48.4 hours !?

That this pilot seems to have gone from pre-solo student to commercial
ride pilot in the space of a few weeks doesn't really surprise me. It's
unusual, but I can see it happening in a concentrated program such as
the one at the USAF academy, and when using fairly basic equipment like
2-33s.

What does surprise me is that such a low-hour pilot got turned loose in
a 2-32 in ride-for-two configuration. Back in the day, when I worked at
Sky Sailing, the 2-32 was considered a Hot Ship, and it definitely
hotted up from there when loaded to near max gross as rides for two
would do. That ship seemed to demand careful energy management, and
would smite you mightily if you didn't keep an eye on the airspeed. At
Sky Sailing (Fremont), they difinitely didn't turn you loose on 2-32
rides until you had many more hours than the pilot in this accident.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

You're confusing rating and FAA requirements with insurance
requirements.

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably
bright
person with the minimum hours can pilot a doggy glider
like
a 2-33 with a passenger on a sled ride. FAA minimums
are just that: minimums. Neither the FAA nor anyone
else I know
believes that having a license and being legal to fly
X or Y or Z makes it safe to fly any aircraft with
any passengers with no further type specific training
whatsoever. Even the greenest
private pilots in airplanes don't jump straight into
a
GeeBee.

At the exaggeration of what you are suggesting is that
all pilots should be required to fly a 2-32 and demonstrate
they can safely fly it in maximally difficult wave,
thermal, ridge, etc.
Oh, and demonstrate spins and recoveries in the 2-32
with 300# in the back. All before getting the FAA

glider rating. Quite a full plate indeed.

This is NOT an FAA requirement. BUT, this can be
an INSURANCE requirement. As it should be, the
insurer for this accident will be much more interested
and responsive to the findings than the FAA. A blanket
FAA regulatory change from this accident seems neither
prudent nor likely.

A 2-32 is a hot enough ship that I am personally aware
of a
several thousand hour commercial pilot destroying one
within the past two years. Pilot and passengers uninjured,

fortunately.

Which is perhaps one of the greatest things one can
say about
these aircraft: they seem to do a pretty good job
protecting the innocent passengers in the back.

They seem to also do a fairly good job protecting the
pilot in the front too, generally. It's a shame that
this
particular pilot didn't make it.

Despite whether the eventual findings cite X or Y or
Z...

...the most surprising part of the 48.4 hours is that
the commercial insurer would accept that. In my experience
commercial insurers are pretty draconian about their
experience requirements, including some pretty
heavy requirements for time in type. To the point
they
don't even quote a rate (even an exorbinant one)
unless one has some pretty extensive experience in
some aircraft types.

I'd be very interested to see not so much how the
FAA reacts, but how the insurers react to this unfortunate
accident.

On a different note, I think this was a young, 20ish
pilot.
How terrible to lose a young soul like this...

At 18:00 21 April 2005, Ttaylor At Cc.Usu.Edu wrote:
The USA requirements are way too low. No real soaring
experience
required. I think that all ratings should be required
to demonstrate
real soaring skills, not just flying skills. This
is about the third
accident in Hawaii with similar stall spin characteristics
into the
trees.

Commercial Pilot-Glider: FAR 61.121-61.141
Age requirement: at least 18 years of age.
* Be able to read, speak, write, and understand
English.
* Hold at least a private pilot certificate (for
heavier-than-air
aircraft.)
For initial certificate issuance, pass a knowledge
test (FAR
61.125) and practical test (61.127). The launch method(s)
endorsed in
the pilot's logbook (61.31(j)) determines in which
type of launch(s)
the pilot has demonstrated proficiency.
*
There are two levels of experience required for issuance
of a
commercial certificate;
1.At least 25 hours as a pilot in gliders,
including;
1. 100 flights in gliders as pilot in
command; and,
2. 3 hours of flight training or 10
training flights in
gliders; and,
3. 2 hours of solo flight to include
not less than 10
solo flights; and,
4. 3 training flights in preparation
for the flight
test.


Mark J. Boyd

M B wrote:

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan

Stefan,

Setting aside for the moment charged phrases like
'trust' and 'put your life in his hands'

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

In my experience it has been the insurance companies.
They
get the profits and guide flying through there rates
at a level of detail that I can't see any government
accomplishing as well.
I get customers for flying specifically on my doorstep
because their insurer said 'get some spin training
in a XYZ' or
'x number of hours in high L/D glass' etc.

Same for towpilots. The requirements I've seen from
insurers are 5 times what the FAA minimums are, and
then go from there in detail depending on the type
of aircraft used (Pawnee, 235, C-182, etc.)

Absolute statements about the responsibility of government
to protect customers and shine truth and provide the
impenetrable shield of absolute safety on all within
its bounds are certainly lofty ideals.

But in the end the insurers do a far better practical
job of tracking and guiding the nuances of pilots,
locations, and aircraft to provide a practical level
of safety.

The best question right before a ride as a passenger
isn't
about the pilot's ratings or accident record or hours
or
time in type. The best question to evaluate the safety

of a flight is to ask 'how much are you paying for
insurance?'
If the number is astronomical, then take a ride elsewhere...

The actuaries have spoken...

At 21:00 21 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

The FAA requirements are perfectly fine. A reasonably

No. The whole idea of the commercial rating is to protect
the customer.
A commercial rating basically says: You can trust this
pilot and put
your life in his hands.

