info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Scary story about landing on a Lake Tahoe golf course
3,284 views
Skip to first unread message
2G
Jul 26, 2020, 5:56:33 PM7/26/20
to
Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
Charles Longley
Jul 26, 2020, 6:59:36 PM7/26/20
to
Gliders are replaceable. But yeah scary story!
Eric Greenwell
Jul 26, 2020, 7:09:21 PM7/26/20
to
2G wrote on 7/26/2020 2:56 PM:
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
>
Looking at it on Google, the course features short, narrow fairways. Scary for
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
>
sure. He did have a safe choice if golfers had blocked his way, and while a water
landing leads to a really inconvenient retrieve, it usually just makes things wet,
not bent.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
jfitch
Jul 26, 2020, 7:57:53 PM7/26/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
We were watching it in real time on his Droid tracker from the airport. I almost jumped on the motorcycle to go over and watch the landing but wasn't sure I could make it in time. Using Sergio's elevator in the basin is risky business at best, no options if it doesn't work.
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
3C
Jul 26, 2020, 8:40:55 PM7/26/20
to
Thanks for sharing your story Ramy.
John Cochrane
Jul 26, 2020, 8:56:27 PM7/26/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
Glad you're ok and no big damage or golfers injured. And now someone else gets a chance on OLC for a few weeks!
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
I usually don't try Sergio's unless I see wind on the lake. Good streaks or whitecaps needed, well before I cannot escape over the back to Carson.
The water south of sand harbor looks possible.
I've seen traces that retreat to the Carson valley via the 50 gap.
I gather the golf course in Kings beach has also been landed on, but these seem very chancy.
Anyone else have a half decent plan B for the Tahoe basin?
John Cochrane
Eric Greenwell
Jul 26, 2020, 9:42:21 PM7/26/20
to
John Cochrane wrote on 7/26/2020 5:56 PM:
> I gather the golf course in Kings beach has also been landed on, but these seem very chancy.
Brockway Golf course in Kings Beach was the course Ramy landed on, not one of the
> I gather the golf course in Kings beach has also been landed on, but these seem very chancy.
Incline Village courses. They are a few miles apart.
Message has been deleted
Ramy
Jul 27, 2020, 12:10:01 AM7/27/20
to
There are 3 important lessons I can share which apply to many situations:
1- keep your margins, don’t let them erode overtime.
2- the 99% rule eventually wins. You can perform the same thing successfully 99 times, eventually it will fail.
3- Always have a plan B and even C. My plan B and C were the golf course and the lake. I walked and measured that golf course multiple times over the years and concluded that if it is empty I should be able to land there with minimum to no damage. If it is not I can divert to the water In the last minute. Admittedly it was still a very intense experience.
Ramy
1- keep your margins, don’t let them erode overtime.
2- the 99% rule eventually wins. You can perform the same thing successfully 99 times, eventually it will fail.
3- Always have a plan B and even C. My plan B and C were the golf course and the lake. I walked and measured that golf course multiple times over the years and concluded that if it is empty I should be able to land there with minimum to no damage. If it is not I can divert to the water In the last minute. Admittedly it was still a very intense experience.
Ramy
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Charles Longley
Jul 27, 2020, 2:33:50 AM7/27/20
to
I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
kinsell
Jul 27, 2020, 4:51:58 AM7/27/20
to
On 7/26/20 10:03 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> This land out really highlights the need for a good short game when flying XC. If you had a two stroke, you wouldn't have been penalized. Good drive to the green! Stay safe everyone.
>
I think he scored a birdie didn't he?
Better than a two-stroke handicap, with an electric he could have just
flipped a switch, turned a knob, and ended up in an attic. Worked great
for the guy in Connecticut. And that Kawa guy in Italy.
>
I think he scored a birdie didn't he?
Better than a two-stroke handicap, with an electric he could have just
flipped a switch, turned a knob, and ended up in an attic. Worked great
for the guy in Connecticut. And that Kawa guy in Italy.
andy....@gmail.com
Jul 27, 2020, 5:30:50 AM7/27/20
to
On Monday, 27 July 2020 07:33:50 UTC+1, Charles Longley wrote:
> I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
All the recommendations I've heard, including in for instance Finland and Sweden, say wheel down
> I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
It helps break the surface, and otherwise the belly gets grabbed and the glider can get sucked in and turn over.
RR
Jul 27, 2020, 7:42:17 AM7/27/20
to
As one who has done it, they float well. How long I dont know, as I made it a point to get it to shore asap. There is a lot of air trapped in the wings, I expect it would be a long time before it sank.
In my case, I was flying again in under 24hrs, the only electronics I lost was the one thing that was supposed to be waterproof, my ELT. Aircraft damage was limited to one cracked gear door.
I had heard a briefing on landing in the water, vents shut, gear down, away from shore(dont know what is hidden under the water), wings level, slow as posable, and flaps, spoilers closed.
The gear down part is the counter intuitive part, but this little kitchen demonstration will show why. Hold a spoon so it is just dangling from the handle between you fingertips. Try to hold it so the spoon is down, but can pivot in the convex direction. Turn on the tap and just touch the bottom of the spoon to the stream. It will suck into the stream. Gear down will help avoid this.
Also most gliders have the gear well sealed so the water will not enter from there.
In my case in the cocpit I had about 1.5 inches of freeboard at the cocpit sides when I was in it, but watter was comming in from the nose hook, and comming in the fusalage from the rudder. I got out and side stroked and towed the glider to shore. It towed very easily because it was such a clean shape.
As for safety, if the water was not dangerously cold, you are probably safe in the water, but you risk damaging you electronics. Note, in the 99% category, you dont often have a chance of drowning in a land based Landout.
These days, in my ash-31 I would be very reluctant, but in a composite "gravity glider" it is way better than the trees...
In my case, I was flying again in under 24hrs, the only electronics I lost was the one thing that was supposed to be waterproof, my ELT. Aircraft damage was limited to one cracked gear door.
I had heard a briefing on landing in the water, vents shut, gear down, away from shore(dont know what is hidden under the water), wings level, slow as posable, and flaps, spoilers closed.
The gear down part is the counter intuitive part, but this little kitchen demonstration will show why. Hold a spoon so it is just dangling from the handle between you fingertips. Try to hold it so the spoon is down, but can pivot in the convex direction. Turn on the tap and just touch the bottom of the spoon to the stream. It will suck into the stream. Gear down will help avoid this.
Also most gliders have the gear well sealed so the water will not enter from there.
In my case in the cocpit I had about 1.5 inches of freeboard at the cocpit sides when I was in it, but watter was comming in from the nose hook, and comming in the fusalage from the rudder. I got out and side stroked and towed the glider to shore. It towed very easily because it was such a clean shape.
As for safety, if the water was not dangerously cold, you are probably safe in the water, but you risk damaging you electronics. Note, in the 99% category, you dont often have a chance of drowning in a land based Landout.
These days, in my ash-31 I would be very reluctant, but in a composite "gravity glider" it is way better than the trees...
stu8...@gmail.com
Jul 27, 2020, 8:31:28 AM7/27/20
to
>In my case, I was flying again in under 24hrs
Perhaps a W&B just to make sure there was not extra water somewhere in the structure?
Tango Eight
Jul 27, 2020, 8:43:01 AM7/27/20
to
On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 8:31:28 AM UTC-4, stu8...@gmail.com wrote:
> >In my case, I was flying again in under 24hrs
>
> Perhaps a W&B just to make sure there was not extra water somewhere in the structure?
Some wag offered "maybe you should leave the tape off...", which he did.
> >In my case, I was flying again in under 24hrs
>
> Perhaps a W&B just to make sure there was not extra water somewhere in the structure?
I watched the take off... the volume of water wasn't great, but it was quite impressive.
T8
Eric Greenwell
Jul 27, 2020, 8:54:44 AM7/27/20
to
were successful. The two incidents you mention were caused by pilot errors, not
electric glider failures.
Eric Greenwell
Jul 27, 2020, 9:01:28 AM7/27/20
to
Charles Longley wrote on 7/26/2020 11:33 PM:
> I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
>
I'm not sure the advice is in the ASW20 handbook, as I haven't read one for 30
> I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
>
years or so, but it is in my ASH26E handbook: water landings should be done with
the gear extended to reduce the tendency of the glider to dive into the water, and
to absorb the shock of hitting the bottom of the lake in shallow water.
