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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

At 13:40 23 May 2014, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:15:37 AM UTC-6, wrote:
=20
Thankfully I will not have a problem. If a student on a "flight review"
a=
ttempted 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
f=
ailure at that height without a safe landing area ahead, perhaps that is
wh=
y I have survived 52 years of gliding. Quoting the FAA as an authority on
g=
liding, that is a joke right?

The joke is an 'instructor' who's obviously terrified of turns.
=20
Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:
=20
"Will pilots of ALL skill levels and currency be best served by a
simple
=
or
=20
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
th=
ey 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
simples=
t solution. An off field landing dealing with trees, fences and
unimproved
=
ground is more often the complicated - and less safe - solution.


=20
"Is creating a mindset that turning downwind is the best option
suitable=
for all conditions?"=20

No one suggests creating a "mindset" except to use good judgement in
select=
ing the best option. No one is saying turn "downwind" - they are saying
tu=
rn back for a downwind landing which is a different thing. No one in
this
=
absurd thread said "all conditions".
=20
"Does the procedure adopted offer the best chance of survival of the
pil=
ot, even at the expense of glider damage?"

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

Well all I can say is I am glad that I live and fly where common sense and
safe gliding prevails, and where the FAA is not.
I am not terrified of turns, I have done lots. I am not even terrified of
low turns, I avoid them if only to avoid setting a bad example to others.
Personally I would not have a problem turning back at 200 ft but I would
never do it or teach it if the land ahead option was available, even if off
airfield.
Your answer to the last question demonstrates your ignorance of safe
aviation but you are several thousand miles away from where I fly so I
should worry little.

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.

At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:
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.

I cannot argue against the above. From what I have read in this thread I
have gained the impression that in the event of a launch failure at 200 ft
or above the recommended procedure is to turn back to the runway. This is
completely different from what I have taught for 45 years. In the event of
any launch failure the question that should be asked is "Can I land ahead"
If the answer is "yes" then land ahead, height does not come into it at
all. If, and only if the answer is "No" or "Not sure" should another action
be considered and executed.
In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead. I would and do simulate launch failures at 300ft
and above if there is no room to land ahead and allow students to practice
this, turning back as necessary. The reason is simple, while a pilot may be
faced with having to turn back at 200 ft the risks in doing so are not
justified in training, in the same way that we do not practice very low
winch launch failures, just after liftoff, or practice groundloops to avoid
obstacles both of which are covered by briefings. We do set up the ultra
low level launch failure situation from a normal approach but we never
simulate it off the launch because of the dangers involved.
There will always be circumstances where the "normal" procedure is not
possible but we do stress that the important part of the outcome is that
the pilot has the best chance of survival, an undamged glider is not a
priority in these circumstances.

On 5/25/2014 2:40 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:06 23 May 2014, BobW wrote:
Major snip...


I cannot argue against the above. From what I have read in this thread I
have gained the impression that in the event of a launch failure at 200 ft
or above the recommended procedure is to turn back to the runway. This is
completely different from what I have taught for 45 years. In the event of
any launch failure the question that should be asked is "Can I land ahead"
If the answer is "yes" then land ahead, height does not come into it at
all. If, and only if the answer is "No" or "Not sure" should another action
be considered and executed.

From my U.S.-centric, non-instructing perspective, perhaps this is one of
those nuanced differences between FAA-driven-instruction and BGA-driven
instruction?

What I think I remember of my instruction - and what I think I've seen ever
since then from observing others' instruction - was that "considering all
alternatives" before executing a reversing turn from nominally 200' agl in a
glider "is no big deal" and ought to be in the glider pilot's bag of tricks.
I've never thought the conceptual approach in any way fundamentally marginal
in a life-threatening (mine!) sense.

That's not to say the sensibility of the BGA approach wasn't - hadn't already
- been hammered home...as in I'd already internalized that Joe Glider-pilot's
Rule Number One is to never be beyond safe gliding distance to a safe landing
field. In my experience, the ONLY exception to Rule No. 1 has been those
(mostly western U.S.) fields where there may be a short time window when the
"reach a safe field" option simply doesn't exist for whatever reason(s).
That's when "fly the plane into/through the arrival" becomes more than a
mental concept.

In any event I would never simulate a launch failure at 200 ft if there was
not room to land ahead.

This certainly has been my training/recurrency experience(s)..."merely
goes-without-saying common-sense" IMO. I might be wrong in this surmise -
chime in instructors - but I doubt even our FAA has felt it necessary to
provide instructional guidelines "to this degree of obviousness."

I would and do simulate launch failures at 300ft
and above if there is no room to land ahead and allow students to practice
this, turning back as necessary. The reason is simple, while a pilot may be
faced with having to turn back at 200 ft the risks in doing so are not
justified in training, in the same way that we do not practice very low
winch launch failures, just after liftoff, or practice groundloops to avoid
obstacles both of which are covered by briefings. We do set up the ultra
low level launch failure situation from a normal approach but we never
simulate it off the launch because of the dangers involved.

FWIW, my takeaway from decades of avid personal interest and absorbing every
flight crunch writeup available to me, is that the risk in these sorts of
situations is essentially U.S.-invisible when considering training
incidents/accidents. The crunches sticking in my mind have been those
involving single-pilots for the most part. I suppose an argument can be made
about the longer-term efficacy and mental retention of training, if my
memories are valid, but not so much from a training perspective. In any event,
I don't think MY personal risk was increased from this aspect of my training.

There will always be circumstances where the "normal" procedure is not
possible but we do stress that the important part of the outcome is that
the pilot has the best chance of survival, an undamaged glider is not a
priority in these circumstances.


I 100% agree!!!

Respectfully,
Bob W.