2005 Worlds Juniors Accident.

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
now been published.

It may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07.pdf .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

[Chris Reed[_1_]]

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
> The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
> crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
> now been published.
>
> It may be found at
> http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07.pdf .
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
>

My first thought is that competition finishes, as we know them in the
UK, will probably have to be altered quite radically. A quote from the
report:

"[pilots] may have thought that because ultimately they were landing,
they were absolved from the obligation to observe Rule 5 whilst they
were racing towards the finishing line. However, gliders do not normally
approach a glider site at high speed and very low height requiring
pop‑up manoeuvres to avoid obstacles outside the airfield boundary.
Usually, they land from an approach involving a gradual descent at
moderate airspeed, crossing the airfield boundary at a height that does
not normally present a risk to spectators or passers-by. Therefore, it
is clear that the finishing technique used in this race by many of the
competitors did not constitute ‘landing in accordance with normal
aviation practice’ (see Rule 5 para (3)(a)(ii )) which automatically
exempts pilots from having to observe the ‘500 feet rule’ stipulated in
para (2)(b))."

The alternative, if such finishes are to be retained, is for an
exemption from the UK CAA for each competition, and it seems clear from
the report that this would require competition organisers to ensure that
spectators could not enter the potential at risk zone, which would be
practically impossible at many airfields I know.

I'm not a competition pilot, and haven't the nerve to fly a proper
competition finish, so wouldn't want to suggest how to change what we
currently do. I certainly don't have a view that such finishes are too
dangerous to be allowed to continue. However, reading the report is
sobering, and suggests to me that we won't be allowed continue as we
have been used to.

[SAM 303a]

I hope our friends across the pond read the *ahem* dialog the US had here on
RAS the last two springs about competition finishes vs. finish cylinders and
other suggestions.

Interesting point about the 500' rule. I don't think that came up over
here.

"Chris Reed" > wrote in message
news:eqfvo4$3g9$1@qmul...
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
>> The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
>> crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth
>> has
>> now been published.
>>
>> It may be found at
>> http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07.pdf
>> .
>>
>> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
>> Remove "ic" to reply.
>>
>>
>
> My first thought is that competition finishes, as we know them in the UK,
> will probably have to be altered quite radically. A quote from the report:
>
> "[pilots] may have thought that because ultimately they were landing, they
> were absolved from the obligation to observe Rule 5 whilst they were
> racing towards the finishing line. However, gliders do not normally
> approach a glider site at high speed and very low height requiring pop-up
> manoeuvres to avoid obstacles outside the airfield boundary. Usually, they
> land from an approach involving a gradual descent at moderate airspeed,
> crossing the airfield boundary at a height that does not normally present
> a risk to spectators or passers-by. Therefore, it is clear that the
> finishing technique used in this race by many of the competitors did not
> constitute 'landing in accordance with normal
> aviation practice' (see Rule 5 para (3)(a)(ii )) which automatically
> exempts pilots from having to observe the '500 feet rule' stipulated in
> para (2)(b))."
>
> The alternative, if such finishes are to be retained, is for an exemption
> from the UK CAA for each competition, and it seems clear from the report
> that this would require competition organisers to ensure that spectators
> could not enter the potential at risk zone, which would be practically
> impossible at many airfields I know.
>
> I'm not a competition pilot, and haven't the nerve to fly a proper
> competition finish, so wouldn't want to suggest how to change what we
> currently do. I certainly don't have a view that such finishes are too
> dangerous to be allowed to continue. However, reading the report is
> sobering, and suggests to me that we won't be allowed continue as we have
> been used to.
>
>

[jcarlyle]

Although I fly SC, I'm not a competition pilot, and I won't even
attend my first competition until this spring. So please make
allowances for my ignorance. That said, things about this accident
don't make sense:

1. Why were the spectators and cars on the opposite side of the hedge
from where the planes were coming? If you want to be seen and avoided,
wouldn't it be much better to be in front of the hedge?

2. Why were the planes allowed to fly so low (30 feet) at least 1,000
meters from the airport? I've spent a lot of time in rural England,
and I know that there are a lot of hikers in the country. Were there
signs posted to warn any poor hikers about fast, quite, low flying
aircraft?

3. Why, in this day of GPS, didn't the organizers simply use a 500 or
a 1,000 foot finish? It eliminates problems of misjudging your energy,
although admittedly it isn't as exciting for people hanging around the
airfield.

As a group, we worry about someday an airliner hitting a glider and
what that would do to the sport. Why is killing a spectator (or worse,
a hiker) on the ground any different?

-John

[Alistair Wright]

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...
> The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
> crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
> now been published.
>
> It may be found at
> http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07.pdf
> .
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.
>
I used to instruct at Husbands Bosworth thirty years ago. We hosted the
British Nationals one year and the CFI asked me to take all the competitors
up in a two seater to show them the site from the air and point out local
hazards etc. Naturally I let these pundits do the flying, and for quite a
few their circuit procedure was so sloppy, and their airmanship so bad,
that
I grounded them until they had taken a further check ride with our CFI. I'm
afraid that the HB accident merely goes to show that not a lot has improved
in thirty years.

I am appalled that the organisers of a competition were prepared to
tolerate
the really dreadful flying that was going on. 'Popping up' would have got
you grounded in my time if anyone had seen you doing it. I know the planes
are better these days, but I doubt the pilots are. There is no reason why
the finish line cannot be between 250 and 500 feet. It does not need to be
on the ground.

Alistair Wright
UK Silver C 4759




>

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

The answer to question 1. is that the road/track where the cars were parked
is on the west side of the hedge and easily accessible, on the east side
from where the gliders were finishing is just a field. This is clearly
shown in the photo at the top of page 59 (4th page of the report).

Part of the answer to question 3. is that the rules for a world competition
are FAI rules, on page 69 (14th page of the report) the report points out
that the rules for an IGC sanctioned competition are not the BGA's
Competition Rules. This is why the third Safety Recommendation 2006-121 by
the AAIB is addressed to the IGC. So your question is addressed to the IGC,
not the BGA in this instance.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

> "jcarlyle" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> Although I fly SC, I'm not a competition pilot, and I won't even
> attend my first competition until this spring. So please make
> allowances for my ignorance. That said, things about this accident
> don't make sense:
>
> 1. Why were the spectators and cars on the opposite side of the hedge
> from where the planes were coming? If you want to be seen and avoided,
> wouldn't it be much better to be in front of the hedge?
>
> 2. Why were the planes allowed to fly so low (30 feet) at least 1,000
> meters from the airport? I've spent a lot of time in rural England,
> and I know that there are a lot of hikers in the country. Were there
> signs posted to warn any poor hikers about fast, quite, low flying
> aircraft?
>
> 3. Why, in this day of GPS, didn't the organizers simply use a 500 or
> a 1,000 foot finish? It eliminates problems of misjudging your energy,
> although admittedly it isn't as exciting for people hanging around the
> airfield.
>
> As a group, we worry about someday an airliner hitting a glider and
> what that would do to the sport. Why is killing a spectator (or worse,
> a hiker) on the ground any different?
>
> -John
>

[BB]

On Feb 8, 9:45 am, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
> wrote:
> The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
> crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
> now been published.
>
> It may be found athttp://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07....
>
> W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
> Remove "ic" to reply.

This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

Not to revive a flame war, but the solution is obvious. The race
finishes at 500 feet, followed by pattern and landing.

Pro: This won't happen again. Plus fewer crashes 1 mile out, in the
fence, or low energy problems at the airport.

Con: Less fun.

John Cochrane BB

PS: I love the part about being really low for safety, so you can see
the wires and then pop over them better. Yeager would be proud.

