Fatal crash Arizona

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:51:46 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
At 01:18 18 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
Here in NZ, students are frequently asked "where would you go
now?"

Hi Bruce, can you tell us what the teaching is in NZ is about this? Do
you teach 180 degree turns at 200ft?

The Gliding NZ training syllabus requires the instructor demonstrating a low level launch failure. It doesn't require the student flying one. (the same applies to fully developed spins, by the way ... the student only has to demonstrate incipient spin, recognition, recovery).

I don't think there is mention of any particular height. Our students are doing 180 and 360 degree turns 200 ft above ridges all the time, and constantly have "safe speed near the ground" drummed into them.

250 ft is the common simulated launch failure height, with an expectation that you'll be able to turn onto a downwind and then evaluate whether to land crosswind (probably) or into wind.

Further information:

One of Gliding NZ's A certificate oral questions and model answer:

Q: What is the pilot's first priority immediately following a launch failure on a winch launch and an aerotow launch?

A: Winch launch: Lower the nose to attain "Safe Speed Near The Ground".
Aerotow launch at low level: Raise the nose to convert excess speed to height but never fly slower than "Safe Speed Near The Ground".

For winch launching, the instructor's manual recommends landing ahead if you are less than half way down the strip and with less height than 1/10th of the total strip length. It recommends 400 ft as the minimum for doing a full circuit and normal landing. (it also recommends 4000 ft as the minimum length for winch launching, so that is internally consistent)

If you will always deliberately release if you find yourself halfway down the strip at less than 400 ft then there can never be a situation where you'd want to turn 180 and land downwind. At least, on a strip where the entire length is landable. I've flown from sites with a 5000 or 6000 feet run for the winch cable, but only a few hundred yards of landable area ... different guidelines will apply.

For aerotow launching, no specific advice is given as to heights. It does say "Unlike winch launching, aerotowing often involves entering the non-manoeuvring area." and "Beware the low-level turnback--if in doubt, land out", but without any definition of what is low level.

Certainly at our site -- a commercial airport with scheduled Dash 8 flights, surrounded by dense housing on all sides -- any off field landing is going to have very severe consequences. The seal is 1500m, but the grass we use is only about 600m. In one direction, we have the option of stepping sideways onto the main runway and landing ahead. In the other direction, grass and seal hit the fence at essentially the same point, but there is an old X'd tarsealed runway parallel and close to the fence that will serve in an emergency with only a 90º turn if 180º doesn't seem advisable.

At 01:18 18 June 2014, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:47:20 PM UTC+12, CindyB wrote:
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

Delightful. Since it was about a hundred posts ago I offered the same
concept, may I say, "Thank you."

!!!!

It would never have occurred to me that this was not assumed by all in
the
conversation.

Here in NZ, students are frequently asked "where would you go now?"

Bruce, one would hope that this is how most people do it, but my experience
is different. I am not a full instructor but do coach xc soaring to people
who have already got their wings. When I suggest this to the people I fly
with I usually get "that's a good idea, I never thought of that" so I
presume it is not generally taught.

Asking 'where would you go' does not demonstarte that your pupil is doing
this, he may just be good enough to come up with a sensible answer on the
fly, that time. Asking him to tell you where he would go all the way up to
a safe height would tell you, the instructor, very much more about what his
thought processes are and how well he could handle an emergency.

Just my penny's worth.

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.

At 09:44 16 June 2014, Fred Bear wrote:
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.

Spot on, run away to the south field, worked for me too





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.

In the event of a launch failure (or a bounce on landing) I was
taught to 'adopt the attitude that you would be at that height
during a normal approach', which I think is a clear and good
description of the 'appropriate attitude' that Don recommends. I
completely agree with Don's advice about then checking speed,
and landing ahead as the first choice.

I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned
aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3
could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept
catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots
don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's
ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.
But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that
such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.



At 22:14 15 June 2014, Don Johnstone wrote:


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.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:46:14 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:
I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned
aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3
could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept
catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots
don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's
ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.
But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that
such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.

I disagree.

Options in the event of a tow failure include:

1) land ahead
2) land cross wind
3) do a (approx) 180 and land downwind
4) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land crosswind
5) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land upwind
6) do a (approx) 180, do a normal downwind leg, land upwind

As long as at least *one* of those options is available at all times the site is fine.

Which ones are appropriate does change according to conditions. For example 3) is likely to be a bad idea in all but the lightest winds. But as the wind strength picks up the opportunities for the others increases quickly.

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:17:59 AM UTC-6, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 6:46:14 PM UTC+12, Andrew wrote:

I was worried by writers in this thread who have mentioned

aerotowing at sites where a straight ahead landing from a low PT3

could not be safely made. Single-engine power pilots often accept

catastrophic risks (e.g. from engine failures) but we glider pilots

don't have to. If the PT3 danger is only to the glider, I guess that's

ok, if the owners and their insurance company have no objection.

But if personal injury is risked by PT3, I hope everyone agrees that

such sites should not be used for aerotowing gliders.



I disagree.



Options in the event of a tow failure include:



1) land ahead

2) land cross wind

3) do a (approx) 180 and land downwind

4) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land crosswind

5) do a (approx) 180, enter an abbreviated downwind leg, land upwind

6) do a (approx) 180, do a normal downwind leg, land upwind



As long as at least *one* of those options is available at all times the site is fine.



Which ones are appropriate does change according to conditions. For example 3) is likely to be a bad idea in all but the lightest winds. But as the wind strength picks up the opportunities for the others increases quickly.

I agree with Bruce. However, all those actions require the pilot to have at least basic airmanship abilities which is clearly missing in some posts to this thread.

When applied to flight training, I find terms like "KISS" and "lowest common denominator" to be infuriating. Aviation is not simple and never will be.

When I read "KISS, I'm reminded of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does". Rather than aiming to accommodate the "lowest common denominator" in students, demand excellence.