Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

I could not agree with you more. The only change I would make in your
comments would be to put the words "STUPID, MORONIC," in front of your
statement "dumbass high parasitic drag approach".

Any one of us can make a mistake when flying and that is just the
nature of being human. It sometimes happens. But to rationalize the
event as this article has done is beyond belief. The only thing I can
think of that is worse is that the SSA published the article.

I have spent more than enough time over the last several weeks
explaining this article to my students. More than one has asked about
the "high parasitic drag approach" and mentioned that I never taught
that to them. My answer is the same each time. "No I have not taught
this to you and I never will. It is NOT the way to land a sailplane.
Period." (Unless, of course, you want to fly through a 6,000 ft
runway and crash on the far end of it. Or, on the other hand, maybe
this method of "approach" had nothing to do with the crash and should
not have even been mentioned in the article. Even if the latter is the
case this approach method, in my opinion, is not an acceptable method
for landing a sailplane and should not be used nor "taught".)

Frank Reid


MS wrote:
Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

Clearly Jim Skydell is a sincere stand-up guy. It took a LOT of courage to
present his mea culpa in so public an arena. Just as clearly, he wants to
do his best to help others avoid his mistakes and, moreover, the thought
processes that led to them. I'm sure he would agree that his actions that
day were dumb. It strikes me from the responses here that he has
accomplished a great deal.

We are all human and therefore can make big mistakes. The take home lesson
is that we need to check and re-check our actions to avoid those big
mistakes

I think we all owe Jim a vote of thanks for his openness and his public
sacrafice made on our behalf..

Bill Daniels


wrote in message
ps.com...
I could not agree with you more. The only change I would make in your
comments would be to put the words "STUPID, MORONIC," in front of your
statement "dumbass high parasitic drag approach".

Any one of us can make a mistake when flying and that is just the
nature of being human. It sometimes happens. But to rationalize the
event as this article has done is beyond belief. The only thing I can
think of that is worse is that the SSA published the article.

I have spent more than enough time over the last several weeks
explaining this article to my students. More than one has asked about
the "high parasitic drag approach" and mentioned that I never taught
that to them. My answer is the same each time. "No I have not taught
this to you and I never will. It is NOT the way to land a sailplane.
Period." (Unless, of course, you want to fly through a 6,000 ft
runway and crash on the far end of it. Or, on the other hand, maybe
this method of "approach" had nothing to do with the crash and should
not have even been mentioned in the article. Even if the latter is the
case this approach method, in my opinion, is not an acceptable method
for landing a sailplane and should not be used nor "taught".)

Frank Reid


MS wrote:
Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
technique was the point of the article. Rather the
author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
any different then someone who cannot put their glider
together correctly? Do we run them off also?

Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.

"Stewart Kissel" wrote in
message ...
I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
technique was the point of the article. Rather the
author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
any different then someone who cannot put their glider
together correctly? Do we run them off also?

Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.


All who read last month's article must also read this month's article, "Five
Hundred Twenty-Five Extremely Dangerous Flights."

I'm still having trouble thinking this is a good article. How does the
title "Is Conservative Safe" have anything to do with the main cause of
the crash. That is, a distraction that caused the lose of situational
awareness resulting in the pilot raising the gear instead of opening
the spoilers. It makes no sense to me. Please help me understand.

Other questions that need answers a

1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed (65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1 to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold. Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

2. If ground effect has much influence at all then the concept of
using the "High Parasite Drag Approach to Landings" when one is high on
final is a complete and total joke as according to the article the high
speed is kept until the normal round out. That is, the excess speed
(energy) is to be dissipated at the worst possible time - in ground
effect.

3. The author states that he is "glad to have it (the high parasite
drag approach) in my repertoire of flight skills." This implies that
he still believes this technique used when one is high on final is
better or at least as good as the full spoiler, full slip, proper or
normal patttern speed adjusted for wind method taught by most
instructors. Is there anyone out there who thinks diving at the ground
at 85 to 90 knots and holding that speed until round out will result in
a shorter landing as opposed to using full spoilers, normal airspeed
and a full slip? If so please explain it to all of us.

Finally there is just too much rationalization for me. The story is
simple and there but for the grace of God go any one of us, certainly
me included. Mr Skydell just got caught and we did not. However it is
over written and clouds the facts. The story should be:

Title: The Other Day I flew like a Moron.

While attempting to land my sailplane the other day I got distracted
and totally lost my attention to what I was doing. I raised my gear
instead of opening my spoilers and flew through the runway and crashed
into a berm off the end of the runway.

Boy, wasn't that stupid of me.

Thank You

Option 2:

Title: The Berm That Ate My Plane. (Prompted by one of the responses)


While attempting to land my sailplane the other day I got distracted
and had a poor landing. I did make a couple of minor mistakes. Mainly
I raised my gear instead of opening my spoilers and could not land on
the intended 6000 ft paved runway. I flew off the end and hit a berm.
What idiot would build a berm off the end of the runway. If the berm
had not been there I would not have crashed as I am sure I could have
landed within the next 2 or 3 thousand feet.

