Soaring Accident in Washington State

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biS1n...layer_embedded

On Oct 15, 11:35*pm, GARY BOGGS wrote:
No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
hit the gas.

Oh my.

While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
likely.

This is the most sensible of our current speculations.

Really, it makes no sense that anyone would plan to auto tow to 200
feet and do a 180 degree turn to landing. If they had planned to turn
around, they would have used the whole runway, and a much longer rope.
if they were using a 200 foot rope, the most sensible conclusion is
that they planned to land straight ahead over the tow car. So the turn
is likely unintentional.

I can well imagine that at 150 feet and 60 mph, you haul out spoilers
on a long-winged glider and only one side comes out -- and perhaps
stays out - you have a huge problem on your hands; possibly not
recoverable at all.

Reading accident reports, it seems the NTSB checks control systems
routinely, so we'll know pretty soon if this is the cause.

John Cochrane

The controls got all f-ed up when he hit the ground nose first. This
is not speculation. He pulled up to hard. The rope broke because he
pulled up too hard. He was too nose high and too low to recover. He
had no chance of recovering in that scenario. I wonder if we will
ever be able to see the footage from the hilocopter. All the rest of
the stories are just a guess or an attempt to cover their asses. I
have this info from a Wittness who was there. Or maybe I am wrong? I
hope we get to see and use the video to save lives eventually....

Boggs

The accident was filmed by two separate professional camera crews.
All the video been given to the NTSB and the FAA, so I am sure it will
become available to show all details of the accident.

In the meantime, I find myself thinking about our loss. Lynn was an
excellent instructor and a skilled & experienced pilot. I never heard
him brag about his accomplishments, but he was always willing to share/
teach what he knows. With his professional instructing in his
beautiful glider - he truly delivered what I consider the promise of
soaring: accomplishment while flying something cool. We have lost a
significant member of our tribe and a big contributor to our sport.

Mark

Originally Posted by Andy[_1_]

On Oct 15, 4:34*pm, Michael Dewitt Allen
wrote:
How could
anyone use a 200' tow rope on a Automobile launch on a 2,500 strip and
hope to have ANY leeway to recover from ANY deviation from
perfection ?

Since this is all speculation I'll add mine. Differences between
starting a launch on a 200ft rope behind a tow plane and the same
launch behind a powerful truck a

1. the lack of prop wash and
2. the potential for greatly increased initial acceleration

A reasonable scenario for the shoot would have been for the glider to
become airborne for a few seconds and then release to land ahead while
the truck accelerated out of the way. On the face of it the risks
seem manageable and no worse than the initial segment of an aerotow
from the same runway.

I wonder how much the combination of high initial acceleration and
short rope contributed to this accident. A key factor may be whether
the launch used a nose hook or a CG hook. If the plan was to land
ahead with no attempt to gain significant altitude then the nose hook
may have been the right choice.

People are questioning the experience of the glider pilot. Maybe the
experience of the truck driver is just as important?

Andy
(aerotow, winch and ground launch in my log)

I do wonder if high initial acceleration would be an issue as I have not seen any vehicle that can accelerate a glider as fast as a medium to high powered winch. The one at my club will accelerate a light glider to 60 mph in about 3.5 seconds (super car territory) if given abrupt full throttle and a Dg 1000 isn't that light

Colin

On Oct 16, 6:24*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
While the "plan" seems to be seriously flawed, and contributed to the
accident, it may not be the direct cause. Photos and videos clearly
show the right airbrake extended and the left retracted. This points
to a failure of the airbrake controls, which would be consistent with
what most witnesses reported (he veered off to the right after doing a
pull-up). There is an AD out on the DG-1000 airbrake control circuit.
These controls hookup automatically, so an assembly error is not
likely.

This is the most sensible of our current speculations.

Really, it makes no sense that anyone would plan *to auto tow to 200
feet and do a 180 degree turn to landing. If they had planned to turn
around, they would have used the whole runway, and a much longer rope.
if they were using a 200 foot rope, the most sensible conclusion is
that they planned to land straight ahead over the tow car. So the turn
is likely unintentional.

I can well imagine that at 150 feet and 60 mph, you haul out *spoilers
on a long-winged glider and only one side comes out -- and perhaps
stays out - you have a huge problem on your hands; possibly not
recoverable at all.

Reading accident reports, it seems the NTSB checks control systems
routinely, so we'll know pretty soon if this is the cause.

John Cochrane

To all you posting on this thread.

About a month ago, I was contacted by e member of the DGA Directors
Guild of America.
He and I are both SAG members and we both have movie manuals to film
this sort of thing.

It is required by insurance.

The director told the production company that he did not want to film
this without anyone
other than me because he knew my background in soaring.

We went thorugh extensive detail about location scouting safety
briefings etc. etc. plans
for the film shoot. For those of you who do not know me, I have about
3000 hours in
sailpanes flew in the worlds a few nationals, womn a few regionals and
am a 2nd
generation sailplane pilot, SSA life member.

You can see some of my film credits at www.americabyair.com. Select
Demo reels.
We filmed the entire lower 48 every city, landmark, hovel, national
park in HD, beta and
35MM. I have extensive flying and filming in Alaska as well. I am
embarassed to admit I
also I fly (whore around) private jets i.e. Gulfstreams, etc.etc.
which makes me a sailplane
pilot sell out. I can remember a day when I had more glider time than
jet time and I see jets
as big fast glider pigs compared to soaring. Enough about me. I say
this because I have
soaring in my veins and I sleep and drink the stuff.

Well after we gave the production company all this data, with
suggestions on how to
do the shoot and we offered to location scout etc etc. We were told
that we were
essentially the 'it team' for this shoot.

Last friday we were contacted, put on hold indefinitely and suddenly
told the production
company had procured another 'it team' to do the filmwork. We were
like Ok easy come
easy go, that is the way these things usually go.

This thursday my team called me as the news filtered down while I was
busy working on some
other mundane task. I was shocked to learn the pilot elected to do
this in a beast on a 2500
foot strip. The problem is obvious. I have done about 4-5000 launches
and about 2-3000 have
been some sort of ground launch. Those who know me know I specialize
in ground launches
and have volunteered for clubs as a chief CFIG for about 20 years. We
have moved from the
days of the steel cable to Spectra. Cars also produce a wind shadow. A
vacuum of sorts.
Gliders do not fly well in a vacuum. Having a vehicle in front of you
sucking the life out of the
wing root area can get ugly. They also are very picky about down
drafts caused by
'fling wings' (Helicopters). One must carefully take all of this into
consideration much like flying
up close behind a B-757, or A-380 (Scarebus). Helicopters, cars, short
runways, there is a lot
going on with little real estate to bail out on and thus, It can get
you into a world of hurt really fast.

A beast like a DG-1000 needs a lot of breathing room like fine wine.
Cars do not accelerate fast
and eat up prescious remaining runway fast. That leaves little in the
event of an emergency or should the
driver have a freak panic attack and stop in front of you at a speed
where you cannot get out of the
way. It is simply not possible at say 50 knots or less. The glider has
mass and energy and is tough
to stop on a dime with a tiny tire. For example in a jet, every 10
knots you add to the vref speeds eats
another 1000 feet of runway. With an L/D of 50:1, or 60:1 you have the
same problem. cases like
Southwest at BUR are all examples of this and there are many glider
example of a pilots inability to
control energy.

This accident did not have to happen. Had the production crew listened
to pilots who have done this
type of work before the outcome would have been far different. I am
truly saddened to see yet
another glider accident. 2011 has been another bad year for accidents.
We need to do all we can to
improve safety.

Harold Katinszky

On Oct 16, 9:40*pm, GARY BOGGS wrote:
The controls got all f-ed up when he hit the ground nose first. This
is not speculation. He pulled up to hard. *The rope broke because he
pulled up too hard. *He was too nose high and too low to recover. *He
had no chance of recovering in that scenario. *I wonder if we will
ever be able to see the footage from the hilocopter. * All the rest of
the stories are just a guess or an attempt to cover their asses. I
have this info from a Wittness who was there. Or maybe I am wrong? *I
hope we get to see and use the video to save lives eventually....

