Glider accident while filming commercial in 2011. NTSB Report updated

Ian, excellent analysis. I agree.

It was a stunt which brings up the relationship with the video crew.

Directors are known to push stunt people to produce ever more dramatic scenes trusting that, as professionals, they will push back if things get really dangerous. This pilot probably didn't push back and the video folks probably didn't realize he wasn't a professional so things got out of hand.

The real pro's would have gone out to a deserted strip or dry lake with lots of room to recover from mistakes and flown the scripted maneuver over and over approaching the dangerous parts in small steps until all the bugs were worked out before trying it in front of the cameras on a short strip. At the short strip, they would have all the "outs", like the farm field off the departure end, precisely determined and have resolved to use them if something went wrong. It's a hard business, not a game of "dare".

One of the many "take-homes" from this sad affair is never let anyone push you to do something your gut says is dangerous.





On Sunday, June 23, 2013 2:10:17 AM UTC-6, Ian wrote:
On 06/20/2013 09:53 PM, Steve Leonard wrote:



http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...FA010 &akey=1



Happened to be looking through the NTSB Database and saw that they updated the report about a month ago.





Firstly let me express my condolences to the friends and family of the

late pilot. There has been a lot of noise on this thread about this

accident. But adding to the above with the additional documents and

video published he



http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hi...KEN=7351 7888



I would like to post this in the spirit of learning from past mistakes.

I think this is what probably happened:



- The length of the tow rope was much shorter than the typical minimum

length of 300m used for a conventional auto tow launches. The runway was

also shorter than that which would normally be considered suitable for

auto tow. Thus this operation should be regarded as a stunt contrived

for the benefit of the camera's rather than a conventional soaring launch..



- The video shows the glider being towed horizontally behind the tow

vehicle and then performing a "kite" manoeuvre where the glider pitches

nose up, gains altitude rapidly and accelerates due to the geometry of

changing the relative direction. Intentional "kite" manoeuvres are

conducted in a controlled manner during a conventional ground launch.

They can also occur unintentionally during aerotow where they can cause

tug upset accidents. It is not clear if the kite manoeuvre on the crash

flight was initiated deliberately by the pilot for the purposes of the

camera, or if it happened accidentally.



- In the accident flight the kite manoeuvre caused the rope to break.

The pilot then lowered the nose to return to a normal gliding attitude.

(Even if the rope did not break, the short length of the rope would have

required the manoeuvre to end within a few seconds, eg by a back

release, the pilot releasing or the pilot lowering the nose.)



- As the launch was conducted outside of the parameters of a normal auto

tow, there may have been insufficient runway length available to land

ahead - the conventional recovery procedure for a ground launch failure

at this hight. The tow vehicle also presented an obstacle to landing

ahead, another aspect which differs from a conventional auto tow launch.



- Rather the pilot attempted a 180 degree turn to land downwind on the

runway again, similar to the recovery manoeuvre from an aerotow rope

failure at that altitude. However the pilot lost control, stalled and/or

spun and crashed.



- It is standard procedure when recovering from a ground launch rope

failure to lower the nose and the WAIT UNTIL AIRSPEED RECOVERS BEFORE

TURNING OR USING AIRBRAKES. As the glider experiences lowered or

negative G during the "push over" manoeuvre used to lower the nose after

the cable brake, it can fly normally even if the airspeed drops below

the nominal stalling speed. However after the push over is completed,

the glider experiences 1G and requires airspeed above nominal stall

speed to fly. This may be achieved only after some seconds after the

nose has been lowered. Any attempt to manoeuvre the glider during this

period can easily lead to loss of control. This is clearly illustrated

in this BGA training material:



http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/saf...deo/spin-4.mp4



- I suspect the pilot had insufficient airspeed when he attempted the

180 degree turn.



The pilots options in this situation were compromised due to the non

compliance with the norms for an autotow launch. It is not clear whether

he had sufficient altitude, speed and runway space to complete a safe

landing.



I hope that readers will appreciate that ground launching can be

conducted safely, provided that it is conducted within established

norms. Pilots should have appropriate training and ground launch

operations should be conducted under the supervision of skilled and

current ground launch instructors. However deviating these norms can

rapidly increase the potential hazards.





Ian

On 23/06/2013 03:32, Bill D wrote:

No, they are not. The equivalent of the BFU is the AAIB - if you wish to make comparisons you

should compare the BFU statistics with the AAIB figures.
_____________________

What!!? The AAIB doesn't publish glider accident statistics - they leave that to the BGA.

I used the BGA numbers for 2011.

ps an earlier post of yours refers to the "German LBU"; I'm aware of the LBA, I know of the

BFU but your reference to the "German LBU" is puzzling.

The German LBA is their FAA equivalent. The BFU is the NTSB/AAIB equivalent. The "LBU" was a typo.

The numbers I used are available for anybody to read and analyze. The differences are so huge,

there's no way to come up with a different result. If you disagree, go
read them and do your own analysis.



The AAIB investigate all fatal accidents (including gliding) & publish
their reports.

The BGA, as a regulator, encourages clubs to report anything &
everything - BGA figures will include events too trivial to report to an
official government body.

Ed

On 23/06/2013 14:21, Bill D wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:35:00 AM UTC-6, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 02:32 23 June 2013, Bill D wrote:



No, they are not. The equivalent of the BFU is the AAIB - if you wish

to

make comparisons you should compare the BFU statistics with the AAIB

figures.

_____________________



What!!? The AAIB doesn't publish glider accident statistics - they leave

that to the BGA. I used the BGA numbers for 2011.



ps an earlier post of yours refers to the "German LBU"; I'm aware of the



LBA, I know of the BFU but your reference to the "German LBU" is

puzzling.



The German LBA is their FAA equivalent. The BFU is the NTSB/AAIB

equivalent. The "LBU" was a typo.



The numbers I used are available for anybody to read and analyze. The

differences are so huge, there's no way to come up with a different

result.

If you disagree, go read them and do your own analysis.



Sorry Bill but your statistics are seriously flawed, In the UK the Air

Cadet organisation carry out nearly 50% of the total winch launches in the

UK in any year. The Air Cadets have not had a fatal or serious injury from

a failed winch launch accident since 1963 and probably before that.

The accidents/incidents reported by the BGA far exceed what would normally

be recorded by a national government source.

You will see that minor crime has decreased in the UK over the years if you

look at statistics. What the statistics do not tell you is that people have

stopped reporting minor crime so of course it has reduced. Same thing

applies to AAIB statistics, they do not record all the minor stuff that the

BGA do.


Don, I used only the BGA numbers. I did not use any AAIB numbers since none are available.

I stand by my results until the BGA supplies different numbers. Note
carefully that I used

the most favorable interpretation for the UK and digging deeper will
most likely make things look worse.

For example, the BGA numbers reported were obviously restricted to fatal or serious injury

accidents whereas the German BFU and the NTSB reported all of them so
the real situation is

actually worse for the UK than it appears. I have numbers supporting
that contention but I chose not to publish them.

Even giving the UK the benefit of the doubt, the results say the Germans are more than 10

times safer than the Brits on winch launch and the Germans are 7 - 8
times safer on winch launch

than US is with aero tow. Play with the numbers if you want, but it's
very, very doubtful you

can overcome or explain away differences that big.

The solution is fixing the safety problem, not attacking the numbers. I'd start by finding

out what the Germans are doing right.


"the BGA numbers reported were obviously restricted to fatal or serious
injury accidents"

That is simply impossible. There are nowhere near enough fatal or
serious injury accidents across the whole of BGA gliding, never mind
winch operations, to come up with those figures.

