IDAHO FATALITY

On Aug 21, 12:21*pm, Free Flight 107 wrote:
On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Ramy wrote:





On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW wrote:

On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:

Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
for gliding!-

BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
BG-12B GLIDER
Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243

Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US

DESCRIPTION
A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID

INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
# Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
Unk:
# Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
Unk:
# Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
Unk:

WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011

Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
much faith in the outcome of these investigations.

Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
control for unknown reasons.

And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
context'...time will tell.

However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.

Bob W.

Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
'wait for the NTSB report'.
And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
speed.
This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
possible from every accident to increase our safety.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
mystery.

He may have ben low coming in and didn't want to do a downwind landing
in 10-12k winds.

We may never know, but it is a tragedy, and my or may not have been
preventable.

Let's fly safe out there.

BTW, I completely agree with using the RADIO to convey information vs.
the old-fashioned and ambigous waggle signals, and won't fly at an
airport that doesn't have radios in the tow planes.

Wayne- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course this accident was preventable!!

Cookie

Sure looks like you guys have "hijacked" this thread and are, for some
reason, back on the "glider signals and radio thread again"

It was all pretty much said in the earlier, long thread.............

As for this incident....I already see the blame being directed away
from the PIC.....some hint at the NTSB doing poor investigations...as
if that has anything to to with this......somebody else hinted that
the accident was "unavoidable"....Come on guys....

I figured you all would come up with some reasons why this guys should
have been in radio contact with somebody...that would have prevented
the accident..

Or I expected you to come up with something like..."If only he had one
of those electronic angle of attack indicators, and an audible stall
warning (horn) and a visual stall warning (light) and some sort of
automatic yaw controller......"


Hmmmmm.....

Cookie

On Aug 21, 10:54*am, Ramy wrote:
On Aug 21, 6:23*am, BobW wrote:





On 8/20/2011 7:02 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:

Frank Whiteley;781006 Wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:41*am, Bob wrote:-
I heard there was a stall spin on base to final fatality at the recent
Idhao flying get-together. *Anyone got any specifics? *Tough summer
for gliding!-

BG-12b in FAA Friday Preliminary reports.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 559Y * * * *Make/Model: EXP * * * Description: EXP- BRIEGLEB
BG-12B GLIDER
Date: 08/18/2011 * * Time: 2243

Event Type: Accident * Highest Injury: Fatal * * Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: MOORE * State: ID * Country: US

DESCRIPTION
A GLIDER, AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE 1-PERSON
ONBOARD FATALLY INJURED, MOORE, ID

INJURY DATA * * *Total Fatal: * 1
# Crew: * 1 * * Fat: * 1 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
Unk:
# Pass: * 0 * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
Unk:
# Grnd: * * * * Fat: * 0 * * Ser: * 0 * * Min: * 0
Unk:

WEATHER: 182253Z 21014G22KT10SM CLR 30/M01 A3003

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown * * *Phase: Unknown * * *Operation: OTHER

FAA FSDO: BOISE, ID *(NM11) * * * * * * * * * * Entry date: 08/19/2011

Having read the final report on an accident where I fly I no longer have
much faith in the outcome of these investigations.

Nor - I've little doubt - do most interested readers of the NTSB database. My
working conclusion is, historically the vast majority of NTSB glider
investigations state the obvious, while lacking any ability to place the
obvious into any sensible context. Donning my Great Karnak hat, this
fatality's Probable Cause will likely read: Failure to maintain airspeed and
control for unknown reasons.

And at that, my supposition may well err on the wide of 'too much
context'...time will tell.

However, savvy NTSB-database-reading glider pilots can still make their own
inferential, context-based conclusions from NTSB data. In fact, they *should*
do so, if they're interested in maximizing their chances of not eventually
becoming a read-about incident or accident in the database.

Bob W.

Precisely, and this is why we should encourage speculation rather than
'wait for the NTSB report'.
And I'll start by saying that from a second hand report this was a
spin of the top of a (not so) high speed pass.
I for one will think twice before attempting a high speed low pass
again especially if i am not 100% sure I'll be able to build enough
speed.
This had been another terrible year for glider accidents and it is
tragic to loose so many but we should all try to learn as much as
possible from every accident to increase our safety.

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not sure what happened in this incident....but I have heard of
MANY stall spins from high speed low pass followed by sharp pull
up......I also saw a video of wing flutter during a too fast fast
pass, (and wing depart.)...I have also heard of coutless airplane
accidents attributed to "buzzing"....

The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
of the above!!

Cookie

- Show quoted text -

I am not sure what happened in this incident....but I have heard of
MANY stall spins from high speed low pass followed by sharp pull
up......I also saw a video of wing flutter during a too fast fast
pass, (and wing depart.)...I have also heard of coutless airplane
accidents attributed to "buzzing"....

The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
of the above!!

Cookie

I've seen two detailed analyses of fatalities from low passes. In both
cases, it was not the high speed pass itself or the sharp pull up that
caused problems. Instead it was the low speed turn after the pass that
led to a stall spin. After going straight down the runway, both pilots
turned around, didn't get as much altitude as they thought, and were
displaced from the runway by the radius of the turn. A little rudder
to help the turn along, a little back stick because we're not as high
as we thought, and in the glider goes.

This isn't a defense of high speed passes. Just pointing out that if
you do choose to do one, the big trap is what happens when it gets
quiet after the pass and the pull up.

There have also been many crashes from high speed passes that weren't
so high speed. 70 knots, 50 feet, right over the middle of the airport
is a bad place to be.

I hope we get some more details on this one. Does anyone even have a
story?

