A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fatal crash Arizona



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 9th 14, 03:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:20:44 PM UTC+12, Bill D wrote:
I can assure you that the higher a glider's performance, the safer it is. It's the old, low L/D gliders that can run out of altitude before getting lined up with the runway.


It's a mystery to me why some people think you can "get away with" so much more in old gliders than in those great big heavy clumsy glass ones.

Somewhere in this thread I saw a statement that you could safely turn back from 150 ft in an old glider (which I agree with), but you're a dead man if you try it below 300 ft in glass.

The differences that govern such a thing just aren't that big!

Let's look at some numbers for weight and wing area of typical training gliders (from Wikipedia):

ASK13: 290 kg, 17.5 m^2
Blanik L13: 292 kg, 19.15 m^2

PW6: 360 kg, 15.3 m^2
ASK21: 360 kg, 17.95 m^2
Puchacz: 368 kg, 18.16 m^2
Janus: 365 kg, 17.3 m^2

G103: 390 kg, 17.9 m^2
Duo Discus: 410 kg, 16.4 m^2
DG1000: 415 kg, 17.5 m^2

There's not a lot of difference in the wing areas, with individual variations bigger than the generational differences.

Yes, the glass ones weigh a bit more. How much more?

Someone flying solo in an ASK21 is at about the same all up weight as someone in a ASK13 with a smaller than average instructor in the back seat.

Someone flying solo in a DG1000 is at about the same all up weight as someone in a ASK13 with a largish instructor in the back seat.

We expect students to be able to cope with the flying characteristic differences between having an instructor and not having one -- and to cope with that difference on their first time flying alone!
  #2  
Old May 10th 14, 01:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Johnstone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 02:06 09 May 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:20:44 PM UTC+12, Bill D wrote:
I can assure you that the higher a glider's performance, the safer it

is.
It's the old, low L/D gliders that can run out of altitude before getting
lined up with the runway.

It's a mystery to me why some people think you can "get away with" so

much
more in old gliders than in those great big heavy clumsy glass ones.

Somewhere in this thread I saw a statement that you could safely turn

back
from 150 ft in an old glider (which I agree with), but you're a dead man

if
you try it below 300 ft in glass.

The differences that govern such a thing just aren't that big!

Let's look at some numbers for weight and wing area of typical training
gliders (from Wikipedia):

ASK13: 290 kg, 17.5 m^2
Blanik L13: 292 kg, 19.15 m^2

PW6: 360 kg, 15.3 m^2
ASK21: 360 kg, 17.95 m^2
Puchacz: 368 kg, 18.16 m^2
Janus: 365 kg, 17.3 m^2

G103: 390 kg, 17.9 m^2
Duo Discus: 410 kg, 16.4 m^2
DG1000: 415 kg, 17.5 m^2

There's not a lot of difference in the wing areas, with individual
variations bigger than the generational differences.

Yes, the glass ones weigh a bit more. How much more?

Someone flying solo in an ASK21 is at about the same all up weight as
someone in a ASK13 with a smaller than average instructor in the back

seat.

Someone flying solo in a DG1000 is at about the same all up weight as
someone in a ASK13 with a largish instructor in the back seat.

We expect students to be able to cope with the flying characteristic
differences between having an instructor and not having one -- and to

cope
with that difference on their first time flying alone!


I think you are missing the point. The difference between the perceived
attitude of a Discus flying at 45kts (too slow) or 55kts (much better) in a
turn is very small, easy to get wrong.
The perceived attitude difference in a T21 Sedburgh between 35kts (slow)
and 45kts(better) is quite large, easy to spot if you got it wrong. Bearing
in mind that a T21 would not stall until you got it back to 22-25kts made
low turns much more unexciting. The T21 and T31 are the gliders I was
referring to.
When it all turns to ratsh1t in a glass glider it happens that much more
quickly than it ever did in wood.

  #3  
Old May 10th 14, 08:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Chris Rollings[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 133
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 00:13 10 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 02:06 09 May 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:20:44 PM UTC+12, Bill D wrote:
I can assure you that the higher a glider's performance, the safer it

is.
It's the old, low L/D gliders that can run out of altitude before

getting
lined up with the runway.

It's a mystery to me why some people think you can "get away with" so

much
more in old gliders than in those great big heavy clumsy glass ones.

Somewhere in this thread I saw a statement that you could safely turn

back
from 150 ft in an old glider (which I agree with), but you're a dead man

if
you try it below 300 ft in glass.

The differences that govern such a thing just aren't that big!

