Gear Warning

[Gadget Guy]

Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing of a gear warning system?

Thank you in advace

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I can't help you with the DG-300, but I do offer a simple gear warning
system from Tasman. It is pretty cool. It has a digital recorder in it.
You record your voice saying something like "Lower the Gear NOW!" and it
plays the message when your gear is up and the airbrakes are open. Of
course you need switches placed on the gear and airbrake mechanisms. I just
received a batch of them recently and will add them to my web site this
morning. I sell both the Tasman TB32 Echo gear warning system and some
small switches. The Echo sells for $85.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/tasman.htm

I'll get the details on the web site right now with photos later today.

Good Soaring,
--
Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"Gadget Guy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical
> wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing
> of a gear warning system?
>
> Thank you in advace
>
>
> --
> Gadget Guy

[Nyal Williams]

The wiring is not a complex problem; you just need
two paths for the current. One path when the gear
is up and another when the gear is down. It is better,
in my view, the bigger problem is finding a place to
put the switches. I tried to use a 9v batttery to
drive the system and quickly learned that when the
wings are off, nothing holds the spoiler handle in
place and the spoiler handle would open slightly in
the trailer and just run the battery down. Better
to wire it to the main battery and let the master switch
take care of this problem.


At 10:12 16 November 2005, Gadget Guy wrote:
>
>Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts
>the electrical
>wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have
>a basic drawing
>of a gear warning system?
>
>Thank you in advace
>
>
>--
>Gadget Guy
>

[Nyal Williams]

The wiring is not a complex problem; you just need
two paths for the current. One path when the gear
is up and another when the gear is down. It is better,
in my view, the bigger problem is finding a place to
put the switches. I tried to use a 9v batttery to
drive the system and quickly learned that when the
wings are off, nothing holds the spoiler handle in
place and the spoiler handle would open slightly in
the trailer and just run the battery down. Better
to wire it to the main battery and let the master switch
take care of this problem.


At 10:12 16 November 2005, Gadget Guy wrote:
>
>Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts
>the electrical
>wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have
>a basic drawing
>of a gear warning system?
>
>Thank you in advace
>
>
>--
>Gadget Guy
>

[Bill Daniels]

I would recommend magnetic reed switches (~$0.50) instead of microswitches.
Reed switches require no contact with the spoiler and gear controls since
they operate in proximity to a tiny magnet epoxied to a control rod. They
don't need precise adjustment to work and they never wear out.

I selected a raucous low pitched buzzer as the warning horn because it
didn't sound like any other device in the cockpit. High pitched squealers
sound too much like an audio vario.

Another neat backup is GPS_LOG WinCE PDA software. It sounds a warning of
your choice by playing a .wav file when the glider descends to pattern
altitude above the terrain elevation map.

I use both systems.

Bill Daniels

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> The wiring is not a complex problem; you just need
> two paths for the current. One path when the gear
> is up and another when the gear is down. It is better,
> in my view, the bigger problem is finding a place to
> put the switches. I tried to use a 9v batttery to
> drive the system and quickly learned that when the
> wings are off, nothing holds the spoiler handle in
> place and the spoiler handle would open slightly in
> the trailer and just run the battery down. Better
> to wire it to the main battery and let the master switch
> take care of this problem.
>
>
> At 10:12 16 November 2005, Gadget Guy wrote:
> >
> >Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts
> >the electrical
> >wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have
> >a basic drawing
> >of a gear warning system?
> >
> >Thank you in advace
> >
> >
> >--
> >Gadget Guy
> >
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't help you with the DG-300, but I do offer a simple gear warning
> system from Tasman. It is pretty cool. It has a digital recorder in it.
> You record your voice saying something like "Lower the Gear NOW!" and it
> plays the message when your gear is up and the airbrakes are open. Of
> course you need switches placed on the gear and airbrake mechanisms. I just
> received a batch of them recently and will add them to my web site this
> morning. I sell both the Tasman TB32 Echo gear warning system and some
> small switches. The Echo sells for $85.

Nice idea, but even better would be to have the Echo also function as an
extension speaker. Adding that function would add more value at little cost.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Gadget Guy wrote:

> Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical
> wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing
> of a gear warning system?

If you have a Cambridge 302 vario (or similar), you can connect the gear
and spoiler switches to it to provide the warning. The 302 can also be
set to provide a "spoilers open" warning at the start of a launch
(airspeed triggered). It's the system I use.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[01-- Zero One]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
:

> Gadget Guy wrote:
>
> > Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical
> > wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing
> > of a gear warning system?
>
> If you have a Cambridge 302 vario (or similar), you can connect the gear
> and spoiler switches to it to provide the warning. The 302 can also be
> set to provide a "spoilers open" warning at the start of a launch
> (airspeed triggered). It's the system I use.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA





The later models of LNAV use a similar system. And, yes, the spoiler
open warning system on takeoff is a plus.



Larry Goddard

"01" USA

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

In addition to the audible signal from the 302 - if you have a 303 it
displays a text message which makes it obvious what the issue is.

I like the Tasman approach because a voice message should be able to cut
through all the beeps already going on in the cockpit. I talked to one user
who installed them in his gliders at his commercial operation. He said the
recorded message was "Lower the Fxxxing Landing Gear!" - in an all out
attempt to get the pilot's attention.

Does anyone have any suggestions for sources of small magnetic reed
switches? I sell mechanical microswitches which I have used in the past and
like, but I can see the advantages to non-contact switching.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Gadget Guy wrote:
>
>> Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical
>> wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing
>> of a gear warning system?
>
> If you have a Cambridge 302 vario (or similar), you can connect the gear
> and spoiler switches to it to provide the warning. The 302 can also be set
> to provide a "spoilers open" warning at the start of a launch (airspeed
> triggered). It's the system I use.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Mike the Strike]

Paul:

Many electronic component wholesalers/retailers have these available.
I've bought Hamlin reed switches and magnets from Digi-Key -
www.digikey.com.

Mike

[TTaylor at cc.usu.edu]

Paul,

Any of the big electronics suppliers would have them (.com any of the
names below).

Digikey
Newark
Mouser
Jameco

All have good websites and good service.

If you like the garage sale approach I love All Electronics
(allelectronics.com).

Tim

[Nigel Pocock]

One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
like background radio chatter and your brain filters
it out (or at least mine does)
Our CFI discovered this the hard way in our brand new
DG1000. luckily landed on soft grass so no damage.

Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not reccomend an
undercarriage warning buzzer.

[Mike the Strike]

When focussing on tasks, the human brain filters out signals it decides
are extraneous to the task on hand. This is what causes many vehicle
accidents where people fail to see objects. They are seen, but not
processed in higher areas of the brain.

Exactly the same can happen with audible warnings - they are heard but
not processed.

I had a glider colleague who was famous for gear-up landings and who
had the loudest and most obnoxious gear warning klaxon installed. One
day, we saw him descending on final with the warning blaring, clearly
audible from a hundred yards away. He then proceeded to land gear up,
as usual.

I prefer check lists, but must note I have seen another colleague
return from a flight with gear extended then retract it on final as he
went through his pre-landing checks!

I have yet to land gear up but presume it could happen if I am
distracted or in a hurry.

Mike

[Eric Greenwell]

Nigel Pocock wrote:

> Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not reccomend an
> undercarriage warning buzzer.

As a pilot that has avoided 3 gear up landings because I had a warning
buzzer, I'm curious about the reasoning behind the recommendation.

How about a mechanical warning, like I use on my present glider? It's a
small spring-loaded plastic clamp that is on the gear handle when the
gear is down, then moved to the spoiler handle just before raising the
gear. The clamp location is reversed for landing.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Nigel Pocock wrote:

> One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
> like background radio chatter and your brain filters
> it out (or at least mine does)

If it was your voice, or your wife's voice, on the recording, do you
think you would still filter it out? The Tasman unit allows any voice
and message. Maybe a former glider instructor (or for the ex-military, a
former drill instructor)?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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

In the current, Fifteenth Edition of Laws and Rules for Glider Pilots of
April 2005 published by the BGA
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/Edition15final.pdf
in Part 3 Recommended Practices RP26 on page 58 states: -

"UNDERCARRIAGE WARNING SYSTEMS

"RP26. The fitting of systems that warn the pilot of a glider that the
undercarriage is not lowered during the landing approach IS NOT RECOMMENDED.
This is because if such a system is fitted and is activated then the pilot
is likely to attempt to lower the undercarriage during the final stages of
landing. This could result in mishandling the aircraft, so causing an
accident.

"It is also recommended that if the glider is seen on the approach wheel-up,
no attempt is made to warn that pilot, using radio or other means, for the
same reason. The pilot should be allowed to land wheels-up."

I understand that this recommendation was made after accidents where the
warning was considered to be the cause.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Nigel Pocock wrote:
>
>> Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not recommend an
>> undercarriage warning buzzer.
>
> As a pilot that has avoided 3 gear up landings because I had a warning
> buzzer, I'm curious about the reasoning behind the recommendation.
>
> < snip>
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> I prefer check lists, but must note I have seen another colleague
> return from a flight with gear extended then retract it on final as he
> went through his pre-landing checks!

Same thing happened to me on my first flight in the first glider I
owned. On pattern entry I went through my pre-landing checklist,
operated the gear handle, opened the spoilers, then heard a load beeping
noise. Closed the spoilers, beeping stopped. It took a fair bit of
contemplation to recognize that the glider might have a gear warning
system. A quick glance at the gear position symbols allowed me to solve
the mystery while still plenty high. I must have forgotten to retract
the gear after release...

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> "RP26. The fitting of systems that warn the pilot of a glider that the
> undercarriage is not lowered during the landing approach IS NOT RECOMMENDED.
> This is because if such a system is fitted and is activated then the pilot
> is likely to attempt to lower the undercarriage during the final stages of
> landing. This could result in mishandling the aircraft, so causing an
> accident.

You guys don't routinely do a test opening of the spoilers on pattern
entry?

[Gary Emerson]

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> In the current, Fifteenth Edition of Laws and Rules for Glider Pilots of
> April 2005 published by the BGA
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/Edition15final.pdf
> in Part 3 Recommended Practices RP26 on page 58 states: -
>
> "UNDERCARRIAGE WARNING SYSTEMS
>
> "RP26. The fitting of systems that warn the pilot of a glider that the
> undercarriage is not lowered during the landing approach IS NOT RECOMMENDED.
> This is because if such a system is fitted and is activated then the pilot
> is likely to attempt to lower the undercarriage during the final stages of
> landing. This could result in mishandling the aircraft, so causing an
> accident.
>
> "It is also recommended that if the glider is seen on the approach wheel-up,
> no attempt is made to warn that pilot, using radio or other means, for the
> same reason. The pilot should be allowed to land wheels-up."
>
> I understand that this recommendation was made after accidents where the
> warning was considered to be the cause.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>
>>"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>Nigel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not recommend an
>>>undercarriage warning buzzer.
>>
>>As a pilot that has avoided 3 gear up landings because I had a warning
>>buzzer, I'm curious about the reasoning behind the recommendation.
>>
>>< snip>
>>
>>Eric Greenwell
>>Washington State
>>USA
>>
>
>
>
>
>
So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist where the
spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked early in the pattern
then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not very logical.

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Nigel Pocock wrote:
>
> > One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
> > like background radio chatter and your brain filters
> > it out (or at least mine does)
>
> If it was your voice, or your wife's voice, on the recording, do you
> think you would still filter it out? The Tasman unit allows any voice
> and message. Maybe a former glider instructor (or for the ex-military, a
> former drill instructor)?
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

Try: http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html

Type in whatever message you want, choose the gender and accent of the
synthetic voice and download the .wav file. A sexy female voice gets my
attention.

As the gadget makers are now involved, I have a request. How about a small
box containing a multi-input, line-in, fixed volume, audio mixer with
amplifier and decent speaker powered by the ships battery. This box would
have an array of 3mm jacks to receive the audio from the varios, PDA, radio,
and other gadgets that output audio and play them all through the same
speaker. Maybe it should fit in a 57mm instrument hole. I think this would
simplify wiring and improve audio quality.

Bill Daniels

[Edward Lockhart]

At 21:18 16 November 2005, Nigel Pocock wrote:

>One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
>like background radio chatter and your brain filters
>it out (or at least mine does)
>Our CFI discovered this the hard way in our brand new
>DG1000. luckily landed on soft grass so no damage.

Having broadcast this fact to the entire world wide
web under your own name, you are now a marked man.
Enjoy your next check flight!

Had a similar situation today in the same glider. A
lot of radio chatter from joining powered aircraft
drowned out the quiet, almost apologetic, female voice
warning.

Got the wheel down though.

Ed.
>
>

[Mark Dickson]

At 22:36 16 November 2005, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist
>>where the
>spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked
>early in the pattern
>then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not
>very logical.
>

Yes, pre-landing checks are carried out; they include
checking the gear is down. If you do the checks your
gear shouldn't be up on approach. If you don't do
the checks you wouldn't have checked either gear or
airbrakes and you'll be distracted on approach by the
buzzer. You don't need a buzzer; just carry out your
checks.

[Mark Dickson]

At 22:36 16 November 2005, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist
>>where the
>spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked
>early in the pattern
>then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not
>very logical.
>

Yes, pre-landing checks are carried out; they include
checking the gear is down. If you do the checks your
gear shouldn't be up on approach. If you don't do
the checks you wouldn't have checked either gear or
airbrakes and you'll be distracted on approach by the
buzzer. You don't need a buzzer; just carry out your
checks.

[Mike the Strike]

While the BGA rule might make some sense landing on a grass runway (or
mud, as it is in Britain), I wouldn't like to see anyone land a nice
glass ship on our Arizona rock and gravel runways.

I am also not sure I would agree with their rationale. In my opinion,
it would be a particularly inept pilot who could not lower his/her gear
at all but the final stages of a landing approach and who might be
startled by a radio call so badly they lost control. The BGA procedure
also now leaves an immobile glider sitting in the middle of the runway
- another hazard!

