. The 4DT
>would not be unique in this. Perhaps a tail parachute
>is an essential item of equipment.
>
>Food for thought
>
>
>At 15:18 30 June 2005, Bill wrote:
>>
>>Stan Hall presented his analysis of the Nimbus-4DB
>>accident in Minden,
>>NV, 1999. Stan's analysis is scary, to say the least.
>>
>>The article, Probing for the Smoking Gun, was reprinted
>>in the Soaring
>>Association of Canada's free flight, 2/04. Go to the
>>link below. Click
>>on free flight on the side bar. Go to free flight back
>>issues - 2004 -
>>issue 2. Down load the PDF file.
>>
>>http://www.sac.ca/
>>
>>Bill Feldbaumer 09
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

Ray Roberts

June 30th 05, 07:53 PM

Deploy the "Other Spoilers"?
As a pilot of an 18m Ventus, I don't think my high-speed-dive-recovery
problems are nearly as bad as those of a pilot of a 25m Nimbus, but
nevertheless, these problems still feel uncomfortably close to home.
In light of the well-discussed problems of deploying spoilers to control
airspeed while trying to pull out of a steep dive, how about dropping the
landing gear?
On the Ventus, the main wheel swings forward as it is lowered, so I can
imagine that at airspeeds approaching or exceeding Vne, it might not be
possible to get the gear down-and-locked, but could even a partially
deployed wheel and the open wheel bay add enough drag to correct an
otherwise unrecoverable situation?
Even more radically, how about jettisoning the canopy as a speed control
measure?
Or both?
What do the experts on this newsgroup think?

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in
message ...
> If Stans analysis is right, and I can see no obvious
> flaw, once the spiral dive/spin situation is met then
> the chances of a sucessful recovery are slim. The 4DT
> would not be unique in this. Perhaps a tail parachute
> is an essential item of equipment.
>
> Food for thought
>
>
> At 15:18 30 June 2005, Bill wrote:
>>
>>Stan Hall presented his analysis of the Nimbus-4DB
>>accident in Minden,
>>NV, 1999. Stan's analysis is scary, to say the least.
>>
>>The article, Probing for the Smoking Gun, was reprinted
>>in the Soaring
>>Association of Canada's free flight, 2/04. Go to the
>>link below. Click
>>on free flight on the side bar. Go to free flight back
>>issues - 2004 -
>>issue 2. Down load the PDF file.
>>
>>http://www.sac.ca/
>>
>>Bill Feldbaumer 09
>>
>>
>
>
>

Ian Johnston

June 30th 05, 11:04 PM

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:04:56 UTC, Stefan >
wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> > And that is my point: a practice winch launch failure isn't like a
> > real one, because ultimately you know that you won't be allowed to do
> > anything really stupid.
>
> Your solution then for a more realistic training?

None. It's as good as it gets. I'm just pointing out a necessary
limitation.

Ian

Mike Schumann

June 30th 05, 11:05 PM

There are certain points during an air tow, where there are also very small
margins for error. I also believe that winch launches have major risk
advantages over air tow, particularly due to the elimination of the tow
plane from the risk equation.

Unfortunately, the field I fly out of is too short for winch launching to be
practical.

Mike Schumann

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> I am fighting a lonely battle to convince my fellow USA pilots that winch
>> launch is a perfectly normal way to launch gliders and not some invention
>> of
>> the devil.
>
> Just three things to consider:
>
> A which launch brings you to a certain altitude above the site. At some
> places, this gives you enough options to find a thermal, at other sites,
> it does not.
>
> A winch operation doesn't mix well with other traffic. It's doable, if
> everybody is willing.
>
> And, most important: If done correctly, a winch launch is safe. But there
> is an extremely small margin for errors. I love winch launches, but they
> are dead serious, literally.
>
> Stefan

Mike Schumann

June 30th 05, 11:33 PM

From what I have seen, I doubt that winch launches require more people than
air tow. One of the biggest problems we have with air tow is finding tow
pilots who have the necessary hours in type to meet insurance requirements.
I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical club to train and
line up qualified winch operators than finding tow pilots.

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Mike I Green > wrote:
>
>>It is too bad that so many influential pilots in the US have been
>>knocking winch towing for such a long time.
>
> I've been flying since the early '70's and I've met a lot of
> glider pilots. I can't really think of any influential
> pilots who have been knocking winch launching. I know of
> many who've experienced it in Europe and think it would be
> a great way to decrease the cost of launching, but something
> always prevents it. That "something" may be lack of
> experience with winches in the U.S., lack of available
> winches or the cost of a good one, the difficulty of mixing
> with non-glider traffic, etc.
>
> As far as I can see, the successful U.S. winch operations
> seem to mostly be clubs who own/control their own field and
> have sufficient available labor to support winch launches or
> clubs on large open airports (former WWII airfields etc.)
> where there's plenty of space. Those favorable conditions
> just aren't that common. When you add concerns about
> startup expense and lack of familiarity of U.S. pilots, you
> can understand why winch launching is hard to get started
> here.
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Mike Schumann

June 30th 05, 11:53 PM

How long is ACL's runway?

Mike Schumann

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
> Good comments, Don.
>
> If the break occurs between the winch and drogue the 'chute will collapse
> and pass harmlessly below the glider, releasing automatically from the
> glider in most cases.
>
> If the break is between the glider and drogue, (weak link failure) then
> the
> drogue will be open as long as the winch driver maintains power. In this
> case, the winch driver is the key. My driving technique is to cut the
> throttle and let the drogue collapse and drop to the ground. Comments?
>
> The worst case that is very rarely seen is that somehow the glider gets in
> front of the drogue and it overtakes the glider from behind. This is the
> equivalent of getting an air tow rope entangled with the glider. Both are
> equally rare. This is why once the drogue is on the ground, the winch
> driver must not move the cable until he hears that it is safe to do so.
>
> It is very important to point out that almost all the cable breaks were
> using the old steel wire. The new Dyneema winch cables rarely break. The
> last I heard, Aero Club Landau in Germany had more than 4000 launches on
> their 'plastic' cable without a single break. ACL is also getting more
> than
> 1200 meters AGL with their winch launches.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> The pilot is trained not to land on the wire if at all possible.
> "Don Johnstone" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Just to add to what Bill has said, the really low launch
>> failure <100 is one of the minor problem areas. If
>> the launch is flown correctly it can be quite safely
>> handled. The good point is, as Bill has pointed out
>> that there is a large amount of airfield still in front
>> of you. The bad news is that by the time the nose has
>> been lowered the airspeed may be below the minimum
>> allowed for the deployment of airbrakes. It may not
>> be possible to lower the nose any further to increase
>> the speed because of the proximity to the ground and
>> therefore a touchdown has to be achieved without using
>> airbrake. Patience is required as most modern gliders
>> float a long way even at 50 kts in ground effect. (Grob
>> 103 will travel the length of the 10000ft runway at
>> Marham from 20ft/60kts) Simulating a launch failure
>> at this height is not recomended as there is a real
>> danger that the drogue will inflate as the winch driver
>> cuts the power and drape itself over the cockpit. The
>> good news is that such breaks are rare as the strain
>> on the cable is reducing before increasing again. The
>> procedure can be simulated by carrying out a faster
>> than normal approach, pulling up and closing the airbrakes
>> and then recovering from that situation which puts
>> the glider in the same situation as a low break but
>> without the cable in the way.
>>
>>
>> At 04:30 28 June 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>> >
>> >'Kilo Charlie' wrote in message
>> >news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...
>> >> Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp
>> >>for those of us
>> >that
>> >> have never done one!
>> >>
>> >> Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches
>> >>but through this
>> >> thread there has not been any mention of what happens
>> >>at the critical low
>> >> level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly
>> >>also a zone of
>> >real
>> >> problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert
>> >>with few, if any
>> >> landing options straight ahead. What do you guys
>> >>teach re breaks at 100
>> >> feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but
>> >>how much altitude
>> >does
>> >> it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to
>> >>control the glider for
>> >> landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if
>> >>this is too obvious for
>> >> those of you that do it all the time!
>> >>
>> >> Casey
>> >>
>> >
>> >Thanks, Casey.
>> >
>> >The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery
>> >with generous margins be
>> >possible from any height that a cable break occurs.
>> > Safety is the product
>> >of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.
>> >
>> >If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the
>> >runway lies ahead to
>> >receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have
>> >full climb airspeed,
>> >approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only
>> >be 20 - 30 degrees. A
>> >prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed
>> >is all that is
>> >needed to land straight ahead.
>> >
>> >If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then
>> >the straight ahead
>> >landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight
>> >360 pattern is also
>> >possible. The two options overlap by a good amount
>> >of height depending on
>> >the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will
>> >be about 45 degrees
>> >nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like
>> >60 degrees) so a more
>> >aggressive pushover is needed.
>> >
>> >All these situations will be practiced over and over
>> >until the instructor
>> >feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly
>> >to each. The student
>> >must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is
>> >observed to be at a
>> >safe value and increasing before establishing a glide
>> >for a straight ahead
>> >landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.
>> >
>> >I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS
>> >scary to the
>> >uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally
>> >tens of millions of
>> >launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer
>> >than air tow.
>> >
>> >As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever
>> >the tow plane takes you,
>> >I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files,
>> >that most air tow
>> >releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point
>> >and the glider is rarely
>> >in a thermal at release but must glide around looking
>> >for one just like with
>> >a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch
>> >re-light will cost you
>> >less than $10.
>> >
>> >The latest European winches are getting even heavy
>> >gliders to over 1000
>> >meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.
>> >
>> >Bill Daniels
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Mike Schumann

July 1st 05, 12:10 AM

This article makes you want to install a ballistic recovery chute in this
class of glider to handle a worst case scenario.

