Fatal crash Arizona

Many of the larger clubs in the UK have a two seat, touring motor glider
which is used for navigation and off field landing training, pattern
practice, particularly practice at dealing with patterns started too low or
in the wrong place and PRACTICE LAUNCH FAILURES, PARTICULARLY THOSE
REQUIRING OFF-FIELD LANDINGS. It doesn't seem to be a widely used
technique in the USA but I would recommend it.

I have always felt that the American view that you can turn back once above
200 feet is lacking in flexibility, certainly turning back below 200 feet
is almost always inadvisable but there are plenty off occasions when a
landing off field is the best and safest option at heights above 200 feet.

Some years ago I was running a course for potential CFI G's in the USA, as
an exercise, I asked each of the on tow to call "Now" at the earliest
moment they felt safe and comfortable for me to pull the release and them
to turn back to the field - the calls all came above 500 feet!

At 05:07 06 May 2014, wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:17:31 PM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 1:38:32 PM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
=20
I have flown into and out of Sampley's a few times. The terrain at
Sam=
pley's rises to the east and falls to the west. Heading west, you are
over=
slightly falling terrain with open fields for landing. On an easterly
dep=
arture, you may be at an indicated 200 feet above take-off but may only
be
=
100' over terrain. Straight-ahead landing options are not very enticing
to=
the east once you've passed the end of the strip, so a turn back from an
i=
ndicated 200' may seem like the best option.
=20
=20


=20
Minor correction: Sampley runs North-South, with takeoffs invariably
uphi=
ll to the South. South gets slowly higher until some hills (all raw
desert=
), North gently slopes down to the center of the valley (mostly
agricultura=
l fields - all landable).
=20
=20
=20
Not too many good options if PTT is really low taking off to the South;
y=
ou pretty much have to either get back to the runway or accept a desert
lan=
ding.
=20
=20
=20
Sad.
=20
=20
=20
Kirk
=20
66

I took off about 15 minutes ahead of Bob (was 1st in line and he was
3rd).
=
There were the usual bumpy spots (up and down gusts) in the first 50 or
so=
feet AGL and then the usual booming lift at the end of the runway. As
we
=
got to the end of the runway we were lower than I had experienced
previousl=
y there, and I have probably 10 years of flying from there. The tow
plane
=
was running fine, it just seemed like we towed through some bumpy sinking
a=
ir til the big boomer at the runway end. =20

One of the pilots made the comment Saturday evening that the release on a
Z=
uni could "self release / back release" without pilot input.... it was
not
=
a Tost, and required the big ring. If that is correct, the bumpy air
down
=
low could have caused yo-yo effect and an inadverdant release. That
would
=
have probably put Bob in the sinking air around the big lift at the end
of
=
the runway about the time of release To me, the only options would have
be=
en straight ahead, either hopefully on what was left of the runway or
into
=
the bushes past the end. Other than "south of Cliff's hanger" I don't
know=
how far down the runway he was when he crashed / how much, if any runway
w=
as left in front of him. Wind on the ground at the north end of the
runway=
, where we were staged was 5-15 mph SSW.=20

Whenever I take off I constantly calculate where I would have to go if
the
=
rope were to break, and, as I was lower than usual that day, I was
looking
=
at that. A damaged or totaled glider is still better than taking a
chance
=
on a stall-spin. My count to 200 ft. AGL) lasted until we had been in the
b=
oomer past the runway end for a few seconds. If Bob had been in exactly
th=
e same air, any release before the runway end, he would have been under
100=
'AGL. =20

I enjoyed my conversations with Bob before we gridded, and thinking of
him
=
now gives me an erie feeling. Such a nice guy, happy with gliding, and
wil=
ling and eager to learn more about desert flying. But, in the end, what
ca=
n be said other than it was just his time to go. Yes, gliding is
dangerous.=
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be
call=
ed to the other side.=20

We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were no
g=
lider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned. =20

My heart goes out to his family and friends.=20

Bob T

As this part of the original thread slowly drifts away into "teachable stuff"...

On 5/6/2014 1:49 AM, Chris Rollings wrote:
Snip...

