On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:
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

Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!

However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.

Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.

My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.

The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.