Fatal glider/tow plane accident, France

On Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:36:45 AM UTC-7, Gilbert Smith wrote:
Ramy wrote:

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:31:05 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
On 5/10/2012 3:39 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 22:55 09 May 2012, Chris Nicholas wrote:
I suspect that this is because the spin recovery involves more nose down
than when in the spin, and higher forward speed when the recovery starts
to
bite, so a greater vertical component. In addition, hitting the ground
spinning often (if not always) means that the wing that hits first
absorbs
some energy.

This is anecdotal and not a representative survey perhaps, but I have
known
at least two people in my club who survived low level spins without
recovery and none who were fatally injured thus.

I have known at least one who died having initiated recovery from a spin,
and none who survived when hitting the ground in the recovery.

Better still, of course, is not to spin low down. Fly it all the way to
the
crash if short of energy.

Chris N.


There is absolutely no doubt that the chances of survival are greater if
the aircraft hits the ground in a full spin rather than a partially
recovered one. This is is why I have always said that teaching spin
recovery will do nothig to save one from harm in the most common spins,
final turns and launch failures. Teaching people to recognise and recover
BEFORE the spin occurs is much more valuable and will save you.


Being a simple-minded kind of guy, I like to keep things simple (KISS),
especially fundamental aspects of our sport. Using ground contact as an example...

If you're going to hit the ground, hit it as horizontally as possible. Under
control is nice, too, but - if survival is high on Joe Pilot's wish list -
being under control is more of an option than the verticality of ground
contact is.

Bob - Duh :-) - W.

Better than just horizontal - if you are going to crash, try hit with the wing first. The wing will observe energy and may save your life.
Was that "absorb" ?
Easy said than done though.

Ramy

Yes, I meant absorb energy. Thanks for the correction.

Ramy

On Wed, 09 May 2012 07:22:15 -0700, Papa3 wrote:

He chose to believe that the altimeter was
right despite what his eyes must have been telling him.

That sounds odd to me: here in the UK I was taught that, although you
might use the altimeter before high key and that you *never* use local
landmarks for high key or to indicate where the base leg is. Instead, you
fly the circuit using angles and distances relative to your chosen touch-
down point and how that looks on this flight.

There's a good reason for this: if you're landing out you won't have any
landmarks and the altimeter will be lying because you won't know the
field height or (possibly) the pressure setting. IOW from when I first
started to fly landings I was taught to treat each one as a potential
field landing.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:20:35 -0700, Ramy wrote:

I never look at the vario (or altimeter) in the pattern. The only
instrument you need to scan is the ASI. You should easily recognize
strong sink or lift in the pattern without the vario. In fact, you
shouldn't think in terms of sink or lift, but in terms of your angle
relative to your planned touch down. If your angle getting too low
faster than you expect - close spoilers or abbreviate the pattern, if it
is increasing than open spoilers, extend the pattern or put it in a
slip.

Spot on.

The business of treating the airbrakes like flaps also strikes me as dead
wrong / bad instruction. Flaps is flaps, but the airbrakes/spoilers
aren't flaps, don't have the same effect, and shouldn't be used that way.
Rather, they should be used to control the glide slope in exactly the
same way as a power pilot (which I'm not) uses the throttle. I really
question whether an instructor who lets a student use them like flaps
should keep his rating.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On 5/18/2012 4:19 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:

Snip...

The business of treating the airbrakes like flaps also strikes me as dead
wrong / bad instruction.

Martin,

From the perspective of someone with far more time in
large-deflection-landing-flap-equipped sailplanes than spoilered ones, I'm
uncertain what you mean by the phrase, "...treating airbrakes like flaps..."

What's below makes perfectly good sense (and is sensible) to me.

Could you elaborate on the 'airbrakes like flaps' phraseology, please? Thanks!

Bob W.


Flaps is flaps, but the airbrakes/spoilers
aren't flaps, don't have the same effect, and shouldn't be used that way.
Rather, they should be used to control the glide slope in exactly the
same way as a power pilot (which I'm not) uses the throttle. I really
question whether an instructor who lets a student use them like flaps
should keep his rating.

