Finish Gate Accident no. 2

5Z wrote:
Ten miles out he finds himself low over marginal terrain. He starts
scratching around getting lower and lower and finally picks a poor
sport to land, catches a wingtip and cartwheels in.

This person had an airport under him and for some reason he "blew it".
So what is he going to do over some wild countryside. Looks like we
now have to figure out how to disallow low "saves".

The rules do have an incentive for avoiding these: the airport bonus and
aerotow retrives. It's hard to estimate how many accidents these rules
have prevented, but I think it helps.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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

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

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...
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

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.

Big misjudgments or a bunch of little ones will kill you just as dead. Good
pilots recognize either before they get hurt. It's the guy who thinks that
his misjudgments are " fairly benign" that crashes. What we do isn't that
forgiving.

Bill Daniels

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
oups.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)

"COLIN LAMB" wrote in message
ink.net...
But, if the accidents occur due to dehydration, then passing a test while
fully hydrated may not reduce the risk of the accident at the end of the
flight.

Sounds like we need a mandatory water consumption rule. Perhaps there is
some electronic monitoring device that can send information the the flight
logger to help enforce the rule...

At 20:00 26 March 2005, Jack wrote:

Does that make me a knucklehead? In my opinion, IT
DOES!

Okay, I'll make an exception for you...

...my point was (deep breath), if we insist on looking
no further than calling
someone stupid as the root cause of an accident, we
won't learn anything.
Furthermore, if we believe most accidents are caused
by low intelligence
(or some other inherent trait) then we should be able
to give pilots
some sort of test to see if they have what it takes
to fly.

By that logic, you would have to believe that your
specific problems really
had nothing to do with medication, dehydration, heat,
currency - you're just
a pilot who can't fly and we should be able to give
you the test and find
that out so we can exclude you from competition. This
seems to be the
argument.

I guess it's comforting to say about some poor unfortunate
- 'oh, he was a
moron - I'd NEVER to that!' It's too easy - and false
- logic.

So you guys believe that pilots like Klaus Holighaus,
Helmut Reichmann,
Robbie Robertson, Peter Masak, Bill Ivans (I could
go on and on) were all
just knuckleheads. Wow.

9B

Sorry--closer read shows you were indeed talking about two different
accidents, but the point still stands.
Dehydration indeed does strange things to the brain. Everyone should know
and use the IMSAFE checklist as a personal preflight checklist.

I=Illness
M=Medication
S=Stress
A=Alcohol (even small amounts produce long lasting effects)
F=Fatigue
E=Emotion
--
Hartley Falbaum


"John Sinclair" wrote in message
...
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)

At 23:00 26 March 2005, Michael McNulty wrote:

'COLIN LAMB' wrote in message
link.net...
But, if the accidents occur due to dehydration, then
passing a test while
fully hydrated may not reduce the risk of the accident
at the end of the
flight.

Sounds like we need a mandatory water consumption rule.
Perhaps there
is
some electronic monitoring device that can send information
the the flight
logger to help enforce the rule...


Measure the color of the liquid in the pee tube - if
it gets too dark alarms
go off! (I was trying to make a joke, but that almost
makes sense).

9B

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