Nelson Funston

[JULIETT-DELTA]

Nelson Funston experienced a takeoff incident at Ephrata, WA on Sunday
May 5; with substantial damage to JN. Nelson is currently in a
Seattle hospital with back injuries. Per Jan, he may be released
sometime this week, though anticipating the usual long period of back
healing. She says he is looking forward to being back on his feet, and
he will much welcome hearing from his fellow soaring pilots during his
recuperation. Here is the mailing address:
Nelson Funston
PO Box 979
Mercer Island, WA 98040

[Mike the Strike]

On May 5, 8:35 pm, JULIETT-DELTA > wrote:
> Nelson Funston experienced a takeoff incident at Ephrata, WA on Sunday
> May 5; with substantial damage to JN. Nelson is currently in a
> Seattle hospital with back injuries. Per Jan, he may be released
> sometime this week, though anticipating the usual long period of back
> healing. She says he is looking forward to being back on his feet, and
> he will much welcome hearing from his fellow soaring pilots during his
> recuperation. Here is the mailing address:
> Nelson Funston
> PO Box 979
> Mercer Island, WA 98040

Story and photograph here:

http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/articles/2008/05/06/news/news01.txt

Wings appear intact, fuselage badly broken. Lucky pilot!

Mike

[Roy Clark, \B6\]

I visted Nelson Tuesday morning at Harborview - Rudy Alleman was there
also.
JN was in good spirits and hoping to be released soon. One of his
problems
was choosing his lunch items - some are not as easy to eat when you
are literally flat on your back.
The incident occurred after Nelson had delayed his launch so he could
tow
Steve Northcraft, tow pilot for the day, after Steve had towed
everyone else.
The accident was witnessed by a number of pilots who were finishing a
week
long aerobatcs camp.
I second JD's recommendation to send Nelson a note, epspecially those
who
have flown with him in contests over the years.

[[email protected]]

Any Idea what caused the accident?


On May 5, 8:35*pm, JULIETT-DELTA > wrote:
> Nelson Funston experienced a takeoff incident at Ephrata, WA on Sunday
> May 5; with substantial damage to JN. *Nelson is currently in a
> Seattle hospital with back injuries. Per Jan, he may be released
> sometime this week, though anticipating the usual long period of back
> healing. She says he is looking forward to being back on his feet, and
> he will much welcome hearing from his fellow soaring pilots during his
> recuperation. Here is the mailing address:
> Nelson Funston
> PO Box 979
> Mercer Island, WA *98040

[noel.wade]

On May 8, 7:38 am, wrote:
> Any Idea what caused the accident?
>

There are lots of ideas - but blind rumor and speculation at this
point don't help anything.

The best thing to do is take this as a reminder to ALWAYS be safety-
conscious when involved with a glider operation.

Take care,

--Noel

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Mike the Strike wrote:

> photograph here:
>
>http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/articles/2008/05/06/news/news01.txt

>
>Mike

dang,

that image...just makes me shudder.

very grateful Nels is alive.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200805/1

[Ramy]

On May 8, 7:59*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On May 8, 7:38 am, wrote:
>
> > Any Idea what caused the accident?
>
> There are lots of ideas - but blind rumor and speculation at this
> point don't help anything.
>
> The best thing to do is take this as a reminder to ALWAYS be safety-
> conscious when involved with a glider operation.
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

Now this will help us all avoid the same mistakes...
Aviation is full of unexplained fatal accidents which we can only
speculate, but at least we can hope to learn from those who survived.
I hope we don't need to wait for the NTSB report, we all know what
they worth. Or Thelen's accident reports in Soaring Magazine, which
from some reason he can never get the details from those involved, and
have to speculate.
I wish Nelson speedy recovery.

Ramy

[Mike the Strike]

FAA initial report:

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 747JN Make/Model: 4M Description: SCHEMP-HIRTH
NIMBUS-4M
Date: 05/04/2008 Time: 2122

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: EPHRATA State: WA Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF ROLL, WING STRUCK THE PAVEMENT AND THE AIRCRAFT
CARTWHEELED, EPHRATA, WA

In somewhat of a contradiction to the FAA report, newspaper and
eyewitness accounts state that the glider was on initial climb after
takeoff and was at 40 or 50 feet when it experienced an uncontrolled
roll. Extreme deflection of the wings on impact reportedly reduced
the damage and injuries.

Mike

[danlj]

On May 8, 6:34 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> FAA initial report:
>
> IDENTIFICATION
> Regis#: 747JN Make/Model: 4M Description: SCHEMP-HIRTH
> NIMBUS-4M
> Date: 05/04/2008 Time: 2122
>
> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: N
> Missing: N
> Damage: Substantial
>
> LOCATION
> City: EPHRATA State: WA Country: US
>
> DESCRIPTION
> AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF ROLL, WING STRUCK THE PAVEMENT AND THE AIRCRAFT
> CARTWHEELED, EPHRATA, WA
>
> In somewhat of a contradiction to the FAA report, newspaper and
> eyewitness accounts state that the glider was on initial climb after
> takeoff and was at 40 or 50 feet when it experienced an uncontrolled
> roll. Extreme deflection of the wings on impact reportedly reduced
> the damage and injuries.