Mike Schumann

"M B" > wrote in message
...
> The article was very interesting. The idea of aileron
> stiffness at high bending was thought-provoking.
>
> 'Abandoning ailerons for a more effective way of starting
> and stopping roll...' Perhaps a reference to
> full span spoilers for roll?
>
> 'the smoking gun was the aircraft's incredibly high
> performance.' This is consistent with, but not a proof
> of, the things I've written before about USA fatalities
> and L/D.
> Of course, this was however NOT a ridge flying accident.
>
> The article didn't mention the possibility that the
> other
> pilot may have popped the airbrakes/two pilots on the
> controls working at odds with each other. Of course
> there
> is absolutely no way to confirm or deny this.
>
> Lastly, I liked the article's end, and the idea of
> big bold red letters in the AFM. It also occered to
> me that some of the
> 'seconds to accelerate from stall speed to ...' and
> a lot
> of the ideas we have, and how we practice spins and
> spirals, is in STILL AIR. I generally don't go up
> in huge
> thermals/turbulence to practice spins, specifically
> so I don't exceed Va and gust loads and 1/3 deflection,
> etc.
>
> Does a spin turn into a spiral on it's own sometimes
> in turbulent air? Can AOAs be changed by turbulence
> alone,
> with no movement of controls? Oh, yes.
>
> Start throwing in severe turbulence (which we love,
> when it
> suits us) and I think we are closer to the 'naked edge
> of safety'
> than is obvious.
>
> The 2-32 accident in Hawaii was anectdotally in 'the
> toilet bowl' there in turbulent air, too. Shear 10/20/30
> knots in a few
> seconds and 1/4 mile vertically or horizontally, and
> our
> still air analysis can't be done with a pristine slide-rule...
> At 17:12 30 June 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>If Stans analysis is right, and I can see no obvious
>>flaw, once the spiral dive/spin situation is met then
>>the chances of a sucessful recovery are slim. The 4DT
>>would not be unique in this. Perhaps a tail parachute
>>is an essential item of equipment.
>>
>>Food for thought
>>
>>
>>At 15:18 30 June 2005, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>Stan Hall presented his analysis of the Nimbus-4DB
>>>accident in Minden,
>>>NV, 1999. Stan's analysis is scary, to say the least.
>>>
>>>The article, Probing for the Smoking Gun, was reprinted
>>>in the Soaring
>>>Association of Canada's free flight, 2/04. Go to the
>>>link below. Click
>>>on free flight on the side bar. Go to free flight back
>>>issues - 2004 -
>>>issue 2. Down load the PDF file.
>>>
>>>http://www.sac.ca/
>>>
>>>Bill Feldbaumer 09
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Mark J. Boyd
>
>

Bill Daniels

July 1st 05, 01:40 AM

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> How long is ACL's runway?

I'm not sure but I've heard the figure of 2000 meters.

If you want to see the operation, go to this site and download a movie:
http://www.gliding4life.com/

Nistal Wloczysiak is a young genius with a camera.

Bill Daniels

F.L. Whiteley

July 1st 05, 06:36 AM

Agreed, winch launching does require some length, and the more the better.

In the US, there are some soaring sites that reside on BLM patents.

1. You need to form or belong to a 501c(3) organization.
2. You need to find the appropriate patch of federal land and make formal
application.
3. There may be some property taxes and extended costs in acquiring access
roads.

See http://airsailing.org/
and
http://tucsonsoaring.org/
for examples.

For a startup operation or move, winch launching will clearly entertain
fewer NIMBY issues than an aerotow operation.

Frank Whiteley

Mike Schumann wrote:

> There are certain points during an air tow, where there are also very
> small
> margins for error. I also believe that winch launches have major risk
> advantages over air tow, particularly due to the elimination of the tow
> plane from the risk equation.
>
> Unfortunately, the field I fly out of is too short for winch launching to
> be practical.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> I am fighting a lonely battle to convince my fellow USA pilots that
>>> winch launch is a perfectly normal way to launch gliders and not some
>>> invention of
>>> the devil.
>>
>> Just three things to consider:
>>
>> A which launch brings you to a certain altitude above the site. At some
>> places, this gives you enough options to find a thermal, at other sites,
>> it does not.
>>
>> A winch operation doesn't mix well with other traffic. It's doable, if
>> everybody is willing.
>>
>> And, most important: If done correctly, a winch launch is safe. But there
>> is an extremely small margin for errors. I love winch launches, but they
>> are dead serious, literally.
>>
>> Stefan

Marian Aldenhövel

July 1st 05, 08:40 AM

Hi,

> I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical club to train and
> line up qualified winch operators than finding tow pilots.

Where I fly every student is required to start learning how to operate the
winch as soon as he or she goes solo.

As a result we have lots of winch drivers.

And I think it is a good idea anyway. You learn what a good launch looks
and feels like from the other side.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de

Don Johnstone

July 1st 05, 02:50 PM

At 13:30 01 July 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>'Mike Schumann' wrote:
>
>>From what I have seen, I doubt that winch launches
>>require more people than
>>air tow. One of the biggest problems we have with
>>air tow is finding tow
>>pilots who have the necessary hours in type to meet
>>insurance requirements.
>
>I agree, that is a problem.
>
>>I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical
>>club to train and
>>line up qualified winch operators than finding tow
>>pilots.
>
>For a club, particularly one with some members already
>trained and comfortable with winch launches, you are
>probably right, but at least with aerotowing, you get
>pilots
>volunteering just because they like to fly, but don't
>want
>to pay for it. Is running the winch considered to
>be a
>desirable job similar to flying the tug?

It is for me. Escaping down the winch end is a definite
bonus with the nonsense that can occur at the flying
end. Heater and wall to wall Queen/Dire Straits. Wonderful
way to spend time when soaring is not possible.
>
>T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>

Bill Gribble

July 1st 05, 02:57 PM

T o d d P a t t i s t > writes
>Is running the winch considered to be a desirable job similar to flying
>the tug?

Not by most. For our part, all post solo pilots are expected to train to
drive the winch and keep themselves current (except for the instructors,
who are obviously exempt), and we run a rota to ensure everybody takes a
fair turn at it.

In practice, this means that we each have to drive the winch for half a
day once a quarter, so it really isn't a huge burden.

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Mike Schumann

July 1st 05, 05:45 PM

Our club has about 40 members, and about 5 tow pilots. Given that all 40
regular members could be trained as winch operators, my gut feeling is that
it would be a lot easier to get winch drivers than tow pilots on a daily
basis.

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote:
>
>>From what I have seen, I doubt that winch launches require more people
>>than
>>air tow. One of the biggest problems we have with air tow is finding tow
>>pilots who have the necessary hours in type to meet insurance
>>requirements.
>
> I agree, that is a problem.
>
>>I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical club to train and
>>line up qualified winch operators than finding tow pilots.
>
> For a club, particularly one with some members already
> trained and comfortable with winch launches, you are
> probably right, but at least with aerotowing, you get pilots
> volunteering just because they like to fly, but don't want
> to pay for it. Is running the winch considered to be a
> desirable job similar to flying the tug?
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

F.L. Whiteley

July 1st 05, 05:53 PM

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> "Mike Schumann" > wrote:
>
>>From what I have seen, I doubt that winch launches require more people
>>than
>>air tow. One of the biggest problems we have with air tow is finding tow
>>pilots who have the necessary hours in type to meet insurance
>>requirements.
>
> I agree, that is a problem.
>
1. Because some clubs are usually very conservative about who they let fly
the tow plane, and maybe wisely so, it's a very significant problem to
screen and indoctrinate tow pilots. More so if you insist that they also
have glider time first. We just re-engined and upgraded our Pawnee and
added a new prop. Not cheap as there weren't any significant member
contributed efforts. In the 2400+ hours on the prior mill, there were few
issues, no cracked jugs, and one sticky valve. We did have a main journal
problem when we first bought it, but worked that out early on.

>>I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical club to train and
>>line up qualified winch operators than finding tow pilots.
>
> For a club, particularly one with some members already
> trained and comfortable with winch launches, you are
> probably right, but at least with aerotowing, you get pilots
> volunteering just because they like to fly, but don't want
> to pay for it. Is running the winch considered to be a
> desirable job similar to flying the tug?
>
2. I know of one operation that recently turned down a young sprog for
towing. He moved to another location and put a Pawnee on its nose in short
order. FWIW, the wooden Hoffman four-bladed prop saved the engine parts.
Volunteers are one thing, quality volunteers are something else. Not too
many younger pilots are working on tail dragger time. Most middle aged
pilots I encounter have 10-15 hours in tail dragger, no high power
endorsement, and may or may not have a commercial.

We have recently trained a few more winch drivers. If we had a better
winch, we'd get a few more. There are some neat things about driving a
winch, especially when trying to get it 'right' each time. A good winch at
the right site is an attractive proposition. Personally I like listening
to the Larks between launches, or spotting wild life. If I'm bored, I'll
also drag the wire also, which really gets it down to two people to manage
the operation, the winch/retrieve driver and the launch marshall/captain.
Actually, if I drive both winch and wire vehicle, I can get higher launch
rates most of the time. There are a couple of drivers that can keep the
wire retrieve moving fast enough to beat what I can do solo. That way we
can keep two training gliders in the air most of the time on a non-soaring
day with a single drum.

Frank

Bob Johnson

July 1st 05, 09:47 PM

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
>
>>"Mike Schumann" > wrote:
>>
>>>From what I have seen, I doubt that winch launches require more people
>>
>>>than
>>>air tow. One of the biggest problems we have with air tow is finding tow
>>>pilots who have the necessary hours in type to meet insurance
>>>requirements.
>>
>>I agree, that is a problem.
>>
>
> 1. Because some clubs are usually very conservative about who they let fly
> the tow plane, and maybe wisely so, it's a very significant problem to
> screen and indoctrinate tow pilots. More so if you insist that they also
> have glider time first. We just re-engined and upgraded our Pawnee and
> added a new prop. Not cheap as there weren't any significant member
> contributed efforts. In the 2400+ hours on the prior mill, there were few
> issues, no cracked jugs, and one sticky valve. We did have a main journal
> problem when we first bought it, but worked that out early on.
>
>
>>>I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical club to train and
>>>line up qualified winch operators than finding tow pilots.
>>
>>For a club, particularly one with some members already
>>trained and comfortable with winch launches, you are
>>probably right, but at least with aerotowing, you get pilots
>>volunteering just because they like to fly, but don't want
>>to pay for it. Is running the winch considered to be a
>>desirable job similar to flying the tug?
>>
>
> 2. I know of one operation that recently turned down a young sprog for
> towing. He moved to another location and put a Pawnee on its nose in short
> order. FWIW, the wooden Hoffman four-bladed prop saved the engine parts.
> Volunteers are one thing, quality volunteers are something else. Not too
> many younger pilots are working on tail dragger time. Most middle aged
> pilots I encounter have 10-15 hours in tail dragger, no high power
> endorsement, and may or may not have a commercial.
>
> We have recently trained a few more winch drivers. If we had a better
> winch, we'd get a few more. There are some neat things about driving a
> winch, especially when trying to get it 'right' each time. A good winch at
> the right site is an attractive proposition. Personally I like listening
> to the Larks between launches, or spotting wild life. If I'm bored, I'll
> also drag the wire also, which really gets it down to two people to manage
> the operation, the winch/retrieve driver and the launch marshall/captain.
> Actually, if I drive both winch and wire vehicle, I can get higher launch
> rates most of the time. There are a couple of drivers that can keep the
> wire retrieve moving fast enough to beat what I can do solo. That way we
> can keep two training gliders in the air most of the time on a non-soaring
> day with a single drum.
>
> Frank

Might mention that in thirty or so years of winch driving, most line
breaks as I recall happen mostly on initial acceleration and next most
often over the winch when we hit a thermal. I know it’s
counter-intuitive, but the pull-up seems to generate the fewest breaks.
Except for the fact that this is where most instructors of my
observation anyway like to pull the knob on you. This is tricky, since
at this point with maybe 500 ft in hand, you actually have too many
choices -- 360, 180 or straight ahead. So be forewarned, and as usual,
after making a plan stick with it, or do as the IP has previously
briefed you. Most points for that one, no sense getting creative with
Mr. Back Seat.

