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

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

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

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?

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)

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)

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

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

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

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?