And for completeness from the ATSB:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1984/aair/aair198402338.aspx
Regards
SWK
The student glider pilot had carried out three previous flights during
the day. Her instructor had informed her that she was at a suitable
stage of training to be introduced to practice emergency procedures.
After sighting her training log book, the instructor for the final
flight left the glider to speak to the pilot of the tug aircraft. The
instructor returned to the glider and preparations for take-off were
then continued. Witnesses observed that the tug and glider became
airborne and subsequently carried out normal turns to position the
aircraft on a downwind leg at about 500 feet above ground level. The tug
aircraft was then seen to waggle its wings sharply three times. Almost
immediately this aircraft assumed a steep nose-down attitude, its tail
apparently being pulled into a vertical position by the tow rope which
was still attached to the glider. The glider then also assumed a steep
nose-down attitude and both aircraft spun or spiralled towards the
ground. The tow rope was released from both aircraft, but neither pilot
regained control before impact with the ground. The subsequent
investigation did not disclose any defect or malfunction with either
aircraft that might have contributed to the development of the accident.
During glider towing operations when the pilot of the tug waggles the
aircraft wings it is a signal to the glider to immediately release from
the tow. This "wave-off" signal would normally be given when the tug
pilot detects some malfunction or when the glider is sufficiently far
out of position behind the tug to affect the tug pilot's control of his
aircraft. On this occasion it was considered possible that the
instructor in the glider had arranged for the tug pilot to simulate an
emergency by giving a wave-off signal. The wave-off signal was observed
to be given in the normal position relative to the strip for such
training manoeuvres to be performed. The reason for the subsequent loss
of control of both aircraft could not be determined, however it was
evident that when the aircraft released the tow rope there was
insufficient height remaining to permit recovery to normal flight.
On 12/04/2011 9:29 PM, stephenk wrote:
...
John Parncott was sort of right about GFA making their decision
twenty(ish) years ago, but my impression was it came as a result of
the Tasmanian tug/blanik fatality (cause of which was never clearly
resolved due to no surviving witnesses)
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