Perhaps some BGA members could illuminate us on why their ruling body
considers them incapable of taking corrective action when landing?

Mike

[Mark Dickson]

At 23:30 16 November 2005, Mike The Strike wrote:
>While the BGA rule might make some sense landing on
>a grass runway (or
>mud, as it is in Britain), I wouldn't like to see anyone
>land a nice
>glass ship on our Arizona rock and gravel runways.
>
>I am also not sure I would agree with their rationale.
> In my opinion,
>it would be a particularly inept pilot who could not
>lower his/her gear
>at all but the final stages of a landing approach and
>who might be
>startled by a radio call so badly they lost control.
> The BGA procedure
>also now leaves an immobile glider sitting in the middle
>of the runway
>- another hazard!
>
>Perhaps some BGA members could illuminate us on why
>their ruling body
>considers them incapable of taking corrective action
>when landing?
>
>Mike
>
>
I thought someone had explained. Not doing your pre-landing
checks and landing with the wheel up is inexcusable
and embarrassing, but not a big deal damagewise. At
most a bit of gel repair needed. Getting distracted
on approach, changing hands on stick, letting go of
airbrake lever, rushing to lower gear and not monitoring
the approach could, and obviously has, proved disastrous.
The inept pilot is the one who does not follow basic
airmanship routines such as checks.

[Tony Verhulst]

> How about a mechanical warning, like I use on my present glider? It's a
> small spring-loaded plastic clamp that is on the gear handle when the
> gear is down, then moved to the spoiler handle just before raising the
> gear. The clamp location is reversed for landing.

Foolproof... almost - and I'm a better fool. It was a ridge day and the
clouds were barely above the ridge. I had to use spoilers to keep from
getting sucked into the clouds. I got used to working the spoilers with
the clamp attached. Add to that, the failure to use a proper
checklist... No damage at all as it was on grass but sooo many witnesses
:-).

I'm much better at checklists now and also have an audible gear warning.
The warning buzzer is a great idea, and suggest that the BGA
reconsider their opinion.

Tony V.

[[email protected]]

Hey Bill - You musta been the guy I saw flying down the ridge with the
gear down !
See ya, Dave

Bill Daniels wrote:
.....
> Another neat backup is GPS_LOG WinCE PDA software. It sounds a warning of
> your choice by playing a .wav file when the glider descends to pattern
> altitude above the terrain elevation map.

[Mike the Strike]

Pilots who can't respond to a gear warning or radio call probably
shouldn't be flying at all! This isn't a big multi-tasking job. What
would such a person do if the canopy popped open, the brake handle came
off in his hands or the spoilers opened on takeoff?

In a sailplane with a left-handed gear handle, all it takes is- brakes
closed, gear down, brakes open again. I timed it at 3 to 4 seconds in
an ASW 20.

With a right-handed gear handle, you have to close brakes, switch
hands, put gear down, switch back, brakes open, in 4 to 6 seconds. On
downwind, you have plenty of time to do this and even on final if it
isn't too short. At 50 knots, 6 seconds represents no moe than about
600 feet - say 200 meters.

BGA sounds a bit like a mother hen!

Mike

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark Dickson wrote:
> Yes, pre-landing checks are carried out; they include
> checking the gear is down. If you do the checks your
> gear shouldn't be up on approach. If you don't do
> the checks you wouldn't have checked either gear or
> airbrakes and you'll be distracted on approach by the
> buzzer. You don't need a buzzer; just carry out your
> checks.

Spoiler checks are easy to get right, and become pretty automatic for
most. Landing gear is not so simple for those fly multiple gliders,
some with fixed landing gear, some with gear handles that move the
"wrong" way, etc. Plus, for those of us who land at asphalt, dirt, or
gravels strips, a gear up landing is a US$1000 or so mistake. I'll keep
my gear warning, thanks. I've only heard one once in anger, and it was
well worth the momentary distraction...

[Gary Emerson]

Mark Dickson wrote:
> At 22:36 16 November 2005, Gary Emerson wrote:
>
>>>So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist
>>>where the
>>
>>spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked
>>early in the pattern
>>then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not
>>very logical.
>>
>
>
> Yes, pre-landing checks are carried out; they include
> checking the gear is down. If you do the checks your
> gear shouldn't be up on approach. If you don't do
> the checks you wouldn't have checked either gear or
> airbrakes and you'll be distracted on approach by the
> buzzer. You don't need a buzzer; just carry out your
> checks.
>
>

For most, the gear warning buzzer will only be heard when pulling
spoilers at altitude to intentionally descend. However, it's a nice
feature to have on that day when you left the gear down the whole
flight. You won't find this mistake on short final, but most likely
very early on in the pattern where it's a quick fix and not likely to
add extra risk in the landing phase.

[[email protected]]

Canada, not BGA....

If you are almost ready to land, nicely set up with the proper descent
rate, and hear a gear up warning, what do you do? You proceed to lower
the gear, your left hand is currently on the open spoilers, your right
on the stick... usually..... so (also usually) your gear lever is on
the right side, you need your right hand, so you switch hands, left
hand on stick, right hand on gear, then just slightly before your gear
comes down, you flop onto the ground hard enough to break your tail
since your spoilers are now full out late on final .... left hand moved
over to the stick, remember? By doing nothing you flare and land on the
belly.... likely less expensive to repair. Just a theory. Until you do
it yourself. Ouch.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> Canada, not BGA....
>
> If you are almost ready to land, nicely set up with the proper descent
> rate, and hear a gear up warning, what do you do?

How did you get that nicely setup proper descent rate without using the
spoilers well before you are almost ready to land?

You proceed to lower
> the gear, your left hand is currently on the open spoilers, your right
> on the stick... usually..... so (also usually) your gear lever is on
> the right side, you need your right hand, so you switch hands, left
> hand on stick, right hand on gear, then just slightly before your gear
> comes down, you flop onto the ground hard enough to break your tail
> since your spoilers are now full out late on final .... left hand moved
> over to the stick, remember? By doing nothing you flare and land on the
> belly.... likely less expensive to repair. Just a theory. Until you do
> it yourself. Ouch.

I think the gear warning would not be problem with a halfway decent
approach, but could be a problem in a badly done, low approach, so that
the spoilers are not used till close to the ground. Also, what you say
might apply to a warning given over the radio, which could easily come
late when you are almost ready to land.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Canada, not BGA....
>
> If you are almost ready to land, nicely set up with the proper descent
> rate, and hear a gear up warning, what do you do? You proceed to lower
> the gear, your left hand is currently on the open spoilers, your right
> on the stick... usually..... so (also usually) your gear lever is on
> the right side, you need your right hand, so you switch hands, left
> hand on stick, right hand on gear, then just slightly before your gear
> comes down, you flop onto the ground hard enough to break your tail
> since your spoilers are now full out late on final .... left hand moved
> over to the stick, remember? By doing nothing you flare and land on the
> belly.... likely less expensive to repair. Just a theory. Until you do
> it yourself. Ouch.
>

I don't quite buy all of this.

Airplane pilots land with their left hand on the yoke and right hand on the
throttle. When they shift to gliders, they land with their right hand on
the stick and left on the spoiler. In other words, a well trailed pilot can
land with either hand on the flight controls.

If you can't fly with either hand, you are limited. If you can, then
shifting hands to extend the gear shouldn't be a problem.

A possible thought here is that a throttle will stay where it is when you
let go - that's what friction locks are for. A spoiler will either suck
open or slam shut forcing the pilot to keep a hand on the control. Seems
like we should ask the designers to take a look at this.

Bill Daniels

[Mike the Strike]

You close the brakes before switching hands. No glider has a really
stable spoiler when cracked open and you can use the extra height to
extend your pattern while you put the gear down. A 40:1 ship can fly
over six miles from an 800-foot pattern altitude and has something like
5 minutes flying time available. From 500 feet make that 3+ minutes,
plenty of time to lower the gear.

If you first crack the brakes just before touching down (say at 50
feet) then you are screwed and deserve to break your glider. As I said
earlier, you'll need a few seconds to lower the gear so you'd better
have enough height.

I was trained to do all my pre-landing checks at pattern altitude,
cracking the brakes and visually checking both are open and to leave my
left hand on the spoiler until touchdown, which is the procedure I
still follow.

Mike

[Andy Blackburn]

At 21:54 16 November 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:

>If it was...your wife's voice on the recording do you
>
>think you would still filter it out?

Wow, nobody bit on this one?

9B

[Mark Dickson]

At 01:42 17 November 2005, Mike The Strike wrote:
>Pilots who can't respond to a gear warning or radio
>call probably
>shouldn't be flying at all! This isn't a big multi-tasking
>job. What
>would such a person do if the canopy popped open, the
>brake handle came
>off in his hands or the spoilers opened on takeoff?
>
>In a sailplane with a left-handed gear handle, all
>it takes is- brakes
>closed, gear down, brakes open again. I timed it at
>3 to 4 seconds in
>an ASW 20.
>
>With a right-handed gear handle, you have to close
>brakes, switch
>hands, put gear down, switch back, brakes open, in
>4 to 6 seconds. On
>downwind, you have plenty of time to do this and even
>on final if it
>isn't too short. At 50 knots, 6 seconds represents
>no moe than about
>600 feet - say 200 meters.
>
>BGA sounds a bit like a mother hen!
>
>Mike
>
>

It's only a recommendation.

[Jim Green]

Ever seen a pilot with a fixation flying off the end of the runway with
his gear going up and down instead of his spoilers? Surprising how even
competent people can get caught out and flustered by the unexpected. This
is a cost versus safety argument and you takes your pick but BGA
recommendations are not cost-orientated.

Mike the Strike wrote:

> Pilots who can't respond to a gear warning or radio call probably
> shouldn't be flying at all! This isn't a big multi-tasking job. What
> would such a person do if the canopy popped open, the brake handle came
> off in his hands or the spoilers opened on takeoff?

> In a sailplane with a left-handed gear handle, all it takes is- brakes
> closed, gear down, brakes open again. I timed it at 3 to 4 seconds in
> an ASW 20.

> With a right-handed gear handle, you have to close brakes, switch
> hands, put gear down, switch back, brakes open, in 4 to 6 seconds. On
> downwind, you have plenty of time to do this and even on final if it
> isn't too short. At 50 knots, 6 seconds represents no moe than about
> 600 feet - say 200 meters.

> BGA sounds a bit like a mother hen!

> Mike

[Stanford Korwin]

At 09:42 17 November 2005,
Green wrote:
>Ever seen a pilot with a fixation flying off the end
>of the runway with
>his gear going up and down instead of his spoilers?
>Surprising how even
>competent people can get caught out and flustered by
>the unexpected. This
>is a cost versus safety argument and you takes your
>pick but BGA
>recommendations are not cost-orientated.
>

No one, as far as I know, has ever been hurt while
landing wheel-up - but there have been a number of
injuries to those losing control while trying to lower
the u/c at the last minute.

I mentioned the fitting of a 'wheel-up/airbrakes out'
warning mechanism when I had my Jantar-3 refitted in
Poland.
They would not hear of it !

Oh - and it is quite possible to land wheel-up after
completing landing checks.
Believe me !

sta13.

[Stanford Korwin]

At 09:42 17 November 2005,
Green wrote:
>Ever seen a pilot with a fixation flying off the end
>of the runway with
>his gear going up and down instead of his spoilers?
>Surprising how even
>competent people can get caught out and flustered by
>the unexpected. This
>is a cost versus safety argument and you takes your
>pick but BGA
>recommendations are not cost-orientated.
>

No one, as far as I know, has ever been hurt while
landing wheel-up - but there have been a number of
injuries to those losing control while trying to lower
the u/c at the last minute.

I mentioned the fitting of a 'wheel-up/airbrakes out'
warning mechanism when I had my Jantar-3 refitted in
Poland.
They would not hear of it !

Oh - and it is quite possible to land wheel-up after
completing landing checks.
Believe me !

sta13.

[Paul Remde]

Hi Gary,

I'm with Gary. The ideas is to do your checklist (including an airbrake
check) as you enter the pattern. If your gear is down at that point you
will hear a voice telling you very clearly and repeatedly "landing gear is
up, lower landing gear" and you will fix the problem on downwind.

I think main thing this discussion has done is show that many people don't
do thorough downwind checklists.

Certainly, no gadget is going to help some pilots and it is true that last
minute distractions are to be avoided - so test your airbrakes on downwind
after "lowering" your landing gear and the problem will go away. If you
have changed your gear from down to up you will hear a warning to lower your
gear.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Gary Emerson" > wrote in message
om...
> Mark Dickson wrote:
>> At 22:36 16 November 2005, Gary Emerson wrote:
>>
>>>>So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist
>>>>where the
>>>
>>>spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked
>>>early in the pattern then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not
>>>very logical.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, pre-landing checks are carried out; they include
>> checking the gear is down. If you do the checks your
>> gear shouldn't be up on approach. If you don't do
>> the checks you wouldn't have checked either gear or
>> airbrakes and you'll be distracted on approach by the
>> buzzer. You don't need a buzzer; just carry out your
>> checks.
>>
>>
>
> For most, the gear warning buzzer will only be heard when pulling spoilers
> at altitude to intentionally descend. However, it's a nice feature to
> have on that day when you left the gear down the whole flight. You won't
> find this mistake on short final, but most likely very early on in the
> pattern where it's a quick fix and not likely to add extra risk in the
> landing phase.

[Mike the Strike]

I had an old dragon of a schoolteacher who used to bark at us
eight-year old kids and, if we misbehaved, would rap us over the
knuckles with a wooden ruler (this was in the old days!).

Her voice would probably do the trick! Failing which, how about a
mechanism to rap you over the knuckles while the schoolmaam berates
your stupidity?

Wives tend not to use voice commands so much as "the look".

