UK vs USA Glider Accidents

[Mike the Strike]

Looking at the BGA accident database, I note that many landing
accidents in the UK occur because of attempts to continue flight below
what I would regard judicious altitudes - setting up patterns for
landing at 200 to 500 feet AGL away from the home field. I wonder if
this is partly due to the normally lower altitudes that glider pilots
attain in cold, wet climates and the good availability of landing
fields.

I also note a very large number of UK accidents associated with winch
launches, including actual and simulated winch failure.

Interestingly, I can only find one BGA report of an incident involving
gear warning when a glider failed to lower its gear after a contest
finish and made a hard landing due to the pilot losing some control on
lowering the gear a few feet above the ground.

The FAA database also shows many accidents from poor off-field landing
decisions, but a quick review suggests they are a bit rarer than in the
UK. I also can't find any associated with gear-warning.

So, I see no evidence to suggest that gear warning systems lead to
accidents, but failure to plan landings from low altitude (including
contest finishes) certainly does. But even these seem to pale into
insignificance compared to the high rate of failed winch launches.

Any comments from our snow-bound UK colleagues?

Mike

[Derek Copeland]

We probably have more winch launching accidents in
the UK just because we do far more winch launching.
Aerotowing is relatively much more expensive for us,
because we have to pay extortionate amounts of Fuel
Duty and Value Added Tax on aviation and vehicle fuel,
thanks to our wonderful anti-motorist New Labour Government,
who just regard motorists and private flyers as tax
cows. Aviation fuel is currently about £1.10 per litre
- say $5 dollars a gallon.

We don't get that many days when we can get above about
4000 ft above ground in clear air thermals, so we tend
to work down to lower altitudes than you might consider
sensible in the States. Speaking personally, I will
normally give up at 500ft provided there are landable
fields in the area.

Derek Copeland


At 18:30 27 November 2005, Mike The Strike wrote:
>Looking at the BGA accident database, I note that many
>landing
>accidents in the UK occur because of attempts to continue
>flight below
>what I would regard judicious altitudes - setting up
>patterns for
>landing at 200 to 500 feet AGL away from the home field.
> I wonder if
>this is partly due to the normally lower altitudes
>that glider pilots
>attain in cold, wet climates and the good availability
>of landing
>fields.
>
>I also note a very large number of UK accidents associated
>with winch
>launches, including actual and simulated winch failure.
>
>Interestingly, I can only find one BGA report of an
>incident involving
>gear warning when a glider failed to lower its gear
>after a contest
>finish and made a hard landing due to the pilot losing
>some control on
>lowering the gear a few feet above the ground.
>
>The FAA database also shows many accidents from poor
>off-field landing
>decisions, but a quick review suggests they are a bit
>rarer than in the
>UK. I also can't find any associated with gear-warning.
>
>So, I see no evidence to suggest that gear warning
>systems lead to
>accidents, but failure to plan landings from low altitude
>(including
>contest finishes) certainly does. But even these seem
>to pale into
>insignificance compared to the high rate of failed
>winch launches.
>
>Any comments from our snow-bound UK colleagues?
>
>Mike
>
>

[Alistair Wright]

"Derek Copeland" > wrote in
message ...
>
> We don't get that many days when we can get above about
> 4000 ft above ground in clear air thermals, so we tend
> to work down to lower altitudes than you might consider
> sensible in the States. Speaking personally, I will
> normally give up at 500ft provided there are landable
> fields in the area.

Wow! Things have moved on since I retired from gliding then! We were taught
to start field selection at 1500ft AGL and have our field(s) sorted by
1000ft at the LATEST. I would be doing my circuit at 500ft, not looking for
a field. If this is indeed the current thinking no wonder there are so many
prangs. I made 20 field landings in my time with no accidents and no damage
and most of my colleagues were similarly accident free. Maybe you should
revert to the older better practice. You need the extra height and time to
allow a divert into your alternate field (selected also as above) should you
need to do so to avoid cattle or crops.

Alistair Wright
UK Silver 4759

[Richard Brisbourne]

Alistair Wright wrote:


> Wow! Things have moved on since I retired from gliding then! We were
> taught to start field selection at 1500ft AGL and have our field(s) sorted
> by
> 1000ft at the LATEST. I would be doing my circuit at 500ft, not looking
> for
> a field. If this is indeed the current thinking no wonder there are so
> many
> prangs. I made 20 field landings in my time with no accidents and no
> damage

We still _teach_ that; it's sound advice for any trainee who's yet to fly
cross-country. Try suggesting that as a hard and fast rule to (say) a
Nationals pilot and you might find a different view.

The first field landing lecture I attended was given by the late Lorne
Welch. The way he put it is there are three critical heights:

a. Ensure there are landable fields around.

b. Have a definite field picked.

c. Make a firm decision to stop trying to soar and land.

Over typical English farmland on a first cross country, (a) is 2000 ft, (b)
is 1500 ft, and (c) is 1000 feet.

In a world championships in Argentina, (a) is irrelevant, (b) is 500 ft, and
(c) when the wheel touches the ground.

That was the training in 1964; it still is.

Most pilots with a few years experience operate between those extremes: the
probability of an accident is, as always, influenced by how hard the pilot
pushes his personal envelope.

--
Real name is richard

[Bob Korves]

Richard Brisbourne > wrote in
:

> The first field landing lecture I attended was given by the late Lorne
> Welch. The way he put it is there are three critical heights:
>
> a. Ensure there are landable fields around.
>
> b. Have a definite field picked.
>
> c. Make a firm decision to stop trying to soar and land.
>
> Over typical English farmland on a first cross country, (a) is 2000
> ft, (b) is 1500 ft, and (c) is 1000 feet.
>
> In a world championships in Argentina, (a) is irrelevant, (b) is 500
> ft, and (c) when the wheel touches the ground.
>

My answer to (a.) is, ideally, ALWAYS!
-Bob Korves

[Derek Copeland]

I don't actually disagree with what Alistair and Richard
say, certainly for less experienced pilots.

I at least start looking for landable areas when I
get down to 1500ft. How far I push it beyond that depends
on both the area over which I am flying, and the time
of the year. In Spring when all the crops are very
short, or in late Summer/early Autumn (Fall to our
US friends) when many of the fields have been cut,
most fields will be landable and that is when I will
push on the hardest. In mid Summer, when there are
far fewer available fields I would be more careful.


However there is no reason why you can't attempt to
either local soar a field, or keep hopping along track
as you spot further suitable fields. Although I might
only give up trying to soar at 500ft, I would make
sure that I was a suitable position to fly at least
a partial circuit into a good field.

However I should point out that I am a fairly experienced
'Nationals' pilot with 35,000km, 1850 hours, and with
about 100 successful field landings in my log book.
Many other Nationals pilots are prepared to go much
lower than I will, which is probably why I don't win!

By the way, I believe that at least some field landing
accidents are actually caused by picking the field
too soon and then flying the circuit into it too high.
The pilot then either throws in a 360 and spins in
(nearly killed myself that way once, early in my cross-country
gliding career) or finds that he is not going to get
into his chosen field and has to land in a less suitable
one, or else goes through the upwind hedge.

Derek Copeland

P.S. When I wrote 'aviation fuel' in my original piece,
I probably meant 'Avgas' i.e. gasoline. Avtur as used
in Jet Airliners is not taxed at all in the UK. Bl**dy
unfair if you ask me!
---------------------------------------------

At 21:54 27 November 2005, Richard Brisbourne wrote:
>Alistair Wright wrote:
>
>> Wow! Things have moved on since I retired from gliding
>>then! We were
>> taught to start field selection at 1500ft AGL and
>>have our field(s) sorted
>> by
>> 1000ft at the LATEST. I would be doing my circuit
>>at 500ft, not looking
>> for
>> a field. If this is indeed the current thinking no
>>wonder there are so
>> many
>> prangs. I made 20 field landings in my time with
>>no accidents and no
>> damage
>
>We still _teach_ that; it's sound advice for any trainee
>who's yet to fly
>cross-country. Try suggesting that as a hard and fast
>rule to (say) a
>Nationals pilot and you might find a different view.
>
>The first field landing lecture I attended was given
>by the late Lorne
>Welch. The way he put it is there are three critical
>heights:
>
>a. Ensure there are landable fields around.
>
>b. Have a definite field picked.
>
>c. Make a firm decision to stop trying to soar and
>land.
>
>Over typical English farmland on a first cross country,
>(a) is 2000 ft, (b)
>is 1500 ft, and (c) is 1000 feet.
>
>In a world championships in Argentina, (a) is irrelevant,
>(b) is 500 ft, and
>(c) when the wheel touches the ground.
>
>That was the training in 1964; it still is.
>
>Most pilots with a few years experience operate between
>those extremes: the
>probability of an accident is, as always, influenced
>by how hard the pilot
>pushes his personal envelope.
>
>--
>Real name is richard
>
>