I think that "uncommanded" roll might be more precise than
"uncontrolled", for technical reasons.

The newspaper account said, "He noted the airport changed its
operational procedure and added obstacles on the ramp. While not the
cause, Funston said, 'It was certainly a complicating factor'."

For mental exercise, let's forget about this particular accident for a
moment and review the possiblities based on these 2 scraps of
information: uncommanded roll and new obstacles.

Let's think about the range of possibilities:
First, we can assume that it's an accident, hence something
unpredicted happened.
Therefore, what caused the upset was either unpredictable or
considered unlikely.
A: Causes of aircraft flight accidents fall into just 3 categories:
1: Something about the a/c "broke" (in the broadest sense,
including linkages not sufficiently connected)
2: Something about the pilot "broke" (again, in the broadest sense,
including natural failures of perception, which we call 'illusion.')
3: Something about the air was "broken" (again, broadly, especially
including vortices = turbulence).

There is one component of this situation that is invisible: the air.
Its motions become apparent only when dust or smoke are swept along.
Then we're aware of remarkable turbulence, which must occur when it's
windy.

Any time there is a strong wind, complex vortices are shed by
obstacles, which persist for a long distance downwind relative to the
height of the obstacle. I was years ago taught a rule of thumb that
amounts to a 1:60 ratio of height to persistence. By this rule, a 15-
foot obstacle would cause turbulence that persisists 300 yards
downwind along a plateau.

Now, anytime the wings of an aircraft experience different winds, a
roll moment will be induced. This does not require either wing to be
stalled!

For example, a friend rolled his helicopter up into a ball a few years
ago. He was crop-dusting in nearly -still air, and flew head on into a
dust devil. His airfoils obviously experienced dramatic differences
in airflow, and a dramatic uncommanded roll occurred, and in a second,
he was surrounded by wreckage, forturnately unhurt.

For another example, a man was flying a single-engine a/c to landing
in a 20-kt crosswind last November. The instructor pilot watching on
the ground said that the airplane was level at 40 ft, when it abruptly
rolled almost to vertical, struck a tip, cartwheeled, crashed inverted
an burned. All 4 occupants died.

For another example, a friend, a commercial pilot, was landing his SEL
in gusty winds last year, and as he prepared to flare, it suddenly
felt as though his left wing had suddenly lost lift. He managed to
avoid a tip-strike and accident.

Why do our wings rock when we fly through gusty winds? because the
wings experience rapid local changes in airspeed and AOA in
dimensions smaller than the wingspan. Might sometimes this be
sufficient to cause a snap roll? Why not?

I write this not to analyze Mr. Funston's accident, but because the
concepts of "uncommanded roll" and "new obstacle" inspire me to remind
fellow soaring pilots that windy conditions are always accompanied by
significant turbulence close to the ground, exacerbated by nearby
obstacles. This turbulence is invisible, and can indeed roll our
aircraft enough to cause a tip strike or loss of control.

Dan Johnson
Menomonie, WI

[Bob Whelan[_2_]]

Others have noted...

>> FAA initial report:
>>
>> IDENTIFICATION
>> Regis#: 747JN Make/Model: 4M Description: SCHEMP-HIRTH
>> NIMBUS-4M
>> Date: 05/04/2008 Time: 2122
>>
>> Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: N
>> Missing: N
>> Damage: Substantial
>>
>> LOCATION
>> City: EPHRATA State: WA Country: US
>>
>> DESCRIPTION
>> AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF ROLL, WING STRUCK THE PAVEMENT AND THE AIRCRAFT
>> CARTWHEELED, EPHRATA, WA
>>
>> In somewhat of a contradiction to the FAA report, newspaper and
>> eyewitness accounts state that the glider was on initial climb after
>> takeoff and was at 40 or 50 feet when it experienced an uncontrolled
>> roll. Extreme deflection of the wings on impact reportedly reduced
>> the damage and injuries.
>
> I think that "uncommanded" roll might be more precise than
> "uncontrolled", for technical reasons.
>
> The newspaper account said, "He noted the airport changed its
> operational procedure and added obstacles on the ramp. While not the
> cause, Funston said, 'It was certainly a complicating factor'."
>
> For mental exercise, let's forget about this particular accident for a
> moment and review the possiblities based on these 2 scraps of
> information: uncommanded roll and new obstacles.

<Good, thoughtful stuff snipped...>

Where this thread has gone is - to me - an excellent example of how
*thoughtful* speculation (perhaps it is better described as
"imagination") may wisely be used to enhance one's own safety when
soaring. No need to wait for the (too often, hopelessly homogenized)
NTSB reports...

