Fatal crash Arizona

On 5/25/2014 2:40 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:
Major snip...


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.

From my U.S.-centric, non-instructing perspective, perhaps this is one of
those nuanced differences between FAA-driven-instruction and BGA-driven
instruction?

What I think I remember of my instruction - and what I think I've seen ever
since then from observing others' instruction - was that "considering all
alternatives" before executing a reversing turn from nominally 200' agl in a
glider "is no big deal" and ought to be in the glider pilot's bag of tricks.
I've never thought the conceptual approach in any way fundamentally marginal
in a life-threatening (mine!) sense.

That's not to say the sensibility of the BGA approach wasn't - hadn't already
- been hammered home...as in I'd already internalized that Joe Glider-pilot's
Rule Number One is to never be beyond safe gliding distance to a safe landing
field. In my experience, the ONLY exception to Rule No. 1 has been those
(mostly western U.S.) fields where there may be a short time window when the
"reach a safe field" option simply doesn't exist for whatever reason(s).
That's when "fly the plane into/through the arrival" becomes more than a
mental concept.

In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead.

This certainly has been my training/recurrency experience(s)..."merely
goes-without-saying common-sense" IMO. I might be wrong in this surmise -
chime in instructors - but I doubt even our FAA has felt it necessary to
provide instructional guidelines "to this degree of obviousness."

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.

FWIW, my takeaway from decades of avid personal interest and absorbing every
flight crunch writeup available to me, is that the risk in these sorts of
situations is essentially U.S.-invisible when considering training
incidents/accidents. The crunches sticking in my mind have been those
involving single-pilots for the most part. I suppose an argument can be made
about the longer-term efficacy and mental retention of training, if my
memories are valid, but not so much from a training perspective. In any event,
I don't think MY personal risk was increased from this aspect of my training.

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 undamaged glider is not a
priority in these circumstances.


I 100% agree!!!

Respectfully,
Bob W.