The aerodynamics of a towplane in a kiting glider situation

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:21:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I also have to mention that getting any auto-release device approved by the FAA is the "elephant in the room" that nobody so far on this thread has considered. When Walt Connelly proposed banning Schweizer releases, I mentioned that there are some tow planes that are ONLY allowed to use Schweizer releases, and converting to a Tost system could (and would) require a lot of agonizing bureaucratic adventures with the FAA to get an STC or field approval to change the "approved" release to another "untested" installation.

I can only imagine the testing and documentation required to get an automatic release certified and approved. At best, the FAA is like a supertanker on course, and you are the guy in font of them in the rowboat furiously waving your handkerchief to make them turn. The Captain may see you and order an avoidance maneuver, but it's going to take a LOOOOONG time for the course to deviate one tiny little bit. Sort of like booting the rudder in a Grob 103.

Go ahead. Flame suit on.

First of all, I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. Just some interesting questions I have asked and as a result have become more confused, but that's lawyers for you.

Interesting that you mentioned dealing with the FAA over an "approved" release and in this case the Schweizer system. So, the FAA has approved this system and this system only for certain aircraft, I'm curious as to what aircraft those might be, not that this is really important. What is important is the concept under the law of "knew or should have known." The FAA had to know (unless the FAA has been living under a rock) that the "approved" system has failed miserably just when it is needed the most resulting in the death of tow pilots in the past.
And what "untested' installation do you mean? The TOST system has been tested thoroughly and although any system can fail the consensus is that the TOST system is superior to the Schweizer. Prove me wrong.

The "Federal Tort Claims Act" allows for legal action being taken against Federal agencies in the event of situations such as this, knew or known or negligence. The old rule that you can't sue the Sovereign (government) no longer applies in all cases. Plenty of suits against VA doctors and other successful legal actions I am told. While these are rare events if a family with standing gets the right legal team going after the major league DEEP POCKET, (the GUBMENT) then things might change. Then again, maybe not. Lawyers only go after cases where they believe they can win and secure a large judgement, a nice percentage of which goes in their pocket.

Additionally I was previously told that Soaring is a sport and that the tow pilot is essentially engaging in the sport and therefore assumes a degree of risk. Perhaps, perhaps not I am informed by another "legal mind" who actually is a pilot. The sport arguably doesn't begin until the gate opens for the "race." Therefore it might be argued that the tow pilot is not a competitor and therefore not engaged in the sport in either towing for a competition or simply launching a glider. (ask four lawyers a question and get 6 different answers) If in the case of the tow pilot in California the family has "standing" meaning that they depend on him for their livelihood they might well have a reasonable chance of prevailing in a law suit. (let that be a lesson to you commercial operators and clubs, only have tow pilots without wives, children, families depending on them or you could lose you ass) The glider pilot in this case was an instructor as we have been informed, someone who "Knew or Should Have Known" that his actions might imperil the tow pilot. In this case the pilot failed to take proper care in doing something resulting in death. No one believes for a moment this was purposeful on his part, but the right lawyer can sue the sun for going down and the tide for going out and prevail.

The real problem is the safety culture of the community as a whole. Until commercial operators and clubs take it upon themselves to recognize failed systems and correct them these things will continue to happen. You can talk about training until hell freezes over but when a human makes an error the tow pilot still has every right to the best reasonable escape mechanism, not one that is proven to have failed when needed the most. People still still make mistakes, nothing will ever make flying or towing completely safe but actions, not words are what makes thing safER. Take action my friends, the life you save may be the tow pilot.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.

Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.

Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.

I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.

As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 6:47:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.

Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.

I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.

As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.

STCs have been issued for many different aircraft for many different alterations - it is not an impossible task. Your Pegasus issue is not a valid comparison to an STC. Yes, a different STC would have to be developed for each aircraft type using a KGARS, but so what - you take the same paperwork and change the make and model, and resubmit it. If you have the data to support the superior performance of a KGARS - and you definitely need that data - I think the FAA would be very receptive to approving it.

Tom

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 9:47:15 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Just because one system is superior and safer to another has nothing to do with whether it is approved for installation by the FAA. The documentation for installing a tow release on a particular aircraft is clearly spelled out. If it permits a Schweizer hook, then that's what has to be installed to pass inspection. Changing to a Tost is not in compliance with the documentation, so it would not pass inspection.

Getting a Tost approved for retrofit to an aircraft for which it is not specifically approved can be an arduous and time consuming process. ANYTHING having to do with the regulatory environment at the FAA is a long and painful experience. Bob Carlton and I spent NINE YEARS getting the FAA to agree to a method to extend the life limit on the Pegasus. And that was an instance where the FAA had obviously made a mistake, violated their own procedures and the Administrative Procedures Act and still "circled the wagons' to defend the one guy who pushed the life limit AD through.

I am certainly not arguing that getting a Tost approved for all aircraft would be a desirable thing. It is just that EACH aircraft type would have to be individually approved. There are very few if any "blanket" approvals across aircraft types for mechanical devices. Avionics are another story, but we aren't talking about that type of equipment.

As far as releasing liability, the big question is whether the tow pilot or his employer (club or commercial) is providing an aviation service for compensation. If the glider pilot is paying for the tow, then it is fairly obvious. However, as you say, four lawyers can easily deliver six opinions.

MARK, I think you missed my point but that's okay. I understand everything you said, still the FAA is now knowingly insisting on utilization of a device on some airplanes which has been proven to fail to do what it is supposed to do when the feces makes physical contact with the whirling blades of an electrically driven air moving device. Change can be accomplished, someone needs to make the first move. I understand government bureaucracy, I had to deal with OSHA in the Nuclear Power Plant world but I do have to say the OSHA guys were quite reasonable, UNLESS there was a glaring violation and then they insisted on compliance.

