AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Lake Chelan https://tinyurl.com/4pjhx5an
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:I would love to have some first hand info on the damage to this ship. Old Bob, The Purist
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Richard
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:Same tough wave situation the next day, caught another pilot, but he avoided the same fate
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Richard
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Richard
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:39:59 AM UTC-4, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
RichardI would love to have some first hand info on the damage to this ship. Old Bob, The Purist
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 5:09:35 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:It was a hard downwind landing with the gear up.
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:39:59 AM UTC-4, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Photos on the AIG site pretty much tell the story.RichardI would love to have some first hand info on the damage to this ship. Old Bob, The Purist
Does not look like a "normal" low energy water landing.
Maybe damaged during recovery.
FWIW
UH
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 5:09:35 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:UH, I was able to obtain some detailed pics last evening from a friend in WA, the damage was much worse than the AIG pics detail. Someone hit the water very hard causing separation of wing skins and other damage. First thought was to buy it and send to
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:39:59 AM UTC-4, Richard Pfiffner wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Photos on the AIG site pretty much tell the story.RichardI would love to have some first hand info on the damage to this ship. Old Bob, The Purist
Does not look like a "normal" low energy water landing.
Maybe damaged during recovery.
FWIW
UH
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:35:53 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 5:09:35 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:It was a hard downwind landing with the gear up.
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:39:59 AM UTC-4, Richard Pfiffner wrote:Photos on the AIG site pretty much tell the story.
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:I would love to have some first hand info on the damage to this ship. Old Bob, The Purist
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Richard
Does not look like a "normal" low energy water landing.
Maybe damaged during recovery.
FWIW
UH
On 9/10/2022 9:56 PM, Charles Longley wrote:Down
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:35:53 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:What does the manual recommend for gear position in a water landing?
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 5:09:35 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:It was a hard downwind landing with the gear up.
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:39:59 AM UTC-4, Richard Pfiffner wrote:Photos on the AIG site pretty much tell the story.
On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 8:15:39 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:I would love to have some first hand info on the damage to this ship. Old Bob, The Purist
AIG has a DG-1000s up for bid………………..anybody got the skinny on this? Cause is listed as extreme turbulence caused lake landing!Gear up. Got caught in the wrong part of the mountain wave landed in Lake Chelan. Don't know much else.
Bet there’s a good story there?
JJ
Richard
Does not look like a "normal" low energy water landing.
Maybe damaged during recovery.
FWIW
UH
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 11:29:57 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:doesn’t say anything about jettisoning the canopy. I would worry about it hitting the tail personally. They make small seatbelt cutter/canopy crackers that might be a good idea for your parachute harness.
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.The theory is it stops it from submarining. The bottom of the fuselage is curved and acts like a wing once it hits the water. You also want your spoilers closed and flaps faired with the wing. Otherwise they will probably get ripped off. The checklist
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
CharlieI was just up in Alaska hunting moose with family and friends in side by side UTV’s. They carried something similar to this- https://www.amazon.com/StatGear-SuperVizor-Emergency-Rescue-Escape/dp/B01CMVW5SE/ref=asc_df_B01CMVW5SE/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.The theory is it stops it from submarining. The bottom of the fuselage is curved and acts like a wing once it hits the water. You also want your spoilers closed and flaps faired with the wing. Otherwise they will probably get ripped off. The checklist
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage. Nick
T
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage. Nick
T
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.Yeah it’s a tough deal. I know the pilot of the DG-1000 pretty well. I think he did a good job in the heat of battle. He walked away without injuries anyway. Hopefully he’ll do a write up so we can all learn from it.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
Ramy
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
Ramy
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage. >> Nick
T
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
Ramy
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:heard of one going on it's back. That likely would only happen if the nose hits. bottom.
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
RamyGear down and as slow as possible into wind. Closing the spoilers will keep them from being bent back. I could not do that because I had a log the size of a telephone pole in front coming quickly. We replaced the spoiler arms.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
I would be good to unlatch forward hinged canopies if time permits. I'm not sure what would be best for side hinged. I think I'd want the protection of the canopy. Parallel to shore far enough away to not hit bottom. It will submarine but I have never
Don't kid yourself into thinking you will do all the refinements. You will be too stressed.
Put all the effort into the lowest energy at touch down.
