Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

Don't bother, He's about as sharp as lead weight. I
think you wasted a
stamp.
Chuck

At 17:12 17 July 2006, Raulb wrote:
Hmmm, I have emailed you--twice--and they both came
back unknown.
I
looked for you on the SSA website, not there. I even
Googled you with
no success. I have written you a letter at this address,
will it come
back as undeliverable?


wrote:

Hey it's me 'MS'

My real name is:

Joe Albritten
2202 Meadowview
Caddo Mills, TX 75135

Bully for you! You went out and tried it in a cautious
manner and found that it worked. I have done these
approaches in a G-103, an ASK-21, and an L-23.

I'm an Eastern US pilot; I was required to do this
maneuver at two different locations in the Western
US

Again, it works; it is as stable as the 'normal' approach.
The normal approach requires a flare also and the
timing is critical for these, as well.

I can name two abnormal situations in which it would
be highly desirable to get down quickly, let's say
4000fpm.

Suppose you have a passenger who has had a heart attack
or a seizure.

Suppose you, as pilot, have just suffered a beesting
very near your eyes and they are beginning to swell
and you fear they might swell shut.

The High Parasitic-Drag Approach is a Good Trick, but
it has to be learned. I demonstrate it regularly in
BFRs.


At 00:06 14 July 2006, 5z wrote:

MS wrote:
The article should have stated the inherent dangers
with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers
and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's
not stable. It's not
needed.

Just as a data point, I tried the high drag approach
in an ASK-21
(probably what the author had also used) a couple days
ago, and in this
ship it works great, and is not unstable:

We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of
the threshold at
600' AGL. I pulled full spoilers and aimed for the
airport fence,
about 500' short of the end of the pavement. Only
managed to get
airspeed up to 75 or so knots before I had to level
out at about 50'
AGL. Then I found myself very quickly slowing to 50
knots and short of
the runway over the grass overrun, so did close the
spoilers until
crossing the pavement, then made a normal 1/2 spoiler
touchdown. If I
were higher, the roundout from the dive would have
occurred over the
runway, and so the only action would have been to level
out, wait for
airspeed to drop, and complete a normal (almost) full
spoiler landing.

So... I was too low to really have a need for this
maneuver. A slip
with full spoilers would have been enough. But...
In the ASK-21 and
quite likely any other sailplane with strong spoilers
and a good habit
of losing speed in level flight with spoilers (my ASH-26E
is not one of
these), this would be a useful way of losing altitude
much faster than
spoileer and slip alone. Next time, I'll try if from
a normal distance
turn to final, but at 1500' or so AGL.

-Tom

Ahh, the thread that will never die ...watching CSPAN
broadcast the space shuttle landing....got me wondering...how
would it's approach and landing be described?

On 18 Jul 2006 16:52:43 GMT, Stewart Kissel
wrote:

Ahh, the thread that will never die ...watching CSPAN
broadcast the space shuttle landing....got me wondering...how
would it's approach and landing be described?

Stabilized approach, glidepath control via airbrakes.
Standard glider approach.


Bye
Andreas

I don't know, but that's about the way I'da dunnit.

At 16:54 18 July 2006, Stewart Kissel wrote:
Ahh, the thread that will never die ...watching CSPAN
broadcast the space shuttle landing....got me wondering...how
would it's approach and landing be described?

I have now had the opportunity to read the articles
that started this thread as Jim Skydell kindly sent
them to me. I do not intend to comment on the specifics
of his accident other than to point out that the comment
concerning a 6000 ft runway was in error. In effect
we are talking about 2 x 3000 ft runways.
Having read the articles I asked myself two questions

1 Could it happen to me?
2 Have I learned from it?
Despite my 10000 launches and 1300 hrs the answer to
both questions is a resounding yes.
I think the whole point of the articles has been missed
by some as Jim obviously knows the mistakes he made
and has chosen to share his human fallibility with
the rest of the gliding community. It is unfortunate
that some have taken the opportunity to ridicule him
because of this. He is to be congratulated for a courageous
and bold decision, not sniped at because some people
think he should have known better. The people who have
sniped at him are the very people who are likely to
make the same mistake. The articles also highlight
possible deficiencies in teaching and supervision and
it is right that these should be addressed. I would
urge everyone to read the articles carefully.
Looking back I have allowed my irritation with those
who have made unwarranted personal attacks to lead
me to do the very same thing, for that I apologise.
I stand by my assertion that if you think you could
not make a mistake you should not be flying.
I mean no disrespect when I say that living in the
UK I had never heard of Jim before this thread started
let alone met him. I thank him for his frank admissions
and for the opportunity to learn. Jim was lucky, he
was able to write about his experience. Reading his
articles might just save YOUR life one day.

DAJ
ASW17 401

Well said, Don.

Don Johnstone wrote:
Having read the articles I asked myself two questions
1 Could it happen to me?
2 Have I learned from it?
Despite my 10000 launches and 1300 hrs the answer to
both questions is a resounding yes.
snip

The accident investigation files are filled with cases where bad things
have happened to otherwise good pilots.

The articles also highlight
possible deficiencies in teaching and supervision and
it is right that these should be addressed. I would
urge everyone to read the articles carefully.

The entire thread contains many assertions and inferences that do not
appear to have really come from the articles -- I re-read them both
twice to assure myself that I had not missed anything. For example, I
did not detect he'd "blamed his training" for the accident. He did
point out that his initial training 30 years ago was only to the
minimum required to "pass," but not sufficient for the type of soaring
Jim would ultimately choose to enjoy. Who among us were a soaring
"black belt" when we endeavored on our first solo? Our first
check-ride? Our first cross country? Our first diamond? With two
diamonds in a 1-26, I know I have not yet "mastered" soaring, and I
keep the phrase "it could happen to me" in the forefront to help me
keep my guard up.

Jim pointed out that he sought more extensive training prior to flying
high performance gliders. So you've got a freshly minted mult-engine
pilots' license -- do you really think the insurance company will let
you immediately jump into the left seat of a 747? Training is life
long. We should know better and remember that what we carry are
licenses to learn. My glider ticket is dated more than 10 years ago,
and I still seek instruction, and know that there are things I'm not
(yet) qualified to do with an aircraft.

Jim was lucky, he
was able to write about his experience. Reading his
articles might just save YOUR life one day.


What I also commend Jim for showing is that he has not given up the
sport. He continues to volunteer his time and efforts to improve our
sport. In a very public way, he's shared private thoughts, experiences
and pains, and provided excellent examples of how we can return to the
cockpit if it does happen to us. He really showed us how to "get back
in the saddle," something I don't recall in ANY of my training, power,
glider, engineering...

Again, thank you Jim. Thank you Don. And thank you RAS.

Absolutely! Good story, the only problem that might
arise from doing a
360 on final is, if you are the first in a long string
of gliders lined up to
land. You might throw a lemon into someones plans for
a normal landing.
I guess land long and get off the RW.
Chuck

At 04:12 21 July 2006, Brad wrote:
Our club operated the last 2 weekends at a 'mountain'
airport in
Darrington Washington. This is a 2500' paved strip
at 540 msl. It is
aligned with the prevailing winds and is at the end
of a long valley.
Usually considered by local XC pilots as a land-out
field for our
mountain excursions; since the airport we usually fly
out of was sort
of off-limits during the Arlington Airshow, so we just
packed up and
headed to Darrington for a few weeks.

That being said, the first approach I made during our
encampment
would
be an example of 'another way to skin a cat'

After being in the air for over 4 hours, the first
2 hours duking it
out with Ron on Gold mountain in survival flying mode;
1 to 2 knot
lift, tight to the ridge and very carefully making
decisions regarding
360 turns or not.......then finding valley magic and
making huge 360's
with flaps all he way down, in the middle of the valley,
on auto pilot
mode.......it was time to land.

