Nimbus 4DT accident 31 July 2000 in Spain.

41 years ago I joined the Vultures club in Michigan, a winch only club
where I learned to fly gliders and soar. It was interesting how often a
couple of circles after releasing resulted in a gain in altitude. It
seems that the turbulence of the tow often released a thermal. Our tows
were fifty cents and did we bitch when it went up to seventy five cents.

It is too bad that so many influential pilots in the US have been
knocking winch towing for such a long time. I would guess that half my
aero tows at the 2005 Sports Class Nationals were more difficult than my
typical winch tow. Taking off with a quartering tailwind, flying
through gusts that blew me across the runway, 50 ft above the ground at
the end of the runway and making a slow turn to avoid home sites at 50
knots is not my idea of fun. The tow pilots were fantastic, the line
crews were great, the tasking was extraordinary, interesting and
challenging and every day was a different challenge. John Good, the CD
was not a magician, he was a wizard at setting tasks with the aid of Sam
Zimmerman and the task advisers john Sinclair and Walt Cannon. It was
one hell of a contest, probably the best run and organized that it has
been my privilege to fly.

mg
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...

Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp for those of us

that

have never done one!

Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches but through this
thread there has not been any mention of what happens at the critical low
level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly also a zone of

real

problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert with few, if any
landing options straight ahead. What do you guys teach re breaks at 100
feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but how much altitude

does

it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to control the glider for
landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if this is too obvious for
those of you that do it all the time!

Casey



Thanks, Casey.

The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery with generous margins be
possible from any height that a cable break occurs. Safety is the product
of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.

If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the runway lies ahead to
receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have full climb airspeed,
approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only be 20 - 30 degrees. A
prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed is all that is
needed to land straight ahead.

If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then the straight ahead
landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight 360 pattern is also
possible. The two options overlap by a good amount of height depending on
the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will be about 45 degrees
nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like 60 degrees) so a more
aggressive pushover is needed.

All these situations will be practiced over and over until the instructor
feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly to each. The student
must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is observed to be at a
safe value and increasing before establishing a glide for a straight ahead
landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.

I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS scary to the
uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally tens of millions of
launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer than air tow.

As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever the tow plane takes you,
I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files, that most air tow
releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point and the glider is rarely
in a thermal at release but must glide around looking for one just like with
a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch re-light will cost you
less than $10.

The latest European winches are getting even heavy gliders to over 1000
meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.

Bill Daniels

At 21:42 22 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

In my experience, I have seen and been a part of confusion
in
the cockpit. One pilot is saying one thing and the
other is
contradicting it. I've also had both pilots on the
controls at the same time, with opposite pressures
applied.

I'm more and more, well, surprized, what you have been
experiencing
while flying. I've never seen, even less been part
of such a thing.

Quite common in US accident reports, especially among
very experienced pilots. Airline black box transcripts
almost always
show there was some CRM problem that contributed to
a difficulty. I've seen CRM miscommunications result
in less-than-perfect results several times with others,
too.
Most commonly I've seen it when instructors initiate
emergency procedures as a 'surprise.' Gear-up landing,
and a
landout when too far from the end of the runway on
a
'rope break' procedure where the student was too slow
reacting.

As pilots become more skilled, the reasons for accidents
seem to shift from pure stick skill issues to
other things, particularly CRM. I would guess that
if there
was a black box in every two-seat glider accident,
some CRM problem would be listed as contributing.

Communicate before the flight, define the roles and
adhere to it. Who
will do what? Who will fly in an emergency? Communicate
during the
flight, and do so clearly.

Excellent, excellent advice. Something I think that
is not
done formally very often in some places...


And, you may ask, if the other pilot is doing something
I don't like?
Well, if I don't trust the other pilot, I won't fly
with him. If he
doesn't trust me, I don't want him to fly with me.
Simple as that, very
basic CRM stuff. (It needn't be offensive when I say
I don't like his
way of flying, because I'm not implying that he's a
bad pilot, I'm just
saying our styles are incompatible.)

The trouble is: you have to fly with him once to find
out.
Hopefully it is a benign flight...