The rest is a big splash.
Oh- and it will float for a good while due to wings being hollow and full of plenty of air. I easily swam mine to shore.
I know one guy that has done it twice, in different ships, with no meaningful damage
Been there- done that.
UH
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:never heard of one going on it's back. That likely would only happen if the nose hits. bottom.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
RamyGear down and as slow as possible into wind. Closing the spoilers will keep them from being bent back. I could not do that because I had a log the size of a telephone pole in front coming quickly. We replaced the spoiler arms.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
I would be good to unlatch forward hinged canopies if time permits. I'm not sure what would be best for side hinged. I think I'd want the protection of the canopy. Parallel to shore far enough away to not hit bottom. It will submarine but I have
water. A thick curtain of water came washing over the canopy, briefly reducing visibility to zero, but we never submarined. Once at rest, we were floating high enough that only one wing tip could touch the water at a time. The breeze kept rocking us,Don't kid yourself into thinking you will do all the refinements. You will be too stressed.I was once a passenger for a glider water landing. I was lucky to have a superb pilot behind me. Gear was down. Perfect low-energy touch down, and my impression was that we skied on the main wheel for a short distance before the ship settled onto the
Put all the effort into the lowest energy at touch down.
The rest is a big splash.
Oh- and it will float for a good while due to wings being hollow and full of plenty of air. I easily swam mine to shore.
I know one guy that has done it twice, in different ships, with no meaningful damage
Been there- done that.
UH
...david
There was a story a few decades ago about a Cirrus near Seattle doing a water landing. The guy lost a gear door, but quickly found it. As I remember the glider was aired out as much as possible and was back flying the contest the next day. This wasbefore computers in the cockpit.
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:never heard of one going on it's back. That likely would only happen if the nose hits. bottom.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
RamyGear down and as slow as possible into wind. Closing the spoilers will keep them from being bent back. I could not do that because I had a log the size of a telephone pole in front coming quickly. We replaced the spoiler arms.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
I would be good to unlatch forward hinged canopies if time permits. I'm not sure what would be best for side hinged. I think I'd want the protection of the canopy. Parallel to shore far enough away to not hit bottom. It will submarine but I have
water. A thick curtain of water came washing over the canopy, briefly reducing visibility to zero, but we never submarined. Once at rest, we were floating high enough that only one wing tip could touch the water at a time. The breeze kept rocking us,Don't kid yourself into thinking you will do all the refinements. You will be too stressed.I was once a passenger for a glider water landing. I was lucky to have a superb pilot behind me. Gear was down. Perfect low-energy touch down, and my impression was that we skied on the main wheel for a short distance before the ship settled onto the
Put all the effort into the lowest energy at touch down.
The rest is a big splash.
Oh- and it will float for a good while due to wings being hollow and full of plenty of air. I easily swam mine to shore.
I know one guy that has done it twice, in different ships, with no meaningful damage
Been there- done that.
UH
There is one club in Italy that used to have the drying out instructions on the club house wall. It was apparently not uncommon. This was near Lago di Como....david
There is one club in Italy that used to have the drying out instructions on the club house wall. It was apparently not uncommon. This was near Lago di Como.
UH
On 9/13/2022 5:45 AM, Hank Nixon wrote:
..
If you see a pilot putting his wallet, phone, and inReach a plastic bag before steppingThere is one club in Italy that used to have the drying out instructions on the club house wall. It was apparently not uncommon. This was near Lago di Como.
UH
into the cockpit, perhaps he should be pulled aside for additional training...
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
There was a story a few decades ago about a Cirrus near Seattle doing a water landing. The guy lost a gear door, but quickly found it. As I remember the glider was aired out as much as possible and was back flying the contest the next day. This wasbefore computers in the cockpit.
