somewhat predictable accident at Highland

[Tad Eareckson]

OK, Brian - done.

And, first off, I am very happy to that the latest assessment is as good as it is. Ditto with respect to Rich.

Sorry, had no intention of starting an argument. Just trying to get folk to think about what we're doing and hoping to have some plus effect on the fun to misery ratio.

Yeah, I've got a HUGE amount of respect and appreciation for Greg. It's so refreshing to see someone who studies, questions, experiments, and analyzes instead of just memorizing the "rules". (Anybody know why he seems to have melted from the scene?)

But, as far as I know, he's got one more broken arm than Mike. And he got it at a nice flat flight park several stumbling steps following being upright with his hands on the downtubes. It was a tandem flight and he nobly took the fall to protect the passenger - but...

If there had been wheels on the basetube it would've undoubtedly been a total non event - but there weren't. On that issue I must, reluctantly, part paths.

I just reread some of his stuff from the archives at the end of the last decade. I've always shared with him the opinion if that we always hit the ground feet first the fatality rate for this sport would drop to something around zero. I also think the best way to implement that contact mode would be to have everyone fly suprone - but that ain't never gonna happen.

Trouble with going to the downtubes and upright is that that's really not how the glider is meant to be flown - you have to kiss some speed and control bye-bye. That's why you seldom see vertically rotated pods when people are fighting to stay in ratty thermals at four grand.

Joe would very likely have come off a lot better a year ago if he had hit the ground feet first but during the base and final legs of that landing the glider was alternating between partially in and totally out of control and he needed all the authority and speed range he could beg, borrow, or steal.

But let's take a look at the environment in which this latest accident occurred.

At flights originating from Ridgely we're up to three landings which have resulted in a broken arm or two.

Robert Sweeney hit something hard on 1999/10/03 landing, I believe, far to east but I don't know any particulars. Any help?

Paul's was extremely serious, happened in a manner similar to Rich's, and involved - correct me if I'm wrong - hands on the downtubes. Although he reported the soil being too soft for his wheels to do any good I'm thinking that he might have been OK if his hands had been on the basetube. I've seen a pretty serious downwind stall and crash in which the pilot folded the keel with his helmet but was no more than shaken up.

And we all have John's fresh in our memory.

There are a couple of gliders that fly at Ridgely A LOT and ALWAYS roll their landings in. I don't believe either of them has ever so much as bent a downtube over the course of a good chunk of a decade. They always have at least one very experienced pilot on board but those guys are human too.

There is a fair amount of fixed wing general aviation stuff that lands at Ridgely during my excursions. Just about all of it deliberately rolls in on the wheels and I'm assuming the drivers are keeping both hands on the steering wheel when things are getting critical. And they only need one of those to keep things under control so they can be forgiven for tinkering with the throttle.

(I have seen one little low wing seriously fucked up but that one went up and came down on a tire known to be questionable.)

So are there any conclusions we can draw from these trends?

P.S. Yesterday I spent a lot of time trying to recall a single instance of anybody EVER getting hurt or damaging a glider in the course of concluding a flight from the last couple of feet of altitude with his hands on the basetube and the intent of rolling in. I got nuthin'. Anybody else?

P.P.S. You also notice that - with respect to the other end of the flight - when we launch prone on the wheels with both hands on the basetube the accident rate is ZERO?

[theflyingdude]

Tad, if you want to land prone on wheels and lead with your head, by all means I would encourage you to do so, but I suggest you make sure all your landings take place on mowed grassy fields or some other surface suitable for rolling in on wheels. I think I would prefer to land upright and take my chances of a broken arm as opposed to a broken face or neck, but hey, that's just me.

JR

[Lauren Tjaden]

From the Oz Report, Dec, 2007, about our friend Armand:
"Armand has joined us at the motel and is walking around with his arm in a sling and in pain. He'll go in Monday to check his X-rays as there appears to be a small fracture. He tried to land on his wheels when he saw that he was coming in down wind at Rylstone. He was on the base bar, with his arms fully extended rolling through the tall grass when the wheels caught and the glider nosed over. Because his elbows were in the locked position (not on purpose, of course) they didn't flex when the glider stopped rolling, and his arm popped out of the shoulder socket. Perhaps wheels didn't cause this accident, but they did contribute to it."
About Greg DW. I saw him at WW Demo Days. He may get into teaching clinics again in a different area. Ask him if you'd like more details -- I don't want to speak for him.
Lauren

[RedBaron]

I think I would prefer to land upright and take my chances of a broken arm as opposed to a broken face or neck, but hey, that's just me.

That's a myth, it can turn out real bad either way.
Scenario 1 (happened to me):
You get hit by rotor, pound in at high speed still prone. With wheels chances are the control frame is gonna take the entire impact and you pancake in. In my case the glider actually bounced and flew another 20 feet before it finally settled on broken tubes left right and center.

Scenario 2 (seen it):
Without wheels the glider would still take the initial shock as well as come to a full stop through a severe nose or LE plant. Still prone you'd swing through and most likely hit the sail unless both down tubes break in the same spot at the same time or don't break at all. In a truly straight ahead nose-in your head or your shoulders would hit the keel. Believe it or not, the keel will break before your helmet or neck does and you don't need to hit it real hard either. Of course, there will always be the poor bastard who's gonna die doing that, so take it with a grain of salt.

Anyway, in both scenarios you'd probably be worse off upright. Your arms and shoulders would have to be stronger than the down tubes, your legs would contact the ground first. I think in general your best chance of walking away from a crash is to stay prone, tuck in your arms and let the glider and its wheels take the impact. Those little tiny streamlined wheels only work on the most groomed golf course and are totally useless in any crash situation. Tad, why don't you walk away from the tow releases for a while and build some really nice pneumatic wheels for carbon and aluminium airfoil base tubes? I'd be your first customer and I have hard data that will show you that there's dozens of pilots out there who want them, too.

Janni

[Batman]

Janni -

While I agree with you in theory, I spent my first 4 years flying an UltraSport 166 with BIG 35psi Pneumatic Wheels. Although on hard pack or well mowed grass they work fine, I rolled in a Jack's in a plowed field and beaked because they dug in. The problem with putting BIG pneumatics on the carbon & aluminium airfoil base tubes is you are defeating what they were designed for in the first place, which is to lessen parasitic drag. On most Wills Wing gliders, including my Talon 150 (For Sale!!!) you can get a folding basetube with the big pneumatic wheels. Its a tradeoff between performance & safety depending on what you are seeking. I have only rolled my U2 in once and it was on the small plastic wheels that are standard on the U2. It worked fine, but it was also in Ridgely's LZ which is nicely groomed. Putting big drag inducing wheels on a topless glider designed for competition is a contradiction in terms in my opinion. If you are flying the top performace gliders, you should have appropriate landing skills where its a rarity that you have to roll in.

[RedBaron]

Chris, sure, all that drag defeats the purpose of having an expensive slippery control frame. Once you fly high-per gliders you shouldn't need wheels anymore. Actually my landings got a whole lot better after I ditched the wheels because I knew there was no cheap way out and flared aggressively every time.
Anyway, I've come to the conclusion that all our primary and secondary LZ's in the mountains are unsafe on anything more than a Sport2 perhaps. Too small, too many trees, too little margin for error. A nasty rotor (and they like to travel) will send you for the ground, if the field is small you won't be able to come in smoking hot on a topless, that means you're gonna pound in doing what, 20 mph?. I think it would be nice to have at least the option of putting on pneumatics on those days when you don't want to go XC or when you transition to the glider etc. They offer them for the Atos, saw Bruce flying with them.

[Batman]

Janni - you touch on a really good point. One of the primary reasons I stepped back to a U2 from my Talon was that with my landing proficiency declining with my diminished airtime, I didn't have the comfort level to put a topless down in our mountain LZs. More than once when I flew my Ultrasport into Woodstocks LZ, I got hammered by thermal induced turbulence and put it down on the wheels. I didn't have that level of comfort with putting my Talon down in the same area. Because of those memories, I will never fly without wheels if only for the option to roll in if I really need to. Without them, as you said, forces you away from even having that option. I don't regret stepping back to the U2 as it still gives me more than enough performance, but it lands like a dream. I've heard the Sport 2 is even more forgiving. For the Competition Pilot or the pilot who goes for the long XC flights, I think Topless gliders are a necessary evil, but since 90% of my flights end up in the same area that I took off from I'm happy to have the controlability and ease of landing. Hopefully the Batwing will make it to the beach this summer!!