Ed

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:16:32 AM UTC-6, B4soaring wrote:
On 23/06/2013 03:32, Bill D wrote:



No, they are not. The equivalent of the BFU is the AAIB - if you wish to make comparisons you



should compare the BFU statistics with the AAIB figures.

_____________________



What!!? The AAIB doesn't publish glider accident statistics - they leave that to the BGA.



I used the BGA numbers for 2011.



ps an earlier post of yours refers to the "German LBU"; I'm aware of the LBA, I know of the



BFU but your reference to the "German LBU" is puzzling.



The German LBA is their FAA equivalent. The BFU is the NTSB/AAIB equivalent. The "LBU" was a typo.



The numbers I used are available for anybody to read and analyze. The differences are so huge,



there's no way to come up with a different result. If you disagree, go

read them and do your own analysis.







The AAIB investigate all fatal accidents (including gliding) & publish

their reports.



The BGA, as a regulator, encourages clubs to report anything &

everything - BGA figures will include events too trivial to report to an

official government body.



Ed

Yeah? Link me to the AAIB site with the glider accidents.

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 10:19:29 AM UTC-6, B4soaring wrote:

That is simply impossible. There are nowhere near enough fatal or

serious injury accidents across the whole of BGA gliding, never mind

winch operations, to come up with those figures.



Ed

Read Sailplane and Gliding.

If we are comparing likely attitudes towards safety and operating procedures affected by cultural differences, it might be useful to look at the traffic accident rates in the three countries. When rated at fatalities per billion kilometers, the Brits come in lowest at 5.7, the Germans second at 7.2 and the USA third at 8.5. Eastern Europe is significantly worse, but the real basket case are in South America.

I have to think that the differences in glider launch accident statistics are so large that there has to be a significant contribution from the way that these are reported.

Mike

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:04:42 PM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
If we are comparing likely attitudes towards safety and operating procedures affected by cultural differences, it might be useful to look at the traffic accident rates in the three countries. When rated at fatalities per billion kilometers, the Brits come in lowest at 5.7, the Germans second at 7..2 and the USA third at 8.5. Eastern Europe is significantly worse, but the real basket case are in South America.



I have to think that the differences in glider launch accident statistics are so large that there has to be a significant contribution from the way that these are reported.



Mike

There could be national differences in reporting but if the problem were under-reporting, then the Germans would have to be the worst offenders by hiding hundreds of serious accidents which would be impossible to do. I trust the German figures much more than those from anyone else. If anyone other than the Germans under-reports, it would actually support the conclusions. OTOH, I can't imagine anyone reporting accidents that didn't happen.

Where distortion is most likely to creep in is due simply to the relative sample sizes. Germany may do over a million winch launches a year making their statistics very meaningful. The UK does only 180,000 launches a year so two or three accidents would skew the ratios. However, when they suffer 12, as the US did with aero tow, that's statistically significant.

BTW, a long list of people have tried to attack my numbers and, so far, they've failed to succeed. I'd be happy for someone to do so but first show me the data. What little new data that has become available actually increases the national differences.

Bill,

This 'http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/safewinchguidance.pdf' is
a link to the BGA web site which breaks down winch accidents from 1974 to
2009, into Fatal/serious and total.

From this I think that you can say that the total number of launches in
that period was 9503000 and there were 110 fatal and serious injury
accidents. That equates to a rate of 1 in 86390.

Since then the UK have campaigned successfully to reduce these numbers and
they are now substantially lower.