On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:32:45 -0600, Bob Whelan wrote:

Could you elaborate on the 'airbrakes like flaps' phraseology, please?
Thanks!

I was referring to Bill D's previous comment "Often it's an airplane
pilot with a glider 'add-on' who is subconsciously
treating spoilers like 'set and forget' flaps on a Cessna - and then
flying a Cessna pattern."

I agree that you do exactly this with the flaps on a flapped glider but
should not use the airbrakes that way: they are for glide slope
adjustment.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On 5/19/2012 7:17 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:32:45 -0600, Bob Whelan wrote:

Could you elaborate on the 'airbrakes like flaps' phraseology, please?
Thanks!

I was referring to Bill D's previous comment "Often it's an airplane
pilot with a glider 'add-on' who is subconsciously
treating spoilers like 'set and forget' flaps on a Cessna - and then
flying a Cessna pattern."

I agree that you do exactly this with the flaps on a flapped glider but
should not use the airbrakes that way: they are for glide slope
adjustment.


Ah, so. I didn't pick up on that comment, and not being an instructor have
never experienced that sort of behavior. If it happens, it must be possible,
but I'd sure hope any glider instructor ever minted (since ca. 1970, anyway)
would quickly suss out this sort of incorrect ignorance...and instruct away!

If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required to
make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden assumption:
Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps, and NOT to
large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most common in the USA.

Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary glidepath
control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and forget" devices
[maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).

Gliders which have ONLY large-deflection landing flaps for glidepath control
are another kettle of fish...as most regular RAS readers are aware. Curious
readers can search for threads with "flaps" or "V-tailed" for earlier
discussions of large-deflection landing flap characteristics...

Bob W.

On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:

If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
common in the USA.

You're right: I should have spotted that.

Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).

The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.

I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I have never seen any of this information in any aviation manual. I have asked several prominent SSA members and instructors to research this and publish an article in SOARING. Complete silence. The problem just does not exist according to the powers that be.

Brian Bange

Tunnel Vision referred to as "fixation" in books dealing with CRM (Crew Resource Management):

"Fixation on a single objective or nonperforming strategy: Fixation is common when there are multiple distractions. One method humans use to improve performance is to consciously block out things that are not directly tied to our primary objective."

My recollection is that it is covered in the FAA books (but perhaps not glider), but I couldn't give you a precise citation.

Good discussion.

Terence



On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:25:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:17:53 AM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Both are classic examples of tunnel vision we all may develope under stress. I'll go as far as claim that tunnel vision is one of the leading cause of accidents. I am sure most of us can identify a time they got tunnel vision due to stress and did not consider a better alternative even if there was no bad outcome. This is precisely why we need to speculate and learn from accidents so we can identify the problems and perhaps find a solution.

Ramy

Tunnel Vision is really an adrenaline dump. The individual suddenly realizes they are in trouble and the body dumps adrenaline into the bloodstream as a natural response. Tunnel vision, an inability to think or solve problems and blood moving to the internal organs are some of the results. I talked to the head of the psychiatric unit of the Houston Police Department about this and he enlightened me: the police know all about it and train their officers accordingly. We pilots refuse to acknowledge that we are susceptible and pay the price. The accepted practice in police departments when in a high speed chase or similar situation is to breath in and out on the slow count of four. This seems to abate or counter the effect of the adrenaline. It is all about the perceived threat. A low time pilot might feel more threatened than a high time pilot in a given situation, but any pilot can have this happen. The pilot will only be able to act on what they have been trained to do in that situation. If all they know is to fly a full pattern, then that is what they will do. The reasoning function can't work, so they can not run through other scenarios and choose the best one. This is why we have the saying, "in an emergency, pilots do not rise to the occasion, they revert to their training".

I have never seen any of this information in any aviation manual. I have asked several prominent SSA members and instructors to research this and publish an article in SOARING. Complete silence. The problem just does not exist according to the powers that be.

