Gear Warning

At 11:06 24 November 2005, Stefan wrote:
Graeme Cant wrote:

The only point of difference MIGHT be that glider
pilots should be
regularly briefed that if the warning is in the last
50 feet, they
should do nothing and expect a gear up landing. That
is the ONLY

And even this depends on the glider. E.g. in an LS4
with its beautiful
gear system, there's no reason to not put the gear
down even in the last
10 feet (if the runway is long enough to allow for
the additional
float). Been there, done that, no problem. BTW, if
I had had a gear
warning, I would have recognized and corrected the
situation much earlier.

Stefan

I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place. It is never one single factor that results
in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is that
while everyone who has responded to this thread may
be able to cope, because they have the experience and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
and have not. Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
will increase the chances of those contributing and
reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.

Don Johnstone wrote:

I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place.

You're still missing the point, Don. In every other sphere of aviation
it's accepted that ALL pilots sometimes make silly errors - even the
most experienced. To cope with this, warning systems are mandated and
pilots are trained in their use and operation.

A pilot can only have an accident due to trying to lower the gear too
late if he's already failed to lower it early enough. That is the
primary cause of the accident. The BGA is starting half way down the
chain and saying the cause is the warning system. In the rest of
aviation, the cause of such accidents is (correctly) attributed to
inadequate skill or training of the pilot. To blame the warning system
would be seen as quite irrational.

Before it made its recommendation, did the BGA try to find out how many
accidents were PREVENTED by the presence of a warning system? I know
many gear-up landings on grass are fairly innocuous but a number are
not. What is the balance between accidents prevented by gear warnings
versus accidents 'caused' (in BGA terms) by them?

GC

Don Johnstone wrote:

Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
we have to consider the lowest common denominator.

Agreed. In our club, we found that the lowest common denominator is to
fit a gear warning system in all gliders.

Stefan

Don Johnstone wrote:


I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place.

Oh yeah?
--
Real name is richard
(3000 hours, landed wheel up in 1974 and again in 1996)

Hmm...

In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place. It is never one single factor that results
in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is that
while everyone who has responded to this thread may
be able to cope, because they have the experience and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
and have not.

We can actually apply that principle to virtually any
skill involved in aviation.

Landing, for example. Or use of the rudder. Or spin
recovery. Or outlanding. You name it, if it has anything
to do with aviation the principles above apply. We all
know how to do it safely, but some don't through no fault of
their own.

Now: In all aspects of aviation *except wheels-up landings*,
when we say, "while everyone who has responded to this thread
may be able to cope, because they have the experience and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are those
who, thorugh no fault of their own, would not, and have not,"
we respond to that with training and with systems of
redundant backup (e.g., checklists).

We take as many opportunities as possible to tilt the
hazardous landscape in the pilot's favour so that, at the
end of the day, he *can* cope, and becomes one of those people
with the experience who have thought about it.

Yet, when it comes to wheels-up landings, people kinda
shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well." I've even heard
people say, "There are two types of glider pilots: those
who have landed with the wheel up, and those who will."
There's this ridiculous acceptance that this particular type
of accident is perfectly ok -- And not only is it ok, but
that we ought to resist warning devices which can prevent it,
and not invest in the training required to enable pilots to
safely react to the warning devices when they go off!

That attitude is insane. We don't accept it anywhere else
in aviation. And no other aviation disciplines accept it
either (try it out: Turn up to your local airport, say, "There
are two types of pilots, those who have landed with the wheels
up and those who will," and then try to hire a retractable-
undercarriage light plane)


Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
will increase the chances of those contributing and
reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.


I'm more concerned about the thronging multitudes who haven't
seen this thread, who have been brought up in an environment
that says belly-landings are kinda-sorta-acceptable, in a
culture which has resisted the use of cheap and simple
accident-prevention warning devices.

What would this thread have looked like if the BGA had
released a position paper which said that collision warning
devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing we want
to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the final
moments of a collision course?

- mark

"Richard Brisbourne" wrote in message
...
Don Johnstone wrote:


I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place.

Oh yeah?
--
Real name is richard
(3000 hours, landed wheel up in 1974 and again in 1996)

In the following true story the names, places and dates are deleted to
protect the guilty.

An instructor is briefing an NTSB investigator for his Glider Private Pilot
Practical Test, when just outside the window a glider slides past on its
belly making crunchy noises. The NTSB guy notices.

"Hey!", he exclaims. "Am I supposed to report that?" "Uh, no", the
instructor mumbles, "Happens all the time - never much damage". He
reluctantly buys that and briefing continues.

By the time the briefing is finished, the glider has disappeared into its
trailer and the pilot and glider are on their way to a repair shop.

Bildan

Richard Brisbourne wrote in
:

Real name is richard
(3000 hours, landed wheel up in 1974 and again in 1996)


There are those who have, those who will, and those who will do it again!
-Bob Korves
(2400 hours and still, luckily, one of those who will)

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:


Hmm...

In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

I agree that with the right glider, a competent and
experienced pilot it might not be a problem and then
again such a pilot would not need the warning in the
first place. It is never one single factor that results
in a mishap and the whole point of my argument is
that
while everyone who has responded to this thread may
be able to cope, because they have the experience
and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those who, though no fault of their own, would not,
and have not.

We can actually apply that principle to virtually any

skill involved in aviation.

Landing, for example. Or use of the rudder. Or spin
recovery. Or outlanding. You name it, if it has anything
to do with aviation the principles above apply. We
all
know how to do it safely, but some don't through no
fault of
their own.

Now: In all aspects of aviation *except wheels-up
landings*,
when we say, 'while everyone who has responded to this
thread
may be able to cope, because they have the experience
and,
more importantly, have thought about it, there are
those
who, thorugh no fault of their own, would not, and
have not,'
we respond to that with training and with systems of

redundant backup (e.g., checklists).

We take as many opportunities as possible to tilt the
hazardous landscape in the pilot's favour so that,
at the
end of the day, he *can* cope, and becomes one of those
people
with the experience who have thought about it.

Yet, when it comes to wheels-up landings, people kinda

shrug their shoulders and say, 'Oh well.' I've even
heard
people say, 'There are two types of glider pilots:
those
who have landed with the wheel up, and those who will.'
There's this ridiculous acceptance that this particular
type
of accident is perfectly ok -- And not only is it ok,
but
that we ought to resist warning devices which can prevent
it,
and not invest in the training required to enable pilots
to
safely react to the warning devices when they go off!

That attitude is insane. We don't accept it anywhere
else
in aviation. And no other aviation disciplines accept
it
either (try it out: Turn up to your local airport,
say, 'There
are two types of pilots, those who have landed with
the wheels
up and those who will,' and then try to hire a retractable-
undercarriage light plane)


Your own glider, up to you, a club glider
we have to consider the lowest common denominator.
The very fact that this is being discussed as it is,
will increase the chances of those contributing and
reading it making the right decision if it ever happens.


I'm more concerned about the thronging multitudes who
haven't
seen this thread, who have been brought up in an environment
that says belly-landings are kinda-sorta-acceptable,
in a
culture which has resisted the use of cheap and simple
accident-prevention warning devices.

What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
had
released a position paper which said that collision
warning
devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
we want
to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the
final
moments of a collision course?

- mark


People die in collisions.

Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up
on a runway but many have from approach control failures.

At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: (snip)
What would this thread have looked like if the BGA
had
released a position paper which said that collision
warning
devices were discouraged because pilots should be looking
out, and if they're not looking out the last thing
we want
to do is surprise them and distract them in the high-stress
environment they get when another glider is in the
final
moments of a collision course?

Funny you should say that because there is a school
of thought, not one I necessarily subscribe to, that
says exactly that.
As I understand the argument, in a busy thermal responding
to a collision alarm posed by one glider could cause
the pilot to fly into the path of another glider which
up until the point of the alarm did not cause a threat.

Don Johnstone wrote:

As I understand the argument, in a busy thermal responding
to a collision alarm posed by one glider could cause
the pilot to fly into the path of another glider which
up until the point of the alarm did not cause a threat.

1st, a collision warning system designed for gliders recognizes
thermalling. At least FLARM does.

But the problem indeed exists. Our club's gliders are all equipped with
FLARM, so I have some experience. Now when I hear an alarm, I look out
for the glider causing it. (Before someone asks: I've been looking out
all the time.) Now, as soon as I see a glider which *could* have
triggered the alarm, there's a *big* temptation to think that this
glider really *was* the cause, focus on this one and forget that there
could be another around without FLARM.

This doesn't say anything against FLARM, you just have to be aware of
the problem. (Actually, I'm pretty pro FLARM, as at least one friend
would probably still be alive had he and his opponent had one.)

But that's off topic. The topic was, how about a gear warning system. I
find it funny that pilots are considered to be able deal with many
really difficult situations, but not with the one when a gear warning
starts to beep near the ground.

Stefan