Gear Warning

I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate
for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
ability and experience spread.
They also push the idea that there is no substitute
for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended
stage of flight is basic airmanship. By all means use
warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,
but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
proper airmanship is not the way to go. Remember that
many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and
of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable.
Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule,
barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway.

At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:
Tony Verhulst wrote:

The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for
a landing without
opening the spoilers for the first time (when the
warning would go off)
at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens
much earlier when
it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a
safe landing.

At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it
would be best to leave
the gear where it is.

I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation
is poorly thought
out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable
gear has made
warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still
occur the
frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning
system is not blamed
for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of
the BGA's policy.

In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings
are (rightly)
attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency
on type
and something is done about the training system and
the pilot's competence.

Blaming the warning system is irrational.

Graeme Cant




Tony V.

In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate
for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
ability and experience spread.

While I'm reading all this, I'm thinking something isn't
adding up.

Gear warning systems go off if the airbrakes are opened
while the gear is retracted, right?

Now think of the BGA's position: They're worried about
damage and injury caused by a gear warning which goes off
last the last minute, causing a pilot to lose control
of the landing as they fumble the controls as they drop
the undercarriage.

.... which is what doesn't add up. What kind of pilot does
the BGA think is going to be surprised by a gear warning
buzzer when they're close to the ground? I mean, seriously,
if a pilot has managed to get to 10 or 20 feet off the ground
before they've opened the airbrakes then their training has
bigger problems than anything that can be solved by talking
about the importance of pre-landing checks! Surely in the
real world the gear warning alert goes off near the top of
final approach, just after the pilot has identified an
overshoot situation and opted to open the airbrakes, right?

We're obviously all missing something here. What has
prompted the BGA to issue a position paper which, on first
appearances, makes no sense?

- mark

At 12:18 22 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault.
What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword. While they may be appropriate
for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
ability and experience spread.

While I'm reading all this, I'm thinking something
isn't
adding up.

Gear warning systems go off if the airbrakes are opened

while the gear is retracted, right?

Now think of the BGA's position: They're worried about
damage and injury caused by a gear warning which goes
off
last the last minute, causing a pilot to lose control

of the landing as they fumble the controls as they
drop
the undercarriage.

.... which is what doesn't add up. What kind of pilot
does
the BGA think is going to be surprised by a gear warning
buzzer when they're close to the ground? I mean, seriously,
if a pilot has managed to get to 10 or 20 feet off
the ground
before they've opened the airbrakes then their training
has
bigger problems than anything that can be solved by
talking
about the importance of pre-landing checks! Surely
in the
real world the gear warning alert goes off near the
top of
final approach, just after the pilot has identified
an
overshoot situation and opted to open the airbrakes,
right?

We're obviously all missing something here. What has

prompted the BGA to issue a position paper which, on
first
appearances, makes no sense?

- mark

I suspect that where the confusion has arisen is a
difference in the way in which we operate. The emphasis
in the UK is very much directed towards cross country
flying. A new student is introduced to soaring at a
very early stage and even in early training, as soon
as they are able are encouraged to soar. Circuit bashing
only takes place when soaring is not possible. It is
also important to realise that with very few exceptions
gliding does not take place at airports or even airfields,
the majority of clubs have their own field, often grass
and in general do not share with powered aircraft.
Take offs and landings are not controlled in the normal
sense, there is no ATC and in the majority of cases
no approach radio. Pilots do, either through an error
of skill or error of judgement sometimes get it wrong
and arrive back at the field with less height than
they should. The stress of wondering if they are going
to get back has already caused them to forget the undercarriage
and they do not use the spoiler/airbrakes because the
glide is marginal. They arrive back very low. Given
that the pilot may already be stressed the question
is then, is it likely to be less harmful to the pilot
for him to land without the wheel down than it would
be to startle him with a sudden noise and have him
struggle to get the wheel down when he shoud be flying
the airplane. Several accidents were identified where
it was found that the sudden noise distracted an already
stressed pilot from the primary aim of landing the
glider and instead of a minor incident a more serious
accident occurred. Landing on grass in most gliders
with the wheel in the bay will cause much embarrasment
but little damage, the same cannot be said for a loss
of control resulting in a firmer impact. The warning
was never the cause of the accident but it was a contributory
factor, the primary cause was the error of skill or
error of judgement in failing to properly configure
the glider. It is only advice, something to consider,
and as I said before fitting the warning can be a double
edged sword. I think everyone accepts that it is a
matter for each individual pilot to decide whether
to fit the warning device to their own glider. Fitting
in club aircraft flown by pilots who may or may not
have the skill to get away with a late u/c selection
is discouraged for the reason outlined above.

Of course pilots are trained to arrive back with sufficient
height but they do get it wrong and finishing a competition
task with a marginal final glide and landing ahead
is very common and perfectly valid, until you get it
wrong that is.
I recall my first flight in an ASW19. I spent most
of the approach recycling the undercarriage to try
and get rid of the noise instead of concentrating on
flying the glider. I got away with it, more by luck
than judgement. The cause of the noise, a short in
the warning system, the cause of the crash had there
been one, an error of skill on my part. Fly the airplane!!!!!!!!

Don Johnstone wrote:
I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword.

The BGA's policy (as reported in this forum was "Incidentally the BGA in
the UK does not reccomend an undercarriage warning buzzer." I would like
to read their logic. There is no mention of it in the BGA Instructors'
Manual (second edition).

I've seen a bunch of gear up landings (once from the inside of the
cockpit :-( ) and none of them has a gear warning. I understand that
this is a small sample. My vote is to have the warning. If you first
hear it 10 feet of off the deck, ignore it.

