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 14th 14, 10:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Johnstone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be

called to the other side.


We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were

no
glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.


Bob T


That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this
accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure to
be adopted following a launch failure at low level.
There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from a
low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance
of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these
circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at very
low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.
Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a
low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding
sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going
to end one way.
There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land
straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,
aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the
expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a
controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better
outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to
concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the
glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A
much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,
inexperienced and low currency pilots.
The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will
pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the
best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted
offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of
glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer
those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make
the right decision to implement what they have learned.

My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not
several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic
Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come
into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch
failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The
teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary priority
to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a less
positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be
exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic procedure
may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those
exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,
which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.
I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the
best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should promote
the adoption of best practice.
To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.


  #2  
Old May 19th 14, 05:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
David Salmon[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)
I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be

called to the other side.


We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were

no
glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.


Bob T


That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this
accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure

to
be adopted following a launch failure at low level.
There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from

a
low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance
of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these
circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at

very
low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.
Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a
low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding
sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going
to end one way.
There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land
straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,
aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the
expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a
controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better
outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to
concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the
glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A
much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,
inexperienced and low currency pilots.
The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will
pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is

the
best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted
offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of
glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer
those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make
the right decision to implement what they have learned.

My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not
several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic
Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come
into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch
failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The
teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary

priority
to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a

less
positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be
exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic

procedure
may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those
exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,
which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.
I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the
best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should

promote
the adoption of best practice.
To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.

A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and
I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to
be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang
Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,
but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the
bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft
are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,
ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand
the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.
The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power
flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead
as possible, into whatever is available.
I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight
ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the
back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.
Dave

  #3  
Old May 19th 14, 08:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:
At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:

At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)


I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be


called to the other side.




We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were


no


glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.




Bob T




That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this


accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure


to

be adopted following a launch failure at low level.


There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from


a

low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance


of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these


circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at


very

low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations..


Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a


low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding


sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going


to end one way.


There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land


straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,


aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the


expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a


controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better


outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to


concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the


glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A


much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,


inexperienced and low currency pilots.


The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will


pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or


complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is


the

best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted


offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of


glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer


those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make


the right decision to implement what they have learned.




My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not


several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic


Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come


into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch


failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The


teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary


priority

to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a


less

positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be


exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic


procedure

may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those


exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,


which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.


I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the


best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should


promote

the adoption of best practice.


To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.




A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and

I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to

be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang

Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,

but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the

bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft

are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,

ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand

the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.

The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power

flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead

as possible, into whatever is available.

I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight

ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the

back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.

Dave


Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!

However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.

Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.

My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.

The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.
  #4  
Old May 20th 14, 02:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:40:51 AM UTC+12, Bill D wrote:
However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.


Exactly.


The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.


Let's just emphasise this again.

If the rope breaks at normal aerotow speed, you should be able to complete a 180º turn and be at normal safe final approach speed with as much or more height as the moment the rope broke.

The glider can. Easily.
  #5  
Old May 22nd 14, 10:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:

At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:




At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)




I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be




called to the other side.








We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were




no




glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.








Bob T








That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this




accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure




to




be adopted following a launch failure at low level.




There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from




a




low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance




of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these




circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at




very




low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.




Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a




low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding




sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going




to end one way.




There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land




straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,




aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the




expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a




controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better




outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to




concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the




glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A




much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,




inexperienced and low currency pilots.




The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will




pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or




complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is




the




best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted




offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of




glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer




those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make




the right decision to implement what they have learned.








My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not




several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic




Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come




into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch




failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The




teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary




priority




to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a




less




positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be




exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic




procedure




may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those




exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,




which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.




I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the




best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should




promote




the adoption of best practice.




To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.








A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and




I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to




be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang




Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,




but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the




bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft




are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,




ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand




the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.




The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power




flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead




as possible, into whatever is available.




I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight




ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the




back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.




Dave




Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!



However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.



Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.



My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.



The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.


Langewiesche's point is correct, period. Which option carries the best chance of retaining control, keeping the wings level or turning, especially at low level?
The primary concern is survival of the pilot, an undamaged glider is a long way below this fundamental priority.
We have all witnessed instructors who like to scare their pupils witless by carrying out risky procedures, such behavior has no place in responsible aviation, but we all know it survives because of the intransigence of those who refuse to accept that we are there to teach safe flying.

