Lawsuit filed over AFA towpilot fatality

all the above cut-----no one has mentioned that perhaps due to the gliders
position---"high and to the right" that the tow plane pilot may have well
thought it had released. What does the tow plane do when the glider releases?
Banks left. Just what it did. Ok, now having done that he ends up in a dive
with enough pull on the tow rope that he can not bring the tail down to get her
out of the dive. Who knows? I do know there have been tow pilots that thought
the glider was gone when in fact it was not. I had a tow a while back where
the glider pilot lost track of the airports location (it was right under him)
I looked all over for the glider and even thought the glider pilot had had a
"heart event". After a while he came back into view. He was not a student and
was flying solo. After he landed we had a little talk. I pointed out to him
that from the time my wheels leave the ground, be it in a sailplane or the tow
plane , I "KNOW" where the airport is. No need to have to look for it and I
mentioned he might train himself to do the same. I also told him the only
"worse" tow I ever had was a 10 year old, non student, girl some CFI decided to
let fly the glider. Both of these flights came near to me cutting them loose.
Anyway seldom does anyone know for sure what went down in a fatal event like
this. Fly safe---Mac

When things get revisionist one has to wonder. Whether pressure was brought
to bear from outside or inside the coroner's office, we'll never know. If
the IP wasn't willing to accept responsibility and was truly at fault, then
there's something else wrong at the program level.

Heck, I'm becoming an grey old fart, retired USAF version. To me that's an
endearment, but unnecessarily crass in this case. No offense intended.

SBP is a gamble. It also entails a reduction in monthly benefit if elected.
Many don't take it as they'd rather have the larger monthly retirement
check. Lack of SBP could be a prime motivation for the lawsuit. Very deep
pockets available.

Frank

On 11/9/04 9:55 AM, in article , "F.L.
Whiteley" wrote:

When things get revisionist one has to wonder. Whether pressure was brought
to bear from outside or inside the coroner's office, we'll never know. If
the IP wasn't willing to accept responsibility and was truly at fault, then
there's something else wrong at the program level.

Heck, I'm becoming an grey old fart, retired USAF version. To me that's an
endearment, but unnecessarily crass in this case. No offense intended.

SBP is a gamble. It also entails a reduction in monthly benefit if elected.
Many don't take it as they'd rather have the larger monthly retirement
check. Lack of SBP could be a prime motivation for the lawsuit. Very deep
pockets available.

Frank


I'm retired military myself, but am in denial about my "old-fart-hood."
Maybe I need an intervention. No offense taken.

I took full SBP, and sometimes wonder about the additional money I'd be
getting if I hadn't. Not worth it, though.

On the primary topic, my inside information indicates that the IP not only
accepted responsibility, but actually apologized to the widow. Now that's a
standup cadet. You'll note that the cadet IP is not named in the lawsuit
(of course, cadet pockets aren't very deep, which may have something to do
with that).

As lawsuits go, I don't read this one as frivolous. JMHO, YMMV, etc.

"Bullwinkle" wrote in message
...
On 11/9/04 9:55 AM, in article ,
"F.L.
Whiteley" wrote:

When things get revisionist one has to wonder. Whether pressure was
brought
to bear from outside or inside the coroner's office, we'll never know.
If
the IP wasn't willing to accept responsibility and was truly at fault,
then
there's something else wrong at the program level.

Heck, I'm becoming an grey old fart, retired USAF version. To me that's
an
endearment, but unnecessarily crass in this case. No offense intended.

SBP is a gamble. It also entails a reduction in monthly benefit if
elected.
Many don't take it as they'd rather have the larger monthly retirement
check. Lack of SBP could be a prime motivation for the lawsuit. Very
deep
pockets available.

Frank


I'm retired military myself, but am in denial about my "old-fart-hood."
Maybe I need an intervention. No offense taken.

I took full SBP, and sometimes wonder about the additional money I'd be
getting if I hadn't. Not worth it, though.

On the primary topic, my inside information indicates that the IP not only
accepted responsibility, but actually apologized to the widow. Now that's
a
standup cadet. You'll note that the cadet IP is not named in the lawsuit
(of course, cadet pockets aren't very deep, which may have something to do
with that).

As lawsuits go, I don't read this one as frivolous. JMHO, YMMV, etc.

I don't think it's frivolous either, but one wonders whether the program
will survive.

"W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)." wrote
"My point? That the fact that you, or your club, may have been operating
in a certain way for 25 years without a fatal accident, does not mean that
the practices are at an acceptable level of risk viewed nationally, simply
that they are not actually suicidal.

There is another way to consider this. Not all training programs are
the same, and result in the same skill level. It is entirely possible
that some pilots are simply more skilled and can handle a cg hook just
fine, while others are not and can not except under ideal conditions.

"Aerotowing on a C of G hook is something you can 'get away with', given a
high level of concentration, reasonable skill and the absence of bad luck.

Or maybe just reasonable skill - and what constitutes reasonable skill
is another matter. I have yet to fly a certified glider that is
anywhere near as demanding in handling as the most docile of powered
trainers. My glider is equipped only with a CG hook, mounted off
center at that, and I don't find flying it on tow to be particularly
demanding or unforgiving. It was a bit of a surprise the first time
(my first aerotow with a cg hook was solo, and I believe I had less
than 50 flights in gliders at that point) but it only took me a couple
of minutes to get the hang of it. Had it been a dual flight, it would
have been a total non-event, as this flight should have been.

"I am a staunch defender of anyone's right to risk his or her own life in
pursuit of any goal they hold dear (including saving money). In launching
on a C of G hook you are risking the tow-pilots life more than your own, and
this I will not defend."

I am a tug pilot. I am comfortable with the risk, and have been on
both ends of the rope with a cg hook more than a few times. Will you
now tell me I'm deluded? Frankly, I just don't see towing someone
with a cg hook to be a big deal. I support the right of any tug pilot
to refuse the operation, but I know none who consider it a big deal.
That's not to say there are none.

From the NTSB report,
"The instructor aboard N7538, a cadet third class, said she had made about
100 glider flights, each flight averaging about 15 minutes."

If this means what it says, the instructor had a total gliding flight
experience of about 100 flights and about 25 hours. This presumably
includes dual instruction as pupil, solo flying, coaching to become an
instructor, and experience as an instructor.

I do not know what is normal in the U.S.A., either in the U.S.A.F. or in
civilian life, for an instructor teaching aerotow launching; but this is
vastly less than enough by U.K. standards.

In the US, it is considered enough. In fact, I believe that was
approximately the experience level of the instructor who trained and
signed me off for my glider INSTRUCTOR rating. He had additional
(extensive) experience in airplanes. This was not necessary. In the
US, the requirement for a commercial pilot in a glider is 25 hours of
flight time in a glider (including instruction) and 100 flights. The
requirements are MUCH less if one already has 200 hours in powered
aircraft. After the commercial, there are no additional experience
requirements - only a checkride.

I suspect that the cadet instructor had significant additional
aircraft experience, and I think that should make it OK from a safety
standpoint. Certainly I see nothing so special about aerotowing that
would make it unsafe for an experienced power pilot with 100 aerotows
to teach. I am far more concerned about glider intructors with lots
of glider experience who have never been tuggies teaching aerotow.
They are the ones who have scared me most as a tuggie. I think many
of them truly do not understand where the limits are. If it were up
to me, everyone who wanted to teach aerotow would have to spend a few
flights up front in the tug while students were learning to fly
aerotow in back.

The real issue, where safety is concerned (learning to soar is another
matter entirely) is not so much low glider time (gliders, after all,
are quite similar to and generally easier to fly than airplanes) but
low total time. An inexperienced instructor is a hazard.

From the NTSB report,
"The student pilot aboard N7538 said that this was his second glider
flight."

So, on his second glider flight ever the pupil was unable to maintain
station behind the tug. No surprise there then!

Maybe. In my experience, it would have been surprising. Of course I
have never actually trained a glider student who did not have powered
aircraft experience (this is the norm in the US rather than the
exception), which certainly makes a difference. However, I find it
nromal to have the student flying on tow and maintaining position on
the FIRST flight, and taking off on the second. That's not every
student, but it's not rare either.

There is nothing in the NTSB report to suggest that the accident was the
fault of the pupil in anyway whatever.

It is the instructor who is supposed to prevent things going disastrously
wrong, that is what an instructor (and the coaching of instructors) is for.

Yes of course. There's no question that when a student under
instruction mishandles the aircraft, the fault is with the instructor
for not correcting unless the student does something really egregious.
An instructor who can't correct a student's mishandling of the tow
(especially on an early flight) isn't much of an instructor.

"If a trainee cannot fly the glider in a reasonably straight and coordinated
line in free flight, they won't be able to handle an aerotow.

This is of course correct. However, it's a rare power pilot who can't
fly the glider in a reasonably straight and coordinated line in free
flight. Since, as I have previously mentioned, in the US the glider
student without power experience is the exception rather than the
norm, this leads to a different perspective on when to introduce
aerotow. Aerotow on the first lesson is common in the US for just
that reason - and of course if the student is able to maintain
position on tow for 1500 ft unassisted, I see no reason not to let him
try a takeoff, even if that is his second glider flight. No point
holding back and frustrating a capable student.

Michael

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message ...
So I guess the old fart forgot to signup for SBP. Since this reversal must
be a matter of public record, where is it filed? From science to politcial
science. Let's see, coroner appointed or elected there

Frank

Frank, you are an inconsiderate a--hole. I too strongly object to you
calling the tow pilot an "old fart." Show some respect. Tow pilots
are there to help everyone have fun, not to go down in flames and be
shown disrespect.

Someone please find out who Frank is and ban him from whatever
gliderport the scum bag frequents. Better yet, someone please kick
his ignorant ass and any one else's who shows disrespect and an unsafe
attitude towards the tow.

"Le Mec" wrote in message
om...
"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
So I guess the old fart forgot to signup for SBP. Since this reversal
must
be a matter of public record, where is it filed? From science to
politcial
science. Let's see, coroner appointed or elected there

Frank

Frank, you are an inconsiderate a--hole. I too strongly object to you
calling the tow pilot an "old fart." Show some respect. Tow pilots
are there to help everyone have fun, not to go down in flames and be
shown disrespect.

Someone please find out who Frank is and ban him from whatever
gliderport the scum bag frequents. Better yet, someone please kick
his ignorant ass and any one else's who shows disrespect and an unsafe
attitude towards the tow.

Kindly read the rest of the thread for comprehension. Sometimes soaring has
a really black day. This accident had an interesting reversal of the
findings and the resulting lawsuit, if successful and significant, along
with the other struggles the AFA gliding program has suffered in recent
years, could concievably put the program under additional review and threat.
If that happens, would the USAF continue to fund the CAP soaring program?
Someone is going after the deep pockets. The ultimate fallout could be
onerous.

My comments had nothing to do with the tow pilots ability. I was talking
about the retired USAF aspect, being one myself. I'm a bona fide soaring
'nut case' and ex-USAF 'old fart'. We take good care of our tow pilots and
had to remove one from operations last year due to demonstrated
deterioration of skills and poor attitude. Personally, he never met my
standards nine years ago when I got to my present club, but he had to ground
loop the tow plane twice in one day to finally get the attention of the rest
of the club. To my surprise, recently a couple of club tow pilots have
complemented me on my towing habits on the glider end of the rope. I asked
'Don't all members tow well' to which they've responded that several have a
real struggle staying in position. Perhaps they should be more candide with
the chief instructor about those who've developed poor habits or
deteriorating skills.

My club screens potential tow pilots very carefully, perhaps too
conservatively. They are a valuable resource to us, sometimes in short
supply because we are careful. However, we've had a good run with safety
and serviceability as the tow plane engine is now 400 hours over TBO with no
yellow tags, breathing well, and nothing unexpected in the oil.
Realistically, most are over 50 and some are over 60. We owe them our
attention and concern as they are less resilient to heat and cold extremes
than when they were younger. Bowing out gracefully is hard for some, they
may have to be told. Sometimes it's hard to take a reality check when
things appear to be going smoothly. But it's better than after the fact.

If you think I'm cavalier with regard to towing and tow pilot safety, you're
dead wrong.

Now, about your attitude....I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since I
think you failed to read the complete thread before responding.

Regards,

Frank Whiteley
Colorado Soaring Association

On 11/9/04 3:05 PM, in article , "F.L.
Whiteley" wrote:


"Bullwinkle" wrote in message
...
On 11/9/04 9:55 AM, in article ,
"F.L.
Whiteley" wrote:

When things get revisionist one has to wonder. Whether pressure was
brought
to bear from outside or inside the coroner's office, we'll never know.
If
the IP wasn't willing to accept responsibility and was truly at fault,
then
there's something else wrong at the program level.

Heck, I'm becoming an grey old fart, retired USAF version. To me that's
an
endearment, but unnecessarily crass in this case. No offense intended.

SBP is a gamble. It also entails a reduction in monthly benefit if
elected.
Many don't take it as they'd rather have the larger monthly retirement
check. Lack of SBP could be a prime motivation for the lawsuit. Very
deep
pockets available.

Frank


I'm retired military myself, but am in denial about my "old-fart-hood."
Maybe I need an intervention. No offense taken.

I took full SBP, and sometimes wonder about the additional money I'd be
getting if I hadn't. Not worth it, though.

On the primary topic, my inside information indicates that the IP not only
accepted responsibility, but actually apologized to the widow. Now that's
a
standup cadet. You'll note that the cadet IP is not named in the lawsuit
(of course, cadet pockets aren't very deep, which may have something to do
with that).

As lawsuits go, I don't read this one as frivolous. JMHO, YMMV, etc.

I don't think it's frivolous either, but one wonders whether the program
will survive.


Excellent point, Frank. But I don't think this suit will do it. Even if the
widow wins, the actual money will come from some USAF-level fund for that
purpose, not from the Squadron, or even the Academy, operating budget.

Remember this accident occurred during (but near the end of) the 2-33 era.
They've had severe growing pains with the Blaniks, including pulling a wing
off an L-33 in flight (the cadet parachuted to safety), and such severe
maintenance problems that every aircraft gets a through-flight inspection by
an A&P after every flight (those darn Blanik tailwheels!). There have been
multiple lengthy fleet groundings as they try to sort things out. In their
favor, they seem to be adapting, albeit slowly.

If the program is in jeopardy (and I sincerely hope it is not), it is likely
due to things other than this lawsuit.

Bullwinkle

Bullwinkle wrote:
such severe
maintenance problems that every aircraft gets a through-flight inspection by
an A&P after every flight (those darn Blanik tailwheels!).


Do the Blaniks have engines? Why an A&P instead of an A? Hmmm...
maybe to pump up the mechanic's rate! ;P


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Does anyone have information regarding the final outcome of this lawsuit? Also does anyone have the final NTSB report with their findings as to the cause? I have the following but it does not seem to clearly define a result of their investigation.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...GA039 &akey=1

Walt