Motorglider accident at Richland, WA
Tom Seim
that was totally preventable. The pilot was launching from a 4500'
runway and experienced engine problems at about 100' altitude.
Ignoring the fact that he had at least 2000' of runway straight ahead
onto which to land, he elected to attempt a 90 degree right hand turn
to another runway. Had this turn been executed smartly the outcome
would have been OK, but it was not. The turn was done in a
half-hearted way, with the down wingtip (right) never brought back to
level. This wingtip struck the ground, cartwheeling the glider's nose
into the ground. It skidded for a short distance, did a 90 degree
ground loop and stopped. The pilot was, fortunately, not hurt, but the
glider was definately worse for the wear.
All glider pilots, whether self-launchers or not, should have a game
plan for problems at every point of the launch. Motorgliders need at
least 400ft of altitude to do a 180 back to the runway in the event of
a power failure. This translates to a definite position from the
starting point. For instance, for a DG-400 (the A/C I fly) takeoff
roll is, at least 750', so use 1000'. Climb is, conservatively, 400
ft/min. To achieve 400 ft of altitude will take 1 minute of climb, or
about 6000 ft plus the 1000 ft roll for a total of 7000 ft of
horizontal distance. This exceeds the length of most runways, meaning
that a 180 turn back to the runway is not advisable while still over
the runway. Once at this altitude the runway is now behind you and,
after excuting the 180 turn, your altitude will be too low to make it
back to the runway. This why the unvarying advice is to land straight
ahead in the event of engine failure at low altitude. This should be
emblazened into the brain of any power or motorglider pilot. The
numbers can be mitigated, somewhat, by deviating away from the runway
after rotating (the 180 turn doesn't actually get you back onto the
runway heading, but on a track parallel to it, so it is more like
doing a 270 degree turn).
The moral of the story: know what you are going to do for each
continguency at each, and every, point of the launch.
Tom Seim
Richland, WA
Al
Al
"Tom Seim" <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6c71b322.03041...@posting.google.com...
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Tom Seim
01, a 4000 ft runway and had, at least, 1500 ft of runway ahead of him
when he decided to land on the east part of 07. After starting the
turn he must have had second thoughts (he was already past the
intersection) and started to roll back level. While he had adequate
time to level out he did not. The right wing tip struck the ground
first, cart wheeling the nose into the ground. He skidded across the
19 taxiway and ground looped in the dirt on the other side, breaking
the tail boom.
I told him (after retrieving his broken glider) that his actions, in
my opinion, were inappropriate and that he should consider taking
additional dual instruction. He seemed responsive to this comment and
did, indeed, contact our former instructor that evening (Eric). I
would rather have him mad at me than see him die.
We also had a serious accident here last year. That guy accomplished
something I never heard of before: he survived a spin (flat) into the
ground from 3000 ft. He is now walking unassisted again (another
miracle). The string of mistakes this guy made were record setting.
That day nobody said anything when, offered a parachute for his first
flight in a glider lacking an airworthiness certificate, he said "I
don't need a fucking parachute!".
Tom
Mike Borgelt
>Today I witnessed an accident involving a motorglider at Richland, WA,
>that was totally preventable.
>
>The moral of the story: know what you are going to do for each
>continguency at each, and every, point of the launch.
I heard of a similar one more than ten years ago. A guy in a
MotorFalke had forgotten to switch the fuel on. The tap leaked anough
to run the motor at idle/taxi. At 100 feet the engine stopped and he
spun in and died. I found this inexplicable as the runway was the one
I did my first solo from. There must have been more than1500 feet left
in front of him and beyond that a safe grass area maybe another 300
feet and beyond that a level wheat field.
Mike Borgelt
Al
Thanks
Al
"Tom Seim" <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6c71b322.03041...@posting.google.com...
clay thomas
Too bad he didn't take the parachute. It might have given him just
enough additional weight to bring his CG foward and avoid a flat spin!
Clay Thomas
Jack
> All glider pilots, whether self-launchers or not, should have a game
> plan for problems at every point of the launch. Motorgliders need at
> least 400ft of altitude to do a 180 back to the runway in the event of
> a power failure.
What is your basis for this claim?
See the following pages for some insight into how the answers can be determined:
< http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/technical_flying.html >;
specifically this link,
< http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/flying/aiaa1col.pdf >;
and this link,
< http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/flying/possible.html >.
Jack
John Morgan
> Tom Seim wrote:
>
> > All glider pilots, whether self-launchers or not, should have a game
> > plan for problems at every point of the launch. Motorgliders need at
> > least 400ft of altitude to do a 180 back to the runway in the event of
> > a power failure.
>
Well, not exactly. With any reasonable level of pilot proficiency at all,
the Stemme can handily return from 200' and one will need spoilers so as not
to overshoot the departure end. The Stemme with gear down and nose cone open
will still have a better L/D than many trainers, and they routinely simulate
rope breaks at 200 agl.
--
bumper <bum...@ten.tta>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 3/27/2003
Tom Seim
> Tom Seim wrote:
>
> > All glider pilots, whether self-launchers or not, should have a game
> > plan for problems at every point of the launch. Motorgliders need at
> > least 400ft of altitude to do a 180 back to the runway in the event of
> > a power failure.
>
> What is your basis for this claim?
Actually, 400 ft is probably marginal. In my DG-400 the sink rate goes
up to about 5 kt with the prop wind milling (if the engine is still
running, but at reduced power, this will obviously be less). The turn
that you have to make is not 180, but more like 270 to get back in
line with the runway (unless you drift off of centerline during
climb).
500 ft/min * 0.5 min * 0.75 turn = 188 ft
Before you can begin making the turn, however, you will have to
transition from a nose high attitude to a nose low. This will take at
least 50 and maybe 100 feet of altitude.
188 + 75 = 263 feet
Of course, you have to have some altitude left over to keep the wing
tip from dragging the ground (as I witnessed last weekend). This
should be at least 50 feet, 100 would be better.
263 + 50 = 313 feet
Now, this assumes still air conditions. What if you are in, or end up
in, sinking air? I would add another 100 feet of contingency altitude
for this:
313 + 100 = 413 feet.
This is only valid if react IMMEDIATELY TO POWER INTERRUPTION. Any
hesitation will worsen the situation.
Tom Seim
Richland, WA
BTIZ
now lets look at a DG400 with the mast still up.. that makes one 'ell of a
speedbrake..
TZ
"John Morgan" <bum...@ten.tta> wrote in message
news:tLAma.28278$cO3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...