You gotta keep the tailplane on if your gonna use the elevator to push the
glider. Sheesh!

wrote in message
oups.com...
You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider...ach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.

2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
turn.

I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
requiring some
referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
the
ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
continue.

Different operator, same location
http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm

FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
limiting dive
to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
would be a
big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
Shoe-horning
them in was the order of the day.

Frank





BTIZ wrote:

based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
minimum experience.. lack of spin training...

I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
BT

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Ramy wrote:

As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
analyze
the cause for the accident.

One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
of
stints.
He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
have
20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
or lack
of
it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.