Brian Bange



On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:25:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:17:53 AM UTC-5, Ramy wrote:
Both are classic examples of tunnel vision we all may develope under stress. I'll go as far as claim that tunnel vision is one of the leading cause of accidents. I am sure most of us can identify a time they got tunnel vision due to stress and did not consider a better alternative even if there was no bad outcome. This is precisely why we need to speculate and learn from accidents so we can identify the problems and perhaps find a solution.

Ramy

Tunnel Vision is really an adrenaline dump. The individual suddenly realizes they are in trouble and the body dumps adrenaline into the bloodstream as a natural response. Tunnel vision, an inability to think or solve problems and blood moving to the internal organs are some of the results. I talked to the head of the psychiatric unit of the Houston Police Department about this and he enlightened me: the police know all about it and train their officers accordingly. We pilots refuse to acknowledge that we are susceptible and pay the price. The accepted practice in police departments when in a high speed chase or similar situation is to breath in and out on the slow count of four. This seems to abate or counter the effect of the adrenaline. It is all about the perceived threat. A low time pilot might feel more threatened than a high time pilot in a given situation, but any pilot can have this happen. The pilot will only be able to act on what they have been trained to do in that situation. If all they know is to fly a full pattern, then that is what they will do. The reasoning function can't work, so they can not run through other scenarios and choose the best one. This is why we have the saying, "in an emergency, pilots do not rise to the occasion, they revert to their training".

I have never seen any of this information in any aviation manual. I have asked several prominent SSA members and instructors to research this and publish an article in SOARING. Complete silence. The problem just does not exist according to the powers that be.

Brian Bange

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:

If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
common in the USA.

You're right: I should have spotted that.

Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).

The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.

I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Kestrel 19's (at least series 3 & 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the chord.. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch will add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees and is enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes. Full inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag when landing.

Frank Whiteley

All 19m Kestrels have the same control setup as far as I know. My Series
1 is the same as the 3 & 4 as far as airbrake and drag chute are
concerned. The only difference I am aware of is that there is only one
landing flap setting at 35 degrees.

Throw it all out and the landing point is going to be really close by.

Arguably, because the effect on the Kestrel glide path is so
"noticeable" when you deploy the landing flap, you could argue that the
primary glidepatnh control is the flaps. However, it is unwise to raise
the landing flap unless you have a lot of excess height. So glidepath
control is still finessed by means of the airbrakes, which are
reasonably effective. Ok - my standards may be low given that I the
previous toy was a Std Cirrus.



On 2012/05/20 2:09 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:11:42 PM UTC-6, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 12:01:09 -0600, BobW wrote:

If you'll excuse the anality, I'll note the "hidden assumption" required
to make your 2nd para above completely accurate (for readers who may be
incompletely informed on glider flap capabilities and use). Hidden
assumption: Martin's statement applies *only* to camber-changing flaps,
and NOT to large-deflection landing flaps. These latter tend to be most
common in the USA.

You're right: I should have spotted that.

Many gliders have both camber-changing flaps (which for landing patterns
should be set to their maximum [smallish] deflection to obtain maximum
reduction of stalling speed) AND airbrakes/spoilers (their primary
glidepath control devices, and which should definitely NOT be "set and
forget" devices [maybe unless one is landing in a perfect calm...]).

The only gliders on our field without airbrakes as a distinct control are
a pair of Kestrel 19s, a Mosquito and a Mini-Nimbus. All use moderate
flap deflection on landing combined with a raised flap LE for added drag.

I haven't flown any of these types. The nearest I've come was an early
ASW-20 which, of course, has both large-deflection flaps and airbrakes.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Kestrel 19's (at least series 3& 4) have airbrakes fairly aft on the chord. The inboard 1/2 span sections of the flaperons have a second handle to allow landing and ground launching deflections. One notch will add 200ft+ gain to a 4500ft winch run. This is about 14 degrees and is enough for most landings with a bit of headwind and airbrakes. Full inboard deflection is 35 degrees and adds significant lift and drag when landing.

Frank Whiteley

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771