By all means use
warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,
but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
proper airmanship is not the way to go.

I completely agree with this.

Tony V

Gadget Guy wrote:
Greetings all, I am looking for a drawing that depicts the electrical
wiring of a DG-300. Does anyone know of a link or have a basic drawing
of a gear warning system?

Thank you in advace


Sounds like the BGA could stand to take a new look at what they have
written. Perhaps instead of saying that gear warning devices are NOT
recommended they should say that "if a gear warning device is installed,
be aware of the fact that there have been some accidents in the final
stages of an approach where the pilot finally realized his gear wasn't
down" "If you find yourself in this situation, recognize that you may
be better off landing gear up than crashing your glider"

"If you install a gear warning device or purchase a glider with a device
installed, be sure to familiarize yourself with the device and check
your spoilers prior to, or at the onset of, the start of your pattern to
allow you to correct an unextended gear situation early on."

That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don.

Don Johnstone wrote:
I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault. What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword.

In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper training) almost
universally seen as a good thing.

While they may be appropriate
for private gliders flown by experienced pilots who
have worked out a plan to react to they may not be
appropriate for gliders flown by pilots with a broad
ability and experience spread.

As I said, landing with the gear up or accidents related to that
situation are taken in every other area of aviation as an indication of
inadequate training. "Inadequate" means "less than the amount required
for the level of skill and experience of the pilot involved".

They also push the idea that there is no substitute
for airmanship and configuring a glider for the intended
stage of flight is basic airmanship.

Rubbish. The BGA's policy is the reverse. It implies that the use of a
warning device is unnecessary. In the rest of aviation it has long been
accepted that warning devices and check lists are fundamental to
overcoming some basic human inadequacies. Pilots are trained to use
these tools to support the application of airmanship. Not to reject
them in some hairy-chested "real pilots don't need any crutches" way.

By all means use
warning gizzmos as a backup, we all make mistakes,

I could have put it better but that's about right.

but relying on them to remove or reduce the need for
proper airmanship is not the way to go.

Nobody said it was.

Remember that
many safety rules assume the worst case scenario and
of course mainly legislate for the less knowledgeable.
Competent pilots don't need to know there is a rule,
barring mistakes they fly sensibly anyway.

Does this mean anything sensible at all?

GC

At 07:18 22 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:

Tony Verhulst wrote:


The point is that very, very, few flights arrive for
a landing without
opening the spoilers for the first time (when the
warning would go off)
at 10 ft off the ground. Much more often that happens
much earlier when
it's quite safe to lower the gear and still make a
safe landing.

At 10 feet, I would agree that for most pilots it
would be best to leave
the gear where it is.

I agree. It seems to me that the BGA's recommendation
is poorly thought
out. Every other sphere of aviation with a retractable
gear has made
warning systems compulsory and while gear errors still
occur the
frequency is quite low. In particular, the warning
system is not blamed
for the accident - which is the topsy-turvy logic of
the BGA's policy.

In most of aviation, accidents involving gear warnings
are (rightly)
attributed to poor pilot training or lack of familiarity/recency
on type
and something is done about the training system and
the pilot's competence.

Blaming the warning system is irrational.

Graeme Cant




Tony V.

At 12:54 23 November 2005, Graeme Cant wrote:
That's mostly a load of platitudinous codswallop, Don.

Don Johnstone wrote:
I don't think the BGA's logic is at all at fault.
What
they are pointing out is that gear warning systems
can be a double edged sword.

In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper
training) almost
universally seen as a good thing.

In other spheres of aviation the action in the event
of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and
go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would
suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider.


You opinion and description of my post makes your argument
more cogent do you think?

Don Johnstone wrote:

In other spheres of aviation they are (with proper
training) almost
universally seen as a good thing.


In other spheres of aviation the action in the event
of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and
go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would
suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider.

What I've seen people do is close the spoilers, level off, put the gear
down, open spoilers, and continue the landing. Perhaps this could be
part of the pilot's training.

I've also seen pilots switch hands, lower the gear, switch hands, and
continue the landing. They didn't crash to the ground, even though they
released the spoiler handle. It might depend a lot on on the glider:
some have modest spoilers, so the descent rate doesn't change much going
from half open to full open, and in some gliders, the spoilers don't
move if released at the normal, relatively slow, approach speed.

So, while a go round is a handy ability, it isn't necessary to deal with
a gear up situation.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Don Johnstone wrote:

In other spheres of aviation the action in the event
of a 'gear up' warning is to open the throttle and
go round NOT struggle to get the u\c down. I would
suggest that might be a tad difficult in a glider.

No, Don. The action in the event of a gear warning in ALL aircraft is
is to lower the gear or silence the warning. In 99.9% of cases in a
glider the reaction should be exactly the same.

The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider pilots should be
regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last 50 feet, they
should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That is the ONLY
difference. The argument for the fitting of a proper warning is exactly
the same for all aircraft.

You opinion and description of my post makes your argument
more cogent do you think?

No again, Don. But I still can't make sense of your last paragraph.
And I'm not convinced you've actually thought through the implications
of the BGA's policy.

GC

Graeme Cant wrote:

The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider pilots should be
regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last 50 feet, they
should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That is the ONLY

And even this depends on the glider. E.g. in an LS4 with its beautiful
gear system, there's no reason to not put the gear down even in the last
10 feet (if the runway is long enough to allow for the additional
float). Been there, done that, no problem. BTW, if I had had a gear
warning, I would have recognized and corrected the situation much earlier.

Stefan