48.4 hours !?

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

That this pilot seems to have gone from pre-solo student to commercial
ride pilot in the space of a few weeks doesn't really surprise me. It's
unusual, but I can see it happening in a concentrated program such as
the one at the USAF academy, and when using fairly basic equipment like
2-33s.

What does surprise me is that such a low-hour pilot got turned loose in
a 2-32 in ride-for-two configuration. Back in the day, when I worked at
Sky Sailing, the 2-32 was considered a Hot Ship, and it definitely
hotted up from there when loaded to near max gross as rides for two
would do. That ship seemed to demand careful energy management, and
would smite you mightily if you didn't keep an eye on the airspeed. At
Sky Sailing (Fremont), they difinitely didn't turn you loose on 2-32
rides until you had many more hours than the pilot in this accident.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

You're confusing rating and FAA requirements with insurance
requirements.

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably
bright
person with the minimum hours can pilot a doggy glider
like
a 2-33 with a passenger on a sled ride. FAA minimums
are just that: minimums. Neither the FAA nor anyone
else I know
believes that having a license and being legal to fly
X or Y or Z makes it safe to fly any aircraft with
any passengers with no further type specific training
whatsoever. Even the greenest
private pilots in airplanes don't jump straight into
a
GeeBee.

At the exaggeration of what you are suggesting is that
all pilots should be required to fly a 2-32 and demonstrate
they can safely fly it in maximally difficult wave,
thermal, ridge, etc.
Oh, and demonstrate spins and recoveries in the 2-32
with 300# in the back. All before getting the FAA

glider rating. Quite a full plate indeed.

This is NOT an FAA requirement. BUT, this can be
an INSURANCE requirement. As it should be, the
insurer for this accident will be much more interested
and responsive to the findings than the FAA. A blanket
FAA regulatory change from this accident seems neither
prudent nor likely.

A 2-32 is a hot enough ship that I am personally aware
of a
several thousand hour commercial pilot destroying one
within the past two years. Pilot and passengers uninjured,

fortunately.

Which is perhaps one of the greatest things one can
say about
these aircraft: they seem to do a pretty good job
protecting the innocent passengers in the back.

They seem to also do a fairly good job protecting the
pilot in the front too, generally. It's a shame that
this
particular pilot didn't make it.

Despite whether the eventual findings cite X or Y or
Z...

...the most surprising part of the 48.4 hours is that
the commercial insurer would accept that. In my experience
commercial insurers are pretty draconian about their
experience requirements, including some pretty
heavy requirements for time in type. To the point
they
don't even quote a rate (even an exorbinant one)
unless one has some pretty extensive experience in
some aircraft types.

I'd be very interested to see not so much how the
FAA reacts, but how the insurers react to this unfortunate
accident.

On a different note, I think this was a young, 20ish
pilot.
How terrible to lose a young soul like this...

At 18:00 21 April 2005, 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.


Mark J. Boyd

"Ramy" wrote:
Do you think the passengers would have take the ride if they knew their
pilot soloed just 3 weeks ago? Would you send a loved one to take a
ride with a pilot who just soloed?

This issue that was touched on slightly in another thread asking if
we've ever refused to fly with someone we felt was not entire safe.

Having worked at an airplane flight school, I am *still* surprised that
NO ONE coming in for a Discovery Flight ever asked about the credentials
of the pilots. They likely wonder, but they don't ask. There *is* an
IMPLIED ASSUMPTION (accurate or not, obviously) that if he/she is
working there and you are offering the service, the pilot is
experienced, qualified and competent to handle routine flights and
possible emergencies; there is also the obvious *implied risk*, but
neither side talks about either of these implications.

If/When you went for a Discovery or demo flight, would you, or *did*
you, ask about the qualifications and experience of your pilot? Would
you have gone for the ride if the establishment informed you that their
pilot soloed, got his license and his commercial rating in less than one
month just over a week ago? If you owned the establishment, would you
hire someone who was *legally* qualified for the job but who had almost
*no* experience?

Doesn't the insurance for such an operation require a certain amount of
experience *in addition to the required ratings* for pilots providing
rides, or for giving rides in various aircraft?

M B wrote:

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan

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

Stefan,

Setting aside for the moment charged phrases like
'trust' and 'put your life in his hands'

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

In my experience it has been the insurance companies.
They
get the profits and guide flying through there rates
at a level of detail that I can't see any government
accomplishing as well.
I get customers for flying specifically on my doorstep
because their insurer said 'get some spin training
in a XYZ' or
'x number of hours in high L/D glass' etc.

Same for towpilots. The requirements I've seen from
insurers are 5 times what the FAA minimums are, and
then go from there in detail depending on the type
of aircraft used (Pawnee, 235, C-182, etc.)

Absolute statements about the responsibility of government
to protect customers and shine truth and provide the
impenetrable shield of absolute safety on all within
its bounds are certainly lofty ideals.

But in the end the insurers do a far better practical
job of tracking and guiding the nuances of pilots,
locations, and aircraft to provide a practical level
of safety.

The best question right before a ride as a passenger
isn't
about the pilot's ratings or accident record or hours
or
time in type. The best question to evaluate the safety

of a flight is to ask 'how much are you paying for
insurance?'
If the number is astronomical, then take a ride elsewhere...

The actuaries have spoken...

At 21:00 21 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect
the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this
pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan

Mark J. Boyd

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.

I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly after it happened..

I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the one I flew I felt it was
very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall with rumbling and
stick shaking..

one report that came from our local witness.. that is not addressed in the
preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of salt or sand...is that
the passengers reported that the stick was full back the entire time when
the spin started... no forward movement to stop the spin..

In less than one month.. this individual went from Student Pilot certificate
issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and crashed. No mention is
made of his experience prior to receiving his student pilot certificate. But
based on the documentation provided, one can expect that he had worked up to
pre-solo before getting his student certificate and quickly completed two
written exams and check rides. Not a good position to put an insurance
company in.

BT

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