Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

[MS]

Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

[[email protected]]

I could not agree with you more. The only change I would make in your
comments would be to put the words "STUPID, MORONIC," in front of your
statement "dumbass high parasitic drag approach".

Any one of us can make a mistake when flying and that is just the
nature of being human. It sometimes happens. But to rationalize the
event as this article has done is beyond belief. The only thing I can
think of that is worse is that the SSA published the article.

I have spent more than enough time over the last several weeks
explaining this article to my students. More than one has asked about
the "high parasitic drag approach" and mentioned that I never taught
that to them. My answer is the same each time. "No I have not taught
this to you and I never will. It is NOT the way to land a sailplane.
Period." (Unless, of course, you want to fly through a 6,000 ft
runway and crash on the far end of it. Or, on the other hand, maybe
this method of "approach" had nothing to do with the crash and should
not have even been mentioned in the article. Even if the latter is the
case this approach method, in my opinion, is not an acceptable method
for landing a sailplane and should not be used nor "taught".)

Frank Reid


MS wrote:
> Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
> Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
> 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
>
> I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
> negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
> a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
> believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
> to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
> that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
> runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
> Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
> pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
>
> Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
> Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
> from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
> sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
> not sound like a stable approach to landing.
>
>
> The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
> who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
> He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
> of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
> his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
> with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
> he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
>
> Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
> mind.

[Dan'l]

I guess my question would be - why have an 8 foot berm at the end of a
runway? If it hadn't been there, would this accident have happened?

Has anyone not pulled back firmly on the spoiler handle on a Blanik and
wondered why the brakes didn't work? Easy to see in hind-sight, not so
easy when you're tugging on a handle. The wrong one. I saw it happen
at a commercial operation in a Discus, when the pilot wondered why the
brakes were weak; I pointed out the brake handle on the stick, and he
looked in disbelief; how could he not have seen it?

I commend the author - this is great education, people are talking
about something important.

DD

J.A.M. wrote:
> Well if someone cannot stop in a 6000 ft runway then he/she shouldn't have
> been soloed.
> An instructor will not solo you if he sees you 'freezing and tunnel
> visioning' at any time.
> So at some point it may be an instructor problem...
>
> "MS" > escribió en el mensaje
> oups.com...
> > Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
> > Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
> > 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
> >
> > I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
> > negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
> > a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
> > believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
> > to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
> > that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
> > runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
> > Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
> > pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
> >
> > Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
> > Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
> > from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
> > sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
> > not sound like a stable approach to landing.
> >
> >
> > The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
> > who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
> > He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
> > of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
> > his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
> > with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
> > he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
> >
> > Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
> > mind.
> >

[Stewart Kissel]

I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
technique was the point of the article. Rather the
author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
any different then someone who cannot put their glider
together correctly? Do we run them off also?

Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.

[Wayne Paul]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
>I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
> as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
> technique was the point of the article. Rather the
> author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
> psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
> they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
> writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
> any different then someone who cannot put their glider
> together correctly? Do we run them off also?
>
> Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
> I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.
>

All who read last month's article must also read this month's article, "Five
Hundred Twenty-Five Extremely Dangerous Flights."

[588]

Dan'l wrote:
> I guess my question would be - why have an 8 foot berm at the end of a
> runway? If it hadn't been there, would this accident have happened?

Not this one, maybe, but surely a slightly different accident would have
sprouted from the same roots. An 8-foot, or 80-foot berm shouldn't have
much to do with crashing on a 6000' runway. Operating procedures and
training, perhaps.

Maybe the real fault is that the runway is twice as long as it ought to
be. Yeah, that's the ticket.


Jack

[syoun10]

I have often wondered about what the author calls "high parasitic drag
approach".

Of course, it should never happen... but IF one found oneself very
high on final I have always thought the best strategy would be to pull
full airbrake, slip as much as possible and then dive as fast as
placarded limits allow. Drag increases with the square of speed, so
this should get you down with the steepest descent. In this scenario
you should bleed off speed to normal approach speed before getting into
ground effect.

I have discussed this with my instructor, and he thinks the steepest
way to get down is to use the normal approach speed. He knows more
that I do so I believe him... but I still wonder!!! (Especially as
the normal approach is close to the best L/D - albeit without
airbrakes).

The other approach would be to fly just above stall speed and "mush"
down. Perhaps this would be steeper still, but would be incredibly
dangerous.

My experience and thinking process are probably derived from
hang-gliding where there are no spoilers or flaps and you can't
consistantly slip. Increasing the speed on final is the recommended
way of steepening the approach, in fact it is the ONLY way. I'm not
sure why this experience would not translate to sailplanes.

BTW, personally I thought it was rather brave of the accident victim to
publish the article in soaring in the hope that others could learn from
his mistake, and at high risk of ridicule (which he has experienced).


MS wrote:
> Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
> Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
> 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
>
> I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
> negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
> a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
> believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
> to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
> that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
> runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
> Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
> pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
>
> Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
> Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
> from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
> sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
> not sound like a stable approach to landing.
>
>
> The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
> who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
> He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
> of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
> his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
> with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
> he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
>
> Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
> mind.

[Jim Vincent]

"This could possibly be a "SIGN" of divine guidance that the pilot in
question should find a new sport, like golf."

Or become an SSA Regional Director...which he is.

Seriously, once you test your spoilers, keep your hand on the spoiler
handle. Also, once your gear is down, leave it down until you are darn sure
you've thermalled out. If you don't thermal out, then your mind needs to
change track back to the landing. When you do that, the first thing you do
is the checklist. Then you land...unless you hit a whopper thermal.

[[email protected]]

I don't have anything to add about the accident in question, which was
clearly a colossal lapse in airmanship, of mammoth proportions. But I
do think Skydell's approach to the article was admirable. He
recognized that there was a huge bug in the piloting software in his
head, marvelled that such a bug could go undetected for so long, and
questioned whether the bug was fixable. We all have some bugs in our
internal software, propably not as big as his, but we should take a
similar approach to debugging ourselves when we make mistakes.

I've read many articles in Soaring over the years by idiots who flew
perfectly good gliders into trees with the spoilers open or some other
such thing, who write up accounts of their great adventure, subtley
pointing to extenuating circumstances which caused their normally
superior piloting skill to fail them, and proudly describing some
decision they made which saved them from an even greater disaster.
While nominally admitting error, these accounts usually have an element
of "these exact set of circumstances that lead to my accident were
somehow unique in a way I couldn't have been prepared for, and so I
must share them with the world" hidden underneath. I did not detect
this undercurrent of excuse making in Skydell's article.



MS wrote:
> Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
> Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
> 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
>
> I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
> negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
> a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
> believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
> to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
> that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
> runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
> Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
> pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
>
> Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
> Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
> from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
> sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
> not sound like a stable approach to landing.
>
>
> The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
> who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
> He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
> of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
> his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
> with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
> he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
>
> Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
> mind.

[[email protected]]

I'm still having trouble thinking this is a good article. How does the
title "Is Conservative Safe" have anything to do with the main cause of
the crash. That is, a distraction that caused the lose of situational
awareness resulting in the pilot raising the gear instead of opening
the spoilers. It makes no sense to me. Please help me understand.

Other questions that need answers are:

1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed (65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1 to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold. Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

2. If ground effect has much influence at all then the concept of
using the "High Parasite Drag Approach to Landings" when one is high on
final is a complete and total joke as according to the article the high
speed is kept until the normal round out. That is, the excess speed
(energy) is to be dissipated at the worst possible time - in ground
effect.

3. The author states that he is "glad to have it (the high parasite
drag approach) in my repertoire of flight skills." This implies that
he still believes this technique used when one is high on final is
better or at least as good as the full spoiler, full slip, proper or
normal patttern speed adjusted for wind method taught by most
instructors. Is there anyone out there who thinks diving at the ground
at 85 to 90 knots and holding that speed until round out will result in
a shorter landing as opposed to using full spoilers, normal airspeed
and a full slip? If so please explain it to all of us.

Finally there is just too much rationalization for me. The story is
simple and there but for the grace of God go any one of us, certainly
me included. Mr Skydell just got caught and we did not. However it is
over written and clouds the facts. The story should be:

Title: The Other Day I flew like a Moron.

While attempting to land my sailplane the other day I got distracted
and totally lost my attention to what I was doing. I raised my gear
instead of opening my spoilers and flew through the runway and crashed
into a berm off the end of the runway.

Boy, wasn't that stupid of me.

Thank You

Option 2:

Title: The Berm That Ate My Plane. (Prompted by one of the responses)


While attempting to land my sailplane the other day I got distracted
and had a poor landing. I did make a couple of minor mistakes. Mainly
I raised my gear instead of opening my spoilers and could not land on
the intended 6000 ft paved runway. I flew off the end and hit a berm.
What idiot would build a berm off the end of the runway. If the berm
had not been there I would not have crashed as I am sure I could have
landed within the next 2 or 3 thousand feet.

I have retained an attorney and am taking legal action against the
bozos who built the berm.

Thank You

PS Note that many words can be substituted for berm such as fence,
tree, road, house etc. In today's "It can not be my fault society" the
berm builder would probably be at fault.

I close repeating this thought. The accident could have happened to
any one of us. Each of us is human and each of us has made many
mistakes in this life. I do not fault Mr. Skydell for his mistake nor
do I think less of him. I know Mr Skydell and find him to be extremely
intelligent. He just had a bad day flying. However, I do not like the
article as I find it an over rationalization of his mistake and I find
his recollection of what happened confusing at best.

[Terry[_2_]]

I am no longer a member of SSA, so I have not seen the offending
article. One of my complaints with the direction of the society is the
lack of subject experts in editorial positions with the magazine. This
also effects the direction of the group when directors are able to
direct policy in training and standards. Eventually some bad idea will
kill someone.

What exactly is a "high parasitic drag approach?" A Grob 103 will
generate an impressive rate of descent and descent angle at 55-60 knots
and full spoilers. As will the much derided 2-33 at 50-55 mph with
spoilers and a full forward slip. Both of those conditions certainly
qualify in my opinion as high parasitic (or profile) drag.

