The Mt Washington wave camp last week was a great success with plenty of wave flights, one of which (Evan Ludeman) reached 31K.

On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.

The other attempted to spoiler (drag flap) down through the clouds, which were too thick and low at this point, and chose to bail out. The nylon letdown was successful and the pilot unscathed.

As happy an ending as this was, there is more to be thankful about. When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled, yet he was able to take the opening shock and descent with his arm pits!

Is this good news or what!! Say hallelujah, say Amen brother!!

KS

Hallelujah indeed! I hope he bought a lottery ticket when he landed!

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:57:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Hallelujah indeed! I hope he bought a lottery ticket when he landed!

What about his glider, did they find it?? There has to be a story there??
Glen

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 5:48:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> What about his glider, did they find it?? There has to be a story there??
> Glen

My understanding is the glider has been located and inspected, and they are working on how to get it out. From what I gather, it will likely be a helicopter retrieve.

Steve Leonard

We would all love to hear the account of the attempt to let down thru the clouds. How long did it take to decide to bail? Did he end up over red line? Did the glider break up before he bailed? How was his landing? It will be a riveting story.

Boggs

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> The Mt Washington wave camp last week was a great success with plenty of wave flights, one of which (Evan Ludeman) reached 31K.
>
> On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.
>
> The other attempted to spoiler (drag flap) down through the clouds, which were too thick and low at this point, and chose to bail out. The nylon letdown was successful and the pilot unscathed.
>
> As happy an ending as this was, there is more to be thankful about. When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled, yet he was able to take the opening shock and descent with his arm pits!
>
> Is this good news or what!! Say hallelujah, say Amen brother!!
>
> KS

From what I've been told, the ship was finally located in trees in a national forest. It had a sort of camo paint job but the "invasion stripes" were what finally caught the eyes of the aerial searchers. Due to the remote location and logistics it is surmised that the insurance company will need a chopper to retrieve it (HP-14).

KS

Yikes. Anyone know was it failure to properly don the parachute at the beginning of the flight or an egress pop the buckles out of habit crossover?

On Monday, 19 October 2015 21:34:10 UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> The Mt Washington wave camp last week was a great success with plenty of wave flights, one of which (Evan Ludeman) reached 31K.
>
> On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.
>
> The other attempted to spoiler (drag flap) down through the clouds, which were too thick and low at this point, and chose to bail out. The nylon letdown was successful and the pilot unscathed.
>


> As happy an ending as this was, there is more to be thankful about. When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled, yet he was able to take the opening shock and descent with his arm pits!
>
> Is this good news or what!! Say hallelujah, say Amen brother!!
>
> KS

this is bad news for soaring with a good ending

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:

>When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled...

It was reported elsewhere that the pilot landed within 1 km of Route 16, and so I bet he landed in a tree.

,11990a,20y,270h/data=!3m1!1e3

I wonder if the unbuckled leg straps facilitated exit from the harness? Following a stream might have got him downhill to Route 16, but bushwhacking in NH is difficult due to dense undergrowth.

Kudos to pilot for keeping his head and self-rescuing!

Kudos for the pilot for self rescuing, but even more kudos for the other pilot for thinking outside the box and turning downwind and fly cross country, significantly increasing his chances to find drier air or a gap further downwind.

Ramy

Holy crap! I just felt that feeling you get when you almost fall over a ledge. I'll bet that pi loo ot will never forget the leg straps again. Checklists people!!!!!

Glad no "physical" injuries are among the wreckage.

Sean
7T

I did wonder how long it would take for the story to make it on RAS...

Not to ruin the growing myth with facts, but here is my recollection of questions already posed...

1) The leg straps were absolutely checked prior to takeoff. If I unhooked them prior to bailout, I will never know. I may have unhooked them while hanging in tree. I do know that most of my weight in the parachute ride was sustained by my arms, which made navigating to the correct landing point more difficult than normal.

2) The descent speed was between 60-80mph IAS, with the vertical speed averaging between 15 and 30kts from 18k down to 8.5k. The HP-14 is an incredible ship in this regard, and performed flawlessly through all stages of flight.

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:49:37 AM UTC-7, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> I did wonder how long it would take for the story to make it on RAS...
>
> Not to ruin the growing myth with facts, but here is my recollection of questions already posed...
>
> 1) The leg straps were absolutely checked prior to takeoff. If I unhooked them prior to bailout, I will never know. I may have unhooked them while hanging in tree. I do know that most of my weight in the parachute ride was sustained by my arms, which made navigating to the correct landing point more difficult than normal.
>
> 2) The descent speed was between 60-80mph IAS, with the vertical speed averaging between 15 and 30kts from 18k down to 8.5k. The HP-14 is an incredible ship in this regard, and performed flawlessly through all stages of flight.
>
> 3) The FAA and NTSB investigations are on-going, but ultimately at this point I believe my decision to attempt to make it down through the closing Foehn gap, and "local pilot" mentality to flying in the area contributed to my need to make more drastic decisions (1st spiral in IMC then bailout) in a failed attempt to climb back up and go downwind.
>
> 4) I fully plan to share the details of this event, and welcome any constructive comments you may have on the flight and decisions made throughout it. Ultimately, I believe the results of the day came down to the time that each pilot made a decision to takeoff, climb, descend, or pause for additional time to consider each option. I perhaps focused too hard on the solution of descending through the gap before it closed, only to find the bottom of my intended gap also had rocks in it.

