Official Report Published on Glider Lightning Strike
David Starer
at Dunstable was destroyed by an airborne lightning strike on 17th April.
Fortunately, both occupants baled out successfully, suffering only minor
injuries.
The official report on the accident by the AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation
Branch) has now been published, and can be found at
http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/dec99htm/bga3705.htm
The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the accident as well as a
detailed discussion of the effect of lightning strikes on composite
airframes and metal parts, and photographs and diagrams.
David Starer
Ian Strachan
Starer <nospamDav...@Compuserve.com> writes
Very interesting. It makes sobering reading.
Once more the world gliding movement seems to have done a significant
service to aviation in general. There are lots of GRP and other
synthetics in modern powered aircraft both civil and military.
Thank goodness both guys baled out successfully.
--
Ian Strachan
Kilo Charlie
David Starer <nospamDav...@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:838n6g$4om$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> Many glider pilots, particularly in the UK, will be aware that a K21 based
> at Dunstable was destroyed by an airborne lightning strike on 17th April.
> Fortunately, both occupants baled out successfully, suffering only minor
> injuries.
>
> The official report on the accident by the AAIB (Air Accidents
Investigation
> Branch) has now been published, and can be found at
>
> http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/dec99htm/bga3705.htm
>
> The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the accident as well as a
> detailed discussion of the effect of lightning strikes on composite
> airframes and metal parts, and photographs and diagrams.
>
This is a "must read" for any pilots that fly near thunderstorms, which I
suspect is the great majority of us. It is an extremely thorough and
informative report and as Ian Strachan stated, "sobering". Thank God the
pilots were able to bail out successfully.
Here in the western US we often fly, much closer than these pilots had been,
to cunims towering to above 40-60 thousand feet. Even when attempting to
avoid these storms, they have provided the only source of lift on occasion.
I guess that I had thought in the past that it would be better to take a
chance to get up and back home than to be sitting on the ground while the
storm came over after a landout....now I may have to rethink that
hypothesis.
Happy Holidays,
Casey Lenox
Phoenix
LS-8
Larry Goddard
nature and complexity of lightning.
Larry Goddard
"01" USA
Al
David Starer <nospamDav...@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:838n6g$4om$1...@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
MHende6388
re-enactment of the incedent including interviews of witnesses.
Anyone else see this?
mh
Bruce Hoult
<I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Once more the world gliding movement seems to have done a significant
> service to aviation in general. There are lots of GRP and other
> synthetics in modern powered aircraft both civil and military.
But how is it related to the GRP, other than the fact that GRP is
non-conductive?
The damage appears to have been caused by the vaporization of the material
of the joints in the aileron linkage due to arcs forming there, and the
high pressure gas created blowing the surounding GRP structures apart.
The rest of the control linkages seemed to basically survive.
The report seems to suggest that the control linkages could instead be
made from non-conductive materials.
Would it suffice to add conductive metal straps across the joints? This
is of course done on powered aircraft and also on, for example, the
Blanik. Or is this adequate only becuase of the metal skin of those
aircraft providing alternative conduction paths?
-- Bruce
Christopher Nicholas
The instructor (I have been told) gave the P2 a thorough briefing on how to
bale out and use the parachute, should it be necessary, before flying with
him, to provide for the unlikely event that it might have to be used. The
unlikely happened.
The report mentions that the P2 had impaired hearing, and so did not hear
the instructor telling him to bale out, but did so anyway based on the
previous briefing and his own perception of the situation. I believe that
the impaired hearing was as a result of the noise of the lightning strike
(as implied by a later section of the report), not a pre-existing condition.
The avoidance of serious injury seems to be due in no small measure to the
thoroughness of the instructor's tuition - an example worth following.
Chris J. Nicholas
Christopher Nicholas
is generally conducted through the metallic structure where the
cross-sectional area at any point is usually more than sufficient to ensure
a low current density".
Chris J. Nicholas
Bruce Hoult wrote in message ...
>>But how is it related to the GRP, other than the fact that GRP is
>non-conductive?
>
Bruce Hoult
<ch...@cnich15000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The report mentions that the P2 had impaired hearing, and so did not hear
> the instructor telling him to bale out, but did so anyway based on the
> previous briefing and his own perception of the situation. I believe that
> the impaired hearing was as a result of the noise of the lightning strike
> (as implied by a later section of the report), not a pre-existing condition.
Yes, that was my reading of it.
-- bruce
Armand A. Medeiros
same thing! Last time I was there, I got a short reminder on things
regarding parachute use. Good reminders! I hadn't thought about it as I did
my CBBD out lowd. He reminded me of the proper descent strategies and such.
GOD BLESS good instructors! Especially when us old pilots forget things...
Armand
Bruce Hoult <bruce...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:brucehoult-16...@bruce.bgh...
David Starer
compiled the report, will be giving a presentation on his findings at
Dunstable on, I think, January 15th.
Peter is a glider pilot and member at Dunstable, and although he seems to
spend much of his time digging pieces of broken aeroplanes out of self-made
holes in the ground, he's finding time to talk to us about his report. I'm
sure we could accomodate some visitors, if anyone would like to come along.
David Starer
Phil Foster
<ch...@cnich15000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>The instructor (I have been told) gave the P2 a thorough briefing on how to
>bale out and use the parachute, should it be necessary, before flying with
>him, to provide for the unlikely event that it might have to be used. The
>unlikely happened.
>
>The report mentions that the P2 had impaired hearing, and so did not hear
>the instructor telling him to bale out, but did so anyway based on the
>previous briefing and his own perception of the situation. I believe that
>the impaired hearing was as a result of the noise of the lightning strike
>(as implied by a later section of the report), not a pre-existing condition.
As I understand it, the impaired hearing was caused by the *bang* produced
by the lightning strike and affected both pilots. When I spoke to Pete (the
instructor) in the bar at Dunstable a couple of weeks after the incident, I
had to speak up a bit.
Pete is renouned for his comprehensive pre-flight briefings. I changed the
way I brief for emergency evacuation after the incident.
Regards - Phil.
Donald Ingraham
<snip>
> This accident convinced me of the importance of wearing a parachute,
> for all types of flights.
> jeff
Agree 100%. I'll change the thread name for this new tangent. I
have a parachute question that's bugged me for a while. Maybe
r.a.s. can shed some light for me....
There is a well known exchange with a fighter pilot who was asked,
after ejecting a few feet before impact after a carrier take-off
gone bad, "How did you assess the situation, make the decision to
eject and react quickly enough to do it?". All done in the time it
takes to fall from the carrier deck to the water. He replied, "I
made the necessary assessment and decision a long time ago.".
Cool. So I wonder....
1) I don't know if it's smarter to pull the ripcord *before*
exiting the glider or *after*...but I think it's smarter to
decide now.
Say you are at 1000ft in a Discus/ASW24/LS8 and put the gear down
gear. Suddenly you have no elevator authority. CG is at the fore
limit, so you begin to accelerate. You might save hundreds of feet
of potential deceleration zone by pulling the ripcord *then* jumping.
You also remove the risk of being killed because you get smacked in
the face (by the wing/tail/canopy) and are slow to find/pull the
rip chord. Or is it riskier to pull first, because your chute might
get hung up on the ship? Also, do you go over or under the wing?
(over I guess, with the ripcord already pulled!)
You can say "get out any way you can!". But if you have time
and the presence of mind to be methodical...what is the best
method?
It's a common cop-out to dismiss scenarios with a righteous
"you should never allow yourself to get into that situation".
But if the fictional double-release failure is worthy of so
much chat...how about....
2) Dang. I'm going into the trees. How should I spend the next
minute?
Is there a certain type of tree to look for, i.e. one you won't slip
out of after coming to a stop in it (unlike an evergreen). Is it
better to go in at stall, or better to choose "accuracy" with a
certain technique even if that means a faster speed? Any way to
maneuver the tail/wing to absorb impact? Will I wish I had radioed
lat/long over and over with mayday as I prepared to disappear into
the trees?
3) You are at 300ft and just *barely* on glide slope to make your field.
