A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TOW PLANE Accident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old March 2nd 19, 03:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Whelan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 400
Default TOW PLANE Accident

I think you are right, more experience leads to complacencies
and you start doing things while your body gets on with the automatic
actions, just as you would in a car. I think it is a personal discipline
case where you follow the rule even though they feel a bit silly, like
using a mobile phone in the car. On 1 level you think you're quite capable
of doing the simple task like re -set the altimeter or radio, but in fact
if you do you're not really concentrating on the tow. On the other level you
know you were trained to leave everything until you finished the tow. Its a
discipline thing to stick to the rules.


Bingo.

It's that and more, IMO. *Arrogant* complacency ("Nothing could POSSibly go
wrong!") is a powerfully alluring combination when it comes to decision-making.

Add in 'simple thoughtlessness,' and some occasional compulsions to 'show
off,' and foolish behavior apparently becomes irresistible to many pilots.
It's a human-thing...but also entirely avoidable by active choice.

In this particular accident 'showing off' likely wasn't a factor, but that's
not my point here...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

  #42  
Old March 2nd 19, 05:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default TOW PLANE Accident

It doesn't matter whose eyesight and reflexes you might trust, Flub.Â* It
is the Pilot in Command's responsibility to conduct the flight in a safe
manner.Â* If there's a CFI in the aircraft and the other manipulator of
the controls is not a licensed pilot, then the CFI is the PIC and he's
responsible.Â* Plain and simple.

All that other stuff about complacency is right and I fully agree. I
remember during my Air Force days when I was told that a pilot is most
dangerous when he's got about 500 hours.

On 3/1/2019 9:42 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:

If we can't expect an instructor to keep his eyes on the tow plane AND when he realizes the towplane is no longer in his line of sight to release immediately, how can we expect a 15 year old on her 3rd solo to react properly?

Of the several 15 year old glider pilots that I have known, I would trust their eyesight, reflexes and training to, first of all avoid kiting, and if some freakish kite happened, I would wholly expect them to release immediately. Likewise, I would trust any of the newly minted 18 year old CPLs that I've known to give my brother a glider ride. Pilots with more experience have had time to become complacent and develop bad habits. Tabla rasa(s) not so much.




--
Dan, 5J
  #43  
Old March 2nd 19, 10:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
son_of_flubber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,550
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:21:57 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
If there's a CFI in the aircraft and the other manipulator of
the controls is not a licensed pilot, then the CFI is the PIC and he's
responsible.Â*


Yeah but, I was commenting on the trustworthiness of

"a 15 year old on her 3rd SOLO". Maybe I did not make myself clear.



  #44  
Old March 4th 19, 06:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
ProfJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Saturday, 2 March 2019 09:21:57 UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
It doesn't matter whose eyesight and reflexes you might trust, Flub.Â* It
is the Pilot in Command's responsibility to conduct the flight in a safe
manner.Â* If there's a CFI in the aircraft and the other manipulator of
the controls is not a licensed pilot, then the CFI is the PIC and he's
responsible.Â* Plain and simple.

All that other stuff about complacency is right and I fully agree. I
remember during my Air Force days when I was told that a pilot is most
dangerous when he's got about 500 hours.

On 3/1/2019 9:42 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:

If we can't expect an instructor to keep his eyes on the tow plane AND when he realizes the towplane is no longer in his line of sight to release immediately, how can we expect a 15 year old on her 3rd solo to react properly?

Of the several 15 year old glider pilots that I have known, I would trust their eyesight, reflexes and training to, first of all avoid kiting, and if some freakish kite happened, I would wholly expect them to release immediately. Likewise, I would trust any of the newly minted 18 year old CPLs that I've known to give my brother a glider ride. Pilots with more experience have had time to become complacent and develop bad habits. Tabla rasa(s) not so much.