Of course now the whole valley is is lift, and we literally
had to find
sink to help us get down, the air is rowdy, the valley
is now a real
venturi and the treeline upwind of the airstrip is
sending swirly
dervishes hurtling towards the runway and providing
approaching pilots
with a handful of delights we normally don't see at
our sedate home
airport.

So.........to make a long story short, I will admit
I made a poor mid
field approach; too high and too close to the approach
end of the
runway. I find that I cannot continue the downwind
because Gold
mountain would probably fill my canopy with her trees,
and the wind is
hurtling me along at quite a clip, and it is now time
to turn to
final.......still way to high..........I turn final,
full spoilers, not
going to make it.....well.......maybe I could stop
at the end of the
runway..........maybe.........SOLUTION: do a 360, on
the 270 side of
the 360 the spoilers come fully out, a slight slip........correcti
ng
like crazy to stay alighned with the runway.....and
then I am on the
ground and rolling out. I stop at the intersection
and push off to the
ramp with the help of friends.

So what........I know a 360 in the approach is not
standard practice,
but it worked, I flew 5 more times during our encampment
there and
made
perfect standard approaches despite the turbulence
and rowdy air. The
360 worked, I'll do it again if needed, but it is not
somthing I will
use unless the situation calls for it.

My bad? I don't think so..........I think those of
us that do, do;
those of us that think we can, like to talk, or write,
excessively
about it........ and those of use that can't...........(fill
in the
blanks)

Cheers,
Brad
199AK





PeterK wrote:
Have you ever given any thought that there might be
another method
besides a
forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow
minded about this.
There
is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by
the way, there is
nothing
new about the high parasitic drag approach is just
you obviously
never heard
about it. This sure smells like something personal
to me as well. (IT
actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike
some others I
dare
spell out my name)
'MS' wrote in message
news:
...
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 often
hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to 'get to the heart of a deeper
problem in
order
to partially exonerate themselves. '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.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had
to counsel an ATP
who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it
ended without
damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small
child. Part of
the 'punishment' the FAA handed out was for him to
give his story
at
several pilot meetings. He began his story ' Hey,
if it could
happen
to me, it could happen to anyone.' 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.

I see some of the same theme in this article and
it really upsets
me.

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. With
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. We practice rope breaks at 200ft
AGL in a
strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you
complete the
turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than
3,000 ft to
come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers
with using a
high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers
and then
making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's
not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects
on r.a.s.
which
have generated so much flak and so many 'ad hominem'

attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most
virulent ones
were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing

something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell
? The whole
point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events,
and NOT
excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

Chuck Griswold wrote:

...the only problem that might arise from doing a
360 on final is, if you are the first in a long string
of gliders lined up to land. You might throw a lemon
into someones plans for a normal landing.


You take the energy you have and you fit it to the space available
-- that's gliding. If we expect that the only successful flight is
one that looks just like every other flight, we've just made the
same error that Skydell has warned us so selflessly against. There
are no "normal" landings in unpowered aircraft. They are either
successful or unsuccessful, depending on our goals for that
particular phase of the flight.

We plan and execute to the best of our ability within the bounds of
normal good-neighborliness, but first fly our own aircraft safely,
whatever happens. Everyone else will do the same.

This is beginning to take on a strong relationship to the "Skydivers
v Gliders" thread. Everybody needs to be ready for anything at all
times, especially around the pattern. It's most interesting at our
field where the skydivers land immediately adjacent to the landing
strip. By "immediately" I mean the northern edge of our strip is the
southern edge of the landing zone. We are happy if they don't
actually touch down on the runway, though the only thing I haven't
seen yet is a landing on the roof of one of the buildings on the
field. Surely that cannot be far off. So far, the jumpers have
accomplished only the occasional reduction in their own number, and
with no assists, thank God.

The jumpers do often cross the runway, even the short final approach
area, under canopy, en masse or strung out over a few hundred
meters. It can get interesting with several gliders, a dozen
jumpers, transient aircraft without a clue, and a single runway.
I've always thought recreational jumpers at least a little insane,
but watching them mix so freely with both gliders and powered
aircraft using the strip, I am convinced its worse than that.


Jack