On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:08:30 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 6:40:42 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:

On Monday, August 27, 2012 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Brian wrote: So I am seeing the why do we still thermal low comment, but no one is says how low. I suspect these accidents may not be a low as some of us think. But have no data to back it up. With so many of us using flight recorders it should be pretty easy to look a few of these accidents and see, but somehow this data never seems to reach us. I can understand some liability issues but it seems like it would be pretty easy to reproduce the data into a generic format that didn't give away the location or ID of what happened but would still allow us to review the flight path of an actual flight that led to the accident. Brian My thoughts exactly. we need the actual data to learn something from those accidents, but it is almost never provided. We should have enough statistics to be able to determine how low is too low to recover, so we can adjust our threshold. This is what safety culture is all about. If we keep this info to ourselves, no much can be learned. Ramy



I do not agree.

There is nothing new to learn from Jim's accident.

People just keep repeating the same stupid stuff they know better than to do.

A handful of folks on this forum seem to want to study the crap out of accidents like this in the hope that they will learn something new.

There are no new lessons to be learned here guys. It is very simple. You can't circle at low altitude without an unaceptable risk of a(commonly gust induced) stall spin. And these spins do NOT happen like the ones we practice. They happen much more quickly and violently. I have a personal hard deck of 500 feet where circling is cancelled. The only exception is ridge flying where a whole group of additional variables come into play.

If you want data, go spin your glider in the configuration you fly it all the time. Let it start to spin, not just catch it when it departs. See how much altitude you lose, then throw in another 1-200 feet for the surprise factor.

I spin sailpalnes probably 60-80 times a year and my contest gliders a dozen time a year. From that, I've developed my personal limits.

Note that gliders with winglets commonly may be more benign in stall than ones without, but may well be uglier in a true spin.

As instructors, mentors, and friends, we need to embrace and promote the concept that we all need a limit where we STOP SOARING AND START LANDING with NO exceptions.

Sorry to rant, but I've lost 3 friends this year, all for the same damn reason and all knew better.

UH

The point was to qualify what is too low. I agree about 500 feet. This is also my threshold. But some will consider below 1000 feet as low, while others will consider 200 feet... As such, would be helpful to know how low they were thermaling, if the data is available.

Ramy

Ramy