[hang_pilot]

There is a wheel-set that works on carbon base tubes. These look pretty slippery and would probably help out in a lot of less than pefect landings: http://www.seedwings.at/joomla10/index. ... &Itemid=36

~Daniel

[RedBaron]

Had exactly those on my Litespeed. They only work on award-winning lawns, so I got rid of them. I now have a nicer pair (http://www.dfs-kelheim.de/) but they also will only work on groomed fields. Too thin, too small. But for towing I was told I need to have round objects on my base tube, I know already they won't save my down tubes in case of a belly flop. They all suck!
In hind sight I should have bought an all carbon Litespeed with the standard A frame. Same money, pneumatic wheels possible and if I ever got so good that I'd fly in competitions I could still buy a zoom frame.

[dbodner]

I think the WW wheels may be better than their small circumference may suggest. Since the entire wheel is below the basetube, I think they're equivalent to a larger diameter wheel. Also, they're not real skinny, so they have a fighting chance of not digging in. I even think the slippery plastic may have a slight advantage over the same-sized rubber tire.

Janni, the day your skinny wheels failed you at the Pulpit, the field was so muddy I don't think my huge-ass Falcon wheels would've helped. Your new wheels look a bit fatter than your original ones, so they should be more helpful in other conditions.

On the larger topic, it's simply not reasonable to expect to be able to roll in (outside of a flight park), so most of us land upright. On the rare occasions when it might be safer to be prone, I daresay circumstances may dictate otherwise. Letting go of one upright would've saved more than one broken arm, but that takes more presence of mind than I'll probably have when faced with that situation.

[XCanytime]

Scenario 1 (happened to me):
You get hit by rotor, pound in at high speed still prone. With wheels chances are the control frame is gonna take the entire impact and you pancake in. In my case the glider actually bounced and flew another 20 feet before it finally settled on broken tubes left right and center.

It also happened to me landing at Fisher Road in August of 1994. Skimming along upright, bleeding off airspeed, a few feet off of the ground, a big foot of down air (rotor?, sink?, thermal dump?) dropped down on me suddenly. The glider slammed into the ground with a groundspeed of around 30 MPH. The big 12" diameter Delta Wing Kites plastic wheels allowed the glider to bounce back up in the air, still flying. The impact with the ground knocked the breath out of me (thank goodness for the chest mounted chute). I flew a good distance further before flaring late and bellying in. After that day I swore to never fly w/o wheels.

Bacil

[Matthew]

Simple--

Wheels -- YES! If Joe G. had put the big wheels on his wife's Falcon it's highly unlikely he would have broken both arms.

Also, contrary to Batman's assertion, the Ultrasport wheels aren't big. They're only 7 inches. 12" is big wheels!

If you aren't gonna be flying with wheels, you had better better have consistantly good landings in the glider you are currently flying, fly the glider regularly and be current. If not, you better get your ass out to one of the tow parks or training hills and practice landings over and over until you can land the glider consitantly well. And when first flying a new or high performance glider, you also need to give yourself lots of room to land to make up for different performance.

Matthew

[bustedwing2]

Wheels,I love them,the bigger the better,However pilots that spend 6 or 8,000 bukeroneys on a high performance glider are looking for performance,not drag.Small wheels or no wheels are the tradeoff(sacrifice of safety) they willingly make to gain the performance.We all make our own decision about what risk level is acceptable to accomplish the particular goal that's in our sights.Hope you heal quick and well John. later all, RichB

[hefalump]

Tad is now the advocate for wheels, this from the man who is concerned about the drag from an aerotow release.

I don’t see how Tad can make any determination as to whether wheels would have made any difference in the most recent accident at Highland.

Did he witness the accident?

Did he interview the witnesses of the accident?

Did he inspect the post crash damage and site?

Or is he just inferring all his data form three lines in forum post?

I don’t know about any of the accidents, but has Tad interviewed and thoroughly investigated any of those as well? He seems to speak as thought he is the authority in HG accidents.

