48.4 hours !?

Ramy,

Look up the word "Satire".

Ramy.... cool down....I think he was being sarcastic....
;-)

At 21:30 22 April 2005, Ramy wrote:
Tom, You either completly missed the point or just
ignore it. Unless
you consider the pilot experience detailed in the NTSB
report as
speculation. This poor fellow just soloed 3 weeks ago
and was allowed
to take paid passengers for a ridge soaring ride for
god's sake. Don't
you see what's wrong with this picture? The purpose
of discussions like
this is to prevent similar things from hapenning again.
Waiting 1-2
years for official NTSB report which will most likely
be identical is a
waste of time. It will be old news by then. I rather
wait for the
accident report in Soaring magazine. But again, this
is not the point
of this discussion.

If anyone is to be condemned out of hand, it is an organization which
would hire someone to do this sort of work who had "48.4 hours".

It's worse than that. He had 48.4 hours logged the day before he was
killed. He had even less when he was hired!

Tony V.
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

ok, ok, I mixed Don and Tom so I took it seriously. But an emoticon
would have helped ;-)

Stefan,

A five year history (including this accident) of
only a single US non-pilot glider fatality suggests
non-pilot passengers are well protected by the status
quo.

This particular accident does nothing to contradict
this conclusion.

I also haven't seen any evidence that more or less
time makes a particular pilot safer, in itself. Of
27 US fatalities in five years, NONE were student pilots,
for example.

Over time, there will be some very experienced pilots,
and some inexperienced pilots killed in accidents.


Concluding that

the inexperienced ones died from inexperience and

the experienced ones died from overconfidence

seems a bit simplistic to me.

I personally think the insurance company method of
paying someone to report their involvement in an accident
, and then raising their premium, is a much more sophisticated
and effective way to improve safety.

At 10:00 22 April 2005, Stefan wrote:
M B wrote:

Do you think the government or the insurance company
does a better job of protecting the customer?

This was not the point. The point was that the whole
idea of a
commercial rating should be to protect the costomer.
A commercial rating
should be a certificate that I can trust somebody.
That's the idea.

That this is not achived by the ridiculous requirements
to get such a
rating (in the USA) was exactly my point.

Stefan

Mark J. Boyd

You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider...ach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.

2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
turn.

I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
requiring some
referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
the
ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
continue.

Different operator, same location
http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm

FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
limiting dive
to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
would be a
big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
Shoe-horning
them in was the order of the day.

Frank





BTIZ wrote:

based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
minimum experience.. lack of spin training...

I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
BT

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Ramy wrote:

As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
analyze
the cause for the accident.

One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
of
stints.
He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
have
20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
or lack
of
it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

About 15 years ago, Dody and I came across a commercial glider
operation in North Carolina. We decided to take a demo flight in their
2-32, and just to see how they treated their walk-ons, we didn't
mention that we both had over ten years of soaring experience at that
point, nor that I was an active CFI-G.

So we snuggled into the back seat (with no control stick) and took off
with a 20-something commercial (I assume) pilot up front. Take off and
flying were fine. As we got near pattern entry postition, our pilot
suddenly put us into a very steep dive, did a buzz job on the airport
and showed us his contest finish pull-up. We were not amused, to put it
mildly. I had no idea of this pilot's glider experience, but we told
the operation manager what had happened and made it clear he needed to
straighten things out. He seemed to get the message. I believe this
operation is no longer in existance.

Sitting in the back without a stick made this the only glider flight,
out of 2000, where I've seriously wondered if I was going to come out
of it alive. Never again.

Jack Wyman

Note that was a different operator.

However, given the amazing number of rides done there, few prior incidents.
IIRC, CAP bent a 2-33 some time back on auto tow(?). The G103 in the surf
and now this. Any others known to RAS regulars and lurkers? Not a bad
record actually. Be interesting to know if there was some lapse.

Frank

wrote:

You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider...ach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.

2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
turn.

I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
requiring some
referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
the
ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
continue.

Different operator, same location
http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm

FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
limiting dive
to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
would be a
big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
Shoe-horning
them in was the order of the day.

Frank





BTIZ wrote:

based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
minimum experience.. lack of spin training...

I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
BT

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Ramy wrote:

As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
analyze
the cause for the accident.

One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
of
stints.
He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
have
20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
or lack
of
it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

correction

appears it was same operator that had the Grob on the beach. sorry for any
confusion

Frank

F.L. Whiteley wrote:

Note that was a different operator.

However, given the amazing number of rides done there, few prior
incidents.
IIRC, CAP bent a 2-33 some time back on auto tow(?). The G103 in the surf
and now this. Any others known to RAS regulars and lurkers? Not a bad
record actually. Be interesting to know if there was some lapse.

Frank

wrote:

You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider...ach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.

2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
turn.

I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
requiring some
referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
the
ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
continue.

Different operator, same location
http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm

FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
limiting dive
to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
would be a
big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
Shoe-horning
them in was the order of the day.

Frank





BTIZ wrote:

based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
minimum experience.. lack of spin training...

I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
BT

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Ramy wrote:

As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
analyze
the cause for the accident.

One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
of
stints.
He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
have
20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
or lack
of
it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.

You gotta keep the tailplane on if your gonna use the elevator to push the
glider. Sheesh!

wrote in message
oups.com...
You gotta be kidding:

http://www.soarcsa.org/images/glider...ach%202-sm.jpg

hauling the fuse through the sand and bushes with the tailplane on and
the wings off? if that's how they run their operation a 48hr commercial
ride driver doesn't look so surprising any more ...

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
I don't disagree, but there are other possibilities.

2-32 gives zippo spin warning, it tends to flick over the top from a
tight
turn.

I thought the local operators were a bit more discriminating,
requiring some
referral. However, as I told my young friend, break one and drop in
the
ocean, the next week it would be old news there and the rides would
continue.

Different operator, same location
http://www.soarcsa.org/glider_on_the_beach.htm

FWIW one suggestion was the 'extreme return'. Vertical speed
limiting dive
to the numbers, rotate to landing. My young friend thought this
would be a
big seller. But parachutes would cut down on useful load.
Shoe-horning
them in was the order of the day.

Frank





BTIZ wrote:

based on a witness report.. that is now flying here...
minimum experience.. lack of spin training...

I'd go with the lack of Airmanship..
BT

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Ramy wrote:

As usual, the NTSB report is useless. Doesn't even attempt to
analyze
the cause for the accident.

One of my younger soaring friends hauled rides there for a couple
of
stints.
He clocked over 100 hours a month in 2-32's which we reckoned may
have
20,000 to 40,000 hours on them in all that salt air. Airmanship
or lack
of
it may have had nothing to do with this sad incident.