Mike

[Eric Greenwell]

Stanford Korwin wrote:

> No one, as far as I know, has ever been hurt while
> landing wheel-up - but there have been a number of
> injuries to those losing control while trying to lower
> the u/c at the last minute.

It seems a very rare event, at least in the US, as I don't remember any.
Perhaps some US pilots can offer examples. I do know a number of people
that have landed wheel up, of course. I can remember an incident where a
gear up landing at a small airstrip blocked the runway long enough to
making it difficult for the other landing gliders to do so safely.
Another incident that blocked a runway triggered an accident - no
injuries, fortunately, but the landing glider was damaged.

So, my experience is it's generally better to have the pilot get the
gear down, though I would hesitate to say anything on the radio if the
glider was already close to the ground. Certainly letting a pilot land
gear up on a wide grass runway, which would not be blocked and causes no
damage to glider, is the safest procedure. Narrow paved runways may tilt
the safety judgment in the other direction.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andy]

> So, my experience is it's generally better to have the pilot get the
> gear down, though I would hesitate to say anything on the radio if the
> glider was already close to the ground. Certainly letting a pilot land
> gear up on a wide grass runway, which would not be blocked and causes no
> damage to glider, is the safest procedure. Narrow paved runways may tilt
> the safety judgment in the other direction.

Agree with Eric on this. I have flown at several UK sites and many US
sites. The landing options at UK sites are usually such that a
disabled glider is not a hazard to others. In US several sites only
have one paved or dirt runway available and a disabled glider can make
landing hazardous for all competitors that finish soon after. Parowan
would be a good example of that.

I have fitted gear warning in both my std class gliders. In over 2000
hours it has never gone off unexpectedly, but I intend to put the gear
down if it ever does. 2 weekends ago I had a call from another
finisher while I was on a close in base leg. He asked if my gear was
down. I had plenty of time to verify it was and to have put it down if
it wasn't. Keep calling me! I'll decide if I have time to put it down
or accept a gear up landing.


Andy

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Stanford Korwin wrote:
>
> > No one, as far as I know, has ever been hurt while
> > landing wheel-up - but there have been a number of
> > injuries to those losing control while trying to lower
> > the u/c at the last minute.
>
> It seems a very rare event, at least in the US, as I don't remember any.
> Perhaps some US pilots can offer examples. I do know a number of people
> that have landed wheel up, of course. I can remember an incident where a
> gear up landing at a small airstrip blocked the runway long enough to
> making it difficult for the other landing gliders to do so safely.
> Another incident that blocked a runway triggered an accident - no
> injuries, fortunately, but the landing glider was damaged.
>
> So, my experience is it's generally better to have the pilot get the
> gear down, though I would hesitate to say anything on the radio if the
> glider was already close to the ground. Certainly letting a pilot land
> gear up on a wide grass runway, which would not be blocked and causes no
> damage to glider, is the safest procedure. Narrow paved runways may tilt
> the safety judgment in the other direction.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

I've looked at the aftermath of a few two seater gear-up landings. The
posterior of the rear seat occupant got perilously close to the highly
abrasive runway surface before it stopped grinding away the bottom of the
fuselage. Not all gear-up's may be benign.

Bill Daniels

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

When I flew the PA18, PA25, and DR400 and DR300 I had my right hand on the
stick, and left hand on the throttle. With the Robins I had to change
hands to trim or set the flaps. With all of them the tow release was set
for the left hand.

When I learnt to power fly after many years gliding, I found the Tomahawk
and Cessna 150 series unhandy and difficult because I had to use my left
hand on a yoke. It was the combination of a yoke and the left hand which
made it difficult for me, after so many years with a stick in the right
hand. Are there any single pilot aircraft regularly flown with the left
hand?

There have been a number of cases where gliders (usually an ASW19) has been
seen trying to land with the brakes firmly shut and the wheel going up and
down; correct hand wrong lever.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I don't quite buy all of this.
>
> Airplane pilots land with their left hand on the yoke and right hand on
> the throttle. When they shift to gliders, they land with their right
> hand on the stick and left on the spoiler. In other words, a well
> trailed pilot can land with either hand on the flight controls.
>
> If you can't fly with either hand, you are limited. If you can, then
> shifting hands to extend the gear shouldn't be a problem.
>
> A possible thought here is that a throttle will stay where it is when you
> let go - that's what friction locks are for. A spoiler will either suck
> open or slam shut forcing the pilot to keep a hand on the control. Seems
> like we should ask the designers to take a look at this.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

[Robert Backer]

The Cirrus and Lancair Columbia lines both have left hand side sticks.


W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> When I flew the PA18, PA25, and DR400 and DR300 I had my right hand on the
> stick, and left hand on the throttle. With the Robins I had to change
> hands to trim or set the flaps. With all of them the tow release was set
> for the left hand.
>
> When I learnt to power fly after many years gliding, I found the Tomahawk
> and Cessna 150 series unhandy and difficult because I had to use my left
> hand on a yoke. It was the combination of a yoke and the left hand which
> made it difficult for me, after so many years with a stick in the right
> hand. Are there any single pilot aircraft regularly flown with the left
> hand?
>
> There have been a number of cases where gliders (usually an ASW19) has been
> seen trying to land with the brakes firmly shut and the wheel going up and
> down; correct hand wrong lever.
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>
>>"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>I don't quite buy all of this.
>>
>>Airplane pilots land with their left hand on the yoke and right hand on
>>the throttle. When they shift to gliders, they land with their right
>>hand on the stick and left on the spoiler. In other words, a well
>>trailed pilot can land with either hand on the flight controls.
>>
>>If you can't fly with either hand, you are limited. If you can, then
>>shifting hands to extend the gear shouldn't be a problem.
>>
>>A possible thought here is that a throttle will stay where it is when you
>>let go - that's what friction locks are for. A spoiler will either suck
>>open or slam shut forcing the pilot to keep a hand on the control. Seems
>>like we should ask the designers to take a look at this.
>>
>>Bill Daniels
>>
>
>
>
>

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

In short, No.

One of the biggest controversies in U.K. clubs is about whether to do or not
to do downwind checks. Some clubs insist, some clubs think it is rubbish.

So far as I know, none of the professional national coaches employed by the
BGA to train instructors has ever called for downwind checks.
To my certain knowledge this includes Bill Scull, Chris Rollings, Brian
Spreckley, G. Dale, many others. However, when they came across a
candidate who had been trained to use downwind checks they did not actually
insist on a change.

The BGA Instructors' Manual in Chapter 4 - CHECK LISTS is 3 pages and has
this on page 4.3: -

"Pre-landing checks.

"The use of UFSTAL, WULF and other variations on the theme is inappropriate
on the downwind leg of the circuit. The pilot is better off flying the
glider correctly, in the right place, and looking out. The use of a
pre-landing check prior to joining the circuit (a pre-circuit check as
opposed to a down-wind check) is mentioned also in chapter 14."

Chapter 14 - CIRCUIT PLANNING (PART ONE) is 6 pages of text and 4 of
illustrations and has this on page 14.6: -

Under "Before going to the high key area", 7 bullet points, with the last
one: -

"make a positive decision to join the circuit to land, and plan to arrive at
the high key area between 700ft. to 800ft.
prepare for landing by;
doing pre-circuit checks, if appropriate
making sure the straps are tight and deciding on a suitable approach
speed. In gliders so equipped, dump any water ballast and lower the
undercarriage
continuing to fly the glider at normal speed (i.e. best glide angle),
but speeding up appropriately in any sink."

On page 14-10 under "Advice to Instructors",

4th of 7 items, "Downwind",

"Don't confuse the demonstration by introducing pre-landing checks as such.
It's all there anyway, and the pre-landing checks should be carried out
before starting the circuit. Reciting a mnemonic on the downwind leg is
inappropriate, and in any case, being able to recite a check shouldn't be
confused with an ability to plan a circuit."

I understand that frequently if someone lands wheel up, when asked if they
did pre-landing checks they say "oh, yes!". The point of course is that
those who are taught pre-landing checks are flying training gliders with a
fixed wheel, and so they are used to saying the check item but doing
nothing.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Gary Emerson" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>
>> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>>
>> In the current, Fifteenth Edition of Laws and Rules for Glider Pilots of
>> April 2005 published by the BGA
>> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/Edition15final.pdf
>> in Part 3 Recommended Practices RP26 on page 58 states: -
>>
>> "UNDERCARRIAGE WARNING SYSTEMS
>>
>> "RP26. The fitting of systems that warn the pilot of a glider that the
>> undercarriage is not lowered during the landing approach IS NOT
>> RECOMMENDED. This is because if such a system is fitted and is
>> activated then the pilot is likely to attempt to lower the undercarriage
>> during the final stages of landing. This could result in mishandling
>> the aircraft, so causing an accident.
>>
>> "It is also recommended that if the glider is seen on the approach
>> wheel-up, no attempt is made to warn that pilot, using radio or other
>> means, for the same reason. The pilot should be allowed to land
>> wheels-up."
>>
>> I understand that this recommendation was made after accidents where the
>> warning was considered to be the cause.
>>
>> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>> Remove "ic" to reply.
>>
>
> So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist where the
> spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked early in the pattern
> then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not very logical.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

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

> I understand that frequently if someone lands wheel up, when asked if they
> did pre-landing checks they say "oh, yes!". The point of course is that
> those who are taught pre-landing checks are flying training gliders with a
> fixed wheel, and so they are used to saying the check item but doing
> nothing.

Perhaps, if they had a gear up warning system, it would have alerted
them to the put the gear down, and avoided the gear up landing. I find
having the buzzer screech at me is a good training aid, and I redouble
my efforts to avoid it in the future.

The people I know that have landed gear up had 100's (or more) of hours
in the glider they landed gear up, so it seems they were used to "doing
something". The gear up landings I'm familiar with almost always
involved some distraction so that the checks were not done, or the pilot
grabbed the wrong handle, or the gear was down for the whole flight and
raised for landing. Also, the pre-landing checks I was taught did not
involve the gear, flaps, or ballast, as the ASK 13 had none of these,
and I suspect many (most?) US pilots were trained that way. All this
leads me to believe the situation you suggest is a rare one.

Personally, the 3 times my gear up warning saved me, I had 200, 1000,
and 1500 hours in various retractable gear gliders. All involved
distraction.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark Dickson]

I agree that they are pre-landing checks, not downwind
checks, and should be carried out prior to joining
the circuit.

At 19:36 17 November 2005, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\.
wrote:
>In short, No.
>
>One of the biggest controversies in U.K. clubs is about
>whether to do or not
>to do downwind checks. Some clubs insist, some clubs
>think it is rubbish.
>
>So far as I know, none of the professional national
>coaches employed by the
>BGA to train instructors has ever called for downwind
>checks.
>To my certain knowledge this includes Bill Scull, Chris
>Rollings, Brian
>Spreckley, G. Dale, many others. However, when they
>came across a
>candidate who had been trained to use downwind checks
>they did not actually
>insist on a change.
>
>The BGA Instructors' Manual in Chapter 4 - CHECK LISTS
>is 3 pages and has
>this on page 4.3: -
>
>'Pre-landing checks.
>
>'The use of UFSTAL, WULF and other variations on the
>theme is inappropriate
>on the downwind leg of the circuit. The pilot is
>better off flying the
>glider correctly, in the right place, and looking out.
> The use of a
>pre-landing check prior to joining the circuit (a pre-circuit
>check as
>opposed to a down-wind check) is mentioned also in
>chapter 14.'
>
>Chapter 14 - CIRCUIT PLANNING (PART ONE) is 6 pages
>of text and 4 of
>illustrations and has this on page 14.6: -
>
>Under 'Before going to the high key area', 7 bullet
>points, with the last
>one: -
>
>'make a positive decision to join the circuit to land,
>and plan to arrive at
>the high key area between 700ft. to 800ft.
>prepare for landing by;
> doing pre-circuit checks, if appropriate
> making sure the straps are tight and deciding
>on a suitable approach
>speed. In gliders so equipped, dump any water ballast
>and lower the
>undercarriage
> continuing to fly the glider at normal speed (i.e.
>best glide angle),
>but speeding up appropriately in any sink.'
>
>On page 14-10 under 'Advice to Instructors',
>
>4th of 7 items, 'Downwind',
>
>'Don't confuse the demonstration by introducing pre-landing
>checks as such.
>It's all there anyway, and the pre-landing checks should
>be carried out
>before starting the circuit. Reciting a mnemonic
>on the downwind leg is
>inappropriate, and in any case, being able to recite
>a check shouldn't be
>confused with an ability to plan a circuit.'
>
>I understand that frequently if someone lands wheel
>up, when asked if they
>did pre-landing checks they say 'oh, yes!'. The point
>of course is that
>those who are taught pre-landing checks are flying
>training gliders with a
>fixed wheel, and so they are used to saying the check
>item but doing
>nothing.
>
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>Remove 'ic' to reply.
>
>>
>> 'Gary Emerson' wrote in message
>> et...
>>
>>>
>>> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>>>
>>> In the current, Fifteenth Edition of Laws and Rules
>>>for Glider Pilots of
>>> April 2005 published by the BGA
>>> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/Edition15final.pdf
>>> in Part 3 Recommended Practices RP26 on page 58 states:
>>>-
>>>
>>> 'UNDERCARRIAGE WARNING SYSTEMS
>>>
>>> 'RP26. The fitting of systems that warn the pilot
>>>of a glider that the
>>> undercarriage is not lowered during the landing approach
>>>IS NOT
>>> RECOMMENDED. This is because if such a system is
>>>fitted and is
>>> activated then the pilot is likely to attempt to lower
>>>the undercarriage
>>> during the final stages of landing. This could result
>>>in mishandling
>>> the aircraft, so causing an accident.
>>>
>>> 'It is also recommended that if the glider is seen
>>>on the approach
>>> wheel-up, no attempt is made to warn that pilot, using
>>>radio or other
>>> means, for the same reason. The pilot should be
>>>allowed to land
>>> wheels-up.'
>>>
>>> I understand that this recommendation was made after
>>>accidents where the
>>> warning was considered to be the cause.
>>>
>>> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>>> Remove 'ic' to reply.
>>>
>>
>> So does the BGA recommend to use a pre-landing checklist
>>where the
>> spoilers are checked? If the spoilers are checked
>>early in the pattern
>> then the logic regarding gear warning systems is not
>>very logical.
>>
>
>
>
>

[Mel Dawson]

At 21:18 16 November 2005, Nigel Pocock wrote:
>One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
>like background radio chatter and your brain filters
>it out (or at least mine does)
>Our CFI discovered this the hard way in our brand new
>DG1000. luckily landed on soft grass so no damage.
>
>Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not reccomend an
>undercarriage warning buzzer.
>
>I know of two accidents causing injury, one serious,
>caused by a malfunctioning u/c warning system..
I was taught to look at the u/c lever before going
for the airbrakes and after 3000 hours it hasn't failed.........
yet.
>
>

[Mike Lindsay]

In article <DdqdnYPHoYf1J-benZ2dnUVZ_v
>
>Try: http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html
>
>Type in whatever message you want, choose the gender and accent of the
>synthetic voice and download the .wav file. A sexy female voice gets my
>attention.
>
>As the gadget makers are now involved, I have a request. How about a small
>box containing a multi-input, line-in, fixed volume, audio mixer with
>amplifier and decent speaker powered by the ships battery. This box would
>have an array of 3mm jacks to receive the audio from the varios, PDA, radio,
>and other gadgets that output audio and play them all through the same
>speaker. Maybe it should fit in a 57mm instrument hole. I think this would
>simplify wiring and improve audio quality.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
We had a little problem with our gear warning. It worked fine
with the glider in the trailer, but in flight it would sound if you
opened the airbrakes whatever the position of the gear. It certainly
made me check the wheel was down and locked.

