Glider accident while filming commercial in 2011. NTSB Report updated

On Monday, June 24, 2013 6:11:53 PM UTC-6, waremark wrote:
I find it exceptionally unlikely that winch launching is an order of magnitude safer in Germany than the UK. Bill, would you be kind enough to write a succinct summary of your evidence with appropriate links in a form which is suitable for referring to the BGA Safety Committee?
__________________________________________________ ____

I already have - several times. At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking.

This is the last time I'll go through it. The numbers below are just too big to spin no matter how much you attack them. It doesn't' matter if you think it's 10:1 or "merely" 5:1 it's still ugly.

If one simply takes the BGA report supplied earlier in this thread which states there is one accident in the UK every 13,000 launches as true and compare it with the German BFU/DAeC data showing one accident in 180,000 launches you have a ratio of 13.8:1 in favor of Germany - well over an order of magnitude difference.

The German number of launches a year was from the DAeC report showing just under a million launches a year. The BFU shows 5 accidents in 2011. If you choose 900,000 German launches as a conservative number and divide by 5 you get 1 accident in 180,000 launches.

Hi Bill

"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "

"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help."

"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "
------------

I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.

As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.

Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.

From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf
“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “

That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:

“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”

For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).

I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.

What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.

Paul

Hi Bill

Just to pick up one other point. You said

"If one simply takes the BGA report supplied earlier in this thread which states there is one accident in the UK every 13,000 launches as true and compare it with the German BFU/DAeC data showing one accident in 180,000 launches you have a ratio of 13.8:1 in favor of Germany - well over an order of magnitude difference. "

I don't have all the data, as you clearly have, but others have expressed surprise about an apparent 10:1 difference in accident rates. So a little bit of a back of the envelope calculation to see if the ballpark is right. Whether accidents are reported equally, I don't know, but fatalities probably are.

From he http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/wi...n/message/9553

"Germany did 712,000 winch launches in 2009.... Only three accidents with 2 pilot fatalities occurred during the actual launch." So that's one fatality per 356,000 launches.

From the BGA stats I quoted in the previous post - UK fatalities 4 in 7 years, with 180K launches per year (from your earlier post). That's one fatality per 315K launches. And that's before we add back in the RAFGSA launches that Don mentioned.

Whilst in no way wishing to be complacent, that doesn't suggest to me that winch launching in Germany is currently an order of magnitude safer than in the UK.


Paul

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:13:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:
Hi Bill



"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "



"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help."



"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "

------------



I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.



As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.



Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.



From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf

“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “



That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:



“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”



For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).



I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.



What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.



Paul

You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to reduce the numbers. Be consistent.

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:43:34 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:13:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Hi Bill







"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "







"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help.."







"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will. It's your necks your breaking. "



------------







I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.







As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.







Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.







From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...iew2012web.pdf



“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “







That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:







“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”







For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).







I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.







What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem.







Paul



You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to reduce the numbers. Be consistent.

It is pretty certain that fatal accidents will be accurately recorded in all western countries, so this is definitely a good comparison and very interesting that the British and German numbers are quite similar.

The implication is that, while serious injury accidents occur at about the same rate, accidents that do not cause injury have a ten to fifteen times lower incidence in Germany than the rest of the world. I'm very skeptical of this. Perhaps another explanation is that dealing with the German bureaucracy is so complex and difficult that clubs don't report minor incidents to the national body at all?

From my own observations, there are a lot of minor and sometimes not-so-minor accidents that don't make the US database either.

Mike

From the little I have been able to ascertain.

The German system is very de-centralised - and federated.
If there is an accident or incident it is generally dealt with locally.
Apparently - Only serious events make it up the hierarchy to the LBA/DaEC.

I have seen more than one glider where the log book does not record what
in local terms would have been "Moderate" damage and would definitely
have been reported. But again it is not possible to generalise this to
current practice. These gliders are, in general, decades old. So the
reporting standards were different when this happened. From the
difference in national numbers, one can only deduce that the reporting
methods differ.

Any of our European friends able to comment?

Bruce



--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:41:36 +0200, BruceGreeff
wrote:

From the little I have been able to ascertain.

The German system is very de-centralised - and federated.
If there is an accident or incident it is generally dealt with locally.
Apparently - Only serious events make it up the hierarchy to the LBA/DaEC.

