Fatal crash Arizona

In the event of a launch failure (or a bounce on landing) I was
taught to 'adopt the attitude that you would be at that height
during a normal approach', which I think is a clear and good
description of the 'appropriate attitude' that Don recommends. I
completely agree with Don's advice about then checking speed,
and landing ahead as the first choice.

I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned
aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3
could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept
catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots
don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's
ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.
But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that
such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.



At 22:14 15 June 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:


No, what I was taught and what I teach applies to ALL launch
failures,
winch, auto tow, and aerotow as detailed above. The first action
is to
select the appropriate attitude, at least approach attitude and
make sure
that you have a minimum of approach speed. Then ask the
question, "Can I
land ahead" If and ONLY if the answer is NO or NOT SURE should
any other
action be considered.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:46:14 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned
aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3
could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept
catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots
don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's
ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.
But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that
such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.

I disagree.

Options in the event of a tow failure include:

1) land ahead
2) land cross wind
3) do a (approx) 180 and land downwind
4) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land crosswind
5) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land upwind
6) do a (approx) 180, do a normal downwind leg, land upwind

As long as at least *one* of those options is available at all times the site is fine.

Which ones are appropriate does change according to conditions. For example 3) is likely to be a bad idea in all but the lightest winds. But as the wind strength picks up the opportunities for the others increases quickly.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:17:59 AM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:46:14 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:

I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned

aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3

could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept

catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots

don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's

ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.

But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that

such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.



I disagree.



Options in the event of a tow failure include:



1) land ahead

2) land cross wind

3) do a (approx) 180 and land downwind

4) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land crosswind

5) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land upwind

6) do a (approx) 180, do a normal downwind leg, land upwind



As long as at least *one* of those options is available at all times the site is fine.



Which ones are appropriate does change according to conditions. For example 3) is likely to be a bad idea in all but the lightest winds. But as the wind strength picks up the opportunities for the others increases quickly.

I agree with Bruce. However, all those actions require the pilot to have at least basic airmanship abilities which is clearly missing in some posts to this thread.

When applied to flight training, I find terms like "KISS" and "lowest common denominator" to be infuriating. Aviation is not simple and never will be.

When I read "KISS, I'm reminded of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does". Rather than aiming to accommodate the "lowest common denominator" in students, demand excellence.

On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:15:07 AM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
May I offer a practical tip? Talk to yourself all the way up the launch to

a safe height (perhaps 500ft), deciding where you will go at every moment

should the rope / tug break. Should it then happen you already have the

decision made and only have to execute it well.



If you, or your trainee, start to do this every launch you will be amazed

at what poor decisions you would make to begin with. These get better with

the doing of it.



Jim


Delightful. Since it was about a hundred posts ago I offered the same concept, may I say, "Thank you."
I am heartened to know that there are others out there who prefer to be prepared and updating their situational awareness during launch, rather than becoming off-launch and then begin 'assessing' the choices.

If the assessment is ongoing, the execution of the 'best choice' becomes pretty relaxed. And if we fly to the landing, it is so much more likely to be survivable than falling to an impact.

Thanks, Jim.
Cindy B

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC+12, CindyB wrote:
On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:15:07 AM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
May I offer a practical tip? Talk to yourself all the way up the launch to
a safe height (perhaps 500ft), deciding where you will go at every moment

Delightful. Since it was about a hundred posts ago I offered the same concept, may I say, "Thank you."

!!!!

It would never have occurred to me that this was not assumed by all in the conversation.

Here in NZ, students are frequently asked "where would you go now?"

At 01:18 18 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:

Here in NZ, students are frequently asked "where would you go
now?"


Hi Bruce, can you tell us what the teaching is in NZ is about this? Do
you teach 180 degree turns at 200ft?

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:51:46 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
At 01:18 18 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
Here in NZ, students are frequently asked "where would you go
now?"

Hi Bruce, can you tell us what the teaching is in NZ is about this? Do
you teach 180 degree turns at 200ft?

The Gliding NZ training syllabus requires the instructor demonstrating a low level launch failure. It doesn't require the student flying one. (the same applies to fully developed spins, by the way ... the student only has to demonstrate incipient spin, recognition, recovery).

I don't think there is mention of any particular height. Our students are doing 180 and 360 degree turns 200 ft above ridges all the time, and constantly have "safe speed near the ground" drummed into them.

250 ft is the common simulated launch failure height, with an expectation that you'll be able to turn onto a downwind and then evaluate whether to land crosswind (probably) or into wind.