Boggs

To all you posting on this thread.

About a month ago, I was contacted by e member of the DGA Directors
Guild of America.
He and I are both SAG members and we both have movie manuals to film
this sort of thing.

It is required by insurance.

The director told the production company that he did not want to film
this without anyone
other than me because he knew my background in soaring.

We went thorugh extensive detail about location scouting safety
briefings etc. etc. plans
for the film shoot. For those of you who do not know me, I have about
3000 hours in
sailpanes flew in the worlds a few nationals, womn a few regionals and
am a 2nd
generation sailplane pilot, SSA life member.

You can see some of my film credits at www.americabyair.com. Select
Demo reels.
We filmed the entire lower 48 every city, landmark, hovel, national
park in HD, beta and
35MM. I have extensive flying and filming in Alaska as well. I am
embarassed to admit I
also I fly (whore around) private jets i.e. Gulfstreams, etc.etc.
which makes me a sailplane
pilot sell out. I can remember a day when I had more glider time than
jet time and I see jets
as big fast glider pigs compared to soaring. Enough about me. I say
this because I have
soaring in my veins and I sleep and drink the stuff.

Well after we gave the production company all this data, with
suggestions on how to
do the shoot and we offered to location scout etc etc. We were told
that we were
essentially the 'it team' for this shoot.

Last friday we were contacted, put on hold indefinitely and suddenly
told the production
company had procured another 'it team' to do the filmwork. We were
like Ok easy come
easy go, that is the way these things usually go.

This thursday my team called me as the news filtered down while I was
busy working on some
other mundane task. I was shocked to learn the pilot elected to do
this in a beast on a 2500
foot strip. The problem is obvious. I have done about 4-5000 launches
and about 2-3000 have
been some sort of ground launch. Those who know me know I specialize
in ground launches
and have volunteered for clubs as a chief CFIG for about 20 years. We
have moved from the
days of the steel cable to Spectra. Cars also produce a wind shadow. A
vacuum of sorts.
Gliders do not fly well in a vacuum. Having a vehicle in front of you
sucking the life out of the
wing root area can get ugly. They also are very picky about down
drafts caused by
'fling wings' (Helicopters). One must carefully take all of this into
consideration much like flying
up close behind a B-757, or A-380 (Scarebus). Helicopters, cars, short
runways, there is a lot
going on with little real estate to bail out on and thus, It can get
you into a world of hurt really fast.

A beast like a DG-1000 needs a lot of breathing room like fine wine.
Cars do not accelerate fast
and eat up prescious remaining runway fast. That leaves little in the
event of an emergency or should the
driver have a freak panic attack and stop in front of you at a speed
where you cannot get out of the
way. It is simply not possible at say 50 knots or less. The glider has
mass and energy and is tough
to stop on a dime with a tiny tire. For example in a jet, every 10
knots you add to the vref speeds eats
another 1000 feet of runway. With an L/D of 50:1, or 60:1 you have the
same problem. cases like
Southwest at BUR are all examples of this and there are many glider
example of a pilots inability to
control energy.

This accident did not have to happen. Had the production crew listened
to pilots who have done this
type of work before the outcome would have been far different. I am
truly saddened to see yet
another glider accident. 2011 has been another bad year for accidents.
We need to do all we can to
improve safety.

Harold Katinszky

On Oct 16, 9:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen
wrote:
Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
Washington State

Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...

If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
on a tooo short rope...
on a tooo short Runway...

The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
Had to be smokin something serious.
This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.

On Oct 16, 2:35*am, GARY BOGGS wrote:



No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
hit the gas.

On Oct 15, 9:53*pm, Liam wrote:

On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini wrote:

if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
the runway....

The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
their few seconds of footage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 16, 9:33*am, Michael Dewitt Allen
wrote:
Florida Guy here... Commenting on the "Great North West Caper" in
Washington State

Seems like this Boggs Guy has it "Right On" again...