A few years back I had a student in the Grob from a California Club.
His approach idea was to point the nose at his touchdown aim point and
modulate spoilers to maintain airspeed. After spending many of his fun
tickets, we got him soloed and past his PP exam. I only hope that the
law of primacy was broken in his case.

Bad ideas are worse than horror movie zombies.

DPE Estrella

[kirk.stant]

I agree with those that think this is a useful article (actually two) -
as it does a fine job of working throught the thought process that led
to the accident. And I think it shines a big spotlight on some
problems in our training process in the US.

To me, the whole point is that Mr Skydell was totally unprepared for
the unexpected - he had not been trained for it, and had not thought
about it much. His description of himself as a "conservative" pilot is
a big clue - I'm sure he would never think of a wormburner double pass,
or an L/D max GPS glide to an airfield he's never seen before. By
being "conservative", he thought he was safer. But the unexpected is
exactly what we as glider pilots must think about and prepare for.
>From a canopy coming open on takeoff, to the spoiler handle coming off
in your hand turning base, to the herd of cows on the runway - it's the
unexpected that usually cause problems. Endless practice rope breaks
at 200 ft are fine - but how about a rope break at 10 ft - just when
the glider gets airborne?

It takes guts to make a mistake that your peers will jump on and say is
stupid - but we often learn more about those moments of inattention or
confusion - and when our time comes (and trust me it will!) we may just
remember some little fact that saves the day.

I remember being shown high energy patterns (as described in the
article) at Estrella back in the early 90s - along with patterns that
started by diving to redline just above the desert out at the IP and
flying the whole pattern in ground effect, pulling up to make the
turns. They both worked, were a lot of fun, and were useful for
showing what the glider COULD do, not what necessarily should be done.
One can never have too many tricks up your sleeve!

Anyway - I hope Soaring gets more articles like this (I can think of a
few I could write...)

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

Why are so many slamming the author of the articles ? He has already
acknowledged the compounded errors which led to the crash ? The point
of the two excellent articles ( better than many previously published
in Soaring ), and in first person no less, as opposed to
reconstructions in the equally important section "Safety Corner", is to
alert other pilots to what can go wrong, NOT to excuse or rationalize a
series of wrong decisions. IMHO, any article pertaining to an accident
or almost-accident is worthwhile. The vociferous personal attacks
against the pilot , even more so those against his instructor, are
entirely uncalled for.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

[Brad]

golly gee........didn't his wife get him an ASW-28 to replace the -300?
At least he has a nicer ship!
Brad

[PeterK]

Well,,,ignorance is BLISS!!!
"MS" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
> Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
> 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
>
> I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
> negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
> a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
> believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
> to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
> that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
> runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
> Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
> pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
>
> Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
> Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
> from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
> sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
> not sound like a stable approach to landing.
>
>
> The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
> who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
> He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
> of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
> his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
> with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
> he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
>
> Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
> mind.
>

[Doug Haluza]

syoun10 wrote:
> I have often wondered about what the author calls "high parasitic drag
> approach".
>
> Of course, it should never happen... but IF one found oneself very
> high on final I have always thought the best strategy would be to pull
> full airbrake, slip as much as possible and then dive as fast as
> placarded limits allow. Drag increases with the square of speed, so
> this should get you down with the steepest descent. In this scenario
> you should bleed off speed to normal approach speed before getting into
> ground effect.
<snip>
> My experience and thinking process are probably derived from
> hang-gliding where there are no spoilers or flaps and you can't
> consistantly slip. Increasing the speed on final is the recommended
> way of steepening the approach, in fact it is the ONLY way. I'm not
> sure why this experience would not translate to sailplanes.
<snip>

It does translate to sailplanes. I did not see the article, so I don't
know about the "high parasitic drag" approach referred to, but I often
do an extreme version of this with a very high approach, full flap,
full spoiler, and a tail chute. In this configuration, I can just point
the nose at the round-out point, and the airspeed will remain stable,
even at an approach angle approaching 1:1. At steep pitch angles, the
glide geometry changes (e.g. lift is no longer equal to weight). So
there is some advantage to doing this, if it is done properly.

The normal procedure for using a tail chute for a short field landing
over an obstacle is to make the approach just clearing the obstacle,
then pitch down sharply and deploy the chute to get down as close to
the approach end as possible. One thing, you do have to be careful to
round out properly. If you do it too high, airspeed will bleed off
quickly, and you could stall. If you do it too low, you may not have
enough room to complete the roundout before the ground comes up to
simite thee. So this is a critical maneuver.

Now there are only a handful of gliders equipped with a chute, so this
is not generally applicable. The point is that if you have enough drag,
it can be done. IIRC the Grob 103 manual actually says that it is
permissible to either use the brakes to control glide path and pitch to
control airspeed, or to use pitch to control glide path and brakes to
control airspeed. But the G103 has very powerful brakes.

So I have always taught only to use pitch for airspeed and brakes (and
slip) to control glide path. This method works with all gliders, even
those without good brakes (it also applies to airplanes using the
throttle in place of the brakes). And it does not require as much skill
as the other method. As long as it is done properly, there is no need
for the other method, except possibly for landing in a small field with
a big obstacle. But this should only arise if you are flying aggressive
cross country, and you should not be doing that until you are more
skilled.

A steep approach is especially unnecessary for landing at an airport
without obstructions (on the approach end). And it won't be very
effective without deploying the dive brakes, especially with the wheel
retracted.

[Don Johnstone]

At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
>1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
>the ground with
>the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
>the sailplane
>travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
>(65 knots on
>impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
>some of that time.
>How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
>to 450/1. I
>understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
>sure that ground
>effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
>that reducing ones
>airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
> Some of the
>story is not making sense to me.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
the bill for all those lights and things.

[Bill Daniels]

Clearly Jim Skydell is a sincere stand-up guy. It took a LOT of courage to
present his mea culpa in so public an arena. Just as clearly, he wants to
do his best to help others avoid his mistakes and, moreover, the thought
processes that led to them. I'm sure he would agree that his actions that
day were dumb. It strikes me from the responses here that he has
accomplished a great deal.

We are all human and therefore can make big mistakes. The take home lesson
is that we need to check and re-check our actions to avoid those big
mistakes

I think we all owe Jim a vote of thanks for his openness and his public
sacrafice made on our behalf..

Bill Daniels


> wrote in message
ps.com...
>I could not agree with you more. The only change I would make in your
> comments would be to put the words "STUPID, MORONIC," in front of your
> statement "dumbass high parasitic drag approach".
>
> Any one of us can make a mistake when flying and that is just the
> nature of being human. It sometimes happens. But to rationalize the
> event as this article has done is beyond belief. The only thing I can
> think of that is worse is that the SSA published the article.
>
> I have spent more than enough time over the last several weeks
> explaining this article to my students. More than one has asked about
> the "high parasitic drag approach" and mentioned that I never taught
> that to them. My answer is the same each time. "No I have not taught
> this to you and I never will. It is NOT the way to land a sailplane.
> Period." (Unless, of course, you want to fly through a 6,000 ft
> runway and crash on the far end of it. Or, on the other hand, maybe
> this method of "approach" had nothing to do with the crash and should
> not have even been mentioned in the article. Even if the latter is the
> case this approach method, in my opinion, is not an acceptable method
> for landing a sailplane and should not be used nor "taught".)
>
> Frank Reid
>
>
> MS wrote:
>> Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
>> Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
>> 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
>>
>> I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
>> negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
>> a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
>> believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
>> to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
>> that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
>> runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
>> Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
>> pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
>>
>> Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
>> Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
>> from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
>> sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
>> not sound like a stable approach to landing.
>>
>>
>> The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
>> who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
>> He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
>> of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
>> his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
>> with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
>> he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
>>
>> Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
>> mind.
>

[Mike Schumann]

Not only do you have ground effect, but the runway might be pretty hot,
generating some nice lift.

Mike Schumann

"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
>>1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
>>the ground with
>>the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
>>the sailplane
>>travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
>>(65 knots on
>>impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
>>some of that time.
>>How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
>>to 450/1. I
>>understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
>>sure that ground
>>effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
>>that reducing ones
>>airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
>> Some of the
>>story is not making sense to me.
>
> I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
> keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
> One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
> an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
> at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
> to show that the glider would still be flying when
> the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
> the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
> but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
> the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
> would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
> the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
> I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
> the bill for all those lights and things.
>
>
>

[bumper]

We've got some long, straight, hot highways in the US, like Interstate 5 in
California. Except for those pesky overpasses, oh, and the FAA that would
frown on it, I've often thought it would be fun to get down on the deck and
see if one could beat the records held by Gordy and Kempton .

bumper
"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Not only do you have ground effect, but the runway might be pretty hot,
> generating some nice lift.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Don Johnstone" > wrote in message
> ...
>> At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
>>>1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
>>>the ground with
>>>the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
>>>the sailplane
>>>travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
>>>(65 knots on
>>>impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
>>>some of that time.
>>>How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
>>>to 450/1. I
>>>understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
>>>sure that ground
>>>effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
>>>that reducing ones
>>>airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
>>> Some of the
>>>story is not making sense to me.
>>
>> I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
>> keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
>> One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
>> an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
>> at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
>> to show that the glider would still be flying when
>> the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
>> the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
>> but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
>> the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
>> would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
>> the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
>> I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
>> the bill for all those lights and things.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[raulb]

I do not know Mr. Skydell nor have I seen the 2nd article (my mailman
takes his time reading my copy of Soaring), but I have had an email
conversation with him about his first article--and I think it was very
good for him to share the story and for Soaring to publish it so early
in the season!

I do, however, know several conservative pilots, and include myself in
that crowd. As a group, conservative pilots are safe. Safer than bold
pilots? That I cannot answer. but the old saw, "there are are old
pilots and bold pilots . . . " comes to mind.

That having been said, I am not certain that conservative pilots are
inherently safe just as I am not certain that bold pilots are
inherently dangerous.

Since I am of the former group, I can only address my own experiences.

I too have crashed and totaled a glider, a 1-26E on Mt San Jac, back
about 20 years ago. I did what I thought was the conservative thing,
but I was wrong and it was no body's fault but my own. I should have
taken the bold option and I would probably have only had to pay to be
retrieved.

A conservative glider pilots will always err on the side of caution,
but caution is not always the side to err on. Often what is required
is a bold move.

Back to Mr. Skydell. Someone taught him the high parasite drag landing
technique, probably with the intention that he include it in his list
of options when he lands in a small field. I remember that I was
taught to routinely make short field landings and was quite out of my
league when I went to England where they have no problem with taking
the entire field to land. The English did not like my short field
landings.

Having been taught---by someone!--the high parasite drag landing
technique, Mr. Skydell would be a fool to never practice it and where
better to practice it than at his home airport! Here he would know the
conditions and should know how to get out of trouble if his approach
did not work.

His approach did not work. He made some dunderheaded mistakes. Who
among us, even you bold pilots, do not live in glass houses? He is not
the first pilot I have heard of who raised his wheel instead of pulling
his spoilers--even high time bold pilots have done this. The result in
Skyell's case was a destroyed glider but a surviving pilot who maybe
learned something.

OK, maybe you say Mr. Skydell was a fool to practice this technique. I
do not know the technique other than from his description, so I cannot
say. Still, knowing it could possibly save both his glider and his
life some time whereas I might destroy both not knowing it. Who knows?


Somebody taught Mr. Skydell the technique, so at least this CFIG
thought it was a good one. Maybe the fault does lie with the
instructor because maybe they should not have taught him the technique.
How many CFIGs have signed off pilots of whom they had doubts, and the
student then subsequently crashed? I know of one guy who (back in
1993) was forced to take over 100 dual flights in his $30,000 2-place
glider before they would solo him and he then wrecked his glider on his
first solo (over $12,000 damage). Whose fault, the CFIG, the student,
or both?

As to practicing potentially dangerous landing techniques, I used to
fly a BG-12. It was great fun to cross the numbers, lower the terminal
flaps, point the nose at the ground--never exceeding terminal speed of
60kts--and being stopped within 100 feet of the numbers. Talk about a
high parasite drag landing! Was I unsafe? Should I have not practiced
this technique when I could have just as easily landed normally?

My problem with conservative pilots--myself included--is that they
almost never try anything new. Risks, even when justified, are often
not taken. This can blind the conservative pilot to other options
which could just possibly save their life. I used to fear spins until
I took spin training. I was scared to death but thought it was
something I should learn, just in case. When I realized that spin
recovery is only a little more than stall recovery, my fear went away.
But have I practiced spins over the years??????? Should I? Yes, I
should.

I have recently returned to solo flight after a 9 year absence (I did
frequently fly dual during those years) and I am trying to overcome my
own conservatism--which was borne of my own wreck. It is difficult to
push myself without feeling that I am pushing myself too hard or too
dangerously. The mountains still frighten me somewhat when I am low,
and I am flying at a mountain site. It is a relearning curve. I will
have to push myself but I will probably always fly conservatively, with
all of the consequences.

Is that a good thing? Who knows.

Should Mr. Skydell be criticized for practicing his high drag approach?
No, he should be criticized if he never practiced it. Did he make
some stupid mistakes? Yes, he did. Should he have spilled his guts in
Soaring magazine? Yes! As I said, I do not know him, but Mr. Skydell
should receive our pats on the back for coming forward and not
condemned for being momentarily stupid and telling the world about it.
We have all been momentarily stupid, but usually blame it on someone or
something else. At least Mr. Skydell took all of the blame on himself
and did not scapegate anyone or anything. That is commendable.

[MS]

Yes it is and the pilot was very blissful until he hit the berm. I am
glad he was not killed. I don't mean to sound negative, but what I got
out of the articles was "conservative is not safe, I was partially at
fault, but mainly, my training failed me...."

MS

PeterK wrote:
> Well,,,ignorance is BLISS!!!
> "MS" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
> > Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
> > 6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?
> >
> > I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
> > negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
> > a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
> > believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
> > to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
> > that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
> > runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
> > Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
> > pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.
> >
> > Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
> > Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
> > from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
> > sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
> > not sound like a stable approach to landing.
> >
> >
> > The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
> > who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
> > He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
> > of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
> > his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
> > with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
> > he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.
> >
> > Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
> > mind.
> >

[MS]

Because he blames his training instead of admitting, he should have
never been unable to salvage 350 ft on final with functional airbrakes.
He should admit the high drag landing approach is not conservative by
any stretch of anyone's imagination and should not be used or required
on a 6,000 FOOT RUNWAY if one knows how to use the spoilers and slip.


MS


wrote:
> Why are so many slamming the author of the articles ? He has already
> acknowledged the compounded errors which led to the crash ? The point
> of the two excellent articles ( better than many previously published
> in Soaring ), and in first person no less, as opposed to
> reconstructions in the equally important section "Safety Corner", is to
> alert other pilots to what can go wrong, NOT to excuse or rationalize a
> series of wrong decisions. IMHO, any article pertaining to an accident
> or almost-accident is worthwhile. The vociferous personal attacks
> against the pilot , even more so those against his instructor, are
> entirely uncalled for.
>
> Cheers anyhow, Charles

[jb92563]

I just dont see how anyone who is an accomplished secure in his skills
pilot, presumably, feels it necessary to further humilate and
unfortunate soul who has made a mistake.

C'mon folks, when your used to flying out of an airport with a 6000'
runway its quite possible that you might become used to "easy" landings
and forget the things that you were taught......practice is
important......anyone practice spin recoveries in the US lately?.

I'm sure there are people flying that do not know their left from their
right under certain circumstances........remember your flight training
days??? Yes...I know you did it to!!!!

Lighten up.....at least this man admits his mistake publicly and was
brave enough to allow unbridled criticism in an effort to learn
something......and he almost did quit soaring!!!!!!....and by now he
has most certainly become a better pilot because of his learning.

I hear even doctors make mistakes despite 8+ years of intensive
training.

My 2 cents

Ray

[MS]

One of the man. I teach students is to slip so the aircraft could land
in about 2,000 feet without the use of spoilers...... As long as you
are within 10 to 15 ft AGL at proper speed over the numbers, it's easy
to land on a 4,000 ft runway. It should be a breeze on a 6,000 ft
runway. Again, the high drag approach is not what I would call a
stable approach to landing and is unnecessary if one can slip and use
spoilers. That should have been the emphasis of the article, not "
My training failed me."

MS

Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
> >1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
> >the ground with
> >the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
> >the sailplane
> >travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
> >(65 knots on
> >impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
> >some of that time.
> >How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
> >to 450/1. I
> >understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
> >sure that ground
> >effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
> >that reducing ones
> >airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
> > Some of the
> >story is not making sense to me.
>
> I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
> keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
> One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
> an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
> at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
> to show that the glider would still be flying when
> the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
> the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
> but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
> the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
> would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
> the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
> I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
> the bill for all those lights and things.

[MS]

I do commend him for writing the article. I do not commend the main
message he gives.

1.) Conservative is not necessarily safe. Maybe not, but his high
drag approach is not conservative.

2.) His training was deficient. Maybe so, but not because they did
not give him all the possible unusual positional situations in which to
execute a landing.

Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could not fathom why
someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a perfectly functioning
sailplane...



jb92563 wrote:
> I just dont see how anyone who is an accomplished secure in his skills
> pilot, presumably, feels it necessary to further humilate and
> unfortunate soul who has made a mistake.
>
> C'mon folks, when your used to flying out of an airport with a 6000'
> runway its quite possible that you might become used to "easy" landings
> and forget the things that you were taught......practice is
> important......anyone practice spin recoveries in the US lately?.
>
> I'm sure there are people flying that do not know their left from their
> right under certain circumstances........remember your flight training
> days??? Yes...I know you did it to!!!!
>
> Lighten up.....at least this man admits his mistake publicly and was
> brave enough to allow unbridled criticism in an effort to learn
> something......and he almost did quit soaring!!!!!!....and by now he
> has most certainly become a better pilot because of his learning.
>
> I hear even doctors make mistakes despite 8+ years of intensive
> training.
>
> My 2 cents
>
> Ray

[588]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:

>> Nor do I believe
>> that reducing ones
>> airspeed from 75 to
>> 65 can increase ones
>> L/D tenfold.

> I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
> keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
> One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
> an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
> at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
> to show that the glider would still be flying when
> the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
> the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
> but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
> the runway.

A worthwhile demonstration, both for those times in the future when the
student may wish to land, and for those times when he may not.

As leisurely as this sport sometimes seems to the outsider or to the
beginner, we don't often enough take the time to improvise new insights
for one another. There ought to be a lot more dual flights in clubs than
there are, and not necessarily with a CFIG in the other seat. There is a
vast reservoir of experience, and finesse, that is not being passed
along to low-time glider pilots.

We don't use the team approach of the fighter community where the
fledgling jock spends a few years on the wing and proves himself ready
before becoming an element lead and later a flight lead. Nor do we have
the virtual apprentice system of airline operations, where the first
officer will see it all, and more than once, from the right seat -- in
daily operations and in the simulator -- before it's time for him to
move to the left seat.

What we do have is the total reliance on sight and touch and sound as a
small quiet and vulnerable guest in these footless halls of air,
living by our wits, yet with a training syllabus too closely related to
the needs of that bull-in-a-china-shop known as an airplane with
hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of horsepower allowing its
pilot to bluff his way from point A to point B.

It's harder to move forward when every generation has to reinvent the wheel.


Jack

[Chuck Griswold[_1_]]

Well said. For some reason my post never made it through the electronic
maze. Your posting was more eloquent.
I do know Jim Skydell and would fly with him at anytime.
I also know his instructors. They have taught me a lot about soaring and
how to use all the tools at hand.
Thanks
Chuck Griswold

[jerome]

Stewart Kissel a écrit:
> I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
> as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
> technique was the point of the article. Rather the
> author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
> psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
> they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
> writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
> any different then someone who cannot put their glider
> together correctly? Do we run them off also?
>
> Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
> I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.
>
>
>
>

I am French, and didnt read the article. However, I am a bit surprised
that noone questions the ergonomy of the glider controls, which allowed
the confusion between the controls for so long.
I remember that the first Pegases had very similar, (and very near)
handles for the airbrakes and for the gear. I've seen an experienced
pilot flying in ground effect over our whole runway (which is more than
4000ft long) with the gear wheel going frenetically up and down, and
finally crash landing in a grass field at the runway end (without being
hurt and with minor damage to the glider thanks to God).
After some similar incidents, the controls were changed for a big
rounded handle for the gear, keeping the slim square handle for the AB.
This has a standard feature of the airliners for years.