Tango Eight
Jul 27, 2020, 9:03:03 AM7/27/20
to
T8
Charles Longley
Jul 27, 2020, 10:07:50 AM7/27/20
to
Ahh good points. I’ll take a look at my POH when I get my glider out again.
Dan Daly
Jul 27, 2020, 10:46:59 AM7/27/20
to
Dave Nadler
Jul 27, 2020, 10:57:54 AM7/27/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 8:56:27 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> I've seen traces that retreat to the Carson valley via the 50 gap.
I did that once, and pretty much followed the terrain down 50.
> I've seen traces that retreat to the Carson valley via the 50 gap.
Even though no useful ridge lift inside the bowl, plenty of
sink on the lee side. Crossed the valley and ridge soared back
to Minden. Won't do that again...
Glad you're OK Ramy!
2G
Jul 27, 2020, 10:58:57 AM7/27/20
to
A landing on water of a plastic sailplane with landing gear retracted has
been tested. Due to the experience gained on that occasion it is supposed, that the aircraft will not skim across the water, but that the whole
cockpit area will be pressed under the surface. If the depth of the water
is less than 2 m = 6.5 ft, the pilot is in the greatest danger. Touching
down on water is, therefore, recommended only with landing gear lowered, and as the only way out.
2G
Jul 27, 2020, 11:06:10 AM7/27/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 11:33:50 PM UTC-7, Charles Longley wrote:
> I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
I know a guy who landed in a lake near Arlington, WA. Two fishermen in a nearby boat came to give him a lift to shore. He insisted that he had landed in shallow water, and jumped up and down in the cockpit to prove it - the glider was absolutely rock solid. They said no, the water was 10 ft deep. He didn't believe them and jumped into the water to prove it - he promptly sank in over his head. The glider was towed to shore and damage was limited to one mechanical vario.
> I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
Tom
jfitch
Jul 27, 2020, 12:33:18 PM7/27/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 5:56:27 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
jfitch
Jul 27, 2020, 12:36:23 PM7/27/20
to
John Godfrey (QT)
Jul 27, 2020, 2:07:40 PM7/27/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 5:56:33 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
Glad this turned out mostly well. Good advice to heed and lessons learned. Thanks for sharing.
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
RR
Jul 27, 2020, 2:27:54 PM7/27/20
to
Interesting, I had nearly the same experience. With the wings providing stability it did seem rock stable, and thought I might be sitting on the bottom. But as I entered, I too was over my head in the water.
Eric Greenwell
Jul 27, 2020, 4:04:26 PM7/27/20
to
Tango Eight wrote on 7/27/2020 6:03 AM:
> On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 8:54:44 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> kinsell wrote on 7/27/2020 1:51 AM:
>>> On 7/26/20 10:03 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 5:56:27 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>>>>>> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you're ok and no big damage or golfers injured. And now someone else gets
>>>>> a chance on OLC for a few weeks!
>>>>>
>>>>> I usually don't try Sergio's unless I see wind on the lake. Good streaks or
>>>>> whitecaps needed, well before I cannot escape over the back to Carson..
> On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 8:54:44 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> kinsell wrote on 7/27/2020 1:51 AM:
>>> On 7/26/20 10:03 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 5:56:27 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>>>>>> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you're ok and no big damage or golfers injured. And now someone else gets
>>>>> a chance on OLC for a few weeks!
>>>>>
>>>>> I usually don't try Sergio's unless I see wind on the lake. Good streaks or
>>>>>
>>>>> The water south of sand harbor looks possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen traces that retreat to the Carson valley via the 50 gap.
>>>>>
>>>>> I gather the golf course in Kings beach has also been landed on, but these seem
>>>>> very chancy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else have a half decent plan B for the Tahoe basin?
>>>>>
>>>>> John Cochrane
>>>>
>>>> This land out really highlights the need for a good short game when flying XC.
>>>> If you had a two stroke, you wouldn't have been penalized. Good drive to the
>>>> green! Stay safe everyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think he scored a birdie didn't he?
>>>
>>> Better than a two-stroke handicap, with an electric he could have just flipped a
>>> switch, turned a knob, and ended up in an attic. Worked great for the guy in
>>> Connecticut. And that Kawa guy in Italy.
>>
>> And 100s of uneventful saves by electric gliders we never hear about, because they
>> were successful. The two incidents you mention were caused by pilot errors, not
>> electric glider failures.
>>
>>>>> The water south of sand harbor looks possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen traces that retreat to the Carson valley via the 50 gap.
>>>>>
>>>>> I gather the golf course in Kings beach has also been landed on, but these seem
>>>>> very chancy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else have a half decent plan B for the Tahoe basin?
>>>>>
>>>>> John Cochrane
>>>>
>>>> This land out really highlights the need for a good short game when flying XC.
>>>> If you had a two stroke, you wouldn't have been penalized. Good drive to the
>>>> green! Stay safe everyone.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think he scored a birdie didn't he?
>>>
>>> Better than a two-stroke handicap, with an electric he could have just flipped a
>>> switch, turned a knob, and ended up in an attic. Worked great for the guy in
>>> Connecticut. And that Kawa guy in Italy.
>>
>> And 100s of uneventful saves by electric gliders we never hear about, because they
>> were successful. The two incidents you mention were caused by pilot errors, not
>> electric glider failures.
>>
> Starting an electric motor now counts as a "save"? :-)
>
I'm not counting, but sure, if something "saves" you from an undesired landing,
>
let's call it a "save". If the method of your save is important to anyone, they
can always ask you for details. It doesn't save your scoring in contests, of
course, unlike blundering into lift on the turn to base (for example).
markm...@gmail.com
Jul 27, 2020, 9:45:23 PM7/27/20
to
"unlike blundering into lift on the turn to base (for example)."
I ALWAYS blunder into lift on my base leg. It's Nature's way of screwing with my head.
ASM
Jul 28, 2020, 11:45:34 PM7/28/20
to
https://youtu.be/0EtYyYWErgI
https://zywiec.naszemiasto.pl/awaryjne-ladowanie-szybowca-na-jeziorze-miedzybrodzkim/ga/c16-2476289/zd/11119887
Two different events. The glider in the video was removed from water, underwent some maintenance and was returned to service. In the photo gallery that Pirat is done, but the damage was done by the rescue services.
https://zywiec.naszemiasto.pl/awaryjne-ladowanie-szybowca-na-jeziorze-miedzybrodzkim/ga/c16-2476289/zd/11119887
Two different events. The glider in the video was removed from water, underwent some maintenance and was returned to service. In the photo gallery that Pirat is done, but the damage was done by the rescue services.
John Cochrane
Jul 29, 2020, 1:27:27 AM7/29/20
to
I have spent a lot of my glides across Lake Tahoe looking at the water options. The problem is, anywhere near shore and where you might be able to swim to shore and then rescue a glider is full of boats, jet skis, piers, paddle boards, kayaks, swimmers and so on. The water is not an easy option. Ramy's golf course is incredibly narrow, surrounded by trees, and has golfers on it. From google maps, the swampy area between the road and Ramy's golf course looks possible. Has anyone looked at that? One solid walk away from it option in the basin would bar awfully nice.
John Cochrane BB
John Cochrane BB
jfitch
Jul 29, 2020, 11:08:30 AM7/29/20
to
On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 10:27:27 PM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> I have spent a lot of my glides across Lake Tahoe looking at the water options. The problem is, anywhere near shore and where you might be able to swim to shore and then rescue a glider is full of boats, jet skis, piers, paddle boards, kayaks, swimmers and so on. The water is not an easy option. Ramy's golf course is incredibly narrow, surrounded by trees, and has golfers on it. From google maps, the swampy area between the road and Ramy's golf course looks possible. Has anyone looked at that? One solid walk away from it option in the basin would bar awfully nice.
> John Cochrane BB
I agree that the water close to shore, especially around Kings Beach is pretty cluttered. One possibility is the driving range, as it will have no one on it - but it looks pretty short. I've thought about the swampy area you refer to, will go walk that next time I am up. By far the best option is to stay above Marlette Lake and only turn left with good altitude.
