Fatal crash Arizona

On 5/25/2014 2:40 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:
Major snip...


I cannot argue against the above. From what I have read in this thread I
have gained the impression that in the event of a launch failure at 200 ft
or above the recommended procedure is to turn back to the runway. This is
completely different from what I have taught for 45 years. In the event of
any launch failure the question that should be asked is "Can I land ahead"
If the answer is "yes" then land ahead, height does not come into it at
all. If, and only if the answer is "No" or "Not sure" should another action
be considered and executed.

From my U.S.-centric, non-instructing perspective, perhaps this is one of
those nuanced differences between FAA-driven-instruction and BGA-driven
instruction?

What I think I remember of my instruction - and what I think I've seen ever
since then from observing others' instruction - was that "considering all
alternatives" before executing a reversing turn from nominally 200' agl in a
glider "is no big deal" and ought to be in the glider pilot's bag of tricks.
I've never thought the conceptual approach in any way fundamentally marginal
in a life-threatening (mine!) sense.

That's not to say the sensibility of the BGA approach wasn't - hadn't already
- been hammered home...as in I'd already internalized that Joe Glider-pilot's
Rule Number One is to never be beyond safe gliding distance to a safe landing
field. In my experience, the ONLY exception to Rule No. 1 has been those
(mostly western U.S.) fields where there may be a short time window when the
"reach a safe field" option simply doesn't exist for whatever reason(s).
That's when "fly the plane into/through the arrival" becomes more than a
mental concept.

In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead.

This certainly has been my training/recurrency experience(s)..."merely
goes-without-saying common-sense" IMO. I might be wrong in this surmise -
chime in instructors - but I doubt even our FAA has felt it necessary to
provide instructional guidelines "to this degree of obviousness."

I would and do simulate launch failures at 300ft
and above if there is no room to land ahead and allow students to practice
this, turning back as necessary. The reason is simple, while a pilot may be
faced with having to turn back at 200 ft the risks in doing so are not
justified in training, in the same way that we do not practice very low
winch launch failures, just after liftoff, or practice groundloops to avoid
obstacles both of which are covered by briefings. We do set up the ultra
low level launch failure situation from a normal approach but we never
simulate it off the launch because of the dangers involved.

FWIW, my takeaway from decades of avid personal interest and absorbing every
flight crunch writeup available to me, is that the risk in these sorts of
situations is essentially U.S.-invisible when considering training
incidents/accidents. The crunches sticking in my mind have been those
involving single-pilots for the most part. I suppose an argument can be made
about the longer-term efficacy and mental retention of training, if my
memories are valid, but not so much from a training perspective. In any event,
I don't think MY personal risk was increased from this aspect of my training.

There will always be circumstances where the "normal" procedure is not
possible but we do stress that the important part of the outcome is that
the pilot has the best chance of survival, an undamaged glider is not a
priority in these circumstances.


I 100% agree!!!

Respectfully,
Bob W.

On Thursday, May 8, 2014 5:55:27 PM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 6:39:06 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:



The other issue is that a tow rope break requires immediate lowering of the nose.



Why would anyone lower the nose? The glider is presumably at aero tow speed - 65 - 70 knots which is way above the pattern speed. A better plan is to use the excess airspeed to maintain height while turning until airspeed drops to pattern speed.





This is done routinely at altitude, but at low altitude this means pointing the glider's nose uncomfortably down at the ground while executing a steep banked turn. If the ground is rising, as it is at Sampley, the picture seen by the pilot is even more disturbing. All that it takes is a momentary hesitation in this reflex and the outcome can be fatal.



The nose is not "uncomfortably down". The turn back is a normal turn.







As an aside, I once did a wind mill start in my DG400 below 1000' (over a runway). This maneuver requires achieving in excess of 90 kt airspeed. Because the engine & prop act like dive brakes, you feel like you are standing on your rudder pedals when you do this close to the ground. I got to this airspeed and the prop still didn't rotate. This meant that I had to steepen the descent even more. All of my instincts said no, but my brain said yes, which is what I did. The engine started, but I decided that this maneuver really needs to be started at a higher altitude.