[[email protected]]

There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

[MS]

Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
> There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
> have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
> the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
> sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
> or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
> those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
> them, so what is the beef ?
>
> Cheers, Charles

[PeterK]

Have you ever given any thought that there might be another method besides a
forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow minded about this. There
is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by the way, there is nothing
new about the high parasitic drag approach is just you obviously never heard
about it. This sure smells like something personal to me as well. (IT
actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike some others I dare
spell out my name)
"MS" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
> being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
> conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
> over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
> to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
> huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
> providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
> They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
> stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.
>
> I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
> ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
> to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
> the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
> several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
> to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
> error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
> could be 100% avoided by him or other people.
>
> I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.
>
> I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
> blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
> blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
> spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
> which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
> over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
> headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
> to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
> complete stop.
>
> The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
> drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
> all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
> needed.
>
> MS
> wrote:
> > There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
> > have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
> > the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
> > sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
> > or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
> > those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
> > them, so what is the beef ?
> >
> > Cheers, Charles
>

[5Z]

MS wrote:
> The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
> drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
> all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
> needed.

Just as a data point, I tried the high drag approach in an ASK-21
(probably what the author had also used) a couple days ago, and in this
ship it works great, and is not unstable:

We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
600' AGL. I pulled full spoilers and aimed for the airport fence,
about 500' short of the end of the pavement. Only managed to get
airspeed up to 75 or so knots before I had to level out at about 50'
AGL. Then I found myself very quickly slowing to 50 knots and short of
the runway over the grass overrun, so did close the spoilers until
crossing the pavement, then made a normal 1/2 spoiler touchdown. If I
were higher, the roundout from the dive would have occurred over the
runway, and so the only action would have been to level out, wait for
airspeed to drop, and complete a normal (almost) full spoiler landing.

So... I was too low to really have a need for this maneuver. A slip
with full spoilers would have been enough. But... In the ASK-21 and
quite likely any other sailplane with strong spoilers and a good habit
of losing speed in level flight with spoilers (my ASH-26E is not one of
these), this would be a useful way of losing altitude much faster than
spoileer and slip alone. Next time, I'll try if from a normal distance
turn to final, but at 1500' or so AGL.

-Tom

[Tony Verhulst]

> We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
> 600' AGL.

An almost 2:1 glide to the rwy is low?

Tony V

[Stewart Kissel]

At 23:06 13 July 2006, Ms wrote:
I guess it's...
I often hear glider pilots....
I am an aviation safety counselor and....
I once had to counsel an ATP whot....
I wouldn't have the problem with th...
I see some of the same theme...
I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts...
We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL...
We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come...


Interestingly enough...although anonymous, Ms is not
afraid to use the first person for his diatribe.

[[email protected]]

Kempton Izuno also wrote recently an article for Soaring whereby he
found himself in a potentially catastrophic situation, without being
the subject of any personal attack as Jim Skydell was (including
impugning his qualification as a Director of SSA and commenting on his
wife "buying" him a new plane). The emphasis is on "personal". I guess
the difference was that Kempton came out intact, whereby Jim lost his
plane. A dialogue about the accident would have been more
constructive without the attacks against the author. Perhaps it is the
result of too much time spent in the sun under a plastic canopy, but I
did not read in the articles any attempt at passing responsibility to
his instructor. Skydell wrote about what was absolutely an admission
of a breakdown in his decision making in an out-of-the-ordinary
situation, hoping that his experience might open other pilot's eyes and
dissipate in us any latent complacency.

Anyone thinking of submitting an article for the magazine which could
be the least bit controversial should think twice, unless he / she has
a thick enough skin to withstand the firestorm to come. Yikes ! Of
course, the same people -- often anonymous -- who slammed the author
might also perhaps complain about the blandness and sameness of
articles in Soaring, and also possibly never make contributions of
their own to the magazine. Just a guess.

Cheers anyhow, Charles V.

[Jeremy Zawodny]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> jerome wrote:
>> I am French, and didnt read the article. However, I am a bit surprised
>> that noone questions the ergonomy of the glider controls, which
>> allowed the confusion between the controls for so long.
>
> The gear handle on the DG-300/303 is short and squat, and is positioned
> low on the left armrest. The spoiler handle is long and thin, and
> extends upwards from just below the left canopy rail. Under normal
> circumstances, it is pretty much impossible to confuse the two handles.
> Under sufficiently abnormal circumstances, I doubt even putting the
> handles on opposite sides of the cockpit would help...

Perhaps. But I'm very grateful that the gear and spoiler handles are on
opposite sides of the cockpit in my 304C. I have to take my hand off
the stick to lower/raise the gear, so that may be a good clue that
something is wrong.

Or not...

Jeremy

[309]

This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.

MS wrote:
> Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could not fathom why
> someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a perfectly functioning
> sailplane...
>

MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with good fortune. One
of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation and flight testing
is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different form of
flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't making the grade. I
tried talking to him to try and make peace between the parties (I was
not the instructor nor the grading person). As I told him I care as a
friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane up in a ball,
he replied: "...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe." At that moment,
I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.

MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please identify
yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good luck.

Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and crews) aren't the
"cowboys" the movies make them out to be. The experienced ones have
seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation and equipment.
They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may one day find it
difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway, especially when you
consider your initial aim point was about halfway down that 6,000 feet.
I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He is a humble person,
and his service to soaring did not stop at being a pilot, director,
contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help others avoid
similar pain. You owe him much more than just an apology (a sincere
apology, with no strings, judgement or "attitude"). I would ride with
Jim any day of the week, month or year.

Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when we do a risky test
(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first stall, the maximum
speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we study the
information from all those accidents that preceded us, try to learn the
pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented an accident (or
fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well off the side of
the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting landing
testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway and found the
van... It's usually not one single thing, as they say.

Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every landing is an
emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not a cowboy...he
tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying with wind limits
less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring). And
wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it looks like good, and
what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review what to do when
something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing, the beginning of
flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable). So practice
more than one form of landing (including the high parasite
nibble/infestation approach).

One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the safest, kindest, most
knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege of working
with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident. It CAN happen to
ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across the U.S. were
feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him, it can happen to me.
And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying to change the
thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you, Jim.

But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: "Any pilot who doesn't
think he's the best in the business is in the wrong business." Which
would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.

DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud to fly in the same
skies as Skydell.

-Pete
#309

[Don Johnstone]

Well said 309, a person who believes he never makes
a mistake will never ever get to correct the mistakes
he makes. A person who openly admits he can make a
mistake is safe, he is always looking for ways to overcome
his fallibility. He also shows considerable courage
if he shares his mistake with others.

It is a shame that the majority of pilots outside the
USA will never get to read the article that started
this, sounds like there is a lesson that we could all
learn from it.

At 06:12 14 July 2006, 309 wrote:
>This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.
>
>MS wrote:
>> Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could
>>not fathom why
>> someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a
>>perfectly functioning
>> sailplane...
>>
>
>MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with
>good fortune. One
>of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation
>and flight testing
>is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different
>form of
>flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't
>making the grade. I
>tried talking to him to try and make peace between
>the parties (I was
>not the instructor nor the grading person). As I told
>him I care as a
>friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane
>up in a ball,
>he replied: '...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe.'
> At that moment,
>I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.
>
>MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please
>identify
>yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good luck.
>
>Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and
>crews) aren't the
>'cowboys' the movies make them out to be. The experienced
>ones have
>seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation
>and equipment.
>They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may
>one day find it
>difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway,
>especially when you
>consider your initial aim point was about halfway down
>that 6,000 feet.
> I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He
>is a humble person,
>and his service to soaring did not stop at being a
>pilot, director,
>contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help
>others avoid
>similar pain. You owe him much more than just an apology
>(a sincere
>apology, with no strings, judgement or 'attitude').
> I would ride with
>Jim any day of the week, month or year.
>
>Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when
>we do a risky test
>(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first
>stall, the maximum
>speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we
>study the
>information from all those accidents that preceded
>us, try to learn the
>pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented
>an accident (or
>fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well
>off the side of
>the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting
>landing
>testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway
>and found the
>van... It's usually not one single thing, as they
>say.
>
>Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every
>landing is an
>emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not
>a cowboy...he
>tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying
>with wind limits
>less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring).
> And
>wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it
>looks like good, and
>what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review
>what to do when
>something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing, the
>beginning of
>flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable).
> So practice
>more than one form of landing (including the high parasite
>nibble/infestation approach).
>
>One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the safest,
>kindest, most
>knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege
>of working
>with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident.
> It CAN happen to
>ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across
>the U.S. were
>feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him, it
>can happen to me.
>And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying
>to change the
>thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you, Jim.
>
>But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: 'Any
>pilot who doesn't
>think he's the best in the business is in the wrong
>business.' Which
>would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.
>
>DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud
>to fly in the same
>skies as Skydell.
>
>-Pete
>#309
>
>

[5Z]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
> > We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
> > 600' AGL.
>
> An almost 2:1 glide to the rwy is low?

Well, as usual, folks don't seem to be able to read the whole post....
:-(

We were a bit low for this exercise. That is the point of the complete
message I had posted. We could have been at 1:1 and still made a low
energy touchdown at the runway threshold.

-Tom

[raulb]

MS wrote:
> Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
> being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
> conventional forward slip or spoilers.

I used to fly a BG-12. In ground effect, with flaps down, and in no
wind conditions, I have used nearly the entire runway length to set
down because I was taught to never close the flaps.

> "It couldn't be me making several
> huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
> providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
> They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
> stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

Perhaps you and I read different articles. Or maybe instead of raking
him over the coals in 3rd party discussions, it is because I bothered
to actually ask Mr. Skydell--whom, I repeat, I do not know--about his
article and thus got a better briefing?

I was once accused of something by Larry Sanderson--whom I also do not
know. Did he ever contact me about it? No! He found it much more
effective to get up in a meeting of the National Soaring Museum and
make his accusations against me. That was not fair to the NSM Board of
Trustees (I was not even a member of the NSM) nor was it fair to me.
When I tried to draw him out, he dismissed me as being insignificant.

If "MS" has a problem with Mr. Skydell, he needs to talk to, or at
least do as I did and email him about it. "Flaming" him in ras serves
no purpose and only shows what a pompus ass "MS" is. Or, like
Sanderson with me, is Mr. Skydell beneath "MS" and thus not worth
talking to?

I have a real problem with people who stab someone in the back but
never take the opportunity to actually talk to the person. It shows
just how small that stabber is. Yes, I am talking about you "MS." I
may be doing this in a public forum, but that is because I do not know
who you are (my name and email is below) since you hide behind a
"handle" and this is the only way I can get your attention. Contact me
privately and maybe we can have a civil discussion.

> I am an aviation safety counselor

Then you should know that all kinds of things CAN happen to normally
good, or even just adequate pilots. We are sometimes distracted or
frustrated. Sometimes when things go wrong, we get tunnel vision. Not
a good thing, but it happens. See the other posting about gear up
landings.

>and I once had to counsel an ATP who
> ran out of fuel on a personal flight.
> Although he admitted to some of the
> error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
> could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

No, it can never be avoided 100% by anyone because they are human.
People make mistakes, sometimes they are little mistakes sometimes they
are major ones. Why do you think that OSHA is still in business?

> I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
> blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
> blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning.

Again, I think we read different articles. He basically said, as I
recall, "I am a conservative pilot and I screwed-up." Not, "I am a
conservative pilot and that caused me to screw-up." Being a
conservative pilot did not make him raise his landing gear instead of
opening his spoilers.

> spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
> which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
> over the numbers.

You seem to always miss the point. Mr. Skydell was practicing a
technique that someone, a friend, a CFIG, someone, has shown him. He
was NOT trying to make a normal landing but was practicing something
which, even to him, was unusual. He was right to practice the
technique but he had a cascade of screw-ups and ended up using the
entire runway and crashing. He admits to his mistakes and he admits he
screwed-up.

Geeze, as thick as you seem to be "MS", I will not be surprised in the
future to read a similar article about--but certainly not by--you. I
know you just as well as I know Mr. Skydell, but frankly, "MS," it is
my observation that people who belittle others have serious insecurity
issues of their own (no, I am not a shrink).

> The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
> drag approach,

BUT IT DIDN"T. You have made your point about that. Get over it! You
cannot unring a bell.

Maybe a follow-up could/should be made, but the initital article did
not say the technique was dangerous. I get that, why can't you? I do
not know the technique (nor am I anxious to learn it) so I do not know
it is dangerous except that I don't know it and would likely botch it
if I did not have a good instructor teach it to me. The technique was
not the direct cause of Mr. Skydell's accident, although it did
contribute to it. His inability to do it right and then making a
series of errors was the cause of the accident.

I think Mr. Skydell should be commended for having the nerve to write
the article and Soaring should be congratulated for publishing it--no
matter what the flaws in the article might be. It was something we ALL
can learn something from--even you, "MS." Beating up Mr. Skydell or
Soaring serves no purpose.

Frankly, I would like to meet both of you, "MS" and Mr. Skydell. That
is the only way I will know which of you are right and which is the
idiot.

"MS" (and anyone else), I will sign my name and add my email address to
this one, write me if you want--Raul Blacksten >

[raulb]

raulb wrote:

> "MS" (and anyone else), I will sign my name and add my email address to
> this one, write me if you want--Raul Blacksten >

Hmmm, seems we cannot include email addresses. Well, you can get the
missing part from my "handle" or I am a SSA member and you can get my
email address off the SSA website "Member Locator."

[[email protected]]

raulb wrote:
> MS wrote:
> Frankly, I would like to meet both of you, "MS" and Mr. Skydell. That
> is the only way I will know which of you are right and which is the
> idiot.
>
> "MS" (and anyone else), I will sign my name and add my email address to
> this one, write me if you want--Raul Blacksten >

Raul,

Hey it's me "MS"

It's just so easy to rip other people for their
mistakes anonamously. If you still want to
discuss it personally though, come on down
to Texas,

My real name is:

Joe Albritten
2202 Meadowview
Caddo Mills, TX 75135

Joe (MS)

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Raul Blacksten wrote:

> I used to fly a BG-12. In ground effect, with flaps down, and in no
> wind conditions, I have used nearly the entire runway length to set
> down because I was taught to never close the flaps.

Sort of heading off on a tangent:

I also fly flapped, airbrake-free gliders. When I first bought one I
was told by several pundits to never ever retract the flaps on
approach.

Fortunately, I figured out pretty quickly that the pundits were just
plain full of it. Within a few flights I'd mastered the feed-forward
that it takes to go quickly and safely from 90 degrees to full negative
and back again.

Getting back on track, Jim Skydell gets my kudos on this one. Yeah, he
messed up. So? Who among us has never experienced any lapse of
judgement or reason, and fully expects never to do so? Please you to be
casting the first stone.

Bob K.

[raulb]

wrote:


> My real name is:
>
> Joe Albritten
> 2202 Meadowview
> Caddo Mills, TX 75135

Mr. Albritten,

My email to you keeps coming back "unknown." I looked for you on the
SSA website and did not find you there. I am sending you a "snail
mail" letter and I hope it does not come back.

[MS]

Never said I was perfect or could not make mistakes or it won't happen
to me. However, If I every have a problem making a 6,000 foot runway
in a glider or taildragger ( without mechanical problems), I'll give
up the sport without blaming my instructional program.......

M.S.

Also this is NOT personal. I do not know Mr. Skydell.

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Well said 309, a person who believes he never makes
> a mistake will never ever get to correct the mistakes
> he makes. A person who openly admits he can make a
> mistake is safe, he is always looking for ways to overcome
> his fallibility. He also shows considerable courage
> if he shares his mistake with others.
>
> It is a shame that the majority of pilots outside the
> USA will never get to read the article that started
> this, sounds like there is a lesson that we could all
> learn from it.
>
> At 06:12 14 July 2006, 309 wrote:
> >This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.
> >
> >MS wrote:
> >> Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could
> >>not fathom why
> >> someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a
> >>perfectly functioning
> >> sailplane...
> >>
> >
> >MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with
> >good fortune. One
> >of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation
> >and flight testing
> >is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different
> >form of
> >flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't
> >making the grade. I
> >tried talking to him to try and make peace between
> >the parties (I was
> >not the instructor nor the grading person). As I told
> >him I care as a
> >friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane
> >up in a ball,
> >he replied: '...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe.'
> > At that moment,
> >I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.
> >
> >MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please
> >identify
> >yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good luck.
> >
> >Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and
> >crews) aren't the
> >'cowboys' the movies make them out to be. The experienced
> >ones have
> >seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation
> >and equipment.
> >They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may
> >one day find it
> >difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway,
> >especially when you
> >consider your initial aim point was about halfway down
> >that 6,000 feet.
> > I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He
> >is a humble person,
> >and his service to soaring did not stop at being a
> >pilot, director,
> >contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help
> >others avoid
> >similar pain. You owe him much more than just an apology
> >(a sincere
> >apology, with no strings, judgement or 'attitude').
> > I would ride with
> >Jim any day of the week, month or year.
> >
> >Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when
> >we do a risky test
> >(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first
> >stall, the maximum
> >speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we
> >study the
> >information from all those accidents that preceded
> >us, try to learn the
> >pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented
> >an accident (or
> >fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well
> >off the side of
> >the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting
> >landing
> >testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway
> >and found the
> >van... It's usually not one single thing, as they
> >say.
> >
> >Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every
> >landing is an
> >emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not
> >a cowboy...he
> >tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying
> >with wind limits
> >less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring).
> > And
> >wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it
> >looks like good, and
> >what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review
> >what to do when
> >something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing, the
> >beginning of
> >flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable).
> > So practice
> >more than one form of landing (including the high parasite
> >nibble/infestation approach).
> >
> >One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the safest,
> >kindest, most
> >knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege
> >of working
> >with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident.
> > It CAN happen to
> >ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across
> >the U.S. were
> >feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him, it
> >can happen to me.
> >And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying
> >to change the
> >thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you, Jim.
> >
> >But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: 'Any
> >pilot who doesn't
> >think he's the best in the business is in the wrong
> >business.' Which
> >would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.
> >
> >DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud
> >to fly in the same
> >skies as Skydell.
> >
> >-Pete
> >#309
> >
> >

[Chuck Griswold[_1_]]

My God I actually accused Jim of starting the string.
I just couldn't believe that anyone could be as dense
as you seem to be. Any way I've lost interest. Bye
Bye.
Chuck

At 12:54 15 July 2006, Ms wrote:
>Never said I was perfect or could not make mistakes
>or it won't happen
>to me. However, If I every have a problem making
>a 6,000 foot runway
>in a glider or taildragger ( without mechanical problems),
> I'll give
>up the sport without blaming my instructional program.......
>
>M.S.
>
>Also this is NOT personal. I do not know Mr. Skydell.
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

Two distinct type of human error accidents dear boy.
Error of skill where a pilot is faced with a situation,
for which he has not recieved training, for which his
training has not been adequate or is outside his expected
level of skill, and fails to deal with it. Can be a
combination of Organisation fault, poor supervision
and lack of experience, perm any number from a multitude.
A error of judgement is where the pilot has the necessary
skills and training, knows what to do but fails to
sucessfully do it.

It may be that you would fall into the second category,
in fact given what you say, you do and your response
is therefore the best thing you could do. Not everyone
else does fall into that category and I do not have
sufficient information, I have not been able to read
the article, to say which category Mr Skydell falls
into. From what has been said on this forum probably
the first. He has learned and will be a far better
pilot for it, certainly better than you as you appear
to think you are either incapable of making a mistake,
or that if you make a mistake you will be so ashamed
that you will have to give up the sport. That makes
you very dangerous indeed.