--
Dan, 5J


I've done some professional work on measuring pilot responses in air accidents - including looking at cockpit and control systems data for fatal accidents where the instructor took control shortly before the crash. I am certain that the average CFI's delay in switching from close observation to action (taking control) is going to put them way behind the response of a trainee who is at solo level and actively flying the glider. It takes much longer than you might expect to make that cognitive switch (this is the same reason why semi-autonomous cars are going to keep crashing). This also gels with my one and only experience of kiting a towplane, when I was a trainee.. I had pulled the release before the instructor recognized there was a problem. This was compounded by the fact that from the back seat, with the glider and towplane bouncing up and down in strong thermals, he was used to the towplane being out of sight and could not judge its attitude. But yeah, the CFI has to carry the can no matter what. I have massive respect for the calm demeanor they bring to the job :-).
  #45  
Old March 5th 19, 02:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 12:50:38 PM UTC-5, ProfJ wrote:
On Saturday, 2 March 2019 09:21:57 UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
It doesn't matter whose eyesight and reflexes you might trust, Flub.Â* It
is the Pilot in Command's responsibility to conduct the flight in a safe
manner.Â* If there's a CFI in the aircraft and the other manipulator of
the controls is not a licensed pilot, then the CFI is the PIC and he's
responsible.Â* Plain and simple.

All that other stuff about complacency is right and I fully agree. I
remember during my Air Force days when I was told that a pilot is most
dangerous when he's got about 500 hours.

On 3/1/2019 9:42 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 8:50:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:

If we can't expect an instructor to keep his eyes on the tow plane AND when he realizes the towplane is no longer in his line of sight to release immediately, how can we expect a 15 year old on her 3rd solo to react properly?
Of the several 15 year old glider pilots that I have known, I would trust their eyesight, reflexes and training to, first of all avoid kiting, and if some freakish kite happened, I would wholly expect them to release immediately. Likewise, I would trust any of the newly minted 18 year old CPLs that I've known to give my brother a glider ride. Pilots with more experience have had time to become complacent and develop bad habits. Tabla rasa(s) not so much.




--
Dan, 5J


I've done some professional work on measuring pilot responses in air accidents - including looking at cockpit and control systems data for fatal accidents where the instructor took control shortly before the crash. I am certain that the average CFI's delay in switching from close observation to action (taking control) is going to put them way behind the response of a trainee who is at solo level and actively flying the glider. It takes much longer than you might expect to make that cognitive switch (this is the same reason why semi-autonomous cars are going to keep crashing). This also gels with my one and only experience of kiting a towplane, when I was a trainee. I had pulled the release before the instructor recognized there was a problem. This was compounded by the fact that from the back seat, with the glider and towplane bouncing up and down in strong thermals, he was used to the towplane being out of sight and could not judge its attitude. But yeah, the CFI has to carry the can no matter what. I have massive respect for the calm demeanor they bring to the job :-).


I have only a few hundred glider flights and perhaps 20 or so from the back seat but I don't recall ever losing sight of the tow plane while on tow regardless of the thermal activity. With 7000 tows as the tow pilot it is rare to not see the glider in the mirror unless one is doing something stupid, boxing the wake or some other training maneuver at altitude. No instructor in my opinion should be used to the towplane being out of sight.

Walt
  #46  
Old March 5th 19, 03:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 465
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 12:50:38 PM UTC-5, ProfJ wrote:

I've done some professional work on measuring pilot responses in air accidents - including looking at cockpit and control systems data for fatal accidents where the instructor took control shortly before the crash. I am certain that the average CFI's delay in switching from close observation to action (taking control) is going to put them way behind the response of a trainee who is at solo level and actively flying the glider. It takes much longer than you might expect to make that cognitive switch (this is the same reason why semi-autonomous cars are going to keep crashing). This also gels with my one and only experience of kiting a towplane, when I was a trainee. I had pulled the release before the instructor recognized there was a problem. This was compounded by the fact that from the back seat, with the glider and towplane bouncing up and down in strong thermals, he was used to the towplane being out of sight and could not judge its attitude. But yeah, the CFI has to carry the can no matter what. I have massive respect for the calm demeanor they bring to the job :-).


- Having the tow plane out of sight is totally unacceptable. In some gliders (a common low-performance training glider in the USA comes to mind :-) it can be hard to see the towplane (or the instruments) from the back seat over the shoulders of a tall student, but we use pillows or whatever it takes.

- I forget who was it that wrote that an instructional flight has green, yellow and red zones. One can let the student make gross errors in the green zone (at altitude). Need to maintain a safe path to a landing in the yellow zone (pattern). In the red zone (takeoff and landing) the instructor must be ready for instant takeover of the controls. One of the very few times when, as an instructor, I've grabbed the controls by force (before even saying anything), was when a student started climbing too high after liftoff.. Of course I explained it all to the student later.

- Moshe (trying to maintain that calm demeanor)
  #47  
Old March 8th 19, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul Kaye
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default TOW PLANE Accident

Many years ago the late Chris Rollins, while CFI at Booker GC in the UK, did some controlled testing of glider "kiting" behind tugs. He posted something about it on URAS he

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/Uz0Ga95XVCsJ

It makes interesting and sobering reading.
  #48  
Old March 8th 19, 04:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul Kaye
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Friday, 8 March 2019 15:26:18 UTC, Paul Kaye wrote:
Many years ago the late Chris Rollins, while CFI at Booker GC in the UK, did some controlled testing of glider "kiting" behind tugs. He posted something about it on URAS he

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/Uz0Ga95XVCsJ

It makes interesting and sobering reading.


Some excerpts:

"Third test: Terrier Tow-Plane, K 8b on C of G hook. I pitched the glider
about 25 degrees nose up. The glider continued to pitch up fairly rapidly
(as at the start of a winch launch) and substantial forward movement of the
stick only slightly slowed the rate of pitch. The glider achieved about 45
degrees nose up, speed increased rapidly from 55 knots to about 75 knots
and the glider was pulled back towards level flight (again as at the top of
a winch launch). I released at that point. The entire sequence of events
occupied a VERY short period of time (subsequently measured as 2 - 3
seconds). The Tow Pilot reported a marked deceleration and start of
pitching down which he attempted to contain by moving the stick back; this
was followed immediately by a very rapid pitch down accompanied by
significant negative “G”. The tow-plane finished up about 70 degrees
nose down and took about 400 feet to recover to level flight. We both
found the experience alarming, even undertaken deliberately at 4000 feet.
Our conclusion was that the combination of the initial pitch down and the
upward deflection of the elevator caused the horizontal stabilizer/elevator
combination to stall and the abrupt removal of the down-force it provided
caused the subsequent very rapid pitch-down and negative “G”. "

"These tests were repeated a few years later with a PA18 – 180 as the
tow-plane, Brian Spreckley flying it. The third test described above was
repeated and photographed from a chase plane using a 35 mm motor drive
camera on automatic (this took a frame every half second – video
camcorders of small size were not readily available then). The photo
sequence started with the glider in a slightly low normal tow position and
starting to pitch up, the second frame has the glider about 30 degrees nose
up and about 20 feet higher than previously in the third frame it is about
45 degrees nose up and has gained another 30 feet or so, the tow-plane is
already starting to pitch down, in the fourth frame the glider is about 100
feet higher than its original position and the climb is starting to
shallow, the tow-plane is about 50 degrees nose down, the final frame shows
the tow-plane about 70 degrees nose down and the glider almost back in
level flight , almost directly above it (that was about the point that I
pulled the release).

Sufficiently alarmed by events, Brian Spreckley had been trying to pull the
release in the tow-plane earlier and found that it would not operate until
my releasing at the glider end removed the tension from the rope.
Subsequent tests on the ground showed that the Schweizer hook fitted to the
tow-plane, whilst perfectly satisfactory under normal loads, was jammed
solid by the frictional loads when subject to a pull of around 700 lbs with
a slight upwards component – not something that a normal pre-flight check
would reveal. "

  #49  
Old March 8th 19, 07:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 463
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Kaye wrote:
On Friday, 8 March 2019 15:26:18 UTC, Paul Kaye wrote:
Many years ago the late Chris Rollins, while CFI at Booker GC in the UK, did some controlled testing of glider "kiting" behind tugs. He posted something about it on URAS he

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/Uz0Ga95XVCsJ

It makes interesting and sobering reading.