Respectfully,
Bob - no fan of off-the-wall speculation -W.

[Eric Greenwell]

danlj wrote:

> I write this not to analyze Mr. Funston's accident, but because the
> concepts of "uncommanded roll" and "new obstacle" inspire me to remind
> fellow soaring pilots that windy conditions are always accompanied by
> significant turbulence close to the ground, exacerbated by nearby
> obstacles. This turbulence is invisible, and can indeed roll our
> aircraft enough to cause a tip strike or loss of control.

While this does not invalidate what Dan says, pilots may be interested
to know the "obstacle" was basically flags marking changes in the
runway, and would not affect the wind on the runway. They did add some
distraction for the pilot, however, as it was his first launch since the
new runway was marked on a portion of the ramp. Previously, the entire
width of the ramp was "available". My guess is the distraction was a
much bigger factor than the wind.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Mike the Strike]

> A: Causes of aircraft flight accidents fall into just 3 categories:
> 1: Something about the a/c "broke" (in the broadest sense,
> including linkages not sufficiently connected)
> 2: Something about the pilot "broke" (again, in the broadest sense,
> including natural failures of perception, which we call 'illusion.')
> 3: Something about the air was "broken" (again, broadly, especially
> including vortices = turbulence).
>

I stick with my use of the term "uncontrolled" and since it appears
that neither the pilot nor the air were broken I choose 1) above as
most likely.

Mike

[CindyASK]

On May 13, 12:44*pm, Bob Whelan >
wrote:
> >> DESCRIPTION
> >> * AIRCRAFT ON TAKEOFF ROLL, WING STRUCK THE PAVEMENT AND THE AIRCRAFT
> >> CARTWHEELED, EPHRATA, WA
>
> >> In somewhat of a contradiction to the FAA report, newspaper and
> >> eyewitness accounts state that
<snipped>

> > I think that "uncommanded" roll might be more precise than
> > "uncontrolled", for technical reasons.
>
> <Good, thoughtful stuff snipped...>
>
> Where this thread has gone is - to me - an excellent example of how
> *thoughtful* speculation (perhaps it is better described as
> "imagination") may wisely be used to enhance one's own safety when
> soaring. *No need to wait for the (too often, hopelessly homogenized)
> NTSB reports...
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob - no fan of off-the-wall speculation -W.-


What a nice thread in response to a sad situation.
Sorry Nelson was hurt, hope he recovers well.

I am very glad to see the shift from "let's not talk 'til a report is
written"
toward a "let's consider possibilities and see how I could avoid
similar scenarios." That is the most productive view to take
following
any breakage, human, airframe or atmospherically.

That was also the total gist of my presentation at the ABQ Convention,
titled "What the NTSB will Never Say About 2007 Fatalities."

Keep after this concept folks. It helps build mental flexibility
which I believe is vastly undertrained in glider cockpits.

Cindy B

Another fan of constructive speculation for personal-use accident-
analysis
www.caracolesoaring.com

[Tuno]

> Another fan of constructive speculation for personal-use accident-
> analysis

Hey Cindy,

If you're a fan of constructive speculation, here's a good one for you
to chew on; I'd welcome your observations.

On Sunday 5/11, a routine pattern at Turf turned into a nightmare on
final approach when I ran into 20+ knot sink. This was one or two
heartbeats after I had deployed spoilers upon judging my altitude to
still be a bit too high. I pulled the brakes back in as soon as I felt
the glider going into freefall, but the sink persisted and I soon
found myself wondering if I could clear the power lines.

Of course, faced with a very serious question of whether I could clear
power lines, I assumed I could not. I turned hard left choosing to
deal with mesquite bushes instead, and hit the ground hard before I
could complete the turn. (That told me that the score would have been
power lines One, tuno Zero.)

As I look back at the incident, which mangled a brand new ASG 29, I
ask myself, as anyone would, what I could have or should have done
different. (Begin Monday morning quarterbacking.) I really can't
identify much. The pattern was textbook, the altitude and IAS good. I
would normally have chosen a little more IAS in the pattern but I was
conscious of a pair of 2-33's landing in front of me so I stuck with
60 knots indicated. Winds were about 10 knots steady right down the
runway.

Very thankful, all the same, to be walking, talking and departing for
Moriarty in high spirits tomorrow morning.

~ted/n2O

[CindyASK]

On May 15, 10:13*pm, Tuno > wrote:
> > Another fan of constructive speculation for personal-use accident-
> > analysis
>
> Hey Cindy,
>

> If you're a fan of constructive speculation, here's a good one for you
> to chew on; I'd welcome your observations.
>
> On Sunday 5/11, a routine pattern at Turf turned into a nightmare on
> final approach when I ran into 20+ knot sink
<snip>
> As I look back at the incident, which mangled a brand new ASG 29, I
> ask myself, as anyone would, what I could have or should have done different.