And for us Schweizer drivers, remember we’re going to have the stick
really honked back on the edge of an elevator stall to compensate for
the download caused by that pesky nose hook. So our nose up excursion is
genuinely going to raise the dirt, but the horizon and airspeed will
return just as they should, especially if you get that stick on the
front stop pronto. The only time this happened to me was over the winch
in a 2-33. After recovery, I thermaled away, saved the day (but not my
shorts).

One last thing, be prepared for winch engine failure. If plenty of line
has been spliced in ahead of the chute, there shouldn’t be too much
chance of a canopy or wing drape. But anyway, I think this is where that
happens mostly. Spectra is so light, I worry that even with a long
snapper, the chute may float out in front of you much longer than it
would otherwise.

Bob

Bruce

July 2nd 05, 11:39 AM

Marian Aldenhövel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I suspect that it would be much easier for your typical club to train
>> and line up qualified winch operators than finding tow pilots.
>
>
> Where I fly every student is required to start learning how to operate the
> winch as soon as he or she goes solo.
>
> As a result we have lots of winch drivers.
>
> And I think it is a good idea anyway. You learn what a good launch looks
> and feels like from the other side.
>
> Ciao, MM
We have a better rule - no solo in glider before solo on winch...

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Ian Johnston

July 3rd 05, 04:14 PM

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:39:35 UTC, Bruce > wrote:

: We have a better rule - no solo in glider before solo on winch...

It's not a bad idea, but it can and does (in my experience) lead to
clubs with large numbers of not-very-good winch drivers. I'd much
rather be launched by someone who has done dozens or hundreds of
launches than someone who does a few every few weeks to satisfy club
rules.

Ian, winch-but-not-any-other-sort-of-instructor

Bruce

July 3rd 05, 07:32 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:39:35 UTC, Bruce > wrote:
>
> : We have a better rule - no solo in glider before solo on winch...
>
> It's not a bad idea, but it can and does (in my experience) lead to
> clubs with large numbers of not-very-good winch drivers. I'd much
> rather be launched by someone who has done dozens or hundreds of
> launches than someone who does a few every few weeks to satisfy club
> rules.
>
> Ian, winch-but-not-any-other-sort-of-instructor
Ian

We average around 26-35 launches a day. With a small club and the instructors
doing less winching (although everyone including the CFI drives winch) this
means that our students, and solo pilots get to do plenty of winch driving.

Instructors can expect to spend some time on the winch - maybe 5 or 10 launches,
once every quarter. Although we have one who volunteers just about ever time he
is there - he just loves playing tunes with that V8...
The others will share the launching, on average doing around 8 launches on any
given day. It is not onerous, everyone shares the work and pitches in, and the
experience on the winch means the low time pilots have a better understanding of
what is going on. There are days when one of the more experienced types installs
him/herself in the winch and makes the day go smoothly, and the inexperienced
types get a benchmark to aim for. But if we did that every week we would soon
lose the "really good" winch drivers. Spending a few hours seeing how well you
can get the winch to perform, every now and then is one thing,(and can be very
rewarding) but we all go to the airfield to fly...

Our experience is that there are a few individuals who never make satisfactory
winch drivers. With few exceptions they also struggle with the flying part. You
learn a lot observing someone on the winch. And driving the winch in all the
different conditions accelerates learning, he may not be flying, but the winch
driver is intimately involved in every launch.

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Malcolm Austin

July 3rd 05, 07:42 PM

Your comments fit in my own experience at a fairly small club I've spent
most of my time at.

With around 60 members there are only about 8 to 10 who are "cleared" for
the winch.
Instructors do not winch unless it's a special occasion or a really quiet
day. There really
isn't enough of them to waste on the winch anyway!

Putting someone on the winch for a full day has/is resulting in loosing
these people to
other activities (i.e. not gliding). The other problem with such a low
number of trained
people is that the winch duty comes around every 4 weeks. And also what
happens is
that if you turn up to fly and the duty man isn't there, you end up on the
winch all day
again. If you've gone to fly and end up working, it's extremely
demotivating.

I agree with your thoughts that a winch man is intimately involved in every
launch, its a very
responsible job and takes quite a bit of skill to complete correctly. As to
the point that
some individuals don't make good winchmen, absolutely right every time!
These
people seem uncordinated and unaware of what's happening around them, and
they seem
to fly that way. Almost an accident waiting to happen I guess.

Cheers, Malcolm..

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Johnston wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:39:35 UTC, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>> : We have a better rule - no solo in glider before solo on winch...
>>
>> It's not a bad idea, but it can and does (in my experience) lead to clubs
>> with large numbers of not-very-good winch drivers. I'd much rather be
>> launched by someone who has done dozens or hundreds of launches than
>> someone who does a few every few weeks to satisfy club rules.
>>
>> Ian, winch-but-not-any-other-sort-of-instructor
> Ian
>
> We average around 26-35 launches a day. With a small club and the
> instructors doing less winching (although everyone including the CFI
> drives winch) this means that our students, and solo pilots get to do
> plenty of winch driving.
>
> Instructors can expect to spend some time on the winch - maybe 5 or 10
> launches, once every quarter. Although we have one who volunteers just
> about ever time he is there - he just loves playing tunes with that V8...
> The others will share the launching, on average doing around 8 launches on
> any given day. It is not onerous, everyone shares the work and pitches in,
> and the experience on the winch means the low time pilots have a better
> understanding of what is going on. There are days when one of the more
> experienced types installs him/herself in the winch and makes the day go
> smoothly, and the inexperienced types get a benchmark to aim for. But if
> we did that every week we would soon lose the "really good" winch drivers.
> Spending a few hours seeing how well you can get the winch to perform,
> every now and then is one thing,(and can be very rewarding) but we all go
> to the airfield to fly...
>
> Our experience is that there are a few individuals who never make
> satisfactory winch drivers. With few exceptions they also struggle with
> the flying part. You learn a lot observing someone on the winch. And
> driving the winch in all the different conditions accelerates learning, he
> may not be flying, but the winch driver is intimately involved in every
> launch.
>
> --
> Bruce Greeff
> Std Cirrus #57
> I'm no-T at the address above.

Ian Johnston

July 3rd 05, 08:23 PM

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:32:35 UTC, Bruce > wrote:

: We average around 26-35 launches a day. With a small club and the instructors
: doing less winching (although everyone including the CFI drives winch) this
: means that our students, and solo pilots get to do plenty of winch driving.

I reckon it takes at least ten launches, particularly on a windy day,
for a driver to get his/her hand in, and a further ten for them to be
polished. So if you use a couple of drivers a day (am/pm split, maybe)
I'm sure standards will be quite acceptable.

It's places - and I have been there - where driving the winch is seen
as an unpopular chore, so people reluctantly do two or three and then
hand over, where standards really start to slip.

I agree completely about the worth of student pilots learning to
winch, but that has to be balanced against the safety of the launching
operation generally. Incidentally, I wish more (flying) instructors
would drive winches. Many of them have some very peculiar ideas about
what the winch, and the winch driver, can and cannot do!

Ian

--

Dave Ruttle

July 3rd 05, 11:14 PM

At 19:42 03 July 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:

>I reckon it takes at least ten launches, particularly
>on a windy >day,
>for a driver to get his/her hand in, and a further
>ten for them >to be
>polished.

What?? 20 Launches to get to a 'polished' standard!
(on each day, is this?) Jesus, you have cr*p winch
drivers, or cr*p winch instructors! So this is what
you reckon Ian? Are you winch driver?

>So if you use a couple of drivers a day (am/pm split,
>maybe)
>I'm sure standards will be quite acceptable.
>It's places - and I have been there - where driving
>the winch >is seen
>as an unpopular chore, so people reluctantly do two
>or three >and then
>hand over, where standards really start to slip.

Good winch training, makes good winch drivers, just
like flying training, if some winch driver does 10
bad launches, 'to get his/her eye in', I think he would
be on re-training or very poor! (after buying a round
of drinks for everyone he gave a cr*p launch to).

Even our less experienced winch drivers, generally
only take two launches to get their eye in, after good
feedback from the pilots.

I will send you one of our 70+ year old winch drivers
to you (before they get stopped by insurance companies,
EU directives, lack of binoculars, party poopers........)
I'm sure you need them.

Hopefully you have exaggerated the number of launches.
lol

Dave

Ian Johnston

July 3rd 05, 11:30 PM

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:14:27 UTC, Dave Ruttle
> wrote:

> At 19:42 03 July 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> >I reckon it takes at least ten launches, particularly
> >on a windy >day,
> >for a driver to get his/her hand in, and a further
> >ten for them >to be
> >polished.
>
> What?? 20 Launches to get to a 'polished' standard!
> (on each day, is this?) Jesus, you have cr*p winch
> drivers, or cr*p winch instructors! So this is what
> you reckon Ian? Are you winch driver?

I'm a winch driver and a winch instructor. And yes, if it's a windy
day, and you're launching a mixture glass and wood, single and two
seater, I stand completely by what I wrote. Ten or so launches to do
it reasonably well, twenty to be giving bang on, optimum speed,
perfect height launches every time.

Of course it's possible to do some sort of launch without taking much
care over it. If you don't fly at a club which takes winch driving
seriously you probably don't know how good it can be.

> Good winch training, makes good winch drivers, just
> like flying training, if some winch driver does 10
> bad launches, 'to get his/her eye in', I think he would
> be on re-training or very poor! (after buying a round
> of drinks for everyone he gave a cr*p launch to).

I didn't write "crap launch" and I didn't mean "crap" launch.

And just as with pilots, training is only the beginning. It's
practice, practice, practice after that. I'm certainly not claiming
that it's rocket science, but it is something that can be done
adequately or much better.

In case you were wondering, I am a complete sod to winch drivers when
I'm flying. I pull off for overspeeds without a second's hesitation
(many/most pilots just accept them: they shouldn't) and I don't take
underspeeds either. I invariably refuse to pay for aborted launches,
and when one winch driver told me I should have pulled back (ten feet
in the air) to accelerate I formally complained to his club's safety
officer about his competence and attitude.

> Even our less experienced winch drivers, generally
> only take two launches to get their eye in, after good
> feedback from the pilots.

If you are happy with those standards, fine.

Ian

M B

July 3rd 05, 11:35 PM

Is it my understanding that the winch drivers
at these operations make NOTHING? No money at all?

Hmmm...in the USA, even the clubs where the
aerotow pilots do it for free, there is still SOME
benefit. Either they are building time, or they get
to
rent the towplane for cheap on non-soaring days,
or they get free training to be towpilots (which they
can then use to prove experience at a for-profit operation).

I would think that at least SOME of the winch operations
pay SOMETHING. Even $1 or $2 a launch...

If not, I'm not surprised it is unpopular duty. Do
they
get a free BBQ dinner or something at least?