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:never heard of one going on it's back. That likely would only happen if the nose hits. bottom.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
RamyGear down and as slow as possible into wind. Closing the spoilers will keep them from being bent back. I could not do that because I had a log the size of a telephone pole in front coming quickly. We replaced the spoiler arms.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
I would be good to unlatch forward hinged canopies if time permits. I'm not sure what would be best for side hinged. I think I'd want the protection of the canopy. Parallel to shore far enough away to not hit bottom. It will submarine but I have
water. A thick curtain of water came washing over the canopy, briefly reducing visibility to zero, but we never submarined. Once at rest, we were floating high enough that only one wing tip could touch the water at a time. The breeze kept rocking us,Don't kid yourself into thinking you will do all the refinements. You will be too stressed.I was once a passenger for a glider water landing. I was lucky to have a superb pilot behind me. Gear was down. Perfect low-energy touch down, and my impression was that we skied on the main wheel for a short distance before the ship settled onto the
Put all the effort into the lowest energy at touch down.
The rest is a big splash.
Oh- and it will float for a good while due to wings being hollow and full of plenty of air. I easily swam mine to shore.
I know one guy that has done it twice, in different ships, with no meaningful damage
Been there- done that.
UH
...david
There have been two Lake Tahoe landings in the last couple of years. One, done at low energy, resulted in no damage to the glider other than getting it wet. The other, probably at much higher energy, blew up the wing leading edges and damaged the wingroot drag structure. Nevertheless, both gliders were totaled by insurance. Since there are many steel parts sealed in the wing and fuselage (including push rods with holes in them to allow water ingress) they needed numerous holes to be cut for part
So land in the water if you must, but don't expect to fly it the next day, or perhaps, ever.before computers in the cockpit.
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:30:19 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
There was a story a few decades ago about a Cirrus near Seattle doing a water landing. The guy lost a gear door, but quickly found it. As I remember the glider was aired out as much as possible and was back flying the contest the next day. This was
never heard of one going on it's back. That likely would only happen if the nose hits. bottom.On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
RamyGear down and as slow as possible into wind. Closing the spoilers will keep them from being bent back. I could not do that because I had a log the size of a telephone pole in front coming quickly. We replaced the spoiler arms.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
I would be good to unlatch forward hinged canopies if time permits. I'm not sure what would be best for side hinged. I think I'd want the protection of the canopy. Parallel to shore far enough away to not hit bottom. It will submarine but I have
the water. A thick curtain of water came washing over the canopy, briefly reducing visibility to zero, but we never submarined. Once at rest, we were floating high enough that only one wing tip could touch the water at a time. The breeze kept rocking us,Don't kid yourself into thinking you will do all the refinements. You will be too stressed.I was once a passenger for a glider water landing. I was lucky to have a superb pilot behind me. Gear was down. Perfect low-energy touch down, and my impression was that we skied on the main wheel for a short distance before the ship settled onto
Put all the effort into the lowest energy at touch down.
The rest is a big splash.
Oh- and it will float for a good while due to wings being hollow and full of plenty of air. I easily swam mine to shore.
I know one guy that has done it twice, in different ships, with no meaningful damage
Been there- done that.
UH
...david
On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:08:30 PM UTC+2, jfitch wrote:wing root drag structure. Nevertheless, both gliders were totaled by insurance. Since there are many steel parts sealed in the wing and fuselage (including push rods with holes in them to allow water ingress) they needed numerous holes to be cut for part
There have been two Lake Tahoe landings in the last couple of years. One, done at low energy, resulted in no damage to the glider other than getting it wet. The other, probably at much higher energy, blew up the wing leading edges and damaged the
before computers in the cockpit.So land in the water if you must, but don't expect to fly it the next day, or perhaps, ever.
On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 9:30:19 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
There was a story a few decades ago about a Cirrus near Seattle doing a water landing. The guy lost a gear door, but quickly found it. As I remember the glider was aired out as much as possible and was back flying the contest the next day. This was
have never heard of one going on it's back. That likely would only happen if the nose hits. bottom.On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:08:25 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 12:48:28 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
And that’s the catch. Trying to make a perfect low energy water landing into the wind with closed spoilers and no flaps in very stressful situation is easier said than done.
The last 3 water landings I am aware of all ended with a write off. The pilot is usually unharmed so still better option than landing in trees or rocks.
RamyGear down and as slow as possible into wind. Closing the spoilers will keep them from being bent back. I could not do that because I had a log the size of a telephone pole in front coming quickly. We replaced the spoiler arms.
On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:29:57 AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
I think they want the Gear down so the plane doesn't skip back into the air and lawndart in with a nose low attitude and submarine.
The Gear should add some real "bite" to water and end the water landing quickly with the canopy hopefully intact and up.
