tow rope brake practice crash, what can we learn...

On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart wrote:





On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:

On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
What can we learn from this?

Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
something about this accident that we do not know yet.

Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
Review to avoid getting killed?

FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
rope break. Weather permitting, of course.

By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."

Bart

This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
haven't tried this in Condor, you should.

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
not see how it will simulate the real world stress
that occurs during an emergency situation.
My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
mistake during their first PTTT. Some of these include.
1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
the "what would I do?" scenario.
2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the right
because "that's what we always do".
3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
wings rocking?"
4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
with your glider".
9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
must continue to train and retrain these skills.
UH

On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:49*pm, Frank Paynter wrote:









On Jul 11, 7:58*pm, Bart wrote:

On Jul 11, 2:38*pm, wrote:

On July 7, 2011 at Nowy Targ in southern Poland, glider Puchacz
crashed during training flight 2/3 mile from the airport. The
instructor (~64-67) and the student pilot (~18-19) are dead. *It was a
tow rope brake practice flight with down wind turn for down wind
landing from about 130-150 m of altitude (400 feet).
What can we learn from this?

Not much. Rope break at 400 feet should be a non-event. There must be
something about this accident that we do not know yet.

Are these training flights mendatory under FAA rules?
Can pilot request opt-out from "rope brake" during Biennial Flight
Review to avoid getting killed?

FARs do not require rope breaks during a flight review, so it is up to
the instructor you fly with. Personally, if I was an instructor, I
would not sign off anyone who is not comfortable flying a simulated
rope break. Weather permitting, of course.

By the way, what seems to be a typical BFR - three flights, one of
which is a rope break - is actually illegal. Or, to be more precise,
it does NOT met the BFR requirements specified by the FARs: "Glider
pilots may substitute a minimum of three instructional flights in a
glider, each of which includes a flight to TRAFFIC PATTERN ALTITUDE,
in lieu of the 1 hour of flight training required..."

Bart

This discussion reminds me of similar discussions surrounding spin
training in the power world. *So many students and instructors were
killed during spin 'training' that the maneuver was eventually
banished from the required training curriculum. *We in the soaring
community should be taking a very hard look at how many pilots are
injured killed in actual PTT (Premature Termination of Tow) events vs
how many are injured/killed in SRB (Simulated Rope Break) events. *I
would be willing to bet real money that the statistics do not support
the continued use of SRBs in training and/or BFRs. *We don't do base-
to-final turn stall/spin recovery training for obvious reasons (so the
saying goes, "You can only do a base-to-final-turn stall/spin
demonstration ONCE"), and SRBs are just slightly less dangerous.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor. *If we feel we must
continue to do SRBs as part of a training/review curriculum, they
should ONLY be done in Condor. *The military, GA, and corporate/
airline communities figured this out a long time ago, and now that we
have a realistic soaring simulator, we should be doing it too. *If you
haven't tried this in Condor, you should.

TA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I completely disagree. Condor can be useful for many things but I do
not see how it will simulate the real world stress
that occurs during an emergency situation.
My experience is that most pilots will make at least one important
mistake during their first PTTT. *Some of these include.
1- Not having a plan in mind that is correct and ready to implement-
the "what would I do?" scenario.
2- Many turn the "wrong " direction- most commonly to the *right
because "that's what we always do".
3- Failure to recognize the situation in the first place- "why are his
wings rocking?"
4- Not establishing the correct attitude to maintain control with
adequate margins. It's not just nose down.
5- Failure to clear for traffic on return.
6- Not establishing proper glide slope back to safe landing point.
7- Huge tunnel vision due to surprise and related stress.
8- Release when tug rudder is wagged to indicate "something is wrong
with your glider".
9- Failure to recognize thr transition point from "I don't have enough
energy margin to return to the field" to "Now I can return".
Take off/ launch accidents are a significant portion of our losses. We
must continue to train and retrain these skills.
UH

Hank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures, and is MUCH safer than airborne training. In a simulator,
bad situations and/or bad decisions by the student can be allowed to
play out to bad endings, something that can't be done safely in flight
and is usually much more effective in getting the point across.

You may make the point that since the student knows he can't die in a
simulator, the real stresses can't be duplicated. However, I would
argue that with airborne training most students think they can't die
because there is an instructor right there to save them, so the same
argument applies.