We put in a new vario this year, the only snag was we had
nowhere to put the speaker except behind the panel. We thought we could
do with a bit more audio. I remembered our radio, a Dittel clone, has an
input for an intercom. We fed the audio from the vario into the radio,
and now we have all the volume we need.


--
Mike Lindsay

[Mike Lindsay]

In article . com>, Mike
the Strike > writes
>Pilots who can't respond to a gear warning or radio call probably
>shouldn't be flying at all! This isn't a big multi-tasking job. What
>would such a person do if the canopy popped open, the brake handle came
>off in his hands or the spoilers opened on takeoff?
>
>In a sailplane with a left-handed gear handle, all it takes is- brakes
>closed, gear down, brakes open again. I timed it at 3 to 4 seconds in
>an ASW 20.
>
>With a right-handed gear handle, you have to close brakes, switch
>hands, put gear down, switch back, brakes open, in 4 to 6 seconds. On
>downwind, you have plenty of time to do this and even on final if it
>isn't too short. At 50 knots, 6 seconds represents no moe than about
>600 feet - say 200 meters.
>
>BGA sounds a bit like a mother hen!
>


>Mike
>

Odd you should say that. There is a lot of talk in this country about
"The Nanny State", by which is meant the propensity of the authorities
to control every aspect of our lives. Perhaps the BGA have been bitten
by the same bug?

--
Mike Lindsay

[01-- Zero One]

"Mel Dawson" > wrote in message
:

> At 21:18 16 November 2005, Nigel Pocock wrote:
> >One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
> >like background radio chatter and your brain filters
> >it out (or at least mine does)
> >Our CFI discovered this the hard way in our brand new
> >DG1000. luckily landed on soft grass so no damage.
> >
> >Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not reccomend an
> >undercarriage warning buzzer.
> >
> >I know of two accidents causing injury, one serious,
> >caused by a malfunctioning u/c warning system..
> I was taught to look at the u/c lever before going
> for the airbrakes and after 3000 hours it hasn't failed.........
> yet.
> >
> >



Don't worry, Mel. It will. You are waaaaay past due.



Larry "just get a friggin' gear warning system!!!" Goddard

"01" USA

[Don Johnstone]

At 21:00 17 November 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>
>> I understand that frequently if someone lands wheel
>>up, when asked if they
>> did pre-landing checks they say 'oh, yes!'. The
>>point of course is that
>> those who are taught pre-landing checks are flying
>>training gliders with a
>> fixed wheel, and so they are used to saying the check
>>item but doing
>> nothing.
>
>Perhaps, if they had a gear up warning system, it would
>have alerted
>them to the put the gear down, and avoided the gear
>up landing. I find
>having the buzzer screech at me is a good training
>aid, and I redouble
>my efforts to avoid it in the future.
>
>The people I know that have landed gear up had 100's
>(or more) of hours
>in the glider they landed gear up, so it seems they
>were used to 'doing
>something'. The gear up landings I'm familiar with
>almost always
>involved some distraction so that the checks were not
>done, or the pilot
>grabbed the wrong handle, or the gear was down for
>the whole flight and
>raised for landing. Also, the pre-landing checks I
>was taught did not
>involve the gear, flaps, or ballast, as the ASK 13
>had none of these,
>and I suspect many (most?) US pilots were trained that
>way. All this
>leads me to believe the situation you suggest is a
>rare one.
>
>Personally, the 3 times my gear up warning saved me,
>I had 200, 1000,
>and 1500 hours in various retractable gear gliders.
>All involved
>distraction.

As Bill has correctly pointed out the BGA discourage
the use of undercarriage warnings on the grounds that
activation in the late stage of an approach could itself
cause problems. It is better to land wheels up than
loose control trying to put the wheel down close to
the ground. The cure is worse than the disease. It
can be particulary dangerous where the undercarriage
lever is on the right hand side of the cockpit.

The argument still rages over here between the 'configure
the glider for landing' as soon as that decision is
made. and the pre landing mnemonic. Again as Bill pointed
out challenge and response mnemonics tend to become
automatic both in challenge and response, especially
when learned in gliders which do not have water, flaps
or a retractable undercarriage.

[Mike the Strike]

During fixed-gear single-engine training decades ago, the plane was
equipped with a "gear" switch with red and green lights. My instructor
recognized the problem of transitioning from fixed to retractable gear
and taught gear operation from day one. Even flying a stinkpot Cessna
172 these days I find myself reaching for the gear switch!

Also, mnemonics are useful, but can also be problematic. For my glider
training I was taught "USTALL", which unfortunately doesn't prompt you
to drop water ballast. Guess who's landed full of water a few times!

My revised mnemonic is "BUSTALL", which is especially appropriate to
those who don't use it and land gear up!

Mike

[Stefan]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> The gear up landings I'm familiar with almost always
> involved some distraction so that the checks were not done,

I did my first and (yet) only gear up landing, luckily on grass, with
300 hours, most of them with retractable gear. I know exactly why this
happened: I was on a cross country in an unknown region and had to
outland on a controlled airport. I knew the airport had a grass and a
concrete runway, but wasn't there before and I wasn't prepared to land
there. The runway couldn't be seen during the approach, but only on
downwind. So I had first to decide that I had to land there, then study
the airport chart, talk to them, enter the controlled airspace, follow
their instructions, navigate in an unknown place with an "invisible"
runway, look out for that runway etc., which all broke my routine. I
always do my checks on a certain point during the approach sequence. But
that sequence was broken and additional workload was introduced, and
that got me. I've reviewed my routine since.

Stefan

[Gary Boggs]

I've got a buddy with a Sisu. His Radio antennae is on his gear door pointing down when the doors are closed, to the side when they are open. It works a little like a curb feeler. It's a last minute warning but it actually saved him once.
"01-- Zero One" > wrote in message ...
"Mel Dawson" > wrote in message :

> At 21:18 16 November 2005, Nigel Pocock wrote:
> >One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
> >like background radio chatter and your brain filters
> >it out (or at least mine does)
> >Our CFI discovered this the hard way in our brand new
> >DG1000. luckily landed on soft grass so no damage.
> >
> >Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not reccomend an
> >undercarriage warning buzzer.
> >
> >I know of two accidents causing injury, one serious,
> >caused by a malfunctioning u/c warning system..
> I was taught to look at the u/c lever before going
> for the airbrakes and after 3000 hours it hasn't failed.........
> yet.
> >
> >



Don't worry, Mel. It will. You are waaaaay past due.



Larry "just get a friggin' gear warning system!!!" Goddard

"01" USA

[Tim Ward]

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:7KJef.336498$084.184292@attbi_s22...
> Hi,
>
> In addition to the audible signal from the 302 - if you have a 303 it
> displays a text message which makes it obvious what the issue is.
>
> I like the Tasman approach because a voice message should be able to cut
> through all the beeps already going on in the cockpit. I talked to one
user
> who installed them in his gliders at his commercial operation. He said the
> recorded message was "Lower the Fxxxing Landing Gear!" - in an all out
> attempt to get the pilot's attention.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for sources of small magnetic reed
> switches? I sell mechanical microswitches which I have used in the past
and
> like, but I can see the advantages to non-contact switching.
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

Maybe the hot tip would be to use the sound of something grinding.
In the alarm business, I had a "glass break simulator" that was essentially
a digital recording of breaking glass. That was quite an attention getter.

Tim Ward

[Greg Arnold]

>
> Maybe the hot tip would be to use the sound of something grinding.
> In the alarm business, I had a "glass break simulator" that was essentially
> a digital recording of breaking glass. That was quite an attention getter.
>
> Tim Ward
>


Or use the sound of the pilot swearing.

[Wayne Paul]

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
news:ptbff.282$qw.222@fed1read07...
>
> >
> > Maybe the hot tip would be to use the sound of something grinding.
> > In the alarm business, I had a "glass break simulator" that was
essentially
> > a digital recording of breaking glass. That was quite an attention
getter.
> >
> > Tim Ward
> >
>
>
> Or use the sound of the pilot swearing.

Or a Radio Shack piezo buzzer (smoke alarm.) In fact it is so loud that I
mounted it in a sound attenuation box.

It is actuated when flap setting is greater then 40 degrees and gear is up.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html

[bumper]

My one gear warning save happened while doing touch and goes with my Mooney.
Neglected to raise the gear on take-off, then abeam the numbers, flipped the
gear switch up. Briefly wondered why that darn distracting beep-beep-beep
thing was making such a racket. Within a second or two, came to my senses
and exclaiming to myself, "Holy Bananas" (or some similar, equally
appropriate thing). Switch down, no damage, glad there's a gear warning horn
even though I'm originally a Brit'.

bumper

[Don Johnstone]

At 03:42 18 November 2005, Wayne Paul wrote:
>

>
>Or a Radio Shack piezo buzzer (smoke alarm.) In fact
>it is so loud that I
>mounted it in a sound attenuation box.
>
>It is actuated when flap setting is greater then 40
>degrees and gear is up.

and if that goes off at 50 feet on a marginal final
glide when you have kept the glider clean to get onto
the field?

It is just a question, not meant in any way as a critisism
and I use 'you' in the collective sense.

>
>Wayne
>HP-14 N990 '6F'
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

At 10:30 18 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:

A short story: When I was a lad I was interested in
all things flying and I was in a control tower at an
airfield in the UK. The circuit (pattern) was full
with about 8-10 aircraft performing 'circuits and bumps'
(It was in the days when the RAF were allowed to fly
their aeroplanes). An aircraft turned finals still
well out and a slightly excited voice said on the radio
[callsign] 'lower your undercarriage' The two aircraft
on very late finals promptly retracted their undercarriage
and landed wheels up, lots of sparks and minor panic
in the control tower.
I am sure the man on the radio meant well but the proper
procedure was to fire off a red very light forcing
a go round.
Just an illustration of how a well intentioned warning
can go wrong. I was 14 at the time, the response of
the fire teams was impressive. No pilot was injured
in the telling of this story.

[Tony Verhulst]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> ..... No pilot was injured
> in the telling of this story.

And this is, by far, the typical outcome of any gear up landing - power
or glider.

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

[Michael Huber]

"Nigel Pocock" wrote:

> One problem with a recorded voice is that it sounds
> like background radio chatter and your brain filters
> it out (or at least mine does)

Absolutely true. One member of my club installed a gear warning and recorded
a message on it like "If you´re going to land, lower the gear NOW". He was
the first one to ignore his own message.

On the other hand, I once flew in Hungary, and my brain filtered out all
radio messages which were mostly in Hungarian language. The airport tried to
call me (in English and German) while my workload was high, and they had no
chance to get through to me. Then they had my girlfriend call me on the
radio and got an immediate reply. It seems like somehow I´m conditioned to
listen whenever the boss is speaking ;-))

Michael

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 03:42 18 November 2005, Wayne Paul wrote:
>
>
>>Or a Radio Shack piezo buzzer (smoke alarm.) In fact
>>it is so loud that I
>>mounted it in a sound attenuation box.
>>
>>It is actuated when flap setting is greater then 40
>>degrees and gear is up.
>
>
> and if that goes off at 50 feet on a marginal final
> glide when you have kept the glider clean to get onto
> the field?

I'm sure Wayne will tell you why this isn't a problem. But, how can we
avoid the problem suggested by the question?

Malfunctioning warnings: one that goes off when it shouldn't shortly
before touch down seems so rare it's not worth worrying about. Gear
warnings save enough damage and blocked runways that I think they add
more safety than this situation subtracts.

Pilots that don't check their spoilers until close to the ground: this
seems like a training issue or self-discipline issue, either about
pre-landing checks, or very marginal returns to the airport.

Pilots who react poorly to a gear warning when low: perhaps this can be
handled as a training issue. I've seen several pilots extend their gear
safely at the last moment (less that 50' above the ground) and land
normally, and never seen an accident from doing that, so it's possible
to do, even with pilots not trained and ready for it. Perhaps pilots
with gear warnings should occasionally practice this at altitude,
opening the spoilers with the gear up, then lowering the gear. The best
procedure for dealing with the warning when close to the ground could be
selected (just put the gear down, or maybe close the spoilers first, or
even "ignore the damn thing and land on the belly").