Ignore the KISS mantra at your peril.

  #6  
Old May 22nd 14, 11:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:41:14 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:

On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:




At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:








At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)








I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be








called to the other side.
















We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were








no








glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.
















Bob T
















That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this








accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure








to








be adopted following a launch failure at low level.








There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from








a








low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance








of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these








circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at








very








low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.








Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a








low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding








sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going








to end one way.








There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land








straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,








aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the








expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a








controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better








outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to








concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the








glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A








much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,








inexperienced and low currency pilots.








The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will








pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or








complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is








the








best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted








offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of








glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer








those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make








the right decision to implement what they have learned.
















My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not








several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic








Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come








into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch








failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities. The








teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary








priority








to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a








less








positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be








exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic








procedure








may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those








exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,








which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.








I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the








best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should








promote








the adoption of best practice.








To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.
















A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and








I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to








be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang








Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,








but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the








bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft








are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,








ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand








the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.








The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power








flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead








as possible, into whatever is available.








I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight








ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the








back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.








Dave








Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!








However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.








Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.








My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.








The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.




Langewiesche's point is correct, period. Which option carries the best chance of retaining control, keeping the wings level or turning, especially at low level?

--------------------
Neither or both depending solely on the ability of the pilot. Turns don't stall gliders - pilots do. Pilots with real flying ability have the "best chance" of retaining control.


We have all witnessed instructors who like to scare their pupils witless by carrying out risky procedures, such behavior has no place in responsible aviation, but we all know it survives because of the intransigence of those who refuse to accept that we are there to teach safe flying.

------------------
So, you say that instructors who teach a maneuver required by the FAA Practical Test Standards as covered in detail on page 8-11 of the FAA Glider Flying Handbook are "witlessly" carrying out "risky procedures" to "scare their pupils"? That's about as absurd as r.a.s ever gets - which is saying a lot. You better hope the instructor who gives you your next Flight Review didn't read your post.

  #7  
Old May 23rd 14, 12:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:55:44 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 3:41:14 PM UTC-6, wrote:

On Monday, May 19, 2014 8:40:51 PM UTC+1, Bill D wrote:




On Monday, May 19, 2014 10:21:26 AM UTC-6, David Salmon wrote:








At 09:25 14 May 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:
















At 02:14 14 May 2014, wrote: (snip)
















I've been into soaring since 1996 and he was the 7th I've known to be
















called to the other side.
































We try to learn from others' mistakes, but in this case, as there were
















no
















glider pilots who observed the event, little can be learned.
































Bob T
































That is simply not true. Whilst not commenting on the specifics of this
















accident the outcome has provoked a serious discussion on the procedure
















to
















be adopted following a launch failure at low level.
















There are those who have argued passionately, that a turn back, even from
















a
















low starting height is a viable and safe option providing the best chance
















of a good outcome. There has been a deal of opinion that in these
















circumstances we should consider doing something, turning downwind at
















very
















low level, which we would never ever consider doing in normal operations.
















Observing a pilot making the 90 degree turn from base to finals at such a
















low level would result in a very one sided conversation at many gliding
















sites. Loss of control below 300 ft, let alone 200 ft, is only ever going
















to end one way.
















There are those who have argued that a much safer option in to land
















straight ahead, or slightly to one side even if the terrain is difficult,
















aiming to ensure that the fuselage survives the landing, even at the
















expense of damage to other parts. The argument to support this is that a
















controlled descent with wings level is far more likely to have a better
















outcome than getting the low turn wrong. There are fewer items to
















concentrate on with more time to monitor the basic need of keeping the
















glider flying with sufficient airspeed to ensure a controlled landing. A
















much simpler approach and one likely to be easier for low hours,
















inexperienced and low currency pilots.
















The basic questions to ask in deciding which is the best option is, "Will
















pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
















complicated procedure?" "Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is
















the
















best option suitable for all conditions?" and "Does the procedure adopted
















offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of
















glider damage?". I think most gliding supervisors will be able to answer
















those questions, the only question remaining is will they be able to make
















the right decision to implement what they have learned.
































