I wouldn't want to speculate about the sequence of
events in a specific accident but note the author's
comment:

'designers of new machines might consider the installation
of a jettisonable drogue chute in the tail as standard
equipment.'

IMHO this should not just be 'considered' - all new
high performance glider designs should have a well
engineered jettisonable tail chute or some other fuselage
sited speed limiting device. If they already had them
at least 3 lives we have discussed recently on RAS
would likely have been saved.

John Galloway




At 13:42 06 July 2005, Bert Willing wrote:
I'd say that his analysis is questionable, at least.
It sounds like written by somebody who is astonished
that a 26m ship might
handle in some situations differently than a 15m ship,
and that if there is
any accident evolving of this, the designer of the
ship should be
responsible (and not improper pilot reactions).

And to the subject of pulling the airbrakes at vne
pull-ups: If the max
g-load at vne is lower with airbrakes extended than
without, it's written in
the manual. In any case, coming out of a spiral dive
/ spin combo with such
a ship, you are pretty sure that you will come _at
least_ close to vne
and/or max g-load. A pilot pulling the airbrakes _and_
pulling hard up in
such a situation hasn't thought about such a situation
beforehand (not
good), or has no idea what he is playing with (also
no good).
--
Bert Willing

ASW20 'TW'


'Bill' a �crit dans le message de news:
.com...
I posted the message below on the thread, 'Nimbus 4DT
accident 31 July
2000 in Spain.' I am posting it again for better visibility.

Stan Hall presented his analysis of the Nimbus-4DB
accident in Minden,
NV, 1999. Stan's analysis is scary, to say the least.

The article, Probing for the Smoking Gun, was reprinted
in the Soaring
Association of Canada's free flight, 2/04. Go to the
link below. Click
on free flight on the side bar. Go to free flight
back issues - 2004 -
issue 2. Down load the PDF file.

http://www.sac.ca/

Bill Feldbaumer 09