TA

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 5:31:13 PM UTC-7, waremark wrote:
Frank was amazingly well equipped for such an eventuality and his management of the situation after the crash was excellent. However, there are a couple of aspects not present in his analysis which I might have expected to see, and discussion of which may help keep others of us safer in future.



In preparation for a flight over unfamiliar territory, I would have expected to ask for a local briefing, of which there is no mention. If the flight was over hostile territory, I might have looked at marked landout options on Google Earth. Either of these just might have told him something relevant about the airstrip which he failed to find.



Then there is no discussion about the handling which resulted in the crash. He could have been in comfortable glide of a safe airfield and still have crashed in the same way. I think this is about the caution with which it is appropriate to make an initial approach to an unfamiliar ridge - speed, angle of approach, degree of closeness all come into this. Pilots with more experience than me in mountain flying will be more competent to comment here.

My thoughts exactly. His writeup is excellent and very helpful and cover all aspects of what happened *except* the crash itself. There is only one line describing it. Surely we cant blame the 20 knots wind for the crash, nor did he apparently tried to circle in it or turned into the ridge, from what he described he did the right thing by initiating S turns so I am puzzled what cause the actual crash? This is important to understand since there were quiet a few fatal accidents when experienced pilots flew into the mountain, at least this time thankfully we can learn some valuable lesson. From the write up it sounds like he believes being over unlandable terrain contributed to the accident, but I dont see the connection unless he believes the stress impaired his judgment.

Ramy

As others have mentioned, TA had given us an excellent account of his accident and rescue. In particular, his actions after the crash should be studied by all of us who fly in similar terrain and could be subject to the same situation. I, for example, need to rethink my SPOT installation and my survival gear, neither of which would have provided nearly the same level of help that TA's did.

But what I immediately noticed in TA's account of the flight up to the crash was his apparent "comfort" at altitudes above the terrain that those of us who fly out west would consider really scary. I flew the same task on the same day as TA and it was a weak day - I didn't even try to go down to the last turn area (having started late) and barely avoided a landout on the way back to Moriarty - digging out from 1300 agl over Estancia - a nice little airstrip which already had a glider on it). Looking at my trace, I worked really hard to stay at least 3000' agl, and below that went into survival mode - because in my experience in Arizona, if you are that low you are just about to land somewhere unless you get really serious about digging out, and better have a good place to land within easy reach.

Having also flown a bit in eastern and midwest conditions, I understand how one can get used to working a lower lift band - often you have to work down to 2000 agl or lower to get anywhere, and with fields available and thermals weaker but more frequent, can afford to push lower with the expectation of finding something. That just isn't going to work out west!

Thank-you to TA for sharing his experiences with us, and I hope he gets back into the game again soon - after all, isn't walking away from a broken glider the first step to getting a better one?

Kirk
66

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:26:16 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
from what he described he did the right thing by initiating S turns so I am puzzled what cause the actual crash?

From TA's article:
" ...Unfortunately, as I completed the turn with my right wing *****parallel***** to the mountain, I discovered that I was being pushed right into the mountain, and almost immediately hit two very tall pine trees..."

By my understanding of a correctly executed S-turn, the right wing would never be PARALLEL to the face of the mountain (the ridge). If I understand what Frank is trying to say, he intended to turn 225 degrees to execute the first half of a classic S-turn, but the glider turned 270 degrees and thus lost the advantages of a classic S-turn (whereby the glider approaches the ridge 45 degrees from perpendicular thus allowing more time, and requiring less time, to turn away from the ridge.)

I don't understand why anyone would even consider an "S" turn to be appropriate. All turns should be *away* from the ridge. The only safe way I know to attempt to thermal off a ridge below ridge top is to fly "figure eight" turns. This never points you at the ridge at a steep angle.

I just didn't understand the accident report when I read it first. A figure 8 turn puts the wings parallel to the ridge twice every complete turn but the glider is headed *away* from the ridge each time and NEVER towards it.

Andy

To comment on a couple of previous posts:

I believe TA simply misspoke when he said "S" turns and that he was actually
describing a figure 8, the proper procedure. Gallinas Peak does not have a
very steep slope, however, and having a wing tip close enough to ridge soar
does not yield much altitude AGL. Any loss of altitude could easily put you
into the trees.

I agree with the comment about his apparent comfort with low altitudes AGL
and having faith that that strip would be where the GPS said it would be. I
started soaring in the Dallas area and, like most midwest pilots, was used
to flying low because there was always a handy field to drop into. Not so
here!

As to asking for a local briefing: We currently have three pilots from
North Carolina flying with us. Shortly after their arrival, they came to me
with a sectional chart and asked me to point out all the landable fields in
the area. I did the same shortly after arriving in Moriarty when I saw that
I couldn't find several of the fields called out in my turn point database.
There are some that I *still* can't find...

Frank's narrative of his experience post crash was straight out of Air Force
survival school. It appears to me that he was well prepared, innovative
with the use of his Spot, and did everything else right. Job well done, and
glad he's still with us.


"Andy" wrote in message
...
I don't understand why anyone would even consider an "S" turn to be
appropriate. All turns should be *away* from the ridge. The only safe way
I know to attempt to thermal off a ridge below ridge top is to fly "figure
eight" turns. This never points you at the ridge at a steep angle.

