Bill Daniels wrote:


A low pass with a pull-up into a downwind is a great example of risk
management. A pilot has little margin for less than perfect flying. The
danger is greatest when they are performed on the spur of the moment in
response to a burst of exuberance yet they can be done safely with planning.

My approach is as methodical as possible. I will perform chandelles at a
safe altitude until I know exactly what a particular glider is capable of.
I note the altitude gain at the 180 degree point and any variability in that
gain. I will deliberately fly the maneuver with the yaw string out of
center to see how forgiving the glider is to sloppy flying. Only when I am
certain that I know all of the gliders behaviors related to chandelles will
I even consider doing low pass. Then I look at the particular runway and
the options to abandon the maneuver with a landing in another area than
planned. (Dry lakes are great for practicing this.)

Val air, as the name suggests, is a single runway in a beautiful, narrow,
steep sided high mountain valley. A pilot flying a low pass would have no
horizon for reference since his view would be the rocky sides of the canyon.
There are no safe landing options other than the runway. The elevation is
far higher than that at Turf so the higher TAS would create the illusion
that the glider's IAS was higher than it really was. Finally, the L-13's
ability to gain height in a zoom is less than the Grob 103's flown at Turf.
Unlike the Grobs, it will spin with only modest provocation. In short, the
margins at Val Air were far less than at Turf. It looks like the mountains
bit yet another pilot.

Bill Daniels

Having been to Val-Air, and with lots of L-13 time (relative to my TT)
my first reaction to reading this was "He was doing what? There? Bold!"

Shawn