Some excerpts:

"Third test: Terrier Tow-Plane, K 8b on C of G hook. I pitched the glider
about 25 degrees nose up. The glider continued to pitch up fairly rapidly
(as at the start of a winch launch) and substantial forward movement of the
stick only slightly slowed the rate of pitch. The glider achieved about 45
degrees nose up, speed increased rapidly from 55 knots to about 75 knots
and the glider was pulled back towards level flight (again as at the top of
a winch launch). I released at that point. The entire sequence of events
occupied a VERY short period of time (subsequently measured as 2 - 3
seconds). The Tow Pilot reported a marked deceleration and start of
pitching down which he attempted to contain by moving the stick back; this
was followed immediately by a very rapid pitch down accompanied by
significant negative “G”. The tow-plane finished up about 70 degrees
nose down and took about 400 feet to recover to level flight. We both
found the experience alarming, even undertaken deliberately at 4000 feet.
Our conclusion was that the combination of the initial pitch down and the
upward deflection of the elevator caused the horizontal stabilizer/elevator
combination to stall and the abrupt removal of the down-force it provided
caused the subsequent very rapid pitch-down and negative “G”. "

"These tests were repeated a few years later with a PA18 – 180 as the
tow-plane, Brian Spreckley flying it. The third test described above was
repeated and photographed from a chase plane using a 35 mm motor drive
camera on automatic (this took a frame every half second – video
camcorders of small size were not readily available then). The photo
sequence started with the glider in a slightly low normal tow position and
starting to pitch up, the second frame has the glider about 30 degrees nose
up and about 20 feet higher than previously in the third frame it is about
45 degrees nose up and has gained another 30 feet or so, the tow-plane is
already starting to pitch down, in the fourth frame the glider is about 100
feet higher than its original position and the climb is starting to
shallow, the tow-plane is about 50 degrees nose down, the final frame shows
the tow-plane about 70 degrees nose down and the glider almost back in
level flight , almost directly above it (that was about the point that I
pulled the release).

Sufficiently alarmed by events, Brian Spreckley had been trying to pull the
release in the tow-plane earlier and found that it would not operate until
my releasing at the glider end removed the tension from the rope.
Subsequent tests on the ground showed that the Schweizer hook fitted to the
tow-plane, whilst perfectly satisfactory under normal loads, was jammed
solid by the frictional loads when subject to a pull of around 700 lbs with
a slight upwards component – not something that a normal pre-flight check
would reveal. "


Thanks Paul, very instructive. Makes me wonder why that Schweizer tow-hook is still legal and widely used.
  #50  
Old March 9th 19, 02:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default TOW PLANE Accident

On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 1:05:48 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 9:39:11 AM UTC-6, Paul Kaye wrote:
On Friday, 8 March 2019 15:26:18 UTC, Paul Kaye wrote:
Many years ago the late Chris Rollins, while CFI at Booker GC in the UK, did some controlled testing of glider "kiting" behind tugs. He posted something about it on URAS he

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!ms...g/Uz0Ga95XVCsJ

It makes interesting and sobering reading.


Some excerpts:

"Third test: Terrier Tow-Plane, K 8b on C of G hook. I pitched the glider
about 25 degrees nose up. The glider continued to pitch up fairly rapidly
(as at the start of a winch launch) and substantial forward movement of the
stick only slightly slowed the rate of pitch. The glider achieved about 45
degrees nose up, speed increased rapidly from 55 knots to about 75 knots
and the glider was pulled back towards level flight (again as at the top of
a winch launch). I released at that point. The entire sequence of events
occupied a VERY short period of time (subsequently measured as 2 - 3
seconds). The Tow Pilot reported a marked deceleration and start of
pitching down which he attempted to contain by moving the stick back; this
was followed immediately by a very rapid pitch down accompanied by
significant negative “G”. The tow-plane finished up about 70 degrees
nose down and took about 400 feet to recover to level flight. We both
found the experience alarming, even undertaken deliberately at 4000 feet.
Our conclusion was that the combination of the initial pitch down and the
upward deflection of the elevator caused the horizontal stabilizer/elevator
combination to stall and the abrupt removal of the down-force it provided
caused the subsequent very rapid pitch-down and negative “G”. "

"These tests were repeated a few years later with a PA18 – 180 as the
tow-plane, Brian Spreckley flying it. The third test described above was
repeated and photographed from a chase plane using a 35 mm motor drive
camera on automatic (this took a frame every half second – video
camcorders of small size were not readily available then). The photo
sequence started with the glider in a slightly low normal tow position and
starting to pitch up, the second frame has the glider about 30 degrees nose
up and about 20 feet higher than previously in the third frame it is about
45 degrees nose up and has gained another 30 feet or so, the tow-plane is
already starting to pitch down, in the fourth frame the glider is about 100
feet higher than its original position and the climb is starting to
shallow, the tow-plane is about 50 degrees nose down, the final frame shows
the tow-plane about 70 degrees nose down and the glider almost back in
level flight , almost directly above it (that was about the point that I
pulled the release).

Sufficiently alarmed by events, Brian Spreckley had been trying to pull the
release in the tow-plane earlier and found that it would not operate until
my releasing at the glider end removed the tension from the rope.
Subsequent tests on the ground showed that the Schweizer hook fitted to the
tow-plane, whilst perfectly satisfactory under normal loads, was jammed
solid by the frictional loads when subject to a pull of around 700 lbs with
a slight upwards component – not something that a normal pre-flight check
would reveal. "


Thanks Paul, very instructive. Makes me wonder why that Schweizer tow-hook is still legal and widely used.


I do not wonder why, I know why. It is largely a "we've always done it this way" attitude and a financial consideration. The cost of retrofitting a tow plane with a Tost system and a release handle up where the tow pilot can reach it in the seated, upright position WITH adequate mechanical advantage to effect a release is a few thousand dollars, not something some are willing to spend.

The FAA in their own Advisory Circular, date 3/3/08 AC No 43.13-2b, Page 76, Par 808 states as follows:

“When the glider under tow operates above a certain angle to the tow plane, the ring may slide upwards on the hook, causing excessive load on the hook and difficulty in releasing the tow rope ring.”

The Soaring Society of America thru their Soaring Safety Foundation, Tow Pilot Training course additionally acknowledges IN RED as follows:

“If at any time the nose of the tow plane is pulled to a dangerously high or low pitch attitude, - PULL THE RELEASE!”

It goes on to say:

“Depending on the installation of the tow hitch, it may be possible for the release mechanism to become jammed due to the excessively high position of the glider, (American style hook).”

What they mean by “depending on installation of the tow hitch,” is that if you install it upright instead of inverted it may be possible for the release mechanism to become jammed due to the excessively high position of the glider.

The SSA and the FAA are well aware of this situation and have been for many, many years and yet the system remains approved. I can assure you that not all kiting incidents are slowly developing situations. I've been there at just above 300 feet when in the blink of an eye you find yourself nose down before you could even think of releasing. The gentleman who died in this tow plane incident was probably 100 feet below the level at which mine started. In both cases our tow ropes broke, the glider pilot didn't release. I had barely enough room to recover, he did not.


Walt Connelly
Former tow pilot
7000 tows
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fatal glider/tow plane accident, France Sean F2 Soaring 44 May 22nd 12 07:11 PM
Tow plane / glider accident, Adrian MI? Sean Fidler Soaring 5 August 23rd 11 03:39 PM
F-35: Second test plane powers up, but first plane stays grounded Mike[_7_] Naval Aviation 1 October 29th 07 10:40 PM
Float Plane Accident Mike Schumann Piloting 8 October 31st 06 06:15 PM
Walmart heir dies in light plane accident Allen Piloting 1 June 30th 05 11:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.