Fatal crash Arizona

On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:
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

Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!

However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.

Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.

My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.

The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:40:51 AM UTC+12, Bill D wrote:
However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.

Exactly.


The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.

Let's just emphasise this again.

If the rope breaks at normal aerotow speed, you should be able to complete a 180º turn and be at normal safe final approach speed with as much or more height as the moment the rope broke.

The glider can. Easily.

I dunno. I might be wary of a 180 at skosh altitude if the air was turbulent, ie a thermal off the end of the runway. That puts the variable of airspeed potentially outside my control.

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:11:23 PM UTC-6, wrote:
I dunno. I might be wary of a 180 at skosh altitude if the air was turbulent, ie a thermal off the end of the runway. That puts the variable of airspeed potentially outside my control.

Presumably, you, like most pilots, do steep turns in turbulent thermals every flight while keeping the airspeed within a narrow, safe margin.

BTW, define "skosh altitude" precisely.

Bill

I have had the experience while banked 45 deg in mountain thermal of having the glider stop flying and start falling in a split second. IE, the dirt came up of the floor and was pinned to the canopy.

Under those circumstances, I would define skosh altitude as anything less than enough to recover from a deep stall or early spin with enough reserve height then to direct the aircraft in a desirable direction.

Very sharp shear is possble at the borders of strong thermals. I don't think a steep bank would necessarily be as perfect a safeguard against a turbulent airflow as I would hope. Airflow across one wing could be erased in an instant under the wrong circumstances.

Mark

On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:

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



Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!



However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.



Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.



My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.



The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.

Langewiesche's point is correct, period. Which option carries the best chance of retaining control, keeping the wings level or turning, especially at low level?
The primary concern is survival of the pilot, an undamaged glider is a long way below this fundamental priority.
We have all witnessed instructors who like to scare their pupils witless by carrying out risky procedures, such behavior has no place in responsible aviation, but we all know it survives because of the intransigence of those who refuse to accept that we are there to teach safe flying.

Ignore the KISS mantra at your peril.

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:45:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Bill



I have had the experience while banked 45 deg in mountain thermal of having the glider stop flying and start falling in a split second. IE, the dirt came up of the floor and was pinned to the canopy.

So have I - many times - but the glider never got close to a stall. A typical Rocky Mountain flight will leave the tell-tales on the G-Meter at +2 and -1.



Very sharp shear is possble at the borders of strong thermals. I don't think a steep bank would necessarily be as perfect a safeguard against a turbulent airflow as I would hope. Airflow across one wing could be erased in an instant under the wrong circumstances.

No one said a steep bank was a "perfect safeguard" against "turbulent airflow". It does increase the stall margin - even in "sharp shear".

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 4:23:32 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:45:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:

Bill







I have had the experience while banked 45 deg in mountain thermal of having the glider stop flying and start falling in a split second. IE, the dirt came up of the floor and was pinned to the canopy.



So have I - many times - but the glider never got close to a stall. A typical Rocky Mountain flight will leave the tell-tales on the G-Meter at +2 and -1.







Very sharp shear is possble at the borders of strong thermals. I don't think a steep bank would necessarily be as perfect a safeguard against a turbulent airflow as I would hope. Airflow across one wing could be erased in an instant under the wrong circumstances.



No one said a steep bank was a "perfect safeguard" against "turbulent airflow". It does increase the stall margin - even in "sharp shear".

s

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:41:14 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:

On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:



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







Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!







However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.







Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.







My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.







The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.



Langewiesche's point is correct, period. Which option carries the best chance of retaining control, keeping the wings level or turning, especially at low level?
--------------------
Neither or both depending solely on the ability of the pilot. Turns don't stall gliders - pilots do. Pilots with real flying ability have the "best chance" of retaining control.


We have all witnessed instructors who like to scare their pupils witless by carrying out risky procedures, such behavior has no place in responsible aviation, but we all know it survives because of the intransigence of those who refuse to accept that we are there to teach safe flying.
------------------
So, you say that instructors who teach a maneuver required by the FAA Practical Test Standards as covered in detail on page 8-11 of the FAA Glider Flying Handbook are "witlessly" carrying out "risky procedures" to "scare their pupils"? That's about as absurd as r.a.s ever gets - which is saying a lot. You better hope the instructor who gives you your next Flight Review didn't read your post.

I agree with Bill. If you are scared witless by an instructor pulling the release at 200ft you have no business flying a sailplane solo.

Boggs