At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:
Major snip...

..."Will pilots of ALL skill
levels and currency be best served by a simple or complicated
procedure?"
"Is creating a mindset that turning down adopted offer the best chance
of
survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"


I could be wrong, but sometimes I sense a tendency to "reductio ad
absurdum"
on the part of some folks - to convince others of their point of view? I
dunno...but as a non-instructor, glider-only pilot, I managed to
mostly-weekend-acquire ~2600 hours without ever contacting the ground
"out
of
control," to also safely and sans alarums demonstrate the proper
response(s)
to simulated low-altitude, departure-end rope breaks, and I WAS surprised
when
my ab-initio instructor (initially, verbally) introduced the concept of a

not-that-flight-pre-announced low-altitude rope break as a possibility
for
my
imminent future...and then who "immediately asked all the expected 'silly

questions'" of my instructor. That noted, nowhere along the line did I
ever

get it into my head things like: 200' agl is an absolute go/no-go
turnaround
altitude; or a downwind landing on the departure runway is ALWAYS to be
preferred; or that no judgment was required to safely and effectively
respond
to a low-altitude rope break; or that it was "simple" (or, "complicated"
for
that matter) to pilot my way through the post PTT attempt.

What I DID get into my head - and I can't remember if I did this entirely
on
my own (out of fearful respect for the fragility of my "somewhat resilient

pink body") or through some combination of instruction, reading,
cogitation,
etc. - was that it mattered VERY MUCH that I do certain things as PIC
"correctly" - for under certain (thin margin) circumstances I would not
get
a
second chance.

As many of my math instructors loved to say, It was "immediately obvious
to

the most casual observer" that a low-altitude rope break was a thin margin

event, and it was up to me to "handle it right" - or else my frail pink
bod

would be at higher risk than it needed to be.

IMHO, anyone who gets caught up in defending a stance I'd characterize as
"do
it this way or you're wrong," when "this way" is procedurally based to the

discussional exclusion of maintaining solid flight control is missing the

point to a certain extent, and - yes - I understand the nature of
instruction
and the need to instruct using "building blocks of knowledge"...which is
the
way I've "forever" thought of "the magic 200 feet" concept. It's a great
place
to start. It isn't fundamentally dangerous (from a control of the glider
perspective). It's not fundamentally difficult to pilot as Joe PIC. It's
not
appropriate under all circumstances...while (in my view) "hitting the
ground
under control" IS appropriate under all circumstances. The question then
becomes, "What ground?" That's where more judgement enters the picture.

As others have noted, it's not at all uncommon in the intermountain
western

U.S. to aerotow launch from fields where accepting something other than a

downwind landing on the departure runway from 200' agl in the event of a
low-altitude rope break is (obviously, unarguably, inevitably, etc...)
"the

best/safest thing to do."

Being 100% first-person-ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the
tragic
crash sparking this (contains much food for thought) thread, several of my

operating conclusions a 1) we can never know for sure what was in the
deceased pilot's mind; 2) he likely hit the ground "in a non-flying
condition"; 3) 2) is further evidence for me to "not do that." Tying the
preceding into "the magic 200' agl PTT altitude" is easy enough for me in
that
if "in my judgment" I think 200' IS sufficient under the circumstances to

attempt a turn-around, then I'll do it; if not, then I'll do something
different...but whatever I do I'll work darned hard to ensure I maintain
control all the way to the ground. Duh???

Respectfully,
Bob W.

I cannot argue against the above. From what I have read in this thread I
have gained the impression that in the event of a launch failure at 200 ft
or above the recommended procedure is to turn back to the runway. This is
completely different from what I have taught for 45 years. In the event of
any launch failure the question that should be asked is "Can I land ahead"
If the answer is "yes" then land ahead, height does not come into it at
all. If, and only if the answer is "No" or "Not sure" should another action
be considered and executed.
In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead. I would and do simulate launch failures at 300ft
and above if there is no room to land ahead and allow students to practice
this, turning back as necessary. The reason is simple, while a pilot may be
faced with having to turn back at 200 ft the risks in doing so are not
justified in training, in the same way that we do not practice very low
winch launch failures, just after liftoff, or practice groundloops to avoid
obstacles both of which are covered by briefings. We do set up the ultra
low level launch failure situation from a normal approach but we never
simulate it off the launch because of the dangers involved.
There will always be circumstances where the "normal" procedure is not
possible but we do stress that the important part of the outcome is that
the pilot has the best chance of survival, an undamged glider is not a
priority in these circumstances.