Frankly, I think we should be a lot more concerned about the lack of a
"unlocked spoiler" alarm, or "canopy unlatched" alarm, than the
potential injuries caused by a gear up alarm. Unlocked spoilers and
unlatched canopies have caused far more accidents than gear warning
systems.

After learning how many pilots in our ASH 26 E owners newsgroup had
taken off with their spoilers unlocked, I added a "spoilers unlocked"
warning to my ASH 26 E. It was easy to do, because my Cambridge 302
vario has this feature built into it. It requires only the usual two
switches, one for the gear down and locked signal, and one for the
spoiler open signal. Of course, it also provides a "gear up" warning. A
nice feature is the gear up warning can be silenced temporarily with a
button press; for example, when I need to use the spoilers to remain
clear of cloud, or descend to fly with a glider lower than me.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Nyal Williams]

There is a solution to this problem; I learned it the
hard way. Say to yourself 'The gear HANDLE is at the
gear-down ICON. A fellow in Minden told me this beforehand.
I didn't pay a lot of attention. I paid a lot of
money. Now I use this phrase religiously.


I switched between three new to me gliders in 4 days.
The retract movement was in opposite directions on
two of them. I went the lwrong way on the last flight.
Use the words HANDLE and ICON.



At 22:24 16 November 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Mike the Strike wrote:
>> I prefer check lists, but must note I have seen another
>>colleague
>> return from a flight with gear extended then retract
>>it on final as he
>> went through his pre-landing checks!
>
>Same thing happened to me on my first flight in the
>first glider I
>owned. On pattern entry I went through my pre-landing
>checklist,
>operated the gear handle, opened the spoilers, then
>heard a load beeping
>noise. Closed the spoilers, beeping stopped. It took
>a fair bit of
>contemplation to recognize that the glider might have
>a gear warning
>system. A quick glance at the gear position symbols
>allowed me to solve
>the mystery while still plenty high. I must have forgotten
>to retract
>the gear after release...
>
>Marc
>

[Eric Greenwell]

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

> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>>After learning how many pilots in our ASH 26 E owners newsgroup had
>>taken off with their spoilers unlocked, I added a "spoilers unlocked"
>>warning to my ASH 26 E. It was easy to do, because my Cambridge 302
>>vario has this feature built into it. It requires only the usual two
>>switches, one for the gear down and locked signal, and one for the
>>spoiler open signal.
>
>
> How does it tell the difference between takeoff - gear down,
> spoilers open and landing - gear down, spoilers open?

It triggers the warning when the spoilers are unlocked and the airspeed
exceeds 25 knots. From the Cambridge manual:

> The audible warning is a “European Police Car” sound. Warnings are heard even though
> the audio volume control is set to zero. Alarms are cancelled by correcting the condition,
> or by tapping on the instrument knob.

and ...

> Try each of the alarm situations regularly during normal glider operation. This tests the
> switches. You will also become familiar with the alarm sound, and get some practice
> correcting each alarm condition. This will help you respond quickly and calmly in a real
> emergency situation.

Todd continues:
>
> I've seen a nice installation that uses a microswitch on the
> towring release mechanism to differentiate take-off from
> landing, but not many are comfortable retrofitting something
> that close to the release mechanism, even where it's legal
> to do so. It would be nice if Tost would build an optional
> switch for this job.

The airspeed method is particularly useful for a self-launching
motorglider, my situation, and is simpler than installing a switch on
the release mechanism (especially on gliders with aero and ground launch
hooks). The 302 vario normally connects to the pitot and static, so no
additional connections are needed beyond the usual spoiler and gear
switches.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Don Johnstone]

At 16:42 18 November 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> At 03:42 18 November 2005, Wayne Paul wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Or a Radio Shack piezo buzzer (smoke alarm.) In fact
>>>it is so loud that I
>>>mounted it in a sound attenuation box.
>>>
>>>It is actuated when flap setting is greater then 40
>>>degrees and gear is up.
>>
>>
>> and if that goes off at 50 feet on a marginal final
>> glide when you have kept the glider clean to get onto
>> the field?
>
>I'm sure Wayne will tell you why this isn't a problem.
>But, how can we
>avoid the problem suggested by the question?

You can't if a warning is fitted and I accept that
in some cases it will never be a problem because of
aircraft/approach type.
>Malfunctioning warnings: one that goes off when it
>shouldn't shortly
>before touch down seems so rare it's not worth worrying
>about. Gear
>warnings save enough damage and blocked runways that
>I think they add
>more safety than this situation subtracts.

It is not just a malfunction even a real warning at
that height can distract enough from 'flying the aeroplane'
to turn an incident into a serious crash. I have never
heard of anyone being seriously injured or killed as
the result of a wheels up. There have been accidents
involving serious injury as the result of undercarriage
warnings.

>Pilots that don't check their spoilers until close
>to the ground: this
>seems like a training issue or self-discipline issue,
>either about
>pre-landing checks, or very marginal returns to the
>airport.

Marginal glides are very common in competitions.

>Pilots who react poorly to a gear warning when low:
>perhaps this can be
>handled as a training issue. I've seen several pilots
>extend their gear
>safely at the last moment (less that 50' above the
>ground) and land
>normally, and never seen an accident from doing that,
>so it's possible
>to do, even with pilots not trained and ready for it.
>Perhaps pilots
>with gear warnings should occasionally practice this
>at altitude,
>opening the spoilers with the gear up, then lowering
>the gear.

There is a world of difference between deliberately
leaving the gear selection to very late to achieve
the best glide and being startled by a sudden loud
noise in the cockpit. It is the unexpected and the
'instinctive' reaction that is the root of the problem.

The best
>procedure for dealing with the warning when close to
>the ground could be
>selected (just put the gear down, or maybe close the
>spoilers first, or
>even 'ignore the damn thing and land on the belly').

The last is the only option imo which begs the question...........

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Don Johnstone <REMOVE_TO_REP
> writes
>At 10:30 18 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>A short story: When I was a lad I was interested in
>all things flying and I was in a control tower at an
>airfield in the UK. The circuit (pattern) was full
>with about 8-10 aircraft performing 'circuits and bumps'
>(It was in the days when the RAF were allowed to fly
>their aeroplanes). An aircraft turned finals still
>well out and a slightly excited voice said on the radio
>[callsign] 'lower your undercarriage' The two aircraft
>on very late finals promptly retracted their undercarriage
>and landed wheels up, lots of sparks and minor panic
>in the control tower.
>I am sure the man on the radio meant well but the proper
>procedure was to fire off a red very light forcing
>a go round.
>Just an illustration of how a well intentioned warning
>can go wrong. I was 14 at the time, the response of
>the fire teams was impressive. No pilot was injured
>in the telling of this story.
>
>
When I was stationed visited the tower at RAF Tangmere in 1957, the
chaps used to make their finals call "Finals, three greens" There was
always a spare pilot in the tower to ensure the wheels really were down,
and they weren't just calling three greens out of habit.
>

--
Mike Lindsay

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> It is not just a malfunction even a real warning at
> that height can distract enough from 'flying the aeroplane'
> to turn an incident into a serious crash. I have never
> heard of anyone being seriously injured or killed as
> the result of a wheels up. There have been accidents
> involving serious injury as the result of undercarriage
> warnings.

This seems to be a UK problem, not a US problem. Have other countries
experienced the UK situation? Do other national gliding organizations
recommend against gear warning devices (the SSA in the US does not)? Are
there any US pilots that wish they had not installed a gear warning device?

>
>>Pilots that don't check their spoilers until close
>>to the ground: this
>>seems like a training issue or self-discipline issue,
>>either about
>>pre-landing checks, or very marginal returns to the
>>airport.
>
>
> Marginal glides are very common in competitions.

The US is working on this problem, at least for the final glide. The
major concern is the marginal glide, not the possibility of an accident
caused by a gear warning device. I imagine an attempt to ban gear
warning devices from contests would be even more unpopular the new ELT
requirement!


>>Perhaps pilots
>>with gear warnings should occasionally practice this
>>at altitude,
>>opening the spoilers with the gear up, then lowering
>>the gear.
>
>
> There is a world of difference between deliberately
> leaving the gear selection to very late to achieve
> the best glide and being startled by a sudden loud
> noise in the cockpit. It is the unexpected and the
> 'instinctive' reaction that is the root of the problem.

I can't say for sure practicing would be effective, but I think it would
help. We practice for other unexpected things, like rope breaks.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Gary Emerson]

"Frankly, I think we should be a lot more concerned about the lack of a
"unlocked spoiler" alarm, or "canopy unlatched" alarm, than the
potential injuries caused by a gear up alarm. Unlocked spoilers and
unlatched canopies have caused far more accidents than gear warning
systems. "



This would be especially true if you look at the canopy design on the
new LS-11 that's mentioned just a few articles away on RAS. If that
sucker isn't locked it's gonna be GONE and if it hits the tail it's
going to make a mighty mess of things.

[Andy]

"It triggers the warning when the spoilers are unlocked and the
airspeed
exceeds 25 knots."

The same conditions are satisfied for landing approach with the gear
down. I expect the answer is that the 302, containing a full airdata
and GPS system, can easily determine that a takeoff has started.
Indeed, it does that to start the logger function.

I use the airbrake warning of the 302 as well. It usually bitches at
me for just one cycle on takeoff as I always use the airbrakes until I
have good aileron control.

Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy wrote:

> "It triggers the warning when the spoilers are unlocked and the
> airspeed
> exceeds 25 knots."
>
> The same conditions are satisfied for landing approach with the gear
> down. I expect the answer is that the 302, containing a full airdata
> and GPS system, can easily determine that a takeoff has started.
> Indeed, it does that to start the logger function.

I wrote that poorly. This is what the manual says: "When airspeed rises
above 25 knots, the alarm sounds". Just having the airspeed above 25
knots won't do it, as you note, it is the "rising above".

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

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

> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>>>How does it tell the difference between takeoff - gear down,
>>>spoilers open and landing - gear down, spoilers open?
>>
>>It triggers the warning when the spoilers are unlocked and the airspeed
>>exceeds 25 knots. From the Cambridge manual:
>
>
> I don't quite follow this. I land with an airspeed over 25
> knots and I take off with an airspeed over 25 knots. That
> would make it sound when landing with the gear down,
> airspeed above 25 knots, and brakes open - i.e., the normal
> approach. Does it watch to see if the airspeed was first
> below 25 knots? Does it cut off when above 35 knots and
> only sound during the takeoff roll?

The trigger isn't the airspeed value, but the rise in airspeed from
below 25 knot to above 25 knots. This happens only during the takeoff
roll. My apologies for not stating this clearly the first time. The
system does work well, and none of the pilots I know that are using it
get false alarms during flight or landing.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Nigel Pocock]

At 05:48 17 November 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 21:54 16 November 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>If it was...your wife's voice on the recording do you
>>
>>think you would still filter it out?
>
>Wow, nobody bit on this one?
>
>9B

I am married - of course I filter out what she is saying
most of the time, I would go bonkers other wise.
Luckily she dosnt read this site ):-

[Bob Gibbons]

For what its worth, for many years now as I transition to a new
glider, one of the first things I add is two small squares of colored
plastic tape, a green block at the end of the "gear down and locked"
end of the handle travel, and a red block at the "gear retracted" end
of the handle travel.

As I turn final, I will often take a quick glance at the gear lever to
make sure it is at the "green" end.

Bob

On 18 Nov 2005 16:45:40 GMT, Nyal Williams
> wrote:

>There is a solution to this problem; I learned it the
>hard way. Say to yourself 'The gear HANDLE is at the
>gear-down ICON. A fellow in Minden told me this beforehand.
> I didn't pay a lot of attention. I paid a lot of
>money. Now I use this phrase religiously.
>
>
>I switched between three new to me gliders in 4 days.
> The retract movement was in opposite directions on
>two of them. I went the lwrong way on the last flight.
> Use the words HANDLE and ICON.
>
>
>
>At 22:24 16 November 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>Mike the Strike wrote:
>>> I prefer check lists, but must note I have seen another
>>>colleague
>>> return from a flight with gear extended then retract
>>>it on final as he
>>> went through his pre-landing checks!
>>
>>Same thing happened to me on my first flight in the
>>first glider I
>>owned. On pattern entry I went through my pre-landing
>>checklist,
>>operated the gear handle, opened the spoilers, then
>>heard a load beeping
>>noise. Closed the spoilers, beeping stopped. It took
>>a fair bit of
>>contemplation to recognize that the glider might have
>>a gear warning
>>system. A quick glance at the gear position symbols
>>allowed me to solve
>>the mystery while still plenty high. I must have forgotten
>>to retract
>>the gear after release...
>>
>>Marc
>>
>
>
>

[Robin Birch]

I fly with a gear warning and several times it has told me that I had
lowered the U/C but not locked it home properly.

On the other side I personally know two very experienced pilots on the
types they were flying who happily landed with no wheel despite the
incessant beeping.