John Cochrane

On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:49:36 -0700, Cookie wrote:

The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
of the above!!

Agreed.

A pull-up from 50ft is no problem *if*:
- you have at least 125 kts on the clock as you cross the line
- know you can comfortably get back to 500 ft afterwards
- because you've have practiced the pull-up at a safe altitude
*in the same glider*.

If any of these three preconditions is missing, don't even think about
trying it.

What you're flying is also important: I'd do a competition finish in a
Pegase, Discus or ASW-20: I've flown all three and done such a finish
for real in a Pegase 90. But I'd only tackle it if the circuit was clear
and I was starting high enough to cross the line at Vne. However, there's
no way I'd try it in my Std Libelle because the combination of a lowish
Vne (118 kts), light weight and draggy polar at those speeds casts a lot
of doubt on its ability to zoom climb 400+ ft without dropping below the
50 kts which is needed to safely fly a normal circuit.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Originally Posted by PK

On Aug 21, 6:07*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
The rudder waggle does not mean "release now." How terribly sad

John Cochrane

If radios were required by that club or FBO and a com-check had been
performed before takeoff, the tragic sequence of events would have
been stopped with a simple, "Close your spoilers" call from the tow
pilot. All the clubs & FBO's in region 11 have got the word, but it
took 4 preventable fatalities to do it. When is the SSA going to get
the word?
JJ Sinclair

I for one know and understand the SSA signals on tow. However one must
be a realist and accept the fact of human nature as such, that not
everyone else does or maybe remembers. Therefore it would be wise to
continue using the signals on tow only as an alternate means of
communication to radio. 6PK

I would like point out that a blind reliance on radios alone is not the answer. I have seen a very near miss between a Ventus on a final glide/beatup and a launching G109. The Ventus called his intentions and because he didn't get a reply proceeded with his finish.

Radio calls are not infallable just the same as visual signals and are also subject to interference from other sources as well as mis-interpretation

Colin

Wayne wrote.........
I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
mystery.

It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
watched it all.
There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
everyone.
If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
Flame suit on,
JJ

On Aug 21, 2:03*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Wayne wrote.........
I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
mystery.

It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
watched it all.
There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
everyone.
*If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
Flame suit on,
JJ

Totally agree with JJ, I learned from other's mistakes and my own
analysis of hazards and quit doing low passes many, many years ago,

NK

On Aug 21, 4:49*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 12:49:36 -0700, Cookie wrote:
The lesson is simple.......Learn from the mistakes of others...you can
greatly increase your odds of not killing yourself if you don't do any
of the above!!

Agreed.

A pull-up from 50ft is no problem *if*:
- you have at least 125 kts on the clock as you cross the line
- know you can comfortably get back to 500 ft afterwards
- because you've have practiced the pull-up at a safe altitude
* *in the same glider*.

If any of these three preconditions is missing, don't even think about
trying it.

What you're flying is also important: I'd do a competition finish in a
Pegase, Discus or ASW-20: I've flown all three and done such a finish *
for real in a Pegase 90. But I'd only tackle it if the circuit was clear
and I was starting high enough to cross the line at Vne. However, there's
no way I'd try it in my Std Libelle because the combination of a lowish
Vne (118 kts), light weight and draggy polar at those speeds casts a lot
of doubt on its ability to zoom climb 400+ ft without dropping below the
50 kts which is needed to safely fly a normal circuit.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

I have a better idea....just don't do low passes....duh....


Cookie

On Aug 21, 5:03*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:
Wayne wrote.........
I was there and Ramy is right. Why he had done the pass is the big
mystery.

It's no mystery to me, he did a low pass because that's what the big
guys do. Same thing happened at Tehachapi a few years back, also in a
BG-12. Returning to the field with excess altitude, the kid thought
he'd do what he had seen the big guys do, so many times. He made his
low pass then pulled on some flaps to slow her down (while still going
fast). One hinge failed and a flap ripped out taking some of the drag
spar with it. With a damaged drag spar, the wing twisted and seperated
from the aircraft. His Dad who had just bought the ship for his son,
watched it all.
There was a time (20 years ago) when the only way to finished the race
was with a low pass to the finish line. GPS has made the low pass no
longer necessary and the clock can be stopped when entering the finish
cylinder at 1 mile and 500 feet. At Parowan last year, I called 4
miles out, then 'finish' as I passed the 1 mile finish circle, then
called entering the pattern. As I was rolling out a shadow suddenly
came over me as another sailplane passed right over me. I thought for
a second that he was trying to land in front of me. No, just another
hot-shot doing an unnecessary low pass (aka buzz-job) then pulled up
into a crowded pattern, without saying a word on the radio.
RC are you listening? Its time to ban any low pass when a finish
cylinder is in use and require an "entering the pattern" call from
everyone.
*If I had my way, the line finish and the 50 foot low pass to the line
would be dropped and only the finish cylinder authorized in the rules.
Flame suit on,
JJ

JJ....finally I have to agree with you!!! (except the part about it's
OK to do a low pass if you talk on the radio)....

Any pilot who does a low pass increases he chances of killing himself
(and possibly somebody else) by a huge factor....

There is no reason for this behavior......The onus for safety falls on
the PIC.....you can have all the safety comittees and investigations
and rules you want.....if pilots continue to do dumb things...they
will continue to have mishaps...

BTW can anybody tell me of any books which teach the low pass
manuever? Is this maneuver in the PTS? Is this maneuver in the
Curriculum used by any flight instructor, anywhere??? No....because
it is a stupid thing to do!!!

Cookie