We (the committee) sincerely hope that all had a good Easter break. Unfortunately the weather was not all that good for flying but amazingly enough, we had an almost record number of launches.
Thanks to all the members who took time out to come to the AGM. It is so nice to see such support, especially from the members of longer standing. I'm not sure if it is a trend, but I did not see many new members there. Hopefully it will not become the case that "the longer one is a member, the more supportive the member is". Try and encourage newer members to get involved and take time out to include in and inform them of the activities of the club.
A successful Easter party was organised by Jacques Willig. Apart from the number of launches, Andre and his team put together a fine effort running the ab-initio course (see report on pg 2). Thanks Andre.
On the aircraft side, we were in a bit of a dilemma regarding the refurbishment of GHB. What do we do about the momentum of the training, especially since the winch operation is also well on the go? Well, we have bought another K7 to fill the gap while GHB is out of commission. Once GHB is ready we plan to sell the K7 to recoup the finances. In this way we will not lose out on any of the pupil training momentum.
With winter on our doorstep, we can look forward to our winter ridge and wave flying, so those looking for height gains, be ready.
To end off, I really need to mention that my door as chairman is always open to issues, advice and constructive criticism. Too often I am the last to get wind of members' issues and complaints and this only after the rumour-round has had its way. Please folk, if you have an issue that you are unhappy about, come to me or any of the committee members. We will address the issue as soon as possible. Don't vent your frustration out with gossip and rumours; it only makes our job more difficult as a committee.
Welcome to Graham Levitt and Hans Pruter on the committee. We look forward to the coming year.
In the last issue of this newsletter there was a request for an explanation of the name of the newsletter. The newsletter of the Cape Gliding Club, formerly known as the Cape Peninsula Flying and Gliding Club has been known as the "Kraut Koerant" for as long as most current members, even the "oldies" can remember.
The origin of the name seems to be related to the large proportion of German members of the club (the Krauts in the vernacular of an era) and Koerant an Afrikaans newspaper. In addition a form of pseudo German "kraut speak" was sometimes used in humorous articles in the newsletter and may have further reinforced this name.
The following is an example of this "Kraut speak" which appeared from time to time in the newsletter. This translates easily to English and bears only a passing resemblance to German.
Ach Himmel! Und here iss der KRAUTKORNER!!
Guten news diss month. Der Chonny Hugo backgekummen iss! Unfortschernately, in Johburg gestationed he will be. But gepromised he hass intopoppen effery four veeks. Remarkably slimmisch iss der Chonny. From de Frauleingechasink, perhaps? From Finland der Osmo iss gekummen, divink schtraight into der Goevier repairs. Vat ein akwisition!! Die Monika her schapely leggs again iss showink at ze Kraal. Ja, die membership uppenrisen fastisch due to diss!!
Und finally, hass der Geezo von Petersdorff gewritten from Chermany aus (all in Krautlanguage) Fisantekrauts getrained at decipherink diss kan readen it on de noticeboard. Ja, der Geezo herekummen vill at den end off de year. Goot for ein wholen veek off celebratink and boozink. CPF&GC Newsletter March 1964. Pg. 3.
For some time the newsletter was titled the Cape Peninsula Flying and Gliding Club Newsletter, this name was in use throughout 1964. The editor during 1964 was Helmut Morsbach. Any newsletters published between 1964 & 1968 are lost to posterity and the next newsletter available to us now, appeared with the name of the Cape Peninsula Flying and Gliding Club Newsletter and was published in August - September 1968 under the editorship of the late Brian Liegner.
The issue of October - November 1968 was titled Kraut Kapers - The Newsletter of the Cape Peninsula Flying and Gliding Club. The title "Kraut Koerant" first appeared, in brackets, on the head of the issue of December 68 - January 69 - it is unclear whether Brian Liegner was the editor of this issue also although this seems likely. The next edition, May - June 69, was titled "News Letter of the Cape Gliding Club." This is the first reference to the club by the name by which it was later to be known.
The edition of September - October 69 was titled in the same terms as the previous edition and these two editions were edited by Brian Liegner. Thereafter the newsletter has been consistently titled the Kraut Koerant, except for the issue of May 1989 which was the first issue edited by Fred Vernimmen.
This very successful ab-initio course was held from 29th March to the 3rd April. It was attended by fifteen pupils, namely Marisa Levitt, Hedley and Brett Prince, Peter Middelton, Mike Jones, Garth Milne, Nicholas Bizinos, Ron Aston (73yrs), Terence Ewers, Steve Vernimmen, Colin Jenkinson, Nicholas Westmoreland, Philip Fourie and the two Wings for Youth students, Alan McGilvary and Simon Alcock. Philip, Colin, Brett and Steve took advantage of the discount offered and joined the club after the course.
The ideal weather permitted 74 hours of training using the three two seaters and the Motorfalke. Marisa went solo during the course followed the next week-end by Nicholas, Alan and Simon, together with Mark Siegelberg. Congratulations to all of you!
My thanks go to the instructors Paul, Charles, Peter, Hans, Martin and Fred, the tug pilots Gary and Kobus, as well as Graham Levitt who did an excellent job as a duty pilot. A special word of thanks goes to Marieta Smit who catered so splendidly.
Gariep has come and gone and it may be beneficial to provide an insight to our experiences there. The Cape Gliding Club contingent in the first week comprised five experienced pilots, four solo inexperienced pilots, a pre-solo pilot and a "slave" (Rika Olivier, who did manage to wangle two flights). A further three pilots from Cape Town joined the camp after our departure.
After all the pre-departure talk of gynormous, kick-in-the-pants thermals, 18,000 ft cloud bases and rough, turbulent low-tows, we four junior pilots approached the first day with a certain amount of trepidation. We were to carry out orientation flights to accustom us to the conditions and area. All four of us flew at least once and two twice that day and spent an hour or two getting used to and enjoying the flying. Aerotows in Gariep are generally rougher than experienced in Worcester, but not fearfully so and we were able to adapt to them quickly enough and without any incidents.
Thermals are narrow and yes, stronger. Once found and centralised, which required much steeper turns than is usual in Worcester, rapid height gains are possible. With strong thermic comes very strong sink and this was initially quite unsettling. On some days there seemed to be more sink than lift to be found. In many respects flying at Gariep is safer than at Worcester. There are more and better outlanding options along the river and dam. Good thermal conditions allow for challenging local tasks, and eventually cross-country, to be set and achieved. It is not necessary to fly close to the low hills, as is the case in Worcester when ridge flying. Bill did manage to extend a flight by 30 minutes by ridge flying along a 300 foot high hill in weak lift. On good flying days it is possible for even inexperienced pilots to stay up for as long as they like.
For the balance of the week we shared the gliders and generally flew on alternate days. Alan was our mentor and set us local cross-country tasks allowing us to build up confidence and experience. The Cape Gliding Club soon established a tradition of falling out of the sky with four pilots, including two experienced ones, landing within ten minutes of taking off. Some of us managed to do it twice. In due course pilots from other clubs would follow suit.
Badges soon started rolling in with 300km and 500km flights being attempted and achieved (by the experienced pilots!). The junior pilots were soon doing 5 hour flights, height gains and by the end of the week we had all done our 50km flight, with Axel doing a 300km. Yours truly required three starts over two days to finally do it. Two gold height badges may also be claimed though there is some doubt as to whether we actually gained the 9840 feet. Interpretation of the barograph trace and the instrument calibration will soon provide the answer. All in all 15 badges will be claimed by the nine pilots who were at Gariep in the first week.
It appears that the anticipated cost of a week's flying at Gariep deterred a few people from attending. Seven of us camped at the resort, the daily cost of which was R22 per person. We had our own ablution and kitchen facilities which proved to be adequate, if a little crowded. The only serious disadvantage was the noise caused by the caravaners leaving at 4.00am in the morning. On a non-flying day Otto discovered a private game park with good clean accommodation and camping facilities at a reasonable tariff. This may prove to be a better option in the future. The main benefit of camping or being accommodated in a group is the sense of camaraderie and we all got to know each other a lot better and had many a good laugh.
Aerotow costs at R8,50 per minute are expensive. However, one generally flew for a much longer period and ideally would only have a single tow on one's flying day. On a typical day at Worcester it is not uncommon to have two flights per day and be called down after an hour. Put in that context, one day's flying in Gariep is cost effective. Fixed costs charged by the camp organisers amounted to approximately R250 per week per person sharing a glider.
The weather was not as good as we had expected, but was still good enough for much flying to be done and personal goals achieved. Perhaps 20,000 foot cloud bases and 10 metre thermals everywhere only exist in the bar!
The camp was very well organised and run by Helmut and Debbie Fischer. Each day commenced with a weather briefing, general commentary and acknowledgement of the previous day's achievements. Pilots from all over the country and from Europe participated. Most of them were very experienced and the Cape contingent was the only one with pre GPL pilots. We were well treated and received by these pilots and many an interesting discussion took place around the frequent braais organised by the Fischers.
Any post mortem will always reveal a few problems. There was a perception, perhaps a false one, that there was a reluctance to let a group of inexperienced pilots go to Gariep. From my point of view the main gripe was the committee's and/or instructors' slowness in deciding who could go and what were the minimum requirements. Everyone would prefer a clear and firm decision be made so that they would know where they stood. To my knowledge no clear requirement was given and it seemed to be decided upon haphazardly.
In future, I would suggest that the minimum requirements be decided upon well in advance allowing those going to obtain low tow and cross-country clearance, the required number of flights and to comply with any other pre-conditions timeously and not be trying to achieve it all in the last weekend.
A further suggestion. Besides the theoretical aspect, cross-country instruction seems to be lacking in the club. If we are going to go to Gariep or fly local cross-country it would be ideal to have had cross-country instruction beforehand. Perhaps those instructors who regularly fly cross-country could be the designated cross-country instructors. This would boost the confidence and experience level of the junior pilots and generally reduce the risk of an accident.
There was much scepticism about the wisdom of allowing the junior pilots to go and there was concern that the gliders may be damaged or written off, never minding the potential injury to the pilot. This is not to say that there was no justification for those fears. In the end all equipment was returned to Worcester undamaged.
In the light of these fears, the committee's and instructors' decision to let us go must be commended and thanks are due to them. My spies tell me Andre was a much relieved man on the Sunday evening after the end of the first week. The fact that there were no incidents may largely be due to the high quality of instruction and discipline in the club.
Many thanks to the mentors, Alan and Chris, who encouraged and supported us junior pilots. No doubt it was a nerve-wracking experience for them and required tough decisions to be made as to what tasks we could attempt, without undue risk to ourselves.
Finally, I can only recommend the Gariep experience to everyone. I certainly learnt a great deal and it was a very beneficial growth experience for me. There is no real reason why the whole club cannot relocate to Gariep for a month. I, and many of those who participated in the Gariep camp, will be doing so again and can only urge others to do the same.
It is perhaps fitting to end off with a quote from that prolific writer, Anonymous:
"No one knows to what heights you can soar. Not even you will know until you spread your wings!"
PS. If you are interested in an expedition to Gariep this year, contact Alan O'Regan for details.
Ten years ago (almost to the month) while preparing for a wave camp in Scotland I was attending lectures on anoxia and cerebral hypoxia and factors affecting onset. Clearly one of the important causal factors is altitude, but not one that could be avoided, so instead I bought a fluffy pair of moon-boots. Moon-boots were the in-thing for apres-ski comfort being both soft, snow-proof and (the big attraction) insulating.
That camp in Scotland the boots only got one flight, an aerotow above the clouds to 5000 AGL in nil wind followed by a gentle descent back to earth. Counting the 1000km drive to get there, probably my most expensive glider flight yet. Some years later I took the boots to Cerdanya in the Spanish Pyranees and flew a gold height (in sandals because of the warm weather). I used the boots in Canada a lot because they glide in the winter on snow-covered airfields, but we never got above 2000 AGL while I was there. And then we were packing for Africa. By some slight of hand the boots ("what do you want them for - Africa's hot!") made the cut and were not discarded.
So it was then that on this bright June day with a light North Westerly the moon-boots, Kathryn and I plodded off to Worcester. It was not a day when the wave was particularly evident but the conditions seemed favourable (the Tephigram had lumps and bumps in all the right places). I took off shortly after two others had contacted the wave over the dam, and I towed to just short of Vic Peak listening to the bubbly sounds glider pilots make on the radio when they are in steady lift climbing through 7000ft.
Vic Peak was working well, but only to about 5400ft. Twice I ventured out to the damn wall through significant sink and twice scuttled back to the Vic Peak for a 'relight'. The second time I was frustrated at not contacting the good lift that had clearly been there for the other pilots and got low while hunting for it so returned to the ridge at 2000ft AGL. The wave had clearly 'cycled' and the lift had now moved elsewhere.
On my third attempt, after noticeably weaker lift on Vic Peak I headed out from the ridge defining the North end of the Vic Peak Bowl directly for Rawsonville. This necessitated some fast flight into wind in order to make a reasonable ground speed. Sure enough, almost directly over Rawsonville at 1250m I contacted the wave and achieved a rapid 3m climb. There can be nothing as comforting as smooth 3m lift seemingly over a huge area of sky. After the obligatory chat to Cape Town Approach and setting the transponder to squawk at 8500ft I climbed in unbroken but gradually decreasing lift to FL115 where the lift reduced. Interestingly, a later analysis of the trace reveals that I probably drifted out the back of this secondary wave as I was nearly two kilometres south east of the position over Rawsonville at which I achieved the best rate of climb. It also demonstrates how easy it is to drift in wave, and lends credence to the rule of thumb which suggests that one should push forward (into wind) if the rate of climb reduces. Also, if you are fortunate enough to have GPS, mark the position of the best lift and turn to pass through it on each 'beat' up and down the wave. If you are 'eyeballing' your position be sure to allow for the changing angles as you climb higher.
At about this time (1:15), launching was stopped at the club, giving rise to the other important lesson for wave days: the wind usually gets stronger as the day progresses, so get out there early and get launched while it is still possible.
Having been airborne for an hour at this point I decided to push forward to the primary just west of Badsberg in order to achieve the extra height. I contacted the primary at 8500ft and it was very weak, often less than 1m. So I sat there for an hour and 15 minutes in the longest slowest airborne climb I have ever made all the way to FL195. I can't adequately describe the view but being able to see Langebaan and Kleinmond with a single turn of the head was very special. Having achieved my third diamond also helped enhance the view!
In retrospect, I was a little unadventurous in looking for better sources of lift (the logger highlights the small area I searched in order to improve the rate of climb). Later flights have highlighted the many places where the wave tends to have additional strength, particularly off the NW corner of Badsberg and in the lee of du Toit's Peak (no, not the CFI's new cottage - although it is probably large enough to create waves!).
Having a GPS helped relieve the boredom and allowed me to achieve another personal best in the same flight - to fly backwards (in terms of ground speed) at 34 kph. You can imagine the 'hover' at zero was also easy.
One word of caution about high altitude and high indicated airspeeds. The reason to be careful is that your indicated airspeed is progressively lower than your true airspeed (the ASI under reads by an increasing amount) as altitude increases. Many of the factors effecting the choice of VNE refer to true airspeed and not indicated airspeed. A reasonable rule of thumb is to shave 10% off 'indicated' VNE for every 10000ft but it is always best to leave yourself with a good margin of safety - after all its your wings that will fall off!
The descent was slow in order to allow the gel coat time to heat up gradually. I descended in a part of the wave between Matroosberg and the club which was rising, but with airbrakes was able to control the rate of descent to 1.5m. The last part of the descent (under 7000) was extremely turbulent - I don't recall worse turbulence - and I radioed the club to ask for people to be available on the runway to hold the wings after landing. This proved to be a good move as I am not sure I would have been happy to get out of the glider after landing without assistance - I was easily able to hold the wings level, but without the wheel brake would have made significant speed (in reverse) back down the runway towards the threshold.
And the boots? Well, they are just itching to get back to altitude again, see you on the crest!
Once you have flown your first solo, you remain "on checks" for a while. Usually for around 10 flights or so before being "cleared" solo. Often these check flights are regarded by both the pupil (and you remain a pupil until you have completed your licence) and the instructor as a bit of a bother. What is the best way to approach these early checks? Both pilots, the pupil and the instructor must contribute to making the check a worthwhile effort.
Firstly what should the pupil do? Consider your last solo and ask yourself what went right or wrong. When did you last do various flight manoeuvres such as steep turns, spins, stalls and so on?. Have you flown the glider at high speed, at or near red line? Be totally honest with yourself. Then talk to your checking instructor and discuss what you would like to do. Between you there will probably be a good flight's worth of learning.
What should the instructor do? He should ask the pupil what is needed, and if this seems rather little, "just a circuit" then should plan to provide some more learning opportunities. This could be a cable break, a session of steep turns or an unusual circuit.
Both parties to the exercise should strive to make this an enjoyable learning exercise.
Similar ideas can be applied to the dreaded annual check. For the less experienced this sometimes looms as a major hurdle to be overcome. If you approach the check in the spirit I have suggested above, it becomes a fun flight. The experienced pilot may have a number of problems with annual checks. He was flying while the checking instructor was still in nappies. He has as many thousand hours as the instructor has hundreds so who the hell does that upstart instructor think he is anyway?
The answer is that firstly an experienced pilot can grow careless and a dispassionate observer may detect potential problems that the pilot himself has missed, even though the observer is less experienced. Secondly while the instructor is current, many of the experienced pilots, who fly only solo, are not and have not experienced a spin, say, since the last check. I have seen experienced pilots apply less than full rudder in the recovery, or be reluctant or even refuse to spin. Remember that if you believe that you know everything about flying you really are an accident looking for a good crash site.
Due to the enthusiasm of many of our members, the Krautkoerant continues to come to you in its expanded state. If the newsletter is any indication, it seems that the club is certainly in good health! Unfortunately though, many are not diarising dates of events, such as the safety meeting, that was very badly attended. To those who feel safety meetings are a waste of time because they know it all, the words of William Tench, former head of the British Air Accident Investigation Branch say it all: "Safety is no accident".
Mike Pascoe in his article on the Krautkoerant shows that the name has been with the club for a long time. It strikes me as strange though, that the name has absolutely nothing to do with flying. Especially when one considers such appropriate names as Cloudbase and Highveld Flyer which leave one in no doubt as to what the content of the publication is about. Helmut Morsbach says it came into being because at that time there were so many Germans in the club - suppose that makes sense. So traditional yes, but appropriate? Has anyone any suggestions?
For the convenience of those who missed the AGM, the minutes and all relevant information from the meeting are on the notice board in the clubhouse.
For those of you with young children, please ensure that they are always under supervision while in the pool area and near the runways and taxiways. Recently a child fell into the pool unnoticed by its sunbathing mother, and on another occasion a small Cape cobra was found cruising around the tranquil waters of the pool. Please keep a good look out for your child's sake, and this applies even more so around the aircraft and runways.
We say a warm welcome to new members Mark Siegelberg, Brett Prince, Stephen Vernimmen, Philip Fourie, Colin Jenkinson and Cornelia and Thys de Wet. Also our old friend Randy Cullen is back from his native Canada and John Creedy is now also back from Canada and living in Worcester. Unfortunately we have to say good-bye Pepe Tomassi and Herman "Lappies" Labuschagne, who seems to be held captive on a diamond mining vessel somewhere off the Namibian coast, as well as Paul Kirby who is now living in Gauteng. Those who thought Peter Versveld had left the club are definitely mistaken. Well, we thought he had left!
As an increasing number of people are using e-mail these days, it would be useful to compile an address list of all members, including social members, who have this facility. I received a fascinating e-mail from Helmut Morsbach (morsbach@biwaco.shiga-u.ac.jp) in Japan recently giving a detailed history of the KK together with other reminiscences of the earlier club, and he asks for the e-mail addresses of any of the "old" members. Unfortunately not many of this group appear to be on e-mail though (Vhe gett too soon oldt undt too late schmart! - HM). Helmut has managed to contact Mansell Williams (USA), John Sharples (NZ) and Hans Ludolphi (Portugal) so far. If there are any other members on e-mail who are not yet on the club list for any reason, could they please contact me at pwooley@ctcc.gov.za. Helmut also made my day by referring to the splendid February Krautkoerant, which he downloaded off our web page. Thanks to Ronnie Moore for the updating of the web-page.
Mansell Williams (mansellw@sonic.net) wrote from the States to say that when he joined in 1952, "Sammy" Samson (see Feb KK, pg 2) was already known as one of the "senior" members. He remembers Sammy bailing out of the Tiger and watching helplessly as Bernard Crome met his demise in the wreckage of the Minimoa. Mansell holds SA Gold badge number 36!
The five huts shortly to be erected are, unfortunately, the last to be allowed by the WFC, the leaseholders of the airfield. Apparently the health department of the Worcester municipality has lodged an objection to the size of our "village". Fortunately the area available for hangarage seems to be pretty unlimited at this stage and two new ones should have been completed by the time you read this.
Those who didn't make the Easter Saturday steak braai organised by Jacques Willig and catered by the legendary Helgard missed a wonderful evening, and although a tremendous amount of flying was also done over Easter, the valley inversion prohibited any meaningful cross-country soaring. It didn't stop Dave Starke and Hubert Spaun from enjoying their new DG500M, a wonderful sight.
In case you missed the AGM, here are the names of the new committee members, CFI and chief tug pilot. The other particular portfolios will be announced later.
| Chairman | Paul Bailey |
| Treasurer | Graham Anderson |
| Committee member | Graham Levitt |
| Committee member | Jacques Willig |
| Committee member | Hans Pruter |
| Maintenance Officer | Dave Starke |
| Secretary & Krautkoerant editor | Peter Wooley |
| CFI | Andre Leeb du Toit |
| Chief tug pilot | Gary Pottage |
We all know that most gliding and general aviation accidents are caused by pilot error, not aircraft failure, if flown within the design limits. However, looking from the aircraft perspective, not flying skills, I thought it might be interesting to have a brief look at the history of flying safety and safety awareness, particularly in respect of aircraft rather than pilots.
In the early days of aviation very little was known about strength of materials, construction methods were crude by to-days standards, there were almost no regulations or standards for materials or construction methods. Not too much was known about the theory of flight. On the positive side, the skies were uncrowded.
Flying was considered by most people to be suicidal and indeed many accidents occurred. Even in those days many accidents were caused by pilot error but probably as many were due to aircraft failure of one kind or another.
The First World War saw the first major use of aircraft in battle and with this came a leap in aircraft development. Much more knowledge of aircraft design was gained, the massive war effort saw rapid development of materials and methods. After WW1 came the real beginning of general aviation. The 30's saw the first real mass production of light aircraft in the UK and USA. Tiger moths, Piper cubs and many others were produced for private flying (Germany who were not allowed to build powered aircraft or train power pilots turned to gliding and have led the development and production of gliders ever since). This period between the two world wars saw the first commercial air lines and with them the early days of regulation in aviation and standards for both aircraft and pilots.
WW2 virtually put a stop to private flying and all resources were employed in the war effort. The development of aircraft for the war effort by Germany, England and America was staggering and real mass production methods were used to produce massive volumes of military aircraft.
In the immediate post war years the American factories that had been producing aircraft for the military found a ready market for new aircraft in the many de-mobilised pilots. In addition cheap ex-military aircraft became available. In the late 40's, 50's and 60's companies like Piper and Cessna built large volumes of aircraft aimed at the private pilot market for training, recreational and business use. This was the heyday of general aviation. Fuel was cheap, ex-military instructors and technicians were plentiful. Flying was probably more affordable than it has ever been.
In the 50's Germany once again started producing gliders and continued their dominance of the glider market.
Although designs were by now more sophisticated and inherently much safer, the accident rate was still very high. Pilot error was responsible for a large amount of the accidents during this period but many were still caused by aircraft failure. Most of these failures were caused by poor inspection and maintenance and to a lesser extent by poor design and specifications. Faced with these problems the authorities used the only method they knew of to improve the situation. REGULATE!!
From the mid 70's regulations have been imposed more and more rigorously. This applies to pilot training and to aircraft maintenance and specification. The result of what many would argue is over-regulation is that 25 years down the line the accident rate in the USA and many other countries, including SA, is now less than half of what it was. The percentage of accidents caused by aircraft failure has substantially reduced over this time. Considering that many of the aircraft flown today were around 25 years ago shows that improved maintenance and inspection standards, forced by regulation, really has worked.
Pilot error however still remains the no. 1 killer.
You may well ask what all this has to do with gliding. Our sport has not escaped regulation over the years. In most countries gliders are registered in the equivalent of our LS1 category. Unlike SA however, much stricter regulations are enforced. Components such as release mechanisms have to be returned to the factory or authorized re-builder at set time intervals. All factory modifications and inspections have to be complied with and Air Directives issued by the governing authority have to be carried out with strict time limits. Maintenance and inspections have to be carried out by licensed professionals.
We are extremely privileged to be essentially self-regulating when it comes to maintenance and pilot training in SA at present. This puts a big responsibility on us and we need to make sure that we do not jeopardize this status.
As far as club gliders and the pilots who fly them are concerned the obvious time to find snags is the daily inspection. Spend a few extra minutes on the DI. If you are not sure of something ask someone who knows. An example, on a recent Sunday we removed the elevator from GTO to tighten the horizontal stabilizer attachment fittings. The starboard split pin was missing and although there were probably good reasons why this was not fitted, did anyone pick it up on the DI?
Many minor repairs are carried out at the airfield, often without proper tools or correct materials. Sometimes a compromise repair is made with the idea of doing a permanent repair later. Make sure that this is done. Note any snags in the flight folio and always check the flight folio as part of your DI. If you are not confident of the safety of an aircraft, ground it. If a higher authority still clears the aircraft as fit to fly and you are not convinced that it is safe to fly don't - it's your neck.
A good example is GJJ. This glider was repaired after a major accident about two years ago. After the repair it was noted that the horizontal stabilizer did not fit tightly, the glider was returned and what appeared to be the main problem was rectified. Although still not quite right the decision was made that it was safe. At the last LS1 inspection recently we removed the forward locating ball and found that the attaching thread was severely bent. New parts have now been ordered but imagine what would have happened if this part had failed in flight. Many of us were involved in the decision to declare this glider safe for flight, an extra 30 minutes of careful checking at the time would have revealed the real problem.
In spite of the fact that we do our own maintenance on aircraft and some of our aircraft are elderly, most gliding accidents are caused by human error. Bruno Gantenbrink gave a speech that was published in Aerokurier in 1993. This was translated and put on the Internet. The main point of his speech was to debunk the old saying:
"The most dangerous part of gliding is the trip to the glider field"
Bruno makes the point very clearly that gliding is a dangerous sport, particularly in competition flying when many gliders can be in the same thermal or on the same course.
Private owners of gliders tend to know their equipment well, they look after their gliders and usually do their own maintenance. Because they fly their gliders often they are familiar with all aspects of the machine and handling characteristics. This is seldom the case with pilots flying club ships. You don't know who flew last, what repairs and maintenance might have been carried out and by whom.
It is much more difficult to be sure of a club aircraft before flying. When stress levels and cockpit workload are high and you are flying in close proximity to other gliders you need to have confidence in your equipment. This is not the time to be fumbling for controls or figuring out how the instrumentation works.
It is well worth the time and effort to sit in the cockpit while the glider is in the hanger or on the flight line, with the pilots operating manual and instruction manuals for instruments, and learn where everything is and how it all works. Panel layouts tend to vary from glider to glider, make sure that you know where everything is at a glance.
Make sure you are comfortably seated and that all straps including parachute are secure and comfortable. Use your checklist to ensure that you have everything you need such as maps, water, food, GPS, telephone numbers etc.
Recently we had a very low release from an aerotow and it turns out the pilot was uncomfortable and was adjusting his straps and accidentally pulled the release. This fortunately ended happily with a low circuit and landing back on the runway.
The better prepared and more relaxed you are, the less you will have to worry about when you should be concentrating on flying safely. Being a safe pilot starts long before the all out signal is given to the tug pilot or winch driver.
Our training as glider pilots emphasizes various aspects of gliding safety, for example proper circuit planning and emergency actions. However, other causes of accidents may not be emphasized to the same extent in our training. In order to assess the risk factors in gliding, US gliding accidents between April 1995 and October 1997 have been grouped into the various types of accident, and the number of incidents tabulated.
| TYPE OF ACCIDENT | NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS |
|---|---|
| Take off accidents | |
| 1. Rope break during aerotow | 6 |
| 2. Cable break during winch/car launch | 4 |
| 3. Loss off control during take off | 4 |
| In-flight accidents | |
| 4. Airframe malfunction | 4 |
| 5. Ridge soaring accidents (rotor/sink) | 6 |
| 6. Loss of control | 5 |
| Airfield landing accidents | |
| 7. Loss of control after landing | 10 |
| 8. Low & slow (stall/spin) | 4 |
| 9. Undershoot | 11 |
| 10. Overshoot | 1 |
| Outlanding accidents | |
| 11. Misjudged approach | 13 |
| 12. Struck object during/after landing | 7 |
Eight of the ten rope and cable break accidents resulted from the pilot attempting to return to the airfield, despite the fact that the altitude attained prior to the break was in no case greater than 270', and in one case was under 80'. Three of the four loss of control accidents were due to the controls not being connected or reversed after maintenance/derigging.
a) Our training emphasizes the need for sufficient height before returning to the airfield after a rope break. Although the urge to turn might be strong, don't do it without enough height; b) Pre-flight inspection and cockpit checks are essential, don't skip them!
Three of the four airframe malfunction accidents were preventable - a proper daily inspection or pre-flight would have revealed the fault before flying. These faults were: canopy attachment faulty, mylar elevator strip detached and non-airworthiness. The only accident that could not have been prevented was a wing main-spar failure. All six ridge accidents were caused by flying into rotor/sink too close to the ridge and being unable to clear the terrain. The causes of the loss of control accidents are unknown, but pilot error or health are most likely.
a) Daily inspection, pre-flight and cockpit checks are essential;
b) When ridge soaring be aware of the terrain, the wind and your ship.
Half of the loss of control accidents were caused by dropping a wing after touchdown and a resultant groundloop. Of the rest, two were collisions with fixed objects and three were collisions with other aircraft. All the stall/spin accidents were the result of windshear - the pilot not maintaining sufficient speed on final. The undershoot accidents were either due to the pilot starting the circuit too low or not taking environmental factors such as wind into consideration. The single overshoot accident was unique in that the pilot managed to miss a 7500' runway!
Maintain speed and make the decision to land early while you have enough height - take the wind into consideration. During the downwind leg, lookout for hazards on the airfield.
Remember to maintain control of the glider until it comes to rest.
Eleven of the misjudged approaches were by pilots who had originally planned to land on the airfield but found themselves with insufficient height to make the circuit, and having decided to land out, did not have sufficient time to select the best field. The other two were cross-country outlandings in which the wind was not considered correctly - one was a downwind landing and the other was a hard landing due to windshear.
Of the gliders that struck objects during or after landing, four were in short fields which required avoiding action after landing and three were collisions with power lines during the approach.
Make the decision to land early so that the you can either make the airfield or have ample time to choose the best field using proper selection criteria.
Thank you Mike, Charles, Alan, Dave, Graham and Andre for your contributions to this April edition of the Krautkoerant. It's your collective enthusiasm that makes this publication, and this club, what it is. The next Krautkoerant will appear in June. Remember that the opinions expressed in the newsletter are not necessarily those officially endorsed by the club.
Deadline for the next issue is Wednesday 10th June and, as always, I will accept disk (WP5.1 format please), faxed, e-mailed or snail mailed hand-written copy.
Peter Wooley, 12 Grove Rd, Rondebosch 7700. fax: 419 9667, e-mail: pwooley@ctcc.gov.za
ASW 20 FP (French produced, penne (winglets)), Bohli, Peschces, Becker radio, oxy, slim 'chute, covers, tow-out and excellent trailer. Contact Hubert Spaun 23 7921 (a/h)
Fournier RF4, contact Tony Rund 686 3237 (a/h)
Kestrel 19m, third share, contact Colin Hancox 75 5279 (a/h)
This event will take place between 1st and 8th November at Bitterwasser, Namibia. Contact Jors van der Merwe at 09264 668 and ask for Tsumispark 5202. Soaring like nowhere else!