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 normally unbuckle your parachute before of after exiting the cockpit? If the former it may explain what happened.

Ramy

I second that. It is much more helpful to be able to discuss an accident/incident with those directly involved vs having to speculate, although I maintain that the latter is still better than not discussing at all.

Ramy

And I'm disappointed that there's been no narrative of everything
recalled from the decision to leave the aircraft until feet were safely
on the ground. Any time someone experiencing such an emergency can pass
on all the thoughts, fears, worries,procedures, successes and failures
to the rest of us, it can only improve the prospects of success for the
rest of us.

On a personal note, I used to unbuckle my parachute before getting out
of the glider because it's easier physically. About a year ago I
decided that it would be better to always leave the glider with the
'chute on to avoid unbuckling out of habit before an emergency exit.
Since then, I've been refining my method for getting out and it's much
easier now. I realize that g-loading can have quite an impact on exit,
either positive or negative.

On 10/23/2015 11:04 PM, Ramy wrote:
> I second that. It is much more helpful to be able to discuss an accident/incident with those directly involved vs having to speculate, although I maintain that the latter is still better than not discussing at all.
>
> Ramy

--
Dan, 5J

At 16:28 24 October 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:

>
>On a personal note, I used to unbuckle my parachute before getting out
>of the glider because it's easier physically. About a year ago I
>decided that it would be better to always leave the glider with the
>'chute on to avoid unbuckling out of habit before an emergency exit.
>Since then, I've been refining my method for getting out and it's much
>easier now. I realize that g-loading can have quite an impact on exit,
>either positive or negative.
>
I have always climbed out of the glider complete with parachute for the
reasons described above.
With the advancing years I have, on occasion, unbuckled the parachute to
make getting out easier. I found that to do this is very difficult. The leg
clips are difficult to reach to unclip so perhaps the danger of unclipping
in the event of an abandonment is less that it would appear.
It would be interesting to know whether in the case under discussion
whether the parachute was unclipped in the cockpit or the pilot go in with
his chute not secure, I suspect the latter is the more likely.

Let's not under estimate the dreaded "tunnel vision", which I believe is a factor in most accidents and incidents.
This incident is a good example. Tunnel vision may have contributed to the pilot focusing on trying to decend through the gap instead of evaluating other options.
Tunnel vision will cause you to fixate on the task you most accustom to do, even if it is difficult to do. So if you are used to unbuckle the parachute in the cockpit, chances are that under the extreme stress of bailout (I can't imagine a more stressful situation as a pilot) tunnel vision will take over and you will unbuckle the parachute even if it is not straight forward. Same goes to if you are used to fly with a chute but occasionally don't , chances are that in an emergency you may bail out without checking if you wearing your chute. I heard stories about pilots bailing out without their chute.

Ramy

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> And I'm disappointed that there's been no narrative of everything
> recalled from the decision to leave the aircraft until feet were
> safely on the ground.* Any time someone experiencing such an
> emergency can pass on all the thoughts, fears, worries,procedures,
> successes and failures to the rest of us, it can only improve the
> prospects of success for the rest of us.
>
>

On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> And I'm disappointed that there's been no narrative of everything
> recalled from the decision to leave the aircraft until feet were
> safely on the ground.* Any time someone experiencing such an
> emergency can pass on all the thoughts, fears, worries,procedures,
> successes and failures to the rest of us, it can only improve the
> prospects of success for the rest of us.
>
>
>
> On a personal note, I used to unbuckle my parachute before getting
> out of the glider because it's easier physically.* About a year ago
> I decided that it would be better to always leave the glider with
> the 'chute on to avoid unbuckling out of habit before an emergency
> exit.* Since then, I've been refining my method for getting out and
> it's much easier now.* I realize that g-loading can have quite an
> impact on exit, either positive or negative.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/23/2015 11:04 PM, Ramy wrote:
>
>
>
> I second that. It is much more helpful to be able to discuss an accident/incident with those directly involved vs having to speculate, although I maintain that the latter is still better than not discussing at all.
>
> Ramy
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

Sorry to disappoint Dan...
I have done a 5(ish) page writeup on the whole event, but do not quite feel comfortable posting it to RAS or in Soaring magazine at the moment, as we haven't fully grasped the weather and all that went into the various events that occurred, and i haven't solidified my personal conclusions on my decisions yet. If i left the parachute ride out of it, my apologies, it was not my intent.

On the parachute question, I make it a point to not unbuckle my harness until standing outside the glider, as the muscle memory issue pointed about above was made to me several years back while at Caesar Creek.

As far as the actual bailout process. while in the spiral, i opened the canopy, crouched in my seat, placed my hand on the D-ring, jumped, arched my back, and pulled the ring (about a 3-second sequence in all from when i was crouched. As mentioned and debated previously, once the opening shock hit me, i had difficulty pulling on the left risers, but was able to reach and pull down on the right rear riser of the parachute to steer myself closer to Rt-16 on the descent. Being unable to turn left made this more of a sequencing thing, where i would turn faster when facing into the wind, then relax the pressure when going in the correct direction. As i got down to ~100ft over the trees, i prepared for impact by releasing the risers and covering my face with my forearms, putting my legs together, and bending my knees. The "impact" never came, so from then on out i was just faced with the dilemma of safely hanging 30 feet over the ground and trying not to cause an injury in getting myself down.

Chris

Another point that was made to me today by one of the other pilots at the camp is that i may have been significantly more predisposed to the bailout option because i have jumped before and don't find it all that intimidating. While I do agree that this very well may be true once in IMC, the idea of bailing out never comes across my mind while flying, and i didn't actually even consider the notion that i may need to until i went into full IMC. It became the decision once i was still in IMC and below mountaintop level.

From my perspective, the flight went much like one of those "Choose your adventure" books, where at each step both choices seem rather benign, until you are 4-5 steps in and you wish you could go back to the first chapter. In my case, my intent was never to go IMC, it was actually to avoid it altogether and take what appeared to me at the time to be the most conservative option of descend immediately. continuing to the second gap when the first closed is what i see as my greatest mistake of the flight. With the Oudie moving map going white intermittently, i did not have as good of situational awareness as i should have as to the location of the second hole (way down the valley). Once i arrived at it, all future decisions became means to survive, and in the end worked out as well as they possibly could have (given the insurance comparison to total vs. repair from an out landing).
Chris

At 19:46 24 October 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 16:28 24 October 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>>
>>On a personal note, I used to unbuckle my parachute before getting out
>>of the glider because it's easier physically. About a year ago I
>>decided that it would be better to always leave the glider with the
>>'chute on to avoid unbuckling out of habit before an emergency exit.
>>Since then, I've been refining my method for getting out and it's much
>>easier now. I realize that g-loading can have quite an impact on exit,
>>either positive or negative.
>>
>I have always climbed out of the glider complete with parachute for th
>reasons described above.
>With the advancing years I have, on occasion, unbuckled the parachute t
>make getting out easier. I found that to do this is very difficult. The
le
>clips are difficult to reach to unclip so perhaps the danger of unclippin
>in the event of an abandonment is less that it would appear.
>It would be interesting to know whether in the case under discussio

I believe that the "don't unbuckle the 'chute and leave it in the aircraft
when you get out" advice, is based on one incident with a Spitfire in WWII
in which the pilot was believed to have done just that when abandoning the
aircraft. It seems a very small sample on which to base considerable
inconvenience for tens of thousands of pilots over a period of 75 years.

>whether the parachute was unclipped in the cockpit or the pilot go in wit
>his chute not secure, I suspect the latter is the more likely.
>
>

At 07:30 25 October 2015, Chris Rollings wrote:

>I believe that the "don't unbuckle the 'chute and leave it in the
aircraft
>when you get out" advice, is based on one incident with a Spitfire in WWI
>in which the pilot was believed to have done just that when abandoning th
>aircraft. It seems a very small sample on which to base considerable
>inconvenience for tens of thousands of pilots over a period of 75 years.
>
>>whether the parachute was unclipped in the cockpit or the pilot go in
with
>>his chute not secure, I suspect the latter is the more likely.
>

I also think this advice dates back to the days when parachutes had a "turn
and press" quick release dropped all the straps. A modern chute normally
needs you to undo 3 buckles, none of which are similar to the cockpit
straps, so the risk is less.

However I still leave the chute on and struggle out of the cockpit! I also
snug up the leg straps once seated in the cockpit (before the seat straps),
which does check they are done up on getting in.

At 09:28 25 October 2015, Julian Rees wrote:
>At 07:30 25 October 2015, Chris Rollings wrote:
>
>>I believe that the "don't unbuckle the 'chute and leave it in th
>aircraft
>>when you get out" advice, is based on one incident with a Spitfire in
WWI
>>in which the pilot was believed to have done just that when abandoning
th
>>aircraft. It seems a very small sample on which to base considerable
>>inconvenience for tens of thousands of pilots over a period of 75 years.
>>
>>>whether the parachute was unclipped in the cockpit or the pilot go i
>with
>>>his chute not secure, I suspect the latter is the more likely.
>>
>
>I also think this advice dates back to the days when parachutes had a
"tur
>and press" quick release dropped all the straps. A modern chute normall
>needs you to undo 3 buckles, none of which are similar to the cockpi
>straps, so the risk is less.
>
>However I still leave the chute on and struggle out of the cockpit! I
als
>snug up the leg straps once seated in the cockpit (before the seat
straps)
>which does check they are done up on getting in.
>
I am old enough to remember the "turn and bang" single parachute release. I
remember being told that the original idea of having to turn and then
depress the turned lock was deliberate to make the sequence different from
the straightforward turn of the seat harness. Modern parachutes with 3
separate clips are completely different to the seat harness, however I can
well see that muscle memory might take over in a stressful situation if my
habit was to unbuckle the parachute before getting out every time.
With the EB80 that I currently wear it is very difficult, because I fit
very snugly into the cockpit, to unclip the leg straps while seated in the
cockpit. The two levers need to be pulled outwards to release the clips and
there is no room to do this in most gliders that I fly. Some contortion is
needed to successfully release the leg straps, something I feel I am very
unlikely to do if faced with abandonment. Because I have always climbed out
of the glider, still wearing the parachute, I have to make a concious
effort not to do so. My default if you like is to leave wearing the
parachute and I am happy with this.
I do remember on one occasion getting into the glider leaving the leg
straps undone, luckily sitting on the unsecured straps was extremely
uncomfortable so I discovered my error before flight.