A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
landing area, etc) as in real life. I can pretty much guarantee you
that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
indistinguishable from their reaction in real life. Moreover, the
situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
off-airport landing - try that in real life! After 10 or 20 (or 100)
SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

TA

On Jul 12, 8:43*am, Frank Paynter wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:34*am, wrote:


Frank, Hank:

You're both right. The key here is to separate the two things that are
learned by this training 1) practicing the maneuvers you will execute
to recover from a low-altitude rope break or other PTT event 2)
understanding and practicing the psychological part of reacting to any
emergency situation.

Hank's right that #2 is really not well simulated in Condor. But
Frank is right that #1 can be practiced a lot in Condor, and then
executing maneuvers will be much easier in the air.

The same approach is useful, I think, for flight training. At our
club, most of our instructors no longer do a lot of unannounced 200
foot rope breaks. This mixes #1 and #2, creating a "real" emergency.

Instead, we brief, demonstrate and have students practice 200 foot
rope breaks, so they are comfortable with the maneuver required.
Believe me, the first 4-5 times, "you're going to do a 200 foot rope
break on this flight" keeps the adrenaline level up high enough!

We also give them lots of practice with unplanned emergencies, but
all at reasonable altitude. 500' rope breaks, engine failures,
spoilers coming out; "ok the spoiliers are stuck out/closed, now land
it", pretending half the runway is suddenly unusable, and so on are
all great exercises.

If you've got the mechanical skills to do a planned 200 foot break
flawlessly, and the emergency-handling skills to do all the higher-
altitude emergencies with aplomb, you're fairly prepared. We can
discuss whether practicing an actual combination, an unplanned 200'
rope break, is a useful final sanding, or an invitation to practice
stall/spin recovery from 200 feet. But at least we should get to that
point by practicing the mechanical skill and the emergency-handling
skill separately.

John Cochrane

I agree that this sort of maneuver should be first done in a simulator
(where doing it correctly is not the ONLY option) and then done in
real life. I know I would not want to "bet my life" on the student
doing it correctly the first time (while under pressure), especially
from only 200'.

BTW, at the risk of starting a religious war, rope breaks, spins, and
other dangerous maneuvers can be simulated realistically, at any
altitude and weather configuration in Condor.
Bullsh**.

We had an inexperienced guy in a tail heavy Phoebus get into PIO's on
tow. The first one was not too bad. The second one had him climbing at
45 degrees. On the third he went over the top. Certainly no higher
than 300'. The tow rope broke, saving the tow pilot's life. Those of
us watching thought we were looking at a dead man. He pulled back on
the stick and while headed straight down he rolled 180 degrees and
pulled out 10 feet above the runway, landing down wind. Later I asked
him how he pulled that off. His answer: "I've flown a lot of
aerobatics in Microsoft Flight Simulator". !!!

Brian Bange

Except in very strong wind conditions a rope break at or above 200' is
hardly an "emergency". It is a circumstance that requires immediate
action, but appropriate training should make this a routine maneuver,
executed with confidence. A real 150’ rope break becomes a true
emergency at many airports where the glider is going to land off-
airport and the outcome is not certain. The level of training needs to
overcome the “surprise” factor to minimize the delay in reaction
should a rope break take place.

Bob

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT), Frank Paynter
wrote:

Hi Frank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures

True.
But maybe you noticed that the hardware these guys are using is not
exactly in your $300 price range....

A student can practice realistic rope breaks in Condor by having an
assistant hit the release unexpectedly, just as in real life. The
student must perform exactly the same functions (lower the nose,
establish a bank in the proper direction, look for an appropriate
landing area, etc) as in real life.



In a real-life rope break, there are two things that save lifes:
1. Before you take off, have a plan. Obvously. Know exactly what you
are going to do - always. Pretty simple to teach.

2. Situation awareness
This is what cannot be simulated on a PC.
Tell the student pilot to lower the nose after release or row break,
and stabilize the glider. I think the US term is "Fly the plane".
so far, so simple - no simulator necessary to teach that.

But now comes the difficult part.
I'd like to list just a couple of points that come to my mind that
need to be judged correctly to get a safe landing:

What's the correct nose-down attitude in reference to the horizon if
there's rising area ahead? Tall trees?
Judge the exact position.
Judge the wind.
Turbulence?

Decide about the maneuver that is going to get you down safely:
Sufficient runway ahead to land safely? Return to runway, shortened
traffic circuit, safe off-field landing ahead?
Or even a controlled crash if a safe landing is not warranted?

Once the pilot has decided which maneuver to fly, he needs to execute
it properly. As we are discussing turns to return to the runway:
What's the direction of the first turn, how many degrees are necessary
for that first turn, when does one start the turn back towards the
runway, what's the correct speed, when to extrend the airbrakes?


