GLIDING INTERNATIONAL -- RESEARCH

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 12:58:29 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:26:11 AM UTC-8, Mike C wrote:
On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 11:56:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:04:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.

We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.

We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.

Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.

JOHN ROAKE
EDITOR

The accident did not emanate from the failure of the motor to start. The accident emanated from the fact that the pilot entered into a situation in which there was not a security field for landing within reach of the glider.

I thought that electric systems were very dependable.

Mike

So what?

Nobody is saying they are not. Even if you think a motorglider/sustainer engine will start reliably do you think it's sensible to assume it absolutely will and not have a landout option/plan B?

This is the most elementary basic safe operation of a motorglider 101 stuff.

Pretty stupid wording on "cause" used by Gliding International.

Chuckle.

Never said I thought that. Never have been in a motor glider just thought that the electric system was very reliable, and am surprised to hear that they are not.

Mike

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:17:27 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 2:26:11 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
I thought that electric systems were very dependable.

Really? Have I got a deal for you!!

Really. Not interested.

Thanks anyway.

Mike

Originally Posted by

We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.

We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.

We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.

Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.

JOHN ROAKE
EDITOR

After having previous experience of motors failing to deliver, it seem overly optimistic of SK to rely on one to save himself from a tricky situation.

A classic example of this sort of mentality observed by a close friend was a very low glider firing up over a strip in a forest and then proceeding to fly a direct track home over said forest without first gaining enough altitude to safely glide to the next landable area or return to the strip in the event of an engine failure after the start.

"We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents..."

I would argue that only one accident was examined in detail - Kawa's. There can't be any meaningful discussion about the causes of the other 95 accidents.

The basic idea of compiling meaningful accident reports is sound. BGA has done a fantastic job of publishing in-depth accident reports (https://members.gliding.co.uk/librar...tion-reports/), which could serve as the gold standard for glider accident reporting for other countries.

In addition to the accident report database, it would be very helpful to have a database of voluntary near miss reports.

Branko XYU

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:28:04 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
Chuckle.
...thought that the electric system was very reliable,
and am surprised to hear that they are not.

Reliable compared to what?
Why would you expect them to be reliable?
How much testing do you think has been done on these things?
Do you think the designs have all had 3rd-party review by qualified engineers?
What do you think the reliability is going to be with minimal testing and no serious checking of engineering?

Think it through and you'll see what happens...

In this case I believe the motor was not the issue, but the extension mechanism either didn’t fully extend, or the position sensor switch failed to work.
It’s one reason to like FES, as extension only needs motor to drive..

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 12:44:18 PM UTC-8, Charlie Quebec wrote:
In this case I believe the motor was not the issue, but the extension mechanism either didn’t fully extend, or the position sensor switch failed to work.
It’s one reason to like FES, as extension only needs motor to drive.

Less to go wrong - but still plenty to go wrong. I'm curious if the pilots who do this (expect the motor to save them from unlandable terrain) would fly low across a sea in a single engine Cessna. Most people won't, and that is a fully tested, commercially produced, running power plant. Yet these guys will fly across rocks with a not running, prototype powerplant, with their fingers crossed.

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 1:41:22 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 3:28:04 PM UTC-5, Mike C wrote:
Chuckle.
...thought that the electric system was very reliable,
and am surprised to hear that they are not.

Reliable compared to what?
Why would you expect them to be reliable?
How much testing do you think has been done on these things?
Do you think the designs have all had 3rd-party review by qualified engineers?
What do you think the reliability is going to be with minimal testing and no serious checking of engineering?

Think it through and you'll see what happens...

Dave,

I will leave it with your sage advice. You were a Sales Rep and owned an Electic Antares, you know best.

Best regards.

Mike

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 9:04:36 PM UTC+13, wrote:
We at Gliding International have just completed a three months study on the accident sitution in regard to our sport. We have examined (in detail) the 96 reported accidents which show that our problematic area of soaring flight relates to the landing phase.

We took note of all accidents from 1/1/2019 to 31/08/2019 which indicates for sure (on the conservative side) that fatalities for the calendar year of 2019 will be 43. No organisation or sport should turn a blind eye to what is obviously a totally unacceptable situation.

We haven't got an answer to this problem but we are open to discussion and be a catalyst for change.

Also in our November issue is a report from Sebastian Kawa who has personally set out to explain his recent serious accident. An uphill landing into a very questionable landing zone with no options. He must be complimented for writing his report on the accident for our sport enthusiasts. He tells all how to avoid a repetition of the problem. Basically the accident emanated from the failure of his motor to start. He has quoted the number of experiences he has personally experienced with motor failures and has started a war on brands of motors that must be regarded as totally unreliable.

JOHN ROAKE
EDITOR

TO CLARIFY: The Kawa accident was totally unrelated to our initial research work. We had almost completed our stage one of the research when we learnt of the Kawa issue. We list 96 accidents in our November issue with most briefs supported by photos of accident damage. Sobering!

I just realized you’re trying to sell magazines.