Winch Launch Fatality [Archive]

Dave Doe

June 19th 09, 05:03 AM

In article >,
says...
> Who knows details about this?
>
> http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507681859170.xml&coll=2

There is some more info here...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named

United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger crashed.

Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
Medflight.

Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because of
the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.

Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and flown
by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William
Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.

The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a serious
condition in a local hospital.

A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King said
Mr Moxham took his job to heart.

"Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved being
a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate hospitals."

Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said prior
to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you and
(nature)."

The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at
the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than 3000
hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
flight instruction.

He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe construction
and engine mechanics.

"People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than that," said
another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such compassion
for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.

"He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added, choking
back tears. "He was amazing."

- NZPA

--
Duncan

Ron Ogden

June 21st 09, 03:45 AM

At 04:03 19 June 2009, Dave Doe wrote:
>In article ,
says...
>> Who knows details about this?
>>
>>
>http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507681859170.xml&coll=2
>
>There is some more info here...
>
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named
>
>
>United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
>killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger crashed.
>
>Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
>Medflight.
>
>Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because of
>the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.
>
>Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and flown
>by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>
>Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
>aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William
>Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
>newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
>
>The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a serious

>condition in a local hospital.
>
>A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King said
>Mr Moxham took his job to heart.
>
>"Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved being

>a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate hospitals."
>
>Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said prior

>to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you and
>(nature)."
>
>The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at
>the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than 3000
>hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
>flight instruction.
>
>He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe construction
>and engine mechanics.
>
>"People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than that,"
said
>another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such compassion
>for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.
>
>"He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added, choking
>back tears. "He was amazing."
>
>- NZPA
>
>
>--
>Duncan
>
NTSB prelim is at
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090615X13631&key=1

Dave Doe

June 22nd 09, 11:05 AM

In article >,
says...
> At 04:03 19 June 2009, Dave Doe wrote:
> >In article ,
> says...
> >> Who knows details about this?
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507681859170.xml&coll=2
> >
> >There is some more info here...
> >
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named
> >
> >
> >United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
> >killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger crashed.
> >
> >Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
> >Medflight.
> >
> >Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because of
> >the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.
> >
> >Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and flown
> >by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.
> >
> >Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
> >aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William
> >Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
> >newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
> >
> >The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a serious
>
> >condition in a local hospital.
> >
> >A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King said
> >Mr Moxham took his job to heart.
> >
> >"Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved being
>
> >a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate hospitals."
> >
> >Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said prior
>
> >to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you and
> >(nature)."
> >
> >The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at
> >the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than 3000
> >hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
> >flight instruction.
> >
> >He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe construction
> >and engine mechanics.
> >
> >"People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than that,"
> said
> >another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such compassion
> >for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.
> >
> >"He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added, choking
> >back tears. "He was amazing."
> >
> >- NZPA
> >
> >
> >--
> >Duncan
> >
> NTSB prelim is at
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090615X13631&key=1

Thanks Ron.

I see...
"
Witnesses reported that the glider was launched with a winch and during
the procedure the winch cable broke. The pilot executed a 180-degree
turn apparently in an attempt to return to the airport. However, near
the completion of the turn, the nose of the glider dropped and it
impacted the terrain.
"

How many times!!! - *don't* try to return to the field! OK, I don't
know the altitude (AGL) nor what was ahead of the field, but hey, we all
know, this is generally regarded as a no-no.

--
Duncan

Scott[_7_]

June 22nd 09, 11:48 AM

Dave Doe wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> At 04:03 19 June 2009, Dave Doe wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> says...
>>>> Who knows details about this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507681859170.xml&coll=2
>>>
>>> There is some more info here...
>>>
>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named
>>>
>>>
>>> United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
>>> killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger crashed.
>>>
>>> Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
>>> Medflight.
>>>
>>> Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because of
>>> the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.
>>>
>>> Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and flown
>>> by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>>>
>>> Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
>>> aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William
>>> Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
>>> newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
>>>
>>> The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a serious
>>> condition in a local hospital.
>>>
>>> A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King said
>>> Mr Moxham took his job to heart.
>>>
>>> "Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved being
>>> a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate hospitals."
>>>
>>> Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said prior
>>> to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you and
>>> (nature)."
>>>
>>> The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at
>>> the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than 3000
>>> hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
>>> flight instruction.
>>>
>>> He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe construction
>>> and engine mechanics.
>>>
>>> "People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than that,"
>> said
>>> another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such compassion
>>> for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.
>>>
>>> "He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added, choking
>>> back tears. "He was amazing."
>>>
>>> - NZPA
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Duncan
>>>
>> NTSB prelim is at
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090615X13631&key=1
>
> Thanks Ron.
>
> I see...
> "
> Witnesses reported that the glider was launched with a winch and during
> the procedure the winch cable broke. The pilot executed a 180-degree
> turn apparently in an attempt to return to the airport. However, near
> the completion of the turn, the nose of the glider dropped and it
> impacted the terrain.
> "
>
> How many times!!! - *don't* try to return to the field! OK, I don't
> know the altitude (AGL) nor what was ahead of the field, but hey, we all
> know, this is generally regarded as a no-no.
>
And...it's never really a 180 degree turn...if you are departing on the
runway centerline and make a 180, your heading will be 180 degrees from
what is was on departure, but you won't be lined up with the runway you
just left, so you will have to make something like a 270 degree turn
followed by a 90 degree turn in the opposite direction to line up with
the runway, so basically, you've made a 360 turn (unless you were able
to execute a split-S).

Granted, we don't know what the altitude was, but per all of our
training, you generally want to "FLY THE AIRPLANE" and continue generall
straight ahead with maybe slight course corrections to avoid nasty
objects that would give you a rapid stop such as a building, cliff wall,
etc. At glider speeds, one should have a pretty good chance of walking
away from even a tree top landing.

Del C[_2_]

June 22nd 09, 12:45 PM

Generally it is OK to make 180 or 360 degree turns in a modern gliders, as
long as you start at at least 300ft and keep the airspeed up to a safe
manoeuvring speed. The failure to do the latter seems to have been the
probably cause of this accident.

Also US glider pilots, mostly trained on aerotows, may not have properly
thought through the options available after a winch launch cable break.

Derek Copeland (UK gliding instructor)

At 10:48 22 June 2009, Scott wrote:
>Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article ,
>> says...
>>> At 04:03 19 June 2009, Dave Doe wrote:
>>>> In article ,
>>>> says...
>>>>> Who knows details about this?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507681859170.xml&coll=2
>>>>
>>>> There is some more info here...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
>>>> killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger
>crashed.
>>>>
>>>> Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
>>>> Medflight.
>>>>
>>>> Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because
>of
>>>> the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and
>flown
>>>> by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>>>>
>>>> Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
>>>> aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William

>>>> Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
>>>> newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
>>>>
>>>> The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a
>serious
>>>> condition in a local hospital.
>>>>
>>>> A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King
said
>
>>>> Mr Moxham took his job to heart.
>>>>
>>>> "Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved
>being
>>>> a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate
hospitals."
>>>>
>>>> Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said
>prior
>>>> to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you
and
>>>> (nature)."
>>>>
>>>> The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at

>>>> the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than
>3000
>>>> hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
>>>> flight instruction.
>>>>
>>>> He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe
>construction
>>>> and engine mechanics.
>>>>
>>>> "People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than
that,"
>>> said
>>>> another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such
compassion
>
>>>> for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.
>>>>
>>>> "He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added,
choking
>>>> back tears. "He was amazing."
>>>>
>>>> - NZPA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Duncan
>>>>
>>> NTSB prelim is at
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090615X13631&key=1
>>
>> Thanks Ron.
>>
>> I see...
>> "
>> Witnesses reported that the glider was launched with a winch and during

>> the procedure the winch cable broke. The pilot executed a 180-degree
>> turn apparently in an attempt to return to the airport. However, near
>> the completion of the turn, the nose of the glider dropped and it
>> impacted the terrain.
>> "
>>
>> How many times!!! - *don't* try to return to the field! OK, I don't

>> know the altitude (AGL) nor what was ahead of the field, but hey, we
all
>
>> know, this is generally regarded as a no-no.
>>
>And...it's never really a 180 degree turn...if you are departing on the

>runway centerline and make a 180, your heading will be 180 degrees from
>what is was on departure, but you won't be lined up with the runway you

>just left, so you will have to make something like a 270 degree turn
>followed by a 90 degree turn in the opposite direction to line up with
>the runway, so basically, you've made a 360 turn (unless you were able
>to execute a split-S).
>
>Granted, we don't know what the altitude was, but per all of our
>training, you generally want to "FLY THE AIRPLANE" and continue
generall
>straight ahead with maybe slight course corrections to avoid nasty
>objects that would give you a rapid stop such as a building, cliff wall,

>etc. At glider speeds, one should have a pretty good chance of walking
>away from even a tree top landing.
>

Andreas Maurer

June 22nd 09, 12:59 PM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:05:55 +1200, Dave Doe > wrote:

>How many times!!! - *don't* try to return to the field! OK, I don't
>know the altitude (AGL) nor what was ahead of the field, but hey, we all
>know, this is generally regarded as a no-no.

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 22nd 09, 01:15 PM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:45:02 +0000, Del C wrote:

> Generally it is OK to make 180 or 360 degree turns in a modern gliders,
> as long as you start at at least 300ft and keep the airspeed up to a
> safe manoeuvring speed. The failure to do the latter seems to have been
> the probably cause of this accident.
>
I'm really curious about the field layout: I've never flown a winch
launch from a flat land field where it wasn't possible to land ahead from
a low break or to fly an abbreviated circuit from a higher one, but then
again I've never flown from a site where the winch was positioned off the
end of the runway.

I believe there are fields in Germany and at least one in NZ with a
remotely positioned winch. I can imagine situations on that type of field
where landing ahead may not be a good option, so does Sandhill have this
type of field layout?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

John Smith

June 22nd 09, 01:20 PM

Andreas Maurer wrote:

> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
> *safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but too
low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

John Smith

June 22nd 09, 01:45 PM

I will never understand why some people think that *two* 180 at low
altitude are safer than *one*. Where does this downwind landing taboo
originate?

Jonathon May[_2_]

June 22nd 09, 02:00 PM

We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
>> *safe* pattern.
>
>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but too

>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
>landing.
>
>The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.
>

vaughn

June 22nd 09, 02:43 PM

"John Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>Where does this downwind landing taboo originate?

What downwind landing taboo? Here in the US, the 180 degree "rope break"
downwind landing is part of the standard pre-solo curriculum.

Vaughn

David Salmon[_2_]

June 22nd 09, 03:00 PM

We don't know exactly what happened, but there are 3 main causes of
winching accidents.
A wing down on the ground run, causing the glider to cartwheel.
Too steep, too soon, resulting in a stalled wing and the start of a spin.
Both of these happen VERY fast.
Not achieving and maintaining a safe airspeed after a launch failure,
resulting in a stall or spin.
Here in the UK the BGA has been addressing winching accidents, and put out
good advice. It is worth looking at.
Dave

At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
>We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
>reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
>experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
>instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
>mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
>right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
>sport we all love.
>
>At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
>>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>
>>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
>>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
>>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
>>> *safe* pattern.
>>
>>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too
>
>>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
>>landing.
>>
>>The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.
>>
>

Frank Whiteley

June 22nd 09, 03:26 PM

On Jun 22, 6:15*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:45:02 +0000, Del C wrote:
> > Generally it is OK to make 180 or 360 degree turns in a modern gliders,
> > as long as you start at at least 300ft and keep the airspeed up to a
> > safe manoeuvring speed. The failure to do the latter seems to have been
> > the probably cause of this accident.
>
> I'm really curious about the field layout: I've never flown a winch
> launch from a flat land field where it wasn't possible to land ahead from
> a low break or to fly an abbreviated circuit from a higher one, but then
> again I've never flown from a site where the winch was positioned off the
> end of the runway.
>
> I believe there are fields in Germany and at least one in NZ with a
> remotely positioned winch. I can imagine situations on that type of field
> where landing ahead may not be a good option, so does Sandhill have this
> type of field layout? *
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Google Earth
42.4417017 / -84.0666186
for the layout. The winch run, ~3300ft, should be fairly clear.

Frank Whiteley

June 22nd 09, 03:31 PM

On Jun 22, 5:45*am, Del C > wrote:
> Generally it is OK to make 180 or 360 degree turns in a modern gliders, as
> long as you start at at least 300ft and keep the airspeed up to a safe
> manoeuvring speed. The failure to do the latter seems to have been the
> probably cause of this accident.
>
> Also US glider pilots, mostly trained on aerotows, may not have properly
> thought through the options available after a winch launch cable break.
>
> Derek Copeland (UK gliding instructor)
>
> At 10:48 22 June 2009, Scott wrote:
>
The club in question probably winch launches more than any other in
the US. I'm not aware on any current winch operation not training to
an acceptable standard. There was one several years ago selling
endorsements in about six launches. That operation is now out of
business in the aero tow world also.

bildan

June 22nd 09, 03:45 PM

On Jun 22, 7:43*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "John Smith" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
> >Where does this downwind landing taboo originate?
>
> What downwind landing taboo? *Here in the US, the 180 degree "rope break"
> downwind landing is part of the standard pre-solo curriculum.
>
> Vaughn

Since many critical facts are still unknown, it's impossible to
comment on this particular crash except to offer our deepest sympathy
and condolences to all concerned - especially the pilot. One can only
imagine the burden he carries.

But, speaking generally about winch launch failures, if you are high
enough that landing straight ahead is impossible, then you will have
plenty of altitude for a closely linked pair of 180 turns which will
end with the gilder lined up with the runway for an into-the-wind
landing. The last 180 to final approach should never be below 200
feet AGL which is comparable to the 200' 180 turn to a downwind
landing taught aero tow students.

