View Single Post
  #23  
Old May 7th 14, 02:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:56:44 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 22:22 06 May 2014, Bill D wrote:

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:41:23 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:




Frankly I would be horrified to be required to conduct a turn back at


=20


200ft, I would suggest that this is one of those occasions where the


dang=


er


=20


of practice is to great to justify.




If you should check out in the USA, you'll be required to demonstrate


compe=


tence in this maneuver. Every pre-solo student is required to do so and


mo=


re than a half century of safety records do not suggest a problem. In


fact=


, even with low performance gliders, there's quite a large safety margin.


T=


he most likely outcome is a pilot will find the glider uncomfortably high


f=


or a downwind landing requiring full spoilers and a slip.




The logic is simple - it's better to have pilots trained for the option.


N=


o one says a pilot is required to turn back or that 200' is always


adequate=


to do so. What is illogical is to suggest a pilot be required to crash


in=


unlandable terrain when a safe option exists to land on the departure


runw=


ay.




What are you trying to save? The pilot or the aircraft? The priority should

be survival of the soft bit, that is you and me.

As an instructor with nearly 50 years experience I know that when I

initiate an emergency procedure I do so allowing a margin to ensure my

survival if it does not work out, I have been bold but never certifiable.

Most living instructors have the same survival instinct. That is why I have

lived long enough to do 10,000 launches, and of course landings. It has

already been hinted that the practice you describe involves modifying what

you normally do, in my view that probably makes it pretty useless and not

real preparation for the event. If you did carry out the training in

exactly the same way as the possible real event you might find that the

results were very different, not to mention painful. I will stick with my

300ft thank you, I know it works. Low turns, below that height may have

been acceptable in old wooden gliders, the minimum height in T31 and T21

gliders was 150ft, but for modern glass gliders it is just far too low, you

only have to look at the accident statistics to see that low final turns

figure to a large degree in accidents so why plan for it?

I repeat a controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a

better result than hitting the ground in a turn or even worse spinning in

trying to avoid it.



PS Despite all that there have been times when I have initiated a practice

emergency and very quickly wished I had not, no plan survives first

contact.


So, you're saying the pilot will be safer if they don't learn to perform the return to runway maneuver when it's safe to do so?

I can assure you that the higher a glider's performance, the safer it is. It's the old, low L/D gliders that can run out of altitude before getting lined up with the runway.