Aha! You're really a motor glider pilot, not an aero tow pilot which explains your misconceptions.

PLEASE stop with the sanctimonious crap! I have done hundreds of aerotows. You need to lower the nose because you are in a climb attitude and need to transition to a glide attitude. On your next tow note where the horizon is on the canopy and compare it to where it is after release at the same airspeed.

Tom

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:09:22 PM UTC+12, 2G wrote:
PLEASE stop with the sanctimonious crap! I have done hundreds of aerotows.. You need to lower the nose because you are in a climb attitude and need to transition to a glide attitude. On your next tow note where the horizon is on the canopy and compare it to where it is after release at the same airspeed.

While the nose ends up lower, you don't lower the nose. The decrease in airspeed does that for you, and the movement of the stick is rearward, to prevent the nose falling through into a dive and again attaining the aerotow airspeed.

Whether or not positive action is required to maintain airspeed
depends on the trim; this will be different for nose and belly hooks. A
belly hook on some ( older ) gliders requires
nose down trim to balance the rope force.
JMF


At 11:31 15 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:09:22 PM UTC+12, 2G wrote:
PLEASE stop with the sanctimonious crap! I have done hundreds of
aerotows=
.. You need to lower the nose because you are in a climb attitude and
need
t=
o transition to a glide attitude. On your next tow note where the horizon
i=
s on the canopy and compare it to where it is after release at the same
air=
speed.

While the nose ends up lower, you don't lower the nose. The decrease in
air=
speed does that for you, and the movement of the stick is rearward, to
prev=
ent the nose falling through into a dive and again attaining the aerotow
ai=
rspeed.

On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:21:16 AM UTC+12, firsys wrote:
Whether or not positive action is required to maintain airspeed
depends on the trim; this will be different for nose and belly hooks. A
belly hook on some ( older ) gliders requires
nose down trim to balance the rope force.

Yes, I have 60 or 70 hours PIC from aerotow (and a few flights on a winch) in an original model Janus, with only a belly hook. To be honest the only time it is really noticeable on aerotow is if you have slack rope and it comes tight with a jerk. It pays to be ready with forward stick, or even anticipate it.

But in any case, the removal of that nose-up force at tow release makes it even more certain that you'll be moving the stick rearwards after release.

That model is far more of a handfull on the winch, as the hook is really too far forward for good winching. It takes a lot of up elevator to keep the climb steep enough. The all moving tailplane means that it's easily possible to over do it and stall the elevator. And if you get a premature release then you're sitting there nose up with the stick most of the way back. *Definitely* need a positive check forward to neutral stick in that situation!

At 11:31 15 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:09:22 PM UTC+12, 2G wrote:
PLEASE stop with the sanctimonious crap! I have done hundreds of
aerotows=
.. You need to lower the nose because you are in a climb attitude and
need
t=
o transition to a glide attitude. On your next tow note where the horizon
i=
s on the canopy and compare it to where it is after release at the same
air=
speed.

While the nose ends up lower, you don't lower the nose. The decrease in
air=
speed does that for you, and the movement of the stick is rearward, to
prev=
ent the nose falling through into a dive and again attaining the aerotow
ai=
rspeed.

The expression you are looking for is "select the approach attitude". That
should be the case after ALL launch failures. With the correct attitude
selected the speed will eventually decay or increase to the correct value.
By selecting the approach attitude you will ensure that the speed is less
likely to reduce below the desired value in any turn. Of course if the
failure occurs at height it may be that normal glide attitude is more
appropriate and this can be selected at the appropriate time but the
initial selection should always be approach attitude.
KISS

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:40:01 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:

Major snip...



..."Will pilots of ALL skill

levels and currency be best served by a simple or complicated

procedure?"