Personally I think the BGA is right in that I'd much rather land with
the wheel up than stall at 10 feet up despite the cost that could ensue.
Mind you my Astir would probably win even if I landed on the tarmac :-)

Cheers

Robin

In message >, Bob Gibbons
> writes
>For what its worth, for many years now as I transition to a new
>glider, one of the first things I add is two small squares of colored
>plastic tape, a green block at the end of the "gear down and locked"
>end of the handle travel, and a red block at the "gear retracted" end
>of the handle travel.
>
>As I turn final, I will often take a quick glance at the gear lever to
>make sure it is at the "green" end.
>
>Bob
>
>On 18 Nov 2005 16:45:40 GMT, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
>
>>There is a solution to this problem; I learned it the
>>hard way. Say to yourself 'The gear HANDLE is at the
>>gear-down ICON. A fellow in Minden told me this beforehand.
>> I didn't pay a lot of attention. I paid a lot of
>>money. Now I use this phrase religiously.
>>
>>
>>I switched between three new to me gliders in 4 days.
>> The retract movement was in opposite directions on
>>two of them. I went the lwrong way on the last flight.
>> Use the words HANDLE and ICON.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 22:24 16 November 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>>Mike the Strike wrote:
>>>> I prefer check lists, but must note I have seen another
>>>>colleague
>>>> return from a flight with gear extended then retract
>>>>it on final as he
>>>> went through his pre-landing checks!
>>>
>>>Same thing happened to me on my first flight in the
>>>first glider I
>>>owned. On pattern entry I went through my pre-landing
>>>checklist,
>>>operated the gear handle, opened the spoilers, then
>>>heard a load beeping
>>>noise. Closed the spoilers, beeping stopped. It took
>>>a fair bit of
>>>contemplation to recognize that the glider might have
>>>a gear warning
>>>system. A quick glance at the gear position symbols
>>>allowed me to solve
>>>the mystery while still plenty high. I must have forgotten
>>>to retract
>>>the gear after release...
>>>
>>>Marc
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Robin Birch

[Tony Verhulst]

> Personally I think the BGA is right in that I'd much rather land with
> the wheel up than stall at 10 feet up despite the cost that could ensue.

The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for a landing without
opening the spoilers for the first time (when the warning would go off)
at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens much earlier when
it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a safe landing.

At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it would be best to leave
the gear where it is.

Tony V.

[Graeme Cant]

Tony Verhulst wrote:

> The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for a landing without
> opening the spoilers for the first time (when the warning would go off)
> at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens much earlier when
> it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a safe landing.
>
> At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it would be best to leave
> the gear where it is.

I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation is poorly thought
out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable gear has made
warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still occur the
frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning system is not blamed
for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of the BGA's policy.

In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings are (rightly)
attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency on type
and something is done about the training system and the pilot's competence.

Blaming the warning system is irrational.

Graeme Cant



>
> Tony V.

[Don Johnstone]

I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate
for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
ability and experience spread.
They also push the idea that there is no substitute
for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended
stage of flight is basic airmanship. By all means use
warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,
but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
proper airmanship is not the way to go. Remember that
many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and
of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable.
Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule,
barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway.

At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:
>Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for
>>a landing without
>> opening the spoilers for the first time (when the
>>warning would go off)
>> at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens
>>much earlier when
>> it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a
>>safe landing.
>>
>> At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it
>>would be best to leave
>> the gear where it is.
>
>I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation
>is poorly thought
>out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable
>gear has made
>warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still
>occur the
>frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning
>system is not blamed
>for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of
>the BGA's policy.
>
>In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings
>are (rightly)
>attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency
>on type
>and something is done about the training system and
>the pilot's competence.
>
>Blaming the warning system is irrational.
>
>Graeme Cant
>
>
>
>>
>> Tony V.
>

[Mark Newton]

In article >,
Don Johnstone >
wrote:

> I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
> they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
> can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate
> for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
> have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
> appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
> ability and experience spread.

While I'm reading all this, I'm thinking something isn't
adding up.

Gear warning systems go off if the airbrakes are opened
while the gear is retracted, right?

Now think of the BGA's position: They're worried about
damage and injury caused by a gear warning which goes off
last the last minute, causing a pilot to lose control
of the landing as they fumble the controls as they drop
the undercarriage.

.... which is what doesn't add up. What kind of pilot does
the BGA think is going to be surprised by a gear warning
buzzer when they're close to the ground? I mean, seriously,
if a pilot has managed to get to 10 or 20 feet off the ground
before they've opened the airbrakes then their training has
bigger problems than anything that can be solved by talking
about the importance of pre-landing checks! Surely in the
real world the gear warning alert goes off near the top of
final approach, just after the pilot has identified an
overshoot situation and opted to open the airbrakes, right?

We're obviously all missing something here. What has
prompted the BGA to issue a position paper which, on first
appearances, makes no sense?

- mark

[Don Johnstone]

At 12:18 22 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>In article ,
> Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault.
>>What
>> they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
>> can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate
>> for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
>> have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
>> appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
>> ability and experience spread.
>
>While I'm reading all this, I'm thinking something
>isn't
>adding up.
>
>Gear warning systems go off if the airbrakes are opened
>
>while the gear is retracted, right?
>
>Now think of the BGA's position: They're worried about
>damage and injury caused by a gear warning which goes
>off
>last the last minute, causing a pilot to lose control
>
>of the landing as they fumble the controls as they
>drop
>the undercarriage.
>
>.... which is what doesn't add up. What kind of pilot
>does
>the BGA think is going to be surprised by a gear warning
>buzzer when they're close to the ground? I mean, seriously,
>if a pilot has managed to get to 10 or 20 feet off
>the ground
>before they've opened the airbrakes then their training
>has
>bigger problems than anything that can be solved by
>talking
>about the importance of pre-landing checks! Surely
>in the
>real world the gear warning alert goes off near the
>top of
>final approach, just after the pilot has identified
>an
>overshoot situation and opted to open the airbrakes,
>right?
>
>We're obviously all missing something here. What has
>
>prompted the BGA to issue a position paper which, on
>first
>appearances, makes no sense?
>
> - mark

I suspect that where the confusion has arisen is a
difference in the way in which we operate. The emphasis
in the UK is very much directed towards cross country
flying. A new student is introduced to soaring at a
very early stage and even in early training, as soon
as they are able are encouraged to soar. Circuit bashing
only takes place when soaring is not possible. It is
also important to realise that with very few exceptions
gliding does not take place at airports or even airfields,
the majority of clubs have their own field, often grass
and in general do not share with powered aircraft.
Take offs and landings are not controlled in the normal
sense, there is no ATC and in the majority of cases
no approach radio. Pilots do, either through an error
of skill or error of judgement sometimes get it wrong
and arrive back at the field with less height than
they should. The stress of wondering if they are going
to get back has already caused them to forget the undercarriage
and they do not use the spoiler/airbrakes because the
glide is marginal. They arrive back very low. Given
that the pilot may already be stressed the question
is then, is it likely to be less harmful to the pilot
for him to land without the wheel down than it would
be to startle him with a sudden noise and have him
struggle to get the wheel down when he shoud be flying
the airplane. Several accidents were identified where
it was found that the sudden noise distracted an already
stressed pilot from the primary aim of landing the
glider and instead of a minor incident a more serious
accident occurred. Landing on grass in most gliders
with the wheel in the bay will cause much embarrasment
but little damage, the same cannot be said for a loss
of control resulting in a firmer impact. The warning
was never the cause of the accident but it was a contributory
factor, the primary cause was the error of skill or
error of judgement in failing to properly configure
the glider. It is only advice, something to consider,
and as I said before fitting the warning can be a double
edged sword. I think everyone accepts that it is a
matter for each individual pilot to decide whether
to fit the warning device to their own glider. Fitting
in club aircraft flown by pilots who may or may not
have the skill to get away with a late u/c selection
is discouraged for the reason outlined above.

Of course pilots are trained to arrive back with sufficient
height but they do get it wrong and finishing a competition
task with a marginal final glide and landing ahead
is very common and perfectly valid, until you get it
wrong that is.
I recall my first flight in an ASW19. I spent most
of the approach recycling the undercarriage to try
and get rid of the noise instead of concentrating on
flying the glider. I got away with it, more by luck
than judgement. The cause of the noise, a short in
the warning system, the cause of the crash had there
been one, an error of skill on my part. Fly the airplane!!!!!!!!
>

[Tony Verhulst]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
> they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
> can be a double edged sword.

The BGA's policy (as reported in this forum was "Incidentally the BGA in
the UK does not reccomend an undercarriage warning buzzer." I would like
to read their logic. There is no mention of it in the BGA Instructors'
Manual (second edition).

I've seen a bunch of gear up landings (once from the inside of the
cockpit :-( ) and none of them has a gear warning. I understand that
this is a small sample. My vote is to have the warning. If you first
hear it 10 feet of off the deck, ignore it.

> By all means use
> warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,
> but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
> proper airmanship is not the way to go.

I completely agree with this.

Tony V

[Gary Emerson]

Gadget Guy wrote:
> Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical
> wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing
> of a gear warning system?
>
> Thank you in advace
>
>
Sounds like the BGA could stand to take a new look at what they have
written. Perhaps instead of saying that gear warning devices are NOT
recommended they should say that "if a gear warning device is installed,
be aware of the fact that there have been some accidents in the final
stages of an approach where the pilot finally realized his gear wasn't
down" "If you find yourself in this situation, recognize that you may
be better off landing gear up than crashing your glider"

"If you install a gear warning device or purchase a glider with a device
installed, be sure to familiarize yourself with the device and check
your spoilers prior to, or at the onset of, the start of your pattern to
allow you to correct an unextended gear situation early on."

[Graeme Cant]

That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don.

Don Johnstone wrote:
> I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
> they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
> can be a double edged sword.

In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper training) almost
universally seen as a good thing.

> While they may be appropriate
> for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
> have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
> appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
> ability and experience spread.

As I said, landing with the gear up or accidents related to that
situation are taken in every other area of aviation as an indication of
inadequate training. "Inadequate" means "less than the amount required
for the level of skill and experience of the pilot involved".

> They also push the idea that there is no substitute
> for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended
> stage of flight is basic airmanship.

Rubbish. The BGA's policy is the reverse. It implies that the use of a
warning device is unnecessary. In the rest of aviation it has long been
accepted that warning devices and check lists are fundamental to
overcoming some basic human inadequacies. Pilots are trained to use
these tools to support the application of airmanship. Not to reject
them in some hairy-chested "real pilots don't need any crutches" way.

> By all means use
> warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,

I could have put it better but that's about right.

> but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
> proper airmanship is not the way to go.

Nobody said it was.

> Remember that
> many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and
> of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable.
> Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule,
> barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway.

Does this mean anything sensible at all?

GC
>
> At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:
>
>>Tony Verhulst wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for
>>>a landing without
>>>opening the spoilers for the first time (when the
>>>warning would go off)
>>>at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens
>>>much earlier when
>>>it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a
>>>safe landing.
>>>
>>>At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it
>>>would be best to leave
>>>the gear where it is.
>>
>>I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation
>>is poorly thought
>>out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable
>>gear has made
>>warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still
>>occur the
>>frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning
>>system is not blamed
>>for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of
>>the BGA's policy.
>>
>>In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings
>>are (rightly)
>>attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency
>>on type
>>and something is done about the training system and
>>the pilot's competence.
>>
>>Blaming the warning system is irrational.
>>
>>Graeme Cant
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tony V.
>>
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

At 12:54 23 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:
>That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don.
>
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault.
>>What
>> they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
>> can be a double edged sword.
>
>In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper
>training) almost
>universally seen as a good thing.
>
In other spheres of aviation the action in the event
of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and
go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would
suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider.


You opinion and description of my post makes your argument
more cogent do you think?

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

>>In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper
>>training) almost
>>universally seen as a good thing.
>>
>
> In other spheres of aviation the action in the event
> of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and
> go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would
> suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider.

What I've seen people do is close the spoilers, level off, put the gear
down, open spoilers, and continue the landing. Perhaps this could be
part of the pilot's training.

I've also seen pilots switch hands, lower the gear, switch hands, and
continue the landing. They didn't crash to the ground, even though they
released the spoiler handle. It might depend a lot on on the glider:
some have modest spoilers, so the descent rate doesn't change much going
from half open to full open, and in some gliders, the spoilers don't
move if released at the normal, relatively slow, approach speed.

So, while a go round is a handy ability, it isn't necessary to deal with
a gear up situation.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Graeme Cant]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> In other spheres of aviation the action in the event
> of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and
> go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would
> suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider.

No, Don. The action in the event of a gear warning in ALL aircraft is
is to lower the gear or silence the warning. In 99.9% of cases in a
glider the reaction should be exactly the same.

The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider pilots should be
regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last 50 feet, they
should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That is the ONLY
difference. The argument for the fitting of a proper warning is exactly
the same for all aircraft.

> You opinion and description of my post makes your argument
> more cogent do you think?

No again, Don. But I still can't make sense of your last paragraph.
And I'm not convinced you've actually thought through the implications
of the BGA's policy.

GC
>
>

[Stefan]

Graeme Cant wrote:

> The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider pilots should be
> regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last 50 feet, they
> should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That is the ONLY

And even this depends on the glider. E.g. in an LS4 with its beautiful
gear system, there's no reason to not put the gear down even in the last
10 feet (if the runway is long enough to allow for the additional
float). Been there, done that, no problem. BTW, if I had had a gear
warning, I would have recognized and corrected the situation much earlier.

Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

At 11:06 24 November 2005, Stefan wrote:
>Graeme Cant wrote:
>
>> The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider
>>pilots should be
>> regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last
>>50 feet, they
>> should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That
>>is the ONLY
>
>And even this depends on the glider. E.g. in an LS4
>with its beautiful
>gear system, there's no reason to not put the gear
>down even in the last
>10 feet (if the runway is long enough to allow for
>the additional
>float). Been there, done that, no problem. BTW, if
>I had had a gear
>warning, I would have recognized and corrected the
>situation much earlier.
>
>Stefan

I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place. It is never one single factor that results
in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is that
while everyone who has responded to this thread may
be able to cope, because they have the experience and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
and have not. Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
will increase the chances of those contributing and
reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.
>

[Graeme Cant]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
> experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
> again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
> first place.

You're still missing the point, Don. In every other sphere of aviation
it's accepted that ALL pilots sometimes make silly errors - even the
most experienced. To cope with this, warning systems are mandated and
pilots are trained in their use and operation.

