Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight: for a very rare reality...
I have been sitting on the sidelines hoping this thread would die, before someone. I can't help but think that low level aero tow cable breaks is a very rare problem that is about to be on the increase, just 'cause we are all talking about it. I have been gliding for 40 years and a tug pilot for 35. In that time I have never had a low level aerotow rope break for real! I have had 2 occasions when the rings pulled out of the eye splice in rough wave/rotor conditions well above 1,000 AGL. I have never broken the weak link. And as tuggie I was once told to expect a 300' release on tow. I went to idle cut off, got out of the tug and asked the instructor just where he thought the glider would go [from 300' over the far fence]. He agreed to defer the [asinine?] exercise to 600'. I learnt on winch and had plenty of low level cable breaks, but the only option there is to get the nose over fast, see 50 kts indicated and complete the landing ahead. So let's temper the discussion with the statistics of low level aerotow cable breaks. My guess it is way less than 1% of tows, whereas intentional training exercises may be 2%. I suggest that a low level aero tow cable break is a rare challenge, and the training exercise should be comparably rare. Alan Wilson Canberra. PS. I remember well a senior RAAF instructor telling me THE most dangerous time in an aircraft is with two instructors on a check ride. The challenge is NOT to push it to the point when only one of the instructor's was right. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Stephenson Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2008 7:08 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take could have put us into the fence at the end of the cross-strip. His pre-take-off checks were impeccable but when it came to the real thing, he was out of his depth. At the subsequent de-briefing when I asked him why he was going to turn with the nose above the horizon, he said: but we had 60 knots on the clock!. He had forgotten about inertia and airspeed indicator lag and that a steep turn in a climbing vector can quickly become a stall turn if not executed precisely. The last time he had performed a low level rope break was seven (7) years previously. We had another normal check flight that he passed, and he thanked me for waking him up from his complacency. PeterS Peter Stephenson wrote: I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option. My hand is almost on the stick to prevent an error. It is never below 300' AGL unless I can land ahead. Prior to being an instructor, I was always disappointed when the annual check instructor did *not* pull a low level release because I was confident that I could do them but was never tested. I have had an AEI ask to practice a 300' release in a strong wind, as he felt the same. Recently at Caboolture we had a power pilot who lost power on take off at a very low height and he just pushed the nose forward and pancaked his beautifully restored aircraft. Obviously he had a habit of hanging on the prop on take off and learned the hard way. PeterS Texler, Michael wrote: I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. I believe that there is some training value in such a flight: The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe landing on field after a rope break, that would my first option). Also low level flight is experience with ridge flying too. Also in still wind conditions, a 180 degree turn can be considered. Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Obviously needs to be done with a proper briefing, exercise at altitude, exercise at 400' to 500' AGL, post flight de-brief. The plane doesn't know how far it is above the ground. My 2.2c worth ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Do you mean maybe he was suicidal and Peter stopped him? Well then again maybe he had a plan which you stuffed up. I'd have told you to fly the damn thing yourself. Maybe he just went along to get along and you are delusional. Mike Borgelt At 07:08 AM 11/09/2008, you wrote: Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take could have put us into the fence at the end of the cross-strip. His pre-take-off checks were impeccable but when it came to the real thing, he was out of his depth. At the subsequent de-briefing when I asked him why he was going to turn with the nose above the horizon, he said: but we had 60 knots on the clock!. He had forgotten about inertia and airspeed indicator lag and that a steep turn in a climbing vector can quickly become a stall turn if not executed precisely. The last time he had performed a low level rope break was seven (7) years previously. We had another normal check flight that he passed, and he thanked me for waking him up from his complacency. PeterS Well then again maybe he had a plan which you stuffed up. I'd have told you to fly the damn thing yourself. Maybe he just went along to get along and you are delusional. Mike Borgelt __ This electronic message and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message would you please delete the message and any attachments and advise the sender. Sydney West Area Health Service (SWAHS) uses virus scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses contained in any email or attachment. This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify SWAHS immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of SWAHS. ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
What is the rule on an aerobatic manuvere ? I thought I'd seen it written somewhere that 60 degrees was deemed aerobatic, and you cant do that under 1000 feet. JR - Original Message - From: Geoff Kidd To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:12 PM Subject: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight If the GFA accepts, mandates, hints at or even vaguely accepts that 60 degree banks at low level/half circuit height are the way to go when turning back from a rope break, I predict that the accident rate will soar (pardon the pun) with spiralling-in being the new buzzword and more than half of 'em will be Instructors ... but the value of any in-tact sailplanes will rise, so it won't all be bad. -- ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight: for avery rare reality...
Alan, Basically some of this is what Mike B was saying earlier, and I certainly agree that an aerotow rope break is very rare, and it is most likely to occur (under normal circumstances), on taking up slack. Once upon a time, (as an early solo pilot), I had a launch behind a tuggie (in a 260hp Pawnee) whose side window opened inadvertently (I later learnt), just after I transitioned into flying mode. I think the window falling open may have scared the bejeezes out of him and he instantly cut the power. The situation then became interesting, especially as the particular strip we were using that day was rather short, with a recently subdivided and fenced estate ahead - read nowhere to land off aerodrome. Of course to add to the interest, I did not have the faintest idea what the tuggie would do next after cutting power! As a tuggie of vast experience, (as opposed to my tuggie at the time), what would YOU have instinctively have done here? Regardless of this, the lesson is very clear that any glider pilot, in command, has to be on the ball, and accept that he/she may have to cope with the unexpected. That is what instruction is (in part), about. Regards, Gary - Original Message - From: Alan Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.' aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight: for avery rare reality... I have been sitting on the sidelines hoping this thread would die, before someone. I can't help but think that low level aero tow cable breaks is a very rare problem that is about to be on the increase, just 'cause we are all talking about it. I have been gliding for 40 years and a tug pilot for 35. In that time I have never had a low level aerotow rope break for real! I have had 2 occasions when the rings pulled out of the eye splice in rough wave/rotor conditions well above 1,000 AGL. I have never broken the weak link. And as tuggie I was once told to expect a 300' release on tow. I went to idle cut off, got out of the tug and asked the instructor just where he thought the glider would go [from 300' over the far fence]. He agreed to defer the [asinine?] exercise to 600'. I learnt on winch and had plenty of low level cable breaks, but the only option there is to get the nose over fast, see 50 kts indicated and complete the landing ahead. So let's temper the discussion with the statistics of low level aerotow cable breaks. My guess it is way less than 1% of tows, whereas intentional training exercises may be 2%. I suggest that a low level aero tow cable break is a rare challenge, and the training exercise should be comparably rare. Alan Wilson Canberra. PS. I remember well a senior RAAF instructor telling me THE most dangerous time in an aircraft is with two instructors on a check ride. The challenge is NOT to push it to the point when only one of the instructor's was right. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Stephenson Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2008 7:08 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take could have put us into the fence at the end of the cross-strip. His pre-take-off checks were impeccable but when it came to the real thing, he was out of his depth. At the subsequent de-briefing when I asked him why he was going to turn with the nose above the horizon, he said: but we had 60 knots on the clock!. He had forgotten about inertia and airspeed indicator lag and that a steep turn in a climbing vector can quickly become a stall turn if not executed precisely. The last time he had performed a low level rope break was seven (7) years previously. We had another normal check flight that he passed, and he thanked me for waking him up from his complacency. PeterS Peter Stephenson wrote: I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option. My hand is almost on the stick to prevent an error. It is never below 300' AGL unless I can land ahead. Prior to being an instructor, I was always disappointed when the annual check instructor did *not* pull a low level release because I was confident that I could do them but was never tested. I have had an AEI ask to practice a 300' release in a strong wind, as he felt the same. Recently at Caboolture we had a power pilot who lost power on take off at a very low height and he just
Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight: for a very rare reality...
Cable breaks on aerotow are rare but low level emergencies extend beyond a breaking tow line. Tug problems requiring the glider to release are not uncommon. I've witnessed a tug starved of fuel at 200' (tug pilot forgot to change tanks), I know of tug engine failures occurring at low level, and I've had a student pull the bung at 100 feet when turbulence rocked the tugs wings (the kid thought it was a wave off and we OUTLANDED straight ahead). Then there are the engine failures on takeoff or failure to get airborne with self launching sailplanes. Misjudged circuits have also resulted in many accidents. It is a fact that almost all accidents occur to pilots who would normally be expected to know better, and all pilots need to be occasionally reminded of their vulnerability so they fly within the limitations of their knowledge, experience and ability. During check flights, instructors should make the effort to reproduce as carefully and realistically as possible the kind of stress that a pilot will encounter from time to time. Mike Valentine and others before (Howland), and after (Olerhead), were/are advocates of placing pilots placed under artificially induced-stress to facilitate the learning of how to manage both the flight itself and the stress level. This is sound practise in my view. Christopher Thorpe ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight: for a very rare reality...
I have a tug come back from 100hly and then the oil from tug streamed out and the glider pilot just hung on!! The glider pilot eventually pulled off and Pawnee landed with 2 litres of oil!! (normally 9 to 11 litres) On a side line with annual checks I am tried of Stir fry pilots (ie move the stick everywhere at touch down) A friend who has been gliding at many other countries in world told me of a solution and that is have them fly everywhere at 70kts+ and then they will stop stiring the stick Ian McPhee 2008/9/11 Christopher H Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cable breaks on aerotow are rare but low level emergencies extend beyond a breaking tow line. Tug problems requiring the glider to release are not uncommon. I've witnessed a tug starved of fuel at 200' (tug pilot forgot to change tanks), I know of tug engine failures occurring at low level, and I've had a student pull the bung at 100 feet when turbulence rocked the tugs wings (the kid thought it was a wave off and we OUTLANDED straight ahead). Then there are the engine failures on takeoff or failure to get airborne with self launching sailplanes. Misjudged circuits have also resulted in many accidents. It is a fact that almost all accidents occur to pilots who would normally be expected to know better, and all pilots need to be occasionally reminded of their vulnerability so they fly within the limitations of their knowledge, experience and ability. During check flights, instructors should make the effort to reproduce as carefully and realistically as possible the kind of stress that a pilot will encounter from time to time. Mike Valentine and others before (Howland), and after (Olerhead), were/are advocates of placing pilots placed under artificially induced-stress to facilitate the learning of how to manage both the flight itself and the stress level. This is sound practise in my view. Christopher Thorpe ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take could have put us into the fence at the end of the cross-strip. His pre-take-off checks were impeccable but when it came to the real thing, he was out of his depth. At the subsequent de-briefing when I asked him why he was going to turn with the nose above the horizon, he said: but we had 60 knots on the clock!. He had forgotten about inertia and airspeed indicator lag and that a steep turn in a climbing vector can quickly become a stall turn if not executed precisely. The last time he had performed a low level rope break was seven (7) years previously. We had another normal check flight that he passed, and he thanked me for waking him up from his complacency. PeterS Peter Stephenson wrote: I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option. My hand is almost on the stick to prevent an error. It is never below 300' AGL unless I can land ahead. Prior to being an instructor, I was always disappointed when the annual check instructor did *not* pull a low level release because I was confident that I could do them but was never tested. I have had an AEI ask to practice a 300' release in a strong wind, as he felt the same. Recently at Caboolture we had a power pilot who lost power on take off at a very low height and he just pushed the nose forward and pancaked his beautifully restored aircraft. Obviously he had a habit of hanging on the prop on take off and learned the hard way. PeterS Texler, Michael wrote: I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. I believe that there is some training value in such a flight: The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe landing on field after a rope break, that would my first option). Also low level flight is experience with ridge flying too. Also in still wind conditions, a 180 degree turn can be considered. Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Obviously needs to be done with a proper briefing, exercise at altitude, exercise at 400' to 500' AGL, post flight de-brief. The plane doesn't know how far it is above the ground. My 2.2c worth ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
At 07:08 AM 11/09/2008, you wrote: Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take could have put us into the fence at the end of the cross-strip. His pre-take-off checks were impeccable but when it came to the real thing, he was out of his depth. At the subsequent de-briefing when I asked him why he was going to turn with the nose above the horizon, he said: but we had 60 knots on the clock!. He had forgotten about inertia and airspeed indicator lag and that a steep turn in a climbing vector can quickly become a stall turn if not executed precisely. The last time he had performed a low level rope break was seven (7) years previously. We had another normal check flight that he passed, and he thanked me for waking him up from his complacency. PeterS Well then again maybe he had a plan which you stuffed up. I'd have told you to fly the damn thing yourself. Maybe he just went along to get along and you are delusional. Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
At 03:02 PM 8/09/2008, you wrote: Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss? Strictly you are correct, for minimum height loss you would have zero angle of bank, but the you would be able to get around. The 60 degree bank provides you with a smaller turn radius, it is a compromise between height loss and getting the aircraft back around. I will do the maths for it. winmail.dat___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
To be subjective, the maths need to be done AT 400ft and counting !! Col Texler, Michael wrote: Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss? Strictly you are correct, for minimum height loss you would have zero angle of bank, but the you would be able to get around. The 60 degree bank provides you with a smaller turn radius, it is a compromise between height loss and getting the aircraft back around. I will do the maths for it. ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Michael If your still doing the maths the ambulance has arrived, and the police are ringing the relatives ! The aircraft will be off line for a while Cheers Col Colin Collyer wrote: To be subjective, the maths need to be done AT 400ft and counting !! Col Texler, Michael wrote: Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss? Strictly you are correct, for minimum height loss you would have zero angle of bank, but the you would be able to get around. The 60 degree bank provides you with a smaller turn radius, it is a compromise between height loss and getting the aircraft back around. I will do the maths for it. ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight Energy management is what is being demonstrated. Any instructor / experienced pilot knows that. right? The instructor is there to ensure that the non-manoeuvring area is not entered etc and that the 'student' follows his/her pre determined plan (at least the basis of it), as well as determining if the pilot is maintaining co-ordinated flight throughout whilst 'under pressure'. 400' is not the place to think of numerous options and have a debate with yourself which one you should use. I have found it amazing the number of pilots who do not follow their 'plan' once presented with a launch failure. (Pre launch check is a good place to do 'the maths' Michael mentioned) 400' simulated launch failure, 100' over the finish line, first time 10km from the airfield at 1500'. All nice scenarios that most thinking people would like to have demonstrated to them before they have to work it out for themselves. There is at least one pilot, who on his first solo had a real launch failure and was pleased he knew what to do. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin Collyer Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2008 10:15 AM To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight To be subjective, the maths need to be done AT 400ft and counting !! Col Texler, Michael wrote: Why the 60 degrees bank for minimum height loss? Strictly you are correct, for minimum height loss you would have zero angle of bank, but the you would be able to get around. The 60 degree bank provides you with a smaller turn radius, it is a compromise between height loss and getting the aircraft back around. I will do the maths for it. ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
Mike Borgelt wrote: At 07:08 AM 11/09/2008, you wrote: Further to this email, I have just remembered the last quite experienced pilot that I pulled the bung on at 400'. He attempted to turn with the nose above the horizon which I stopped, and then proceeeded to become indecisive and I had to take over as the option he was going to take could have put us into the fence at the end of the cross-strip. His pre-take-off checks were impeccable but when it came to the real thing, he was out of his depth. At the subsequent de-briefing when I asked him why he was going to turn with the nose above the horizon, he said: but we had 60 knots on the clock!. He had forgotten about inertia and airspeed indicator lag and that a steep turn in a climbing vector can quickly become a stall turn if not executed precisely. The last time he had performed a low level rope break was seven (7) years previously. We had another normal check flight that he passed, and he thanked me for waking him up from his complacency. PeterS Well then again maybe he had a plan which you stuffed up. I'd have told you to fly the damn thing yourself. Maybe he just went along to get along and you are delusional. Mike No he did not have a plan as I asked him more than twice what he was planning to do and only when I was out of my comfort zone did I take over. PeterS ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
If the GFA accepts, mandates, hints at or even vaguely accepts that 60 degree banks at low level/half circuit height are the way to go when turning back from a rope break, I predict that the accident rate will soar (pardon the pun) with spiralling-in being the new buzzword and more than half of 'em will be Instructors ... but the value of any in-tact sailplanes will rise, so it won't all be bad.___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option. My hand is almost on the stick to prevent an error. It is never below 300' AGL unless I can land ahead. Prior to being an instructor, I was always disappointed when the annual check instructor did *not* pull a low level release because I was confident that I could do them but was never tested. I have had an AEI ask to practice a 300' release in a strong wind, as he felt the same. Recently at Caboolture we had a power pilot who lost power on take off at a very low height and he just pushed the nose forward and pancaked his beautifully restored aircraft. Obviously he had a habit of hanging on the prop on take off and learned the hard way. PeterS Texler, Michael wrote: I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. I believe that there is some training value in such a flight: The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe landing on field after a rope break, that would my first option). Also low level flight is experience with ridge flying too. Also in still wind conditions, a 180 degree turn can be considered. Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Obviously needs to be done with a proper briefing, exercise at altitude, exercise at 400' to 500' AGL, post flight de-brief. The plane doesn't know how far it is above the ground. My 2.2c worth ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option I hope so!! --- On Mon, 8/9/08, Peter Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Peter Stephenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Received: Monday, 8 September, 2008, 4:53 PM I agree with MT as well. As an instructor, I only ever pull the bung if I am absolutely confident that I can handle the emergency if the student/pilot-on-check stuffs up or takes a poor option. My hand is almost on the stick to prevent an error. It is never below 300' AGL unless I can land ahead. Prior to being an instructor, I was always disappointed when the annual check instructor did *not* pull a low level release because I was confident that I could do them but was never tested. I have had an AEI ask to practice a 300' release in a strong wind, as he felt the same. Recently at Caboolture we had a power pilot who lost power on take off at a very low height and he just pushed the nose forward and pancaked his beautifully restored aircraft. Obviously he had a habit of hanging on the prop on take off and learned the hard way. PeterS Texler, Michael wrote: I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. I believe that there is some training value in such a flight: The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe landing on field after a rope break, that would my first option). Also low level flight is experience with ridge flying too. Also in still wind conditions, a 180 degree turn can be considered. Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Obviously needs to be done with a proper briefing, exercise at altitude, exercise at 400' to 500' AGL, post flight de-brief. The plane doesn't know how far it is above the ground. My 2.2c worth ___ 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 Make the switch to the world#39;s best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail ___ 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] Training Value of 400 to 500 AGL flight
I doubt there is any training value at all in 400 to 500 feet. I believe that there is some training value in such a flight: The ability to fly and manoevure confidently at low level without getting ground fright. (i.e. if I had the option to do a low level circuit for a safe landing on field after a rope break, that would my first option). Also low level flight is experience with ridge flying too. Also in still wind conditions, a 180 degree turn can be considered. Such manoevures need to be demonstrated at altitude, i.e. demonstrate a 180 degree change of heading with minimum height loss, in a Grob G103, banked at 60 degrees, 60 knots airspeed, in still air, height loss in a 180 degree turn is 150', with a diameter of the turn of 120m Obviously needs to be done with a proper briefing, exercise at altitude, exercise at 400' to 500' AGL, post flight de-brief. The plane doesn't know how far it is above the ground. My 2.2c worth ___ 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