"Is creating a mindset that turning down adopted offer the best chance

of

survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"





I could be wrong, but sometimes I sense a tendency to "reductio ad

absurdum"

on the part of some folks - to convince others of their point of view? I

dunno...but as a non-instructor, glider-only pilot, I managed to

mostly-weekend-acquire ~2600 hours without ever contacting the ground

"out

of

control," to also safely and sans alarums demonstrate the proper

response(s)

to simulated low-altitude, departure-end rope breaks, and I WAS surprised

when

my ab-initio instructor (initially, verbally) introduced the concept of a



not-that-flight-pre-announced low-altitude rope break as a possibility

for

my

imminent future...and then who "immediately asked all the expected 'silly



questions'" of my instructor. That noted, nowhere along the line did I

ever



get it into my head things like: 200' agl is an absolute go/no-go

turnaround

altitude; or a downwind landing on the departure runway is ALWAYS to be

preferred; or that no judgment was required to safely and effectively

respond

to a low-altitude rope break; or that it was "simple" (or, "complicated"

for

that matter) to pilot my way through the post PTT attempt.



What I DID get into my head - and I can't remember if I did this entirely

on

my own (out of fearful respect for the fragility of my "somewhat resilient



pink body") or through some combination of instruction, reading,

cogitation,

etc. - was that it mattered VERY MUCH that I do certain things as PIC

"correctly" - for under certain (thin margin) circumstances I would not

get

a

second chance.



As many of my math instructors loved to say, It was "immediately obvious

to



the most casual observer" that a low-altitude rope break was a thin margin



event, and it was up to me to "handle it right" - or else my frail pink

bod



would be at higher risk than it needed to be.



IMHO, anyone who gets caught up in defending a stance I'd characterize as

"do

it this way or you're wrong," when "this way" is procedurally based to the



discussional exclusion of maintaining solid flight control is missing the



point to a certain extent, and - yes - I understand the nature of

instruction

and the need to instruct using "building blocks of knowledge"...which is

the

way I've "forever" thought of "the magic 200 feet" concept. It's a great

place

to start. It isn't fundamentally dangerous (from a control of the glider

perspective). It's not fundamentally difficult to pilot as Joe PIC. It's

not

appropriate under all circumstances...while (in my view) "hitting the

ground

under control" IS appropriate under all circumstances. The question then

becomes, "What ground?" That's where more judgement enters the picture.



As others have noted, it's not at all uncommon in the intermountain

western



U.S. to aerotow launch from fields where accepting something other than a



downwind landing on the departure runway from 200' agl in the event of a

low-altitude rope break is (obviously, unarguably, inevitably, etc...)

"the



best/safest thing to do."



Being 100% first-person-ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the

tragic

crash sparking this (contains much food for thought) thread, several of my



operating conclusions a 1) we can never know for sure what was in the

deceased pilot's mind; 2) he likely hit the ground "in a non-flying

condition"; 3) 2) is further evidence for me to "not do that." Tying the

preceding into "the magic 200' agl PTT altitude" is easy enough for me in

that

if "in my judgment" I think 200' IS sufficient under the circumstances to



attempt a turn-around, then I'll do it; if not, then I'll do something

different...but whatever I do I'll work darned hard to ensure I maintain

control all the way to the ground. Duh???



Respectfully,

Bob W.



I cannot argue against the above. From what I have read in this thread I

have gained the impression that in the event of a launch failure at 200 ft

or above the recommended procedure is to turn back to the runway. This is

completely different from what I have taught for 45 years. In the event of

any launch failure the question that should be asked is "Can I land ahead"

If the answer is "yes" then land ahead, height does not come into it at

all. If, and only if the answer is "No" or "Not sure" should another action

be considered and executed.

In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was

not room to land ahead. I would and do simulate launch failures at 300ft

and above if there is no room to land ahead and allow students to practice

this, turning back as necessary. The reason is simple, while a pilot may be

faced with having to turn back at 200 ft the risks in doing so are not

justified in training, in the same way that we do not practice very low

winch launch failures, just after liftoff, or practice groundloops to avoid

obstacles both of which are covered by briefings. We do set up the ultra

low level launch failure situation from a normal approach but we never

simulate it off the launch because of the dangers involved.

There will always be circumstances where the "normal" procedure is not

possible but we do stress that the important part of the outcome is that

the pilot has the best chance of survival, an undamged glider is not a

priority in these circumstances.

