Landing with one spoiler

[[email protected]]

I committed one of the worst errors - an incomplete preflight check.
I did not check the hotelier locks to the spoiler rods with enough care
before takeoff. Coming into the pattern I extended the spoilers and
noticed immediately that something was wrong. The glider (SparrowHawk)
was pulling to one side and the rate of descent was not as much as I
expected. However the glider was easily controllable. A few seconds and
I saw that the right spoiler was not deploying. What to do? A couple of
attempts to close and open the spoilers did not actuate the right
spoiler. Then, oh well, lets check and see the effect of landing with
only one spoiler. The situation was less dramatic than expected.
Maximum sink rate was halved and the SparrowHawk needed some cross
control to fly straight but no problem. The landing was easy and
controllable. The lessons to be learnt from this are 2 fold: 1) landing
a glider with only one spoiler should be easy for most pilots and 2) do
a serious preflight inspection especially after assembly.
Dave

[Andy]

You did better than a very experienced local club member who had the
same problem many years ago in a DG300. He had one air brake open on
tow, released early instead of gaining altitude and time, misjudged the
approach and rolled it up in a ball.

In the worst case you should be committed to an approach and landing
with both airbrakes full open. Don't we practice that?

Andy

[rich]

Andy wrote:
> You did better than a very experienced local club member who had the
> same problem many years ago in a DG300. He had one air brake open on
> tow, released early instead of gaining altitude and time, misjudged the
> approach and rolled it up in a ball.
>
> In the worst case you should be committed to an approach and landing
> with both airbrakes full open. Don't we practice that?
>
> Andy

[rich]

Same thing happened to my partner in the ASW17/23m we had due to a
universal coupling failing at one of the rod ends in the left wing.
Ground checked okay, but failed on final. Some damage to the wing
underside and a hunt for parts, but we were flying the mighty 17 again
before long.
Rich

[Markus Gayda]

rich schrieb:
> Same thing happened to my partner in the ASW17/23m we had due to a
> universal coupling failing at one of the rod ends in the left wing.
> Ground checked okay, but failed on final. Some damage to the wing
> underside and a hunt for parts, but we were flying the mighty 17 again
> before long.
> Rich
>

We had the same happen in a ASK-21 on final. Looked spectacular, but
fortunately the rear-pilot was experienced enough to keep calm.
Touchdown was a bit sideways but rather normal - no damage.

Reason: after rigging the plane it was checked by someone who did not know the
(then new) Hotelier connections on the '21. ouch... and the person he asked to
check his work later forgot....

Cu around and happy landings!

Markus

[Andreas Maurer]

On 21 Sep 2005 21:16:29 -0700, "Andy" > wrote:

>You did better than a very experienced local club member who had the
>same problem many years ago in a DG300. He had one air brake open on
>tow, released early instead of gaining altitude and time, misjudged the
>approach and rolled it up in a ball.

Hmmm... the DG-300 has fully automatic control hookups for the flaps.
How could that happen?


Bye
Andreas

[Chris Rollings]

At 15:06 22 September 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 21 Sep 2005 21:16:29 -0700, 'Andy' wrote:
>
>>You did better than a very experienced local club member
>>who had the
>>same problem many years ago in a DG300. He had one
>>air brake open on
>>tow, released early instead of gaining altitude and
>>time, misjudged the
>>approach and rolled it up in a ball.
>
>Hmmm... the DG-300 has fully automatic control hookups
>for the flaps.
>How could that happen?

>
>
>Bye
>Andreas

The last DG300 I flew was standard Class, what flaps?
>

[Chris Rollings]

I recollect once watching someone land an ASW20 with
only one brake deployed. The pilot didn't even notice
there was a problem, just wondered why one wing dropped
a little earlier than usual. Lucky, I would agree.

At 04:12 22 September 2005, wrote:
> I committed one of the worst errors - an incomplete
>preflight check.
>I did not check the hotelier locks to the spoiler rods
>with enough care
>before takeoff. Coming into the pattern I extended
>the spoilers and
>noticed immediately that something was wrong. The glider
>(SparrowHawk)
>was pulling to one side and the rate of descent was
>not as much as I
>expected. However the glider was easily controllable.
>A few seconds and
>I saw that the right spoiler was not deploying. What
>to do? A couple of
>attempts to close and open the spoilers did not actuate
>the right
>spoiler. Then, oh well, lets check and see the effect
>of landing with
>only one spoiler. The situation was less dramatic than
>expected.
>Maximum sink rate was halved and the SparrowHawk needed
>some cross
>control to fly straight but no problem. The landing
>was easy and
>controllable. The lessons to be learnt from this are
>2 fold: 1) landing
>a glider with only one spoiler should be easy for most
>pilots and 2) do
>a serious preflight inspection especially after assembly.
>Dave
>
>

[Peter Harvey]

I landed our ASW22A with one brake deployed. It had
been flown previously that day by my syndicate partner,
without problem. Luckily I usually pop the brakes on
the downwind or base leg just to check all is well.
In this instance (at Dunstable) after a bang, the
LHS brake deployed OK, but the RHS stayed down. There
was a roll and yaw. I shut the brake(s) quickly looked
again and the RHS was now open and LHS closed, with
the opposite affect. Gulp, panic at thought of landing
Open class without brakes, etc. Landing was just OK
with a slight groundloop (stick forward and lots of
brake (tail lifts, so no probs).
The Hotelier for the brake had popped off after a previous
flight. We used safetys after that with no further
problems.

1) I still pop the brakes to check on base or final
(and often just after settled into first climb). Cheap
insurance.
2) On the assembly, I always give the Hoteliers a good
tug to ensure they're WELL AND TRUELY connected.
Stay safe.
Pete.


At 15:48 22 September 2005, Chris Rollings wrote:
>I recollect once watching someone land an ASW20 with
>only one brake deployed. The pilot didn't even notice
>there was a problem, just wondered why one wing dropped
>a little earlier than usual. Lucky, I would agree.
>
>At 04:12 22 September 2005, wrote:
>> I committed one of the worst errors - an incomplete
>>preflight check.
>>I did not check the hotelier locks to the spoiler rods
>>with enough care
>>before takeoff. Coming into the pattern I extended
>>the spoilers and
>>noticed immediately that something was wrong. The glider
>>(SparrowHawk)
>>was pulling to one side and the rate of descent was
>>not as much as I
>>expected. However the glider was easily controllable.
>>A few seconds and
>>I saw that the right spoiler was not deploying. What
>>to do? A couple of
>>attempts to close and open the spoilers did not actuate
>>the right
>>spoiler. Then, oh well, lets check and see the effect
>>of landing with
>>only one spoiler. The situation was less dramatic than
>>expected.
>>Maximum sink rate was halved and the SparrowHawk needed
>>some cross
>>control to fly straight but no problem. The landing
>>was easy and
>>controllable. The lessons to be learnt from this are
>>2 fold: 1) landing
>>a glider with only one spoiler should be easy for most
>>pilots and 2) do
>>a serious preflight inspection especially after assembly.
>>Dave
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[David Salmon]

Guess I'm just unlucky as I've had this twice.
Many years ago in a Kestrel 19 the brake drive in one
wing failed. Didn't even notice till I'd landed and
saw one brake out and one in.
Second time was test flying a club Grob Acro after
C of A and rigging. It had some cosmetic work done
on the brake slots. On the ground everything worked
perfectly, it had a rigging check, DI, and 2 pre flights
because we initially had a ground run cable break.
On approach the brakes would not open, but did so after
applying quite alot of pressure. In fact one opened
and the other side wing pushrod bent.
After repairs we tried again, after first getting a
lot of people pushing up on the wings, the brakes were
OK. Top of the launch, they would not open until we
pushed over for some reduced G.
It turned out that the cosmetic repairs had closed
up the end gap which the caps need to move about 3
mm tipwise before opening, and the caps were jamming.
It needed a lot of removal before they worked properly.
The point is that there were no control problems whatsoever
with one brake in and one out.

Dave Salmon





At 04:12 22 September 2005, wrote:
> I committed one of the worst errors - an incomplete
>preflight check.
>I did not check the hotelier locks to the spoiler rods
>with enough care
>before takeoff. Coming into the pattern I extended
>the spoilers and
>noticed immediately that something was wrong. The glider
>(SparrowHawk)
>was pulling to one side and the rate of descent was
>not as much as I
>expected. However the glider was easily controllable.
>A few seconds and
>I saw that the right spoiler was not deploying. What
>to do? A couple of
>attempts to close and open the spoilers did not actuate
>the right
>spoiler. Then, oh well, lets check and see the effect
>of landing with
>only one spoiler. The situation was less dramatic than
>expected.
>Maximum sink rate was halved and the SparrowHawk needed
>some cross
>control to fly straight but no problem. The landing
>was easy and
>controllable. The lessons to be learnt from this are
>2 fold: 1) landing
>a glider with only one spoiler should be easy for most
>pilots and 2) do
>a serious preflight inspection especially after assembly.
>Dave
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On 22 Sep 2005 15:42:44 GMT, Chris Rollings
> wrote:

>The last DG300 I flew was standard Class, what flaps?

Ahhh.. sorry: I meant airbrakes.



Bye
Andreas

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Andreas Maurer
> writes
>On 21 Sep 2005 21:16:29 -0700, "Andy" > wrote:
>
>>You did better than a very experienced local club member who had the
>>same problem many years ago in a DG300. He had one air brake open on
>>tow, released early instead of gaining altitude and time, misjudged the
>>approach and rolled it up in a ball.
>
>Hmmm... the DG-300 has fully automatic control hookups for the flaps.
>How could that happen?
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas

I didn't think the DG 300 had flaps.
--
Mike Lindsay

[COLIN LAMB]

If one spoiler deploys and the other one does not, and it will not retract,
and it significantly affects landing, I expect that a forward slip, with the
fuselage blocking the deployed spoiler (or flap) would be an alternative to
try.