There is a glider-eating, back-breaking, ditch bordering this field
(yes,
yes. Never let this happen!). Should you push over into ground-effect,
a couple feet off the ground at 80 knots, wheel up, and be ready to
drop gear as soon as you clear the ditch? Or hold tight at best-L/D?
(no wind).
Thanks in advance for any thoughts/experiences!
Don
Gerald Belton
wrote:
>1) I don't know if it's smarter to pull the ripcord *before*
>exiting the glider or *after*...but I think it's smarter to
>decide now.
>
>Say you are at 1000ft in a Discus/ASW24/LS8 and put the gear down
>gear. Suddenly you have no elevator authority. CG is at the fore
>limit, so you begin to accelerate. You might save hundreds of feet
>of potential deceleration zone by pulling the ripcord *then* jumping.
>You also remove the risk of being killed because you get smacked in
>the face (by the wing/tail/canopy) and are slow to find/pull the
>rip chord. Or is it riskier to pull first, because your chute might
>get hung up on the ship? Also, do you go over or under the wing?
>(over I guess, with the ripcord already pulled!)
I made a few jumps with a skydiving club years ago. In the ground
training, they went over a number of emergency scenarios. Our
instructor emphasized that accidentally pulling a ripcord *before*
exiting the plane was a very, very Bad Thing.
The risk, as you guessed, is that the parachute will get hung up on
the ship. You want to get away from the plane before opening.
Gerald
ps - I'm not a glider pilot, yet. I've been lurking here and planning
to take lessons as soon as I get my weight down a bit.
"Pick up a clothing catalogue. They tend to use food words, which is
ironic since the women modeling the "chocolate" or "oatmeal" sweater
live on spring water and heroin." -- Elaine Richards explains color
names in alt.peeves
Donald Ingraham
> I made a few jumps with a skydiving club years ago. In the ground
> training, they went over a number of emergency scenarios. Our
> instructor emphasized that accidentally pulling a ripcord *before*
> exiting the plane was a very, very Bad Thing.
Yes, having jumped myself I can see where the chute
could get hung-up on/in your typical jump plane. I was
about to wax poetic about the sleek, simple sailplane
and try to imagine where a chute could hang-up. Then came
the image of the chute going to the right side of a T-tail
and the pilot jumping to the left. And that's about a 50-50
chance. Hmmmm. I guess I have my answer. Thanks.
> ps - I'm not a glider pilot, yet. I've been lurking here
> and planning to take lessons as soon as I get my weight
> down a bit.
The joy and freedom of soaring is the world's best kept
secret. Don't ease up on your plans for a minute!
Good luck,
Don
_______________________________________________________
Don Ingraham
SGI
d...@sgi.com
fado...@my-deja.com
Donald Ingraham <d...@sgi.com> wrote:
> Say you are at 1000ft in a Discus/ASW24/LS8 and put the gear down
> gear. Suddenly you have no elevator authority. CG is at the fore
> limit, so you begin to accelerate. You might save hundreds of feet
Why would putting the gear down cause you to lose elevator authority?
Has this ever happened?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
WBY0NDER
his composit homebuilt power plane a few years ago and having the wings nearly
blasted apart along with other damage. Apparently it was essentially a
miracle that it didn't explode and he was able to put it down in one piece. I
think his last name was Mercer and he is heavly involved in the Genesis
project. Maybe he is lurking. Anyway, sounds like lightning is bad.
Matt Michael
Doug Hoffman
elevator authority. I took it as that suddenly,
for whatever reason, you lose elevator authority.
Emilis Prelgauskas
quickly.
Can someone please re-post the address.
Emilis
G P Skelly
Emilis Prelgauskas wrote in message <385AC...@emilis.sa.on.net>...
>Can someone please re-post the address.
http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/dec99htm/bga3705.htm
GPS
Ian Johnston
: I don't think Donald meant to imply that gear down causes loss of
: elevator authority. I took it as that suddenly,
: for whatever reason, you lose elevator authority.
I have seen a Discus crash as a result of a ... not terribly competent ...
pilot who, when he moved the gear with his right hand, unconsciously
moved the stick with his left hand and interpreted the resultant pitch change
as a problem with the elevator control.
The Discus was three days old and ended up in five pieces.Luckily the
pilot was unscathed (until his fellow club members caught him...)
Ian
Donald Ingraham
> Why would putting the gear down cause you to lose elevator
> authority? Has this ever happened?
Nah. Just wanted to avoid a complicated "Why you have to
jump now" scenario. However, putting the gear down often
does seem to trigger really narrow, tricky thermals...;-))
So how would you land in a tree?
Don
____________________________________________
"Good judgment comes from bad experience
and a lot of that comes from bad judgment."
Gerald Belton
wrote:
>So how would you land in a tree?
In the plane, or after jumping out?
In the plane... I'm not a pilot yet, I have no clue.
After jumping out of the plane.... whatever you do, remember to keep
your feet together!
Gerald
tl
>2) Dang. I'm going into the trees. How should I spend the next
>minute?
>
>Is there a certain type of tree to look for, i.e. one you won't slip
>out of after coming to a stop in it (unlike an evergreen). Is it
>better to go in at stall, or better to choose "accuracy" with a
>certain technique even if that means a faster speed? Any way to
>maneuver the tail/wing to absorb impact? Will I wish I had radioed
>lat/long over and over with mayday as I prepared to disappear into
>the trees?
>
(snip)
Look at the trees/forest as you would the ground and land
accordingly.....
Pine trees do seem to be more forgiving if you have a choice between
lack of choices.....
Happy landings,
tim
Donald Ingraham
<snip>
> After jumping out of the plane.... whatever you do, remember
> to keep your feet together!
Good advice...and it makes for a more manly call for help from
the top of the tree :-)) I hear a lot of hang-glider pilots
(eastern U.S.) carry dental floss so they can lower it down and
haul up a rope if/when help arrives. Good idea, but "yikes"
nonetheless.
Yes, I was asking about planting the *glider* in the tree.
Seems "skillful tree-landing" is not much of an art or science.
Without advice, in my last minute, I might *try to*:
1) dump ballast, check for loose objects
2) gear down
3) glance at my GPS and begin repeating " Glider Nxxxx, crashing
in trees, lat/long"
4) Keep looking for a real place to land or a road/house to crash
"near" or a good strong tree that looks like it might hold me
rather than shed me. or ANY place, however short, I can get the
belly on the ground and drive a wing in to ground loop.
5) Tighten seat belts
6) mentally prepare to pull knees up to my chest and wrap my
head in the arms...maybe do it once...
7) Apologise silently to Al about the Discus flight-simulator
wise-crack
8)then fly, fly, fly the plane
Steve Hill
instructor...Cuz he drilled it into me, that trees are
actually pretty good places to land in comparison with
water, or big hurkin bolders...The trick he said, is to
avoid trying to stall into the trees, but to actually pick
the one you want to hit, then hit it softly. So I think
flying slowly right into it is the correct plan...Now...from
my hang gliding days, when my buddy landed in a tree, the
real trick is what next, and this is where the parachute can
really save your hide, all those nice little cords can be
used in most insidious ways to lower your butt safely back
to terra firma, the chute used as a shelter if you get
injured or have to wait for help etc...I think it's a great
idea to plan seriously what to do in the event of, and it
always amazes me how few sailplane pilots carry a decent
survival kit with them when they head off X-C...but remember
that your parachute can have many more uses than the one
intended...Happy Trails...
ps...bug repellant is a survival kit must!!!
Steve.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
G P Skelly
>On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:03:02 -0600, Donald Ingraham <d...@sgi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So how would you land in a tree?
>
There are methods taught for landing into trees and these depend upon:
Aircraft type: Fixed-wing / Helicopter
Tree type: Deciduous(Oak, Ash etc..) / Conifer (Douglas Fir etc..)
Helicopter into deciduous:
Aim to come into the hover centrally above the thickest/widest tree and
descend into it with no forward/lateral motion.
Helicopter into conifer (the worst type):
Aim to descend into the widest gap available with no forward/lateral motion.
The uppermost parts of the trees are thin, and will be smashed off and you
will be nearer to the ground when the helicopter finally loses its ability
to provide lift.
