Cle Elum crash on NTSB

Seattle Post Intelligencer on 14 October:

CLE ELUM, Wash. (AP) — General Motors says a glider that crashed at a
Washington state airport, killing the pilot, was involved in filming a
commercial for the automaker.

The Kittitas County sheriff's office says the glider was being towed down
the runway at an airport about 75 miles southeast of Seattle and was just
starting to lift off when it crashed Thursday. A helicopter was filming the
glider from above Cle Elum Municipal Airport.


Sad.

Judy

On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
*Bill D wrote..........
If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
especially at low altitudes.

I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
going straight down right now!
Cheers,
JJ

One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
you did.
In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
than the pilot.
So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.

Ramy

On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:

*Bill D wrote..........
If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
especially at low altitudes.

I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
going straight down right now!
Cheers,
JJ

One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
you did.
In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
than the pilot.
So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.

Ramy

It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
"improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
"aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
happen next.

Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.

John Cochrane

John,
The accident occurred toward the end of the second (and last) day in
shooting the commercial. The filming involved at least thirty
professionals at the airport location plus some very-expensive
equipment. The glider was the star of the commercial. Also, the
glider pilot was being paid a lot of money. These add up to a lot of
motivation to do the stunts.

I believe that "improper operation of the controls" probably took
place in that the pilot pulled up too sharply and broke the rope.
That being said, the tragic chain of events certainly began a few days
earlier when the pilot (a high-time CFIG) agreed to launch his glider
using a 230' rope on a 2500' runway with a plan to make a 180-degree
turn and land back on the runway.

I agree that the root-cause of the accident was the serious error in
"aeronautical decision making." In terms of hazardous thought
patterns, impulsivity, resignation and macho come to mind.

This accident has reminded me how easy it can be to put safety
concerns aside and how unforgiving aviation can be.

Mark

As this accident happened at the end of the second day, had he
successfully performed the flight profile earlier or was this the
first go?

Mark

On Nov 2, 6:05*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy wrote:





On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:

*Bill D wrote..........
If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
especially at low altitudes.

I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
going straight down right now!
Cheers,
JJ

One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
you did.
In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
than the pilot.
So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.

Ramy

It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
"improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
"aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
happen next.

Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.

John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree strongly with John.
When doing something like this, there is HUGE pressure to do what the
guy running the photo shoot wants done. He is in control of the
"customer" satisfaction and the money. He is also an artist and likely
not a scientist or aviator. He will ask for things that may become
marginal, or worse, and assumes the pilot will say no if there is a
problem with safety.
This is a really hard situation to be in.
We walked away from a partially completed project many years ago when
we were being pushed too far in our judgement in terms of safety. It
was hard, we lost some money, there were tears- but nobody got hurt.
The sub topic of this related to spin recovery has little to do with
this accident. At these altitudes, there is no ability to recover if
the glider departs. The only way not to crash is to maintain
controllability in the first place.
FWIW
UH

As regards the "aeronautical decision making", please think about
this. For a long time in the US, there has been the teaching of "Say
200 Feet out loud". Meaning, that this is THE decision point for an
air tow. If you are at or above 200 feet, you can safely make a 180
to land. So, they say. Then, they put on the caveat, "conditions
permitting". This means a lot of things. Airspeed, wind,
obstructions to either side, runway behind (but soon to be ahead of)
you, glide path altering capability, etc. But, things may not be the
same for a ground launch.

Our example. Pressure from the film crew to "just do it". Pilot
knows he can do a 180 to a landing the other direction from 200 feet
in his plane. He has done it many times before, as he instructs in
the plane. Decides he can probably do it from a little less, as he
always has time and altitude for openning the air brakes after the 180
in order to land and not go off the end of the runway. So, it will be
"OK" to do this from a just over 200 foot long rope, and maybe not a
full 200 feet of altitude. More pressure from the film crew, either
real or imagined. Being paid to do this. It will be OK. I believe
he likely had no real concerns about this, as he had done all the
parts before. Ground launch. Low altitude rope breaks. Turn around
to land the other direction. He just had not done them all at the
same time.

I can see in my mind exactly how this could have played out. He ended
up at an altitude that would permit a safe return to landing the
opposite direction, but without the airspeed required to do it.
Please think about this for your training and day to day flying. The
turn around to land the other direction depends not just on potential
energy, but total energy. I think the plan was to be at the end of
the runway, at a bit under 200 feet, but full normal pattern speed.
This is the part that fell short of the plan. With results we have
all read about.

As Hank says, FWIW.
Steve Leonard

On Nov 3, 11:00*am, Steve Leonard wrote:
....
I can see in my mind exactly how this could have played out. *He ended
up at an altitude that would permit a safe return to landing the
opposite direction, but without the airspeed required to do it.
Please think about this for your training and day to day flying. *The
turn around to land the other direction depends not just on potential
energy, but total energy. *I think the plan was to be at the end of
the runway, at a bit under 200 feet, but full normal pattern speed.
This is the part that fell short of the plan. *With results we have
all read about.