I'm surprized that, as it seems, you can become an
instructor in the USA
without knowing such basic stuff.

You're not supposed to be able to. CRM is an emphasis

area for all practical tests for all pilot ratings
in the USA.

However, there are something like 14 'emphasis areas'
so
it ends up getting buried, and trivially tested.

And despite the test standards being very specific
in the
'you have the controls' phrase for exchanging controls,

I've had examiners say 'I've got the airplane' and
have
students say other arcane phrases, and sometimes just
release all of the controls completely in a challenging
situation,
with no words at all!

So now I rehearse the 'you have the controls' stuff

for the first flight with everyone, even other instructors!
It seems funny (they should know that, right?) but
I haven't had problems since.

It seems like a lot of non-instructors fly together
in two-seaters,
and don't formalize the CRM stuff. And hey, what are
you gonna
do if one is more experienced than the other? If the
newbie is flying and gets into an emergency, have the
more experienced guy take over? Kind of hard to do
in a split second.

Another post suggested that one of these Nimbus accidents
may have been from one guy doing one thing and the
other guy doing something else unexpected. I wouldn't
be surprised.

My point here is that I think CRM is maybe a bigger
factor in a
lot of 2-seat accidents than the reports show. The
stuff you
talk about as being obvious isn't taught and tested
as
textbook here in the USA, or perhaps just turns into
one among many 'emphasis areas.'

It sounds like in your training this recieved more
emphasis.
Was that formally required for license, or was that
just
informal common-sense? In the USA, in our
Glider Flying Handbook, there isn't anything at all
that I am aware of which talks about tandem seating
and sticks and
dangers of simultaneous pressures on dual controls/CRM
brief before takeoff.

This is a bit of a training gap, in my opinion...



Stefan

Mark J. Boyd

Just to add to what Bill has said, the really low launch
failure 100 is one of the minor problem areas. If
the launch is flown correctly it can be quite safely
handled. The good point is, as Bill has pointed out
that there is a large amount of airfield still in front
of you. The bad news is that by the time the nose has
been lowered the airspeed may be below the minimum
allowed for the deployment of airbrakes. It may not
be possible to lower the nose any further to increase
the speed because of the proximity to the ground and
therefore a touchdown has to be achieved without using
airbrake. Patience is required as most modern gliders
float a long way even at 50 kts in ground effect. (Grob
103 will travel the length of the 10000ft runway at
Marham from 20ft/60kts) Simulating a launch failure
at this height is not recomended as there is a real
danger that the drogue will inflate as the winch driver
cuts the power and drape itself over the cockpit. The
good news is that such breaks are rare as the strain
on the cable is reducing before increasing again. The
procedure can be simulated by carrying out a faster
than normal approach, pulling up and closing the airbrakes
and then recovering from that situation which puts
the glider in the same situation as a low break but
without the cable in the way.


At 04:30 28 June 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

'Kilo Charlie' wrote in message
news:9D3we.3579$Qo.3471@fed1read01...
Your input re winch launches is appreciated Bill....esp
for those of us
that
have never done one!

Please don't take this as a criticism of winch launches
but through this
thread there has not been any mention of what happens
at the critical low
level altitude when the cable breaks. There is clearly
also a zone of
real
problems with aerotows too.....esp here in the desert
with few, if any
landing options straight ahead. What do you guys
teach re breaks at 100
feet? It seems like landing ahead would be good but
how much altitude
does
it take to regain the necessary speed to be able to
control the glider for
landing when at a high angle of attack? Sorry if
this is too obvious for
those of you that do it all the time!

Casey


Thanks, Casey.

The climb profile must be such that a safe recovery
with generous margins be
possible from any height that a cable break occurs.
Safety is the product
of airspeed, altitude and attitude - and good training.

If the break happens at 100 feet, then 90%+ of the
runway lies ahead to
receive the glider. At 100 feet, the glider will have
full climb airspeed,
approx. 60 knots, but then pitch attitude will only
be 20 - 30 degrees. A
prompt, gentle pushover to a glide at approach airspeed
is all that is
needed to land straight ahead.

If the break occurs higher, say 300 - 400 feet, then
the straight ahead
landing is still possible with spoilers but a tight
360 pattern is also
possible. The two options overlap by a good amount
of height depending on
the airfield. At this height, the climb attitude will
be about 45 degrees
nose up (although from the cockpit it will feel like
60 degrees) so a more
aggressive pushover is needed.

All these situations will be practiced over and over
until the instructor
feels the student reacts instinctively and correctly
to each. The student
must firmly push the nose down until the airspeed is
observed to be at a
safe value and increasing before establishing a glide
for a straight ahead
landing or a turn for an abbreviated pattern.

I must admit that winch launch LOOKS scary and FEELS
scary to the
uninitiated but the procedures worked out over literally
tens of millions of
launches in Europe and elsewhere make it actually safer
than air tow.

As for releasing over the winch instead of wherever
the tow plane takes you,
I see by looking at a lot of On-Line Contest IGC files,
that most air tow
releases happen within a mile of the takeoff point
and the glider is rarely
in a thermal at release but must glide around looking
for one just like with
a winch launch. If you don't find a thermal, a winch
re-light will cost you
less than $10.

The latest European winches are getting even heavy
gliders to over 1000
meters AGL so finding lift shouldn't be a problem.

Bill Daniels

Hi,

Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
until the student performs them instinctively.

Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.

We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
these altitudes and actions out loud.

Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.

Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal speed
and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan as to
what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not heard
of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.

Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney
Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest
sweeping majestically across the prairie!" Basil Fawlty

Marian Aldenhövel writes
We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
these altitudes and actions out loud.

Here in the UK, the last part of our pre-flight check-list is
"Eventualities", the main part of which is planning in advance what to
do in the event of a launch failure. This includes deciding on the
approach speed, and what you are going to do if you can't land ahead,
such as turning downwind, for example, in which case you confirm which
direction such a turn would be in.

It specifically doesn't mention altitude, however (disclaimer: at least
not the way I've been taught!).

The drill if the cable breaks is to put the nose down and hold it down
until you reach the pre-decided speed and assess whether or not you can
land ahead. This specifically isn't done in reference to the altimeter
but visually by how the field looks in front of you, and the preference
is always to land ahead if at all possible. I understand most accidents
from the winch happen after the actual failure, subsequent to the
decision not to land ahead and instead turn.

Though I'm quite compulsive in monitoring my height as I climb during
the launch so always know how high the aircraft //thinks// it is if
there is a failure, the only role the altimeter plays for me after a
cable break will be after I've already established the attitude of the
aircraft to gain flying speed and decided what I'm going to do, at which
point I might back up the decision with a glance at the dial.

I'm fortunate in that the field I fly from is of a size where,
generally, if you can't land ahead you have ample height to turn
downwind and fly an abbreviated circuit. Of course, it doesn't change
the fact that I may not always have this luxury if I fly from elsewhere.

Like you, I approach every winch launch with the expectation it will
fail, and on the occasion that it has have recovered quite
instinctively. That said, on each occasion (whether practised or real),
there has always been the comfort of the drill playing over the rush of
adrenaline in my head, " hold the nose down", "check the speed", "clear
the cable", "land ahead?", "check the speed" even as "instinct" flew the
recovery. I'm of the opinion that instinct alone leads very easily to
complacency, and I suspect that this is the real killer in these
situations.

Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at
altitude.

I remember when first being taught the recovery, the initial
demonstration was at altitude, which was useful, but it was then
followed up with the instructor pulling the release and demonstrating
for real, from about 100' as I recall.

After that, you could guarantee that if you missed the "Eventualities"
out of your pre-flight checks, the instructor would use that as an
object lesson and pull the release on you, and it was then practised
intermittently at various heights and in various versions in the same
way throughout the rest of your training whenever a mischievous
instructor felt like a change

It was also one of the last things emphasised and re-practiced (always
with the instructor pulling the release on the launch, typically without
warning) before you were sent solo - actually, it was the emphasis on
this and noticing my instructor making discrete requests of the ground
crew to go find ballast that led me to guessing what it was he had up
his sleeve when that time came!

Cable-break practice also features heavily in our various check-flights,
especially, I've noticed if we happen to be operating that day from the
shorter cross-runway, where the "land ahead" options are some what
brutally curtailed in comparison to our normal luxury of space!

Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal speed
and then attitude the natural thing to do.

The BGA's apparent emphasis on safe winch launch operation is such that
it featured so heavily in my training that even though I still get a
twinge of apprehensive adrenaline when sat attached to the cable
contemplating the launch ahead, I do feel very safe and prepared to deal
with any thing that might go wrong on the launch, backed up by the fact
that on a couple of occasions I've since had cause to prove I myself
able to do just that since going solo.

On the other hand, the idea of a badly timed cable break on aerotow
terrifies me! Then again, I have about 170 wire launches to my name now
compared to just two aerotows



--
Bill Gribble
http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk
- Learn from the mistakes of others.
- You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself.

M B wrote:

At 21:42 22 June 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

In my experience, I have seen and been a part of confusion
in
the cockpit. One pilot is saying one thing and the
other is
contradicting it. I've also had both pilots on the
controls at the same time, with opposite pressures
applied.

I'm more and more, well, surprized, what you have been
experiencing
while flying. I've never seen, even less been part
of such a thing.

Quite common in US accident reports, especially among
very experienced pilots. Airline black box transcripts
almost always
show there was some CRM problem that contributed to
a difficulty. I've seen CRM miscommunications result
in less-than-perfect results several times with others,
too.
Most commonly I've seen it when instructors initiate
emergency procedures as a 'surprise.' Gear-up landing,
and a
landout when too far from the end of the runway on
a
'rope break' procedure where the student was too slow
reacting.

As pilots become more skilled, the reasons for accidents
seem to shift from pure stick skill issues to
other things, particularly CRM. I would guess that
if there
was a black box in every two-seat glider accident,
some CRM problem would be listed as contributing.

Communicate before the flight, define the roles and
adhere to it. Who
will do what? Who will fly in an emergency? Communicate
during the
flight, and do so clearly.

Excellent, excellent advice. Something I think that
is not
done formally very often in some places...


And, you may ask, if the other pilot is doing something
I don't like?
Well, if I don't trust the other pilot, I won't fly
with him. If he
doesn't trust me, I don't want him to fly with me.
Simple as that, very
basic CRM stuff. (It needn't be offensive when I say
I don't like his
way of flying, because I'm not implying that he's a
bad pilot, I'm just
saying our styles are incompatible.)

The trouble is: you have to fly with him once to find
out.
Hopefully it is a benign flight...


I'm surprized that, as it seems, you can become an
instructor in the USA
without knowing such basic stuff.

You're not supposed to be able to. CRM is an emphasis

area for all practical tests for all pilot ratings
in the USA.

However, there are something like 14 'emphasis areas'
so
it ends up getting buried, and trivially tested.

And despite the test standards being very specific
in the
'you have the controls' phrase for exchanging controls,

I've had examiners say 'I've got the airplane' and
have
students say other arcane phrases, and sometimes just
release all of the controls completely in a challenging
situation,
with no words at all!

So now I rehearse the 'you have the controls' stuff

for the first flight with everyone, even other instructors!
It seems funny (they should know that, right?) but
I haven't had problems since.

When I learned in the UK, the practice was

Statement: "You have control"
Response: "I have control"

or

Statement: "I have control" (usually instructor)
Response: "You have control"

It's clear and there is no confusion. Why add a fourth word? Since
presumably if you have the controls, you also have control of the aircraft.
Personally I think it should be the standard between instructor and student
and between pilots flying dual. When I fly dual with another pilot or with
a passenger that might get the stick for a while, I brief this during
pre-flight checks and reiterate it before changing control.

At my club we do something similar with winch launch radio signals during
the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.

"Up slack, up slack, up slack"
"Go, go, go"
"Stop, stop, stop"

I have known of an instructor and tow pilot flying together where no one was
in control and the glider exceeded VNe slightly in a dive and was recovered
gently once the situation was realized. It could have ended otherwise.

