Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

Have you ever given any thought that there might be another method besides a
forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow minded about this. There
is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by the way, there is nothing
new about the high parasitic drag approach is just you obviously never heard
about it. This sure smells like something personal to me as well. (IT
actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike some others I dare
spell out my name)
"MS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

MS wrote:
The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

Just as a data point, I tried the high drag approach in an ASK-21
(probably what the author had also used) a couple days ago, and in this
ship it works great, and is not unstable:

We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
600' AGL. I pulled full spoilers and aimed for the airport fence,
about 500' short of the end of the pavement. Only managed to get
airspeed up to 75 or so knots before I had to level out at about 50'
AGL. Then I found myself very quickly slowing to 50 knots and short of
the runway over the grass overrun, so did close the spoilers until
crossing the pavement, then made a normal 1/2 spoiler touchdown. If I
were higher, the roundout from the dive would have occurred over the
runway, and so the only action would have been to level out, wait for
airspeed to drop, and complete a normal (almost) full spoiler landing.

So... I was too low to really have a need for this maneuver. A slip
with full spoilers would have been enough. But... In the ASK-21 and
quite likely any other sailplane with strong spoilers and a good habit
of losing speed in level flight with spoilers (my ASH-26E is not one of
these), this would be a useful way of losing altitude much faster than
spoileer and slip alone. Next time, I'll try if from a normal distance
turn to final, but at 1500' or so AGL.

-Tom

We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
600' AGL.

An almost 2:1 glide to the rwy is low?

Tony V

At 23:06 13 July 2006, Ms wrote:
I guess it's...
I often hear glider pilots....
I am an aviation safety counselor and....
I once had to counsel an ATP whot....
I wouldn't have the problem with th...
I see some of the same theme...
I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts...
We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL...
We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come...


Interestingly enough...although anonymous, Ms is not
afraid to use the first person for his diatribe.

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.

Marc Ramsey wrote:
jerome wrote:
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.

The gear handle on the DG-300/303 is short and squat, and is positioned
low on the left armrest. The spoiler handle is long and thin, and
extends upwards from just below the left canopy rail. Under normal
circumstances, it is pretty much impossible to confuse the two handles.
Under sufficiently abnormal circumstances, I doubt even putting the
handles on opposite sides of the cockpit would help...

Perhaps. But I'm very grateful that the gear and spoiler handles are on
opposite sides of the cockpit in my 304C. I have to take my hand off
the stick to lower/raise the gear, so that may be a good clue that
something is wrong.

Or not...

Jeremy

This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.

MS wrote:
Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could not fathom why
someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a perfectly functioning
sailplane...


MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with good fortune. One
of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation and flight testing
is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different form of
flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't making the grade. I
tried talking to him to try and make peace between the parties (I was
not the instructor nor the grading person). As I told him I care as a
friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane up in a ball,
he replied: "...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe." At that moment,
I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.

MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please identify
yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good luck.

Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and crews) aren't the
"cowboys" the movies make them out to be. The experienced ones have
seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation and equipment.
They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may one day find it
difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway, especially when you
consider your initial aim point was about halfway down that 6,000 feet.
I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He is a humble person,
and his service to soaring did not stop at being a pilot, director,
contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help others avoid
similar pain. You owe him much more than just an apology (a sincere
apology, with no strings, judgement or "attitude"). I would ride with
Jim any day of the week, month or year.

Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when we do a risky test
(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first stall, the maximum
speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we study the
information from all those accidents that preceded us, try to learn the
pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented an accident (or
fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well off the side of
the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting landing
testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway and found the
van... It's usually not one single thing, as they say.

Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every landing is an
emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not a cowboy...he
tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying with wind limits
less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring). And
wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it looks like good, and
what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review what to do when
something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing, the beginning of
flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable). So practice
more than one form of landing (including the high parasite
nibble/infestation approach).

One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the safest, kindest, most
knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege of working
with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident. It CAN happen to
ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across the U.S. were
feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him, it can happen to me.
And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying to change the
thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you, Jim.

But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: "Any pilot who doesn't
think he's the best in the business is in the wrong business." Which
would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.

DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud to fly in the same
skies as Skydell.

-Pete
#309

Well said 309, a person who believes he never makes
a mistake will never ever get to correct the mistakes
he makes. A person who openly admits he can make a
mistake is safe, he is always looking for ways to overcome
his fallibility. He also shows considerable courage
if he shares his mistake with others.

It is a shame that the majority of pilots outside the
USA will never get to read the article that started
this, sounds like there is a lesson that we could all
learn from it.

At 06:12 14 July 2006, 309 wrote:
This really sounds like a back handed apology to me.

MS wrote:
Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could
not fathom why
someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a
perfectly functioning
sailplane...


MS is obviously enormously skilled, and blessed with
good fortune. One
of the things I've learned in 26 years of aviation
and flight testing
is this: It CAN happen to me. For a completely different
form of
flying (power, taildragger), a fellow pilot wasn't
making the grade. I
tried talking to him to try and make peace between
the parties (I was
not the instructor nor the grading person). As I told
him I care as a
friend, and didn't want him hurt or wrapping an airplane
up in a ball,
he replied: '...I won't happen to me...I'm TOO safe.'
At that moment,
I knew I'd NEVER get in an airplane with him again.

MS, If I'm about to get in an airplane with you, please
identify
yourself, so I can avoid jinxing your run of good luck.

Contrary to popular belief, Flight Test Pilots (and
crews) aren't the
'cowboys' the movies make them out to be. The experienced
ones have
seen comrades die, despite excellent skill, preparation
and equipment.
They know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME. Yes MS, you too may
one day find it
difficult to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway,
especially when you
consider your initial aim point was about halfway down
that 6,000 feet.
I know, trust, respect and admire Jim Skydell. He
is a humble person,
and his service to soaring did not stop at being a
pilot, director,
contributor: the man bore his soul to try and help
others avoid
similar pain. You owe him much more than just an apology
(a sincere
apology, with no strings, judgement or 'attitude').
I would ride with
Jim any day of the week, month or year.

Flight Test Crews know IT CAN HAPPEN TO ME, so when
we do a risky test
(e.g., finding the edge of the envelope -- the first
stall, the maximum
speed, maximum landing performance measurement), we
study the
information from all those accidents that preceded
us, try to learn the
pitfalls, factors, and things that could have prevented
an accident (or
fatality). For example, the camera van, parked well
off the side of
the runway, still was hit by the Lear Jet conducting
landing
testing...I believe it blew a tire, went off the runway
and found the
van... It's usually not one single thing, as they
say.

Yeah, Flight Test is risky (some say soaring is...every
landing is an
emergency landing?). So the flight test type is not
a cowboy...he
tries to stack the deck in his favor, e.g., flying
with wind limits
less than five knots (not practical for everyday soaring).
And
wherever possible, flight testers rehearse what it
looks like good, and
what it looks like bad (when things go wrong). Review
what to do when
something doesn't work right (e.g., hard landing, the
beginning of
flutter, a stall departure that may seem uncontrollable).
So practice
more than one form of landing (including the high parasite
nibble/infestation approach).

One of the test pilots I admired most, one of the safest,
kindest, most
knowledgable and experienced people I've had the privilege
of working
with, was killed last year in a Decathalon accident.
It CAN happen to
ME, and at his memorial service, 400 people from across
the U.S. were
feeling the same thing: if it can happen to him, it
can happen to me.
And I think in a subtle way, Jim Skydell is trying
to change the
thinking of the average glider pilot. Thank you, Jim.

But maybe MS lives by the other aviation adage: 'Any
pilot who doesn't
think he's the best in the business is in the wrong
business.' Which
would mean _I_ am in the wrong business.

DEAL with it. I'm here to stay. And I'm very proud
to fly in the same
skies as Skydell.

-Pete
#309

Tony Verhulst wrote:
We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
600' AGL.

An almost 2:1 glide to the rwy is low?

Well, as usual, folks don't seem to be able to read the whole post....
:-(

We were a bit low for this exercise. That is the point of the complete
message I had posted. We could have been at 1:1 and still made a low
energy touchdown at the runway threshold.

-Tom