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

On Feb 7, 12:25*am, Marc wrote:
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've been flying gliders 3 years, I'd like to learn something from
this. *But we really don't know the details. *Did the winds switch
from the forecast heading and increase in velocity? * Was the pilot
assuming ridge lift on that side, but instead he immediately ran into
1000fpm sink? 2000fpm sink? instantly closing himself off from a 180
back over the ridge to Minden? *Was he then monitoring the required
altitude to make South Tahoe Airport, headed there and realized the
extreme sink wouldn't allow that option? *I'm sure there is the rare,
"surprise" weather situation that goes way beyond even the most safety
conscious pilot's personal minimums, especially in the mountains.
*Until I know the details, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

One problem we have with soaring is that if we set our personal safety
minimums too high, we never get anywhere. *Cross country attempts
become nearly impossible. *So we back them off based on our skill and
comfort level. *That exposes us to that "whatever percent" chance that
we get shot down. *Maybe this guy just ran into his "whatever percent"

On a side note, I just visited and rented from SoaringNV a month ago.
*I was checked out in this very glider, but by a different instructor.
*My takeaway is that SoaringNV seemed to have their act together.
*Very much safety oriented. *After I was soloing, my instructor never
stopped monitoring my actions, making comments and suggestions,
pointing out dangers. *All their gliders have glide computers,
transponders, radios, audio varios, oxygen, *plus they have PowerFlarm
on order for all their gliders and tow planes. *No affiliation, just
wanted to make the point. *I was impresses. * ... Aaron

On hikers' views of gliders... here's one old exchange I ran across
and was able to dredge up again

http://www.viewsfromthetop.com/forum...ead.php?t=4473

As far as Heavenly goes... well, I can understand "outrage" over this
incident. It would have taken very little bad luck to make this a
really ugly national news story.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

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.

Which they almost certainly weren't (500 ft rule). He just needs to
go up with a laser range finder and a video camera, he'll have enough
evidence to make trouble.

JohnDeRosa wrote:

I can understand the concern of
the uninitiated especially in a crowded sking environment.

I consider myself pretty much initiated, but I surely would be more than
concerned when seeing a glider unexpectedly landing in a crowded place,
be it a ski slope or a parking lot or whatever.

That said, I wasn't there either.

At 22:44 08 February 2012, John Smith wrote:
JohnDeRosa wrote:

I can understand the concern of
the uninitiated especially in a crowded sking environment.

I consider myself pretty much initiated, but I surely would be more than
concerned when seeing a glider unexpectedly landing in a crowded place,
be it a ski slope or a parking lot or whatever.

That said, I wasn't there either.

It's easy to criticise and I have never flown other than in the UK.But I do
fly a
ridge site and when the wave moved and the lift went from 3 knts up to 10
down,I landed an air experience pupil at the bottom.It was a very busy 40
seconds,yes seconds,that's about all the time you get,you pile on the
speed,because you are effectively land ing up hill and pick the biggest bit
you
can see.2000ft above the ridge to 700ft below,ina few seconds.Thats an
instructor using his superior skills to get himself out of the cockup his
overconfidence let him get into.But it easy to get complacent if it's your
4th
or 5th flight over the same geography that day.Damn good flying from what I

can see.

I am surprised no one has asked this, did he pass his bfr?

I know from personal experience there are two better options for
bailout in this area, the golf course and the lake.

Landing against traffic on an active ski slope is not even an option.

On Feb 6, 12:25*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
http://southtahoenow.com/story/02/05...-crash-heavenl...

I was just in this glider (absolutely gorgeous) last Wednesday. *Holy crap. *Epic Fail.

Was this Duo operated by SoarNV? Do we have any idea who the "hero"
pilot is?

Great job setting her down on a ski run. However, the risk to
bystanders and the risk to your commercial operation by operating very
low over a commercial ski resort, and then leaving you self no way out
but to land there, is unconscionable. Sure the exposure is terrific,
but at what cost?

Please note: I ran a commercial ride giving operation in Steamboat
Springs, CO for 4 years. My main goal when operating around the ski
area was to obey FAA regs and do no NOTHING to arouse the ire of Ski
Corp. or the skiing population on the mountain. Especially when
conducting this type of operation, my safety margins were always VERY
fat, PLUS I had an engine.

Sure it sounds like the lift died, but while conducting relatively low
flight operations over a ski area, I would have nearly immediately
bailed to the airport and then tried to save myself once I was clear
of the ski area.

Just my 2cents. But we certainly do not EVER need the headline "Glider
Claims Multiple Victims on Ski Mtn" ...

Tim McAllister EY

On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:14:09 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:

Damn good flying from what I can see.

