tow rope brake practice crash, what can we learn...

On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart wrote:





On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:

On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
What can we learn from this?

Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
something about this accident that we do not know yet.

Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
Review to avoid getting killed?

FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
rope break. Weather permitting, of course.

By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."

Bart

This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
haven't tried this in Condor, you should.

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
not see how it will simulate the real world stress
that occurs during an emergency situation.
My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
mistake during their first PTTT. Some of these include.
1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
the "what would I do?" scenario.
2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the right
because "that's what we always do".
3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
wings rocking?"
4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
with your glider".
9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
must continue to train and retrain these skills.
UH

On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter wrote:









On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:

On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
What can we learn from this?

Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
something about this accident that we do not know yet.

Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
Review to avoid getting killed?

FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
rope break. Weather permitting, of course.

By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."

Bart

This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
haven't tried this in Condor, you should.

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
not see how it will simulate the real world stress
that occurs during an emergency situation.
My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
mistake during their first PTTT. *Some of these include.
1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
the "what would I do?" scenario.
2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the *right
because "that's what we always do".
3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
wings rocking?"
4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
with your glider".
9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
must continue to train and retrain these skills.
UH

Hank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures, and is MUCH safer than airborne training. In a simulator,
bad situations and/or bad decisions by the student can be allowed to
play out to bad endings, something that can't be done safely in flight
and is usually much more effective in getting the point across.

You may make the point that since the student knows he can't die in a
simulator, the real stresses can't be duplicated. However, I would
argue that with airborne training most students think they can't die
because there is an instructor right there to save them, so the same
argument applies.

A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
landing area, etc) as in real life. I can pretty much guarantee you
that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
indistinguishable from their reaction in real life. Moreover, the
situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
off-airport landing - try that in real life! After 10 or 20 (or 100)
SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

TA

On Jul 12, 6:55*am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:49:36 -0700 (PDT), Frank Paynter

wrote:
BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor.

Bullsh**.

Andreas

Have to agree - if you aren't there, you aren't there.

HOWEVER, I do have some difficulty with trying to come up with a bunch
of canned answers on how to handle each emergency.
In fact, I would suggest that the cure is worse than the disease. Too
many variations of problems.

I have had personal involvement in, or first hand knowledge of, at
least 6 events that could have been very serious. The solution to each
emergency was "fly the airplane-save yourself". After that is
established, say inside the first 2 seconds, the next common
denominator is "get rid of the rope". To heck with signals. In many
cases there is no way for the rope to back release. I have personally
witnessed a case where this was the difference between life and death.
Life won. I have personally been involved in a case where if the rope
had not released we would have been in big, big trouble. Signals in
NONE of these events would have had any effect on a safe outcome, in
fact they would have likely been detrimental due to the short time
limit involved.

I might emphasize - the same "save yourself first" applies to BOTH
ends of the rope.

An excellent discussion following a tragic event.

As a part time tow pilot, I've seen uncountable practice rope breaks, all of
which ended successfully. I also had one of our CFIs in his own Libelle
have an actual rope break at about 250 ft on departure; surprised us both!
....But he bade a textbook turn back and landing. I saw about 10 feet of
rope dangling from his nose but decided not to distract him by letting him
know. Instead, when I landed, I thanked him for bringing back the Tost
ring. My only other actual rope break was at about 2,500' AGL due to an
incredibly ham fisted retired commercial pilot. He also brought back about
25 feet of rope wrapped over the right wing of the G-103. That was also a
no-op.

On my commercial glider check ride some 25 years ago, there was a 25 kt wind
directly down the runway and the FAA examiner pulled the release at 200 feet
while we were flying straight out. I made a successful turn back in the
twin Lark (unlandable ahead) and landed about mid field, continued off the
end of the runway, used up all the grass in the field at the end, put a wing
on the ground, full rudder, and ground looped just short of the barbed wire.
He just said, "Nice job." I thought it was an unsafe maneuver ..

On Jul 12, 8:43*am, Frank Paynter wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:


Frank, Hank:

You're both right. The key here is to separate the two things that are
learned by this training 1) practicing the maneuvers you will execute
to recover from a low-altitude rope break or other PTT event 2)
understanding and practicing the psychological part of reacting to any
emergency situation.

Hank's right that #2 is really not well simulated in Condor. But
Frank is right that #1 can be practiced a lot in Condor, and then
executing maneuvers will be much easier in the air.