Fixed-wing into deciduous:
Aim to stall-out into the upper-most branches of the tree so that you are
arrested fully by the branches.
Fixed-wing into conifer (the worst type):
Aim to stall into the side of the smallest trees in sight/glide. If you hit
a strong tree, it has the effect of catapulting the aircraft backwards. The
aircraft will not hang up in such trees as branches invariably slope
downward unless malformed.
Personnel evacuation after a tree landing:
Initially wait: do not attempt to climb out or down as the impact might have
weakened the tree limbs sufficiently that the aircraft falls further down
the tree or falls to the ground. The aircraft provides a cocoon against the
impact. A person evacuating the aircraft immediately after impact may
disturb the weight distribution of the vehicle in the tree that the vehicle
might become dislodged and fall to the ground, taking significant tree
structure that the evacuee was depending upon for support.
When things have settled down after the impact, prepare to make your exit.
1. Check if the radio is still working and make a broadcast (include
Unicom/multicom/guard 121.5). Find the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter)
and turn it to the broadcast position: do not trust that the impact set it
off as statistics hold that it does not work 50% of the time or that the
impact might not have been forceful enough to set it off.
2. Take care of injured/incapacitated personnel. Leave the dead where they
are.
3. If you are in a remote/sparsely populated area: Throw clothing/survival
equipment down to the ground or bundle it up so that it can be carried away.
If there is a hand-held radio, give this to the first person that will be
leaving the aircraft.
4. Search for any rope/parachute cord (paracord)/tie-down equipment: useful
in rappelling down the tree when climbing cannot be achieved.
5. Organise the egress of personnel: you might have been carrying
passengers.
6. Only unstrap the person who is currently evacuating the aircraft, and do
so one person at a time with the exception of children who should be
accompanied from the aircraft. Warn people that they should evacuate the
aircraft to a place nearest the tree trunk (strength, and least likely to
disturb the aircraft's tenuous position). Do not have them move down the
tree too early - the aircraft may still descend of its own accord.
7.Organise removal of incapacitated personnel last of all -higher percentage
of survival of able-bodied persons (this is not being callous - just
sensible)
8. Move all persons down the tree gradually and have them move away from the
tree (up-slope if on a hillside - falling debris does not bounce up hill)
The above points appear to be common sense, but remember that the first
thing to leave a crashing aircraft is reason, and the only things to arrive
are fear and panic.
Chris O'Callaghan
always instructive. In either case, thanks for the interesting reading.
If you have concerns about pulling your d-ring after bailing out, use a
static line longer than half your wing span. If you have to land in trees,
use your radio to declare an emergency, state your position, and request an
ambulance before you actually hit the trees, regardless of what "crash"
technique you use. You will most likely be injured (I've seen severe
lacerations, broken ankles, spinal injuries), and at the very least
appreciate the gear a firetruck will bring along.
Speaking of second-hand wisdom, I recall a report in AeroCourrier that there
had never been a successful bailout from a glider below 500 meters. And that
of all attempted bailouts recorded, only about 50% were successful. Fuzzy
numbers at best, I'm sure. But instructive. Someone noted that when you face
an emergency, it helps to have thought it through before it happens. Like
counting rows to the nearest exit on an airliner, and making the decision to
climb over seats if the aisles are crowded. Having a litany for determining
if your glider is no longer controllable, and then a rehearsed procedure for
evacuating are probably much more helpful than trying to formulate best
steps for each particular emergency while it is happening. I try to make a
habit of exiting my glider the same way every time I land. Open canopy...
release belts... exit... look at and touch d-ring. I'm hoping that if my
brain is ever dulled by panic, habit will save me.
----------
In article <38593653...@sgi.com>, Donald Ingraham <d...@sgi.com> wrote:
>Jeff Knell wrote:
>
><snip>
>> This accident convinced me of the importance of wearing a parachute,
>> for all types of flights.
>> jeff
>
>Agree 100%. I'll change the thread name for this new tangent. I
>have a parachute question that's bugged me for a while. Maybe
>r.a.s. can shed some light for me....
>
>There is a well known exchange with a fighter pilot who was asked,
>after ejecting a few feet before impact after a carrier take-off
>gone bad, "How did you assess the situation, make the decision to
>eject and react quickly enough to do it?". All done in the time it
>takes to fall from the carrier deck to the water. He replied, "I
>made the necessary assessment and decision a long time ago.".
>
>Cool. So I wonder....
>
>1) I don't know if it's smarter to pull the ripcord *before*
>exiting the glider or *after*...but I think it's smarter to
>decide now.
>
>Say you are at 1000ft in a Discus/ASW24/LS8 and put the gear down
>gear. Suddenly you have no elevator authority. CG is at the fore
>limit, so you begin to accelerate. You might save hundreds of feet
>of potential deceleration zone by pulling the ripcord *then* jumping.
>You also remove the risk of being killed because you get smacked in
>the face (by the wing/tail/canopy) and are slow to find/pull the
>rip chord. Or is it riskier to pull first, because your chute might
>get hung up on the ship? Also, do you go over or under the wing?
>(over I guess, with the ripcord already pulled!)
>
>You can say "get out any way you can!". But if you have time
>and the presence of mind to be methodical...what is the best
>method?
>
>It's a common cop-out to dismiss scenarios with a righteous
>"you should never allow yourself to get into that situation".
>But if the fictional double-release failure is worthy of so
>much chat...how about....
>
>2) Dang. I'm going into the trees. How should I spend the next
>minute?
>
>Is there a certain type of tree to look for, i.e. one you won't slip
>out of after coming to a stop in it (unlike an evergreen). Is it
>better to go in at stall, or better to choose "accuracy" with a
>certain technique even if that means a faster speed? Any way to
>maneuver the tail/wing to absorb impact? Will I wish I had radioed
>lat/long over and over with mayday as I prepared to disappear into
>the trees?
>
Eric Greenwell
In article <1742d8f6...@usw-ex0108-057.remarq.com>,
stevehN...@hillstamping.com.invalid says...
= I think once upon a time I must've had a sicko
= instructor...Cuz he drilled it into me, that trees are
= actually pretty good places to land in comparison with
= water, or big hurkin bolders...
Did he say why trees are better than water? Everything I've heard and
read suggests water is generally far safer than trees.
--
>>Delete the "REMOVE" from my e-mail address to reply by e-mail<<
Eric Greenwell
Robert W. Cunningham
> In article <1742d8f6...@usw-ex0108-057.remarq.com>,
> stevehN...@hillstamping.com.invalid says...
> = I think once upon a time I must've had a sicko
> = instructor...Cuz he drilled it into me, that trees are
> = actually pretty good places to land in comparison with
> = water, or big hurkin bolders...
>
> Did he say why trees are better than water? Everything I've heard and
> read suggests water is generally far safer than trees.
People don't drown in trees!
The greatest risk on water is when there is substantial wind. You may
easily be drowned before you are able to separate yourself from your
parachute. Then there is the case of being injured while exiting the
aircraft, or while having a tumbling parachute deployment. A broken arm
is a hassle in a tree. It is easily fatal in the water. Finally, there
is the case of being unconscious under the parachute for any reason:
Fatal over water, survivable over land.
Descending into a tree or into the water is virtually the same: Extend
the legs, feet together (but don't quite lock the knees), cross your
arms over your chest (hands on shoulders), and don't look down (avoid
forcing anything into or thorough your face). But if there is no chance
to think about the details, even a normal PLF posture will do.
I should say that I have never descended under an emergency canopy,
despite six years of flying paragliders and two years of teaching the
sport. But I still practice my PLFs whenever I see a low wall and some
sand. My greatest fear is being in the water enveloped by miles of cord
and acres of fabric, unless, of course, I was wearing a flotation device
(which is done for paragliding SIV training clinics).
-BobC
Wayne Paul
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
>
>Did he say why trees are better than water? Everything I've heard and
>read suggests water is generally far safer than trees.
Eric,
I have never landed in trees; however, I did eject from an A-6 Intruder into
the South China Sea.
