Ramy wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:47 pm, ZZ <zzuluz...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Ramy wrote:
>>> Two recent incidents which all sounds too familiar and we can all
>>> learn from them:
>>> 1 - Another spoilers out/rudder waggle resulting in premature release
>>> - How many more of those we need till we conclude that the rudder
>>> waggle does NOT work? What happened to radio communication?
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20080603X00777&key=1
>>> 2 - Another restricted control due to unsecured item. I bet this
>>> caused more accidents then we know of.
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20080606X00809&key=1
>>> Ramy
>> I favor the rudder waggle because it works IF the pilot is and remains
>> properly
>> trained.
>> I was not involved in this pilot's training and I did not witness
>> the accident but I spoke to the involved pilot within 2 hours of the
>> event. This pilot, with a Commercial Glider certificate, admitted that
he
>> misinterpreted the rudder waggle (confused it with the rock off). This
>> seems to be a common
>> mistake in our s****t. It is likely that on the day that he received his
>> Commercial Glider rating he would not have made this error but
>> subsequent training, the Flight Review, plus his own personal endeavors
>> to remain current, if any, clearly failed.
>>
>> The only mandatory review of these procedures is the flight review. I
>> have begun a personal vendetta against this problem not only in
training
>> new glider pilots but during all Flight Reviews. I urge all CFIGs to
>> emphasize this problem and I offer a couple of suggestions...
>>
>> 1. During the oral, instead of discussing the check glider
signal and
>> the rock off separately, I treat them as a pair of similar signals
>> which must be considered together to appreciate the distinction between
>> them.
>> 2. Just as we tell our students that a rope break or rock off
can
>> happen on any flight, I stress that a check glider signal
can also
>> occur on any flight and to be ready for all three on every launch.
>> 3. Show the student both signals on the same flight. I instruct
the tow
>> pilot to show the check glider signal at a safe altitude so if
the
>> student releases by mistake, the recovery is not difficult. Then on the
>> same flight, the tow pilot rocks the glider off just below the planned
>> release altitude. Feedback from the students and pilots in for a BFR
has
>> been positive, most stating that seeing both on the
same flight really
>> underscored the difference for them.
>>
>> These simple ideas are not revolutionary and you fellow CFIGS are
>> probably doing this routinely now. I think if we all work a little
>> harder on this one, I suspect we can make a serious contribution in
>> lowering the incidence of this problem.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Paul Corbett
>> ZZ
>
> Since you know the details of this incident, any ideas if there was an
> attempt to use the radio first and if it was neccessary to waggle the
> rudder at low altitude? Or are we just going to continue blame pilots
> who missinterpret the signal?
>
> Ramy
Ramy:
Good question. There was no radio in the glider. It was a warm afternoon
at 4200 feet with light winds. The Pawnee had just been refueled. The
tow plane was achieving less than 50 F/M into slightly rising terrain
when he used the Check Glider signal.
Regarding blaming the glider pilot who misinterprets the signal...WHO
else should be blamed? Both signals were establish in advance for a
reason. You can bet that any tow pilot who values his skin knows the TWO
signals which may save his life. Isn't it reasonable to expect that the
glider pilot should also know and retain these signals as well? There
are only TWO. I applaud this tow pilot for having the cool for using the
signal when he did...he could have fed the glider pilot the rope. To be
clear, I am not siding with tow pilots here nor am I trying to hammer
this glider pilot. I really want to focus on the training and especially
the recurrent training.
That why I advocate that if glider pilots see both often enough, they
are less likely to confuse them.
Is every 24 calendar months often enough?
(Caps used for emphasis here.. I'm really not yelling.)
Regards,
Paul
ZZ
|