I have no problem with wheels. In fact I have flown with wheels on all my gliders until my most recent glider the Litespeed. Once I find a pair that fit the Carbon Fiber base bar I probably fly with wheels on that glider as well, and it looks there is a couple of choices posted previously in this thread.

Will I roll in on the wheels for my landings … HELL NO!! I’m not going face first into the grass at an out-landing field. Try landing in a fallow field, soy beans, or wheat on your wheels, you’ll whack for sure. You might even get the nose plate in the back of the head! Not to mention the crop damage. It’s feet first for me. I have never seen a bird belly land it. They get their feet out in front of them too, and they are the experts. For someone to suggest that rolling in on base bar mounted wheels and your belly as standard operating procedure for all landings is just plain stupid.

If wheels landing were my only option I would go with tandem wheels with a tail wheel or skid. One of our fellow pilots who lost the use of his legs did it this way. Although, he had to be very carful selecting fields for out-landing.

For me the wheels are just in case I blow the flair timing or a down winder. They may save a base tube or an arm. However, as mentioned before wheels are probably not going to do any good unless it’s nice, flat, firm ground.

JD

[markc]

Wheels, pros-and-cons, when do they help, when do they not? Seems like the topic
comes up every year or two, eh?

One scenario I haven't seen discussed this time around is the jammed harness zipper.

I fly with a Rotor/Vulto, with two zipper sliders: the upper goes from the chin down,
and the lower goes from the toes up. They meet somewhere in the middle.

If you aren't careful, and especially if the fit is tight, it is possible to insert the
tongue of the upper zipper into the slider in an insecure way, as you get that
one started (on the ground).

Once in flight, you zip 'down' (chin & down) and 'up' (toes & up). All seems well.

But during the flight, the insecurely seated zipper starts to separate (from chin down
towards the toes). If that continues all the way to where the zippers meet, and
if that meeting point is (say) about mid-thigh.... Then you won't be able to get
your feet out prior to landing, even though the lower zipper is operational.

So... That happened to me not long after getting the harness. Thankfully, it occurred
at Ridgely, and thankfully, I have wheels on my U2 (they project forward and down
from the basetube). Wheeled in for the landing, total non-event. It was even kinda fun!

Was REALLY happy that I had wheels on that occasion. Course, if I was looking
at a landing in a plowed field, or even a moderately rough field, wheeling in might
not have been an option. I *think* I'd probably try to flare in that situation, then
let go, duck, and cover. But even in that circumstance, there's always the chance
that the wheels might help the glider skid along a little bit, and lessen the impact.
Even a little can mean a lot.

Since then, I've tried to make sure that the upper zipper doesn't go past the waist,
and that the lower meets it at that point.

MarkC

[jimrooney]

Tad is now the advocate for wheels, this from the man who is concerned about the drag from an aerotow release.

BWA HAHAHAHAAHA!

Did he witness the accident?

No

Did he interview the witnesses of the accident?

No

Did he inspect the post crash damage and site?

No

Or is he just inferring all his data form three lines in forum post?

BINGO!

I don’t see how Tad can make any determination as to whether wheels would have made any difference in the most recent accident at Highland.

I'm sure Tad's just stirring the pot again. I don't really know for sure since I don't read his posts (I LOVE that "block user" feature!)
Wheels wouldn't have made a hill of beans difference.

[Tad Eareckson]

JR,

It would help if you actually read and commented upon things that I've actually said but - hell - why break the streak?

As it happens though, all my landings do take place on mowed grassy fields unless I let myself get blown far enough from the airport as to be compelled to consider other options. And even then just about all of my landings take place on mowed grassy fields.

Lauren,

I was talking about landings, not disaster movies. Sometimes downwind just happens to one but tall grass is always an elective. Put the two together and, yeah, there's a good chance you'll be needing X-rays.

Janni,

Thanks. Yeah, that's pretty much my take on things. Yet another example of the perception being a lot worse than the reality. "Myth" hits the nail pretty squarely.

Take a sabbatical from tow releases to - what - reinvent the wheel? Thanks for the vote of confidence but I'm mostly a needle and thread sort of person and that sort of thing is pretty much out of the scope of my industrial capabilities. Tim Hinkel, maybe.

