tow rope brake practice crash, what can we learn...

On Jul 12, 8:43*am, Frank Paynter wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:


Frank, Hank:

You're both right. The key here is to separate the two things that are
learned by this training 1) practicing the maneuvers you will execute
to recover from a low-altitude rope break or other PTT event 2)
understanding and practicing the psychological part of reacting to any
emergency situation.

Hank's right that #2 is really not well simulated in Condor. But
Frank is right that #1 can be practiced a lot in Condor, and then
executing maneuvers will be much easier in the air.

The same approach is useful, I think, for flight training. At our
club, most of our instructors no longer do a lot of unannounced 200
foot rope breaks. This mixes #1 and #2, creating a "real" emergency.

Instead, we brief, demonstrate and have students practice 200 foot
rope breaks, so they are comfortable with the maneuver required.
Believe me, the first 4-5 times, "you're going to do a 200 foot rope
break on this flight" keeps the adrenaline level up high enough!

We also give them lots of practice with unplanned emergencies, but
all at reasonable altitude. 500' rope breaks, engine failures,
spoilers coming out; "ok the spoiliers are stuck out/closed, now land
it", pretending half the runway is suddenly unusable, and so on are
all great exercises.

If you've got the mechanical skills to do a planned 200 foot break
flawlessly, and the emergency-handling skills to do all the higher-
altitude emergencies with aplomb, you're fairly prepared. We can
discuss whether practicing an actual combination, an unplanned 200'
rope break, is a useful final sanding, or an invitation to practice
stall/spin recovery from 200 feet. But at least we should get to that
point by practicing the mechanical skill and the emergency-handling
skill separately.

John Cochrane

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT), Frank Paynter
wrote:

Hi Frank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures

True.
But maybe you noticed that the hardware these guys are using is not
exactly in your $300 price range....

A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
landing area, etc) as in real life.



In a real-life rope break, there are two things that save lifes:
1. Before you take off, have a plan. Obvously. Know exactly what you
are going to do - always. Pretty simple to teach.

2. Situation awareness
This is what cannot be simulated on a PC.
Tell the student pilot to lower the nose after release or row break,
and stabilize the glider. I think the US term is "Fly the plane".
so far, so simple - no simulator necessary to teach that.

But now comes the difficult part.
I'd like to list just a couple of points that come to my mind that
need to be judged correctly to get a safe landing:

What's the correct nose-down attitude in reference to the horizon if
there's rising area ahead? Tall trees?
Judge the exact position.
Judge the wind.
Turbulence?

Decide about the maneuver that is going to get you down safely:
Sufficient runway ahead to land safely? Return to runway, shortened
traffic circuit, safe off-field landing ahead?
Or even a controlled crash if a safe landing is not warranted?

Once the pilot has decided which maneuver to fly, he needs to execute
it properly. As we are discussing turns to return to the runway:
What's the direction of the first turn, how many degrees are necessary
for that first turn, when does one start the turn back towards the
runway, what's the correct speed, when to extrend the airbrakes?


All these points need precise judgement - which can only be done
visually. Ever tried to judge heights and distances in Condor? Close
to impossible - at close range things look completely different in
real life.
Quick scanning is absolutely necessary - the pilot needs to turn the
head to get a quick overview. When flying his approach (especially if
he flies a teardrop turn at low altitude in order to turn back to the
runway) he needs to be able to look back over his shoulder and keep
the glider under control at the same time. He must be able to quickly
turn his head, scan horizon position, airspeed indicator, yaw string,
then look back to the runway, judge his position and his turning
radius, and so on.

The ability to do this correctly is going to save his life. This is a
technique that must be practiced.
Simulate this on a 22" screen? No way. You need a dome with a 360
degrees field of view to simulate this.



Any instructor knows that nearly all pilots who are flying a turn at
low altitude tend to keep the wings as level as possible and use the
rudder to turn the nose into the desired heading - the yaw string is
pointing inwards in such a turn. Get too slow, and even the most
benign glider will spin immediately - such an uncoordinated turn is
the classic spin entry maneuvre.

One is never going to see such a mistake on a 22" screen - the
experience on a PC sim is simply missing the imaginary fear that a
wing tip could touch the ground (this is the cause for such an
uncoordinated turn: The pilot wants to keep the lower wing tip as far
as possible from the ground, therefore turns too shallow, therefore he
has to use something else to get his nose pointed into the desired
direction: Voila, the rudder! Usually he's task saturated in such a
situation - he simply does not recognize that the yaw string points
into the wrong direction).

It is incredible what mistakes are being made by task-saturated
pilots, even if there's an instructor on board.
None of these mistakes are made at the desk, steering a glider on a
22" screen with a $50 joystick, a keyboard and no fear of dying.


So the two most important things cannot be taught on a PC sim:
- Precise judgement of the situation, situation awareness
- Fly the plane under severe stress

Of course one can show the student pilot the possible maneuvres on a
PC sim - but as long as there's no access to a flight simulator with a
360 degrees field of view and photo-realistic graphics, the student
pilot MUST experience a rope break simulation in a real glider.



I can pretty much guarantee you
that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
indistinguishable from their reaction in real life.

In my experience - they stay cool, fly whatever maneuvre they have
decided, and try again if it does not work.
In real life they are scared to death and make mistakes they'd never
make on a PC.

Moreover, the
situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
off-airport landing - try that in real life!

In real life the pilot thinks about the value of the glider he's about
to trash - voila, stress! Won't happen on the PC.

After 10 or 20 (or 100)
SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

..... and after he's done some real-life rope-break procedures.
I think that a PC based simulator like Condor could support real-life
training, but never replace it.