My personal view is that the low turn back is one complication, if not
















several, too many for an average pilot and flies in the face of the basic
















Aviate, navigate, communicate mantra. The last two should only ever come
















into play once the first has been achieved and off a very low launch
















failure there may never be time to get to the secondary priorities.. The
















teaching of a low turn back places more emphasis on the secondary
















priority
















to the detriment of the first and creates a mindset that may lead to a
















less
















positive outcome than a much simpler procedure. There will always be
















exceptions to any basic procedure, in a few situations the basic
















procedure
















may not be an option so other options will have to be considered. Those
















exceptions should only ever be applied where and when they are necessary,
















which does not invalidate the preference for a simple basic procedure.
















I also think that arguing amongst ourselves, while useful in reaching the
















best conclusion, carries the danger of entrenchment when it should
















promote
















the adoption of best practice.
















To say there is little to be learned is just plain wrong.
































A good many years ago, my CFI had persuaded me to become an instructor, and
















I confided in him that my only real concern, was allowing someone else to
















be in control near the ground. He lent me Stick & Rudder by Wolfgang
















Langewiesche, and suggested a chapter to read. This is not a gliding book,
















but nevertheless there was lots of common interest. In particular was the
















bit, actually written by someone else, and showing how forgiving aircraft
















are when "crashing" under control. It is when they are not under control,
















ie stalled or spinning when they hit the ground, that the occupants stand
















the most chance of getting hurt, or worse.
















The same lesson was passed onto me in my brief excursion into power
















flying. In case of a relatively low engine failure, you land as near ahead
















as possible, into whatever is available.
















I can vouch for this from personal experience, having been in a straight
















ahead aeroplane crash, not me flying it, I hasten to add, I was in the
















back, and four of us walked away, as it went up in flames.
















Dave
















Langewiesche's point is correct as far as it goes. If the only choice is between crashing with the aircraft under control and crashing while out of control, being in control is always better. Duh!
















However, I think your implied point is that if a pilot tries a turn, the aircraft will be out of control. Obviously, I disagree. If a pilot can't retain control while making a simple 180 degree turn, the situation was dire long before the emergency arose.
















Now, lets define the "ground" you're going to crash into. Lets say there's a rock quarry off the departure end. Solid surfaces are vertical and all horizontal surfaces are water with no climb out options. The occupants will die in the crash or drown a few minutes later whether the aircraft crashed under control or not. My point is there are situations where no "straight ahead" option is available.
















My situation isn't quite that bad - it's only water filled gravel pits. The only field proven landable is VERY small and requires a 90 degree turn at treetop level around a large tree. Turning back, when possible, is always the best option. It pays to be good at it.
















The good news is gliders can turn back with generous safety margins. The wild card is the pilot.








Langewiesche's point is correct, period. Which option carries the best chance of retaining control, keeping the wings level or turning, especially at low level?


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

Neither or both depending solely on the ability of the pilot. Turns don't stall gliders - pilots do. Pilots with real flying ability have the "best chance" of retaining control.





We have all witnessed instructors who like to scare their pupils witless by carrying out risky procedures, such behavior has no place in responsible aviation, but we all know it survives because of the intransigence of those who refuse to accept that we are there to teach safe flying.


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

So, you say that instructors who teach a maneuver required by the FAA Practical Test Standards as covered in detail on page 8-11 of the FAA Glider Flying Handbook are "witlessly" carrying out "risky procedures" to "scare their pupils"? That's about as absurd as r.a.s ever gets - which is saying a lot. You better hope the instructor who gives you your next Flight Review didn't read your post.


Thankfully I will not have a problem. If a student on a "flight review" attempted a turn back from that height when there was a landable area ahead he would fail. As an instructor I would not be so stupid as to initiate a failure at that height without a safe landing area ahead, perhaps that is why I have survived 52 years of gliding. Quoting the FAA as an authority on gliding, that is a joke right?

Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:
"Will pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or
complicated procedure?"
"Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the best option suitable for all conditions?"
"Does the procedure adopted offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"
  #8  
Old May 23rd 14, 02:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bill D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:15:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Thankfully I will not have a problem. If a student on a "flight review" attempted a turn back from that height when there was a landable area ahead he would fail. As an instructor I would not be so stupid as to initiate a failure at that height without a safe landing area ahead, perhaps that is why I have survived 52 years of gliding. Quoting the FAA as an authority on gliding, that is a joke right?


The joke is an 'instructor' who's obviously terrified of turns.

Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:

"Will pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a simple or

complicated procedure?"