As usual, this thread has 2 topics: What Happened? and Things This
Reminds Me Of.
I continue to think, on the What Happened topic, that something
unanticipated went wrong, either with the glider or the pilot, as
there's no explanation for the "pitched up sharply" phenomenon. No
experienced pilot would deliberately do this. Was there a release
failure followed by an attempt to break the weak link? An elevator-
linkage failure? A seizure or cardiac arrest or sudden vertigo? Other?
Likely unanswerable, except for the elevator-linkage question.

DanlJ

On Nov 3, 11:00 am, Steve Leonard wrote:

Our example. Pressure from the film crew to "just do it".

Not to mention that the pilot undoubtably signed a contract that he
would "do it".

So stepping away at the end of the second day (last day?) of shooting
for the "big shot", breaking the contract, and potentially stepping
away from the paycheck, would really take some cahones.

I am glad I was not in this particular pressure cooker situation.

- John

PS (Uneducated opinion alert) - I think that the glider should have
taken off only to 5-10 feet for a long shot from the departure end,
run to the half way point, then settle back down onto the runway.
Going to 100-200 feet takes the Caddy out of the picture - what good
is that? And I would have had a fellow glider pilot driving the tow
vehicle who knows that an aircraft doesn't have wheel brakes until it
is back on the pavement (something non-pilots don't think about).
Worse thing that might have happened would have been a crunched nose
cone from impacting the bumper of the tow vehicle. My $0.02.

On Nov 3, 7:03*am, wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:05*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:









On Nov 2, 3:39*pm, Ramy wrote:

On Nov 1, 6:54*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:

*Bill D wrote..........
If the glider has transitioned into a spiral dive, and the pilot does
nothing or uses spin recovery controls, it's going to get nasty -
especially at low altitudes.

I believe the way to distinguish between a spin or a spiral is to take
a quick peek at the airspeed indicator. If it is reading 60 knots or
more, you are in a spiral, not a spin and need to roll the wings level
and pull the nose up to the horizon. If you apply spin recovery
controls (stick forward and opposite rudder) you will find yourself
going straight down right now!
Cheers,
JJ

One important lesson from this discussion, regardless if it is related
to this accident or not, is the importance of practicing a spin
recovery as well as spiral recovery. However when the pilot is the one
who initiate the spin and/or the spiral dive, the recovery is straight
forward, since your controls are likely in extreem position and since
you initiated the manouver all you need is to basically reverse what
you did.
In a real stall/spin, there is the lement of surprise, and the
controls are likely near neutral so the recovery is not as obvious as
in practice. As such, the practice should be intitated by someone else
than the pilot.
So next time you do your BFR or fly with an instructor, instead of
practcing stall/spin/spiral recovery the traditional way where the
pilot initiate the manouver, ask the instructor to initiate the stall/
spin/spiral, preferably without warning, and let you take over the
control to recover. This should be a standard part of instructions and
BFRs. The current method mostly teaches you how to inititate spin and
spirals but not how to recover from accidental one.

Ramy

It seems to me the lessons of this crash are less likely in the
"improper operation of the controls" general area and more in the
"aeronautical decision making" area. What was the decision-making
process that led to even trying a ground tow behind a 200 foot rope,
with a plan to do a 180 at the end of the runway? To what extent was
camera pressure involved? Getting to the end of the runway at 200
feet, slow speed, and nowhere to land ahead seems the question, not
whether the pilot has a miraculous touch to avoid what's going to
happen next.

Though the FAA and flight instruction is focusing more and more on
decision making, the NTSB seems not so interested, so it is unlikely
we will hear the story well investigated from this aspect.

John Cochrane- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree strongly with John.
When doing something like this, there is HUGE pressure to do what the
guy running the photo shoot wants done. He is in control of the
"customer" satisfaction and the money. He is also an artist and likely
not a scientist or aviator. He will ask for things that may become
marginal, or worse, and assumes the pilot will say no if there is a
problem with safety.
This is a really hard situation to be in.
We walked away from a partially completed project many years ago when
we were being pushed too far in our judgement in terms of safety. It
was hard, we lost some money, there were tears- but nobody got hurt.
The sub topic of this related to spin recovery has little to do with
this accident. At these altitudes, there is no ability to recover if
the glider departs. The only way not to crash is to maintain
controllability in the first place.
FWIW
UH

What happened might have looked very similar to these
two videos on YouTube that most of have already seen. How he got
himself into the
situation was different, and the how and why of that is open to
analysis and speculation,
but the end result, a stall/spin from very low,
unrecoverable altitude, was the same. I think the pilots in the
videos survived,
but they were very lucky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFGN...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxbulrrQVig