A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fatal crash Arizona



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 13th 16, 04:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Whelan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 400
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On 9/12/2016 8:34 AM, Ernst wrote:
Go to the accident docket and read the MATERIALS LABORATORY FACTUAL
REPORT. My conclusion is that the pawl spring had been missing for some
time.

Ernst


I found the 7-page Factual Report, which includes the statement, "A detailed
examination report for the glider release mechanism is contained in the
Materials Laboratory factual report located in the public docket."

I've been unable to find the "Materials Laboratory factual report." Pointer
help will be Seriously Appreciated!

Meanwhile, I'm still finding it hard to believe the accident aircraft was
successfully operated for ~26 hours without the release spring, though I can
believe the (light-in-tension) spring *might* leave very little in the way of
witness marks on the I.D. of the pawl's through hole.

Thanks very much.

Bob W.
  #2  
Old September 13th 16, 04:21 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,345
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:09:10 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:

...I've been unable to find the "Materials Laboratory factual report." Pointer
help will be Seriously Appreciated!


The Docket Management System (DMS) has many good detail photos of broken aircraft. It is (or should be) every detail designer's go-to resource:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hi...docketID=58737

Thanks, Bob K.
  #3  
Old September 13th 16, 03:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On 9/12/2016 9:21 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:09:10 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:

...I've been unable to find the "Materials Laboratory factual report."
Pointer help will be Seriously Appreciated!


The Docket Management System (DMS) has many good detail photos of broken
aircraft. It is (or should be) every detail designer's go-to resource:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hi...docketID=58737

Thanks, Bob K.


Many thanks!

Just to (sorta) complete the train of thought in my (bemused) posts preceding
this one. The photos of the release mechanism from the accident aircraft seem
to (pretty much) match my (oldish) memories of how it functions, the "pretty
much" exception being I remembered the hook retraction spring as a simple
tension spring (and not the dual-sided, probably custom-bent) coil type. It
was THAT spring force to which I referred when writing I couldn't understand
how the hook could have sensibly functioned in its absence. That force serves
dual purposes: 1) maintaining the hook cover against the back side of the
opening slot while in flight (while also allowing a back release in the event
of loss of rope tension combined with a Big Bow), and 2) (by
through-transmittal of the hook-opening-cover force) retracting the entire
hook mechanism after the pawl is released from the flat-plate/cable-hook
detent by the pilot pulling the release knob/cable.

As for the report's claimed missing pawl spring...I must be getting dense in
my old age, since I'm still puzzled by the intended function and line of force
of that implicated piece of (missing?) hardware. Using Figure 8 by way of
illustrating my puzzlement, it seems to me such a spring could either serve to
decrease or increase the pawl's contact force against the hook plate.
Decreasing the contact force would appear to be counter-productive, while
increasing it (arguably) might have served to make the incomplete contact
condition shown in Figure 9 even more likely.

In any event, my current working hypothesis is the hook likely back released
(as intended, for better or for worse) from a bow in the rope (gusty sink
being reported in that vicinity by the previously-towed pilot) at an
unfortunate/ugly towing-location, followed by loss of control. Having had two
such back releases during gnarly tows (one nearly too low to warrant an
attempted return, above head-high sagebrush, but fortunately not occurring
until later that same tow), I can relate. Whether or not the incomplete
contact condition between pawl and cable hook detent (shown in Figure 9) was a
contributor, I have no idea.

Back to the hook design - what am I missing? Thanks!

Bob W.
  #4  
Old September 13th 16, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:34:20 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
As for the report's claimed missing pawl spring...I must be getting dense in
my old age, since I'm still puzzled by the intended function and line of force
of that implicated piece of (missing?) hardware.
Back to the hook design - what am I missing? Thanks!

Bob W.


If I understand correctly, the missing spring pushes the pawl
in the direction opposite of pulling the release knob.
Otherwise, the pawl is not secured in the "latched" position,
except by a bit of friction with the hook plate (from the
spring that is present and any rope tension).

Do I understand correctly??
  #5  
Old September 13th 16, 06:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On 9/13/2016 9:26 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:34:20 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
As for the report's claimed missing pawl spring...I must be getting dense
in my old age, since I'm still puzzled by the intended function and line
of force of that implicated piece of (missing?) hardware. Back to the
hook design - what am I missing? Thanks!

Bob W.


If I understand correctly, the missing spring pushes the pawl in the
direction opposite of pulling the release knob. Otherwise, the pawl is not
secured in the "latched" position, except by a bit of friction with the
hook plate (from the spring that is present and any rope tension).

Do I understand correctly??


Quite possibly. I suppose such a spring fairly might be considered the
"suspenders" to the hook-retract-spring's "belt." It's not obvious from the
photos (Figure 1 shows it best), but installed-geometry, plus gravity, in the
pawl's as-installed position/angle work "against" the pawl remaining
detent-seated...i.e. the pawl pivoting by itself (no other physical contacts)
would tend to flop its "business end" *away* from the detent due to the longer
cable-attach arm's length compared to the detent-engagement arm's length
(unequal length teeter-totter).

