Thoughts on crash/article in Soaring?

I do not know Mr. Skydell nor have I seen the 2nd article (my mailman
takes his time reading my copy of Soaring), but I have had an email
conversation with him about his first article--and I think it was very
good for him to share the story and for Soaring to publish it so early
in the season!

I do, however, know several conservative pilots, and include myself in
that crowd. As a group, conservative pilots are safe. Safer than bold
pilots? That I cannot answer. but the old saw, "there are are old
pilots and bold pilots . . . " comes to mind.

That having been said, I am not certain that conservative pilots are
inherently safe just as I am not certain that bold pilots are
inherently dangerous.

Since I am of the former group, I can only address my own experiences.

I too have crashed and totaled a glider, a 1-26E on Mt San Jac, back
about 20 years ago. I did what I thought was the conservative thing,
but I was wrong and it was no body's fault but my own. I should have
taken the bold option and I would probably have only had to pay to be
retrieved.

A conservative glider pilots will always err on the side of caution,
but caution is not always the side to err on. Often what is required
is a bold move.

Back to Mr. Skydell. Someone taught him the high parasite drag landing
technique, probably with the intention that he include it in his list
of options when he lands in a small field. I remember that I was
taught to routinely make short field landings and was quite out of my
league when I went to England where they have no problem with taking
the entire field to land. The English did not like my short field
landings.

Having been taught---by someone!--the high parasite drag landing
technique, Mr. Skydell would be a fool to never practice it and where
better to practice it than at his home airport! Here he would know the
conditions and should know how to get out of trouble if his approach
did not work.

His approach did not work. He made some dunderheaded mistakes. Who
among us, even you bold pilots, do not live in glass houses? He is not
the first pilot I have heard of who raised his wheel instead of pulling
his spoilers--even high time bold pilots have done this. The result in
Skyell's case was a destroyed glider but a surviving pilot who maybe
learned something.

OK, maybe you say Mr. Skydell was a fool to practice this technique. I
do not know the technique other than from his description, so I cannot
say. Still, knowing it could possibly save both his glider and his
life some time whereas I might destroy both not knowing it. Who knows?


Somebody taught Mr. Skydell the technique, so at least this CFIG
thought it was a good one. Maybe the fault does lie with the
instructor because maybe they should not have taught him the technique.
How many CFIGs have signed off pilots of whom they had doubts, and the
student then subsequently crashed? I know of one guy who (back in
1993) was forced to take over 100 dual flights in his $30,000 2-place
glider before they would solo him and he then wrecked his glider on his
first solo (over $12,000 damage). Whose fault, the CFIG, the student,
or both?

As to practicing potentially dangerous landing techniques, I used to
fly a BG-12. It was great fun to cross the numbers, lower the terminal
flaps, point the nose at the ground--never exceeding terminal speed of
60kts--and being stopped within 100 feet of the numbers. Talk about a
high parasite drag landing! Was I unsafe? Should I have not practiced
this technique when I could have just as easily landed normally?

My problem with conservative pilots--myself included--is that they
almost never try anything new. Risks, even when justified, are often
not taken. This can blind the conservative pilot to other options
which could just possibly save their life. I used to fear spins until
I took spin training. I was scared to death but thought it was
something I should learn, just in case. When I realized that spin
recovery is only a little more than stall recovery, my fear went away.
But have I practiced spins over the years??????? Should I? Yes, I
should.

I have recently returned to solo flight after a 9 year absence (I did
frequently fly dual during those years) and I am trying to overcome my
own conservatism--which was borne of my own wreck. It is difficult to
push myself without feeling that I am pushing myself too hard or too
dangerously. The mountains still frighten me somewhat when I am low,
and I am flying at a mountain site. It is a relearning curve. I will
have to push myself but I will probably always fly conservatively, with
all of the consequences.

Is that a good thing? Who knows.

Should Mr. Skydell be criticized for practicing his high drag approach?
No, he should be criticized if he never practiced it. Did he make
some stupid mistakes? Yes, he did. Should he have spilled his guts in
Soaring magazine? Yes! As I said, I do not know him, but Mr. Skydell
should receive our pats on the back for coming forward and not
condemned for being momentarily stupid and telling the world about it.
We have all been momentarily stupid, but usually blame it on someone or
something else. At least Mr. Skydell took all of the blame on himself
and did not scapegate anyone or anything. That is commendable.

Yes it is and the pilot was very blissful until he hit the berm. I am
glad he was not killed. I don't mean to sound negative, but what I got
out of the articles was "conservative is not safe, I was partially at
fault, but mainly, my training failed me...."

MS

PeterK wrote:
Well,,,ignorance is BLISS!!!
"MS" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

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

I just dont see how anyone who is an accomplished secure in his skills
pilot, presumably, feels it necessary to further humilate and
unfortunate soul who has made a mistake.

C'mon folks, when your used to flying out of an airport with a 6000'
runway its quite possible that you might become used to "easy" landings
and forget the things that you were taught......practice is
important......anyone practice spin recoveries in the US lately?.

I'm sure there are people flying that do not know their left from their
right under certain circumstances........remember your flight training
days??? Yes...I know you did it to!!!!

Lighten up.....at least this man admits his mistake publicly and was
brave enough to allow unbridled criticism in an effort to learn
something......and he almost did quit soaring!!!!!!....and by now he
has most certainly become a better pilot because of his learning.

I hear even doctors make mistakes despite 8+ years of intensive
training.

My 2 cents

Ray

One of the man. I teach students is to slip so the aircraft could land
in about 2,000 feet without the use of spoilers...... As long as you
are within 10 to 15 ft AGL at proper speed over the numbers, it's easy
to land on a 4,000 ft runway. It should be a breeze on a 6,000 ft
runway. Again, the high drag approach is not what I would call a
stable approach to landing and is unnecessary if one can slip and use
spoilers. That should have been the emphasis of the article, not "
My training failed me."

MS

Don Johnstone wrote:
At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:
1. The sailplane is going 75 knots 10 to15 feet off
the ground with
the spoilers open. The spoilers are then closed and
the sailplane
travels maybe 4500 feet losing 10 knots of airspeed
(65 knots on
impact) and the pilot is slipping the sailplane for
some of that time.
How is that possible? That equates to an L/D of 300/1
to 450/1. I
understand the concept of ground effect but I'm not
sure that ground
effect can have that much impact. Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to 65 can increase ones L/D tenfold.
Some of the
story is not making sense to me.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway. It would be nice to know just how far it
would go but we don't have a long enough runway in
the UK to find out, well not one I have access to.
I could of course start further back but I dont fancy
the bill for all those lights and things.

I do commend him for writing the article. I do not commend the main
message he gives.

1.) Conservative is not necessarily safe. Maybe not, but his high
drag approach is not conservative.

2.) His training was deficient. Maybe so, but not because they did
not give him all the possible unusual positional situations in which to
execute a landing.

Hey, I apologize if I was too harsh. I just could not fathom why
someone could not land on a 6,000 ft. runway in a perfectly functioning
sailplane...



jb92563 wrote:
I just dont see how anyone who is an accomplished secure in his skills
pilot, presumably, feels it necessary to further humilate and
unfortunate soul who has made a mistake.

C'mon folks, when your used to flying out of an airport with a 6000'
runway its quite possible that you might become used to "easy" landings
and forget the things that you were taught......practice is
important......anyone practice spin recoveries in the US lately?.

I'm sure there are people flying that do not know their left from their
right under certain circumstances........remember your flight training
days??? Yes...I know you did it to!!!!

Lighten up.....at least this man admits his mistake publicly and was
brave enough to allow unbridled criticism in an effort to learn
something......and he almost did quit soaring!!!!!!....and by now he
has most certainly become a better pilot because of his learning.

I hear even doctors make mistakes despite 8+ years of intensive
training.

My 2 cents

Ray

Don Johnstone wrote:

At 19:00 11 July 2006, wrote:

Nor do I believe
that reducing ones
airspeed from 75 to
65 can increase ones
L/D tenfold.

I can assure you that ground effect is real and will
keep you in the air far longer than you might think.
One of the demonstrations that I gave students was
an approach over the runway threshold with 65-70knots
at 5 to 10 ft in a Grob 103 no airbrake. I was able
to show that the glider would still be flying when
the end of the 10000 ft runway was reached. Admittedly
the second half of the runway is slightly downhill
but if the airbrakes were not opened we would 'miss'
the runway.

A worthwhile demonstration, both for those times in the future when the
student may wish to land, and for those times when he may not.

As leisurely as this sport sometimes seems to the outsider or to the
beginner, we don't often enough take the time to improvise new insights
for one another. There ought to be a lot more dual flights in clubs than
there are, and not necessarily with a CFIG in the other seat. There is a
vast reservoir of experience, and finesse, that is not being passed
along to low-time glider pilots.

We don't use the team approach of the fighter community where the
fledgling jock spends a few years on the wing and proves himself ready
before becoming an element lead and later a flight lead. Nor do we have
the virtual apprentice system of airline operations, where the first
officer will see it all, and more than once, from the right seat -- in
daily operations and in the simulator -- before it's time for him to
move to the left seat.

What we do have is the total reliance on sight and touch and sound as a
small quiet and vulnerable guest in these footless halls of air,
living by our wits, yet with a training syllabus too closely related to
the needs of that bull-in-a-china-shop known as an airplane with
hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of horsepower allowing its
pilot to bluff his way from point A to point B.

It's harder to move forward when every generation has to reinvent the wheel.


Jack

Well said. For some reason my post never made it through the electronic
maze. Your posting was more eloquent.
I do know Jim Skydell and would fly with him at anytime.
I also know his instructors. They have taught me a lot about soaring and
how to use all the tools at hand.
Thanks
Chuck Griswold

Stewart Kissel a écrit:
I wondered about the 'high parasitic approach' technique
as well...but I don't think discussing a particular
technique was the point of the article. Rather the
author was brave enough to endure the rantings of the
psychopaths who would run him out of the sport...because
they know better. He screwed up, he admits that and
writes quite forthrightly about that. How is this
any different then someone who cannot put their glider
together correctly? Do we run them off also?

Personally I thought it was some of the better writing
I have seen in the magazine, because it got me to think.





I am French, and didnt read the article. However, I am a bit surprised
that noone questions the ergonomy of the glider controls, which allowed
the confusion between the controls for so long.
I remember that the first Pegases had very similar, (and very near)
handles for the airbrakes and for the gear. I've seen an experienced
pilot flying in ground effect over our whole runway (which is more than
4000ft long) with the gear wheel going frenetically up and down, and
finally crash landing in a grass field at the runway end (without being
hurt and with minor damage to the glider thanks to God).
After some similar incidents, the controls were changed for a big
rounded handle for the gear, keeping the slim square handle for the AB.
This has a standard feature of the airliners for years.

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