Fatal crash Arizona

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

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

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

Bill, just answer the 3 questions honestly:

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

complicated procedure?"

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

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



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

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

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

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

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.