Winch Launch Fatality

Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but too
low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but too

low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

We don't know exactly what happened, but there are 3 main causes of
winching accidents.
A wing down on the ground run, causing the glider to cartwheel.
Too steep, too soon, resulting in a stalled wing and the start of a spin.
Both of these happen VERY fast.
Not achieving and maintaining a safe airspeed after a launch failure,
resulting in a stall or spin.
Here in the UK the BGA has been addressing winching accidents, and put out
good advice. It is worth looking at.
Dave






At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too

low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
pilot and myself).

In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. .

Derek Copeland

At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:
We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too

low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

The only G103 Twin III I've flown was the SL version, this was the
ACRO version. I found the front seat distinctly different from the
Twin I's and II's I've flown. With parachutes on, it was close
quarters to say the least. Nevertheless, I was able to remain clear
of the controls on take off and climb out. Someone less familiar may
have inadvertantly interfered, but that's all spec. I know of one
case where a normal pattern in a ride glider resulted in a fatal spin
due to a hiking boot becoming lodged between the rudder pedal and the
side of the glider. Different glider make and model though.

Frank Whiteley

On Jun 22, 11:15*am, Del C wrote:
As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
pilot and myself).

In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. .

Derek Copeland

At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:

We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) *to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too

low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

On Jun 22, 11:57*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
The only G103 Twin III I've flown was the SL version, this was the
ACRO version. *I found the front seat distinctly different from the
Twin I's and II's I've flown. *With parachutes on, it was close
quarters to say the least. *Nevertheless, I was able to remain clear
of the controls on take off and climb out. *Someone less familiar may
have inadvertantly interfered, but that's all spec. *I know of one
case where a normal pattern in a ride glider resulted in a fatal spin
due to a hiking boot becoming lodged between the rudder pedal and the
side of the glider. *Different glider make and model though.

Frank Whiteley

On Jun 22, 11:15*am, Del C wrote:

As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
pilot and myself).

In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. .

Derek Copeland

At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:

We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) *to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too

low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

The MHG has a Twin III Acro. I've given hundreds of rides in it.
There is nothing special about the front seat that would cause
concern. It's really a nice glider for rides with big comfortable
seats.

Like any glider, if you put a really big person with long legs in the
front seat with the pedals cranked all the way aft you might have a
control interference problem but that's a cockpit preparation issue
that should be detected by moving the controls to their limits as part
of the cockpit checklist if not when seating your passenger.

Gosh, two postings in a row when I actually agree with Bill Daniels!

Lasham had a Grob G103 Twin Acro (the cranked wing version) up to a couple
of years ago, when it was sold and replaced with a DG1000T. It had nice
roomy and very comfortable cockpits and generally docile handling, but
with the proviso that it was capable of spinning if flown close to the
stall, unlike the earlier straight winged version which could only be made
to spin for training purposes if you fitted special little canard fins to
the nose (made it look a bit like a hammer head shark). We had one of
those as well prior to the above glider, but it got written off by a very
heavy PIO landing, probably not helped by its rather snatchy airbrakes.

Derek Copeland


At 18:18 22 June 2009, bildan wrote:

The MHG has a Twin III Acro. I've given hundreds of rides in it.
There is nothing special about the front seat that would cause
concern. It's really a nice glider for rides with big comfortable
seats.

Like any glider, if you put a really big person with long legs in the
front seat with the pedals cranked all the way aft you might have a
control interference problem but that's a cockpit preparation issue
that should be detected by moving the controls to their limits as part
of the cockpit checklist if not when seating your passenger.

On Jun 22, 12:18*pm, bildan wrote:
On Jun 22, 11:57*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:



The only G103 Twin III I've flown was the SL version, this was the
ACRO version. *I found the front seat distinctly different from the
Twin I's and II's I've flown. *With parachutes on, it was close
quarters to say the least. *Nevertheless, I was able to remain clear
of the controls on take off and climb out. *Someone less familiar may
have inadvertantly interfered, but that's all spec. *I know of one
case where a normal pattern in a ride glider resulted in a fatal spin
due to a hiking boot becoming lodged between the rudder pedal and the
side of the glider. *Different glider make and model though.

Frank Whiteley

On Jun 22, 11:15*am, Del C wrote:

As an instructor myself, I am very aware that it is my duty to protect both
the hardware (glider and launching equipment) and the software (student
pilot and myself).

In this case the student was a very experienced professional helicopter
pilot, but was having a trial flight with a view to taking up gliding as a
hobby (as I understand it). In view of his background it is fairly unlikely
that the the P2 would have panicked or interfered with the controls. ..

Derek Copeland

At 13:00 22 June 2009, Jonathon May wrote:

We are speculating which is wrong.It could be a very experienced P2
reacting inapropiately and P1 not able to take over in time.The more
experienced "bloggs" the clever the traps they create for the
instructor.I think it unlikely that they made a basic land ahead/pattern
mistake, ,more likely failed to take over in time because P2 was nearly
right.Lets not insult the guys they paid a terrible price in the name of
a
sport we all love.

At 12:20 22 June 2009, John Smith wrote:
Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) *to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but
too

low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.

The crucial point is a thorough departure briefing.

The MHG has a Twin III Acro. *I've given hundreds of rides in it.
There is nothing special about the front seat that would cause
concern. *It's really a nice glider for rides with big comfortable
seats.

Like any glider, if you put a really big person with long legs in the
front seat with the pedals cranked all the way aft you might have a
control interference problem but that's a cockpit preparation issue
that should be detected by moving the controls to their limits as part
of the cockpit checklist if not when seating your passenger.

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:20:51 +0200, John Smith
wrote:

Andreas Maurer wrote:

Completely wrong for a winch launch.
In case of a rope-break, you are either able to land straight-on on
the airfield, or you have sufficient altitude(300 ft+) to fly a
*safe* pattern.

Or, at some places, when you are too high for a straight landing but too
low for a complete circuit, you do a safe 180 and make a safe downwind
landing.


Yup.
Standard procedure at my home airfield.