Duo NV lands on Heavenly Ski Resort. Not kidding...

Interesting article relevant to this discussion:
http://www.airfactsjournal.com/2012/...others-keeper/
and a separate video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gWEi...&feature=share

JP

Hi Evan: I posted to this on a different thread, same topic: The landing
site is about 3.5 miles from TVL at approximately the same altitude.
Kingsbury Grade, the passage through the ridge, is roughly three miles
farther away (and around the mountain) at something like 1300' above field
elevation - and that is being generous.

So the relevant question is: a nearly seven mile flight on a bit over 1000'
of altitude with a lot of trees on the way.





At 13:49 07 February 2012, T8 wrote:
On Feb 6, 3:29=A0pm, Bruno wrote:
"Outraged..." =A0 As if the pilots wanted to land there. Nice job
landing in a tough spot. =A0I am just glad that none of the farmers in
any of the fields I have landed in have been, "outraged!"

Bruno - B4

Bruno -- Take a look at a chart. Then see if you still think this was
a "Nice job."

This link should do it http://runwayfinder.com/?loc=3DTVL

The top of the ski area in question is at 2:00, about 6 miles from TVL
and a few thousand feet higher. The landing site (the bottom of the
ski area) is quite close to TVL. The news article mentions a golf
course being rejected due to trees. Look where the ski area parking
lot, the golf course and TVL are on the satellite view.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Anyone considered that the Duo might have met a localised down draft?

I gather the pilot was too low for comfort, but experience in a given
area causes many to continually shave margin.

So it is a local flight, well known area, little wind. A perfect setup
for being close in on the mountain without big risk. My tiny brain
concludes that the only problem with this scenario is that one little
bit of rapidly descending air and you are on the ground.

So here is an hypothesis.

In still wind conditions the air on the surface does not get mixed, so
it is in contact with the nice cold snow and gets colder and heavier. At
some point a mass of air starts moving downhill - possibly triggered by
some skiers.

Think of it as a reverse thermal.
The air will tend to stay very close to the ground, but will entrain
other air. The reports put the Duo very close to the ground.

Assume vertical air speed of 500 feet per minute down, if you only have
200 feet gives you seconds to make up your mind - while the situation
deteriorates rapidly. Even if you have the height and energy to get away
from the immediate terrain, it can put you too low to get over passes,
and reach the safer places to land.

Possibly in these circumstances one will make apparently
incomprehensible decisions.

Bruce (just wondering)

The article says this was a flight review. A BFR I presume? Therefore the backseat would be a CGI-G.....An experienced front seater and a CFI-G and things still happen such as this. Makes a relatively inexperience type such as much self think twice. Accidents happen, glad no one was hurt but a couple of the comments in the articles indicate a willingness on the part of some to restrict gliding even more in such areas. Something we don't need right now.

Walt

Jim,

You're suggesting that they tried to make the KG, failed, plan B was
TVL and that also failed?

That at least makes a modicum of logical sense out of this.

-Evan Ludeman / T8



On Feb 8, 12:10*am, Jim Wallis
wrote:
Hi Evan: *I posted to this on a different thread, same topic: *The landing
site is about 3.5 miles from TVL at approximately the same altitude.
Kingsbury Grade, the passage through the ridge, is roughly three miles
farther away (and around the mountain) at something like 1300' above field
elevation - and that is being generous.

So the relevant question is: a nearly seven mile flight on a bit over 1000'
of altitude with a lot of trees on the way.

At 13:49 07 February 2012, T8 wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:29=A0pm, Bruno *wrote:
"Outraged..." =A0 As if the pilots wanted to land there. Nice job
landing in a tough spot. =A0I am just glad that none of the farmers in
any of the fields I have landed in have been, "outraged!"

Bruno - B4

Bruno -- Take a look at a chart. *Then see if you still think this was
a "Nice job."

