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?"

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.

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.

At 21:18 15 June 2014, Bill D wrote:

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
200ft
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.=20

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 lift off, or practice ground loops 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.=20
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.

What you were taught relates to winch launch only. Different rules apply
t=
o aero tow. With aero tow at 200' AGL on departure it is almost never
poss=
ible 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,
t=
hat terrain is not suitable for a safe landing.

No, what I was taught and what I teach applies to ALL launch failures,
winch, auto tow, and aerotow as detailed above. The first action is to
select the appropriate attitude, at least approach attitude and make sure
that you have a minimum of approach speed. Then ask the question, "Can I
land ahead" If and ONLY if the answer is NO or NOT SURE should any other
action be considered.

While I agree that landing straight ahead is best if there is room, your
sequence of events is wrong. On an aerotow the question whether to land
ahead or turn should be made on every launch! "Then ask the question" will

lead to overload and grief! On tow, once you have decided you cannot land
ahead then it may be a turn to an off-field landing if possible, followed
by a
180 turn back to runway when safe. (That will invariably be at least 200')

I repeat: after a failure is not the time to be thinking about where to
go!

Tom




No, what I was taught and what I teach applies to ALL launch failures,
winch, auto tow, and aerotow as detailed above. The first action is to
select the appropriate attitude, at least approach attitude and make sure
that you have a minimum of approach speed. Then ask the question, "Can I
land ahead" If and ONLY if the answer is NO or NOT SURE should any other
action be considered.

May I offer a practical tip? Talk to yourself all the way up the launch to
a safe height (perhaps 500ft), deciding where you will go at every moment
should the rope / tug break. Should it then happen you already have the
decision made and only have to execute it well.

If you, or your trainee, start to do this every launch you will be amazed
at what poor decisions you would make to begin with. These get better with
the doing of it.

Jim

At 00:18 16 June 2014, Tom Claffey wrote:
While I agree that landing straight ahead is best if there is room, your
sequence of events is wrong. On an aerotow the question whether to land
ahead or turn should be made on every launch! "Then ask the question"
will

lead to overload and grief! On tow, once you have decided you cannot land

ahead then it may be a turn to an off-field landing if possible, followed
by a
180 turn back to runway when safe. (That will invariably be at least
200')

I repeat: after a failure is not the time to be thinking about where to
go!

Tom




No, what I was taught and what I teach applies to ALL launch failures,
winch, auto tow, and aerotow as detailed above. The first action is to
select the appropriate attitude, at least approach attitude and make
sure
that you have a minimum of approach speed. Then ask the question, "Can I
land ahead" If and ONLY if the answer is NO or NOT SURE should any other
action be considered.