Fatal crash Arizona

Yes and no. Any competent instructor would NOT have pulled the handle at 200' in the conditions that were in existence at Samply Aguila airport the time of the fatal crash. I took off a few minutes ahead of Bob and my 200' countdown lasted WAY farther than it ever had before at that airport, and by the time I finally got that high I was out of range of a glide back, and my 17.6m Ventus has a 50:1 glide. Plus, the air down low was turbulent. I was uncomfortable with the idea of having to get back to the runway for a while after attaining that altitude. Normally, it looks like duck soup from 200'.

200' during a training flight in reasonable air is one thing, in gusty sinky air is another. This thread started out about an unfortunate PTT fatality, and now it has evolved into lots of opinions, math computations, etc.... all good for discussion, but there is / was far more to a turn around or go straight decision than just 200' altitude. Conditions (wind velocity and direction, rising or falling air, and turbulence) and distance to, or how far past, the runway end also fit into any scenario. 200' training has its place, when conditions and common sense prevail.

Plus, I suspect Bob's thousands of hours with engines that would help power around a turn and low time in a glider with no power to help probably / possibly had a hand in this particular event. Like so many things, we'll most likely never know. But, lots of folks will continue to want to throw in their 2 cents worth.

Fly safe.
Bob T.

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:55:44 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:
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.

Thankfully I will not have a problem. If a student on a "flight review" attempted a turn back from that height when there was a landable area ahead he would fail. As an instructor I would not be so stupid as to initiate a failure at that height without a safe landing area ahead, perhaps that is why I have survived 52 years of gliding. Quoting the FAA as an authority on gliding, that is a joke right?

Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:
"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?"
"Does the procedure adopted offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"

On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:15:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Thankfully I will not have a problem. If a student on a "flight review" attempted a turn back from that height when there was a landable area ahead he would fail. As an instructor I would not be so stupid as to initiate a failure at that height without a safe landing area ahead, perhaps that is why I have survived 52 years of gliding. Quoting the FAA as an authority on gliding, that is a joke right?

The joke is an 'instructor' who's obviously terrified of turns.

Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:

"Will pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or

complicated procedure?"

All skill levels? Pilots either meet the minimum skill level or they don't - and the minimum requires them to be able to return to the runway. If they can't demonstrate that level of skill, they don't fly.

In many, if not most cases, a return to the departure runway is the simplest solution. An off field landing dealing with trees, fences and unimproved ground is more often the complicated - and less safe - solution.



"Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the best option suitable for all conditions?"

No one suggests creating a "mindset" except to use good judgement in selecting the best option. No one is saying turn "downwind" - they are saying turn back for a downwind landing which is a different thing. No one in this absurd thread said "all conditions".

"Does the procedure adopted offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"

Yes, in many if not most situations, landing on the departure runway does offer the best chance of survival.

At 13:40 23 May 2014, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:15:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:
=20
Thankfully I will not have a problem. If a student on a "flight review"
a=
ttempted a turn back from that height when there was a landable area
ahead
=
he would fail. As an instructor I would not be so stupid as to initiate a
f=
ailure at that height without a safe landing area ahead, perhaps that is
wh=
y I have survived 52 years of gliding. Quoting the FAA as an authority on
g=
liding, that is a joke right?

The joke is an 'instructor' who's obviously terrified of turns.
=20
Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:
=20
"Will pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a
simple
=
or
=20
complicated procedure?"

All skill levels? Pilots either meet the minimum skill level or they
don't=
- and the minimum requires them to be able to return to the runway. If
th=
ey can't demonstrate that level of skill, they don't fly.

In many, if not most cases, a return to the departure runway is the
simples=
t solution. An off field landing dealing with trees, fences and
unimproved
=
ground is more often the complicated - and less safe - solution.


=20
"Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the best option
suitable=
for all conditions?"=20

No one suggests creating a "mindset" except to use good judgement in
select=
ing the best option. No one is saying turn "downwind" - they are saying
tu=
rn back for a downwind landing which is a different thing. No one in
this
=
absurd thread said "all conditions".
=20
"Does the procedure adopted offer the best chance of survival of the
pil=
ot, even at the expense of glider damage?"

Yes, in many if not most situations, landing on the departure runway does
o=
ffer the best chance of survival.