At a time like that, you are glad you do not have barn door spoilers.

Colin

[[email protected]]

Chris Rollings wrote:
> I recollect once watching someone land an ASW20 with
> only one brake deployed. The pilot didn't even notice
> there was a problem, just wondered why one wing dropped
> a little earlier than usual. Lucky, I would agree.
>
> I too did an incomplete check and one brake on my ASW-20 came full open on tow. Though controllable it was easier to open both (the other) brake to balance the yaw force. After climbing to a suitable altitude I released and landed successfully using the "both" brakes method. As one can see there is a difference how to handle the case of one brake that won't deploy versus the case where the one brake stays deployed. Rudy Allemann

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
David Salmon > wrote:

> Second time was test flying a club Grob Acro after
> C of A and rigging. It had some cosmetic work done
> on the brake slots. On the ground everything worked
> perfectly, it had a rigging check, DI, and 2 pre flights
> because we initially had a ground run cable break.
> On approach the brakes would not open, but did so after
> applying quite alot of pressure. In fact one opened
> and the other side wing pushrod bent.
> After repairs we tried again, after first getting a
> lot of people pushing up on the wings, the brakes were
> OK. Top of the launch, they would not open until we
> pushed over for some reduced G.

Note to self: if brakes won't open, try a pushover to unload the wings.

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

[CindyASK]

We do practice that here.
But many places do not practice for this.
Full spoilers deployed ( to achieve symmetry) through approach, from
the point of unlocking through flare/round out and touchdown. The
typical error we find made by pilots in this configuration is the
tendency to "hurry" on approach, with extra airspeed, and not
understand how it will affect their glide slope.

It should be much less of a handling worry to make the glider
symmetrical, and control the approach in a regular configuration, than
to begin to think of all the "different" things you could do to
accommodate the asymmetry.

Just because there are several stories reported here of pilots who
either "didn't notice" their configuration issues, or handled
them with aplomb, remember that this is frequently Not The Case for
just as many others.

We also practice/teach approaches with spoilers completely closed, but
that is a different thread.

Cindy B
Caracole Soaring

[Bill Daniels]

"CindyASK" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> We do practice that here.
> But many places do not practice for this.
> Full spoilers deployed ( to achieve symmetry) through approach, from
> the point of unlocking through flare/round out and touchdown. The
> typical error we find made by pilots in this configuration is the
> tendency to "hurry" on approach, with extra airspeed, and not
> understand how it will affect their glide slope.
>
> It should be much less of a handling worry to make the glider
> symmetrical, and control the approach in a regular configuration, than
> to begin to think of all the "different" things you could do to
> accommodate the asymmetry.
>
> Just because there are several stories reported here of pilots who
> either "didn't notice" their configuration issues, or handled
> them with aplomb, remember that this is frequently Not The Case for
> just as many others.
>
> We also practice/teach approaches with spoilers completely closed, but
> that is a different thread.
>
> Cindy B
> Caracole Soaring
>

Good thoughts. Good also to keep in mind that many gliders will have the
wheel brake fully applied with full spoiler deployment making the touchdown
'interesting'.

Once, long ago, I tested the effect of asymmetrical spoiler deployment to
find out if it would make a suitable roll control. I found that I could
twist around in the seat of a 1-26 just enough to pull one of the spoiler
cables behind the spar box. I was surprised to find that the roll/yaw
effect was small - at least at normal approach airspeeds.

As long as the airspeed is not too high, asymmetrical spoiler can be
controlled with rudder and aileron. Of course, at higher speeds, the yaw
from an open spoiler will overpower the rudder because drag is proportional
to the square of the airspeed. Somehow, rudder authority doesn't increase
at the same rate.

Bill Daniels

[Ray Hart]

In 2001 I was sadly involved with the aftermath of
an accident to an SZD
Junior. The BGA/AAIB inquiry found evidence that one
airbrake had
deployed (over-ranging and a broken drive gear) - the
result was a spiral
dive into the ground. Moves to test a Junior rigged
so that only one
brake deployed were vetoed (non-airworthy, so uninsured).


A test pilot study of a range of glider types with
one brake deployed
would, no doubt, make interesting reading though.

It is always worth visually checking the brakes if
the glider develops
asymetry during flight. It is also worth trying the
occasional full brake
landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
no-brake landings
though.

Ray

At 03:12 23 September 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'CindyASK' wrote in message
ups.com...
>> We do practice that here.
>> But many places do not practice for this.
>> Full spoilers deployed ( to achieve symmetry) through
>>approach,
from
>> the point of unlocking through flare/round out and
>>touchdown. The
>> typical error we find made by pilots in this configuration
>>is the
>> tendency to 'hurry' on approach, with extra airspeed,
>>and not
>> understand how it will affect their glide slope.
>>
>> It should be much less of a handling worry to make
>>the glider
>> symmetrical, and control the approach in a regular
>>configuration,
than
>> to begin to think of all the 'different' things you
>>could do to
>> accommodate the asymmetry.
>>
>> Just because there are several stories reported here
>>of pilots who
>> either 'didn't notice' their configuration issues,
>>or handled
>> them with aplomb, remember that this is frequently
>>Not The Case for
>> just as many others.
>>
>> We also practice/teach approaches with spoilers completely
>>closed,
but
>> that is a different thread.
>>
>> Cindy B
>> Caracole Soaring
>>
>
>Good thoughts. Good also to keep in mind that many
>gliders will have
the
>wheel brake fully applied with full spoiler deployment
>making the
touchdown
>'interesting'.
>
>Once, long ago, I tested the effect of asymmetrical
>spoiler deployment
to
>find out if it would make a suitable roll control.
> I found that I could
>twist around in the seat of a 1-26 just enough to pull
>one of the spoiler
>cables behind the spar box. I was surprised to find
>that the roll/yaw
>effect was small - at least at normal approach airspeeds.
>
>As long as the airspeed is not too high, asymmetrical
>spoiler can be
>controlled with rudder and aileron. Of course, at
>higher speeds, the
yaw
>from an open spoiler will overpower the rudder because
>drag is
proportional
>to the square of the airspeed. Somehow, rudder authority
>doesn't
increase
>at the same rate.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>

[[email protected]]

As part of an instructors course I had to master the art of getting a
Grob twin down without airbrake. It took a few attempts. Without a BIG
airfield I have no doubt that it would end in tears, even having done
it before I doubt if I could repeat the excercise under pressure.

[Z Goudie]

At 14:06 23 September 2005, wrote:
>As part of an instructors course I had to master the
>art of getting a
>Grob twin down without airbrake. It took a few attempts.
>Without a BIG
>airfield I have no doubt that it would end in tears,
>even having done
>it before I doubt if I could repeat the excercise under
>pressure.

Does no-one teach side slipping as an approach control
these days?

[5Z]

Ray Hart wrote:

> landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
> no-brake landings
> though.

This is another thread, but a no spoiler approach is one of the
simplest "advanced" manouvers out there. I only have access to a L-23
and tried this a few months back. I was able to use about as much
runway as the typical normal landing made by others. Spot touchdown
was a bit dicey, but I always got stopped where I had planned.


Gotta give it a try in the ASH-26E sometime. Should I "cheat" and use
landing flap, or give it a shot in thermalling flap?
-Tom

[Mark Dickson]

At 02:42 23 September 2005, Cindyask wrote:
>We do practice that here.
>But many places do not practice for this.
>Full spoilers deployed ( to achieve symmetry) through
>approach, from
>the point of unlocking through flare/round out and
>touchdown. The
>typical error we find made by pilots in this configuration
>is the
>tendency to 'hurry' on approach, with extra airspeed,
>and not
>understand how it will affect their glide slope.
>
>It should be much less of a handling worry to make
>the glider
>symmetrical, and control the approach in a regular
>configuration, than
>to begin to think of all the 'different' things you
>could do to
>accommodate the asymmetry.
>
>Just because there are several stories reported here
>of pilots who
>either 'didn't notice' their configuration issues,
>or handled
>them with aplomb, remember that this is frequently
>Not The Case for
>just as many others.
>
>We also practice/teach approaches with spoilers completely
>closed, but
>that is a different thread.
>
>Cindy B
>Caracole Soaring
>
>
How do you practice asymetric airbrake approaches?

[Shawn]

5Z wrote:
> Ray Hart wrote:
>
>
>>landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
>>no-brake landings
>>though.
>
>
> This is another thread, but a no spoiler approach is one of the
> simplest "advanced" manouvers out there. I only have access to a L-23
> and tried this a few months back. I was able to use about as much
> runway as the typical normal landing made by others. Spot touchdown
> was a bit dicey, but I always got stopped where I had planned.
>
>
> Gotta give it a try in the ASH-26E sometime. Should I "cheat" and use
> landing flap, or give it a shot in thermalling flap?
> -Tom
>
Cheat. The chances of losing both at the same time are pretty small.
My Mosquito or a Ventus are a little different. I don't think roll
would be an issue with one side fully deployed and the other stowed, but
yaw could be considerable!

Shawn

[Roger Worden]

I tried it a few times in an L-13 in response to an inspector's
interpretation of the PTS. It floated a *long* way. Maybe yawing while in
ground effect could have added drag to help make the landing more precise,
but I didn't try it... we just decided you need a very long runway.

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ray Hart wrote:
>
> > landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
> > no-brake landings
> > though.
>
> This is another thread, but a no spoiler approach is one of the
> simplest "advanced" manouvers out there. I only have access to a L-23
> and tried this a few months back. I was able to use about as much
> runway as the typical normal landing made by others. Spot touchdown
> was a bit dicey, but I always got stopped where I had planned.
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On 23 Sep 2005 16:55:00 GMT, Z Goudie
> wrote:


>Does no-one teach side slipping as an approach control
>these days?

One does - but in a glider with halfways good L/D (and that's a lot
better than a Blanik) the tricky part starts close to the ground when
the glider starts to glide again once the sideslip has been ended.



