Fatal crash Arizona

On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:44:51 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
One could say that a site
where a straight-ahead landing from 200ft will certainly result in
more than minor damage, is a site that should not be used.

Wait ... what?

Let's guess some numbers here...

300m for the tug to get off
200m more for it to get to climb speed
700m to climb to 200 ft (60m)
.... rope break ...
100m for the glider to slow to approach speed (while climbing 30m as well, making 90m)
600m for the glider to descend to ground level (worst case 7:1 glide angle with airbrakes)
100m to stop on the ground

Total: 2000m

And that's with a powerful tug, such as a Pawnee.

I've flown from places with such runway lengths (or empty fields beyond). But not many.

Your rule would eliminate at least 90% of the places that gliders fly -- without incident -- in this country.

At our home airfield (which by the way has scheduled Dash 8 flights on the sealed runway which is 1000m from stripes to stripes), gliders are given a 500m grass runway with about 300m more on either end to the fence. And yes, we're going over the fence at not much more than 100 ft if we don't have a headwind. Beyond that is nothing but houses. That's not "minor damage" to go into.

For a low break just after (or before) the boundary, the plan is definitely to turn towards and overfly the sealed runway. Any traffic there can take its chances!! (there are not supposed to be parallel operations) There is 300m width of unobstructed (though not particularly smooth) ground in that direction.

If you actually have the luxury of 200 ft when the rope breaks then better to turn the other way, over the houses, and land on the 300m long crosswind runway (which we use when 12+ knot crosswinds make the main runway too tricky for the tug (gliders cope fine)).