[Tony Verhulst]

> As I look back at the incident, which mangled a brand new ASG 29, I
> ask myself, as anyone would, what I could have or should have done
> different.

I was giving a field check to a new (rated) club member and after we
turned final i remarked "nice, perfect height, perfect distance". Five
seconds later I couldn't see the rwy because of the tree tops above us.
The only thing that saved our bacon was that we had enough speed to make
the rwy.

Reminds me of a story of where a Shorts pilot hit a micro burst on
approach and fire walled the throttles - mandating a very expensive
teardown and inspection of the engines. At the "inquest", he was asked
"why did you push the engines to 120% of their rated power"? The
response was "because I couldn't push them higher".

Tony V.

[5Z]

On May 16, 2:54 am, CindyASK > wrote:
> So, what happened to you? Gradient, mondo sinkhole,
> virga shaft? I don’t know. I would bet a quarter that you fly a
> wider, longer, shallower pattern than I would. I would hope that you set
> up closer, tighter, higher, dirtier patterns when you get the lovely
> Schleicher back from the New Mexico team.

I agree with Cindy, though in my ASH-26E and previously in my ASW-20B,
I would apply landing flaps on base leg, having flown downwind with
thermalling flaps. I apply spoilers while turning final and typically
have 2/3 to full spoilers until touchdown. If the wind is less than
expected, I'll often slip to make up for being a bit too high.

I (almost) ALWAYS stop within less than a fuselage length of where I
had planned, and typically place the wingtip in my wife's waiting
hand.

In an ASK-21, I'll do something similar - 1/3 spoiler on base and 2/3
on final.

At the end of the day, the planned stopping point is mid field on our
3700' runway, so I typically turn base abeam the numbers.

I've encountered a few downbursts here in Colorado, and pretty much
always in the pattern. Prior to base leg, I hope I have time to turn
toward the runway as I push everything forward. On base/final, since
the flaps and spoilers are mostly out, my nose is already pointed down
to maintain airspeed. If the bottom falls out from under me, I slam
the spoilers shut, push the flaps to 0 and at the same time am pushing
the stick forward.

So far, I've always flown out the side before reaching the ground, but
there have been times when I was in what seemed like 45-60 degrees
nose down, near weightless and airspeed dropping. So if that had
continued for 5 more seconds, I would have been hitting the ground
while still in this recovery. Accident statistics indicate that it's
better to hit a bit fast but flying and wings level, than stalled...

The recovery from one of these adventures typically ends up with a
normal, full flap and some spoiler landing maybe 500-1000' farther
down the runway. Once I fly out the side of the sink, I have excess
airspeed which I convert back to enough altitude to allow me to again
extend flaps and spoilers before the roundout and flare to landing.

-Tom

[Tuno]

Cindy: Thank you, good stuff. I don't have time to answer all your
questions but the day was clear, blue and quite good soaring -- my
last two thermals were 8 and 10 knots. Observed winds while I was in
the pattern were on the lite side (very little drift in the base leg).
It wasn't a loose pattern, like you I like to keep mine rather tight.
Turf has 3 parallel runways but while I was on base I couldn't tell if
2-33 #2 was taking center or right.

Off to Moriarty

~ted/n2O

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 7:04*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Cindy: Thank you, good stuff. I don't have time to answer all your
> questions but the day was clear, blue and quite good soaring -- my
> last two thermals were 8 and 10 knots. Observed winds while I was in
> the pattern were on the lite side (very little drift in the base leg).
> It wasn't a loose pattern, like you I like to keep mine rather tight.
> Turf has 3 parallel runways but while I was on base I couldn't tell if
> 2-33 #2 was taking center or right.
>
> Off to Moriarty
>
> ~ted/n2O

Bummer Ted - I hope 2NO is quickly and easily fixed. Sounds like the
day, while strong, didn't have any of the classic indicators for
extreme sink.

I've been thinking lately about how good we are (or need to be) at
estimating probablilities - particularly probabilities of rare,
adverse events, and most particularly of rare, adverse events under
conditions where the recovery options are minimal. These obviously
include glides that cross unlandable terrain, final glides generally,
thermalling near mountain terrain, near clouds, under CB shelves, and
takeoffs and landings where there aren't a lot of "outs' for one
reason or another. I'm sure there are lots more. I've been wondering
about the idea of the right amount of margin and whether or not there
are sometimes circumstances where adding margin for one kind of bad
outcome reduces the margin for another (think of speed/height on final
versus the risk of under/overshoot at touchdown as one example).