Thanks for sharing, and please consider sharing on RAS as a good thing. Each one of us can learn from those accidents that almost happened especially from the source, vs the useless NTSB reports, or just keeping quiet. This is the 2nd bailout due to IMC in wave in the US this year alone that I am aware of, so a good reminder for everyone about the risk of flying in wave and getting into IMC situation, to always consider your options downwind, and to consider installing an electronic T&B such as TrueTrack or other similar options available now in flight computers (and get some IFR training under the hood) if you flying in wave and even for flying in convergence where you occasionally find yourself above lower clouds.

Ramy

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 10:59:52 AM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> >When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled...
>
> It was reported elsewhere that the pilot landed within 1 km of Route 16, and so I bet he landed in a tree.
>
> ,11990a,20y,270h/data=!3m1!1e3
>
> I wonder if the unbuckled leg straps facilitated exit from the harness? Following a stream might have got him downhill to Route 16, but bushwhacking in NH is difficult due to dense undergrowth.
>
> Kudos to pilot for keeping his head and self-rescuing!


To combine quotes from OLC and Billy Madison... "I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul"

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=-2096417488

last location is my landing spot, the glider is a bit more than a mile due east from where i touched down.

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> The Mt Washington wave camp last week was a great success with plenty of wave flights, one of which (Evan Ludeman) reached 31K.
>
> On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.
>
> The other attempted to spoiler (drag flap) down through the clouds, which were too thick and low at this point, and chose to bail out. The nylon letdown was successful and the pilot unscathed.
>
> As happy an ending as this was, there is more to be thankful about. When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled, yet he was able to take the opening shock and descent with his arm pits!
>
> Is this good news or what!! Say hallelujah, say Amen brother!!
>
> KS

Karl, I think a quote from your website is highly appropriate here.

"We do not what we ought;
What we ought not, we do;
And lean upon the thought
That chance will bring us through."
(Matthew Arnold)

Am Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 18:48:11 UTC+2 schrieb Ramy:
> ... but even more kudos for the other pilot for thinking outside the box and turning downwind and fly cross country, significantly increasing his chances to find drier air or a gap further downwind.
>
> Ramy

Why would that be out-of-the-box thinking?! It's pretty much plan A in moist wave conditions.

Bert
Ventus cM TW

Hmm. As I understand parachutes, shoulder straps go "over" the shoulders. The chest strap keeps the shoulder straps from expanding past your shoulders. All the weight of the pilot is taken by the leg straps. Are you saying your armpits were in the "unbuckled" leg straps.

It's hard to imagine a pilot staying alive in a chute with unbuckled leg straps, but it's also hard to understand how one could be supporting themselves with their armpits.

Sean
7T

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 8:33:19 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Hmm. As I understand parachutes, shoulder straps go "over" the shoulders.. The chest strap keeps the shoulder straps from expanding past your shoulders. All the weight of the pilot is taken by the leg straps. Are you saying your armpits were in the "unbuckled" leg straps.
>
> It's hard to imagine a pilot staying alive in a chute with unbuckled leg straps, but it's also hard to understand how one could be supporting themselves with their armpits.
>
> Sean
> 7T

Sean, My (most, all?) Security chute does not have a chest trap. There are only two straps that come from the seat and loop through on one side and snap to the opposite side.

On 10/21/2015 4:02 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2015 18:48:11 UTC+2 schrieb Ramy:
>> ... but even more kudos for the other pilot for thinking outside the box
>> and turning downwind and fly cross country, significantly increasing his
>> chances to find drier air or a gap further downwind.
>>
>> Ramy
>
> Why would that be out-of-the-box thinking?! It's pretty much plan A in
> moist wave conditions.
>
> Bert Ventus cM TW
>

When I first began pondering wave flying - and dambetcha, the possibilities of
getting trapped on top or enveloped in IMC and having to "do something about
it" thoroughly got my attention! - my Plan A became "waiting until I was
*forced* (e.g. by approaching sunset) to descend," my Plan B was "retreat
downwind until "some better option appeared" (and *screw* retrieve
inconvenience), while Plan C was bail out. This mental conversation occurred
well before obtaining my license or going XC.

Eventually - thanks to flying large-deflection-landing-flap-equipped gliders
and moving to an area where "really wet waves" were pretty much a rarity, I
inserted - if I was absolutely certain clear air between peak-tops and cloud
bases existed - a Plan A.5) IMC descent through the clouds (convenience - woo
hoo!).

Fortunately, other than sometimes playing the waiting game while aloft
(usually due to gnarly pattern/lower-down conditions), I never really had to
seriously consider implementing any of the other options.

My take on the "need for this bailout" was it was likely due to a form of
"get-home-itis" (i.e. diving for a closing hole) leading to IMC below
peaktops. Once there, the decision to abandon the plane was the right one, I
think.

