Some gliders safer than others?

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50:13 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33 has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it crashes.

What do you base this conclusion on? I've seen several 2-33s that have been crashed and sure wouldn't want to be in one! I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge), and having spent some time giving rides in the back seat of those horrible things, would sure not want to be in one during a hard landing!

Seriously, has anyone actually looked up the statistics on 2-seat crashes/injuries and compared 2-33/Blanik/K-13/G-103/ASK-21 stats?

There is a good reason the 2-33 is much maligned - it deserves it! Saying it is a good glider is like saying the Pinto was a good car - because it was cheap and it ran, no more. But I guess if your standards are low enough, just about anything will do.

Kirk
66
(waiting for the usual flurry of retorts about how wonderful the good old Gollywhomper is ;^)

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:35:45 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge)...

I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:48:16 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:35:45 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:

I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge)...



I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

I was interested by this discussion and looked in the NTSB reports - if I am counting right, in the US, only one person has ever died in the back seat of a 2-33. Six people total have been killed, in five crashes. One of those who died was a suicide - no kidding, he actually left a note. No one has been killed in a 2-33 since 1978.

There have been 226 reported, non-fatal accidents. That makes 231 reported accidents total, with 2.16% being fatal.

on the suicide note subject. did that happen in Washington State?

GK



On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:51:49 PM UTC-7, James Lee wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:48:16 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:35:45 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:



I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge)...







I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.



I was interested by this discussion and looked in the NTSB reports - if I am counting right, in the US, only one person has ever died in the back seat of a 2-33. Six people total have been killed, in five crashes. One of those who died was a suicide - no kidding, he actually left a note. No one has been killed in a 2-33 since 1978.



There have been 226 reported, non-fatal accidents. That makes 231 reported accidents total, with 2.16% being fatal.

So flying a 2-33 actually drove someone to suicide? I can believe that.

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:48:16 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

It wasn't a stall spin, it was a full-stalled hard landing (launched into a dust devil and released early, then full aft stick until impact in the desert - by a commercial pilot giving a ride, no less. Amazingly poor airmanship!).

But without data of other similar events in other types of gliders, all our comments are just opinions. It could be that the 2-33 is the safest method of transportation known to man, but I "personally" doubt it.

I do find it amusing that one of the first defenses raised whenever the 2-33 is discussed is that "it's the safest glider to crash in!". Wow - that sure makes me want to jump in one! No thank you - I prefer gliders that let you avoid a crash - since apparently 2-33s are poor in that respect!

And since the NTSB reports show that you CAN get killed in a 2-33, despite it's low approach speed, spin resistance, and sturdy structure (?!), maybe it's fabled crash safety is just an urban myth.

Prove me wrong; I would love to see data to that effect.

Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Kirk

Kinda like the Piper Cub - it's so slow it can just -barely- kill you...


"kirk.stant" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 4:48:16 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

I only have anecdotes wrt survivability of 2-33 crashes, but your anecdote
seems pretty favorable. I'd be happy to simply break an ankle and hop
away from the front seat of a stalled and crashed glider.

It wasn't a stall spin, it was a full-stalled hard landing (launched into a
dust devil and released early, then full aft stick until impact in the
desert - by a commercial pilot giving a ride, no less. Amazingly poor
airmanship!).

But without data of other similar events in other types of gliders, all our
comments are just opinions. It could be that the 2-33 is the safest method
of transportation known to man, but I "personally" doubt it.

I do find it amusing that one of the first defenses raised whenever the 2-33
is discussed is that "it's the safest glider to crash in!". Wow - that sure
makes me want to jump in one! No thank you - I prefer gliders that let you
avoid a crash - since apparently 2-33s are poor in that respect!

And since the NTSB reports show that you CAN get killed in a 2-33, despite
it's low approach speed, spin resistance, and sturdy structure (?!), maybe
it's fabled crash safety is just an urban myth.

Prove me wrong; I would love to see data to that effect.

Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for
kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Kirk

On Friday, October 25, 2013 12:30:37 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

Heck, now I'm going to have to fly our club's 2-33 this weekend just for kicks...you know, living on the edge and all...

Well, I did just that yesterday. Took a tow in our just-annualled (after not flying for over a year) 2-33 (a real nice one, by the way, as 2-33s go) for a late afternoon flight. 3k ft tow, then 30 minutes in weak thermals (out lasting a K-13 and G-103 that launched after me), letting old muscle-memory fly the thing, and ending in a fun, no-spoiler slipped approach to a spot landing, stopping in front of the hangar.

What a piece of junk. No way to trim, either on tow (2-handed push) or thermalling (2-handed pull), having to be pretty much fully cross controlled to slow down enough in a 45 degree bank and work a weak thermal (full aft stick, full top aileron, using the rudder to push the nose around and setup the proper slip angle!), uncomfortable because of the low seatback and back seat rudder pedal housings...at least the visibility from the front is good (cuz it sure isn't from the back!). Everything seems to happen in slow motion - especially roll, since you only have a couple of inches of stick displacement before your leg gets in the way.

Now before you start yelling, I'll admit that I'm not a small guy (although I fit comfortably in my LS6) - and sure a small kid will have tons of room.. That is true. Funny, though, most of our current students are not young kids. They are older, more "mature" guys. Hmmm...

I must say it was fun slipping it down to the ground, because you can really SEE the ground come up and hold that slip to the very last moment...then straighten up, roll the mainwheel on the ground, then when ready let the skid do the work of stopping. Who needs whimpy spoilers or wheel brakes!

Did I have fun? Of course! The thing is a hoot to fly, just like it's fun to drive a really old car - say a 65 Beetle. Is it in any way representative of how you fly a modern glider? Hell no! Is it a good initial trainer? I'll let you CFIGs fight over that, but if my son or daughter suddenly wanted to learn to fly gliders, I would tell them to avoid the 2-33 like the plague until they had their rating, then get checked out in one just to see what it was like in the good old days, before computers, cell phones, or the interwebnet thingy!

Cheers!

Kirk
66

In article ,
"kirk.stant" wrote:

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50:13 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33
has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for
that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it
crashes.

What do you base this conclusion on? I've seen several 2-33s that have been
crashed and sure wouldn't want to be in one! I know of a passenger that broke
an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing
trailing edge), and having spent some time giving rides in the back seat of
those horrible things, would sure not want to be in one during a hard
landing!



Saw a 2-33 make a very hard landing once. Bent the landing gear up
sideways. The guy in the back seat went away on a backboard.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:33:31 PM UTC-6, Nicholas L wrote:
Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?

Is there a source for information on this?

The link you posted is from a lecture that is over a decade ago. I think since this time safety cockpits are no longer compulsory and they are a requirement for Certification in most Countries. I disagree with the conclusions drawn in that lecture. I think most pilots, with all other things being equal, would purchase the safer glider.
It is possible, but due to the short gear highly unlikely, that a glider will flip and pin the pilot. This does happen in powered aircraft and roll over protection is provided on the better designs.