Terry Walsh





At 18:50 23 June 2013, Bill D wrote:
On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:04:42 PM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:
If we are comparing likely attitudes towards safety and operating
procedu=
res affected by cultural differences, it might be useful to look at the
tra=
ffic accident rates in the three countries. When rated at fatalities per
b=
illion kilometers, the Brits come in lowest at 5.7, the Germans second at
7=
..2 and the USA third at 8.5. Eastern Europe is significantly worse, but
th=
e real basket case are in South America. =20
=20
=20
=20
I have to think that the differences in glider launch accident
statistics=
are so large that there has to be a significant contribution from the
way
=
that these are reported.
=20
=20
=20
Mike

There could be national differences in reporting but if the problem were
un=
der-reporting, then the Germans would have to be the worst offenders by
hid=
ing hundreds of serious accidents which would be impossible to do. I
trust=
the German figures much more than those from anyone else. If anyone
other=
than the Germans under-reports, it would actually support the
conclusions.=
OTOH, I can't imagine anyone reporting accidents that didn't happen.

Where distortion is most likely to creep in is due simply to the relative
s=
ample sizes. Germany may do over a million winch launches a year making
th=
eir statistics very meaningful. The UK does only 180,000 launches a year
so=
two or three accidents would skew the ratios. However, when they suffer
1=
2, as the US did with aero tow, that's statistically significant.

BTW, a long list of people have tried to attack my numbers and, so far,
the=
y've failed to succeed. I'd be happy for someone to do so but first show
m=
e the data. What little new data that has become available actually
increa=
ses the national differences.

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 1:17:17 PM UTC-6, Terry Walsh wrote:
Bill,



This 'http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/documents/safewinchguidance.pdf' is

a link to the BGA web site which breaks down winch accidents from 1974 to

2009, into Fatal/serious and total.



From this I think that you can say that the total number of launches in

that period was 9503000 and there were 110 fatal and serious injury

accidents. That equates to a rate of 1 in 86390.



Since then the UK have campaigned successfully to reduce these numbers and

they are now substantially lower.



Terry Walsh











At 18:50 23 June 2013, Bill D wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:04:42 PM UTC-6, Mike the Strike wrote:

If we are comparing likely attitudes towards safety and operating

procedu=

res affected by cultural differences, it might be useful to look at the

tra=

ffic accident rates in the three countries. When rated at fatalities per

b=

illion kilometers, the Brits come in lowest at 5.7, the Germans second at

7=

..2 and the USA third at 8.5. Eastern Europe is significantly worse, but

th=

e real basket case are in South America. =20

=20

=20

=20

I have to think that the differences in glider launch accident

statistics=

are so large that there has to be a significant contribution from the

way

=

that these are reported.

=20

=20

=20

Mike



There could be national differences in reporting but if the problem were

un=

der-reporting, then the Germans would have to be the worst offenders by

hid=

ing hundreds of serious accidents which would be impossible to do. I

trust=

the German figures much more than those from anyone else. If anyone

other=

than the Germans under-reports, it would actually support the

conclusions.=

OTOH, I can't imagine anyone reporting accidents that didn't happen.



Where distortion is most likely to creep in is due simply to the relative

s=

ample sizes. Germany may do over a million winch launches a year making

th=

eir statistics very meaningful. The UK does only 180,000 launches a year

so=

two or three accidents would skew the ratios. However, when they suffer

1=

2, as the US did with aero tow, that's statistically significant.



BTW, a long list of people have tried to attack my numbers and, so far,

the=

y've failed to succeed. I'd be happy for someone to do so but first show

m=

e the data. What little new data that has become available actually

increa=

ses the national differences.





Terry, thanks for the link but I've had this document for a long time. It says, quote: "The average frequency of winch accidents [in the UK] is 1 in every 13,000 launches." My figures for 2011 show 1 accident every 16,000 launches so you're doing better but nowhere near as good as the Germans at 1 every 180,000 launches.

What I sincerely hope happens is this will provide an incentive to improve the UK winch safety situation. The really, REALLY good news from the German data is something CAN be done.

The issue here is whether for the UK you are dealing with all incidents, whereas for Germany you are looking only at more serious ones. So the UK used to have more apples than the Germans had oranges. As it happens the UK recognised the scope for improvement a few years ago and has radically reduced the number of serious winch accidents. The pro-active accident reduction focus here has recently moved on to avoidance of aerotow tug upsets.