At 19:00 03 July 2005, Malcolm Austin wrote:
>Your comments fit in my own experience at a fairly
>small club I've spent
>most of my time at.
>
>With around 60 members there are only about 8 to 10
>who are 'cleared' for
>the winch.
>Instructors do not winch unless it's a special occasion
>or a really quiet
>day. There really
>isn't enough of them to waste on the winch anyway!
>
>Putting someone on the winch for a full day has/is
>resulting in loosing
>these people to
>other activities (i.e. not gliding). The other problem
>with such a low
>number of trained
>people is that the winch duty comes around every 4
>weeks. And also what
>happens is
>that if you turn up to fly and the duty man isn't there,
>you end up on the
>winch all day
>again. If you've gone to fly and end up working, it's
>extremely
>demotivating.
>
>I agree with your thoughts that a winch man is intimately
>involved in every
>launch, its a very
>responsible job and takes quite a bit of skill to complete
>correctly. As to
>the point that
>some individuals don't make good winchmen, absolutely
>right every time!
>These
>people seem uncordinated and unaware of what's happening
>around them, and
>they seem
>to fly that way. Almost an accident waiting to happen
>I guess.
>
>Cheers, Malcolm..
>
>'Bruce' wrote in message
...
>> Ian Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:39:35 UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> : We have a better rule - no solo in glider before
>>>solo on winch...
>>>
>>> It's not a bad idea, but it can and does (in my experience)
>>>lead to clubs
>>> with large numbers of not-very-good winch drivers.
>>>I'd much rather be
>>> launched by someone who has done dozens or hundreds
>>>of launches than
>>> someone who does a few every few weeks to satisfy
>>>club rules.
>>>
>>> Ian, winch-but-not-any-other-sort-of-instructor
>> Ian
>>
>> We average around 26-35 launches a day. With a small
>>club and the
>> instructors doing less winching (although everyone
>>including the CFI
>> drives winch) this means that our students, and solo
>>pilots get to do
>> plenty of winch driving.
>>
>> Instructors can expect to spend some time on the winch
>>- maybe 5 or 10
>> launches, once every quarter. Although we have one
>>who volunteers just
>> about ever time he is there - he just loves playing
>>tunes with that V8...
>> The others will share the launching, on average doing
>>around 8 launches on
>> any given day. It is not onerous, everyone shares
>>the work and pitches in,
>> and the experience on the winch means the low time
>>pilots have a better
>> understanding of what is going on. There are days
>>when one of the more
>> experienced types installs him/herself in the winch
>>and makes the day go
>> smoothly, and the inexperienced types get a benchmark
>>to aim for. But if
>> we did that every week we would soon lose the 'really
>>good' winch drivers.
>> Spending a few hours seeing how well you can get the
>>winch to perform,
>> every now and then is one thing,(and can be very rewarding)
>>but we all go
>> to the airfield to fly...
>>
>> Our experience is that there are a few individuals
>>who never make
>> satisfactory winch drivers. With few exceptions they
>>also struggle with
>> the flying part. You learn a lot observing someone
>>on the winch. And
>> driving the winch in all the different conditions
>>accelerates learning, he
>> may not be flying, but the winch driver is intimately
>>involved in every
>> launch.
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Greeff
>> Std Cirrus #57
>> I'm no-T at the address above.
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

Ian Johnston

July 3rd 05, 11:37 PM

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:35:33 UTC, M B >
wrote:

> Is it my understanding that the winch drivers
> at these operations make NOTHING? No money at all?

The club at which I am a winch instructor allows the duty winch driver
to fly (once) in a club glider whenever s/he wishes during their
stint, bypassing the list. That flight is free.

Ian

M B

July 3rd 05, 11:44 PM

Aha! That seems very civilized. Good.

At 22:54 03 July 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:35:33 UTC, M B
>wrote:
>
>> Is it my understanding that the winch drivers
>> at these operations make NOTHING? No money at all?
>
>The club at which I am a winch instructor allows the
>duty winch driver
>to fly (once) in a club glider whenever s/he wishes
>during their
>stint, bypassing the list. That flight is free.
>
>Ian
>
Mark J. Boyd

Bill Daniels

July 4th 05, 01:54 AM

"Malcolm Austin" > wrote in message
...
> Your comments fit in my own experience at a fairly small club I've spent
> most of my time at.
>
> With around 60 members there are only about 8 to 10 who are "cleared" for
> the winch. Instructors do not winch unless it's a special occasion or a
really quiet
> day. There really isn't enough of them to waste on the winch anyway!

Still, isn't it a good idea for an instructor to master the winch if only to
teach it better from the other end of the wire?

>
> Putting someone on the winch for a full day has/is resulting in loosing
> these people to other activities (i.e. not gliding). The other problem
with such a low
> number of trained people is that the winch duty comes around every 4
weeks. And also what
> happens is that if you turn up to fly and the duty man isn't there, you
end up on the
> winch all day again. If you've gone to fly and end up working, it's
extremely
> demotivating.
>

Part of the problem is some winches are really uncomfortable to operate. To
get winch drivers, make the winch driver seat the most comfortable one on
the airfield. Enclose the cab, add heating and air conditioning or whatever
creature comforts desired.

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

July 4th 05, 07:03 AM

M B wrote:
> Is it my understanding that the winch drivers
> at these operations make NOTHING? No money at all?
>
> Hmmm...in the USA, even the clubs where the
> aerotow pilots do it for free, there is still SOME
> benefit. Either they are building time, or they get
> to
> rent the towplane for cheap on non-soaring days,
> or they get free training to be towpilots (which they
> can then use to prove experience at a for-profit operation).
>
> I would think that at least SOME of the winch operations
> pay SOMETHING. Even $1 or $2 a launch...
>
> If not, I'm not surprised it is unpopular duty. Do
> they
> get a free BBQ dinner or something at least?
>
>

We don't pay for instruction, tractor driving, making meals, fixing
gliders, mowing the runways, retrieving gliders etc - why should we pay
the winch driver. All these duties are part of the smooth running of
the club and if somebody does not want to do his part - then he will
not fit into the club atmosphere.

All members are expected to go solo on the winch just after going solo
on the glider. The result is that there are plenty of experienced winch
drivers so nobody ends up spending the whole day on the winch. We
prefer to train on the winch only after the student has gone solo on
the glider because we wish the winch driver to have a fair knowledge of
what is going through the pilot's mind at each stage of the launch.

We pay the equivalent of US$3.33 per launch - so there is no spare
money to pay somebody to drive the winch without putting the costs up
for everybody. The result is the best glider fleet in Africa and
probably the cheapest rates in the world. Where else can you fly an ASW
20 at US$0.15/minute.

Clinton
LAK 12
www.ggc.co.za

Bruce

July 4th 05, 04:30 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:32:35 UTC, Bruce > wrote:
>
> : We average around 26-35 launches a day. With a small club and the instructors
> : doing less winching (although everyone including the CFI drives winch) this
> : means that our students, and solo pilots get to do plenty of winch driving.
>
> I reckon it takes at least ten launches, particularly on a windy day,
> for a driver to get his/her hand in, and a further ten for them to be
> polished. So if you use a couple of drivers a day (am/pm split, maybe)
> I'm sure standards will be quite acceptable.
>
> It's places - and I have been there - where driving the winch is seen
> as an unpopular chore, so people reluctantly do two or three and then
> hand over, where standards really start to slip.
>
> I agree completely about the worth of student pilots learning to
> winch, but that has to be balanced against the safety of the launching
> operation generally. Incidentally, I wish more (flying) instructors
> would drive winches. Many of them have some very peculiar ideas about
> what the winch, and the winch driver, can and cannot do!
>
> Ian
>
That is precisely why we keep everyone driving the winch - that way the person
on either end of the string knows what the other has to contend with.

For what it is worth we very seldom have a potentially dangerous situation (one
resulting in a incident report) By making the winch driving part of the
activities for everyone we remove the grudge factor - it is really hard to bitch
about the "chore" when the instructors do it too.

From a safety perspective I think this is one of the best things we do. It is
amazing the strange behaviour one occasionally comes across down there.
Whereupon a short discussion of the potential problem usually breaks the chain.

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Bruce

July 4th 05, 05:48 PM

What a sorry bunch.

Our winch drivers are rewarded with a number of things no amount of money can buy.

1] the gratitude of their peers
2] camaraderie
3] an inexhaustible store of tall tales to tell - legendary cable breaks
4] personal growth, and the pleasure of doing a simple job so well nobody
notices (funny how everyone notices a less than perfect one)
5] the knowledge that, having contributed fairly, the rest of the club will do
the same so that your flying remains affordable and fun
6] time for introspection away from the crowd the other end
7] Last but not least a lot of fun

On the subject of money - I just can't think how you could successfully pay the
two (financial) extremes at our club. The artisan who drives the winch for the
sheer fun of the V8s roar, or the big company CEO who does it because he is an
instructor and it is part of the club scene. I suspect both would be insulted if
you offered them money...

M B wrote:
> Is it my understanding that the winch drivers
> at these operations make NOTHING? No money at all?
>
> Hmmm...in the USA, even the clubs where the
> aerotow pilots do it for free, there is still SOME
> benefit. Either they are building time, or they get
> to
> rent the towplane for cheap on non-soaring days,
> or they get free training to be towpilots (which they
> can then use to prove experience at a for-profit operation).
>
> I would think that at least SOME of the winch operations
> pay SOMETHING. Even $1 or $2 a launch...
>
> If not, I'm not surprised it is unpopular duty. Do
> they
> get a free BBQ dinner or something at least?
>
> At 19:00 03 July 2005, Malcolm Austin wrote:
>
>>Your comments fit in my own experience at a fairly
>>small club I've spent
>>most of my time at.
>>
>>With around 60 members there are only about 8 to 10
>>who are 'cleared' for
>>the winch.
>>Instructors do not winch unless it's a special occasion
>>or a really quiet
>>day. There really
>>isn't enough of them to waste on the winch anyway!
>>
>>Putting someone on the winch for a full day has/is
>>resulting in loosing
>>these people to
>>other activities (i.e. not gliding). The other problem
>>with such a low
>>number of trained
>>people is that the winch duty comes around every 4
>>weeks. And also what
>>happens is
>>that if you turn up to fly and the duty man isn't there,
>>you end up on the
>>winch all day
>>again. If you've gone to fly and end up working, it's
>>extremely
>>demotivating.
>>
>>I agree with your thoughts that a winch man is intimately
>>involved in every
>>launch, its a very
>>responsible job and takes quite a bit of skill to complete
>>correctly. As to
>>the point that
>>some individuals don't make good winchmen, absolutely
>>right every time!
>>These
>>people seem uncordinated and unaware of what's happening
>>around them, and
>>they seem
>>to fly that way. Almost an accident waiting to happen
>>I guess.
>>
>>Cheers, Malcolm..
>>
>>'Bruce' wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Ian Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:39:35 UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: We have a better rule - no solo in glider before
>>>>solo on winch...
>>>>
>>>>It's not a bad idea, but it can and does (in my experience)
>>>>lead to clubs
>>>>with large numbers of not-very-good winch drivers.
>>>>I'd much rather be
>>>>launched by someone who has done dozens or hundreds
>>>>of launches than
>>>>someone who does a few every few weeks to satisfy
>>>>club rules.
>>>>
>>>>Ian, winch-but-not-any-other-sort-of-instructor
>>>
>>>Ian
>>>
>>>We average around 26-35 launches a day. With a small
>>>club and the
>>>instructors doing less winching (although everyone
>>>including the CFI
>>>drives winch) this means that our students, and solo
>>>pilots get to do
>>>plenty of winch driving.
>>>
>>>Instructors can expect to spend some time on the winch
>>>- maybe 5 or 10
>>>launches, once every quarter. Although we have one
>>>who volunteers just
>>>about ever time he is there - he just loves playing
>>>tunes with that V8...
>>>The others will share the launching, on average doing
>>>around 8 launches on
>>>any given day. It is not onerous, everyone shares
>>>the work and pitches in,
>>>and the experience on the winch means the low time
>>>pilots have a better
>>>understanding of what is going on. There are days
>>>when one of the more
>>>experienced types installs him/herself in the winch
>>>and makes the day go
>>>smoothly, and the inexperienced types get a benchmark
>>>to aim for. But if
>>>we did that every week we would soon lose the 'really
>>>good' winch drivers.
>>>Spending a few hours seeing how well you can get the
>>>winch to perform,
>>>every now and then is one thing,(and can be very rewarding)
>>>but we all go
>>>to the airfield to fly...
>>>
>>>Our experience is that there are a few individuals
>>>who never make
>>>satisfactory winch drivers. With few exceptions they
>>>also struggle with
>>>the flying part. You learn a lot observing someone
>>>on the winch. And
>>>driving the winch in all the different conditions
>>>accelerates learning, he
>>>may not be flying, but the winch driver is intimately
>>>involved in every
>>>launch.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Bruce Greeff
>>>Std Cirrus #57
>>>I'm no-T at the address above.
>>
>>
>>
> Mark J. Boyd
>
>