Even on short runways, the straight ahead option and the circle to
land option overlap by several hundred feet, depending on things like
spoiler effectiveness and wind speed, making the decision not
particularly critical. Nonetheless, a pilot is encouraged to estimate
a "critical altitude" above which a straight ahead landing would be
problematical before beginning the launch. This mental preparation
makes it easier to decide which way to go.

What IS critical is getting the nose down without the slightest delay.
Push the nose as far below the horizon as it was above it at the point
of failure then WAIT until you see a safe airspeed with an increasing
trend before deciding on which option to execute. The top priority is
always the same - FLY THE GLIDER!

If the decision is circle to land, just as with the aero tow 180 turn
at 200', the glider must be flown with precise airspeed and
coordination control. The intent is NOT to stop at the launch point -
just to make a safe landing anywhere on the airfield.

Managing a winch launch failure is neither difficult nor unsafe but it
does require some training and forethought. Launch failures have
been managed safely many millions of times just using basic glider
instrumentation. However, I think significantly fewer accidents would
have happened if angle of attack indicators were universally installed.

bildan

June 22nd 09, 03:58 PM

On Jun 22, 4:05*am, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> > At 04:03 19 June 2009, Dave Doe wrote:
> > >In article ,
> > says...
> > >> Who knows details about this?
>
> > >http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507....
>
> > >There is some more info here...
>
> > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named
>
> > >United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
> > >killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger crashed..
>
> > >Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
> > >Medflight.
>
> > >Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because of
> > >the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.
>
> > >Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and flown
> > >by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>
> > >Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
> > >aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William
> > >Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
> > >newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
>
> > >The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a serious
>
> > >condition in a local hospital.
>
> > >A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King said
> > >Mr Moxham took his job to heart.
>
> > >"Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved being
>
> > >a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate hospitals."
>
> > >Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said prior
>
> > >to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you and
> > >(nature)."
>
> > >The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at
> > >the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than 3000
> > >hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
> > >flight instruction.
>
> > >He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe construction
> > >and engine mechanics.
>
> > >"People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than that,"
> > said
> > >another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such compassion
> > >for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.
>
> > >"He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added, choking
> > >back tears. "He was amazing."
>
> > >- NZPA
>
> > >--
> > >Duncan
>
> > NTSB prelim is at * *
> >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090615X13631&key=1
>
> Thanks Ron.
>
> I see...
> "
> Witnesses reported that the glider was launched with a winch and during
> the procedure the winch cable broke. The pilot executed a 180-degree
> turn apparently in an attempt to return to the airport. However, near
> the completion of the turn, the nose of the glider dropped and it
> impacted the terrain.
> "
>
> How many times!!! - *don't* try to return to the field! *OK, I don't
> know the altitude (AGL) nor what was ahead of the field, but hey, we all
> know, this is generally regarded as a no-no.
>
> --
> Duncan

I suggest you take a look at the Private Pilot Glider Practical Test
Guide. 180 (really 270) turns to a downwind landing are SOP for
gliders after a aerotow rope break.

180 turns to a downwind landing are NOT SOP for a winch launch failure
since at 200 feet the glider is still very near the approach end of
the runway - a 180 turn will leave you with nowhere to land. Downwind
landings are not necessary or even advisable with winch launch
failures.

Del C[_2_]

June 22nd 09, 06:15 PM

As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
pilot and myself).

In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. .

Derek Copeland

At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
>We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
>reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
>experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
>instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
>mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
>right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
>sport we all love.
>
>At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
>>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>>
>>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
>>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
>>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
>>> *safe* pattern.
>>
>>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too
>
>>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
>>landing.
>>
>>The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.
>>
>

Frank Whiteley

June 22nd 09, 06:57 PM

The only G103 Twin III I've flown was the SL version, this was the
ACRO version. I found the front seat distinctly different from the
Twin I's and II's I've flown. With parachutes on, it was close
quarters to say the least. Nevertheless, I was able to remain clear
of the controls on take off and climb out. Someone less familiar may
have inadvertantly interfered, but that's all spec. I know of one
case where a normal pattern in a ride glider resulted in a fatal spin
due to a hiking boot becoming lodged between the rudder pedal and the
side of the glider. Different glider make and model though.

Frank Whiteley

On Jun 22, 11:15*am, Del C > wrote:
> As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
> the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
> pilot and myself).
>
> In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
> pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
> hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
> that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. .
>
> Derek Copeland
>
> At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
>
> >We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
> >reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
> >experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
> >instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
> >mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
> >right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
> a
> >sport we all love.
>
> >At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
> >>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> >>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
> >>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
> >>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) *to fly a
> >>> *safe* pattern.
>
> >>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
> too
>
> >>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
> >>landing.
>
> >>The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

bildan

June 22nd 09, 07:18 PM

On Jun 22, 11:57*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> The only G103 Twin III I've flown was the SL version, this was the
> ACRO version. *I found the front seat distinctly different from the
> Twin I's and II's I've flown. *With parachutes on, it was close
> quarters to say the least. *Nevertheless, I was able to remain clear
> of the controls on take off and climb out. *Someone less familiar may
> have inadvertantly interfered, but that's all spec. *I know of one
> case where a normal pattern in a ride glider resulted in a fatal spin
> due to a hiking boot becoming lodged between the rudder pedal and the
> side of the glider. *Different glider make and model though.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> On Jun 22, 11:15*am, Del C > wrote:
>
> > As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
> > the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
> > pilot and myself).
>
> > In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
> > pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
> > hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
> > that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. .
>
> > Derek Copeland
>
> > At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
>
> > >We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
> > >reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
> > >experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
> > >instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
> > >mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
> > >right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
> > a
> > >sport we all love.
>
> > >At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
> > >>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> > >>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
> > >>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
> > >>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) *to fly a
> > >>> *safe* pattern.
>
> > >>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
> > too
>
> > >>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
> > >>landing.
>
> > >>The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

The MHG has a Twin III Acro. I've given hundreds of rides in it.
There is nothing special about the front seat that would cause
concern. It's really a nice glider for rides with big comfortable
seats.

Like any glider, if you put a really big person with long legs in the
front seat with the pedals cranked all the way aft you might have a
control interference problem but that's a cockpit preparation issue
that should be detected by moving the controls to their limits as part
of the cockpit checklist if not when seating your passenger.

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 22nd 09, 09:15 PM

Gosh, two postings in a row when I actually agree with Bill Daniels!

Lasham had a Grob G103 Twin Acro (the cranked wing version) up to a couple
of years ago, when it was sold and replaced with a DG1000T. It had nice
roomy and very comfortable cockpits and generally docile handling, but
with the proviso that it was capable of spinning if flown close to the
stall, unlike the earlier straight winged version which could only be made
to spin for training purposes if you fitted special little canard fins to
the nose (made it look a bit like a hammer head shark). We had one of
those as well prior to the above glider, but it got written off by a very
heavy PIO landing, probably not helped by its rather snatchy airbrakes.

Derek Copeland

At 18:18 22 June 2009, bildan wrote:

>The MHG has a Twin III Acro. I've given hundreds of rides in it.
>There is nothing special about the front seat that would cause
>concern. It's really a nice glider for rides with big comfortable
>seats.
>
>Like any glider, if you put a really big person with long legs in the
>front seat with the pedals cranked all the way aft you might have a
>control interference problem but that's a cockpit preparation issue
>that should be detected by moving the controls to their limits as part
>of the cockpit checklist if not when seating your passenger.
>

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 22nd 09, 09:48 PM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:26:52 -0700, Frank Whiteley wrote:

>
> Google Earth
> 42.4417017 / -84.0666186
> for the layout. The winch run, ~3300ft, should be fairly clear.
>
Thanks. That field looks pretty conventional.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

June 22nd 09, 10:15 PM

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:45:02 +0000, Del C wrote:
>
>> Generally it is OK to make 180 or 360 degree turns in a modern gliders,
>> as long as you start at at least 300ft and keep the airspeed up to a
>> safe manoeuvring speed. The failure to do the latter seems to have been
>> the probably cause of this accident.
>>
> I'm really curious about the field layout: I've never flown a winch
> launch from a flat land field where it wasn't possible to land ahead from
> a low break or to fly an abbreviated circuit from a higher one, but then
> again I've never flown from a site where the winch was positioned off the
> end of the runway.
>

http://www.sandhillsoaring.org/

Some photo's of the site and their dual drum Tost winch

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Frank Whiteley

June 22nd 09, 10:29 PM

On Jun 22, 12:18*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:57*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The only G103 Twin III I've flown was the SL version, this was the
> > ACRO version. *I found the front seat distinctly different from the
> > Twin I's and II's I've flown. *With parachutes on, it was close
> > quarters to say the least. *Nevertheless, I was able to remain clear
> > of the controls on take off and climb out. *Someone less familiar may
> > have inadvertantly interfered, but that's all spec. *I know of one
> > case where a normal pattern in a ride glider resulted in a fatal spin
> > due to a hiking boot becoming lodged between the rudder pedal and the
> > side of the glider. *Different glider make and model though.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> > On Jun 22, 11:15*am, Del C > wrote:
>
> > > As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
> > > the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
> > > pilot and myself).
>
> > > In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
> > > pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
> > > hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
> > > that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. ..
>
> > > Derek Copeland
>
> > > At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
>
> > > >We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
> > > >reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
> > > >experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
> > > >instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
> > > >mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
> > > >right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
> > > a
> > > >sport we all love.
>
> > > >At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
> > > >>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> > > >>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
> > > >>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
> > > >>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) *to fly a
> > > >>> *safe* pattern.
>
> > > >>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
> > > too
>
> > > >>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
> > > >>landing.
>
> > > >>The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.
>
> The MHG has a Twin III Acro. *I've given hundreds of rides in it.
> There is nothing special about the front seat that would cause
> concern. *It's really a nice glider for rides with big comfortable
> seats.
>
> Like any glider, if you put a really big person with long legs in the
> front seat with the pedals cranked all the way aft you might have a
> control interference problem but that's a cockpit preparation issue
> that should be detected by moving the controls to their limits as part
> of the cockpit checklist if not when seating your passenger.

Don Johnstone[_4_]

June 23rd 09, 01:15 AM

Much has been said and written about winch launch failures and here is my
"Guide to Surviving a launch failure"

Launch fails

1 Pitch the nose down, at least approach attitude, Is speed approach
speed? Only when the answer to this is YES do you move to 2.
2 Is there sufficient room to land ahead? YES - DO IT. NO or NOT SURE
turn DOWNWIND and move to 3.
3 Do I have sufficient height to continue turning? YES continue turn into
wind or longest run. NO roll wings level and land straight ahead. (If at
any time space is available to land straight ahead of you DO IT)
4 Repeat 3 until into wind or land area is available, whichever comes
soonest.

A Grob 103 has excellent airbrakes and will land straight ahead from a
height which many other gliders would be forced to turn at. Apart from the
decision making and carrying out the decided procedure, the other vital
thing is to maintain approach attitude/speed.

At 14:45 22 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>On Jun 22, 7:43=A0am, "vaughn"
>wrote:
>> "John Smith" wrote in message
>>
>> . ..
>>
>> >Where does this downwind landing taboo originate?
>>
>> What downwind landing taboo? =A0Here in the US, the 180 degree "rope
>brea=
>k"
>> downwind landing is part of the standard pre-solo curriculum.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
>Since many critical facts are still unknown, it's impossible to
>comment on this particular crash except to offer our deepest sympathy
>and condolences to all concerned - especially the pilot. One can only
>imagine the burden he carries.
>
>But, speaking generally about winch launch failures, if you are high
>enough that landing straight ahead is impossible, then you will have
>plenty of altitude for a closely linked pair of 180 turns which will
>end with the gilder lined up with the runway for an into-the-wind
>landing. The last 180 to final approach should never be below 200
>feet AGL which is comparable to the 200' 180 turn to a downwind
>landing taught aero tow students.
>
>Even on short runways, the straight ahead option and the circle to
>land option overlap by several hundred feet, depending on things like
>spoiler effectiveness and wind speed, making the decision not
>particularly critical. Nonetheless, a pilot is encouraged to estimate
>a "critical altitude" above which a straight ahead landing would be
>problematical before beginning the launch. This mental preparation
>makes it easier to decide which way to go.
>
>What IS critical is getting the nose down without the slightest delay.
>Push the nose as far below the horizon as it was above it at the point
>of failure then WAIT until you see a safe airspeed with an increasing
>trend before deciding on which option to execute. The top priority is
>always the same - FLY THE GLIDER!
>
>If the decision is circle to land, just as with the aero tow 180 turn
>at 200', the glider must be flown with precise airspeed and
>coordination control. The intent is NOT to stop at the launch point -
>just to make a safe landing anywhere on the airfield.
>
>Managing a winch launch failure is neither difficult nor unsafe but it
>does require some training and forethought. Launch failures have
>been managed safely many millions of times just using basic glider
>instrumentation. However, I think significantly fewer accidents would
>have happened if angle of attack indicators were universally installed.
>

bildan

June 23rd 09, 03:41 AM

On Jun 22, 6:15*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> Much has been said and written about winch launch failures and here is my
> "Guide to Surviving a launch failure"
>
> Launch fails
>
> 1 Pitch the nose down, at least approach attitude - snip

I have to take issue since anyone following this advice might/will get
hurt.

If you stop the pitch down at 'approach attitude' from an initial
attitude of 30 - 45 degrees nose up, you will be stalled - the nose
must be pushed far below 'approach attitude" to achieve prompt
airspeed recovery.

This is easy to demonstrate without a winch. At an altitude that
allows safe spin recovery, zoom up at a 45 degree nose-up attitude.
When the airspeed drops to 65 knots, pretend you have a rope break and
push over to 'approach attitude' and stop the pitch down there. Note
the airspeed - it will be around 20 knots. If you turn you will
spin. This is a classic killer on a winch.

An excellent "rule of thumb" that works under any condition is to push
the nose as far below the horizon as it was above it at the rope
break. If it was up 45 degrees, then push it 45 degrees below the
horizon - and WAIT for 3 - 5 seconds for a safe airspeed with an
increasing trend. If it was up only 5 degrees, then go down 5
degrees. This way you won't dive into the runway if the break happens
low and you will get prompt airspeed recovery at greater height.