The navy torso harness was equipped with quick disconnect fitting. Once the
risers were released, I was still tangled in the shroud lines and had to cut
myself free. As the parachute sinks, it becomes a huge sea anchor which
will drag you down with it. (In an river the current, even so slight, would
present a real problem.) Even with my floatation device, I thought I was
going to drown. (I may have without the assistance of the divers that
jumped in to assist me.)
Without the assistance of a floatation device, getting out of you chute and
free of the shroud lines is your major threat to survival. If the wind is
blowing, you must collapse your chute while being pulled face down through
the water. (We use to practice that behind a boat off San Diego.) Then you
must get out of your chute and free of the shrouds. (This is no small task
with the strap/buckle arrangement common to soaring equipment.)
I vote for the trees, but then again, I have never been there.
Wayne
Shawn R. Curry
<snip>
> Personnel evacuation after a tree landing:
> Initially wait: do not attempt to climb out or down as the impact
> might have
...<snip>
I don't think I need instruction in "Personal evacuation after a tree
landing";-)
Shawn
Mike Koerner
Graham & Janaki
Under NO circumstances do you wish to open a parachute in or near a moving aircraft (or even it's remnants). The only exception would be one of the pilot egress systems currently under development. The biggest task of these will be to design a system to get the pilot clear of the structure prior to full canopy deployment.
Given that the process of exiting the aircraft is the main problem I was very interested in the work being done by DG to provide a rapid egress using an inflatable bag. This looks like a realistic direction giving the most bang for buck in the short term.
Graham
Donald Ingraham wrote:
Gerald Belton wrote:
flying user
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
>
> Did he say why trees are better than water? Everything I've heard and
> read suggests water is generally far safer than trees.
> --
>
>
Well, many years ago, during my hang-gliding age, I've got to land on
trees. After the usual chain of wrong judgments, I found myself low over
a populated hill side in a really gusty day. I pointed to a possible
landable spot, but at 100 ft a gust catched me high again... I pointed
the nose down to regain control, and directed straight over the trees
that were kind of fencing the little field.
Let me underline this, already touched in this and many different treads:
we were having at that time a lot of discussions about "what's better" in
the different cases. And I was a convinced advocade of "trees" instead of
"stall somewhere". So, when it was the time I recall that it was a kind
of automatic switch, *go over the trees!*, no thinking.
The trees were (fortunately) very good for my use: deciduous, a lot of
branches not very thick. Actually the "landing" went out absolutely
smooth, I still remember all the noise of the branches being broken while
softly stopping me. I found myself hanged out at about 7 meters over the
ground, the hang-glider firmly trapped. I had to work a little to go
down, and much more to recover the hang-glider. But at the end no damage
at all, only about 5 centimeters of scratch on the fabric on one wing!...
I'm always wondering if this would have worked the same with a glider.
Probably yes, with a similar kind of tree. But of course I cannot say
I've "choosen" it!.
Donald Ingraham
> People don't drown in trees!
>
> The greatest risk on water is when there is substantial wind. You may
> easily be drowned before you are able to separate yourself from your
> parachute.
<snip>
Bob,
Thanks. This is valuable advice on parachuting into water
and I will remember it. I think the poster was talking about
landing a _glider_ in the trees vs. water though. I think I
feel much more confident of what to expect landing a glider
in water (unless it is too shallow) than I do of landing in
trees. True, you can't drown in the trees. But you also won't
get a branch in the face or come to a halt suddently like Wiley
Coyote, then fall 50 feet, nose first, onto the ground with
the wing spar a few inches behind your head. Decisions,
decisions, decisions. I think it is valuable to give them
serious thought like we are now, rather than in the last 60
seconds of such flight.
Don
Eric Greenwell
In article <385C813A...@acm.org>, rcun...@acm.org says...
= Eric Greenwell wrote:
=
= > In article <1742d8f6...@usw-ex0108-057.remarq.com>,
= > stevehN...@hillstamping.com.invalid says...
= > = I think once upon a time I must've had a sicko
= > = instructor...Cuz he drilled it into me, that trees are
= > = actually pretty good places to land in comparison with
= > = water, or big hurkin bolders...
= >
= > Did he say why trees are better than water? Everything I've heard and
= > read suggests water is generally far safer than trees.
=
= People don't drown in trees!
=
= The greatest risk on water is when there is substantial wind. You may
= easily be drowned before you are able to separate yourself from your
= parachute.
Unfortunately, the portion I quoted did not make clear the person I
was responding to was talking about landing a glider in the trees, not
a parachute. It was in that context he said his instructor told him
landing in trees was safer than landing in water. Here is more of the
post:
= I think once upon a time I must've had a sicko
= instructor...Cuz he drilled it into me, that trees are
= actually pretty good places to land in comparison with
= water, or big hurkin bolders...The trick he said, is to
= avoid trying to stall into the trees, but to actually pick
= the one you want to hit, then hit it softly. So I think
= flying slowly right into it is the correct plan..
If I ever have choice of water or trees after baling out of my
sailplane, I'll take the advice to go for the trees!
Donald Ingraham
> <snip>
> I try to make a
> habit of exiting my glider the same way every time I land. Open canopy...
> release belts... exit... look at and touch d-ring. I'm hoping that if my
> brain is ever dulled by panic, habit will save me.
Chris, good idea. I'm going to add the d-ring check to my
normal exit too.
Don
Sula
>If you have concerns about pulling your d-ring after bailing out, use a
>static line longer than half your wing span.
Are typical emergency parachutes rated for use with static lines?
When parachutists use static lines they don't clip them to ripcord handles.
Christopher Nicholas
retractable - not what one might have thought, but apparently gear up
landings (? waterings?) can result in the glider submarining before the
pilot can get out - maybe the Bernoulli effect on the underside of a clean
fuselage. Anyway, that's what they say. Also, land (? water?) downwind - and
drift towards the lee shore to shorten the time in or on the water - not
into wind.
Chris
Armand A. Medeiros
> Thanks. This is valuable advice on parachuting into water
> and I will remember it. I think the poster was talking about
> landing a _glider_ in the trees vs. water though. I think I
> feel much more confident of what to expect landing a glider
> in water (unless it is too shallow) than I do of landing in
> trees. True, you can't drown in the trees. But you also won't
> get a branch in the face or come to a halt suddently like Wiley
> Coyote, then fall 50 feet, nose first, onto the ground with
> the wing spar a few inches behind your head. Decisions,
> decisions, decisions. I think it is valuable to give them
> serious thought like we are now, rather than in the last 60
> seconds of such flight.
> Don
I think some serious thought ought to be given on how you got yourself in
that kind of "no options" situation in the first place. An ounce of
prevention may be worth your life in this case...sailplane drag racers
excepted (of course) because they push the envelopes to the max.
Armand
Robert W. Cunningham
> "Robert W. Cunningham" wrote:
>
> > People don't drown in trees!
> >
> > The greatest risk on water is when there is substantial wind. You may
> > easily be drowned before you are able to separate yourself from your
> > parachute.
> <snip>
>
> Bob,
> Thanks. This is valuable advice on parachuting into water
> and I will remember it. I think the poster was talking about
> landing a _glider_ in the trees vs. water though. ...
Oops! My news server has a short retention time for this group, so I came
in half way through the thread.
Sorry!
As far as an unplanned descent IN A GLIDER, I would expect the pilot should
prefer water IF there is a safe way to do so. As the craft descends, the
pilot should shed unneeded equipment as soon as it becomes unneeded. If
you can work your controls barefoot, lose the shoes. Once below 500', lose
the parachute. Any baggy clothes, lose them unless you are landing in cold
water far from shore. Tight clothes (especially synthetics) should be
kept, unless they are made of wool or leather (which get extremely heavy
and bulky when wet).
Remember, if the craft survives the landing intact, all these items will
still be in the cockpit after you have safely exited. However, if the
aircraft breaks up or inverts or tumbles, the less you are wearing, the
more likely it is that you will be able to exit the craft quickly and
safely. Can you undo your harness while hanging upside down?
Imagine the problems associated with hitting an unseen floating log. For
reasons such as this, it seems sensible to stay just off the water (in
ground effect) bleeding off speed until you stall (well, mush out) and
gracefully lose the last few feet of altitude. It will give you more time
near the water to plan your egress and double check everything.