Bye
Andreas

[Bill Daniels]

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Sep 2005 16:55:00 GMT, Z Goudie
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Does no-one teach side slipping as an approach control
> >these days?
>
> One does - but in a glider with halfways good L/D (and that's a lot
> better than a Blanik) the tricky part starts close to the ground when
> the glider starts to glide again once the sideslip has been ended.
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas


Agreed - tricky indeed.

The "slip to landing" no-spoiler approach is an artifact of training in
2-33-like trainers. It is far less useful in higher performance gliders
which is what we should be training our students to fly. We need to revise
our syllabi to prepare pilots for what they will fly in the 21st century.

As a somewhat extreme example, a slip to landing in my Nimbus would be
insane. I would have to level the wings at a height that would result in
floating the length of the runway and crashing somewhere off the departure
end. Or, alternatively. fly the approach at a dangerously low airspeed.

Training slips to landings in higher performance trainers can result in the
training risks being higher than any hoped for post training risk reduction.
Perhaps a better method is to teach very careful pre-flight inspection with
emphasis on positive control checks and then teach very accurate patterns
and glide path control.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Heh.

Yawing, or more accurately, slipping helps a bit in a no spoiler
landing. I practiced them a lot for my commercial checkride in a 20
meter DG-1000. It floats *a lot*. But slipping near the ground helps.
You just need to adjust the degree of the slip to match your
distance from the ground. The closer you get the less you slip. That
way, if you accidentally touch down it's with a very minor side load.

We did it many times on the 6,000 foot runway until I could do it
reliably. Then my instructor asked me to do it on the 3,000 foot
runway. I thought he was on crack, but you know what? It worked. I
used most of the runway, but I was able to get it down and stopped in
less than 3,000 feet.

As a result, I'm far more confident in my ability to get the glider down
and landed if the spoilers were to fail in the locked position.

Jeremy

Roger Worden wrote:
> I tried it a few times in an L-13 in response to an inspector's
> interpretation of the PTS. It floated a *long* way. Maybe yawing while in
> ground effect could have added drag to help make the landing more precise,
> but I didn't try it... we just decided you need a very long runway.
>
> "5Z" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Ray Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>>>landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
>>>no-brake landings
>>>though.
>>
>>This is another thread, but a no spoiler approach is one of the
>>simplest "advanced" manouvers out there. I only have access to a L-23
>>and tried this a few months back. I was able to use about as much
>>runway as the typical normal landing made by others. Spot touchdown
>>was a bit dicey, but I always got stopped where I had planned.
>>
>
>
>

[Roger Worden]

> for my commercial checkride
> asked me to do it on the 3,000 foot runway

My FAA inspector for Private wanted me to do a no-spoiler landing all the
way to the ground in a Blanik L13 into our 800-foot landing box. So I
delayed my practical test to try to gain this skill. None of my CFI's
thought the task should be done that way. I tried it with my CFIG and on my
own and we concluded that due to the 28:1 float we would have to round out
so far ahead of the field that it would be unsafe.

I found an FAA inspector newsletter that clarified the intent of the task:
to simulate an emergency approach with failed spoilers, but only to the
round-out. NO intent to complete the landing that way for the PPG rating.
It's OK to use spoilers after the round-out. Fortunately that inspector
retired and the next one accepted my research. During my practical test, I
slipped on base, on turn to final, and on final, then used spoilers after
round-out and landed perfectly within the box.

If I had to do without spoilers in real life, I'd just have to know it's not
coming down in 800'. More like 1500'. Yaw without ailerons would probably
help, but I have not tried it.

[Ray Hart]

Thought provoking. The bit of my posting that has
been picked up on is
the 'I wouldn't recommend practising no-spoiler landings'.
I think that
my premise is sound for the following reasons.

1. We don't always get to land on 6,000', or even
3,000' airfields. We
sometimes get to land out in the best field available,
and that may be
very small.

2. Work out how low you'd have to be to touchdown
on the threshold in
a 50:1, or more, glider. There would be far more 'practise'
accidents
than than this kind of 'training' would prevent in
real life.

3. The end result of a really good no-brake approach
in a high
performance glider would likely be an overshoot accident
(normally far
less damaging than an undershoot through the trees
at flying speed).
Still not worth training for (ask an insurance broker).


4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
brakes shut - in
a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
be interested to
hear their stories.

Ray

At 03:24 26 September 2005, Roger Worden wrote:
>> for my commercial checkride
>> asked me to do it on the 3,000 foot runway
>
>My FAA inspector for Private wanted me to do a no-spoiler
>landing all
the
>way to the ground in a Blanik L13 into our 800-foot
>landing box. So I
>delayed my practical test to try to gain this skill.
>None of my CFI's
>thought the task should be done that way. I tried it
>with my CFIG and
on my
>own and we concluded that due to the 28:1 float we
>would have to
round out
>so far ahead of the field that it would be unsafe.
>
>I found an FAA inspector newsletter that clarified
>the intent of the task:
>to simulate an emergency approach with failed spoilers,
>but only to the
>round-out. NO intent to complete the landing that way
>for the PPG
rating.
>It's OK to use spoilers after the round-out. Fortunately
>that inspector
>retired and the next one accepted my research. During
>my practical
test, I
>slipped on base, on turn to final, and on final, then
>used spoilers after
>round-out and landed perfectly within the box.
>
>If I had to do without spoilers in real life, I'd just
>have to know it's not
>coming down in 800'. More like 1500'. Yaw without ailerons
>would
probably
>help, but I have not tried it.
>
>
>

[Chris Rollings]

>
>4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
>brakes shut - in
>a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
>be interested to
>hear their stories.
>
>Ray

November 1975, Aboyne, Kestrel 19. Tried to open the
brakes to descend from ~ 20,000 feet as cloud was closing
in below. Brakes wouldn't open (cold had caused over
centre lock to become unbreakably tight). Lowered flap
and undercarraige and spiraled down. Entered cloud
at 5,000 feet, got spat out the bottom at 2,000 about
30 seconds later (had been in the down of the wave),
about ten miles from Aboyne. Brakes still wouldn't
open. Did a side-slip approach into a field about
200 yards square, approached on a corner to corner
line (about 300 yards available), surface wind was
about 20 - 25 knots. Wheeled it on, still no brakes
and the wheel brake is on the end of the airbrake travel,
tried the tailchute in the flare, that didn't work
either. Put the stick forward and ground looped just
before the far corner. Opened my eyes again, expecting
to see the back end of the glider lying on the ground
in front of me. Turned out there was no damage. You
can get away with it, but I wouldn't want to try it
with no wind. Exciting way to get a Diamond Height.

I don't think I would want to own an ASW 12.

[bagmaker]

4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
brakes shut - in
a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
be interested to
hear their stories.

Ray

November 1975, Aboyne, Kestrel 19. Tried to open the
brakes to descend from ~ 20,000 feet as cloud was closing
in below. Brakes wouldn't open (cold had caused over
centre lock to become unbreakably tight). Lowered flap
and undercarraige and spiraled down. Entered cloud
at 5,000 feet, got spat out the bottom at 2,000 about
30 seconds later (had been in the down of the wave),
about ten miles from Aboyne. Brakes still wouldn't
open. Did a side-slip approach into a field about
200 yards square, approached on a corner to corner
line (about 300 yards available), surface wind was
about 20 - 25 knots. Wheeled it on, still no brakes
and the wheel brake is on the end of the airbrake travel,
tried the tailchute in the flare, that didn't work
either. Put the stick forward and ground looped just
before the far corner. Opened my eyes again, expecting
to see the back end of the glider lying on the ground
in front of me. Turned out there was no damage. You
can get away with it, but I wouldn't want to try it
with no wind. Exciting way to get a Diamond Height.

I don't think I would want to own an ASW 12.


This thread is surprising me. Do we get tested how to stop a vehicle without brakes? Are we asked to get a vehicle to the top of a hill with no engine running?
Surely if there is a control surface malfunction it should be treated as an EMERGENCY and dealt with accordingly -not practiced! Many more pilots have left the earth with a canopy unlatched than had to land with faulty spoilers, did the FAA ask CFIs to do a lap with no canopy?
C'mon, guys, the stories are great, but be serious, as a newbie (19 years flying) surely, to keep pilots keen, spin and rope break emergencies are enough sweat on the brow.

Safe as always.

Wayne

[Ray Hart]

Now that's more like it. Keep em' coming....

Ray

At 09:06 26 September 2005, Chris Rollings wrote:
>
>>
>>4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
>>brakes shut - in
>>a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
>>be interested to
>>hear their stories.
>>
>>Ray
>
>November 1975, Aboyne, Kestrel 19. Tried to open the
>brakes to descend from ~ 20,000 feet as cloud was closing
>in below. Brakes wouldn't open (cold had caused over
>centre lock to become unbreakably tight). Lowered flap
>and undercarraige and spiraled down. Entered cloud
>at 5,000 feet, got spat out the bottom at 2,000 about
>30 seconds later (had been in the down of the wave),
>about ten miles from Aboyne. Brakes still wouldn't
>open. Did a side-slip approach into a field about
>200 yards square, approached on a corner to corner
>line (about 300 yards available), surface wind was
>about 20 - 25 knots. Wheeled it on, still no brakes
>and the wheel brake is on the end of the airbrake travel,
>tried the tailchute in the flare, that didn't work
>either. Put the stick forward and ground looped just
>before the far corner. Opened my eyes again, expecting
>to see the back end of the glider lying on the ground
>in front of me. Turned out there was no damage. You
>can get away with it, but I wouldn't want to try it
>with no wind. Exciting way to get a Diamond Height.
>
>I don't think I would want to own an ASW 12.
>
>
>
>

[Bob Whelan]

"Ray Hart" wrote...

<snips>
> 4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
> brakes shut - in
> a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
> be interested to
> hear their stories.
>
> Ray

A friend of mine did it in his DG-200 (original 2-piece canopy version) on a
4,100' strip at 5288' msl...got stopped perhaps 3800' down the strip after
going by the 500' mark at ~head height. I *think* I can recall it being
written/synopsized in "Soaring" mag's "Safety Corner" some years back.