By way of personal analysis of a traumatic situation that easily could have
ended fatally, even had there not simultaneously been aloft another glider
with whom he theoretically might have been able to discuss the situation(who,
it's my understanding, began a descent for home before reconsidering the
rapidly closing wave window, climbed back aloft and used
altitude/time/distance to implement my Plan B), by committing to the "window
or nothing else" Chris G. forfeited whatever options the time-aloft option
alone may have ultimately brought him....and I realize it was already late-ish
in the day.

So, yes, hindsight suggests to me better options & decisions were still on the
table when he implemented the decision chain that save for deciding to bail
out could have ended fatally...but thoughtful pilots will also recognize he
DID "break the chain." There but for the grace of God...?

Bob W.

In a nut shell: He had the wrong plan A, but the right plan B ;-)
Happily for him, it did work out in the end.

In the Alps, wave with northerly winds is typically stable situation (it can last for a week), and more or less dry. It's a large scale situation controlled by a high pressure zone. If you want to descend in IMC, you just need to make sure that you won't hit an embedded rotor. Ceilings will most probably be where they have been hours ago.

Wave under southerly winds is controlled by a depression coming in, and has a time scale of something like 12-36 hours. With the depression moving rapidly closer, wind direction and moisture can change rapidly over the day until finally the warm front cuts off everything with rain. A descend in IMC without solid information about the clearance between ceiling and ground is just Russian roulette.

Bert
Ventus cM TW

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> Sean, My (most, all?) Security chute does not have a chest trap. There are only two straps that come from the seat and loop through on one side and snap to the opposite side.

That's an Aerobatic chute harness - designed to keep the hardware away from the lab belt during negative Gs. I have the same setup on my Long Softie (and had it on the Security I had before)- I like it better than the normal chest + leg straps as it gets the hardware up and out of the way.

Most chutes use the classic chest strap and separate leg straps.

Kirk

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> The Mt Washington wave camp last week was a great success with plenty of wave flights, one of which (Evan Ludeman) reached 31K.
>
> On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.
>
> The other attempted to spoiler (drag flap) down through the clouds, which were too thick and low at this point, and chose to bail out. The nylon letdown was successful and the pilot unscathed.
>
> As happy an ending as this was, there is more to be thankful about. When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled, yet he was able to take the opening shock and descent with his arm pits!
>
> Is this good news or what!! Say hallelujah, say Amen brother!!
>
> KS

We're certainly glad to have Chris back safely on earth. The "Hallelujah!"s were brief and quickly followed by words that might be laundered into "We've gotten by on sheer, dumb luck". There are many well-smitten and furrowed brows in New England today. You see, it wasn't just about Chris.

Only five glider flights departed Gorham the day that Chris bailed out. Only *one* of those flights was according to the basic plan of "take off at Gorham, go soaring, don't get scared, land at Gorham". One managed a nice "take off at Gorham, go soaring, get trapped on top, go land elsewhere" flight that turned out fine, but we hope the pilot is a little bit sheepish for getting up on top in such crummy conditions in the first place. Three gliders were damaged. One abandoned in flight, one damaged in flight, one damaged in an off airport landing. That's some bad odds. We're very happy that no one was injured.

How did this happen?

All of the glider pilots flying that day were (as far as I know) low to medium experience at Mt Wash. All are a little more experienced now!

The more experienced MW wave guys were mostly off doing other things, because (at least according to the forecast and current ADDS weather I looked at that day) it was a pretty crummy day for wave flying. I was at work thinking "Well, at least I'm not missing much!". Others were doing errands in Gorham or amusing themselves with non-aviation related pursuits. One friend -- who is no stranger to challenging weather and has as much MW wave experience as anyone -- heard the tow plane flying while in downtown Gorham and had the thought "What the heck are they doing that for?".

We brief on the myriad of hazards you can find at Mt Washington when the wind blows. The wet wave and what do do about it figure prominently in those briefs. We point out that even on wet wave days the weather will be reliably VFR and usually clear to scattered over Maine (due to adiabatic heating of the airmass as it descends to lower terrain), and that one can glide a *long* way into Maine and to a number of excellent airports from 18000'.

Much to think about til next year.

best regards,

Evan Ludeman / T8

My harness is stitched together at the waist such that, even if the leg
straps are not connected, the loop that the arms fit through is a closed
loop. Therefore, even with the leg straps not connected, there is a
bottom web that would support me at the armpits. That's the fact of
construction, however I'd consider it very lucky that I would be quick
acting enough to realize that the load was being taken by my armpits
rather than by my thighs and cross my arms tightly enough to retain the
parachute through the opening shock. I imagine it'd get tiring hanging
on while waiting for the ground to come up to meet me as well. And it
would be foolish, if not impossible to let go with one arm and try to
hook up the leg straps.

Would the lucky person who completed this bailout please try to describe
the total event, including getting out of the glider, deploying the
parachute, exactly when you realized something was not right, how you
handled the opening and descent, was any control possible, and how about
the landing. I think this information would be most appreciated by all.

Dan

BTW, so glad that you're alive to tell about it!

On 10/21/2015 9:42 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 7:55:01 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>> Sean, My (most, all?) Security chute does not have a chest trap. There are only two straps that come from the seat and loop through on one side and snap to the opposite side.
> That's an Aerobatic chute harness - designed to keep the hardware away from the lab belt during negative Gs. I have the same setup on my Long Softie (and had it on the Security I had before)- I like it better than the normal chest + leg straps as it gets the hardware up and out of the way.
>
> Most chutes use the classic chest strap and separate leg straps.
>
> Kirk

--
Dan, 5J

I sincerely appreciate all the responses and thoughts on the flight, and I think it is pretty obvious that staying high and flying downwind was the smarter choice. Without the monday morning quarterback thought process, how many pilots would actually chose to go land downwind when they still have a visible window in which to descend through? In my case, the primary window had closed to the extent that i was not comfortable going into partial IMC to try and make it down, which is why I opted for the second window which was still open, further to the south. upon arriving at this second window, i chose not to go through it, as i could not tell the altitude separation from the bottom of the clouds to the face of the mountain (mt. isolation). It was in my efforts to climb back out of this window and go downwind that i went full IMC, flew back into the valley a ways, and bailed out once below peak level.

The situation, like many, was not so cut and dry, as there were still seemingly stable (enough) options in front of me that have traditionally held in similar situations. Obviously, if completely socked in, the downwind option would have been the choice. The more challenging question, in my mind, is without knowing that the wave windows would close as you nearly approached them, do you still consider that choice to be a reckless and obvious?

On the parachute side of the house, the Parachute was a security 350, which is the aerobatic style that crosses at your waist before clipping at chest level.. I am 100% certain that the straps were attached when I entered my cockpit and began my pre-flight checks. As for what point they were removed, it was either while removing my harness to bail out, or while suspended in the tree... i have no recollection.

As T8 pointed out, there are still a great many debates on flying that day and the various events that took place, and a greater number still of opinions from the pilots. I will say that from the moment I stepped foot back at the airfield, i could not have imagined a more supportive, kind, and thoughtful group than I have experienced from the soaring community. Regardless of their opinions of my skills, decisions, or otherwise, when you actually need help, I don't believe there is a better hobby community out there than this one.

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:34:10 PM UTC-4, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> > The Mt Washington wave camp last week was a great success with plenty of wave flights, one of which (Evan Ludeman) reached 31K.
> >
> > On another day a couple gliders were in wave when a slug of moisture closed the windows trapping them on top. One turned down wind and rode the undulations to drier air in Maine and landed.
> >
> > The other attempted to spoiler (drag flap) down through the clouds, which were too thick and low at this point, and chose to bail out. The nylon letdown was successful and the pilot unscathed.
> >
> > As happy an ending as this was, there is more to be thankful about. When the pilot bailed out his parachute leg straps were not buckled, yet he was able to take the opening shock and descent with his arm pits!
> >
> > Is this good news or what!! Say hallelujah, say Amen brother!!
> >
> > KS
>
> We're certainly glad to have Chris back safely on earth. The "Hallelujah!"s were brief and quickly followed by words that might be laundered into "We've gotten by on sheer, dumb luck". There are many well-smitten and furrowed brows in New England today. You see, it wasn't just about Chris.
>
> Only five glider flights departed Gorham the day that Chris bailed out. Only *one* of those flights was according to the basic plan of "take off at Gorham, go soaring, don't get scared, land at Gorham". One managed a nice "take off at Gorham, go soaring, get trapped on top, go land elsewhere" flight that turned out fine, but we hope the pilot is a little bit sheepish for getting up on top in such crummy conditions in the first place. Three gliders were damaged. One abandoned in flight, one damaged in flight, one damaged in an off airport landing. That's some bad odds. We're very happy that no one was injured.
>
> How did this happen?
>
> All of the glider pilots flying that day were (as far as I know) low to medium experience at Mt Wash. All are a little more experienced now!
>
> The more experienced MW wave guys were mostly off doing other things, because (at least according to the forecast and current ADDS weather I looked at that day) it was a pretty crummy day for wave flying. I was at work thinking "Well, at least I'm not missing much!". Others were doing errands in Gorham or amusing themselves with non-aviation related pursuits. One friend -- who is no stranger to challenging weather and has as much MW wave experience as anyone -- heard the tow plane flying while in downtown Gorham and had the thought "What the heck are they doing that for?".
>
> We brief on the myriad of hazards you can find at Mt Washington when the wind blows. The wet wave and what do do about it figure prominently in those briefs. We point out that even on wet wave days the weather will be reliably VFR and usually clear to scattered over Maine (due to adiabatic heating of the airmass as it descends to lower terrain), and that one can glide a *long* way into Maine and to a number of excellent airports from 18000'.
>
> Much to think about til next year.
>
> best regards,
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I've been having an interesting off line discussion with several guys about the events of the day... and one guy whose wx assessment is pretty much as good as it gets and was at Gorham airport during the launch tells me -- essentially -- that I've let my imagination fill in a few blanks for me. He maintains that the first four launches, including Chris', were completely safe and reasonable under the prevailing wx conditions of the moment.

He also points out that getting too caught up on the launch / no launch decision might well distract us from more important lessons (such as: how best to deal with a sudden change for the worse in flight).

best,
Evan Ludeman

Chris,

Thanks for filing in some of the blanks about the incident. Reading what you've posted gives me the impression that you have an unusual knack for staying focused when things get hectic. You'd be a good wingman/lead in a high adrenaline air combat environment. Maybe you have such a background?

KS

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 5:55:46 PM UTC-4, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> how many pilots would actually chose to go land downwind when they still have a visible window in which to descend through? In my case, the primary window had closed to the extent that i was not comfortable going into partial IMC to try and make it down, which is why I opted for the second window which was still open,

The key here is the primary window. That's usually the most stable, reliable one. If that sucker is closed to the point that it looks dicey, it's too late.

IMO you have two or maybe three options here. Which is best is going to be an individual call, depending on a truckload of variables. Option 1) stay in the wave and wait it out. To do this you need to be able to navigate the wave without reference to ground. That's a little tricky, trickier the stronger the wind. Don't forget your compass -- it's really easy to get screwed up on directions with GPS when wind speed and airspeed are about the same. Option 2) Head downwind or crosswind to clearer skies and an airport..

I like option 1. Option 2 can be selected any time. Option 1 means I don't have to rush.

A great thing to do if you can make option 1 work is start working your friends for wx info: specifically, what's the area forecast say is going to happen? What's radar show? What's the satellite show? If it's truly hopeless, your friends will figure it out and then you can think about options (restaurants in Portland are said to be pretty good :-0) and get a plan. Otoh, it's probable that what closed the window was a slug of localized precip that will pass and then life may get good again (it takes a lot of moisture to close the primary).

There's a third option available too, although it's a little hard to see why this one would ever be preferred, but I think it's still better than trying to force your way down a hole when it looks nearly hopeless. Option 3) navigate by GPS to a better area (i.e. away from big piles of granite), then let down via benign spiral or gyro instruments somewhere you can be convinced (for instance by AWOS or a PIREP from the ground) that cloud base is well above ground and that your very cold glider isn't going to pick up a truckload of ice from rain showers below or something like that.

Looking forward to seeing you at Mt Washington again!

best regards,

-Evan Ludeman / T8

A side note about Parachutes and their harnesses. My local rigger once told me to get into a strict regimen of always buckling and un-buckling in a specific order. His story was that people have survived a landing in trees, only to hang themselves when unbuckling the leg straps before the chest strap when trying to extricate themselves from the trees. Whether or not that's an apocryphal story or not, it does make sense to build that muscle memory so the steps are automatic when it counts. On my chute (a National 425), I can see obvious problems if I release the leg straps first. There does appear to be some risk of falling through the chest strap and (at minimum) getting a nasty jerk on the chin.

P3

Evan, i think you are spot on in your assessment. The most common advice and suggestion i have got from my most respected pilot friends is that at any point in the flight slowing down, communicating, and building a solid plan while you sit in a stable environment will generally lead to the best outcome. The biggest thing i kick myself about on this flight is that i was not communicating with DY when i was up there, was not asking for help from the ground, but more of giving a running monologue on the radio of what my next circus act would be.

Karl, the only wings i ever earned in the air force were (ironically) my jump wings while at the AF Academy. I'm a stability and control engineer in the AF currently.

I had my first wave flight early October. I
stopped at 18000 as that was as high as
you can be with a cannula. Then poked
around between the Alberta Livingstons
and Porkies between 9000 and 15000 for
a couple more hours.

The post 18000 part of the flight I had set
the flow for 15000, but after landing I was
so wiped out I had to take a couple days
off from flying.

Folks, especially us older guys, living in
low elevations need acclimation to the
10,000' level O2 systems are set up for.

In the meantime, you lose significant IQ
points and your decision making will not
be as good as when in your armchair at
home.

Hanging yourself on the chest strap by realeasing the leg straps has been done unfortunately. Another parachute question were the leg straps off or is it possible the friction buckles were misrouted(or less likely failed) and they were on but legstraps fully extended? Route through the friction buckles backwards(slack legstrap will be on the inside) and it looks normal at the buckle but won't hold.

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
>... Three gliders were damaged. ... one damaged in flight,

Rotor?

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> >... Three gliders were damaged. ... one damaged in flight,
>
> Rotor?

One bail out in IMC.
One hit a tree on the mountain and then flew home.
One landed at the base of the mountain road in a very poor "field" with minor ground loop damage.
UH

Rotor is the Boogie Man.

In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52 whose
vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor. I feared
rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time /in a glider/ with
the airspeed well within the green arc. Yes, it's bumpy, but
maintaining control is a non-event. Using rotor to climb into the wave
is sometimes the only way to get there. There's a terrific mix of up
and down but, if you stay on the upwind side of the rotor, the net is
up. You climb in rough air and then, all of a sudden, it becomes silky
smooth and the rate of climb increases rapidly. What a treat! Having
said that, I still have enough sense not to fly through rotor with the
airspeed in the yellow!

On 10/21/2015 10:25 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
>> ... Three gliders were damaged. ... one damaged in flight,
> Rotor?
>

--
Dan, 5J

On 10/22/2015 7:53 AM, wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:25:20 AM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
>>> ... Three gliders were damaged. ... one damaged in flight,
>>
>> Rotor?
>
> One bail out in IMC. One hit a tree on the mountain and then flew home. One
> landed at the base of the mountain road in a very poor "field" with minor
> ground loop damage. UH
>

Mercy! Life on the edge/gotta be some sort of record...

Bob W.

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 8:57:04 PM UTC-4, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> Evan, I think you are spot on in your assessment. The most common advice and suggestion I have got from my most respected pilot friends is that at any point in the flight slowing down, communicating, and building a solid plan while you sit in a stable environment will generally lead to the best outcome. The biggest thing I kick myself about on this flight is that I was not communicating with DY when I was up there, was not asking for help from the ground, but more of giving a running monologue on the radio of what my next circus act would be.
>
> Karl, the only wings I ever earned in the air force were (ironically) my jump wings while at the AF Academy. I'm a stability and control engineer in the AF currently.

Chris, I congratulate you for coming here and writing about your "adventure" along with your thoughts/ideas while "you were there".
Like most things, it's easy to "Monday morning quarterback".

As an ex-instructor, I'm glad you realize (and wrote) that you gave up other help you had available. It's way too easy to get caught up in the moment and ignore the outside world.

I believe we're all glad you survived with nothing more than a dented glider and a sorta hurt pride.
Keep asking questions (here or local field), be willing to continue learning and have fun.
Anything can be dangerous, understanding and limiting risk (the level varies by person) is a good way to live a long life while having fun.

This past summer, I even asked a few other pilots about the end of a flight I did and the decision making I did and the field selection. While nothing was hurt (glider, people on the ground, me...), I wondered if I didn't "back off" soon enough or possibly accepted a higher level of risk than was really prudent. Two of the pilots I spoke to are on this forum.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 6:27:40 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
>
>
>
> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52
> whose vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor.* I
> feared rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a
> glider with the airspeed well within the green arc.* Yes, it's
> bumpy, but maintaining control is a non-event.* Using rotor to climb
> into the wave is sometimes the only way to get there.* There's a
> terrific mix of up and down but, if you stay on the upwind side of
> the rotor, the net is up.* You climb in rough air and then, all of a
> sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate of climb increases
> rapidly.* What a treat!* Having said that, I still have enough sense
> not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the yellow!

I dunno.

If you stay in the green then, yeah, you won't break the glider. But I've been in Omarama rotor where it was so uncomfortable that I wanted the airspeed more like 50 or 55 knots. And then the problem was having enough aileron authority to say upright. And occasionally, less than stall speed on the clock, and all you can do is accept the low G and the nose dropping until the speed comes back a few seconds later.

Wow! I think the one hitting the tree in flight and then landing back safely at the airport should buy the lottery ticket! There should be another good story there.

Ramy

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 6:27:40 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
>
>
>
> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52
> whose vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor.* I
> feared rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a
> glider with the airspeed well within the green arc.* Yes, it's
> bumpy, but maintaining control is a non-event.* Using rotor to climb
> into the wave is sometimes the only way to get there.* There's a
> terrific mix of up and down but, if you stay on the upwind side of
> the rotor, the net is up.* You climb in rough air and then, all of a
> sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate of climb increases
> rapidly.* What a treat!* Having said that, I still have enough sense
> not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the yellow!

Oh, and check out the vario action after 0:30 in this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCSpVL35Tk

A pretty tame example compared to some, but I happened to have the phone filming.

My scariest flight experience was encountering rotor while flying an MD 500 helicopter! Was trapped in the rotor with control of the aircraft in question most of the time. I was shaken for a while after. This being the scariest event even over an inflight fire, a sudden decompression at 22K FT and flew through wing tip vortex of MD 80 on takeoff.

Have towed through rotor at Minden, was sporting but not frightening.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:27:40 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
>
>
>
> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52
> whose vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor.* I
> feared rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a
> glider with the airspeed well within the green arc.* Yes, it's
> bumpy, but maintaining control is a non-event.* Using rotor to climb
> into the wave is sometimes the only way to get there.* There's a
> terrific mix of up and down but, if you stay on the upwind side of
> the rotor, the net is up.* You climb in rough air and then, all of a
> sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate of climb increases
> rapidly.* What a treat!* Having said that, I still have enough sense
> not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the yellow!
>
>
>

>Oh, and check out the vario action after 0:30 in this.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaLCSpVL35Tk
>
>A pretty tame example compared to some, but I happened to have the phone
>fi=
>lming.
>

Bruce your US link doesn't work with our UK you tube servers. Has it got a
title I can search for?
Jim

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
> >Oh, and check out the vario action after 0:30 in this.
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaLCSpVL35Tk
> >
> >A pretty tame example compared to some, but I happened to have the phone
> >fi=
> >lming.
> >
>
> Bruce your US link doesn't work with our UK you tube servers. Has it got a
> title I can search for?
> Jim

That's also a dead link in the USA for me.

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:

> Bruce your US link doesn't work with our UK you tube servers. Has it got a
> title I can search for?
> Jim

Try looking for "ridge.mov". Not sure if that will help or not, but it is what I see as the title.

Steve Leonard

Click on Bruce's link in his original message - it works fine. Jim White's replay has the broken link in it. Notice how Jim's link has an extra "3D" in the video identifier?

Here is the right one:

https://youtu.be/aLCSpVL35Tk

RS

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:15:07 PM UTC-5, Jim White wrote:
> >Oh, and check out the vario action after 0:30 in this.
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaLCSpVL35Tk
> >
> >A pretty tame example compared to some, but I happened to have the phone
> >fi=
> >lming.
> >
>
> Bruce your US link doesn't work with our UK you tube servers. Has it got a
> title I can search for?
> Jim

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:09:50 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
> Wow! I think the one hitting the tree in flight and then landing back safely at the airport should buy the lottery ticket! There should be another good story there.
>
> Ramy

Hopefully not to be discussed on RAS, just like I hope no one discusses the time I flew less than 500 feet below a cloud on a public forum...

Ain't it grand? Feeling Mother Nature's power. :-D

On 10/22/2015 10:08 AM, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 6:27:40 PM UTC+3, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52
>> whose vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor. I
>> feared rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a
>> glider with the airspeed well within the green arc. Yes, it's
>> bumpy, but maintaining control is a non-event. Using rotor to climb
>> into the wave is sometimes the only way to get there. There's a
>> terrific mix of up and down but, if you stay on the upwind side of
>> the rotor, the net is up. You climb in rough air and then, all of a
>> sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate of climb increases
>> rapidly. What a treat! Having said that, I still have enough sense
>> not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the yellow!
> I dunno.
>
> If you stay in the green then, yeah, you won't break the glider. But I've been in Omarama rotor where it was so uncomfortable that I wanted the airspeed more like 50 or 55 knots. And then the problem was having enough aileron authority to say upright. And occasionally, less than stall speed on the clock, and all you can do is accept the low G and the nose dropping until the speed comes back a few seconds later.

--
Dan, 5J

As would be expected, oxygen was a concern, as my intent on the initial climb was to go as high as possible (30k was looking promising on the initial climb up to 18). Just in case the wave was working at higher altitudes, i was on 100% oxygen after climibing up through 11,000, and then reduced to the standard dilutor demand system level when i hit 16k and realized it would be a while before ATC would give us approval to go up through the 20s. I was on a military MBU-12P mask with the A-14 regulator until crossing back down through 9k on the descent, and even went back to 100% O2 on the way down to ensure that my judgement would be 100% there.

At least when i took off, the rotor was a strong moderate, about at the limits of what we would be allowed to fly in back in Colorado with the AF. Certainly not conducive to good training, but i was able to maintain tow position with a little difficulty. The weather really wasn't that bad until i was all the way up high, then the additional moisture came through and seemed to close it all up.

The tree strike was really an environmentally separated incident. While it did occur on the same day, to say the two were relation i think is a bit of a stretch. The land-out and my bailout occurred in the same system at roughly the same time, and i believe arguments could be made relating the two of those, despite them occurring in very different phases and styles of flight.

Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 17:27:40 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Marotta:
> Rotor is the Boogie Man.

> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52
> whose vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor.* I
> feared rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a
> glider with the airspeed well within the green arc.* Yes, it's
> bumpy, but maintaining control is a non-event.* Using rotor to climb
> into the wave is sometimes the only way to get there.* There's a
> terrific mix of up and down but, if you stay on the upwind side of
> the rotor, the net is up.* You climb in rough air and then, all of a
> sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate of climb increases
> rapidly.* What a treat!* Having said that, I still have enough sense
> not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the yellow!
> Dan, 5J

I can assure you that there are rotors out there where you can't maintain control in a glider *at all*, even if you are spiraling with 80 kts.

Bert
Ventus cM TW

On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 8:15:07 PM UTC+3, Jim White wrote:
> >Oh, and check out the vario action after 0:30 in this.
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DaLCSpVL35Tk
> >
> >A pretty tame example compared to some, but I happened to have the phone
> >fi=
> >lming.
> >
>
> Bruce your US link doesn't work with our UK you tube servers. Has it got a
> title I can search for?
> Jim

Weird .. the link is correct, but somehow what you end up with in your browser is missing the final 'Tk' in the URL.

Try this version of the link https://youtu.be/aLCSpVL35Tk

On 10/23/2015 1:26 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 17:27:40 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Marotta:
>> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
>
>> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52 whose
>> vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor. I feared
>> rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a glider with the
>> airspeed well within the green arc. Yes, it's bumpy, but maintaining
>> control is a non-event. Using rotor to climb into the wave is sometimes
>> the only way to get there. There's a terrific mix of up and down but, if
>> you stay on the upwind side of the rotor, the net is up. You climb in
>> rough air and then, all of a sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate
>> of climb increases rapidly. What a treat! Having said that, I still
>> have enough sense not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the
>> yellow! Dan, 5J
>
> I can assure you that there are rotors out there where you can't maintain
> control in a glider *at all*, even if you are spiraling with 80 kts.
>
> Bert Ventus cM TW
>

+1 on TW's observation (my own being from Boulder, CO), though I always
attempted to hold a mere ~60 knots to reduce personal/ship G loads, accepting
whatever "unusual attitude" came my way. Worked for me. Never been rolled
beyond 90-degrees/vertical (against full opposite controls) or pitched much
more than +/- 45-degrees, but when this - and you're sometimes enveloped in
utterly still air just after an impressive gust of some sort - happens
vertically close to the foothills, it's a real thrill. Apply your own versions
of understated humor to that last...

Bob W.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 7:19:58 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 1:26 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 17:27:40 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Marotta:
> >> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
> >
> >> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52 whose
> >> vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor. I feared
> >> rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a glider with the
> >> airspeed well within the green arc. Yes, it's bumpy, but maintaining
> >> control is a non-event. Using rotor to climb into the wave is sometimes
> >> the only way to get there. There's a terrific mix of up and down but, if
> >> you stay on the upwind side of the rotor, the net is up. You climb in
> >> rough air and then, all of a sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the rate
> >> of climb increases rapidly. What a treat! Having said that, I still
> >> have enough sense not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the
> >> yellow! Dan, 5J
> >
> > I can assure you that there are rotors out there where you can't maintain
> > control in a glider *at all*, even if you are spiraling with 80 kts.
> >
> > Bert Ventus cM TW
> >
>
> +1 on TW's observation (my own being from Boulder, CO), though I always
> attempted to hold a mere ~60 knots to reduce personal/ship G loads, accepting
> whatever "unusual attitude" came my way. Worked for me. Never been rolled
> beyond 90-degrees/vertical (against full opposite controls) or pitched much
> more than +/- 45-degrees, but when this - and you're sometimes enveloped in
> utterly still air just after an impressive gust of some sort - happens
> vertically close to the foothills, it's a real thrill. Apply your own versions
> of understated humor to that last...
>
> Bob W.

In my 1,600 hours and thirty plus years of gliding, I have had two relevant experiences - both in my Jantar-1 in South Africa. I was pitched forward beyond 90 degrees in mountain rotor and may have been inverted briefly. I deployed airbrakes and recovered quickly, but it was exciting!

On another occasion, I got trapped above a layer of stratus that formed ahead of a squall line but descended by flying straight and level with the assistance of an SZD turn-and bank until I was in the clear. The experience taught me never to get caught above cloud again!

Mike

I guess our personal limits just differ from each other. Of course I
have experienced times when full deflection of the controls would not
stop a rolling or pitching action, but I was never concerned about it
because I kept my airspeed low enough that stall was more likely than
damage. Knowing how to recover from unusual attitudes and being
comfortable with aerobatics may help here.

My roughest wave flights have been in the Rockies, in the Wet Mountain
Valley near Westcliffe, and a bit west of Leadville. To date, what I've
seen around Moriarty, NM has been pretty benign. Note: I've run with
scissors and played with matches and I still have both eyes and all my
fingers. Your results may vary.

On 10/23/2015 8:19 AM, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 10/23/2015 1:26 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 22. Oktober 2015 17:27:40 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Marotta:
>>> Rotor is the Boogie Man.
>>
>>> In the Air Force flight training they showed us movies of a B-52 whose
>>> vertical tail had been torn off in an encounter with rotor. I feared
>>> rotor, too, until encountering it for the first time in a glider
>>> with the
>>> airspeed well within the green arc. Yes, it's bumpy, but maintaining
>>> control is a non-event. Using rotor to climb into the wave is
>>> sometimes
>>> the only way to get there. There's a terrific mix of up and down
>>> but, if
>>> you stay on the upwind side of the rotor, the net is up. You climb in
>>> rough air and then, all of a sudden, it becomes silky smooth and the
>>> rate
>>> of climb increases rapidly. What a treat! Having said that, I still
>>> have enough sense not to fly through rotor with the airspeed in the
>>> yellow! Dan, 5J
>>
>> I can assure you that there are rotors out there where you can't
>> maintain
>> control in a glider *at all*, even if you are spiraling with 80 kts.
>>
>> Bert Ventus cM TW
>>
>
> +1 on TW's observation (my own being from Boulder, CO), though I
> always attempted to hold a mere ~60 knots to reduce personal/ship G
> loads, accepting whatever "unusual attitude" came my way. Worked for
> me. Never been rolled beyond 90-degrees/vertical (against full
> opposite controls) or pitched much more than +/- 45-degrees, but when
> this - and you're sometimes enveloped in utterly still air just after
> an impressive gust of some sort - happens vertically close to the
> foothills, it's a real thrill. Apply your own versions of understated
> humor to that last...
>
> Bob W.

--
Dan, 5J

Update - The HP was airlifted out of the woods today, disassembled, and is on its way to Biddeford, ME for salvage. I don't have photos of the lift or final tally of damage, but I have a feeling it's going to be a relatively easy fix for a homebuilder to have him or herself a nice HP-14. May the best bidder win.

On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 7:03:24 PM UTC-4, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> Update - The HP was airlifted out of the woods today...

Your openness about your experience is valuable and appreciated. Thanks.

Chris, do you