RIP Matt Wright (Balleka on YouTube)

You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.

At 06:17 10 February 2018, wrote:
On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike
the Strike wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7,
Frank Whiteley wrote:
Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can
create what I
cal=
l 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a
partner got
caug=
ht in the downside of such curl on his downwind and
despite abbreviating
th=
e circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the
valley. This was
=
in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon
turning final chased
t=
he ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short
of the runway
in=
standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site.
There is
ne=
arly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river
bottom west of
Exete=
r and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty
squirrelly
conditions=
.. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised
about some
aspects=
of the event.
=20
Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched
Chasing Diamonds a
few=
days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from
Lleweni Parc a
f=
ew times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed
this video.
=20
Frank Whiteley
=20
"The Clutching Hand"!
=20
Mike


Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and
known control
i=
nputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised
about what is
no=
t included in this report.

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:45:06 AM UTC-7, Dave Walsh wrote:
You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.

At 06:17 10 February 2018, wrote:
On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 5:49:33 AM UTC, Mike
the Strike wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:41:53 PM UTC-7,
Frank Whiteley wrote:
Hill top sites are not uncommon in the UK. Winds can
create what I
cal=
l 'curl' over such sites. My first glider was lost when a
partner got
caug=
ht in the downside of such curl on his downwind and
despite abbreviating
th=
e circuit failed to make the airfield and crashed in the
valley. This was
=
in East Anglia. I once took a winch launch and upon
turning final chased
t=
he ASI to the ground and a very abrupt stop 50 yards short
of the runway
in=
standing barley. This was at Enstone, another hill top site.
There is
ne=
arly a 400ft difference in elevation between the river
bottom west of
Exete=
r and the Dartmoor site, which would result in pretty
squirrelly
conditions=
.. Having learned soaring in the UK, I'm a bit surprised
about some
aspects=
of the event.
=20
Matt's videos are wonderful and I'd just watched
Chasing Diamonds a
few=
days prior to hearing of his accident. As I'd flown from
Lleweni Parc a
f=
ew times, including out over the Irish Sea, I really enjoyed
this video.
=20
Frank Whiteley
=20
"The Clutching Hand"!
=20
Mike


Read the account closely regarding airspeeds, attitudes and
known control
i=
nputs in the seconds after the cable break. I am surprised
about what is
no=
t included in this report.


I'll give you that, but there are 200+/- foot rolling variations in the area which may result in turbulent air when it's windy. It's been many years, but I've flown some of the ridge at Challock and it's generally around 300ft, less in spots, as I recall. Near the ground doesn't take much. Looked pretty flat also.

Frank Whiteley

At 12:36 10 February 2018, Dave Walsh wrote:
You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.

I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.
That is, unless one overthinks it and decides that doing so would
mean a long ground retrieve back to the start point for another
launch. Could he have been thinking that he could just squeak out
a tight pattern so as to land back at the start point in order to
quickly get into the air again? I guess we will never know for sure.

I remember one instance back in the 1960's when George Moffat
was flying his SH-1 out of Wurtsboro on an "iffy" day. He got low
down by the sister glider field at Middletown and decided to land
there to get a re-light back to Wurtsboro. Being by himself with
no ground crew, etc, he decided to land just short of the take-off
staging area so that he would be able to launch from where he
rolled out and stopped. Except, George misjudged his approach
and wound up in the bushes just short of the runway. He had
also punched a good sized hole in the underside of one wing, so
he wound up having to get it trailered back to Wurtsboro to get
repaired. An example of very good pilot making a convenience
related decision that went wrong....

Thermalling low in order to avoid a retrieve or possible off-field
landing damage? -- a convenience factor from another thread.

Making an abbreviated pattern to avoid a long tow on the ground?
-- another possible "convenience related" decision?

We will never know for sure, but it is probably worth mentioning
during training for these types of events.

RO

I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.
That is, unless one overthinks it and decides that doing so would
mean a long ground retrieve back to the start point for another
launch. Could he have been thinking that he could just squeak out
a tight pattern so as to land back at the start point in order to
quickly get into the air again? I guess we will never know for sure.

I remember one instance back in the 1960's when George Moffat
was flying his SH-1 out of Wurtsboro on an "iffy" day. He got low
down by the sister glider field at Middletown and decided to land
there to get a re-light back to Wurtsboro. Being by himself with
no ground crew, etc, he decided to land just short of the take-off
staging area so that he would be able to launch from where he
rolled out and stopped. Except, George misjudged his approach
and wound up in the bushes just short of the runway. He had
also punched a good sized hole in the underside of one wing, so
he wound up having to get it trailered back to Wurtsboro to get
repaired. An example of very good pilot making a convenience
related decision that went wrong....

Thermalling low in order to avoid a retrieve or possible off-field
landing damage? -- a convenience factor from another thread.

Making an abbreviated pattern to avoid a long tow on the ground?
-- another possible "convenience related" decision?

We will never know for sure, but it is probably worth mentioning
during training for these types of events.

I did not know Matt W. and am not a knee-jerk fan of video watching, but I
*had* thoroughly enjoyed 2 or 3 of his videos prior to his saddening death,
and his joy of participation in soaring - and skill - was evident. Sincere
condolences to his family and friends.

+1 to the above post.

Like every other self-interested reader/poster in this thread, I can only
surmise what was in Matt's mind when he made the "turn now!" decision, but
"the dreaded convenience decision?" possibility appeared early-on in my mind.

Maybe I was lucky, but I was first exposed to "the dreaded convenience
decision" in my pre-solo days, after making ad admiring comment to my
instructor about how skillfully someone had taxied the club's 1-26 off the
active runway, stopping right outside the hangar door. My instructor
laughingly replied to the effect of: Yeah! Really nifty...when it works! We
then discussed it, natch, until he was satisfied I understood his point. Since
then, I've seen many a convenience decision that has NOT worked as hoped (as
distinct from planned, because many of them are - to be kind - ill considered).

Worse, I bent a landing gear attach bulkhead one time by indulging in my own
ill-considered "dreaded convenience decision"...sort of the reverse of the
decision facing Matt. I'd fallen out on a wave day, flown the gnarly-condition
pattern to land near from where I'd launched, then acted upon a
"short-final-inspiration (not!)." Rather than planning on landing at the far
end of the field - where I'd rigged and left the trailer, because that was
convenient to non-west-wind days which were the site's statistical norm - I
came in "inconveniently short" even though not planning a 2nd tow, then acted
on the late-appearing impulse to land longer. No big deal, save for the fact
the flaps in that ship were hydraulic, and thus not amenable to flap
reductions short of being more or less instantaneously being blown back to the
in-trail position. (Doh!) I was lucky I didn't suffer worse consequences from
losing full flaps at about 70' agl...

*Much* worse (in the sense of repeating a dumb "convenience driven" choice),
many years later I repeated George Moffat's convenience-driven mistake...in
benign conditions at a benign site...subsequently learning how to re-glass a
G-103's tail wheel boat. (Doh!) My lack of being "tuned in" that morning
amazes and dismays me to this day, some 20 years later...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I, s well, didn't know the main person in this thread.
Yes, I like the potential gains to the sport of Soaring that others may have seen.

Going to a post I made in another thread here, planning every landing at the home field as an off field landing (pick where you want to be, then do it!) is paramount.
As mentioned in the other thread, look to the rules for the Elmira/HHSC Snowbird contest. The main goal is "energy management", both in time as well as where to land at what speed.

It can be eye opening to peeps that, "land wherever, they will get me, or, I can roll to wherever.....".
This is NOT off field landing practice. Plan on where you want to touch down, then do it.
Yes, it's nice to rollout out of the way, maybe close to a tie down or a hanger.
Yes, when I was sharp and doing rides, the ground crew knew to just stand there with their left hand out facing the incoming glider. Our (commercial ride pilots) knew to land, shed speed, S-turn to the side, drop the left wingtip into the hand of the ground crew, mentioning to the ride that this is what we were going to do.

Yes, I have seen "contest pilots" land on a contest field and even with great brakes manage to over run the pavement and coast down a hill (visiting pilot at HHSC) or "taxi to tiedown" and hit both a towplane and tied up glider!

Sheesh.

None of us know what Matt was thinking that day, I am only trying to point out some of the mindset you SHOULD be doing every landing.

Train as you do, do as you train.

maanantai 12. helmikuuta 2018 17.00.06 UTC+2 Michael Opitz kirjoitti:
At 12:36 10 February 2018, Dave Walsh wrote:
You'd have to live in a very flat area to consider Enstone a
"hill top site": it's enormous and flat.

I wonder if anyone has addressed the "convenience" factor, and
if it might have been a player. I looked at the report and
screen grab pictures, so given the headwind and enormous size
of the airfield, it should have appeared to have been a "no
brainer" to just pull the dive brakes and land straight ahead.

ASW 24 has weakest airbrakes of pretty much any standard class made after 70's. You might easily get used to doing shallow angle finals, and suddenly seeing runway end at steep angle could cause reaction to do a 360 turn. Just speculating, of course.

Really?
I will admit I have limited experience in "newer" other brand standard ships, but I can't say I EVER had an issue with the divebrakes in a -24 (couple hundred hours flying it, numerous off airport landings, nothing broken....).

Granted, I prefer 15M or longer with landing flaps AND dive brakes to a short field.......
Go back to my previous comment on, "how do you normally land at a known field?".

On Monday, 12 February 2018 20:33:00 UTC+2, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Really?
I will admit I have limited experience in "newer" other brand standard ships, but I can't say I EVER had an issue with the divebrakes in a -24 (couple hundred hours flying it, numerous off airport landings, nothing broken.....).


I know couple pilots with over 1000hrs in '24, competing decades without a hitch, and trust their opinion that it has weak airbrakes. You cannot do same manouvers with '24 that you could get away with LS or Discus (of same vintage). It does not mean that it is unsafe or problematic to fly, of course..

The ASW-19 has anemic, but adequate, speed brakes. I've never heard a complaint about the -24 before.

Paul A.

At 20:17 12 February 2018, Paul Agnew wrote:
The ASW-19 has anemic, but adequate, speed brakes. I've never
heard a
complaint about the -24 before.

Paul A.

If your ASW-19 doesn't have the 2 stage dive brake mod, get
it done. If it already has it, you should have seen what it was like
before. I had one for 5 years from 1978 - 1983.

RO