Glider accident while filming commercial in 2011. NTSB Report updated

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.

Hi Bill
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.

Actually, the reference you quote above says that in 2011 there were 12 accidents plus incidents. Not the same as accidents. It's not really credible that the accident rate is 12:1 but the fatality / serious rate roughly the same, as calculated earlier. I think we're going to need to agree to differ on this one though.

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

OK - good thought. So I did. First five UK launches 5,2,2,4,2 seconds (roughly). First five German ones 5,4,3,3,2. Again roughly. Not a lot of difference (caveat - not a large sample and dependent on lots of other things). What was interesting was that the first two UK ones were from the same club, and used their old and new winch respectively. I think this time is largely equipment driven - could be that newer winches tend to be higher power. Don't disagree in principle though - and as I mentioned earlier, avoiding wing drop is a current focus at the moment in the UK.

On your point about minimum winch airspeed, I agree totally. It's standard teaching: (BGA Instructors' manual edition 3 page 16-1). I find it strange that gliders are placarded with maximum airspeed but not minimum.

Paul

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:38:21 PM UTC-6, Paul Ruskin wrote:
Hi Bill

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.



Actually, the reference you quote above says that in 2011 there were 12 accidents plus incidents. Not the same as accidents. It's not really credible that the accident rate is 12:1 but the fatality / serious rate roughly the same, as calculated earlier. I think we're going to need to agree to differ on this one though.



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



OK - good thought. So I did. First five UK launches 5,2,2,4,2 seconds (roughly). First five German ones 5,4,3,3,2. Again roughly. Not a lot of difference (caveat - not a large sample and dependent on lots of other things). What was interesting was that the first two UK ones were from the same club, and used their old and new winch respectively. I think this time is largely equipment driven - could be that newer winches tend to be higher power. Don't disagree in principle though - and as I mentioned earlier, avoiding wing drop is a current focus at the moment in the UK.



On your point about minimum winch airspeed, I agree totally. It's standard teaching: (BGA Instructors' manual edition 3 page 16-1). I find it strange that gliders are placarded with maximum airspeed but not minimum.



Paul

When timing takeoff rolls, you need to find a way to consistently pick a moment when the acceleration begins. Many of the launches roll for several meters before the winch driver really hits the throttle. I choose the moment a nose wheel/skid glider's tail goes down and for tail wheel gliders when the wing runner lets go to start the clock.

To compensate a bit for this late clock start, I stop the clock when the glider's wheel is .5 - 1m above the ground. It's not perfect but then it's YouTube.

It's also necessary to estimate the wind. If there's a lot of wind noise on the sound track or the trees are obviously bending, I disregard that video. If I can see a wind sock in the background, I can estimate the wind. If there's a good sound track without wind noise, there's probably little wind.

Try that and see if your numbers change.

The following short clip is taken from a video made for ESPN back in the 90s
some time. This is how it should have looked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHa-t...ature=youtu.be


"Bill D" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:38:21 PM UTC-6, Paul Ruskin wrote:
Hi Bill

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.



Actually, the reference you quote above says that in 2011 there were 12
accidents plus incidents. Not the same as accidents. It's not really
credible that the accident rate is 12:1 but the fatality / serious rate
roughly the same, as calculated earlier. I think we're going to need to
agree to differ on this one though.



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



OK - good thought. So I did. First five UK launches 5,2,2,4,2 seconds
(roughly). First five German ones 5,4,3,3,2. Again roughly. Not a lot
of difference (caveat - not a large sample and dependent on lots of other
things). What was interesting was that the first two UK ones were from
the same club, and used their old and new winch respectively. I think
this time is largely equipment driven - could be that newer winches tend
to be higher power. Don't disagree in principle though - and as I
mentioned earlier, avoiding wing drop is a current focus at the moment in
the UK.



On your point about minimum winch airspeed, I agree totally. It's
standard teaching: (BGA Instructors' manual edition 3 page 16-1). I find
it strange that gliders are placarded with maximum airspeed but not
minimum.



Paul

When timing takeoff rolls, you need to find a way to consistently pick a
moment when the acceleration begins. Many of the launches roll for several
meters before the winch driver really hits the throttle. I choose the
moment a nose wheel/skid glider's tail goes down and for tail wheel gliders
when the wing runner lets go to start the clock.

To compensate a bit for this late clock start, I stop the clock when the
glider's wheel is .5 - 1m above the ground. It's not perfect but then it's
YouTube.

It's also necessary to estimate the wind. If there's a lot of wind noise on
the sound track or the trees are obviously bending, I disregard that video.
If I can see a wind sock in the background, I can estimate the wind. If
there's a good sound track without wind noise, there's probably little wind.

Try that and see if your numbers change.

Indeed.

As an example - the BGA statistics include any accident or incident
reported by a member anywhere in the world. So their numbers include
locations in Spain and South Africa.

The German numbers do not.

I express no opinion on which is a better approach. Merely that the one
is organisational statistics and the other is geographic.

Bruce

On 2013/06/26 11:38 PM, Paul Ruskin wrote:
Hi Bill
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.

Actually, the reference you quote above says that in 2011 there were 12 accidents plus incidents. Not the same as accidents. It's not really credible that the accident rate is 12:1 but the fatality / serious rate roughly the same, as calculated earlier. I think we're going to need to agree to differ on this one though.

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

OK - good thought. So I did. First five UK launches 5,2,2,4,2 seconds (roughly). First five German ones 5,4,3,3,2. Again roughly. Not a lot of difference (caveat - not a large sample and dependent on lots of other things). What was interesting was that the first two UK ones were from the same club, and used their old and new winch respectively. I think this time is largely equipment driven - could be that newer winches tend to be higher power. Don't disagree in principle though - and as I mentioned earlier, avoiding wing drop is a current focus at the moment in the UK.

On your point about minimum winch airspeed, I agree totally. It's standard teaching: (BGA Instructors' manual edition 3 page 16-1). I find it strange that gliders are placarded with maximum airspeed but not minimum.

Paul


--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

On Friday, June 28, 2013 1:56:50 AM UTC-6, BruceGreeff wrote:
Indeed.



As an example - the BGA statistics include any accident or incident

reported by a member anywhere in the world. So their numbers include

locations in Spain and South Africa.



The German numbers do not.



I express no opinion on which is a better approach. Merely that the one

is organisational statistics and the other is geographic.



Bruce



On 2013/06/26 11:38 PM, Paul Ruskin wrote:

Hi Bill

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.



Actually, the reference you quote above says that in 2011 there were 12 accidents plus incidents. Not the same as accidents. It's not really credible that the accident rate is 12:1 but the fatality / serious rate roughly the same, as calculated earlier. I think we're going to need to agree to differ on this one though.



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



OK - good thought. So I did. First five UK launches 5,2,2,4,2 seconds (roughly). First five German ones 5,4,3,3,2. Again roughly. Not a lot of difference (caveat - not a large sample and dependent on lots of other things). What was interesting was that the first two UK ones were from the same club, and used their old and new winch respectively. I think this time is largely equipment driven - could be that newer winches tend to be higher power. Don't disagree in principle though - and as I mentioned earlier, avoiding wing drop is a current focus at the moment in the UK.



On your point about minimum winch airspeed, I agree totally. It's standard teaching: (BGA Instructors' manual edition 3 page 16-1). I find it strange that gliders are placarded with maximum airspeed but not minimum.



Paul





--

Bruce Greeff

T59D #1771

Not correct. The Germans do report accidents anywhere in the world.

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:56:50 +0200, BruceGreeff
wrote:

Indeed.

As an example - the BGA statistics include any accident or incident
reported by a member anywhere in the world. So their numbers include
locations in Spain and South Africa.

The German numbers do not.

I express no opinion on which is a better approach. Merely that the one
is organisational statistics and the other is geographic.

HI Bruce,

German accident statistics include any accident/incident that happened
on a German airfield, in Germany, or in which a German registered
aircraft was involved, worldwide.


Cheers
Andreas

Excessive initial ecceleration can cause problems with certain types. I
have experienced it with 2 types.
PW5 with stick fully forward at the start of the launch. Hard acceleration
caused the glider to rotate from the nose wheel to the tail wheel and
rocket into the air. I only managed to regain control at about 50ft.
The other one is the K8. Light glider, high wing. Similar problem.

If slow acceleration is a safety problem what about the ground run and take
off with aerotow using belly hooks, and autotows?

On Saturday, June 29, 2013 8:22:46 AM UTC-6, Nigel Pocock wrote:
Excessive initial ecceleration can cause problems with certain types. I

have experienced it with 2 types.

PW5 with stick fully forward at the start of the launch. Hard acceleration

caused the glider to rotate from the nose wheel to the tail wheel and

rocket into the air. I only managed to regain control at about 50ft.

The other one is the K8. Light glider, high wing. Similar problem.



If slow acceleration is a safety problem what about the ground run and take

off with aerotow using belly hooks, and autotows?

K8's and PW-5's, as with all "nose dragger's, are supposed to rotate back onto their tail wheels. What do you mean exactly by "regained control"? You're still with us so, presumably, it worked. With those gliders you should have started the ground roll with the stick full forward.

Aero tow with a CG hook isn't safe as discussed elsewhere on this forum. However a tug can't generate the forces a winch can so a wing drop induced ground loop likely won't be as severe.