Glider crow-hops:

On Aug 30, 6:07*pm, RAS56 wrote:
That's why "Hey, watch this!" are so famous as the last utterances of so many
amateur engineers, scientists, and yes...test pilots.

As amusing as that might seem on the surface, that is exactly what
happened to a good friend of mine in August of 1987:

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...13X31829&key=1

Thanks, Bob K.

I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.

In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights. The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to correct in time if done wromg.

On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course. And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the other how to teach and how to cope.

We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and training organizations.

There is also a general guideline which I believe all should practice – do a risk analysis, and don’t have too many new things at one time, and never more than one major new thing at a time.


Here we have a low gliding hours pilot with several things new to him, going to teach himself, by a method he thinks better thsn what almost everyone else uses. If he goes ahead, I hope he does not damage his new toy, but if he does, don’t anyone be surprised.

I second the posts above – working backwards from the accident report, it would have been obvious that it was too likely.

In the USA, do insurers have a concept of contributory negligence which can impact upon thje pay out in the event of a claim? It has been raised on occasion over here, when people who the insurers thought should know better took a risk that they knew or had been warned about about.


Chris N.

On 8/31/2012 9:38 AM, Chris Nicholas wrote:
I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.

In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights. The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to correct in time if done wromg.

On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course. And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the other how to teach and how to cope.

We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and training organizations.


The difference is the pitch attitude. In the above, the nose even at 50
ft is significantly elevated. In a 'crow hop' it (more or less) stays level.

Tony "6N"

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:30 -0500, Bill D wrote:


...I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is
needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind -
just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.


Bill, I don't want to challenge you on this, but I'm interested in your
"excellent authority."

From my read of the FAR's it sure looks like a ground launch endorsement
would be required. Here is the relevant section of 14 CFR 61.31:

(j) Additional training required for operating a glider.

(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a glider--

(i) Using ground-tow procedures, unless that person has satisfactorily
accomplished ground and flight training on ground-tow procedures and
operations, and has received an endorsement from an authorized instructor
who certifies in that pilot's logbook that the pilot has been found
proficient in ground-tow procedures and operations;

the "pilot in command" is defined as the person who:

(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety
of the flight;

(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight;
and

(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if
appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.

and a "flight" can be inferred from the definition of flight time:

(2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences
when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the
glider comes to rest after landing.

So, if a glider is towed with the intention of leaving the ground, that
constitutes a flight and the pilot in command of that flight needs to have
a ground launch endorsement if the towing is being done using "ground tow
procedures."

I admit that this is one of those areas where being caught is unlikely,
and I wasn't going to interject this in this thread, but since you
mentioned that you have a good authority who says that it is legal to
make short, low altitude flights using ground launch procedures without
the endorsement, can you please give me some more information about the
basis for this claim?

--
Stefan Murry
CFI-G

Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and virtually no chance of dinging the glider."

Really? This statement is scary and absurd.

Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?

I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.

Boggs

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:54:31 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
I'm with John, and many others who have commented on this thread.



And Bill, I respectfully, but totally, disagree with you.



The "crow hop" idea is seriously flawed in this circumstance, IMO.



Either the glider in question is a safe, known quantity, and therefore is probably a lot easier to fly than any of the trainers J-soar has flown, or it is an unknown quantity that should be test flown by an experienced pilot.

I believe they call that: "Negligence".

I, too, have stayed out of this discussion until now, and I have only one
word to describe the proposed method: Stupid.

Please don't do what you're proposing.


"Chris Nicholas" wrote in message
...
I was going to stay out of this one, but want to add this after all.

In the UK, instructors are trained to teach winch launching and coping with
launch failures, at “high”, “medium” and “low” (50 feet or lower) heights.
The latter are to be done as demos only, not allowing student pilots to do
them in practice – they too often result in damage which the P1 is unable to
correct in time if done wromg.

On the instructors courses, the low failure demo tuition is done at the end
of the week – so that resulting damage does not stop the rest of the course.
And this is with experienced pilots at the controls, just one teaching the
other how to teach and how to cope.

We have a tried and tested, universally practiced way to do conversions to
new types, used and approved by virtually all experienced instructors and
training organizations.

There is also a general guideline which I believe all should practice – do a
risk analysis, and don’t have too many new things at one time, and never
more than one major new thing at a time.


Here we have a low gliding hours pilot with several things new to him, going
to teach himself, by a method he thinks better thsn what almost everyone
else uses. If he goes ahead, I hope he does not damage his new toy, but if
he does, don’t anyone be surprised.

I second the posts above – working backwards from the accident report, it
would have been obvious that it was too likely.

In the USA, do insurers have a concept of contributory negligence which can
impact upon thje pay out in the event of a claim? It has been raised on
occasion over here, when people who the insurers thought should know better
took a risk that they knew or had been warned about about.


Chris N.

On Aug 31, 8:20 am, wrote:

Somewhere back previously I think it was noted that this particular glider
has only been flown a few times...

This has been a long meandering (though useful) thread, so I think the
particulars have gotten a bit scrambled. I've seen the glider in
question; it was well-built and was flown a fair amount by a variety
of pilots. I never heard that there were any issues with it.

Thanks, Bob K.

....And my final comment on this...

We can try all day to interpret what the FAA would say, but I'll bet your
insurance company will declare you uninsured the second your wheel leaves
the ground unless you have a ground launch endorsement.


"Waveguru" wrote in message
...
Bill D says "There is exactly zero chance of the pilot getting hurt and
virtually no chance of dinging the glider."

Really? This statement is scary and absurd.

Can you tell us where and when this is going to take place?

I would really like to hear from your instructor here in this thread.
This is a bad idea and I find it a little hard to believe that it is
condoned by an instructor and club or commercial operation.

Boggs

On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:11:12 AM UTC-6, S. Murry wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:11:30 -0500, Bill D wrote:





...I have it on excellent authority that no ground launch sign off is

needed for a "crow hop" since it really isn't a launch of any kind -

just the glider equivalent of taxi tests.





Bill, I don't want to challenge you on this, but I'm interested in your

"excellent authority."



From my read of the FAR's it sure looks like a ground launch endorsement

would be required. Here is the relevant section of 14 CFR 61.31:



(j) Additional training required for operating a glider.



(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a glider--



(i) Using ground-tow procedures, unless that person has satisfactorily

accomplished ground and flight training on ground-tow procedures and

operations, and has received an endorsement from an authorized instructor

who certifies in that pilot's logbook that the pilot has been found

proficient in ground-tow procedures and operations;



the "pilot in command" is defined as the person who:



(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety

of the flight;



(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight;

and



(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if

appropriate, for the conduct of the flight.



and a "flight" can be inferred from the definition of flight time:



(2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences

when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the

glider comes to rest after landing.



So, if a glider is towed with the intention of leaving the ground, that

constitutes a flight and the pilot in command of that flight needs to have

a ground launch endorsement if the towing is being done using "ground tow

procedures."



I admit that this is one of those areas where being caught is unlikely,

and I wasn't going to interject this in this thread, but since you

mentioned that you have a good authority who says that it is legal to

make short, low altitude flights using ground launch procedures without

the endorsement, can you please give me some more information about the

basis for this claim?



--

Stefan Murry

CFI-G

Ground LAUNCH requires an endorsement. The proposed "crow hop" is not a launch in the eyes of the FAA inspectors I have discussed it with.