Frank

At 14:36 27 June 2005, wrote:
I missed your last paragraph. As I noted to Andreas,
it's all a matter
of what you are used to. A 200 foot rope break in
the absence of
strong winds or turbulence is completely benign, at
least for me,
having done hundreds of them.

What I'm finding interesting is the need to make fairly
dramatic
motions of the controls as part of a cable break recovery.
So again,
I'll flirt with the term aerobatic, not as a maneveur
designed to
thrill and excite and audience or a passenger, but
as a way to
differentiate use of the controls given these circumstances.

Even if you fail to observe the moment the rope breaks
on aerotow, and
only become aware of it as you fail to maintain position
behind the tow
plane, use of the controls is not nearly so dramatic
as post cable
break. Nor, apparently, quite as critical. Though
I think we can both
agree that they each represent real emergencies demanding
preplanned
action.


Under no stretch of the imagination can a winch launch
be considered aerobatic. I don't consider that you
need to make any dramatic movements of the controls
to cope with a cable break, you just need to react
promptly by lowering the nose to the approach attitude
and waiting until the approach speed/normal flying
speed is attained before turning. There is nothing
dramatic about the movement of the stick. I find it
hard to believe (I don't believe it) that you were
not warned about turning before attaining the approach
speed. There is nothing complicated about winch launching,
it's not rocket science, you just need more experience
of it.

Marian Aldenhövel wrote:

Hi,

Training for wire breaks starts at a high altitude in free flight. The
zooms, simulated break at 60 knots and pushover are repeated many times
until the student performs them instinctively.

Interestingly we don't do it like this where I am learning to fly.

We are taught to plan every launch as featuring a wire break and to
preplan up to what altitudes to land straight, turn back or fly the
pattern as part of the takeoff-check. During training we are to say
these altitudes and actions out loud.

Before soloing we do a minimum of three excercises where the instructor
pulls the knob at some point during the launch. So it's the real thing,
nothing "emergency-like" there. We do not train wire-breaks at altitude.

Still I feel very safe. And I also found pushing over, gaining normal
speed and then attitude the natural thing to do. It helps to have a plan
as to what to do next but up to there it really is instinct. I have not
heard of any of my fellow-students _not_ reacting that way.

Ciao, MM
I was first introduced to the push-over at altitude while being checked out
for winch launch at RAF Bicester. It's a useful exercise for experiencing
the amount of push over required and to see the amount of dirt and dust
that might float up from the floor. It can be alarming the first time and
ignored subsequently.

Frank

At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:

At my club we do something similar with winch launch
radio signals during
the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.

'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
'Go, go, go'
'Stop, stop, stop'

Forgive me but this must sound like Yogi Bear conducting
the launch ! In the U.K. we have the following system
to help avoid confusion of a mishear

Take up slack ( Three words )
All Out ( Two words )
Stop ( One word )

At 14:24 28 June 2005, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
When I learned in the UK, the practice was

Statement: 'You have control'
Response: 'I have control'

or

Statement: 'I have control' (usually instructor)
Response: 'You have control'

It's clear and there is no confusion. Why add a fourth
word? Since
presumably if you have the controls, you also have
control of the aircraft.
Personally I think it should be the standard between
instructor and student
and between pilots flying dual. When I fly dual with
another pilot or with
a passenger that might get the stick for a while, I
brief this during
pre-flight checks and reiterate it before changing
control.

At my club we do something similar with winch launch
radio signals during
the launch process. Nothing else is accepted.

'Up slack, up slack, up slack'
'Go, go, go'
'Stop, stop, stop'

I have known of an instructor and tow pilot flying
together where no one was
in control and the glider exceeded VNe slightly in
a dive and was recovered
gently once the situation was realized. It could have
ended otherwise.

Frank

For winch launching in particular I've always favoured.
'Take up Slack,Take up Slack'
'All Out, All Out, All Out'
'Stop, Stop Stop'
It produces three different rythms and makes the three
phrases distinct even when readability is 1. Everybody
gets hot under the collar if you mistake 'stop stop
stop' for 'go go go' with 230hp of diesel screaming
in your ear.
Given the choice I'd go for the BGA 'lights' system
over radio control every time.