Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

syoun10 wrote:
I have often wondered about what the author calls "high parasitic drag
approach".

Of course, it should never happen... but IF one found oneself very
high on final I have always thought the best strategy would be to pull
full airbrake, slip as much as possible and then dive as fast as
placarded limits allow. Drag increases with the square of speed, so
this should get you down with the steepest descent. In this scenario
you should bleed off speed to normal approach speed before getting into
ground effect.
snip
My experience and thinking process are probably derived from
hang-gliding where there are no spoilers or flaps and you can't
consistantly slip. Increasing the speed on final is the recommended
way of steepening the approach, in fact it is the ONLY way. I'm not
sure why this experience would not translate to sailplanes.
snip

It does translate to sailplanes. I did not see the article, so I don't
know about the "high parasitic drag" approach referred to, but I often
do an extreme version of this with a very high approach, full flap,
full spoiler, and a tail chute. In this configuration, I can just point
the nose at the round-out point, and the airspeed will remain stable,
even at an approach angle approaching 1:1. At steep pitch angles, the
glide geometry changes (e.g. lift is no longer equal to weight). So
there is some advantage to doing this, if it is done properly.

The normal procedure for using a tail chute for a short field landing
over an obstacle is to make the approach just clearing the obstacle,
then pitch down sharply and deploy the chute to get down as close to
the approach end as possible. One thing, you do have to be careful to
round out properly. If you do it too high, airspeed will bleed off
quickly, and you could stall. If you do it too low, you may not have
enough room to complete the roundout before the ground comes up to
simite thee. So this is a critical maneuver.

Now there are only a handful of gliders equipped with a chute, so this
is not generally applicable. The point is that if you have enough drag,
it can be done. IIRC the Grob 103 manual actually says that it is
permissible to either use the brakes to control glide path and pitch to
control airspeed, or to use pitch to control glide path and brakes to
control airspeed. But the G103 has very powerful brakes.

So I have always taught only to use pitch for airspeed and brakes (and
slip) to control glide path. This method works with all gliders, even
those without good brakes (it also applies to airplanes using the
throttle in place of the brakes). And it does not require as much skill
as the other method. As long as it is done properly, there is no need
for the other method, except possibly for landing in a small field with
a big obstacle. But this should only arise if you are flying aggressive
cross country, and you should not be doing that until you are more
skilled.

A steep approach is especially unnecessary for landing at an airport
without obstructions (on the approach end). And it won't be very
effective without deploying the dive brakes, especially with the wheel
retracted.

I don't have anything to add about the accident in question, which was
clearly a colossal lapse in airmanship, of mammoth proportions. But I
do think Skydell's approach to the article was admirable. He
recognized that there was a huge bug in the piloting software in his
head, marvelled that such a bug could go undetected for so long, and
questioned whether the bug was fixable. We all have some bugs in our
internal software, propably not as big as his, but we should take a
similar approach to debugging ourselves when we make mistakes.

I've read many articles in Soaring over the years by idiots who flew
perfectly good gliders into trees with the spoilers open or some other
such thing, who write up accounts of their great adventure, subtley
pointing to extenuating circumstances which caused their normally
superior piloting skill to fail them, and proudly describing some
decision they made which saved them from an even greater disaster.
While nominally admitting error, these accounts usually have an element
of "these exact set of circumstances that lead to my accident were
somehow unique in a way I couldn't have been prepared for, and so I
must share them with the world" hidden underneath. I did not detect
this undercurrent of excuse making in Skydell's article.



MS wrote:
Does anybody have anything to say about the accident described in
Soaring magazine concerning a pilot who could not land to a stop on a
6,000 foot paved runway or the parallel dirt runway to the South?

I know this sounds very judgemental and I don't ordinarily make
negative comments about an accident, but holy cow, if I couldn't make
a 6,000 ft runway with or without spoilers, I'll quit the sport. I
believe the private pilot PTS states the applicant has to land and roll
to a stop within 200 ft of a predesignated spot. Most students can do
that every time prior to solo. I fly at an operation with a 4,000 ft
runway where we only use 1/2 for landing and the other 1/2 for launch.
Even new solo students don't need the full 4,000 feet! I know the
pilot got the gear and spoiler handles mixed up, but good grief.

Also, what's with the dumbass "high parasitic drag approach"?
Spoilers and slipping works fine. If you can't hit a 6000 ft runway
from 350 ft on final with spoilers or a forward slip, choose another
sport. The high parasitic drag approach described in the article does
not sound like a stable approach to landing.


The article should be renamed "Is conservative safe? YES, but bozos
who blame their instruction/instructors for being clueless are not."
He mainly blamed his conservative instruction and instructors instead
of admitting he was not thinking properly that day. I can't believe
his instructors went along with that attitude. He must have a problem
with freezing up and tunnel vision if something goes slightly wrong and
he can't salvage the situation he got himself into.

Flame away if it makes you feel better, but nothing will change my
mind.

I agree with those that think this is a useful article (actually two) -
as it does a fine job of working throught the thought process that led
to the accident. And I think it shines a big spotlight on some
problems in our training process in the US.

