Towpilot fatality in Oregon

Agree in general, but chances are that some readers on RAS know the
facts and can share with us much faster than the NTSB will, and indeed
that seems to be the case here.
We all take it personally when one of us get killed, and want to know
why.
Thanks to all who contributed.

Ramy

On Aug 28, 5:48*pm, Scott wrote:
Ramy wrote:
I expected someone will come up sooner or later with the lame request
to wait for the "official accident report". It is comments like this
which often prevent useful discussions about accidents and how to
prevent them. I for one learned much more about accidents from RAS
then from "official accident reports". Are you referring to the
usually useless NTSB reports, or to accident reports in the soaring
magazine which may take months or years to come if at all? We had too
many fatalities this year yet I don't recall seeing any "official
accident reports". Meanwhile more could die from the same reasons.
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to the
field and spun in. *What is learned by that? *Especially if the real
cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the wing to
fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at least
some preliminary FACTS. *That's just the way I work, I guess.....

Scott



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Aug 28, 9:07*pm, Ramy wrote:
Agree in general, but chances are that some readers on RAS know the
facts and can share with us much faster than the NTSB will, and indeed
that seems to be the case here.
We all take it personally when one of us get killed, and want to know
why.
Thanks to all who contributed.

Ramy

On Aug 28, 5:48*pm, Scott wrote:

Ramy wrote:
I expected someone will come up sooner or later with the lame request
to wait for the "official accident report". It is comments like this
which often prevent useful discussions about accidents and how to
prevent them. I for one learned much more about accidents from RAS
then from "official accident reports". Are you referring to the
usually useless NTSB reports, or to accident reports in the soaring
magazine which may take months or years to come if at all? We had too
many fatalities this year yet I don't recall seeing any "official
accident reports". Meanwhile more could die from the same reasons.
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to the
field and spun in. *What is learned by that? *Especially if the real
cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the wing to
fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at least
some preliminary FACTS. *That's just the way I work, I guess.....

Scott

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Details on an accident may come out early, others may come out years
later and never be part of the official record. I know of at least
two here in Colorado that are rather different than the official
findings. Can't fault the investigators as the information just
wasn't available to them at the time of the investigations.

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Scott wrote:
Ramy wrote:
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to
the field and spun in. What is learned by that? Especially if the
real cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the
wing to fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at least
some preliminary FACTS. That's just the way I work, I guess.....

We have some preliminary facts: Pawnee, crash, fatality, glider OK,
Creswell, Oregon, etc. How long do you want to wait for more facts? How
many facts do you need? My experience is we often don't have "enough"
facts to conclusively understand an accident, even the year or so later
when NTSB report is issued.

RAS isn't a court of law trying to issue a fair judgment. We don't need
"all the facts" to have discussions that leaven the pain of losing a
fellow pilot, or goad us into rethinking about what we do when get into
our towplane or glider, and what we should be doing.

That is just the way most of us work.

Yes, you have said facts. Did the Pawnee lose a wing? Stall? Carb
Ice? What is the lesson in a Pawnee that crashed in Oregon with a
fatality, other vehicle OK, etc.? What lesson do you take away from
this? Keep the wings on? Use carb heat? Fly the airplane? All good
advice, but something we ordinarily do on every (normal) flight....

The basic facts are that someone (or more than one) screwed up. Be it the
pilot of the tow plane the glider pilot or the engineers.

The basic cause is probably one we have seen many times before,
speculation as to cause, pointing the finger of blame only add to the
confusion.

Experience shows that rumour becomes fact it also shows that no matter
what happens we will get debate.

Expecting witnesses to speak out before the enquiry is complete would in
my opinion be wrong, what someone sees is not always the complete answer.

Our sport is dangerous even more so if you do not take care with flying or
maintainance.

Heathly discussion is always helpful, especially to the new guys, but it
is a matter of degrees and remembering that is what it is.

In the event of a technical problem one would expect a bulletin me to be
issued as soon as possible, in the event of a pilot screw up we will just
have to sit and wait.

We all know in todays climate of blame culture we have to be especially
carefull about what we say and print -- but that should not stifle safety
awareness.

Just my thoughts

Dave



At 03:19 29 August 2009, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Aug 28, 9:07=A0pm, Ramy wrote:
Agree in general, but chances are that some readers on RAS know the
facts and can share with us much faster than the NTSB will, and indeed
that seems to be the case here.
We all take it personally when one of us get killed, and want to know
why.
Thanks to all who contributed.

Ramy

On Aug 28, 5:48=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Ramy wrote:
I expected someone will come up sooner or later with the lame
request
to wait for the "official accident report". It is comments like
this
which often prevent useful discussions about accidents and how to
prevent them. I for one learned much more about accidents from RAS
then from "official accident reports". Are you referring to the
usually useless NTSB reports, or to accident reports in the
soaring
magazine which may take months or years to come if at all? We had
too
many fatalities this year yet I don't recall seeing any
"official
accident reports". Meanwhile more could die from the same
reasons.
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to
me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what
ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as
well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to
the
field and spun in. =A0What is learned by that? =A0Especially if the
rea=
l
cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the
wing
t=
o
fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at
least
some preliminary FACTS. =A0That's just the way I work, I guess.....

Scott

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Details on an accident may come out early, others may come out years
later and never be part of the official record. I know of at least
two here in Colorado that are rather different than the official
findings. Can't fault the investigators as the information just
wasn't available to them at the time of the investigations.

On Aug 29, 3:45*am, Dave Martin wrote:
The basic facts are that someone (or more than one) screwed up. *Be it the
pilot of the tow plane the glider pilot or the engineers.

The basic cause is probably one we have seen many times before,
speculation as to cause, pointing the finger of blame only add to the
confusion. *

Experience shows that rumour becomes fact it also shows that no matter
what happens we will get debate.

Expecting witnesses to speak out before the enquiry is complete would in
my opinion be wrong, what someone sees is not always the complete answer.

Our sport is dangerous even more so if you do not take care with flying or
maintainance.

Heathly discussion is always helpful, especially to the new guys, but it
is a matter of degrees and remembering that is what it is.

In the event of a technical problem one would expect a bulletin me to be
issued as soon as possible, in the event of a pilot screw up we will just
have to sit and wait.

We all know in todays climate of blame culture we have to be especially
carefull about what we say and print -- but that should not stifle safety
awareness.

Just my thoughts

Dave *

At 03:19 29 August 2009, Frank Whiteley wrote:



On Aug 28, 9:07=A0pm, Ramy *wrote:
Agree in general, but chances are that some readers on RAS know the
facts and can share with us much faster than the NTSB will, and indeed
that seems to be the case here.
We all take it personally when one of us get killed, and want to know
why.
Thanks to all who contributed.

Ramy

On Aug 28, 5:48=A0pm, Scott *wrote:

Ramy wrote:
I expected someone will come up sooner or later with the lame
request
to wait for the "official accident report". It is comments like
this
which often prevent useful discussions about accidents and how to
prevent them. I for one learned much more about accidents from RAS
then from "official accident reports". Are you referring to the
usually useless NTSB reports, or to accident reports in the
soaring
magazine which may take months or years to come if at all? We had
too
many fatalities this year yet I don't recall seeing any
"official
accident reports". Meanwhile more could die from the same
reasons.
I'm with Kirk and also hope that if something will ever happen to
me
people will discuss it right away and try to learn from it.

Ramy

Just to play devil's advocate...what can be learned from "what
ifs"?

If I weren't there to physically witness the accident, I might as
well
say the engine quit and someone made a 180 degree turn to return to
the
field and spun in. =A0What is learned by that? =A0Especially if the
rea=
l
cause was something such as a forgotten bolt or pin, causing the
wing
t=
o
fold.

I myself prefer to wait for an investigation where there are at
least
some preliminary FACTS. =A0That's just the way I work, I guess......

Scott

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Details on an accident may come out early, others may come out years
later and never be part of the official record. *I know of at least
two here in Colorado that are rather different than the official
findings. *Can't fault the investigators as the information just
wasn't available to them at the time of the investigations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is just one more statement missing to complete the this thread
for now. That should be coming from the pilot of the glider. What
did he experienced to make him release?
Bela

The glider pilot is way too upset to say anything here. It was his
second solo flight and he feels very bad, but it doesnot appear to
have been caused by anything he did. The line got very slack so he
released and returned to the runway. It seems that the tug had
serious problems forcing him to land, not crash, in a field, which
then caught fire . There are accounts from the ground that the plane
sputtered and another of possible smoke or flames. In almost every
plane crash you can find some one on the ground that heard the plane
sputter though, even if it's a jet, but that's what we know at this
point. I am obviously in favor of disseminating what information we
have and I'm trying hard to keep from saying anything that would upset
anyone involved. I think it is very important to talk about
accidents. Way too many clubs and operations work to hide the
accidents that happen at their sites, and I really disagree with that
kind of attitude. We need to learn from our accidents and talk about
them openly and be very careful to not make it difficult to talk about
this by being nasty about it. If you don’t want to be involved,
don’t read it.


Gary Boggs
1309 16th St.
Hood River, Oregon.
97031
www.nwskysports.com
503-708-8869

On Aug 28, 11:27*pm, "
wrote:

some of us also fly Pawnee towplanes
and have a certain interest in what happened. *

not saying anything about
the possible causes of
an accident
does not help those of us still practising the activity!

First, forgive an input on this tragic event from “the other side of
the pond”, but I am a towplane pilot, too.

I appreciate that in the long term there will be a formal report, but
in the short term it must be possible to say SOMETHING about the
circumstances. If only to (probably) rule out some causes. This
should not be difficult or embarrassing, if done sensibly.

When I was in the military I was involved in quite a few inquiries
into accidents. The RAF system is that the Board of Inquiry has to
make a "48 hour report" of what is known at that time, and whether any
immediate measures could be recommended at that early stage, to lessen
risks to others. Early recommendations might include inspections,
changes of components or to operating procedures, even "grounding" in
extreme cases. The "48 hour report" does not compromise any long-term
findings or recommendations, and the system works well.

Turning to this tragic accident, in very general terms, what happened?

That cannot be "secret", surely?

In particular, what were the approximate flight paths of the towplane
and also of the glider? That will indicate a lot, and rule out some
causes such as structural failure (my club uses a 235hp Pawnee amongst
others, so I have a definite interest!)

A possible cause could be engine failure (full or partial, the latter
often being more difficult to deal with), although landing straight
ahead should not normally have fatal consequences. Did the towplane
turn after releasing the glider? Someone must know.

Also, with any towplane fatal I always wonder whether it was one of
those "tug upsets" caused by the glider getting too high, pulling the
tug tail up to the extent that the tailplane stalls, with consequent
large loss of height to the tug. Many years ago in the UK we had some
of these, and the BGA changed its instruction for aero tow and also
for tug pilots. We have not had a "tug upset" on this side of the
pond for some time, but tug pilots now watch the rear-view mirror much
more carefully for the glider getting high, particularly near the
ground. If so, the hand moves towards the release in case the glider
pilot does not correct, and glider pilots are now taught to sit just
above the towplane slipstream rather than higher, as in the past.

There seems to be a dearth of basic information about what happened in
this tragic case. Since the issue has been raised in this forum, it
would be useful to use the same forum for other towplane pilots to
know more.

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

I just put together and signed off as airworthy our Pawnee and am
being towed behind it with commercial ride passengers. I want all the
info I can get to perform my tasks to the best of my ability. thank
you, Haven

Ian Strachan wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:27 pm, "
wrote:

some of us also fly Pawnee towplanes
and have a certain interest in what happened.

This may already be known to you, and it may have nothing to do with
this accident, but it appears that Pawnees have been built with three
different types of fuel tanks, with one type accounting for a
disproportionate share of post-crash fires. In 1987 the U.S. NTSB issued
the following recommendation to Piper Aircraft regarding the higher
incidence of post-crash fire fatalities of those aircraft having a
fiberglass fuel tank:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1987/A87_100.pdf

The accident aircraft had a serial number of 25-468, so if the NTSB
recommendation was not followed for that aircraft and it still had the
same tank, it may have had a fiberglass fuel tank and therefore among
the group showing the highest percentage of fatalities and injuries due
to post-crash fires.

Turning to this tragic accident, in very general terms, what happened?

That cannot be "secret", surely?

Gary Boggs' posts have the most pertinent information. Also, see news
video link I include below.

In particular, what were the approximate flight paths of the towplane
and also of the glider? That will indicate a lot, and rule out some
causes such as structural failure (my club uses a 235hp Pawnee amongst
others, so I have a definite interest!)

A possible cause could be engine failure (full or partial, the latter
often being more difficult to deal with), although landing straight
ahead should not normally have fatal consequences. Did the towplane
turn after releasing the glider? Someone must know.

The towplane landed approximately straight ahead into a field at the
north end of the runway. There is a local TV news video at the following
URL, and in it they have a shot from a helicopter where you can see the
area of blackend burned grass where he landed at about 1:28 into the
video:

http://kezi.com/news/local/138834

Here's a Google map link of the airport:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...66047&t=h&z=15

Jim Logajan wrote:
[...] but it appears that Pawnees have been built with three
different types of fuel tanks, with one type accounting for a
disproportionate share of post-crash fires.

Sorry - meant to end the sentence with "post-crash fire fatalities."