I have always felt that the American view that you can turn back once
above 200 feet is lacking in flexibility, certainly turning back below 200
feet is almost always inadvisable but there are plenty off occasions when
a landing off field is the best and safest option at heights above 200
feet.

Chris - and elsewhere, Cindy B. - touches upon something I believe Seriously
Important to Joe Pilot..."flexibility of mind." Numbers and rules of thumb are
great ways to get *started* to internalize concepts - in this case, the
concept of when it's safe to attempt returning to the launch field in the
event of a premature termination of the tow. That's where our American "magic
200 feet" comes from.

But the number/rule of thumb is *just the beginning!*

Anyone who seriously thinks that "200 feet agl will always be sufficient to do
a turn-around in my glider to land on the reciprocal of my takeoff runway" is:
1) setting themselves up for a crunch; 2) choosing to substitute a number for
continuing judgment and assessment of a situation (aka "flexibility"); and 3)
arguably abdicating their judgment as a pilot. Are your best landings
routinely done without good judgment? (Granted, premature termination of the
tow isn't "routine," but that's not the point...)


Some years ago I was running a course for potential CFI G's in the USA, as
an exercise, I asked each of the on tow to call "Now" at the earliest
moment they felt safe and comfortable for me to pull the release and them
to turn back to the field - the calls all came above 500 feet!


Imagine that!

Bob W.

Well said Chris.

I am an ex Chief Flying Instructor and Motor Glider Instructor, at
one of the larger clubs in the UK and the general rule on low
cable breaks is that if it is safe to land ahead then do so and
worry about the retrieve later. A "controlled crash" is usually
more survivable than an uncontrolled spin in. I can think of a
number of failed attempts to get back to the launch point which
resulted in fatalities when a perfectly safe land ahead option was
available.

Theoretically, a cable break at 200 feet at, say, 70 knots
SHOULD enable a 180 degree turn to be executed however, this
does not allow for thinking time, option analysis and logical
decision making. Add to that the instinctive tendency to "keep
the nose up" rather than monitor the airspeed, the unusual
attitude of a low turn creating further high stress and all the
ingredients are in place for pilot overload and a dangerous
situation.

A golden rule is that if a "crash" is inevitable, make sure te
wings are level and the speed as low as possible at impact
(landing??).

Barney



At 07:49 06 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
Many of the larger clubs in the UK have a two seat, touring
motor glider
which is used for navigation and off field landing training,
pattern
practice, particularly practice at dealing with patterns started
too low or
in the wrong place and PRACTICE LAUNCH FAILURES,
PARTICULARLY THOSE
REQUIRING OFF-FIELD LANDINGS. It doesn't seem to be a
widely used
technique in the USA but I would recommend it.

I have always felt that the American view that you can turn
back once above
200 feet is lacking in flexibility, certainly turning back below
200 feet
is almost always inadvisable but there are plenty off occasions
when a
landing off field is the best and safest option at heights above
200 feet.

Some years ago I was running a course for potential CFI G's in
the USA, as
an exercise, I asked each of the on tow to call "Now" at the
earliest
moment they felt safe and comfortable for me to pull the
release and them
to turn back to the field - the calls all came above 500 feet!

At 05:07 06 May 2014, wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:17:31 PM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 1:38:32 PM UTC-7, Mike the
Strike wrote:
=20
I have flown into and out of Sampley's a few times. The
terrain at
Sam=
pley's rises to the east and falls to the west. Heading west,
you are
over=
slightly falling terrain with open fields for landing. On an
easterly
dep=
arture, you may be at an indicated 200 feet above take-off
but may only
be
=
100' over terrain. Straight-ahead landing options are not
very enticing
to=
the east once you've passed the end of the strip, so a turn
back from an
i=
ndicated 200' may seem like the best option.
=20
=20