Stefan

Mark J. Boyd

M B wrote:

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

This was not the point. The point was that the whole idea of a
commercial rating should be to protect the costomer. A commercial rating
should be a certificate that I can trust somebody. That's the idea.

That this is not achived by the ridiculous requirements to get such a
rating (in the USA) was exactly my point.

Stefan

Heresay evidence, blind assumption and lack of experience
in the glider concerned all put together is enough
for a hanging is it.
If the poor bloke was still alive you could lock him
up in Guantánamo. He may have been al-Qaida, a mass
murderer perhaps or anything else you care to pull
out of the air.

Why can you not wait for the results of the enquiry
and decide on the evidence instead of speculating about
the guilt of someone who cannot defend himself. Land
of the Free? Prove it.

At 04:30 22 April 2005, Btiz wrote:
I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly
after it happened..

I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the
one I flew I felt it was
very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall
with rumbling and
stick shaking..

one report that came from our local witness.. that
is not addressed in the
preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of
salt or sand...is that
the passengers reported that the stick was full back
the entire time when
the spin started... no forward movement to stop the
spin..

In less than one month.. this individual went from
Student Pilot certificate
issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and
crashed. No mention is
made of his experience prior to receiving his student
pilot certificate. But
based on the documentation provided, one can expect
that he had worked up to
pre-solo before getting his student certificate and
quickly completed two
written exams and check rides. Not a good position
to put an insurance
company in.

BT

'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message
...
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.

Don Johnstone wrote:

Why can you not wait for the results of the enquiry
and decide on the evidence instead of speculating about
the guilt of someone who cannot defend himself.

I agree (and always said so) that it is speculation. But *if* this
speculation is correct, then that poor young chap is the last person to
blame. He was told by the authority that he's a capble pilot to
commercial standards. The operator, supposedly an experienced pilot, let
im loose with passengers, thus implying the same. So *if* the
speculation is correct, this inexperienced pilot is not guilty, but a
victim himself!

Stefan

Don Johnstone wrote:

Heresay evidence, blind assumption and lack of experience
in the glider concerned all put together is enough
for a hanging is it.

Check the subject line, Don.

Would you have let your loved ones ride with a pilot who had a comparable
background, in those surroundings? Or even hear over the cornfields of N.
Illinois for that matter? We are all rejoicing that more were not killed.

If anyone is to be condemned out of hand, it is an organization which would
hire someone to do this sort of work who had "48.4 hours". I'm sure that all
of us have great confidence that appropriate measures will be taken via the
civil courts and in the matter of future insurance costs/availability for
the commercial glider operation responsible.

If you have a burr under your saddle concerning certain aspects of US
international policy, why not take it to another newsgroup where someone cares?


Jack

If anyone is to be condemned out of hand, it is an organization which
would hire someone to do this sort of work who had "48.4 hours".

It's worse than that. He had 48.4 hours logged the day before he was
killed. He had even less when he was hired!

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

At 13:30 22 April 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
Heresay evidence, blind assumption and lack of experience
in the glider concerned all put together is enough
for a hanging is it.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the pilot here
was directly at fault, rather that it was maybe unwise
(even in the absence of an accident) to send passengers
up with a relatively inexperienced pilot. In the case
of an inexperienced pilot coming to grief, you have
to look at the training he received (in this case recently)
to find out what could be done better. This is not
a world champion that pushed his/her luck too far.

If the poor bloke was still alive you could lock him
up in Guant�namo. He may have been al-Qaida, a mass
murderer perhaps or anything else you care to pull
out of the air.

.....1...2...3...4...5...

Why can you not wait for the results of the enquiry
and decide on the evidence instead of speculating about
the guilt of someone who cannot defend himself. Land
of the Free? Prove it.

I'd say open speculation (and disagreement) and the
fact that people make it is pretty much proof that
it is land of the free. Any speculation made now is
(in the reasonable persons mind) just that, speculation,
it can (and will) be revised as more evidence comes
to light and the NTSB inquiry progresses.
And as a previous poster said before, if I died in
a glider, I'd rather that the causes were gone over
and any lessons learnt, rather than my case being brushed
under the carpet. Accidents, and there causes shouldn't
be taboo, we can all learn something from them (unfortunately),
even from speculation. If we were all perfect pilots
then we could carry on as normal without looking at
these incidents (but then again there shouldn't be
any incidents then should there?).


I haven't actually expressed an opinion (intentionally
anyway) on the pilots ability and/or failings but to
shout down honest and open speculation is unwise and
possibly foolish....


Jamie



At 04:30 22 April 2005, Btiz wrote:
I remember that glider on the beach posting shortly
after it happened..

I do have some very limited time in the 2-32... the
one I flew I felt it was
very honest.. giving plenty of warning before the stall
with rumbling and
stick shaking..

one report that came from our local witness.. that
is not addressed in the
preliminary report... and taken with a few grains of
salt or sand...is that
the passengers reported that the stick was full back
the entire time when
the spin started... no forward movement to stop the
spin..

In less than one month.. this individual went from
Student Pilot certificate
issue.. to Private Pilot to Commercial Pilot... and
crashed. No mention is
made of his experience prior to receiving his student
pilot certificate. But
based on the documentation provided, one can expect
that he had worked up to
pre-solo before getting his student certificate and
quickly completed two
written exams and check rides. Not a good position
to put an insurance
company in.

BT

'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message
...
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.