Well all I can say is I am glad that I live and fly where common sense and
safe gliding prevails, and where the FAA is not.
I am not terrified of turns, I have done lots. I am not even terrified of
low turns, I avoid them if only to avoid setting a bad example to others.
Personally I would not have a problem turning back at 200 ft but I would
never do it or teach it if the land ahead option was available, even if off
airfield.
Your answer to the last question demonstrates your ignorance of safe
aviation but you are several thousand miles away from where I fly so I
should worry little.

Major snip...

..."Will pilots of ALL skill
levels and currency be best served by a simple or complicated procedure?"
"Is creating a mindset that turning down adopted offer the best chance of
survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"


I could be wrong, but sometimes I sense a tendency to "reductio ad absurdum"
on the part of some folks - to convince others of their point of view? I
dunno...but as a non-instructor, glider-only pilot, I managed to
mostly-weekend-acquire ~2600 hours without ever contacting the ground "out of
control," to also safely and sans alarums demonstrate the proper response(s)
to simulated low-altitude, departure-end rope breaks, and I WAS surprised when
my ab-initio instructor (initially, verbally) introduced the concept of a
not-that-flight-pre-announced low-altitude rope break as a possibility for my
imminent future...and then who "immediately asked all the expected 'silly
questions'" of my instructor. That noted, nowhere along the line did I ever
get it into my head things like: 200' agl is an absolute go/no-go turnaround
altitude; or a downwind landing on the departure runway is ALWAYS to be
preferred; or that no judgment was required to safely and effectively respond
to a low-altitude rope break; or that it was "simple" (or, "complicated" for
that matter) to pilot my way through the post PTT attempt.

What I DID get into my head - and I can't remember if I did this entirely on
my own (out of fearful respect for the fragility of my "somewhat resilient
pink body") or through some combination of instruction, reading, cogitation,
etc. - was that it mattered VERY MUCH that I do certain things as PIC
"correctly" - for under certain (thin margin) circumstances I would not get a
second chance.

As many of my math instructors loved to say, It was "immediately obvious to
the most casual observer" that a low-altitude rope break was a thin margin
event, and it was up to me to "handle it right" - or else my frail pink bod
would be at higher risk than it needed to be.

IMHO, anyone who gets caught up in defending a stance I'd characterize as "do
it this way or you're wrong," when "this way" is procedurally based to the
discussional exclusion of maintaining solid flight control is missing the
point to a certain extent, and - yes - I understand the nature of instruction
and the need to instruct using "building blocks of knowledge"...which is the
way I've "forever" thought of "the magic 200 feet" concept. It's a great place
to start. It isn't fundamentally dangerous (from a control of the glider
perspective). It's not fundamentally difficult to pilot as Joe PIC. It's not
appropriate under all circumstances...while (in my view) "hitting the ground
under control" IS appropriate under all circumstances. The question then
becomes, "What ground?" That's where more judgement enters the picture.

As others have noted, it's not at all uncommon in the intermountain western
U.S. to aerotow launch from fields where accepting something other than a
downwind landing on the departure runway from 200' agl in the event of a
low-altitude rope break is (obviously, unarguably, inevitably, etc...) "the
best/safest thing to do."

Being 100% first-person-ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the tragic
crash sparking this (contains much food for thought) thread, several of my
operating conclusions a 1) we can never know for sure what was in the
deceased pilot's mind; 2) he likely hit the ground "in a non-flying
condition"; 3) 2) is further evidence for me to "not do that." Tying the
preceding into "the magic 200' agl PTT altitude" is easy enough for me in that
if "in my judgment" I think 200' IS sufficient under the circumstances to
attempt a turn-around, then I'll do it; if not, then I'll do something
different...but whatever I do I'll work darned hard to ensure I maintain
control all the way to the ground. Duh???

Respectfully,
Bob W.

Originally Posted by son_of_flubber

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn back to the runway.

My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.

Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I wonder why he did that.

I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumilated 1000's of hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.
MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John

On 5/24/2014 8:21 AM, John L Fleming wrote:
son_of_flubber;883103 Wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:-
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn
back to the runway. -

My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.

Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I
wonder why he did that.

I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York
and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his
ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to
believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumulated 1000's of
hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.
MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because
he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage
failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John

My condolences for the loss of your friend. I hadn't been in aviation but two
or three years before personal aviation acquaintances and friends began dying
in aviation-related accidents. All I could do was mourn their passing, try and
extract lessons for myself (if any), rationalize that they died doing
something they loved, and take some decision(s) for my own future.