Should a pilot open and or Jettison the canopy?
You don't want to get trapped in there.
Who knows.
Many planes have landed in the water and been retrieved with little damage.
Nick
T
I would be good to unlatch forward hinged canopies if time permits. I'm not sure what would be best for side hinged. I think I'd want the protection of the canopy. Parallel to shore far enough away to not hit bottom. It will submarine but I
the water. A thick curtain of water came washing over the canopy, briefly reducing visibility to zero, but we never submarined. Once at rest, we were floating high enough that only one wing tip could touch the water at a time. The breeze kept rocking us,Don't kid yourself into thinking you will do all the refinements. You will be too stressed.I was once a passenger for a glider water landing. I was lucky to have a superb pilot behind me. Gear was down. Perfect low-energy touch down, and my impression was that we skied on the main wheel for a short distance before the ship settled onto
Put all the effort into the lowest energy at touch down.
The rest is a big splash.
Oh- and it will float for a good while due to wings being hollow and full of plenty of air. I easily swam mine to shore.
I know one guy that has done it twice, in different ships, with no meaningful damage
Been there- done that.
UH
executed water landing is quite that dire, at least not in all cases.A Discus 2 landed in a lake on the final practice day of the 2016 World Championships in Lithuania. It was recovered, dried out, and flew the contest, placing 3rd. It still is flying for the French team many years later, so I don't think a well-...david
And for that perfect water landing checklist! Gear down and locked -
And the un-answered question -
Does one want to land with the main wheel free to rotate or with the wheel brake engaged??
[email protected] wrote:
And for that perfect water landing checklist! Gear down and locked -
And the un-answered question -
Does one want to land with the main wheel free to rotate or with the wheel brake engaged??
And should the electrics be switched off?
On 9/14/2022 4:53 AM, John wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
And for that perfect water landing checklist! Gear down and locked -
And the un-answered question -
Does one want to land with the main wheel free to rotate or with the wheel brake engaged??
And should the electrics be switched off?
I think so, right after your last transmission about your situation. It would reduce the
damage to wet instruments.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:21:00 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:down as drag from the water increases! Nose digging in will bring the fuselage to an abrupt stop, causing the wings to flex forward. The spar is strong enough to withstand the flexing, but the wing skins under compressive load are NOT!
On 9/14/2022 4:53 AM, John wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
And for that perfect water landing checklist! Gear down and locked -
And the un-answered question -
Does one want to land with the main wheel free to rotate or with the wheel brake engaged??
And should the electrics be switched off?
I think so, right after your last transmission about your situation. It would reduce theI couldn’t figure out why both wings had extensive damage to the leading edges, but landing downwind would result in the fuselage hitting the water well above stall speed. On a ship with a nose wheel ( DG-1000, G-103, K-21, G-2) the nose will come
damage to wet instruments.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
I would think that landing with gear down would only increase the nose pitch-down moment on any ship with a nose gear?JJ, that ship hit harder than most realize, why the pilot did not turn into the wind and slow the thing down is a good question. I have some nice photos of the damage and I suspect that there is much more damage than one realizes. The Spar fuselage
JJ
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:21:00 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:down as drag from the water increases! Nose digging in will bring the fuselage to an abrupt stop, causing the wings to flex forward. The spar is strong enough to withstand the flexing, but the wing skins under compressive load are NOT!
On 9/14/2022 4:53 AM, John wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
And for that perfect water landing checklist! Gear down and locked -
And the un-answered question -
Does one want to land with the main wheel free to rotate or with the wheel brake engaged??
And should the electrics be switched off?
I think so, right after your last transmission about your situation. It would reduce theI couldn’t figure out why both wings had extensive damage to the leading edges, but landing downwind would result in the fuselage hitting the water well above stall speed. On a ship with a nose wheel ( DG-1000, G-103, K-21, G-2) the nose will come
damage to wet instruments.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
I would think that landing with gear down would only increase the nose pitch-down moment on any ship with a nose gear?
JJ
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 6:21:00 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:down as drag from the water increases! Nose digging in will bring the fuselage to an abrupt stop, causing the wings to flex forward. The spar is strong enough to withstand the flexing, but the wing skins under compressive load are NOT!
