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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
In article ,
John Galloway wrote: At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: 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? People die in collisions. Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up on a runway but many have from approach control failures. I repeat what I said in my original message on this subject: If you are flying so unsafely that the first moment at which you open the airbrakes (and subsquently hear the gear alert) is in the final few feet of your approach when you're vulnerable to a heavy landing caused by control fumbling, then you're an accident waiting to happen anyway. Gear warnings happen at the *TOP* of final approach, when the airbrakes are opened after an overshoot has been identified; Or, in some countries, during base leg when the brakes are unlocked. I challenge you to highlight even *ONE* way that a fumble of the controls at that stage of the flight could lead to injuries from a mishandled landing. No amount of technological trickery, checklists, or control finesse will save you if you're not opening the brakes until 10 feet off the deck. That means you're participating in a ridiculously low-energy approach, with an extremely poorly-planned circuit (or no circuit at all), and if you do that often enough for the gear warning to represent a significant risk then I contend that *you will kill yourself*, gear warning or no gear warning. As Graeme Cant says, the gear warning is a red herring. People who injure themselves by putting the wheel down at the last minute when the buzzer sounds have deeper, more serious training problems than anything we've discussed in this thread. - mark |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
In article ,
John Galloway wrote: At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: 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? People die in collisions. Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up on a runway but many have from approach control failures. Oh, one more thing: You've drawn a distinction between accidents in which people die, and accidents in which property is damaged, in support of a point of view which says that warning devices intended to prevent property damage shouldn't be fitted. Just clarify for me: Does that mean you're arguing that accidents which result in property damage are "less unacceptable" than accidents which result in injury or death? Aviation safety has progressed to its present manageable levels due to a history of participants determining that *no* accident is acceptable, and that predictable accidents ought to be managed before they occur. From a safety management point of view it makes no difference whether an accident results in an injury or not; An accident is an accident, and its risk ought to be managed to the best of our abilities regardless. A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much as you want, but we've built up a track record which says those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings? - mark |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Mark Newton wrote:
A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? You ain't a real man unless you've done a gear up landing. Checklists and warning devices are for whimps. Stefan |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much as you want, but we've built up a track record which says those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings? So, your argument is that all pilots will land with the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Stefan wrote in
: You ain't a real man unless you've done a gear up landing. Checklists and warning devices are for whimps. Stefan You have found the essence of the argument, Stefan. "REAL pilots don't need no stinking gear warning." -Bob Korves (who has had several "reminders" from the gear warning) |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Being an ex-limey (if such is really possible), I'll point out that the
logic of this rejection of gear warning devices is brought to you by the same people that, at the beginning of WWI, didn't provide parchutes to their pilots. They were concerned that pilots would bail-out as opposed to giving it their all in the fight. A few hapless pilots bailed out without a chute anyway, as it represented a better way to die than being burned alive in the cockpit. bumper (saved once by the gear warning in a Mooney) |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
John Galloway wrote:
Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up on a runway but many have from approach control failures. This is an interesting discussion. It's the first time I have encountered an aspect of aviation in which pilots were discouraged from adapting themselves through education and training to the design of the aircraft and the requirements of the operation to be conducted If I am ever on final approach without gear extended, I want someone to announce that fact. I will make the decision whether or not to attempt to extend the gear or to land the aircraft without gear extended. Only I know which is the right choice at that moment. To suggest otherwise seems to indicate that the pilot is to be treated as a perennial student, and/or that students are being given a license before they are adequately prepared. I doubt that a lowest-common-denominator standard is representative of British aviation in general, and I hope we never see it in the USA. Jack |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?
They couldn't stop audio varios They couldn't stop GPS usage They couldn't stop IGC flight recorders They couldn't stop the proliferation of PDA navigation systems ....... Give 'em something to hope for! I feel a long winter coming on. Ian |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Mark,
An alarm like FLARM that reduces the risk of collisions - an accident type that carries a high risk of death - and doesn't inadvertently increase another type of accident - is clearly a good thing. An gear alarm that may or may not prevent lots of trivial accidents that result only in minor (pilot's own) property damage damage but that has been implicated in a smaller number of accidents of a type known to be a potential cause of serious injury surely can't have a clear cut safety case. Perhaps: for private single seaters where the only risk is to the pilot/owner then fit one if you want to. for club retractable 2 seaters where there is a risk of second party injury then don't fit an gear alarm. At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: In article , John Galloway wrote: At 00:06 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: 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? People die in collisions. Nobody ever died simply by landing a glider wheel-up on a runway but many have from approach control failures. Oh, one more thing: You've drawn a distinction between accidents in which people die, and accidents in which property is damaged, in support of a point of view which says that warning devices intended to prevent property damage shouldn't be fitted. Just clarify for me: Does that mean you're arguing that accidents which result in property damage are 'less unacceptable' than accidents which result in injury or death? Aviation safety has progressed to its present manageable levels due to a history of participants determining that *no* accident is acceptable, and that predictable accidents ought to be managed before they occur. From a safety management point of view it makes no difference whether an accident results in an injury or not; An accident is an accident, and its risk ought to be managed to the best of our abilities regardless. A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much as you want, but we've built up a track record which says those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings? - mark |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Gear Warning
Isn't the fact of the matter that retractable undercarriages
are a 'Murphy's Law' item that it is possible to get wrong, whatever systems you put in place. There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have already landed gear up, and those who will some day. Regretably I am in the former category, but so far only once (touch wood), and without any damage, as I made an otherwise good landing on smooth grass. At the time we were taught downwind checks, but on the flight in question I got low and almost out of range of the airfield, so joined straight onto base leg. No downwind leg, therefore no checks carried out! In this case an U/C warning device would have saved me from an embarrassing mistake and having to buy a large round of drinks in the bar afterwards! We also had one serious accident (badly damaged glider plus a damaged back for the pilot) at our site, when the pilot suddenly remembered that he had left his wheel up in his glider (which was not fitted with an U/C warning device) late on final approach, tried to change hands to lower it, and crashed nose first into the ground during the attempt. The arguments against fitting gear warnings, eg. a distraction late on finals, are not all one way! For several years the British Gliding Asscociation discouraged the use of gear up warning devices, and for a period also didn't even allow instructors to teach downwind checks. Not very surprisingly we had a whole spate of wheel up landings about two years later, as the trainees from this period progressed on to retractable gear types. We now teach a short 'pre-landing' check, that can be expanded as necessary. Knowing that you are at least supposed to do such a check before landing, has to be a help, but doesn't guarantee that you will get it right. Common mistakes are saying 'fixed gear' when it is retractable (especially if most of your flights have been done in fixed wheel trainers) , or forgetting to retract the wheel in the first place and then retracting it during the checks that you have remembered to do. A post take-off check then also becomes necessary. In my opinion, gear up warnings should be fitted to gliders as a backup to pre-landing checks. If you don't unlock the airbrakes until you are are just about to round out, you are guilty of poor airmanship anyway! Derek Copeland At 12:12 25 November 2005, Don Johnstone wrote: At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote: A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident. Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming, yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it? I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much as you want, but we've built up a track record which says those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings? So, your argument is that all pilots will land with the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted? |
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 |