GLIDING INTERNATIONAL -- RESEARCH

In the British Gliding Association Aircraft Accident Report: Ref 2019005 they never talk about why they never attempted to start the motor. Does anybody know why they never started the motor and decided to land in the ocean instead?

Boggs

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:53:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Eric 6 i know of personally in the last 2 years

The NTSB database of glider accidents makes interesting - if sobering - reading. There is however nothing in it to suggest that motorgliders are overrepresented or that low performance gliders are underrepresented. There is the usual rash of spin-stalls on landing. For 2018-2019 I count 4-5 that involved dependence on motors. There are 13 non-motorgliders involved in off field landing accidents and probably several others too low to find an off field site to crash in (but no witnesses survive so I did not count). Certainly it cannot be said that motorglider pilots are alone in hoping for miracles (whether it be that elusive thermal or a motor start). One can rationally argue that if the engine start success rate is 90% and those 13 gliders had been motorgliders, there would have been 10+ fewer accidents and perhaps motorgliders should have lower insurance rates. The very best insurance for either type remains staying within easy glide of an airfield.

Of the engine involved ones, 3 were electric, 1 jet, and one R912 engine, which suggests that electric (in their current state of development) is not a silver bullet for reliability. Or perhaps that those pilots believed too much in their reliability.

Ahh UH, nothing a few pieces of white tape wont fix lol

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 5:17:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Ahh UH, nothing a few pieces of white tape wont fix lol

Owner did not want to keep the bullet hole stickers on it.
Why didn't the Kevlar wing skins stop the bullet?
Sigh
UH

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 7:03:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Why didn't the Kevlar wing skins stop the bullet?

Obviously, armor piercing rounds,
'cause Texans don't mess around, silly.

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 10:28:49 PM UTC-8, wrote:
And 2G you missed dang near the ENTIRE point of my posts but so be it. I will make you a deal, you step down from the lofty heights of high performance soaring and race in the 1-26 nationals this year (I will even supply you with the machine) and whoever wins pays the other guys insurance for the year.

What a deal! Who knows you might even have a whole lot of fun and that insurance bill you will be paying of mine won’t put that big of a dent in your wallet.

That's because you DIDN'T HAVE A POINT, just a baseless accusation not backed by the facts. I believe Costello, and the other insurance companies, do a good job of pricing the policies to reflect the risks. After all, they have the claims data.

Tom

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 2:06:30 AM UTC-8, Charlie Quebec wrote:
It is utterly ludicrous to claim that insurance premiums don’t rise when there are more accidents. Typical 2G bull****.

What is "utterly ludicrous" is to claim that events that NEVER HAPPENED will raise insurance premiums, which is the bull**** you're dealing.

Tom

You don’t do reading comprehension do you? I’d call you a half with, but that would be insulting to half Wii’s.

Do you not understand the English language, try googling reading comprehension, another abject failure of the US education system?

Hi John,
I wrote you an email at the office@gliding ... adress - didi it get through?
Kind regards,
Michail