2009 Lawsuit

On Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:28:54 AM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
...
UH also posted its been settled.

The way I read those filings, the motion to dismiss means that Murray and Eastern Sailplane are no longer part of the lawsuit. However, it appears to me from this and other filings that the case is still pending against Alexander Schleicher. Which, if true, sucks.

Thanks, Bob K.

As UH said the case has been dismissed.

Settled out of court, and parties filed for dismissal.

US District Court District of New Hampshire Case 1:11-cv-00317-PB dismissed August 9, 2013.

While utterly tragic somebody died, the claims here were just silly. I hope the (confidential) settlement was small.

Some things about this accident just don't add up.

What's with unintentional spin entries while thermaling? This pilot reported one earlier in the contest, had apparently had continuing problems with it, and of course it was what led to the accident.

I have about 1,000 hours in my ASW 27. Unintentional spin entries = 0. Unintentional stalls = 0. I keep my CG at 85% back. Even wild horsing around on the controls during normal contest thermaling -- especially at Ephrata where you're thermaling fast and tight -- doesn't produce a spin entry. Was there something mis rigged with this glider, or CG out of whack? We may never know, but many unintentional spin entries is very, very unusual in properly rigged and CG ASW gliders.

What's the business about main pins? What did main pins even remotely have to do with this accident? The complaint references something about main pins rusting and being replaced. WTF? OK, I've seen some surface rust on some main pins, but nothing that remotely comes close to a structural issue. Is there an allegation the pins came out on their own?

Without rehashing things, these seem like two potential maintenance/inspection issues that Schleicher owners ought to be aware of.

John Cochrane

Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.





On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:00:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Some things about this accident just don't add up.



What's with unintentional spin entries while thermaling? This pilot reported one earlier in the contest, had apparently had continuing problems with it, and of course it was what led to the accident.



I have about 1,000 hours in my ASW 27. Unintentional spin entries = 0. Unintentional stalls = 0. I keep my CG at 85% back. Even wild horsing around on the controls during normal contest thermaling -- especially at Ephrata where you're thermaling fast and tight -- doesn't produce a spin entry. Was there something mis rigged with this glider, or CG out of whack? We may never know, but many unintentional spin entries is very, very unusual in properly rigged and CG ASW gliders.



What's the business about main pins? What did main pins even remotely have to do with this accident? The complaint references something about main pins rusting and being replaced. WTF? OK, I've seen some surface rust on some main pins, but nothing that remotely comes close to a structural issue. Is there an allegation the pins came out on their own?



Without rehashing things, these seem like two potential maintenance/inspection issues that Schleicher owners ought to be aware of.



John Cochrane

On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:47:53 AM UTC-5, Boise Pilot wrote:
Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.

I knew Tim and he was a skilled machinist who worked his way up to owning his own company (which is why he could buy such nice toys). He was also a pilot for many years. He started in hang gliding, got into power planes, flew and owned his own twin engine and one or two sailplanes previous to the ASG 18 meter.
I would think he understood that the CG must be measured with the fuselage at a certain angle. It sounds like this particular ship may have had something wrong with it CG-wise.

Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for
the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship
involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I
asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure
where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as
the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not
sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or
anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the
only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.

I knew Tim and he was a skilled machinist who worked his way up to owning
his own company (which is why he could buy such nice toys). He was also a
pilot for many years. He started in hang gliding, got into power planes,
flew and owned his own twin engine and one or two sailplanes previous to
the ASG 18 meter. I would think he understood that the CG must be measured
with the fuselage at a certain angle. It sounds like this particular ship
may have had something wrong with it CG-wise.

Topic - CG Location.
Sub-topic - Pilot Knowledge (or not) Thereof.
Primary Point: PIC Responsibilities (common-sense-based, not "merely" FAA-based).

The following is offered respectfully, with no judgments intended beyond those
explicitly expressed. It's offered because the subject was raised, I believe
the subject is important, and I also believe some things do NOT go without
saying, especially when the possible audience is worldwide with unknowable
backgrounds and experience in soaring.

I'll stipulate - even though I'm not a lawyer and have never played one on
stage or on camera - everything in both posts above is factually accurate .

Both posts indicate the pilot was aware - at some level - of the importance of
in-flight CG. The first post suggests the pilot *may* not have known the
ship's actual in-flight CG. The second post by a person with personal contact
and knowledge of the pilot, indirectly suggests: 1) the pilot understood the
importance of, and correct techniques for, measuring (and presumably
calculating) ship CG; and states 2) "It sounds like this particular ship may
have had something wrong with it CG-wise."

I'll stipulate it DID have "something wrong with it CG-wise."