If you are like me you carry margin around to deal with some estimated
probability of a bad event that is sufficiently out in the tail of the
probability distribution that we have it 99.99+% covered. But we all
come up with these estimates based on our experience, or maybe
observed experience of others. And in all likelihood we let our
margins erode if there is an incentive to do so and we don't directly
or indirectly have a sobering experience to drive us in the direction
of greater conservatism. I've seen enough cases of final glides gone
bad to add margin to account for a bit more in terms of adverse
circumstances but probably not enough for more than 1.5 miles with 20
knots of sink near the end. I tend to thermal at 70 knots near
mountain ridges (or not at all) and even so got a decent scare in a
low thermal that crossed to the downwind side of a spur of a ridge a
couple of years back.

I just wonder for how many of these rare acts of nature I have
significantly under-estimated, or do we all have to live with the idea
that bad luck can just come your way.

9B

[cernauta]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 21:28:40 -0700 (PDT), CindyASK
> wrote:


>That was also the total gist of my presentation at the ABQ Convention,
>titled "What the NTSB will Never Say About 2007 Fatalities."

>Another fan of constructive speculation for personal-use accident-
>analysis


I'd love to read it!
can you please send it to me?
thank you very much

Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it
nauta
-at-
email.it

[Ramy]

On May 8, 12:22*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On May 8, 7:59*am, "noel.wade" > wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 7:38 am, wrote:
>
> > > Any Idea what caused the accident?
>
> > There are lots of ideas - but blind rumor and speculation at this
> > point don't help anything.
>
> > The best thing to do is take this as a reminder to ALWAYS be safety-
> > conscious when involved with a glider operation.
>
> > Take care,
>
> > --Noel
>
> Now this will help us all avoid the same mistakes...
> Aviation is full of unexplained fatal accidents which we can only
> speculate, but at least we can hope to learn from those who survived.
> I hope we don't need to wait for the NTSB report, we all know what
> they worth. Or Thelen's accident reports in Soaring Magazine, which
> from some reason he can never get the details from those involved, and
> have to speculate.
> I wish Nelson speedy recovery.
>
> Ramy

No need to speculate anymore. According to the NTSB report it was
disconnected aileron
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&ntsbno=SEA08CA122&akey=1
I hope Nelson is recovering fine.

Ramy (who wonders why we had to wait for the NTSB report to learn
this)

[James C. Simmons[_2_]]

At 18:17 03 June 2008, Ramy wrote:
>On May 8, 12:22=A0pm, Ramy wrote:
>> On May 8, 7:59=A0am, "noel.wade" wrote:
>>
>> > On May 8, 7:38 am, wrote:
>>
>> > > Any Idea what caused the accident?
>>
>> > There are lots of ideas - but blind rumor and speculation at this
>> > point don't help anything.
>>
>> > The best thing to do is take this as a reminder to ALWAYS be safety-
>> > conscious when involved with a glider operation.
>>
>> > Take care,
>>
>> > --Noel
>>
>> Now this will help us all avoid the same mistakes...
>> Aviation is full of unexplained fatal accidents which we can only
>> speculate, but at least we can hope to learn from those who survived.
>> I hope we don't need to wait for the NTSB report, we all know what
>> they worth. Or Thelen's accident reports in Soaring Magazine, which
>> from some reason he can never get the details from those involved, and
>> have to speculate.
>> I wish Nelson speedy recovery.
>>
>> Ramy
>
>No need to speculate anymore. According to the NTSB report it was
>disconnected aileron
>http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=3D20080602X00759&ntsbno=3DSEA08CA1=
>22&akey=3D1
>I hope Nelson is recovering fine.
>
>Ramy (who wonders why we had to wait for the NTSB report to learn
>this)
I spent two hours with Nelson, last Wednesday. He is in a good mood and he
is progressing well. He would like to get out of the body brace, but that
will come with time. He is planning to go to Ephrata for the Region 8
contest. He is even planning to score the contest.
We will all be happy to have him there.

Jim

[Eric Greenwell]

Ramy wrote:

>> I hope we don't need to wait for the NTSB report, we all know what
>> they worth. Or Thelen's accident reports in Soaring Magazine, which
>> from some reason he can never get the details from those involved, and
>> have to speculate.
>> I wish Nelson speedy recovery.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> No need to speculate anymore. According to the NTSB report it was
> disconnected aileron
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&ntsbno=SEA08CA122&akey=1
> I hope Nelson is recovering fine.
>
> Ramy (who wonders why we had to wait for the NTSB report to learn
> this)

Ramy's link didn't work for me, but this link did:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&key=1

I've always believed that a disconnected aileron would not lead to loss
of control at speeds close to and above takeoff speed, and that the
danger was flutter at higher speeds. The glider would not respond as
quickly at low speeds, of course, but I thought it could still be held
level, turns could be made, and even spoilers used. Perhaps that is not
true, at least for the Nimbus, or perhaps the control was operating and
then fully disconnected, allowing the left wing to drop.