Let's look at some numbers for weight and wing area of typical training
gliders (from Wikipedia):

ASK13: 290 kg, 17.5 m^2
Blanik L13: 292 kg, 19.15 m^2

PW6: 360 kg, 15.3 m^2
ASK21: 360 kg, 17.95 m^2
Puchacz: 368 kg, 18.16 m^2
Janus: 365 kg, 17.3 m^2

G103: 390 kg, 17.9 m^2
Duo Discus: 410 kg, 16.4 m^2
DG1000: 415 kg, 17.5 m^2

There's not a lot of difference in the wing areas, with individual
variations bigger than the generational differences.

Yes, the glass ones weigh a bit more. How much more?

Someone flying solo in an ASK21 is at about the same all up weight as
someone in a ASK13 with a smaller than average instructor in the back

seat.

Someone flying solo in a DG1000 is at about the same all up weight as
someone in a ASK13 with a largish instructor in the back seat.

We expect students to be able to cope with the flying characteristic
differences between having an instructor and not having one -- and to

cope
with that difference on their first time flying alone!


I think you are missing the point. The difference between the perceived
attitude of a Discus flying at 45kts (too slow) or 55kts (much better) in

a
turn is very small, easy to get wrong.
The perceived attitude difference in a T21 Sedburgh between 35kts (slow)
and 45kts(better) is quite large, easy to spot if you got it wrong.

Bearing
in mind that a T21 would not stall until you got it back to 22-25kts made
low turns much more unexciting. The T21 and T31 are the gliders I was
referring to.
When it all turns to ratsh1t in a glass glider it happens that much more
quickly than it ever did in wood.



All completely correct but there is one even bigger problem, most pilots
when making a low level turn off a launch failure or to modify a
circuit/pattern that has got too low, tend to be looking for/at the place
they intend to land with little or no attention to spare for the ASI,
attitude or slip/skid indicator, that's why these events are so productive
of stall/spin accidents. Training needs to emphasise, GLANCE AT THE ASI
EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Attitude is un unreliable
indicator very near the ground, even the smallest undulations in the
terrain can give a false impression and just being low can make the
attitude look more nose down than it is.

  #4  
Old May 10th 14, 12:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim White[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 286
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 07:20 10 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
All completely correct but there is one even bigger problem, most pilots
when making a low level turn off a launch failure or to modify a
circuit/pattern that has got too low, tend to be looking for/at the place
they intend to land with little or no attention to spare for the ASI,
attitude or slip/skid indicator, that's why these events are so

productive
of stall/spin accidents. Training needs to emphasise, GLANCE AT THE ASI
EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Attitude is un unreliable
indicator very near the ground, even the smallest undulations in the
terrain can give a false impression and just being low can make the
attitude look more nose down than it is.


Surely best practice is simply to keep the speed on until you have got it
all sorted. Certainly in modern slippery gliders. Too much speed is much
safer than too little and costs very little in height through a turn.

Isn't this what you taught us Chris?

  #5  
Old May 10th 14, 02:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 154
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On 5/10/2014 7:24 AM, Jim White wrote:
Certainly in modern slippery gliders. Too much speed is much
safer than too little and costs very little in height through a turn.


From the standpoint of preventing stalls, I can only agree. But if
your goal is to actually make it back to the runway, that advice should
be tempered with a bit more information!

Remember that turn radius increases with the SQUARE of airspeed. That
means that a small increase in airspeed will result in a significant
increase in turn radius. As the pilot, your goal in that situation
should be to shoot for the proper airspeed for the situation. Not too
much, but certainly always keeping a margin above stall speed.

By all means don't risk a stall! But remember that too much airspeed
could add to your troubles.
  #6  
Old May 11th 14, 12:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Chris Rollings[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 133
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 11:24 10 May 2014, Jim White wrote:
At 07:20 10 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
All completely correct but there is one even bigger problem, most pilots
when making a low level turn off a launch failure or to modify a
circuit/pattern that has got too low, tend to be looking for/at the

place
they intend to land with little or no attention to spare for the ASI,
attitude or slip/skid indicator, that's why these events are so

productive
of stall/spin accidents. Training needs to emphasise, GLANCE AT THE ASI
EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Attitude is un unreliable
indicator very near the ground, even the smallest undulations in the
terrain can give a false impression and just being low can make the
attitude look more nose down than it is.


Surely best practice is simply to keep the speed on until you have got it
all sorted. Certainly in modern slippery gliders. Too much speed is much
safer than too little and costs very little in height through a turn.

Isn't this what you taught us Chris?


Certainly a bit faster than optimum costs very little but you still need to
GLANCE AT THE ASI
EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES to check what speed you are

doing.

