If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
Be careful of statistics - but agreed that recent winch safety has been
excellent for most of Europe (at least it appears to be so from what we can see reported.) Interestingly my club includes a lot of expatriate Germans, and a similar group of expatriate English pilots. I have not seen any major difference between them in approach or safety. Glad to see we agree on the rest - primacy is important. When something puts pressure on a pilot we tend to revert to what we first learned. Make sure it is sensible. Interestingly I wonder how much of the relative safety of launches in the USA vs Germany / France/ England is the way soaring is administered. The US way of licensing and having the proficiency standards and examinations mandated and by the FAA is not ideal. Tom Knauf makes a strong argument for doing it better. As to the safety aspect - all launch methods intrinsically involve risk, and decisions about how much risk to accept, and how you manage the risk you take. Some communities take higher risk, and have consequentially higher incident rates. (For example the one way strip in the vineyards) The take away for me is to be aware of the situation and make sure you have thought through the possible eventualities, and what you can and should do in the event one of them occurs. Instinctive responses are very useful up to a point. In an unusual situation, they had better be tempered by rational processes. Attitude and preparation are most important. The flying skill required should not be unusual - but the necessary speed of decision making can exceed peoples capabilities. I helps to have thought things through. Cheers Bruce On 2010/08/15 4:34 PM, bildan wrote: "The BGA statistics, taken from the UK and continental Europe, unfortunately are unequivocal that winch launching was responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities" BGA statistics on Continental Europe are seriously in error. You're just trying to say that everybody else is a bad as the UK - they aren't. I have obtained accident statistics from Germany for 2009. More than 1.5 million winch launches resulted in just 17 accidents (13 of which were really landing accidents since the glider was in a position for a safe landing with good height and airspeed.) There were three fatalities. That's an absolutely extraordinary safety record - far, far better than aero tow in the US or winch launch in the UK. The SSF says the US lost 12 people on aero tow in 2009. If winch launch is done competently, as it is in Germany, it's orders of magnitude safer than aero tow as practiced in the US. I strongly advise adopting the training methods and operating techniques used in Germany. John Smith's point is not about the infallibility of pilots, (fools will find a way) it's that a winch operation should never put a pilot in a situation where more than basic flying ability is required to recover from a rope break. This goes for aero tow operations as well. As an instructor, I can tell if a pilot has to think through a recovery or is doing it instinctively. I train until it's instinctive. If they maintain that level of competency, rope breaks will never be a hazard for them. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Aug 15, 7:34*am, bildan wrote:
That's an absolutely extraordinary safety record - far, far better than aero tow in the US or winch launch in the UK. The SSF says the US lost 12 people on aero tow in 2009. I have no opinion on this topic and am just reading it to for background, but the statement above is very much in error, I suspect. The NTSB lists 7 glider fatals for 2009, of which one is not really a glider as we think of it (a 'light-sport' type float kit machine that took off on water without enough room to miss the trees at the shore). Of the 6 remaining, one was a winch launch, one spun off the (aero) tow line at ~300" and one released, spun, and crashed. So worst case there are 2 aero tow fatalities and one winch fatality in the US in 2009. NTSB was unable to determine the cause of either aero tow related incident, there was some speculation about cardic events, but sounds like we'll never know. As a low hour pilot I don't have an opinion on the topic except to mention that every January I do 3 to 5 simulated rope breaks. My reason for that is when making a high bank turn below 200' the ground being so near tends to freak me out, and the simulated rope breaks get me used to the sight picture and helps me stay calm. Brian |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:12:03 +0200, John Smith
wrote: Derek C wrote: The site in question is a narrow strip 800 metres long, sloping downhill at about 1 in 10, on top of a hill and totally surrounded by small unlandable vineyards. They always launched downhill, irrespective of wind direction. Once above about 200ft, but below circuit height, the only cable break option to get back onto site was a 180 degree turn (teardrop circuit) to land back uphill. And where's the problem? The timing. With such a short field it might be necessary to execute this teardrop circuit at very low altitude because it's not possible anymore to land straight-on. Little error margin for finding the right compromise between executing the turn ionto final at a healthy altitude and not too close to the airfield. It's definitely more relaxed to execute this teardrop circuit at 300ft+. Cheers Andreas |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), sisu1a
wrote: Modern winching is pretty much a science and has come a long way since the 60s so it does not do the soaring community (US at least...) a favor to combine it all into single raw statistics cause it paints a negative biased picture based on irrelevant data. Hmmm... I beg to differ. Modern winching has very much in common with winching in the 60s. The only difference is that the winches grew stronger in accordance to the rising weight and speed of the gliders, but otherwise -at least in Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as fifty years ago. It is not necessary (Bill - I know you are going to cry out now to have the latest state-of-the-art gizmos (telemetry, plastic cables, advanced speed control) to perform a perfectly safe and satisfactory winch launch. Cheers Andreas |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the
rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as fifty years ago. Here are some post 1960 hardware differences: (shooting from the hip... 1) standardized weak links (Tost system) 2) implementation and standardization of preamble/strop/trace 3) high aspect drums/doing away with level-winds 4) synthetic cables 5) much better control of torque/speed/launch profile 6) electric winch(es) While procedures may have remained pretty consistent in Germany (though adapted to accommodate newer hardware setups like strops, and some some for UHMW...) most everyone else seems to have been quite behind on the curve and continue to play catch-up; with some groups in doing it in distinct steps like the GFA writing a manual in 98 http://www.scribd.com/doc/24475893/Winch-Manual and BGA with their 'safe winch launch initiative started in 05 for instance: http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/saf...hlaunching.htm , which have changed SOP in those places as far as I can tell. Also up until quite recently, a complete mathematical model of the entire launch did not exist, only partial models. This information is (debatably) relevant to further hardware and procedural evolution as well, pushing it even closer towards science and further from it's trial and error past. Details aside, the point is if you look at 40-50yrs of winching as a generic lump sum the picture looks undeservedly bleak compared to looking at it by what is now commonly being done abroad, with Germany leading the way with a long record of safety and good procedures. (which I have a hard time imagining there being *some* changes in the last 50yrs of German winching though... -Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Aug 15, 1:21*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), sisu1a wrote: Modern winching is pretty much a science and has come a long way since the 60s so it does not do the soaring community (US at least...) a favor to combine it all into single raw statistics cause it paints a negative biased picture based on irrelevant data. * Hmmm... I beg to differ. Modern winching has very much in common with winching in the 60s. The only difference is that the winches grew stronger in accordance to the rising weight and speed of the gliders, but otherwise -at least in Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as fifty years ago. It is not necessary (Bill - I know you are going to cry out now *to have the latest state-of-the-art gizmos (telemetry, plastic cables, advanced speed control) to perform a perfectly safe and satisfactory winch launch. Cheers Andreas Actually, I don't disagree. You don't need all new stuff to be safe but then you can drive a 1960's car and be safe too - as long as you're careful not to hit anything or get hit. It's a fact that people driving new cars with air bags and crush zones drive a lot more aggressively. That's basically what you get from the new winch designs. Easier, safer launches with greater performance. Dyneema is an exception. It has been proven safer than steel cable by every industry that has adopted it - there's lots of industrial safety data on that. Besides being safer, it's just way nicer to work with. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Aug 15, 8:55*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:37 pm, bildan wrote: Every E&R Experimental operations limitations letter I've seen requires operation in compliance with the AFM. I can find no such requirement in mine. *Does anyone else operating experimental (racing/exhibition) have this requirement in their operating limitations? *If so, would you please email me a copy. FAR Part 91.9(a) requires operation in compliance with an AFM if one is part of the original airworthiness certification. *(i.e JAR-22) My operating limitations do not require compliance with all of part 91. *They reference very specific sections. *In reference to 91.9 they state in para 21 - This aircraft shall contain the placards., markings, etc. required by 91.9. 91.9 (a) states a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry. It is my interpretation that *"or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry" means that the details of the operating limitations specified by FAA (the certificating authority in the country of registry) *take precedence. Those operating limitations make specific reference to the requirement for placards and markings but make no reference to the AFM. Why would the operating limitations pick out specific sections of part 91, and specific data from the AFM, for inclusion unless only those included references/restrictions were applicable? *It would be far simpler to state that the aircraft is required to operate in accordance with Part 91. I'm very sure (based on FAA interpretations) if an E&R airworthiness certificate is issued for a glider which had a standard airworthiness certificate with AFM in it's country of origin, the mere issuance of a US E&R airworthiness certificate does not excuse the owner of the glider from compliance with the AFM. Can you please give me references to, or email copies of, any interpretation that requires compliance with the AFM when the operating limitations do not. *Do those interpretations also relate to compliance with an approved maintenance manual? thanks Andy Andy, all you have to do is call your FSDO and ask for an opinion. If you ask, "Do I have to comply with my glider's AFM if I have an E&R airworthiness certificate?", you already know what the answer will be. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Aug 15, 7:58*pm, bildan wrote:
Andy, all you have to do is call your FSDO and ask for an opinion. *If you ask, "Do I have to comply with my glider's AFM if I have an E&R airworthiness certificate?", you already know what the answer will be. The person that issued my operating limitations has retired so I cannot ask him for any interpretation. I will operate under the limitations as issued, which are unambiguous in this regard, until such time as the new FSDO staff decide to revoke them. Thank you for your assistance in providing the applicable regulations and precedent that support your position and for being so willing to have a reasoned discussion of the issue. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Aug 15, 11:29*am, Bruce wrote:
Interestingly I wonder how much of the relative safety of launches in the USA vs Germany / France/ England is the way soaring is administered. The US way of licensing and having the proficiency standards and examinations mandated and by the FAA is not ideal. Tom Knauf makes a strong argument for doing it better. I've looked at aviation safety for more than half a century and, in the end, I've decided it comes down to the individual pilot and the surrounding culture of safety. The regulatory environment has little to do with it. If a pilot says, "Yes, this thing I propose to do can be hazardous, but I intend to manage it by doing everything I possibly can to reduce the risk." "I will seek training to achieve a far higher level of skill and knowledge than will be required and rely on it to maintain the greatest safety margin possible." If he does that, I expect to see a very long and safe flying career. Aviation safety is the process of doing something inherently risky in a way that makes it inherently safe. That requires skill. It also requires the strength of character to seek that skill and the self- discipline to use it. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:56:16 -0700 (PDT), bildan
wrote: That's basically what you get from the new winch designs. Easier, safer launches with greater performance. Nope. Dyneema is an exception. It has been proven safer than steel cable by every industry that has adopted it - there's lots of industrial safety data on that. Besides being safer, it's just way nicer to work with. Hmmm... on my airfield (we were the first ones to use Dyneema) we already had more than only a couple of incidents that were directly related to the use of Dyneema and wouldn't have happened with steel cable. We came to the conclusion that -at least on my airfield- steel cable offers more advantages than disadvatages than Dyneema. Cheers Andreas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
physics question about pull ups | John Rivers | Soaring | 59 | June 10th 10 12:21 PM |
FS: Wings&Wheels Wing Stand | James Hamilton[_2_] | Soaring | 0 | September 12th 09 01:15 AM |
Pull up a chair and hear me out: | Vaughn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 2nd 06 02:04 AM |
Better GPS, Flight Computer, Variable Wing Geometry, abililty to Self-Launch | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 7 | May 2nd 05 06:02 PM |
Glider pull-up and ballast | M B | Soaring | 0 | September 15th 03 06:29 PM |