On 7/23/2011 8:37 PM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Jul 24, 6:09 am, wrote:
1) the 'passage' (hidden assumption: aerotow) through 'Never-Never-land'
surrounding many (most?) gliderports, which is to say airports surrounded by
mature trees/forests/swamps/houses/communities/killer
sagebrush/arroyos/vertical rocks/etc.;

I've only flown gliders from about twenty airfields/farm strips in New
Zealand and the USA but I can not think of ANY OF THEM that had such a
never-never-land, and I would not be comfortable flying from one.

No disrespect intended, but I'd reply from several perspectives...
1) Consider yourself a lucky gliderpilot in your choices of airports. (One of
these days maybe I'll make a list of those I've towed from and give 'em a
ranking on my personal 'never, never land' list; my off-the-cuff guess is
those having essentially zero risk-to-the-plane-free departure scenarios would
be *easily* over 50%. Take - for instance - Boulder (CO) my home field. Taking
off to the east, it has one (maybe two, depending...) landable fields, one
90-degrees to the runway heading; both have been used over the years. Taking
off to the west (done only in [definitionally, really gnarly being in the
immediate lee of the continental divide mountains] high-wind conditions), the
runway ends at a large pond/small lake, beyond which is an open field bordered
by trees on the approach, wires and trees on the far end, and littered with
(large) prairie dog hole mounds. I consider the west departure a 'never, never
land' departure, even though I'm aware of one 2-32 that successfully dumped
into the field without 'real damage' (minor bent metal adjoining the skid as I
recall). It was pure chance it escaped with that minor of damage.)
2) Is it more conservative to generalize entirely from one's own
(definitionally limited) perspectives, or, from a perspective incorporating
others' experiences? (Being a conservative kind of thinker when it comes to my
own hide, I'd argue an incorporative perspective is the more prudent. If it
happens, it must be possible. If other glider pilots claim 'never, never land'
exists, while it's *possible* they may all be cowardly, lying wusses, it's
also possible some of them may NOT be. Hmmm...)
3) To your comment of, "...and I would not be comfortable flying from one" I'd
hope 100% of all prudent, informed glider pilots (i.e. all of us, youbetcha!)
would feel similarly!!! I certainly never have been troubled by a complacent
attitude on takeoff; maybe it's one reason I've focused so much over the years
on being paranoid about the very real possibilities of a premature
release...and by extension, the need for non-foot-shotting piloting actions in
their immediate wake. Mindset matters!

Snip...

How do you guys get a never-never-land?

Geographical luck? If it happens, it must be possible.

Snip...


If you're flying from somewhere with a never-never-land then I very
strongly suggest that you do something about it.

We're in 100% agreement (up to here!). I choose 'safety paranoia' tempered
with a larger sense of 'daily go/no-go' thinking...which naturally varies. My
go/no-go decision depends on my assessment of 'the whole shebang': the ship
I'm to fly; my currency; the immediate field conditions (ground and air);
'never, never land'; the tug/pilot combination; etc.; etc.; etc.

Get more length, cut
down obstacles, get a more powerful tug, or better performing gliders.

(Gentle, non-condescending, smile...) Our primary tug is a 250 (260?) hp
Pawnee w. 4-blade prop. Can you suggest something better? (It might be best to
begin another thread here!) As to obstacles, every time we propose blading 'em
away, the obstacle owners (and their political friends) get in an uproar; I
don't know why. To get more eastern runway length we'd have to fill the 'toe'
of an alluvial fan of ~100-150' vertical feet. To the west we'd have to fill
that pesky lake and move/kill some prairie dogs; on the western end, it's
arguable which is the largest issue (dry chuckle). The Club glider fleet:
Schweizer 1-34; G-102; G-103; Schweizer 2-32; DG-505. Recognizing that it's
always possible I'm missing something fundamental here, it certainly isn't
obvious to me how this particular (large, relatively healthy) club could
implement any of your suggestions, and remain a large, relatively healthy club.
- - - - - -

But to restate my main point again (just so it doesn't get entirely lost, 'too
soon'), the issue I'm hoping to nudge people to consider (perhaps more
seriously than they heretofore have done so) is that of Joe Glider-PIC's
mindset prior to each and every launch and each and every landing. Both
situations are the times JGPIC is most likely to die, while PIC-ing. (That's
per NTSB data, which happens also to match 'common sense' in this instance.)

Would you rather take off primed and ready for a real launch emergency, or
even a foot-shot 'situation'...or not? Why?

Would you rather fly your landing pattern without having recently
pre-considered the possibility you *could* depart from controlled flight...or
not? Why?

To me, it simply is prudent to have these situations actively in mind in both
circumstances. Why?

Launching - I'd argue that if we could interview (say) the last 10 sailplane
pilots who botched an on-tow visual "Check your sailplane, doofus!" signal,
we'd find pretty much unanimous agreement they 'could have done better'
preparing for that particular tow. (*I* certainly wouldn't be arguing the
position there was no WAY I could have done things better prior to botching
such a signal.)

Landing - Similarly, (hidden assumption - we rule out the possibility of
intentional suicides) if we could somehow interview the last 10 sailplane
pilots who died after an unintentional departure from controlled flight in the
landing pattern, I'm reasonably certain every one would choose to have a
second chance at the fatal pattern...and that most would do 'something'
differently.

Regards,
Bob W.