Thanks, Chris.

That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for! I'll wait
patiently for the full story when you're ready to release it.

One question: You mentioned crouching in the cockpit immediately prior
to jumping. I don't know how the seating is in an HP, but in my LAK,
I'm sitting too low to get into a crouch. I've found that, by putting
my upper arms (just above the elbows) on the canopy rails, bringing one
foot way back, and bracing my back against the seat back, I can raise my
body enough that I can get the other leg over the canopy rail. Then I
can use that leg to assist in rolling over the side. Note: I'm 67
years old.

Dan

On 10/24/2015 4:56 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> And I'm disappointed that there's been no narrative of everything
>> recalled from the decision to leave the aircraft until feet were
>> safely on the ground. Any time someone experiencing such an
>> emergency can pass on all the thoughts, fears, worries,procedures,
>> successes and failures to the rest of us, it can only improve the
>> prospects of success for the rest of us.
>>
>>
> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 12:28:50 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> And I'm disappointed that there's been no narrative of everything
>> recalled from the decision to leave the aircraft until feet were
>> safely on the ground. Any time someone experiencing such an
>> emergency can pass on all the thoughts, fears, worries,procedures,
>> successes and failures to the rest of us, it can only improve the
>> prospects of success for the rest of us.
>>
>>
>>
>> On a personal note, I used to unbuckle my parachute before getting
>> out of the glider because it's easier physically. About a year ago
>> I decided that it would be better to always leave the glider with
>> the 'chute on to avoid unbuckling out of habit before an emergency
>> exit. Since then, I've been refining my method for getting out and
>> it's much easier now. I realize that g-loading can have quite an
>> impact on exit, either positive or negative.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/23/2015 11:04 PM, Ramy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I second that. It is much more helpful to be able to discuss an accident/incident with those directly involved vs having to speculate, although I maintain that the latter is still better than not discussing at all.
>>
>> Ramy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan, 5J
> Sorry to disappoint Dan...
> I have done a 5(ish) page writeup on the whole event, but do not quite feel comfortable posting it to RAS or in Soaring magazine at the moment, as we haven't fully grasped the weather and all that went into the various events that occurred, and i haven't solidified my personal conclusions on my decisions yet. If i left the parachute ride out of it, my apologies, it was not my intent.
>
> On the parachute question, I make it a point to not unbuckle my harness until standing outside the glider, as the muscle memory issue pointed about above was made to me several years back while at Caesar Creek.
>
> As far as the actual bailout process. while in the spiral, i opened the canopy, crouched in my seat, placed my hand on the D-ring, jumped, arched my back, and pulled the ring (about a 3-second sequence in all from when i was crouched. As mentioned and debated previously, once the opening shock hit me, i had difficulty pulling on the left risers, but was able to reach and pull down on the right rear riser of the parachute to steer myself closer to Rt-16 on the descent. Being unable to turn left made this more of a sequencing thing, where i would turn faster when facing into the wind, then relax the pressure when going in the correct direction. As i got down to ~100ft over the trees, i prepared for impact by releasing the risers and covering my face with my forearms, putting my legs together, and bending my knees. The "impact" never came, so from then on out i was just faced with the dilemma of safely hanging 30 feet over the ground and trying not to cause an injury in getting myself down.
>
> Chris

--
Dan, 5J

....And getting out without the parachute is so much easier than lifting
the extra weight. That was part of my decision to keep the parachute on
when exiting at the end of the flight - it's harder. That requires more
strength so I worked (and am still working) on that.

On 10/25/2015 4:55 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 09:28 25 October 2015, Julian Rees wrote:
>> At 07:30 25 October 2015, Chris Rollings wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that the "don't unbuckle the 'chute and leave it in th
>> aircraft
>>> when you get out" advice, is based on one incident with a Spitfire in
> WWI
>>> in which the pilot was believed to have done just that when abandoning
> th
>>> aircraft. It seems a very small sample on which to base considerable
>>> inconvenience for tens of thousands of pilots over a period of 75 years.
>>>
>>>> whether the parachute was unclipped in the cockpit or the pilot go i
>> with
>>>> his chute not secure, I suspect the latter is the more likely.
>> I also think this advice dates back to the days when parachutes had a
> "tur
>> and press" quick release dropped all the straps. A modern chute normall
>> needs you to undo 3 buckles, none of which are similar to the cockpi
>> straps, so the risk is less.
>>
>> However I still leave the chute on and struggle out of the cockpit! I
> als
>> snug up the leg straps once seated in the cockpit (before the seat
> straps)
>> which does check they are done up on getting in.
>>
> I am old enough to remember the "turn and bang" single parachute release. I
> remember being told that the original idea of having to turn and then
> depress the turned lock was deliberate to make the sequence different from
> the straightforward turn of the seat harness. Modern parachutes with 3
> separate clips are completely different to the seat harness, however I can
> well see that muscle memory might take over in a stressful situation if my
> habit was to unbuckle the parachute before getting out every time.
> With the EB80 that I currently wear it is very difficult, because I fit
> very snugly into the cockpit, to unclip the leg straps while seated in the
> cockpit. The two levers need to be pulled outwards to release the clips and
> there is no room to do this in most gliders that I fly. Some contortion is
> needed to successfully release the leg straps, something I feel I am very
> unlikely to do if faced with abandonment. Because I have always climbed out
> of the glider, still wearing the parachute, I have to make a concious
> effort not to do so. My default if you like is to leave wearing the
> parachute and I am happy with this.
> I do remember on one occasion getting into the glider leaving the leg
> straps undone, luckily sitting on the unsecured straps was extremely
> uncomfortable so I discovered my error before flight.
>

--
Dan, 5J

The instructions that came with my chute, a Butler, says not to snug the leg straps after sitting in the cockpit, leave them snug when standing. Any comments or experienced parachuter that can comment on this?

Perhaps any male that has jumped with loose leg straps will not want to repeat the pain. You don't need to tighten them like the glider harness, though.
Jim

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:06:09 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The instructions that came with my chute, a Butler, says not to snug the leg straps after sitting in the cockpit, leave them snug when standing. Any comments or experienced parachuter that can comment on this?

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 11:06:09 AM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The instructions that came with my chute, a Butler, says not to snug the leg straps after sitting in the cockpit, leave them snug when standing. Any comments or experienced parachuter that can comment on this?

That is correct. Properly snug legstraps will be loose in the sitting position. Folks can try it, snug up legstraps sit in a chair resnug them then get up and try moving around.

Perhaps any male that has jumped with loose leg straps will not want to repeat the pain. You don't need to tighten them like the glider harness, though.
Jim

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:06:09 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
The instructions that came with my chute, a Butler, says not to snug the leg straps after sitting in the cockpit, leave them snug when standing. Any comments or experienced parachuter that can comment on this?

I can't comment on the pain involved with loose leg straps but a pilot in my club who baled out of a Discus CS in the last year was struck under the chin with the chest strap leaving quite a large contusion from ear to ear. The chest strap ended up on his forehead leaving one to ponder what may have been if he was knocked out or rendered insensible by the chest strap upon the chute opening

Colin

On 10/25/2015 2:50 PM, Ventus_a wrote:
> JS;910133 Wrote:
>> Perhaps any male that has jumped with loose leg straps will not want to
>> repeat the pain. You don't need to tighten them like the glider harness,
>> though.
>> Jim
>>
>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:06:09 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud
>> wrote:-
>> The instructions that came with my chute, a Butler, says not to snug
>> the leg straps after sitting in the cockpit, leave them snug when
>> standing. Any comments or experienced parachuter that can comment on
>> this?-
>
> I can't comment on the pain involved with loose leg straps but a pilot
> in my club who baled out of a Discus CS in the last year was struck
> under the chin with the chest strap leaving quite a large contusion from
> ear to ear. The chest strap ended up on his forehead leaving one to
> ponder what may have been if he was knocked out or rendered insensible
> by the chest strap upon the chute opening
>
> Colin

This is probably one of those arguments that can go on forever, but somewhen I
got into soaring I read that if you could stand up straight wearing a fully
buckled emergency chute harness, it wasn't tight enough, in the sense that if
you later used it from a sitting position, you'd wish afterwards that you'd
snugged all the straps up one last time *while* you were sitting.

The one time I used an emergency (round) chute a long time ago, I can't
remember if I snugged it up in the cockpit or not, but I DO remember the
harness-matching, colorful, yellow and purple bruises on my upper torso and
shoulders, including the buckles, afterward. I concluded my harness should've
been tighter. And that was without counting to three. No major leg bruises or
talking funny afterward...

Bob W.

At 03:02 26 October 2015, BobW wrote:
>This is probably one of those arguments that can go on forever, but
>somewhen I
>got into soaring I read that if you could stand up straight wearing a
fully
>buckled emergency chute harness, it wasn't tight enough, in the sense
that
>if you later used it from a sitting position, you'd wish afterwards that
you'd
>snugged all the straps up one last time *while* you were sitting.
>

Some time ago I bought a Thomas Sports "pop top" parachute & picked it up
directly from "Lofty" Thomas (very well known in UK army and civilian
parachuting circles, over 1500 jumps) who also repeated the above advice
that if you can stand up straight the leg straps are not tight enough.

I asked his advice on jumping from a glider & remember the words even
though it was 25 years ago. He said "As soon as you are clear pull the
handle hard, dont bother with this 'one, two, three...splat' stuff. In
fact (he said) if you are having serious troubles getting out and are in a
hurry, as long as you can get your back clear and in the airsteam, just
pull the handle, the drogue will deploy and the chute will pull you out,
although you might break the odd bone in the process!. The risks of the
chute tangling in the airframe are much less than the risk of getting out
too low."

I would imagine this may depend on chute design - his have strong coil
spring that throws the drogue quite a way.

Luckily I have never had to put this advice into practice, although I still
wear a (newer) Thomas chute.

I do worry as age creeps on about how easy or difficult it would be to exit
a damaged glider, I just hope that in the event the adrenalin would give
you the necessary strength! It's always very useful to hear first hand
accounts of this so many thanks for posting experiences on here.

Am Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015 17:09:28 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Marotta:
> 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.

> Dan, 5J

Dan, if you are spiraling with 80 kts in a rotor and one wing completely stalls, it's not about avoiding g-loads, it's about avoiding hitting the ground while you are in a fully deleveloped spin. Where I fly, rotors are very often below ridge level.
And yes, I'm fairly well trained - and current - in full aerobatics.

But fortunately, most rotors are just somewhat bumpy.

I agree with what you say. The point I was trying to make is that I
will not get into an 80 kt spiral. I will handle the aircraft well
before that can happen. All bets are off should I become immersed in
IMC, however. Though rated, my glider is not equipped for IMC. The IMC
part is unlikely where I fly due to the dryness of the air plus I have
no further desire to go above 18,000' MSL any more (too cold, don'tcha
know). I've been in rotor approaching extreme turbulence on both ends
of the tow rope at approximately 11,000' while downwind of 14,000'
peaks. It's a workout for sure. I also recall performing a near
split-S in the rotor (intentionally) to definitively notch the barograph
trace (back in the old days when cameras and barographs were the tools
of the sport). BTW, I made two glider flights and about 10 tows that
day and was the only pilot to achieve the altitude diamond.

I've seen some pretty extreme winds in the Mt. Washington area and I'll
bet you get stupendous wave. Perhaps your rotors are also more lively
than those in the Rockies. I haven't experienced the Sierra wave yet,
but it's on my list.

On 10/26/2015 3:38 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Am Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015 17:09:28 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Marotta:
>> 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.
>> Dan, 5J
> Dan, if you are spiraling with 80 kts in a rotor and one wing completely stalls, it's not about avoiding g-loads, it's about avoiding hitting the ground while you are in a fully deleveloped spin. Where I fly, rotors are very often below ridge level.
> And yes, I'm fairly well trained - and current - in full aerobatics.
>
> But fortunately, most rotors are just somewhat bumpy.

--
Dan, 5J

Dan,
I crouched once the canopy was already open and I was breathing cloud. The slow-motion would have looked like me standing up in my seat and jumping while pulling the cord. To get that position, I just kinda hoisted myself up and jumped.

(actually the slow-motion would have looked like a polar bear in a snowstorm on a UHF black and white TV with no signal...but that is neither here nor there)

Chris



On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 10:06:53 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Thanks, Chris.
>
>
>
> That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for!* I'll wait
> patiently for the full story when you're ready to release it.
>
>
>
> One question:* You mentioned crouching in the cockpit immediately
> prior to jumping.* I don't know how the seating is in an HP, but in
> my LAK, I'm sitting too low to get into a crouch.* I've found that,
> by putting my upper arms (just above the elbows) on the canopy
> rails, bringing one foot way back, and bracing my back against the
> seat back, I can raise my body enough that I can get the other leg
> over the canopy rail.* Then I can use that leg to assist in rolling
> over the side.* Note:* I'm 67 years old.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>

:-D

On 10/26/2015 12:27 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> Dan,
> I crouched once the canopy was already open and I was breathing cloud. The slow-motion would have looked like me standing up in my seat and jumping while pulling the cord. To get that position, I just kinda hoisted myself up and jumped.
>
> (actually the slow-motion would have looked like a polar bear in a snowstorm on a UHF black and white TV with no signal...but that is neither here nor there)
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 10:06:53 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Thanks, Chris.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for! I'll wait
>> patiently for the full story when you're ready to release it.
>>
>>
>>
>> One question: You mentioned crouching in the cockpit immediately
>> prior to jumping. I don't know how the seating is in an HP, but in
>> my LAK, I'm sitting too low to get into a crouch. I've found that,
>> by putting my upper arms (just above the elbows) on the canopy
>> rails, bringing one foot way back, and bracing my back against the
>> seat back, I can raise my body enough that I can get the other leg
>> over the canopy rail. Then I can use that leg to assist in rolling
>> over the side. Note: I'm 67 years old.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>

--
Dan, 5J

The below is what i received from Bulter Parachute regarding tightening the leg straps after sitting in the cockpit.

Hello Jonathan,

It's always nice to hear from customers who take their emergency equipment serious enough to ask questions. It comes down to personal preference. Our Owner's Manual states: Tighten the leg straps until they are snug while standing erect... This adjustment will feel slightly looser after you sit in your aircraft; if desired, you may further tighten the leg straps after you are seated." Both methods will produce a fit that will be fine should you have to bailout. My personal preference is to snug the straps a little tighter after I am seat in the aircraft. A harness that is slightly tighter has no negative effects and will ensure that your harness is not too loose.. You will not fall out of a harness that is too loose, but one that is drastically too loose may cause the chest strap to contact the neck or chin on deployment. This can cause injury. You don't have to snug the straps to the point of discomfort or cutting off blood supply; just slightly tighter is fine and ensures your harness will be snug on deployment. Hope this helps.

Thanks for all the responses. My ship has been pulled down from the mountain (excellent helicopter work flying it by the tail), and is off to salvage through USAIG.

For all documents, photos, and my personal thoughts/evaluation, please see
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QKzpBjeWHHd0QtVWI1V3pVYWM

Chris

Thanks for the detailed reporting, Chris. That provides so much to
think about. If I had any criticism at all it would only be that, in
your shoes, I would have left the aircraft sooner once going into the
clouds. But then I don't have the benefit of real time knowledge of
your location, height AGL, descent rate, etc.

Overall - Good Job!

On 11/1/2015 7:57 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> Thanks for all the responses. My ship has been pulled down from the mountain (excellent helicopter work flying it by the tail), and is off to salvage through USAIG.
>
> For all documents, photos, and my personal thoughts/evaluation, please see
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QKzpBjeWHHd0QtVWI1V3pVYWM
>
> Chris

--
Dan, 5J

Am Montag, 2. November 2015 03:57:31 UTC+1 schrieb Christopher Giacomo:
> Thanks for all the responses. My ship has been pulled down from the mountain (excellent helicopter work flying it by the tail), and is off to salvage through USAIG.
>
> For all documents, photos, and my personal thoughts/evaluation, please see
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2QKzpBjeWHHd0QtVWI1V3pVYWM
>
> Chris

Thanks for posting this. Although the event had ruined your day, there is a lot of benefit for others by learning and reflecting through your story.

Bert
Ventus cM TW

These discussions drive me nuts. A Stratus costs under $1000. Almost everyone has an ipad. A foreflight subscription is pretty cheap. A few hours on a simulator will teach you the basics of flying on an AHRS. Why on earth would anyone even contemplate killing themselves flying in wave without buying these inexpensive, phenomenally cheap tools?

iPads are not easy to use in glider cockpit, especially not in an emergency situation. However if you have panel space, I highly recommend The TruTrak pictorial turn and bank. Works very well and already saved me in a similar situation.

Ramy

For many people, those things are pretty cost prohibitive, and as Ramy pointed out, an Ipad doesn't fit too well in a cockpit. I was actually in the initial stages of designing a low-cost AHRS for "get-down" situations, but ran out of time to put one in. Not that glider pilots don't encounter $1000 costs, but i'm not sure "phenomenally cheap" is the term those of us not flying 6-figure glass would use to describe the current AHRS market.

If you are not pushing the bounds of safety and are properly adjusting for the conditions in flight, there really shouldn't be a need for an AHRS. Yes, i could have used one on this flight, but at that point i was already 2 bad decisions deep. More equipment will not breed better decision making, it breeds more data, and in many cases lazy pilots who have another crutch. Saying people should buy more equipment is akin to blaming your botched off-field landings on not having a higher performance glider.

The TruTrak Turn and bank works very well and cost $500. Add an instant on switch to address any battery concerns.
http://www.trutrakap.com/product/pictorial-turn-bank/

Ramy

There are products that are real instruments instead of ipad toys and still portable & easily installed. Flying T&B only requires training, why not put Dynon D2 to panel?

I'd agree with any of these. The point is, it's insane to fly in wave or conditions where clouds could form without some sort of artificial horizon. Btw an added advantage of the right foreflight subscription is that it will also give you terrain and clearance. Death seems like a poor bargain vs a couple of thousand, that could be a shared asset at a club or rented at a commercial operation.

It's not insane to fly in wave without an artificial horizon. I've been doing it for decades. You have to be careful and know what you are doing. Do the people that call it insane ever fly in wave? Nothing I hate worst than people that have never done something telling the people that do it all the time how to do it or that it is insane. It's not smart to soar in the wave when you don't know what you are e doing and don't get a proper education from the local pilots that fly there all the time. It's insane to fly a glider without the proper training. It's insane to winch launch without the proper training. It's s insane to fly XC without the proper training. Our sport is about being smart, not about having the right instruments.

Boggs

<snip>

A few hours on a simulator will teach you the basics of flying on an AHRS.

</snip>

Really? If all it takes is a couple of hours of practice, then why not
get an instrument rating? Already have one? Did you get it in a few
hours? It's much easier flying a computer that's sitting on a desk or
even a simulator sitting on hydraulic jacks, than it is bouncing around
in clouds that sometimes get very dark and noisy and icy and sometimes
the flash blinds you. But take your iPad and have at it... Oh yeah,
and review that FAA video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7t4IR-3mSo>
one more time. And tell the gent who broke his glider during a wave
flight earlier this year that he should have taken an iPad. His years
of military flight experience weren't nearly as good as that nifty device.

PS - If you don't have HTML, here's that link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7t4IR-3mSo
--
Dan, 5J

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... Spot on! Very insightful.

I have a TruTrak turn indicator in my panel and turn it on whenever
conditions even hint that, should I screw up, I might need it. I also
have many hours of partial panel flying under the hood (couple of bored
lieutenants burning JP-4), and I still don't feel comfortable with only
the TruTrak. I don't find the slip ball to be sensitive enough in my
glider. Call me chicken, but I plan to have dinner at home every night.

On 11/2/2015 8:22 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> For many people, those things are pretty cost prohibitive, and as Ramy pointed out, an Ipad doesn't fit too well in a cockpit. I was actually in the initial stages of designing a low-cost AHRS for "get-down" situations, but ran out of time to put one in. Not that glider pilots don't encounter $1000 costs, but i'm not sure "phenomenally cheap" is the term those of us not flying 6-figure glass would use to describe the current AHRS market.
>
> If you are not pushing the bounds of safety and are properly adjusting for the conditions in flight, there really shouldn't be a need for an AHRS. Yes, i could have used one on this flight, but at that point i was already 2 bad decisions deep. More equipment will not breed better decision making, it breeds more data, and in many cases lazy pilots who have another crutch. Saying people should buy more equipment is akin to blaming your botched off-field landings on not having a higher performance glider.

--
Dan, 5J

At 14:44 03 November 2015, Waveguru wrote:
>It's not insane to fly in wave without an artificial horizon. I've been
>doi=
>ng it for decades. You have to be careful and know what you are doing. Do
>t=
>he people that call it insane ever fly in wave? Nothing I hate worst than
>p=
>eople that have never done something telling the people that do it all
the
>=
>time how to do it or that it is insane. It's not smart to soar in the
>wave=
> when you don't know what you are e doing and don't get a proper
education
>=
>from the local pilots that fly there all the time. It's insane to fly a
>gli=
>der without the proper training. It's insane to winch launch without the
>pr=
>oper training. It's s insane to fly XC without the proper training. Our
>spo=
>rt is about being smart, not about having the right instruments.=20
>
>Boggs
>

+1

At 14:44 03 November 2015, Waveguru wrote:
>It's not insane to fly in wave without an artificial horizon. I've been
>doi=
>ng it for decades. You have to be careful and know what you are doing. Do
>t=
>he people that call it insane ever fly in wave? Nothing I hate worst than
>p=
>eople that have never done something telling the people that do it all
the
>=
>time how to do it or that it is insane. It's not smart to soar in the
>wave=
> when you don't know what you are e doing and don't get a proper
education
>=
>from the local pilots that fly there all the time. It's insane to fly a
>gli=
>der without the proper training. It's insane to winch launch without the
>pr=
>oper training. It's s insane to fly XC without the proper training. Our
>spo=
>rt is about being smart, not about having the right instruments.=20
>
>Boggs
>

+1

I really should have read the entire thread rather than replying
individually to the various bad ideas here.

I'm trying to visualize a commercial glider operation that would rent a
tablet with some "cheap" software (neither of which has been tested nor
certified) to someone to go fly in conditions which might lead to a trip
into IMC. I can see the grieving widows with their poor, pathetic
children, and the greedy lawyers preparing their briefs right now.

The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not have
the TSO to be used in IFR flying. But most all airplanes built in the
past 50-60 years come out of the factory with an attitude indicator,
directional gyro, VSI, altimeter, and airspeed indicator and STILL
people come falling out of the bottom of the clouds. Having a TV picture
of the same instruments will not make you an instrument pilot. And I
can not even conceive of and instrument rated pilot making such dumb
suggestions. If you're competent and comfortable with flight in IMC
then, legalities aside, you might succeed with with what you suggest but
what if, say, an email alert pops up in the middle of your display just
as your aircraft is beginning a slow upset? Or any other kind of
interrupt which slows/stops/obscures your display? Do you text while
you drive?

OK, I'm going to see how long it will be until the next bright idea
comes along.

On 11/3/2015 5:38 AM, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> I'd agree with any of these. The point is, it's insane to fly in wave or conditions where clouds could form without some sort of artificial horizon. Btw an added advantage of the right foreflight subscription is that it will also give you terrain and clearance. Death seems like a poor bargain vs a couple of thousand, that could be a shared asset at a club or rented at a commercial operation.

--
Dan, 5J

On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 9:44:20 AM UTC-5, Waveguru wrote:
> It's not insane to fly in wave without an artificial horizon. I've been doing it for decades. You have to be careful and know what you are doing. Do the people that call it insane ever fly in wave? Nothing I hate worst than people that have never done something telling the people that do it all the time how to do it or that it is insane. It's not smart to soar in the wave when you don't know what you are e doing and don't get a proper education from the local pilots that fly there all the time. It's insane to fly a glider without the proper training. It's insane to winch launch without the proper training. It's s insane to fly XC without the proper training. Our sport is about being smart, not about having the right instruments.
>
> Boggs

Boggs, you are absolutely spot on. IMC in gliders is 100% avoidable. The day of the accidents, most of us were doing other things because (wait for it) the weather just wasn't very good. It takes more than rising air to make a good soaring day.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Some thoughts:

If you don't know how to fly instruments, either learn (get training from a CFII) or stay out of clouds. And wear a chute.

Staying out of clouds requires, discipline, knowledge, and some luck.

If you think there is a serious chance that you will find yourself in IMC, investing in some sort of attitude indicator would be money well spent. $1000 gets you a portable (non-TSO) Dynon attitude indicator; or a TruTrak Gemini (http://www.trutrakap.com/product/gemini/). Either will save your butt if you know how to use it. Same for a Butterfly vario, if you win the lottery :^)

Unless you practice a lot in actual IMC, trying to switch to needle, ball, and airspeed (or a TruTrak turn coordinator) when suddenly enveloped in a cloud, may not be as easy as some may think... An attidude indicator MAY be easier, but practice would still be necessary (Foggles in a glider? Leave you canopy cover on inflight? Have your glider buddy in formation in his glider to keep a good lookout?).

Really, it boils down to managing risk. And we all know how well humans do that...

Me, I want an AOA gauge!

Kirk
66

Quote from my days as a mountain climber, "stay alert, hope for the best, expect the worst, bring what you can".

Why not have an AHSR in case the worst happens. In 1,500 hours of glider flying I have never been inadvertent IMC, but I have in both airplanes and helicopter (once). I am instrument rated in both, so in the airplane as I realized things were not so sunny I just changed my fight following to an IFR plan, happened many times, apparently the forecast is as unpredictable as the weather. The helicopter (while I was instrument current and rated) was an unstable, re fun, MD 500 which are not certified for flight in IMC, this was much more thrilling and not to be repeated.

Recently I got back into soaring and when I instrumented the glider I bought a fancy multipurose instrument that also has a feature to double as an AHSR. While my first choice if caught on top would be to fly east for drier weather, I now have something in my quiver if I find myself IMC to help me get safely to clear air. As we know, one can be a bit aggressive at cloud base and end up in the cloud, it is not just wave flying.

The video on inadvertent IMC was great, it has been around for a long time, and even with rudimentary training (private pilot license) and the proper instruments, you can find yourself in a world of hurt if you go IMC.


On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 8:05:40 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> OK, I'm going to see how long it will be until the next bright idea
> comes along.
>

Flying in IMC involves a lot more than just
staying right side up.

Not flying into cumulo granitus or towers
or cables and not getting in the way of
IFR traffic are the next priorities.

A midair in cloud would be disastrous for
our sport. Center needs to know where
you are to keep other traffic clear. I leave
it as an exercise for the reader to find
your local center frequency.

A transponder would greatly enhance any
dialog with center.

Hopefully your pitot and static don't ice
up.

That said IFR traffic greatly prefers to
avoid rotor and wave, but if you have to
run downwind to landable terrain and
can't find a hole, the possibility of other
traffic increases.

That TruTrak Gemini looks like something I might like in my next glider.

On 11/3/2015 9:46 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> Some thoughts:
>
> If you don't know how to fly instruments, either learn (get training from a CFII) or stay out of clouds. And wear a chute.
>
> Staying out of clouds requires, discipline, knowledge, and some luck.
>
> If you think there is a serious chance that you will find yourself in IMC, investing in some sort of attitude indicator would be money well spent. $1000 gets you a portable (non-TSO) Dynon attitude indicator; or a TruTrak Gemini (http://www.trutrakap.com/product/gemini/). Either will save your butt if you know how to use it. Same for a Butterfly vario, if you win the lottery :^)
>
> Unless you practice a lot in actual IMC, trying to switch to needle, ball, and airspeed (or a TruTrak turn coordinator) when suddenly enveloped in a cloud, may not be as easy as some may think... An attidude indicator MAY be easier, but practice would still be necessary (Foggles in a glider? Leave you canopy cover on inflight? Have your glider buddy in formation in his glider to keep a good lookout?).
>
> Really, it boils down to managing risk. And we all know how well humans do that...
>
> Me, I want an AOA gauge!
>
> Kirk
> 66

--
Dan, 5J

I shall be replacing my T&S with one of these over the winter:
http://www.kanardia.eu/products/horis-adahrs

They don't appear to have a US dealer but the price seems reasonable &
2.25" suits my panel better.


At 19:12 03 November 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>That TruTrak Gemini looks like something I might like in my next glider.
>
>On 11/3/2015 9:46 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
>> Some thoughts:
>>
>> If you don't know how to fly instruments, either learn (get training
from
>a CFII) or stay out of clouds. And wear a chute.
>>
>> Staying out of clouds requires, discipline, knowledge, and some luck.
>>
>> If you think there is a serious chance that you will find yourself in
>IMC, investing in some sort of attitude indicator would be money well
>spent. $1000 gets you a portable (non-TSO) Dynon attitude indicator; or
a
>TruTrak Gemini (http://www.trutrakap.com/product/gemini/). Either will
save
>your butt if you know how to use it. Same for a Butterfly vario, if you
win
>the lottery :^)
>>
>> Unless you practice a lot in actual IMC, trying to switch to needle,
>ball, and airspeed (or a TruTrak turn coordinator) when suddenly
enveloped
>in a cloud, may not be as easy as some may think... An attidude indicator
>MAY be easier, but practice would still be necessary (Foggles in a
glider?
>Leave you canopy cover on inflight? Have your glider buddy in formation
in
>his glider to keep a good lookout?).
>>
>> Really, it boils down to managing risk. And we all know how well
humans
>do that...
>>
>> Me, I want an AOA gauge!
>>
>> Kirk
>> 66
>
>--
>Dan, 5J
>

On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 18:05:40 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not
> have the TSO to be used in IFR flying.*

Glider cloud flying is not considered real IFR flying in Europe (for example), and gliders or equipment do not have to be TSO/IFR, only cloud flying equipment is required (compass, turn&bank, 10 m/s vario, clock). Difference between cloud flying glider and real IFR flight is that with latter you are supposed to know where you are and where you are going. Glider cloud flying regulations kind of suppose that you are flying well above ground (which is always VMC) and stay locally inside one cloud at a time. I would have no problem using non-TSO'd equipment, don't you have thousands of experimental planes flying IFR every day using these?

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 10:44:18 AM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 18:05:40 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not
> > have the TSO to be used in IFR flying.*
>
> Glider cloud flying is not considered real IFR flying in Europe (for example), and gliders or equipment do not have to be TSO/IFR, only cloud flying equipment is required (compass, turn&bank, 10 m/s vario, clock). Difference between cloud flying glider and real IFR flight is that with latter you are supposed to know where you are and where you are going. Glider cloud flying regulations kind of suppose that you are flying well above ground (which is always VMC) and stay locally inside one cloud at a time. I would have no problem using non-TSO'd equipment, don't you have thousands of experimental planes flying IFR every day using these?

10 m/s vario? Really?

I thought euros used pretty much the same 10 knot varios the rest of us use, but labelled ±5 m/s.

Not sure why you think having SOME sort of backup is a "bad" idea. The number of bailouts, crashes and general fear-inducing crashes is unbelievable. I'll tell you what's a bad idea - the flights that started this thread. THAT was a bad idea. I'm glad he survived, but there it is.

FWIW, I went up with an instructor recently doing some instrument training and we brought the aircraft down to 200 ft agl for a perfect landing. Stratus plus an ipad mini or iphone properly attached gives you weather, terrain and an AHRS. Seems way better than just heading up hoping no clouds come along.

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 11:28:41 UTC+2, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> 10 m/s vario? Really?
>
> I thought euros used pretty much the same 10 knot varios the rest of us use, but labelled ±5 m/s.

Got to admit that I've no idea what EASA says of minumum equipment for cloud flying, if anything, but yes, that is at least what our (still valid) national regulation says. Nowhere is said that it has to be mechanical, though, so variable scale electric vario is ok. (I would not depart my beloved 10 m/s mechanical Bohli at any price.)

How is it that you Euro Guys are so advanced in certain areas and and so
retarded in others? Aren't we all? ;-)

I would happily fly IFR with the Dynon D2 but, alas, I live in the "New
World", and, in reality, our weather is so terrific out west that we
need an occasional break from flying when the stray cloud passes by.

On 11/4/2015 12:44 AM, krasw wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3 November 2015 18:05:40 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> The Dynon D2 looks like a fine piece of equipment but it does not
>> have the TSO to be used in IFR flying.
> Glider cloud flying is not considered real IFR flying in Europe (for example), and gliders or equipment do not have to be TSO/IFR, only cloud flying equipment is required (compass, turn&bank, 10 m/s vario, clock). Difference between cloud flying glider and real IFR flight is that with latter you are supposed to know where you are and where you are going. Glider cloud flying regulations kind of suppose that you are flying well above ground (which is always VMC) and stay locally inside one cloud at a time. I would have no problem using non-TSO'd equipment, don't you have thousands of experimental planes flying IFR every day using these?

--
Dan, 5J

Report back when you've done it alone... In really crappy weather. I'd
be interested what Apple and whomever wrote Fore Flight have to say
about using their products as you're suggesting. I'm not talking about
advertisements, I'm talking about the small print and disclaimers.

I never said having a backup was a bad idea. What I said, or intended
to at least, was it's a bad idea to be untrained and to venture where
you shouldn't be without /_proper_/ instrumentation. A cell phone or an
iPad is /_not_/ proper equipment. It could be considered as a backup
for proper instrumentation, but that's another argument.

Dan

On 11/4/2015 5:49 AM, Andrew Ainslie wrote:
> Not sure why you think having SOME sort of backup is a "bad" idea. The number of bailouts, crashes and general fear-inducing crashes is unbelievable. I'll tell you what's a bad idea - the flights that started this thread. THAT was a bad idea. I'm glad he survived, but there it is.
>
> FWIW, I went up with an instructor recently doing some instrument training and we brought the aircraft down to 200 ft agl for a perfect landing. Stratus plus an ipad mini or iphone properly attached gives you weather, terrain and an AHRS. Seems way better than just heading up hoping no clouds come along.

--
Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 16:54:07 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> How is it that you Euro Guys are so advanced in certain areas and
> and so retarded in others?* Aren't we all? ;-)*

That is valid question. One would think that nothing can be more retarded than EASA regulating general aviation and gliding in particular. But then you insert national authorities who interpret these EASA regulations and all bets are off in general retardiness.

At 15:17 04 November 2015, krasw wrote:
>That is valid question. One would think that nothing can be more retarded
>t=
>han EASA regulating general aviation and gliding in particular. But then
>yo=
>u insert national authorities who interpret these EASA regulations and
all
>=
>bets are off in general retardiness.
>

One of the few sensible things that EASA licencing did prompt was the
introduction of a formal "cloud flying rating / certificate" in the UK.
This is relatively simple to get & covers the basics you need for flying a
glider in a fair weather cumulus or descending through a wave gap and
teaches you a standard set of recovery actions if things get out of hand.

Mind you our terrain is a lot more forgiving than the continental US - and
gliding out to lower ground (or even the coast!) is normally an option from
most wave climbs.

Several people at our club use the Kanardia A/H, which seems to work very
well in a glider environment. Power consumption is low enough I have mine
on from launch.

Of course we no doubt persevere with other retarded stuff :-)

As I mentioned before, I have one of THESE
<http://code7700.com/images/t37_attitude_indicator_j8.png> in a box at
the airport. It runs on 400 Hz AC and mine has a dual transistor
flip-flop which converts 12 Vdc to the required voltage for the attitude
indicator. It buzzes like a mad hornet when hooked up and I have no
idea of how much power it dissipates. It fits into an 80 mm hole and,
if installed, I'd have to complete a new weight and balance. But just
look at all the gizmos that whirl around and note that the sky and
ground are both black. Fun to use...

Here's the link for the non-HTML crowd:
http://code7700.com/images/t37_attitude_indicator_j8.png

On 11/4/2015 9:43 AM, Julian Rees wrote:
> At 15:17 04 November 2015, krasw wrote:
>> That is valid question. One would think that nothing can be more retarded
>> t=
>> han EASA regulating general aviation and gliding in particular. But then
>> yo=
>> u insert national authorities who interpret these EASA regulations and
> all
>> =
>> bets are off in general retardiness.
>>
> One of the few sensible things that EASA licencing did prompt was the
> introduction of a formal "cloud flying rating / certificate" in the UK.
> This is relatively simple to get & covers the basics you need for flying a
> glider in a fair weather cumulus or descending through a wave gap and
> teaches you a standard set of recovery actions if things get out of hand.
>
> Mind you our terrain is a lot more forgiving than the continental US - and
> gliding out to lower ground (or even the coast!) is normally an option from
> most wave climbs.
>
> Several people at our club use the Kanardia A/H, which seems to work very
> well in a glider environment. Power consumption is low enough I have mine
> on from launch.
>
> Of course we no doubt persevere with other retarded stuff :-)
>

--
Dan, 5J

At the risk of sounding defensive and getting Andrew all fired up again (the reason so many avoid RAS to start with), I think it is pretty obvious that I made several mistakes throughout the course of this flight that caused the end result. I would say, given the conditions and clearing trend at takeoff and climb, that to say the entire flight was just an indicator of a dumb mistake of a careless pilot is a bit of an over-generalization and Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would have significantly changed my plan for the flight, but given the conditions under the clouds (the LS-4 that was forced to land in the valley just after me due to incredibly low ceilings) i don't know that it would have resulted in any better of an outcome, and probably would have given me a false sense of security and forced a more dangerous decision when the best option was to indeed bail out. How many pilots would intentionally go into IFR when there is a VFR hole still available? The greatest mistake in this flight was the hurry up mentality and decision to try and dive through the VFR hole.

I have no doubt in my mind that the outcome of my flight was pilot error at 18,000 feet, and little confidence that I would have used an artificial horizon to my benefit and not to my demise if i had had one on board.

On 11/4/2015 6:16 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> ...I think it is pretty obvious
> that I made several mistakes throughout the course of this flight that
> caused the end result. I would say, given the conditions and clearing trend
> at takeoff and climb, that to say the entire flight was just an indicator
> of a dumb mistake of a careless pilot is a bit of an over-generalization
> and Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst.

+1 on that 2nd sentence above!
- - - - - -

> While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would
> have significantly changed my plan for the flight, but given the conditions
> under the clouds (the LS-4 that was forced to land in the valley just after
> me due to incredibly low ceilings) i don't know that it would have resulted
> in any better of an outcome, and probably would have given me a false sense
> of security and forced a more dangerous decision when the best option was
> to indeed bail out.

+1 regarding anything tending to delay the bailout decision, once in IMC below
peak tops, regardless of having (or not) a moving map...no software out there
claiming to show "your personal cloud's base" that I know of. Delaying the
bailout decision once in peak-enveloping-IMC would simply have added another
link to the chain of decisions that so often lead to a fatal accident.
- - - - - -

> ...The greatest mistake in this flight
> was the hurry up mentality and decision to try and dive through the VFR
> hole.

So it seems from my seat in the peanut gallery... Sitting aloft may (would!)
have been genuinely worrisome as it clouded up beneath you, but clearance agl
is clearance agl; it's difficult to have too much of it when the ground
beneath you is vanishing, especially in something as "IMC benign" as a
large-deflection-landing-flap-equipped glider...
- - - - - -

> I have no doubt in my mind that the outcome of my flight was pilot error at
> 18,000 feet, and little confidence that I would have used an artificial
> horizon to my benefit and not to my demise if i had had one on board.

Well-said, IMO. Your "second guessing" seems spot-on from where I sit.

Some of the peanut gallery's thoughts expressed previously in this thread
remind me of the old saw about the difference between being *interested* in
something vs. being *committed* to something, you know, the one about the hen
having an interest in a ham and eggs breakfast, and the pig being committed.
The peanut gallery is interested; Joe PIC is committed.

Bob W.

On 11/4/2015 6:16 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would have significantly changed my plan for the flight

How would an AHRS change your plan? I'm not trying to add fuel to the
fire, but please consider that nothing you can practice on a computer
can prepare you for actual IMC flight. Take a look at this and
understand that the sensations generated by your vestibular system will
likely be too powerful to resist without proper training and experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation

And here's a youtube video showing two trained and experienced military
pilots who suffer spatial disorientation. One of them doesn't survive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAaeBE7uSzY

There seems to be too many people who think that simply having an
instrument will save their bacon when the chips are down. You might get
lucky if you make a controlled entry into IMC, but don't bet your life
on it. Being suddenly enveloped when a hole closes around you is
another story. Once you were in the soup you made the right choice to
jump. My only critique of your decision to jump was that I thought you
waited too long.
--
Dan, 5J

Hi Chris

Thanks for surviving, and many more thanks for sharing your experiences
with us. Your reports will form the basis of our future decision making
while wave flying as well as providing a valuable information for
teaching wave flying skills to new pilots.

On 05/11/2015 03:16, Christopher Giacomo wrote:

> While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would have significantly changed my plan for the flight

I believe that your primary mistake was failing to establish the hight
of the cloud base above the terrain before making the decision to
descend. You had the suitable tools available - the Oudie flight
computer and VHF radio. After that, bailing out, or crashing with the
glider, were the only other probable outcomes.

With a "glider cloud flying" rating and a gyro instrument, one would
expect to be able to thermal into the base of a cumulus cloud, climb and
then exit out the side (hopefully on course to the next turnpoint}. This
rating implies that you have the opportunity to practice thermaling into
clouds on a regular basis to keep current. There are not many glider
pilots who can claim that on social media.

With a gyro instrument but no current "glider cloud flying" rating the
best one can hope for is to descend to cloud base without pulling the
wings off. Your glider's speed limiting drag flaps rendered the gyro
instrument redundant.

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:54:33 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> On 11/4/2015 6:16 PM, Christopher
> Giacomo wrote:
>
>
>
> While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would have significantly changed my plan for the flight
>
>
>
> How would an AHRS change your plan?* I'm not trying to add fuel to
> the fire, but please consider that nothing you can practice on a
> computer can prepare you for actual IMC flight.* Take a look at this
> and understand that the sensations generated by your vestibular
> system will likely be too powerful to resist without proper training
> and experience.
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation
>
>
>
> And here's a youtube video showing two trained and experienced
> military pilots who suffer spatial disorientation.* One of them
> doesn't survive...
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAaeBE7uSzY
>
>
>
> There seems to be too many people who think that simply having an
> instrument will save their bacon when the chips are down.* You might
> get lucky if you make a controlled entry into IMC, but don't bet
> your life on it.* Being suddenly enveloped when a hole closes around
> you is another story.* Once you were in the soup you made the right
> choice to jump.* My only critique of your decision to jump was that
> I thought you waited too long.
>
>
> --
>
> Dan, 5J

Dan,
I think you misinterpreted what i meant by "changing my plan." While i intend to put an AHRS in my next ship and was planning on installing one in the HP, the purpose was to ensure i was at least wings level while doing some sort of benign spiral over more level terrain, and not to get myself out of the sort of situation i found myself in. If i had an AHRS at my disposal, i believe that i probably would have foolishly attempted to use it in order to fly down the valley, rather than tell myself that i cannot trust my senses and eventually bail out.

I am in no way comfortable in any form of IMC, whether it be in a single Cu or in a solid deck. While an AHRS can be a very valuable tool to have in the cockpit, like any other tool, you need to understand both its limitations and your own abilities to effectively utilize it. I plan to work towards developing a far lower cost option for "Get-down" ARHS units, but in no way take the notion of inadvertent flight in IMC lightly... my training told me to jump when that happens, and that's why i did exactly that.
Chris

You're right, Chris. I did misinterpret what you said. Thanks for
clarifying.

On another note, having the 90 deg flaps improves your chances greatly
against total loss of control but provides no help against coming out of
the clouds too low to recover (or not coming out at all).

On 11/5/2015 8:20 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:54:33 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> On 11/4/2015 6:16 PM, Christopher
>> Giacomo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> While I have zero time under the hood, i have no doubt that an ARHS would have significantly changed my plan for the flight
>>
>>
>>
>> How would an AHRS change your plan? I'm not trying to add fuel to
>> the fire, but please consider that nothing you can practice on a
>> computer can prepare you for actual IMC flight. Take a look at this
>> and understand that the sensations generated by your vestibular
>> system will likely be too powerful to resist without proper training
>> and experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_illusions_in_aviation
>>
>>
>>
>> And here's a youtube video showing two trained and experienced
>> military pilots who suffer spatial disorientation. One of them
>> doesn't survive...
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAaeBE7uSzY
>>
>>
>>
>> There seems to be too many people who think that simply having an
>> instrument will save their bacon when the chips are down. You might
>> get lucky if you make a controlled entry into IMC, but don't bet
>> your life on it. Being suddenly enveloped when a hole closes around
>> you is another story. Once you were in the soup you made the right
>> choice to jump. My only critique of your decision to jump was that
>> I thought you waited too long.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dan, 5J
> Dan,
> I think you misinterpreted what i meant by "changing my plan." While i intend to put an AHRS in my next ship and was planning on installing one in the HP, the purpose was to ensure i was at least wings level while doing some sort of benign spiral over more level terrain, and not to get myself out of the sort of situation i found myself in. If i had an AHRS at my disposal, i believe that i probably would have foolishly attempted to use it in order to fly down the valley, rather than tell myself that i cannot trust my senses and eventually bail out.
>
> I am in no way comfortable in any form of IMC, whether it be in a single Cu or in a solid deck. While an AHRS can be a very valuable tool to have in the cockpit, like any other tool, you need to understand both its limitations and your own abilities to effectively utilize it. I plan to work towards developing a far lower cost option for "Get-down" ARHS units, but in no way take the notion of inadvertent flight in IMC lightly... my training told me to jump when that happens, and that's why i did exactly that.
> Chris

--
Dan, 5J

Agreed, i absolutely love 90 degree trailing flaps on the HP. I have tried the benign spiral in several ships, and the '14 was the only one that i would actually trust to stay slow and stable in rougher air. It does work in other gliders, but it needs to usually be set up properly, and assumes no large turbulence.

I had already descended 2k feet or so completely hands-off and when i bailed out, and the glider was completely stable, exited the cloud upright, and continued flying away from me...couldn't ask for better performance in a dire situation.
Chris

Agreed, i absolutely love 90 degree trailing flaps on the HP. I have tried the benign spiral in several ships, and the '14 was the only one that i would actually trust to stay slow and stable in rougher air. It does work in other gliders, but it needs to usually be set up properly, and assumes no large turbulence.

I had already descended 2k feet or so completely hands-off and when i bailed out, and the glider was completely stable, exited the cloud upright, and continued flying away from me...couldn't ask for better performance in a dire situation.
Chris

Must be surreal watching your glider flying away from you...
From the condition of the glider it looks like it made relatively low energy landing.
Who landed first?

Ramy

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:36:20 PM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:

> From the condition of the glider it looks like it made relatively low energy landing.

Most of the terrain near Mount Washington is below treeline, and 99.99% of it is very densely spaced trees. (Chris landed between two trees spaced 4 feet apart.) My glider has a profoundly stable benign spiral and a Jar-22 'safety cockpit' (more modern gliders have even stronger cockpits). I wear an emergency parachute. I've never made a parachute jump. I'm old enough to have weak leg bones, but I've never had a fracture and I'm not overweight. Breaking a leg on a parachute jump is a non-zero possibility.

If I were in Chris's situation, my first thought would be to stay in the glider until it came to rest in the trees. I'd deploy my PLB while I was waiting to descend (hoping to get a rescue call out before I lost satellite contact in the dense trees), make a Mayday radio call, and tighten my shoulder straps.

I might have a few seconds to pull back the stick, slow down and stall into the trees.

I'd rather have the limited protection of the glider around me, rather than plunge through the tree canopy dangling from a parachute.

I know that you're not suppose to activate a PLB until you've exhausted self-rescue options, but crashing a glider into the trees, I'd expect to need rescue. Being off trail in October in the White Mountains late in the day is a precarious survival situation due to hypothermia, especially if injured and relatively old. Chris's plane flipped upside down after landing. Does anyone carry 50' of spectra cord in a chest pack (to use as a rappel line attached to the parachute harness and anchored to a shoulder strap)?

Am I an idiot?

BTW, following last year's Reno IMC bailout discussion (RAS discussion can change behavior), this year I limited myself to blue sky dry wave days (had two great wave flights with low probability of IMC), but getting stuck in IMC is still a remote possibility. The year before last I dove through a Foehn hole or two (which is exactly how Chris got stuck).

On 11/7/2015 6:42 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Am I an idiot?

Good questions, but riding an aircraft into the trees is not the best
option. In the case under discussion the glider /does/ look relatively
undamaged but there's no telling how much it crumpled up before
springing back. I once attempted to render aid to two pilots in what
appeared to be a relatively undamaged RV-4. The only apparent damage was
broken propeller, landing gear, and canopy but, when the firemen pulled
them out of the wreck, it was apparent that they'd died instantly due to
the forward fuselage folding up, smashing them, and springing back.

My flight training has included such gems as, "put it between two
trees". Really? As you said, the forests in northern New England are
pretty dense. Put it between those two trees, and run headlong into the
next one! Never, never, never stall the aircraft into a crash landing.
If you time it perfectly (figure the odds) it may work out well. More
likely you'll plunge nose first between the trees to the ground and that
won't be pretty.

I like your idea of the spectra rope in the chest pack as a let down
line but be sure it won't interfere with pulling the rip cord during a
bailout. Does the plan include some sort of mountaineering or rock
climbing device so that you can let yourself down safely? I know I
couldn't hold onto a thin, slick line with my bare hands.

--
Dan, 5J

At 13:42 07 November 2015, son_of_flubber wrote:

>If I were in Chris's situation, my first thought would be to stay in the
>glider until it came to rest in the trees. I'd deploy my PLB while I was
>waiting to descend (hoping to get a rescue call out before I lost
satellite
>contact in the dense trees), make a Mayday radio call, and tighten my
>shoulder straps.
>
>I might have a few seconds to pull back the stick, slow down and stall
into the trees.
>

Many years ago I was unfortunate to witness a fatal accident - a (metal)
glider spun in on finals and went into thick pine trees. When we got there
the glider was hung in the trees without major damage about 6-10ft up,
unfortunately the pilot had been struck on the head by a tree branch that
came through the canopy and did not survive. Very sad as if that branch had
missed him it looked like he would have walked away.

So something to think about - a stalled in landing might be better, but
what happens after you hit the tops is very unpredictable.

https://www.towmeup.com/about/tree-self-rescue/ tree kit. Other trick is carry a container of dental floss so you can pull a rope up to yourself when help arrives. As mentioned put some thought into how you carry stuff.

Ramy - Not sure who landed first, as I only saw the glider for the first two rotations of the parachute. Last time i saw it, i was ahead on the way down.

flubber - The key element you are missing in that thought process is the ability to see the terrain coming. In that location, much of the mountain tops were completely in the clouds, so determining when to pull up and how to aim could have been impossible. As many other alluded to, i probably was more predisposed to jump due to my experiences and having a much cheaper ship than most. Chances are, if i had come out from the clouds under control, i probably would have tried to put it down on rt 16, in the wildcat parking lot, or someplace similar. All of those probably would have resulted in similar amounts of damage to the glider.

I knew full well that a bailout would involve the risk of breaking bones, puncture wounds, and being stranded in the woods. To me, those are all far more comforting than the thought of entering trees with a pair of 11" metal spars buckling behind my head and not knowing what was coming through the canopy. When i crashed, it was only 1300 local, so it wasn't really that late in the day.
Chris

On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 10:19:56 PM UTC-5, Christopher Giacomo wrote:

> flubber - The key element you are missing in that thought process is the ability to see the terrain coming. In that location, much of the mountain tops were completely in the clouds, so determining when to pull up and how to aim could have been impossible.

I think I will just opt out of wet wave.

That said, flying or parachuting into the trees is still a possibility, so I will pursue tree self rescue kit and training https://www.towmeup.com/about/tree-self-rescue/

Chris, please explain "two rotations of the parachute". Were you
steering the chute in circles, and if so, why, or was this uncommanded?
Were you using a round canopy or ram air? What did you jump with
previously?

Glad nobody suggested having a glass panel with synthetic vision...

On 11/7/2015 8:19 PM, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> Ramy - Not sure who landed first, as I only saw the glider for the first two rotations of the parachute. Last time i saw it, i was ahead on the way down.
>
> flubber - The key element you are missing in that thought process is the ability to see the terrain coming. In that location, much of the mountain tops were completely in the clouds, so determining when to pull up and how to aim could have been impossible. As many other alluded to, i probably was more predisposed to jump due to my experiences and having a much cheaper ship than most. Chances are, if i had come out from the clouds under control, i probably would have tried to put it down on rt 16, in the wildcat parking lot, or someplace similar. All of those probably would have resulted in similar amounts of damage to the glider.
>
> I knew full well that a bailout would involve the risk of breaking bones, puncture wounds, and being stranded in the woods. To me, those are all far more comforting than the thought of entering trees with a pair of 11" metal spars buckling behind my head and not knowing what was coming through the canopy. When i crashed, it was only 1300 local, so it wasn't really that late in the day.
> Chris

--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:49:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Chris, please explain "two rotations of the parachute".* Were you
> steering the chute in circles, and if so, why, or was this
> uncommanded?* Were you using a round canopy or ram air?* What did
> you jump with previously?
>
> Dan, 5J

Dan,
I was using a security 350, which i believe is a round chute. I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano. As a result, i was steering using the right riser by accelerating the turn when going into the wind and relaxing when running with the wind. All of my previous jumps were done with steerable rectangular chutes with steering toggles... a bit easier to steer.

Chris

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 10:49:05 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Chris, please explain "two rotations of the parachute".* Were you
> steering the chute in circles, and if so, why, or was this
> uncommanded?* Were you using a round canopy or ram air?* What did
> you jump with previously?
>
> Dan, 5J

Dan,
I was using a security 350, which i believe is a round chute. I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano. As a result, i was steering using the right riser by accelerating the turn when going into the wind and relaxing when running with the wind. All of my previous jumps were done with steerable rectangular chutes with steering toggles... a bit easier to steer.

Chris

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-6, Christopher Giacomo wrote:

"I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano."

First, congrats on making the right decisions in time to save your butt.

But really, you were hanging on to your logger instead of steering your chute with both hands, into trees?

Probably not the best decision, but better lucky than good, after all :^)

When I went through bailout/ejection training in the AF, there was heavy emphasis on throwing away the D-ring after pulling it - life support always said if we really wanted a D-ring that bad they would give us one!

So, perhaps a little lesson to be re-learned by all of us who wear an emergency chute: DON'T HANG ON TO THE STUPID D-RING! Pull it, throw it away, then concentrate on using BOTH hands to steer your chute.

OLC points are really not worth it - and most loggers will survive a crash anyway.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

(PS: Of course, extra style points for putting the Nano in a pocket while in freefall...that's what James Bond would do!)

Interesting update today...
After further review, the NTSB has upgraded the whole ordeal from an "incident" to an Accident, requiring the FAA (who they have hardly been on speaking terms with and refused to send any documentation to) to complete a bunch more paperwork and sign off on my remedial training.

The reason? The FAA/NTSB definition for an accident is an event that causes major structural damage to the aircraft. In my case, they deemed the wing and empanage damage to be minor and non-structural. I swear i'm not making this up, but it is now an accident because when the empty sailplane hit the trees upside-down, the battery most likely smashed the forward canopy, which the NTSB determined to be a "structural" component of the aircraft... Yes, that thin piece of lexan that was cobbled into a loose aluminum frame was considered to be "structural."

I think what really happened is there was some inter-agency fighting and my accident got caught in the middle of the ****ing contest. You can know something is absurd when you have the FAA trying to call BS on your behalf...

Still no word on the salvage sale.

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:39:43 PM UTC-5, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
> Interesting update today...
> After further review, the NTSB has upgraded the whole ordeal from an "incident" to an Accident, requiring the FAA (who they have hardly been on speaking terms with and refused to send any documentation to) to complete a bunch more paperwork and sign off on my remedial training.
>
> The reason? The FAA/NTSB definition for an accident is an event that causes major structural damage to the aircraft. In my case, they deemed the wing and empanage damage to be minor and non-structural. I swear i'm not making this up, but it is now an accident because when the empty sailplane hit the trees upside-down, the battery most likely smashed the forward canopy, which the NTSB determined to be a "structural" component of the aircraft... Yes, that thin piece of lexan that was cobbled into a loose aluminum frame was considered to be "structural."
>
> I think what really happened is there was some inter-agency fighting and my accident got caught in the middle of the ****ing contest. You can know something is absurd when you have the FAA trying to call BS on your behalf....
>
> Still no word on the salvage sale.

"We're from the government, we're here to help you....".......

"Run away, very fast, very far...."

Look at the bright side, you're still here to comment on this. Glad to see that.

Hope 2016 is better for you.

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 5:24:30 PM UTC-6, Christopher Giacomo wrote:
>
> "I was trying to steer it downwind to get closer to the road, but could not pull down on the left riser, as that hand had a death grip on my nano."
>
> First, congrats on making the right decisions in time to save your butt.
>
> But really, you were hanging on to your logger instead of steering your chute with both hands, into trees?
>
> Probably not the best decision, but better lucky than good, after all :^)
>
> When I went through bailout/ejection training in the AF, there was heavy emphasis on throwing away the D-ring after pulling it - life support always said if we really wanted a D-ring that bad they would give us one!
>
> So, perhaps a little lesson to be re-learned by all of us who wear an emergency chute: DON'T HANG ON TO THE STUPID D-RING! Pull it, throw it away, then concentrate on using BOTH hands to steer your chute.
>
> OLC points are really not worth it - and most loggers will survive a crash anyway.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk
> 66
>
> (PS: Of course, extra style points for putting the Nano in a pocket while in freefall...that's what James Bond would do!)

i agree with the james bondness, from what i understand though, there is no steering the round chutes. you are basically gonna land where you land no matter what, and the only thing you have control over is using the correct touchdown procedure(knees bent, feet together, tuck and roll thing.

>
> 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.
>
If the weather situation described is a possibility (which in this case it was) and one possible outcome is to be left with no option but to bail out (which in this it was), then why are pilots engaging in the activity?

>> So, perhaps a little lesson to be re-learned by all of us who wear an
>> emergency chute: DON'T HANG ON TO THE STUPID D-RING! Pull it, throw it
>> away, then concentrate on using BOTH hands to steer your chute.
>
> ...from what i understand though, there is no
> steering the round chutes. you are basically gonna land where you land no
> matter what, and the only thing you have control over is using the correct
> touchdown procedure(knees bent, feet together, tuck and roll thing.
>

While I have no idea what manufacturers of round emergency 'chutes do these
days, in the days when used and ex-military ones were common in the glider
world (e.g '70's/'80's), an also-quite-common "four line release" modification
was routinely offered/performed by master riggers. It allowed - post-inflation
- the user to quickly release 2 risers on each rear side of the canopy,
thereby providing some measure of continual air-venting and, reportedly,
distinct forward motion along with some degree of steerability.

"Way back when," I had it done to my canopy, but can't speak for its
effectiveness.

Bob W.

P.S. Also, and probably showing the different influences between military and
sport-flying worlds ( :-) ), it was commonly held in the gliding world that
hanging onto the D-ring was preferred, to avoid the $15-or-so you'd be charged
for a new one if you ever had occasion to take your deployed 'chute in for
repacking! At the risk of triggering a burst of internet-enabled
expert-outrage and superciliousness, my brain imagines that inserting the loop
of a D-ring betwixt thumb and index finger thereby retaining same while also
retaining normal hand function, would be trivially easy to do while only
marginally increasing one's under-canopy risks.

>> 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.
>>
> If the weather situation described is a possibility (which in this case it
> was) and one possible outcome is to be left with no option but to bail out
> (which in this it was), then why are pilots engaging in the activity?

Presuming this is a serious question (and not a rhetorical snark), a short
answer (no snark intended) is: because the personal rewards are worth the
apparent-to-Joe-Pilot risks.

A slightly longer and to-be-hoped more informative reply is noting that
sky/cloud conditions rarely change instantaneously over a sky volume in which
your averagely-informed soaring pilot ought to be (is?) paying attention to.
Thoughtful, comprehensive reading of earlier posts in this thread in which
atmospheric aspects of this day/incident are touched upon, make it apparent
that was (or seemed to me, anyway, from a wave-flying, glider-pilot-informed
self-interested distance) the case. I consider "overall atmospheric awareness"
(beyond merely staying up, I mean) a huge component of "general situational
awareness."

That said, there's no doubt in my mind - having been raised and become a
soaring pilot adjacent the mid-Appalachians and then done the bulk of my
subsequent (including considerable) wave soaring in the intermountain west -
that "eastern waves" tend to be "wetter" than "western waves," though some of
my most memorable western wave flights were "wet" buy local standards. In that
sense, for the moisture reason as well as additional secondary ones {e.g.
local geography and surface conditions) I tend to believe that eastern wave
soaring "generally requires" more incoming weather vigilance than western U.S.
wave soaring.

YMMV.
Bob W.

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 9:19:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> If the weather situation described is a possibility (which in this case it was) and one possible outcome is to be left with no option but to bail out (which in this it was), then why are pilots engaging in the activity?

The only thing that is certain in life, is death. If you want to guarantee risk free flying, stay on the ground at all times.

Please read your post again.

One pilot turned down wind and landed safely in Maine, therefore it was
not a case of no option but to bail out.

The pilot who ultimately bailed made a bad decision for that particular
set of circumstances, and he's publicly discussed that.

Why do you drive a car when there's a possibility of a crash?
Practically anything you do in this life involves some sort of risk. We
glider pilots evaluate the risks of our sport and enthusiastically press on!

On 1/6/2016 7:19 AM, wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> If the weather situation described is a possibility (which in this case it was) and one possible outcome is to be left with no option but to bail out (which in this it was), then why are pilots engaging in the activity?

--
Dan, 5J

On 1/6/2016 8:56 AM, Bob Whelan wrote:
> While I have no idea what manufacturers of round emergency 'chutes do
> these days, in the days when used and ex-military ones were common in
> the glider world (e.g '70's/'80's), an also-quite-common "four line
> release" modification was routinely offered/performed by master
> riggers. It allowed - post-inflation - the user to quickly release 2
> risers on each rear side of the canopy, thereby providing some measure
> of continual air-venting and, reportedly, distinct forward motion
> along with some degree of steerability.

During my military flying days we were issued a hook-blade knife which
was carried in a flight suit pocket on the left leg just below the
crotch. We called it the "peter pocket" for obvious reasons. It was
attached to a grommet in the pocket's snap flap by about 5 or 6 feet of
cord so it wouldn't be lost if dropped. All of the parachutes I wore
also had a 4-line modification which allowed releasing the back center 4
suspension lines (two from each rear riser). I guess the knife was for
the occasion that I had an unmodified chute or something about the
modification failed. Release of the 4 lines would open a lobe at the
rear of the canopy which allowed air to spill out at the rear of the
chute both reducing oscillation under the canopy and imparting a small
amount of forward motion.

My old Pioneer Thin Pack round canopy emergency chute had a mesh panel
at the rear which served the same function as a 4-line cut. For my
personal safety, I retired that chute, mainly because no riggers these
days seem to have the wherewithal to inspect it due to it's 40+ year
age, and replaced it with a ram air canopy for which I took several
training jumps.

The advice to discard the rip cord is to "avoid it becoming tangled in
the parachute". Frankly, I find this to be so unlikely as to be
ridiculous but the $50 or so required to replace it seems to be small
insurance against that unlikely event. Likewise, with my current chute,
the pilot chute and deployment bag are sacrificial, i.e., they're not
connected to the canopy and, after deploying the canopy, they're lost.
The advice in that regard is to not try to catch them during your
descent. Picture hitting a bridge or power line just as it comes within
your reach!

--
Dan, 5J

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 9:19:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> If the weather situation described is a possibility (which in this case it was) and one possible outcome is to be left with no option but to bail out (which in this it was), then why are pilots engaging in the activity?

Richard, on that day, there was other options that could have been taken earlier on in the flight that would (in 20/20 hindsight) been safer and more conservative. From my vantage point when beginning the descent, I was unable to see to the east as I was still riding along the front edge of the lenticular. As that time I assumed the safest option to be an emergency descent down through the last closing foehn gap, which turned out to be a critical mistake.

With the length of this discussion now, I understand that the event details may be vague, so I invite you to read though the files posted earlier to examine the event for yourself.

"that pilot"

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 9:56:20 AM UTC-6, Bob Whelan wrote:
> P.S. Also, and probably showing the different influences between military and
> sport-flying worlds ( :-) ), it was commonly held in the gliding world that
> hanging onto the D-ring was preferred, to avoid the $15-or-so you'd be charged
> for a new one if you ever had occasion to take your deployed 'chute in for
> repacking! At the risk of triggering a burst of internet-enabled
> expert-outrage and superciliousness, my brain imagines that inserting the loop
> of a D-ring betwixt thumb and index finger thereby retaining same while also
> retaining normal hand function, would be trivially easy to do while only
> marginally increasing one's under-canopy risks.

Hmm, so now you are trying to PLF on some rocky slope or grab a tree as you let down into a forest, while hanging on to a useless $15 D-ring? Sorry, that seems like a bit foolish to me. We aren't talking about a controlled landing on some nice smooth LZ, this is an emergency descent onto unknown territory! I can see several ways that D-ring could cause some serious pain and damage to your hand in a rough landing, too. If you are really cool under pressure, drop it at the last moment!

Seriously, while this may all seem a bit trivial, the process of bailing out of a glider and successfully completing the descent under canopy needs to be carefully thought out before it happens!

Cheers,

Kirk
66
(Airborne, Ft Benning 1971, plus AF free fall training, 1973).

I'm guessing we're on the same page. In any event, since this thread is
low-risk to morph into a "dreaded technology monster" discussion (PLB's noted,
ha ha), and, I happen to think some of the safety-related things it touches
upon are of very real & serious importance to every glider pilot, and hoping
to not be beating a moribund horse, I'll chance expanding on a few items...

On 1/6/2016 1:05 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 9:56:20 AM UTC-6, Bob Whelan wrote:
>> P.S. Also, and probably showing the different influences between
>> military and sport-flying worlds ( :-) ), it was commonly held in the
>> gliding world that hanging onto the D-ring was preferred, to avoid the
>> $15-or-so you'd be charged for a new one if you ever had occasion to take
>> your deployed 'chute in for repacking! At the risk of triggering a burst
>> of internet-enabled expert-outrage and superciliousness, my brain
>> imagines that inserting the loop of a D-ring betwixt thumb and index
>> finger thereby retaining same while also retaining normal hand function,
>> would be trivially easy to do while only marginally increasing one's
>> under-canopy risks.
>
> Hmm, so now you are trying to PLF on some rocky slope or grab a tree as
> you let down into a forest, while hanging on to a useless $15 D-ring?
> Sorry, that seems like a bit foolish to me.
It does to me, too (although "a bit" may be too kind)! That's why I would've
had no qualms ditching mine (pardon the pun) when for a while it looked like I
was going to land in a big mountain reservoir. As it was, I saved it with no
D-ring-inflicted injuries despite landing in the county dump.

> We aren't talking about a controlled landing on some nice smooth LZ, this
> is an emergency descent onto unknown territory! I can see several ways that
> D-ring could cause some serious pain and damage to your hand in a rough
> landing, too. If you are really cool under pressure, drop it at the last
> moment!
Murphy is real, so, "Roger all that!"

> Seriously, while this may all seem a bit trivial, the process of bailing
> out of a glider and successfully completing the descent under canopy needs
> to be carefully thought out before it happens!
100% "Roger THAT!!!"

>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk 66 (Airborne, Ft Benning 1971, plus AF free fall training, 1973).
Thanks for your military service!

Bob - no broken bones yet - W. (extensive kiddie 10'-porch-jumping, book
l'arnin', ultimately BTDT PLF 1975)