Pilots not expressly trained to do so will resist pushing the nose
down far enough for airspeed recovery when near the ground. They may
complain this is "throwing away altitude". If you are low enough that
it matters, you will be landing straight ahead anyway and you WANT to
get down. If you're high, you can convert most of any excess airspeed
back into height so it doesn't matter much.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to land anywhere except into the
wind on the departure runway. You can do this with huge safety
margins - even greater margins than with a 200' aero tow rope break.
All it takes is proper training.

If anyone wants to practice this, get a copy of Condor Competition
Flight Simulator, set 'Notams' to winch launch and set the rope break
probability to 100%. You can practice random rope breaks all day at
zero risk.

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 23rd 09, 07:30 AM

At 00:15 23 June 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 23rd 09, 07:45 AM

At 00:15 23 June 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>A Grob 103 has excellent airbrakes and will land straight ahead from a
>height which many other gliders would be forced to turn at.

Que? The Grob G103 airbrakes are at best adequate, but nothing like as
powerful as those fitted to K13s and DG1000s.

Derek Copeland

P.S. Don't know what happened to my previous posting which lost the text?

ucsdcpc

June 23rd 09, 10:04 AM

The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
eventualities check before each launch:

1. decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions

2. in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower the nose to an
appropriate attitude (well down if in full climb, but less if it happens at 50'
for example)

3. wait for the speed to reach the nominated approach speed

4. land ahead if possible

5. If not then turn in downwind direction and make an an abbreviated circuit as
necessary.

bildan wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:15 pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
>> Much has been said and written about winch launch failures and here is my
>> "Guide to Surviving a launch failure"
>>
>> Launch fails
>>
>> 1 Pitch the nose down, at least approach attitude - snip
>
> I have to take issue since anyone following this advice might/will get
> hurt.
>
> If you stop the pitch down at 'approach attitude' from an initial
> attitude of 30 - 45 degrees nose up, you will be stalled - the nose
> must be pushed far below 'approach attitude" to achieve prompt
> airspeed recovery.
>
> This is easy to demonstrate without a winch. At an altitude that
> allows safe spin recovery, zoom up at a 45 degree nose-up attitude.
> When the airspeed drops to 65 knots, pretend you have a rope break and
> push over to 'approach attitude' and stop the pitch down there. Note
> the airspeed - it will be around 20 knots. If you turn you will
> spin. This is a classic killer on a winch.
>
> An excellent "rule of thumb" that works under any condition is to push
> the nose as far below the horizon as it was above it at the rope
> break. If it was up 45 degrees, then push it 45 degrees below the
> horizon - and WAIT for 3 - 5 seconds for a safe airspeed with an
> increasing trend. If it was up only 5 degrees, then go down 5
> degrees. This way you won't dive into the runway if the break happens
> low and you will get prompt airspeed recovery at greater height.
>
> Pilots not expressly trained to do so will resist pushing the nose
> down far enough for airspeed recovery when near the ground. They may
> complain this is "throwing away altitude". If you are low enough that
> it matters, you will be landing straight ahead anyway and you WANT to
> get down. If you're high, you can convert most of any excess airspeed
> back into height so it doesn't matter much.
>
> Also, there is absolutely no reason to land anywhere except into the
> wind on the departure runway. You can do this with huge safety
> margins - even greater margins than with a 200' aero tow rope break.
> All it takes is proper training.
>
> If anyone wants to practice this, get a copy of Condor Competition
> Flight Simulator, set 'Notams' to winch launch and set the rope break
> probability to 100%. You can practice random rope breaks all day at
> zero risk.

Surfer!

June 23rd 09, 11:23 AM

In message >, ucsdcpc
> writes
>The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
>eventualities check before each launch:
>
>1. decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions
>
>2. in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower
>the nose to an appropriate attitude (well down if in full climb, but
>less if it happens at 50' for example)
>
>3. wait for the speed to reach the nominated approach speed
>
>4. land ahead if possible
>
>5. If not then turn in downwind direction and make an an
>abbreviated circuit as necessary.

Also consider if a 180 & downwind landing will be a useful option or
not. On nil-wind days it can be though it's necessary to fly forwards
for a distance before turning otherwise one will run out of airfield to
land in... (fly forwards to somewhere near where a base leg at the
current height would be)

Some airfields also have suitable fields outside the boundaries, again
they need to be considered before launching.

<Snip>

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

John Smith

June 23rd 09, 11:34 AM

ucsdcpc wrote:
> The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
> eventualities check before each launch:
>
> 1. decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions
>
> 2. in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower the
> nose to an appropriate attitude

Wrong, very wrong, very dangerous. The correct sequence is:

1. Push the stick forward and pull the release knob.

2. If possible, land ahead on the remaining runway.

3. If you're too high to land ahead, you have all the time to decide
your further actions. This can be an abbreviated circuit or a downwind
landing, depending on the circumstances.

And yes, doing a 180 too hasty will put you in a situation where you
don't have enough runway to land. So whatever you do, don't panic.
Everything else depends.

Andreas Maurer

June 23rd 09, 11:50 AM

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:20:51 +0200, John Smith
> wrote:

>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>> Completely wrong for a winch launch.
>> In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
>> the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
>> *safe* pattern.
>
>Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but too
>low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
>landing.

Yup.
Standard procedure at my home airfield.

John Smith

June 23rd 09, 12:23 PM

John Smith wrote:

>> The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
>> eventualities check before each launch:
>>
>> 1. decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions

> Wrong

Oops, I should read more carefully before answering. Deciding the
approach speed as part of the pre-flight check ist correct, of course.
Sorry for that.

bildan

June 23rd 09, 02:10 PM

On Jun 23, 4:23*am, Surfer! > wrote:
> In message >, ucsdcpc
> > writes

> Also consider if a 180 & downwind landing will be a useful option or
> not. *On nil-wind days it can be though it's necessary to fly forwards
> for a distance before turning otherwise one will run out of airfield to
> land in... *(fly forwards to somewhere near where a base leg at the
> current height would be)

If you work out the numbers, you will find that a 180 turn to a down
wind landing has much lower safety margin than a 360 turn with an into
the wind landing. The only logical (though still unsafe) reason for a
down wind landing is to stop near the start line - trading safety for
convenience is never a good trade.

bildan

June 23rd 09, 02:24 PM

On Jun 23, 4:34*am, John Smith > wrote:
> ucsdcpc wrote:
> > The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
> > eventualities check before each launch:
>
> > 1. * *decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions
>
> > 2. * *in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower the
> > nose to an appropriate attitude
>
> Wrong, very wrong, very dangerous. The correct sequence is:
>
> 1. Push the stick forward and pull the release knob.
>
> 2. If possible, land ahead on the remaining runway.
>
> 3. If you're too high to land ahead, you have all the time to decide
> your further actions. This can be an abbreviated circuit or a downwind
> landing, depending on the circumstances.
>
> And yes, doing a 180 too hasty will put you in a situation where you
> don't have enough runway to land. So whatever you do, don't panic.
> Everything else depends.

Please explain why pulling the release is priority one. Most likely
the remaining rope and parachute gear has already back released. Even
if you somehow manage to land with it attached, it will back release
as soon as it drags on the ground.

Diverting attention to the release knob when other critical decisions
are pending seems odd when you think about it. I'd put pulling the
release toward the bottom of the priority list. Priority one is
always FLYING THE GLIDER!

Note to Schweizer operators: Schweizer CG hooks require MUCH more
force to back release than the Tost release so you folks should pull.

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 23rd 09, 04:14 PM

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:24:24 -0700, bildan wrote:

> On Jun 23, 4:34Â*am, John Smith > wrote:
>> ucsdcpc wrote:
>> > The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
>> > eventualities check before each launch:
>>
>> > 1. Â* Â*decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions
>>
>> > 2. Â* Â*in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower
>> > the nose to an appropriate attitude
>>
>> Wrong, very wrong, very dangerous. The correct sequence is:
>>
>> 1. Push the stick forward and pull the release knob.
>>
>> 2. If possible, land ahead on the remaining runway.
>>
>> 3. If you're too high to land ahead, you have all the time to decide
>> your further actions. This can be an abbreviated circuit or a downwind
>> landing, depending on the circumstances.
>>
>> And yes, doing a 180 too hasty will put you in a situation where you
>> don't have enough runway to land. So whatever you do, don't panic.
>> Everything else depends.
>
> Please explain why pulling the release is priority one.
>
Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
the launch, so pulling it a couple of times immediately after pushing
over and just before letting go of it is an obvious move. That is taught
as SOP in my club.

> Most likely the
> remaining rope and parachute gear has already back released.
>
..... only if the cable break was down near the winch. If the break was
near the glider you could still have several meters of cable and the
furled drogue dangling trailing from the hook. Its even more likely that
you'll still have the cable attached if the problem is a power fade at
the winch rather than a cable break.

> Diverting attention to the release knob when other critical decisions
> are pending seems odd when you think about it.
>
It should be in your hand already, so no attention diversion is needed.

> Note to Schweizer operators: Schweizer CG hooks require MUCH more force
> to back release than the Tost release so you folks should pull.
>
There's the other answer: never train somebody to use a technique that is
unsafe on some types of glider. Murphy pretty much mandates they'll
forget to check the cable is gone when they're flying a type where it
matters.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

bildan

June 23rd 09, 05:00 PM

On Jun 23, 9:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:24:24 -0700, bildan wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 4:34*am, John Smith > wrote:
> >> ucsdcpc wrote:
> >> > The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
> >> > eventualities check before each launch:
>
> >> > 1. * *decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions
>
> >> > 2. * *in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower
> >> > the nose to an appropriate attitude
>
> >> Wrong, very wrong, very dangerous. The correct sequence is:
>
> >> 1. Push the stick forward and pull the release knob.
>
> >> 2. If possible, land ahead on the remaining runway.
>
> >> 3. If you're too high to land ahead, you have all the time to decide
> >> your further actions. This can be an abbreviated circuit or a downwind
> >> landing, depending on the circumstances.
>
> >> And yes, doing a 180 too hasty will put you in a situation where you
> >> don't have enough runway to land. So whatever you do, don't panic.
> >> Everything else depends.
>
> > Please explain why pulling the release is priority one.
>
> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> the launch, so pulling it a couple of times immediately after pushing
> over and just before letting go of it is an obvious move. That is taught
> as SOP in my club.
>
> > *Most likely the
> > remaining rope and parachute gear has already back released.
>
> .... only if the cable break was down near the winch. If the break was
> near the glider you could still have several meters of cable and the
> furled drogue dangling trailing from the hook. Its even more likely that
> you'll still have the cable attached if the problem is a power fade at
> the winch rather than a cable break.
>
> > Diverting attention to the release knob when other critical decisions
> > are pending seems odd when you think about it.
>
> It should be in your hand already, so no attention diversion is needed.
>
> > Note to Schweizer operators: *Schweizer CG hooks require MUCH more force
> > to back release than the Tost release so you folks should pull.
>
> There's the other answer: never train somebody to use a technique that is
> unsafe on some types of glider. Murphy pretty much mandates they'll
> forget to check the cable is gone when they're flying a type where it
> matters.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

I don't think you made your case. I have seen LOTS of wire/rope
breaks, including weak link breaks, and nothing has ever stayed on the
hook - even with Schweizers. But, even if pulling the release is
justified on the assumption that something MIGHT be on the hook AND
assuming that something on the hook would cause damage (It won't kill
you), why a priority?

The reason I brought this up is that I have seen many pilots nearly
bungle a recovery while pulling the release. Even with a hand on the
release, there's no guarantee a pilot will pull it - I've seen pilots
take their hand off the release and pull the spoilers. A launch
failure is no time to be multi-tasking. Screw the release - FLY THE
GLIDER!

I want to see this priority list in order of decreasing urgency:

1. Nose way down NOW!
2. Get a safe airspeed ASAP!
3. Decide on the landing option (Straight or circle.)
4. Execute landing option - concentrate on airspeed and coordination.
5. Pull the release - maybe.

I'm not saying don't pull the release - just don't let it get in the
way of more urgent actions.

June 23rd 09, 05:03 PM

On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:

> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> the launch, so pulling it a couple of times immediately after pushing
> over and just before letting go of it is an obvious move. That is taught
> as SOP in my club.

That's surprising to me... a non-winch qualified guy. On an aero tow,
I would call that very risky business indeed.

-T8

June 23rd 09, 05:10 PM

On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:

> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> the launch

This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. Do you do
the same for aero tow?

-T8

John Smith

June 23rd 09, 05:33 PM

T8 wrote:

>> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
>> the launch,

> That's surprising to me... a non-winch qualified guy. On an aero tow,
> I would call that very risky business indeed.

Some do, some don't, but event those who don't do have their left hand
very near the knob and grab it several times during the pre-flight
routine. Because if you should happen to drop a wing and start a ground
loop, then things develop *extremely* quick on the winch.

Surfer!

June 23rd 09, 05:38 PM

In message
>, T8
> writes
>On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
>wrote:
>
>> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
>> the launch
>
>This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. Do you do
>the same for aero tow?

That is what is taught in the UK.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

John Smith

June 23rd 09, 05:42 PM

bildan wrote:

> why a priority?

Pushing the stick and pulling the release is *one* movement. You don't
have to think about it.

> The reason I brought this up is that I have seen many pilots nearly
> bungle a recovery while pulling the release.

I just don't believe this. But *if* it were true, then those pilots
would *urgently* need a couple of training flights.

> Even with a hand on the
> release, there's no guarantee a pilot will pull it - I've seen pilots
> take their hand off the release and pull the spoilers.

Again, if this were true, then those pilots would urgently need a couple
of training flights.

