Wing Launch - Can it pull your wings off?

Be careful of statistics - but agreed that recent winch safety has been
excellent for most of Europe (at least it appears to be so from what we
can see reported.)

Interestingly my club includes a lot of expatriate Germans, and a
similar group of expatriate English pilots. I have not seen any major
difference between them in approach or safety.

Glad to see we agree on the rest - primacy is important. When something
puts pressure on a pilot we tend to revert to what we first learned.
Make sure it is sensible.

Interestingly I wonder how much of the relative safety of launches in
the USA vs Germany / France/ England is the way soaring is administered.
The US way of licensing and having the proficiency standards and
examinations mandated and by the FAA is not ideal. Tom Knauf makes a
strong argument for doing it better.

As to the safety aspect - all launch methods intrinsically involve risk,
and decisions about how much risk to accept, and how you manage the risk
you take. Some communities take higher risk, and have consequentially
higher incident rates. (For example the one way strip in the vineyards)
The take away for me is to be aware of the situation and make sure you
have thought through the possible eventualities, and what you can and
should do in the event one of them occurs. Instinctive responses are
very useful up to a point. In an unusual situation, they had better be
tempered by rational processes. Attitude and preparation are most
important. The flying skill required should not be unusual - but the
necessary speed of decision making can exceed peoples capabilities. I
helps to have thought things through.

Cheers
Bruce

On 2010/08/15 4:34 PM, bildan wrote:

"The BGA statistics, taken from the UK and continental Europe,
unfortunately are unequivocal that winch launching was responsible for a
disproportionate number of fatalities"

BGA statistics on Continental Europe are seriously in error. You're
just trying to say that everybody else is a bad as the UK - they
aren't.

I have obtained accident statistics from Germany for 2009. More than
1.5 million winch launches resulted in just 17 accidents (13 of which
were really landing accidents since the glider was in a position for a
safe landing with good height and airspeed.) There were three
fatalities.

That's an absolutely extraordinary safety record - far, far better
than aero tow in the US or winch launch in the UK. The SSF says the
US lost 12 people on aero tow in 2009.

If winch launch is done competently, as it is in Germany, it's orders
of magnitude safer than aero tow as practiced in the US. I strongly
advise adopting the training methods and operating techniques used in
Germany.

John Smith's point is not about the infallibility of pilots, (fools
will find a way) it's that a winch operation should never put a pilot
in a situation where more than basic flying ability is required to
recover from a rope break. This goes for aero tow operations as well.

As an instructor, I can tell if a pilot has to think through a
recovery or is doing it instinctively. I train until it's
instinctive. If they maintain that level of competency, rope breaks
will never be a hazard for them.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Aug 15, 7:34*am, bildan wrote:

That's an absolutely extraordinary safety record - far, far better
than aero tow in the US or winch launch in the UK. The SSF says the
US lost 12 people on aero tow in 2009.

I have no opinion on this topic and am just reading it to for
background, but the statement above is very much in error, I suspect.
The NTSB lists 7 glider fatals for 2009, of which one is not really a
glider as we think of it (a 'light-sport' type float kit machine that
took off on water without enough room to miss the trees at the shore).
Of the 6 remaining, one was a winch launch, one spun off the (aero)
tow line at ~300" and one released, spun, and crashed. So worst case
there are 2 aero tow fatalities and one winch fatality in the US in
2009. NTSB was unable to determine the cause of either aero tow
related incident, there was some speculation about cardic events, but
sounds like we'll never know.

As a low hour pilot I don't have an opinion on the topic except to
mention that every January I do 3 to 5 simulated rope breaks. My
reason for that is when making a high bank turn below 200' the ground
being so near tends to freak me out, and the simulated rope breaks get
me used to the sight picture and helps me stay calm.

Brian

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:12:03 +0200, John Smith
wrote:

Derek C wrote:
The site in question is a narrow strip 800 metres long, sloping
downhill at about 1 in 10, on top of a hill and totally surrounded by
small unlandable vineyards. They always launched downhill,
irrespective of wind direction. Once above about 200ft, but below
circuit height, the only cable break option to get back onto site was
a 180 degree turn (teardrop circuit) to land back uphill.

And where's the problem?

The timing.


With such a short field it might be necessary to execute this teardrop
circuit at very low altitude because it's not possible anymore to land
straight-on.

Little error margin for finding the right compromise between executing
the turn ionto final at a healthy altitude and not too close to the
airfield.

It's definitely more relaxed to execute this teardrop circuit at
300ft+.


Cheers
Andreas

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), sisu1a
wrote:


Modern winching is pretty much a science and has come a long way since
the 60s so it does not do the soaring community (US at least...) a
favor to combine it all into single raw statistics cause it paints a
negative biased picture based on irrelevant data.


Hmmm... I beg to differ.
Modern winching has very much in common with winching in the 60s.
The only difference is that the winches grew stronger in accordance to
the rising weight and speed of the gliders, but otherwise -at least in
Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the
rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as
fifty years ago.

It is not necessary (Bill - I know you are going to cry out now to
have the latest state-of-the-art gizmos (telemetry, plastic cables,
advanced speed control) to perform a perfectly safe and satisfactory
winch launch.

Cheers
Andreas

Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the
rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as
fifty years ago.


Here are some post 1960 hardware differences: (shooting from the
hip...

1) standardized weak links (Tost system)
2) implementation and standardization of preamble/strop/trace
3) high aspect drums/doing away with level-winds
4) synthetic cables
5) much better control of torque/speed/launch profile
6) electric winch(es)

While procedures may have remained pretty consistent in Germany
(though adapted to accommodate newer hardware setups like strops, and
some some for UHMW...) most everyone else seems to have been quite
behind on the curve and continue to play catch-up; with some groups in
doing it in distinct steps like the GFA writing a manual in 98
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24475893/Winch-Manual and BGA with their
'safe winch launch initiative started in 05 for instance:
http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/saf...hlaunching.htm , which
have changed SOP in those places as far as I can tell. Also up until
quite recently, a complete mathematical model of the entire launch did
not exist, only partial models. This information is (debatably)
relevant to further hardware and procedural evolution as well, pushing
it even closer towards science and further from it's trial and error
past.

Details aside, the point is if you look at 40-50yrs of winching as a
generic lump sum the picture looks undeservedly bleak compared to
looking at it by what is now commonly being done abroad, with Germany
leading the way with a long record of safety and good procedures.
(which I have a hard time imagining there being *some* changes in the
last 50yrs of German winching though...

-Paul

On Aug 15, 1:21*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT), sisu1a

wrote:
Modern winching is pretty much a science and has come a long way since
the 60s so it does not do the soaring community (US at least...) a
favor to combine it all into single raw statistics cause it paints a
negative biased picture based on irrelevant data. *

Hmmm... I beg to differ.
Modern winching has very much in common with winching in the 60s.
The only difference is that the winches grew stronger in accordance to
the rising weight and speed of the gliders, but otherwise -at least in
Germany- very little has changed. Apart from the stronger engines the
rest of the equipment as well as the procedures are still the same as
fifty years ago.

It is not necessary (Bill - I know you are going to cry out now *to
have the latest state-of-the-art gizmos (telemetry, plastic cables,
advanced speed control) to perform a perfectly safe and satisfactory
winch launch.

Cheers
Andreas

Actually, I don't disagree. You don't need all new stuff to be safe
but then you can drive a 1960's car and be safe too - as long as
you're careful not to hit anything or get hit. It's a fact that
people driving new cars with air bags and crush zones drive a lot more
aggressively. That's basically what you get from the new winch
designs. Easier, safer launches with greater performance.

Dyneema is an exception. It has been proven safer than steel cable by
every industry that has adopted it - there's lots of industrial safety
data on that. Besides being safer, it's just way nicer to work with.

On Aug 15, 8:55*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:37 pm, bildan wrote:

Every E&R Experimental operations limitations letter I've seen
requires operation in compliance with the AFM.