  #7  
Old May 11th 14, 01:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Firth[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Fatal crash Arizona

Lots of playing with numbers but I think Chris'
airspeed checking is the most important; a well sealed modern sailplane
gives no clue to the airspeed from the
air noise. Furthermore you may be in turbulence/ wind
shear situation.
Apologies if this was said before.
John F.

At 11:01 11 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 11:24 10 May 2014, Jim White wrote:
At 07:20 10 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:
All completely correct but there is one even bigger problem, most

pilots
when making a low level turn off a launch failure or to modify a
circuit/pattern that has got too low, tend to be looking for/at th

place
they intend to land with little or no attention to spare for the ASI,
attitude or slip/skid indicator, that's why these events are so

productive
of stall/spin accidents. Training needs to emphasise, GLANCE AT THE

ASI
EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Attitude is un unreliable
indicator very near the ground, even the smallest undulations in the
terrain can give a false impression and just being low can make the
attitude look more nose down than it is.


Surely best practice is simply to keep the speed on until you have got

it
all sorted. Certainly in modern slippery gliders. Too much speed is much
safer than too little and costs very little in height through a turn.

Isn't this what you taught us Chris?


Certainly a bit faster than optimum costs very little but you still need

t
GLANCE AT THE ASI
EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES to check what speed you ar

doing.



  #8  
Old May 11th 14, 04:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 5:01:08 AM UTC-6, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 11:24 10 May 2014, Jim White wrote:

At 07:20 10 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:


All completely correct but there is one even bigger problem, most pilots


when making a low level turn off a launch failure or to modify a


circuit/pattern that has got too low, tend to be looking for/at the


place

they intend to land with little or no attention to spare for the ASI,


attitude or slip/skid indicator, that's why these events are so


productive


of stall/spin accidents. Training needs to emphasise, GLANCE AT THE ASI


EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Attitude is un unreliable


indicator very near the ground, even the smallest undulations in the


terrain can give a false impression and just being low can make the


attitude look more nose down than it is.






Surely best practice is simply to keep the speed on until you have got it


all sorted. Certainly in modern slippery gliders. Too much speed is much


safer than too little and costs very little in height through a turn.




Isn't this what you taught us Chris?






Certainly a bit faster than optimum costs very little but you still need to

GLANCE AT THE ASI

EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES to check what speed you are


doing.


Being constantly aware of one's airspeed is nothing more than basic airmanship. Why and where would this not be the case?
  #9  
Old May 12th 14, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Johnstone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 15:46 11 May 2014, Bill D wrote:
On Sunday, May 11, 2014 5:01:08 AM UTC-6, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 11:24 10 May 2014, Jim White wrote:

At 07:20 10 May 2014, Chris Rollings wrote:


All completely correct but there is one even bigger problem, most

pilots

when making a low level turn off a launch failure or to modify a


circuit/pattern that has got too low, tend to be looking for/at the


place

they intend to land with little or no attention to spare for the ASI,


attitude or slip/skid indicator, that's why these events are so


productive


of stall/spin accidents. Training needs to emphasise, GLANCE AT THE

ASI

EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. Attitude is un

unreliable

indicator very near the ground, even the smallest undulations in the


terrain can give a false impression and just being low can make the


attitude look more nose down than it is.






Surely best practice is simply to keep the speed on until you have got

it

all sorted. Certainly in modern slippery gliders. Too much speed is

much

safer than too little and costs very little in height through a turn.




Isn't this what you taught us Chris?






Certainly a bit faster than optimum costs very little but you still

need
to

GLANCE AT THE ASI

EVERY 2 - 3 SECONDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES to check what speed you

are

doing.


Being constantly aware of one's airspeed is nothing more than basic
airmanship. Why and where would this not be the case?


Maybe when you are distracted having been surprised by a launch failure.
It happens, it happened on a check ride I did 2 weeks ago with a pilot who
had not flown for a while. That is why a procedure needs to be formulated
for a moderate level of skill and currency. An experience pilot, current
and on top of his game probably does not need a procedure, he is capable of
formulating and executing his own, he knows his own limitations and the
limitations of his aircraft.
Solly made it up as he went along, procedure dictated that he found a
runway.
The key is knowing what you are going to do before the worst happens.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parowan Fatal Crash ContestID67[_2_] Soaring 30 July 3rd 09 03:43 AM
Rare fatal CH-801 crash Jim Logajan Home Built 8 June 22nd 09 03:24 AM
Fatal crash in NW Washington Rich S.[_1_] Home Built 1 February 17th 08 02:38 AM
Fatal Crash Monty General Aviation 1 December 12th 07 09:06 PM
Fatal Crash in Fittstown, OK GeorgeC Piloting 3 March 7th 06 05:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.