I 'disremember' why he had to do it, but as I recall it was a
spoiler-related hardware failure of some sort.

I thought he did darned good!

Regards,
Bob W.

[Chuck Griswold]

>4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
>brakes shut - in
>a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
>be interested to
>hear their stories.
>
>Ray

I don’t post messages on RAS normally but this is an
exception.
Yes, I have landed a Discus with no spoilers, and yes
it was my stupidity.
I taped the spoilers shut to keep the rain out and
didn’t do a proper ground
check the next day. The first clue was on down wind
at about 500 ft. The
part that requires the most practice is when to turn
base and just how low
you must be in order to put it on the ground and get
it stopped. If you have
never done it you should practice it. The alternative
is to never make a
mistake and make sure the glider is always going to
give you what you
want.
I fly at a glider field where the instructors insist
that you not only know
how but also practice “no spoiler landings” to a full
stop, and they can spot
land with no spoilers. In fact we did one yesterday
in a Grob 103.
Caracole has done an excellent job of teaching me soaring.
It’s hard to
teach an old dog new tricks but I learn something new
every time I go out
to fly.
Chuck

[Shawn]

Chuck Griswold wrote:
>>4. Anybody know anyone who has had to land with both
>>brakes shut - in
>>a glider with more performance than a tin brick? I'd
>>be interested to
>>hear their stories.
>>
>>Ray
>
>
> I don’t post messages on RAS normally but this is an
> exception.
> Yes, I have landed a Discus with no spoilers, and yes
> it was my stupidity.
> I taped the spoilers shut to keep the rain out and
> didn’t do a proper ground
> check the next day. The first clue was on down wind
> at about 500 ft. The
> part that requires the most practice is when to turn
> base and just how low
> you must be in order to put it on the ground and get
> it stopped. If you have
> never done it you should practice it. The alternative
> is to never make a
> mistake and make sure the glider is always going to
> give you what you
> want.
> I fly at a glider field where the instructors insist
> that you not only know
> how but also practice “no spoiler landings” to a full
> stop, and they can spot
> land with no spoilers. In fact we did one yesterday
> in a Grob 103.
> Caracole has done an excellent job of teaching me soaring.
> It’s hard to
> teach an old dog new tricks but I learn something new
> every time I go out
> to fly.
> Chuck

Put some tape on your stick the next time.
"What's this? Oh yeah."
Just a thought.

Shawn

[Mark Dickson]

Easy to throw stones, I know. But Chuck, this is the
most ridiculous thing I've heard. No Daily Inspection
and then no pre-flight checks? We don't need lessons
in airbrakeless landings, just a good grounding in
the basics. Caracole may have taught good soaring
but it looks like they skimped on the most basic points
of airmanship.

Mark

At 18:42 26 September 2005, Chuck Griswold wrote:

>I don’t post messages on RAS normally but this is an
>exception.
>Yes, I have landed a Discus with no spoilers, and yes
>it was my stupidity.
>I taped the spoilers shut to keep the rain out and
>didn’t do a proper ground
>check the next day. The first clue was on down wind
>at about 500 ft. The
>part that requires the most practice is when to turn
>base and just how low
>you must be in order to put it on the ground and get
>it stopped. If you have
>never done it you should practice it. The alternative
>is to never make a
>mistake and make sure the glider is always going to
>give you what you
>want.
>I fly at a glider field where the instructors insist
>that you not only know
>how but also practice “no spoiler landings” to a full
>stop, and they can spot
>land with no spoilers. In fact we did one yesterday
>in a Grob 103.
>Caracole has done an excellent job of teaching me soaring.
>It’s hard to
>teach an old dog new tricks but I learn something new
>every time I go out
>to fly.
>Chuck
>
>
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark Dickson wrote:
> Easy to throw stones, I know. But Chuck, this is the
> most ridiculous thing I've heard. No Daily Inspection
> and then no pre-flight checks? We don't need lessons
> in airbrakeless landings, just a good grounding in
> the basics. Caracole may have taught good soaring
> but it looks like they skimped on the most basic points
> of airmanship.

So, I guess we can assume that you have never, ever, missed a checklist
item, and have never made any other mistakes while engaged in aviation.
My hat is off to you! For the rest of us, should we train on the
assumption that we always follow procedures perfectly and needn't
consider what to do if we don't, or assume we are human, screw up every
once in a while, and may therefore need to resort to a backup procedure?

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Shawn wrote:


>>
>> I don’t post messages on RAS normally but this is an
>> exception. Yes, I have landed a Discus with no spoilers, and yes
>> it was my stupidity. I taped the spoilers shut to keep the rain out and
>> didn’t do a proper ground check the next day.
> Put some tape on your stick the next time.
> "What's this? Oh yeah."
> Just a thought.

And the tape should have written on it "DO A DI".

A normal DI would discover the spoilers won't open, so obviously a
control check was never done at any time. Removing the tape on the
spoilers is a good idea, but doing a DI is even better (the tape might
not be the only problem).


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark Dickson]

At 22:42 26 September 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Mark Dickson wrote:
>> Easy to throw stones, I know. But Chuck, this is
>>the
>> most ridiculous thing I've heard. No Daily Inspection
>> and then no pre-flight checks? We don't need lessons
>> in airbrakeless landings, just a good grounding in
>> the basics. Caracole may have taught good soaring
>> but it looks like they skimped on the most basic points
>> of airmanship.
>
>So, I guess we can assume that you have never, ever,
>missed a checklist
>item, and have never made any other mistakes while
>engaged in aviation.
> My hat is off to you! For the rest of us, should
>we train on the
>assumption that we always follow procedures perfectly
>and needn't
>consider what to do if we don't, or assume we are human,
>screw up every
>once in a while, and may therefore need to resort to
>a backup procedure?
>
>Marc
>

This isn't missing an item, this is not doing any checks.
Hopefully no-one takes off without doing any checks
(obviously they do). There is no need to practice
landing without airbrakes, although being proficient
at side-slipping is useful.

[Chuck Griswold]

At 05:36 27 September 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Shawn wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> I don’t post messages on RAS normally but this is
>>>an
>>> exception. Yes, I have landed a Discus with no spoilers,
>>>and yes
>>> it was my stupidity. I taped the spoilers shut to
>>>keep the rain out and
>>> didn’t do a proper ground check the next day.
>> Put some tape on your stick the next time.
>> 'What's this? Oh yeah.'
>> Just a thought.
>
>And the tape should have written on it 'DO A DI'.
>
>A normal DI would discover the spoilers won't open,
>so obviously a
>control check was never done at any time. Removing
>the tape on the
>spoilers is a good idea, but doing a DI is even better
>(the tape might
>not be the only problem).
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA

Ouch! I didn’t realize how much that would smart.
Of course you’re all
absolutely correct. I could of, should of, would of,
but didn’t. The point that
I was trying to make is; sometimes things don’t go
as planned and if you
have practiced for the unexpected the end result will
always turn out better.
Nuff said. Hope I didn’t embarrass anyone.
Chuck

[Martin Eiler]

Mr. Dickson:

Are you so naive as to think that every time someone takes off without
checking
their spoilers, it was because no instructor ever taught them to check? I
can assure
you that if you ever flew with an instructor at Caracole, the last thing on
your check
list was: open spoilers, check left and right spoilers, then lock them.
Unfortunately,
pilots routinely demonstrate that the laws of primacy and recency carry less
weight
than one might think.

It is unfortunate that comments like yours are the reason many valued
contributors to
RAS have ceased to write or even read this forum.

The stated goal of one member of the SSF is to have the FAA establish
minimal
standards for pilot certification. But then they say that, of course,
conscientious
instructors will train to higher standards. The reality is that many
instructors will
train to those minimum FAA standards because that is all that is required.

One of the best examples of this is rope break training. Most common
options are:
1 straight ahead on remaining runway, or some other acceptable landing spot
ahead
2 diverting laterally to some other typically off airport landing spot (this
commonly
requires an off airport landing and due to liability and risk issues is
commonly not
practiced)
3 180 degree turn for a downwind landing at appropriate altitude
4 an abbreviated pattern for landing on the departure runway or adjacent
areas

There is nothing that requires instructors to train all 1,2 and 3. In fact
it is not
uncommon for pilots to say they have never practiced a straight ahead rope
break.
We do teach them, along with signals on tow, no spoiler landings, and
landing on
tow. Practiced dual, with a competent instructor, none of these need to be
hazardous.
That's why it's called practice.

M Eiler

[5Z]

Just as there is no need to practice car skids on an icy parking lot.
But I'd rather practice, so that if I hit the icy spot, I can say
"wheeee", and make the correct control inputs, instead of "oh SH***"
and possibly rolling the car into a ditch.

When I give flight review, asking the applicant to do something like a
no spoiler landing tells me an awful lot more about their flying
ability than seeing an adequate normal landing.

If the applicant says, "hmm never done that, but let's give it a shot"
then proceeds to make a decent plan and not fly too fast/slow, and
keeps the altitude reasonable, then lands anywhere on the airport, I'm
happy.

Unfortunately, there are many pilots out there who will "panic" and do
some really stupid things. That is the time to have an instructor
aboard to set them straight and show that one can take what might
appear to be a mess and still land safely.

I suspect that many accidents where some inflight control failure
occured, were caused not by the failure of the control but a failure of
the pilot to control the aircraft.

Some other interesting exercises to try with an experienced
copilot/instructor are:

Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder once the
applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing with full rudder is
not good for the glider.

Another is to not allow the applicant to use ailerons. The whole
landing pattern is to be flown with rudder and elevator (and spoiler)
only. Again, once on short final, use the ailerons to prevent a ground
loop, etc...