Besides, after Lauren and Dustin so graphically illustrated precisely what I've been saying about that crap for so many years I may soon be inundated with requests for equipment. One - maybe as many as two pilots might want to use something safe.

JD,

Where in your incredibly fevered imagination did you get the idea that I made "any determination as to whether wheels would have made any difference in the most recent accident at Highland."?

Everything important I know about the cause of this accident was contained in one sentence from John Dullahan and two from Paul. There has been no mention of whether the glider had wheels in any of the traffic prior or subsequent to it. And since it and wheels were and would have been taken out of action and the equation at about 67' MSL at a 63' MSL airport I'm wondering why anyone would be clueless enough to think I was discussing them as a relevant factor.

Try giving the bong a rest for an hour or so and read what I actually said (gawd I get tired of saying this). If that's too much to ask just do the second to last sentence of my 2008/04/13 post.

If you do read my posts carefully you'll find that you can't even tell whether or not I fly with wheels. The best you can get is a pretty good idea that I think tandem gliders oughta have at least two.

And - no - there's no way you can get the nose plate in the back of your head.

By the way...

I don't imagine you got great grades in ornithology class - either.

Little passerine birds tend to have obscene power to weight ratios and flap a lot so they can land any way they goddam well feel like. You start getting into some of the big stuff, things start looking different.

Check out Ellis's 2008/04/07 post. When transferring from their first and second elements of choice - air and water - they hate no wind landings even more than we do and end up bellying in quite a bit. I'll bet if you put your skateboard with some velcro straps out along the runway at Midway it would be gone before you finished lunch.

Loons are the most heavily wing loaded birds on the planet. Their legs are located so far aft that they are totally unable to take off from terra firma (great swimmers, lousy walkers) and it takes them forever to get off the lake. They belly in.

Watch a Tundra Swan land on a glassy river in no wind conditions. Looks like a high wing float plane. The feet (pontoons) water ski across the surface until some lift is bled off, they sink, and the bird bellies in glides to a stop. I've never seen one glide in ground (water) effect, throw a flare, and tail slide into the water at a dead stop.

But back to wheels...

Put them on the basetube, they cost you some drag but they make the glider safer. Lose-Win.

Run the release lanyard in the downtube, it saves you some drag AND makes the glider safer. Win-Win.

Configure the release system as it is on the Russian Tank... Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose.

See the differences yet?

Mark,

Yeah, the last sentence of Paragraph 7 is pretty much the point Mike Robertson tries to make.

Jim,

I'm really not seeing how the "block user" feature has made any difference.

You never had to read my posts before and your level of comprehension of the issues and comments remain unaltered.

Well, on the other hand... You do have the luxury of being able to respond to what someone of your caliber of literacy says I said - rather than addressing the reality. Yeah, I guess that would be a big plus.

[brianvh]

umm.....yeah.

Anyway, I'd just like to point out that Bacil has landed in a plowed field using 12 inch wheels, and they worked for him. I got away from the big wheels when I had two gliders and needed a solution that would work for both because I was too cheap to buy a set for each glider. Haven't flown much recently, may have to go back to the big wheels.

But many fields require landing upright, and it helps when cow patties are present. The flare remains my first option.

I've heard grizzled pilots say that the best landing option when things are clearly gonna get nasty is fetal position with one hand on a downtube so you swing to the side and miss the keel. Would take some practice to do this automatically under stress.

[brianvh]

'umm....yeah' wasn't meant to suggest agreement so much as a change of topic.

[hefalump]

And we all have John's fresh in our memory.

There are a couple of gliders that fly at Ridgely A LOT and ALWAYS roll their landings in. I don't believe either of them has ever so much as bent a downtube over the course of a good chunk of a decade. They always have at least one very experienced pilot on board but those guys are human too.

P.S. Yesterday I spent a lot of time trying to recall a single instance of anybody EVER getting hurt or damaging a glider in the course of concluding a flight from the last couple of feet of altitude with his hands on the basetube and the intent of rolling in. I got nuthin'. Anybody else?

P.P.S. You also notice that - with respect to the other end of the flight - when we launch prone on the wheels with both hands on the basetube the accident rate is ZERO?

Sounds to me like you are an advocate wheel landings as SOP.

And - no - there's no way you can get the nose plate in the back of your head.