Further information:

One of Gliding NZ's A certificate oral questions and model answer:

Q: What is the pilot's first priority immediately following a launch failure on a winch launch and an aerotow launch?

A: Winch launch: Lower the nose to attain "Safe Speed Near The Ground".
Aerotow launch at low level: Raise the nose to convert excess speed to height but never fly slower than "Safe Speed Near The Ground".

For winch launching, the instructor's manual recommends landing ahead if you are less than half way down the strip and with less height than 1/10th of the total strip length. It recommends 400 ft as the minimum for doing a full circuit and normal landing. (it also recommends 4000 ft as the minimum length for winch launching, so that is internally consistent)

If you will always deliberately release if you find yourself halfway down the strip at less than 400 ft then there can never be a situation where you'd want to turn 180 and land downwind. At least, on a strip where the entire length is landable. I've flown from sites with a 5000 or 6000 feet run for the winch cable, but only a few hundred yards of landable area ... different guidelines will apply.

For aerotow launching, no specific advice is given as to heights. It does say "Unlike winch launching, aerotowing often involves entering the non-manoeuvring area." and "Beware the low-level turnback--if in doubt, land out", but without any definition of what is low level.

Certainly at our site -- a commercial airport with scheduled Dash 8 flights, surrounded by dense housing on all sides -- any off field landing is going to have very severe consequences. The seal is 1500m, but the grass we use is only about 600m. In one direction, we have the option of stepping sideways onto the main runway and landing ahead. In the other direction, grass and seal hit the fence at essentially the same point, but there is an old X'd tarsealed runway parallel and close to the fence that will serve in an emergency with only a 90º turn if 180º doesn't seem advisable.

At 01:18 18 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC+12, CindyB wrote:
On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:15:07 AM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
May I offer a practical tip? Talk to yourself all the way up the
launch
to
a safe height (perhaps 500ft), deciding where you will go at every
moment

Delightful. Since it was about a hundred posts ago I offered the same
concept, may I say, "Thank you."

!!!!

It would never have occurred to me that this was not assumed by all in
the
conversation.

Here in NZ, students are frequently asked "where would you go now?"

Bruce, one would hope that this is how most people do it, but my experience
is different. I am not a full instructor but do coach xc soaring to people
who have already got their wings. When I suggest this to the people I fly
with I usually get "that's a good idea, I never thought of that" so I
presume it is not generally taught.

Asking 'where would you go' does not demonstarte that your pupil is doing
this, he may just be good enough to come up with a sensible answer on the
fly, that time. Asking him to tell you where he would go all the way up to
a safe height would tell you, the instructor, very much more about what his
thought processes are and how well he could handle an emergency.

Just my penny's worth.

On 2014-05-11,
wrote:
On Saturday, May 10, 2014 10:51:36 PM UTC-7, wrote:
... get to a laudable spot in go shape to land.
...get to a landable spot in good shape to land.

a laudible goal

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 4:41:23 PM UTC-4, Don Johnstone wrote:
While in no way do I wish to speculate on the cause of this accident or

indeed suggest that my comments in any way address the cause of this

accident.

I feel that comment is needed on some of the things said here. We have a

rule here in the UK, launch failure on aerotow below 300ft a landing should

be made ahead, or slightly to one side. No attempt should be made to turn

back below this height.

The reason is simple, a controlled crash into difficult terrain is likely

to result in a better outcome than an uncontrolled arrival on the airfield.

The important bit to keep intact is the bit you are sitting in, the rest of

the glider does not really matter too much. The best chance of achieving

that is flying to the ground with the wings level. It has only happened to

me once, there was a field ahead but it was full of the Tiger Moth tug that

had landed in the middle. I discovered that there was just enough space for

a Skylark 2 as well. I have no doubt that a turn back would have resulted

in an accident. I was at 250ft agl max.

If there really is nowhere to land ahead you should really ask the

question, "should I be taking a launch".

Frankly I would be horrified to be required to conduct a turn back at

200ft, I would suggest that this is one of those occasions where the danger

of practice is to great to justify.

Sometimes it's hard to face the fact that the glider must be destroyed to survive. Trying to save the device could be a deadly decision.

Again, I don't know what actually happened, best guess, inadvertent unintentional release. Whether he tried to turn back, or just plain didn't get the nose down quick enough during a 90 degree or lesser turn, who knows.

The only way to practice rope breaks at 100' is on a simulator (condor).