=20
Minor correction: Sampley runs North-South, with takeoffs
invariably
uphi=
ll to the South. South gets slowly higher until some hills (all
raw
desert=
), North gently slopes down to the center of the valley
(mostly
agricultura=
l fields - all landable).
=20
=20
=20
Not too many good options if PTT is really low taking off to
the South;
y=
ou pretty much have to either get back to the runway or
accept a desert
lan=
ding.
=20
=20
=20
Sad.
=20
=20
=20
Kirk
=20
66

I took off about 15 minutes ahead of Bob (was 1st in line and
he was
3rd).
=
There were the usual bumpy spots (up and down gusts) in
the first 50 or
so=
feet AGL and then the usual booming lift at the end of the
runway. As
we
=
got to the end of the runway we were lower than I had
experienced
previousl=
y there, and I have probably 10 years of flying from there.
The tow
plane
=
was running fine, it just seemed like we towed through some
bumpy sinking
a=
ir til the big boomer at the runway end. =20

One of the pilots made the comment Saturday evening that
the release on a
Z=
uni could "self release / back release" without pilot input.... it
was
not
=
a Tost, and required the big ring. If that is correct, the
bumpy air
down
=
low could have caused yo-yo effect and an inadverdant
release. That
would
=
have probably put Bob in the sinking air around the big lift at
the end
of
=
the runway about the time of release To me, the only
options would have
be=
en straight ahead, either hopefully on what was left of the
runway or
into
=
the bushes past the end. Other than "south of Cliff's hanger"
I don't
know=
how far down the runway he was when he crashed / how
much, if any runway
w=
as left in front of him. Wind on the ground at the north end
of the
runway=
, where we were staged was 5-15 mph SSW.=20

Whenever I take off I constantly calculate where I would
have to go if
the
=
rope were to break, and, as I was lower than usual that day,
I was
looking
=
at that. A damaged or totaled glider is still better than taking
a
chance
=
on a stall-spin. My count to 200 ft. AGL) lasted until we had
been in the
b=
oomer past the runway end for a few seconds. If Bob had
been in exactly
th=
e same air, any release before the runway end, he would
have been under
100=
'AGL. =20

I enjoyed my conversations with Bob before we gridded, and
thinking of
him
=
now gives me an erie feeling. Such a nice guy, happy with
gliding, and
wil=
ling and eager to learn more about desert flying. But, in the
end, what
ca=
n be said other than it was just his time to go. Yes, gliding is
dangerous.=
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've
known to be
call=
ed to the other side.=20

We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as
there were no
g=
lider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.
=20

My heart goes out to his family and friends.=20

Bob T

At 11:12 19 July 2014, Barnard Toulson wrote:
Well said Chris.

I am an ex Chief Flying Instructor and Motor Glider Instructor, at
one of the larger clubs in the UK and the general rule on low
cable breaks is that if it is safe to land ahead then do so and
worry about the retrieve later. A "controlled crash" is usually
more survivable than an uncontrolled spin in. I can think of a
number of failed attempts to get back to the launch point which
resulted in fatalities when a perfectly safe land ahead option was
available.

Theoretically, a cable break at 200 feet at, say, 70 knots
SHOULD enable a 180 degree turn to be executed however, this
does not allow for thinking time, option analysis and logical
decision making. Add to that the instinctive tendency to "keep
the nose up" rather than monitor the airspeed, the unusual
attitude of a low turn creating further high stress and all the
ingredients are in place for pilot overload and a dangerous
situation.

A golden rule is that if a "crash" is inevitable, make sure te
wings are level and the speed as low as possible at impact
(landing??).

Barney

Yep, 100% agree. I think the confusion arises in the difference between
what we teach new and low hours students and what is possible with more
experience pilots.
There are many examples of what we teach as a basic procedure being amended
by individual pilots as they gain experience. As an example I always teach
the circuit pattern as outlined in the Instructor manual. When flying solo,
especially with flaps I tend to make the turn from downwind to finals a
constant radius turn, much more difficult to judge for a new student. I
would consider a turn back from 200ft if there were no other option and
expect it to be successful. What I would never do is teach that to a low
hours student. It is a bit of a moot point anyway at most UK sites I have
flown from with two exceptions. On my current site a launch failure at
700ft would still leave me enough room to land ahead in anything over a
light breeze.