Fatal crash Arizona

Major snip...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Bob W.

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.

At 07:15 16 June 2014, Jim White wrote:
May I offer a practical tip? Talk to yourself all the way up the launch t
a safe height (perhaps 500ft), deciding where you will go at every momen
should the rope / tug break. Should it then happen you already have th
decision made and only have to execute it well.

I thought that was supposed to be part of the training!

On Monday, June 16, 2014 12:15:07 AM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
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


Delightful. Since it was about a hundred posts ago I offered the same concept, may I say, "Thank you."
I am heartened to know that there are others out there who prefer to be prepared and updating their situational awareness during launch, rather than becoming off-launch and then begin 'assessing' the choices.

If the assessment is ongoing, the execution of the 'best choice' becomes pretty relaxed. And if we fly to the landing, it is so much more likely to be survivable than falling to an impact.

Thanks, Jim.
Cindy B

On 6/15/2014 8:18 PM, 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.




That's how I was taught - first immediate action - fly the glider. Then
assess.

I was sent solo in a T21 at Portmoak, flying off winch from the SW end,
accompanied by a sandbag in the RH seat. Two 360 degree turns and a good
landing. Woohoo.

Ok - now for the second solo flight - cable break at 300 feet. All I
remember of my thought processes at the time was to get the nose down
out of full climb immediately before speed bled off, get rid of cable
and then assess - unsure about straight ahead (20/20 hindsight - full
spoiler and land would have worked), too low for short circuit (maybe),
so I made a 90 degree left turn to get some room, turned back to right
and landed across the main onto the alternative area across from the
hangars, passing in front of the winch.

I explained my thought process to the instructor and we reviewed what I
had done - got a slow nod and a well done lad. Good enough for me and a
credit to my instructors. Was sent back up once we had towed the T21
back to the launch point.