Yep, There is a crosswind in the area where he hit the tree. It is very possible that when he pulled in, the glider flew across the lz because it was pointed into the wind. Pulling in hard to the left may have produced a stall and fall. Pulling in and getting the glider flying, then making a gradual turn to split the difference would have worked better.Tad wrote:He's got seven seconds of airtime remaining as things progressed. He had enough energy left to get it pointed back in something resembling the original intended direction, level, and stopped but he needed to get everything he owned all the way to the left and stuff the bar immediately.
Any disagreement?
Watching a few of the n00bs land, I got the feeling that the club did not indoctrinate the n00bs on how to land. This pilot walked the lz with a visiting pilot who flies McClure a few times a year. The lz looks deceptively easy when walked. From the air, it is down hill except for the very end. Beyond the end, from the air, you can see the electric lines, and brush covered hillocks. It is intimidating for a first timer from the bay area. Then there are the cross winds. The club instructs the locals on aircraft approaches and on 180° approaches. They are taught to keep speed up and keep the bar pulled in for the whole approach. The n00bs did none of this.Tad wrote:He actually didn't do all that bad as it was and I've personally witnessed much worse in a lot of LZs twenty times more forgiving than that one. And I'm willing to say that if his instruction had been better he coulda brought that glider down on that strip in the same conditions and done just fine.
I am going to mention this and see what transpired.
miguel wrote:Earlier on, there was another pilot who hit the trees in the same spot and did not come out. He was ok, do not know about the glider.
Again, there are occasional turbulent crosswinds in the lz that are not apparent until you get hit by one.Tad wrote:In more than one of these videos shot from the McClure breakdown area I'm hearing in the voices of the people near the camera anxiety when the glider is setting up for final and relief - sometimes premature - when it appears that the landing is in the bag. That tells me that the overall landing skills and procedures for this strip are inadequate.
Most locals know this and react accordingly. Low time pilots and occasional pilots have to learn. What you see is a learning experience. There used to be tall trees on the windward side of the lz. There were usually severe rotors rolling through the lz. That is how I learned. The trees were cut a few years back so now the rotors are diminished but there are still crosswind gusts.
miguel wrote:The point is that he hit the ground prone with very serious consequences.
Tad wrote:No.
The point is that he got EXTREMELY / DANGEROUSLY slow when very low on approach and stalled the crap out of the glider at thirty feet.
And for the purposes of this forum in general and this thread in particular there is NOTHING to be learned from this one.
I've told you repeatedly that I have virtually no interest in discussions about the best ways to crash a glider. They're distractions from valuable discussions about the best ways to NOT crash a glider.
And the best way to NOT crash a glider on landing is to stay prone and on the basetube for as long as possible for the given set of circumstances.
And the best way to NOT crash a glider on takeoff is to tell the Wallaby, Quest, Florida Ridge, Lookout, Currituck, Manquin, Ridgely, Cloud 9, Whitewater, Cowboy Up standard aerotow weak link shitheads to go fuck themselves.
You have constantly made the point that prone landings are safer for what ever reason. As an exercise, you can fill in the blanks with your reasons:
1.)
2.)
3.)
I gave this as an example of a consequence of a bad prone landing. Not every landing is going to be a greaser at the Mellow Meadows lz, like you imply. There is no sense pretending that it will. Reality sucks sometimes.
miguel wrote:It had enough resolution to where it could zoom up on the glider and pilot.
I know who owns the full video and I am not sure he had the blessings of the pilot to post it on youtube. If the pilot involved does not want to share, so be it.Tad wrote:And that wasn't an important enough seventeen seconds in McClure history to merit the full rez upload?
miguel wrote:I saw no pilot effort to fly or control the glider.
Tad wrote:Bingo! THAT'S the point.
miguel wrote:That is very unlike the pilot.
All that can be said of this video is that the pilot came in too slow, stalled, dropped a wing, turned and crashed. The pilot did not make much effort to fly the glider. The pilot hit the ground in the prone position. The pilot was severely injured.Tad wrote:Try this...
1. He was tired, overheated, dehydrated, airsick, whatever and not clicking on all cylinders.
2. He drifted into the approach WAY low.
3. But his brain was hardwired for the usual touchdown area - in no small part due to this sport's pathological obsession with spots.
All the rest are unsupported, somewhat worthless suppositions.
At McClure, it used to be, when you did the wrong thing, you got a stern lecture on what, where, why and how. That does not happen any more. Some people were offended by the process. Now it is a happy party and most people get by and are happy.Tad wrote:Got any thoughts about how to turn anything around in the keeping-gliders-under-better-control department?
Zack wrote:This'll be good...
Please take it to the Weak Link thread. I will probably never again tow a hg and have no interest in it.Tad wrote:Sorry Zack, we currently have 223 posts here on the "Weak links" thread and - given that none of that has sunk in at all yet - a short tantrum is all I have energy for at the moment. Maybe something better down the road a bit.
I will argue for developement of both upright and prone flight and landing skills until you ban me or until someone takes my keyboard away.