I don't imagine you got great grades in ornithology class - either.

Looks Like this guy got it in the back of the head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkElZMhpmp0

Jim Rooney and I saw a pilot get hit in the back of the head once in Red Wing NJ, Summer 2002. Well to be absolutely accurate it wasn't the Nose Plate, it was the leading edge about 6 inches from the nose plate. There was big dent in the shape of his helmet in the leading edge. He was a walking TKO. He keep asking us the same question "so I was out there for a minute", and we responded "yes". After he asked us for the third time on the walk back to the hanger we thought he might need a trip to the hospital.

I knew you were going to point out the Loons and the Gooney Birds, you are so predictable, I was going to make the qualifier about certain water foul. But' I left it out as a carrot for you, and you took it right on cue.

JD

[jimrooney]

Uh guys... I was there. I watched it. I can tell you... wheels wouldn't have done squat. Pick any set... big phenmantics, whatever. He hit first, then the glider. Same as the guy JD's talking about back in NJ.
Discuss wheels in general if you feel so inclined, but sorry, not in this case.

I still find it hilarious that Tadd's "Mr Wheels" now.
Whatever.
Jim

[Spark]

If accidents were 'somewhat predictable', I'd bet we would have fewer

_hit happens. There are no recipes that prevent it.

In the past, I've flown for many years with wheels. I used them (solo) once just to try them out. I always used them when flying tandem. A few times they saved me from a major whack. In retrospect, I tended to take my whacks less seriously, because the wheels 'saved' me from the embarrasment.

Here in the rocky Rockies, I don't have the luxury of landing on mostly-level grass-covered fields.

The guy who bought my U2 didn't want the WW wheels 0- said they were useless ... so I kept them and tried to put them on my Sport, but they would not fit ... without some serious grinding and modification. Our local truck tow operation gets some awesome airtime (16k stuff) and has a rig that is not compatible with the WW wheels, so ... rather than jam them on and risk not being able to remove them, I decided ... what the hey .. Sport 2s are easy to land ... and made the decision to fly without the wheels.

We don't really have much LZ terrain that is wheel-friendly around here. So I am wheel-less for the time being, until I decide to do something else. I can tell you that it makes me take my landings even more seriously.

A week ago, a new pilot to the area muffed an approach and transition to the uprights and ended up pounding in (without wheels) .. the noseplate nailed him squarely in the back of the helmet, but fortunately, without injury. I really doubt that wheels would have made any difference, unless they were monster 12" pneumatics.

I broke my humerous (badly) in 1989, with nerve damage. In that instance, wheels would not have made a difference.

Some times _hit is gonna happen. That is the only thing that is somewhat predictable.

[Tad Eareckson]

OK, since it seems that folk can't be bothered, lack the necessary skills, and/or are too fucking stupid to read what I said lemme start over.

First off - apologies. I toned down the subject line of this thread and made a misleading statement in my first post in response to the accident. Those were mistakes but I figured John was already feeling more than crappy enough about the afternoon and I didn't want to give the impression of rubbing anything in but, for the greater good...

The title shoulda read:

totally predictable crash at Highland

Note substitutions from the words "somewhat" and "accident".

And...

There's NO FREAKIN' WAY I'd have clipped that sign had I been in his situation.

You guys talk about the goddam wheels all you want. It's a worthy issue and something constructive may come out of it. But I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAM WHEELS.

The cause of this crash was so black and white, so obvious, so preventable. But so far I've got zero indication that anybody gets it - has any clue what he would do any differently in similar circumstances.

He fucked up his approach, his situation was critical, the only thing that was keeping him alive was his precise control of the aircraft...

AND HE TOOK HIS HAND OFF THE STEERING WHEEL!!!

Why did he take his hand off the steering wheel?

So he could land on his feet.

HE DIDN'T NEED TO LAND ON HIS FEET!!! HE DID NEED TO MISS THE FUCKING SIGN!!!

OK - Everybody but Jim got that now?

This is about two things - threat assessment and controlling the aircraft.

I don't know, give a rat's ass about, wanna know whether or not the glider was equipped with the fucking wheels or not. Worst case alternate scenario - he bellies in on asphalt (probably grass though). That's the option you take when your other choice is clipping the sign.