It's a possible, possibly unspoken, inference regarding this "something wrong"
statement that I think bears mentioning...

So what if the ship DID have "something wrong with it CG-wise?" Any
minimally-taught, self-respecting licensed pilot (glider or otherwise) - at
least in the US - will have been introduced to the concept of CG, will have
heard some words as to why it's important, and will also have heard words to
the effect that the PIC is responsible for assuring the ship is fundamentally
airworthy and any flight be flown responsibly.

Reason the statement, "It sounds like this particular ship may have had
something wrong with it CG-wise" raises a little Red Worry Flag in my mind is
because I believe it's possible some pilot, somewhere, might stop thinking
about possible influences and possible causes for this accident - and maybe
others like it - once having concluded the statement is correct (as it could
be). So what? Should you be flying a ship in such a condition? In ignorance?
With knowledge aforethought?

Any way I look at it, it's up to the PIC to *know* his (especially self-owned)
ship's state, before he decides to fly it. Makes no difference if it's an
intentional test flight or "simply a normal soaring flight." Again, whether
this pilot did or did not know his ship's CG state, I've no way of knowing.
But the responsibility was his. No exculpatory inferences ought be made about
any ship having any responsibility for its CG or CG-related flight
characteristics. (Note: The preceding paragraph in no way is intended to lay
the blame on the pilot in this case. Insufficient information. That said, I do
think there are useful lessons most of us can draw from known facts in this
case, and I hope thoughtful pilots do.)

Respectfully,
Bob - flame suit on - W.

On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:47:53 AM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight that was important to the contest was the total weight.


Well that is depressing.

It is tragic when anybody is killed in an aviation accident, but it is more tragic to not work to understand what exactly happened and try to use that information to reduce future accidents. The NTSB report is also just depressing in what it does not try to investigate, it is just a statement of the bleeding obvious "The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the glider during flight and his exceedance of the glider’s design limits during an attempted recovery from a spin.". Well Duh. It does not discuss anything useful to do with W&B, pilot spin training or experience, etc. It does not even state whether the glider was water ballasted on the accident flight.

The only W&B related thing that was mentioned was "The left wing ballast plug was in place and the drain hole tape was still secure." and "The right wing ballast plug and drain were not identified" which does not tell you much, unless you know the glider was ballasted before flight (if it was it likely shows it was still ballasted at the time of the accident or of water had been dumped it might raise the remote possibility that water had been dumped asymmetrically since one drain hole and plug was not recovered).

I would have *hoped* that an though investigation might have include some of the following....

What was the factory W&B measurements for this glider?

Was it possible to determine the flap lever position from the wreckage? (e.g. image damage marks on the flap detent mechanism). That might show if flap reduction was part of a spin recovery used.

What W&B calculation did the pilot ever conduct? (review documentation that the pilot had in the glider and trailer or at home etc, pick up the phone and call A&Ps, fellow glider pilots, Schleicher distributor, etc. folks who might know what he did.)

Did the W&B information in the flight manual and placarded in the glider agree with the factory W&B, if not where did it come from?

What W&B measurements did the pilot and/or his A&P do with the pilot and all his own equipment in the glider as flown?

What W&B measurements exist from the glider and pilot from this or past contest weightings and what might they infer for CG position. (e.g. corrected for wrong fuselage inclination).

Was the glider modified after delivery (e.g. installation of tail batteries, other batteries, brass tail wheel or anything else that might affect W&B). Was the glider reweighed or W&B recalculated after these modifications of made?

What was the CG impacts of fuel (basically none, but mention for thoroughness) and with of other equipment on board.

What other equipment from the aircraft accident scene was collected and weighed by the accident investigators? (e.g. did they recover all batteries, tail wheel, lead weights (possible tail or nose weights), etc.).

Did the glider have provision for nose weights? Were any weights installed?

Was the glider water ballasted on the accident flight? Is so how much? And if so...

What was the pilots water ballast filling procedure? Drums? Taps and hose? Was it known if he fully filled tanks or how did he measure the fill amount? Did he have a water meter? Was it possible to infer how much the glider was ballasted that day?

It there any history of the pilot/aircraft having problem with things like ballast filling, leaking or water dumping in this glider.

Has the ballast fill or drain system been worked on after glider delivery?

Did the glider have a optional tail ballast tank? Is it possible to determine if that was filled on the day.

And no mention of pilot training in spin recovery and actual demonstration of this in flight, e.g. recent BFRs from a review of his log book or discussion with instructors.

