48.4 hours !?

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.

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.

When all else fails blame the pilot, especially a dead
one, he ain't going to argue is he. You may of course
be right but just think about the assumption you have
all made. Would you want someone to think that of you?
I think you might have the common decency to wait for
the result of the official enquiry before sentence.
Shame on you all.


At 18:00 21 April 2005, Ramy wrote:
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.

Don Johnstone wrote:

Would you want someone to think that of you?

If I had made a fatal error: Yes. Yes, I would want people to not only
think, but talk about my error and learn something.

But I agree, by now it's only speculation. However, spinning into the
ground smells like pilot error.

Stefan

Who blames the pilot? The FAA or the commercial opperation is to be
blamed!
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?
And which other official inquiry you expect to get? The NTSB report
*is* the official inquiry.
My condolences to the pilot's family and friends.

Ramy

The first paragraph of the NTSB statement:
--
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.
--
It will be weeks or months before they produce conclusions. The report
we are seeing is a summary of the facts as they know them at the time
of initial investigation.

Unfortunately, the NTSB generaly only puts out two reports. The
original, usually very sketchy, and the final, factual one. In
between, we just wait.

-Tom

"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?

I shocked, truly SHOCKED, to read such rampant speculation. I have
never before heard of such an untoward thing on RAS! In deed, we should
all wait 1-2 years for the OFFICIAL NTSB proclamation that this
accident was caused by pilot error (low PIC time a contributing
factor).

Tom

Tom, You either completly missed the point or just ignore it. Unless
you consider the pilot experience detailed in the NTSB report as
speculation. This poor fellow just soloed 3 weeks ago and was allowed
to take paid passengers for a ridge soaring ride for god's sake. Don't
you see what's wrong with this picture? The purpose of discussions like
this is to prevent similar things from hapenning again. Waiting 1-2
years for official NTSB report which will most likely be identical is a
waste of time. It will be old news by then. I rather wait for the
accident report in Soaring magazine. But again, this is not the point
of this discussion.

Ramy,

Look up the word "Satire".