I have retained an attorney and am taking legal action against the
bozos who built the berm.

Thank You

PS Note that many words can be substituted for berm such as fence,
tree, road, house etc. In today's "It can not be my fault society" the
berm builder would probably be at fault.

I close repeating this thought. The accident could have happened to
any one of us. Each of us is human and each of us has made many
mistakes in this life. I do not fault Mr. Skydell for his mistake nor
do I think less of him. I know Mr Skydell and find him to be extremely
intelligent. He just had a bad day flying. However, I do not like the
article as I find it an over rationalization of his mistake and I find
his recollection of what happened confusing at best.

I am no longer a member of SSA, so I have not seen the offending
article. One of my complaints with the direction of the society is the
lack of subject experts in editorial positions with the magazine. This
also effects the direction of the group when directors are able to
direct policy in training and standards. Eventually some bad idea will
kill someone.

What exactly is a "high parasitic drag approach?" A Grob 103 will
generate an impressive rate of descent and descent angle at 55-60 knots
and full spoilers. As will the much derided 2-33 at 50-55 mph with
spoilers and a full forward slip. Both of those conditions certainly
qualify in my opinion as high parasitic (or profile) drag.

A few years back I had a student in the Grob from a California Club.
His approach idea was to point the nose at his touchdown aim point and
modulate spoilers to maintain airspeed. After spending many of his fun
tickets, we got him soloed and past his PP exam. I only hope that the
law of primacy was broken in his case.

Bad ideas are worse than horror movie zombies.

DPE Estrella

Kempton Izuno also wrote recently an article for Soaring whereby he
found himself in a potentially catastrophic situation, without being
the subject of any personal attack as Jim Skydell was (including
impugning his qualification as a Director of SSA and commenting on his
wife "buying" him a new plane). The emphasis is on "personal". I guess
the difference was that Kempton came out intact, whereby Jim lost his
plane. A dialogue about the accident would have been more
constructive without the attacks against the author. Perhaps it is the
result of too much time spent in the sun under a plastic canopy, but I
did not read in the articles any attempt at passing responsibility to
his instructor. Skydell wrote about what was absolutely an admission
of a breakdown in his decision making in an out-of-the-ordinary
situation, hoping that his experience might open other pilot's eyes and
dissipate in us any latent complacency.

Anyone thinking of submitting an article for the magazine which could
be the least bit controversial should think twice, unless he / she has
a thick enough skin to withstand the firestorm to come. Yikes ! Of
course, the same people -- often anonymous -- who slammed the author
might also perhaps complain about the blandness and sameness of
articles in Soaring, and also possibly never make contributions of
their own to the magazine. Just a guess.

Cheers anyhow, Charles V.

Stewart Kissel a écrit:
I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
technique was the point of the article. Rather the
author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
any different then someone who cannot put their glider
together correctly? Do we run them off also?

Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.





I am French, and didnt read the article. However, I am a bit surprised
that noone questions the ergonomy of the glider controls, which allowed
the confusion between the controls for so long.
I remember that the first Pegases had very similar, (and very near)
handles for the airbrakes and for the gear. I've seen an experienced
pilot flying in ground effect over our whole runway (which is more than
4000ft long) with the gear wheel going frenetically up and down, and
finally crash landing in a grass field at the runway end (without being
hurt and with minor damage to the glider thanks to God).
After some similar incidents, the controls were changed for a big
rounded handle for the gear, keeping the slim square handle for the AB.
This has a standard feature of the airliners for years.

I have often wondered about what the author calls "high parasitic drag
approach".

Of course, it should never happen... but IF one found oneself very
high on final I have always thought the best strategy would be to pull
full airbrake, slip as much as possible and then dive as fast as
placarded limits allow. Drag increases with the square of speed, so
this should get you down with the steepest descent. In this scenario
you should bleed off speed to normal approach speed before getting into
ground effect.

I have discussed this with my instructor, and he thinks the steepest
way to get down is to use the normal approach speed. He knows more
that I do so I believe him... but I still wonder!!! (Especially as
the normal approach is close to the best L/D - albeit without
airbrakes).

The other approach would be to fly just above stall speed and "mush"
down. Perhaps this would be steeper still, but would be incredibly
dangerous.

My experience and thinking process are probably derived from
hang-gliding where there are no spoilers or flaps and you can't
consistantly slip. Increasing the speed on final is the recommended
way of steepening the approach, in fact it is the ONLY way. I'm not
sure why this experience would not translate to sailplanes.

BTW, personally I thought it was rather brave of the accident victim to
publish the article in soaring in the hope that others could learn from
his mistake, and at high risk of ridicule (which he has experienced).


MS wrote:
Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.