Fatal crash Arizona

Originally Posted by son_of_flubber

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn back to the runway.

My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.

Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I wonder why he did that.

I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumilated 1000's of hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.
MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John

On 5/24/2014 8:21 AM, John L Fleming wrote:
son_of_flubber;883103 Wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:-
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn
back to the runway. -

My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.

Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I
wonder why he did that.

I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York
and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his
ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to
believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumulated 1000's of
hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.
MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because
he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage
failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John

My condolences for the loss of your friend. I hadn't been in aviation but two
or three years before personal aviation acquaintances and friends began dying
in aviation-related accidents. All I could do was mourn their passing, try and
extract lessons for myself (if any), rationalize that they died doing
something they loved, and take some decision(s) for my own future.

Many glider pilots often roll their eyes at "the obviousness" of NTSB probable
cause conclusions (e.g. pilot failed to maintain sufficient speed), but one
thing I think NTSB investigators are quite adept at is establishing control
connection continuity, particularly in the aftermath of low-speed accidents as
this (where wreckage is minimally disturbed from effects of the crash itself),
so probably the best answer to your puzzlement can be expected to come from
the final NTSB report on this crash.

Bob W.

At 16:00 25 May 2014, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 5/24/2014 8:21 AM, John L Fleming wrote:
son_of_flubber;883103 Wrote:
On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:-
Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn
back to the runway. -

My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.

Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I
wonder why he did that.

I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York
and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his
ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to
believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumulated 1000's
of
hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.
MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because
he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage
failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John

My condolences for the loss of your friend. I hadn't been in aviation but
two
or three years before personal aviation acquaintances and friends began
dying
in aviation-related accidents. All I could do was mourn their passing,
try
and
extract lessons for myself (if any), rationalize that they died doing
something they loved, and take some decision(s) for my own future.

Many glider pilots often roll their eyes at "the obviousness" of NTSB
probable
cause conclusions (e.g. pilot failed to maintain sufficient speed), but
one

thing I think NTSB investigators are quite adept at is establishing
control

connection continuity, particularly in the aftermath of low-speed
accidents
as
this (where wreckage is minimally disturbed from effects of the crash
itself),
so probably the best answer to your puzzlement can be expected to come
from

the final NTSB report on this crash.

Bob W.


Some years ago I witnessed a fatal spin-in following a launch failure. It
was a winch launch, the cable broke at about 150 feet agl. There was
plenty of room to land ahead on the airfield but the glider started a turn
to the left, flying obviously rather slowly. It completed about two thirds
of a 360 degree turn and then spun, went down into some trees a few yards
from the airfield boundary on ground about 20 feet lower than the airfield.
I was one of those that extracted the badly injured pilot from the
wreckage (he died in the ambulance before it left the airfield).

In the UK it is almost universal practice to set QFE not QNH on glider
altimeters (most gliding sites are less than 1,000 feet amsl), I noticed
that the altimeter in the wrecked glider was reading about plus 260 feet.
Later investigation showed that the millibar sub-scale setting was
consistent with the pressure on the previous day on which the glider had
flown. It seemed highly likely to me that the pilot had omitted to reset
the altimeter before take-off and, when the launch failed, saw over 400
feet on the altimeter and reacted to that.

On Monday, May 26, 2014 6:44:41 PM UTC+12, Chris Rollings wrote:
Some years ago I witnessed a fatal spin-in following a launch failure. It
was a winch launch, the cable broke at about 150 feet agl. There was
plenty of room to land ahead on the airfield but the glider started a turn

Well, that's clearly stupid.

The place I normally fly is short (but long enough we have 150 ft or so over the fence on a normal day, less if dead calm, more if a decent headwind) and the options are houses houses and houses, or turn back.

If you've got "cross the boundary fence and take the next paddock" that's a different matter.

And if you've got a km of runway still in front of you then turning back from 150 ft is utterly stupid. I don't think anyone here is arguing for that.

In the UK it is almost universal practice to set QFE not QNH on glider
altimeters (most gliding sites are less than 1,000 feet amsl), I noticed

Um. Who the heck looks at the *altimeter* at a time like that? Look out the window!


A couple of years ago the field I usually fly from got a flight information service. They can't tell us what to do, in every regard except one. When we arrived back and joined the circuit they'd (along with wind etc) tell us the QNH and EXPECT US TO REPEAT IT BACK. And presumably expect us to set the altimeter to it.

It's been a long process, but we seem to have finally convinced them that by the time we've made the decision to land and made the downwind call we are no longer interested in the altimeter, what it says, or what the QNH is. That was useful 20 or 30 km out, but from this point on we're ignoring the altimeter and looking out the window.

On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:44:41 AM UTC-6, Chris Rollings wrote:
At 16:00 25 May 2014, Bob Whelan wrote:

On 5/24/2014 8:21 AM, John L Fleming wrote:

son_of_flubber;883103 Wrote:

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 12:27:10 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:-

Premature termination of the tow at 100ft. Did not complete the turn

back to the runway. -



My sympathy to everyone touched by this tragedy.



Turning 180 back to the runway from only 100 feet AGL is unusual. I

wonder why he did that.



I've been watching this thread from day one. I'm back here in New York

and was a friend of Bob and am puzzled by the turn as he always had his

ducks all in a row. I'm too am a glider pilot and I find it hard to

believe he made a steep bank at 100 feet. Bob had accumulated 1000's

of

hours in both fighters and the two single engine aircraft he owned.

MAYBE, there was something wrong with the Zuni and he released because

he couldn't control it?????? For instance........aileron linkage

failure. I would be interested in others thoughts on this. John



My condolences for the loss of your friend. I hadn't been in aviation but

two

or three years before personal aviation acquaintances and friends began

dying

in aviation-related accidents. All I could do was mourn their passing,

try

and

extract lessons for myself (if any), rationalize that they died doing

something they loved, and take some decision(s) for my own future.



Many glider pilots often roll their eyes at "the obviousness" of NTSB

probable

cause conclusions (e.g. pilot failed to maintain sufficient speed), but

one



thing I think NTSB investigators are quite adept at is establishing

control



connection continuity, particularly in the aftermath of low-speed

accidents

as

this (where wreckage is minimally disturbed from effects of the crash

itself),

so probably the best answer to your puzzlement can be expected to come

from



the final NTSB report on this crash.



Bob W.





Some years ago I witnessed a fatal spin-in following a launch failure. It

was a winch launch, the cable broke at about 150 feet agl. There was

plenty of room to land ahead on the airfield but the glider started a turn

to the left, flying obviously rather slowly. It completed about two thirds

of a 360 degree turn and then spun, went down into some trees a few yards

from the airfield boundary on ground about 20 feet lower than the airfield.

I was one of those that extracted the badly injured pilot from the

wreckage (he died in the ambulance before it left the airfield).



In the UK it is almost universal practice to set QFE not QNH on glider

altimeters (most gliding sites are less than 1,000 feet amsl), I noticed

that the altimeter in the wrecked glider was reading about plus 260 feet.

Later investigation showed that the millibar sub-scale setting was

consistent with the pressure on the previous day on which the glider had

flown. It seemed highly likely to me that the pilot had omitted to reset

the altimeter before take-off and, when the launch failed, saw over 400

feet on the altimeter and reacted to that.

It sounds like this pilot lacked even basic airmanship skills. Quibbling over altimeter settings and low turns is beside the point. The real question is why he was allowed to fly at all.