It seems that there's something very wrong with the pilot training at
your site.

bildan

June 23rd 09, 05:52 PM

On Jun 23, 10:42*am, John Smith > wrote:
> bildan wrote:
> > why a priority?
>
> Pushing the stick and pulling the release is *one* movement. You don't
> have to think about it.

You DO have to think about it and doesn't answer the question, "WHY A
PRIORITY?" Just because something is easy doesn't make it a priority.

John Smith

June 23rd 09, 05:56 PM

bildan wrote:

>> Pushing the stick and pulling the release is *one* movement. You don't
>> have to think about it.
>
> You DO have to think about it and doesn't answer the question, "WHY A
> PRIORITY?" Just because something is easy doesn't make it a priority.

If you have to think about it, then you need more training. Granted, if
you don't have that reflex incorporated, *then* you have to think about it.

bildan

June 23rd 09, 05:58 PM

On Jun 23, 10:10*am, T8 > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
> > Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> > the launch
>
> This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. *Do you do
> the same for aero tow?
>
> -T8

It's a good idea for aero tow. We can all think of accidents where a
life would have been saved if the pilot had pulled the release before
becoming airborne. It's not only where you put your hand, it's also a
mindset to pull off if something doesn't feel right.

For example, there are several accidents over the years where pilots
took off with disconnected controls. It's much easier to tow a glider
back to the start line than sweep up the pieces.

bildan

June 23rd 09, 06:00 PM

On Jun 23, 10:56*am, John Smith > wrote:
> bildan wrote:
> >> Pushing the stick and pulling the release is *one* movement. You don't
> >> have to think about it.
>
> > You DO have to think about it and doesn't answer the question, "WHY A
> > PRIORITY?" *Just because something is easy doesn't make it a priority..
>
> If you have to think about it, then you need more training. Granted, if
> you don't have that reflex incorporated, *then* you have to think about it.

June 23rd 09, 06:02 PM

On Jun 23, 12:33*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> T8 wrote:
> >> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> >> the launch,
> > That's surprising to me... a non-winch qualified guy. *On an aero tow,
> > I would call that very risky business indeed.
>
> Some do, some don't, but event those who don't do have their left hand
> very near the knob and grab it several times during the pre-flight
> routine. Because if you should happen to drop a wing and start a ground
> loop, then things develop *extremely* quick on the winch.

I'm not an instructor, but our instructors teach "near" and "conscious
of". I understand "on" at the beginning of the roll, and I
occasionally do this, especially given conditions that might cause a
ground loop (no wing runner for instance) but we'd strongly discourage
hand on the release after the glider leaves the ground. Hand on the
knob in rough air and subsequent inadvertent release led to a very
serious accident a year or two ago. We'd wondered where the heck the
pilot picked up that habit.

-T8

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 23rd 09, 09:07 PM

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:10:28 -0700, T8 wrote:

> On Jun 23, 11:14Â*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob
>> during the launch
>
> This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. Do you do the
> same for aero tow?
>
Don't forget we're talking 30 seconds or so from when the glider first
moves until you're off the top of the cable, not several minutes, and no
trim changes should be needed during the launch.

And yes, because I learned to fly on the winch, I generally do keep my
hand on the release during an aero-tow. I leave the wheel down while on
tow, so in my Libelle there's never a need to take my left hand off the
release. If I'm flying anything else (e.g., a Puchacz for annual checks)
and need to re-trim, etc. I'll do that and then put my hand back on the
release.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 23rd 09, 09:28 PM

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:03:01 -0700, T8 wrote:

> On Jun 23, 11:14Â*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob
>> during the launch, so pulling it a couple of times immediately after
>> pushing over and just before letting go of it is an obvious move. That
>> is taught as SOP in my club.
>
> That's surprising to me... a non-winch qualified guy. On an aero tow, I
> would call that very risky business indeed.
>
On the winch there is a cable under tension connecting the glider's CG to
a few tonnes of winch. A consequence of this is that the glider is
unlikely to make sudden vertical movements before release - the main
effect of turbulence, thermals or gradient is to affect airspeed rather
than cause sudden vertical movements. This is quite unlike aero-tows.

Apart from that, exactly what you do with your release hand depends on
the cockpit arrangement in the glider:

- in the SZD Junior, where the T-shaped release grows out of the top left
of the panel on a stiff cable, you can put your left arm on the canopy
tail, straight fingers resting on the release. Closing the hand and
pulling is one fast, simple action.

- in a Libelle, where the release is on a relatively long cable between
your legs, your left arm is on your leg with fingers resting on the T-
shaped release. Again its simply a matter of close fingers and pull.

In both gliders rough ground or turbulence is unlikely to cause an
inadvertent release because (1) your hand isn't wrapped round the
release, (2) the cable isn't tight and (3) your arm ands hand is
supported. The situation isn't as clear-cut in, say, an ASK-21 with its
yellow ball dangling in mid-air, but you still want your hand very close
to it - touching but not grasping is good.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 23rd 09, 09:42 PM

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:00:06 -0700, bildan wrote:

> I don't think you made your case. I have seen LOTS of wire/rope breaks,
> including weak link breaks, and nothing has ever stayed on the hook -
> even with Schweizers.
>
I've seen several strops dropped when the pilot pulled the release after
a weak link broke. During a practice power fade the cable often stays on
through the push-over, so it follows that this is also likely if the
winch fails for real due to engine trouble or a fuel blockage.

> The reason I brought this up is that I have seen many pilots nearly
> bungle a recovery while pulling the release. Even with a hand on the
> release, there's no guarantee a pilot will pull it - I've seen pilots
> take their hand off the release and pull the spoilers. A launch failure
> is no time to be multi-tasking.
>
I've never seen this. An ASW-19 or Pegase on finals with the wheel going
up and down, yes, but brakes opening after a cable break, never.

> I want to see this priority list in order of decreasing urgency:
>
> 1. Nose way down NOW!
> 2. Get a safe airspeed ASAP!
> 3. Decide on the landing option (Straight or circle.)
> 4. Execute landing option - concentrate on airspeed and coordination.
> 5. Pull the release - maybe.
>
Move 5 up to 2 and I'll agree with your sequence. Three reasons:
(a) you're going to wait some seconds for the airspeed to build so
pulling it at this point doesn't delay any other actions.

(b) Your hand is on or very near the release, so just do it.

(c) As I said above, you may be faced with a power fade rather than
a cable break and the cable may still be on. Now, we know that
back-release works for a straight backward pull, but what if
its a high power fade and you get airspeed and turn. Would you
still expect the cable to back release at an angle to the flight
path?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

bildan

June 23rd 09, 10:42 PM

> > 1. Nose way down NOW!
> > 2. Get a safe airspeed ASAP!
> > 3. Decide on the landing option (Straight or circle.)
> > 4. Execute landing option - concentrate on airspeed and coordination.
> > 5. Pull the release - maybe.
>
> Move 5 up to 2 and I'll agree with your sequence. Three reasons:
> (a) you're going to wait some seconds for the airspeed to build so
> * * pulling it at this point doesn't delay any other actions.
>
> (b) Your hand is on or very near the release, so just do it.
>
> (c) As I said above, you may be faced with a power fade rather than
> * * a cable break and the cable may still be on. Now, we know that
> * * back-release works for a straight backward pull, but what if
> * * its a high power fade and you get airspeed and turn. Would you
> * * still expect the cable to back release at an angle to the flight
> * * path?
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

OK, maybe, as long as it isn't priority 1 - but now you are
introducing a power fade which is a different animal. Power fades are
demonstrated and practiced along with simulated rope breaks just so
pilots know the difference. No one has ever said, "Wow, that's
confusing - how do you tell the difference?"

(C.) However, this one deserves serious consideration. A break is an
obvious "thump" and an upward surge. (Spectra/Dyneema rope generates
a much more obvious thump than steel.)

Assuming the pilot is monitoring airspeed, a power fade means the nose
will coming down and be down to a normal glide attitude and airspeed
as power is totally lost - just as at the top of a normal launch. It
will be managed as if it were a normal launch with a normal release
pull - just at a lower height. Just as with a normal launch, the
winch driver will be alert to the rope not detaching from the glider
and fire the guillotine

For a winch power loss to be confused with a rope break, the power
failure would need to be a rare kind - some sort of explosive loss of
mechanical integrity or seizing up of the winch. But, if the rope is
still attached at the winch, there won't be the upward surge.

Dave Doe

June 23rd 09, 11:06 PM

In article <a08530ef-b0e3-470d-a5ff-e8e7615fd300
@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Jun 23, 9:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:24:24 -0700, bildan wrote:
> > > On Jun 23, 4:34*am, John Smith > wrote:
> > >> ucsdcpc wrote:
> > >> > The routine we are taught is as follows, all part of the pre-flight
> > >> > eventualities check before each launch:
> >
> > >> > 1. * *decide on appropriate approach speed for conditions
> >
> > >> > 2. * *in the event of a launch failure (not just cable brake) lower
> > >> > the nose to an appropriate attitude
> >
> > >> Wrong, very wrong, very dangerous. The correct sequence is:
> >
> > >> 1. Push the stick forward and pull the release knob.
> >
> > >> 2. If possible, land ahead on the remaining runway.
> >
> > >> 3. If you're too high to land ahead, you have all the time to decide
> > >> your further actions. This can be an abbreviated circuit or a downwind
> > >> landing, depending on the circumstances.
> >
> > >> And yes, doing a 180 too hasty will put you in a situation where you
> > >> don't have enough runway to land. So whatever you do, don't panic.
> > >> Everything else depends.
> >
> > > Please explain why pulling the release is priority one.
> >
> > Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> > the launch, so pulling it a couple of times immediately after pushing
> > over and just before letting go of it is an obvious move. That is taught
> > as SOP in my club.
> >
> > > *Most likely the
> > > remaining rope and parachute gear has already back released.
> >
> > .... only if the cable break was down near the winch. If the break was
> > near the glider you could still have several meters of cable and the
> > furled drogue dangling trailing from the hook. Its even more likely that
> > you'll still have the cable attached if the problem is a power fade at
> > the winch rather than a cable break.
> >
> > > Diverting attention to the release knob when other critical decisions
> > > are pending seems odd when you think about it.
> >
> > It should be in your hand already, so no attention diversion is needed.
> >
> > > Note to Schweizer operators: *Schweizer CG hooks require MUCH more force
> > > to back release than the Tost release so you folks should pull.
> >
> > There's the other answer: never train somebody to use a technique that is
> > unsafe on some types of glider. Murphy pretty much mandates they'll
> > forget to check the cable is gone when they're flying a type where it
> > matters.
> >
> > --
> > martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org * * * |
>
> I don't think you made your case. I have seen LOTS of wire/rope
> breaks, including weak link breaks, and nothing has ever stayed on the
> hook - even with Schweizers. But, even if pulling the release is
> justified on the assumption that something MIGHT be on the hook AND
> assuming that something on the hook would cause damage (It won't kill
> you), why a priority?
>
> The reason I brought this up is that I have seen many pilots nearly
> bungle a recovery while pulling the release. Even with a hand on the
> release, there's no guarantee a pilot will pull it - I've seen pilots
> take their hand off the release and pull the spoilers. A launch
> failure is no time to be multi-tasking. Screw the release - FLY THE
> GLIDER!

I think everyone agrees on those three words as priority 1.

--
Duncan

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 23rd 09, 11:08 PM

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:42:24 -0700, bildan wrote:

> OK, maybe, as long as it isn't priority 1 - but now you are introducing
> a power fade which is a different animal.
>
They aren't taught as distinct happenings here - just as winch launch
failures. I agree that they are seldom confused, but the actions to be
taken after a cable break or after a power fade is recognised are the
same: (1) nose down to establish approach speed, (2) make sure cable is
off (3).....

> No one has ever said, "Wow, that's confusing - how do you
> tell the difference?"
>
....and I didn't say or imply that anybody confuses the two.

> (C.) However, this one deserves serious consideration. A break is an
> obvious "thump" and an upward surge. (Spectra/Dyneema rope generates a
> much more obvious thump than steel.)
>
Even when it breaks at the winch end? I wouldn't know - I've not yet
flown on the stuff.

> Assuming the pilot is monitoring airspeed, a power fade means the nose
> will coming down and be down to a normal glide attitude and airspeed as
> power is totally lost - just as at the top of a normal launch.
>
If its a slow fade the airspeed may easily be lower than approach speed.
IME a slow fade is harder to recognize and deal with than a sudden cut or
a break.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

ucsdcpc

June 24th 09, 12:18 AM

have a look at the simulation videos on the BGA website

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/winch-safety.htm

you don't have a lot of time to find the release knob if a wing drops

T8 wrote:
> On Jun 23, 11:14 am, Martin Gregorie >
> wrote:
>
>> Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
>> the launch
>
> This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. Do you do
> the same for aero tow?
>
> -T8

Andy[_1_]

June 24th 09, 12:42 AM

On Jun 23, 4:18*pm, ucsdcpc > wrote:
> have a look at the simulation videos on the BGA website
>
> http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/winch-safety.htm
>
> you don't have a lot of time to find the release knob if a wing drops
>

Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
representative. What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the wing
into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
wing? It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated with
an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
being applied at and after wing tip contact. Throw in various amounts
of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.

Andy

Barny

June 24th 09, 12:57 AM

Subject changed. As J.May wrote: "We are speculating which is wrong.
Lets not insult the guys that paid a terrible price in the name of a
sport we all love". That said, don't let me stop you guys from
debating the cable break procedure....

Don Johnstone[_4_]

June 24th 09, 01:45 AM

At 02:41 23 June 2009, bildan wrote:

Might I ask that you actually read what I wrote before correcting me. What
I said is exactly what you have said but in two or three lines.

>On Jun 22, 6:15=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> Much has been said and written about winch launch failures and here is
>my
>> "Guide to Surviving a launch failure"
>>
>> Launch fails
>>
>> 1 Pitch the nose down, at least approach attitude - snip
>
>I have to take issue since anyone following this advice might/will get
>hurt.

