Midair in Finnish nationals

[Sean Fidler]

Terrible news. Our thoughts and prayers go with the family and friends of the lost pilot and those involved. As with other forms of aviation safety systems, (radar, tcas, adsb, etc) flarm clearly offers a huge improvement in situational awareness but is in no way a guarantee of safety. One wonders if the volume was on, the flarm units were working properly, etc.

Did this accident happen in a thermal or on route? Any further information would be appreciated whenever possible. As you surely know the circustance of this accident (flarm on both aircraft) is very concerning.

Sean

[ppp1]

On 13 kesä, 15:12, Sean Fidler > wrote:
> Terrible news. *Our thoughts and prayers go with the family and friends of the lost pilot and those involved. *As with other forms of aviation safety systems, (radar, tcas, adsb, etc) flarm clearly offers a huge improvement in situational awareness but is in no way a guarantee of safety. *One wonders if the volume was on, the flarm units were working properly, etc.
>
> Did this accident happen in a thermal or on route? *Any further information would be appreciated whenever possible. *As you surely know the circustance of this accident (flarm on both aircraft) is very concerning.
>
> Sean

No details yet if it was on thermal or on glide. It was about 40-50k's
from finish, bit over 1000m. So close to final glide altitude for sure
and the weather was excellent. Standard class flew about 120km/h.

Here is some info: http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=123040

[Jock Proudfoot]

12-JUN-2011 15:58 LT
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2a
Registration: OH-920
Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1
Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Renkajärvi, Hattula - Finland
Phase: En route
The second glider involved in the midair collision during the Finnish
National gliding competition in 15 meters class. The pilot was found dead
after a long search.
The pilot of the other glider (ASG 29E) was able to escape with the
parachute. Both gliders crashed to the ground and were destroyed.
A collision-warning system (FLARM) was compulsory during the competition.

Aalto Matti Ventus 2a
Teronen Olli ASG-29e

[Walt Connelly]

12-JUN-2011 15:58 LT
Schempp-Hirth Ventus 2a
Registration: OH-920
Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1
Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Renkajärvi, Hattula - Finland
Phase: En route
The second glider involved in the midair collision during the Finnish
National gliding competition in 15 meters class. The pilot was found dead
after a long search.
The pilot of the other glider (ASG 29E) was able to escape with the
parachute. Both gliders crashed to the ground and were destroyed.
A collision-warning system (FLARM) was compulsory during the competition.

Aalto Matti Ventus 2a
Teronen Olli ASG-29e

So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of an impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable information.
My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.

Walt

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:

>So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of an
>impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable information.
>My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.
>
>Walt


It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have ignored
the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision but
it was misjudged.

If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data, Flarm
can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show what
warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been operating
(the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning. [For
different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]

If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are, Flarm
could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If loggers
are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever seconds, I
don’t know how useful that would be.

Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something which
might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of this
sad event.

Chris N.

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:

>So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of an
>impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable information.
>My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.
>
>Walt


It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have ignored
the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision but
it was misjudged.

If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data, Flarm
can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show what
warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been operating
(the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning. [For
different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]

If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are, Flarm
could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If loggers
are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever seconds, I
don’t know how useful that would be.

Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something which
might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of this
sad event.

Chris N.

[Walt Connelly]

;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:

So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of an
impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable information.
My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.

Walt


It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have ignored
the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision but
it was misjudged.

If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data, Flarm
can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show what
warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been operating
(the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning. [For
different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]

If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are, Flarm
could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If loggers
are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever seconds, I
don’t know how useful that would be.

Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something which
might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of this
sad event.

Chris N.

Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.

Walt