All these points need precise judgement - which can only be done
visually. Ever tried to judge heights and distances in Condor? Close
to impossible - at close range things look completely different in
real life.
Quick scanning is absolutely necessary - the pilot needs to turn the
head to get a quick overview. When flying his approach (especially if
he flies a teardrop turn at low altitude in order to turn back to the
runway) he needs to be able to look back over his shoulder and keep
the glider under control at the same time. He must be able to quickly
turn his head, scan horizon position, airspeed indicator, yaw string,
then look back to the runway, judge his position and his turning
radius, and so on.

The ability to do this correctly is going to save his life. This is a
technique that must be practiced.
Simulate this on a 22" screen? No way. You need a dome with a 360
degrees field of view to simulate this.



Any instructor knows that nearly all pilots who are flying a turn at
low altitude tend to keep the wings as level as possible and use the
rudder to turn the nose into the desired heading - the yaw string is
pointing inwards in such a turn. Get too slow, and even the most
benign glider will spin immediately - such an uncoordinated turn is
the classic spin entry maneuvre.

One is never going to see such a mistake on a 22" screen - the
experience on a PC sim is simply missing the imaginary fear that a
wing tip could touch the ground (this is the cause for such an
uncoordinated turn: The pilot wants to keep the lower wing tip as far
as possible from the ground, therefore turns too shallow, therefore he
has to use something else to get his nose pointed into the desired
direction: Voila, the rudder! Usually he's task saturated in such a
situation - he simply does not recognize that the yaw string points
into the wrong direction).

It is incredible what mistakes are being made by task-saturated
pilots, even if there's an instructor on board.
None of these mistakes are made at the desk, steering a glider on a
22" screen with a $50 joystick, a keyboard and no fear of dying.


So the two most important things cannot be taught on a PC sim:
- Precise judgement of the situation, situation awareness
- Fly the plane under severe stress

Of course one can show the student pilot the possible maneuvres on a
PC sim - but as long as there's no access to a flight simulator with a
360 degrees field of view and photo-realistic graphics, the student
pilot MUST experience a rope break simulation in a real glider.



I can pretty much guarantee you
that the first few times the student does this, their reaction will be
indistinguishable from their reaction in real life.

In my experience - they stay cool, fly whatever maneuvre they have
decided, and try again if it does not work.
In real life they are scared to death and make mistakes they'd never
make on a PC.

Moreover, the
situation in Condor can be easily configured so the student has no
hope of returning to the field, and therefore must accomplish a safe
off-airport landing - try that in real life!

In real life the pilot thinks about the value of the glider he's about
to trash - voila, stress! Won't happen on the PC.

After 10 or 20 (or 100)
SRBs in Condor, a student will be very well-drilled in rope-break
procedures for a wide variety of situations, much more so than a
corresponding real life only student who typically is exposed to only
a few well-planned and very safe SRBs.

..... and after he's done some real-life rope-break procedures.
I think that a PC based simulator like Condor could support real-life
training, but never replace it.


For less than $300 (assuming you already have a decent PC) you can
have a training tool that has been shown over and over again to be
effective in saving lives. Need I say more?

What is effective in saving lives is to teach the student pilot the
correct techniques to master such a situation. Show him in a realistic
enviroment how to keep things under control.

Let him experience that even a rope-break at a critical height is
something that gives him enough time to assess a situation and make a
decision for a safe landing. Once he has got the feeling that he is
always in control, he'll loose most of his nervousness - stay calm,
and fly a lot better.

This self-confidence can only be taught inflight, not in a $300 PC
game on a 22" screen.

I am pretty sure that this could also be taught in a simulator with a
cockpit and a view system that closele resembles reality - but then we
are talking about an impressive five-digit $ sum.


I tend to think that such a sum would better be used to (re-)train
instructors to perform *safe* rope-break training.
I have to admit that some of the stories I read in this thread made my
hairs stand up.



Andreas

On 7/12/2011 7:24 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
Hi Frank,

Well, there is a huge body of evidence from GA, airline, corporate
aviation, and military aviation that indicates that ground-based
simulation is very a very effective training tool for emergency
procedures

True.
But maybe you noticed that the hardware these guys are using is not
exactly in your $300 price range....

When you tell a student to push the nose down when he's already seeing
individual leaves in stunning detail..... well, I'd like to see that
simulated effectively. As others have said - there's a place for both.

Tony V.