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Dave Ruttle

July 4th 05, 10:35 PM

> Ian Johnston wrote:
> I stand completely by what I wrote. Ten or so launches
>to do
>it reasonably well, twenty to be giving bang on, optimum
>>speed,
>perfect height launches every time.

Define reasonable? If this is above safe climbing speed
and below max launch speed, and the winch driver can
hold steady within 2- 5 knots (on a windy day, through
a wind gradient) up the launch, I would call that reasonable,
in fact pretty good, all our winch drivers will achieve
this well within 10 launches, normally within 2.

>Of course it's possible to do some sort of launch without
>taking >much
>care over it. If you don't fly at a club which takes
>winch >driving
>seriously you probably don't know how good it can be.

You are implying or inferring - wrongly, that our
winch drivers don't take care.

>I didn't write 'crap launch' and I didn't mean 'crap'
>launch.

Correct - you didn't, I apologise. I was generalising
with tongue in cheek.

>In case you were wondering, I am a complete sod to
>winch >drivers when
>I'm flying. I pull off for overspeeds without a second's
>>hesitation
I wasn't wondering.......
Hmmm that must be interesting and demoralising for
the winch driver, everytime you hit the wind gradient!
Or are you talking about the last third of the launch,
you didn't make it all that clear?

>(many/most pilots just accept them: they shouldn't)
>and I >don't take
>underspeeds either. I invariably refuse to pay for
>aborted >launches,
>and when one winch driver told me I should have pulled
>back (ten feet
>in the air) to accelerate I formally complained to
>his club's safety
>officer about his competence and attitude.

Well Ian, hope you never give a 'cr*p (my words not
yours) launch and no one will ever pull off after one
of your polished launches, wouldn't want to put ideas
into your club members heads here ;) I might actually
agree with your last point, especially if the WD was
serious.

>If you are happy with those standards, fine.
Again you are inferring that I accept below standard,
complete launches and it isn't fine. My log book shows
over the last 6 months flying, I've had to signal 4
times, for sub standard launches, the WD made good
corrections, yesterday was one of those signals, mainly
because the WD was hot (prob dehydrated) and had been
on the winch for over 3 hours, without a break. He
did the next lau. with his exellent finesse, the one
after was by a new WD (unbeknown to me), who had watched
the lau. I noticed no difference, 1500' 52 - 54KTS
up the launch, yes...... I was happy to accept those
standards.

Maybe it takes your WD's 10 launches to get their eye
in, because they know its you on the other end instructing??
;)

Dave

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 08:07 AM

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:35:50 UTC, Dave Ruttle
> wrote:

> > Ian Johnston wrote:
> > I stand completely by what I wrote. Ten or so launches
> >to do
> >it reasonably well, twenty to be giving bang on, optimum
> >>speed,
> >perfect height launches every time.
>
> Define reasonable? If this is above safe climbing speed
> and below max launch speed, and the winch driver can
> hold steady within 2- 5 knots (on a windy day, through
> a wind gradient) up the launch, I would call that reasonable,
> in fact pretty good, all our winch drivers will achieve
> this well within 10 launches, normally within 2.

That sounds reasonable to me. And yes, if it's an easy day and the
gliders are the same each time it can be easy to get your hand/eye in.
But if there's a big wind gradient and you're launching a lot of
different aircraft, it takes longer.

> You are implying or inferring - wrongly, that our
> winch drivers don't take care.

Not at all. Sorry. Didn't mean to insult them. It's just that they may
not have te opportunity to develop their skills as well as they might:
winch driving is easy to do reasonably and rather harder to do well or
very well - I just think it's worth (the club) taking the trouble to
arrange things so they can be done very well.

> >In case you were wondering, I am a complete sod to
> >winch >drivers when
> >I'm flying. I pull off for overspeeds without a second's
> >>hesitation

> I wasn't wondering.......
> Hmmm that must be interesting and demoralising for
> the winch driver, everytime you hit the wind gradient!

If the glider overspeeds when it goes through a wind gradient, either
the pilot or the winch driver is doing something wrong.

> Or are you talking about the last third of the launch,
> you didn't make it all that clear?

I check the placard. If I go over the winch launch speed I pull off,
at any phase of the launch. I absolutely do not subscribe to the
belief that it's OK to overspeed - and particularly not at the the
time when the glider is dangling 1500' of cable from it.

> Well Ian, hope you never give a 'cr*p (my words not
> yours) launch and no one will ever pull off after one
> of your polished launches, wouldn't want to put ideas
> into your club members heads here ;)

Yup, sometimes I get it wrong. I hope pilots would not hang on to a
dangerously fast or slow winch launch to protect me ego. When I do get
it wrong I apologise, sincerely, and try to do better next time. When
I get it right (this is easier on circuit days) I ask the pilot how
the launch was, pay attention to what they say, and try to get it
better next time.

> Maybe it takes your WD's 10 launches to get their eye
> in, because they know its you on the other end instructing??
> ;)

I'm only a winch instructor. When I'm at the other end I want to fly!

Ian

Don Johnstone

July 5th 05, 09:12 AM

Sorry Ian, a winch driver should be able to get it
right first time. I am very disappointed if I do not
get it right on the first launch. Modern winches have
all sorts of aids like setting the glider type/windspeed
which makes it even easier. Like everything else it
is down to training and practice. I spent most of my
first 5 years gliding sitting on a winch. Sadly winch
drivers are not encouraged to attain the same skill
level as pilots, it is viewed as a chore rather than
something which can be done well.

There is a signal that the pilot can use to indicate
overspeed. If the reaction to this signal is not an
immediate reduction in speed then I agree the launch
should be terminated. The weak link in the cable is
there to protect against overstress and overspeed is
certainly less dangerous than too slow.

However good the winch driver flying through a good
thermal on the launch will vary the ias seen by the
pilot but is normally a very transient effect.

At 07:24 05 July 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 21:35:50 UTC, Dave Ruttle
> wrote:
>
>> > Ian Johnston wrote:
>> > I stand completely by what I wrote. Ten or so launches
>> >to do
>> >it reasonably well, twenty to be giving bang on, optimum
>> >>speed,
>> >perfect height launches every time.
>>
>> Define reasonable? If this is above safe climbing
>>speed
>> and below max launch speed, and the winch driver can
>> hold steady within 2- 5 knots (on a windy day, through
>> a wind gradient) up the launch, I would call that
>>reasonable,
>> in fact pretty good, all our winch drivers will achieve
>> this well within 10 launches, normally within 2.
>
>That sounds reasonable to me. And yes, if it's an easy
>day and the
>gliders are the same each time it can be easy to get
>your hand/eye in.
>But if there's a big wind gradient and you're launching
>a lot of
>different aircraft, it takes longer.
>
>> You are implying or inferring - wrongly, that our
>> winch drivers don't take care.
>
>Not at all. Sorry. Didn't mean to insult them. It's
>just that they may
>not have te opportunity to develop their skills as
>well as they might:
>winch driving is easy to do reasonably and rather harder
>to do well or
>very well - I just think it's worth (the club) taking
>the trouble to
>arrange things so they can be done very well.
>
>
>> >In case you were wondering, I am a complete sod to
>> >winch >drivers when
>> >I'm flying. I pull off for overspeeds without a second's
>> >>hesitation
>
>> I wasn't wondering.......
>> Hmmm that must be interesting and demoralising for
>> the winch driver, everytime you hit the wind gradient!
>
>If the glider overspeeds when it goes through a wind
>gradient, either
>the pilot or the winch driver is doing something wrong.
>
>> Or are you talking about the last third of the launch,
>> you didn't make it all that clear?
>
>I check the placard. If I go over the winch launch
>speed I pull off,
>at any phase of the launch. I absolutely do not subscribe
>to the
>belief that it's OK to overspeed - and particularly
>not at the the
>time when the glider is dangling 1500' of cable from
>it.
>
>> Well Ian, hope you never give a 'cr*p (my words not
>> yours) launch and no one will ever pull off after
>>one
>> of your polished launches, wouldn't want to put ideas
>> into your club members heads here ;)
>
>Yup, sometimes I get it wrong. I hope pilots would
>not hang on to a
>dangerously fast or slow winch launch to protect me
>ego. When I do get
>it wrong I apologise, sincerely, and try to do better
>next time. When
>I get it right (this is easier on circuit days) I ask
>the pilot how
>the launch was, pay attention to what they say, and
>try to get it
>better next time.
>
>> Maybe it takes your WD's 10 launches to get their
>>eye
>> in, because they know its you on the other end instructing??
>> ;)
>
>I'm only a winch instructor. When I'm at the other
>end I want to fly!
>
>Ian
>

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 09:58 AM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:12:32 UTC, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

> Sorry Ian, a winch driver should be able to get it
> right first time. I am very disappointed if I do not
> get it right on the first launch.

Well, I'd hope too, but it depends on the site. Most of my winching
has been on a hill top site where I can't see the glider until it's
about 100' up (humped field) and where the upper winds are very
unpredictable.

