Winch Signals

At 20:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C wrote:
It leaves the pilot free to
concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the
release
knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other
emergency.

Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.

And when did this "on the release" lark come in? I was always taught
"near, but not on" the release.

Ian

All the above settings should be done in the 'instruments' part of the
pre-flight check list.

If you have to pull off under high tension during the ground run, the
force to operate the release knob can be surprisingly high. If you are not
holding it quite tightly, it is possible for your hand to slip round a
round knob, as happened twice in the series of photos below:

http://www.flightbox.net/galleries/w...wingdrop_1.htm

These were taken on a rather cold spring day. The instructor was wearing
gloves made out a synthetic material and it took him three attempts to
pull off after the launch started to go wrong.

BTW, our CFI wanted to fit T-handle release knobs to all our K13s after
this incident, but found that without spending a small fortune for an
'approved modification' under EASA rules, this would have invalidated
their Certificates of Airworthiness! I never cease to be amazed by the
bureaucratic stupidity of this organisation, who recently tried to mandate
airspeed indicators for hot air balloons!

Derek Copeland

Thinking about this, for some strange reason the Norfolk Gliding Club at
Tibenham Airfield has acquired the nickname of the 'R.I.P. Gliding
Club'. So perhaps they winch launch dead or brain dead pilots on a
regular basis, in which case I apologise to Don!

Derek C

At 15:45 17 April 2009, Del C wrote:
I think it's an acronym for TIBenham Brain In Neutral. Tibenham
(Norfolk
Gliding Club) is one of the places where Don flies.

Derek C

At 15:30 17 April 2009, Nyal Williams wrote:
This is a world audience. What is TIBBIN?

At 11:15 17 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 08:45 17 April 2009, Tom Gardner wrote:
On Apr 16, 10:50=A0pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

I very much doubt it is "right" in all circumstances But that's
not
the point.

I think the evidence exists to show that neither system is unsafe and
that
the solution dictated (launch marshalls) did nothing to improve
matters.
I agree there was/is a problem with people releasing early enough when
there is a winch launch problem, and to a lesser extent aerotwow. I
suggest that the problem is not one of procedure but of training and
awareness. How often do we see a wing touch the ground and the launch
continue and become normal. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and goes
back
to what they are doing. The accident didn't happen, but if it had,
the
cause would be nothing to do with were the pilot happened to have his
hand, but with his possibly TIBBIN state. The introduction of launch
marshalls was never ever going to solve the real problem, in fact it
could
only make it worse, and we lost out again by circumventing a percieved
problem instead of tackling the real one.
The main objection to the launch marshall system is that it introduced
to
UK gliding one of the most dangerous practices known, that of
negative
consent. Something will happen as the result of third party action
unless
first party action is taken to stop it. One can only wonder at the
towering intellect and distilled wisdom that considered introducing
negative consent to a safety critical procedure. The statistics are
now
showing that we did not solve the original problem at all, just masked
it
and yet we fail to learn. There are no easy solutions, knee jerk
reactions
seldom work. To solve problems you first have to identify the problem,
then
find a solution that is not worse than the problem we already have. In
this
case the solution was in my view.
1. More effective education and instruction of the dangers of failing
to
make an early release. Ensuring that pilots were thinking about what
they
were doing. (Prior to the change the hand had to be near the release
when
not actually signalling, you had to think what you we doing, now you
don't, as long as your hand is on the release you are safe, Yeah
right!!!!!!!)
2. Moving the position of the release to ensure that it is close to
hand
and not hidden away in the dark recesses of the cockpit. (This was
mandated for tugs following the fatal tug accident at Aboyne)

Apart from the faulty processess in problem solving my main concern
remains, NEGATIVE CONSENT has no place in a launch procedure.

On 17 Apr, 22:00, Derek Copeland wrote:
At 20:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:

On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C *wrote:
It leaves the pilot free to
concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the
release
knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other
emergency.

Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.

All the above settings should be done in the 'instruments' part of the
pre-flight check list.

Should, yes. Wing tips shouldn't touch the ground, either.

Ian

A wing drop can occur because of gusts, especially in a cross wind, or
because the wing tip runner doesn't hold the wings level or lets go too
soon. They can also be caused by student pilots not using the ailerons
aggressively enough to keep the wings level during the ground run, as
happens in the following video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_VIfxOV8U

And yes, the instructor should have taken over or pulled off, but he was
very newly qualified at the time, and probably didn't realise how far
some inexperienced students can be behind the action.