> I have spent a lot of my glides across Lake Tahoe looking at the water options. The problem is, anywhere near shore and where you might be able to swim to shore and then rescue a glider is full of boats, jet skis, piers, paddle boards, kayaks, swimmers and so on. The water is not an easy option. Ramy's golf course is incredibly narrow, surrounded by trees, and has golfers on it. From google maps, the swampy area between the road and Ramy's golf course looks possible. Has anyone looked at that? One solid walk away from it option in the basin would bar awfully nice.
> John Cochrane BB
John Cochrane
Jul 29, 2020, 11:43:36 AM7/29/20
to
John Cochrane
Paul Agnew
Jul 29, 2020, 11:59:21 AM7/29/20
to
When you walk the swamp area, let us know if the two posts that show up on Google Maps and Google Earth satellite views just north of the "pond" and close to the trail crossing the area are still there or not. On the satellite photos it looks like there's a fair amount of scrub to deal with, too.
You can see the posts if you go to Ramy's track, select Satellite, and zoom in on the swamp to the west.
Paul A.
You can see the posts if you go to Ramy's track, select Satellite, and zoom in on the swamp to the west.
Paul A.
Ramy
Jul 29, 2020, 12:14:08 PM7/29/20
to
I checked this swamp some 5 years ago and concluded the golf course to be safer assuming it is clear.
However it is worth checking it again, as well as the other fairways, the more options the better, but I conquer with everything else said. unless we find a real safe landing spot, better not taking this risk again. “sergio’s Elevator” works only 99% of the time... (probably less than 99%).
Ramy
However it is worth checking it again, as well as the other fairways, the more options the better, but I conquer with everything else said. unless we find a real safe landing spot, better not taking this risk again. “sergio’s Elevator” works only 99% of the time... (probably less than 99%).
Ramy
Steve Koerner
Jul 29, 2020, 2:59:08 PM7/29/20
to
Some of the posts here about water landing could give the impression that it's not so bad. Sometimes it isn't.
Readers should bear in mind that those who drown while so doing are not posting their story in counterpoint. I have just one friend who's ever attempted a water landing with his glider. He won't be posting.
Readers should bear in mind that those who drown while so doing are not posting their story in counterpoint. I have just one friend who's ever attempted a water landing with his glider. He won't be posting.
Ramy
Jul 29, 2020, 3:10:15 PM7/29/20
to
I was waiting for someone to point that out. I recall that accident near Turf. Water landings may be no big deal if everything goes well. However if something goes wrong, you drop a wing, you stalled, you misjudged you’re altitude above the water (easy to do) etc and it can be more serious and less forgiving than ground.
Ramy
Ramy
Message has been deleted
Eric Greenwell
Jul 29, 2020, 3:44:58 PM7/29/20
to
Steve Koerner wrote on 7/29/2020 11:59 AM:
> Some of the posts here about water landing could give the impression that it's not so bad. Sometimes it isn't.
>
> Readers should bear in mind that those who drown while so doing are not posting their story in counterpoint. I have just one friend who's ever attempted a water landing with his glider. He won't be posting.
>
I've heard of 5 or 6 water landings, and they all went well - the pilot survived
> Some of the posts here about water landing could give the impression that it's not so bad. Sometimes it isn't.
>
> Readers should bear in mind that those who drown while so doing are not posting their story in counterpoint. I have just one friend who's ever attempted a water landing with his glider. He won't be posting.
>
without injury. This is the first one I've heard of that didn't. What happened?
jfitch
Jul 29, 2020, 4:57:35 PM7/29/20
to
Wind streaks on the lake are not by themselves sufficiently telling. The people who used to use the Elevator would tune to the Truckee AWOS and listen for SW winds at 10+. For some reason SW seemed to work better than W, and it was very west on Saturday - many gliders landed on runway 29. The best part of that ridge is a funnel that faces SW, as are the best faces further along. Whatever you do, don't attempt to ridge soar Snow Mountain just to the SE of Marlette - there are pieces of Joe's glider still there.
Waveguru
Jul 29, 2020, 5:15:55 PM7/29/20
to
This is the first one I've heard of that didn't. What happened?
>
>
I wasn't there, but as I heard the story, he was trying to land on the boat ramp and he was waiting for it to clear of people when he stalled and spun into the water. He was knocked out, and the people that swam out to help him couldn't figure out how to open the canopy and the glider sank, drowning the pilot. Please excuse me if this isn't correct.
>
>
Boggs
jfitch
Jul 29, 2020, 5:25:56 PM7/29/20
to
John Cochrane
Jul 29, 2020, 8:04:40 PM7/29/20
to
This is a great and informative post. Thanks.
Daydreams are the little spur marked with a hang glider takeoff, N of king's beach? Well, I guess if you're desperate it could be a place to park and contemplate your fate. Moutain shoulders have never worked for me. Maybe with a good S component.
These days, a good glide computer set to Mc 4 glide compensates for a lot of altitude rules!
Yeah, the back higher ridge at snow looks inviting -- don't be invited.
The goal is a few more options. Yes, the golf course, if empty. If not, we need at least a place to crash and walk away from it. I put the swamp in that category, but it needs walking to find the post, fence, etc. that one can see from satellite photo.
I'm still in the category that I have to feel the ridge lift before losing glide to Carson over the back. Of course a little iron courage in behind my shoulders helps a lot to give up early!
John Cochrane
Daydreams are the little spur marked with a hang glider takeoff, N of king's beach? Well, I guess if you're desperate it could be a place to park and contemplate your fate. Moutain shoulders have never worked for me. Maybe with a good S component.
These days, a good glide computer set to Mc 4 glide compensates for a lot of altitude rules!
Yeah, the back higher ridge at snow looks inviting -- don't be invited.
The goal is a few more options. Yes, the golf course, if empty. If not, we need at least a place to crash and walk away from it. I put the swamp in that category, but it needs walking to find the post, fence, etc. that one can see from satellite photo.
I'm still in the category that I have to feel the ridge lift before losing glide to Carson over the back. Of course a little iron courage in behind my shoulders helps a lot to give up early!
John Cochrane
2G
Jul 30, 2020, 12:05:07 AM7/30/20
to
Tom
krasw
Jul 30, 2020, 5:38:54 AM7/30/20
to
We have a couple of water landings per decade. Nobody was ever killed or hurt, but from our statistics it can be quite expensive. One glider had leading edge of wing split open, flaps can be damaged, especially proper landing flaps. Canopy is often cracked. Wet instruments are dead instantly, or latest in few years.
Schempp policy for water landing is that all pushrods get changed in the gliders, they cannot risk corrosion and resulting ADs 10-20 years later. I once asked factory guy how much this is, answer was that around 20k euros (lots of holes in wings).
Schempp policy for water landing is that all pushrods get changed in the gliders, they cannot risk corrosion and resulting ADs 10-20 years later. I once asked factory guy how much this is, answer was that around 20k euros (lots of holes in wings).
kinsell
Jul 30, 2020, 9:56:02 AM7/30/20
to
On 7/30/20 3:38 AM, krasw wrote:
> We have a couple of water landings per decade. Nobody was ever killed or hurt, but from our statistics it can be quite expensive. One glider had leading edge of wing split open, flaps can be damaged, especially proper landing flaps. Canopy is often cracked. Wet instruments are dead instantly, or latest in few years.
>
> Schempp policy for water landing is that all pushrods get changed in the gliders, they cannot risk corrosion and resulting ADs 10-20 years later. I once asked factory guy how much this is, answer was that around 20k euros (lots of holes in wings).
>
>
Doubt there was much left of this glider after it was washed up on the
> We have a couple of water landings per decade. Nobody was ever killed or hurt, but from our statistics it can be quite expensive. One glider had leading edge of wing split open, flaps can be damaged, especially proper landing flaps. Canopy is often cracked. Wet instruments are dead instantly, or latest in few years.
>
> Schempp policy for water landing is that all pushrods get changed in the gliders, they cannot risk corrosion and resulting ADs 10-20 years later. I once asked factory guy how much this is, answer was that around 20k euros (lots of holes in wings).
>
>
rocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaTE4zT-8Is&t=55s
BobW
Jul 30, 2020, 10:16:12 AM7/30/20
to
uninfected with the "headline virus." Watching this was a (pleasant) first in
my experience with "these sorts of events." Kudos to the reporter and
rescue-assisting pilot. "Well done!" all around.
Oh yeah. Sounds as if two glider pilots were Seriously Fortunate given (as i
infer) "the usual self-inflicted" circumstances. Can't help but wonder who
bore the salvage expenses...
Bob W.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Dan Marotta
Jul 30, 2020, 10:23:16 AM7/30/20
to
Is any long flight really worth busting your glider or your ass?
--
Dan, 5J
Dan, 5J
kinsell
Jul 30, 2020, 11:34:49 AM7/30/20
to
On 7/30/20 8:16 AM, BobW wrote:
>
> Cowabunga! An accident report done by someone knowledgeable of aviation
> uninfected with the "headline virus." Watching this was a (pleasant)
> first in my experience with "these sorts of events." Kudos to the
> reporter and rescue-assisting pilot. "Well done!" all around.
>
> Oh yeah. Sounds as if two glider pilots were Seriously Fortunate given
> (as i infer) "the usual self-inflicted" circumstances. Can't help but
> wonder who bore the salvage expenses...
>
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/216239
>
> Cowabunga! An accident report done by someone knowledgeable of aviation
> uninfected with the "headline virus." Watching this was a (pleasant)
> first in my experience with "these sorts of events." Kudos to the
> reporter and rescue-assisting pilot. "Well done!" all around.
>
> Oh yeah. Sounds as if two glider pilots were Seriously Fortunate given
> (as i infer) "the usual self-inflicted" circumstances. Can't help but
> wonder who bore the salvage expenses...
>
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
Duo Discus Turbo. Wonder if this as another case of over-reliance on
the motor?
BG
Jul 30, 2020, 1:21:23 PM7/30/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 2:56:33 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
I was in Hawaii when a glider went into the ocean in the 90's. Talking with the pilot several months after he recovered from his injuries was humbling. Due to his own mistakes of fly way too fast on downwind because he had to pee, the rudder of his Duster departed during flutter. The salty wet environment at Dillingham had degraded the plywood. With out a rudder he was experiencing huge yaw with any aileron input. He explained it was a choice of crash landing on the water or land . He choose the water thinking he stood a better chance of surviving. He recalled mentally being prepared for the plane to go inverted or submarine on impact. Having his hand on the belt release. The plane on touching the water, decelerated so quickly it tore the wings off and the cockpit disintegrated. Be went through the nose collecting huge splinters of wood in his legs. He survived only because of some local surfers came to his rescue. So water landings can be very violent on a choppy surface.
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
BobW
Jul 30, 2020, 1:25:03 PM7/30/20
to
On 7/30/2020 9:34 AM, kinsell wrote:
...
linking from the above to the BGA report:
https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/2019005-BGA-Accident-Investigation-Report-22-Feb-19-Duo-Discus-G-CJUM.pdf
And if the above link doesn't directly-pull-up the BGA pdf related to the
incident, then a post from MacLaren1 on Oct. 15, 2019 "well down" the comments
listing has the link that got me there...
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/614314-glider-down-beachy-head-2.html
As earlier surmised/inferred, "Nothing new to learn here," likely applies to
the more thoughtful/curious/self-aware "glider-flying types"...yet GOBS to
absorb for those not quite-yet so jaundiced. F'r'example (and in no particular
order): avoid "getthereitis"; ALWAYS have (at least) a Plan B; could this be
*you*? [excerpted from the BGA report - "The theory states that individuals
make their decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather
than the final overall outcome."]
...
>
> https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/216239
>
> Duo Discus Turbo. Wonder if this as another case of over-reliance on the
> motor?
Hey, it's drizzling & I'm retired...and so with indoor time on my hands, and
> https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/216239
>
> Duo Discus Turbo. Wonder if this as another case of over-reliance on the
> motor?
linking from the above to the BGA report:
https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/2019005-BGA-Accident-Investigation-Report-22-Feb-19-Duo-Discus-G-CJUM.pdf
And if the above link doesn't directly-pull-up the BGA pdf related to the
incident, then a post from MacLaren1 on Oct. 15, 2019 "well down" the comments
listing has the link that got me there...
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/614314-glider-down-beachy-head-2.html
As earlier surmised/inferred, "Nothing new to learn here," likely applies to
the more thoughtful/curious/self-aware "glider-flying types"...yet GOBS to
absorb for those not quite-yet so jaundiced. F'r'example (and in no particular
order): avoid "getthereitis"; ALWAYS have (at least) a Plan B; could this be
*you*? [excerpted from the BGA report - "The theory states that individuals
make their decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather
than the final overall outcome."]
jfitch
Jul 30, 2020, 5:33:19 PM7/30/20
to
Like you, the iron thermals in the back have made me more conservative in these situations, not more aggressive as many seem to believe. I know that the retrieve from Carson (starting the engine above the pattern) will be quick, easy, and safe. But even an air retrieve from Carson is quick, easy, and safe compared to collecting the parts of your glider from the fairway for reassembly at the repair shop.
jiml...@gmail.com
Jul 30, 2020, 7:31:45 PM7/30/20
to
"Rafting is a popular activity in the hills of eastern Tennessee, and the Hiwassee is reckoned to be a good river for this. But a raft made by Schempp-Hirth is probably a poor choice."
One of my favorite lines by John Good.
https://soaringcafe.com/2013/04/rafting-the-hiwassee/#:~:text=by%20John%20Good%20-%20copyright%202013%20Rafting%20is,in%20the%20high%20ground%20east%20of%20Chilhowee%20gliderport.
One of my favorite lines by John Good.
https://soaringcafe.com/2013/04/rafting-the-hiwassee/#:~:text=by%20John%20Good%20-%20copyright%202013%20Rafting%20is,in%20the%20high%20ground%20east%20of%20Chilhowee%20gliderport.
Tom BravoMike
Jul 31, 2020, 12:21:22 AM7/31/20
to
Her Majesty?
RW
Jul 31, 2020, 4:12:58 AM7/31/20
to
On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 5:38:54 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
> We have a couple of water landings per decade. Nobody was ever killed or hurt, but from our statistics it can be quite expensive. One glider had leading edge of wing split open, flaps can be damaged, especially proper landing flaps. Canopy is often cracked. Wet instruments are dead instantly, or latest in few years.
>
> Schempp policy for water landing is that all pushrods get changed in the gliders, they cannot risk corrosion and resulting ADs 10-20 years later. I once asked factory guy how much this is, answer was that around 20k euros (lots of holes in wings).
If you trust Schempp, Dave Nadler Arcus M broken apart in the air 2 years ago and we still have no answer ?
> We have a couple of water landings per decade. Nobody was ever killed or hurt, but from our statistics it can be quite expensive. One glider had leading edge of wing split open, flaps can be damaged, especially proper landing flaps. Canopy is often cracked. Wet instruments are dead instantly, or latest in few years.
>
> Schempp policy for water landing is that all pushrods get changed in the gliders, they cannot risk corrosion and resulting ADs 10-20 years later. I once asked factory guy how much this is, answer was that around 20k euros (lots of holes in wings).
cern...@gmail.com
Jul 31, 2020, 7:24:52 AM7/31/20
to
Same in Europe for Schleicher. Our club had to spend a similar amount for putting an otherwise undamaged ASK21 in service, after a lake landing. I guess the days of let-it-dry and rig are finished.
Nobody got hurt in Italy for water landings. Minor concussions for a spin and water crash (glider destroyed).
Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it
Nobody got hurt in Italy for water landings. Minor concussions for a spin and water crash (glider destroyed).
Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it
kinsell
Jul 31, 2020, 8:19:30 AM7/31/20
to
BGA report said the ship was lost at sea. When people talk about large
amounts of air trapped in the structure, there's very little actually
sealed in there, it just takes a while for the thing to sink.
amounts of air trapped in the structure, there's very little actually
sealed in there, it just takes a while for the thing to sink.
Darren Braun
Jul 31, 2020, 11:03:18 AM7/31/20
to
Other consideration is that a lot of pilots now have LifePo4 batteries onboard. Wonder how those fair in fresh water landing and if any concern.
Salt water landings... yikes, the corrosion. Imagine it would trash the instrumentation.
Salt water landings... yikes, the corrosion. Imagine it would trash the instrumentation.
Frank Whiteley
Jul 31, 2020, 11:06:54 AM7/31/20
to
On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 3:30:50 AM UTC-6, andy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 27 July 2020 07:33:50 UTC+1, Charles Longley wrote:
> > I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
>
> All the recommendations I've heard, including in for instance Finland and Sweden, say wheel down
>
> It helps break the surface, and otherwise the belly gets grabbed and the glider can get sucked in and turn over.
This one resulted in a broken glider. Seem to recall advice that water landings should be downwind so you get blown towards the shore. Some high altitude lakes out west are pretty cold and may be tolerable in July/August. A high school chum died of hypothermia after capsizing a kayak in Puget Sound. He made it to shore and out of the water and dropped dead. His partner survived. Lake Tahoe is a similar temperature below about 18 inches is around 53F. The surface temperature may get to 66F in July.
<quote>
On August 7, 2003, at 1415 mountain daylight time, a Schempp-Hirth Ventus B/16.6 glider, N25RN, was substantially damaged during a precautionary landing in Gross Reservoir, near Boulder, Colorado. The commercial certificated flight instructor, the sole occupant on board, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. No flight plan had been filed for the cross-country flight being operated under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91. The glider departed Boulder, Colorado, at 1130.
According to the pilot, he was soaring 8 miles northeast of Mount Evans, when he noted the formation of thunderstorms and rain showers along his route of flight. He elected to return to Boulder. During his return flight, thunderstorms developed along the foothills, just west of Boulder. Due to the inadequate lift to sustain flight and with unsuitable terrain between his position and Boulder, the pilot decided to ditch the glider in Gross Reservoir. The pilot reported that he positioned the glider to land into the wind, a "west/northwest direction[,] parallel to the shore." During the impact with the water, the glider canopy was destroyed and the wings were separated from the fuselage at mid-span.
</unquote>
I don't recall if this was gear up or down.
Frank Whiteley
> On Monday, 27 July 2020 07:33:50 UTC+1, Charles Longley wrote:
> > I would think land gear up. It might float indefinitely. Depends on how much foam/wood is in it. I would certainly try and get out as quick as I could.
>
> All the recommendations I've heard, including in for instance Finland and Sweden, say wheel down
>
> It helps break the surface, and otherwise the belly gets grabbed and the glider can get sucked in and turn over.
This one resulted in a broken glider. Seem to recall advice that water landings should be downwind so you get blown towards the shore. Some high altitude lakes out west are pretty cold and may be tolerable in July/August. A high school chum died of hypothermia after capsizing a kayak in Puget Sound. He made it to shore and out of the water and dropped dead. His partner survived. Lake Tahoe is a similar temperature below about 18 inches is around 53F. The surface temperature may get to 66F in July.
<quote>
On August 7, 2003, at 1415 mountain daylight time, a Schempp-Hirth Ventus B/16.6 glider, N25RN, was substantially damaged during a precautionary landing in Gross Reservoir, near Boulder, Colorado. The commercial certificated flight instructor, the sole occupant on board, was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. No flight plan had been filed for the cross-country flight being operated under the provisions of Title 14 CFR Part 91. The glider departed Boulder, Colorado, at 1130.
According to the pilot, he was soaring 8 miles northeast of Mount Evans, when he noted the formation of thunderstorms and rain showers along his route of flight. He elected to return to Boulder. During his return flight, thunderstorms developed along the foothills, just west of Boulder. Due to the inadequate lift to sustain flight and with unsuitable terrain between his position and Boulder, the pilot decided to ditch the glider in Gross Reservoir. The pilot reported that he positioned the glider to land into the wind, a "west/northwest direction[,] parallel to the shore." During the impact with the water, the glider canopy was destroyed and the wings were separated from the fuselage at mid-span.
</unquote>
I don't recall if this was gear up or down.
Frank Whiteley
stu8...@gmail.com
Jul 31, 2020, 12:27:33 PM7/31/20
to
> a Schempp-Hirth Ventus B/16.6 glider
> I don't recall if this was gear up or down.
>
How about the landing flaps/spoilers.
>
If those were out, it might explain the wing damage?
Eric Greenwell
Jul 31, 2020, 1:08:22 PM7/31/20
to
Darren Braun wrote on 7/31/2020 8:03 AM:
> Other consideration is that a lot of pilots now have LifePo4 batteries onboard. Wonder how those fair in fresh water landing and if any concern.
>
> Salt water landings... yikes, the corrosion. Imagine it would trash the instrumentation.
>
As long as the cells in the battery aren't damaged enough to expose the innards to
> Other consideration is that a lot of pilots now have LifePo4 batteries onboard. Wonder how those fair in fresh water landing and if any concern.
>
> Salt water landings... yikes, the corrosion. Imagine it would trash the instrumentation.
>
the water, there shouldn't be any problems. I suspect damage to the battery is
much less likely in a water landing than a land landing.
Message has been deleted
Dan Marotta
Jul 31, 2020, 4:42:58 PM7/31/20
to
When you talk about Carson are you talking about Carson City Airport or
somewhere else?
On 7/31/2020 1:08 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The longer this thread goes on the better Carson looks for options B and C.
--
Dan, 5J
somewhere else?
On 7/31/2020 1:08 PM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
--
Dan, 5J
Scott Williams
Jul 31, 2020, 5:05:47 PM7/31/20
to
On Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 4:56:33 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
I just checked google earth, what hole did the landing occur on?
> Good part was it was late in the day and there were no golfers on this hole:
>
> https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=8033935
Soartech
Jul 31, 2020, 8:58:09 PM7/31/20
to
How can you land out on a flight with a glider that is averaging 83 to 1 glide over the entire flight?? (See the OLC link at top.)To me that would be almost like having a motor. Seems like really bad planning.
Scott Williams
Jul 31, 2020, 9:08:07 PM7/31/20
to
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 7:58:09 PM UTC-5, Soartech wrote:
> How can you land out on a flight with a glider that is averaging 83 to 1 glide over the entire flight?? (See the OLC link at top.)To me that would be almost like having a motor. Seems like really bad planning.
Gliders have been landing out for as long as they have been flying.
> How can you land out on a flight with a glider that is averaging 83 to 1 glide over the entire flight?? (See the OLC link at top.)To me that would be almost like having a motor. Seems like really bad planning.
While a great ship offers amazing performance, (not like I own one though),
the inevitable victory belongs to gravity.
Nobody got hurt, Success I say, and a valuable lesson to be shared without criticism.
Respect,
Scott
Charles Longley
Jul 31, 2020, 10:05:43 PM7/31/20
to
^^^Yep what he said! ^^^
David Shelton
Aug 1, 2020, 1:13:40 AM8/1/20
to
On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at 11:59:08 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Some of the posts here about water landing could give the impression that it's not so bad. Sometimes it isn't.
>
> Readers should bear in mind that those who drown while so doing are not posting their story in counterpoint. I have just one friend who's ever attempted a water landing with his glider. He won't be posting.
That's a very unfortunate point Steve. I paraglide at a coastal site near the San Francisco Bay. Hang glider and paraglider pilots drown there nearly every year. Although water landings are usually gentle, any injury or loss of conciousness can be deadly in the water. People get stuck in their harness, drown in surf, smashed into rocks, or succumb to hypothermia. If the water is 32 degrees and you're a poor swimmer, then banging up the sailplane on dry land could be the better option.
> Some of the posts here about water landing could give the impression that it's not so bad. Sometimes it isn't.
>
> Readers should bear in mind that those who drown while so doing are not posting their story in counterpoint. I have just one friend who's ever attempted a water landing with his glider. He won't be posting.
That's a very unfortunate point Steve. I paraglide at a coastal site near the San Francisco Bay. Hang glider and paraglider pilots drown there nearly every year. Although water landings are usually gentle, any injury or loss of conciousness can be deadly in the water. People get stuck in their harness, drown in surf, smashed into rocks, or succumb to hypothermia. If the water is 32 degrees and you're a poor swimmer, then banging up the sailplane on dry land could be the better option.
jfitch
Aug 1, 2020, 11:29:15 AM8/1/20
to
On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 5:58:09 PM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
> How can you land out on a flight with a glider that is averaging 83 to 1 glide over the entire flight?? (See the OLC link at top.)To me that would be almost like having a motor. Seems like really bad planning.