The pilot toxicology report raises the issues of apparent use of both both Nordazepam and marijuana. Yet there is no discussion of this in the NTSB report. No discussion of possible impairment. No discussion of whether the Nordazepam was prescribed or not (and if so what the prescription dosage was).. No interviews or research to discover possible last use of these drugs that would help in an impairment discussion. Apparently no interviews on whether the pilot may be self-medicating and any reasons why. And that discussion might very well help exclude this toxicology findings as an issue in this accident.

And I'm not at all suggesting we blame the pilot, a more thorough NTSB investigation might well have helped exclude _any_ possible question of pilot issues with W&B, spin/spiral dive recovery technique, the toxicology report etc.

I'm so frustrated by this NTSB report I'm putting most of this in a letter to NTSB Chairman Hersman (yes her correct title is Chairman).

So what we are left with is folks who get to file a lawsuit and subject a glider manufacturer to detailed internal document discovery requests, possibly to the point they just need to settle to avoid the harassment. I looked though some of the key court records, nothing out of the usual stood out to me. If you assume the worst about liability lawsuits it just looks like a fishing expedition based on the idea that a high performance glider can spin and quickly enter a spiral dive and the manufacture is responsive for this and/or not warning owners/pilots enough. My look over this was pretty cursory, but nothing I could see in the documents indicates any specific smoking gun but neither would that be expected, since the case never went to trial. Either possible extreme of what happened here is bad for the soaring community, at one extreme a glider manufacturer is getting harassed and ending up settling a lawsuit that we all end up paying for though purchase price of our gliders, or the other possible extreme of an actual liability that is not made public because of a confidential settlement. My gut feel is its much more likely a case of the earlier than the later. Court records are available on PACER, US District Court New Hampshire. Case 3:1990-cv-30232.

And for disclosure, I own an ASH-26E, and would have no hesitation in purchasing any future Schleicher glider. And I am familiar with spin and spiral dive behavior of modern gliders (I used to own an DG-303 Acro which I would do aerobatics in, including spinning). I have no other connection to Schleicher or anybody else involved.

A very thoughtful post. Thank you.

I'm simply appalled, that any "experienced" pilot would not be able to
recover from a spin or spiral dive at altitude without pulling the wings off
the aircraft and, based upon the eye witness testimony, it appears that he
did exactly that.

"darrylr" wrote in message
...
On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:47:53 AM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
Just one more footnote to this sad event, I was doing the weighing for the
contest and the day before the accident when weighing the ship involved
the pilot asked me what the tail and fuselage weights were. I asked him
why he wanted them. His response was that he was not sure where his CG
was. I informed that the weights I had were not usable as the glider was
not set at the appropriate angle for CG calculation. Not sure he
understood what I was telling him. I did not give him, or anybody else
during the contest, the weights for the main and tail as the only weight
that was important to the contest was the total weight.


Well that is depressing.

It is tragic when anybody is killed in an aviation accident, but it is more
tragic to not work to understand what exactly happened and try to use that
information to reduce future accidents. The NTSB report is also just
depressing in what it does not try to investigate, it is just a statement of
the bleeding obvious "The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the glider
during flight and his exceedance of the glider’s design limits during an
attempted recovery from a spin.". Well Duh. It does not discuss anything
useful to do with W&B, pilot spin training or experience, etc. It does not
even state whether the glider was water ballasted on the accident flight.

The only W&B related thing that was mentioned was "The left wing ballast
plug was in place and the drain hole tape was still secure." and "The right
wing ballast plug and drain were not identified" which does not tell you
much, unless you know the glider was ballasted before flight (if it was it
likely shows it was still ballasted at the time of the accident or of water
had been dumped it might raise the remote possibility that water had been
dumped asymmetrically since one drain hole and plug was not recovered).

I would have *hoped* that an though investigation might have include some of
the following....

What was the factory W&B measurements for this glider?

Was it possible to determine the flap lever position from the wreckage?
(e.g. image damage marks on the flap detent mechanism). That might show if
flap reduction was part of a spin recovery used.

What W&B calculation did the pilot ever conduct? (review documentation that
the pilot had in the glider and trailer or at home etc, pick up the phone
and call A&Ps, fellow glider pilots, Schleicher distributor, etc. folks who
might know what he did.)

Did the W&B information in the flight manual and placarded in the glider
agree with the factory W&B, if not where did it come from?

What W&B measurements did the pilot and/or his A&P do with the pilot and all
his own equipment in the glider as flown?

What W&B measurements exist from the glider and pilot from this or past
contest weightings and what might they infer for CG position. (e.g.
corrected for wrong fuselage inclination).

Was the glider modified after delivery (e.g. installation of tail batteries,
other batteries, brass tail wheel or anything else that might affect W&B).
Was the glider reweighed or W&B recalculated after these modifications of
made?