A pilot can only have an accident due to trying to lower the gear too
late if he's already failed to lower it early enough. That is the
primary cause of the accident. The BGA is starting half way down the
chain and saying the cause is the warning system. In the rest of
aviation, the cause of such accidents is (correctly) attributed to
inadequate skill or training of the pilot. To blame the warning system
would be seen as quite irrational.

Before it made its recommendation, did the BGA try to find out how many
accidents were PREVENTED by the presence of a warning system? I know
many gear-up landings on grass are fairly innocuous but a number are
not. What is the balance between accidents prevented by gear warnings
versus accidents 'caused' (in BGA terms) by them?

GC

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
> we have to consider the lowest common denominator.

Agreed. In our club, we found that the lowest common denominator is to
fit a gear warning system in all gliders.

Stefan

[Richard Brisbourne]

Don Johnstone wrote:

>
> I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
> experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
> again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
> first place.

Oh yeah?
--
Real name is richard
(3000 hours, landed wheel up in 1974 and again in 1996)

[Mark Newton]

Hmm...

In article >,
Don Johnstone >
wrote:

> I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
> experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
> again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
> first place. It is never one single factor that results
> in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is that
> while everyone who has responded to this thread may
> be able to cope, because they have the experience and,
> more importantly, have thought about it, there are
> those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
> and have not.

We can actually apply that principle to virtually any
skill involved in aviation.

Landing, for example. Or use of the rudder. Or spin
recovery. Or outlanding. You name it, if it has anything
to do with aviation the principles above apply. We all
know how to do it safely, but some don't through no fault of
their own.

Now: In all aspects of aviation *except wheels-up landings*,
when we say, "while everyone who has responded to this thread
may be able to cope, because they have the experience and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are those
who, thorugh no fault of their own, would not, and have not,"
we respond to that with training and with systems of
redundant backup (e.g., checklists).

We take as many opportunities as possible to tilt the
hazardous landscape in the pilot's favour so that, at the
end of the day, he *can* cope, and becomes one of those people
with the experience who have thought about it.

Yet, when it comes to wheels-up landings, people kinda
shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well." I've even heard
people say, "There are two types of glider pilots: those
who have landed with the wheel up, and those who will."
There's this ridiculous acceptance that this particular type
of accident is perfectly ok -- And not only is it ok, but
that we ought to resist warning devices which can prevent it,
and not invest in the training required to enable pilots to
safely react to the warning devices when they go off!

That attitude is insane. We don't accept it anywhere else
in aviation. And no other aviation disciplines accept it
either (try it out: Turn up to your local airport, say, "There
are two types of pilots, those who have landed with the wheels
up and those who will," and then try to hire a retractable-
undercarriage light plane)


> Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
> we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
> The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
> will increase the chances of those contributing and
> reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.


I'm more concerned about the thronging multitudes who haven't
seen this thread, who have been brought up in an environment
that says belly-landings are kinda-sorta-acceptable, in a
culture which has resisted the use of cheap and simple
accident-prevention warning devices.

What would this thread have looked like if the BGA had
released a position paper which said that collision warning
devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing we want
to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the final
moments of a collision course?

- mark

[Bill Daniels]

"Richard Brisbourne" > wrote in message
...
> Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
> > experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
> > again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
> > first place.
>
> Oh yeah?
> --
> Real name is richard
> (3000 hours, landed wheel up in 1974 and again in 1996)

In the following true story the names, places and dates are deleted to
protect the guilty.

An instructor is briefing an NTSB investigator for his Glider Private Pilot
Practical Test, when just outside the window a glider slides past on its
belly making crunchy noises. The NTSB guy notices.

"Hey!", he exclaims. "Am I supposed to report that?" "Uh, no", the
instructor mumbles, "Happens all the time - never much damage". He
reluctantly buys that and briefing continues.

By the time the briefing is finished, the glider has disappeared into its
trailer and the pilot and glider are on their way to a repair shop.

Bildan

[Bob Korves]

Richard Brisbourne > wrote in
:

> Real name is richard
> (3000 hours, landed wheel up in 1974 and again in 1996)
>

There are those who have, those who will, and those who will do it again!
-Bob Korves
(2400 hours and still, luckily, one of those who will)

[John Galloway]

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>
>
>Hmm...
>
>In article ,
> Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
>> experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
>> again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
>> first place. It is never one single factor that results
>> in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is
>>that
>> while everyone who has responded to this thread may
>> be able to cope, because they have the experience
>>and,
>> more importantly, have thought about it, there are
>> those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
>> and have not.
>
>We can actually apply that principle to virtually any
>
>skill involved in aviation.
>
>Landing, for example. Or use of the rudder. Or spin
>recovery. Or outlanding. You name it, if it has anything
>to do with aviation the principles above apply. We
>all
>know how to do it safely, but some don't through no
>fault of
>their own.
>
>Now: In all aspects of aviation *except wheels-up
>landings*,
>when we say, 'while everyone who has responded to this
>thread
>may be able to cope, because they have the experience
>and,
>more importantly, have thought about it, there are
>those
>who, thorugh no fault of their own, would not, and
>have not,'
>we respond to that with training and with systems of
>
>redundant backup (e.g., checklists).
>
>We take as many opportunities as possible to tilt the
>hazardous landscape in the pilot's favour so that,
>at the
>end of the day, he *can* cope, and becomes one of those
>people
>with the experience who have thought about it.
>
>Yet, when it comes to wheels-up landings, people kinda
>
>shrug their shoulders and say, 'Oh well.' I've even
>heard
>people say, 'There are two types of glider pilots:
>those
>who have landed with the wheel up, and those who will.'
>There's this ridiculous acceptance that this particular
>type
>of accident is perfectly ok -- And not only is it ok,
>but
>that we ought to resist warning devices which can prevent
>it,
>and not invest in the training required to enable pilots
>to
>safely react to the warning devices when they go off!
>
>That attitude is insane. We don't accept it anywhere
>else
>in aviation. And no other aviation disciplines accept
>it
>either (try it out: Turn up to your local airport,
>say, 'There
>are two types of pilots, those who have landed with
>the wheels
>up and those who will,' and then try to hire a retractable-
>undercarriage light plane)
>
>
>> Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
>> we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
>> The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
>> will increase the chances of those contributing and
>> reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.
>
>
>I'm more concerned about the thronging multitudes who
>haven't
>seen this thread, who have been brought up in an environment
>that says belly-landings are kinda-sorta-acceptable,
>in a
>culture which has resisted the use of cheap and simple
>accident-prevention warning devices.
>
>What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
>had
>released a position paper which said that collision
>warning
>devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
>out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
>we want
>to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
>environment they get when another glider is in the
>final
>moments of a collision course?
>
> - mark


People die in collisions.

Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

[Don Johnstone]

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: (snip)
>What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
>had
>released a position paper which said that collision
>warning
>devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
>out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
>we want
>to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
>environment they get when another glider is in the
>final
>moments of a collision course?

Funny you should say that because there is a school
of thought, not one I necessarily subscribe to, that
says exactly that.
As I understand the argument, in a busy thermal responding
to a collision alarm posed by one glider could cause
the pilot to fly into the path of another glider which
up until the point of the alarm did not cause a threat.

[Stefan]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> As I understand the argument, in a busy thermal responding
> to a collision alarm posed by one glider could cause
> the pilot to fly into the path of another glider which
> up until the point of the alarm did not cause a threat.

1st, a collision warning system designed for gliders recognizes
thermalling. At least FLARM does.

But the problem indeed exists. Our club's gliders are all equipped with
FLARM, so I have some experience. Now when I hear an alarm, I look out
for the glider causing it. (Before someone asks: I've been looking out
all the time.) Now, as soon as I see a glider which *could* have
triggered the alarm, there's a *big* temptation to think that this
glider really *was* the cause, focus on this one and forget that there
could be another around without FLARM.

This doesn't say anything against FLARM, you just have to be aware of
the problem. (Actually, I'm pretty pro FLARM, as at least one friend
would probably still be alive had he and his opponent had one.)

But that's off topic. The topic was, how about a gear warning system. I
find it funny that pilots are considered to be able deal with many
really difficult situations, but not with the one when a gear warning
starts to beep near the ground.

Stefan

[Mark Newton]

In article >,
John Galloway > wrote:

> At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
> >What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
> >had released a position paper which said that collision
> >warning devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
> >out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
> >we want to do is surprise them and distract them in the
> >high-stress environment they get when another glider is in the
> >final moments of a collision course?
>
> People die in collisions.
> Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
> on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

I repeat what I said in my original message on this subject:
If you are flying so unsafely that the first moment at which
you open the airbrakes (and subsquently hear the gear alert)
is in the final few feet of your approach when you're vulnerable
to a heavy landing caused by control fumbling, then you're an
accident waiting to happen anyway.

Gear warnings happen at the *TOP* of final approach, when the
airbrakes are opened after an overshoot has been identified;
Or, in some countries, during base leg when the brakes are
unlocked. I challenge you to highlight even *ONE* way that
a fumble of the controls at that stage of the flight could
lead to injuries from a mishandled landing.

No amount of technological trickery, checklists, or control
finesse will save you if you're not opening the brakes until
10 feet off the deck. That means you're participating in a
ridiculously low-energy approach, with an extremely poorly-planned
circuit (or no circuit at all), and if you do that often enough
for the gear warning to represent a significant risk then
I contend that *you will kill yourself*, gear warning or no
gear warning.

As Graeme Cant says, the gear warning is a red herring. People
who injure themselves by putting the wheel down at the last minute
when the buzzer sounds have deeper, more serious training problems
than anything we've discussed in this thread.

- mark

[Mark Newton]

In article >,
John Galloway > wrote:

> At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
> >What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
> >had released a position paper which said that collision
> >warning devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
> >out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
> >we want to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
> >environment they get when another glider is in the
> >final moments of a collision course?
>
> People die in collisions.
> Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
> on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

Oh, one more thing:

You've drawn a distinction between accidents in which people
die, and accidents in which property is damaged, in support
of a point of view which says that warning devices intended
to prevent property damage shouldn't be fitted.

Just clarify for me: Does that mean you're arguing that
accidents which result in property damage are "less unacceptable"
than accidents which result in injury or death?

Aviation safety has progressed to its present manageable levels
due to a history of participants determining that *no* accident
is acceptable, and that predictable accidents ought to be
managed before they occur. From a safety management point of
view it makes no difference whether an accident results in an
injury or not; An accident is an accident, and its risk ought
to be managed to the best of our abilities regardless.

A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an
undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is
there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn
about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? I mean,
you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much as you
want, but we've built up a track record which says those things
DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building up a
simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings DO work.
So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

- mark

[Stefan]

Mark Newton wrote:

> A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an
> undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is
> there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn
> about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?

You ain't a real man unless you've done a gear up landing. Checklists
and warning devices are for whimps.

Stefan

[Don Johnstone]

At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
>an
>undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
> Why is
>there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming,
>yawn
>about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?
> I mean,
>you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much
>as you
>want, but we've built up a track record which says
>those things
>DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building
>up a
>simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings
>DO work.
>So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?

[Bob Korves]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> You ain't a real man unless you've done a gear up landing. Checklists
> and warning devices are for whimps.
>
> Stefan
>

You have found the essence of the argument, Stefan. "REAL pilots don't
need no stinking gear warning."
-Bob Korves
(who has had several "reminders" from the gear warning)

[bumper]

Being an ex-limey (if such is really possible), I'll point out that the
logic of this rejection of gear warning devices is brought to you by the
same people that, at the beginning of WWI, didn't provide parchutes to their
pilots. They were concerned that pilots would bail-out as opposed to giving
it their all in the fight.

A few hapless pilots bailed out without a chute anyway, as it represented a
better way to die than being burned alive in the cockpit.

bumper
(saved once by the gear warning in a Mooney)

[Jack]

John Galloway wrote:

> Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
> on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

This is an interesting discussion.

It's the first time I have encountered an aspect of aviation in which
pilots were discouraged from adapting themselves through education and
training to the design of the aircraft and the requirements of the
operation to be conducted

If I am ever on final approach without gear extended, I want someone to
announce that fact. I will make the decision whether or not to attempt
to extend the gear or to land the aircraft without gear extended. Only I
know which is the right choice at that moment. To suggest otherwise
seems to indicate that the pilot is to be treated as a perennial
student, and/or that students are being given a license before they are
adequately prepared.

I doubt that a lowest-common-denominator standard is representative of
British aviation in general, and I hope we never see it in the USA.


Jack

[[email protected]]

> So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

They couldn't stop audio varios
They couldn't stop GPS usage
They couldn't stop IGC flight recorders
They couldn't stop the proliferation of PDA navigation systems .......

Give 'em something to hope for!

:)

I feel a long winter coming on.

Ian

[John Galloway]

Mark,

An alarm like FLARM that reduces the risk of collisions
- an accident type that carries a high risk of death
- and doesn't inadvertently increase another type of
accident - is clearly a good thing.

An gear alarm that may or may not prevent lots of trivial
accidents that result only in minor (pilot's own)
property damage damage but that has been implicated
in a smaller number of accidents of a type known to
be a potential cause of serious injury surely can't
have a clear cut safety case.

Perhaps:

for private single seaters where the only risk is to
the pilot/owner then fit one if you want to.

for club retractable 2 seaters where there is a risk
of second party injury then don't fit an gear alarm.