Never flown out west eh? Long runs at very high L/D are common out here, high and under the clouds. But the day eventually ends and then it is back to reality. There is almost never any lift over Lake Tahoe. The bad planning was entering the Tahoe basin with insufficient altitude to retreat.
> How can you land out on a flight with a glider that is averaging 83 to 1 glide over the entire flight?? (See the OLC link at top.)To me that would be almost like having a motor. Seems like really bad planning.
I believe the landing was on the 1st and 2nd fairway. These line up along State 267. The other golf course landing we have had was when Gavin Wills landed a DuoDiscus on North Lake Tahoe golf course. That is considerably more open, far fewer trees - but also another 10 miles further across the lake.
Martin Gregorie
Aug 1, 2020, 1:05:48 PM8/1/20
to
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:29:13 -0700, jfitch wrote:
This is slightly off topic, as its about an engine failure in a P-51, but
is well worth watching because the majority of it is concerned with the
pilot talking us through a video shot from the aircraft followed by a
very interesting discussion as he and the interviewer unpick his thought
processes. Here's the link:
https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
FWIW the URL was posted in a club heads-up about power loss in a tug or
TMG.
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
This is slightly off topic, as its about an engine failure in a P-51, but
is well worth watching because the majority of it is concerned with the
pilot talking us through a video shot from the aircraft followed by a
very interesting discussion as he and the interviewer unpick his thought
processes. Here's the link:
https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
FWIW the URL was posted in a club heads-up about power loss in a tug or
TMG.
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
Paul B
Aug 2, 2020, 6:39:36 AM8/2/20
to
Great video, there are couple of questions I would ask though.
1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
Whilst I appreciate that he did not do it under the pressure of the situation, I was surprised however, that it did not come up in the discussion.
Cheers
Paul
1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
Whilst I appreciate that he did not do it under the pressure of the situation, I was surprised however, that it did not come up in the discussion.
Cheers
Paul
Martin Gregorie
Aug 2, 2020, 7:41:11 AM8/2/20
to
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 03:39:34 -0700, Paul B wrote:
> Great video, there are couple of questions I would ask though.
>
> 1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one
> looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight
> turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know
> what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
>
> 2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base
> halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
>
If you have Google Earth or similar, go here:
> Great video, there are couple of questions I would ask though.
>
> 1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one
> looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight
> turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know
> what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
>
> 2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base
> halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
>
52° 5'32.77"N 0° 7'43.46"E
Take a look at the situation. From the video it looks as though he was
flying a left-hand circuit, with the downwind leg on the north of the
airfield. This means that there was an easterly, so they would have
crossed the motorway immediately after takeoff. The main runway was
shortened when the M11 motorway was built across it in 1977, 1200ft from
its eastern end.
Here I'm guessing but its likely the formation formed up ENE from the
airfield, maybe somewhere south of Whittlesford or Pampisford, ready for
a pass down runway 24.
Turning in early wouldn't have been a good idea with lots of buildings to
cross: you can see them off to his left in the video and doing so would
also have meant flying over a lot of spectators, so definitely a no-no.
> Whilst I appreciate that he did not do it under the pressure of the
> situation, I was surprised however, that it did not come up in the
> discussion.
>
left unsaid, but buildings and lots of people would have been a good
enough reason for that.
>> This is slightly off topic, as its about an engine failure in a P-51,
>> but is well worth watching because the majority of it is concerned with
>> the pilot talking us through a video shot from the aircraft followed by
>> a very interesting discussion as he and the interviewer unpick his
>> thought processes. Here's the link:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
>>
Dan Marotta
Aug 2, 2020, 10:58:54 AM8/2/20
to
I recall hearing the pilot say that he had his gear up to extend his
glide and someone yelled on the radio about that. In the heat of the
moment the radio call made him turn away from the airport.
Dan, 5J
glide and someone yelled on the radio about that. In the heat of the
moment the radio call made him turn away from the airport.
resi...@sbcglobal.net
Aug 2, 2020, 11:34:49 AM8/2/20
to
He mentioned multiple times that he was low energy - low altitude, low airspeed. In another portion of the interview he mentioned the machine guns were whistling, which is a well known indicator that your angle of attack is critical. Turning tighter would increase wing load, which increases stall speed, which increases the chance of a low speed stall/spin. My guess is that was a top concern at the time.
Eric Greenwell
Aug 2, 2020, 12:46:24 PM8/2/20
to
He could safely turn tighter by letting the speed increase as he banked more; put
another way, maintain his angle of attack (NOT the airspeed) as he increases the bank.
another way, maintain his angle of attack (NOT the airspeed) as he increases the bank.
resi...@sbcglobal.net
Aug 2, 2020, 2:10:20 PM8/2/20
to
I must be missing something. He has no excess altitude to convert to speed. He has no engine to add thrust. So, exactly how is he supposed to increase speed?
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> He could safely turn tighter by letting the speed increase as he banked more; put
> another way, maintain his angle of attack (NOT the airspeed) as he increases the bank.
>
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> He could safely turn tighter by letting the speed increase as he banked more; put
> another way, maintain his angle of attack (NOT the airspeed) as he increases the bank.
>
Martin Gregorie
Aug 2, 2020, 3:59:50 PM8/2/20
to
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 08:34:47 -0700, resigler wrote:
> He mentioned multiple times that he was low energy - low altitude, low
> airspeed. In another portion of the interview he mentioned the machine
> guns were whistling, which is a well known indicator that your angle of
> attack is critical. Turning tighter would increase wing load, which
> increases stall speed, which increases the chance of a low speed
> stall/spin. My guess is that was a top concern at the time.
>
That, by itself was an interesting remark, to me anyway.
> He mentioned multiple times that he was low energy - low altitude, low
> airspeed. In another portion of the interview he mentioned the machine
> guns were whistling, which is a well known indicator that your angle of
> attack is critical. Turning tighter would increase wing load, which
> increases stall speed, which increases the chance of a low speed
> stall/spin. My guess is that was a top concern at the time.
>
For several years I've gone to the "Little Gransden Charity Air & Car
Show", in part because its a small field, so displaying aircraft are
quite close and the tiedown area is very close. It also gets an amazing
collection of aircraft. Te Vulcan (when it was flying, BBMF aircraft and
Memphis Bell have all displayed there, along with a couple of P-51s.
Anyway, because the displays are close in, the blast of sound as a P-51
pulls G is quite obvious. I always wondered what caused it since I've not
heard any other aircraft make that noise. Now I know what it is: the gun-
barrels whistling at high AOA.
BTW, when I say Little Gransden is small, think Old Reinbeck - those
living near NYC will know what I mean. If you want to see what it's like,
here's the reference: 52° 9'58.11"N 0° 9'0.54"W The single grass strip
is 2500ft and there's usually at least one P-51 on the field during the
airshow.
Eric Greenwell
Aug 2, 2020, 4:40:31 PM8/2/20
to
The tighter turn works for gliders after a rope break, so I'm thinking (as did
Paul B), it would work for the P51 pilot.
There is an optimum bank for minimizing the loss of altitude (and he did have some
altitude). Had he turned tighter (about 40 degrees typically), he would have made
it further around the turn than making a wide turn. Yes, initially he would be a
bit lower, but his greater turn rate would more than compensates for that, and he
can get back some of the that altitude when he stops turning and slows down.
resi...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/2/2020 11:10 AM:
> I must be missing something. He has no excess altitude to convert to speed.. He has no engine to add thrust. So, exactly how is he supposed to increase speed?
Paul B), it would work for the P51 pilot.
There is an optimum bank for minimizing the loss of altitude (and he did have some
altitude). Had he turned tighter (about 40 degrees typically), he would have made
it further around the turn than making a wide turn. Yes, initially he would be a
bit lower, but his greater turn rate would more than compensates for that, and he
can get back some of the that altitude when he stops turning and slows down.
resi...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/2/2020 11:10 AM:
> I must be missing something. He has no excess altitude to convert to speed.. He has no engine to add thrust. So, exactly how is he supposed to increase speed?
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> He could safely turn tighter by letting the speed increase as he banked more; put
>> another way, maintain his angle of attack (NOT the airspeed) as he increases the bank.