Damn irresponsible from what I can see. Sorry, but I get really frustrated with complimenting this behavior at all. Yes the stick skills to execute the landing may have been impressive (and likely that's what was meant in the comment), but the likely poor judgement and risk exposure to people on the ground are severe. Several possible better things might have been possible earlier, but there is a Golf course 2 - 2.5 km away fairly straight downhill (500' lower elevation) from the landing location. Effectively zero chance of hitting anybody on the snow covered abandoned golf course. I just cannot fathom putting a glider on that ski-run with that golf course so close. Of course it would have been been better to go earlier to KTVL airport nearby.

Fairly benign weather conditions were likely, no bursts or sudden downdrafts likely. Quite possible that the forecast and actual wind reports from nearby peaks indicating a reverse to typical wind direction with the glider now flying more the lee side of the mountain may have been a factor. But they should have had a lot of time after crossing the ridge into the South Lake Tahoe bowl area to work out that was going on.

Of course there are always dangers of making uniformed comments, and second guessing any situation, and yes I am doing that, but the action of landing this glider and putting people on the ground at such high risk just claws at me, especially when there appears to have been useful safer (for third parties) alternatives.

If you are not familiar with this area, go have a virtual look, you can fly around in the Google Earth's flight simulator and the default Minden demo terrain for SilentWings covers this area, and I assume the same for Condor. Try running different scenarios in your mind and think what you might do.

I am assuming the landing location was on "First Run" at Heavenly near the main lodge building around about 38°55'59.77"N 119°56'27.08"W

The Golf course is at 38°56'21.61"N 119°57'58.76"W

The North end of runway 18 @ KTVL is at 38°54'14.98"N 119°59'32.12"W

As other commentators have noted it is very unfortunate to see a Soaring NV glider involved in this. Their operation really is impressive, people there care deeply about promoting soaring, they have a great well equipped modern glider fleet and saftey is something they seem to care deeply about (e.g.. being a hard advocate for use of transponders in the busy airspace of the Reno area and many other things).

Maybe we'll find out more what happened and we'll be able to make more informed comments but if nothing else I hope at least thinking about this helps folks in future choices between different land-out options where there could be very high risks to people on the ground.


Darryl

I hope that we get a "Never Again" type of story out of this from
Jeffrey or the pilot under review. For those not familiar, AOPA does
articles on bad experiences that turned out OK in the end so that
others might learn from them. This seems like a good event for that
kind of public debrief that we could all learn from.

We've had a couple of really good examples of this kind of honest
debrief and assessment in the PASCO community in the last year and I
think it goes a long way towards improving safety when we share how we
screwed up so that others might learn.

Only two people know the circumstances of that flight and landing. So
far they haven't spoken up and the speculation is all that we have to
go off of and the assumptions of how bad it could have been or what
might have lead to being on the wrong side of the mountain.

I hope that they are able to find the courage to describe the
situation. Not defend it, just describe it. Unfortunately with all
of the attacks, I suspect that will be a hard thing to come forward
with.

As a side note. FARs require staying 500ft away from people in
sparsely populated area's which I'd say the mountains probably
qualify. I can see some of the "complaints" in the comments as being
directed at gliders that may very well have been at least 500ft away,
but it's all about perception and that's hard to control.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...1?OpenDocument

Morgan

On Feb 8, 6:41*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:14:09 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
Damn good flying from what I can see.

Damn irresponsible from what I can see. Sorry, but I get really frustrated with complimenting this behavior at all. Yes the stick skills to execute the landing may have been impressive (and likely that's what was meant in the comment), but the likely poor judgement and risk exposure to people on the ground are severe. Several possible better things might have been possible earlier, but there is a Golf course 2 - 2.5 km away fairly straight downhill (500' lower elevation) from the landing location. Effectively zero chance of hitting anybody on the snow covered abandoned golf course. I just cannot fathom putting a glider on that ski-run with that golf course so close.. Of course it would have been been better to go earlier to KTVL airport nearby.

Fairly benign weather conditions were likely, no bursts or sudden downdrafts likely. Quite possible that the forecast and actual wind reports from nearby peaks indicating a reverse to typical wind direction with the glider now flying more the lee side of the mountain may have been a factor. But they should have had a lot of time after crossing the ridge into the South Lake Tahoe bowl area to work out that was going on.

Of course there are always dangers of making uniformed comments, and second guessing any situation, and yes I am doing that, but the action of landing this glider and putting people on the ground at such high risk just claws at me, especially when there appears to have been useful safer (for third parties) alternatives.

If you are not familiar with this area, go have a virtual look, you can fly around in the Google Earth's flight simulator and the default Minden demo terrain for SilentWings covers this area, and I assume the same for Condor. Try running different scenarios in your mind and think what you might do..

I am assuming the landing location was on "First Run" at Heavenly near the main lodge building around about 38°55'59.77"N 119°56'27.08"W

The Golf course is at 38°56'21.61"N 119°57'58.76"W

The North end of runway 18 @ KTVL is at 38°54'14.98"N 119°59'32.12"W

As other commentators have noted it is very unfortunate to see a Soaring NV glider involved in this. Their operation really is impressive, people there care deeply about promoting soaring, they have a great well equipped modern glider fleet and saftey is something they seem to care deeply about (e..g. being a hard advocate for use of transponders in the busy airspace of the Reno area and many other things).

Maybe we'll find out more what happened and we'll be able to make more informed comments but if nothing else I hope at least thinking about this helps folks in future choices between different land-out options where there could be very high risks to people on the ground.

Darryl

I will rephrase my comments,When I first got my instructor ticket my cfi's
instructions were "Use your experience and skill to not get in a possition
that you need to use your superior flying skills to get out of" I still
think they flew it well but shouldn't have got in that possition.


At 05:21 09 February 2012, Morgan wrote:
I hope that we get a "Never Again" type of story out of this from
Jeffrey or the pilot under review. For those not familiar, AOPA does
articles on bad experiences that turned out OK in the end so that
others might learn from them. This seems like a good event for that
kind of public debrief that we could all learn from.

We've had a couple of really good examples of this kind of honest
debrief and assessment in the PASCO community in the last year and I
think it goes a long way towards improving safety when we share how we
screwed up so that others might learn.

Only two people know the circumstances of that flight and landing. So
far they haven't spoken up and the speculation is all that we have to
go off of and the assumptions of how bad it could have been or what
might have lead to being on the wrong side of the mountain.

I hope that they are able to find the courage to describe the
situation. Not defend it, just describe it. Unfortunately with all
of the attacks, I suspect that will be a hard thing to come forward
with.

As a side note. FARs require staying 500ft away from people in
sparsely populated area's which I'd say the mountains probably
qualify. I can see some of the "complaints" in the comments as being
directed at gliders that may very well have been at least 500ft away,
but it's all about perception and that's hard to control.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu.../78096E016AFA=
36F8852566CF006150B1?OpenDocument

Morgan

On Feb 8, 6:41=A0pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:14:09 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
Damn good flying from what I can see.

Damn irresponsible from what I can see. Sorry, but I get really
frustrate=
d with complimenting this behavior at all. Yes the stick skills to
execute
=
the landing may have been impressive (and likely that's what was meant in
t=
he comment), but the likely poor judgement and risk exposure to people on
t=
he ground are severe. Several possible better things might have been
possib=
le earlier, but there is a Golf course 2 - 2.5 km away fairly straight
down=
hill (500' lower elevation) from the landing location. Effectively zero
cha=
nce of hitting anybody on the snow covered abandoned golf course. I just
ca=
nnot fathom putting a glider on that ski-run with that golf course so
close=
.. Of course it would have been been better to go earlier to KTVL airport
ne=
arby.

Fairly benign weather conditions were likely, no bursts or sudden
downdra=
fts likely. Quite possible that the forecast and actual wind reports from
n=
earby peaks indicating a reverse to typical wind direction with the
glider
=
now flying more the lee side of the mountain may have been a factor. But
th=
ey should have had a lot of time after crossing the ridge into the South
La=
ke Tahoe bowl area to work out that was going on.

Of course there are always dangers of making uniformed comments, and
seco=
nd guessing any situation, and yes I am doing that, but the action of
landi=
ng this glider and putting people on the ground at such high risk just
claw=
s at me, especially when there appears to have been useful safer (for
third=
parties) alternatives.

If you are not familiar with this area, go have a virtual look, you can
f=
ly around in the Google Earth's flight simulator and the default Minden
dem=
o terrain for SilentWings covers this area, and I assume the same for
Condo=
r. Try running different scenarios in your mind and think what you might
do=
..

I am assuming the landing location was on "First Run" at Heavenly near
th=
e main lodge building around about 38=B055'59.77"N 119=B056'27.08"W

The Golf course is at 38=B056'21.61"N 119=B057'58.76"W

The North end of runway 18 @ KTVL is at 38=B054'14.98"N
119=B059'32.12"W

As other commentators have noted it is very unfortunate to see a
Soaring
=
NV glider involved in this. Their operation really is impressive, people
th=
ere care deeply about promoting soaring, they have a great well equipped
mo=
dern glider fleet and saftey is something they seem to care deeply about
(e=
..g. being a hard advocate for use of transponders in the busy airspace
of
t=
he Reno area and many other things).

Maybe we'll find out more what happened and we'll be able to make more
in=
formed comments but if nothing else I hope at least thinking about this
hel=
ps folks in future choices between different land-out options where there
c=
ould be very high risks to people on the ground.

Darryl