It might pay to have some form of emergency flotation device handy. Even a
plastic gallon jug with the lid glued on is enough to keep a person safely
afloat. And the handle makes it usable even if you break an arm in a rough
landing. Can you undo you harness inverted with a broken arm?
As far as the conventional wisdom of trying to approach a beach goes,
remember that the shore is where all the rocks and trees are. I would say
go toward a dock if you have the choice, or an obvious sloping structure
such as a boat ramp. Otherwise, I'd land parallel to the shore, allowing
me to be "fairly" close, but not dangerously so. Especially since the
landing (watering?) distance may be hard to judge accurately (zero to ??).
I suspect one great risk will be related to getting OUT of the ground
effect before the end of the water arrives (assuming it is a lake or river,
and not an ocean). You may have to hit the water hard in order to hit it
at all. This brings to mind a final thought for a water landing: If the
water is small, line up in a direction that has the safest land area in
case there "isn't enough water". Don't line up toward the cliff, even if
it has the best beach and best wind!
Finally, if your craft is equipped with a ballistic (rocket deployed)
chute, I'd consider deploying it before volunteering for an hazardous
landing, be it over land or water.
And, it should be said that even though I don't play a sailplane pilot on
TV, I do hang out with all types of soaring pilots (sailplane, hang glider
and paraglider) in real life, and will occasionally fly a paraglider
myself. Sometimes even in competition. And I did teach paragliding for a
couple of years, which makes one think of safety all the time.
And I have had to think a LOT about water landings.
-BobC
Donald Ingraham
> I think some serious thought ought to be given on how you got yourself in
> that kind of "no options" situation in the first place. An ounce of
> prevention may be worth your life in this case...sailplane drag racers
> excepted (of course) because they push the envelopes to the max.
Hi Armand,
No doubt. A fair statement. And perhaps a different thread.
As I lamented at the outset of this thread, it's very frustrating
to try to discuss these emergency situations because no sooner are
they mentioned than someone says, "Don't get there in the first place!"
and shuts it down. I hear you. But I truly value these discussions
and have learned a few important things already. Haven't you?
One of the most important things I learned early on, after talking
to comp pilots and reviewing the obits of so many of the Hall
of Famers is, "There, but for the grace of God *and eternal vigilance*,
go I." Don't think they were dummies; less capable, less talented,
less smart, less aware, slower reacting, than you. Until Al completes
his simulator ;-) we can only extrapolate in our imaginations what
*might* happen and try to gather insight into various options while
sitting here in our armchairs, wealthy with time.
Don
Armand A. Medeiros
Indeed, it was the training in outlanding techniques that saved my butt 2 or
3 times in the past! (Yes, I screwed up too!)
I would encourage ALL persons to study and prepare hard for landing out.
And, at least for me, once the decision was made, it all came together and I
started repeating out-loud the landing out checklist items...wires, trees,
pipes, fence, ditch, etc. A ton of things that can getchya!
You have to know what you are doing...you must plan the landing no different
than any other but be MORE VIGILANT and look for all those nasty things that
may get ya...and the list is long!
Armand
Donald Ingraham <d...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:385EA653...@sgi.com...
F.L. Whiteley
Christopher Nicholas wrote in message <83mi96$5va$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Tjhe only example I know of in the UK was someone who put an IS-29 (I
>think - Rumanian metal glider) down into water when the planned field
>landing went wrong - a delightful photo on Sailplane and Glider cover
showed
>the outcome, a semi-submerged glider. It was retrieved, dried out, and flew
>again OK, I believe.
>
IS-28B2
Think it was from Tibenham.
Christopher Nicholas
the water, because x-country flight involve large areas where there are only
forested hills and lakes.
Tjhe only example I know of in the UK was someone who put an IS-29 (I
think - Rumanian metal glider) down into water when the planned field
landing went wrong - a delightful photo on Sailplane and Glider cover showed
the outcome, a semi-submerged glider. It was retrieved, dried out, and flew
again OK, I believe.
Chris.
Armand A. Medeiros wrote in message <snip
Donald Ingraham
<snip>
> I would encourage ALL persons to study and prepare hard for landing out.
> And, at least for me, once the decision was made, it all came together and I
> started repeating out-loud the landing out checklist items...wires, trees,
> pipes, fence, ditch, etc. A ton of things that can getchya!
<snip>
Ditto! What do you think about using ground-affect? I used
it, not just practiced it, twice. Once in my first contest
to squeak the last few hundred feet onto the runway. As rocks
and fences and scrub passed a few feet below my butt I watched
my airspeed bleed off...75...70...65. I kept thinking, "the
runway should be coming up aaaannnnyyyy second now" (Hutchinson KS).
Well, it finally did. I stopped rolling a hundred feet or so
from the finish line and got no speed points for the day! And
didn't care.
That empty feeling as I floated along, having played my last card,
too low to see where the good ground started and second-guessing
my estimate of how far away it looked from 300 feet up just 10
or 15 seconds earlier when I shoved the nose over, was not one
I wanted to feel again. I became aware, there in ground-affect,
that I had made my *last* real decision and I was simply
meat-in-transit, waiting to run out of magic and settle down
on whatever was under me.
That's why I'm curious about whether ground-affect *really* buys
you enough to make it worth it. 5%? 10% Could I have flown as
far at best L/D@50knots as @80 knots in ground-affect? I suppose
wind is always a factor in the equation, i.e. getting down and
out of it can only help. But assuming "no wind", would you use
it tomorrow to stretch final to make it to better ground?
This is a great forum to tap into experience and academic
perspectives...thanks in advance for both,
Don
_______________________________________________________
"If you lend someone $20, and never see that person
again; it was probably worth it."
_______________________________________________________
Sula
>I'm curious about whether ground-affect *really* buys
>you enough to make it worth it. 5%? 10% Could I have flown as
This has come up from time to time here. One good source is an article in
Soaring magazine a few years back reporting some tests that the USAF did (in
gliders).
The bottom line is that ground effect is rarely useful. You must be within
one wingspan of the ground to see any real effect, and a good deal lower
than that to see a big effect. And the ground in question must be hard
ground - not treetops or bushes. You're probably better off staying at the
most efficient airspeed.
As you note, there is often a reduction in windspeed near the ground. So
if your final glide is upwind, the loss of part of the headwind combined
with the small help you might get from ground effect could make a very low
flight path pay off (of course, with a tailwaind you'd want to stay high).
But it won't be an easy thing to figure out before you're committed.
Al Bowers
Donald Ingraham <d...@sgi.com> writes:
> "Armand A. Medeiros" wrote:
>> I would encourage ALL persons to study and prepare hard for landing
>> out. And, at least for me, once the decision was made, it all came
>> together and I started repeating out-loud the landing out checklist
>> items...wires, trees, pipes, fence, ditch, etc. A ton of things
>> that can getchya!
As another poster mentioned, I also got my start in hang gliders. And
in about 500 flights, I made exactly one of each, tree landing and
water landing. The water landing was worse, it was in surf. However,
the tree had it's revenge too, the tree was covered in poison oak.
> Ditto! What do you think about using ground-affect?
> That's why I'm curious about whether ground-affect *really* buys
> you enough to make it worth it. 5%? 10% Could I have flown as
> far at best L/D@50knots as @80 knots in ground-affect? I suppose
> wind is always a factor in the equation, i.e. getting down and
> out of it can only help. But assuming "no wind", would you use
> it tomorrow to stretch final to make it to better ground?
Several years ago, the US Air Force Test Pilot School had some
students who wanted to know the answer to that _exact_ question. So
they rented a Blanik L-13 for a couple of weeks and made _many_
approaches and landings over the lake bed here at Edwards. After
tabulating their results, wind or no wind, the longest landings were
always made without diving into ground effect (i.e.: ground effect
doesn't buy you anything trying to get there early). I'll try to find
the exact report and the exact wording of their conclusions.
Al Bowers
--
Al Bowers Aerodynamics NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
"...tactics always degrade strategy..." -Frank Bethwaite
Michael and Karen Steckner
was flying across the channel. It had to land in the Channel. There
were pictures of it being towed back.