At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>In article ,
> John Galloway wrote:
>
>> At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>> >What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
>> >had released a position paper which said that collision
>> >warning devices were discouraged because pilots should
>>>be looking
>> >out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
>> >we want to do is surprise them and distract them in
>>>the high-stress
>> >environment they get when another glider is in the
>> >final moments of a collision course?
>>
>> People die in collisions.
>> Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
>> on a runway but many have from approach control failures.
>
>Oh, one more thing:
>
>You've drawn a distinction between accidents in which
>people
>die, and accidents in which property is damaged, in
>support
>of a point of view which says that warning devices
>intended
>to prevent property damage shouldn't be fitted.
>
>Just clarify for me: Does that mean you're arguing
>that
>accidents which result in property damage are 'less
>unacceptable'
>than accidents which result in injury or death?
>
>Aviation safety has progressed to its present manageable
>levels
>due to a history of participants determining that *no*
>accident
>is acceptable, and that predictable accidents ought
>to be
>managed before they occur. From a safety management
>point of
>view it makes no difference whether an accident results
>in an
>injury or not; An accident is an accident, and its
>risk ought
>to be managed to the best of our abilities regardless.
>
>A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
>an
>undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
> Why is
>there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming,
>yawn
>about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?
> I mean,
>you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much
>as you
>want, but we've built up a track record which says
>those things
>DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building
>up a
>simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings
>DO work.
>So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?
>
> - mark
>

[Derek Copeland]

Isn't the fact of the matter that retractable undercarriages
are a 'Murphy's Law' item that it is possible to get
wrong, whatever systems you put in place.

There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
already landed gear up, and those who will some day.
Regretably I am in the former category, but so far
only once (touch wood), and without any damage, as
I made an otherwise good landing on smooth grass.


At the time we were taught downwind checks, but on
the flight in question I got low and almost out of
range of the airfield, so joined straight onto base
leg. No downwind leg, therefore no checks carried out!
In this case an U/C warning device would have saved
me from an embarrassing mistake and having to buy a
large round of drinks in the bar afterwards!

We also had one serious accident (badly damaged glider
plus a damaged back for the pilot) at our site, when
the pilot suddenly remembered that he had left his
wheel up in his glider (which was not fitted with an
U/C warning device) late on final approach, tried to
change hands to lower it, and crashed nose first into
the ground during the attempt.

The arguments against fitting gear warnings, eg. a
distraction late on finals, are not all one way!

For several years the British Gliding Asscociation
discouraged the use of gear up warning devices, and
for a period also didn't even allow instructors to
teach downwind checks. Not very surprisingly we had
a whole spate of wheel up landings about two years
later, as the trainees from this period progressed
on to retractable gear types.

We now teach a short 'pre-landing' check, that can
be expanded as necessary. Knowing that you are at
least supposed to do such a check before landing, has
to be a help, but doesn't guarantee that you will get
it right. Common mistakes are saying 'fixed gear' when
it is retractable (especially if most of your flights
have been done in fixed wheel trainers) , or forgetting
to retract the wheel in the first place and then retracting
it during the checks that you have remembered to do.
A post take-off check then also becomes necessary.


In my opinion, gear up warnings should be fitted to
gliders as a backup to pre-landing checks. If you don't
unlock the airbrakes until you are are just about to
round out, you are guilty of poor airmanship anyway!

Derek Copeland

At 12:12 25 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>>A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
>>an
>>undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
>> Why is
>>there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming,
>>yawn
>>about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?
>> I mean,
>>you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much
>>as you
>>want, but we've built up a track record which says
>>those things
>>DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building
>>up a
>>simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings
>>DO work.
>>So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?
>
>So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
>the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?
>

[bumper]

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
> Isn't the fact of the matter that retractable undercarriages
> are a 'Murphy's Law' item that it is possible to get
> wrong, whatever systems you put in place.
>
> There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
> already landed gear up, and those who will some day.


No offense, but that, of course, is hog-wash. There is a large third
category of pilots: "Those who use whatever tools are available to them to
fly safely and NOT land gear up during their entire flying career."

I intend to remain in this latter group.

all the best,

bumper
(2000+ hours in retractable since 1991 and no belly scratches yet. One gear
warning save during training.)

[Derek Copeland]

Dear 'bumper',

Good luck in remaining in the third category!

You have been saved from a wheel up landing on one
occasion by a gear up warning device. I was not so
lucky!

I believe that you said in a previous piece that it
was in a Mooney, i.e. is a powered aircraft. Power
flying tends to be a bit more structured than gliding
in terms of checklists etc, but then you have more
time to carry them out during the mini cross-countries
that power circuits seem to have become.

OK, I will concede that a few glider pilots go through
their careers without a wheel up landing, but they
are probably in the minority, or fly fixed gear types
anyway.

I have never understood the arguments against pre-landing
checks or undercarriage warning devices, which I will
list:

1) You might forget to do the check, or get it wrong!
2) You shouldn't rely on something that could go wrong
and fail to operate
3) An U/C warning device going off late on finals could
distract a pilot and cause him to have a serious accident,
rather than a minor scrape.

On the other hand:
1) In gliders, the U/C warning device is normally linked
to the airbrake lever. If you unlock the airbrakes
with the wheel up, the warning device should sound.
I normally unlock the airbrakes, but hold them shut,
on the base leg, so if the warning did go off, I would
have plenty of time to sort the problem out.

2) Undercarriages provide a degree of shock absorption
in the event of a heavy landing. A heavy wheel up landing
is much more likely to injure the pilot and seriously
damage the glider.

3) If I am warned at the last minute that I have left
the gear up, I don't necessarily have to try and lower
it. I can either head for a grass area, rather than
a tarmac runway, or aim to land as gently as possible.
I would rather know!

With pre-landing checks plus an U/C warning device,
at least two things have to go wrong before a gear
up landing can occur. Why not use the available techiques
and technology?

Derek Copeland



At 16:12 26 November 2005, Bumper wrote:
>
>'Derek Copeland' wrote in
>>> There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
>> already landed gear up, and those who will some day.
>>
>No offense, but that, of course, is hog-wash. There
>is a large third
>category of pilots: 'Those who use whatever tools are
>available to them to
>fly safely and NOT land gear up during their entire
>flying career.'
>
>I intend to remain in this latter group.
>
>all the best,
>
>bumper
>(2000+ hours in retractable since 1991 and no belly
>scratches yet. One gear
>warning save during training.)
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Graeme Cant wrote:


> Before it made its recommendation, did the BGA try to find out how many
> accidents were PREVENTED by the presence of a warning system? I know
> many gear-up landings on grass are fairly innocuous but a number are
> not. What is the balance between accidents prevented by gear warnings
> versus accidents 'caused' (in BGA terms) by them?

For example, have pilots avoided injuries during off-airfield landings
because they put the wheel down when the warning went off? Landing on a
smooth grass runway is one thing; it can be much more hazardous in a
rocky pasture, one with irrigation feed pipes sticking up a few inches,
or sliding through a fence because your brake doesn't work when it's
inside the glider.

Of course, there might be off-airfield crashes that could have the gear
warning as a factor.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[bumper]

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
> Dear 'bumper',
>
> Good luck in remaining in the third category!
>
> You have been saved from a wheel up landing on one
> occasion by a gear up warning device. I was not so
> lucky!
>
> I believe that you said in a previous piece that it
> was in a Mooney, i.e. is a powered aircraft. Power
> flying tends to be a bit more structured than gliding
> in terms of checklists etc, but then you have more
> time to carry them out during the mini cross-countries
> that power circuits seem to have become.


True, however, power planes sometimes do lots of touch-and-goes, so there's
more opportunity for a gear-up. Perhaps this skews the odds back in the
other direction? One might argue that a Mooney is not the typical trainer,
so wouldn't be subject to this.

I got the Mooney when I was a 25 hour student pilot, so was doing lots of
circuits and bumps when I had my "almost" gear-up. Abeam the numbers, I
thought, "Better put the gear down", not thinking that's where it already
was because I'd failed to raise it on take-off. Flipped the gear switch,
didn't matter which direction - - I just needed to operate something - - and
listened to the somewhat familiar sound of the gear in transit. Hmm, why is
that warning sound disturbing me?? Had there been no gear warning system,
there's no question of what would have happened next.

all the best,

bumper

> OK, I will concede that a few glider pilots go through
> their careers without a wheel up landing, but they
> are probably in the minority, or fly fixed gear types
> anyway.
>
> I have never understood the arguments against pre-landing
> checks or undercarriage warning devices, which I will
> list:
>
> 1) You might forget to do the check, or get it wrong!
> 2) You shouldn't rely on something that could go wrong
> and fail to operate
> 3) An U/C warning device going off late on finals could
> distract a pilot and cause him to have a serious accident,
> rather than a minor scrape.
>
> On the other hand:
> 1) In gliders, the U/C warning device is normally linked
> to the airbrake lever. If you unlock the airbrakes
> with the wheel up, the warning device should sound.
> I normally unlock the airbrakes, but hold them shut,
> on the base leg, so if the warning did go off, I would
> have plenty of time to sort the problem out.
>
> 2) Undercarriages provide a degree of shock absorption
> in the event of a heavy landing. A heavy wheel up landing
> is much more likely to injure the pilot and seriously
> damage the glider.
>
> 3) If I am warned at the last minute that I have left
> the gear up, I don't necessarily have to try and lower
> it. I can either head for a grass area, rather than
> a tarmac runway, or aim to land as gently as possible.
> I would rather know!
>
> With pre-landing checks plus an U/C warning device,
> at least two things have to go wrong before a gear
> up landing can occur. Why not use the available techiques
> and technology?
>
> Derek Copeland
>
>
>
> At 16:12 26 November 2005, Bumper wrote:
>>
>>'Derek Copeland' wrote in
>>>> There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
>>> already landed gear up, and those who will some day.
>>>
>>No offense, but that, of course, is hog-wash. There
>>is a large third
>>category of pilots: 'Those who use whatever tools are
>>available to them to
>>fly safely and NOT land gear up during their entire
>>flying career.'
>>
>>I intend to remain in this latter group.
>>
>>all the best,
>>
>>bumper
>>(2000+ hours in retractable since 1991 and no belly
>>scratches yet. One gear
>>warning save during training.)
>>
>
>
>
>

[Andy]

For club 2 seaters it should be easy to satisfy both those that desire
a gear warning and those that think gear warning is dangerous and wish
to rely on checklists. Just fit a gear warning off switch and perform
a simple short final check - airspeed good, gear warning OFF.

The ideal position for the switch would be on the airbrake handle of
course otherwise the gear warning would have to be turned off before
the airbrakes are opened.

In my single seaters I''ll stick with my short final check - airspeed
good, gear down.


Andy

[Nyal Williams]

At 16:12 27 November 2005, Andy wrote:
<snip>
>In my single seaters I''ll stick with my short final
>check - airspeed good, gear down.
>
>
>Andy

Good idea; keep doing it!

But what is wrong with installing a gear warning system
and then pretending it is not there?

[Mark Newton]

In article >,
Don Johnstone >
wrote:

> At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
> >A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
> >an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
> > Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming,
> >yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?
> > I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much
> >as you want, but we've built up a track record which says
> >those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building
> >up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings
> >DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?
>
> So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
> the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?


<Bangs head on table>

Contratulations, Don, for winning the award for stupidest
comment yet posted in this thread. Which is some feat.

As you were typing it, you *knew* that my argument was nothing
of the sort, but you went ahead and typed it anyway. Well done,
mate, your determination and willingness to push-on regardless
of your own knowledge of the facts of the situation stands
proud as an example to us all.

- mark

[Don Johnstone]

Not stupid at all Mark, if you read your post that
is exactly what you have said. I accept that it might
not be what you meant.

Not all pilots who have a retractable undercarriage
and no alarm will land wheels up, in fact I would say
that, despite anecdotal 'evidence' to the contrary,
the majority will not.
I don't think I have ever said do not ever fit an alarm,
just be aware it is a double edged sword.

At 00:18 30 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>In article ,
> Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>
>> At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
>> >A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
>> >an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
>> > Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see
>>>it coming,
>> >yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent
>>>it?
>> > I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill
>>>as much
>> >as you want, but we've built up a track record which
>>>says
>> >those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents,
>>>while building
>> >up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage
>>>warnings
>> >DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage
>>>warnings?
>>
>> So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
>> the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?
>
>
>
>
>Contratulations, Don, for winning the award for stupidest
>comment yet posted in this thread. Which is some feat.
>
>As you were typing it, you *knew* that my argument
>was nothing
>of the sort, but you went ahead and typed it anyway.
> Well done,
>mate, your determination and willingness to push-on
>regardless
>of your own knowledge of the facts of the situation
>stands
>proud as an example to us all.
>
> - mark
>

[Mark Newton]

In article >,
Don Johnstone >
wrote:

> Not stupid at all Mark, if you read your post that
> is exactly what you have said.

No, exactly what I said is quoted below. It bears very little
resemblence to the words you have attempted to put into my
mouth.

I'm pretty confident that other readers, having looked at the
words I used and the meaning you have attributed to them, will
conclude that you're way off. So if you want to continue on
this basis feel free, just understand that it's your reputation,
not mine, that you're impugning.

> I accept that it might not be what you meant.

Thanks heaps for cheapening the discussion, Don. Excellent
work, you have lots to be proud of!

- mark



> Not all pilots who have a retractable undercarriage
> and no alarm will land wheels up, in fact I would say
> that, despite anecdotal 'evidence' to the contrary,
> the majority will not.
> I don't think I have ever said do not ever fit an alarm,
> just be aware it is a double edged sword.
>
> At 00:18 30 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
> >In article ,
> > Don Johnstone
> > wrote:
> >
> >> At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
> >> >A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
> >> >an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
> >> > Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see
> >>>it coming,
> >> >yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent
> >>>it?
> >> > I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill
> >>>as much
> >> >as you want, but we've built up a track record which
> >>>says
> >> >those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents,
> >>>while building
> >> >up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage
> >>>warnings
> >> >DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage
> >>>warnings?
> >>
> >> So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
> >> the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Contratulations, Don, for winning the award for stupidest
> >comment yet posted in this thread. Which is some feat.
> >
> >As you were typing it, you *knew* that my argument
> >was nothing
> >of the sort, but you went ahead and typed it anyway.
> > Well done,
> >mate, your determination and willingness to push-on
> >regardless
> >of your own knowledge of the facts of the situation
> >stands
> >proud as an example to us all.
> >
> > - mark
> >
>
>
>