The same approach is useful, I think, for flight training. At our
club, most of our instructors no longer do a lot of unannounced 200
foot rope breaks. This mixes #1 and #2, creating a "real" emergency.

Instead, we brief, demonstrate and have students practice 200 foot
rope breaks, so they are comfortable with the maneuver required.
Believe me, the first 4-5 times, "you're going to do a 200 foot rope
break on this flight" keeps the adrenaline level up high enough!

We also give them lots of practice with unplanned emergencies, but
all at reasonable altitude. 500' rope breaks, engine failures,
spoilers coming out; "ok the spoiliers are stuck out/closed, now land
it", pretending half the runway is suddenly unusable, and so on are
all great exercises.

If you've got the mechanical skills to do a planned 200 foot break
flawlessly, and the emergency-handling skills to do all the higher-
altitude emergencies with aplomb, you're fairly prepared. We can
discuss whether practicing an actual combination, an unplanned 200'
rope break, is a useful final sanding, or an invitation to practice
stall/spin recovery from 200 feet. But at least we should get to that
point by practicing the mechanical skill and the emergency-handling
skill separately.

John Cochrane

Andy

The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. *The pilot
that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. *It's been reported that
it was gusty. *The commercial operation was in its first year of
operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
No other info.

Sorry, replied to the wrong post. My comments are in response to the
Montana accident of last Friday.

Frank Whiteley

Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
think of it. 2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
you get low and slow.

Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
spinning in.

On Jul 11, 7:11*pm, Tony V wrote:
On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:

Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
turn back to the airport.

You have to wait until you have enough
airspeed to pull that off.


Why? If the simulated break is made at normal tow speed there is
sufficient speed to start the turn immediately.

Andy

On Jul 12, 11:10*am, Berry wrote:
Andy

The pilot that was fatally injured was reportedly a CFIG. The pilot
that was seriously injured was a glider DPE. It's been reported that
it was gusty. The commercial operation was in its first year of
operation from this airfield, which I'm told is tight and tree-lined.
No other info.

Sorry, replied to the wrong post. *My comments are in response to the
Montana accident of last Friday.

Frank Whiteley

Low altitude maneuvers in gusty conditions in a 2-32. Gives me chills to
think of it. *2-32's are fun to fly but they are unforgiving b-stards if
you get low and slow.

Both the accidents being discussed involved gliders with reputations for
spinning in.

Was about to post the same thing. Was pondering this very issue
whilst giving 2-32 rides for the local FBO this weekend. I don't
think I'd even contemplate a return to the runway from less than 300
feet in that bird at max gross unless we had TONS of extra
airspeed. As mentioned elswhere, there are so many variables to
this that each flight requires its own plan.

P3

I agree that this sort of maneuver should be first done in a simulator
(where doing it correctly is not the ONLY option) and then done in
real life. I know I would not want to "bet my life" on the student
doing it correctly the first time (while under pressure), especially
from only 200'.

On Jul 11, 8:11*pm, Tony V wrote:
On 7/11/2011 10:05 PM, Tony V wrote:

Students learn several very valuable things during a simulated rope break.
1. they have (at least) a 3 second "oh, ****", factor where they don't
do anything until the reality sets in. I had one student that froze and
did nothing at all.
2. they don't get the nose down fast enough, far enough - even after
they recognize and react to the situation.

Forgot point number 3. You can't just point the nose down and start your
turn back to the airport. You have to wait until you have enough
airspeed to pull that off. Something that gets drilled into every winch
student (I hope).

Tony

Actually a 200 foot AGL rope break on a winch is probably safer since
the landing will be straight ahead on the runway. There have been
accidents where aero tow trained pilots turned back from a 200 foot
winch rope break only to find no runway to land on. Of course, both
aero tow and winch recoveries from 200' rope breaks require a fairly
high level of stick and rudder skills.

Hint to students, if your instructor has his head stuck out of the
side window of a 2-33 looking back at the runway, he's probably doing
a 'sanity check' before pulling the release. Sanity checks are highly
recommenced as it's not always possible to return to the runway.

A bit of history; the 200' rope break turn back maneuver was invented
in the early 1960's to show aero tow operations from short runways
surrounded by trees or other unlandable terrain was 'safe'. Since one
can't know what runways a student will fly from in the future,
training them in this maneuver makes sense.