I just didn't understand the accident report when I read it first. A figure
8 turn puts the wings parallel to the ridge twice every complete turn but
the glider is headed *away* from the ridge each time and NEVER towards it.

Andy

On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:54:38 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
As others have mentioned, TA had given us an excellent account of his accident and rescue. In particular, his actions after the crash should be studied by all of us who fly in similar terrain and could be subject to the same situation. I, for example, need to rethink my SPOT installation and my survival gear, neither of which would have provided nearly the same level of help that TA's did.



But what I immediately noticed in TA's account of the flight up to the crash was his apparent "comfort" at altitudes above the terrain that those of us who fly out west would consider really scary. I flew the same task on the same day as TA and it was a weak day - I didn't even try to go down to the last turn area (having started late) and barely avoided a landout on the way back to Moriarty - digging out from 1300 agl over Estancia - a nice little airstrip which already had a glider on it). Looking at my trace, I worked really hard to stay at least 3000' agl, and below that went into survival mode - because in my experience in Arizona, if you are that low you are just about to land somewhere unless you get really serious about digging out, and better have a good place to land within easy reach.



Having also flown a bit in eastern and midwest conditions, I understand how one can get used to working a lower lift band - often you have to work down to 2000 agl or lower to get anywhere, and with fields available and thermals weaker but more frequent, can afford to push lower with the expectation of finding something. That just isn't going to work out west!



Thank-you to TA for sharing his experiences with us, and I hope he gets back into the game again soon - after all, isn't walking away from a broken glider the first step to getting a better one?



Kirk

66

I also think (after reading the narrative) that the willingness to work at very low AGLs is a main proximate cause. I am unfamiliar with Moriarty, but quite familiar with high western desert flying, and I will assume that Moriarty is similar. Where I fly, at 1500 ft over the valleys your soaring day is done, and you should be in the pattern of a known good airport. In fact even 3000 or 4000 ft over the valleys and you should be looking for a place to land, as you are below the ridges where the lift is likely to be and might be 20 miles from the nearest landing site. I understand this might be quite different in the flat east. He writes:

"I have an absolute rule about never doing a dead glide to an airport that I have not personally inspected unless I sufficient altitude to get to the airport location at least 1000’ agl. This gives me time to find the airport if it isn’t exactly where the database says it is, and to pick an alternate landing field if the airport can’t be found."

In the western desert, you do not arrive 1000' AGL at an unknown field and expect to find another landing site nearby. There may not be another one for 30 miles. Many airstrips, dirt roads, and highways are also not suitable to land as they were created by pushing a berm up to the sides higher that a glider's wings. Some remote highways have pickets for snow removal or drug interdiction. Desert sage brush is not hospitable to glider landings, and often conceals very rocky and uneven ground. Dry lakes are a better choice but can have their own problems.

I am also uncomfortable with flying close to (and below) an unknown ridge in gusty 17 - 20 knot conditions in the mountains.

I do applaud TA for being open about his experiences, it helps us all.

On 6/24/2013 4:13 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:26:16 AM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
from what he described he did the right thing by initiating S turns so I am puzzled what cause the actual crash?

From TA's article:
" ...Unfortunately, as I completed the turn with my right wing *****parallel***** to the mountain, I discovered that I was being pushed right into the mountain, and almost immediately hit two very tall pine trees..."

By my understanding of a correctly executed S-turn, the right wing would never be PARALLEL to the face of the mountain (the ridge). If I understand what Frank is trying to say, he intended to turn 225 degrees to execute the first half of a classic S-turn, but the glider turned 270 degrees and thus lost the advantages of a classic S-turn (whereby the glider approaches the ridge 45 degrees from perpendicular thus allowing more time, and requiring less time, to turn away from the ridge.)



I think he means he was in, for example, a 30 degree bank away from the
mountain, and the mountain at that point had a 30 degree slope. That is
what he means by "parallel."

On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:10:02 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I believe TA simply misspoke when he said "S" turns and that he was actually
describing a figure 8, the proper procedure.

I assumed that TA intended to execute a figure 8 and then accidentally executed (half of) an S turn.

I've heard S-turn and figure-8-turn used interchangeably (and incorrectly) by glider-only pilots (myself included), but of course they different geometries, and yes, a true S-turn is incorrect on a ridge.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 10:45:02 AM UTC-4, Andy wrote:
A figure 8 turn puts the wings parallel to the ridge twice every complete turn but the glider is headed *away* from the ridge each time and NEVER towards it.

An incorrectly executed figure-8-turn (turn 45 degrees too far) becomes an S-turn and will result in the glider wings being parallel to the ridge (and the glider pointed towards the ridge). I don't know what TA did, but I could certainly make that mistake, especially if I was tired and stressed.

On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:24:16 PM UTC-4, Greg Arnold wrote:

I think he means he was in, for example, a 30 degree bank away from the
mountain, and the mountain at that point had a 30 degree slope. That is
what he means by "parallel."

Perhaps TA will clarify at some appropriate time and place.

Perhaps experienced mountain pilots would write about how they would approach an unfamiliar ridge below the top in gusty conditions. I wonder about angle of approach, speed, when you would pull up, how close you would get on the first approach, etc.