48.4 hours !?

I flew with them a few years back and before taking their Grob up solo I was
required to watch a video where a visiting pilot PIO'ed on landing so
violently that the tailboom was broken off. They insisted that the ship be
flown onto the runway with full spoilers.


"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Note that was a different operator.

However, given the amazing number of rides done there, few prior
incidents.
IIRC, CAP bent a 2-33 some time back on auto tow(?). The G103 in the surf
and now this. Any others known to RAS regulars and lurkers? Not a bad
record actually. Be interesting to know if there was some lapse.

Frank

wrote:

You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider...ach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
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.

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. 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.

Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry passengers in 10
days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had some prior
training/experience that is not reflected above.

My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's Brevet together
do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward here, let
alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides in Hawaii, chances
are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial Glider Pilot's
ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.

The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving on the
Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident happend.


Ian

At 05:00 27 April 2005, Ian Forbes wrote:
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. 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.

Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry
passengers in 10
days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had
some prior
training/experience that is not reflected above.

My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's
Brevet together
do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward
here, let
alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides
in Hawaii, chances
are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial
Glider Pilot's
ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.

The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving
on the
Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident
happend.


Ian
You are right Ian if I went out there I would show
exactly the same profile, my previous 1500 hours would
not show either.
This probably sums the whole thing up, speculation,
rumour, and heresay, almost anything but fact. If much
of what has been said previously had been said about
a pilot who survived the accident a lot of people would
soon become very poor. Dead people can't sue, or even
more to the point defend themselves against scurrilous
attacks by the ignorant.

Some quotes from a Honolulu newspaper,

"Friends said the pilot had moved to the islands from Wisconsin in
December.

"He was living life to the fullest," said Jesse Savage, a friend of
Nelson's in Madison, Wis., who had spoken to him in the last month. "He
was passionate in all things he did."

Savage said Nelson was survived by his parents and an older sister.

He said Nelson did not have a pilot's license when he left Wisconsin.



Nelson has no family in the islands. His father, Richard, said he plans
to come to Hawaii to take his son's body back to his native Wisconsin.
He said his son was an inspiration to a lot of people.

"We lost a good person. He was somebody who enjoyed every bit of life,"
he said.

Nelson said his son received his pilot's license two weeks ago and was
proud of his certification.

His sister, Riana, said her brother started flying with passengers
after he passed a test for his commercial pilot license two to three
weeks ago."



I think the 48.4 hours is probably a true reflection of his experience.


Ben Jeffrey

Thanks, Don, for finding the facts and summing the whole thing up for
us. Don't forget to also update the NTSB, the friends and families who
all had no prior knowledge about the pilot experience.

Ramy

Maybe more to the point is not the hours, but
what could be done to change this?

I don't think hours makes that much difference.
100 hours in a 2-33 doesn't mean a whole lot
towards avoiding inadvertent spin in a 2-32.

I think what helps is:

Spin training, and spin recovery training.
Training in judgement and personal limitations.

Training someone to spin has the opposite effect if
that same pilot has poor judgement. I've
given training to pilots who have then gone out and
abused
it, despite my best efforts at instilling
good judgement too.

Should spin training be required for commercial
privileges? I don't know for sure, but I think it
is the right level to ask the question. I think the

insurers should consider incentives for this
training (for glider and also airplane commercial
pilots).

For airplanes, spins used to be mandatory for
ASEL Private pilots. I don't know about
gliders...

Of course, none of this assumes the pilot in this
accident did or didn't have spin training or
personal minimums well established. As far
as I know, he may have done spins many times,
and been even more meticulous than the half-dozen highly
experienced glider pilots who died in the US near ridges
in
the past 5 years.

I try to spin all of my pre-solos (but I've missed
2 of them).
But I've spun everyone before they get their ratings...

I don't know how anyone can really understand a
spin (and it's dangers) until they've done one personally.
It is a fascinating manuever...

At 13:30 27 April 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 05:00 27 April 2005, Ian Forbes wrote:
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. 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.

Even James Bond or Tin Tin could not qualify to carry
passengers in 10
days from novice. Clearly this pilot must have had
some prior
training/experience that is not reflected above.

My South African Glider Pilot's Licence and Instructor's
Brevet together
do not permit me to carry passengers for hire and reward
here, let
alone in Hawaii. If I took on a job flying joy rides
in Hawaii, chances
are I would have to get Student, Private and Commercial
Glider Pilot's
ratings in a hurry. Maybe I could do it in 2 weeks.

The 48.4 hours were probably what he logged since arriving
on the
Island. Of course this does not explain why the accident
happend.


Ian
You are right Ian if I went out there I would show
exactly the same profile, my previous 1500 hours would
not show either.
This probably sums the whole thing up, speculation,
rumour, and heresay, almost anything but fact. If much
of what has been said previously had been said about
a pilot who survived the accident a lot of people would
soon become very poor. Dead people can't sue, or even
more to the point defend themselves against scurrilous
attacks by the ignorant.





Mark J. Boyd

Mark,

Good points on the need for spin training. The other thing that should
be included in the training requirement in the US for a commercial
rating is soaring training. I have seen it often where a pilot is
taught to fly the glider, but has no real world soaring training to
deal with lift and sink environments as well as decision making process
when you are not right over the airport. It is easy to fly a glider if
you take a three thousand foot tow, make a few turns and land again
without ever trying to keep the plane in the air. But are you ready to
handle adverse conditions? No, not when you get your commercial in a
total of 25 to 30 hours and need to meet the 100 flight requirement.

Tim

"M B" wrote in message
...
Maybe more to the point is not the hours, but
what could be done to change this?

(Disclaimer: I am speaking in generalities and not necessarily about this
accident in particular)

The exercise of good common sense by operators and insurers would go far to
"change this". Let's not insist on the government doing our thinking for us, we
are unlikely to be happy with the result. The exercise of such "common sense"
that goes far beyond the minimum letter of the FARs is very common in the
soaring world. I do not always agree with this "ad hock" regulation (any more
than I agree with every word in the FARs), but I agree that it is a necessary
thing.

A few tiny examples; 1) In a club I was associated with years ago, I saw
new CFIG's (especially those new to the club) told to "watch and wait" for a
period of time before they started instructing. At that same club, you needed
over 100 flights to even be considered to fly some of the equipment. 2) I don't
recall the operator I worked for ever allowing a non-CFIG Commercial pilot to
give commercial rides. 3) I remember when Mile-High came to Florida to sell
rides; they advertised for Commercial pilots and were demanding very significant
2-32 time/# of flights from applicants. 4) I know of no commercial operator
that will rent you a ship without a local checkout, many will not even sell you
a tow. None of this is required by the FARs. 5) Everybody has a story about
insurance company requirements that go far beyond the FARs, insurance companies
are emerging as our new regulators. Their regulation may seem arbitrary, but
they do not operate in a vacuum. We are customers and hold "the power of the
checkbook".

Let us learn from accidents and religiously apply what we learn to prevent
further accidents, but please! let's not ask for more regulation.

Vaughn

The exercise of good common sense by operators and insurers would go far to
"change this". Let's not insist on the government doing our thinking for us, we
are unlikely to be happy with the result. The exercise of such "common sense"
that goes far beyond the minimum letter of the FARs is very common in the
soaring world.

I agree with this and suggest that this is already the typical case -
and wonder why this did not happen here. The FAA really only certifies
to the minimum standards. When not in my LS6, I fly a Skylane and have
high performance and complex endorsements. As far as the FAA is
concerned, I can quite legally jump into a Bonanza and commit aviation.
But, the insurance company would say "hold on, cowboy".

Tony V.

"Tony Verhulst" wrote in message
...
...The FAA really only certifies to the minimum standards. When not in my LS6,
I fly a Skylane and have high performance and complex endorsements. As far as
the FAA is concerned, I can quite legally jump into a Bonanza and commit
aviation. But, the insurance company would say "hold on, cowboy".

Exactly...and for good reason.

Vaughn



Tony V.