> There is a signal that the pilot can use to indicate
> overspeed. If the reaction to this signal is not an
> immediate reduction in speed then I agree the launch
> should be terminated.

Nit picking time. The signal is for "too fast" as in "faster than I
want". There is only one signal for overspeed, and it involves the Big
Yellow Knob...

Weak links help protect against local structural damage, but even with
an unbroken weak link there's a lot of additional loading. The weak
link may be twice the AUW of the glider so in the final stages of the
launch the loading on the wings can get to over three times the
unaccelerated flying load. Structurally, this is much more than 3G,
because the additional loading is being applied only to the
non-lifting parts.

Ian

PS Character tests for winch drivers number 1: refusing to launch an
ASH25 on a black link, as the pilots invariably demand, and insisting
on a brown one, as it should be...

Bert Willing

July 5th 05, 11:27 AM

I take of with my ASW20 on a black link. And it's not the winch driver who
decides about this.
And yes, I've been a couple of thousand time on the throttle side of the
winch, too.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Ian Johnston" > a écrit dans le message de news:
dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-> PS Character tests for winch drivers number 1: refusing
to launch an
> ASH25 on a black link, as the pilots invariably demand, and insisting
> on a brown one, as it should be...

Bill Gribble

July 5th 05, 11:54 AM

Ian Johnston > writes
>PS Character tests for winch drivers number 1: refusing to launch an
>ASH25 on a black link, as the pilots invariably demand, and insisting
>on a brown one, as it should be...

Winch drivers from our site wouldn't get the chance to refuse. They get
told (and are expected to confirm) glider type and cable (runway or
"remaining") to launch on, but no mention of which link is in use.
Offering and accepting the correct link is (at least in our case) down
to the signaller (who also has responsibility for attaching the cable)
and pilot.

As far as character is concerned, I'm pretty certain the last time I
launched an ASH25 (as signaller, at least) it was on a black link. Or it
would have been if that was what the pilot had asked for. Unless I
absolutely know different, I take it as the pilot's responsibility, in
much the same way as I ask for confirmation from the pilot that their
airbrakes are closed before launch, but don't visually check to ensure
they've physically confirmed they're locked as a result of my asking.

The weak-link bone of contention I've come across most frequently is
with the Pilatus B4, where pilots invariably want the blue link instead
of the BGA mandated white.

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 12:04 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:27:40 UTC, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

> I take of with my ASW20 on a black link. And it's not the winch driver who
> decides about this.

If that is the correct link for the glider, then fine. If it's not,
and I were either launch marshall or winch driver, then I can assure
you that I, personally, would have nothing to do with launching you.

The correct weak link for an ASH-25, as specified by the designer and
manufacturer, is brown, 850dN.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 01:35 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:54:57 UTC, Bill Gribble
> wrote:

> As far as character is concerned, I'm pretty certain the last time I
> launched an ASH25 (as signaller, at least) it was on a black link. Or it
> would have been if that was what the pilot had asked for.

Would you launch a K8 on a black link if the pilot requested it? In
the old days, would you have signalled "all out" to the winch driver
if the pilot requested it and despite open brakes? Would you launch a
glider with a faulty back-release if the pilot said "Oh, that's OK,
just launch me."

I don't think /anyone/ on an airfield is entitled to overlook a clear
safety risk of this sort.

Ian

Bert Willing

July 5th 05, 01:45 PM

The book says it should be red. And as long as I'm operating my private
ship, it's me who is responsible for which weak link I ask for. Launch
marshals may comment on that, but not decide. Winch drivers are told which
glider is on the other side of the rope, and when they should start to pull.

I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle of
attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary. And even if the
book doesn't like it, that even works while being launched into thermals or
Mistral rotors.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Ian Johnston" > a écrit dans le message de news:
dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-DhT3lGVC8vpw@localhost...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:27:40 UTC, "Bert Willing"
> > wrote:
>
>> I take of with my ASW20 on a black link. And it's not the winch driver
>> who
>> decides about this.
>
> If that is the correct link for the glider, then fine. If it's not,
> and I were either launch marshall or winch driver, then I can assure
> you that I, personally, would have nothing to do with launching you.
>
> The correct weak link for an ASH-25, as specified by the designer and
> manufacturer, is brown, 850dN.
>
> Ian
>
>
> --
>

M B

July 5th 05, 04:59 PM

Is there any commonly known way to test a weak
link non-destructively (other than launching a glider)?

At 13:06 05 July 2005, Bert Willing wrote:
>The book says it should be red. And as long as I'm
>operating my private
>ship, it's me who is responsible for which weak link
>I ask for. Launch
>marshals may comment on that, but not decide. Winch
>drivers are told which
>glider is on the other side of the rope, and when they
>should start to pull.
>
>I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical
>situations
>resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer
>to watch angle of
>attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
>And even if the
>book doesn't like it, that even works while being launched
>into thermals or
>Mistral rotors.
>
>--
>Bert Willing
>
>ASW20 'TW'
>
>
>'Ian Johnston' a écrit dans le message de news:
>dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-DhT3lGVC8vpw@localhost...
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:27:40 UTC, 'Bert Willing'
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I take of with my ASW20 on a black link. And it's
>>>not the winch driver
>>> who
>>> decides about this.
>>
>> If that is the correct link for the glider, then fine.
>>If it's not,
>> and I were either launch marshall or winch driver,
>>then I can assure
>> you that I, personally, would have nothing to do with
>>launching you.
>>
>> The correct weak link for an ASH-25, as specified
>>by the designer and
>> manufacturer, is brown, 850dN.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 05:02 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:45:41 UTC, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

> The book says it should be red.

Which is 750dN, and you are launching with black, which is 1000dN.
That 250dN (33%) extra probably represents around 50 - 75% overload at
the wing fuselage junction. With all due respect, that's an insane
risk to take. Would you fly your glider with a cockpit load or ballast
250kg above the maximum permitted? Would your insurance company let
you? Would your national aviation authority let you?

> And as long as I'm operating my private
> ship, it's me who is responsible for which weak link I ask for.

Indeed, but as long as you are being launched by other people it is
their responsibility to assess your request and, if it's unsafe,
refuse it, just as it would be their duty to refuse to launch you if
you were drunk, or if your airbrakes were open.

> Launch
> marshals may comment on that, but not decide.

On the contrary, I believe that launch marshalls /should/ decide.
Nobody should be complicit in dangerous behaviour of this sort.

> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle of
> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.

Well good luck - and here's hoping that by the time you pull the knob
the hook (and wheel on an ASW20?) isn't on its way to the ground along
with sundry control connections. That's if a good unexpected bump on
the way up hasn't taken your wings off.

Ian

Bert Willing

July 5th 05, 05:35 PM

First of all, if the weak link breaks, the overload would be 33% (I don't
know what you do to get 50-75%).
Secondly, the point is not to get the weak link breaking at all. As long as
you stay within the limits of max winch tow speed, the overload is zero.
You might be not aware, but there is a good number of clubs who don't use
any weak links _at all_ (or launch marshalls...).

And I stand my point - it is my responsability to deal with my security, my
insurance and my legal authorities. Good luck? Go tell that to those who had
an accident initiated by a weak link failure. After 25 years of flying, I
still have to learn about a case of structural overload during winch launch.
However, I can accept that if I don't fly my glider, that I am imposed to
the owner's rules.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Ian Johnston" > a écrit dans le message de news:
dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-8g13dep07KYM@localhost...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:45:41 UTC, "Bert Willing"
> > wrote:
>
>> The book says it should be red.
>
> Which is 750dN, and you are launching with black, which is 1000dN.
> That 250dN (33%) extra probably represents around 50 - 75% overload at
> the wing fuselage junction. With all due respect, that's an insane
> risk to take. Would you fly your glider with a cockpit load or ballast
> 250kg above the maximum permitted? Would your insurance company let
> you? Would your national aviation authority let you?
>
>> And as long as I'm operating my private
>> ship, it's me who is responsible for which weak link I ask for.
>
> Indeed, but as long as you are being launched by other people it is
> their responsibility to assess your request and, if it's unsafe,
> refuse it, just as it would be their duty to refuse to launch you if
> you were drunk, or if your airbrakes were open.
>
>> Launch
>> marshals may comment on that, but not decide.
>
> On the contrary, I believe that launch marshalls /should/ decide.
> Nobody should be complicit in dangerous behaviour of this sort.
>
>> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
>> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle
>> of
>> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
>
> Well good luck - and here's hoping that by the time you pull the knob
> the hook (and wheel on an ASW20?) isn't on its way to the ground along
> with sundry control connections. That's if a good unexpected bump on
> the way up hasn't taken your wings off.
>
> Ian

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 05:36 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:59:24 UTC, M B >
wrote:

> Is there any commonly known way to test a weak
> link non-destructively (other than launching a glider)?

The Tost system uses two in parallel, one slightly longer than the
other. Whoever hooks up the glider should always check that both links
are intact and that only one is taking the load.

Ian

--

F.L. Whiteley

July 5th 05, 05:57 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:59:24 UTC, M B >
> wrote:
>
>> Is there any commonly known way to test a weak
>> link non-destructively (other than launching a glider)?
>
> The Tost system uses two in parallel, one slightly longer than the
> other. Whoever hooks up the glider should always check that both links
> are intact and that only one is taking the load.
>
> Ian
>
> --
We've gone to using a single TOST weak link. Over the years, the metal
sleeve gets dented, making inspection suspect without a time consuming
disassembly. A few times the links part without any warning that perhaps
the first may have failed previously. We have also had both fail at the
same time when going through a sharp wind gradient. We replaced both and
broke both on the very next launch through this sharp gradient. At the
price of the weak links, consuming one at a time, rather than two, just
makes more sense.

NDT would work if you jigged up an accurate test bed. I would be more
concerned with rope weak links used in aerotowing than TOST weak links if I
wanted to test something. From many years of observation I'm pretty
confident that the TOST links perform as expected.

Frank

F.L. Whiteley

July 5th 05, 06:03 PM

Bert Willing wrote:

> First of all, if the weak link breaks, the overload would be 33% (I don't
> know what you do to get 50-75%).
> Secondly, the point is not to get the weak link breaking at all. As long
> as you stay within the limits of max winch tow speed, the overload is
> zero. You might be not aware, but there is a good number of clubs who
> don't use any weak links _at all_ (or launch marshalls...).
>
> And I stand my point - it is my responsability to deal with my security,
> my insurance and my legal authorities. Good luck? Go tell that to those
> who had an accident initiated by a weak link failure. After 25 years of
> flying, I still have to learn about a case of structural overload during
> winch launch. However, I can accept that if I don't fly my glider, that I
> am imposed to the owner's rules.
>
Interesting. I find it odd that German rules, which are often clearly more
strict than other soaring environs, would allow this departure.

Frank

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 06:11 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:35:18 UTC, "Bert Willing"
> wrote:

> First of all, if the weak link breaks, the overload would be 33% (I don't
> know what you do to get 50-75%).