Flying with the Schweizer hook is kinda like driving drunk. Happens countless times each day as does towing with the Schweizer hook but nothing happens. Then someone get caught just like a tow pilot gets kited but no one gets killed but lesson learned. The drunk driver gets away with maybe a big fine, license suspended for a period as the tow pilot gets away with his life. Then the s--t hits the fan. The drunk kills someone and perhaps himself, the tow pilot crashes, loses his life. The drunk driver knew he was driving drunk, his family and friends knew he did it but no intervention. The Tug pilot knows he is pulling with a questionable device...

It's easier to look the other way and decide to do nothing than to take action and correct a known deficit. Easier until someone dies. Granted the Byron example might not have been avoided by any current release system, the pilot didn't have time to release and recover but another tow pilot will die in the future due to a system which is known to fail when it is needed the most. And what is the value of a life?

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot.

I invite anyone who thinks getting an STC approval is a simple process to just download this handy 96 page guide from the FAA.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_21-40A.pdf

And, no, you can't just change the make/model on the paperwork and resubmit it. The process is the same for a different aircraft. (Pawnee vs. Cessna 185 etc.) You CAN apply for an STC within certain parameters for aircraft of a similar "family," like Cessna 180, 182, 185, but there are still differences that must be defined for each model unless the equipment, processes, installation and materials are IDENTICAL.

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 10:01:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
I invite anyone who thinks getting an STC approval is a simple process to just download this handy 96 page guide from the FAA.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_21-40A.pdf

And, no, you can't just change the make/model on the paperwork and resubmit it. The process is the same for a different aircraft. (Pawnee vs. Cessna 185 etc.) You CAN apply for an STC within certain parameters for aircraft of a similar "family," like Cessna 180, 182, 185, but there are still differences that must be defined for each model unless the equipment, processes, installation and materials are IDENTICAL.

Yes, it is not easy, no one has said it is easy, obviously it is hard and unnecessarily so...BUT many things in life are hard and still worth doing. Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, NOT because hey are easy but because they are hard." As a kid I saw a man save a life, what he did was hard and dangerous but he saved a life, what can we do better than that? Some choose to discuss why it can't be done, I choose to see things from another perspective. I am not in a position to take the necessary steps, I don't own or fly a tow plane, I'm not an employee or an operation or club but I can see my hand in front of my face. If these comments and rantings move ONE more club or commercial operator to take the obvious necessary steps and replace a proven failed system for a proven better one then it's worth it.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, NOT because hey are easy but because they are hard."

I remember that speech well, and have listened to it a number of times over the years. It galvanized and inspired America to take the challenge, and it also inspired Congress to fund the space program. It was one of our Nation's finest accomplishments and well worth every penny, in my mind. But I wasn't even 10 years old, so I couldn't contribute either expertise or funding.

So, if you can't contribute expertise, can you at least contribute funding? I am sure we can find someone with the necessary skills and expertise. But they won't do it for free. 2G says he'll do it if we start by sending him a million bucks. Maybe there is someone who will consider the problem for less.

Simply pointing out a problem and demanding a change in no way constitutes a solution. If you feel so strongly, help fund a solution.

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 5:17:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Kennedy said "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, NOT because hey are easy but because they are hard."

I remember that speech well, and have listened to it a number of times over the years. It galvanized and inspired America to take the challenge, and it also inspired Congress to fund the space program. It was one of our Nation's finest accomplishments and well worth every penny, in my mind. But I wasn't even 10 years old, so I couldn't contribute either expertise or funding.

So, if you can't contribute expertise, can you at least contribute funding? I am sure we can find someone with the necessary skills and expertise. But they won't do it for free. 2G says he'll do it if we start by sending him a million bucks. Maybe there is someone who will consider the problem for less.

Simply pointing out a problem and demanding a change in no way constitutes a solution. If you feel so strongly, help fund a solution.

I have been making large donations to a local food bank these days, otherwise I would be happy to donate to a fund that might at some point result in the saving of a life. However it would appear to me that it is and should be incumbent upon those operating tow planes to realize the necessity for change and protection of the tow pilot and take the steps both financially and mechanically to bring about those changes.

The real problem is a failure of understanding the big picture and the long term ramifications. People take more time deciding why they can't do something as opposed to why they can.

My contribution in part has been my experience with a very low kiting situation and my willingness to loudly voice that experience in an attempt to generate action. I'm out of the towing and gliding arena but those still involved need to take action or pay the ultimate price.

Walt Connelly
Former Tow Pilot
Now Happy Helicopter Pilot

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:01:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I invite anyone who thinks getting an STC approval is a simple process to just download this handy 96 page guide from the FAA.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/.../AC_21-40A.pdf

And, no, you can't just change the make/model on the paperwork and resubmit it. The process is the same for a different aircraft. (Pawnee vs. Cessna 185 etc.) You CAN apply for an STC within certain parameters for aircraft of a similar "family," like Cessna 180, 182, 185, but there are still differences that must be defined for each model unless the equipment, processes, installation and materials are IDENTICAL.

LOL! A few days ago you suggested that I should develop a KGARS and go into the business of selling it for a profit, hinting that this is easy-peasy. But you had no response when I said it would cost $1M. I have no illusions as to what the effort is to develop such a device. But, on the other hand, what is a life worth?

Tom

LOL! A few days ago you suggested that I should develop a KGARS and go into the business of selling it for a profit, hinting that this is easy-peasy.

I most definitely did NOT imply it was "easy-peasy." In fact my comment was "Great. Design it. Build it. Test it. Get it approved." And then I used Dave Nadler's trademark comment when anyone suggests something that is more complex than it appears.

"How hard can it be?"

Your comments implied that you could whip it out no problem, but just didn't have the time.