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.

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.

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?

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.

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 5:40:53 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
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.

A basic standard of airmanship requires a pilot to expect every launch to fail. One is allowed surprise only when a launch DOES NOT fail. Inattention to airspeed is never acceptable even with a pre-solo student.

I totally agree that pilots should glance at the ASI very frequently on
every approach. When students have trouble keeping a constant
airspeed on approach, I find it helpful to do a demonstration
approach, calling out the airspeed every time I glance at the ASI. Its
about every 2 seconds, as other people have said.

About doing 180 degree turns after a low tow failu I also totally
agree with writers who say the immediate question is 'can I land
straight ahead' and to do that if its possible. Training students to
automatically do a 180 degree turn at 200ft is teaching the wrong
thing. Some damage to the glider should be taught to be acceptable,
since its an emergency situation. Maybe training this at all is a bad
thing, since statistically some solo pilots are going to get it
disastrously wrong attempting it. One could argue that going more-
or-less straight ahead is safer, while attempting a 180 degree turn at
200ft is risking one's life to save the glider from minor damage, or
the club the inconvenience of a retrieve. One could say that a site
where a straight-ahead landing from 200ft will certainly result in
more than minor damage, is a site that should not be used.

I wonder how other countries teach this, and how accident rates
compare. I was taught to glide in the UK, in the 60s, on a winch.
When I could eventually afford aerotows, I was never trained or
practiced a 180 degree turn from 200ft. As I recall, the BGA training
at that time was simply a verbal briefing for a low rope break was to
land more-or-less straight ahead (or at my club, to fly out over the
valley). It was accepted that the glider might be damaged.
Personally, I suspect this verbal briefing to go straight ahead may
produce better severe-accident statistics than the US emphasis on
training low 180 degree turns.

I think it's sad that we seem to think its fine for pilots to be so under proficient that they can't even do a safe 180 from 200ft... It's plenty of altitude under all but the most extreme conditions. IMHO if you can't, maybe you shouldn't be flying at all? This is a clue as to why there are so many accidents.

On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:44:51 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
One could say that a site
where a straight-ahead landing from 200ft will certainly result in
more than minor damage, is a site that should not be used.

Wait ... what?

Let's guess some numbers here...

300m for the tug to get off
200m more for it to get to climb speed
700m to climb to 200 ft (60m)
.... rope break ...
100m for the glider to slow to approach speed (while climbing 30m as well, making 90m)
600m for the glider to descend to ground level (worst case 7:1 glide angle with airbrakes)
100m to stop on the ground

Total: 2000m

And that's with a powerful tug, such as a Pawnee.

I've flown from places with such runway lengths (or empty fields beyond). But not many.

Your rule would eliminate at least 90% of the places that gliders fly -- without incident -- in this country.

At our home airfield (which by the way has scheduled Dash 8 flights on the sealed runway which is 1000m from stripes to stripes), gliders are given a 500m grass runway with about 300m more on either end to the fence. And yes, we're going over the fence at not much more than 100 ft if we don't have a headwind. Beyond that is nothing but houses. That's not "minor damage" to go into.

For a low break just after (or before) the boundary, the plan is definitely to turn towards and overfly the sealed runway. Any traffic there can take its chances!! (there are not supposed to be parallel operations) There is 300m width of unobstructed (though not particularly smooth) ground in that direction.

If you actually have the luxury of 200 ft when the rope breaks then better to turn the other way, over the houses, and land on the 300m long crosswind runway (which we use when 12+ knot crosswinds make the main runway too tricky for the tug (gliders cope fine)).

Fortunately we don't have to 'guess' numbers as most gliders have high resolution GPS loggers in them! (Remember to use GPS altitude as your pressure altitude probably lags considerably)

From a random flight of my own (unballasted LS4) I observed I used 750m of grass strip to 200ft height, behind a Pawnee with a 9kt quartering headwind..

Where I fly the training process is, land ahead, land off field, turn around.

On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:04:29 PM UTC+10, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 3:44:51 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:

One could say that a site

where a straight-ahead landing from 200ft will certainly result in

more than minor damage, is a site that should not be used.



Wait ... what?



Let's guess some numbers here...



300m for the tug to get off

200m more for it to get to climb speed

700m to climb to 200 ft (60m)

... rope break ...

100m for the glider to slow to approach speed (while climbing 30m as well, making 90m)

600m for the glider to descend to ground level (worst case 7:1 glide angle with airbrakes)

100m to stop on the ground



Total: 2000m



And that's with a powerful tug, such as a Pawnee.



I've flown from places with such runway lengths (or empty fields beyond). But not many.



Your rule would eliminate at least 90% of the places that gliders fly -- without incident -- in this country.



At our home airfield (which by the way has scheduled Dash 8 flights on the sealed runway which is 1000m from stripes to stripes), gliders are given a 500m grass runway with about 300m more on either end to the fence. And yes, we're going over the fence at not much more than 100 ft if we don't have a headwind. Beyond that is nothing but houses. That's not "minor damage" to go into.



For a low break just after (or before) the boundary, the plan is definitely to turn towards and overfly the sealed runway. Any traffic there can take its chances!! (there are not supposed to be parallel operations) There is 300m width of unobstructed (though not particularly smooth) ground in that direction.



If you actually have the luxury of 200 ft when the rope breaks then better to turn the other way, over the houses, and land on the 300m long crosswind runway (which we use when 12+ knot crosswinds make the main runway too tricky for the tug (gliders cope fine)).