48.4 hours !?

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.

About 15 years ago, Dody and I came across a commercial glider
operation in North Carolina. We decided to take a demo flight in their
2-32, and just to see how they treated their walk-ons, we didn't
mention that we both had over ten years of soaring experience at that
point, nor that I was an active CFI-G.

So we snuggled into the back seat (with no control stick) and took off
with a 20-something commercial (I assume) pilot up front. Take off and
flying were fine. As we got near pattern entry postition, our pilot
suddenly put us into a very steep dive, did a buzz job on the airport
and showed us his contest finish pull-up. We were not amused, to put it
mildly. I had no idea of this pilot's glider experience, but we told
the operation manager what had happened and made it clear he needed to
straighten things out. He seemed to get the message. I believe this
operation is no longer in existance.

Sitting in the back without a stick made this the only glider flight,
out of 2000, where I've seriously wondered if I was going to come out
of it alive. Never again.

Jack Wyman

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.

correction

appears it was same operator that had the Grob on the beach. sorry for any
confusion

Frank

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

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.

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.

You gotta keep the tailplane on if your gonna use the elevator to push the
glider. Sheesh!

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.