IDAHO FATALITY

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?
From the description at the beginning of the string the glider was
approaching the airfield low and slow, this does not read like the
description of someone doing a 'competition finish' but rather someone who
had stretched his glide to return to the airfield. If indeed this was the
case the pilots better altern
ative would have been to perform a downwind landing when he had crossed the
upwind boundary of the airfield.
I must admit to a similar experience myself when returning in this state
but only (thankfuly) managed to turn through ninety degrees for a cross
wind landing to the sighs of relief from the onlookers.

Regards Mike V.

At 04:00 01 September 2011, Mike Schumann wrote:
Why not mention names? If the operation is unsafe then it should be
publicized, just like you should intercede if someone was taking off
with the spoilers open.

If the operation is safe (not necessarily my opinion), then the operator
would probably appreciate the publicity.

Mike Schumann


On 8/31/2011 10:42 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
Twenty-six years ago, when I started gliding, it was the Schweizer 2-33
and the Lark IS-

None of the instructors where I learned flew cross
country, they just instructed over the local area. I had a friend lead
me around farther and farther from the airport until I gained the
confidence to head out on my own. DG1000? Not invented yet!

I have seen Blaniks doing routine low passes with paying passengers on
board. I won't mention the operation where this is done...


"Bruce Hoult" wrote in message

...
On Aug 31, 4:13 pm, "Dan Marotta" wrote:
Most practicing instructors I've known don't know how to safely do a
low
pass (or fly or teach cross country, for that matter). Not intending
to
cast aspersions on any instructors, just relating my personal
experience in
learning to fly gliders... Cross country (and other bad habits) I
learned
by watching, listening, following, asking questions, reading, etc.
There
was nobody qualified to teach me.

What kind of glider are they training in?

We do rides and initial training here in a pair of DG1000s. Before
that we used two Grob Twin Astirs (and a Janus) for about a dozen
years, and before that Blaniks. All were capable of cross country
training, though of course the later ones are better...

I don't think you'd want to try a low pass in the Blanik. The Vne is
plenty high, but you'd lose speed very quickly.


--
Mike Schumann

Michael Vickery wrote:
Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this
accident?
From the description at the beginning of the string the glider was
approaching the airfield low and slow, this does not read like the
description of someone doing a 'competition finish' but rather someone
who
had stretched his glide to return to the airfield. If indeed this was
the
case the pilots better altern
ative would have been to perform a downwind landing when he had
crossed the
upwind boundary of the airfield.
I must admit to a similar experience myself when returning in this
state
but only (thankfuly) managed to turn through ninety degrees for a
cross
wind landing to the sighs of relief from the onlookers.

Regards Mike V.

You should read the NTSB preliminary report. I think witnesses
description there make pretty clear this was a high speed pass.

So what the pilot was doing is clear, exactly why we don't know. Was the
inexperience on type an issue, showing off, hypoxia (there was a
non-fatal DG-300 crash a few years ago with bizarre pre-landing/crash
behavior where hypoxia was expected), dehydration, etc. I certainly hope
the NTSB looks at those possible factors and given the
knowledge/experience of some of the other pilots interviewed by the NTSB
I expect those possibilities to have been mentioned.

Darryl

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."


-- Judy

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:
Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."


-- Judy

On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. (The pilots notice it
too) The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. I once asked him why he moved it. He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

On 9/1/2011 12:25 AM, Andy wrote:
On Aug 22, 5:18 pm, wrote:

I've shared my (stupid, unjustifiable, indefensible) zoomie rationale. What
others might my fellow glider pilots have used or continue to use?

You might ask yourself the same question about contest flying in
general, cross-country soaring in general or soaring in general.

Agreed. And I have/do.

They
answer in every case is "because of the enjoyment".

And maybe that's entirely sufficient. However...

Winning a contest
day is the ultimate "hey look at me", moment.

No argument - or philosophic problem - on this point, either.


....however - and perhaps the intended nuance which follows will not convey
very well - I think a good argument can be made that contest flying vs. a
'look at me' zoomie at the home field is somewhat similar to (say) driving
your (gotta abide by the organizers' rules/guidelines) car in an
autocross/gymkhana/'semi-sanctioned/organized' event vs. peeling out or
otherwise drawing (often, juvenile) attention to oneself and vehicle on the
street. There are probably a fair proportion of Dads who wish their teenage
sons nearing driving age had never been exposed to the latter, while sighing
and using such exposure as teachable moments.


In every phase of soaring we need to look at the risk/reward -
remembering that each is, after all, in the name of a prima facie
frivolous activity.


Yup and yup. Indeed risk vs. reward needs to be intelligently considered
beforehand...

Regards,
Bob W.

On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht wrote:









At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. Tiny cellphone/pager
vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
warning.

On Sep 1, 3:44*pm, Bill D wrote:
On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:





On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht wrote:

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
warning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From what I recall... many SZD55-1 gliders have a stall warning as
standard equipment in some countries.

On Sep 1, 2:44*pm, Bill D wrote:
On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:





On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht wrote:

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location.

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
warning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I respectfully disagree. Not attempting a high speed pass in a slow
glider might have saved a life. Flying THAT glider more frequently may
have saved a life. I don't think having the stick buzz a second before
the stall/spin would have helped given the pilot's lack of experience
in THAT glider.

On Sep 1, 4:49*pm, jim wynhoff wrote:
On Sep 1, 2:44*pm, Bill D wrote:









On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:

On Sep 1, 9:35*am, Judy Ruprecht wrote:

At 07:50 01 September 2011, Michael Vickery wrote:

Hi
I wonder if there may be an alternative interpretation for this accident?

Some conjecture in this thread seems to center on wind gradient as a
possible contributing cause. Here's an excerpt from the NTSB preliminary
report:

"A witness was located midfield under an awning on the east verge of the
north-south runway. He was seated, and facing northwest when he heard the
pilot report on the common traffic advisory frequency that he was inbound
for landing. A few minutes later, his attention was drawn to a glider
flying past the awning in level flight, heading north along the runway at
an altitude of about 75 feet above ground level (agl). He did not see the
glider prior to that moment, and while he could not accurately judge its
airspeed, he surmised that it was traveling at a "fast clip." He was
startled, and expressed considerable alarm at the glider's location..

"The glider continued to the end of the runway, and then began a smooth
pitch-up maneuver. During the initial climb, the right wing dropped
slightly, and the glider proceeded to bank smoothly to the left. The turn
continued until its heading had diverged by about 40 degrees, at which
point the airspeed had decreased significantly. It reached an apex of about
300 feet agl, and then began a spin to the left in a near vertical,
nose-down attitude. It completed one full rotation before disappearing out
of his view behind trees. The flaps did not appear to be deployed at any
point during the flight, and he estimated that winds were about 12 to 15
knots out of the south.

"Multiple witnesses recounted similar observations, all reporting tailwinds
for the downwind phase of between 10 and 20 knots. At the time of the
accident, an annual Fly-In was underway at the airport. The pilot had
arrived earlier in the week. Airfield records indicated that he flew the
glider one time prior, 3 days before the accident. Associates of the pilot
reported that he purchased the glider in 2006, and the fly-in was the first
time he had flown it since purchase."

-- Judy

Naturally, I presumed he'd turned nearer 180 degrees, but the report
indicates only 40 degrees, so most of his climb was with a tail wind
component. *Vegetation and development is a bit spare in the area, so
the gradient between the described winds at the surface and 100 meters
is probably not too extreme, though the variability would suggest some
turbulence also. *In any event, I suspect he was climbing into an
increasing tail wind component. *The described wind would also
exaggerate his apparent speed to the ground observers and his
perceived speed across the ground. *I doubt it would have had an
affect on aileron effectiveness unless he also transited a boundary
shear into another wind direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Our gliderport is also 5500MSL and when driving the winch, I've often
observed gliders during the launch transiting two wind 'shears'. *The
first appears to be about 400ft agl, the second between 1100-1400ft
agl. *Glider pitch and yaw are both affected. *(The pilots notice it
too) *The person who built our gliderport had started nearly five
miles closer to the foot hills. *I once asked him why he moved it. *He
mentioned, among other reasons, the difficulty in soloing new pilots
due to the wind anomalies nearer the hills. *Of course, this often
puts our operation further from the convergence zone, which can mean
later starts when the zone develops strongly as it draws cooler air
from the South Platte and Poudre River valleys causing trigger
temperature to be reached later, if at all some days. *This surface
layer can be 60 to 180 degrees out from the forecasted winds and is a
'local' effect.

Our minimum pattern speed is 55knots.

Frank Whiteley

This is yet another case where an angle of attack indicator with stall
warning stick vibrator would have saved a life. *Tiny cellphone/pager
vibrator motors embedded in the stick grip would be an excellent stall
warning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I respectfully disagree. *Not attempting a high speed pass in a slow
glider might have saved a life. Flying THAT glider more frequently may
have saved a life. I don't think having the stick buzz a second before
the stall/spin would have helped given the pilot's lack of experience
in THAT glider.

Shoving the stick forward one second before a stall break will prevent
it in any glider.