Rubbish

>
>If you stop the pitch down at 'approach attitude' from an initial
>attitude of 30 - 45 degrees nose up, you will be stalled - the nose
>must be pushed far below 'approach attitude" to achieve prompt
>airspeed recovery.

I said at least approach attitude, not stop at. "at least" means more
may be needed but it should never be less.

>This is easy to demonstrate without a winch. At an altitude that
>allows safe spin recovery, zoom up at a 45 degree nose-up attitude.
>When the airspeed drops to 65 knots, pretend you have a rope break and
>push over to 'approach attitude' and stop the pitch down there. Note
>the airspeed - it will be around 20 knots. If you turn you will
>spin. This is a classic killer on a winch.

I then said, ask the question is the speed at least approach speed only if
the answer to this is yes do you go to stage two which considers turning
only after considering a landing ahead.

There is no counting involved, no waiting, just checking to see if the
relevant conditions apply to allow the procedure to move on.

It is even better to demonstrate off a simulated launch failure and the
more you do the better.

I agree that starting a turn before the airspeed has increased is very bad
news which is why I emphasised that you do not even make the decision
between landing ahead and turning, let alone doing it until the airspeed
is up.
>

bildan

June 24th 09, 03:02 AM

(Spectra/Dyneema rope generates a much more obvious thump than steel.)
>
> Even when it breaks at the winch end? I wouldn't know - I've not yet
> flown on the stuff.

It doesn't matter where it breaks - the whole rope weighs around 30
Lbs so the feel in the glider is the same.

>
> > Assuming the pilot is monitoring airspeed, a power fade means the nose
> > will coming down and be down to a normal glide attitude and airspeed as
> > power is totally lost - just as at the top of a normal launch.
>
> If its a slow fade the airspeed may easily be lower than approach speed.
> IME a slow fade is harder to recognize and deal with than a sudden cut or
> a break.

Not if the pilot is controlling, or just monitoring, the airspeed.
The pilot will lower the nose appropriately to maintain the selected
airspeed. When the power is all gone, the glider will be gliding at
the selected speed - a perfect recovery even if the pilot didn't
recognize the power failure. Lowering the nose is the signal for more
speed so it works in all cases.

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 24th 09, 07:45 AM

I managed to catch a wing drop on video a couple of years ago and have seen
several others. URL is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_VIfxOV8U

Also look at:

http://flightbox.net/galleries/wingdrop/wingdrop_1.htm

Last year when instructing I had a student who for some reason, possibly
as a reaction to a rather rapidly accelerated winch launch, pulled the
stick hard back and to the left, putting the wing tip on the ground before
I could take over. I had not had any problems with this student on previous
flights with him.

A wing drop is most likely to occur in a semi cross wind and in turbulent
conditions. In the UK we have had a fatal accident, a serious injury
accident and a very badly damaged glider as a result of wing drops in the
last two years. These all happened to very experienced pilots, one of whom
was a Nationals level competition pilot.

IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU!!!

My view is that you should keep your hand on the release knob during a
launch, so that you can release quickly if things go wrong without
fumbling. After a winch launch cable break, the first priority is to get
the nose down and regain flying speed. However the latter will take a few
seconds, during which you can pull the knob. 99% of the time the cable
will back release anyway, but it might not.

We had a sort of reverse incident a couple of years ago, when an early
solo pilot heard a bang, probably caused by a shackle or Tost link pulling
straight, and assumed that he had suffered a cable break. He lowered the
nose to the recovery attitude and then dived UNDER the cable which was
still attached to the glider and in one piece! Fortunately he was able to
land safely straight ahead, but the glider suffered some damage from
hitting the cable and then having it drop on top of the glider.

Derek Copeland

At 23:42 23 June 2009, Andy wrote:
>
>Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
>representative. What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the wing
>into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
>wing? It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated with
>an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
>being applied at and after wing tip contact. Throw in various amounts
>of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
>and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
>contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.
>
>
>Andy
>

toad

June 24th 09, 03:23 PM

On Jun 23, 12:58*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 10:10*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> > > the launch
>
> > This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. *Do you do
> > the same for aero tow?
>
> > -T8
>
> It's a good idea for aero tow. *We can all think of accidents where a
> life would have been saved if the pilot had pulled the release before
> becoming airborne. *It's not only where you put your hand, it's also a
> mindset to pull off if something doesn't feel right.
>
> For example, there are several accidents over the years where pilots
> took off with disconnected controls. *It's much easier to tow a glider
> back to the start line than sweep up the pieces.

There is one less Discus in the world because the pilot had his hand
on the release on a bumpy day. He "in-advertently" pulled the release
at low altitude and crashed into the trees. The pilot was not
injured, but the glider was totaled. If you want to keep your hand on
the release, then hold it some way that prevents turbulence from
releasing it for you.

Todd
3S

bildan

June 24th 09, 03:56 PM

Weird stuff seems to happen in Derek's vicinity.

On Jun 24, 12:45*am, Derek Copeland > wrote:
> I managed to catch a wing drop on video a couple of years ago and have seen
> several others. URL is:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_VIfxOV8U
>
> Also look at:
>
> http://flightbox.net/galleries/wingdrop/wingdrop_1.htm
>
> Last year when instructing I had a student who for some reason, possibly
> as a reaction to a rather rapidly accelerated winch launch, pulled the
> stick hard back and to the left, putting the wing tip on the ground before
> I could take over. I had not had any problems with this student on previous
> flights with him.
>
> A wing drop is most likely to occur in a semi cross wind and in turbulent
> conditions. In the UK we have had a fatal accident, a serious injury
> accident and a very badly damaged glider as a result of wing drops in the
> last two years. These all happened to very experienced pilots, one of whom
> was a Nationals level competition pilot.
>
> IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU!!!
>
> My view is that you should keep your hand on the release knob during a
> launch, so that you can release quickly if things go wrong without
> fumbling. After a winch launch cable break, the first priority is to get
> the nose down and regain flying speed. However the latter will take a few
> seconds, during which you can pull the knob. 99% of the time the cable
> will back release anyway, but it might not.
>
> We had a sort of reverse incident a couple of years ago, when an early
> solo pilot heard a bang, probably caused by a shackle or Tost link pulling
> straight, and assumed that he had suffered a cable break. He lowered the
> nose to the recovery attitude and then dived UNDER the cable which was
> still attached to the glider and in one piece! Fortunately he was able to
> land safely straight ahead, but the glider suffered some damage from
> hitting the cable and then having it drop on top of the glider. *
>
> Derek Copeland
>
> At 23:42 23 June 2009, Andy wrote:
>
>
>
> >Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
> >representative. *What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the wing
> >into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
> >wing? *It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated with
> >an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
> >being applied at and after wing tip contact. *Throw in various amounts
> >of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
> >and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
> >contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.
>
> >Andy

bildan

June 24th 09, 04:05 PM

On Jun 24, 8:23*am, toad > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 12:58*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 10:10*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> > > > the launch
>
> > > This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. *Do you do
> > > the same for aero tow?
>
> > > -T8
>
> > It's a good idea for aero tow. *We can all think of accidents where a
> > life would have been saved if the pilot had pulled the release before
> > becoming airborne. *It's not only where you put your hand, it's also a
> > mindset to pull off if something doesn't feel right.
>
> > For example, there are several accidents over the years where pilots
> > took off with disconnected controls. *It's much easier to tow a glider
> > back to the start line than sweep up the pieces.
>
> There is one less Discus in the world because the pilot had his hand
> on the release on a bumpy day. *He "in-advertently" pulled the release
> at low altitude and crashed into the trees. * The pilot was not
> injured, but the glider was totaled. *If you want to keep your hand on
> the release, then hold it some way that prevents turbulence from
> releasing it for you.
>
> Todd
> 3S

First, we're really only talking about an aero tow ground roll. Once
airborne in turbulent air, keeping a death grip on the release isn't a
good idea. Even this isn't always possible with gliders that need
spoilers retracted or flaps moved from negative during the ground
roll. Still, it's a good idea to have "muscle memory" in your left
hand so it can find the release in a hurry. More important is to have
a mindset to pull off if you sense a problem during the ground roll.

Even on a winch ground roll, I don't like a full grip on the release,
just hand contact with it. That way the pilot is unlikely to pull it
inadvertently but can pull it intentionally if needed.

bildan

June 24th 09, 04:29 PM

On Jun 23, 5:42*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:18*pm, ucsdcpc > wrote:
>
> > have a look at the simulation videos on the BGA website
>
> >http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/winch-safety.htm
>
> > you don't have a lot of time to find the release knob if a wing drops
>
> Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
> representative. *What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the wing
> into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
> wing? *It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated with
> an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
> being applied at and after wing tip contact. *Throw in various amounts
> of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
> and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
> contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.
>
> Andy

It's realistic in the sense that the most likely way a wing would go
down is if the pilot does, in fact, "stuff it down". Unfortunately,
you just have to watch a few takeoffs to see it happen. One of my
frustrations is pilots who seem to have no idea where their ailerons
are until a wingtip hits the ground.

If the pilot consciously centers the ailerons as part of the pre-
takeoff checks and lets the wing runner balance the glider, the glider
will just stay balanced on its own for several seconds after the wing
runner lets go - long enough to get aileron control on either aero
tow or winch. That's good practice with any launch method.

toad

June 24th 09, 04:39 PM

On Jun 24, 11:05*am, bildan > wrote:
> On Jun 24, 8:23*am, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 12:58*pm, bildan > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 23, 10:10*am, T8 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 11:14*am, Martin Gregorie >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Apart from anything else, your hand should be on the release knob during
> > > > > the launch
>
> > > > This is surprising to me -- a non-winch-qualified pilot. *Do you do
> > > > the same for aero tow?
>
> > > > -T8
>
> > > It's a good idea for aero tow. *We can all think of accidents where a
> > > life would have been saved if the pilot had pulled the release before
> > > becoming airborne. *It's not only where you put your hand, it's also a
> > > mindset to pull off if something doesn't feel right.
>
> > > For example, there are several accidents over the years where pilots
> > > took off with disconnected controls. *It's much easier to tow a glider
> > > back to the start line than sweep up the pieces.
>
> > There is one less Discus in the world because the pilot had his hand
> > on the release on a bumpy day. *He "in-advertently" pulled the release
> > at low altitude and crashed into the trees. * The pilot was not
> > injured, but the glider was totaled. *If you want to keep your hand on
> > the release, then hold it some way that prevents turbulence from
> > releasing it for you.
>
> > Todd
> > 3S
>
> First, we're really only talking about an aero tow ground roll. *Once
> airborne in turbulent air, keeping a death grip on the release isn't a
> good idea. *Even this isn't always possible with gliders that need
> spoilers retracted or flaps moved from negative during the ground
> roll. *Still, it's a good idea to have "muscle memory" in your left
> hand so it can find the release in a hurry. *More important is to have
> a mindset to pull off if you sense a problem during the ground roll.
>
> Even on a winch ground roll, I don't like a full grip on the release,
> just hand contact with it. *That way *the pilot is unlikely to pull it
> inadvertently but can pull it intentionally if needed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just remember to give these cautions to any pilot that you tell "keep
your hand on the release" during takeoff.

Todd
3S

Del C[_2_]

June 24th 09, 05:45 PM

I knew that agreeing with Bill Daniels was too good to last!

Given a vaguely competent pilot, the most likely cause of a wing drop is a
gust, especially if there is a cross-wind component. That is what happened
in the series of photos that show a K13 standing on it's starboard
wingtip. I put a link into this in an earlier posting. Please note that
full opposite aileron and rudder is being applied throughout this
incident!

On the subject of not accidentally pulling the release knob as a result of
holding it, you need to arrange the cockpit so you are not holding the
release at full stretch.

Some glass single seaters are very good at hiding the release knob almost
out of reach somewhere below your crutch and behind the stick. On my own
glider I have extended the cable so it is easier to reach the knob (with
the approval of a BGA Inspector I hasten to add).

The last fatal cartwheel accident in the UK involved an ASW20L glider. If
you read the aaib report, they concluded that once the stick was hard over
to the left, which it would have been as it was the right wing that
dropped, it would have been almost impossible to get to the release knob
if you weren't holding it already!

Derek Copeland

At 15:29 24 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>On Jun 23, 5:42=A0pm, Andy wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 4:18=A0pm, ucsdcpc wrote:
>>
>> > have a look at the simulation videos on the BGA website
>>
>> >http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/winch-safety.htm
>>
>> > you don't have a lot of time to find the release knob if a wing
drops
>>
>> Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
>> representative. =A0What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the wing
>> into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
>> wing? =A0It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated
with
>> an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
>> being applied at and after wing tip contact. =A0Throw in various
amounts
>> of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
>> and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
>> contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.
>>
>> Andy
>
>It's realistic in the sense that the most likely way a wing would go
>down is if the pilot does, in fact, "stuff it down". Unfortunately,
>you just have to watch a few takeoffs to see it happen. One of my
>frustrations is pilots who seem to have no idea where their ailerons
>are until a wingtip hits the ground.
>
>If the pilot consciously centers the ailerons as part of the pre-
>takeoff checks and lets the wing runner balance the glider, the glider
>will just stay balanced on its own for several seconds after the wing
>runner lets go - long enough to get aileron control on either aero
>tow or winch. That's good practice with any launch method.
>

bildan

June 24th 09, 07:54 PM

On Jun 24, 10:45*am, Del C > wrote:
> I knew that agreeing with Bill Daniels was too good to last!
>
> Given a vaguely competent pilot, the most likely cause of a wing drop is a
> gust, especially if there is a cross-wind component. That is what happened
> in the series of photos that show a K13 standing on it's starboard
> wingtip. I put a link into this in an earlier posting. Please note that
> full opposite aileron and rudder is being applied throughout this
> incident!
>
> On the subject of not accidentally pulling the release knob as a result of
> holding it, you need to arrange the cockpit so you are not holding the
> release at full stretch.
>
> Some glass single seaters are very good at hiding the release knob almost
> out of reach somewhere below your crutch and behind the stick. On my own
> glider I have extended the cable so it is easier to reach the knob (with
> the approval of a BGA Inspector I hasten to add).
>
> The last fatal cartwheel accident in the UK involved an ASW20L glider. If
> you read the aaib report, they concluded that once the stick was hard over
> to the left, which it would have been as it was the right wing that
> dropped, it would have been almost impossible to get to the release knob
> if you weren't holding it already!
>
> Derek Copeland
>
> At 15:29 24 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>
> >On Jun 23, 5:42=A0pm, Andy *wrote:
> >> On Jun 23, 4:18=A0pm, ucsdcpc *wrote:
>
> >> > have a look at the simulation videos on the BGA website
>
> >> >http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/winch-safety.htm
>
> >> > you don't have a lot of time to find the release knob if a wing
> drops
>
> >> Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
> >> representative. =A0What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the wing
> >> into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
> >> wing? =A0It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated
> with
> >> an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
> >> being applied at and after wing tip contact. =A0Throw in various
> amounts
> >> of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
> >> and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
> >> contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.
>
> >> Andy
>
> >It's realistic in the sense that the most likely way a wing would go
> >down is if the pilot does, in fact, "stuff it down". *Unfortunately,
> >you just have to watch a few takeoffs to see it happen. *One of my
> >frustrations is pilots who seem to have no idea where their ailerons
> >are until a wingtip hits the ground.
>
> >If the pilot consciously centers the ailerons as part of the pre-
> >takeoff checks and lets the wing runner balance the glider, the glider
> >will just stay balanced on its own for several seconds after the wing
> >runner lets go *- long enough to get aileron control on either aero
> >tow or winch. *That's good practice with any launch method.