Many glider pilots often roll their eyes at "the obviousness" of NTSB probable
cause conclusions (e.g. pilot failed to maintain sufficient speed), but one
thing I think NTSB investigators are quite adept at is establishing control
connection continuity, particularly in the aftermath of low-speed accidents as
this (where wreckage is minimally disturbed from effects of the crash itself),
so probably the best answer to your puzzlement can be expected to come from
the final NTSB report on this crash.

Bob W.

At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:
Major snip...

..."Will pilots of ALL skill
levels and currency be best served by a simple or complicated
procedure?"
"Is creating a mindset that turning down adopted offer the best chance
of
survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"


I could be wrong, but sometimes I sense a tendency to "reductio ad
absurdum"
on the part of some folks - to convince others of their point of view? I
dunno...but as a non-instructor, glider-only pilot, I managed to
mostly-weekend-acquire ~2600 hours without ever contacting the ground
"out
of
control," to also safely and sans alarums demonstrate the proper
response(s)
to simulated low-altitude, departure-end rope breaks, and I WAS surprised
when
my ab-initio instructor (initially, verbally) introduced the concept of a

not-that-flight-pre-announced low-altitude rope break as a possibility
for
my
imminent future...and then who "immediately asked all the expected 'silly

questions'" of my instructor. That noted, nowhere along the line did I
ever

get it into my head things like: 200' agl is an absolute go/no-go
turnaround
altitude; or a downwind landing on the departure runway is ALWAYS to be
preferred; or that no judgment was required to safely and effectively
respond
to a low-altitude rope break; or that it was "simple" (or, "complicated"
for
that matter) to pilot my way through the post PTT attempt.

What I DID get into my head - and I can't remember if I did this entirely
on
my own (out of fearful respect for the fragility of my "somewhat resilient

pink body") or through some combination of instruction, reading,
cogitation,
etc. - was that it mattered VERY MUCH that I do certain things as PIC
"correctly" - for under certain (thin margin) circumstances I would not
get
a
second chance.

As many of my math instructors loved to say, It was "immediately obvious
to

the most casual observer" that a low-altitude rope break was a thin margin

event, and it was up to me to "handle it right" - or else my frail pink
bod

would be at higher risk than it needed to be.

IMHO, anyone who gets caught up in defending a stance I'd characterize as
"do
it this way or you're wrong," when "this way" is procedurally based to the

discussional exclusion of maintaining solid flight control is missing the

point to a certain extent, and - yes - I understand the nature of
instruction
and the need to instruct using "building blocks of knowledge"...which is
the
way I've "forever" thought of "the magic 200 feet" concept. It's a great
place
to start. It isn't fundamentally dangerous (from a control of the glider
perspective). It's not fundamentally difficult to pilot as Joe PIC. It's
not
appropriate under all circumstances...while (in my view) "hitting the
ground
under control" IS appropriate under all circumstances. The question then
becomes, "What ground?" That's where more judgement enters the picture.

As others have noted, it's not at all uncommon in the intermountain
western

U.S. to aerotow launch from fields where accepting something other than a

downwind landing on the departure runway from 200' agl in the event of a
low-altitude rope break is (obviously, unarguably, inevitably, etc...)
"the

best/safest thing to do."

Being 100% first-person-ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the
tragic
crash sparking this (contains much food for thought) thread, several of my

operating conclusions a 1) we can never know for sure what was in the
deceased pilot's mind; 2) he likely hit the ground "in a non-flying
condition"; 3) 2) is further evidence for me to "not do that." Tying the
preceding into "the magic 200' agl PTT altitude" is easy enough for me in
that
if "in my judgment" I think 200' IS sufficient under the circumstances to

attempt a turn-around, then I'll do it; if not, then I'll do something
different...but whatever I do I'll work darned hard to ensure I maintain
control all the way to the ground. Duh???

Respectfully,
Bob W.