All skill levels? Pilots either meet the minimum skill level or they don't - and the minimum requires them to be able to return to the runway. If they can't demonstrate that level of skill, they don't fly.

In many, if not most cases, a return to the departure runway is the simplest solution. An off field landing dealing with trees, fences and unimproved ground is more often the complicated - and less safe - solution.



"Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the best option suitable for all conditions?"


No one suggests creating a "mindset" except to use good judgement in selecting the best option. No one is saying turn "downwind" - they are saying turn back for a downwind landing which is a different thing. No one in this absurd thread said "all conditions".

"Does the procedure adopted offer the best chance of survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"


Yes, in many if not most situations, landing on the departure runway does offer the best chance of survival.

  #9  
Old May 23rd 14, 04:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Fatal crash Arizona

Major snip...

..."Will pilots of ALL skill
levels and currency be best served by a simple or complicated procedure?"
"Is creating a mindset that turning down adopted offer the best chance of
survival of the pilot, even at the expense of glider damage?"


I could be wrong, but sometimes I sense a tendency to "reductio ad absurdum"
on the part of some folks - to convince others of their point of view? I
dunno...but as a non-instructor, glider-only pilot, I managed to
mostly-weekend-acquire ~2600 hours without ever contacting the ground "out of
control," to also safely and sans alarums demonstrate the proper response(s)
to simulated low-altitude, departure-end rope breaks, and I WAS surprised when
my ab-initio instructor (initially, verbally) introduced the concept of a
not-that-flight-pre-announced low-altitude rope break as a possibility for my
imminent future...and then who "immediately asked all the expected 'silly
questions'" of my instructor. That noted, nowhere along the line did I ever
get it into my head things like: 200' agl is an absolute go/no-go turnaround
altitude; or a downwind landing on the departure runway is ALWAYS to be
preferred; or that no judgment was required to safely and effectively respond
to a low-altitude rope break; or that it was "simple" (or, "complicated" for
that matter) to pilot my way through the post PTT attempt.

What I DID get into my head - and I can't remember if I did this entirely on
my own (out of fearful respect for the fragility of my "somewhat resilient
pink body") or through some combination of instruction, reading, cogitation,
etc. - was that it mattered VERY MUCH that I do certain things as PIC
"correctly" - for under certain (thin margin) circumstances I would not get a
second chance.

As many of my math instructors loved to say, It was "immediately obvious to
the most casual observer" that a low-altitude rope break was a thin margin
event, and it was up to me to "handle it right" - or else my frail pink bod
would be at higher risk than it needed to be.

IMHO, anyone who gets caught up in defending a stance I'd characterize as "do
it this way or you're wrong," when "this way" is procedurally based to the
discussional exclusion of maintaining solid flight control is missing the
point to a certain extent, and - yes - I understand the nature of instruction
and the need to instruct using "building blocks of knowledge"...which is the
way I've "forever" thought of "the magic 200 feet" concept. It's a great place
to start. It isn't fundamentally dangerous (from a control of the glider
perspective). It's not fundamentally difficult to pilot as Joe PIC. It's not
appropriate under all circumstances...while (in my view) "hitting the ground
under control" IS appropriate under all circumstances. The question then
becomes, "What ground?" That's where more judgement enters the picture.

As others have noted, it's not at all uncommon in the intermountain western
U.S. to aerotow launch from fields where accepting something other than a
downwind landing on the departure runway from 200' agl in the event of a
low-altitude rope break is (obviously, unarguably, inevitably, etc...) "the
best/safest thing to do."

Being 100% first-person-ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the tragic
crash sparking this (contains much food for thought) thread, several of my
operating conclusions a 1) we can never know for sure what was in the
deceased pilot's mind; 2) he likely hit the ground "in a non-flying
condition"; 3) 2) is further evidence for me to "not do that." Tying the
preceding into "the magic 200' agl PTT altitude" is easy enough for me in that
if "in my judgment" I think 200' IS sufficient under the circumstances to
attempt a turn-around, then I'll do it; if not, then I'll do something
different...but whatever I do I'll work darned hard to ensure I maintain
control all the way to the ground. Duh???

Respectfully,
Bob W.
  #10  
Old May 23rd 14, 03:15 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
WAVEGURU
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default Fatal crash Arizona

I agree with Bill. If you are scared witless by an instructor pulling the release at 200ft you have no business flying a sailplane solo.

Boggs
 




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 08:24 PM.


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