This link should do ithttp://runwayfinder.com/?loc=3DTVL

The top of the ski area in question is at 2:00, about 6 miles from TVL
and a few thousand feet higher. *The landing site (the bottom of the
ski area) is quite close to TVL. *The news article mentions a golf
course being rejected due to trees. *Look where the ski area parking
lot, the golf course and TVL are on the satellite view.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

The more troubling aspect of this event to me are the reports of
several people that "a glider" had been flying very low relative to
the chair lifts for several days before this event. Flying close to
terrain is part of the soaring experience but we must remember that
doing so in the proximity of people is not good for the sport, nor for
the pilots, nor for the people beneath the glider.

Guy

At 14:36 08 February 2012, guy wrote:
The more troubling aspect of this event to me are the reports of
several people that "a glider" had been flying very low relative to
the chair lifts for several days before this event. Flying close to
terrain is part of the soaring experience but we must remember that
doing so in the proximity of people is not good for the sport, nor for
the pilots, nor for the people beneath the glider.

Guy

How things differ. If we had to avoid flying close to people when ridge
flying in the UK we would not do any at all. Virtually all the hills worth
soaring have people walking along them and gliders very close to them, most
of the walkers wave and seem to enjoy the experience.
The two largest top of the hill sites in the UK have public footpaths along
the ridge line between the airfield and the ridge.

On Feb 8, 3:57*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 14:36 08 February 2012, guy wrote:

The more troubling aspect of this event to me are the reports of
several people that "a glider" had been flying very low relative to
the chair lifts for several days before this event. *Flying close to
terrain is part of the soaring experience but we must remember that
doing so in the proximity of people is not good for the sport, nor for
the pilots, nor for the people beneath the glider.

Guy

How things differ. If we had to avoid flying close to people when ridge
flying in the UK we would not do any at all. Virtually all the hills worth
soaring have people walking along them and gliders very close to them, most
of the walkers wave and seem to enjoy the experience.
The two largest top of the hill sites in the UK have public footpaths along
the ridge line between the airfield and the ridge.

It's the same in the US, of course (common race separated only
language, etc.). We do seem to have a few news reporters willing to
search for a willing dupe to regurgitate the "quotes" they seek or,
failing that, just make the quotes up out of whole cloth. I've taken
the time to dig around on the bulletin boards used by hikers in the
mountains where I fly to see if gliders get mentioned. We do... and
it's all positive.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

We will see people hiking on peaks/trails while ridge soaring etc. in the USA, obviously population density is often less than in parts of the UK. However at a ski resort like Heavenly there are potentially thousands of people on the slopes and multiple obstructions including chair lift, gondola and power lines.

AFAIK there are no details of the claimed low flights that occurred days before, except the complaints from the public that were posted as a comment on some news reports. And everybody's idea of what "low" or "close" may vary.. However I agree with Guy. It would be irresponsible for any pilot to push the boundaries of "closeness" over such a populated and potentially hazardous region such as Heavenly Ski resort. Now whether that has really been happening in the past, or was a factor on this flight, and how close etc. I don't think we really know.

I have flown that area several times, including ridge soaring further away from the resort, and only in late spring/summer months. As both a Tahoe area skier and a glider pilot (who really does not get to fly this area anymore) I am very dissapointed at the apparent poor judgement that led to landing on this typically busy beginners ski-run, thankful nobody on the ground was injured or killed. I am dismayed why either KTVL airport or the local golf course were not used instead.

Darryl

We might have to distinguish between;

- Ridge soaring and getting close to the terrain and close to
people.

and...

- Landing on a ski slope and getting close to people.

I try to put myself in other people's shoes to get their point of
view. While I know that this "Crash" (the reporter's words) was
really a landout and under control, I can understand the concern of
the uninitiated especially in a crowded sking environment. Watching a
glider moving in a straight line along a ridge doing something
obviously intentional, is quite a bit different than watching a glider
landing in a place that no one on the ground expected.

However, I don't believe that the ski resort owner is going to get
anywhere demanding that the gliders are banned from ridge soaring his
mountain...he doesn't own the air rights...as long as the pilots are
following the FAA rules of the game.

I can't comment if the pilot could have made it to another field or
should have "put it into the trees". I wasn't there.

- John