Re: [aus-soaring] Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:13:59 +1000

[Brian Wade]

Sorry Chris - I stand corrected. But with the intro to Harry's posting being: "Re the Beverly incident.  It was an aerotow retieve, the tug was a Pawnee and I was in a Discus ....." I think the error is understandable, and I wonder how many others believed that they were reading a description of the Beverley accident?. Of course I did not say that the old practice was to hold the glider "on the ground".  I used the term "holding the glider down".  In the interests of brevity, and assuming a certain level of reader knowledge, I didn't go on the say "to a height of 2 or 3 feet above the ground -  which is the technique that I recall being taught when I did my aero tow conversion in 1972. If the end result of this particular thread is to reduce the number of pilots who still like to "skim the ground" during take off, then it will have served its purpose.         Christopher H Thorpe wrote: Firstly Brian, Harry�s accident is not a �clear and useful description� of the recent Beverley incident as it happened several years ago.Secondly, in 23 years of gliding I know of no �old practice� of holding the glider on the ground until the tug gets airborne.Harry�s incident is nothing more than a classic case of the perils of persisting with an unsatisfactory launch.Since the tug hit the fence without getting airborne (and with the glider still attached), his lesson is not one of tow position but of what can happen if you allow the glider to enter the NMA. No one is disagreeing with your earlier point that it is better to wait until at a safe height before transitioning to low tow, and I have previously acknowledged this.However, Harry�s little dissertation adds no support to your previous argument because his towing position was nothing more than normal and the tug had not even got airborne.I�m sorry if you cannot see this. Harry wrote about this accident in AG (August 1994) extolling the virtues of going into a high tow position at the start of the launch.Mike Valentine wrote a caveat to the affect that under no circumstances should a position of more than 8 metres above the tug be adopted.I suggest you read the �Letters to the Editor� in subsequent issues to get the thoughts of some other well-respected glider and tug pilots. Finally, it seems the tug pilot involved in Harry�s little escapade was the pilot of a glider damaged in an aerotow retrieve with the same tug the flight before!  Christopher Thorpe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brian Wade Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2001 19:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:13:59 +1000 What a singularly unhelpful response to a very clear and useful description of what happened at Beverley.  Of course you can't get any lower than ground level.  And of course the position of about 3 m above the ground is in accordance with current GFA teaching.  What Harry is talking about with his low tow reference is the impossible situation he would have been in had he followed the OLD practice of holding the glider down and then following the tug up in the low tow position - a practice that unfortunately is still followed by a large number of pilots.  As I see it, Harry's  posting reinforces the point that I made a couple of weeks ago about the need to retrain those pilots who still use the old technique. Christopher H Thorpe wrote:  With due respect Harry; the low tow position does not exist if the tug is still on the ground (unless you are flying a plough).Furthermore, your stated position of 3 metres (10 feet) above the ground is quite normal during the early stage of the launch with the tug still to get airborne.What your incident highlights is that it is safer to release and land straight ahead on the aerodrome than to persist with a poor launch and enter the non-manoeuvring area. Christopher Thorpe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Harry Medlicott Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2001 08:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [aus-soaring] Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:13:59 +1000 Re the Beverly incident. It was an aerotow retieve, the tug was a Pawnee and I was in a Discus. The paddock was 3000 ft., slightly downhill, short wheat stubble, a 2 kt headwind and clear of tall obstructions beyond, about as good as you get. After the glider lifted off I went into high tow as per usual but the tug was not accelerating as well as expected( It turned out later that the tugs brakes were locking on) As the gliders pitot was obstructed by the tow rings no accurate speed reading was available. As the end of the paddock came closer my concerns increased but I assumed the tug pilot had things under control and would climb away before the fence, nevertheless to give myself more options I gently eased the glider somewhar higher, about 3m above the ground but certainly not into an extreme position. With the glider still attached the tug hit the fence while still on the ground and slid to a halt 50 m further on severely  damaged. I managed to clear the fence and rudder the glider around to miss a metre high contour bank. If I had been in low tow there would have been 3 seconds available to get the glider on the ground and do something - impossible - it would have been the barbed wire fence. In an accident a Pawnee has a substantial undercarriage, the motor is out the front ,there is a hopper and an impact absorbing steel tube frame and the pilot is above the wings A glider pilot has 2 mm of  FRP between him and the outside world, and the mass of the wings is behind his shoulders. I am probably able to write these notes by using high tow on launch. Should I have relied on the tug pilot to have releasd me if the launch was doubtful? He said later he persisted as he knew that if he released me near the fence it would leave me in an impossible position. As it was no one was hurt which is what counts. Make no mistake - high tow does give you more options. That little bit of extra height can makea difference. -- Brian Wade  Personal Computer Concepts  Uniform Time PO Box 114 INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068 Ph: 07 3371 2944  Fax: 07 3870 4103  Win a fully furnished luxury Gold Coast waterfront home and support Australian War Veterans Total value - $1,005,000 http://www.rslartunion.com To be drawn on 9 May 2001 YOU HAVE GOT TO BE IN IT TO WIN IT! -- Brian Wade  Personal Computer Concepts  Uniform Time PO Box 114 INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068 Ph: 07 3371 2944  Fax: 07 3870 4103 Win a fully furnished luxury Gold Coast waterfront home and support Australian War Veterans Total value - $1,005,000 http://www.rslartunion.com To be drawn on 9 May 2001 YOU HAVE GOT TO BE IN IT TO WIN IT!