For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

What is effective in saving lives is to teach the student pilot the
correct techniques to master such a situation. Show him in a realistic
enviroment how to keep things under control.

Let him experience that even a rope-break at a critical height is
something that gives him enough time to assess a situation and make a
decision for a safe landing. Once he has got the feeling that he is
always in control, he'll loose most of his nervousness - stay calm,
and fly a lot better.

This self-confidence can only be taught inflight, not in a $300 PC
game on a 22" screen.

I am pretty sure that this could also be taught in a simulator with a
cockpit and a view system that closele resembles reality - but then we
are talking about an impressive five-digit $ sum.


I tend to think that such a sum would better be used to (re-)train
instructors to perform *safe* rope-break training.
I have to admit that some of the stories I read in this thread made my
hairs stand up.



Andreas

Hi Bart,

It's interesting to me that "traffic pattern altitude" is not defined in 14 CFR part 1. As far as I know, any flight that includes a takeoff, climb and turn qualifies as a BFR flight. I'm sure no expert on the FAR's though.

I think I read somewhere that the FAA definition (somewhere) of traffic pattern flight includes the requirement that it be within a half mile of the landing spot. I can't remember where I saw this though.

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 1:04:43 PM UTC-4, Jim Lewis wrote:
Hi Bart,

It's interesting to me that "traffic pattern altitude" is not defined in 14 CFR part 1. As far as I know, any flight that includes a takeoff, climb and turn qualifies as a BFR flight. I'm sure no expert on the FAR's though.

I think I read somewhere that the FAA definition (somewhere) of traffic pattern flight includes the requirement that it be within a half mile of the landing spot. I can't remember where I saw this though.

Long dead thread resurrected... I was told at my CFI refresher clinic that
the FAA considers the low rope break to be a pattern flight, especially since
it helps promote safer flying by practicing emergency procedures.

Matt

TPA may not be defined in 14 CFR Part 1, but there's a section on it in the (yes, I know, not regulatory) AIM 4-3-3. "Traffic Patterns".

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 4:29:08 PM UTC-7, Bob Pasker wrote:
TPA may not be defined in 14 CFR Part 1, but there's a section on it in the (yes, I know, not regulatory) AIM 4-3-3. "Traffic Patterns".

Hi Bob,

The stuff in the AIM is not regulatory but it is important for us to pay close attention to it. My feeling about the description of traffic patterns in the AIM is not due to it not being regulatory, it's due to it looking like it's describing a suggested pattern for power aircraft, not for gliders.

Also, traffic pattern altitude, even for power aircraft, is not a universal value. We have all seen traffic pattern altitudes at a variety of airfields specified at altitudes from 500' for gliders (Rosamond) to 1500' for large aircraft at some fields. If we are doing our BFR in a glider at Rosamond do we need to delay a rope break to 500' so we reach "traffic pattern altitude". Maybe, but it seems foolish to me. I will continue to accept a rope break at 300' feet or so as qualifying for a BFR flight - but that's just me.

Students learn several very valuable things during a simulated rope break.
1. they have (at least) a 3 second "oh, ****", factor where they don't
do anything until the reality sets in. I had one student that froze and
did nothing at all.
2. they don't get the nose down fast enough, far enough - even after
they recognize and react to the situation.

As others have pointed out, you have to be careful. On a hot humid day
when you're still far away from the airport at 200, the exercise might
best be postponed. I've found that on a normal day, a rope break at 275
(which is what I typically do)or so gives you an extra margin of safety
and still gets the point across - and spoilers will be needed to not
over-run the airport.

Tony

On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:
Students learn several very valuable things during a simulated rope break.
1. they have (at least) a 3 second "oh, ****", factor where they don't
do anything until the reality sets in. I had one student that froze and
did nothing at all.
2. they don't get the nose down fast enough, far enough - even after
they recognize and react to the situation.

Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
turn back to the airport. You have to wait until you have enough
airspeed to pull that off. Something that gets drilled into every winch
student (I hope).

Tony

I always teach a multitude of tow failures to pre-solo students
ranging from turn backs at low-ish altitude to abbreviate patterns at
mid altitude to full patterns once high enough. I always sort of grin
when people call it a "simulated rope break". There is nothing
simulated about it! Frankly i find it the most stressful sort of
training that i've ever given because it requires an incredibly high
level of oversight and everything has to be done just right, there
isn't a lot of room for error. I've had a few exciting
ones...probably earned a few early gray hairs as a result.

The more downwind turnarounds i've done the more I realize that in
reality at the airports I usually fly from a landing straight ahead
into the wind off airport is probably at least as safe if not safer
than turning back. I always make sure that my students are not
married to the idea of having to make it back to the runway too. IMO
there is a pretty narrow window of wind/temperature/takeoff
performance and however many other factors that make turning back the
truly best all around option. Remember this is me flying out of
midwest runways with miles of landable fields off the departure ends.

I usually enforce a basic three step process after the rope "breaks".
1: nose down 2: turn (if you need to) 3: land. Lots of pilots forget
#1.

I've also learned over the years that sometimes the most difficult tow
failures are the mid altitudes where you have multiple options
(especially if there is more than one runway at your airport). could
make a short pattern and land into the wind, could pick another runway
for a crosswind landing, could land downwind. sometimes options are a
bad thing and people wait too long to make a decision and then they
are out of options and ideas.

On Jul 11, 7:11*pm, Tony V wrote:
On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:

Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
turn back to the airport.

You have to wait until you have enough
airspeed to pull that off.


Why? If the simulated break is made at normal tow speed there is
sufficient speed to start the turn immediately.

Andy