The registration was G-WAVE.....
M
Eric Greenwell
In article <385E995F...@acm.org>, rcun...@acm.org says...
=
= As far as an unplanned descent IN A GLIDER, I would expect the pilot should
= prefer water IF there is a safe way to do so. As the craft descends, the
= pilot should shed unneeded equipment as soon as it becomes unneeded.
In all the situations I've heard of, the glider floats long enough to
make a normal exit. I think remaining belted in and concentrating on
the flying would be much better than risking the distractions
suggested. Some gliders will float long enough to be towed to shore
(Standard Cirrus in the case I know).
=
= Remember, if the craft survives the landing intact, all these items will
= still be in the cockpit after you have safely exited. However, if the
= aircraft breaks up or inverts or tumbles, the less you are wearing, the
= more likely it is that you will be able to exit the craft quickly and
= safely. Can you undo your harness while hanging upside down?
I have never heard of a glider tumbling or breaking up in a water
landing. Again, the experience I'm aware of suggests concentrating on
the flying.
= It might pay to have some form of emergency flotation device handy. Even a
= plastic gallon jug with the lid glued on is enough to keep a person safely
= afloat. And the handle makes it usable even if you break an arm in a rough
= landing. Can you undo you harness inverted with a broken arm?
I say forget the complications of a floatation device. Fly the glider,
land close to shore. For the great majority of us, a water landing
will never happen.
= As far as the conventional wisdom of trying to approach a beach goes,
= remember that the shore is where all the rocks and trees are. I would say
= go toward a dock if you have the choice, or an obvious sloping structure
= such as a boat ramp. Otherwise, I'd land parallel to the shore, allowing
= me to be "fairly" close, but not dangerously so. Especially since the
= landing (watering?) distance may be hard to judge accurately (zero to ??).
The recommendation I've always read is to to land parallel to the
shore, not towards it, because it is very difficult to gauge where you
will touch down when flying over water. Touch down too late and you
crash into the shore; touch down to soon, and you are a long distance
from shore. Land parallel to the shore, and you can gauge the distance
from shore easily.
Bruce Hoult
<ch...@cnich15000.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I have heard that the technique to land in water is to put the gear down, if
> retractable - not what one might have thought
According to Ake Petterson, you should put the gear down AND APPLY THE
WHEEL BRAKE because a rotating wheel will flick water up into the wheel
well and suck you into the water whereas a locked wheel will carve a
furrow.
Ake landed in a lake during the Worlds in Sweden and was flying the same
glider in competition the next day. I think he also told me that he had
landed in a lake another time.
-- Bruce
Shaber CJ
>glider in competition the next day. I think he also told me that he had
>landed in a lake another time.
>
He should almost have enough time on the water to apply to the Coast Guard for
his Captain's license.
Bruce Hoult
<bow...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Several years ago, the US Air Force Test Pilot School had some
> students who wanted to know the answer to that _exact_ question. So
> they rented a Blanik L-13 for a couple of weeks and made _many_
> approaches and landings over the lake bed here at Edwards. After
> tabulating their results, wind or no wind, the longest landings were
> always made without diving into ground effect (i.e.: ground effect
> doesn't buy you anything trying to get there early). I'll try to find
> the exact report and the exact wording of their conclusions.
The Blanik is of course a heck of a lot draggier than what most people are
flying in competitions.
It's very light and has little momentum or wing loading. It stalls at 30
- 35, is really starting to lose efficiency at 60 knots, and needs a
serious dive to get to 100 knots.
I can imagine that the answer for the Blanik might be somewhat different
than for something that is heavy, stalls at 40+, and has a better L/D at
120 knots than the Blanik does at 50.
-- Bruce
Rich Carr
: they rented a Blanik L-13 for a couple of weeks and made _many_
: approaches and landings over the lake bed here at Edwards. After
: tabulating their results, wind or no wind, the longest landings were
: always made without diving into ground effect (i.e.: ground effect
: doesn't buy you anything trying to get there early). I'll try to find
: the exact report and the exact wording of their conclusions.
This was written up in Soaring ca. 1985, give or take a decade.
- Rich Carr
Al Bowers
bruce...@pobox.com (Bruce Hoult) writes:
> In article <ttr9ggg...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov>, Al Bowers
> <bow...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > Several years ago, the US Air Force Test Pilot School had some
> > students who wanted to know the answer to that _exact_ question. So
> > they rented a Blanik L-13 for a couple of weeks and made _many_
> > approaches and landings over the lake bed here at Edwards. After
> > tabulating their results, wind or no wind, the longest landings were
> > always made without diving into ground effect (i.e.: ground effect
> > doesn't buy you anything trying to get there early). I'll try to find
> > the exact report and the exact wording of their conclusions.
> The Blanik is of course a heck of a lot draggier than what most people are
> flying in competitions.
> It's very light and has little momentum or wing loading. It stalls at 30
> - 35, is really starting to lose efficiency at 60 knots, and needs a
> serious dive to get to 100 knots.
Having spent some time in the front seat of an L-13, I will whole
heartdly agree. At 80 knots it felt like you were standing on the
rudder pedals.
> I can imagine that the answer for the Blanik might be somewhat different
> than for something that is heavy, stalls at 40+, and has a better L/D at
> 120 knots than the Blanik does at 50.
I don't think it changes much, for the following reasons:
The trade off is between profile drag (Cdo) and induced drag (Cdi).
The induced drag is the "drag due to lift" and is the one that
"vanishes" when flying in ground effect. So really, the question is
do you trade a higher Cdo now (by diving into the ground effect) for a
lower Cdi later (the reduced drag flying in ground effect). the final
piece of the puzzle is that at maximum L/D, Cdi and Cdo are identical
(this is a rather long engineering derivation, but most decent aero
textbooks will show this). Wing loading ("ballistic coefficient" or
energy retention, in engineer-ese) doesn't affect the results much.
Unless you're Gary Osoba and dynamic soar (hmmm, Gary is a dyna-soar?
Maybe I shouldn't go there)...
Somebody with some time could do the entire energy balance and
definitively answer the question. But I don't think it will skew the
results very much.
Colin Wray
>Remember the other cover picture from S+G? A G-109 from the UK that
>was flying across the channel. It had to land in the Channel. There
>were pictures of it being towed back.
>
>The registration was G-WAVE.....
Yes, 13 years ago, and it is still owned and operated by the same
syndicate of four people (of which I am one). It floated, a little
nose-down, apart from the short time that the life boat tried to tow
it forwards, when it disappeared below the surface. It was
factory-refurbished, which included scrapping all the metal bits.
Considering the weight of the engine in our Grob, I think that there
is little doubt that a grp sailplane will float for many hours. In
fact it will resurface quite quickly even if you get the landing
wrong.
Colin Wray.
Shaber CJ
>syndicate of four people (of which I am one).
Care to relay the story of how it ended up in the channel?
Toulson017
Steckner <m...@gwis.com.unspam> writes:
>>
>>Tjhe only example I know of in the UK was someone who put an IS-29 (I
>>think - Rumanian metal glider) down into water when the planned field
>>landing went wrong - a delightful photo on Sailplane and Glider cover showed
>>the outcome, a semi-submerged glider. It was retrieved, dried out, and flew
>>again OK, I believe.
>>
>>Chris.
For those with long memories, the photograph was on the cover of S & G,
December 1997 / January 1978 with the full story on pages 264 and 265..
Barney Toulson
Robert Ehrlich
>
> That's why I'm curious about whether ground-affect *really* buys
> you enough to make it worth it. 5%? 10% Could I have flown as
> far at best L/D@50knots as @80 knots in ground-affect? I suppose
> wind is always a factor in the equation, i.e. getting down and
> out of it can only help. But assuming "no wind", would you use
> it tomorrow to stretch final to make it to better ground?