What you were taught relates to winch launch only. Different rules apply to aero tow. With aero tow at 200' AGL on departure it is almost never possible to land ahead on the runway. Either turn or land in whatever terrain is available off the end of the runway. In many aero tow only airfields, that terrain is not suitable for a safe landing.

On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:44:41 AM UTC-6, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 16:00 25 May 2014, Bob Whelan wrote:

On 5/24/2014 8:21 AM, John L Fleming wrote:

son_of_flubber;883103 Wrote:

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:-

Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn

back to the runway. -



My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.



Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I

wonder why he did that.



I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York

and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his

ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to

believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumulated 1000's

of

hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.

MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because

he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage

failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John



My condolences for the loss of your friend. I hadn't been in aviation but

two

or three years before personal aviation acquaintances and friends began

dying

in aviation-related accidents. All I could do was mourn their passing,

try

and

extract lessons for myself (if any), rationalize that they died doing

something they loved, and take some decision(s) for my own future.



Many glider pilots often roll their eyes at "the obviousness" of NTSB

probable

cause conclusions (e.g. pilot failed to maintain sufficient speed), but

one



thing I think NTSB investigators are quite adept at is establishing

control



connection continuity, particularly in the aftermath of low-speed

accidents

as

this (where wreckage is minimally disturbed from effects of the crash

itself),

so probably the best answer to your puzzlement can be expected to come

from



the final NTSB report on this crash.



Bob W.





Some years ago I witnessed a fatal spin-in following a launch failure. It

was a winch launch, the cable broke at about 150 feet agl. There was

plenty of room to land ahead on the airfield but the glider started a turn

to the left, flying obviously rather slowly. It completed about two thirds

of a 360 degree turn and then spun, went down into some trees a few yards

from the airfield boundary on ground about 20 feet lower than the airfield.

I was one of those that extracted the badly injured pilot from the

wreckage (he died in the ambulance before it left the airfield).



In the UK it is almost universal practice to set QFE not QNH on glider

altimeters (most gliding sites are less than 1,000 feet amsl), I noticed

that the altimeter in the wrecked glider was reading about plus 260 feet.

Later investigation showed that the millibar sub-scale setting was

consistent with the pressure on the previous day on which the glider had

flown. It seemed highly likely to me that the pilot had omitted to reset

the altimeter before take-off and, when the launch failed, saw over 400

feet on the altimeter and reacted to that.

It sounds like this pilot lacked even basic airmanship skills. Quibbling over altimeter settings and low turns is beside the point. The real question is why he was allowed to fly at all.

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:40:01 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
"we do not practice very low winch launch failures, just after liftoff"

That's one of several reasons why the UK has such a terrible safety record on winch launch. I watched a UK 'trained' instructor destroy a glider and put himself in the hospital from a real low failure because he didn't know what to do next. Lacking training, he simply continued the rotation into the climb until the glider stalled.

I insist on simulated low failures just after lift-off. Given a pilot with minimum airmanship skills, there is no danger whatsoever. It's exactly like flying a bungee launch.

"In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead."

Nor would I - on a winch launch. On aero tow, where rules are different, a 200' failure will be beyond the departure end of the runway where there is often no choice but to turn back. Pilots trained to do so have a better chance of survival.

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 12:09:22 AM UTC-6, 2G wrote:

PLEASE stop with the sanctimonious crap! I have done hundreds of aerotows.. You need to lower the nose because you are in a climb attitude and need to transition to a glide attitude. On your next tow note where the horizon is on the canopy and compare it to where it is after release at the same airspeed.
---------------------------
Raise, lower or leave the nose where it is - this is an energy management maneuver. The pilot is trying to make the most of the energy he has available when the rope breaks not follow some rote procedure.

If the glider remains at the climb attitude the airspeed will be trending down which is just fine for the moment since the tow airspeed is very likely to have been well above best L/D or even pattern speed. Until safe return to the runway is assured, stabilizing the airspeed at best L/D is the target. Once return is assured, the pilot may elect to accelerate to pattern speed.

The basic airmanship skill is monitoring airspeed trends while simultaneously maneuvering the glider for landing. Once stabilized at best L/D, if the airspeed is climbing, the nose is too low. If the airspeed is falling, it's too high.