Nonetheless, whether the absence of a compression spring between the pawl and
receptacle/pawl-spring-housing was a crucial element in this accident is
debatable; it would take very little force on the rope to rotate the cable
hook from the barely-engaged position (Figures 9) to the fully engaged
position (Figure 8). Once there, further testing definitely required to
determine whether the design would be more or less prone to back-releasing in
the absence of the pawl spring, in the presence of a rope bow...

That said - and since a number of these hooks have been installed into the
noses of German-built ships originally entering the USA with only a CG hook -
owners of ships with these hooks SHOULD (and easily can) VERIFY the
presence/absence of such a compression spring by checking to see if the pawl
is positively forced against the rotating piece of the cable hook throughout
its rotation range. Positive engagement = spring-present. (Note that the
spring itself is hidden in the hook's assembled state...and might easily
escape unnoticed in the event of the hook being disassembled for any reason.)

Bob W.
  #6  
Old September 13th 16, 11:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Johnstone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 398
Default Fatal crash Arizona

At 17:28 13 September 2016, BobW wrote:
On 9/13/2016 9:26 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:34:20 AM UTC-4, BobW

wrote:
As for the report's claimed missing pawl spring...I must be

getting
dense
in my old age, since I'm still puzzled by the intended function

and line
of force of that implicated piece of (missing?) hardware. Back

to the
hook design - what am I missing? Thanks!

Bob W.


If I understand correctly, the missing spring pushes the pawl in

the
direction opposite of pulling the release knob. Otherwise, the

pawl is
not
secured in the "latched" position, except by a bit of friction with

the
hook plate (from the spring that is present and any rope

tension).

Do I understand correctly??


Quite possibly. I suppose such a spring fairly might be considered

the
"suspenders" to the hook-retract-spring's "belt." It's not obvious

from the

photos (Figure 1 shows it best), but installed-geometry, plus

gravity, in
the
pawl's as-installed position/angle work "against" the pawl

remaining
detent-seated...i.e. the pawl pivoting by itself (no other physical
contacts)
would tend to flop its "business end" *away* from the detent due

to the
longer
cable-attach arm's length compared to the detent-engagement

arm's length
(unequal length teeter-totter).

Nonetheless, whether the absence of a compression spring

between the pawl
and
receptacle/pawl-spring-housing was a crucial element in this

accident is
debatable; it would take very little force on the rope to rotate the

cable
hook from the barely-engaged position (Figures 9) to the fully

engaged
position (Figure 8). Once there, further testing definitely required

to
determine whether the design would be more or less prone to

back-releasing
in
the absence of the pawl spring, in the presence of a rope bow...

That said - and since a number of these hooks have been installed

into the
noses of German-built ships originally entering the USA with only

a CG hook
-
owners of ships with these hooks SHOULD (and easily can) VERIFY

the
presence/absence of such a compression spring by checking to

see if the
pawl
is positively forced against the rotating piece of the cable hook
throughout
its rotation range. Positive engagement = spring-present. (Note

that the
spring itself is hidden in the hook's assembled state...and might

easily
escape unnoticed in the event of the hook being disassembled for

any
reason.)

Bob W.


I am now confused by the "installed in German" part. Is the release
you are talking about a TOST release?

  #7  
Old September 14th 16, 02:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On 9/13/2016 4:24 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 17:28 13 September 2016, BobW wrote:

Snip...
That said - and since a number of these hooks have been installed

into the
noses of German-built ships originally entering the USA with only

a CG hook
- owners of ships with these hooks SHOULD (and easily can) VERIFY

the
presence/absence of such a compression spring by checking to

see if the
pawl is positively forced against the rotating piece of the cable hook
throughout its rotation range. Positive engagement = spring-present.

Bob W.


I am now confused by the "installed in German" part. Is the release you are
talking about a TOST release?


Sorry for any confusion. A number of "Applebay releases" have been
subsequently installed in (on the fuselage bottom surface, near the front of
the nose of) non-USA-built gliders imported into the USA with only a single,
CG-mounted, release back by the wheel. This second cable attachment point
provided "a nose-hooked aero-towing option." Many - not all - such modified
ships were of German origin.

FWIW, I've been privately informed by a fellow Zuni owner (of S/N 28) that his
ship's release uses a(n easily visible) *tension* spring (not compression, as
on S/N 2) to positively seat the pawl against the rotating/indented cable hook
part...which is what my fallible memory kinda-sorta remembered from my own
(not recently looked at) Zuni (S/N 3).

In either case, any owner of a ship with an "Applebay nose release" can/should
easily confirm the presence of such a spring by verifying the business end of
the pawl is "somehow or other" positively forced against the rotating cable
hook as it operates throughout its range of motion. The truly curious can
disconnect it before operating their releases to get a better feel for what I
sought to describe in an earlier post. Please do reconnect it...or YMMV!

Bob W.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parowan Fatal Crash ContestID67[_2_] Soaring 30 July 3rd 09 03:43 AM
Rare fatal CH-801 crash Jim Logajan Home Built 8 June 22nd 09 03:24 AM
Fatal crash in NW Washington Rich S.[_1_] Home Built 1 February 17th 08 02:38 AM
Fatal Crash Monty General Aviation 1 December 12th 07 09:06 PM
Fatal Crash in Fittstown, OK GeorgeC Piloting 3 March 7th 06 05:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.