Fatal crash Arizona

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:40:01 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
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.

What you were taught relates to winch launch only. Different rules apply to aero tow. With aero tow at 200' AGL on departure it is almost never possible to land ahead on the runway. Either turn or land in whatever terrain is available off the end of the runway. In many aero tow only airfields, that terrain is not suitable for a safe landing.

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 2:40:01 PM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
"we do not practice very low winch launch failures, just after liftoff"

That's one of several reasons why the UK has such a terrible safety record on winch launch. I watched a UK 'trained' instructor destroy a glider and put himself in the hospital from a real low failure because he didn't know what to do next. Lacking training, he simply continued the rotation into the climb until the glider stalled.

I insist on simulated low failures just after lift-off. Given a pilot with minimum airmanship skills, there is no danger whatsoever. It's exactly like flying a bungee launch.

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

Nor would I - on a winch launch. On aero tow, where rules are different, a 200' failure will be beyond the departure end of the runway where there is often no choice but to turn back. Pilots trained to do so have a better chance of survival.

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

Yes and no. Any competent instructor would NOT have pulled the handle at 200' in the conditions that were in existence at Samply Aguila airport the time of the fatal crash. I took off a few minutes ahead of Bob and my 200' countdown lasted WAY farther than it ever had before at that airport, and by the time I finally got that high I was out of range of a glide back, and my 17.6m Ventus has a 50:1 glide. Plus, the air down low was turbulent. I was uncomfortable with the idea of having to get back to the runway for a while after attaining that altitude. Normally, it looks like duck soup from 200'.

200' during a training flight in reasonable air is one thing, in gusty sinky air is another. This thread started out about an unfortunate PTT fatality, and now it has evolved into lots of opinions, math computations, etc.... all good for discussion, but there is / was far more to a turn around or go straight decision than just 200' altitude. Conditions (wind velocity and direction, rising or falling air, and turbulence) and distance to, or how far past, the runway end also fit into any scenario. 200' training has its place, when conditions and common sense prevail.

Plus, I suspect Bob's thousands of hours with engines that would help power around a turn and low time in a glider with no power to help probably / possibly had a hand in this particular event. Like so many things, we'll most likely never know. But, lots of folks will continue to want to throw in their 2 cents worth.

Fly safe.
Bob T.