What I see in that K-13 sequence is the parachute disappearing off the
left side of the frame after it was released. It gives the appearance
the glider was staged at least 30 degrees off the line of sight to the
winch. I also don't see any aileron or rudder applied in the first
frame with the wing on the ground indicating the pilot was WAAY behind
the glider.

Blaming this 100% on a gust seems a reach.

David Chapman

June 24th 09, 08:00 PM

Fully agree with Derek, it stands to reason that an inadvertant cable
release at any moment in the launch is less risky that failure to release
instantly if things start to go wrong.

Its doesn't have to be white nuckle grip, but hlold it you must!

Eventualities before launch will cover the recovery scenario for the
launch ahead no matter it is a cable break or accidental/deliberate cable
release.

Even well away from the ground, the relative merit seems to remain.

David.

At 16:45 24 June 2009, Del C wrote:
>I knew that agreeing with Bill Daniels was too good to last!
>
>Given a vaguely competent pilot, the most likely cause of a wing drop is
a
>gust, especially if there is a cross-wind component. That is what
happened
>in the series of photos that show a K13 standing on it's starboard
>wingtip. I put a link into this in an earlier posting. Please note that
>full opposite aileron and rudder is being applied throughout this
>incident!
>
>On the subject of not accidentally pulling the release knob as a result
of
>holding it, you need to arrange the cockpit so you are not holding the
>release at full stretch.
>
>Some glass single seaters are very good at hiding the release knob
almost
>out of reach somewhere below your crutch and behind the stick. On my own
>glider I have extended the cable so it is easier to reach the knob (with
>the approval of a BGA Inspector I hasten to add).
>
>The last fatal cartwheel accident in the UK involved an ASW20L glider.
If
>you read the aaib report, they concluded that once the stick was hard
over
>to the left, which it would have been as it was the right wing that
>dropped, it would have been almost impossible to get to the release knob
>if you weren't holding it already!
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>
>At 15:29 24 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>>On Jun 23, 5:42=A0pm, Andy wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 4:18=A0pm, ucsdcpc wrote:
>>>
>>> > have a look at the simulation videos on the BGA website
>>>
>>> >http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/winch-safety.htm
>>>
>>> > you don't have a lot of time to find the release knob if a wing
>drops
>>>
>>> Maybe not, but it's hard to believe the wing drop simulations are
>>> representative. =A0What reasonably trained pilots would stuff the
wing
>>> into the ground and then continue to hold full aileron into the low
>>> wing? =A0It would be interesting to see the same scenario simulated
>with
>>> an external upset causing the wing drop and full recovery aileron
>>> being applied at and after wing tip contact. =A0Throw in various
>amounts
>>> of drag on the low wing tip to simulate short grass, long grass, etc
>>> and then introduce pilot release before, at, and after wing tip
>>> contact, and I'd start to believe it was a useful training aid.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>>It's realistic in the sense that the most likely way a wing would go
>>down is if the pilot does, in fact, "stuff it down". Unfortunately,
>>you just have to watch a few takeoffs to see it happen. One of my
>>frustrations is pilots who seem to have no idea where their ailerons
>>are until a wingtip hits the ground.
>>
>>If the pilot consciously centers the ailerons as part of the pre-
>>takeoff checks and lets the wing runner balance the glider, the glider
>>will just stay balanced on its own for several seconds after the wing
>>runner lets go - long enough to get aileron control on either aero
>>tow or winch. That's good practice with any launch method.
>>
>

Surfer!

June 24th 09, 08:50 PM

In message >, Del C
> writes
<snip>
>
>Some glass single seaters are very good at hiding the release knob almost
>out of reach somewhere below your crutch and behind the stick. On my own
>glider I have extended the cable so it is easier to reach the knob (with
>the approval of a BGA Inspector I hasten to add).
>
>The last fatal cartwheel accident in the UK involved an ASW20L glider. If
>you read the aaib report, they concluded that once the stick was hard over
>to the left, which it would have been as it was the right wing that
>dropped, it would have been almost impossible to get to the release knob
>if you weren't holding it already!
<Snip>

I might be wrong but I think they also concluded that having the left
hand where it could reach the release knob would have made full left
aileron impossible. My own glider has similarities with an ASW20 and
also has a short extension on the release pull.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Surfer!

June 24th 09, 08:53 PM

In message
>,
toad > writes
<snip>
>
>There is one less Discus in the world because the pilot had his hand
>on the release on a bumpy day. He "in-advertently" pulled the release
>at low altitude and crashed into the trees. The pilot was not
>injured, but the glider was totaled. If you want to keep your hand on
>the release, then hold it some way that prevents turbulence from
>releasing it for you.

Since a launch can fail at any point, inadvertently releasing shouldn't
lead to totalling the glider...

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 24th 09, 10:45 PM

Once a wing drops onto the ground, the glider will almost inevitably veer
off in the same direction due to ground friction, which is what you see
here and what you also see in my video of a wing drop. The photographer
didn't quite catch the start of this incident, and I am sure that the
glider would have been lined up correctly.

The wing tip runner for the K13 was a very experienced pilot and an ex
syndicate partner of mine. He told me that it was a cold, windy and very
blustery day and that none of our runways lined up with the wind
direction, so there was about a 30 degree cross wind from the right. The
chain of events started with a violent gust that caused the wing to drop
as he let go. The instructor tried to pull off, but his gloved hand
slipped round the round release knob, twice in fact. He was successful at
the third attempt, but reported that it took a lot more force than he
expected to release under tension. By this time he was airborne, so had to
take over and fight the glider back onto the ground somehow. What was
interesting was the the eventual landing direction was at right angles to
the start direction, once the rudder was taken off. The student pilot may
not have dealt with the dropping wing very well, but there is no evidence
that he contributed to it.

After this incident, our CFI wanted to fit T handle releases to our K13s,
but EASA said no because it counted as a major modification and would
require full design approval (very expensive). Bureaucracy gone mad or
what!

Derek Copeland

At 18:54 24 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>>What I see in that K-13 sequence is the parachute disappearing off the
>left side of the frame after it was released. It gives the appearance
>the glider was staged at least 30 degrees off the line of sight to the
>winch. I also don't see any aileron or rudder applied in the first
>frame with the wing on the ground indicating the pilot was WAAY behind
>the glider.
>
>Blaming this 100% on a gust seems a reach.
>

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 24th 09, 10:45 PM

At 19:50 24 June 2009, Surfer! wrote:
>In message , Del C
> writes
>
>>
>>Some glass single seaters are very good at hiding the release knob
almost
>>out of reach somewhere below your crutch and behind the stick. On my
own
>>glider I have extended the cable so it is easier to reach the knob
(with
>>the approval of a BGA Inspector I hasten to add).
>>
>>The last fatal cartwheel accident in the UK involved an ASW20L glider.
If
>>you read the aaib report, they concluded that once the stick was hard
>over
>>to the left, which it would have been as it was the right wing that
>>dropped, it would have been almost impossible to get to the release
knob
>>if you weren't holding it already!
>
>
>I might be wrong but I think they also concluded that having the left
>hand where it could reach the release knob would have made full left
>aileron impossible.

Either way, it's not a desirable design feature.!!!

Derek C

Andreas Maurer

June 24th 09, 11:38 PM

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:29:22 -0700 (PDT), bildan >
wrote:

>It's realistic in the sense that the most likely way a wing would go
>down is if the pilot does, in fact, "stuff it down". Unfortunately,
>you just have to watch a few takeoffs to see it happen. One of my
>frustrations is pilots who seem to have no idea where their ailerons
>are until a wingtip hits the ground.
>
>If the pilot consciously centers the ailerons as part of the pre-
>takeoff checks and lets the wing runner balance the glider, the glider
>will just stay balanced on its own for several seconds after the wing
>runner lets go - long enough to get aileron control on either aero
>tow or winch. That's good practice with any launch method.

Hi Bill,

I'm not sure if your observation is correct.

During aerotows you often see the wing runner working hard to keep the
wing perfectly balanced, the pilot keeps ailerons centered, wing
runner lets go - and the wing tip hits the ground immediately before
the pilot has time to apply aileron. A typical crosswind situation.

The problem is that the pilot cannot sense the wing-drop tendency (and
apply opposite aileron) as long as the wing runner keeps the wing
level.
The better technique is if the wing runner follows the wing-drop
tendency, not trying to keep the wings level - the pilot is going to
feel one wing going down (although still held by the wing runner,
hence no danger of the wing tip touching the ground) and will apply
aileron immediately. This usually works like a charm.

And then there were those open class ships in crosswind situations
where you have to apply full aileron to the lee side from the
beginning of the aerotow (even if this wing drops)... because despite
full aileron this side it's going to come up again.....

Don Johnstone[_4_]

June 25th 09, 02:00 AM

What is particularly interesting in both the video and the photographs is
the direction the glider is pointing relative to the cable. In the video
the glider can be seen to yaw as the cable tightens and then further yaw
as the it starts to move.
In the photographs it is clear that the glider is pointing to the right of
the direction of the cable AND stangely is pointed in the same direction as
the K13 parked behind it, a co-incidence perhaps. In both cases it would
appear possible that the glider was not lined up with the cable prior to
launch so that as soon as the cable moved yaw was induced. With a CofG
hook the glider will be more unstable about the yaw axis than was the case
with the more forward release on older gliders. Perhaps that might explain
why this appears to be a "new" phenomenon.

At 21:45 24 June 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>Once a wing drops onto the ground, the glider will almost inevitably
veer
>off in the same direction due to ground friction, which is what you see
>here and what you also see in my video of a wing drop. The photographer
>didn't quite catch the start of this incident, and I am sure that the
>glider would have been lined up correctly.
>
>The wing tip runner for the K13 was a very experienced pilot and an ex
>syndicate partner of mine. He told me that it was a cold, windy and very
>blustery day and that none of our runways lined up with the wind
>direction, so there was about a 30 degree cross wind from the right. The
>chain of events started with a violent gust that caused the wing to drop
>as he let go. The instructor tried to pull off, but his gloved hand
>slipped round the round release knob, twice in fact. He was successful
at
>the third attempt, but reported that it took a lot more force than he
>expected to release under tension. By this time he was airborne, so had
to
>take over and fight the glider back onto the ground somehow. What was
>interesting was the the eventual landing direction was at right angles
to
>the start direction, once the rudder was taken off. The student pilot
may
>not have dealt with the dropping wing very well, but there is no
evidence
>that he contributed to it.
>
>After this incident, our CFI wanted to fit T handle releases to our
K13s,
>but EASA said no because it counted as a major modification and would
>require full design approval (very expensive). Bureaucracy gone mad or
>what!
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>
>At 18:54 24 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>>>What I see in that K-13 sequence is the parachute disappearing off the
>>left side of the frame after it was released. It gives the appearance
>>the glider was staged at least 30 degrees off the line of sight to the
>>winch. I also don't see any aileron or rudder applied in the first
>>frame with the wing on the ground indicating the pilot was WAAY behind
>>the glider.
>>
>>Blaming this 100% on a gust seems a reach.
>>
>

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 25th 09, 03:45 AM

The apparent cable offset was because we were using a retrieve winch.
However the cable always pulled approximately straight under tension as
the launch commenced. It was normal to place the launch queue on the
downwind side of the retrieve winch, so that any slight weather-cocking at
the start of the launch if anything further reduced the angle between the
cable and the glider, and also reduced the possibility of the wind getting
under the upwind wing. The gliders would have been set up to point at the
main winch, or just slightly upwind of it to reduce any yaw at the start.

IMHO the use of a retrieve winch actually reduces the possibility of a
wing drop, and was not a factor in either case. Particularly in the video,
the glider was running straight before the wing drop occured, and was
probably due to the student pilot failing to do anything positive to keep
the wings level in a slight cross wind from the right, plus a late
take-over by a very newly qualified (at the time) instructor.