Most gliders have to be balanced on a single mainwheel, so a wing drop
during the ground run is always possible and pilots must be prepared for
this. They certainly don't want to be fiddling with assorted bits of kit
or 'scratching their crotches' once they are hooked on to a winch or
aerotow!

Derek C


At 23:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:
On 17 Apr, 22:00, Derek Copeland wrote:
At 20:17 17 April 2009, The Real Doctor wrote:

On 17 Apr, 13:45, Del C =A0wrote:
It leaves the pilot free to
concentrate on flying the launch, and with his left hand on the
release
knob, ready to pull off in the event of a wing drop or other
emergency.

Or setting the altimeter to QNH, or retuning the radio, or selecting
the task on his GPS, or scratching his crotch. A hand out of sight to
the launch marshal does not mean a hand in the right place.

All the above settings should be done in the 'instruments' part of
the
pre-flight check list.

Should, yes. Wing tips shouldn't touch the ground, either.

Ian

On 18 Apr, 05:00, Derek Copeland wrote:
A wing drop can occur because of gusts, especially in a cross wind, or
because the wing tip runner doesn't hold the wings level or lets go too
soon.

I think a principal reason is wing runners who use force to keep the
wings level. No matter when they let go, the wing will drop. If the
wing wants to go down - before the launch starts - the runner should
let it do so until the pilot corrects with aileron. And the launch
marshal should not start the launch until s/he is satisfied that the
glider is balanced. Too many fail to do this, or don't even understand
the issue.

Most gliders have to be balanced on a single mainwheel, so a wing drop
during the ground run is always possible and pilots must be prepared for
this. They certainly don't want to be fiddling with assorted bits of kit
or 'scratching their crotches' once they are hooked on to a winch or
aerotow!

Couldn't agree more. Why don't we use a signalling system which shows
the launch signaller that the pilot is not doing these things, by
demonstrating a free hand?

Ian

TIBBIN - Thumb in bum, brain in neutral.

I have always been very unhappy with the concept of negative consent, the
requirement that a pilot has to take action to stop the launch proceeding
rather than giving the positive "take up slack" and "all out" signals
himself.
The current procedure, (launch marshal) was introduced to replace the
necessity for the pilot to raise the one finger for take up slack or two
for all out. This rather negates the idea that the hand could be fiddling
with anything I would have thought. In fact the current procedure lends
itself more to misuse as neither of the pilots hands can be seen under the
current procedure.
The problem, I would suggest, was one of pilots not being prepared rather
than their hands being in the "wrong" place. All the current procedure
does, with it's insistance on the hand being on the release, is to give
an assurance of safety by the action rather than the underlying decision
process that needs to take place. Addressing the process and reinforcing
pilot thinking was generally ignored in favour of a requirement for hand
placement.
Whatever the reasoning the statistics show that the incidents continue at
roughly the same rate and there is no disparity in rates between the
organisations using the original procedure and the launch marshall system.
Simply put the incident rates do not appear to have reduced in the BGA
compared with the Air Cadets, in fact I believe the contrary may be true.
We have in place a system which carries a risk, however small, of
launching an incapacitated pilot, and which has shown no benefit in
solving the perceived problem.
On a final note, pilots do not pull off in their gliders one hopes. They
operate the release or pull the release. I know the hand that is not
holding the control column is no longer visible, and I do not know Lasham
that well, but I find Dels description hard to give credence to.

At 21:00 17 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:



BTW, our CFI wanted to fit T-handle release knobs to all our K13s after
this incident, but found that without spending a small fortune for an
'approved modification' under EASA rules, this would have invalidated
their Certificates of Airworthiness! I never cease to be amazed by the
bureaucratic stupidity of this organisation, who recently tried to
mandate
airspeed indicators for hot air balloons!

Derek Copeland

This would have been a very valid solution and done more to address the
problem. The release knob in my ASW17, and all early ASWs was very small
and buried in the recesses of the cockpit where it was very difficult to
get to. It would tend to hide underneath my legs. My solution was a loop
of para cord secured to the release and around my wrist, with sufficient
slack to avoid accidental release, which ensured that I never had to
search for the release and, just as important allowed me to have my hand
on the flap lever where it was needed in the early stage of the launch.