I cannot argue against the above. From what I have read in this thread I
have gained the impression that in the event of a launch failure at 200 ft
or above the recommended procedure is to turn back to the runway. This is
completely different from what I have taught for 45 years. In the event of
any launch failure the question that should be asked is "Can I land ahead"
If the answer is "yes" then land ahead, height does not come into it at
all. If, and only if the answer is "No" or "Not sure" should another action
be considered and executed.
In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead. I would and do simulate launch failures at 300ft
and above if there is no room to land ahead and allow students to practice
this, turning back as necessary. The reason is simple, while a pilot may be
faced with having to turn back at 200 ft the risks in doing so are not
justified in training, in the same way that we do not practice very low
winch launch failures, just after liftoff, or practice groundloops to avoid
obstacles both of which are covered by briefings. We do set up the ultra
low level launch failure situation from a normal approach but we never
simulate it off the launch because of the dangers involved.
There will always be circumstances where the "normal" procedure is not
possible but we do stress that the important part of the outcome is that
the pilot has the best chance of survival, an undamged glider is not a
priority in these circumstances.

At 16:00 25 May 2014, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 5/24/2014 8:21 AM, John L Fleming wrote:
son_of_flubber;883103 Wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:-
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn
back to the runway. -

My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.

Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I
wonder why he did that.

I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York
and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his
ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to
believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumulated 1000's
of
hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.
MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because
he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage
failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John

My condolences for the loss of your friend. I hadn't been in aviation but
two
or three years before personal aviation acquaintances and friends began
dying
in aviation-related accidents. All I could do was mourn their passing,
try
and
extract lessons for myself (if any), rationalize that they died doing
something they loved, and take some decision(s) for my own future.

Many glider pilots often roll their eyes at "the obviousness" of NTSB
probable
cause conclusions (e.g. pilot failed to maintain sufficient speed), but
one

thing I think NTSB investigators are quite adept at is establishing
control

connection continuity, particularly in the aftermath of low-speed
accidents
as
this (where wreckage is minimally disturbed from effects of the crash
itself),
so probably the best answer to your puzzlement can be expected to come
from

the final NTSB report on this crash.

Bob W.


Some years ago I witnessed a fatal spin-in following a launch failure. It
was a winch launch, the cable broke at about 150 feet agl. There was
plenty of room to land ahead on the airfield but the glider started a turn
to the left, flying obviously rather slowly. It completed about two thirds
of a 360 degree turn and then spun, went down into some trees a few yards
from the airfield boundary on ground about 20 feet lower than the airfield.
I was one of those that extracted the badly injured pilot from the
wreckage (he died in the ambulance before it left the airfield).

In the UK it is almost universal practice to set QFE not QNH on glider
altimeters (most gliding sites are less than 1,000 feet amsl), I noticed
that the altimeter in the wrecked glider was reading about plus 260 feet.
Later investigation showed that the millibar sub-scale setting was
consistent with the pressure on the previous day on which the glider had
flown. It seemed highly likely to me that the pilot had omitted to reset
the altimeter before take-off and, when the launch failed, saw over 400
feet on the altimeter and reacted to that.

On Monday, May 26, 2014 6:44:41 PM UTC+12, Chris Rollings wrote:
Some years ago I witnessed a fatal spin-in following a launch failure. It
was a winch launch, the cable broke at about 150 feet agl. There was
plenty of room to land ahead on the airfield but the glider started a turn

Well, that's clearly stupid.

The place I normally fly is short (but long enough we have 150 ft or so over the fence on a normal day, less if dead calm, more if a decent headwind) and the options are houses houses and houses, or turn back.

If you've got "cross the boundary fence and take the next paddock" that's a different matter.

And if you've got a km of runway still in front of you then turning back from 150 ft is utterly stupid. I don't think anyone here is arguing for that.

In the UK it is almost universal practice to set QFE not QNH on glider
altimeters (most gliding sites are less than 1,000 feet amsl), I noticed

Um. Who the heck looks at the *altimeter* at a time like that? Look out the window!


A couple of years ago the field I usually fly from got a flight information service. They can't tell us what to do, in every regard except one. When we arrived back and joined the circuit they'd (along with wind etc) tell us the QNH and EXPECT US TO REPEAT IT BACK. And presumably expect us to set the altimeter to it.

It's been a long process, but we seem to have finally convinced them that by the time we've made the decision to land and made the downwind call we are no longer interested in the altimeter, what it says, or what the QNH is. That was useful 20 or 30 km out, but from this point on we're ignoring the altimeter and looking out the window.