I have seen more than one glider where the log book does not record what
in local terms would have been "Moderate" damage and would definitely
have been reported. But again it is not possible to generalise this to
current practice. These gliders are, in general, decades old. So the
reporting standards were different when this happened. From the
difference in national numbers, one can only deduce that the reporting
methods differ.

Any of our European friends able to comment?

Raises a hand

The German system is not de-centralized at all concerning aircraft
certification and accident analysis.
All of this is handled centrally by the German equivalent of the FAA,
the "Luftfahrt Bundesamt" (LBA) and the German Federal Bureau of
Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU).

http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Home/homepa...8D1EF.live2051


In Germany *any* incident that causes a severe damage to the glider
(severe damage: a damage that compromises an aircraft's
airworthiness), its pilot or third party property is definitely
reported to the LBA.

Minor incidents without damage but deemed noteworthy are also
reported. This is practiced at least since the early 1980's.

The only accidents that are not reported are minor outlanding damages.

http://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikation...html?nn=223244



One things needs to be mentioned: There is no relation between a
damage report to the LBA and an entry in the gllider's log book.

For a long time it was accepted practice that a damage report and its
corresponding repair report were not reported in the log book, but
rather in the maintenance history file. Some owners did not feel the
necessity to include these in this file in order to increase the
resale value...



Cheers
Andreas

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:40:12 PM UTC-6, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:41:36 +0200, BruceGreeff

wrote:



From the little I have been able to ascertain.



The German system is very de-centralised - and federated.

If there is an accident or incident it is generally dealt with locally.

Apparently - Only serious events make it up the hierarchy to the LBA/DaEC.



I have seen more than one glider where the log book does not record what

in local terms would have been "Moderate" damage and would definitely

have been reported. But again it is not possible to generalise this to

current practice. These gliders are, in general, decades old. So the

reporting standards were different when this happened. From the

difference in national numbers, one can only deduce that the reporting

methods differ.



Any of our European friends able to comment?



Raises a hand



The German system is not de-centralized at all concerning aircraft

certification and accident analysis.

All of this is handled centrally by the German equivalent of the FAA,

the "Luftfahrt Bundesamt" (LBA) and the German Federal Bureau of

Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU).



http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Home/homepa...8D1EF.live2051





In Germany *any* incident that causes a severe damage to the glider

(severe damage: a damage that compromises an aircraft's

airworthiness), its pilot or third party property is definitely

reported to the LBA.



Minor incidents without damage but deemed noteworthy are also

reported. This is practiced at least since the early 1980's.



The only accidents that are not reported are minor outlanding damages.



http://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikation...html?nn=223244







One things needs to be mentioned: There is no relation between a

damage report to the LBA and an entry in the gllider's log book.



For a long time it was accepted practice that a damage report and its

corresponding repair report were not reported in the log book, but

rather in the maintenance history file. Some owners did not feel the

necessity to include these in this file in order to increase the

resale value...







Cheers

Andreas

So, Andreas verifies the 5 accidents the BFU lists for 2011 was all there was in 900,000 winch launches.

http://rdd.me/dstznowe says the UK suffered 12 for 180,000 launches.

How does that stack up?

UK: 1:15,000
Germany 1:180,000

Seems like Germany has a 12:1 lower accident rate.

It's great that the safer winch launching initiative in the UK has improved things but I think you need to find out what the Germans are doing right. I'd start by watching every "windenstart" video on YouTube. Hint: Time the takeoff rolls.

Thanks Andreas

Most informative. The resale value driver is obviously a consideration
when exporting a glider.

It then appears there is a high difference in historical reported
accident rate.
Current rates don't seem to be that different. IT is nice to see that
the BGA safe winching initiative has made such a difference.

Do you know how these numbers compare with the worldwide stats that John
Roake collected?

I am sure there are a number of contributory factors - including the
size/layout of airfield, demographics and composition of fleet which
also contribute.

In South Africa it has been 14 years since we had a fatal winch
accident. No idea how many launches involved.

Bruce

On 2013/06/26 3:40 AM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:41:36 +0200, BruceGreeff
wrote:

From the little I have been able to ascertain.