I said already. The overload on the aircraft as a whole is 33%,
However, that's a lot more than 1.3G structurally, because at 1.3G
much of the applied load is on, and then balanced by, the wings.

> Secondly, the point is not to get the weak link breaking at all. As long as
> you stay within the limits of max winch tow speed, the overload is zero.

Except you can stay within that limit with 250dN load more on the
winch hook and the wing attachments than the designers of the aircraft
thought safe.

Would you fly with 250kg of unofficial extra ballast in the fuselage?

> You might be not aware, but there is a good number of clubs who don't use
> any weak links _at all_ (or launch marshalls...).

Then they are idiots.

Ian

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 06:18 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:57:36 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

> NDT would work if you jigged up an accurate test bed. I would be more
> concerned with rope weak links used in aerotowing than TOST weak links if I
> wanted to test something. From many years of observation I'm pretty
> confident that the TOST links perform as expected.

Me too. Tost aerotow weak links are pretty good as well - I thought
just about everyone had gone over to them in place of rope. Mind you,
I knew one club which put a good stout length of rope in parallel with
the Tost link "because they are so expensive if they break and we lose
half the connector."

Ho hum.

Ian

--

Bill Daniels

July 5th 05, 07:05 PM

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-1IU6gvmrdIOd@localhost...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:59:24 UTC, M B >
> wrote:
>
> > Is there any commonly known way to test a weak
> > link non-destructively (other than launching a glider)?
>
> The Tost system uses two in parallel, one slightly longer than the
> other. Whoever hooks up the glider should always check that both links
> are intact and that only one is taking the load.
>
> Ian
>
To expand on what Ian wrote, the parallel weak-link system places only the
primary weak-link under load with a unloaded spare in place to take the load
should the first one fail below its rated strength as a result of fatigue
from repeated load cycles. If the failure is due to an overload, the spare
will fail a millisecond after the primary and the glider will be protected
from excessive cable force.

If the person hooking up the glider to the winch line shows these weak links
to the pilot, a crack in the primary will be obvious and can be quickly
replaced with a new one of the correct strength for the glider.

The Tost weak-link system is very well thought out and correct weak-link
color is universally referenced in German glider handbooks. It should be
used in every winch operation. I find it very comforting to know that the
glider will be protected from excessive loads while the weak-link itself is
backed up by a full strength spare.

Using either over or understrength weak-links is very hazardous.

Bill Daniels

Andreas Maurer

July 5th 05, 07:24 PM

On 5 Jul 2005 17:11:09 GMT, "Ian Johnston" >
wrote:

>> Secondly, the point is not to get the weak link breaking at all. As long as
>> you stay within the limits of max winch tow speed, the overload is zero.
>
>Except you can stay within that limit with 250dN load more on the
>winch hook and the wing attachments than the designers of the aircraft
>thought safe.

As Bert already stated: As long as you stay within the safe speed
range, there is no way to exceed the stress limits of the glider -
simply there isn't enough lift available.

Besides: I've never seen an ASW-20 break a weak link on my home
airfield. We were using the blue ones for the 20.

>Would you fly with 250kg of unofficial extra ballast in the fuselage?
That's not the point since this "unofficial ballast" never shows up if
the speed is kept in the safe range.

One example of how a designer got it wrong is the SF-34:
Officially the only allowed weak link is the blue one. Unfortunately
with this weak link it is nearly impossible to complete a winch launch
- the weak link fails in the moment the glider starts to accelerate.
Solution: a stronger weak link, and careful speed control.

Bye
Andreas

F.L. Whiteley

July 5th 05, 07:49 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:57:36 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
>> NDT would work if you jigged up an accurate test bed. I would be more
>> concerned with rope weak links used in aerotowing than TOST weak links if
>> I
>> wanted to test something. From many years of observation I'm pretty
>> confident that the TOST links perform as expected.
>
> Me too. Tost aerotow weak links are pretty good as well - I thought
> just about everyone had gone over to them in place of rope. Mind you,
> I knew one club which put a good stout length of rope in parallel with
> the Tost link "because they are so expensive if they break and we lose
> half the connector."
>
> Ho hum.
>
> Ian
>
>
> --
I don't recall having seen a TOST aerotow weak link in use in the US.
Perhaps some are using them.

Frank

Bruce

July 5th 05, 09:33 PM

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:54:57 UTC, Bill Gribble
> > wrote:
>
>
>>As far as character is concerned, I'm pretty certain the last time I
>>launched an ASH25 (as signaller, at least) it was on a black link. Or it
>>would have been if that was what the pilot had asked for.
>
>
> Would you launch a K8 on a black link if the pilot requested it? In
> the old days, would you have signalled "all out" to the winch driver
> if the pilot requested it and despite open brakes? Would you launch a
> glider with a faulty back-release if the pilot said "Oh, that's OK,
> just launch me."
>
> I don't think /anyone/ on an airfield is entitled to overlook a clear
> safety risk of this sort.
>
> Ian
>
Experience at two clubs - one uses weak links, other not.

Tost weak links are expensive ,and difficult to come by in our backwater. But
both clubs have pretty much the same cost on weak links.

We launch our entire fleet on the Red link (although the book says some of our
ships are OK for Black)

In the last three yeast we have not had a single weak link failure. In both
cases the wire used is 1930Mpa class C, put a knot in it (unavoidable as it has
to connect to the parachute) and you have an automatic reduction in strength to
under the strength of a black link.

At the other club an engineer member with an enquiring mind put the various tost
links specified for the club and private fleet on a tensiometer attached to a
piece of wire with the standard four turn knot in it. Even the blue link
survived the test. Conversely, there were a number of dangerous launch failures
with the Twin Astir breaking weak links.
Subsequently said club has steadfastly refused to use weak links, for many
thousands of launches - with a powerful winch.

Bottom line is , if you keep the speed in the correct range, and have a sane
cable strength, you are unlikely to need a weak link. By the time the weak link
/ cable breaks your structure has already transmitted the load.

Personally I prefer having a weak link in place, but I don't really believe that
it helps much.

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

Bill Daniels

July 5th 05, 09:40 PM

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Johnston wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 16:57:36 UTC, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> NDT would work if you jigged up an accurate test bed. I would be more
> >> concerned with rope weak links used in aerotowing than TOST weak links
if
> >> I
> >> wanted to test something. From many years of observation I'm pretty
> >> confident that the TOST links perform as expected.
> >
> > Me too. Tost aerotow weak links are pretty good as well - I thought
> > just about everyone had gone over to them in place of rope. Mind you,
> > I knew one club which put a good stout length of rope in parallel with
> > the Tost link "because they are so expensive if they break and we lose
> > half the connector."
> >
> > Ho hum.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > --
> I don't recall having seen a TOST aerotow weak link in use in the US.
> Perhaps some are using them.
>
> Frank
>
There's no (legal) reason not to use the Tost weak-links for air tow in the
USA as long as the strength satisfies the FAR 91.309 80%-200% rule. (Note
that 200% of the MTOW allowed by that FAR is generally much stronger than
the manufacturer's mandated winch weak-link strength.)

The POH for my Nimbus 2C states that the weak-link for air tow is the same
(92% of MTOW) as for winch launch. It's interesting to note that S-H
specifies the weak-link strength for air tow just as tightly as for winch
which may imply that the designers concern was not the wing but the tow hook
mounting structure.

Bill Daniels

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 10:12 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:05:20 UTC, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

> If the person hooking up the glider to the winch line shows these weak links
> to the pilot, a crack in the primary will be obvious and can be quickly
> replaced with a new one of the correct strength for the glider.

It's also easy to check that under light tension one link is taking
the load and one is free to rattle around, which is an easy way to
make sure that the primary link hasn't stretched, or got elongated
holes. The downside is that the metal holder for the links does tend
to get rammed full of mud on grass airfields.

Ian

--

Ian Johnston

July 5th 05, 10:16 PM

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:24:21 UTC, (Andreas Maurer)
wrote:

> As Bert already stated: As long as you stay within the safe speed
> range, there is no way to exceed the stress limits of the glider -
> simply there isn't enough lift available.

Um, must check, but am pretty sure angle of attack influences lift as
well...

> Besides: I've never seen an ASW-20 break a weak link on my home
> airfield. We were using the blue ones for the 20.

So why would anyone fly with a 33% over strength link?

> >Would you fly with 250kg of unofficial extra ballast in the fuselage?
> That's not the point since this "unofficial ballast" never shows up if
> the speed is kept in the safe range.

Unless the glider hits a gust, or the pilot pulls back too hard, or
the throttle of the winch suddenly shoots open or ...

> One example of how a designer got it wrong is the SF-34:
> Officially the only allowed weak link is the blue one. Unfortunately
> with this weak link it is nearly impossible to complete a winch launch
> - the weak link fails in the moment the glider starts to accelerate.
> Solution: a stronger weak link, and careful speed control.

It's been ages since I did a winch launch in an SF34 and I really
can't remember much about it, but surely in that case the manufacturer
should be approached about changing the link officially, and issuing a
strengthening modification if required?

I wonder if Centrair changed this on the Alliance 34? I must check the
handbook - we have one at my current (all aerotow!) club.

Ian
--

Bert Willing

July 6th 05, 07:49 AM

If you fly at max allowed speed at Ca(max), even a gust cannot produce more
lift.

Just to get your numbers straightened out: The wing attachement is designed
for a maximum load of 5.3g, that equivalents in the case of an ASW20 beyond
1000kg of non lift producing parts (which are around 200 kg of mass).

Ad it's pretty clear that if you don't use a weak link, you need to watch
your speed _and_ your angle of attack.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Ian Johnston" > a écrit dans le message de news:
dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-sdKTFDfjQBvY@localhost...
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:24:21 UTC, (Andreas Maurer)
> wrote:
>
>> As Bert already stated: As long as you stay within the safe speed
>> range, there is no way to exceed the stress limits of the glider -
>> simply there isn't enough lift available.
>
> Um, must check, but am pretty sure angle of attack influences lift as
> well...
>

Bill Gribble

July 6th 05, 09:16 AM

Ian Johnston > writes
>Would you launch a K8 on a black link if the pilot requested it? In the
>old days, would you have signalled "all out" to the winch driver if the
>pilot requested it and despite open brakes? Would you launch a glider
>with a faulty back-release if the pilot said "Oh, that's OK, just
>launch me."

No, absolutely not. And I agree with you, to a point; I would consider
it a moral obligation to make my views known and then not participate in
a launch (or any other aspect of the flying operation) that I considered
unsafe.

I frequently fly a Ka8, so know that it takes a blue link. If somebody
asked for a black, I'd laugh at them and, on realising that they were
serious, refuse.

If I can see the airbrakes are unlocked, of course I'm going to stop the
launch, at it happens, irrespective of my role (or otherwise) at the
launch point.

Faulty back release? Again, being aware of it, no.