Derek Copeland

At 01:00 25 June 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
>What is particularly interesting in both the video and the photographs
is
>the direction the glider is pointing relative to the cable. In the video
>the glider can be seen to yaw as the cable tightens and then further yaw
>as the it starts to move.
>In the photographs it is clear that the glider is pointing to the right
of
>the direction of the cable AND stangely is pointed in the same direction
>as
>the K13 parked behind it, a co-incidence perhaps. In both cases it would
>appear possible that the glider was not lined up with the cable prior to
>launch so that as soon as the cable moved yaw was induced. With a CofG
>hook the glider will be more unstable about the yaw axis than was the
case
>with the more forward release on older gliders. Perhaps that might
explain
>why this appears to be a "new" phenomenon.
>
>
>At 21:45 24 June 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>>Once a wing drops onto the ground, the glider will almost inevitably
>veer
>>off in the same direction due to ground friction, which is what you see
>>here and what you also see in my video of a wing drop. The photographer
>>didn't quite catch the start of this incident, and I am sure that the
>>glider would have been lined up correctly.
>>
>>The wing tip runner for the K13 was a very experienced pilot and an ex
>>syndicate partner of mine. He told me that it was a cold, windy and
very
>>blustery day and that none of our runways lined up with the wind
>>direction, so there was about a 30 degree cross wind from the right.
The
>>chain of events started with a violent gust that caused the wing to
drop
>>as he let go. The instructor tried to pull off, but his gloved hand
>>slipped round the round release knob, twice in fact. He was successful
>at
>>the third attempt, but reported that it took a lot more force than he
>>expected to release under tension. By this time he was airborne, so had
>to
>>take over and fight the glider back onto the ground somehow. What was
>>interesting was the the eventual landing direction was at right angles
>to
>>the start direction, once the rudder was taken off. The student pilot
>may
>>not have dealt with the dropping wing very well, but there is no
>evidence
>>that he contributed to it.
>>
>>After this incident, our CFI wanted to fit T handle releases to our
>K13s,
>>but EASA said no because it counted as a major modification and would
>>require full design approval (very expensive). Bureaucracy gone mad or
>>what!
>>
>>Derek Copeland
>>
>>
>>At 18:54 24 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>>>>What I see in that K-13 sequence is the parachute disappearing off
the
>>>left side of the frame after it was released. It gives the appearance
>>>the glider was staged at least 30 degrees off the line of sight to the
>>>winch. I also don't see any aileron or rudder applied in the first
>>>frame with the wing on the ground indicating the pilot was WAAY behind
>>>the glider.
>>>
>>>Blaming this 100% on a gust seems a reach.
>>>
>>
>

bildan

June 26th 09, 03:57 AM

On Jun 24, 4:38*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:29:22 -0700 (PDT), bildan >
> wrote:
>
> >It's realistic in the sense that the most likely way a wing would go
> >down is if the pilot does, in fact, "stuff it down". *Unfortunately,
> >you just have to watch a few takeoffs to see it happen. *One of my
> >frustrations is pilots who seem to have no idea where their ailerons
> >are until a wingtip hits the ground.
>
> >If the pilot consciously centers the ailerons as part of the pre-
> >takeoff checks and lets the wing runner balance the glider, the glider
> >will just stay balanced on its own for several seconds after the wing
> >runner lets go *- long enough to get aileron control on either aero
> >tow or winch. *That's good practice with any launch method.
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I'm not sure if your observation is correct.
>
> During aerotows you often see the wing runner working hard to keep the
> wing perfectly balanced, the pilot keeps ailerons centered, wing
> runner lets go - and the wing tip hits the ground immediately before
> the pilot has time to apply aileron. A typical crosswind situation.
>
> The problem is that the pilot cannot sense the wing-drop tendency (and
> apply opposite aileron) as long as the wing runner keeps the wing
> level.
> The better technique is if the wing runner follows the wing-drop
> tendency, not trying to keep the wings level - the pilot is going to
> feel one wing going down (although still held by the wing runner,
> hence no danger of the wing tip touching the ground) and will apply
> aileron immediately. This usually works like a charm.
>
> And then there were those open class ships in crosswind situations
> where you have to apply full aileron to the lee side from the
> beginning of the aerotow (even if this wing drops)... because despite
> full aileron this side it's going to come up again.....

If the wing runner balances the glider into the crosswind while the
pilot holds neutral aileron it will work just fine, but the two have
to work together. The wing runner should feel for the tilt into the
wind that balances the glider so it's a tossup which wing would fall
if he let go but he can only do this if the ailerons are neutral.
Another instructor and I worked this out long ago. Since we often ran
wings for each other it was easy to teach the technique to our
students. (Ailerons neutral until the wing runner lets go - then fly
the glider with the same bank into the wind as the wing runner gave
you.)

If the wing runner just "holds the wing level" it may well drop to the
ground when he lets go. If the pilot is wagging the ailerons around,
the wing runner can't do anything to help.

BTW, there's another 'gotcha' you often see with aero tow takeoffs in
crosswinds. A crosswind will blow the tugs propeller blast downwind
so it hits the gliders downwind wing. The glider encounters the prop
blast after rolling about half the towrope length. Usually by then
the pilot is holding into-the-wind aileron which together with the
prop blast will slam the upwind wing into the ground before the pilot
reacts. If you are ready for it, you can handle it OK but it catches
many pilots unaware.

bildan

June 26th 09, 04:42 AM

On Jun 24, 7:00*pm, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> What is particularly interesting in both the video and the photographs is
> the direction the glider is pointing relative to the cable. In the video
> the glider can be seen to yaw as the cable tightens and then further yaw
> as the it starts to move.
> In the photographs it is clear that the glider is pointing to the right of
> the direction of the cable AND stangely is pointed in the same direction as
> the K13 parked behind it, a co-incidence perhaps. In both cases it would
> appear possible that the glider was not lined up with the cable prior to
> launch so that as soon as the cable moved yaw was induced. With a CofG
> hook the glider will be more unstable about the yaw axis than was the case
> with the more forward release on older gliders. Perhaps that might explain
> why this appears to be a "new" phenomenon.

Nope, they lined it up at an angle to the wire then all the other
stuff compounded the problem. There are other videos from Lasham with
the gliders improperly staged which show a similar wobbly takeoff. If
the gilder isn't pointing at the winch, the takeoff will be
'interesting'. Unfortunately, some people in the US are showing the
k-13 photo sequence as proof that winches are too dangerous to use.
This actually forced me to add a paragraph in my winch training
syllabus cautioning pilots to aim gliders at the winch - which any kid
launching a balsa glider with a rubber band would understand without
being told.

To be fair, there very well could have been a wind event that we, in a
dustier climate, would call a "dust devil" which couldn't be seen in
lush green England. We would see it coming and stand down until the
thing passed - then launch and go chase it for the lift it marks.

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 26th 09, 08:30 AM

For Christs sake Bill! Lasham is the largest and most professional gliding
club in the UK and we do about 10,000 winch launches per year, 9,999 of
which go without incident. We do know what we are doing. We either point
the glide directly at the main winch, or just slightly upwind of it in a
crosswind to reduce any initial yaw due to weather cocking.

The K13 incident was caused by a gust, and the glider was landed without
damage or injury. A similar wing drop during an aerotow would be
considered quite unremarkable. The correct thing to do is to pull off if a
wing drops during a winch launch.

Derek Copeland

At 03:42 26 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>On Jun 24, 7:00=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> What is particularly interesting in both the video and the photographs
>is
>> the direction the glider is pointing relative to the cable. In the
video
>> the glider can be seen to yaw as the cable tightens and then further
yaw
>> as the it starts to move.
>> In the photographs it is clear that the glider is pointing to the
right
>o=
>f
>> the direction of the cable AND stangely is pointed in the same
direction
>=
>as
>> the K13 parked behind it, a co-incidence perhaps. In both cases it
would
>> appear possible that the glider was not lined up with the cable prior
to
>> launch so that as soon as the cable moved yaw was induced. With a CofG
>> hook the glider will be more unstable about the yaw axis than was the
>cas=
>e
>> with the more forward release on older gliders. Perhaps that might
>explai=
>n
>> why this appears to be a "new" phenomenon.
>
>Nope, they lined it up at an angle to the wire then all the other
>stuff compounded the problem. There are other videos from Lasham with
>the gliders improperly staged which show a similar wobbly takeoff. If
>the gilder isn't pointing at the winch, the takeoff will be
>'interesting'. Unfortunately, some people in the US are showing the
>k-13 photo sequence as proof that winches are too dangerous to use.
>This actually forced me to add a paragraph in my winch training
>syllabus cautioning pilots to aim gliders at the winch - which any kid
>launching a balsa glider with a rubber band would understand without
>being told.
>
>To be fair, there very well could have been a wind event that we, in a
>dustier climate, would call a "dust devil" which couldn't be seen in
>lush green England. We would see it coming and stand down until the
>thing passed - then launch and go chase it for the lift it marks.
>

Shaun

June 26th 09, 11:01 AM

The point here is not the "to turn or not to turn" debate. Assuming
you have the height to be thinking about turning, you probably have
enough. Otherwise, landing ahead should be possible. The point is the
speed at which the turn is initiated. Even low to the ground
manoeuvring is quite safe *with enough speed*. It sounds like this was
a typical spin-in scenario that we teach as standard here in the UK.
It goes something like:
- Coming back to the airfield low
- Need to turn but scared about the low height
- Use small amount of bank
- Let the speed come off in order to stretch the glide
- Glider stalls, spins, and if this were the real thing (and not done
at height as a demo), then it's unrecoverable

On Jun 22, 3:58*pm, bildan > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:05*am, Dave Doe > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> > > At 04:03 19 June 2009, Dave Doe wrote:
> > > >In article ,
> > > says...
> > > >> Who knows details about this?
>
> > > >http://www.mlive.com/news/annarbornews/index.ssf?/base/news-32/124507...
>
> > > >There is some more info here...
>
> > > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2515472/Dead-Kiwi-pilot-named
>
> > > >United States police today released the name of a New Zealand pilot
> > > >killed last Sunday when the glider in which he was a passenger crashed.
>
> > > >Timothy John Moxham, 29, was a pilot for an air ambulance, Midwest
> > > >Medflight.
>
> > > >Police said a delay in releasing details of his identity was because of
> > > >the difficulty in reaching his parents in New Zealand.
>
> > > >Mr Moxham died in a glider owned by the Sandhill Soaring Club and flown
> > > >by the club president when it crashed near Ann Arbor, Michigan.
>
> > > >Preliminary investigation indicated a winch cable used to help the
> > > >aircraft take flight may have failed on takeoff, police chief William
> > > >Cook of the nearby Unadilla Township told the Daily Press and Argus
> > > >newspaper. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating.
>
> > > >The glider pilot, Orrin Burns Beckham, 63, of Ann Arbor, is in a serious
>
> > > >condition in a local hospital.
>
> > > >A colleague of the New Zealander, Medflight paramedic Andrew King said
> > > >Mr Moxham took his job to heart.
>
> > > >"Not only did Tim love flying and love being a pilot, but he loved being
>
> > > >a part of the (team) and getting people to the appropriate hospitals.."
>
> > > >Mr King said Mr Moxham's desire to go gliding was recent. He said prior
>
> > > >to the trip, Moxham told him: "This is true flying. It's just you and
> > > >(nature)."
>
> > > >The New Zealander had been flying for more than 15 years, starting at
> > > >the age of 13 when his father taught him, and had logged more than 3000
> > > >hours of flight time, including flying offshore, corporate work and
> > > >flight instruction.
>
> > > >He also held certification to an FAA standards on airframe construction
> > > >and engine mechanics.
>
> > > >"People say we've lost a pilot, but he was so much more than that,"
> > > said
> > > >another colleague, Medflight nurse Doug Berry. "He had such compassion
> > > >for the job and the people we transported. He cared about people.
>
> > > >"He touched the lives of hundreds of people," Mr Berry added, choking
> > > >back tears. "He was amazing."
>
> > > >- NZPA
>
> > > >--
> > > >Duncan
>
> > > NTSB prelim is at * *
> > >http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20090615X13631&key=1
>
> > Thanks Ron.
>
> > I see...
> > "
> > Witnesses reported that the glider was launched with a winch and during
> > the procedure the winch cable broke. The pilot executed a 180-degree
> > turn apparently in an attempt to return to the airport. However, near
> > the completion of the turn, the nose of the glider dropped and it
> > impacted the terrain.
> > "
>
> > How many times!!! - *don't* try to return to the field! *OK, I don't
> > know the altitude (AGL) nor what was ahead of the field, but hey, we all
> > know, this is generally regarded as a no-no.
>
> > --
> > Duncan
>
> I suggest you take a look at the Private Pilot Glider Practical Test
> Guide. *180 (really 270) turns to a downwind landing are SOP for
> gliders after a aerotow rope break.
>
> 180 turns to a downwind landing are NOT SOP for a winch launch failure
> since at 200 feet the glider is still very near the approach end of
> the runway - a 180 turn will leave you with nowhere to land. *Downwind
> landings are not necessary or even advisable with winch launch
> failures.

Big Wings

June 26th 09, 02:15 PM

AOA INDICATORS
Quotes from earlier in this thread...
>"However, I think significantly fewer accidents would
>have happened if angle of attack indicators were universally
>installed."

>"As for an AOA indicator, you're damn right I'd be looking at >it -
and flying a much safer recovery as a result."

What additional benefit would an AOA indicator give over deciding on an
appropriate approach speed before the launch starts and maintaining it,
once attained, after a launch failure by monitoring the airspeed indicator
frequently?
An AOA indicator might just be a distraction!

180 DEGREE TURNS.
As pointed by others a 180 turn does not line one up with the runway so
unless its a very large airfield additional manoeuvring is required which
makes it more complex than at first sight. It is also more likely to put
a glider into conflict with landing traffic. It is also quite difficult
to avoid landing long if there is a tail-wind component which may tend to
make pilots fly more slowly downwind!!
The case for a 180 turn after a winch launch failure is very weak.

HAND ON RELEASE
>"First, we're really only talking about an aero tow ground roll. >Once
airborne in turbulent air, keeping a death grip on the >release isn't a
good idea."

The hand should be touching the release (not holding it) during the early
part of the launch so that one can easily grip it properly and pull it
without having to look for it. Holding it firmly is likely to create
additional risks due to premature releases.