Can someone familiar with the Nimbus 4 M control hookups explain what
happens to the aileron if it is not hooked up at the fuselage? Does it
droop, does it move with the controls at all? Can it be partially
connected so it would appear to operate? Does it move with the flaps;
e.g., it the flaps were in negative during the takeoff roll, then moved
to positive to lift off, would this induce a roll to the left because
the left aileron did not follow the flaps into a positive setting?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 4:40 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> >> I hope we don't need to wait for the NTSB report, we all know what
> >> they worth. Or Thelen's accident reports in Soaring Magazine, which
> >> from some reason he can never get the details from those involved, and
> >> have to speculate.
> >> I wish Nelson speedy recovery.
>
> >> Ramy
>
> > No need to speculate anymore. According to the NTSB report it was
> > disconnected aileron
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&ntsbno=SEA08...
> > I hope Nelson is recovering fine.
>
> > Ramy (who wonders why we had to wait for the NTSB report to learn
> > this)
>
> Ramy's link didn't work for me, but this link did:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&key=1
>
> I've always believed that a disconnected aileron would not lead to loss
> of control at speeds close to and above takeoff speed, and that the
> danger was flutter at higher speeds. The glider would not respond as
> quickly at low speeds, of course, but I thought it could still be held
> level, turns could be made, and even spoilers used. Perhaps that is not
> true, at least for the Nimbus, or perhaps the control was operating and
> then fully disconnected, allowing the left wing to drop.
>
> Can someone familiar with the Nimbus 4 M control hookups explain what
> happens to the aileron if it is not hooked up at the fuselage? Does it
> droop, does it move with the controls at all? Can it be partially
> connected so it would appear to operate? Does it move with the flaps;
> e.g., it the flaps were in negative during the takeoff roll, then moved
> to positive to lift off, would this induce a roll to the left because
> the left aileron did not follow the flaps into a positive setting?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Yikes, and thank heavens Nelson is recovering OK.

The LS-6 is controllable with one disconnected flaperon
only if the flaps are moved negative. Pulling the spoiler
handle more than half (?) will pull back the flap handle,
inducing roll, as demonstrated by groundloops (yes
plural) after pilots aborted a takeoff and pulled spoiler.

Do you know the drill for your glider to:
- recognize a disconnected control, and
- recover as best possible
or do you fly with automatic hookups ?

Hope you find this helpful,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

PS: I've automatic hookups on the Antares and Duo,
but not the whale...

PPS: Nope, I haven't tried disconnected flight...

[ContestID67]

Here is the (rather short) NTSB report;

"This was the first flight after removal of the glider from storage
and its reassembly. The pilot reported that during takeoff initial
climb, the glider started to roll to the left despite his control
inputs. He decided to abort the takeoff and land straight ahead while
attempting to maintain control of the powered glider. Subsequently,
the left wing struck the ground and the glider began to cart wheel.
Examination of the airframe revealed that the left and right wings
were structurally damaged and the empennage was partially separated.
Examination of the flight control system revealed that the left
aileron connecting rod was disconnected at the fuselage/wing quick
connection point and was undamaged. The pilot stated that during
assembly of the glider prior to the flight, the left aileron control
tube was inadvertently not attached and that he did not verify that
all flight controls moved free and correct prior to takeoff."

What is confusing to me is the statement "...pilot stated that during
assembly...the left aileron...was inadvertently not attached...".
This is an absolute statement that the pilot definately knew that the
left aileron was not attached. How would the pilot know this? If he
knew for a fact that the aileron was unattached, he would not have
left it unattached, would he? Was it partially attached and appeared
attached, only to detach during roll and liftoff? This would lead to
a different statement. I hope that the NTSB misquoted the pilot by
missing an important "Pilot: I wonder if..." (which is speculation on
the pilot's part and shouldn't be in the statement at all). If this
is a misquote, I would work to get the NTSB statement changed ASAP.

I, like others, would like to understand how one disconnected aileron
would cause loss of control. I always thought of that as a somewhat
benign mishap. It's the thought of a disconnected elevator that keeps
*ME* up at night.

- John DeRosa

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

I do have a bit of first hand experience with a not connected aileron on a
flapped ship. Notice I am clearly stating that I didn't hook it up, and
not that it came loose. My bad. My very, very bad. I was lucky.

From what I have seen on my flight, and heard of others who have had the
same thing happen, a loose flap or aileron will tend to float up on a
sailplane. So, if you have positive flap selected, you may well get an
uncorrectable roll in the direction of the loose surface. If you ever
find yourself in a flapped ship with full stick one way, and still rolling
the other, get the flaps negative quickly! And if you are near the ground,
be prepared to have to pull the nose up to keep from smiting it!

Knowing what I know now, I would have been able to do better than
releasing at 600 feet and flying a very awkward pattern. My sailplane of
choice for this near incident was a Zuni 2. 90 degree flaps for glide
path control, but a flap drive system that should have given me the best
possible control when I needed it. If I had thought about this sort of
thing before.

