Fatal crash Arizona

I think it's sad that we seem to think its fine for pilots to be so under proficient that they can't even do a safe 180 from 200ft... It's plenty of altitude under all but the most extreme conditions. IMHO if you can't, maybe you shouldn't be flying at all? This is a clue as to why there are so many accidents.

On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:44:51 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
One could say that a site
where a straight-ahead landing from 200ft will certainly result in
more than minor damage, is a site that should not be used.

Wait ... what?

Let's guess some numbers here...

300m for the tug to get off
200m more for it to get to climb speed
700m to climb to 200 ft (60m)
.... rope break ...
100m for the glider to slow to approach speed (while climbing 30m as well, making 90m)
600m for the glider to descend to ground level (worst case 7:1 glide angle with airbrakes)
100m to stop on the ground

Total: 2000m

And that's with a powerful tug, such as a Pawnee.

I've flown from places with such runway lengths (or empty fields beyond). But not many.

Your rule would eliminate at least 90% of the places that gliders fly -- without incident -- in this country.

At our home airfield (which by the way has scheduled Dash 8 flights on the sealed runway which is 1000m from stripes to stripes), gliders are given a 500m grass runway with about 300m more on either end to the fence. And yes, we're going over the fence at not much more than 100 ft if we don't have a headwind. Beyond that is nothing but houses. That's not "minor damage" to go into.

For a low break just after (or before) the boundary, the plan is definitely to turn towards and overfly the sealed runway. Any traffic there can take its chances!! (there are not supposed to be parallel operations) There is 300m width of unobstructed (though not particularly smooth) ground in that direction.

If you actually have the luxury of 200 ft when the rope breaks then better to turn the other way, over the houses, and land on the 300m long crosswind runway (which we use when 12+ knot crosswinds make the main runway too tricky for the tug (gliders cope fine)).

Fortunately we don't have to 'guess' numbers as most gliders have high resolution GPS loggers in them! (Remember to use GPS altitude as your pressure altitude probably lags considerably)

From a random flight of my own (unballasted LS4) I observed I used 750m of grass strip to 200ft height, behind a Pawnee with a 9kt quartering headwind..

Where I fly the training process is, land ahead, land off field, turn around.

On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:04:29 PM UTC+10, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:44:51 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:

One could say that a site

where a straight-ahead landing from 200ft will certainly result in

more than minor damage, is a site that should not be used.



Wait ... what?



Let's guess some numbers here...



300m for the tug to get off

200m more for it to get to climb speed

700m to climb to 200 ft (60m)

... rope break ...

100m for the glider to slow to approach speed (while climbing 30m as well, making 90m)

600m for the glider to descend to ground level (worst case 7:1 glide angle with airbrakes)

100m to stop on the ground



Total: 2000m



And that's with a powerful tug, such as a Pawnee.



I've flown from places with such runway lengths (or empty fields beyond). But not many.



Your rule would eliminate at least 90% of the places that gliders fly -- without incident -- in this country.



At our home airfield (which by the way has scheduled Dash 8 flights on the sealed runway which is 1000m from stripes to stripes), gliders are given a 500m grass runway with about 300m more on either end to the fence. And yes, we're going over the fence at not much more than 100 ft if we don't have a headwind. Beyond that is nothing but houses. That's not "minor damage" to go into.



For a low break just after (or before) the boundary, the plan is definitely to turn towards and overfly the sealed runway. Any traffic there can take its chances!! (there are not supposed to be parallel operations) There is 300m width of unobstructed (though not particularly smooth) ground in that direction.



If you actually have the luxury of 200 ft when the rope breaks then better to turn the other way, over the houses, and land on the 300m long crosswind runway (which we use when 12+ knot crosswinds make the main runway too tricky for the tug (gliders cope fine)).

On Monday, May 12, 2014 11:13:14 PM UTC+12, wrote:
From a random flight of my own (unballasted LS4) I observed I used 750m of grass strip to 200ft height, behind a Pawnee with a 9kt quartering headwind.

Unfortunately you didn't say how long that took, so we can't calculate how much air you went through. It's going to be a good 30 seconds though, which means probably 850-900m on a no wind day. In an unballasted single seater. My 1200m estimate for a glass twin doesn't seem too unreasonable.

And sometimes (not that infrequently, actually) we do a couple of takeoffs with a light tail wind (5 knots?) before changing ends.

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:27:10 PM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn back to the runway.



http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/0...izona.html?m=1



Boggs

On Saturday, May 3, 2014 9:27:10 PM UTC-7, Waveguru wrote:
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn back to the runway.



http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/0...izona.html?m=1



Boggs

Should change thread name to "PDS" premature dispensing of speculation

What's wrong, too many interesting facts for you?

Instead of whining, add something!

Kirk
66

I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be called to the other side.



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



My heart goes out to his family and friends.



Bob T

Bob thanks.

At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be
called to the other side.

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

Bob T

That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this
accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure to
be adopted following a launch failure at low level.
There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from a
low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance
of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these
circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at very
low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.
Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a
low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding
sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going
to end one way.
There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land
straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,
aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the
expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a
controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better
outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to
concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the
glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A
much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,
inexperienced and low currency pilots.
The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will
pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the
best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted
offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of
glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer
those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make
the right decision to implement what they have learned.

My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not
several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic
Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come
into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch
failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The
teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary priority
to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a less
positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be
exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic procedure
may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those
exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,
which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.
I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the
best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should promote
the adoption of best practice.
To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.

At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be
called to the other side.

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

Bob T

That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this
accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure
to
be adopted following a launch failure at low level.
There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from
a
low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance
of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these
circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at
very
low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.
Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a
low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding
sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going
to end one way.
There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land
straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,
aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the
expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a
controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better
outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to
concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the
glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A
much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,
inexperienced and low currency pilots.
The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will
pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is
the
best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted
offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of
glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer
those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make
the right decision to implement what they have learned.

My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not
several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic
Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come
into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch
failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The
teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary
priority
to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a
less
positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be
exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic
procedure
may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those
exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,
which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.
I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the
best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should
promote
the adoption of best practice.
To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.

A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and
I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to
be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang
Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,
but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the
bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft
are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,
ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand
the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.
The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power
flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead
as possible, into whatever is available.
I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight
ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the
back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.
Dave