Gear Warning

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:


Hmm...

In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place. It is never one single factor that results
in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is
that
while everyone who has responded to this thread may
be able to cope, because they have the experience
and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
and have not.

We can actually apply that principle to virtually any

skill involved in aviation.

Landing, for example. Or use of the rudder. Or spin
recovery. Or outlanding. You name it, if it has anything
to do with aviation the principles above apply. We
all
know how to do it safely, but some don't through no
fault of
their own.

Now: In all aspects of aviation *except wheels-up
landings*,
when we say, 'while everyone who has responded to this
thread
may be able to cope, because they have the experience
and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those
who, thorugh no fault of their own, would not, and
have not,'
we respond to that with training and with systems of

redundant backup (e.g., checklists).

We take as many opportunities as possible to tilt the
hazardous landscape in the pilot's favour so that,
at the
end of the day, he *can* cope, and becomes one of those
people
with the experience who have thought about it.

Yet, when it comes to wheels-up landings, people kinda

shrug their shoulders and say, 'Oh well.' I've even
heard
people say, 'There are two types of glider pilots:
those
who have landed with the wheel up, and those who will.'
There's this ridiculous acceptance that this particular
type
of accident is perfectly ok -- And not only is it ok,
but
that we ought to resist warning devices which can prevent
it,
and not invest in the training required to enable pilots
to
safely react to the warning devices when they go off!

That attitude is insane. We don't accept it anywhere
else
in aviation. And no other aviation disciplines accept
it
either (try it out: Turn up to your local airport,
say, 'There
are two types of pilots, those who have landed with
the wheels
up and those who will,' and then try to hire a retractable-
undercarriage light plane)


Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
will increase the chances of those contributing and
reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.


I'm more concerned about the thronging multitudes who
haven't
seen this thread, who have been brought up in an environment
that says belly-landings are kinda-sorta-acceptable,
in a
culture which has resisted the use of cheap and simple
accident-prevention warning devices.

What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
had
released a position paper which said that collision
warning
devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
we want
to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the
final
moments of a collision course?

- mark


People die in collisions.

Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

In article ,
John Galloway wrote:

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
had released a position paper which said that collision
warning devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
we want to do is surprise them and distract them in the
high-stress environment they get when another glider is in the
final moments of a collision course?

People die in collisions.
Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

I repeat what I said in my original message on this subject:
If you are flying so unsafely that the first moment at which
you open the airbrakes (and subsquently hear the gear alert)
is in the final few feet of your approach when you're vulnerable
to a heavy landing caused by control fumbling, then you're an
accident waiting to happen anyway.

Gear warnings happen at the *TOP* of final approach, when the
airbrakes are opened after an overshoot has been identified;
Or, in some countries, during base leg when the brakes are
unlocked. I challenge you to highlight even *ONE* way that
a fumble of the controls at that stage of the flight could
lead to injuries from a mishandled landing.

No amount of technological trickery, checklists, or control
finesse will save you if you're not opening the brakes until
10 feet off the deck. That means you're participating in a
ridiculously low-energy approach, with an extremely poorly-planned
circuit (or no circuit at all), and if you do that often enough
for the gear warning to represent a significant risk then
I contend that *you will kill yourself*, gear warning or no
gear warning.

As Graeme Cant says, the gear warning is a red herring. People
who injure themselves by putting the wheel down at the last minute
when the buzzer sounds have deeper, more serious training problems
than anything we've discussed in this thread.

- mark

In article ,
John Galloway wrote:

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
had released a position paper which said that collision
warning devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
we want to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the
final moments of a collision course?

People die in collisions.
Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

Oh, one more thing:

You've drawn a distinction between accidents in which people
die, and accidents in which property is damaged, in support
of a point of view which says that warning devices intended
to prevent property damage shouldn't be fitted.

Just clarify for me: Does that mean you're arguing that
accidents which result in property damage are "less unacceptable"
than accidents which result in injury or death?

Aviation safety has progressed to its present manageable levels
due to a history of participants determining that *no* accident
is acceptable, and that predictable accidents ought to be
managed before they occur. From a safety management point of
view it makes no difference whether an accident results in an
injury or not; An accident is an accident, and its risk ought
to be managed to the best of our abilities regardless.

A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an
undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is
there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn
about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? I mean,
you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much as you
want, but we've built up a track record which says those things
DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building up a
simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings DO work.
So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

- mark

Mark Newton wrote:

A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an
undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is
there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn
about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?

You ain't a real man unless you've done a gear up landing. Checklists
and warning devices are for whimps.

Stefan

Stefan wrote in
:

You ain't a real man unless you've done a gear up landing. Checklists
and warning devices are for whimps.

Stefan


You have found the essence of the argument, Stefan. "REAL pilots don't
need no stinking gear warning."
-Bob Korves
(who has had several "reminders" from the gear warning)

So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

They couldn't stop audio varios
They couldn't stop GPS usage
They couldn't stop IGC flight recorders
They couldn't stop the proliferation of PDA navigation systems .......

Give 'em something to hope for!



I feel a long winter coming on.

Ian

John Galloway wrote:

Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

This is an interesting discussion.

It's the first time I have encountered an aspect of aviation in which
pilots were discouraged from adapting themselves through education and
training to the design of the aircraft and the requirements of the
operation to be conducted

If I am ever on final approach without gear extended, I want someone to
announce that fact. I will make the decision whether or not to attempt
to extend the gear or to land the aircraft without gear extended. Only I
know which is the right choice at that moment. To suggest otherwise
seems to indicate that the pilot is to be treated as a perennial
student, and/or that students are being given a license before they are
adequately prepared.

I doubt that a lowest-common-denominator standard is representative of
British aviation in general, and I hope we never see it in the USA.


Jack