>>
>> res wrote on 8/2/2020 8:34 AM:
>>> He mentioned multiple times that he was low energy - low altitude, low airspeed. In another portion of the interview he mentioned the machine guns were whistling, which is a well known indicator that your angle of attack is critical. Turning tighter would increase wing load, which increases stall speed, which increases the chance of a low speed stall/spin. My guess is that was a top concern at the time.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:39:36 AM UTC-5, Paul B wrote:
>>>> Great video, there are couple of questions I would ask though.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
>>>>
>>>> Whilst I appreciate that he did not do it under the pressure of the situation, I was surprised however, that it did not come up in the discussion..
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 11:46:24 AM UTC-5, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> He could safely turn tighter by letting the speed increase as he banked more; put
>> another way, maintain his angle of attack (NOT the airspeed) as he increases the bank.
>>
>> res wrote on 8/2/2020 8:34 AM:
>>> He mentioned multiple times that he was low energy - low altitude, low airspeed. In another portion of the interview he mentioned the machine guns were whistling, which is a well known indicator that your angle of attack is critical. Turning tighter would increase wing load, which increases stall speed, which increases the chance of a low speed stall/spin. My guess is that was a top concern at the time.
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 5:39:36 AM UTC-5, Paul B wrote:
>>>> Great video, there are couple of questions I would ask though.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
>>>>
tow...@gmail.com
Aug 3, 2020, 12:02:38 AM8/3/20
to
> >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
> >
In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
Rakel
Aug 3, 2020, 5:01:24 AM8/3/20
to
On Monday, August 3, 2020 at 12:02:38 AM UTC-4, tow...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
> > >
>
> In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
With the engine only partly running, how long will it take the P-51 to lower the landing gear? How long to lower the landing gear manually?
> > >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
> > >
>
> In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
Andreas Maurer
Aug 3, 2020, 8:34:35 PM8/3/20
to
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 13:40:28 -0700, Eric Greenwell
<ow...@thegreenwells.netto> wrote:
>The tighter turn works for gliders after a rope break, so I'm thinking (as did
>Paul B), it would work for the P51 pilot.
>
>There is an optimum bank for minimizing the loss of altitude (and he did have some
>altitude). Had he turned tighter (about 40 degrees typically), he would have made
>it further around the turn than making a wide turn. Yes, initially he would be a
>bit lower, but his greater turn rate would more than compensates for that, and he
>can get back some of the that altitude when he stops turning and slows down.
Hi Eric,
<ow...@thegreenwells.netto> wrote:
>The tighter turn works for gliders after a rope break, so I'm thinking (as did
>Paul B), it would work for the P51 pilot.
>
>There is an optimum bank for minimizing the loss of altitude (and he did have some
>altitude). Had he turned tighter (about 40 degrees typically), he would have made
>it further around the turn than making a wide turn. Yes, initially he would be a
>bit lower, but his greater turn rate would more than compensates for that, and he
>can get back some of the that altitude when he stops turning and slows down.
From the video one can clearly see that his energy is barely enough to
cross the extended center line, including the flare. Definitely not
enough energy to make a turn, not to mention to drop the gear.
Let's do some maths:
When he started the turn to base leg he was between 250 and 350 ft AGL
(depending on his altimeter settings) and 150 mph.
P-51D stall speed clean: 100 mph, hence stall speed at 40 degreed
bank: 114 mph .
So, if he had flown a perfect approach at 120 MPH and 40 degrees of
bank, he would have had a turn diameter of 2305 ft, resulting in a
flight path distance of 3620 ft.
Having an altitude of 350 ft AGL, this would have needed an L/D of
10.3, with 250 ft he would have needed 14.5.
At 175 mph the L/D of the P-51D is 15:1, prop in high pitch. Close to
the stall speed L/D is an estimated 30 percent less, hence 10:1.
Propellor in low pitch will further reduce this number. I found no
numbers on the influence of open cooling flaps.
Let's assume an L/D of 10:1 for now (from the video probably a lot
lower).
Hence, the pilot might have had the chance to complete his turn if all
his factors had been in his favour, but even under these circulstances
he would not have had the energy to extend the gear. He didn't have
the altitude to extend it over the runway after the turn, and
extending it during the turn would have affected his L/D so much that
a crash was unavoidable.
If he had run out of energy (altitude and/or speed) in the last phase
of the turn, he would have definitely crashed, directly in front of
him the M-11 motorway, his flightpath still pointing at the thousands
of spectators. Hardly survivable.
Conclusion:
This landing is a perfect example of getting one's priorities right:
Fly the plane to a safe controlled landing instead of trying to get
back to the airfield, risking a probably deadly crash if only the
slightest thing goes wrong.
Cheers
Andreas
Andreas Maurer
Aug 3, 2020, 8:39:51 PM8/3/20
to
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 21:02:36 -0700 (PDT), tow...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
>> >
>
>In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
Jut out of interest:
>
>> >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
>> >
>
>In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
How many hours in the P-51D do you have that you are able to transfer
glider tactice to a fighter aircraft?
I have none, but I am extremely sure that you don't simply land a
P-51D on a field with extended gear without damage...
Cheers
Andreas
Martin Gregorie
Aug 3, 2020, 9:38:25 PM8/3/20
to
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 03:39:34 -0700, Paul B wrote:
> Great video, there are couple of questions I would ask though.
>
> 1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one
> looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight
> turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know
> what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
>
> 2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base
> halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
>
I thought I'd posted this a day ago, but it evidently didn't make it to
>
> 1) Why did he not turn much tighter to return to the airfield, one
> looses much less height in a tight turn that a shallow one? From a tight
> turn he might have been able to land downwind. Of course I do not know
> what the winds were, or how feasible is to land P-51 downwind.
>
> 2) Why did he cross the highway, surely he could have turned base
> halfway down the strip and have enough runway to stop.
>
the newsgroup somehow.
I've been to airshows at Duxford, flown gliders past it, flown from there
in a Tiger Moth, and driven past it on the M.11 many times, so I have
some small knowledge of the area. Here's my take:
The formation was joining up on the far side of the motorway when the
P-51s engine had its tizzy. Look at a map or a satpic of the airfield -
the M.11 is almost glued to the east (departure) end of the runway. When
that part of the M.11 was built they chopped 1200ft off the Eastern end
of the runway to keep the road straight.
From the vid it looks as though the formation was joining up a bit North
of the centre line, possibly somewhere near Wittlesford, so when the
engine hiccuped the second time, setting up a left-hand circuit on the
north of the airfield must have looked good. The south side has no
obstacles but (a) it makes the circuit quite a bit longer and (b) it
would have meant crossing the departure end of an active runway.
Turning in early: that would have meant crossing a row of large hangars
and the airshow spectators, which were all along the northern side of the
airfield. In the UK at least, the rules are clear: you DO NOT overfly a
crowd of people below 1000ft AGL under any circumstances - and the P-51
was below that with a dead engine by the time he was past the M.11.
As I said: bring up Duxford Airfield on Google Earth or Google Maps,
compare that with the video shot from the P-51 and draw your own
conclusions.
2G
Aug 3, 2020, 9:54:22 PM8/3/20
to
Scott Williams
Aug 3, 2020, 11:18:54 PM8/3/20
to
I know that I will not live or fly long enough to learn these lessons on my own.
I'm happy to learn from pilots regardless of what they may have been flying.
Thanks to all the Tow Pilots and their contribution to Soaring.
Respect,
Scott
Paul B
Aug 4, 2020, 1:01:21 AM8/4/20
to
"Conclusion:
This landing is a perfect example of getting one's priorities right"
Yes, but only in the last 5 seconds of the flight. Right before he aborted the left hand turn, he was going to land on the strip. That was his plan.
This landing is a perfect example of getting one's priorities right"
My point is that he should have turned before he reached the freeway. Not necessarily when it was all happening, I am aware of the pressure that he was under.
However he clearly was desperate to make the runway and that mistake, to me, was a teaching moment. He did allude to the fact that a disabled aircraft is simply a tool dissipate energy, but did not discussed the fact that he was trying to reach the runway when he should not have.
Also, Martin G, from the video and the topology, his downwind was to the south of the airfield, flying West to East (approx), otherwise a left hand turn could not take him across the freeway. And as you have noted there are no obstacles or crowds on that side. So he had choices.
To reiterate, I am NOT discussing his performance during the event. I know nothing about flying P-51 etc.
I am only discussing the debrief.