Brian,

Was there something in my previous post with which you disagreed? I'd like to know 'cause I'm pretty good at standing by and backing up my statements.

JD,

I don't care what something sounds like to you. Here's what I said:

>
I'm gonna continue opting for landing on my feet...
<

Whenever I advocate doing something I take the lead and put it into practice myself.

But I am suggesting people start looking around and see where we're having accidents and injuries and where we're not.

I did watch the video and - no - he very obviously did not get the nose plate in the back of his head. And even before noticing the comments I had surmised that he hadn't been hurt - despite the dust cloud - and I don't think he did so much as trash a downtube.

But, Spark said his guy got nailed so, fine - you can get the nose plate in the back of your head.

Do you notice though...

--

He's got wheels.

The trouble starts at the precise moment he diverts his attention from FLYING THE GLIDER to getting his body vertical and his legs underneath him.

And, again, even though the results are much more spectacular - sliding into and getting power whacked by the nose - than they would have been if he had stayed prone, controlled the glider, and bellied in - with or without the wheels - he's still fine. None of the broken face or neck JR was so concerned about.

Also, his hands were on the basetube when he plowed in and he didn't break any arms.

With respect to the bird thing...

OK, you're saying that you posted a statement which you knew to be false? Yeah, seems to be a trend. That's one of the reasons I have very little respect for you.

But, hey, can't thank you enough for the video. I couldn't make up stuff as good as that.

Spark,

Plenty of accidents are totally predictable - like, for instance, towing with a release that one absolutely knows will not function under load - and we could have fewer of them but pilots, as a rule and especially as a group, are not particularly bright.

To reiterate my opening statements...

This incident was not a case of shit happening and there most assuredly was a recipe to prevent it. The primary recipe is:

FLY THE GLIDER

--

Mistake 1

His approach was too low.

OK, we all make mistakes. I once demoed a Chad's Stealth 3 - which was a lot more performance than I was used to. But I overcompensated for its energy retention and underestimated the effect of the wind and landed embarrassingly short. Ended up having to finesse my landing around a ditch with the whole grass strip still in front of me.

Mistake 2

He was too low AND lined up over an extremely dangerous obstruction.

I've been to Ridgely. There are lots of options for not doing that.

Mistake 3

He took his hand off the steering wheel with an immovable steel object directly in front of him.

--

You don't usually get to make three mistakes at the same time and get away with it in this sport.

Paul Tjaden and Rich Alexander can make reasonably good cases for shit happening. Not this time.

Your friend Bill Finn could make a good case except for three things...

--

ONE:

A 2:1/Hewett bridle/release would have auto released him.

TWO:

>
USHGA
Joe Gregor

2005/07

An extremely experienced pilot was launching a new Falcon 2 via scooter tow. The bridle system used employed two lines: one attached high on the harness for the initial climb-out, and one attached lower for the high altitude portion of the tow. The pilot failed to hook in prior to launch and held onto the control frame (assisted by the upper towline hanging over the bar) until he released at approximately 50 feet. The glider was locked out by this time as the pilot let go with one hand to effect the release. The pilot was propelled through a pine tree, dislocating his shoulder and breaking an arm. The reporter listed a number of factors contributing to this accident including: moving the glider while wearing the harness unhooked; failure of pilot to perform a hook-in check, perhaps due to shared responsibility for the launch; fatigue at the end of a long day; use of a double release system that is difficult to locate in an emergency; poor radio communication with the tow operator; and possible lack of a weak link. An additional factor may have been the high experience level of the accident pilot leading all involved to worry less about backup safety checks.
<

WE KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN. But we weren't paying attention.

THREE:

There was a dolly in the neighborhood.

--

With respect to your pilot a week ago...

He muffed his approach - like John.

He muffed his transition to the uprights - like John.

He ended up pounding in - like John.

He got a plate in the back of his helmet - John got a plate in his right wrist.

What day was this? Was it even the same fucking day?

You see any similarities here? Any patterns? Any trends?

What would've happened if he had had a pair of 200 millimeter (8 inch) diameter pneumatic wheels - the kind Wills Wing sells (Part Number 70M-1010) on his basetube and had landed like a Cessna or Ridgely tandem glider? Would he still have been smacked by the nose plate?

With respect to 1989...

Are you saying that wheels wouldn't have made any difference after you blew your landing and flare with your hands on the downtubes or whatever the situation was? Or are you saying that you'd have ended up just as fucked up if you had planned to roll in with your hands on the basetube a la Mike Robertson?

With respect to your local paucity of wheel-friendly LZ terrain...

If it ain't wheel-friendly - it ain't pilot-friendly neither. 'Cause I think I've seen the Easter Bunny more times than I've seen a pilot who can guarantee me that he's gonna end up on his feet at the end of any flight more interesting than an evening sled run.

If I were out there I'd undoubtedly accept the same built in deep cut into my safety margin to get some oxygen bottle gains.

But I don't take my landings as seriously as you do so I'd probably figure out some way to get a pair of wheels on that glider - based on the off chance that my flare timing might suck as much as it usually does and the presumption that they're not going to make a situation worse.

With respect to the rig which will not accept the Wills Wing wheels...

Is there some reason that the rig cannot be made compatible with standard glider safety features?

On my first flight at Ridgely on their first day of operation I broke a (VG side) downtube that would have remained unbowed if I had had wheels. I didn't have wheels 'cause their dolly cradles wouldn't accommodate them. They shortly thereafter remedied the problem.

I'm not a fan of the "shit happens" school of philosophy with respect to glider crashes. I tend to go more with the "pilot error" approach. It usually doesn't take much effort to find a whole shitload of material to support the latter persuasion.

But maybe we can find some common ground, a merger. How 'bout "pilot shit happens"? I can live with that and I'm a lot happier being up there thinking that I'm not just rolling dice.

There was absolutely no shit just happening in this incident. This shit was one hundred percent pilot generated. And it is one hundred percent predictable that if pilots are routinely taking hands off of steering wheels when situations are critical - and all landings are critical - that a certain number are going to get mangled.

Thanks for the corroborating evidence.

[hefalump]

Tad,

Why do you feel compelled to use such profanity in your posts. In my opinion it is the mark of an inferior intellect that can only express ones emotion with profanity.

Sure I have be know to let the F-word slip from time to time in verbal communication but to use it in writing … that’s just inexcusable! If profanity is your only means of expressing your passion for a topic, please use the appropriate F@#$ or A$$.

Maybe people have such a problem understanding you is because you use too many metaphors and colloquialisms. In your efforts to communicate with what you may think are clever or witty comments your point is lost. I do not claim to be an expert in written communication, in fact, I’m far from it. But I do try to use an economy of concise words to make my point

From you last post I understand what you were trying to explain. The pilot gave up control while transitioning to the down tubes. I agree, transitioning to the down tubes can introduce a moment of control lose. I know from experience that if I transition too soon the glider’s nose can rise because of the lack of leverage. That video I posted earlier is a perfect example.

If the conditions warrant flying the glider all the way to the ground with your hands on the base tube for a belly landing, so be it. I have done it myself. But I think it is a far better technique to land on your feet. Belly landing will only work on the best of landing surfaces. On your feet landings will work on all but the worst of landing terrain. For those situations where pilot error has gotten the worst of me … I'll choose the fetal position.

As for the most recent accident at Highland, if a person did not witness the accident they have little authority to speak to what may have been the cause or what could have prevented it.

JD

[brianvh]

Tad;

I wasn't disowning agreement with the technical content of your post, just your tendency to respond to a personal attack with an even stronger personal attack, sometimes preemptively. This only helps things get out of control and ruin what was starting to be a good conversation.

I think you make a good point saying that in many cases a crash is caused by the pilot ceding control of the glider in order to go upright. But there are also many cases where being upright is a better way to deal with the situation (about to land in a rockpile, for instance). It we accept your description of the situation purely for discussion (you weren't there so we can't count on it being at all accurate), it seems John likely would have avoided a collision if he stayed prone, but given that a collision happened, he may have prevented serious head/neck trauma by going upright.

We've got a dilemma of how to decide when to go from better control to better protection. Hopefully we are good enough pilots to make these choices with split second timing. it's not black and white: if I figure to have a 50/50 chance of hitting a brick wall while prone, I'm going upright even if it lowers my chances of evasion to 20/80. Others will choose differently.