On 9/14/2022 4:53 AM, John wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
And for that perfect water landing checklist! Gear down and locked -
And the un-answered question -
Does one want to land with the main wheel free to rotate or with the wheel brake engaged??
And should the electrics be switched off?
I think so, right after your last transmission about your situation. It would reduce theI couldn’t figure out why both wings had extensive damage to the leading edges, but landing downwind would result in the fuselage hitting the water well above stall speed. On a ship with a nose wheel ( DG-1000, G-103, K-21, G-2) the nose will come
damage to wet instruments.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications
I would think that landing with gear down would only increase the nose pitch-down moment on any ship with a nose gear?The wheel breaks the suction. Kind of like the step in a pontoon on a sea plane.
JJ
I was the pilot that landed in Lake Tahoe most recently and destroyed my LS6. I haven't seen pictures of the DG 1001, so I won't speak to what caused its damage, but I suspect it was something similar to what happened to my glider.landing attitude and not having the gear down and locked, which caused water displaced from under the fuselage to go up and aft around the leading edge. So really it was momentum transfer of my glider into the water which caused a giant wave to form over
My landing gear was lowered but not locked, so I effectively landed gear up. I also landed with a relatively flat attitude and at around 45 knots, into the wind. I believe what really damaged the wings was the fuselage being sucked down due to the
Both wings were damaged identically, with the root leading edges being displaced 1.5 feet upwards, pulling the lift pins out of the fuselage. Lots of broken and exposed foam from the root to about 2 feet outboard. The upper skins were delaminated fromthe spar from the root to about 6 inches outboard. The damage did extended from the root to basically even with the outboard side of the spoiler box, however the damage is really just the delamination of the bond joint of the upper and lower skins at the
I don't think my wings even went underwater to be honest. I believe that, because I landed in waist high water and didn't hit the bottom, and the fact there was no crushing of the leading edge. Basically all the stopping was done from the fuselagebelow the cockpit. I had spoilers out, and they appear to have no damage, and I had no flaperon damage, but maybe because they are made from Kevlar. I did land with flaps zero and a reason why I landed fast and flat.
It is my opinion that landing with the gear down and locked has the most influence on whether or not you can fly the next day because at the end of the day. Second being making sure you land tail first, as the drag from tail boom will significantlylower the speed at which the cockpit hits the water. I also think landing tail boom first will also make the water in the local area start to move forward and help prevent the wave that goes over the wings from being so damaging.
Lastly, and everyone should probably practice this, but as soon you make your decision to land in water, make your radio call and turn your avionics off. I did not do that either.
I encourage everyone to listen to the podcast I did on it which was linked somewhere already. There was a lot of wrong in my flight that everyone could learn from.
My take on on what to do if forced to land on water is………..
Gear down
Flaps down
Flaps Neutral (or they will suffer damage on entry)
Slow down (spoilers closed)
Touch down into the wind, nose high, close to shore, parallel to beach.
not too close to shore. One of the biggest dangers of a water landing is you cannot see obstacles under the water. You will want adiquate depth so all you can hit is water.
Other considerations, make a radio call and turn off all power.
Close the vents.
Any chance there is a trailer that is for sale as a result of this unfortunate accident?
Looking for a trailer for a K-21 if it would fit in a DG-1000 trailer. Root wing chord fit is my concern.
On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
Any chance there is a trailer that is for sale as a result of this unfortunate accident?
Looking for a trailer for a K-21 if it would fit in a DG-1000 trailer. Root wing chord fit is my concern.Contact Cobra and put that question to them.
Tom
! Bet a skilled technician could put her back together and get himself a nice machine for 10 cents on the dollar
Yes, if you value your labor at 10 cents per hour.
! Bet a skilled technician could put her back together and get himself a nice machine for 10 cents on the dollar
Yes, if you value your labor at 10 cents per hour.
AIG Salvage just posted another “Totaled” bird after landing in water. This one is an LS-6/18 with similar damage to the DG-1000, looks like another case of excessive airspeed at touchdown! Bet a skilled technician could put her back together andget himself a nice machine for 10 cents on the dollar
JJ
On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:28:16 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:get himself a nice machine for 10 cents on the dollar
On Sunday, September 18, 2022 at 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
Any chance there is a trailer that is for sale as a result of this unfortunate accident?
Looking for a trailer for a K-21 if it would fit in a DG-1000 trailer. Root wing chord fit is my concern.Contact Cobra and put that question to them.
TomAIG Salvage just posted another “Totaled” bird after landing in water. This one is an LS-6/18 with similar damage to the DG-1000, looks like another case of excessive airspeed at touchdown! Bet a skilled technician could put her back together and
JJ
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an
expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an
expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
When your choices for an off field landing are:
Rocky terrain
Hilly or mountainous landscape
Really tall trees
A lake or other body of non-turbulent water
I'll take the lake and be ready to get out and swim. A splash is better than a crash.
The only other option is a bailout and parachute ride, and you are still faced with the same terrain choices.
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an
expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
Dan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options. Wealways rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.
In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you can makeit… until you don’t.
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an
expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
Dan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:always rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options. We
it… until you don’t.In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you can make
you the (misplaced) confidence you could do it again.Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
In your Lake Tahoe incident, you never had the margin to lose - it was already lost when you entered the basin. What you "lost" was the expected ridge lift to restore your margin. No doubt you were successful at this many times in the past which gaveDan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
Tom
Tom, I agree with you 100%.other options and have yet to find an acceptable one.
That said, I at least walked the golf course I ended up landing on and concluded that if it comes to that, and it is empty, I can land there. So I had at least one more trick left in my bag before having to land at the lake. I have since checked few
Since then I no longer entering the basin without more margins, which already resulted in one landout.always rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.
But I can see how others can fall in that trap.
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:01:13 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options. We
it… until you don’t.In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you can make
you the (misplaced) confidence you could do it again.In your Lake Tahoe incident, you never had the margin to lose - it was already lost when you entered the basin. What you "lost" was the expected ridge lift to restore your margin. No doubt you were successful at this many times in the past which gave
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote: >>>> What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an
expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
Dan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
Tom
What about South Lake Tahoe Airport? I've flown out of Minden and
Bishop a couple of times and flew out over the lake as well, and never
saw that airport. I never flew down into the bowl, however.
Sorry, the landing in the Lake Tahoe, was the trace made available? Where did he land and I assume the glider did float well enough?
..cold water and all, I'd worry about drowning too...
Darren
On 9/28/22 12:56, Darren Braun wrote:
Sorry, the landing in the Lake Tahoe, was the trace made available? Where did he land and I assume the glider did float well enough?
..cold water and all, I'd worry about drowning too...
Darren
A trace exists, but don't know that it's been made publicly available.
Sounds like he landed in shallow water near the shore at the north end.
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 4:23:33 PM UTC-7, kinsell wrote:
On 9/28/22 12:56, Darren Braun wrote:
Sorry, the landing in the Lake Tahoe, was the trace made available? Where did he land and I assume the glider did float well enough?A trace exists, but don't know that it's been made publicly available.
..cold water and all, I'd worry about drowning too...
Darren
Sounds like he landed in shallow water near the shore at the north end.
That would be interesting to see. It could technically happen to any of us but the 6 lake/basin landings and 1 fatality fall into 2 categories:
1. new(to the area) pilots.. probably not realizing the tremendous amount of risk one must assume entering the basin with only a slim margin.
2. extremely experienced pilots probably flying 20 years or more in the area.
But this pilot doesn't fit into either of your two buckets. This was a practice day for his third contest there, so quite familiar with the territory but not so familiar to be overconfident.
Tom, I agree with you 100%.other options and have yet to find an acceptable one.
That said, I at least walked the golf course I ended up landing on and concluded that if it comes to that, and it is empty, I can land there. So I had at least one more trick left in my bag before having to land at the lake. I have since checked few
Since then I no longer entering the basin without more margins, which already resulted in one landout.always rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.
But I can see how others can fall in that trap.
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:01:13 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options. We
make it… until you don’t.In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you can
you the (misplaced) confidence you could do it again.Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
In your Lake Tahoe incident, you never had the margin to lose - it was already lost when you entered the basin. What you "lost" was the expected ridge lift to restore your margin. No doubt you were successful at this many times in the past which gaveDan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
Tom
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:29:47 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:other options and have yet to find an acceptable one.
Tom, I agree with you 100%.
That said, I at least walked the golf course I ended up landing on and concluded that if it comes to that, and it is empty, I can land there. So I had at least one more trick left in my bag before having to land at the lake. I have since checked few
always rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.Since then I no longer entering the basin without more margins, which already resulted in one landout.
But I can see how others can fall in that trap.
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:01:13 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options. We
make it… until you don’t.In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you can
gave you the (misplaced) confidence you could do it again.Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
In your Lake Tahoe incident, you never had the margin to lose - it was already lost when you entered the basin. What you "lost" was the expected ridge lift to restore your margin. No doubt you were successful at this many times in the past whichDan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
the trees. I have had my own cart hit by a golf ball after I drove out of the trees.Ramy, of course I am happy that you walked away from that one. Using a golf course as a backup, however, puts other people's lives at risk. That course is very narrow, and there can be people around, either players or course workers, that are hidden inTom
Tom
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 11:42:04 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:few other options and have yet to find an acceptable one.
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:29:47 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Tom, I agree with you 100%.
That said, I at least walked the golf course I ended up landing on and concluded that if it comes to that, and it is empty, I can land there. So I had at least one more trick left in my bag before having to land at the lake. I have since checked
We always rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.Since then I no longer entering the basin without more margins, which already resulted in one landout.
But I can see how others can fall in that trap.
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:01:13 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options.
can make it… until you don’t.In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you
gave you the (misplaced) confidence you could do it again.Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
In your Lake Tahoe incident, you never had the margin to lose - it was already lost when you entered the basin. What you "lost" was the expected ridge lift to restore your margin. No doubt you were successful at this many times in the past whichDan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
in the trees. I have had my own cart hit by a golf ball after I drove out of the trees.Ramy, of course I am happy that you walked away from that one. Using a golf course as a backup, however, puts other people's lives at risk. That course is very narrow, and there can be people around, either players or course workers, that are hiddenTom
total aircraft broken birds, caused by only 2% of the total fleet!TomAIG salvage just added another glider to their salvage page, a T-65 Vega. That makes 4 gliders out of 17 general aviation ships this month! There is about 190,000 general aviation ships in the US including about 4000 gliders! That’s around 23% of the
Sobering,Note that it will be seen as destroyed in the eyes of the FAA Aircraft Registry because the insurance company has determined that it can not be repaired within the insured value. This looks to be minor damage and a broken canopy.
JJ
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 12:02:05 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:few other options and have yet to find an acceptable one.
On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 11:42:04 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:29:47 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Tom, I agree with you 100%.
That said, I at least walked the golf course I ended up landing on and concluded that if it comes to that, and it is empty, I can land there. So I had at least one more trick left in my bag before having to land at the lake. I have since checked
We always rely on multiple things to go more or less as expected when we fly, but when they don’t, you can quickly or slowly loose your margins until it is too late.Since then I no longer entering the basin without more margins, which already resulted in one landout.
But I can see how others can fall in that trap.
Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 9:01:13 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
It is easy to look at a flight after the fact and ask “what was he thinking”. But like any incident, those are results of a chain of events and decisions. No one decides in advance to put themselves over unlandable terrain without options.
can make it… until you don’t.In the case of Lake Tahoe, one must make a much earlier decision at much higher altitude to give up and landout before entering the Tahoe Basin, not an easy decision when you are still high and the flight computer and your intuition says you
which gave you the (misplaced) confidence you could do it again.Ramy
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:46:21 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
What perceived reward could lead to the decision to risk such an expensive toy and would lead to a water landing?
In your Lake Tahoe incident, you never had the margin to lose - it was already lost when you entered the basin. What you "lost" was the expected ridge lift to restore your margin. No doubt you were successful at this many times in the pastDan
5J
On 9/27/22 19:58, kinsell wrote:
but the whole interview has good insights into his decision making.
hidden in the trees. I have had my own cart hit by a golf ball after I drove out of the trees.Ramy, of course I am happy that you walked away from that one. Using a golf course as a backup, however, puts other people's lives at risk. That course is very narrow, and there can be people around, either players or course workers, that areTom
the total aircraft broken birds, caused by only 2% of the total fleet!TomAIG salvage just added another glider to their salvage page, a T-65 Vega. That makes 4 gliders out of 17 general aviation ships this month! There is about 190,000 general aviation ships in the US including about 4000 gliders! That’s around 23% of
Sobering,Note that it will be seen as destroyed in the eyes of the FAA Aircraft Registry because the insurance company has determined that it can not be repaired within the insured value. This looks to be minor damage and a broken canopy.
JJ
Sigh
UH
AIG salvage just added another glider to their salvage page, a T-65 Vega. That makes 4 gliders out of 17 general aviation ships this month! There is about 190,000 general aviation ships in the US including about 4000 gliders! That’s around 23% of thetotal aircraft broken birds, caused by only 2% of the total fleet!
Sobering,
JJ
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:02:05 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:the total aircraft broken birds, caused by only 2% of the total fleet!
AIG salvage just added another glider to their salvage page, a T-65 Vega. That makes 4 gliders out of 17 general aviation ships this month! There is about 190,000 general aviation ships in the US including about 4000 gliders! That’s around 23% of
first plane of the 12-15-2022 Bid Close listings. My guess is there will be not less than 7 more airplanes. For 2022, here is what AIG put out for salvage bids:Sobering,Snapshots over short times are often not very representative of what is going on. I went back and looked at all the AIG Salvage listings that had a Bid Close date in 2022. Keep in mind, that the numbers will go up, as they have only just listed the
JJ
Airplanes: 93three that are not flight related, that is still 6 glider Total Constructive Losses or 5% of the TCLs from 2% of the total fleet. Of the gliders put out for salvage bid, there were 2 SGS 1-26s, 1 L-33, 1 Ventus 3, 1 ASW-19, 1 ASW-20, 1 DG-1000, 1 LS6, 1
Helicopters: 10
Gliders: 9
Drones: 1
Of the 9 gliders, one was a trailering accident, one a trailer vent fan fire, one was ground handling, two were lake landings, one mid air, one overshoot on landing, one groundloop, and one gear up that caused other damage. So, if you take out the
There are many other things that come into play on TCLs versus fleet size. Lower insured value leads to higher likelihood of any damage causing a TCL. Some years back, I saw a Phoebus B totaled for a broken canopy. Not many J-3s get totaled for abroken windshield.
Steve LeonardThe AIG salvage numbers might contain significant bias if it turns out that the majority of gliders are insured by AIG (through the SSA relationship with Costello) but a significant portion of the powered fleet is insured by other companies. Then again,
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 6:30:23 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:the total aircraft broken birds, caused by only 2% of the total fleet!
On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 11:02:05 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
AIG salvage just added another glider to their salvage page, a T-65 Vega. That makes 4 gliders out of 17 general aviation ships this month! There is about 190,000 general aviation ships in the US including about 4000 gliders! That’s around 23% of
first plane of the 12-15-2022 Bid Close listings. My guess is there will be not less than 7 more airplanes. For 2022, here is what AIG put out for salvage bids:Sobering,Snapshots over short times are often not very representative of what is going on. I went back and looked at all the AIG Salvage listings that had a Bid Close date in 2022. Keep in mind, that the numbers will go up, as they have only just listed the
JJ
three that are not flight related, that is still 6 glider Total Constructive Losses or 5% of the TCLs from 2% of the total fleet. Of the gliders put out for salvage bid, there were 2 SGS 1-26s, 1 L-33, 1 Ventus 3, 1 ASW-19, 1 ASW-20, 1 DG-1000, 1 LS6, 1Airplanes: 93
Helicopters: 10
Gliders: 9
Drones: 1
Of the 9 gliders, one was a trailering accident, one a trailer vent fan fire, one was ground handling, two were lake landings, one mid air, one overshoot on landing, one groundloop, and one gear up that caused other damage. So, if you take out the
broken windshield.There are many other things that come into play on TCLs versus fleet size. Lower insured value leads to higher likelihood of any damage causing a TCL. Some years back, I saw a Phoebus B totaled for a broken canopy. Not many J-3s get totaled for a
if aircraft written-off by other insurers typically find their way to the AIG salvage web page, then then this issue might not introduce a bias.Steve LeonardThe AIG salvage numbers might contain significant bias if it turns out that the majority of gliders are insured by AIG (through the SSA relationship with Costello) but a significant portion of the powered fleet is insured by other companies. Then again,
...david
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:58:26 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,357 |