Cheers
Paul
tow...@gmail.com
Aug 4, 2020, 2:30:06 AM8/4/20
to
On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 9:02:38 PM UTC-7, tow...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
> > >
>
> In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
This discussion is useful, and should not be regarded as a criticism of the pilot. Such discussions remind me of the description of an accident enquiry, as "six people taking six months to decide what the pilot should have done in six seconds".
> > >re https://youtu.be/BBpqvPujZgM
> > >
>
> In my opinion, this video shows the difference in training between a power pilot and a glider pilot. A glider pilot in a similar situation (eg being low and not finding lift) would have remained close to one of the excellent large grass fields immediately visible in the video. A glider pilot would not have attempted to continue further without keeping another good field within reach. Once close to a airport, a glider pilot would not have attempted to fly a normal pattern, once a runway could be reached with an early turn in. A glider pilot would not have chosen to extend his downwind, for no obvious purpose, to place a highway between him and the runway. To summarize: a glider pilot would have calmly landed in a large grass field, and would not have made a panicky gear-up landing in a crop field.
Martin Gregorie
Aug 4, 2020, 7:13:00 AM8/4/20
to
On Mon, 03 Aug 2020 22:01:17 -0700, Paul B wrote:
> Also, Martin G, from the video and the topology, his downwind was to the
> south of the airfield, flying West to East (approx), otherwise a left
> hand turn could not take him across the freeway. And as you have noted
> there are no obstacles or crowds on that side. So he had choices.
>
Yes, you're right - after reviewing the start of the video a few times I
> Also, Martin G, from the video and the topology, his downwind was to the
> south of the airfield, flying West to East (approx), otherwise a left
> hand turn could not take him across the freeway. And as you have noted
> there are no obstacles or crowds on that side. So he had choices.
>
now see that I was 180 out of sync. He was turning to base when he
crossed the M.11, and then realised that he wasn't going to make the
runway, which would have required crossing the road a second time and put
it down parallel to road.
Andreas Maurer
Aug 4, 2020, 10:51:20 AM8/4/20
to
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:01:17 -0700 (PDT), Paul B <pb2...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>"Conclusion:
>This landing is a perfect example of getting one's priorities right"
>
>Yes, but only in the last 5 seconds of the flight. Right before he aborted the left hand turn, he was going to land on the strip. That was his plan.
Indeed. And instead of trying to scratch into the field, he chose the
safe option while he was still high and fast enough.
>
>My point is that he should have turned before he reached the freeway. Not necessarily when it was all happening, I am aware of the pressure that he was under.
Even if he had started his turn earlier (in the middle of the downwind
leg) he would not have had the engery to complete it and would have
crashed into the fields south of the runway, still heading toward the
crowd - and the row of parked GA aircraft (and their personnel) in the
South of the runway.
Not to mention that the remaining runway length - if he had been able
to reach the airfield - was very close to the landing distance of a
P-51. Overshooting the runway in a tail dragger and risking a
somersault? Hmmm...
Clear case:
He made the best decision, without a doubt.
Cheers
Andreas
p.s.
And of course there are a couple of other points to consider - for
example the fact that the engine finally seized up just when he
started his turn to final. If it had delivered power for another four,
five seconds, he would have made it into the field.
wrote:
>"Conclusion:
>This landing is a perfect example of getting one's priorities right"
>
>Yes, but only in the last 5 seconds of the flight. Right before he aborted the left hand turn, he was going to land on the strip. That was his plan.
safe option while he was still high and fast enough.
>
>My point is that he should have turned before he reached the freeway. Not necessarily when it was all happening, I am aware of the pressure that he was under.
leg) he would not have had the engery to complete it and would have
crashed into the fields south of the runway, still heading toward the
crowd - and the row of parked GA aircraft (and their personnel) in the
South of the runway.
Not to mention that the remaining runway length - if he had been able
to reach the airfield - was very close to the landing distance of a
P-51. Overshooting the runway in a tail dragger and risking a
somersault? Hmmm...
Clear case:
He made the best decision, without a doubt.
Cheers
Andreas
p.s.
And of course there are a couple of other points to consider - for
example the fact that the engine finally seized up just when he
started his turn to final. If it had delivered power for another four,
five seconds, he would have made it into the field.
Eric Greenwell
Aug 4, 2020, 4:31:43 PM8/4/20
to
- you are supposed to fly the 40 degree turn at the minimum sink speed for that
bank angle, not near stall. So, the L/D would be significantly higher than 10
- I wasn't suggesting the tighter turn would be a better choice, only that it
would get him further around. Your answer may be what Paul B is looking for, as
the person who won
Paul B
Aug 5, 2020, 2:47:29 AM8/5/20
to
"And of course there are a couple of other points to consider - for
example the fact that the engine finally seized up just when he
started his turn to final. If it had delivered power for another four,
five seconds, he would have made it into the field."
Andreas, you cannot have it both ways, if indeed the engine delivered power for extra four or five seconds AND he turned early, than he would landed without an issue. Instead his plan, up to the time when he straightened to land, was to cross a busy highway twice. Cannot see that as the best decision.
example the fact that the engine finally seized up just when he
started his turn to final. If it had delivered power for another four,
five seconds, he would have made it into the field."
Again, I am not questioning what he did, simply saying that he could have addressed his desire to reach the runway of a normal circuit in the briefing. I am sure that not modifying a circuit as appropriate has killed many.
Cheers
Paul
2G
Aug 5, 2020, 5:39:42 PM8/5/20
to
Tom
Scott Williams
Aug 5, 2020, 8:27:54 PM8/5/20
to
turd in the punch bowl
n. A person who spoils a pleasant social situation.
This metaphor is powered by a particularly vivid contrast: the inviting sensory appeal of a festive beverage juxtaposed with the revolting suggestion of feculent contagion. Therefore, labeling someone a turd in the punch bowl is most appropriate when the individual's deleterious influence goes beyond mere faux pas or nuisance behaviors, and rises to the level of deliberate offense for its own sake. Consider that the literal act of depositing or excreting fecal matter into a communal food-service container would be sabotage.
The punch bowl and the feces connote certain additional nuances. The former is a symbol of public community, as such dispensers are frequently encountered at parties where they become a focal point for interaction. Freud famously identified feces with aggression and the possessive instinct. Thus a turd in the punch bowl suggests rage toward, and / or the urge to conquer, a community or society as a whole. Defecating into a punch bowl is a very public act, in contrast with poisoning the well or laying an upper decker, which are generally surreptitious. In particular then, to be a turd in the punch bowl is to be a willful and attention-seeking obstructor to the success of a social community.
2G
Aug 5, 2020, 10:25:50 PM8/5/20
to
drbda...@aol.com
Aug 6, 2020, 3:05:14 AM8/6/20
to
Paul Bikle was retrieved by a P-51 in his 1-23 many decades ago....
Message has been deleted
Dan Marotta
Aug 6, 2020, 11:32:57 AM8/6/20
to
I couldn't find any information on that. Could you elaborate?
On 8/6/2020 1:05 AM, drbda...@aol.com wrote:
> Paul Bikle was retrieved by a P-51 in his 1-23 many decades ago....
--
Dan, 5J
On 8/6/2020 1:05 AM, drbda...@aol.com wrote:
> Paul Bikle was retrieved by a P-51 in his 1-23 many decades ago....
Dan, 5J
2G
Aug 6, 2020, 5:57:00 PM8/6/20
to
On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 7:47:51 AM UTC-7, jonatha...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom this discussion has been helpful to point out there is a startle effect in any emergency. I have had multiple in flight emergencies (inflight fire, explosive decompression, throttle cable on twin came undone one short final (never covered that in any training), 90 degree flaps didn't 90 degrees...etc). Each event took a measurable amount of time to understand what was happening and how to respond. This discussion is directly applicable to soaring or any flight activity. This is why we practice 200 ft turn back and say 200 ft outbound on take offs. To lessen the startle effect and to have a plan without thinking. Hangar flying is the thing I miss most about not having a hangar now. Only a fool could not learn from another pilot's actions in an emergency. All soaring pilots are pilots.
Then start a separate discussion on that topic - don't append it to one that has no bearing on it whatsoever.
Then start a separate discussion on that topic - don't append it to one that has no bearing on it whatsoever.
0 new messages