On Apr 18, 8:00*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 21:00 17 April 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:





BTW, our CFI wanted to fit T-handle release knobs to all our K13s after
this incident, but found that without spending a small fortune for an
'approved modification' under EASA rules, this would have invalidated
their Certificates of Airworthiness! I never cease to be amazed by the
bureaucratic stupidity of this organisation, who recently tried to
mandate
airspeed indicators for hot air balloons!

Derek Copeland

This would have been a very valid solution and done more to address the
problem. The release knob in my ASW17, and all early ASWs was very small
and buried in the recesses of the cockpit where it was very difficult to
get to. It would tend to hide underneath my legs. My solution was a loop
of para cord secured to the release and around my wrist, with sufficient
slack to avoid accidental release, which ensured that I never had to
search for the release and, just as important allowed me to have my hand
on the flap lever where it was needed in the early stage of the launch.



My BGA senior inspector removed my device of similar reliability and
offered to swage a proper fitting. Seems that was unacceptable pre-
EASA.

I am not quite sure why the concept of hooking on only when you are ready
to launch constitutes 'negative consent'? If you subsequently see a
problem developing ahead, feel the need to fiddle with bit of kit, scratch
your crotch, or start to feel unwell, then pull off and call stop. I did
exactly that last weekend, when I noticed a motor glider starting its take
off run at the same time as as the Launch Point Controller (Marshal) was
signalling up slack for my winch launch. (To be fair to him, the pilot of
the motorglider had called some time before that he 'ready to depart',
but had delayed his actual departure for some reason. The LPC thought it
had already gone, and it was also taking off from a grass area that was
behind his back.) It doesn't remove all responsibility from the pilot.

You equally well argue that under Don's preferred system, you could be
accidentally launched if you raise one finger to pick your nose, and then
two fingers to tell the launch marshal what you think of him!

We have been teaching the BGA preferred system for quite a few years now.
That is, by accepting the cable to be hooked on you are ready to launch,
and that you will have your left hand on the release knob. If you have a
flapped glider, just set zero (or plus 1) flap for the take off run and
then reset them if necessary, once you are safely in the air. The rapid
acceleration on a winch launch should give you almost instant aileron
control, so a flapped glider in neutral flap should be no worse off than a
normal unflapped glider.

Under the old 'two finger' launching system, I often used to find that
student pilots went on signalling all the way up the launch, even though
there was nobody out there to see it at 1000ft (!), and then make a grab
for the canopy release knob, the airbrake lever, the flap lever or the
undercarriage lever when it was time to release. Obviously this would be
even more worrying if they had to pull off because a problem developed
during the ground run! I can't remember this happening since the
change.

Derek Copeland


At 01:15 19 April 2009, Don Johnstone wrote:
TIBBIN - Thumb in bum, brain in neutral.

I have always been very unhappy with the concept of negative consent,
the
requirement that a pilot has to take action to stop the launch
proceeding
rather than giving the positive "take up slack" and "all out"
signals
himself.
The current procedure, (launch marshal) was introduced to replace the
necessity for the pilot to raise the one finger for take up slack or two
for all out. This rather negates the idea that the hand could be
fiddling
with anything I would have thought. In fact the current procedure lends
itself more to misuse as neither of the pilots hands can be seen under
the
current procedure.
The problem, I would suggest, was one of pilots not being prepared
rather
than their hands being in the "wrong" place. All the current procedure
does, with it's insistance on the hand being on the release, is to give
an assurance of safety by the action rather than the underlying decision
process that needs to take place. Addressing the process and reinforcing
pilot thinking was generally ignored in favour of a requirement for hand
placement.
Whatever the reasoning the statistics show that the incidents continue
at
roughly the same rate and there is no disparity in rates between the
organisations using the original procedure and the launch marshall
system.
Simply put the incident rates do not appear to have reduced in the BGA
compared with the Air Cadets, in fact I believe the contrary may be
true.
We have in place a system which carries a risk, however small, of
launching an incapacitated pilot, and which has shown no benefit in
solving the perceived problem.
On a final note, pilots do not pull off in their gliders one hopes. They
operate the release or pull the release. I know the hand that is not
holding the control column is no longer visible, and I do not know
Lasham
that well, but I find Dels description hard to give credence to.