To me, the whole point is that Mr Skydell was totally unprepared for
the unexpected - he had not been trained for it, and had not thought
about it much. His description of himself as a "conservative" pilot is
a big clue - I'm sure he would never think of a wormburner double pass,
or an L/D max GPS glide to an airfield he's never seen before. By
being "conservative", he thought he was safer. But the unexpected is
exactly what we as glider pilots must think about and prepare for.
From a canopy coming open on takeoff, to the spoiler handle coming off
in your hand turning base, to the herd of cows on the runway - it's the
unexpected that usually cause problems. Endless practice rope breaks
at 200 ft are fine - but how about a rope break at 10 ft - just when
the glider gets airborne?

It takes guts to make a mistake that your peers will jump on and say is
stupid - but we often learn more about those moments of inattention or
confusion - and when our time comes (and trust me it will!) we may just
remember some little fact that saves the day.

I remember being shown high energy patterns (as described in the
article) at Estrella back in the early 90s - along with patterns that
started by diving to redline just above the desert out at the IP and
flying the whole pattern in ground effect, pulling up to make the
turns. They both worked, were a lot of fun, and were useful for
showing what the glider COULD do, not what necessarily should be done.
One can never have too many tricks up your sleeve!

Anyway - I hope Soaring gets more articles like this (I can think of a
few I could write...)

Kirk
66

Why are so many slamming the author of the articles ? He has already
acknowledged the compounded errors which led to the crash ? The point
of the two excellent articles ( better than many previously published
in Soaring ), and in first person no less, as opposed to
reconstructions in the equally important section "Safety Corner", is to
alert other pilots to what can go wrong, NOT to excuse or rationalize a
series of wrong decisions. IMHO, any article pertaining to an accident
or almost-accident is worthwhile. The vociferous personal attacks
against the pilot , even more so those against his instructor, are
entirely uncalled for.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

golly gee........didn't his wife get him an ASW-28 to replace the -300?
At least he has a nicer ship!
Brad

Because he blames his training instead of admitting, he should have
never been unable to salvage 350 ft on final with functional airbrakes.
He should admit the high drag landing approach is not conservative by
any stretch of anyone's imagination and should not be used or required
on a 6,000 FOOT RUNWAY if one knows how to use the spoilers and slip.


MS


wrote:
Why are so many slamming the author of the articles ? He has already
acknowledged the compounded errors which led to the crash ? The point
of the two excellent articles ( better than many previously published
in Soaring ), and in first person no less, as opposed to
reconstructions in the equally important section "Safety Corner", is to
alert other pilots to what can go wrong, NOT to excuse or rationalize a
series of wrong decisions. IMHO, any article pertaining to an accident
or almost-accident is worthwhile. The vociferous personal attacks
against the pilot , even more so those against his instructor, are
entirely uncalled for.

Cheers anyhow, Charles

There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

Have you ever given any thought that there might be another method besides a
forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow minded about this. There
is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by the way, there is nothing
new about the high parasitic drag approach is just you obviously never heard
about it. This sure smells like something personal to me as well. (IT
actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike some others I dare
spell out my name)
"MS" wrote in message
ups.com...
Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to "get to the heart of a deeper problem in order
to partially exonerate themselves. "It couldn't be me making several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors fault for not
providing me proper training. My instructors are too conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know." The author never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of the article.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had to counsel an ATP who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it ended without damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small child. Part of
the "punishment" the FAA handed out was for him to give his story at
several pilot meetings. He began his story " Hey, if it could happen
to me, it could happen to anyone." Although he admitted to some of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

I see some of the same theme in this article and it really upsets me.

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the author did not
blame "conservativism" or his conservative flight training as the real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and planning. With
spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft runway from 500 ft AGL
over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft AGL in a strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you complete the turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than 3,000 ft to come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects on r.a.s. which
have generated so much flak and so many "ad hominem" attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most virulent ones were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell ? The whole point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events, and NOT excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles

MS wrote:
The article should have stated the inherent dangers with using a high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers and then making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's not stable. It's not
needed.

Just as a data point, I tried the high drag approach in an ASK-21
(probably what the author had also used) a couple days ago, and in this
ship it works great, and is not unstable:

We were a bit low, turning final and 1000' short of the threshold at
600' AGL. I pulled full spoilers and aimed for the airport fence,
about 500' short of the end of the pavement. Only managed to get
airspeed up to 75 or so knots before I had to level out at about 50'
AGL. Then I found myself very quickly slowing to 50 knots and short of
the runway over the grass overrun, so did close the spoilers until
crossing the pavement, then made a normal 1/2 spoiler touchdown. If I
were higher, the roundout from the dive would have occurred over the
runway, and so the only action would have been to level out, wait for
airspeed to drop, and complete a normal (almost) full spoiler landing.

So... I was too low to really have a need for this maneuver. A slip
with full spoilers would have been enough. But... In the ASK-21 and
quite likely any other sailplane with strong spoilers and a good habit
of losing speed in level flight with spoilers (my ASH-26E is not one of
these), this would be a useful way of losing altitude much faster than
spoileer and slip alone. Next time, I'll try if from a normal distance
turn to final, but at 1500' or so AGL.

-Tom