-Tom

[Ray Hart]

>
>Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry
>to simulate a
>rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder
>once the
>applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing
>with full rudder is
>not good for the glider.
>
>Another is to not allow the applicant to use ailerons.
> The whole
>landing pattern is to be flown with rudder and elevator
>(and spoiler)
>only. Again, once on short final, use the ailerons
>to prevent a ground
>loop, etc...
>
>-Tom

Having taught your pupils how to get away with this
kind of madness in
what must be a very low performance, incredibly stable/forgiving
two
seater on a huge airfield, do you then brief them to
try the same in a
Kestrel/Jaunus/Nimbus/ASH25/ASW22 etc? One size does
not fit all and I
do hope that having taught these curious approaches
you then inform
your pupils of all the types that they might fly in
the future where such
control inputs will cause a crash every time, even
on an airfiled the size
of the Mojave Desert!!

Ray Hart
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

5Z wrote:

>
> Some other interesting exercises to try with an experienced
> copilot/instructor are:
>
> Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
> rudder cable failure.

I know this is intended as an exercise, but I'm curious: does losing a
rudder cable really cause the rudder to go fully to one side? I'd guess
it would tend to stay centered, unless the pilot used the working pedal
to move it. This seems to be what happens when I fly with my feet off
the pedals, but that's not quite the same situation.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bert Willing]

As long as the pedals are spring-loaded (which has been the case in any
glider I've flown so far), there is no reason that the rudder should stay
centered after the failure of one cable.

However, I doubt this to be a scenario which should be trained...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Eric Greenwell" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> 5Z wrote:
>
>>
>> Some other interesting exercises to try with an experienced
>> copilot/instructor are:
>>
>> Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
>> rudder cable failure.
>
> I know this is intended as an exercise, but I'm curious: does losing a
> rudder cable really cause the rudder to go fully to one side? I'd guess it
> would tend to stay centered, unless the pilot used the working pedal to
> move it. This seems to be what happens when I fly with my feet off the
> pedals, but that's not quite the same situation.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[An Empty Pocket]

"5Z" > escribió en el mensaje
oups.com...
>
> Some other interesting exercises to try with an experienced
> copilot/instructor are:
>
> Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
> rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder once the
> applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing with full rudder is
> not good for the glider.
>
> Another is to not allow the applicant to use ailerons. The whole
> landing pattern is to be flown with rudder and elevator (and spoiler)
> only. Again, once on short final, use the ailerons to prevent a ground
> loop, etc...
>
> -Tom
>

Hey, don´t be shy, let go to practice landing with one wing left and the
pilot blind, it can happen ...

[bumper]

"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> As long as the pedals are spring-loaded (which has been the case in any
> glider I've flown so far), there is no reason that the rudder should stay
> centered after the failure of one cable.
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"


Even if there were no springs involved, if a rudder cable parted, and unless
the rudder or cable were somehow jammed (probably unlikely), then I think
aerodynamic pressure would tend to return the rudder to near neutral - -
assuming the pilot removed pressure from the opposite pedal.

bumper

[Mark Dickson]

I think you are missing the point of my post; which
was that the emphasis should be on ensuring that pilots
follow correct, basic routines such as DIs and preflight
checks, rather than on teaching how to land without
airbrakes. Prevent the cause. Maybe, obviously I
don't know, but maybe there were supervisory issues
that needed to be addressed. After all, a pilot managed
to bring his glider to the launch point and be launched
without any checks being done and his airbrakes taped
shut. Nobody noticed the lack of airbrake checks prior
to acceptance of the rope/cable, and nobody noticed
the tape over the airbrakes. Teaching rope breaks
and winch launch failures is normal enough and I would
never suggest it is unnecessary. Teaching landings
without use of airbrakes is unnecessary and possibly
risky. Being able to competently side slip is worth
mastering. Jump down off that high horse and stop
over-reacting.


At 17:18 27 September 2005, Martin Eiler wrote:
>Mr. Dickson:
>
>Are you so naive as to think that every time someone
>takes off without
>checking
>their spoilers, it was because no instructor ever taught
>them to check? I
>can assure
>you that if you ever flew with an instructor at Caracole,
>the last thing on
>your check
>list was: open spoilers, check left and right spoilers,
>then lock them.
>Unfortunately,
>pilots routinely demonstrate that the laws of primacy
>and recency carry less
>weight
>than one might think.
>
>It is unfortunate that comments like yours are the
>reason many valued
>contributors to
>RAS have ceased to write or even read this forum.
>
>The stated goal of one member of the SSF is to have
>the FAA establish
>minimal
>standards for pilot certification. But then they say
>that, of course,
>conscientious
>instructors will train to higher standards. The reality
>is that many
>instructors will
>train to those minimum FAA standards because that
>is all that is required.
>
>One of the best examples of this is rope break training.
> Most common
>options are:
>1 straight ahead on remaining runway, or some other
>acceptable landing spot
>ahead
>2 diverting laterally to some other typically off airport
>landing spot (this
>commonly
> requires an off airport landing and due to liability
>and risk issues is
>commonly not
> practiced)
>3 180 degree turn for a downwind landing at appropriate
>altitude
>4 an abbreviated pattern for landing on the departure
>runway or adjacent
>areas
>
>There is nothing that requires instructors to train
>all 1,2 and 3. In fact
>it is not
>uncommon for pilots to say they have never practiced
>a straight ahead rope
>break.
>We do teach them, along with signals on tow, no spoiler
>landings, and
>landing on
>tow. Practiced dual, with a competent instructor,
>none of these need to be
>hazardous.
>That's why it's called practice.
>
>M Eiler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark Dickson]

When I say airbrakeless landing practice is not necessary
I mean actually landing. Practising sideslipping approaches
followed by use of airbrakes/spoilers for landing is
a good idea. I wouldn't, and don't, practice skids
in car parks. When you screw it up and trash your
car and someone elses you'll look much sillier than
if you screwed up for real; same goes for landing without
airbrakes.

At 22:30 27 September 2005, 5z wrote:
>Just as there is no need to practice car skids on an
>icy parking lot.
>But I'd rather practice, so that if I hit the icy spot,
>I can say
>'wheeee', and make the correct control inputs, instead
>of 'oh SH***'
>and possibly rolling the car into a ditch.
>
>When I give flight review, asking the applicant to
>do something like a
>no spoiler landing tells me an awful lot more about
>their flying
>ability than seeing an adequate normal landing.
>
>If the applicant says, 'hmm never done that, but let's
>give it a shot'
>then proceeds to make a decent plan and not fly too
>fast/slow, and
>keeps the altitude reasonable, then lands anywhere
>on the airport, I'm
>happy.
>
>Unfortunately, there are many pilots out there who
>will 'panic' and do
>some really stupid things. That is the time to have
>an instructor
>aboard to set them straight and show that one can take
>what might
>appear to be a mess and still land safely.
>
>I suspect that many accidents where some inflight control
>failure
>occured, were caused not by the failure of the control
>but a failure of
>the pilot to control the aircraft.
>
>Some other interesting exercises to try with an experienced
>copilot/instructor are:
>
>Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry
>to simulate a
>rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder
>once the
>applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing
>with full rudder is
>not good for the glider.
>
>Another is to not allow the applicant to use ailerons.
> The whole
>landing pattern is to be flown with rudder and elevator
>(and spoiler)
>only. Again, once on short final, use the ailerons
>to prevent a ground
>loop, etc...
>
>-Tom
>
>

[5Z]

Ray Hart wrote:
> Having taught your pupils how to get away with this
> kind of madness in
> what must be a very low performance, incredibly stable/forgiving
> two
> seater on a huge airfield, do you then brief them to...

Ray, the whole point here is to show the person that stuff like this
can be done safely in any type glider. Marty trains in ASK-21 and I
currently only have access to L-23. But I personally fly a number of
high performance ships, currently ans ASH-26E and would have no problem
trying any of these manouvers in that ship.

What I'm trying to say is that a one spoiler landing is, to me, a total
non event. But to some is has turned into a fatality. Why is that?

-Tom

[Marc Ramsey]

5Z wrote:
> What I'm trying to say is that a one spoiler landing is, to me, a total
> non event. But to some is has turned into a fatality. Why is that?

Well, there is one obvious possibility, not all gliders will necessarily
behave the same way with asymmetric spoiler deployment. For example,
the spoilers on my LAK-17 are relatively small and close to the fuselage
(to the point where full spoiler deployment causes noticeable buffeting
on the tail), whereas the spoilers on my DGs were larger and farther
outboard. My guess is that roll forces from a single deployed spoiler
would be larger on a DG...

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark Dickson wrote:

> When I say airbrakeless landing practice is not necessary
> I mean actually landing. Practising sideslipping approaches
> followed by use of airbrakes/spoilers for landing is
> a good idea.

I agree with the above.

> I wouldn't, and don't, practice skids
> in car parks. When you screw it up and trash your
> car and someone elses you'll look much sillier than
> if you screwed up for real; same goes for landing without
> airbrakes.

Yikes! A fender-bender in a parking lot doesn't seem as silly to me as a
rollover on a highway. I do practice bad weather driving skills in safe
areas so I don't end up in the accidents that many of our townspeople
participate in every winter. Cars have changed considerably since I
first learned to drive, and what I learned then isn't alway appropriate
now - think about anti-lock braking systems, for example.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Martin Eiler]

I think you are missing the point of my post; which
was that the emphasis should be on ensuring that pilots
follow correct, basic routines such as DIs and preflight
checks, rather than on teaching how to land without
airbrakes. Prevent the cause. Maybe, obviously I
don't know, but maybe there were supervisory issues
that needed to be addressed. After all, a pilot managed
to bring his glider to the launch point and be launched
without any checks being done and his airbrakes taped
shut. Nobody noticed the lack of airbrake checks prior
to acceptance of the rope/cable, and nobody noticed
the tape over the airbrakes. Teaching rope breaks
and winch launch failures is normal enough and I would
never suggest it is unnecessary. Teaching landings
without use of airbrakes is unnecessary and possibly
risky. Being able to competently side slip is worth
mastering. Jump down off that high horse and stop
over-reacting.

First you wanted to blame this pilots problem on skimpy training.
Now you want to blame it on the wing runner, tow pilot or anyone
else who may have been in the area. Believe it or not, it is the
sole responsibility of the PIC to assure that his glider is ready for
flight. If you can't accept that then you should do us all a favor
and take up bird watching.

Next your attitude that no spoiler landings thru touchdown are risky,
is probably more a reflection of your skills and or training, rather
than a good basic understanding of the task. Although it may be
that you just have a misunderstanding of the difference between a
simulated spoiler failure and an actual spoiler failure. First let's
assume you were smart enough to find a competent instructor who
was proficient with this maneuver. If you have, then there will be no
real risk (provided of course that you can either follow instructions
or at least not fight him for the controls if you are just totally inept).
The instructor's job is to assure that you don't touch down with any
significant yaw and that you abort the task and use spoilers if your
using up an excessive amount of runway. Maybe you could explain
what sounds so risky about this?

For the other poster who implies that it is madness, and of course it
can't be done in an open class ship. We train with ASK-21's and
G-103's, both of which will touch down and stop in about 1400 ft
without any wheel brake. In case you don't understand why no brake,
in an ASK or Grobe the wheel brake is on the spoiler handle, so no
spoiler no wheel brake. And yes I have routinely landed a Janus and
a Duo Discus without spoilers. You might be surprised to know that
they will stop quicker than the K-21, because the wheel brake is not
on the spoiler handle.

The real madness in our sport is our accident rate. There should be
little argument that this is a direct reflection of the minimal skills
most pilots accept as adequate.

So keep up the standards by finding some good old boy to do your
next BFR with. And don't forget to remind him that a 1 hour soaring
flight and normal landing will be fine with you.

M Eiler

[Ray Hart]

At 19:54 28 September 2005, 5z wrote:
>
>Ray Hart wrote:
>> Having taught your pupils how to get away with this
>> kind of madness in
>> what must be a very low performance, incredibly stable/forgiving
>> two
>> seater on a huge airfield, do you then brief them
>>to...
>
>Ray, the whole point here is to show the person that
>stuff like this
>can be done safely in any type glider. Marty trains
>in ASK-21 and I
>currently only have access to L-23. But I personally
>fly a number of
>high performance ships, currently ans ASH-26E and would
>have no
problem
>trying any of these manouvers in that ship.
>
>What I'm trying to say is that a one spoiler landing
>is, to me, a total
>non event. But to some is has turned into a fatality.
> Why is that?
>
>-Tom
>
But is that true? One question I mooted had to do
with the effects of
asymetry on a range odd types, especially older, larger
span gliders;
Kestrel19, Jaunus etc. Loss of rudder on a Kestrel
has proved fatal on a
number of occasions, loss of an aileron likewise in
Nimbus 2s, full rudder
deflection on a Janus has to be experienced (but only
at a safe height -
not on final approach). One inevitable problem is
that pilots who die can
not be interviewed to find out what happened, although
they probably
wouldn't know anyway.. I'm still unsure that 'training'
for these events
would prevent more accidents, although the amount of
training prangs
would undoubtedly increase. According to your statistics,
what
proportion of glider accidents have an instructor on
board? If you don't
know, then a little research might be illuminating.

Ray

[Bruce Hoult]

In article . com>,
"5Z" > wrote:

> Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
> rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder once the
> applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing with full rudder is
> not good for the glider.

Um ... on the glider I fly most often (original Janus) that results in
the opposite wing pointing almost exactly in the direction in which you
are travelling, a rather high rate of descent, and then loss of elevator
control which in (in my experience at least) then results in a
relatively slow but totally uncontrollable 30 or 40 degree pitch down.
And that's the point, I'm afraid, at which I put the rudder back in the
middle.

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

[J.A.M.]

My! In the DG-300 it is impossible to misrig the flaps.
So far I've never seen a flapped -300...
On the other hand, it's impossible to misrig an automatic hookup bird. If
the wings are in place, the controls are ok. You can forget to screw the
tail in place, as in the ASW-24, but it is not possible to leave the
ailerons/spoilers unconected.

"Andreas Maurer" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> On 21 Sep 2005 21:16:29 -0700, "Andy" > wrote:
>
> >You did better than a very experienced local club member who had the
> >same problem many years ago in a DG300. He had one air brake open on
> >tow, released early instead of gaining altitude and time, misjudged the
> >approach and rolled it up in a ball.
>
> Hmmm... the DG-300 has fully automatic control hookups for the flaps.
> How could that happen?
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Ray Hart wrote:

>>What I'm trying to say is that a one spoiler landing
>>>is, to me, a total
>>>non event. But to some is has turned into a fatality.
>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>>-Tom
>>>
>
> But is that true?

Any glider can suffer partial control failure from connection problems,
freezing, stick or linkage blockage, undetected damage, mechanical
failures, or improper repairs. I think giving pilots some experience in
these situations with an experienced instructor would be an asset.
Besides the actual skills it might impart, it would make them less
likely to panic in a partial control failure situation. The poster that
thought crashing might be inevitable, even on a Mojave desert sized
airport, comes to mind.

> One question I mooted had to do with the effects
> of asymetry on a range odd types, especially older, larger span
> gliders; Kestrel19, Jaunus etc. Loss of rudder on a Kestrel has
> proved fatal on a number of occasions, loss of an aileron likewise in
> Nimbus 2s, full rudder deflection on a Janus has to be experienced
> (but only at a safe height - not on final approach).

From what you say, it sounds like pilots of these gliders are in
particular need of "partial control" training. Instead of avoiding any
training of this type just because some gliders are troublesome, I think
instructors should be encouraged to provide it because most gliders
_aren't_ like the few you mention. And regardless of the type of glider
a pilot is transitioning to, he should seek out a good briefing on it's
operation, and even take additional training if the glider's quirks
exceed his abilities.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[J.A.M.]

In a low performance glider I don't have any experience. In a glass glider a
no brakes landing is dicey as hell.
You just enter ground effect and fly forever. With a long runway it's not
much of a problem but the landing takes lots of space... If you have short
runway or an obstacle requiring a stepper approach path, it's a recipe for
an extended trip to the repair shop.

"5Z" > escribió en el mensaje
oups.com...
>
> Ray Hart wrote:
>
> > landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
> > no-brake landings
> > though.
>
> This is another thread, but a no spoiler approach is one of the
> simplest "advanced" manouvers out there. I only have access to a L-23
> and tried this a few months back. I was able to use about as much
> runway as the typical normal landing made by others. Spot touchdown
> was a bit dicey, but I always got stopped where I had planned.
>
>
> Gotta give it a try in the ASH-26E sometime. Should I "cheat" and use
> landing flap, or give it a shot in thermalling flap?
> -Tom
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Bruce Hoult wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "5Z" > wrote:
>
>
>>Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
>>rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder once the
>>applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing with full rudder is
>>not good for the glider.
>
>
> Um ... on the glider I fly most often (original Janus) that results in
> the opposite wing pointing almost exactly in the direction in which you
> are travelling, a rather high rate of descent, and then loss of elevator
> control which in (in my experience at least) then results in a
> relatively slow but totally uncontrollable 30 or 40 degree pitch down.
> And that's the point, I'm afraid, at which I put the rudder back in the
> middle.

So, do you avoid slipping your Janus, or is it just something that must
be done with extra care compared to most gliders? I assume this behavior
is demonstrated to transitioning pilots.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

J.A.M. wrote:

> My! In the DG-300 it is impossible to misrig the flaps.
> So far I've never seen a flapped -300...
> On the other hand, it's impossible to misrig an automatic hookup bird.

There are a few older gliders where this is possible.

> If
> the wings are in place, the controls are ok. You can forget to screw the
> tail in place, as in the ASW-24,

Schleicher has a simple retrofit (for many of their gliders - not just
the 24) that keeps the tail bolt with the elevator and reduces the
chance of this happening. It's worth doing.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Dan Dunkel]

I had an instructor coach me through a no spoiler approach (in an ASK-21)
to a rather short runway using a technique that I had never heard described
before. When we got into ground effect, he had me keep the slip in and
rotate the tail *VERY* low. The theory is that the tail will hit first.
This will straighten the fuselage to the runway, which will kick the glider
out of the slip at the very last possible moment. Indeed, this technique
allowed us to land on a short runway with no spoilers.

I found the experience to be very scary. Still, if I every have to do this
for real, I'm going to do it. I just hope it works as well in a '27 as it
did in the '21.






"J.A.M." > wrote in message
...
> In a low performance glider I don't have any experience. In a glass glider
> a
> no brakes landing is dicey as hell.
> You just enter ground effect and fly forever. With a long runway it's not
> much of a problem but the landing takes lots of space... If you have short
> runway or an obstacle requiring a stepper approach path, it's a recipe for
> an extended trip to the repair shop.
>
> "5Z" > escribió en el mensaje
> oups.com...
>>
>> Ray Hart wrote:
>>
>> > landing, just in case. I wouldn't recommend practising
>> > no-brake landings
>> > though.
>>
>> This is another thread, but a no spoiler approach is one of the
>> simplest "advanced" manouvers out there. I only have access to a L-23
>> and tried this a few months back. I was able to use about as much
>> runway as the typical normal landing made by others. Spot touchdown
>> was a bit dicey, but I always got stopped where I had planned.
>>
>>
>> Gotta give it a try in the ASH-26E sometime. Should I "cheat" and use
>> landing flap, or give it a shot in thermalling flap?
>> -Tom
>>
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "5Z" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Pess full rudder one direction before pattern entry to simulate a
> >>rudder cable failure. I suggest releasing the rudder once the
> >>applicant is lined up with the runway as a landing with full rudder is
> >>not good for the glider.
> >
> >
> > Um ... on the glider I fly most often (original Janus) that results
> > in the opposite wing pointing almost exactly in the direction in
> > which you are travelling, a rather high rate of descent, and then
> > loss of elevator control which (in my experience at least) then
> > results in a relatively slow but totally uncontrollable 30 or 40
> > degree pitch down. And that's the point, I'm afraid, at which I
> > put the rudder back in the middle.
>
> So, do you avoid slipping your Janus, or is it just something that must
> be done with extra care compared to most gliders? I assume this behavior
> is demonstrated to transitioning pilots.

