Two Italian friends lost to gliding

Giulia Incisa della Rocchetta, 23, died yesterday in an attempt to
outland her LS-8 during the EGC af the Armed Forces. The competition
is being held in Romorantin (France). She was well known in the
Gliding movement. She was selected to take part in the Junior's WGC
(Hus-Bos, UK, next July).

Aldo Bellato, 59, died on May 29th, when his LS-6 impacted the ridge
in the late afternoon, near Torino.

They both will be missed.

Aldo Cernezzi

Aldo, is there some way to learn more about the circumstances of these
two tragic accidents, particularly that in France ?

The entire soaring community is affected by these events.

Thank you, Charles V.

wrote:

Aldo, is there some way to learn more about the circumstances of these
two tragic accidents, particularly that in France ?

The entire soaring community is affected by these events.

Dear Charles,

IMHO there is something to learn from both accdents.

The French accident happened during an important competition, The
pilot had strong personal motivations. She scored very well in the
first comp day. We don't know much, partly because only a few days
have gone ( tough days for us all, believe me).
The wind was blowing at about 20 kts, over a generally landable area.
She was flying at very low altitude; we suppose that she was gliding
downwind. She probably decided too late to commit herself to an
outlanding. She impacted the ground in a steep attitude.
Considerations:
she used to fly a Discus since 2001, and got hold of her LS-8 only a
few days before this last flight;
we Italians are not used to fly the flatland in windy conditions.

The Italian mountain accident happened quite late in the afternoon, to
a pilot with 20+ yrs of experience. He (59 yrs old) enjoyed an
excellent soaring day, reaching the French Alps from Torino, and
maintaining 3000-4000 metres for many hours.(these facts are known
from his flight buddies). It seems that he had no oxygen on board. On
the way back to Torino, he found weak conditions. He crashed at a
relatively low altitude (1200m), at ridge level, in a place from where
he would not be able to glide back home. It is possible that he was
trying to cross the ridge line, in order to get closer to home.

We are waiting to see the data stored by the loggers in both these
accidents.

Fly safely, enjoy the sky

Aldo Cernezzi

cernauta wrote:


Considerations:
she used to fly a Discus since 2001, and got hold of her LS-8 only a
few days before this last flight;
we Italians are not used to fly the flatland in windy conditions.

I forgot the last consideration:

Accident #1 could have been survivable in a safety cockpit as she
impacted in a field. Or (maybe) in an old, low wing-loading glider.
Accident #2 was not survivable as he impacted a hard surface (rock).

Sad news indeed.

Accident #1 could have been survivable in a safety cockpit as she
impacted in a field. Or (maybe) in an old, low wing-loading glider.

Are you saying that the LS8 does not have a safety cockpit? I would find
that hard to believe given the production rules in place in Germany
particularly concerning safety cockpits.

Chris

I understand that the LS8 fuselage is an adaptation of that used for the
LS7, LS6 and LS1F. So the basic design is more than 20 years old.

I have attended a lecture by our (UK) foremost expert in crash safety,
correct cushions, cockpit shape, straps etc.; he told us that the LS8 does
not have the safety features of for instance the Schleicher ASW 24, 27, 28
etc.

One very experienced pilot friend sold his LS4 and bought an ASW24 when his
new wife started to fly, almost entirely because of the safety cockpit.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

"ventus2" wrote in message
...

Sad news indeed.

Accident #1 could have been survivable in a safety cockpit as she
impacted in a field. Or (maybe) in an old, low wing-loading glider.

Are you saying that the LS8 does not have a safety cockpit? I would find
that hard to believe given the production rules in place in Germany
particularly concerning safety cockpits.

Chris

I understand what you are saying Bill but a safety
cockpit will only go so far. I have said many times
before that once control of any situation is lost and
remains the outcome is pure blind chance. I have attended
many accidents (MV) where you would not think that
anyone could survive and others where I have been amazed
that anyone should die. The only difference between
a fatal and non fatal accident is the body.

A 'safety cockpit' may reduce the severity of injury
but I would hate to think that we as pilots thought
that it is the answer to accident prevention.


At 23:24 22 June 2005, W.J. \bill\ Dean \u.K.\. wrote:
I understand that the LS8 fuselage is an adaptation
of that used for the
LS7, LS6 and LS1F. So the basic design is more than
20 years old.

I have attended a lecture by our (UK) foremost expert
in crash safety,
correct cushions, cockpit shape, straps etc.; he told
us that the LS8 does
not have the safety features of for instance the Schleicher
ASW 24, 27, 28
etc.

One very experienced pilot friend sold his LS4 and
bought an ASW24 when his
new wife started to fly, almost entirely because of
the safety cockpit.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove 'ic' to reply.

'ventus2' wrote in message
...

Sad news indeed.

Accident #1 could have been survivable in a safety
cockpit as she
impacted in a field. Or (maybe) in an old, low wing-loading
glider.

Are you saying that the LS8 does not have a safety
cockpit? I would find
that hard to believe given the production rules in
place in Germany
particularly concerning safety cockpits.

Chris

Don Johnstone wrote:

I understand what you are saying Bill but a safety
cockpit will only go so far.

True, but it goes a lot farther than the older cockpit designs.

I have said many times
before that once control of any situation is lost and
remains the outcome is pure blind chance.

I don't agree: if you have selected a crash-resistant cockpit and are
using your safety belts correctly, you have removed some of the "pure
blind chance" from the situation. Pilot rescue systems will further
reduce reliance on chance.


A 'safety cockpit' may reduce the severity of injury
but I would hate to think that we as pilots thought
that it is the answer to accident prevention.

I don't know anyone that thinks a safety cockpit with reduce accidents,
but it will reduce injuries from an accident (perhaps that is what you
meant).
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Warning: starts on-topic but heads for a trip through the weeds]

Earlier, Don Johnstone wrote:

I understand what you are saying Bill but a safety
cockpit will only go so far...

Exactly; I agree with both of you to some degree.

I'm of a mind that the window of impact energies that any reasonably
cost- and weight-effective structure can protect the pilot from is
relatively narrow. Or at least it's narrower than a lot of folks
realize. As you say, real-world crashes are essentially a crap shoot.
Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

Furthermore, virtually everything you can do to improve crashworthiness
increases weight, And everything you do to increase weight increases
speed and impact energy. It's all a bunch of trade-offs.

One interesting tangent to this issue is that there is a clear
competitive advantage to small, light fuselages with small cockpits.
Such a fuselage hung from a set of wings is going to have less drag and
better performance than a larger, heavier fuselage on the same wings.

In the context of the current competitive environment, pilots generally
buy their own ships, and pay their own way in contests. They tend to
choose ships that they feel comfortable in, and they do their own
cost/benefit and risk/benefit analyses regarding what they fly and how
they fly it.

However, you don't have to look too far to see an alternate future in
which this is not the case. Suppose, for a moment, that it becomes
fashionable to gamble on the outcome of certain soaring contests.
Prizes and incentives are offered for winning. Competitive performance
becomes not just a matter of pride and prestive, but of serious
financial gain. Serious racing sailplanes get smaller and lighter.
Comfort and crashworthiness yields to performance. Pilots are hired
guns, and though they obviously have some voice in matters of safety,
it is not a loud voice against the background of finances, sponsorship,
media coverage, and commercial patronage. In order to call yourself a
national champion or even a national contender, you'd have to rise to
an entirely new level of risk exposure.

Let me be the first to admit that this is a pretty out-there vision of
the future of contest soaring. I do not think it is likely we'll see it
come to pass. I do not wear that kind of tinfoil beanie.
However, I do think it merits some thinking on. What would such a
future mean for the rest of the soaring world? More media attention?
More money and participation? More regulation and restriction?

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Furthermore, virtually everything you can do to improve crashworthiness
increases weight, And everything you do to increase weight increases
speed and impact energy. It's all a bunch of trade-offs.

Let me quibble with Bob a bit: a "safety cockpit" is more than just more
structure to make it stronger, but includes things like

* a steeply sloped seat pan under the thighs to reduce the chance of
submarining
* locating the seat belt anchor points so the belt stays on the hips and
does not ride up to the abdomen
* locating the shoulder harness so it doesn't compress the spine during
a crash
* making the instrument panel frangible, so it doesn't injure the pilots
legs
* making the instrument panel swivel upwards, so a pilot can bail out
more easily
* using a form of "Roeger hook" to ensure quick and clean jettisoning of
the canopy when the pilot wants to bail out

The items above involve little, if any, additional weight, yet can make
a major difference to the pilot's injuries. Older gliders might not have
any of these features; newer ones will have most of them.

Some features of the newer cockpits will add weight, but I don't think
it's a given that the speed will increase. Don't the JARs require
certain stall or landing speeds, for example? A designer can compensate
for weight with more wing area or a different airfoil to keep the speeds
the same.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA