Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality...
Point taken.. But I am sure there are those who have experienced low level rope breaks for real (as rare as it is), what did they do? did their training help? What would you do? But it is still about options and what a properly flown glider can or can't do. At least, 180 degree turns should be demonstrated at safe altitude to illustrate how much height is lost aand the manoevuring involved. Whether a briefing alone would suffice? Again it is all about having options. Agreed, training should be not about exposing students to unnecessary risk, so some on this list are saying that low level rope break training is really too risky for any perceived benefits. Aviation history is littered with stories of accidents and fatalities during emergency situation training. On the same token, training should about instilling confidence and ability, such that pilots know they will be able to deal with emergency situations when they arise. Perhaps Tom Wilksch's idea of using a simulator should be given some serious thought (airlines have been doing that for years!). ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality...
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
The real catch here is that the simulator must accurately reflect the
performance and handling of the aircraft under the circumstances.
A link back to Mike Borgelt's comment on the RAAF doing the double
asymetric training in large aircraft (particularly the P-3 Orion since
it regularly stooges around with #1 engine shut down). The RAAF was
doing the double asymetric training in aircraft as the simulators
they had for P-3, C-130 and B-707 did not accurately reflect what
happened in reality with stall and spin.
On a side note, the US Navy very recently had a P-3 nearly spin in
from 6,000 ft. #1 engine was shut down for loiter. #2 started to
develop vibrations and was being shut down. #1 was being restarted.
Airspeed was well below minimum controllable. Pilot in command started
a left hand turn (into the dead engines) to get away from active
Canadian airspace. Aircraft departed into left hand spin. Pilot in
command applied full right rudder but did not retard throttle for #3
and #4 engines. Aircraft recovered from spin after Flight Engineer
got #1 engine going and applied max power to #1. Recovery height was
quoted as 75 ft.
Pilot in command was a military QFI.
On Thu 11/09/08 4:56 PM , Texler, Michael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sent:
Perhaps Tom Wilksch's idea of using a simulator should be given some
serious thought (airlines have been doing that for years!).
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring [2]
Links:
--
[2]
http://webmail.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flists.internode.on.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faus-soaring
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality...
I am of the opinion that my Sim of choice, being Condor, is excellent in this respect. I base that on the fact that it feels right to me compared to my real life flying, and on assurances that correct aircraft characteristics are top priority for the developers. Of course there are other factors, for instance height perception. This can sometimes be a problem, although I notice many airfields are now being created for Condor with lots of ground features (cars, trailers, other aircraft etc) which help to give good height perception. Tom W - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. ; Texler Michael Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality... The real catch here is that the simulator must accurately reflect the performance and handling of the aircraft under the circumstances. A link back to Mike Borgelt's comment on the RAAF doing the double asymetric training in large aircraft (particularly the P-3 Orion since it regularly stooges around with #1 engine shut down). The RAAF was doing the double asymetric training in aircraft as the simulators they had for P-3, C-130 and B-707 did not accurately reflect what happened in reality with stall and spin. On a side note, the US Navy very recently had a P-3 nearly spin in from 6,000 ft. #1 engine was shut down for loiter. #2 started to develop vibrations and was being shut down. #1 was being restarted. Airspeed was well below minimum controllable. Pilot in command started a left hand turn (into the dead engines) to get away from active Canadian airspace. Aircraft departed into left hand spin. Pilot in command applied full right rudder but did not retard throttle for #3 and #4 engines. Aircraft recovered from spin after Flight Engineer got #1 engine going and applied max power to #1. Recovery height was quoted as 75 ft. Pilot in command was a military QFI. On Thu 11/09/08 4:56 PM , Texler, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Perhaps Tom Wilksch's idea of using a simulator should be given some serious thought (airlines have been doing that for years!). ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring -- ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality...
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a side note, the US Navy very recently had a P-3 nearly spin in from 6,000 ft. #1 engine was shut down for loiter. #2 started to develop vibrations and was being shut down. #1 was being restarted. Airspeed was well below minimum controllable. Pilot in command started a left hand turn (into the dead engines) to get away from active Canadian airspace. Aircraft departed into left hand spin. Pilot in command applied full right rudder but did not retard throttle for #3 and #4 engines. Aircraft recovered from spin after Flight Engineer got #1 engine going and applied max power to #1. Recovery height was quoted as 75 ft. Pilot in command was a military QFI. Yup, ended up pulling 7G in the recovery, stuffed the wing. Not bad considering the P3 is only rated to 3G. I'll see if I can dig up the piccys at work tomorrow. -- There is something in the pang of change More than the heart can bear, Unhappiness remembering happiness. -- Euripides ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality...
I sent that pic of the condition of the US tug release the other day. I asked the commercial passenger operation how often they had real rope breaks because the condition of their rope was terrible and the condition of the release on the tug was not much better. They get them every couple of months. Interesting. On my site check they were careful to point out the possible landing sites if the rope did break. Hookups happened there too on a semi-regular basis. They've also had several hookups on their winch! Of course this was one organisation out of many, but they do not have a body like the GFA to standardise procedures across the country. They had no idea how to operate a winch so when they bought it they made it up. They had never heard of wing signals for too fast or too slow and relied on a UHF radio. Interesting isn't it that our aerotow rope break rate is low compared to them. Maybe because we are so much stricter on how we look after our releases and ropes. As a winch trained pilot and instructor, now at both winch and aerotow clubs, I've never seen these emergencies as a big deal to teach or be checked on and am a bit surprised by the discussion here. The instructor should never set up any exercise for the student that they themselves can't solve. Simple as that. Then there is no risk. As for the standard of GA vs GFA instructors, I've had a GA instructor grab the seat of the aeroplane in fear on a simulated engine failure on takeoff. How can GA instructors be better and more professional as a rule when so many of them are kids with 300 odd hours trying to amass more hours for the airlines? This occurred during my forced landing training which I've related here before. -Cath On 11/09/2008, at 4:56 PM, Texler, Michael wrote: Point taken.. But I am sure there are those who have experienced low level rope breaks for real (as rare as it is), what did they do? did their training help? What would you do? But it is still about options and what a properly flown glider can or can't do. At least, 180 degree turns should be demonstrated at safe altitude to illustrate how much height is lost aand the manoevuring involved. Whether a briefing alone would suffice? Again it is all about having options. Agreed, training should be not about exposing students to unnecessary risk, so some on this list are saying that low level rope break training is really too risky for any perceived benefits. Aviation history is littered with stories of accidents and fatalities during emergency situation training. On the same token, training should about instilling confidence and ability, such that pilots know they will be able to deal with emergency situations when they arise. Perhaps Tom Wilksch's idea of using a simulator should be given some serious thought (airlines have been doing that for years!). ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] For a very rare reality...
I haven't had a proper rope break, but I have had the rings come out the hook unexpectedly a couple of times, and I have chosen to bung off rather low a couple of times, and done so quite comfortably (it's rather easy to lose sight of the tug when in high tow in a Diamant. And I don't like not being able to see whats in front of me). Each time, I haven't had a problem in choosing what to do (except one). I had one land ahead, two downwind landings, a few low circuits, and the modified circuit with crosswind landing. Each of these, I had no problem doing, but what I do want to point out is that they all happened in a glider I knew and on an airfield I grew up and trained on. While I wouldn't much like a low release in an unknown glider at an unknown airfield, I am confident I would be able to do what needed to be done, but for an inexperienced pilot, I'm not so sure. I believe that my confidence in dealing with the situation is due to the instructor(s) I had during my training. I think they almost took joy in making me sweat. I was put into some rather interesting positions which I wouldn't of predicted, over and over, and always completely unexpectedly. I never knew if the launch was going be a release as soon as I was off the ground, a release at 200, 500, or a normal flight. I had one instructor who would even go as far as holding the airbrakes in, or holding the rudder pedals so I couldn't use them, or turning off the master switch mid flight. After being trained in that way, I sort of realised just how many things can go wrong. The only time I've unsure of what to do was when, on launch, the tug and glider were not getting off the ground. With (I think) 65 - 70 knots, I had a choice of holding on, and if we didn't get off the ground hitting the fence (if we did get off the ground, it was be a close call for the trees anyway) or releasing and landing ahead. I chose to release, but to my surprise, the person flying the tug slowed down to land ahead, and I was confronted with the problem of not being able to slow down as quick at the tug, so I taxied to the left, ended up being lined up for a gable marker (the airfield I was at has stardroppers below them) so I decided to ground loop. I think the reasons I wasn't as sure during this was due to the series of events. Couldn't get off the ground, went to use the runway ahead to stop, the tuggie slowed down in front of me (to my horror), and in maneuvering to avoid him, ended up in line to hit something else, but all through, I just chose something, stuck with it, and when that didn't work, did what had to be done and didnt' waste time umming and aahing, as I was always taught. Some people may say that low level releases etc. are dangerous to teach, but I don't think so if the instructor knows what they're doing, and when to take control, and to tell the truth, I believe that we don't have enough scenarios taught, eg. an airbrakes hookup. Some people, the inexperienced pilots moreso, wouldn't even know what to do, or not realise what they had to do until after, which is no help, and I know a couple of people who've had airbrake failures. Even the instrument failure is a big one for me. How many people do you know that use only the instruments to tell their air speed? I was always taught to know your airspeed and height by hearing the wind and looking at the ground, then use the instruments to verify that, and/or get a more exact reading. I would hate to think what would happen with someone who was unable to know their airspeed and height without instruments in the senario of, say, a flat battery, or getting stuck in rain and having water get into their pito statics. As for anyone who says that aerotow rope breaks never happen, well, I respectfully disagree =) I've had it break taking up slack, and seen one where a strand of rope broke, and unravelled towards the glider, and another where the rope broke altogether and got wrapped around the tailboom (over the wing, around the tail boom, past the rudder) with an instructor student. While it's a lot less common than in winch launching, it's nowhere near a negligible event. Just my two cents anyway. DB 2008/9/11 Catherine Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sent that pic of the condition of the US tug release the other day. I asked the commercial passenger operation how often they had real rope breaks because the condition of their rope was terrible and the condition of the release on the tug was not much better. They get them every couple of months. Interesting. On my site check they were careful to point out the possible landing sites if the rope did break. Hookups happened there too on a semi-regular basis. They've also had several hookups on their winch! Of course this was one organisation out of many, but they do not have a body like the GFA to standardise procedures across the country. They had no idea how to operate a winch so when they bought it they made it up. They had never
