48.4 hours !?

NTSB Identification: LAX05LA131
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, April 06, 2005 in Mokuleia, HI
Aircraft: Schweizer SGS 2-32, registration: N693U
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On April 6, 2005, at 1300 Hawaiian standard time, a Schweizer SGS 2-32
glider, N693U, impacted mountainous terrain 0.4 miles south of the
Dillingham Airfield, Mokuleia, Hawaii. The commercial glider pilot was
fatally injured and the two passengers sustained minor injuries. The
glider sustained substantial damaged. Sailplane Ride Adventures, Inc.,
owned and operated the glider under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91 as
a scenic sailplane ride. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed,
and a flight plan had not been filed for the local flight. The
20-minute scenic flight was in the air approximately 17 minutes.

According to an interview summary provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the passengers reported that they were circling
around a hill and thought that they were returning to the airport. The
glider crossed over a ridge to a valley to look at a waterfall. The
glider turned left then right in a gentle but accelerating manner. The
glider also pitched up and down, and the passengers felt like they were
falling. The pilot announced that they were "going in." The glider
impacted trees and terrain, and came to rest upside down.

Another witness, who was a glider pilot flying at the time of the
accident, observed the accident glider behind her, heading east
approximately 400-500 feet above the ridge. She checked back on the
glider's position relative to hers and noticed the glider "turn right
(toward the ridge) and its nose come up slightly." The glider turned
"approximately 45 degrees to the right, then turned back to the left
and immediately entered a spin to the left." The witness reported that
the glider rotated twice before it entered a spin to the right. The
witness then lost sight of the glider behind trees before it completed
a rotation to the right.

The accident site was at 21 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds north
latitude and 158 degrees 12 minutes and 54 seconds west longitude at an
elevation of approximately 1,000 feet msl. The glider came to rest on
the east side of a gulch that cut through the east-west running
ridgeline situated to the south of Dillingham Airfield. Review of
photographs of the accident site revealed that the glider fuselage came
to rest inverted with the left and right inboard wings intact. The left
and right outboard wing sections were detached; however, the left
outboard wing section remained attached to the main wreckage via flight
control cables. The right outboard wing section came to rest
approximately 40 feet from the main wreckage at the base of freshly
broken trees. The wing leading edges displayed circular indentations
similar in size to the diameter of the surrounding trees. The tail
section folded over the belly of the airplane.

The glider was recovered to Dillingham Airfield on April 8, 2005.
According to the FAA inspectors that responded to the accident site,
flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit to the flight
control surfaces.

The pilot received his student pilot certificate on March 16, 2005. On
March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate with a glider
rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial pilot certificate
with a glider rating. According to the pilot's logbook, as of April 5,
2005 (the day before the accident), he accumulated a total of 48.4
hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours were as pilot-in-command.

31.2 hours P1? To me that seems a little low? What
are the US requirements for a commercial rating? Here
in the UK you need 50 and silver before you can get
a Basic Instructor rating (To give first lessons, but
not past turning, so I think about equivalent..).
Is this a normal requirement or is this exceptional?

Jamie

At 16:30 21 April 2005, wrote:
NTSB Identification: LAX05LA131
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Wednesday, April 06, 2005 in Mokuleia,
HI
Aircraft: Schweizer SGS 2-32, registration: N693U
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change,
and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected
when the final
report has been completed.

On April 6, 2005, at 1300 Hawaiian standard time, a
Schweizer SGS 2-32
glider, N693U, impacted mountainous terrain 0.4 miles
south of the
Dillingham Airfield, Mokuleia, Hawaii. The commercial
glider pilot was
fatally injured and the two passengers sustained minor
injuries. The
glider sustained substantial damaged. Sailplane Ride
Adventures, Inc.,
owned and operated the glider under the provisions
of 14 CFR Part 91 as
a scenic sailplane ride. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed,
and a flight plan had not been filed for the local
flight. The
20-minute scenic flight was in the air approximately
17 minutes.

According to an interview summary provided by the Federal
Aviation
Administration (FAA), the passengers reported that
they were circling
around a hill and thought that they were returning
to the airport. The
glider crossed over a ridge to a valley to look at
a waterfall. The
glider turned left then right in a gentle but accelerating
manner. The
glider also pitched up and down, and the passengers
felt like they were
falling. The pilot announced that they were 'going
in.' The glider
impacted trees and terrain, and came to rest upside
down.

Another witness, who was a glider pilot flying at the
time of the
accident, observed the accident glider behind her,
heading east
approximately 400-500 feet above the ridge. She checked
back on the
glider's position relative to hers and noticed the
glider 'turn right
(toward the ridge) and its nose come up slightly.'
The glider turned
'approximately 45 degrees to the right, then turned
back to the left
and immediately entered a spin to the left.' The witness
reported that
the glider rotated twice before it entered a spin to
the right. The
witness then lost sight of the glider behind trees
before it completed
a rotation to the right.

The accident site was at 21 degrees 34 minutes 21 seconds
north
latitude and 158 degrees 12 minutes and 54 seconds
west longitude at an
elevation of approximately 1,000 feet msl. The glider
came to rest on
the east side of a gulch that cut through the east-west
running
ridgeline situated to the south of Dillingham Airfield.
Review of
photographs of the accident site revealed that the
glider fuselage came
to rest inverted with the left and right inboard wings
intact. The left
and right outboard wing sections were detached; however,
the left
outboard wing section remained attached to the main
wreckage via flight
control cables. The right outboard wing section came
to rest
approximately 40 feet from the main wreckage at the
base of freshly
broken trees. The wing leading edges displayed circular
indentations
similar in size to the diameter of the surrounding
trees. The tail
section folded over the belly of the airplane.

The glider was recovered to Dillingham Airfield on
April 8, 2005.
According to the FAA inspectors that responded to the
accident site,
flight control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit
to the flight
control surfaces.

The pilot received his student pilot certificate on
March 16, 2005. On
March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate
with a glider
rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial
pilot certificate
with a glider rating. According to the pilot's logbook,
as of April 5,
2005 (the day before the accident), he accumulated
a total of 48.4
hours of flight time, of which 31.2 hours were as pilot-in-command
.

The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring experience
required. I think that all ratings should be required to demonstrate
real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This is about the third
accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics into the
trees.

Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
* Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English.
* Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for heavier-than-air
aircraft.)
For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge test (FAR
61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s) endorsed in
the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which type of launch(s)
the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
*
There are two levels of experience required for issuance of a
commercial certificate;
1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders, including;
1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in command; and,
2. 3 hours of flight training or 10 training flights in
gliders; and,
3. 2 hours of solo flight to include not less than 10
solo flights; and,
4. 3 training flights in preparation for the flight
test.

One word to describe this: ABSURD.
Thinking of those unsuspecting passengers who put their lives in the
hands of someone they believe is very experienced.

Ramy

ttaylor at cc.usu.edu wrote:
The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring experience
required. I think that all ratings should be required to demonstrate
real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This is about the third
accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics into the
trees.

Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
* Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English.
* Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for heavier-than-air
aircraft.)
For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge test (FAR
61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s) endorsed in
the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which type of launch(s)
the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
*
There are two levels of experience required for issuance of a
commercial certificate;
1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders, including;
1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in command; and,
2. 3 hours of flight training or 10 training flights
in
gliders; and,
3. 2 hours of solo flight to include not less than 10
solo flights; and,
4. 3 training flights in preparation for the flight
test.

wrote:

The pilot received his student pilot certificate on March 16, 2005. On
March 24, 2005, he received his private pilot certificate with a glider
rating. On March 26, 2005, he obtained his commercial pilot certificate
with a glider rating.

I've always thought that the requirements to get a US glider rating are
ridiculously low. While we can argue whether they should or should not
be raised for private pilots, they are definitely much too low for the
commercial rating. (Form what I understand, you can get the commercial
riating and even the instructor rating without ever having flown cross
country!) We know nothing about this accident yet, and I may be wrong,
but reading the description, I attribute this accident to his low
experience. (Flew into a lee and got nervous by the presence of
passengers or something similiar.)

Stefan

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

Earlier, Ramy wrote:

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

Let's remember that what we're seeing here is _not_ an NTSB report. It
is a synopsis, and a preliminary one at that. Synopses with Preliminary
status will never state more than the basic facts of the accident
(date, time, location, and basic on-scene findings such as control
continuity).

When the synopsis is updated to Probable Cause status, it will state
the probable cause as determined in the investigation and offer
pertinent analysis of the accident and surrounding events. I think that
the synopses typically go to Probable Cause status when the full
accident report is finalized. Typically, reports for non-fatal
accidents are finalized 6 months after the accident. Reports for fatal
accidents take a year or sometimes more.

You can see the full NTSB accident report if you want, when it is
completed. The last time I did this, it cost about $35 for the records
duplication.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

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.

IIRC, there was a 2-32 spin-in at Calistoga about 1980 or so where the
suspected cause was the PAX hiking boot jammed between the rudder pedal and
fuselage.

Frank Whiteley

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.

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.