Where I could have had the best possible control would have been to
operate the two flap levers together. There is a cruise flap handle, much
like a 301 Libelle handle, and a crank, much like the one in a PIK-20B .The
top handle moves the flaps and ailerons together, and the crank moves just
the flaps. Had I thought about this before, I would have pushed the
cruise flap lever fully forward (getting the ailerons as close to matched
as possible), then pulled on half or a full turn of drag flap, to get the
lift shifted inboard and the nose back down low to have a good view of the
towplane and good stall margin.

A similar scenario could play out with a Schleicher ASW-20, ASW-22,
ASH-25, ASW-27, or ASG-29. On these gliders, larger flap deflections have
the ailerons go back up into the negative settings range. I remember Dick
Butler had a flap or aileron panel come disconnected on his 22 one day at
Hobbs in 1983. He said that with the flaps full negative, the stick was
near the center. At -7 degrees, it took half travel on the stick to keep
it level. Rather than experimenting with positive flaps before landing
(after flying the 330 mile task), he just flew a shallow bank pattern and
landed fast, with the flaps full negative.

To be the safest we can be, we must all know everything we can about the
systems we have at our disposal. How manyof you flapped ship drivers have
tried flying part of a traffic pattern using just the flaps, and not the
elevator? I have tried it at altitude to see the ship's response, but
have not been so bold as to try it down between 600 and 1000 feet where
there can be much more turbulence and much less time to recover. I just
hope I never have to.

Steve Leonard
Wichita, KS

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

I do have a bit of first hand experience with a not connected aileron on a
flapped ship. Notice I am clearly stating that I didn't hook it up, and
not that it came loose. My bad. My very, very bad. I was lucky.

From what I have seen on my flight, and heard of others who have had the
same thing happen, a loose flap or aileron will tend to float up on a
sailplane. So, if you have positive flap selected, you may well get an
uncorrectable roll in the direction of the loose surface. If you ever
find yourself in a flapped ship with full stick one way, and still rolling
the other, get the flaps negative quickly! And if you are near the ground,
be prepared to have to pull the nose up to keep from smiting it!

Knowing what I know now, I would have been able to do better than
releasing at 600 feet and flying a very awkward pattern. My sailplane of
choice for this near incident was a Zuni 2. 90 degree flaps for glide
path control, but a flap drive system that should have given me the best
possible control when I needed it. If I had thought about this sort of
thing before.

Where I could have had the best possible control would have been to
operate the two flap levers together. There is a cruise flap handle, much
like a 301 Libelle handle, and a crank, much like the one in a PIK-20B .The
top handle moves the flaps and ailerons together, and the crank moves just
the flaps. Had I thought about this before, I would have pushed the
cruise flap lever fully forward (getting the ailerons as close to matched
as possible), then pulled on half or a full turn of drag flap, to get the
lift shifted inboard and the nose back down low to have a good view of the
towplane and good stall margin.

A similar scenario could play out with a Schleicher ASW-20, ASW-22,
ASH-25, ASW-27, or ASG-29. On these gliders, larger flap deflections have
the ailerons go back up into the negative settings range. I remember Dick
Butler had a flap or aileron panel come disconnected on his 22 one day at
Hobbs in 1983. He said that with the flaps full negative, the stick was
near the center. At -7 degrees, it took half travel on the stick to keep
it level. Rather than experimenting with positive flaps before landing
(after flying the 330 mile task), he just flew a shallow bank pattern and
landed fast, with the flaps full negative.

To be the safest we can be, we must all know everything we can about the
systems we have at our disposal. How manyof you flapped ship drivers have
tried flying part of a traffic pattern using just the flaps, and not the
elevator? I have tried it at altitude to see the ship's response, but
have not been so bold as to try it down between 600 and 1000 feet where
there can be much more turbulence and much less time to recover. I just
hope I never have to.

Steve Leonard
Wichita, KS

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

I do have a bit of first hand experience with a not connected aileron on a
flapped ship. Notice I am clearly stating that I didn't hook it up, and
not that it came loose. My bad. My very, very bad. I was lucky.

From what I have seen on my flight, and heard of others who have had the
same thing happen, a loose flap or aileron will tend to float up on a
sailplane. So, if you have positive flap selected, you may well get an
uncorrectable roll in the direction of the loose surface. If you ever
find yourself in a flapped ship with full stick one way, and still rolling
the other, get the flaps negative quickly! And if you are near the ground,
be prepared to have to pull the nose up to keep from smiting it!

Knowing what I know now, I would have been able to do better than
releasing at 600 feet and flying a very awkward pattern. My sailplane of
choice for this near incident was a Zuni 2. 90 degree flaps for glide
path control, but a flap drive system that should have given me the best
possible control when I needed it. If I had thought about this sort of
thing before.