12:54 15 July 2006, Ms wrote:
>Never said I was perfect or could not make mistakes
>or it won't happen
>to me. However, If I every have a problem making
>a 6,000 foot runway
>in a glider or taildragger ( without mechanical problems),
> I'll give
>up the sport without blaming my instructional program.......
>
>M.S.
>
>Also this is NOT personal. I do not know Mr. Skydell.
>
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>> Well said 309, a person who believes he never makes
>> a mistake will never ever get to correct the mistakes
>> he makes. A person who openly admits he can make a
>> mistake is safe, he is always looking for ways to
>>overcome
>> his fallibility. He also shows considerable courage
>> if he shares his mistake with others.
>>
>> It is a shame that the majority of pilots outside
>>the
>> USA will never get to read the article that started
>> this, sounds like there is a lesson that we could
>>all
>> learn from it.
>>
>> At 06:12 14 July 2006, 309 wrote:
>> >This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.
>> >
>> >MS wrote:
>> >> Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could
>> >>not fathom why
>> >> someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a
>> >>perfectly functioning
>> >> sailplane...
>> >>
>> >
>> >MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with
>> >good fortune. One
>> >of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation
>> >and flight testing
>> >is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different
>> >form of
>> >flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't
>> >making the grade. I
>> >tried talking to him to try and make peace between
>> >the parties (I was
>> >not the instructor nor the grading person). As I
>>>told
>> >him I care as a
>> >friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane
>> >up in a ball,
>> >he replied: '...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe.'
>> > At that moment,
>> >I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.
>> >
>> >MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please
>> >identify
>> >yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good
>>>luck.
>> >
>> >Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and
>> >crews) aren't the
>> >'cowboys' the movies make them out to be. The experienced
>> >ones have
>> >seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation
>> >and equipment.
>> >They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may
>> >one day find it
>> >difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway,
>> >especially when you
>> >consider your initial aim point was about halfway
>>>down
>> >that 6,000 feet.
>> > I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He
>> >is a humble person,
>> >and his service to soaring did not stop at being a
>> >pilot, director,
>> >contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help
>> >others avoid
>> >similar pain. You owe him much more than just an
>>>apology
>> >(a sincere
>> >apology, with no strings, judgement or 'attitude').
>> > I would ride with
>> >Jim any day of the week, month or year.
>> >
>> >Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when
>> >we do a risky test
>> >(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first
>> >stall, the maximum
>> >speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we
>> >study the
>> >information from all those accidents that preceded
>> >us, try to learn the
>> >pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented
>> >an accident (or
>> >fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well
>> >off the side of
>> >the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting
>> >landing
>> >testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway
>> >and found the
>> >van... It's usually not one single thing, as they
>> >say.
>> >
>> >Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every
>> >landing is an
>> >emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not
>> >a cowboy...he
>> >tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying
>> >with wind limits
>> >less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring).
>> > And
>> >wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it
>> >looks like good, and
>> >what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review
>> >what to do when
>> >something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing,
>>>the
>> >beginning of
>> >flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable).
>> > So practice
>> >more than one form of landing (including the high
>>>parasite
>> >nibble/infestation approach).
>> >
>> >One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the
>>>safest,
>> >kindest, most
>> >knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege
>> >of working
>> >with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident.
>> > It CAN happen to
>> >ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across
>> >the U.S. were
>> >feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him,
>>>it
>> >can happen to me.
>> >And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying
>> >to change the
>> >thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you,
>>>Jim.
>> >
>> >But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: 'Any
>> >pilot who doesn't
>> >think he's the best in the business is in the wrong
>> >business.' Which
>> >would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.
>> >
>> >DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud
>> >to fly in the same
>> >skies as Skydell.
>> >
>> >-Pete
>> >#309
>> >
>> >
>
>

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:34:42 GMT, "PeterK" >
wrote:

>Have you ever given any thought that there might be another method besides a
>forward slip or spoilers??

There a none that work.


Bye
Andreas

[jcarlyle]

Flaps and drogue chutes have shown some ability in this area...

-John


Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:34:42 GMT, "PeterK" >
> wrote:
>
> >Have you ever given any thought that there might be another method besides a
> >forward slip or spoilers??
>
> There a none that work.
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[raulb]

Hmmm, I have emailed you--twice--and they both came back unknown. I
looked for you on the SSA website, not there. I even Googled you with
no success. I have written you a letter at this address, will it come
back as undeliverable?


wrote:

> Hey it's me "MS"

> My real name is:
>
> Joe Albritten
> 2202 Meadowview
> Caddo Mills, TX 75135

[Chuck Griswold[_1_]]

Don't bother, He's about as sharp as lead weight. I
think you wasted a
stamp.
Chuck

At 17:12 17 July 2006, Raulb wrote:
>Hmmm, I have emailed you--twice--and they both came
>back unknown.
I
>looked for you on the SSA website, not there. I even
>Googled you with
>no success. I have written you a letter at this address,
>will it come
>back as undeliverable?
>
>
wrote:
>
>> Hey it's me 'MS'
>
>> My real name is:
>>
>> Joe Albritten
>> 2202 Meadowview
>> Caddo Mills, TX 75135
>
>

[Nyal Williams]

Bully for you! You went out and tried it in a cautious
manner and found that it worked. I have done these
approaches in a G-103, an ASK-21, and an L-23.

I'm an Eastern US pilot; I was required to do this
maneuver at two different locations in the Western
US

Again, it works; it is as stable as the 'normal' approach.
The normal approach requires a flare also and the
timing is critical for these, as well.

I can name two abnormal situations in which it would
be highly desirable to get down quickly, let's say
4000fpm.

Suppose you have a passenger who has had a heart attack
or a seizure.

Suppose you, as pilot, have just suffered a beesting
very near your eyes and they are beginning to swell
and you fear they might swell shut.

The High Parasitic-Drag Approach is a Good Trick, but
it has to be learned. I demonstrate it regularly in
BFRs.


At 00:06 14 July 2006, 5z wrote:
>
>MS wrote:
>> The article should have stated the inherent dangers
>>with using a high
>> drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers
>>and then making
>> all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's
>>not stable. It's not
>> needed.
>
>Just as a data point, I tried the high drag approach
>in an ASK-21
>(probably what the author had also used) a couple days
>ago, and in this
>ship it works great, and is not unstable:
>
>We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of
>the threshold at
>600' AGL. I pulled full spoilers and aimed for the
>airport fence,
>about 500' short of the end of the pavement. Only
>managed to get
>airspeed up to 75 or so knots before I had to level
>out at about 50'
>AGL. Then I found myself very quickly slowing to 50
>knots and short of
>the runway over the grass overrun, so did close the
>spoilers until
>crossing the pavement, then made a normal 1/2 spoiler
>touchdown. If I
>were higher, the roundout from the dive would have
>occurred over the
>runway, and so the only action would have been to level
>out, wait for
>airspeed to drop, and complete a normal (almost) full
>spoiler landing.
>
>So... I was too low to really have a need for this
>maneuver. A slip
>with full spoilers would have been enough. But...
>In the ASK-21 and
>quite likely any other sailplane with strong spoilers
>and a good habit
>of losing speed in level flight with spoilers (my ASH-26E
>is not one of
>these), this would be a useful way of losing altitude
>much faster than
>spoileer and slip alone. Next time, I'll try if from
>a normal distance
>turn to final, but at 1500' or so AGL.
>
>-Tom
>
>

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On 17 Jul 2006 05:35:50 -0700, "jcarlyle" > wrote:

>Flaps and drogue chutes have shown some ability in this area...

Indeed.
Unfortunately their effectivity is seriously restriced if they are not
installed on the glider in quetion...


BTW:
Is there any chance to find the article on the web somewhere? I'd
really like to read it in natura.


Bye
Andreas

[Stewart Kissel]

Ahh, the thread that will never die :)...watching CSPAN
broadcast the space shuttle landing....got me wondering...how
would it's approach and landing be described?

[Nyal Williams]

I don't know, but that's about the way I'da dunnit.

At 16:54 18 July 2006, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>Ahh, the thread that will never die :)...watching CSPAN
>broadcast the space shuttle landing....got me wondering...how
>would it's approach and landing be described?
>
>
>
>

[MS]

Speaking of getting personal. You know Mr. S and have defended him for
personal reasons and have lowered yourself to insulting others.

[MS]

Never said I was perfect. I make mistakes and learn lessons.
However, if I made such a huge mistake that I thought it exposed a
weakness ( such as freezing up) and it would be safer to quit the
sport, I would. I don't think that makes me dangerous dear boy. I
think that makes me practical.