So when is it safe to stop touching it?
On aerotow probably above 800' - 1000' when the risk of killing the tug
pilot if you inadvertently get too high is reducing. "airborne in
turbulent air" is one of those situations when you may get out of
position - so keep your hand just touching it.

On a winch launch you will need to use the release in little over a minute
after the launch commences - why not continue to touch it all the way?

Flapped gliders where the setting needs to be changed from negative during
the ground run are an interesting case. Starting (aerotow) launches in
negative reduces the probability of a wing drop, but one's hand is in the
wrong place to react if it does. What is the best option for those guys?

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 26th 09, 03:23 PM

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:15:04 +0000, Big Wings wrote:

> Flapped gliders where the setting needs to be changed from negative
> during the ground run are an interesting case. Starting (aerotow)
> launches in negative reduces the probability of a wing drop, but one's
> hand is in the wrong place to react if it does. What is the best option
> for those guys?
>
Good question.

When I had an ASW-20 I kept my hand on the release until the ailerons
bit, moved the flap lever to position 3 and put my hand back on the
release with minimum delay. I always assumed this was close to the
optimum, but was that a correct assumption?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Del C[_2_]

June 26th 09, 04:30 PM

When I had a flapped Nimbus 2, I always set the flaps to zero for the
ground run and selected the first stage of positive once I was established
in the full climb. That way I could keep my hand on the release knob during
the ground run. The rapid acceleration of a winch launch gives you almost
instant control.

For aerotows I started in full negative and notched the flaps back as I
gained speed and control.

Derek Copeland

At 14:23 26 June 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:15:04 +0000, Big Wings wrote:
>
>> Flapped gliders where the setting needs to be changed from negative
>> during the ground run are an interesting case. Starting (aerotow)
>> launches in negative reduces the probability of a wing drop, but
one's
>> hand is in the wrong place to react if it does. What is the best
option
>> for those guys?
>>
>Good question.
>
>When I had an ASW-20 I kept my hand on the release until the ailerons
>bit, moved the flap lever to position 3 and put my hand back on the
>release with minimum delay. I always assumed this was close to the
>optimum, but was that a correct assumption?
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

Don Johnstone[_4_]

June 26th 09, 05:30 PM

You should not necessarily point the glider at the winch, you should point
it in the direction that the cable is going to take. If there is a bow in
the cable then the glider should not point at the winch but towards the
bow so that yaw is not induced.
Of course the ideal and proper situation is that the cable runs straight
from the winch to the takeoff point when the cable direction and the winch
are both in the same direction.

The correct thing to do if a wing drops is to release the cable, semantics
maybe but can we please get the terminology right at least.

Just to illustrate the point many years a go a gliding site in the UK
winch launched on a dog leg, the winch cable changed direction halfway
down the run by being taken round a telegraph pole and the launch was
always towards the pole. The change in direction when the cable reached
the top of the pole and slipped off was interesting, the good news was
that CofG hooks were not common so the pull of the cable helped to damp
the yaw induced. I would not want to do it in a modern glider with a CofG
hook, damm dangerous I would think.

At 07:30 26 June 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:
>For Christs sake Bill! Lasham is the largest and most professional
gliding
>club in the UK and we do about 10,000 winch launches per year, 9,999 of
>which go without incident. We do know what we are doing. We either point
>the glide directly at the main winch, or just slightly upwind of it in a
>crosswind to reduce any initial yaw due to weather cocking.
>
>The K13 incident was caused by a gust, and the glider was landed without
>damage or injury. A similar wing drop during an aerotow would be
>considered quite unremarkable. The correct thing to do is to pull off if
a
>wing drops during a winch launch.
>
>Derek Copeland
>
>At 03:42 26 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>>On Jun 24, 7:00=A0pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>> What is particularly interesting in both the video and the
photographs
>>is
>>> the direction the glider is pointing relative to the cable. In the
>video
>>> the glider can be seen to yaw as the cable tightens and then further
>yaw
>>> as the it starts to move.
>>> In the photographs it is clear that the glider is pointing to the
>right
>>o=
>>f
>>> the direction of the cable AND stangely is pointed in the same
>direction
>>=
>>as
>>> the K13 parked behind it, a co-incidence perhaps. In both cases it
>would
>>> appear possible that the glider was not lined up with the cable prior
>to
>>> launch so that as soon as the cable moved yaw was induced. With a
CofG
>>> hook the glider will be more unstable about the yaw axis than was the
>>cas=
>>e
>>> with the more forward release on older gliders. Perhaps that might
>>explai=
>>n
>>> why this appears to be a "new" phenomenon.
>>
>>Nope, they lined it up at an angle to the wire then all the other
>>stuff compounded the problem. There are other videos from Lasham with
>>the gliders improperly staged which show a similar wobbly takeoff. If
>>the gilder isn't pointing at the winch, the takeoff will be
>>'interesting'. Unfortunately, some people in the US are showing the
>>k-13 photo sequence as proof that winches are too dangerous to use.
>>This actually forced me to add a paragraph in my winch training
>>syllabus cautioning pilots to aim gliders at the winch - which any kid
>>launching a balsa glider with a rubber band would understand without
>>being told.
>>
>>To be fair, there very well could have been a wind event that we, in a
>>dustier climate, would call a "dust devil" which couldn't be seen in
>>lush green England. We would see it coming and stand down until the
>>thing passed - then launch and go chase it for the lift it marks.
>>
>

Martin Gregorie[_5_]

June 26th 09, 06:24 PM

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:30:05 +0000, Del C wrote:

> When I had a flapped Nimbus 2, I always set the flaps to zero for the
> ground run and selected the first stage of positive once I was
> established in the full climb. That way I could keep my hand on the
> release knob during the ground run. The rapid acceleration of a winch
> launch gives you almost instant control.
>
> For aerotows I started in full negative and notched the flaps back as I
> gained speed and control.
>
I should have made it clear that was for aero tow: starting the roll in
position 2 (-6 degrees) and going to position 3 (zero) once the ailerons
are fully effective is SOP for an ASW-20 on aero tow.

I flew winch launches entirely in position 3 - zero flap.

Martin

> At 14:23 26 June 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:15:04 +0000, Big Wings wrote:
>>
>>> Flapped gliders where the setting needs to be changed from negative
>>> during the ground run are an interesting case. Starting (aerotow)
>>> launches in negative reduces the probability of a wing drop, but
> one's
>>> hand is in the wrong place to react if it does. What is the best
> option
>>> for those guys?
>>>
>>Good question.
>>
>>When I had an ASW-20 I kept my hand on the release until the ailerons
>>bit, moved the flap lever to position 3 and put my hand back on the
>>release with minimum delay. I always assumed this was close to the
>>optimum, but was that a correct assumption?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Don Johnstone[_4_]

June 26th 09, 07:00 PM

The SOP for most flapped gliders is to start in full negative, it makes the
ailerons more effective and enables you to plant the tail wheel firmly on
the ground which helps in preventing yaw. It is necessary to ensure that a
non negative setting is selected before the tug leaves the ground because
if it is not the glider is going by road. This tends to be very bumpy and
frightens tug pilots.

For winch launching it presents more of a problem, the ASW17 for example
has a release hook which is more forward than most modern gliders and in
order to get any height it is necessary to move from zero flap, where it
was set for takeoff to a plus setting fairly quickly, in fact as soon as
the glider was off the ground.
I got round the problem of being able to operate the flap and release
quickly by looping para cord around the release knob and round my wrist
making it long enough to ensure that I could not pull the release
inadvertently, and short enough to ensure that I could release before my
elbow hit the rear of the cockpit. I could therefore hold the flap lever
but instantly release if required. The para cord could be stowed at the
top of the launch.

At 17:24 26 June 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:30:05 +0000, Del C wrote:
>
>> When I had a flapped Nimbus 2, I always set the flaps to zero for the
>> ground run and selected the first stage of positive once I was
>> established in the full climb. That way I could keep my hand on the
>> release knob during the ground run. The rapid acceleration of a winch
>> launch gives you almost instant control.
>>
>> For aerotows I started in full negative and notched the flaps back as
I
>> gained speed and control.
>>
>I should have made it clear that was for aero tow: starting the roll in
>position 2 (-6 degrees) and going to position 3 (zero) once the ailerons

>are fully effective is SOP for an ASW-20 on aero tow.
>
>I flew winch launches entirely in position 3 - zero flap.
>
>Martin
>
>
>> At 14:23 26 June 2009, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:15:04 +0000, Big Wings wrote:
>>>
>>>> Flapped gliders where the setting needs to be changed from negative
>>>> during the ground run are an interesting case. Starting (aerotow)
>>>> launches in negative reduces the probability of a wing drop, but
>> one's
>>>> hand is in the wrong place to react if it does. What is the best
>> option
>>>> for those guys?
>>>>
>>>Good question.
>>>
>>>When I had an ASW-20 I kept my hand on the release until the ailerons
>>>bit, moved the flap lever to position 3 and put my hand back on the
>>>release with minimum delay. I always assumed this was close to the
>>>optimum, but was that a correct assumption?
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

bildan

June 26th 09, 08:35 PM

On Jun 26, 10:30*am, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> You should not necessarily point the glider at the winch, you should point
> it in the direction that the cable is going to take. If there is a bow in
> the cable then the glider should not point at the winch but towards the
> bow so that yaw is not induced.

A typical answer for a steel cable user. Steel digs in to the ground
as it is puled out. You don't know if a steel cable will maintain its
initial direction or 'twang' back to center jerking the glider around.

UHMWPE/Dyneema rope will take a dead straight line from the glider to
the winch as it is tensioned. The stuff is so light that it easily
skips sideways over weeds and grass. If it fails to straighten out,
it's likely caught on something solid and you'd best investigate.

Yet another reason to dump steel cable.

johngalloway[_2_]

June 26th 09, 08:50 PM

On 26 June, 17:30, Don Johnstone > wrote:
> You should not necessarily point the glider at the winch, you should point
> it in the direction that the cable is going to take. If there is a bow in
> the cable then the glider should not point at the winch but towards the
> bow so that yaw is not induced.
> Of course the ideal and proper situation is that the cable runs straight
> from the winch to the takeoff point when the cable direction and the winch
> are both in the same direction.
>
> The correct thing to do if a wing drops is to release the cable, semantics
> maybe but can we please get the terminology right at least.
>
> Just to illustrate the point many years a go a gliding site in the UK
> winch launched on a dog leg, the winch cable changed direction halfway
> down the run by being taken round a telegraph pole and the launch was
> always towards the pole. The change in direction when the cable reached
> the top of the pole and slipped off was interesting, the good news was
> that CofG hooks were not common so the pull of the cable helped to damp
> the yaw induced. I would not want to do it in a modern glider with a CofG
> hook, damm dangerous I would think.
>
Don,

You are clearly referring to the Scottish Gliding Union at Portmoak
airfield where I have been member since 1977. We continued launching
on the dogleg ash strip for many years after that including many
gliders with C of G hooks with no problem at all (including, in my
case over those years, K6E, Diamant, Std Cirrus, Kestrel 19, Nimbus
2C). The point that is is relevant to the "where to point the glider"
issues is this: Waiting for a launch we lined up one behind the other
straight down the strip with the cable coming straight into the
glider. We were therefore pointing well to one side of the winch but
the gliders took off perfectly straight down the strip. I was never
particularly aware of any direction change during the launch.

Now that we launch straight towards the winch on the main grass parts
of the airfield we have more, not less, issues with gliders being
swung by the cable and that is because the gliders queue side by side
with a gap between them for the cable retrieve vehicle to pass
through. For each glider the cable has to be pulled over to the
glider leaving a bow in the last 50m or so of the cable. A steel
cable being pulled through grass by a our lowish power winch does
*not* pull straight as the slack is taken up and can easily swing the
glider right at the start of the ground run. When I launch I always
insist the last 50m of cable is pulled as straight as possible and not
just that the drogue chute is pulled to the front of the glider. If
that were not possible I would agree that the glider should more or
less line up with the closest 50m of cable when launching off grass.
When launching from a hard runway (or our old ash strip) this is much
less of an issue because the cable can slip sideways over the ground
so much more easily.

John Galloway

Derek Copeland[_2_]

June 27th 09, 08:45 PM

When we did a trial with Plasma (similar to Dyneema) cable on one drum and
steel cable on the other drum of a two drum winch, I can't say that I
noticed any difference between the two in terms of straightening out. The
Plasma cable did give higher launches, by a hundred feet or so, but the
cost is unfortunately rather prohibitive.

It is a good idea to keep the airfield grass as short as possible so that
cables will slide over it and straighten out as they are tensioned. This
also reduces the chances of groundloops or cartwheels if a wing drops.

At my club we pull the cables just past the launch point so there is
enough slack to reach the second glider, normally on the upwind side by
just over half a wingspan. There is therefore a small amount of offset,
but this generally does not cause a problem. The upwind side is preferred
as you launch the downwind cable first, which tends to drift away from the
second cable, reducing the risk of picking it up. Also reduces the chance
of the cables crossing at the winch end during the wind in.

Derek Copeland

At 19:35 26 June 2009, bildan wrote:
>On Jun 26, 10:30=A0am, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> You should not necessarily point the glider at the winch, you should
>poin=
>t
>> it in the direction that the cable is going to take. If there is a bow
>in
>> the cable then the glider should not point at the winch but towards
the
>> bow so that yaw is not induced.
>
>A typical answer for a steel cable user. Steel digs in to the ground
>as it is puled out. You don't know if a steel cable will maintain its
>initial direction or 'twang' back to center jerking the glider around.
>
>UHMWPE/Dyneema rope will take a dead straight line from the glider to
>the winch as it is tensioned. The stuff is so light that it easily
>skips sideways over weeds and grass. If it fails to straighten out,
>it's likely caught on something solid and you'd best investigate.
>
>Yet another reason to dump steel cable.
>