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

Of course, witness accounts are typically fairly useless especially
when it comes to estimating height but still, I found the following
comment interesting"

"Yeah, I was actually there on the mountain today, and had an
opportunity to see the aftermath. over the past few days that glider
has been getting uncomfortably close to many chair lifts on the
mountain. Dangerously close in my opinion. While riding Dipper Express
the other day, I was scared it was going to hit the lift while I was
on it."

Matt Michael
Safety Monkey

On Feb 6, 6:31*pm, matt michael wrote:
Another interesting question is to look at the elevation of the
landing site relative to elevation/distance to South Tahoe airport.

Having done much flying in and around the mountains on that side of
Lake Tahoe, I can tell you that just because a particular airport may
be within straight line gliding distance doesn't mean you can get
there. If you're low (for whatever stupid reason) and in the
mountains, you're left with trying to sneak through low points in the
ridge to get to the lower ground. You may get through one pass, only
to discover that there is yet another ridge on the other side which
you can't quite clear. If you're well and truly screwed, you turn
around only to find that you no longer have enough altitude to clear
the pass you just came through. I haven't messed up quite that badly,
but I did have to make it out of that sort of trap once by dodging
trees. One tends to get religion after an incident like that, and
allow (a lot) more margin...

Marc

I wonder if the flight computer still has data on it from the previous
days to support the comment below. If it does and this person was
soaring over the ski area I'll have a lot less sympathy for this
landout. Sounds like a substantial lack of good judgement if the
claim made below is true, and I'm inclined to suspect it's likely
true.


"Yeah, I was actually there on the mountain today, and had an
opportunity to see the aftermath. over the past few days that glider
has been getting uncomfortably close to many chair lifts on the
mountain. Dangerously close in my opinion. While riding Dipper Express
the other day, I was scared it was going to hit the lift while I was
on it."

Sean Fidler wrote:
Agreed. Excellent job landing safely here.

Safely? Safely for whom? Safely for the skiers? Safely for that snow
boarder who reportedly had to duck to not have his head clipped? This
landing was no "excellent job" but a highly irresponsible and reckless
action which I sure hope the FAA will take a closer look at. It was
sheer luck that nobody was hurt or even killed.

On Feb 6, 3:29*pm, Bruno wrote:
"Outraged..." * As if the pilots wanted to land there. Nice job
landing in a tough spot. *I 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=TVL

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

But it's obvious - he had to land when the tail fell off!!

Kirk
66
Yes, not only that but he is still dragging the tow rope.

On 2/6/2012 11:41 AM, Brad wrote:
Snip...

Not to be contentious, but more fodder for the safety
monkeys

Chortle!!! (I'll get back to this topic shortly...)

....................looks like this guy did a fantastic job
getting the sailplane down safe and with all in 1 piece.

Always a good thing when the landing can be walked away from; I've known of
lots of others since getting into soaring that didn't end so serendipitously,
even withOUT the stress this (as it developed over time) situation surely induced.

Back to "safety monkeys" for a bit, I (and many others) well remember a
long-time, opinionated, disputatious (contentious?), high-time pilot
well-known in the experimental power aviation field, whose opinions were
always crystal clear. He had built and test flown his own RV-?, and test flown
at least one other homebuilt of which I'm aware.

One of his opinions (which can presumably be found in the archives of the
rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup) was that a monkey could be trained to fly
airplanes...but probably not helicopters - they required more brains or
SOMEthing. I'm not certain of his opinion regarding the brains to fly gliders,
which I know he had flown IN (don't remember if he obtained the rating). In
any event, he obviously had a pretty high opinion of his own skill set and
cranial power...and I gather not without substantiating reasons.

He died not long after a post-T.O.-crash of his Lancair (which I believe he
purchased), which also seriously injured his wife.

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...2012120000.pdf

Maybe we're too smart to safely fly, because evidently he crashed a
flyable/flying airplane because he failed to latch/verify-latching the canopy,
and was unable to aviate, navigate and communicate in that order.

My point is, I'm OK with those who would rather kill the messenger in private
than apply safety lessons which may one day help mitigate the severity of
their own situation (regardless of how the situation may develop), but I'm not
so OK with those who would casually and publicly use a contentions "throw away
comment" ostensibly serving primarily as a means of ending discussion about
something of critical importance to open-minded, thoughtful aviators.

I am interested in learning how the "loss of air" caused this to
happen.

I will not be criticizing the pilot, as we are all prone to being in
the news someday, despite the never ending articles in Soaring about
safety.

Brad

"[N]ever ending articles in Soaring about safety" hunh? There's one sure way
to end them, but our record strongly suggests the human race is unlikely to
cooperate. Ignore such articles (and related lessons) if it floats your
boat...but you'll be intentionally blowing off some possibility of learning
from others' mistakes.

Rotsa Ruck,

Bob W.
Unofficial Safety Monkey

On Feb 7, 12:14*pm, BobW wrote:
On 2/6/2012 11:41 AM, Brad wrote:
Snip...



Not to be contentious, but more fodder for the safety
monkeys

Chortle!!! (I'll get back to this topic shortly...)

...................looks like this guy did a fantastic job

getting the sailplane down safe and with all in 1 piece.

Always a good thing when the landing can be walked away from; I've known of
lots of others since getting into soaring that didn't end so serendipitously,
even withOUT the stress this (as it developed over time) situation surely induced.

Back to "safety monkeys" for a bit, I (and many others) well remember a
long-time, opinionated, disputatious (contentious?), high-time pilot
well-known in the experimental power aviation field, whose opinions were
always crystal clear. He had built and test flown his own RV-?, and test flown
at least one other homebuilt of which I'm aware.

One of his opinions (which can presumably be found in the archives of the
rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup) was that a monkey could be trained to fly
airplanes...but probably not helicopters - they required more brains or
SOMEthing. I'm not certain of his opinion regarding the brains to fly gliders,
which I know he had flown IN (don't remember if he obtained the rating). In
any event, he obviously had a pretty high opinion of his own skill set and
cranial power...and I gather not without substantiating reasons.

He died not long after a post-T.O.-crash of his Lancair (which I believe he
purchased), which also seriously injured his wife.

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...hb3my1iryqyoqd...

Maybe we're too smart to safely fly, because evidently he crashed a
flyable/flying airplane because he failed to latch/verify-latching the canopy,
and was unable to aviate, navigate and communicate in that order.

My point is, I'm OK with those who would rather kill the messenger in private
than apply safety lessons which may one day help mitigate the severity of
their own situation (regardless of how the situation may develop), but I'm not
so OK with those who would casually and publicly use a contentions "throw away
comment" ostensibly serving primarily as a means of ending discussion about
something of critical importance to open-minded, thoughtful aviators.

I am interested in learning how the "loss of air" caused this to
happen.

I will not be criticizing the pilot, as we are all prone to being in
the news someday, despite the never ending articles in Soaring about
safety.

Brad

"[N]ever ending articles in Soaring about safety" hunh? There's one sure way
to end them, but our record strongly suggests the human race is unlikely to
cooperate. Ignore such articles (and related lessons) if it floats your
boat...but you'll be intentionally blowing off some possibility of learning
from others' mistakes.

Rotsa Ruck,

Bob W.
Unofficial Safety Monkey

Are you making some kind of reference to my building and flying the
Tetra-15 with the guy and his Lancair?

rust rundering,
Brad

Brad, take your meds. He's not referring to you at all.



-Kevin

On 2/7/2012 1:29 PM, Brad wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:14 pm, wrote:
On 2/6/2012 11:41 AM, Brad wrote:
Snip...



Not to be contentious, but more fodder for the safety
monkeys

Chortle!!! (I'll get back to this topic shortly...)

...................looks like this guy did a fantastic job

getting the sailplane down safe and with all in 1 piece.

Always a good thing when the landing can be walked away from; I've known of
lots of others since getting into soaring that didn't end so serendipitously,
even withOUT the stress this (as it developed over time) situation surely induced.

Back to "safety monkeys" for a bit, I (and many others) well remember a
long-time, opinionated, disputatious (contentious?), high-time pilot
well-known in the experimental power aviation field, whose opinions were
always crystal clear. He had built and test flown his own RV-?, and test flown
at least one other homebuilt of which I'm aware.

One of his opinions (which can presumably be found in the archives of the
rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup) was that a monkey could be trained to fly
airplanes...but probably not helicopters - they required more brains or
SOMEthing. I'm not certain of his opinion regarding the brains to fly gliders,
which I know he had flown IN (don't remember if he obtained the rating). In
any event, he obviously had a pretty high opinion of his own skill set and
cranial power...and I gather not without substantiating reasons.

He died not long after a post-T.O.-crash of his Lancair (which I believe he
purchased), which also seriously injured his wife.

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/Acciden...hb3my1iryqyoqd...

Maybe we're too smart to safely fly, because evidently he crashed a
flyable/flying airplane because he failed to latch/verify-latching the canopy,
and was unable to aviate, navigate and communicate in that order.

My point is, I'm OK with those who would rather kill the messenger in private
than apply safety lessons which may one day help mitigate the severity of
their own situation (regardless of how the situation may develop), but I'm not
so OK with those who would casually and publicly use a contentions "throw away
comment" ostensibly serving primarily as a means of ending discussion about
something of critical importance to open-minded, thoughtful aviators.

I am interested in learning how the "loss of air" caused this to
happen.

I will not be criticizing the pilot, as we are all prone to being in
the news someday, despite the never ending articles in Soaring about
safety.

Brad

"[N]ever ending articles in Soaring about safety" hunh? There's one sure way
to end them, but our record strongly suggests the human race is unlikely to
cooperate. Ignore such articles (and related lessons) if it floats your
boat...but you'll be intentionally blowing off some possibility of learning
from others' mistakes.

Rotsa Ruck,

Bob W.
Unofficial Safety Monkey

Are you making some kind of reference to my building and flying the
Tetra-15 with the guy and his Lancair?

rust rundering,
Brad

Until posed, that particular question never entered my skull. (I believe the
Lancair's test hours had been flown off well prior to the crash by someone
entirely unrelated to the above synopsis.)

And for the record (having owned nothing but single-seat, experimentally
licensed sailplanes since 1976, including 195 hours in an HP-14), I hope all
the test flying of your initial example and all future examples of the HP-24
go safely and with a minimum of unwanted excitement.

But since my initial effort evidently was insufficiently clear, here's a 2nd
attempt...

I think a strong case can be made that pilots who intentionally ignore
(deprecate?) the lessons available through internalization of others'
misfortunes are doing themselves and future prospects for general aviation a
disservice.

Respectfully,
Bob W. (USM)