Where I could have had the best possible control would have been to
operate the two flap levers together. There is a cruise flap handle, much
like a 301 Libelle handle, and a crank, much like the one in a PIK-20B .The
top handle moves the flaps and ailerons together, and the crank moves just
the flaps. Had I thought about this before, I would have pushed the
cruise flap lever fully forward (getting the ailerons as close to matched
as possible), then pulled on half or a full turn of drag flap, to get the
lift shifted inboard and the nose back down low to have a good view of the
towplane and good stall margin.

A similar scenario could play out with a Schleicher ASW-20, ASW-22,
ASH-25, ASW-27, or ASG-29. On these gliders, larger flap deflections have
the ailerons go back up into the negative settings range. I remember Dick
Butler had a flap or aileron panel come disconnected on his 22 one day at
Hobbs in 1983. He said that with the flaps full negative, the stick was
near the center. At -7 degrees, it took half travel on the stick to keep
it level. Rather than experimenting with positive flaps before landing
(after flying the 330 mile task), he just flew a shallow bank pattern and
landed fast, with the flaps full negative.

To be the safest we can be, we must all know everything we can about the
systems we have at our disposal. How manyof you flapped ship drivers have
tried flying part of a traffic pattern using just the flaps, and not the
elevator? I have tried it at altitude to see the ship's response, but
have not been so bold as to try it down between 600 and 1000 feet where
there can be much more turbulence and much less time to recover. I just
hope I never have to.

Steve Leonard
Wichita, KS

[noel.wade]

I've never had it happen and I never totally thought about it, but I
believe I can explain why the aileron or flap would float up:

1) low pressure on the upper surface of the wing.

2) Mass-balancing on some controls at the leading edge (likely to be
AHEAD of the hinge/pivot point, right?).

3) If you start considering the control-surface as a free-floating
airfoil (on its own and not part of a wing), it will likely have a
coefficient of moment. And just like a winged airplane without a
downward force on the tail, that coefficient of moment will tend to
rotate the trailing edge of the "wing" (i.e. the control surface)
upwards and forwards.

Of course that's not to say any of this is applicable in all
situations, or that it will result in a predictable outcome... The
bottom line is that the best solution is prevention - do a CAC
(Critical Assembly Check) _and_ a PCC (Positive Control Check) before
the first flight, every day.

I tell you what scares me: We get in a rush on our launch-line, and
our students defer to the CFIGs for the takeoff checks when things get
hurried. We do have a preflight signoff for each glider (which
includes a PCC), that gets done every morning.... But I worry that
some of the students - especially ones that show up later in the day -
never get the "drill" down, and the launch-line rush is going to catch
up with us (i.e. THEM) someday...

--Noel

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> The LS-6 is controllable with one disconnected flaperon
> only if the flaps are moved negative. Pulling the spoiler
> handle more than half (?) will pull back the flap handle,
> inducing roll, as demonstrated by groundloops (yes
> plural) after pilots aborted a takeoff and pulled spoiler.
>
> Do you know the drill for your glider to:
> - recognize a disconnected control, and
> - recover as best possible
> or do you fly with automatic hookups ?

My ASH 26 E has automatic hookups on all the controls.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[JJ Sinclair]

A disconnected aileron will move when the flaps are moved, the problem
could have been that when the flaps were moved from negative to
positive, right after lift-off, this may have allowed the short push-
rod in the fuselage to drop down and jam against something! If you
move a control (flaps) and something unexpected happens (ship rolls
left), put the control you just moved...........back where it was!
Or, here's an even better idea............do a critical assembly
check!
JJ

On Jun 3, 1:40*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Ramy wrote:
> >> I hope we don't need to wait for the NTSB report, we all know what
> >> they worth. Or Thelen's accident reports in Soaring Magazine, which
> >> from some reason he can never get the details from those involved, and
> >> have to speculate.
> >> I wish Nelson speedy recovery.
>
> >> Ramy
>
> > No need to speculate anymore. According to the NTSB report it was
> > disconnected aileron
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&ntsbno=SEA08....
> > I hope Nelson is recovering fine.
>
> > Ramy (who wonders why we had to wait for the NTSB report to learn
> > this)
>
> Ramy's link didn't work for me, but this link did:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080602X00759&key=1
>
> I've always believed that a disconnected aileron would not lead to loss
> of control at speeds close to and above takeoff speed, and that the
> danger was flutter at higher speeds. The glider would not respond as
> quickly at low speeds, of course, but I thought it could still be held
> level, turns could be made, and even spoilers used. Perhaps that is not
> true, at least for the Nimbus, or perhaps the control was operating and
> then fully disconnected, allowing the left wing to drop.
>
> Can someone familiar with the Nimbus 4 M control hookups explain what
> happens to the aileron if it is not hooked up at the fuselage? Does it
> droop, does it move with the controls at all? Can it be partially
> connected so it would appear to operate? Does it move with the flaps;
> e.g., it the flaps were in negative during the takeoff roll, then moved
> to positive to lift off, would this induce a roll to the left because
> the left aileron did not follow the flaps into a positive setting?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
> * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
> * * * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
>
> * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -