Mid-Air Collisions

[JJ Sinclair]

What's with all the mid-air's? We have gone for years without this destructive
monster rearing its ugly head .Now, I count 7 KIA in the last few months. Are
we watching our electronic goodies too much? I try to look up (out) every 10
seconds. Very easy to get engrossed in all the wizardty and to look down too
much and too often. Heads up. Don't be screwing with the GPS when thermalling,
that neat little item your checking isn't worth your life. I try to only play
with the gadgets when crusing and then with a quick peek, every 10 seconds.
JJ Sinclair

[Paul Adriance]

I guess I'm qualified to comment, at least regarding the recent Seattle area
midair I was involved in. More than that, I WANT to comment. Whether or
not this finds its way back to the NTSB, I want other soaring pilots to
learn from what happened so that this unfortunate trend stops now. I'll be
happy to go in more detail for anyone, but at least here is some basic
background and detail relevent to the first post along with some reflections
I've had in the weeks since the collision.


A brief warning: this is quite a long post but, I hope worth the read.


We have a pretty strong core group of guys that fly in the mountains here
and we often get together and discuss the paticular kind of flying we do.
One of our recent discussions was regarding a comment that some pilot's who
soar the Alps in Europe recommend NOT using any GPS type hardware for
mountain flying. It seems to make sense here at least, where we are
consistently in close proximity to the terrain under low ceilings. A GPS
isn't going to help much if we need to follow drainages or canyons to a safe
landing area, and this is very often the case. Our "outs" often take us
over completely unlandable terrain and below ridge and mountain top level.
If you don't know the way visually and have a mental picture of the complex
glide path involved, what happens when your batteries die or a fuse blows?

For this reason and others, I am almost positive neither of us was flying
with any sort of GPS or flight computer. Though Will had a nice flight
computer with GPS and connection for a PDA, I can say with some certainty
that he was not using it because he had requested I help him set it up.
Once Will shuts down his engine, he doesn't have a lot of toys hanging right
in front of his face to distract him. For my part, aside from the electric
Tasman audio vario, I had nothing but a radio and standard mechanical
instruments to worry about.

In the case of our collision, it was probably only a 20 or 30 second
interval between flying together normally and a position where collision was
imminent. We'd been consistently using the radio up to that point and had
been together flying that day for quite some time already. As we flew
about 1000 or 1500 feet under a small line of clouds that were about 2500
feet over a ridgetop, Will decided to turn to the West, I decided to go
straight...and neither of us said anything over the radio for some reason.
We converged as Will had been ahead of me when he turned and came up at
roughly my 9:00 position. Contact occured while sliding into each other
despite our opposing angles of bank. My left wingtip hit the underside of
his right wing with the fuselages in an almost perfectly parallel formation.

He was silhouetted by the sun as it was getting quite late in the day, I was
silhouetted by clouds that were in the mountains behind us. Furthermore,
both of us surely assumed the other person had done something else. We had
been following each other back and forth over the ridge prior to the
collision, so he may have assumed I was going to follow him as he circled.
I decided not to follow him on what I thought was a 180 to the South that
would lead him behind me back over the ridgetop and instead tried to
continue following it North. This under the assumption Will had continued
South after I last saw him turning to a roughly southern heading. Will was
the first to see the danger and I immediately turned to see him only 80 feet
or so off my 9:00 when I heard the radio call. I can't imagine him not
having called me earlier with a warning or position update as he was as
concientious a pilot as any here about keeping radio contact, especially if
something was amiss.

Roughly 30 seconds after seeing him start his turn in front of me I was
freefalling 500 feet over the ground praying my chute opened. Will
apparantly never had the opportunity to get out as I did.

My comments on this situation: The great evil of assumptive flying was our
greatest sin; instead of getting on the radio and saying, "hey, I lost ya
bud" as we had done consistently earlier in the day, we just let our past
situation fill in the blanks. It was inconcievable to me that Will would
end up next to me: we were over a ridge, the lift was in a band, I didn't
expect him to circle... On the other hand, we were 1000 feet over the top,
he probably thought, "I just must have missed him behind me, he surely is
turning with me in this boomer". We didn't continue our judicious use of
the radio for just long enough to get into trouble. Also, we didn't
recognize the inherent dangers of flying in the proximity of other gliders
late in the day due to the sun's positioning and nearby cloud cover. The
ceiling was only 2500 feet over the ridge, that compressed us into a fairly
narrow band of operation. It was well known territory for both of us and
an easy glide back to the airfield, our next destination. This possibly led
to some unconcious relaxation over a sure position. My normally thorough
scanning technique taught by multiple instructors and straight out of the
handbooks and soaring manual was no match for these circumstances.

If you look hard enough, I guess you can see the "chain" of events forming
that is so often cited in aircraft accidents. In our case it wasn't a major
squawk on the aircraft or a poor nights sleep, it was much more subtle,
insidious, and otherwise innocuous changes. Changes like the time of day,
position relative to the airfield and thusly, dinner, our growing level of
comfort about our proximity to each other and trust that the other person
was just as vigilant as we were, that glow you feel inside after an amazing
day of soaring back in the mountains that makes you just want to sit back
and revel over the majesty of unpowered flight... The list could go on and
on.

I even suppose one could argue soaring is inherently more dangerous BECAUSE
you are flying for fun, for the challange of getting to the next area of
lift and reading the days conditions, for the pleasure of travelling
increadible distances with nothing but a bad decision between a succesful
flight and a landout. Someone focusing on all these things and still
trying to track other gliders and aircraft and radio conversations seems
inherently more susceptible to distracations (even just those outside of the
cockpit or in your mind) than someone flying purely for transportational
needs. The fact we can't choose the weather also plays into it, there is
often an urgency to go flying on a great day because you never know when the
next one will come. Here at least, you can often count really great
soaring days in the year on your fingers, so to miss one is to really miss
out. Just so many small details that can suddenly add up to one serious
mistake.

Despite these things, one area of pride I still have is the club oriented
education I recieved. I had many instructors with widely varying
backgrounds who presented immense experience from which to draw on. They
humbled me and forced me into a regimented training program that saw me take
my private check ride over a year after I started with enough time to go
straight for a commercial (And no, it wasn't because I was close to the,
"have you considered Golf?", conversation, they were just extremely cautious
and demanding). Even so, I'm still one of the youngest and newest pilots
here and must suppose this post to be a risky move. My total time prior to
the collision was about 60 hours in 150 flights. I expect it will be a no
brainer for the judgemental types and NTSB, "new pilot, he survived, handy
place to dump responsibility and wash our hands of it". If I didn't know
Will's family as the thoughtful, caring, and unpretentious people that they
are, I would hope for such an outcome so they had something to point at, to
attack and cover the pain of their loss. As it is, the aftermath won't
alter who they are or how they feel and is something I have no control over.
What I do have control over is whether I use my experience to help others or
hide it in order to protect myself. I could never dishonor my dear late
friend by choosing the latter, so here I post...

Paul Adriance



"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> What's with all the mid-air's? We have gone for years without this
destructive
> monster rearing its ugly head .Now, I count 7 KIA in the last few months.
Are
> we watching our electronic goodies too much? I try to look up (out) every
10
> seconds. Very easy to get engrossed in all the wizardty and to look down
too
> much and too often. Heads up. Don't be screwing with the GPS when
thermalling,
> that neat little item your checking isn't worth your life. I try to only
play
> with the gadgets when crusing and then with a quick peek, every 10
seconds.
> JJ Sinclair

[Bob Greenblatt]

Paul,

Thanks for the thorough and objective post. It really hammers home the
necessity of constant situational awareness. Thanks for your honesty.

--
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding

[JJ Sinclair]

Real good post, Paul. Thank you for your candor.
I remember the day I was following a ship on the ridge at old Vacaville. I was
inside and a little behind, because we were slope soaring and I knew he would
be turning away from the ridge.

Bad assumption, he turned into the ridge. I came sooooo close to a head-on
collision that I had to bank my ship to match the slope of the ridge. He passed
with him 15 feet above me and the tree tops were 15 feet below me.

That 5 second near-miss has been a lasting memory of just what *assumptions*
can do.

The mid-air collisions that I'm familiar with, fall into 3 categories;

1. Distraction (looking at the goodies)

2. Unable to see the other guy (in the clouds, low sun angle, smoke, haze,
etc.)

3. Maneuvering (one or both ships maneuvering)

Enough, of this! Let's not be looking at out toys, too much. Watch out when
working the wispies, call out your altitude or ask the other guy for his. Clear
all turns and give a quick, "JJ's going left".
JJ Sinclair

[nafod40]

Paul Adriance wrote:
> I guess I'm qualified to comment, at least regarding the recent Seattle area
> midair I was involved in.

You are following in a long line of fellow aviators who share their
experiences with the community in the name of safety...

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/default.htm

Some air-to-air specific articles...

http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/jun03/TooClose.htm
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/may03/Bump.htm
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/dec02/wily.htm
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/sep02/HowClose.htm

[Bill Daniels]

There's another way to get into a collision situation.

If you have another glider very close, slightly below and outside you a
thermal you can be in a situation where there are few options. You can't
climb since you have no excess airspeed. You can't descend,or roll out of
the turn without a collision and you are turning as tight as you can without
risking loss of control.

If the other glider is smaller and more nimble and "herds" a larger, less
maneuverable into a tight turn the situation can have you sweating bullets
until he moves away.

Been there. Please don't crowd another glider from the outside.

Bill Daniels

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Real good post, Paul. Thank you for your candor.
> I remember the day I was following a ship on the ridge at old Vacaville. I
was
> inside and a little behind, because we were slope soaring and I knew he
would
> be turning away from the ridge.
>
> Bad assumption, he turned into the ridge. I came sooooo close to a head-on
> collision that I had to bank my ship to match the slope of the ridge. He
passed
> with him 15 feet above me and the tree tops were 15 feet below me.
>
> That 5 second near-miss has been a lasting memory of just what
*assumptions*
> can do.
>
> The mid-air collisions that I'm familiar with, fall into 3 categories;
>
> 1. Distraction (looking at the goodies)
>
> 2. Unable to see the other guy (in the clouds, low sun angle, smoke, haze,
> etc.)
>
> 3. Maneuvering (one or both ships maneuvering)
>
> Enough, of this! Let's not be looking at out toys, too much. Watch out
when
> working the wispies, call out your altitude or ask the other guy for his.
Clear
> all turns and give a quick, "JJ's going left".
> JJ Sinclair

[Hans L. Trautenberg]

Dear Paul!

thank you very much for your posting. I have lost a friend a littel over
4 weeks ago in a midair and have thought a lot about why we have an
increased number of mid airs of pilots that fly together on the same
frequency in a team for the entire day and collide close to the finish
or shortly after the decision to fly back home.

I think one of the riskiest things is the trust that we place in our
team partners; especially that they see us if we don't see them in times
of relaxation. Use that dammed radio and inform your partner that you
have lost contact as soon as you have, one day it will safe your life.

I wish all of you many safe flights

Hans

[Kirk Stant]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message >...
> 1. Distraction (looking at the goodies)

JJ, while I totally agree with the need to spend the maximum time
looking outside for threats (with the emphasis on "clearing your
flightpath", not just looking at the pretty scenery, beautiful
gliders, etc.), I don't think "toys" such as a GPS, moving map, or
glide computer, are the real problem. Used correctly, they DECREASE
the time spent in the cockpit, compared to the old sectional and
manual final glide computer (prayer wheel), etc. Being lost is not
going to help your lookout for other gliders/airplanes! Knowing where
you are, all the time, and knowing where your alternates are, all the
time, gives the pilot a lot more time to make sure he doesn't get to
prove the "big sky theory" wrong.

The key is to let the magic work unsupervised and only come inside
when information is needed, and only after making sure there is
nothing outside that could be a threat during the time you are
heads-down.

It takes a LOT of discipline to do this - we all want to play with out
nice expensive toys - but it really is a life-or-death matter!

BTW, I learned to fly gliders at Vacaville back in 1976 while going
through Nav School at Mather - it sure was a fun place to fly.

Kirk

[Brad]

Here is some more to add to Paul's excellent post:

Paul and I had flown the earlier part of the day team flying for about
3.5 hours or so. We had worked our way from the local foothills and
eventually ended up about 30 miles away over the rugged snowy peaks at
the end of the Skykomish Valley; and the start of the Stevens Pass
highway. This was pretty good considering the day was somewhat windy
and the building high pressure was starting to affect the thermal
activity.

During our trek we were in constant radio contact: "turning
left.....turning right......reversing course....." etc........Paul had
brought a high end digital camera with him and was hoping to get some
great in-air photos. By communicating very thoroughly, he was able to
come in for some wonderful shots.....at no time was there ever any
concern regarding closing rates or distances because we both were
keenly aware of where we both were and what we were doing.

Once we made it to Lake Isabel the lift above the peaks was consistant
enough to allow is to gracefully swoop along the ridgetops, dive
through the snow covered gaps of Zekes Peak and Stickney Peaks and
generally cavort to our hearts content.

After doing this for several minutes I decided to start heading back
to Arlington. While making the jump to Mount Pilchuck, Paul and I
discussed the options: I was tired and after 4 hours I was ready to go
back home......I also realized that there was a strong possibility of
landing out, there was a good headwind and I would have to find lift
before starting the final glide. Paul however was still going strong
and made the decision to go to the east side of Pilchuck and hook up
with a great looking cloud street that headed back towards
3-Fingers......a beautiful set of 7500' peaks.

So......Paul went east and into the lift, and I went west, into the
blue and strong headwind.

Paul and I communicated our decisions and he said he wanted to fly for
another hour or so....and I said I was ready to head for home.....at
this point we heard Willy make a call.....of course he had to make a
point of using April Fools day, declaring he was on the ground with
engine problems.......I recall giving him a hard time about that when
he laughed and said "nah.....I am at Jim Creek at 4500 and climbing"
Now Paul chimed in and said he was close to 3-Fingers in good
lift........the next few minutes on the radio were really fun;
listening to Willy and Paul as they described their locations and
eventually hearing them say "hey.....I got you spotted" and something
about the glaciers on WhiteHorse.....All to soon it was evident I was
not a player anymore, kicking myself for not following Paul into the
good lift, but also remembering I was wanting to land.....I called out
and said I was probably going to land about 8 miles short at a small
grass strip.......no reply......so I turned off the radio and 10
minutes later had safely landed.

Fast forward a few hours......Ron and Chuck retrieved me with the
trailer. I owed Ron dinner, so off we went to Arlington, trailer in
tow. Upon arriving at the trailer tiedowns we were a little surprised
to see Paul's and Willy's trailers and cars sitting there with no sign
of either glider......the lift had long since dissapated and they were
not back. We were concerned but figured they would come streaking in
at anytime.

While we were ordering dinner, and still no sign of either glider, I
became really concerned and decided we had to do something.......I
called 911 and had the dispatcher send an officer to check out 2
airports that I figured they may have landed at......but the scary
thing was Willy should have come home, he had a DG-400 and could have
motored back, but to console ourselves we figured he made have landed
with Paul so they could plan a retrieve together. About 20 minutes
later the Sherrif called back and said no gliders at either Darrington
or Concrete.........Willy had a cell phone, we knew if he landed in a
field close to home he would have called us, there is no cell coverage
at the 2 airports.....now we knew somthing had gone wrong and I told
the sherrif that these two were indeed MISSING and quite possibly had
suffered a mid-air. Now we had the ball rolling and the next several
hours had us in communication with the authorities and with a couple
members of our club who were also making phone calls to try and figure
out what we could do.

I went to bed that night in a motel close to the airport, ready to
help coordinate with Search and Rescue early in the morning since I
was the last to hear Willy and Paul on the radio, and somewhat
familiar with where they might have been.........I went to bed that
night scared to death that 2 of my close friends may be in terrible
trouble up in the mountains and I did not know what else to do.

Well.......in the morning I turned on my cell phone and heard that
Paul had survived and hiked out of the mountains........and all to
soon we found out what happened to Willy.

This event has ripped a hole in my heart.....I lost a very dear friend
and could have easily lost 2. Thank God Paul survived, and as I grieve
for Willy I'll find solace in knowing he died doing something he loved
to do....with tears in my eyes I end this by saying "Blue skies to you
Willy Otis......You will always be in my memories"

Brad
Apis 199AK

[Tom Seim]

Your description of the accident was very articulate and sobering.

I would like to hear more about the bailout. In particular:

1. What was your approx. altitude (AGL) at collision.

2. How difficult was it for you to exit the glider and how much
altitude did you lose in the process.

3. What was your attitude when you pulled the rip cord.

4. Did you have any problems separating from the glider.

5. What brand of chute did you have.

6. Did you have any injuries landing in the trees.

7. What problems did you have getting down to the ground after landing
in the trees.

8. Did either glider have an ELT.

thx,

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

[Bruno Ramseyer]

(Brad) wrote in message >...
> Here is some more to add to Paul's excellent post:
>
> Paul and I had flown the earlier part of the day team flying for about
> 3.5 hours or so. We had worked our way from the local foothills and
> eventually ended up about 30 miles away over the rugged snowy peaks at
> the end of the Skykomish Valley; and the start of the Stevens Pass
> highway. This was pretty good considering the day was somewhat windy
> and the building high pressure was starting to affect the thermal
> activity.
>
check out the following Powerpoint presentation regarding development of Swiss
anticollision devices for gliders.
www.tcw.ie/download/anticollision.ppt


Bruno

[bt news]

Paul

Thank you for your very honest posting. A major revelation is that you
believe that GPS/cockpit instrumentation was *not* the cause of the
incident.

Ian

[Paul Adriance]

"Tom Seim" > wrote in message
om...
> Your description of the accident was very articulate and sobering.
>
> I would like to hear more about the bailout. In particular:
>
> 1. What was your approx. altitude (AGL) at collision.

Roughly 1000-1300' It's hard to say because I'm not sure if we collided
over this little shoulder that juts out from the ridge or out over the steet
terrain below, that drops 3000 feet very quickly.

>
> 2. How difficult was it for you to exit the glider and how much
> altitude did you lose in the process.

Unknown, I blacked out momentarily, probably due to my head striking the
canopy, so I have no idea how much time elapsed between the collision and
when I began to egress the glider. It could have only been a second or two
because, my glider hit the ridge about 200 or 300 yards from Will's crash
site. See #4 for more detail. I would point out, due to my close proxmity
to the ground, if my canopy had not shattered due to my head and the force
of the collision, I may not have had time to unlatch it AND perform the rest
of the egress.

>
> 3. What was your attitude when you pulled the rip cord.

Approximately 500ft, I was under canopy 2 seconds or so before I landed in
the tree. I remember pulling the ripcord and seeing it come out of the
chute in my hand... As I wondered whether something was broken or not I
remember seeing cord and fabric flying out of the corner of my left eye. I
felt the tug of it open, I looked up to see it opening, I looked down and
saw trees everywhere, and then I was in one.

>
> 4. Did you have any problems separating from the glider.

It was probably in a spin of some sort due to the wing damage and I remember
really struggling to push myself out. At the time I thought it was the
horrendous wind blowing me back inside, but now I think it probably had more
to do with centripidal force from the glider's flight path. What I ended
up doing is reaching my left arm and elbow out over the back of the left
wing (This was a Libelle 201B) and I leveraged my body out of the cockpit
with that arm and my feet. I don't remember exactly how it happened that
my body rolled over the wing but, I imagine the nose down attitude combined
with the increasing airspeed helped flip me over the wing once my feet and
legs were free of the cockpit. I imagine I was just lucky that I didn't hit
the tail.

>
> 5. What brand of chute did you have.

The tag from the chute says Silver Parachute Sales & Service. I bought it
with the glider and took it to a local repacker who checked it out, said it
was in good shape, and repacked it for me. The Canopy was a Steerable
National Phanton 28' which I guess has the longer shrouds for a lower
descent rate and may have saved me a much harder landing. It may not have
mattered though, because I landed in a Hemlock which have very soft tops and
give quite easily. One of the amusing things I look back on now is this
strange, surreal sense of disappointment I had after landing in the tree
that I didn't have time to try steering the chute. The Harness was the
Original Softie Back 0247-S and was maufactured by Para-Phernalia.

I did talk to Allen Silver who runs or owns that above company and he
pointed me to a website and was helpful in providing some information that I
didn't know prior to using this rig. I should mention that I had NOT had
any training in egress or bail out procedures. What I did do is sit in the
glider and pretend I was going down and go through the motions a few times,
I just "thought" about getting out, so when the time came I didn't have to.
It paid off, my hands went right to the appropriate places and preformed
just the right functions. It was especially fortunate I did all this as it
was only my third flight in the Libelle 201B with that rig and belts.

>
> 6. Did you have any injuries landing in the trees.

Not that I could tell, I did discover my face injury from the canopy once I
was in the tree. I also discovered my legs were very bruised and sore,
probably from kicking the bottom of the instrument panel while I tried to
bail out.

>
> 7. What problems did you have getting down to the ground after landing
> in the trees.

I was lucky as the trees were newer growth and smaller diameter, I was able
to use the harness as a swing and get over to another, smaller diameter tree
that I slide down like a pole. There were small twiggy branches that
helped slow my fall, but it wasn't bad. If I had been in much larger trees
with no lower branches and large trunks, I would have probably been stuck.

>
> 8. Did either glider have an ELT.

No, and though I may not shell out the bucks for a full size ELT in the
future, I most certainly will purchase the pocket models that can be carried
on one's person. It's easy for me to imagine a scenario where the glider
travels quite a distance from the bail out point and I'd rather have the ELT
on my person than in the glider. Also, I had a portable radio, but it was
hooked to a BNC cable for the ships antennae. If one doesn't have a
protable ELT, I couldn't recommend more just keeping the portable on your
person and buying a fixed ship radio.
>
> thx,
>
> Tom Seim
> Richland, WA

[Paul Adriance]

A few more thoughts that a private email question spurred me to share:

We were almost exactly at 90 degrees to each others nose at the time of
collision. I could probably have looked 45 degrees to the left and not seen
him in peripheral vision because there was no relative change in his
position to mine. Despite our relative locations though, we had enough
closure for a serious collision. The other oddity; though he was banking
away from me, he was just at his point in the circle where my flight path
was tangent to the outside of his turn. Thus he probably had to look OVER
the high side of his cockpit to see me or perhaps I was even hidden under
his nose as he came around. Judging by his position when I heard his call
over the radio, he saw me in the former situation, probably because he at
first was looking for me in a turn behind him and not out in front.

I realize now that scanning from 100 to 80 degrees on either side of the
cockpit was something I almost never did outside of turns. When I would
make small course adjustments or was flying straight ahead, I think it was
rare for me to look farther than 60 degrees to the side. Also, when IN
turns I think I tend to look around the corner of my turn more often than
straight ahead, perhaps Will did the same thing. With an audio vario my
guess is a pilot might stop looking down to the instrument panel after
establishing a turn and centering the yaw string. If somebody was on a
tangent that would intercept a turn, they might appear right in front or
perhaps under the nose of the glider and stationary. His DG-400 surely had
a few knots over my Libelle, so it may very well have been one of those
situations mentioned in a previous post about lower performance glider
boxing in higher performance glider.

Paul

[Jeff Dorwart]

Bravo Paul, I am glad that someone who has experienced that
you just have, has the cojones to lay out the events
for the rest of us so that we can all put a little
pride aside and learn a little something. Hopefully
your comments will help the rest of us avoid a similar
experience. I am sure, in this newsgroup, your comments will
draw plenty of conjecture from the enlightened, but
from those of us who don't know it all. Thanks!jeff At 02:12 16 April 2004, Paul Adriance wrote:>A few more thoughts that a private email question spurred
>me to share:>>We were almost exactly at 90 degrees to each others
>nose at the time of>collision. I could probably have looked 45 degrees
>to the left and not seen>him in peripheral vision because there was no relative
>change in his>position to mine. Despite our relative locations
>though, we had enough>closure for a serious collision. The other oddity;
>though he was banking>away from me, he was just at his point in the circle
>where my flight path>was tangent to the outside of his turn. Thus he probably
>had to look OVER>the high side of his cockpit to see me or perhaps I
>was even hidden under>his nose as he came around. Judging by his position
>when I heard his call>over the radio, he saw me in the former situation,
>probably because he at>first was looking for me in a turn behind him and not
>out in front.>>I realize now that scanning from 100 to 80 degrees
>on either side of the>cockpit was something I almost never did outside of
>turns. When I would>make small course adjustments or was flying straight
>ahead, I think it was>rare for me to look farther than 60 degrees to the
>side. Also, when IN>turns I think I tend to look around the corner of my
>turn more often than>straight ahead, perhaps Will did the same thing. With
>an audio vario my>guess is a pilot might stop looking down to the instrument
>panel after>establishing a turn and centering the yaw string.
> If somebody was on a>tangent that would intercept a turn, they might appear
>right in front or>perhaps under the nose of the glider and stationary.
> His DG-400 surely had>a few knots over my Libelle, so it may very well have
>been one of those>situations mentioned in a previous post about lower
>performance glider>boxing in higher performance glider.>>Paul>>>

[Martin Hellman]

Paul and Will's family have my sincere sympathy. What a horrible
tragedy to have to live through, and live with.

But if any good is to come out of such a horrible event, it is for the
rest of us to try and learn how we might reduce the chance of another
such tragedy. For that, Paul and the other posters have my gratitude.
A few thoughts on that topic:

1. While greater use of the radio probably would have prevented this
accident, no one has mentioned the pressure we all feel to minimize
such use so as to not interfere with other pilots who also need the
frequency. There just aren't enough air-to-air frequencies for all of
us to be in constant contact with nearby gliders on a busy day. Anyone
who uses 123.3 or 123.5 as much as they need to always know where
their flying buddy is will get chewed out for overuse of the
frequency.

But there is a solution. Get the people you fly with to get their ham
licenses and radios, or more simply and cheaply (but less range - but
hey, we're talking about midairs) the unlicensed FRS radios. I just
bought two of the latter for well under $100 at Costco since my most
frequent flying buddy has them. I'm also waiting for him to get his
ham license.

2. While, as noted, GPS can be a distraction if misused, it is also
invaluable for collision avoidance. If both gliders have the same
destination dialed in, they can give bearing and distance to quickly
determine when they are in close proximity to one another. Visual
references are much less precise.

3. The European PPT post at first left me thinking, "not much use",
but as I'll explain below, more thought led me to think it may have a
lot of merit. I, as many others, have thought that a low cost device
like that described was a much better approach than the expensive ones
being pursued by the powers that be. If it was portable, there would
be no need for a 337 or other paperwork.

The big problem, and the one that made me have an initial negative
reaction to the utility of the idea, is the "chicken and egg problem."
The device is of no use until a significant fraction of the fleet has
one, and who wants one before it is useful?

So what made me change my mind? The realization that gliders, or other
planes, that fly in close proximity to one another could benefit
immensely from the device even if no one else had it but those two
aircraft. If it were available for a few hundred dollars (and in large
quantity production there's no reason they should cost even that much
-- except for the possible liability and patent issues mentioned in
the PPT slides), I suspect I could convince my frequent flying buddies
to get them too. And, maybe that's the way to get over the chicken and
egg problemfor them to be useful for general midair collision
avoidance. If we ever reached the point that a significant fraction of
the whole fleet bought them to avoid hitting their flying buddies,
then they'd become even more useful.

4. The last point has to do with complacency. When put that way, it
sounds too mundane. We all know the danger of compacency. Or do we?
On reflecting on this thread, I realized I needed to be less
complacent in ways that hadn't hit me before.

I have had a similar situation to Paul and Will's, where I was flying
in close proximity to a friend, one of us moved away, neither of us
had the other in sight, I was concerned, but felt that one more radio
call just to confirm that all was OK would sound compulsive or
amateurish. After all, I've been in that situation many times, with no
ill consequences. And none of the other guys flying close to one
another are constantly checking. Just listen to the frequency. So I
didn't call on the radio for fear of becoming a nuisance either to my
friend or the others on the frequency. But after being a part of this
thread, I am committing to being extra wary of doing that again. One
of the problems with complacency is that it wears many disguises, in
this case that of the competent pilot. In this disguise, we believe
that only a rank beginner or scaredy-cat would be constantly giving in
to his fears of "where did he go" and hitting the PTT each time.

Hoping these thoughts are of some help.

Martin

[TOM RENT]

I'm sure almost every RAS reader has read every word of Paul's account
because we all have been in the same situation numerous times and could see
the same thing happen to us at any moment.

I have a lot of soaring books but it is interesting that little is written
or formally taught about this aspect of soaring. Outside of the basic rule
of gaggle flying in the same direction as others, I think we need a stamdard
protocol for any proximity or formation flying which we all rouinely do.
Outside of stall/spin in the pattern, mid-airs during proximit/formation
flying (including gaggles) is likely the next most dangerous situation we
activily place ourselves in.

1. What is the safest way to enter a gaggle, and what are the most unsafe
ways?
2. If you lose sight of another glider that you are gaggling with, should
you keep thermalling or head away? (assume no radio available)
3. What is the safest way to exit a gaggle, and what are the most unsafe
ways?
4. Pair flying - best practices and worst practices ....?


Let's express our best ideas here and perhaps this too will save lives.

I do know that these recent events have caused members of our local club to
immediately begin studying our local methods and habits, which I think this
activity will result in some pretty healthy positive changes.

[Trevor Nash]

One more thought about Mid Air Collisions.

Next time you are belting along under a cloud street
at 90 - 100 Knots plus.

How far away will the other glider be, doing the same
thing in the opposite direction, when you see it, and
how long have you got to make the right decision with
a closing speed of 200 knots!!!!!!!

At 09:54 16 April 2004, Tom Rent wrote:
>I'm sure almost every RAS reader has read every word
>of Paul's account
>because we all have been in the same situation numerous
>times and could see
>the same thing happen to us at any moment.
>
>I have a lot of soaring books but it is interesting
>that little is written
>or formally taught about this aspect of soaring. Outside
>of the basic rule
>of gaggle flying in the same direction as others, I
>think we need a stamdard
>protocol for any proximity or formation flying which
>we all rouinely do.
>Outside of stall/spin in the pattern, mid-airs during
>proximit/formation
>flying (including gaggles) is likely the next most
>dangerous situation we
>activily place ourselves in.
>
>1. What is the safest way to enter a gaggle, and what
>are the most unsafe
>ways?
>2. If you lose sight of another glider that you are
>gaggling with, should
>you keep thermalling or head away? (assume no radio
>available)
>3. What is the safest way to exit a gaggle, and what
>are the most unsafe
>ways?
>4. Pair flying - best practices and worst practices
>....?
>
>
>Let's express our best ideas here and perhaps this
>too will save lives.
>
>I do know that these recent events have caused members
>of our local club to
>immediately begin studying our local methods and habits,
>which I think this
>activity will result in some pretty healthy positive
>changes.
>
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

There's a lot that can be written about gaggle flying, (And I hope will be.)
but I'd like to cut to a small part of it. Thermaling with one other
glider.

If the other pilot is highly skilled, this can be a very beautiful
experience. Two pilots who really know the techniques will position
themselves on opposite sides of the circle from each other while flying at
the same bank angle and airspeed while maintaining the same center. The
other glider will seem to hang motionless in mid-air 300 feet away as the
world whirls about. Eye contact is maintained between the two pilots.

It always surprises me when I hear objections to this like, "it's dangerous
to be that close to another glider, it scares me". In fact, this is the
safest configuration to be thermaling with another glider. There's just no
way that a collision can occur if this formation is maintained. Each glider
is on a reciprocal heading and separated by 300 feet or more. Either glider
can roll out and fly away at any time and the separation will increase.

In addition, the other glider is a far better indication of lift than any
vario. If he climbs in relation to you, then the circle needs to be moved
that direction. To make that move and maintain the relative position of the
gliders, he will not make a correction, that is up to you. He knows that
you saw him climb and that you will move the circle towards the lift, he
will follow. Roll out on a heading towards where you saw him climb, fly for
three seconds and roll back in and he will do the same and the formation is
maintained even as it is shifted toward the stronger lift. If you are the
one that hits a strong core, wait for the other pilot to make a move, then
follow.

All to often, I see the other glider roll out when he hits the core of the
thermal. This is a really dumb move since he in now flying directly away
from the best lift. Now, if I want to maintain the formation, I will have
to fly out of the thermal with him. Or, timid pilots will simply move away
one circle diameter and try to work the broken lift there. Now you meet him
head-on once every turn while losing sight of him in between - this IS
dangerous.

I recently saw four gliders at the same altitude flying a "four leaf clover"
pattern. They all met at intersecting angles each turn. I didn't enter
that gaggle.

So, the point of the above ramble is that not only should you turn in the
same direction as the other glider, also turn about the same center point.

Bill Daniels

"Trevor Nash" > wrote in message
...
> One more thought about Mid Air Collisions.
>
> Next time you are belting along under a cloud street
> at 90 - 100 Knots plus.
>
> How far away will the other glider be, doing the same
> thing in the opposite direction, when you see it, and
> how long have you got to make the right decision with
> a closing speed of 200 knots!!!!!!!
>
> At 09:54 16 April 2004, Tom Rent wrote:
> >I'm sure almost every RAS reader has read every word
> >of Paul's account
> >because we all have been in the same situation numerous
> >times and could see
> >the same thing happen to us at any moment.
> >
> >I have a lot of soaring books but it is interesting
> >that little is written
> >or formally taught about this aspect of soaring. Outside
> >of the basic rule
> >of gaggle flying in the same direction as others, I
> >think we need a stamdard
> >protocol for any proximity or formation flying which
> >we all rouinely do.
> >Outside of stall/spin in the pattern, mid-airs during
> >proximit/formation
> >flying (including gaggles) is likely the next most
> >dangerous situation we
> >activily place ourselves in.
> >
> >1. What is the safest way to enter a gaggle, and what
> >are the most unsafe
> >ways?
> >2. If you lose sight of another glider that you are
> >gaggling with, should
> >you keep thermalling or head away? (assume no radio
> >available)
> >3. What is the safest way to exit a gaggle, and what
> >are the most unsafe
> >ways?
> >4. Pair flying - best practices and worst practices
> >....?
> >
> >
> >Let's express our best ideas here and perhaps this
> >too will save lives.
> >
> >I do know that these recent events have caused members
> >of our local club to
> >immediately begin studying our local methods and habits,
> >which I think this
> >activity will result in some pretty healthy positive
> >changes.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

I'll tell ya, I use the radio and stomp the ground
controller at towered fields sometimes for collision avoidance.

I've had several near misses, and seen one guy
flip his plane in front of me because I was too
timid to get on freq and warn him we were about
to collide. I was in disbelief that he
wasn't seeing me and avoiding me. I'd say get on the
radio and use it per your judgement, and ignore the
critics. You're a pilot, not an actor in a bad play.

I'd also say LOUDLY that if it helps me to
use some other freq. than 123.3 or CTAF or
whatever for my formation flight, I do it.
I also have a personal limitation that I won't
fly glider formation without an audio vario, and I
casually slink away when someone joins my thermal...

It doesn't mean I don't like the other guy,
I'm just not that great at multitasking...

In article >,
Martin Hellman > wrote:
>Paul and Will's family have my sincere sympathy. What a horrible
>tragedy to have to live through, and live with.
>
>But if any good is to come out of such a horrible event, it is for the
>rest of us to try and learn how we might reduce the chance of another
>such tragedy. For that, Paul and the other posters have my gratitude.
>A few thoughts on that topic:
>
>1. While greater use of the radio probably would have prevented this
>accident, no one has mentioned the pressure we all feel to minimize
>such use so as to not interfere with other pilots who also need the
>frequency. There just aren't enough air-to-air frequencies for all of
>us to be in constant contact with nearby gliders on a busy day. Anyone
>who uses 123.3 or 123.5 as much as they need to always know where
>their flying buddy is will get chewed out for overuse of the
>frequency.
>
>But there is a solution. Get the people you fly with to get their ham
>licenses and radios, or more simply and cheaply (but less range - but
>hey, we're talking about midairs) the unlicensed FRS radios. I just
>bought two of the latter for well under $100 at Costco since my most
>frequent flying buddy has them. I'm also waiting for him to get his
>ham license.
>
>2. While, as noted, GPS can be a distraction if misused, it is also
>invaluable for collision avoidance. If both gliders have the same
>destination dialed in, they can give bearing and distance to quickly
>determine when they are in close proximity to one another. Visual
>references are much less precise.
>
>3. The European PPT post at first left me thinking, "not much use",
>but as I'll explain below, more thought led me to think it may have a
>lot of merit. I, as many others, have thought that a low cost device
>like that described was a much better approach than the expensive ones
>being pursued by the powers that be. If it was portable, there would
>be no need for a 337 or other paperwork.
>
>The big problem, and the one that made me have an initial negative
>reaction to the utility of the idea, is the "chicken and egg problem."
>The device is of no use until a significant fraction of the fleet has
>one, and who wants one before it is useful?
>
>So what made me change my mind? The realization that gliders, or other
>planes, that fly in close proximity to one another could benefit
>immensely from the device even if no one else had it but those two
>aircraft. If it were available for a few hundred dollars (and in large
>quantity production there's no reason they should cost even that much
>-- except for the possible liability and patent issues mentioned in
>the PPT slides), I suspect I could convince my frequent flying buddies
>to get them too. And, maybe that's the way to get over the chicken and
>egg problemfor them to be useful for general midair collision
>avoidance. If we ever reached the point that a significant fraction of
>the whole fleet bought them to avoid hitting their flying buddies,
>then they'd become even more useful.
>
>4. The last point has to do with complacency. When put that way, it
>sounds too mundane. We all know the danger of compacency. Or do we?
>On reflecting on this thread, I realized I needed to be less
>complacent in ways that hadn't hit me before.
>
>I have had a similar situation to Paul and Will's, where I was flying
>in close proximity to a friend, one of us moved away, neither of us
>had the other in sight, I was concerned, but felt that one more radio
>call just to confirm that all was OK would sound compulsive or
>amateurish. After all, I've been in that situation many times, with no
>ill consequences. And none of the other guys flying close to one
>another are constantly checking. Just listen to the frequency. So I
>didn't call on the radio for fear of becoming a nuisance either to my
>friend or the others on the frequency. But after being a part of this
>thread, I am committing to being extra wary of doing that again. One
>of the problems with complacency is that it wears many disguises, in
>this case that of the competent pilot. In this disguise, we believe
>that only a rank beginner or scaredy-cat would be constantly giving in
>to his fears of "where did he go" and hitting the PTT each time.
>
>Hoping these thoughts are of some help.
>
>Martin


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Kinda like tow signals...there are a lot of pilots
making a lot of assumptions. I have a lot of
gliders come join me close in a thermal WITHOUT my
agreement. There's some assuming going on there...

I'd say the number one rule is get the
agreement with the other pilot. In that conversation
or prearrangement, one can be as specific or general
as the pilots want. There are volumes on formation
flying (at least for power) and pilots who fly
formation with absolutely no training or research
are missing some excellent lessons learned
by others...and accepting a somewhat higher level
of risk...

From my limited formation training, I learned
enough to choose, at my low skill level, to
generally avoid it. There were enough nuances and
dangers, and my time was too limited to do it right
and remain very proficient, that I choose very loose
trail formations, clear exit agreement, and day VFR CAVU
with an experienced leader, or nothing at all.

Towing near clouds or dual flights with low vis
and cropdusters nearby have, in my past, made me uncomfortable
enough to release, land, and call it a day...
Close gliders I don't know have backed me away,
and even my buddies forming up get "no thanks"
most of the time...

In article >,
TOM RENT > wrote:
>I'm sure almost every RAS reader has read every word of Paul's account
>because we all have been in the same situation numerous times and could see
>the same thing happen to us at any moment.
>
>I have a lot of soaring books but it is interesting that little is written
>or formally taught about this aspect of soaring. Outside of the basic rule
>of gaggle flying in the same direction as others, I think we need a stamdard
>protocol for any proximity or formation flying which we all rouinely do.
>Outside of stall/spin in the pattern, mid-airs during proximit/formation
>flying (including gaggles) is likely the next most dangerous situation we
>activily place ourselves in.
>
>1. What is the safest way to enter a gaggle, and what are the most unsafe
>ways?
>2. If you lose sight of another glider that you are gaggling with, should
>you keep thermalling or head away? (assume no radio available)
>3. What is the safest way to exit a gaggle, and what are the most unsafe
>ways?
>4. Pair flying - best practices and worst practices ....?
>
>
>Let's express our best ideas here and perhaps this too will save lives.
>
>I do know that these recent events have caused members of our local club to
>immediately begin studying our local methods and habits, which I think this
>activity will result in some pretty healthy positive changes.
>
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Shawn Curry]

Trevor Nash wrote:
> One more thought about Mid Air Collisions.
>
> Next time you are belting along under a cloud street
> at 90 - 100 Knots plus.
>
> How far away will the other glider be, doing the same
> thing in the opposite direction, when you see it, and
> how long have you got to make the right decision with
> a closing speed of 200 knots!!!!!!!

I t looked like about a quarter mile. But we were each only doing
80-85kts. Maybe 100 yds closest approach.
Something to keep in mid while flying in mountains (this was just north
of Salida, CO), white gliders with clouds, mountains, and snow behind
them are really wearing camouflage.

Shawn
Been there done that. Not my idea of fun.

[mike]

I see that Europeons use a lot of anti-collision markings on
their sailplanes. I don't know if it's a requirement over there
but it seems like a good idea. Is there a reason why U.S. glider
owners resist this trend. Thanks, __Mike Ziaskas

[Tom Seim]

Thanks for the in-depth response. This could very well be helpful to
the rest of us who hope to never be in a similar situation.

BTW: it is customary to buy that repacker a bottle/case of his
favorite drink.

Tom

[tango4]

In some recent testing by the BGA it appears that, if anything, anti
collision marking may actually make aircraft less easily noticable.

Most of the midairs that we have seen recently have been between sailplanes
that knew there was another aircraft in close proximity before the collision
happened and in several cases have been between sailplanes actively involved
in 'cooperative flying'. When two 'non-cooperative' pilots happen to end up
sharing a thermal they tend to do so with a very high degree of caution
about each others actions. When cooperative flying gets going it appears to
me that a degree of familiarity or complacency creeps in.

It appears to me that the guidance emerging here seems to be 'assume
nothing, if you loose sight of the aircraft you know to be close by, talk
quickly to clarify the sitation whilst increasing your seperation safely'.
Perhaps safe cooperative flying does need a much higher level of
communication. Perhaps pilots flying cooperatively should carrry FRS radios
to allow them to chatter continuously. As one poster has already noted,
cooperative flying is a form of advanced formation flying with continuous
formation breaks and reformates and without much of a plan. In that
situation you have to know what you are up to, what the other pilot is doing
and the actions to take when the script gets lost! I remember a talk given
by a member of a top formation aerobatics display team in which he said that
once an aircraft in the formation was not where it was expected to be, when
it was supposed to be there, the only option was to break away and resync
the whole operation.

I have witnessed 2 mid-airs, thankfully with only one fatality amongst my
fellow pilots. Both were in non-cooperative flying. Both could possibly
have been avoided by better observation.

Ian

[Paul Adriance]

Already in the works... He likes single malt Scotch which runs about $60 a
bottle here, small price to pay, though.

Paul


"Tom Seim" > wrote in message
om...
> Thanks for the in-depth response. This could very well be helpful to
> the rest of us who hope to never be in a similar situation.
>
> BTW: it is customary to buy that repacker a bottle/case of his
> favorite drink.
>
> Tom

[Bert Willing]

Other gliders joining your thermal is quite normal, and I wouldn't ask you
for permission...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Mark James Boyd" > a écrit dans le message de
news:40800ea2$1@darkstar...
> Kinda like tow signals...there are a lot of pilots
> making a lot of assumptions. I have a lot of
> gliders come join me close in a thermal WITHOUT my
> agreement. There's some assuming going on there...
>
> I'd say the number one rule is get the
> agreement with the other pilot. In that conversation
> or prearrangement, one can be as specific or general
> as the pilots want. There are volumes on formation
> flying (at least for power) and pilots who fly
> formation with absolutely no training or research
> are missing some excellent lessons learned
> by others...and accepting a somewhat higher level
> of risk...
>
> From my limited formation training, I learned
> enough to choose, at my low skill level, to
> generally avoid it. There were enough nuances and
> dangers, and my time was too limited to do it right
> and remain very proficient, that I choose very loose
> trail formations, clear exit agreement, and day VFR CAVU
> with an experienced leader, or nothing at all.
>
> Towing near clouds or dual flights with low vis
> and cropdusters nearby have, in my past, made me uncomfortable
> enough to release, land, and call it a day...
> Close gliders I don't know have backed me away,
> and even my buddies forming up get "no thanks"
> most of the time...
>
> In article >,
> TOM RENT > wrote:
> >I'm sure almost every RAS reader has read every word of Paul's account
> >because we all have been in the same situation numerous times and could
see
> >the same thing happen to us at any moment.
> >
> >I have a lot of soaring books but it is interesting that little is
written
> >or formally taught about this aspect of soaring. Outside of the basic
rule
> >of gaggle flying in the same direction as others, I think we need a
stamdard
> >protocol for any proximity or formation flying which we all rouinely do.
> >Outside of stall/spin in the pattern, mid-airs during proximit/formation
> >flying (including gaggles) is likely the next most dangerous situation we
> >activily place ourselves in.
> >
> >1. What is the safest way to enter a gaggle, and what are the most
unsafe
> >ways?
> >2. If you lose sight of another glider that you are gaggling with,
should
> >you keep thermalling or head away? (assume no radio available)
> >3. What is the safest way to exit a gaggle, and what are the most unsafe
> >ways?
> >4. Pair flying - best practices and worst practices ....?
> >
> >
> >Let's express our best ideas here and perhaps this too will save lives.
> >
> >I do know that these recent events have caused members of our local club
to
> >immediately begin studying our local methods and habits, which I think
this
> >activity will result in some pretty healthy positive changes.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA