Glider Fatality in WA

Richard Branch wrote:
I don't normally comment on these posts for fear of upsetting someone, but
in this instance it is clear the report is confused, one does not crash
after a stall because of having too "much" altitude. Rich...

Joe had been flying for a few hours in his motorglider, came in for
landing with too much altitude, stalled and crashed.

I interpreted the report to mean "too much altitude [for a normal
landing - an overshoot situation]", but this can still be too low to
make safe turns or recover from a stall. This is especially true for a
2100' long runway.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"COLIN LAMB" wrote in message hlink.net...
It seems "old" power pilots used to keep nose high when having too much
altitude, close to stalling, in order to maximise drag. This obviously is
not the right way to react with a glider (or any ship with decent
airbrakes), and has caused some other accidents already ...



While not a commonly used technique it is a trick that many
experienced power pilots have up there sleeve. It works very well in
large Flapped cessna's where slips are not recommended. While
increasing drag is a secondary affect of slowing down on final. The
primary effect is a twist on the Speed to Fly that glider pilots
should be well aware of. It is not very effective in no wind and can
even be counter productive in a tailwind situation but by slowing down
on final with a headwind the approach angle can be significantly
steepened by slowing down to a minimum airspeed on final. At about
200-300 feet AGL the nose is lowered to bring the airspeed back up to
a normal approach speed to allow enough energy to flare with.

Anyone intentionally performing this maneuver should be well all aware
of the dangers of stalling at low altitude and should be well prepared
to recover from it. I doubt many accidents can be attributed to pilot
intentionally performing this maneuver.

With Dive Brakes it is questionable if this technique is any better
than just speeding up and using the additional drag caused by the
excess speed on the dive brakes. Remember Drag goes exponentially with
speed.

IMO: Most Stall Spin Accidents are caused more by the Illusion of
speed and/or a nose low attitude. These can be caused by flying
downwind, close to the ground and unfamiliar or obscured horizons. In
these situations the pilot is not thinking a stall is even a
possibility. The airplane stalls and the pilot responds with the
incorrect control inputs because the possibility of the aircraft
stalling when it appears to be nose down and moving fast does not even
seem possible to the pilot. I think most of these pilots hit the
ground wondering what is wrong with the airplane or that something
broke. Perhaps there are a few survivors that can confirm or debunk
my theory.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Bill Daniels,
You may find stall testing on the most recent version of the Pioneer IId
found on our web site which we did yesterday. I did post two interesting
photos on the Pioneer IId site accessed from our home page. This glider is
equiped with a moveable CG. The plane was tested in the rear most CG
position.


http://www.continuo.com/marske


We filmed the attempt stalls and have numerous stills from that filming. I
had great difficulty doing a gradual stall at first and had to resort to an
accelerated stall to get it to break. We now have the stall starting at the
tips and progressing slowly down the wing. Surprisingly the stalled wing
does not break immediately, and even with a down aileron to increase the
angle of attack, the wing experiences more of a yawing motion and
eventually dropping. As the pilot in this testing I felt very comfortable
and in control at all times even in the a turning stall.

I have also investigated the death rate in gliders and it does indicate that
those gliders that will spin will kill more pilots. Something to be said for
gliders that do not stall!

Something of note in the filming of the Pioneer was the fact that the Chase
plane, a grob 103 could not keep up in the lift to the Pioneer and I had to
repeatedly deploy the spoilers or move outside any lift. On a run to about
90 mph the Grob and Pioneer seemed fairly well matched. This is actually
very good considering the wing loading of the Pioneer IId at about 3.8
lbs/sq ft compared the the Grob at over 7 lbs/sq ft.

-mat
Marske Flying Wings
http://www.continuo.com/marske

On 24 Jun 2004 13:14:39 -0700, (Brian Case) wrote:

....snippage...

With Dive Brakes it is questionable if this technique is any better
than just speeding up and using the additional drag caused by the
excess speed on the dive brakes. Remember Drag goes exponentially with
speed.

My guess is that stuffing the nose down while holding full airbrake
only works well with a really draggy glider. It works a treat in an
ASW-20, which doesn't slip well in landing flap, but OTOH full brakes
and a decent slip while maintaining normal approach airspeed works
well in a Discus, Pegase or DG-300.

IMO: Most Stall Spin Accidents are caused more by the Illusion of
speed and/or a nose low attitude. These can be caused by flying
downwind, close to the ground and unfamiliar or obscured horizons. In
these situations the pilot is not thinking a stall is even a
possibility.

Get into the habit of monitoring your ASI and ignoring the apparent
speed of the scenery on finals.

I'm also tempted to say that if the ASI isn't near the centre of the
top row in the panel (and top centre in an ASW-19 or 20) then its time
to redesign and rebuild the panel.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Mark Nyberg wrote:

A credible witness observed that by the time Joe realized he was in
trouble, he was too high, had a slight tailwind and had too much
energy for a normal landing. If he proceeded straight ahead he was
certainly going to overrun the runway and end up rolling into the
trees. For some reason he made a hard turn to the right followed by a
hard turn to the left. He ended up low (about 50' AGL) and slow near
midfield.

Out training teaches us to keep our speed up, but at very-low
altitudes our human nature tells us to pull back on the stick in a
turn to stay away from the ground. I didn't understand this very well
until I went up with and instructor who had me practice some slow
skidding turns (like the kind of turn we might be tempted to make from
base to final if we don't have much altitude). I found that stalling
and spin entry can be much easier and more dramatic than I thought. I
am glad you asked about this.

Mark Nyberg

It got me thinking about what I would do in the same situation. It
sounds like he made a reasonable choice by adding some length to his
final by doing some turns. Someone mentioned the field was 2000 feet or
so. Being able to loose enough energy to be slow and midfield at 50
feet sounds like he achieved his goal all too well. 1000 feet to land
from 50 feet sounds tight but doable especially if you're already slow
and need to speed up to do a proper flare. The thing I figured is that
it would *look* tight and maybe impossible especially if the drill at
that field is to land on the numbers (I don't know this). I do know
I've never been drilled with "Fly over most of the runway and stop with
the nose at the far end of the runway." If this was the situation he
was in, I could see how it ended badly.
My condolences to his family and friends

Shawn

In an overshoot situation in a glider I was taught that it is better to be on
the ground overunning the landing area at 20mph rather than be too clever
trying fancy S turns at low altitude. Having said that if he had a tail wind
component wast a 180 an option?
Condolances

Shawn Curry wrote:


It got me thinking about what I would do in the same situation. It
sounds like he made a reasonable choice by adding some length to his
final by doing some turns. Someone mentioned the field was 2000
feet or so.

Airnav lists the runway length at 2100'. The Terraserver image from
1998 shows it is about 2300'-2400' from the trees at one end to the
trees at the other end. I've never been there, but the lengths and
images suggest a field with very small margins for error.

Being able to loose enough energy to be slow and midfield at 50 feet
sounds like he achieved his goal all too well. 1000 feet to land
from 50 feet sounds tight but doable especially if you're already
slow and need to speed up to do a proper flare. The thing I figured
is that it would *look* tight and maybe impossible especially if the
drill at that field is to land on the numbers (I don't know this). I
do know I've never been drilled with "Fly over most of the runway and
stop with the nose at the far end of the runway." If this was the
situation he was in, I could see how it ended badly.

In the situation described above, I think the only option left is full
spoiler, dive steeply and put it on the ground as soon as possible, then
use full wheel brake and full forward stick. If that didn't stop the
glider in time, aiming between the trees as they approach might avoid
serious injury, as likely the speed would be slow by the time of collsion.

I'm not sure I would think of this if I were in that situation, as the
ground would seem to be going by rapidly with the tailwind, and the
trees would likely look very threatening.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure I would think of this if I were in that situation, as the
ground would seem to be going by rapidly with the tailwind, and the
trees would likely look very threatening.

It is the fences that scare the hell out of me. Post 9/11, barbed wire is
probably much more prevalent on airport fences than it once was, just about neck
high when you are seated in a glider.

Vaughn

A 180 can only be safely done above 200 ft with good energy--just like a
rope-break. Even then, doing a 180 after over-shooting final is a good way
to stall/spin. One time while instructing, a student was way too high on
final and hadn't recognized how bad the problem was yet. By the time he
realized, he developed complete tunnel vision on the glider runway that was
now impossible to make. As we over-flew the glider runway, he wanted to try
a 180 from 100ft and 60mph. I took over, closed the spoilers, and few
straight ahead to the field you would use for a rope-break at 50 or 100 ft.
Just like planning for rope-breaks, you need to plan your missed-approach
options before you fly (or during instruction) what to do about being too
low or too high to make the usual runway.

"OscarCVox" wrote in message
...
In an overshoot situation in a glider I was taught that it is better to be
on
the ground overunning the landing area at 20mph rather than be too clever
trying fancy S turns at low altitude. Having said that if he had a tail
wind
component wast a 180 an option?
Condolances

Airnav lists the runway length at 2100'. The Terraserver image from
1998 shows it is about 2300'-2400' from the trees at one end to the
trees at the other end. I've never been there, but the lengths and
images suggest a field with very small margins for error.

This reminds me of why I am thankful for the short field landing practice I was
urged to do when I first started flying my ASW-20.
My instructor told me to put traffic cones next to the runway 300-400 feet
apart and practice touching down at the first cone and stopping before the
second. Repeat three times every visit to the glider port the first month or
so.
Now a 2000 foot runway looks like Los Angeles International.
-
Mark Navarre
2/5 black ace
LoCal, USA
remove brain to reply
-