ASH25 on a black link? I wouldn't know any better, if that's what the
pilot asked for. Knowing now that it should be a brown link I'll likely
mention it to the pilot concerned if I come across such a situation in
the future, but if the pilot insists on black, I suspect I'd defer to
his judgement in such an instance and use black.

A black link instead of brown is a whole different magnitude to black
instead of blue, or open brakes or an obvious and known fault with the
back release.

>I don't think /anyone/ on an airfield is entitled to overlook a clear
>safety risk of this sort.

Obviously safety on the airfield is paramount and the responsibility of
all. The main point of my original answer to your "character test" was
to observe that, in our operation at least, the winch driver wouldn't be
aware of which link was being used at the other end of the field.
Moreover, the launch marshal would, in many instances, be reliant upon
the pilot to identify the correct link required.

--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

Andreas Maurer

July 6th 05, 12:15 PM

On 5 Jul 2005 21:16:28 GMT, "Ian Johnston" >
wrote:

>> As Bert already stated: As long as you stay within the safe speed
>> range, there is no way to exceed the stress limits of the glider -
>> simply there isn't enough lift available.
>
>Um, must check, but am pretty sure angle of attack influences lift as
>well...

Indeed... but if you stay within the allowed speed range, you'll get a
stall if you pull too hard instead of overstressing the glider.

>> Besides: I've never seen an ASW-20 break a weak link on my home
>> airfield. We were using the blue ones for the 20.
>
>So why would anyone fly with a 33% over strength link?

Ask Bert - he's got his reasons!

>Unless the glider hits a gust, or the pilot pulls back too hard, or
>the throttle of the winch suddenly shoots open or ...

Nope.
Either of these cases results either in a stall (pulling back too
hard) or overspeed... but does not lead to overstress. If you leave
the safe speed range, you pull the release... problem solved
immediately.

>It's been ages since I did a winch launch in an SF34 and I really
>can't remember much about it, but surely in that case the manufacturer
>should be approached about changing the link officially, and issuing a
>strengthening modification if required?

Indeed... but nothing has happened.

>I wonder if Centrair changed this on the Alliance 34? I must check the
>handbook - we have one at my current (all aerotow!) club.

Please do - I'd be interested if it's different for the Alliance 34.

Bye
Andreas

W.J. $Bill$ Dean $U.K.$.

July 7th 05, 11:22 PM

TOST WEAK LINKS.

The BGA now recommend as follows:

"The weak-link assembly incorporates a link to suit the glider being
launched (see Appendix E) and this remains with the parachute assembly.
(At some sites, a selection of weak-links, suitable for launching each of
the glider types in the club’s fleet, may remain permanently attached to the
parachute assembly. This is convenient, but calls for extra care in
ensuring that the correct link is chosen for each launch.)

"N.B. The Tost weak-link system is designed for use either with a single
link or with double links. If the double-link system is employed, it is
essential that the links are of different design (the main link having round
holes and the reserve link having slotted holes). Using two weak links,
each of the same design doubles the breaking load and renders the whole
assembly ineffective. Because of the risk of assembling two weak links
incorrectly, the single-link assembly is recommended as the more foolproof
system."

This is a quote from the BGA Winch Operators Manual , page 20,
http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/clubmanagement/winchops.pdf .

This recommendation was made after an Olympia 463 had structural failure
while being winch launched, and the pilot was killed. It was found that
there was weakness in the wings due to water ingress while in the trailer,
and a double strength weak link had been used; it was not established which
was the critical factor.

This accident was on 13th July 1996, BGA Ref: 79/96, AAIB Ref: EW/C96/7/5.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
> news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-1IU6gvmrdIOd@localhost...
>
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 15:59:24 UTC, M B >
> wrote:
>
>> Is there any commonly known way to test a weak
>> link non-destructively (other than launching a glider)?
>
> The Tost system uses two in parallel, one slightly longer than the
> other. Whoever hooks up the glider should always check that both links
> are intact and that only one is taking the load.
>
> Ian
>

Mark Newton

July 11th 05, 01:29 PM

In article >,
"Bert Willing" > wrote:

> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle of
> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.

With all due respect, Bert, if a weak link breakage creates a "critical"
situation, then the pilot has a training issue which needs to be
resolved. Sounds like some cable break practice is in order.

A launch isn't supposed to be a hazardous maneuver. If there's -any-
stage during the launch where someone wouldn't be comfortable with
the cable breaking, they need to find an instructor and get some
remedial training.

- mark

Bert Willing

July 11th 05, 01:58 PM

With all due respect from my side, I am well trained to aborted launches, to
high-speed passes below 20ft along a runway, and to circeling inverted.
However, each of these situations presents an elevated risk as the margin
for errors is reduced.

Now if you think that an aborted winch launch does not represent an elevated
risk - keep on dreaming.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Mark Newton" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> In article >,
> "Bert Willing" > wrote:
>
>> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
>> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle
>> of
>> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
>
> With all due respect, Bert, if a weak link breakage creates a "critical"
> situation, then the pilot has a training issue which needs to be
> resolved. Sounds like some cable break practice is in order.
>
> A launch isn't supposed to be a hazardous maneuver. If there's -any-
> stage during the launch where someone wouldn't be comfortable with
> the cable breaking, they need to find an instructor and get some
> remedial training.
>
> - mark

Bill Daniels

July 11th 05, 02:37 PM

Bert, if you mean that the consequences of mishandling the controls is
higher during a aborted launch, I agree. However, that risk is more than
adequately managed through training. I feel confident that no unmanageable
situation will arise that will hurt me or my students as long as they fly
the way they were taught.

I can't say that about air tow. While all the risks involved in winch
launch are manageable, situations beyond my control can happen with air tow.

Bill Daniels

"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> With all due respect from my side, I am well trained to aborted launches,
to
> high-speed passes below 20ft along a runway, and to circeling inverted.
> However, each of these situations presents an elevated risk as the margin
> for errors is reduced.
>
> Now if you think that an aborted winch launch does not represent an
elevated
> risk - keep on dreaming.
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "Mark Newton" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
> > In article >,
> > "Bert Willing" > wrote:
> >
> >> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
> >> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle
> >> of
> >> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
> >
> > With all due respect, Bert, if a weak link breakage creates a "critical"
> > situation, then the pilot has a training issue which needs to be
> > resolved. Sounds like some cable break practice is in order.
> >
> > A launch isn't supposed to be a hazardous maneuver. If there's -any-
> > stage during the launch where someone wouldn't be comfortable with
> > the cable breaking, they need to find an instructor and get some
> > remedial training.
> >
> > - mark
>
>

Mark Newton

July 11th 05, 02:45 PM

In article >,
"Bert Willing" > wrote:

> With all due respect from my side, I am well trained to aborted launches, to
> high-speed passes below 20ft along a runway, and to circeling inverted.
> However, each of these situations presents an elevated risk as the margin
> for errors is reduced.
>
> Now if you think that an aborted winch launch does not represent an elevated
> risk - keep on dreaming.

You didn't say "elevated risk". You said "critical situation," which
means something completely different to "elevated risk."

You are now pretending you didn't say that for the sole purpose of
taking umbrage at my comments, which you would have me believe are
wrong.

They are not wrong, and I stand by my comments. Perhaps if you
stood by yours instead of redefining the language you used we'd be able
to walk away from this without any disagreement.

- mark

> "Mark Newton" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
> > In article >,
> > "Bert Willing" > wrote:
> >
> >> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
> >> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch angle
> >> of
> >> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
> >
> > With all due respect, Bert, if a weak link breakage creates a "critical"
> > situation, then the pilot has a training issue which needs to be
> > resolved. Sounds like some cable break practice is in order.
> >
> > A launch isn't supposed to be a hazardous maneuver. If there's -any-
> > stage during the launch where someone wouldn't be comfortable with
> > the cable breaking, they need to find an instructor and get some
> > remedial training.

Bert Willing

July 11th 05, 03:08 PM

From an elevated risk, you have critical situations more easily happening.
Being well trained for interruptions is to my mind mandatory for anybody who
wants to make winch launching.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"

"Mark Newton" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> In article >,
> "Bert Willing" > wrote:
>
>> With all due respect from my side, I am well trained to aborted launches,
>> to
>> high-speed passes below 20ft along a runway, and to circeling inverted.
>> However, each of these situations presents an elevated risk as the margin
>> for errors is reduced.
>>
>> Now if you think that an aborted winch launch does not represent an
>> elevated
>> risk - keep on dreaming.
>
> You didn't say "elevated risk". You said "critical situation," which
> means something completely different to "elevated risk."
>
> You are now pretending you didn't say that for the sole purpose of
> taking umbrage at my comments, which you would have me believe are
> wrong.
>
> They are not wrong, and I stand by my comments. Perhaps if you
> stood by yours instead of redefining the language you used we'd be able
> to walk away from this without any disagreement.
>
> - mark
>
>
>
>> "Mark Newton" > a écrit dans le message de
>> news: ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Bert Willing" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical situations
>> >> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I prefer to watch
>> >> angle
>> >> of
>> >> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
>> >
>> > With all due respect, Bert, if a weak link breakage creates a
>> > "critical"
>> > situation, then the pilot has a training issue which needs to be
>> > resolved. Sounds like some cable break practice is in order.
>> >
>> > A launch isn't supposed to be a hazardous maneuver. If there's -any-
>> > stage during the launch where someone wouldn't be comfortable with
>> > the cable breaking, they need to find an instructor and get some
>> > remedial training.

Don Johnstone

July 11th 05, 03:13 PM

A couple of points. After the first launch a weak link
is no longer at it's design strength, this reduces
with every launch. After 20 launches check the hole
in the centre of the tost weak link you will find it
is slightly oval and if you run your fingers along
the edges you will feel a depression. Unfortunately
many weak link 'holders' do not allow this check to
be made easily. A weak link will eventually break just
through 'normal' use if it is not replaced.

Up to the point at which the cable is at an angle of
more than 60 deg to the ground it is best if the cable
is released under full tension and the result dealt
with as a launch failure. What should be avoided is
lowering the nose early in the launch and pulling the
release especially if the launch is fast. It is very
easy for the parachute to open and fly and glider catch
up with it in those circumstances. I have seen the
cable wrapped round the wing when a pilot lowered the
nose because he was going to enter cloud and then pulled
the release. It should always be the other way round.
Lowering the nose when the glider is directly over
the winch, at the top of the climb is fine.

At 12:48 11 July 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>In article ,
> 'Bert Willing' wrote:
>
>> I have seen (from the ground) quite a couple of critical
>>situations
>> resulting from fatigued weak link breakage, and I
>>prefer to watch angle of
>> attack and speed, and pull the knob myself if necessary.
>
>With all due respect, Bert, if a weak link breakage
>creates a 'critical'
>situation, then the pilot has a training issue which
>needs to be
>resolved. Sounds like some cable break practice is
>in order.
>
>A launch isn't supposed to be a hazardous maneuver.
> If there's -any-
>stage during the launch where someone wouldn't be comfortable
>with
>the cable breaking, they need to find an instructor
>and get some
>remedial training.
>
> - mark
>