At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be
called to the other side.

We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were
no
glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.

Bob T

That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this
accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure
to
be adopted following a launch failure at low level.
There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from
a
low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance
of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these
circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at
very
low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.
Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a
low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding
sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going
to end one way.
There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land
straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,
aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the
expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a
controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better
outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to
concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the
glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A
much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,
inexperienced and low currency pilots.
The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will
pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is
the
best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted
offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of
glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer
those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make
the right decision to implement what they have learned.

My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not
several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic
Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come
into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch
failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The
teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary
priority
to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a
less
positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be
exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic
procedure
may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those
exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,
which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.
I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the
best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should
promote
the adoption of best practice.
To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.

A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and
I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to
be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang
Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,
but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the
bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft
are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,
ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand
the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.
The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power
flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead
as possible, into whatever is available.
I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight
ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the
back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.
Dave