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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who have worked out a plan to react to they may not be appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad ability and experience spread. They also push the idea that there is no substitute for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended stage of flight is basic airmanship. By all means use warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes, but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for proper airmanship is not the way to go. Remember that many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable. Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule, barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway. At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote: Tony Verhulst wrote: The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for a landing without opening the spoilers for the first time (when the warning would go off) at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens much earlier when it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a safe landing. At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it would be best to leave the gear where it is. I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation is poorly thought out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable gear has made warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still occur the frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning system is not blamed for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of the BGA's policy. In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings are (rightly) attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency on type and something is done about the training system and the pilot's competence. Blaming the warning system is irrational. Graeme Cant Tony V. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
In article ,
Don Johnstone wrote: I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What they are pointing out is that gear warning systems can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who have worked out a plan to react to they may not be appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad ability and experience spread. While I'm reading all this, I'm thinking something isn't adding up. Gear warning systems go off if the airbrakes are opened while the gear is retracted, right? Now think of the BGA's position: They're worried about damage and injury caused by a gear warning which goes off last the last minute, causing a pilot to lose control of the landing as they fumble the controls as they drop the undercarriage. .... which is what doesn't add up. What kind of pilot does the BGA think is going to be surprised by a gear warning buzzer when they're close to the ground? I mean, seriously, if a pilot has managed to get to 10 or 20 feet off the ground before they've opened the airbrakes then their training has bigger problems than anything that can be solved by talking about the importance of pre-landing checks! Surely in the real world the gear warning alert goes off near the top of final approach, just after the pilot has identified an overshoot situation and opted to open the airbrakes, right? We're obviously all missing something here. What has prompted the BGA to issue a position paper which, on first appearances, makes no sense? - mark |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
At 12:18 22 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
In article , Don Johnstone wrote: I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What they are pointing out is that gear warning systems can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who have worked out a plan to react to they may not be appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad ability and experience spread. While I'm reading all this, I'm thinking something isn't adding up. Gear warning systems go off if the airbrakes are opened while the gear is retracted, right? Now think of the BGA's position: They're worried about damage and injury caused by a gear warning which goes off last the last minute, causing a pilot to lose control of the landing as they fumble the controls as they drop the undercarriage. .... which is what doesn't add up. What kind of pilot does the BGA think is going to be surprised by a gear warning buzzer when they're close to the ground? I mean, seriously, if a pilot has managed to get to 10 or 20 feet off the ground before they've opened the airbrakes then their training has bigger problems than anything that can be solved by talking about the importance of pre-landing checks! Surely in the real world the gear warning alert goes off near the top of final approach, just after the pilot has identified an overshoot situation and opted to open the airbrakes, right? We're obviously all missing something here. What has prompted the BGA to issue a position paper which, on first appearances, makes no sense? - mark I suspect that where the confusion has arisen is a difference in the way in which we operate. The emphasis in the UK is very much directed towards cross country flying. A new student is introduced to soaring at a very early stage and even in early training, as soon as they are able are encouraged to soar. Circuit bashing only takes place when soaring is not possible. It is also important to realise that with very few exceptions gliding does not take place at airports or even airfields, the majority of clubs have their own field, often grass and in general do not share with powered aircraft. Take offs and landings are not controlled in the normal sense, there is no ATC and in the majority of cases no approach radio. Pilots do, either through an error of skill or error of judgement sometimes get it wrong and arrive back at the field with less height than they should. The stress of wondering if they are going to get back has already caused them to forget the undercarriage and they do not use the spoiler/airbrakes because the glide is marginal. They arrive back very low. Given that the pilot may already be stressed the question is then, is it likely to be less harmful to the pilot for him to land without the wheel down than it would be to startle him with a sudden noise and have him struggle to get the wheel down when he shoud be flying the airplane. Several accidents were identified where it was found that the sudden noise distracted an already stressed pilot from the primary aim of landing the glider and instead of a minor incident a more serious accident occurred. Landing on grass in most gliders with the wheel in the bay will cause much embarrasment but little damage, the same cannot be said for a loss of control resulting in a firmer impact. The warning was never the cause of the accident but it was a contributory factor, the primary cause was the error of skill or error of judgement in failing to properly configure the glider. It is only advice, something to consider, and as I said before fitting the warning can be a double edged sword. I think everyone accepts that it is a matter for each individual pilot to decide whether to fit the warning device to their own glider. Fitting in club aircraft flown by pilots who may or may not have the skill to get away with a late u/c selection is discouraged for the reason outlined above. Of course pilots are trained to arrive back with sufficient height but they do get it wrong and finishing a competition task with a marginal final glide and landing ahead is very common and perfectly valid, until you get it wrong that is. I recall my first flight in an ASW19. I spent most of the approach recycling the undercarriage to try and get rid of the noise instead of concentrating on flying the glider. I got away with it, more by luck than judgement. The cause of the noise, a short in the warning system, the cause of the crash had there been one, an error of skill on my part. Fly the airplane!!!!!!!! |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Don Johnstone wrote:
I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What they are pointing out is that gear warning systems can be a double edged sword. The BGA's policy (as reported in this forum was "Incidentally the BGA in the UK does not reccomend an undercarriage warning buzzer." I would like to read their logic. There is no mention of it in the BGA Instructors' Manual (second edition). I've seen a bunch of gear up landings (once from the inside of the cockpit :-( ) and none of them has a gear warning. I understand that this is a small sample. My vote is to have the warning. If you first hear it 10 feet of off the deck, ignore it. By all means use warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes, but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for proper airmanship is not the way to go. I completely agree with this. Tony V |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Gadget Guy wrote:
Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing of a gear warning system? Thank you in advace Sounds like the BGA could stand to take a new look at what they have written. Perhaps instead of saying that gear warning devices are NOT recommended they should say that "if a gear warning device is installed, be aware of the fact that there have been some accidents in the final stages of an approach where the pilot finally realized his gear wasn't down" "If you find yourself in this situation, recognize that you may be better off landing gear up than crashing your glider" "If you install a gear warning device or purchase a glider with a device installed, be sure to familiarize yourself with the device and check your spoilers prior to, or at the onset of, the start of your pattern to allow you to correct an unextended gear situation early on." |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don.
Don Johnstone wrote: I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What they are pointing out is that gear warning systems can be a double edged sword. In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper training) almost universally seen as a good thing. While they may be appropriate for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who have worked out a plan to react to they may not be appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad ability and experience spread. As I said, landing with the gear up or accidents related to that situation are taken in every other area of aviation as an indication of inadequate training. "Inadequate" means "less than the amount required for the level of skill and experience of the pilot involved". They also push the idea that there is no substitute for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended stage of flight is basic airmanship. Rubbish. The BGA's policy is the reverse. It implies that the use of a warning device is unnecessary. In the rest of aviation it has long been accepted that warning devices and check lists are fundamental to overcoming some basic human inadequacies. Pilots are trained to use these tools to support the application of airmanship. Not to reject them in some hairy-chested "real pilots don't need any crutches" way. By all means use warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes, I could have put it better but that's about right. but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for proper airmanship is not the way to go. Nobody said it was. Remember that many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable. Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule, barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway. Does this mean anything sensible at all? GC At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote: Tony Verhulst wrote: The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for a landing without opening the spoilers for the first time (when the warning would go off) at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens much earlier when it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a safe landing. At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it would be best to leave the gear where it is. I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation is poorly thought out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable gear has made warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still occur the frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning system is not blamed for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of the BGA's policy. In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings are (rightly) attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency on type and something is done about the training system and the pilot's competence. Blaming the warning system is irrational. Graeme Cant Tony V. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
At 12:54 23 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:
That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don. Don Johnstone wrote: I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What they are pointing out is that gear warning systems can be a double edged sword. In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper training) almost universally seen as a good thing. In other spheres of aviation the action in the event of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider. You opinion and description of my post makes your argument more cogent do you think? |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Don Johnstone wrote:
In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper training) almost universally seen as a good thing. In other spheres of aviation the action in the event of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider. What I've seen people do is close the spoilers, level off, put the gear down, open spoilers, and continue the landing. Perhaps this could be part of the pilot's training. I've also seen pilots switch hands, lower the gear, switch hands, and continue the landing. They didn't crash to the ground, even though they released the spoiler handle. It might depend a lot on on the glider: some have modest spoilers, so the descent rate doesn't change much going from half open to full open, and in some gliders, the spoilers don't move if released at the normal, relatively slow, approach speed. So, while a go round is a handy ability, it isn't necessary to deal with a gear up situation. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Don Johnstone wrote:
In other spheres of aviation the action in the event of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider. No, Don. The action in the event of a gear warning in ALL aircraft is is to lower the gear or silence the warning. In 99.9% of cases in a glider the reaction should be exactly the same. The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider pilots should be regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last 50 feet, they should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That is the ONLY difference. The argument for the fitting of a proper warning is exactly the same for all aircraft. You opinion and description of my post makes your argument more cogent do you think? No again, Don. But I still can't make sense of your last paragraph. And I'm not convinced you've actually thought through the implications of the BGA's policy. GC |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Graeme Cant wrote:
The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider pilots should be regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last 50 feet, they should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That is the ONLY And even this depends on the glider. E.g. in an LS4 with its beautiful gear system, there's no reason to not put the gear down even in the last 10 feet (if the runway is long enough to allow for the additional float). Been there, done that, no problem. BTW, if I had had a gear warning, I would have recognized and corrected the situation much earlier. Stefan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jet engines vs. leaf blowers | 01-- Zero One | Soaring | 6 | September 8th 05 01:59 AM |
Gear Warning Switches on a Mosquito | scooter | Soaring | 6 | March 9th 05 01:15 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
gear warning plus | K.P. Termaat | Soaring | 0 | September 8th 03 08:33 AM |