I can find no such requirement in mine. *Does anyone else operating
experimental (racing/exhibition) have this requirement in their
operating limitations? *If so, would you please email me a copy.

FAR Part 91.9(a) requires operation in compliance with an AFM if one is part of the
original airworthiness certification. *(i.e JAR-22)

My operating limitations do not require compliance with all of part
91. *They reference very specific sections. *In reference to 91.9 they
state in para 21 - This aircraft shall contain the placards.,
markings, etc. required by 91.9.

91.9 (a) states

a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may
operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating
limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight
Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry.

It is my interpretation that *"or as otherwise prescribed by the
certificating authority of the country of registry" means that the
details of the operating limitations specified by FAA (the
certificating authority in the country of registry) *take precedence.
Those operating limitations make specific reference to the requirement
for placards and markings but make no reference to the AFM.

Why would the operating limitations pick out specific sections of part
91, and specific data from the AFM, for inclusion unless only those
included references/restrictions were applicable? *It would be far
simpler to state that the aircraft is required to operate in
accordance with Part 91.

I'm very sure (based on FAA interpretations) if an E&R airworthiness
certificate is issued for a glider which had a standard airworthiness
certificate with AFM in it's country of origin, the mere issuance of a
US E&R airworthiness certificate does not excuse the owner of the
glider from compliance with the AFM.

Can you please give me references to, or email copies of, any
interpretation that requires compliance with the AFM when the
operating limitations do not. *Do those interpretations also relate to
compliance with an approved maintenance manual?

thanks

Andy

Andy, all you have to do is call your FSDO and ask for an opinion. If
you ask, "Do I have to comply with my glider's AFM if I have an E&R
airworthiness certificate?", you already know what the answer will be.

On Aug 15, 7:58*pm, bildan wrote:

Andy, all you have to do is call your FSDO and ask for an opinion. *If
you ask, "Do I have to comply with my glider's AFM if I have an E&R
airworthiness certificate?", you already know what the answer will be.


The person that issued my operating limitations has retired so I
cannot ask him for any interpretation. I will operate under the
limitations as issued, which are unambiguous in this regard, until
such time as the new FSDO staff decide to revoke them.

Thank you for your assistance in providing the applicable regulations
and precedent that support your position and for being so willing to
have a reasoned discussion of the issue.

On Aug 15, 11:29*am, Bruce wrote:

Interestingly I wonder how much of the relative safety of launches in
the USA vs Germany / France/ England is the way soaring is administered.
The US way of licensing and having the proficiency standards and
examinations mandated and by the FAA is not ideal. Tom Knauf makes a
strong argument for doing it better.

I've looked at aviation safety for more than half a century and, in
the end, I've decided it comes down to the individual pilot and the
surrounding culture of safety. The regulatory environment has little
to do with it.

If a pilot says, "Yes, this thing I propose to do can be hazardous,
but I intend to manage it by doing everything I possibly can to reduce
the risk." "I will seek training to achieve a far higher level of
skill and knowledge than will be required and rely on it to maintain
the greatest safety margin possible." If he does that, I expect to
see a very long and safe flying career.

Aviation safety is the process of doing something inherently risky in
a way that makes it inherently safe. That requires skill. It also
requires the strength of character to seek that skill and the self-
discipline to use it.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:56:16 -0700 (PDT), bildan
wrote:



That's basically what you get from the new winch
designs. Easier, safer launches with greater performance.
Nope.


Dyneema is an exception. It has been proven safer than steel cable by
every industry that has adopted it - there's lots of industrial safety
data on that. Besides being safer, it's just way nicer to work with.

Hmmm... on my airfield (we were the first ones to use Dyneema) we
already had more than only a couple of incidents that were directly
related to the use of Dyneema and wouldn't have happened with steel
cable. We came to the conclusion that -at least on my airfield- steel
cable offers more advantages than disadvatages than Dyneema.

Cheers
Andreas