If the "Plan" was to do a 180... AFTER a "Launch"
on a tooo short rope...
on a tooo short Runway...

The *Genius that had suggested a "180 degree Return to Runway"
Had to be smokin something serious.
This "Plan" seems to have been "Doomed to Failure" from inception.

On Oct 16, 2:35*am, GARY BOGGS wrote:



No. The plan was for him to do a 180. It was doomed before they even
hit the gas.

On Oct 15, 9:53*pm, Liam wrote:

On Oct 15, 8:33*pm, Caterina Jardini wrote:

if the rope had not broken, what would he do at ~150' at the end of
the runway....

The plan was likely for him to land straight ahead after they got
their few seconds of footage.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To all you posting on this thread.

About a month ago, I was contacted by e member of the DGA Directors
Guild of America.
He and I are both SAG members and we both have movie manuals to film
this sort of thing.

It is required by insurance.

The director told the production company that he did not want to film
this without anyone
other than me because he knew my background in soaring.

We went thorugh extensive detail about location scouting safety
briefings etc. etc. plans
for the film shoot. For those of you who do not know me, I have about
3000 hours in
sailpanes flew in the worlds a few nationals, womn a few regionals and
am a 2nd
generation sailplane pilot, SSA life member.

You can see some of my film credits at www.americabyair.com. Select
Demo reels.
We filmed the entire lower 48 every city, landmark, hovel, national
park in HD, beta and
35MM. I have extensive flying and filming in Alaska as well. I am
embarassed to admit I
also I fly (whore around) private jets i.e. Gulfstreams, etc.etc.
which makes me a sailplane
pilot sell out. I can remember a day when I had more glider time than
jet time and I see jets
as big fast glider pigs compared to soaring. Enough about me. I say
this because I have
soaring in my veins and I sleep and drink the stuff.

Well after we gave the production company all this data, with
suggestions on how to
do the shoot and we offered to location scout etc etc. We were told
that we were
essentially the 'it team' for this shoot.

Last friday we were contacted, put on hold indefinitely and suddenly
told the production
company had procured another 'it team' to do the filmwork. We were
like Ok easy come
easy go, that is the way these things usually go.

This thursday my team called me as the news filtered down while I was
busy working on some
other mundane task. I was shocked to learn the pilot elected to do
this in a beast on a 2500
foot strip. The problem is obvious. I have done about 4-5000 launches
and about 2-3000 have
been some sort of ground launch. Those who know me know I specialize
in ground launches
and have volunteered for clubs as a chief CFIG for about 20 years. We
have moved from the
days of the steel cable to Spectra. Cars also produce a wind shadow. A
vacuum of sorts.
Gliders do not fly well in a vacuum. Having a vehicle in front of you
sucking the life out of the
wing root area can get ugly. They also are very picky about down
drafts caused by
'fling wings' (Helicopters). One must carefully take all of this into
consideration much like flying
up close behind a B-757, or A-380 (Scarebus). Helicopters, cars, short
runways, there is a lot
going on with little real estate to bail out on and thus, It can get
you into a world of hurt really fast.

A beast like a DG-1000 needs a lot of breathing room like fine wine.
Cars do not accelerate fast
and eat up prescious remaining runway fast. That leaves little in the
event of an emergency or should the
driver have a freak panic attack and stop in front of you at a speed
where you cannot get out of the
way. It is simply not possible at say 50 knots or less. The glider has
mass and energy and is tough
to stop on a dime with a tiny tire. For example in a jet, every 10
knots you add to the vref speeds eats
another 1000 feet of runway. With an L/D of 50:1, or 60:1 you have the
same problem. cases like
Southwest at BUR are all examples of this and there are many glider
example of a pilots inability to
control energy.

This accident did not have to happen. Had the production crew listened
to pilots who have done this
type of work before the outcome would have been far different. I am
truly saddened to see yet
another glider accident. 2011 has been another bad year for accidents.
We need to do all we can to
improve safety.

Harold Katinszky