What was the CG impacts of fuel (basically none, but mention for
thoroughness) and with of other equipment on board.

What other equipment from the aircraft accident scene was collected and
weighed by the accident investigators? (e.g. did they recover all batteries,
tail wheel, lead weights (possible tail or nose weights), etc.).

Did the glider have provision for nose weights? Were any weights installed?

Was the glider water ballasted on the accident flight? Is so how much? And
if so...

What was the pilots water ballast filling procedure? Drums? Taps and hose?
Was it known if he fully filled tanks or how did he measure the fill amount?
Did he have a water meter? Was it possible to infer how much the glider was
ballasted that day?

It there any history of the pilot/aircraft having problem with things like
ballast filling, leaking or water dumping in this glider.

Has the ballast fill or drain system been worked on after glider delivery?

Did the glider have a optional tail ballast tank? Is it possible to
determine if that was filled on the day.

And no mention of pilot training in spin recovery and actual demonstration
of this in flight, e.g. recent BFRs from a review of his log book or
discussion with instructors.

The pilot toxicology report raises the issues of apparent use of both both
Nordazepam and marijuana. Yet there is no discussion of this in the NTSB
report. No discussion of possible impairment. No discussion of whether the
Nordazepam was prescribed or not (and if so what the prescription dosage
was). No interviews or research to discover possible last use of these drugs
that would help in an impairment discussion. Apparently no interviews on
whether the pilot may be self-medicating and any reasons why. And that
discussion might very well help exclude this toxicology findings as an issue
in this accident.

And I'm not at all suggesting we blame the pilot, a more thorough NTSB
investigation might well have helped exclude _any_ possible question of
pilot issues with W&B, spin/spiral dive recovery technique, the toxicology
report etc.

I'm so frustrated by this NTSB report I'm putting most of this in a letter
to NTSB Chairman Hersman (yes her correct title is Chairman).

So what we are left with is folks who get to file a lawsuit and subject a
glider manufacturer to detailed internal document discovery requests,
possibly to the point they just need to settle to avoid the harassment. I
looked though some of the key court records, nothing out of the usual stood
out to me. If you assume the worst about liability lawsuits it just looks
like a fishing expedition based on the idea that a high performance glider
can spin and quickly enter a spiral dive and the manufacture is responsive
for this and/or not warning owners/pilots enough. My look over this was
pretty cursory, but nothing I could see in the documents indicates any
specific smoking gun but neither would that be expected, since the case
never went to trial. Either possible extreme of what happened here is bad
for the soaring community, at one extreme a glider manufacturer is getting
harassed and ending up settling a lawsuit that we all end up paying for
though purchase price of our gliders, or the other possible extreme of an
actual liability that is not made public because of a confidential
settlement. My gut feel is its much more likely a case of the earlier than
the later. Court records are available on PACER, US District Court New
Hampshire. Case 3:1990-cv-30232.

And for disclosure, I own an ASH-26E, and would have no hesitation in
purchasing any future Schleicher glider. And I am familiar with spin and
spiral dive behavior of modern gliders (I used to own an DG-303 Acro which I
would do aerobatics in, including spinning). I have no other connection to
Schleicher or anybody else involved.

On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:00:40 AM UTC-8, wrote:

I have about 1,000 hours in my ASW 27. Unintentional spin entries = 0. Unintentional stalls = 0. I keep my CG at 85% back. Even wild horsing around on the controls during normal contest thermaling -- especially at Ephrata where you're thermaling fast and tight -- doesn't produce a spin entry. Was there something mis rigged with this glider, or CG out of whack? We may never know, but many unintentional spin entries is very, very unusual in properly rigged and CG ASW gliders.

I have no personal experience in the matter, but I can imagine that an extra three meters of span (among other modifications) might make a substantial difference in the spin characteristics. But, yeah, both the spin and spiral dive that followed seem uncharacteristic.

What's the business about main pins? What did main pins even remotely have to do with this accident? The complaint references something about main pins rusting and being replaced. WTF? OK, I've seen some surface rust on some main pins, but nothing that remotely comes close to a structural issue. Is there an allegation the pins came out on their own?

The NTSB synopsis makes it pretty clear that the pins were not an issue at all, and the plaintiff's assertion that they were defective was just another piece of slimy legalistic maneuvering.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:11:56 AM UTC-8, darrylr wrote:
As UH said the case has been dismissed...

...While utterly tragic somebody died, the claims here were just silly. I hope the (confidential) settlement was small.

Thanks, Darryl! I hadn't found that last bit of paperwork.

Bob K.