Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

MS wrote:
Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers.

I used to fly a BG-12. In ground effect, with flaps down, and in no
wind conditions, I have used nearly the entire runway length to set
down because I was taught to never close the flaps.

"It couldn't be me making several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

Perhaps you and I read different articles. Or maybe instead of raking
him over the coals in 3rd party discussions, it is because I bothered
to actually ask Mr. Skydell--whom, I repeat, I do not know--about his
article and thus got a better briefing?

I was once accused of something by Larry Sanderson--whom I also do not
know. Did he ever contact me about it? No! He found it much more
effective to get up in a meeting of the National Soaring Museum and
make his accusations against me. That was not fair to the NSM Board of
Trustees (I was not even a member of the NSM) nor was it fair to me.
When I tried to draw him out, he dismissed me as being insignificant.

If "MS" has a problem with Mr. Skydell, he needs to talk to, or at
least do as I did and email him about it. "Flaming" him in ras serves
no purpose and only shows what a pompus ass "MS" is. Or, like
Sanderson with me, is Mr. Skydell beneath "MS" and thus not worth
talking to?

I have a real problem with people who stab someone in the back but
never take the opportunity to actually talk to the person. It shows
just how small that stabber is. Yes, I am talking about you "MS." I
may be doing this in a public forum, but that is because I do not know
who you are (my name and email is below) since you hide behind a
"handle" and this is the only way I can get your attention. Contact me
privately and maybe we can have a civil discussion.

I am an aviation safety counselor

Then you should know that all kinds of things CAN happen to normally
good, or even just adequate pilots. We are sometimes distracted or
frustrated. Sometimes when things go wrong, we get tunnel vision. Not
a good thing, but it happens. See the other posting about gear up
landings.

and I once had to counsel an ATP who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight.
Although he admitted to some of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

No, it can never be avoided 100% by anyone because they are human.
People make mistakes, sometimes they are little mistakes sometimes they
are major ones. Why do you think that OSHA is still in business?

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning.

Again, I think we read different articles. He basically said, as I
recall, "I am a conservative pilot and I screwed-up." Not, "I am a
conservative pilot and that caused me to screw-up." Being a
conservative pilot did not make him raise his landing gear instead of
opening his spoilers.

spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
over the numbers.

You seem to always miss the point. Mr. Skydell was practicing a
technique that someone, a friend, a CFIG, someone, has shown him. He
was NOT trying to make a normal landing but was practicing something
which, even to him, was unusual. He was right to practice the
technique but he had a cascade of screw-ups and ended up using the
entire runway and crashing. He admits to his mistakes and he admits he
screwed-up.

Geeze, as thick as you seem to be "MS", I will not be surprised in the
future to read a similar article about--but certainly not by--you. I
know you just as well as I know Mr. Skydell, but frankly, "MS," it is
my observation that people who belittle others have serious insecurity
issues of their own (no, I am not a shrink).

The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach,

BUT IT DIDN"T. You have made your point about that. Get over it! You
cannot unring a bell.

Maybe a follow-up could/should be made, but the initital article did
not say the technique was dangerous. I get that, why can't you? I do
not know the technique (nor am I anxious to learn it) so I do not know
it is dangerous except that I don't know it and would likely botch it
if I did not have a good instructor teach it to me. The technique was
not the direct cause of Mr. Skydell's accident, although it did
contribute to it. His inability to do it right and then making a
series of errors was the cause of the accident.

I think Mr. Skydell should be commended for having the nerve to write
the article and Soaring should be congratulated for publishing it--no
matter what the flaws in the article might be. It was something we ALL
can learn something from--even you, "MS." Beating up Mr. Skydell or
Soaring serves no purpose.

Frankly, I would like to meet both of you, "MS" and Mr. Skydell. That
is the only way I will know which of you are right and which is the
idiot.

"MS" (and anyone else), I will sign my name and add my email address to
this one, write me if you want--Raul Blacksten

Well,,,ignorance is BLISS!!!
"MS" wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

Yes it is and the pilot was very blissful until he hit the berm. I am
glad he was not killed. I don't mean to sound negative, but what I got
out of the articles was "conservative is not safe, I was partially at
fault, but mainly, my training failed me...."

MS

PeterK wrote:
Well,,,ignorance is BLISS!!!
"MS" wrote in message
oups.com...
Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
(65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
the bill for all those lights and things.

Not only do you have ground effect, but the runway might be pretty hot,
generating some nice lift.

Mike Schumann

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
(65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
the bill for all those lights and things.

We've got some long, straight, hot highways in the US, like Interstate 5 in
California. Except for those pesky overpasses, oh, and the FAA that would
frown on it, I've often thought it would be fun to get down on the deck and
see if one could beat the records held by Gordy and Kempton .

bumper
"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
Not only do you have ground effect, but the runway might be pretty hot,
generating some nice lift.

Mike Schumann

"Don Johnstone" wrote in message
...
At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
(65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
the bill for all those lights and things.

One of the man. I teach students is to slip so the aircraft could land
in about 2,000 feet without the use of spoilers...... As long as you
are within 10 to 15 ft AGL at proper speed over the numbers, it's easy
to land on a 4,000 ft runway. It should be a breeze on a 6,000 ft
runway. Again, the high drag approach is not what I would call a
stable approach to landing and is unnecessary if one can slip and use
spoilers. That should have been the emphasis of the article, not "
My training failed me."

MS

Don Johnstone wrote:
At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
(65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
the bill for all those lights and things.

Don Johnstone wrote:

At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:

Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to
65 can increase ones
L/D tenfold.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway.

A worthwhile demonstration, both for those times in the future when the
student may wish to land, and for those times when he may not.

As leisurely as this sport sometimes seems to the outsider or to the
beginner, we don't often enough take the time to improvise new insights
for one another. There ought to be a lot more dual flights in clubs than
there are, and not necessarily with a CFIG in the other seat. There is a
vast reservoir of experience, and finesse, that is not being passed
along to low-time glider pilots.

We don't use the team approach of the fighter community where the
fledgling jock spends a few years on the wing and proves himself ready
before becoming an element lead and later a flight lead. Nor do we have
the virtual apprentice system of airline operations, where the first
officer will see it all, and more than once, from the right seat -- in
daily operations and in the simulator -- before it's time for him to
move to the left seat.

What we do have is the total reliance on sight and touch and sound as a
small quiet and vulnerable guest in these footless halls of air,
living by our wits, yet with a training syllabus too closely related to
the needs of that bull-in-a-china-shop known as an airplane with
hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of horsepower allowing its
pilot to bluff his way from point A to point B.

It's harder to move forward when every generation has to reinvent the wheel.


Jack

I do not know Mr. Skydell nor have I seen the 2nd article (my mailman
takes his time reading my copy of Soaring), but I have had an email
conversation with him about his first article--and I think it was very
good for him to share the story and for Soaring to publish it so early
in the season!

I do, however, know several conservative pilots, and include myself in
that crowd. As a group, conservative pilots are safe. Safer than bold
pilots? That I cannot answer. but the old saw, "there are are old
pilots and bold pilots . . . " comes to mind.

That having been said, I am not certain that conservative pilots are
inherently safe just as I am not certain that bold pilots are
inherently dangerous.

Since I am of the former group, I can only address my own experiences.

I too have crashed and totaled a glider, a 1-26E on Mt San Jac, back
about 20 years ago. I did what I thought was the conservative thing,
but I was wrong and it was no body's fault but my own. I should have
taken the bold option and I would probably have only had to pay to be
retrieved.

A conservative glider pilots will always err on the side of caution,
but caution is not always the side to err on. Often what is required
is a bold move.

Back to Mr. Skydell. Someone taught him the high parasite drag landing
technique, probably with the intention that he include it in his list
of options when he lands in a small field. I remember that I was
taught to routinely make short field landings and was quite out of my
league when I went to England where they have no problem with taking
the entire field to land. The English did not like my short field
landings.

Having been taught---by someone!--the high parasite drag landing
technique, Mr. Skydell would be a fool to never practice it and where
better to practice it than at his home airport! Here he would know the
conditions and should know how to get out of trouble if his approach
did not work.

His approach did not work. He made some dunderheaded mistakes. Who
among us, even you bold pilots, do not live in glass houses? He is not
the first pilot I have heard of who raised his wheel instead of pulling
his spoilers--even high time bold pilots have done this. The result in
Skyell's case was a destroyed glider but a surviving pilot who maybe
learned something.

OK, maybe you say Mr. Skydell was a fool to practice this technique. I
do not know the technique other than from his description, so I cannot
say. Still, knowing it could possibly save both his glider and his
life some time whereas I might destroy both not knowing it. Who knows?


Somebody taught Mr. Skydell the technique, so at least this CFIG
thought it was a good one. Maybe the fault does lie with the
instructor because maybe they should not have taught him the technique.
How many CFIGs have signed off pilots of whom they had doubts, and the
student then subsequently crashed? I know of one guy who (back in
1993) was forced to take over 100 dual flights in his $30,000 2-place
glider before they would solo him and he then wrecked his glider on his
first solo (over $12,000 damage). Whose fault, the CFIG, the student,
or both?

As to practicing potentially dangerous landing techniques, I used to
fly a BG-12. It was great fun to cross the numbers, lower the terminal
flaps, point the nose at the ground--never exceeding terminal speed of
60kts--and being stopped within 100 feet of the numbers. Talk about a
high parasite drag landing! Was I unsafe? Should I have not practiced
this technique when I could have just as easily landed normally?

My problem with conservative pilots--myself included--is that they
almost never try anything new. Risks, even when justified, are often
not taken. This can blind the conservative pilot to other options
which could just possibly save their life. I used to fear spins until
I took spin training. I was scared to death but thought it was
something I should learn, just in case. When I realized that spin
recovery is only a little more than stall recovery, my fear went away.
But have I practiced spins over the years??????? Should I? Yes, I
should.

I have recently returned to solo flight after a 9 year absence (I did
frequently fly dual during those years) and I am trying to overcome my
own conservatism--which was borne of my own wreck. It is difficult to
push myself without feeling that I am pushing myself too hard or too
dangerously. The mountains still frighten me somewhat when I am low,
and I am flying at a mountain site. It is a relearning curve. I will
have to push myself but I will probably always fly conservatively, with
all of the consequences.

Is that a good thing? Who knows.

Should Mr. Skydell be criticized for practicing his high drag approach?
No, he should be criticized if he never practiced it. Did he make
some stupid mistakes? Yes, he did. Should he have spilled his guts in
Soaring magazine? Yes! As I said, I do not know him, but Mr. Skydell
should receive our pats on the back for coming forward and not
condemned for being momentarily stupid and telling the world about it.
We have all been momentarily stupid, but usually blame it on someone or
something else. At least Mr. Skydell took all of the blame on himself
and did not scapegate anyone or anything. That is commendable.

I just dont see how anyone who is an accomplished secure in his skills
pilot, presumably, feels it necessary to further humilate and
unfortunate soul who has made a mistake.

C'mon folks, when your used to flying out of an airport with a 6000'
runway its quite possible that you might become used to "easy" landings
and forget the things that you were taught......practice is
important......anyone practice spin recoveries in the US lately?.

I'm sure there are people flying that do not know their left from their
right under certain circumstances........remember your flight training
days??? Yes...I know you did it to!!!!

Lighten up.....at least this man admits his mistake publicly and was
brave enough to allow unbridled criticism in an effort to learn
something......and he almost did quit soaring!!!!!!....and by now he
has most certainly become a better pilot because of his learning.

I hear even doctors make mistakes despite 8+ years of intensive
training.

My 2 cents

Ray