It slips fine as long as you're careful to limit the yaw angle to
something sensible. Just don't expect to have to limit aileron input to
what you can balance with full rudder as you do in most gliders. You
can get really high rates of descent, but just be prepared to straighten
up a bit if you start to lose elevator control.

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

[Bob Korves]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in
:

>
>

Perhaps what Bruce is talking about is the possibility that the Janus (and
for sure the Duo Discus that we have) have a very powerful rudder, whereas
most gliders don't have enough rudder. During my first few tries at full
slips (at altitude!) in our Duo I nearly lost control of the aircraft. I
finally figured out that the technique I had learned for slips -- "stomp
full rudder and use aileron as needed to compensate" was the problem. In
the Duo this will not work. The glider will roll off toward the rudder
pedal in use. In the Duo the technique is "full aileron and use rudder as
needed to compensate". Works great.
-Bob Korves

[Bob Korves]

"Dan Dunkel" > wrote in
t:

> I had an instructor coach me through a no spoiler approach (in an
> ASK-21) to a rather short runway using a technique that I had never
> heard described before. When we got into ground effect, he had me
> keep the slip in and rotate the tail *VERY* low. The theory is that
> the tail will hit first. This will straighten the fuselage to the
> runway, which will kick the glider out of the slip at the very last
> possible moment. Indeed, this technique allowed us to land on a short
> runway with no spoilers.
>
> I found the experience to be very scary. Still, if I every have to do
> this for real, I'm going to do it. I just hope it works as well in a
> '27 as it did in the '21.

I think I learned this technique from the same instructor Dan did, Andrew
McFall. I learned it at Truckee, California, in a Grob 103 Twin II. It
was much the same as what Dan posted, but we kicked out part of the slip
when _very_ close to the ground to maintain some ground clearance at the
wing tip.

We did four pattern tows practicing this. The first one was awful. I
would have gone off the end of the 4300' long runway before getting the
glider stopped. I was flying much too fast and was kicking out the slip at
too high an altitude. The second attempt was better. The third and fourth
tries went just fine. I had the glider down and stopped without spoilers
or wheel brakes in 1500' (calm wind, ~7000' density altitude). I felt like
I could use the technique as a standard landing method at that point.
Landing while still in a slip felt really dumb at first, much like my first
crosswind landing in an Ercoupe (no rudder pedals). The sideways landing
did not appear to put too much side load on the glider.

Now, many years later, I probably would not do so well, especially in a
real emergency on a gusty, gnarly day. But I do know what to do...
-Bob Korves

[Bob Korves]

A bit off topic perhaps, but a fun story...


Many years ago there was an ASW-19 on leaseback at Soar Truckee. A group
of us watched the glider in the landing pattern and started speculating on
what he was doing.

"Why is he going so fast"? "It's a low pass, look, his wheel is up". "Now
his wheel is down. He won't be able to get it stopped". "The wheel is up
again". "Uh-oh. He thinks the gear handle is the spoiler handle!"

The glider went by low and pretty fast. It went 3500 feet down runway 19,
pulled up at the intersection and turned right toward the last 5000 feet of
runway 28, then went behind some trees and out of sight. We hurried down
to see the carnage. The '19 was stopped in the last 50 feet of runway 28,
and the wheel was down. The look on the pilot's face was priceless.




I also saw _TWO_ ASW-20 gliders go through the fence at Calistoga,
California, about two weekends apart. Both gliders had deep notches in the
leading edges at roughly 12 foot spacing from the wooden fence posts. Same
problem as in the last story -- using the gear handle to try to operate the
spoilers. Both gliders eventually flew again. Both were new when this
happened.




It's funny, I haven't heard of this problem again in all those years since
(20-25 years?). Are we checking out pilots better nowadays, are we less
stupid, or just luckier?
-Bob Korves

[Andreas Maurer]

On 29 Sep 2005 20:52:04 -0500, Bob Korves <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom>
wrote:

>It's funny, I haven't heard of this problem again in all those years since
>(20-25 years?). Are we checking out pilots better nowadays, are we less
>stupid, or just luckier?

You are describing a typical ASW-20 incident - I saw this twice on my
home airfield, too. Both (very experienced) pilots fortunately had
selected full flaps (55 degrees), so our 1.800 ft runway was
suffieicient even without the use of airbrakes. Airbrake and gear
lever are pretty easy to confuse in the 20 - I guess that's the cause
why all the later Schleicher gliders have the gear lever on the right
hand side.



Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:17:17 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

>Any glider can suffer partial control failure from connection problems,
>freezing, stick or linkage blockage, undetected damage, mechanical
>failures, or improper repairs. I think giving pilots some experience in
>these situations with an experienced instructor would be an asset.

Hmm... it depends on the type of glider, type of damage, pilot skill,
and luck. I think an airbrake failure is survivable, but any other
kind of primary flight control failure needs a lot of luck to be
survivable.

For example, the seemingly not-so-important rudder:
I once saw a halfways safe no-damage landing of a Twin 2 with a jammed
rudder - but a jammed rudder killed two very experienced pilots in a
DG-500M when they were unable to touchdown in a controlled manner out
of a sideslip.


Basically I think it's not a good solution to find myself slowly
losing control of your glider while on final at 150 ft although I
could have bailed out safely 2.000 ft higher. At least I can blame
myself for trying to be a hero till impact.

My decision for myself is clear: As soon as I'm not absolutely sure
anymore to have the glider under control, I bail out. I have no need
for control experiments at low altitudes where the slightest mistake
is definitely going to kill me - especially if the alternative is a
relatively safe bail-out out of a halfways controlled glider.




Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:55:28 GMT, "Dan Dunkel"
> wrote:

>I had an instructor coach me through a no spoiler approach (in an ASK-21)
>to a rather short runway using a technique that I had never heard described
>before. When we got into ground effect, he had me keep the slip in and
>rotate the tail *VERY* low. The theory is that the tail will hit first.
>This will straighten the fuselage to the runway, which will kick the glider
>out of the slip at the very last possible moment. Indeed, this technique
>allowed us to land on a short runway with no spoilers.

That's the only technique that produces enough drag to allow a
halfways precise touchdown. Unfortunately the lower wing tip is only
inches from the ground (as well as the main wheel, while the 21 still
has 30 degrees of yaw). I stopped doing this when my club comrades
told me in no uncertain terms that it looked extremely scary (right
they were - it looks as scary out of the cockpit).


>I found the experience to be very scary. Still, if I every have to do this
>for real, I'm going to do it. I just hope it works as well in a '27 as it
>did in the '21.

Good luck... or simply use the landing flap position of the 27 - this
ought to produce enough drag. :)



Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Korves wrote:

> I also saw _TWO_ ASW-20 gliders go through the fence at Calistoga,
> California, about two weekends apart. Both gliders had deep notches in the
> leading edges at roughly 12 foot spacing from the wooden fence posts. Same
> problem as in the last story -- using the gear handle to try to operate the
> spoilers. Both gliders eventually flew again. Both were new when this
> happened.
>
> It's funny, I haven't heard of this problem again in all those years since
> (20-25 years?). Are we checking out pilots better nowadays, are we less
> stupid, or just luckier?

All the ASW20 accidents of this sort that I heard of (about 6) way back
then, happened to pilots that had flown Libelle 301s for many years. The
301 had it's spoiler handle where the 20 has it's gear handle. Less
people transitioning to 20's from 301s might account for the difference.

I never had a problem, but I flew my 301 for only 3 years/500 hours.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Bob Korves" <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote in message
. 87...
> A bit off topic perhaps, but a fun story...
>
>
> Many years ago there was an ASW-19 on leaseback at Soar Truckee. A group
> of us watched the glider in the landing pattern and started speculating on
> what he was doing.
>
> "Why is he going so fast"? "It's a low pass, look, his wheel is up".
"Now
> his wheel is down. He won't be able to get it stopped". "The wheel is up
> again". "Uh-oh. He thinks the gear handle is the spoiler handle!"
>
> The glider went by low and pretty fast. It went 3500 feet down runway 19,
> pulled up at the intersection and turned right toward the last 5000 feet
of
> runway 28, then went behind some trees and out of sight. We hurried down
> to see the carnage. The '19 was stopped in the last 50 feet of runway 28,
> and the wheel was down. The look on the pilot's face was priceless.
>
>
>
>
> I also saw _TWO_ ASW-20 gliders go through the fence at Calistoga,
> California, about two weekends apart. Both gliders had deep notches in
the
> leading edges at roughly 12 foot spacing from the wooden fence posts.
Same
> problem as in the last story -- using the gear handle to try to operate
the
> spoilers. Both gliders eventually flew again. Both were new when this
> happened.
>
>
>
>
> It's funny, I haven't heard of this problem again in all those years since
> (20-25 years?). Are we checking out pilots better nowadays, are we less
> stupid, or just luckier?
> -Bob Korves

The Blanik L13 flap and spoiler levers caused their share of
incidents/accidents too.

I teach my students that the "A" in the pre-landing check "STALL" (Speed,
Trim, Airbrakes, Look, Land) is not just to check that the airbrakes work,
but that the handle they are using actually operates the airbrakes. If it
proves to be the airbrake lever, then keep a hand on it. Otherwise, try
another lever.

More specifically, I teach that any cockpit control should be identified
visually before a hand is placed on it. Further, the position of the
landing gear and flaps levers should be identified visually before moving
them.

Bill Daniels

[Roger Worden]

A good approach would be awareness, if one considers actual training too
risky. The Glider Flying Handbook from the FAA has a chapter on Abnormal and
Emergency Procedures. It contains suggested procedures for a wide variety of
system failures, including such things as asymmetric spoiler deployment.
Worth reading... and rereading now and then.

[Chuck Griswold]

Incredible! Good thread. My faith in human nature is
starting to return. We
went from don’t practice anything to “ it might be
a good idea to try one”
Chuck

At 05:06 30 September 2005, Roger Worden wrote:
>A good approach would be awareness, if one considers
>actual training too
>risky. The Glider Flying Handbook from the FAA has
>a chapter on
Abnormal and Emergency Procedures. It contains suggested
procedures for
a wide variety of system failures, including such things
as asymmetric
spoiler deployment.
Worth reading... and rereading now and then.

[Paul]

Andreas Maurer wrote:


> My decision for myself is clear: As soon as I'm not absolutely sure
> anymore to have the glider under control, I bail out. I have no need
> for control experiments at low altitudes where the slightest mistake
> is definitely going to kill me - especially if the alternative is a
> relatively safe bail-out out of a halfways controlled glider.


Yes, but deciding when that happens is the hard part, well was for me
anyway. I have had 2 partial primary control failures (in 4 years of
gliding), landed safely each time, but I still wonder if I made the
right decision. The first was in LS4, at about 7000 feet and at that
time I had about 120 hrs in about two years of gliding. It was a rented
ship away from my own club. The ship just had its manual, was test
flown by its owner and I have flown it for 4 days prior to this
incident. I do a pcc before each flight and did it then. The aileron
movement was not the smoothest but I was assured it was OK. Anyway at
about 7000 I needed a large aileron deflection to the right and about
half way there was a definite stop. Stupidly (if automatically) I
applied a fair force and powered through the obstruction. I remember
thinking at the same time something like "you idiot, what if it does not
come back". Well it did come back, I did some testing, the event did
not repeat in a pattern that I could discern, but as the obstruction
only occurred at about half travel so I have decided to land. I have
increased speed to about 70 kts, where only small deflections were
needed and landed normally. I have only recently found out that there
was a serious problem that was rectified.
The second incident happened in my club ship, a Hornet. Once again a
DI, including a PCC was done. I have flown for about 2 hours without an
incident when I went to pull up quite sharply into a thermal when the
elevator come to a full stop with what felt like a soft clunk. Anyway
once again I did some testing and found that with what was a full
elevator I could fly no slower then 55 kts and a bit more with
airbrakes. The controls felt perfectly normal in the remaining range.
Anyway, once again I decided to land. When I descended to about 2000 ft
AGL I put away the air brakes to set up a landing pattern. At stage I
found that I could not fly slower then about 65kts. Anyway, a bit of
adrenalin must have manifested itself at this point and a sharper tug on
the elevator freed the control. I have landed normally. When we
removed the elevator we have discovered a piece of lead ballast in the
tail. It was put in upside down and moved in flight wedging under a
flange on the elevator pushrod (hence the soft clunk).
Clearly a few safety issues here - the use of the ballast was not
universally known by club members, checking for it was not part of the
DI and apart from the control locking there could have been a C of G
problem for lighter pilots. Anyway, these issues have been addressed.

The second incident came about 3 month after the first one and I am sure
both had a significant impact on my flying confidence.

In any case, to this day I am not sure that I have done the right thing
by remaining with the glider. In both cases I had a stable platform to
depart and I have some 100 jumps to my name, admittedly some 30 years
earlier, so I think I would have been relatively comfortable jumping.


Paul

[Eric Greenwell]

Paul wrote:

> In any case, to this day I am not sure that I have done the right thing
> by remaining with the glider. In both cases I had a stable platform to
> depart and I have some 100 jumps to my name, admittedly some 30 years
> earlier, so I think I would have been relatively comfortable jumping.

This is interesting, because some people recommend all gliders making at
least one practice jump, partly on the theory they won't be so reluctant
to jump when they need to. Maybe it's more wishful thinking than good
advice, but I don't know of any "post jump" interviews to see if the
jumpee agreed with the theory.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

>
> This is interesting, because some people recommend all gliders making at
> least one practice jump,

Make that "glider pilots".



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack]

Well, I've been making spoilerless landings for years. Of course, the
ships I've flown most don't have them... but I had my smart@$$ hat on
and just couldn't help myself...

Jack Womack

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:

> Well, I've been making spoilerless landings for years. Of course, the
> ships I've flown most don't have them... but I had my smart@$$ hat on
> and just couldn't help myself...

Well, then, how about landing with just one flap?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, bumper >
writes
>
>"Bert Willing" > wrote in
>message ...
>> As long as the pedals are spring-loaded (which has been the case in any
>> glider I've flown so far), there is no reason that the rudder should stay
>> centered after the failure of one cable.
>> --
>> Bert Willing
>>
>> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
>Even if there were no springs involved, if a rudder cable parted, and unless
>the rudder or cable were somehow jammed (probably unlikely), then I think
>aerodynamic pressure would tend to return the rudder to near neutral - -
>assuming the pilot removed pressure from the opposite pedal.
>
>bumper
>
>
There was an incident in the UK a year or so back with an ASK13 in which
one rudder cable became detached.

Glider made a safe outlanding.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Chris Reed]

Mike Lindsay wrote:
> In article >, bumper >
> writes
>
>>"Bert Willing" > wrote in
>>message ...
>>
>>>As long as the pedals are spring-loaded (which has been the case in any
>>>glider I've flown so far), there is no reason that the rudder should stay
>>>centered after the failure of one cable.
>>>--
>>>Bert Willing
>>>
>>>ASW20 "TW"
>>
>>
>>Even if there were no springs involved, if a rudder cable parted, and unless
>>the rudder or cable were somehow jammed (probably unlikely), then I think
>>aerodynamic pressure would tend to return the rudder to near neutral - -
>>assuming the pilot removed pressure from the opposite pedal.
>>
>>bumper
>>
>>
>
> There was an incident in the UK a year or so back with an ASK13 in which
> one rudder cable became detached.
>
> Glider made a safe outlanding.

In that incident, the rudder locked over to one side, so aerodynamic
pressure didn't centre it. The pilot wrote a piece for Sailplane &
Gliding explaining that he could only fly in large circles and
describing how he managed a safe landing.

From memory the K13 has springs on the rudder pedals, so that when one
cable snapped the springs pulled the other pedal to the floor and thus
the rudder to full-on in one direction. I suspect this is true for many
other gliders.

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Mike Lindsay > wrote:

> >Even if there were no springs involved, if a rudder cable parted, and unless
> >the rudder or cable were somehow jammed (probably unlikely), then I think
> >aerodynamic pressure would tend to return the rudder to near neutral - -
> >assuming the pilot removed pressure from the opposite pedal.
> >
> >bumper
> >
> >
> There was an incident in the UK a year or so back with an ASK13 in which
> one rudder cable became detached.
>
> Glider made a safe outlanding.

It happened to the Puchacz at Piako gliding club (near Hamilton, NZ) a
few years ago. A safe outlanding was also made, thanks probably to the
very very experienced instructor on board.

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

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:48:58 +0100, Chris Reed >
wrote:

> From memory the K13 has springs on the rudder pedals, so that when one
>cable snapped the springs pulled the other pedal to the floor and thus
>the rudder to full-on in one direction. I suspect this is true for many
>other gliders.

This definitely applies to DG-500/505, too. Two people killed on an
airfield next to mine due to this.



Bye
Andreas

[Udo Rumpf]

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:48:58 +0100, Chris Reed >
> wrote:
>
>> From memory the K13 has springs on the rudder pedals, so that when one
>>cable snapped the springs pulled the other pedal to the floor and thus
>>the rudder to full-on in one direction. I suspect this is true for many
>>other gliders.
>
> This definitely applies to DG-500/505, too. Two people killed on an
> airfield next to mine due to this.
> Andreas

I could see where a strap over once toes would be helpful.
It would serve two functions at the same time.
Udo

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

The Slingsby Kestrel 19 is one glider which needs care if sideslipping close
to the ground. The rudder overbalances, and it needs a considerable force
on the rudder to take the sideslip off.

If you have no rudder, how do you get it out of the sideslip once you have
rudder overbalance? I can't think of a way to do it.

One friend of mine had his Kestrel 19 go out of control in yaw shortly after
releasing from aerotow at about 2,000ft. QFE. In fact the rudder had
fallen off, though sitting in the cockpit he did not know this. He baled
out while the glider was flying level though not under full control; I and
everyone else at the time thought he was sensible to do this.

The rudder drive had broken, all Kestrels were modified as a result.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:17:17 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>>Any glider can suffer partial control failure from connection problems,
>>freezing, stick or linkage blockage, undetected damage, mechanical
>>failures, or improper repairs. I think giving pilots some experience in
>>these situations with an experienced instructor would be an asset.
>
> Hmm... it depends on the type of glider, type of damage, pilot skill,
> and luck. I think an airbrake failure is survivable, but any other
> kind of primary flight control failure needs a lot of luck to be
> survivable.
>
> For example, the seemingly not-so-important rudder:
> I once saw a halfways safe no-damage landing of a Twin 2 with a jammed
> rudder - but a jammed rudder killed two very experienced pilots in a
> DG-500M when they were unable to touchdown in a controlled manner out
> of a sideslip.
>
>
> Basically I think it's not a good solution to find myself slowly
> losing control of your glider while on final at 150 ft although I
> could have bailed out safely 2.000 ft higher. At least I can blame
> myself for trying to be a hero till impact.
>
> My decision for myself is clear: As soon as I'm not absolutely sure
> anymore to have the glider under control, I bail out. I have no need
> for control experiments at low altitudes where the slightest mistake
> is definitely going to kill me - especially if the alternative is a
> relatively safe bail-out out of a halfways controlled glider.
>
>
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas