Finish Gate Accident no. 2

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...
At 21:00 26 March 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:

So, we shouldn't weed out anybody because we can't
prevent all the
accidents
with one set of entry criteria? If just one marginal
pilot is counseled to
get more current, it's a win.


I also never said that there aren't pilots in need
of better technical skill or
judgement, or that we shouldn't try to weed out pilots
who are dangerous
due to deficiencies in these areas. The hard part it
how.

I would add that it seems to me even harder to come
up with a standard test for competence in something as complex as
competition
soaring, particularly given all the exogenous factors in flying.
The 'drop a wing on takeoff and you're out' rule is a good example of how
hard this could be.

How do you allow for glider type, ballast, crosswind,
density altitude, wing runner skill? I had a bad wing run (didn't take a
single
step) on a cross-wind day in and ASW-27B full of water. I had to abort
when the wing went down. Did I flunk? I can just see the screaming match.

Best to empower the CD to check pilots informally -
particularly the
unknown/unseeded ones.

9B

The wing drop thing is easy to judge. Just watch the ailerons. If they
don't start to move until the wing hits the ground or nearly so, it's pilot
error. If they move to the stop as soon as the glider tilts a tiny bit yet
the wing still goes down, he gets a pass. Any good instructor, towpilot, or
any good pilot for that matter, can watch a takeoff and get a good idea of
how well a pilot flies.

BTW, there's a lot of heat AND light in this thread. I'll bet some folks
are thinking about dehydration and how well they fly takeoffs. Thinking's a
good thing.

Bill Daniels

August 4, 1086..............John you really are older than I
thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



wrote in message
ups.com...
Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)

ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots, then started a
climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot sees another ship
in the pattern and turns away to avoid a
conflict.....................Let's stop the action for a moment and
discuss some things. This pilot may have been suffering from the
affects of dehydration, but his senses were working well enough to find
the airport (per GPS) and make his high speed, low altitude pass
through the finish gate. He responded to the "Good Finish" from the
gate. He should have been able to complete the flight and make a safe
landing. Why didn't he?

Resume action...................Pilot leaves airport boundries and
crashes in a housing area about 2 blocks north of the airport. He
struck power lines and then hit a pick up truck squarely in the drivers
door. The door collapsed inward absorbing a lot of energy. The whole
truck then moved sideways until the wheels hit the curb, breaking both
axles. The pilot received serious injuries to his feet and legs, but
made a full recovery. I believe he owes his life to the great big shock
absorber he ran into (truck).

Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that crashed, severly
dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything after breakfast.
What does that mean? It means he functioned all day long, right up to
the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew some 60 miles
cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny. What does all this
have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated mind is still
functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed, tasks. It's the
unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.

Had the GPS Finish Cylinder been available, would the outcome of this
accident been any different? The pilot was functioning well enough to
find the airport and he had a plan. It was to finish and pull-up. Had
the finish cylinder been in use, his plan would have been to finish (1
mile) and land. Doc Cannon (NT) will tell you the simple act of pulling
up is enough to shut down a dehydrated mind. I know, some still make a
hard pull-up at the 1 mile mark. I don't, because it is no longer
necessary. I am most likely to make a gentle pull-up and then just
allow any excess speed to bleed off as I fly the remaining mile to the
airport.

JJ Sinclair
(2 of 5)

Andy,

I was not implying that anyone is stupid. I would never do that,
either. I was trying in my poor manner to suggest that I was a
knucklehead for flying at all. I've been around soaring most of my life
and I'll tell you some of the most gifted people I know are glider
pilots. I'm not a stupid man, myself. I made a dumbass decision to fly
yesterday, and the results could have been really bad. So, thanks for
making an exception for me. The medication was Naproxen, an
anti-inflamatory with some known side effects. From the days
activities, I was definitely dehydrated. If urine color is a good
indicator of that, it was darker than I remember it for some time. My
blood sugar was probably low, and I have low blood pressure on top of
all of that. Not a good combination, but I'm here to talk about it.
Again, I made a bonehead decision, and got away with it... this time.

Sorry if my post sounded bad, as it wasn't intended.

Jack Womack

It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide at
the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
points, but which is both:

1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
and
2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.

Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
points and safety of the landing?

Or am I misconstuing this.

At 22:00 26 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Two different accidents here, the Uvalde ASW-20 driver
didn't loose consciouness and remembered things like
85 knots. Another crash that I know about the pilot
didn't remember anything after breakfast.
JJ

At 18:00 26 March 2005, Hl Falbaum wrote:
There is an alternate, more plausible explanation for
the lack of memory.
Fairly minor concussions can produce a phenomenon called
retrograde amnesia.
This is seen in motor vehicle accidents and falls from
heights. So the brain
would be functioning fairly normally, and not on 'autopilot'
untill the
accident. Then after consciouness is regained, the
person reccalls nothing
for a variable period of time prior to the accident.
BTW how do we know then
that the spped was 85 kt?

--
Hartley Falbaum, M.D., FAAOS
ASW27B 'KF' USA
wrote in message
roups.com...
Uvalde, Texas, August 4, 1086 (15 meter National Championships)

ASW-20 crossed the finish line at 50 feet and 85 knots,
then started a
climbing turn to position himself on down-wind. Pilot
sees another ship
in the pattern and turns away to avoid a

Let's discuss dehydration a bit. I know a pilot that
crashed, severly
dehydrated, at 4PM and he doesn't remember anything
after breakfast.
What does that mean? It means he functioned all day
long, right up to
the accident. He took off, towed, thermaled and flew
some 60 miles
cross country to make his rendezvous with destiny.
What does all this
have to do with anything? Just this; A dehydrated
mind is still
functioning and can perform simple, well rehearsed,
tasks. It's the
unexpected that gets you, like a conflict in the pattern.


JJ Sinclair
(2 of 5)








Mark J. Boyd

Jack,

Maybe as much as a half-dozen times this has happened
to me before or during a flight.

I pride myself on a very good 'mission go' record,
perhaps 98-99%. But several times I have flown on
super hot days, and just not been able to well above
the inversion layer, and I'm hot, and I got some nasty
water or a bad sandwich or something.

Landed, and had to explain to a bunch of folks that
I wasn't gonna fly any more that day because I just
wasn't feeling great.

No specific thing, just knew I was off. Maybe didn't
drink enough before the flight, maybe too much, maybe
I just hadn't had a good run or bikeride for a while
and was just weirdly out of shape.

So there's other people who are in the same boat
sometimes.

At 20:00 26 March 2005, Jack wrote:
Yesterday, about the first soaring day we have had
in Houston, I
decided to fly. I had taken a 1-hour walk that morning.
I had done some
things around the house. I went to the airport and
helped someone else
assemble a ship, then assembled mine. I drank normal
amounts of fluids.
I drank a 16 oz. bottle of water just prior to takeoff.
I flew only 49
minutes. Someone had to tell me to raise my gear after
launch. I felt
fine at first, but soon began to make little mistakes.
I couldn't seem
to keep up with the thermals. I did some cruising around
and some
dolphin flying, and realized I was getting airsick.
I've never felt
airsick in my life. I couldn't put it together. I found
8 knots up and
flew a couple of minutes in that before finally realizing
I was not
feeling better, and not flying better. Finally I pulled
the flaps down
at 4600 feet and made a bee line for the airport IP.
I got there fast
with 90 degrees of flap. I declared my intent to land
and proceeded to
do so. At about 10 feet, my radio crackeld 'LANDING
GEAR!' and I barely
got it down in time.

Some facts: I am taking a medication that can cause
these effects. I
had no lunch. I haven't flown seriously for a dozen
years. This is my
first ship with a retractable gear. I am certain I
was dehydrated.

Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT
DOES! I should have
been more familiar with the medication. I should have
had lunch. I
should have come down at the first sign that things
weren't going well.
Actually, I shouldn't have flown at all, though the
beginning of the
flight went fine.

True self-evaluation can possibly save your life. I
won't fly again
until I know the effects of this medicine are gone.
I will fly a lot
more before attending Region 10 this year. Unfortunately,
people make
bad decisions. I got away with it... this time.

Jack Womack


Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
It is simply not true that the only people who crash
are inexperienced
'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
criteria.

I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel
better,
but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement,
but
most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
that was both unpleasant and inevitable.

Those who don't learn from the past...

9B


Mark J. Boyd

Jack,
Thanks for sharing this experience with the rest of us. I really
respect you for being so honest about your flight. I know many pilots
who would not. It is always a great reminder that ALL pilots have bad
days and that the good ones recognize it and are honest about it so the
rest of us can learn from their experiences.

Bruno

In article ,
M B wrote:

It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide at
the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
points, but which is both:

1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
and
2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.

Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
points and safety of the landing?

It seems to me that 85 knots is a little too slow to do a full circuit
from, but plenty do do a 180, or a 360, or an abbreviated circuit
similar to a rope-break exercise.

Someone gave a figure of 9 ft of pullup for each knot of speed. That's
about right for speeds around 110 knots, but is a gross overestimate for
speeds around 80 or 90 knots (and an underestimate for higher speeds).

The true numbers are quadratic. If you want a rule of thumb I suggest
the following:

take speed in knots, double it, drop off the last digit,
square what is left giving height for a pull-up in feet.

This calculation gives just over 90% of the theoretical maximum pull-up,
which is proabably not a bad figure taking into the drag loses.

Note that this is for a pull up to a zero speed hammerhead. For a pull
up to flying speed you need to subtract the appropriate height for your
circuit speed e.g. 100 ft for 50 knots.


examples, from zero-height finish, 50 knot circuit speed:

50 knots - 100 - 10, squared = 100 ft gain, 0 ft AGL @ 50 kt
60 knots - 120 - 12, squared = 144 ft gain, 44 ft AGL @ 50 kt
80 knots - 160 - 16, squared = 256 ft gain, 156 ft AGL @ 50 kt
90 knots - 180 - 18, squared = 324 ft gain, 224 ft AGL @ 50 kt
100 knots - 200 - 20, squared = 400 ft gain, 300 ft AGL @ 50 kt
120 knots - 240 - 24, squared = 576 ft gain, 476 ft AGL @ 50 kt
150 knots - 300 - 30, squared = 900 ft gain, 800 ft AGL @ 50 kt

A pull up from 85 knots to 50 knots will give you about a 200 ft height
gain, plus whatever height your finish was at. We give students rope
breaks at 200 ft, right? So a competent and alert pilot should have no
trouble deciding whether to land straight ahead after the pull up or do
an abbreviated circuit.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

I was in a flying camp during a holiday and after 10 days straight
flying 5-8 hrs per day cross country in hot dry weather I took off
in the ASW19 and began to get disorientation and and feeling unwell,
I elected to land back ,I was so unsure of my reaction times etc
set 65-70 knots with full brakes and let her fly to the deck leveled off
at flare height and waited for the ASW19 to settle on the runway
(5000ft long) .I got some odd looks at the way I landed .
One of the club members present was a doctor and he said
sunstroke and dehydration accummulated over the last 10 days .
I did not fly for the rest of the week.
"It was a lesson I won't forget "
"M B" wrote in message
...
Jack,

Maybe as much as a half-dozen times this has happened
to me before or during a flight.

I pride myself on a very good 'mission go' record,
perhaps 98-99%. But several times I have flown on
super hot days, and just not been able to well above
the inversion layer, and I'm hot, and I got some nasty
water or a bad sandwich or something.

Landed, and had to explain to a bunch of folks that
I wasn't gonna fly any more that day because I just
wasn't feeling great.

No specific thing, just knew I was off. Maybe didn't
drink enough before the flight, maybe too much, maybe
I just hadn't had a good run or bikeride for a while
and was just weirdly out of shape.

So there's other people who are in the same boat
sometimes.

At 20:00 26 March 2005, Jack wrote:
Yesterday, about the first soaring day we have had
in Houston, I
decided to fly. I had taken a 1-hour walk that morning.
I had done some
things around the house. I went to the airport and
helped someone else
assemble a ship, then assembled mine. I drank normal
amounts of fluids.
I drank a 16 oz. bottle of water just prior to takeoff.
I flew only 49
minutes. Someone had to tell me to raise my gear after
launch. I felt
fine at first, but soon began to make little mistakes.
I couldn't seem
to keep up with the thermals. I did some cruising around
and some
dolphin flying, and realized I was getting airsick.
I've never felt
airsick in my life. I couldn't put it together. I found
8 knots up and
flew a couple of minutes in that before finally realizing
I was not
feeling better, and not flying better. Finally I pulled
the flaps down
at 4600 feet and made a bee line for the airport IP.
I got there fast
with 90 degrees of flap. I declared my intent to land
and proceeded to
do so. At about 10 feet, my radio crackeld 'LANDING
GEAR!' and I barely
got it down in time.

Some facts: I am taking a medication that can cause
these effects. I
had no lunch. I haven't flown seriously for a dozen
years. This is my
first ship with a retractable gear. I am certain I
was dehydrated.

Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT
DOES! I should have
been more familiar with the medication. I should have
had lunch. I
should have come down at the first sign that things
weren't going well.
Actually, I shouldn't have flown at all, though the
beginning of the
flight went fine.

True self-evaluation can possibly save your life. I
won't fly again
until I know the effects of this medicine are gone.
I will fly a lot
more before attending Region 10 this year. Unfortunately,
people make
bad decisions. I got away with it... this time.

Jack Womack


Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 18:00 26 March 2005, Bb wrote:
It is simply not true that the only people who crash
are inexperienced
'poor pilots' who could be 'weeded out' by any entry
criteria.

I'm with the Professor on this one. The worst thing
we can do in reviewing accidents is assert that the
pilot was knucklehead. This may make us all feel
better,
but we will learn very little. Some accidents are
the result of a single catastrophic misjudgement,
but
most I've looked at have resulted from a series of
decisions or circumstances that individually seemed
fairly benign, but compounded to create an outcome
that was both unpleasant and inevitable.

Those who don't learn from the past...

9B


Mark J. Boyd

Hahaha...

I'l try this in the 2-33 at Vne (about 80 knots) and
see if I get over 200 ft 'regained'

I doubt it. But then again, that's maybe off topic.
I think your calculations are for gliders that don't
fly like they have a parachute attached to the back,
right?


I'm sure even the Blanik will get numbers fairly close
to what you write, but I'lll give it a go (at altitude).

Passengers love to 'zoom' so this should be fun...

At 06:30 27 March 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
M B wrote:

It occurs to me that if someone is on final glide
at
the end of a competition, they may pick a speed (like
85 knots) which their computer says is optimal for
points, but which is both:

1) too fast for a rolling finish/landing
and
2) too slow for a pull up, turn around, and landing.

Is that an accurate assessment? Would a competition
pilot be put in a situation where he must decide between
points and safety of the landing?

It seems to me that 85 knots is a little too slow to
do a full circuit
from, but plenty do do a 180, or a 360, or an abbreviated
circuit
similar to a rope-break exercise.

Someone gave a figure of 9 ft of pullup for each knot
of speed. That's
about right for speeds around 110 knots, but is a gross
overestimate for
speeds around 80 or 90 knots (and an underestimate
for higher speeds).

The true numbers are quadratic. If you want a rule
of thumb I suggest
the following:

take speed in knots, double it, drop off the last
digit,
square what is left giving height for a pull-up in
feet.

This calculation gives just over 90% of the theoretical
maximum pull-up,
which is proabably not a bad figure taking into the
drag loses.

Note that this is for a pull up to a zero speed hammerhead.
For a pull
up to flying speed you need to subtract the appropriate
height for your
circuit speed e.g. 100 ft for 50 knots.


examples, from zero-height finish, 50 knot circuit
speed:

50 knots - 100 - 10, squared = 100 ft gain, 0 ft AGL
@ 50 kt
60 knots - 120 - 12, squared = 144 ft gain, 44 ft
AGL @ 50 kt
80 knots - 160 - 16, squared = 256 ft gain, 156 ft
AGL @ 50 kt
90 knots - 180 - 18, squared = 324 ft gain, 224 ft
AGL @ 50 kt
100 knots - 200 - 20, squared = 400 ft gain, 300 ft
AGL @ 50 kt
120 knots - 240 - 24, squared = 576 ft gain, 476 ft
AGL @ 50 kt
150 knots - 300 - 30, squared = 900 ft gain, 800 ft
AGL @ 50 kt

A pull up from 85 knots to 50 knots will give you about
a 200 ft height
gain, plus whatever height your finish was at. We
give students rope
breaks at 200 ft, right? So a competent and alert
pilot should have no
trouble deciding whether to land straight ahead after
the pull up or do
an abbreviated circuit.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Mark J. Boyd

Mark,

Wise pilots include a safety margin in their altitude calculations.
This is typically based on the availability of landable fields around
the finish airport, the nature of the day, and the preferences of
individual pilots. (I use +500 feet for airports with safe landing
options.) The wise pilot uses best speed to fly up to a point between 5
and 10 miles from the airport, at which point he assesses his energy
state (altitude and speed), conditions on course, and conditions at the
finish. If no changes were made at this point, he would arrive at the
finish "point" at best speed to fly with his safety altitude between
him and the ground. Assuming the aforementioned conditions favor a
flying finish, the pilot would convert his safety altitude to speed.

This is why the decision to roll to a finish or fly through the gate is
hardly split second. You've been assessing which to pursue for several
minutes based on some very simple rules (how fast am I going, how high
above my safety glide slope am I?).

I know some pilots who have fine tuned this approach into an art. For
example, a
highly successful competitor shared tactics with me after a final glide
we shared at Uvalde (he beat me by about 20 seconds in the last 5
miles). I maintained a typcial safe approach: 90 knots to 3 miles out,
then increasing my speed to roughly 110 knots for arrival at the finish
line, but he dove to nearly redline at 4 miles out. His logic went
like this:

I commited myself to a rolling finish. I new I would cross the
threshold with about 80 knots, at which point I'd pull the brakes, drop
the gear, and get myslef off the runway and stopped as quickly as I
could. This wouldn't cost me very much time. But I aslo knew that the
brown field just this side of the runway had produced noticeable lift
that last few finishes. If it was true to form, it would give me enough
extra energy for a flying finish. It was working, and I was able to
maintain speed across the length of the field, which was more than
enough to get me to the finish line with enough energy for safe pattern
insertion.

This demonstrates a much better understanding of sailplane performance
than is typical. But the lesson here was that this pilot was already
commited to a rolling finish. He was simply waiting a good reason to
change his tactics. It came.

Seems to me some pilots are so fixated on the finish line, they need a
calamity to adjust their thinking, and then don't recognize the
calamity taking shape as they lose altitude and airspeed during the
last several miles to the finish.

At a typcial nationals, 1 minute equals about 5 points. At worst, the
choice of a rolling finish will cost you no more than 10 points. The
decision to fly to the finish line at 85 knots without using your ready
reserve of altitude might cost you 5 to 8 points. Look at your
standings in the last contest you participated in... if you were more
than 200 points behind the winner, you might want to reassess your
priorities. If you're starting to get close, you might want to start
working on your skills as well as your understanding of the risk
/reward formulas for each phase of flight.