--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:54:17 AM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:43:34 AM UTC-7, Bill D wrote:

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:13:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:



Hi Bill















"Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches. "















"Yes, you have improved but you have a ways to go and denial won't help."















"At this point I'm growing weary of UK denial. Believe what you will.. It's your necks your breaking. "







------------















I think it’s important to recognise how good the improvement has been in the UK – this is actually an example of how a really good piece of (voluntary, BGA led) safety work has saved lives. If only our regulatory authorities could do this.















As you say, you’ve had the document Terry quoted for a long time, and you’re quoting old numbers, which don’t, I think, tell the recent story.















Following an excellent piece of work looking at the stats and analysing the causes of the acccidents, the BGA ran a “Safe winch launching initiative” starting some seven or so years ago. The 2012 stats show a dramatic and statistically significant improvement.















From http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/doc...ew2012web..pdf







“In the 7 years of the safe winch launch initiative there have been just 2 fatal/serious injury winch accidents involving a stall or spin. The average 7-year total from 1974-2005 was 17. The total in the preceding 7 years from 1999-2005 was also 17. Stall/spin accidents have historically comprised 80% of fatal or serious injury winch accidents. These have declined dramatically. “















That's a big change. I can't think of many other places where we've achieved anything so significant. But I don’t think anyone is in denial or complacent – the document goes on to say:















“But in the last 7 years we have had two fatal and one serious injury accident from a wing drop and cartwheel.”















For that reason, the focus in improvement this year has been on avoiding or dealing with wing drops in the first stage of launch. (This has been supported by a good training materials and delivered through the instructor cadre).















I think that demonstrates that a focused piece of safety work can deliver really good results - also that the long term averages don't reflect the current situation.















What’s interesting is that the results don’t necessarily last (I guess unsurprisingly). A previous programme in the UK was successful in reducing the number of tug upsets – but we can now see them creeping back up, as new pilots come along who don’t have the same memory of the problem..















Paul







You're shifting the subject from "acidents" to "fatal accidents" to reduce the numbers. Be consistent.



It is pretty certain that fatal accidents will be accurately recorded in all western countries, so this is definitely a good comparison and very interesting that the British and German numbers are quite similar.



The implication is that, while serious injury accidents occur at about the same rate, accidents that do not cause injury have a ten to fifteen times lower incidence in Germany than the rest of the world. I'm very skeptical of this. Perhaps another explanation is that dealing with the German bureaucracy is so complex and difficult that clubs don't report minor incidents to the national body at all?



From my own observations, there are a lot of minor and sometimes not-so-minor accidents that don't make the US database either.



Mike

Lets try different data sets. For consistency, lets use only serious injury or fatal accidents which should be reported in every country.

Go to this site: http://rdd.me/oj4xenk5 and download the BGA "Safe Winching" PDF Look at Figure 2.

For the 17 years ending in 2004 the UK suffered 18 fatal and 36 serious injury accidents. (379 total accidents or one every 8074 launches) If we assume the current 180,000 launches a year, that is one fatal/serious injury accident every 56,667 launches.

Here are reported German accidents in 2011 in which the DAeC reported 900,000 launches. That's 1:180,000.

3X060--11. A Jeans-Astir got launched into a Remos*ultralight which crossed the pass of the glider from right to left. The two a/c's collided in about 1,200ft and both lost their wings resulting in three fatalities.

3X093-11. Spin-in after normal launch - on YouTube.

3X095-11. A Ka-8 was launched on the winch and when the glider's right wing touched the ground and*veered off to the right, the launch-boss gave the command 'All stop', which was followed by the operator.*The the command to continue the launch was given but the line detached from the glider which then stalled over the right wing and impacted the ground out of about 10m.. The pilot was 65 years old.


3X065-11. The glider was launched on the winch but did not gain sufficient altitude and released in about 40m. Instead of landing straight ahead, the pilot tried to reach a field to the left and then forced the glider into a ground-loop. Pilot suffered broken vertebrae; the passenger only minor injuries.


3X080-11. A LS4 was being launched and after 40-50m of ground roll (!!) the gear collapsed. The glider was dragged for another 23m on the belly and finally lifted off. The launch-boss had given the 'All-stop' command which was followed by the operator. The glider did not have enough speed or altitude to recover and landed very hard. The pilot was 85 years old.