Don Johnstone wrote:
> Two distinct type of human error accidents dear boy.
> Error of skill where a pilot is faced with a situation,
> for which he has not recieved training, for which his
> training has not been adequate or is outside his expected
> level of skill, and fails to deal with it. Can be a
> combination of Organisation fault, poor supervision
> and lack of experience, perm any number from a multitude.
> A error of judgement is where the pilot has the necessary
> skills and training, knows what to do but fails to
> sucessfully do it.
>
> It may be that you would fall into the second category,
> in fact given what you say, you do and your response
> is therefore the best thing you could do. Not everyone
> else does fall into that category and I do not have
> sufficient information, I have not been able to read
> the article, to say which category Mr Skydell falls
> into. From what has been said on this forum probably
> the first. He has learned and will be a far better
> pilot for it, certainly better than you as you appear
> to think you are either incapable of making a mistake,
> or that if you make a mistake you will be so ashamed
> that you will have to give up the sport. That makes
> you very dangerous indeed.
>
>
>
> 12:54 15 July 2006, Ms wrote:
> >Never said I was perfect or could not make mistakes
> >or it won't happen
> >to me. However, If I every have a problem making
> >a 6,000 foot runway
> >in a glider or taildragger ( without mechanical problems),
> > I'll give
> >up the sport without blaming my instructional program.......
> >
> >M.S.
> >
> >Also this is NOT personal. I do not know Mr. Skydell.
> >
> >Don Johnstone wrote:
> >> Well said 309, a person who believes he never makes
> >> a mistake will never ever get to correct the mistakes
> >> he makes. A person who openly admits he can make a
> >> mistake is safe, he is always looking for ways to
> >>overcome
> >> his fallibility. He also shows considerable courage
> >> if he shares his mistake with others.
> >>
> >> It is a shame that the majority of pilots outside
> >>the
> >> USA will never get to read the article that started
> >> this, sounds like there is a lesson that we could
> >>all
> >> learn from it.
> >>
> >> At 06:12 14 July 2006, 309 wrote:
> >> >This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.
> >> >
> >> >MS wrote:
> >> >> Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could
> >> >>not fathom why
> >> >> someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a
> >> >>perfectly functioning
> >> >> sailplane...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with
> >> >good fortune. One
> >> >of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation
> >> >and flight testing
> >> >is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different
> >> >form of
> >> >flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't
> >> >making the grade. I
> >> >tried talking to him to try and make peace between
> >> >the parties (I was
> >> >not the instructor nor the grading person). As I
> >>>told
> >> >him I care as a
> >> >friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane
> >> >up in a ball,
> >> >he replied: '...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe.'
> >> > At that moment,
> >> >I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.
> >> >
> >> >MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please
> >> >identify
> >> >yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good
> >>>luck.
> >> >
> >> >Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and
> >> >crews) aren't the
> >> >'cowboys' the movies make them out to be. The experienced
> >> >ones have
> >> >seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation
> >> >and equipment.
> >> >They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may
> >> >one day find it
> >> >difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway,
> >> >especially when you
> >> >consider your initial aim point was about halfway
> >>>down
> >> >that 6,000 feet.
> >> > I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He
> >> >is a humble person,
> >> >and his service to soaring did not stop at being a
> >> >pilot, director,
> >> >contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help
> >> >others avoid
> >> >similar pain. You owe him much more than just an
> >>>apology
> >> >(a sincere
> >> >apology, with no strings, judgement or 'attitude').
> >> > I would ride with
> >> >Jim any day of the week, month or year.
> >> >
> >> >Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when
> >> >we do a risky test
> >> >(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first
> >> >stall, the maximum
> >> >speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we
> >> >study the
> >> >information from all those accidents that preceded
> >> >us, try to learn the
> >> >pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented
> >> >an accident (or
> >> >fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well
> >> >off the side of
> >> >the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting
> >> >landing
> >> >testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway
> >> >and found the
> >> >van... It's usually not one single thing, as they
> >> >say.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every
> >> >landing is an
> >> >emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not
> >> >a cowboy...he
> >> >tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying
> >> >with wind limits
> >> >less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring).
> >> > And
> >> >wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it
> >> >looks like good, and
> >> >what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review
> >> >what to do when
> >> >something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing,
> >>>the
> >> >beginning of
> >> >flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable).
> >> > So practice
> >> >more than one form of landing (including the high
> >>>parasite
> >> >nibble/infestation approach).
> >> >
> >> >One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the
> >>>safest,
> >> >kindest, most
> >> >knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege
> >> >of working
> >> >with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident.
> >> > It CAN happen to
> >> >ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across
> >> >the U.S. were
> >> >feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him,
> >>>it
> >> >can happen to me.
> >> >And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying
> >> >to change the
> >> >thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you,
> >>>Jim.
> >> >
> >> >But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: 'Any
> >> >pilot who doesn't
> >> >think he's the best in the business is in the wrong
> >> >business.' Which
> >> >would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.
> >> >
> >> >DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud
> >> >to fly in the same
> >> >skies as Skydell.
> >> >
> >> >-Pete
> >> >#309
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On 18 Jul 2006 16:52:43 GMT, Stewart Kissel
> wrote:

>Ahh, the thread that will never die :)...watching CSPAN
>broadcast the space shuttle landing....got me wondering...how
>would it's approach and landing be described?

Stabilized approach, glidepath control via airbrakes.
Standard glider approach.


Bye
Andreas

[Don Johnstone]

I have now had the opportunity to read the articles
that started this thread as Jim Skydell kindly sent
them to me. I do not intend to comment on the specifics
of his accident other than to point out that the comment
concerning a 6000 ft runway was in error. In effect
we are talking about 2 x 3000 ft runways.
Having read the articles I asked myself two questions

1 Could it happen to me?
2 Have I learned from it?
Despite my 10000 launches and 1300 hrs the answer to
both questions is a resounding yes.
I think the whole point of the articles has been missed
by some as Jim obviously knows the mistakes he made
and has chosen to share his human fallibility with
the rest of the gliding community. It is unfortunate
that some have taken the opportunity to ridicule him
because of this. He is to be congratulated for a courageous
and bold decision, not sniped at because some people
think he should have known better. The people who have
sniped at him are the very people who are likely to
make the same mistake. The articles also highlight
possible deficiencies in teaching and supervision and
it is right that these should be addressed. I would
urge everyone to read the articles carefully.
Looking back I have allowed my irritation with those
who have made unwarranted personal attacks to lead
me to do the very same thing, for that I apologise.
I stand by my assertion that if you think you could
not make a mistake you should not be flying.
I mean no disrespect when I say that living in the
UK I had never heard of Jim before this thread started
let alone met him. I thank him for his frank admissions
and for the opportunity to learn. Jim was lucky, he
was able to write about his experience. Reading his
articles might just save YOUR life one day.

DAJ
ASW17 401

[309]

Well said, Don.

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Having read the articles I asked myself two questions
> 1 Could it happen to me?
> 2 Have I learned from it?
> Despite my 10000 launches and 1300 hrs the answer to
> both questions is a resounding yes.
<snip>

The accident investigation files are filled with cases where bad things
have happened to otherwise good pilots.

> The articles also highlight
> possible deficiencies in teaching and supervision and
> it is right that these should be addressed. I would
> urge everyone to read the articles carefully.

The entire thread contains many assertions and inferences that do not
appear to have really come from the articles -- I re-read them both
twice to assure myself that I had not missed anything. For example, I
did not detect he'd "blamed his training" for the accident. He did
point out that his initial training 30 years ago was only to the
minimum required to "pass," but not sufficient for the type of soaring
Jim would ultimately choose to enjoy. Who among us were a soaring
"black belt" when we endeavored on our first solo? Our first
check-ride? Our first cross country? Our first diamond? With two
diamonds in a 1-26, I know I have not yet "mastered" soaring, and I
keep the phrase "it could happen to me" in the forefront to help me
keep my guard up.

Jim pointed out that he sought more extensive training prior to flying
high performance gliders. So you've got a freshly minted mult-engine
pilots' license -- do you really think the insurance company will let
you immediately jump into the left seat of a 747? Training is life
long. We should know better and remember that what we carry are
licenses to learn. My glider ticket is dated more than 10 years ago,
and I still seek instruction, and know that there are things I'm not
(yet) qualified to do with an aircraft.

> Jim was lucky, he
> was able to write about his experience. Reading his
> articles might just save YOUR life one day.
>

What I also commend Jim for showing is that he has not given up the
sport. He continues to volunteer his time and efforts to improve our
sport. In a very public way, he's shared private thoughts, experiences
and pains, and provided excellent examples of how we can return to the
cockpit if it does happen to us. He really showed us how to "get back
in the saddle," something I don't recall in ANY of my training, power,
glider, engineering...

Again, thank you Jim. Thank you Don. And thank you RAS.

[raulb]

MS wrote:
> Another "mature" response by Chuck. You don't like my opinion, so
> you insult me.

I see that you criticize Mr. Griswold but do not address the fact that
I have been unable to find you. Unless you are going to be honest with
us, quit bullying, and open your closed little mind, just shut up. I
look forward to your reply to my letter--if it does not come back
undeliverable and unknown like my email to you did several times.

Or are you just in such a need for attention that you are willing to
make an idiot of yourself just so people will feel compelled to address
you.

Just shut up.

[jb92563]

There is a lot of talent being wasted in this thread, I'd rather like
to hear about other situations and what pilots did to recover from a
potentially bad situation.

Maybe you can all simply agree to disagree with the 1 primary opposing
opinion on this and let the thread die.

Im sure we are all very aware of how EACH of us feels about it!

Nuff-Said....lets move on.

I could use some mentoring on preparing for my first cross-country
flights and what sort of things one commonly has to deal/work with in
southern california.

I'd eventually like to get into 15m & club class competitions.....how
do I best get there?

Ray

[Frank Whiteley]

compelling reading regarding XC flights
http://www.m-asa.org/currconv.pdf

\
jb92563 wrote:
> There is a lot of talent being wasted in this thread, I'd rather like
> to hear about other situations and what pilots did to recover from a
> potentially bad situation.
>
> Maybe you can all simply agree to disagree with the 1 primary opposing
> opinion on this and let the thread die.
>
> Im sure we are all very aware of how EACH of us feels about it!
>
> Nuff-Said....lets move on.
>
> I could use some mentoring on preparing for my first cross-country
> flights and what sort of things one commonly has to deal/work with in
> southern california.
>
> I'd eventually like to get into 15m & club class competitions.....how
> do I best get there?
>
> Ray

[Mike I Green]

jb92563 wrote:
> There is a lot of talent being wasted in this thread, I'd rather like
> to hear about other situations and what pilots did to recover from a
> potentially bad situation.
>
> Maybe you can all simply agree to disagree with the 1 primary opposing
> opinion on this and let the thread die.
>
> Im sure we are all very aware of how EACH of us feels about it!
>
> Nuff-Said....lets move on.
>
> I could use some mentoring on preparing for my first cross-country
> flights and what sort of things one commonly has to deal/work with in
> southern california.
>
> I'd eventually like to get into 15m & club class competitions.....how
> do I best get there?
>
> Ray
>
Hi Ray,
X-Country - Consider participating in the Cross Country Camp at Air
Sailing. Pilots from all over the country come. Check out:
http://www.airsailing.org/xc_camp2006.htm
and get your reservation in for next year.
A good way to get into competitions is to work at a contest or crew for
an experienced racing pilot. Doesn't have to be a hot shot, but one who
is willing to introduce you to all that goes on at a contest. Then go
fly a sports class contest were people are friendly and helpful, such as
the Spring Avenal contest or the Air Sailing Sports Class contest.

Good luck

might gorilla

[Brad]

Our club operated the last 2 weekends at a "mountain" airport in
Darrington Washington. This is a 2500' paved strip at 540 msl. It is
aligned with the prevailing winds and is at the end of a long valley.
Usually considered by local XC pilots as a land-out field for our
mountain excursions; since the airport we usually fly out of was sort
of off-limits during the Arlington Airshow, so we just packed up and
headed to Darrington for a few weeks.

That being said, the first approach I made during our encampment would
be an example of "another way to skin a cat"

After being in the air for over 4 hours, the first 2 hours duking it
out with Ron on Gold mountain in survival flying mode; 1 to 2 knot
lift, tight to the ridge and very carefully making decisions regarding
360 turns or not.......then finding valley magic and making huge 360's
with flaps all he way down, in the middle of the valley, on auto pilot
mode.......it was time to land.

Of course now the whole valley is is lift, and we literally had to find
sink to help us get down, the air is rowdy, the valley is now a real
venturi and the treeline upwind of the airstrip is sending swirly
dervishes hurtling towards the runway and providing approaching pilots
with a handful of delights we normally don't see at our sedate home
airport.

So.........to make a long story short, I will admit I made a poor mid
field approach; too high and too close to the approach end of the
runway. I find that I cannot continue the downwind because Gold
mountain would probably fill my canopy with her trees, and the wind is
hurtling me along at quite a clip, and it is now time to turn to
final.......still way to high..........I turn final, full spoilers, not
going to make it.....well.......maybe I could stop at the end of the
runway..........maybe.........SOLUTION: do a 360, on the 270 side of
the 360 the spoilers come fully out, a slight slip........correcting
like crazy to stay alighned with the runway.....and then I am on the
ground and rolling out. I stop at the intersection and push off to the
ramp with the help of friends.

So what........I know a 360 in the approach is not standard practice,
but it worked, I flew 5 more times during our encampment there and made
perfect standard approaches despite the turbulence and rowdy air. The
360 worked, I'll do it again if needed, but it is not somthing I will
use unless the situation calls for it.

My bad? I don't think so..........I think those of us that do, do;
those of us that think we can, like to talk, or write, excessively
about it........ and those of use that can't...........(fill in the
blanks)

Cheers,
Brad
199AK





PeterK wrote:
> Have you ever given any thought that there might be another method besides a
> forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow minded about this. There
> is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by the way, there is nothing
> new about the high parasitic drag approach is just you obviously never heard
> about it. This sure smells like something personal to me as well. (IT
> actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike some others I dare
> spell out my name)
> "MS" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
> > being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
> > conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
> > over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
> > to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
> > huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
> > providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
> > They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
> > stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.
> >
> > I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
> > ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
> > to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
> > the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
> > several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
> > to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
> > error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
> > could be 100% avoided by him or other people.
> >
> > I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.
> >
> > I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
> > blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
> > blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
> > spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
> > which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
> > over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
> > headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
> > to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
> > complete stop.
> >
> > The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
> > drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
> > all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
> > needed.
> >
> > MS
> > wrote:
> > > There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
> > > have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
> > > the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
> > > sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
> > > or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
> > > those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
> > > them, so what is the beef ?
> > >
> > > Cheers, Charles
> >

[Chuck Griswold]

Absolutely! Good story, the only problem that might
arise from doing a
360 on final is, if you are the first in a long string
of gliders lined up to
land. You might throw a lemon into someones plans for
a normal landing.
I guess land long and get off the RW.
Chuck

At 04:12 21 July 2006, Brad wrote:
>Our club operated the last 2 weekends at a 'mountain'
>airport in
>Darrington Washington. This is a 2500' paved strip
>at 540 msl. It is
>aligned with the prevailing winds and is at the end
>of a long valley.
>Usually considered by local XC pilots as a land-out
>field for our
>mountain excursions; since the airport we usually fly
>out of was sort
>of off-limits during the Arlington Airshow, so we just
>packed up and
>headed to Darrington for a few weeks.
>
>That being said, the first approach I made during our
>encampment
would
>be an example of 'another way to skin a cat'
>
>After being in the air for over 4 hours, the first
>2 hours duking it
>out with Ron on Gold mountain in survival flying mode;
>1 to 2 knot
>lift, tight to the ridge and very carefully making
>decisions regarding
>360 turns or not.......then finding valley magic and
>making huge 360's
>with flaps all he way down, in the middle of the valley,
>on auto pilot
>mode.......it was time to land.
>
>Of course now the whole valley is is lift, and we literally
>had to find
>sink to help us get down, the air is rowdy, the valley
>is now a real
>venturi and the treeline upwind of the airstrip is
>sending swirly
>dervishes hurtling towards the runway and providing
>approaching pilots
>with a handful of delights we normally don't see at
>our sedate home
>airport.
>
>So.........to make a long story short, I will admit
>I made a poor mid
>field approach; too high and too close to the approach
>end of the
>runway. I find that I cannot continue the downwind
>because Gold
>mountain would probably fill my canopy with her trees,
>and the wind is
>hurtling me along at quite a clip, and it is now time
>to turn to
>final.......still way to high..........I turn final,
>full spoilers, not
>going to make it.....well.......maybe I could stop
>at the end of the
>runway..........maybe.........SOLUTION: do a 360, on
>the 270 side of
>the 360 the spoilers come fully out, a slight slip........correcti
>>ng
>like crazy to stay alighned with the runway.....and
>then I am on the
>ground and rolling out. I stop at the intersection
>and push off to the
>ramp with the help of friends.
>
>So what........I know a 360 in the approach is not
>standard practice,
>but it worked, I flew 5 more times during our encampment
>there and
made
>perfect standard approaches despite the turbulence
>and rowdy air. The
>360 worked, I'll do it again if needed, but it is not
>somthing I will
>use unless the situation calls for it.
>
>My bad? I don't think so..........I think those of
>us that do, do;
>those of us that think we can, like to talk, or write,
>excessively
>about it........ and those of use that can't...........(fill
>in the
>blanks)
>
>Cheers,
>Brad
>199AK
>
>
>
>
>
>PeterK wrote:
>> Have you ever given any thought that there might be
>>another method
besides a
>> forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow
>>minded about this.
There
>> is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by
>>the way, there is
nothing
>> new about the high parasitic drag approach is just
>>you obviously
never heard
>> about it. This sure smells like something personal
>>to me as well. (IT
>> actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike
>>some others I
dare
>> spell out my name)
>> 'MS' wrote in message
>> news:
om...
>> > Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the
>>>absurdity of not
>> > being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway
>>>using the
>> > conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often
>>>hear glider pilots
>> > over analyze and try to 'get to the heart of a deeper
>>>problem in
order
>> > to partially exonerate themselves. 'It couldn't
>>>be me making
several
>> > huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors
>>>fault for
not
>> > providing me proper training. My instructors are
>>>too
conservative.
>> > They did not teach me everything I needed to know.'
>>> The author
never
>> > stated it that way, but that's what I got out of
>>>the article.
>> >
>> > I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had
>>>to counsel an ATP
who
>> > ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it
>>>ended without
damage
>> > to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small
>>>child. Part of
>> > the 'punishment' the FAA handed out was for him to
>>>give his story
at
>> > several pilot meetings. He began his story ' Hey,
>>>if it could
happen
>> > to me, it could happen to anyone.' Although he admitted
>>>to some
of the
>> > error, he was still in denial that ithe series of
>>>pilot errors he made
>> > could be 100% avoided by him or other people.
>> >
>> > I see some of the same theme in this article and
>>>it really upsets
me.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the
>>>author did not
>> > blame 'conservativism' or his conservative flight
>>>training as the
real
>> > blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and
>>>planning. With
>> > spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute
>>>sink at 60kts
>> > which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft
>>>runway from 500 ft
AGL
>> > over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft
>>>AGL in a
strong
>> > headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you
>>>complete the
turn back
>> > to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than
>>>3,000 ft to
come to a
>> > complete stop.
>> >
>> > The article should have stated the inherent dangers
>>>with using a
high
>> > drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers
>>>and then
making
>> > all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's
>>>not stable. It's not
>> > needed.
>> >
>> > MS
>> > wrote:
>> > > There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects
>>>>on r.a.s.
which
>> > > have generated so much flak and so many 'ad hominem'
>>>>
attacks against
>> > > the author of the articles. It seems that the most
>>>>virulent ones
were
>> > > sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing
>>>>
something here,
>> > > or is there something personal against Jim Skydell
>>>>? The whole
point of
>> > > those two articles was to describe a series of events,
>>>>and NOT
excuse
>> > > them, so what is the beef ?
>> > >
>> > > Cheers, Charles
>> >
>
>

[588]

Chuck Griswold wrote:

> ...the only problem that might arise from doing a
> 360 on final is, if you are the first in a long string
> of gliders lined up to land. You might throw a lemon
> into someones plans for a normal landing.


You take the energy you have and you fit it to the space available
-- that's gliding. If we expect that the only successful flight is
one that looks just like every other flight, we've just made the
same error that Skydell has warned us so selflessly against. There
are no "normal" landings in unpowered aircraft. They are either
successful or unsuccessful, depending on our goals for that
particular phase of the flight.

We plan and execute to the best of our ability within the bounds of
normal good-neighborliness, but first fly our own aircraft safely,
whatever happens. Everyone else will do the same.

This is beginning to take on a strong relationship to the "Skydivers
v Gliders" thread. Everybody needs to be ready for anything at all
times, especially around the pattern. It's most interesting at our
field where the skydivers land immediately adjacent to the landing
strip. By "immediately" I mean the northern edge of our strip is the
southern edge of the landing zone. We are happy if they don't
actually touch down on the runway, though the only thing I haven't
seen yet is a landing on the roof of one of the buildings on the
field. Surely that cannot be far off. So far, the jumpers have
accomplished only the occasional reduction in their own number, and
with no assists, thank God.

The jumpers do often cross the runway, even the short final approach
area, under canopy, en masse or strung out over a few hundred
meters. It can get interesting with several gliders, a dozen
jumpers, transient aircraft without a clue, and a single runway.
I've always thought recreational jumpers at least a little insane,
but watching them mix so freely with both gliders and powered
aircraft using the strip, I am convinced its worse than that.


Jack