If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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) |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
"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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Jet engines vs. leaf blowers | 01-- Zero One | Soaring | 6 | September 8th 05 01:59 AM |
Gear Warning Switches on a Mosquito | scooter | Soaring | 6 | March 9th 05 01:15 PM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart Hull | Home Built | 2 | November 24th 03 05:23 AM |
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 0 | November 22nd 03 06:24 AM |
gear warning plus | K.P. Termaat | Soaring | 0 | September 8th 03 08:33 AM |