>
I can't give a really quantitative answer, but I remember my first
flight in a glider, which has some relationship with the subject. It
was at the end of the day with no more lift and almost no wind. The
flight, started by a winch, lasted nearly 6 minutes. Our runway is a
12/30, we started on 12 and as the hangars are at the west end of the
runway, usually when the wind allows it, the gliders land on 30
aiming a point near the end of the runway so that they finish their
roll just before the hangar. Instead of this the instuctor who was
behind me in the ASK-21 aimed a point just at the beginning of the
runway, flared and retracted the airbrakes, and said to me: "You see,
it doesn't want to land". We kept flying just above the runnway until
near of its end, i.e. 1km of runway, then he opened the aibrakes again,
said: "Now, with the airbrakes, it will land", and effectiveley it
landed, keeping just enough speed to control a nice smooth right turn
on ground, ending just before the hangar. As I was new to gliders, I
didn't think to have a look on the ASI, I would like to know what was
our speed at this time. For those who want a more precise view of this
field, try http://www.decollage.org/beynes/Terrain.gif.
Jim Husain
>> you enough to make it worth it.
There was an article in Soaring a few years ago that tested the theory of
whether flying in ground effect was worth it.
As I recall, they used a Blanik and laid out a course on a runway.
The conclusion was that it did not gain much, only worked from a decision
altitude of 200 feet, and that the flight had to be within four feet of the
ground. Not worth it, considering the risk of ground proximity.
Jim
N483SZ
gap...@aol.com
Armand A. Medeiros
newly constructed in the valley. The area is mostly farm land and flat.
Since I was penetrating a 10 knot head wind, I had to make a straight-in
approach. When I dropped to below 500' AGL, the wind diminished
significantly and in fact the wind sock looked as if it was starting to
wiggle and turn to indicate a slight tail wind component. In any case, I
dropped gear (BFUSTALL) and made a normal approach for a landing right at
the extreme end of runway 12. Seeing the wind sock continue to turn and also
that ground speed seemed a bit high, I decided that taxi to the SE end of
the runway would better set me up for an aero retrieve. I closed airbrakes
at about 48 knots indicated and guess what? I floated 2' over the hot runway
all the way to the other end (5000')!
I HAD to open airbrakes again to MAKE it land! Hahahaha! I remarked about
this effect to another pilot upon my return. This other pilot said that on a
hot day, the asphalt would sustain flight indefinitely and he wished they
would close I-5 so he could test the theory. It was quite fun and
enlightening. The airport was KC80, New Coalinga.
Armand
Jim Husain <gap...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:19991223114832...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
Eric Greenwell
In article <83tpne$b...@journal.concentric.net>, zar...@concentric.net
says...
= I closed airbrakes
= at about 48 knots indicated and guess what? I floated 2' over the hot runway
= all the way to the other end (5000')!
=
= I HAD to open airbrakes again to MAKE it land! Hahahaha! I remarked about
= this effect to another pilot upon my return. This other pilot said that on a
= hot day, the asphalt would sustain flight indefinitely and he wished they
= would close I-5 so he could test the theory. It was quite fun and
= enlightening. The airport was KC80, New Coalinga.
Another factor that will considerably extend the "float" in ground
effect is a runway that slopes downhill. The slope can be so little it
isn't noticed by the pilot, even when standing alongside the runway.
Before attributing an extended float to hot air or other factors, this
one should be ruled out.
MarkGrubb
There is also the inverse effect corollary: The more one wishes to be on the
ground, the longer the ship will float!
John Anderson
"Wayne Paul" <wp...@micron.net> wrote in message
news:lN674.14$Lm3....@skin01.micron.net...
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
> >
> >Did he say why trees are better than water? Everything I've heard and
> >read suggests water is generally far safer than trees.
> >--
>
>
> Eric,
>
> I have never landed in trees; however, I did eject from an A-6 Intruder
into
> the South China Sea.
>
<SNIP>
> I vote for the trees, but then again, I have never been there.
>
> Wayne
>
> NOPE......water is predictable, your gear is predictable, trees are random
death from impailment or starvation because you can't walk out of the woods
on broken legs or after your eyes have been eliminated by a stray twig then
you die of thirst because you can't find the water you were avoiding......
The only thing worse than trees are powerlines.....then the side of a big
rock, then water.....whatever you do, stay out of the trees.
JFA
(4,000 plus sport skydives, EX-instructor & jumpmaster, pilot, scuba diver,
stuff like that)
>
Colin Wray
The 15 minute overwater segment had a 5 min portion from which land
could not be reached from cloudbase. The 11 month old a/c then had
only a single Slick magneto which went o/c in the secondary at the
worst possible moment. It has had twin Bendix mags ever since.
Colin.
Flying user
Just going on with the point: as you know, the ground effect is related
to the cord of the wing, so it's very evident on hang-gliders. So you
have to get used to it, and prepare to float a while before going
down... unless you are on grass more than 40-50 cm (2-3 feet) high!!!
Then you'll learn that this grass will "cut down" most of the ground
effect, and normally it costs you a couple of "gear up" sudden landings
before fully realizing it...
--
Miriano
Toulson017
>For those with long memories, the photograph was on the cover of S & G,
>December 1997 / January 1978 with the full story on pages 264 and 265..
>
>Barney Toulson
Those with brains un-fuddled by alcohol and Christmas spirit will already have
recognised that I meant December 1977 / January 1978. For those to whom this
does not apply, please read this message again!!
Barney
Bo Brunsgaard
"Chris O'Callaghan" <coca...@erols.com> wrote:
> Speaking of second-hand wisdom, I recall a report in AeroCourrier
that there
> had never been a successful bailout from a glider below 500 meters.
Well, there has been at least one. At our neighbouring club a guy got
away unhurt after jumping out of an Astir from the top of a winch
launch (that'll be around 350 meters). But then of course, he had
almost the entire launch to prepare for it - that is, the part after
realising that the elevator wasn't connected. Cool fellow though,
sitting there just waiting to get as much height as possible before
jumping.
Bo Brunsgaard
Std. Libelle OY-XKB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Shaber CJ
his aileron control for one wing disconnected. He jettisoned the canopy,
unbelted leaned forward and pulled the cord. I saw this in Aviation Safety,
anyone know more about this accident?
Donald Ingraham
> I can't give a really quantitative answer, but I remember my first
> flight in a glider, which has some relationship with the subject.
> <snip> We kept flying just above the runnway until near of its end,
> i.e. 1km of runway, then he opened the aibrakes again, said: "Now,
> with the airbrakes, it will land"
I had this fun lesson during training also. It was coupled with the
"200ft rope break" scenario. Once I had performed the 180 degree
turn after the rope break, answered a few of the instructors
questions, lined up and recited my landing check list, he
took the controls to demo this. He narrated as he dove down over a
corn field and floated us to the opposite end of the 3400ft runway.
Even now I sometimes come in fast and far away from my trailer just
so I can float a few feet off the ground for that long distance. It's
fun. And there's no question: it *feels* like I am going further! I just
wonder if I really am, or if it's mostly illusion; the proximity to
the ground making it feel more gravity-defying. Sorta like 50MPH in a
sedan feels like 150MPH in a go-cart.
I don't doubt that ground-effect is real, I just wonder how real in
a practical sense. Thanks for the pointers to the U.S. Air Force
testing. I'll see if I can find some official conclusions.
Don
-XS-
_______________________________________________________
Don Ingraham
SGI
d...@sgi.com
Ulf Küßner
> down... unless you are on grass more than 40-50 cm (2-3 feet) high!!!
> Then you'll learn that this grass will "cut down" most of the ground
> effect, and normally it costs you a couple of "gear up" sudden landings
> before fully realizing it...
But why bother? Decent Gliders have neat Speed brakes whith wich you
land "plok" right at the spot you aimed at. The Puchacz for example
breaks like hell, actually you shouldn't land with them fully exteded
for that will result in a very hard landing. ;)
cu Ulf.
Al Bowers
mir...@cancel-this.tin.it (Flying user) writes:
> MarkGrubb <mark...@aol.com> wrote:
>> There is also the inverse effect corollary: The more one wishes to
>> be on the ground, the longer the ship will float!
> Just going on with the point: as you know, the ground effect is related
> to the cord of the wing, so it's very evident on hang-gliders.
It is actually related to wing span, rather than chord. Or at least
the more pronounced effects are related to span. There appear to be
some secondary effects ("suck-down" for one) that appear to be related
to chord though. For more info, it might be worth visiting the library
and looking for:
Curry, Robert E., and Bowers, Albion H. :"Ground Effect Analysis of a
Jet Transport Airplane", NASA TM 85920, Jan 85
David W. Guest
extend range. It was not uncommmon for them to get back beyond max.
endurance time because they had flown back at VERY low level.
David
Hank Ellis
<su...@shn.org> writes:
>Chris O'Callaghan wrote:
>>If you have concerns about pulling your d-ring after bailing out, use a
>>static line longer than half your wing span.
>
>Are typical emergency parachutes rated for use with static lines?
>
>When parachutists use static lines they don't clip them to ripcord handles.
Do not under any circumstances rig up a static line to the ripcord handle. The
ripcord is designed to operate in one direction. Attaching a static line to the
handle will most likely result in damage to the system. Besides that, it's
illegal.
An emergency parachute is approved under FAA TSO. As with any FAA approved
item, any repairs or alterations must be done by an appropiately certificated
and rated individual. If you have any questions concerning your parachute
equipment, contact your local rigger or the manufacturer of your system.
As for concerns about pulling during an emergency, I suggest that you'd go to a
USPA Group Member drop zone and do a tandem. Explain to the tandem instructor
that you want to pull the ripcord and why. Most will allow you to. Tandem
systems are designed with 2 main ripcords, one for you, one for the instructor.
For information on finding a drop zone visit http://www.uspa.org
Hank Ellis
Private Pilot ASEL, A&P Mechanic, Sr. Parachute Rigger, USPA D13011 with 1500
jumps
The Chuting Gallery, http://chutinggallery.com
Hank Ellis
The Chuting Gallery
Purveyor and Maintainer of Fine Aerodynamic Decelerators
http://chutinggallery.com
Tom & Linda Dixon
187 jumps in the army. I wanted to see if it would scare the heck out of me and if
I would be able to think clearly about pulling the D-ring, a practice for an
emergency. Everything went great, ok arch on exit, couple of free fall maneuvers
and pulled the ring at the correct altitude - the instructor agreed to my pulling
if I did it at the correct height otherwise he would pull it. That's when things
went ugly. We had a bad main chute and had to go to the emergency which only the
instructor can pull. Everything worked out great, in fact it was a great A ticket
ride. I was aware of everything going on and called out altitude under the bad
chute while the instructor tried to make things right until we got to the emergency
chute pull minimums. When we landed I had both D-rings, the one I pulled and the
emergency one which the instructor pulled and dropped to work the steering lines,
it fell in front of me and I grabbed it. Got a nice T-shirt for the save. I
recommend a tandem jump to all glider pilots, experience is a big factor in making
things work when you need it. There are a lot of other factors in a successful
bailout, the big one being getting out. How many pilots have really practiced
clearing belts, canopy, cockpit clutter, instrument panels etc. and realize this
will all have to be done under total confusion and G loads.
Tom Dixon- Idaho
Donald Ingraham
>
> I did a tandem jump this last summer. The first jump in over 30 years, I had done
> 187 jumps in the army. I wanted to see if it would scare the heck out of me and if
> I would be able to think clearly about pulling the D-ring, a practice for an
> emergency. Everything went great, ok arch on exit, couple of free fall maneuvers
> and pulled the ring at the correct altitude - the instructor agreed to my pulling
> if I did it at the correct height otherwise he would pull it. That's when things
> went ugly. We had a bad main chute and had to go to the emergency which only the
> instructor can pull.
Hi Tom,
I also made a tandem jump a couple years ago and had
nearly the same experience. Everything was going fine,
loved the leap out the door, arch, 5000ft free fall,
then as I checked the altimeter and saw that it was
time to pull, the instructor pulled. BANG! I felt like
I had been hit by a truck. The jerk knocked the wind
out of me and the main canopy tore open, straight down
the seem about 3 or 4 tubes in. While still high we did
some hard turns and jerked the lines and nothing seemed
to get worse, so we landed with that chute rather than
play our last card by going to the emergency chute.
What happened to your main? Any evidence that tandem chutes
are less reliable?
Don
Tom & Linda Dixon
Donald Ingraham wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>
> What happened to your main? Any evidence that tandem chutes
> are less reliable?
> Don
Don: Our problem was purely one of bad packing. The outer third on the left side was
collapsed due to being wrapped up by a couple of shroud lines. The instructor would have
cut these but we were falling too fast. We could have landed with the main chute but it
would have been a hard and fast one, with minimal turning steering control. The landing
under the reserve was slower, it is smaller than the main but bigger than what we had
working for us. It was real exciting when we dumped the main as we were just under 3000'
and close enough to the ground to get a feel for descent speed. We lost another 500'
getting a full canopy. As I said a real 'A' ticket ride. The instructor had just
completed 1000 tandem jumps and this was only the 10th time he had pulled an emergency
chute. I think there is greater opportunity for packing problems just due to the size of
the tandem chutes and the somewhat unpredictable way they open.
Tom
Flying user
> mir...@cancel-this.tin.it (Flying user) writes:
>
> > Just going on with the point: as you know, the ground effect is related
> > to the cord of the wing, so it's very evident on hang-gliders.
>
> It is actually related to wing span, rather than chord. Or at least
> the more pronounced effects are related to span. There appear to be
> some secondary effects ("suck-down" for one) that appear to be related
> to chord though. For more info, it might be worth visiting the library
> and looking for:
>
> Curry, Robert E., and Bowers, Albion H. :"Ground Effect Analysis of a
> Jet Transport Airplane", NASA TM 85920, Jan 85
>
> Al Bowers
Now, this really interests me. You know, I remember at the beginning of
my gliding (...well, not that many years ago, anycase), I was kind of
surprised because considering the fantastic characteristics in flight I
was
--
Miriano
RHallifax
>had done
>> 187 jumps in the army. I wanted to see if it would scare the heck out of
>me and if
>> I would be able to think clearly about pulling the D-ring, a practice for
>an
>> emergency.
You have an interesting story. I enjoyed reading it.
In a modern skydiving "rig," the "D-ring" is for the reserve parachute, the
"rip cord" is for the main parachute. Confusing the two could lead to some
problems. Pulling the reserve while in freefall is not recommended as this
parachute is designed to deploy much more quickly, and you have no backup left
as you cannot "cutaway" the reserve.
Sometimes, people must pull the D ring while at terminal free fall speeds.
This occurs with a total malfunction of the main parachute system. When you
deploy the reserve at terminal, you're gonna see stars, at the least.
Pilot rigs are designed differently, and are for a different purpose. They
only have one parachute, and you use a "D-ring" to deploy.
Glad to see you landed safely.
Blue skies,
Bob
graeme...@gmail.com
benhir...@gmail.com
> Hi I was the passenger in the glider that was destroyed by lightning. Here is a link to my scrapbook of the days events. https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/b26ab6da-fd0c-4b8e-a336-9953d791f610
Ramy
You proved that we should provide passengers with parachutes (and brief them of course) even in joy rides. You never know.
Ramy
Jonathan St. Cloud
On Wednesday, December 15, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, David Starer wrote:
> Many glider pilots, particularly in the UK, will be aware that a K21 based
> at Dunstable was destroyed by an airborne lightning strike on 17th April.
> Fortunately, both occupants baled out successfully, suffering only minor
> injuries.
>
> The official report on the accident by the AAIB (Air Accidents Investigation
> Branch) has now been published, and can be found at
>
> http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/dec99htm/bga3705.htm
>
> The report contains a comprehensive analysis of the accident as well as a
> detailed discussion of the effect of lightning strikes on composite
> airframes and metal parts, and photographs and diagrams.
>
> David Starer
graeme...@gmail.com
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/542300e540f0b613420009cf/dft_avsafety_pdf_500699.pdf
Martin Gregorie
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~cline/ASK%20lightning%20strike/ASK%
20accident%20report.htm
for a copy with links to the illustrations.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
JS
Very glad you enjoyed the return to the gliding club 10 years later.
Jim