[jcarlyle]

I'll concede that the cars would park on the access road, not in the
field. Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) be
seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

-John

On Feb 8, 5:14 pm, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
> wrote:
> The answer to question 1. is that the road/track where the cars were parked
> is on the west side of the hedge and easily accessible, on the east side
> from where the gliders were finishing is just a field. This is clearly
> shown in the photo at the top of page 59 (4th page of the report).
>
> Part of the answer to question 3. is that the rules for a world competition
> are FAI rules, on page 69 (14th page of the report) the report points out
> that the rules for an IGC sanctioned competition are not the BGA's
> Competition Rules. This is why the third Safety Recommendation 2006-121 by
> the AAIB is addressed to the IGC. So your question is addressed to the IGC,
> not the BGA in this instance.

[Marc Ramsey]

jcarlyle wrote:
> Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
> on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
> of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
> when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
> clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) be
> seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
> necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
> preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

Uh, maybe because that particular person wanted to get yet another
spectacular photograph, and the pilot was trying to help and/or give him
a bit of a scare?

Marc

[Trev Cook]

This whole sorry incident has only one word for it. Cavalier! This =
report is a warning shot across the bow for the CAA, BGA, Directors, =
Pilots and spectators. The competition showed how good a final glide =
could and should be the day after. All parties need to up the ante.

Trev
--- Original Message -----=20
From: Glider Pilot Network=20
To: Trev Cook=20
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:15 PM
Subject: [r.a.s] Re: 2005 Worlds Juniors Accident.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: 2005 Worlds Juniors Accident.
Author: Marc Ramsey >
Date/Time: 23:10 08 February 2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
jcarlyle wrote:
> Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
> on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
> of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
> when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
> clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) =
be
> seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
> necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
> preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

Uh, maybe because that particular person wanted to get yet another=20
spectacular photograph, and the pilot was trying to help and/or give =
him=20
a bit of a scare?

Marc


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----


--

[Chip Bearden]

John Cochrane wrote:
> This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

I agree with John. I also agree one solution is the 500' finish rule
he's advocated. I don't agree it's the only solution or necessarily
the best solution, but we've thrashed out that subject at length
already so there's no need to again. I'll simply observe that part of
the reason many of us fly contests is for fun and that the best way to
eliminate the risks of flying is never to launch.

What struck me about the report was that nearly all of the parties who
might have contributed to this accident--the pilot, the organizers,
and the photographer himself--could and should have taken steps to
have avoided it. My impression is that had the rules in effect at the
time been adhered to and enforced (whether those were CAA regulations
or the contest rules or just general safe flying practices and common
sense), this accident wouldn't have happened.

I've never flown in the U.K. but I've seen comparable situations at
many U.S. contests owing to (1) pilots emulating their fellow pilots
(for all of our much-touted individualistic personalities, we can be
like a bunch of sheep at times); and (2) the sense that because it's a
contest, the normal rules for safe flying are suspended.

These are serious problems, but they're problems of attitude. And the
solution to them is not necessarily a new rule addressing one, albeit
potentially dangerous, situation. The analogy is a little weak but as
one example, we in the U.S. had a tragedy at a national contest a few
years ago launching a water ballasted glider too close to bystanders.
The solution to this dangerous practice was not to eliminate water
ballast but to insist that all bystanders remain behind the launch
line.

It's certainly possible that a random hiker could be mowed down by a
low-finishing glider but it's also possible that any of us could do
the same thing landing out in a farmer's field somewhere. Should we,
then, eliminate all practices that might lead to outlandings?

Like most aviation accidents, there appears to be no single cause
here, but rather a series of questionable decisions and actions that
cascaded and culminated in loss of life. Without trying to fix blame,
it seems to me that at any point any of the parties could have acted
to comply with the aforesaid rules/practices, broken the "chain," and
unilaterally prevented this tragedy.

And now that I've offended almost all involved, I apologize for
drawing conclusions about an accident I have no knowledge of apart
from a report I had absolutely no role in preparing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[Kilo Charlie]

First of all let me add to others prior statements of what a tragedy this
was resulting in the loss of a renowned photographer as well as the certain
burden it has placed on the pilot and families involved and the organizers.

As usual Chip has thoughtfully remarked on what many of us have felt about
racing and the attempt to make it safer. Most importantly is the idea that
it is the attitude and vigilance of the pilot that is the primary reason all
flights are conducted safely or not. No amount of regulation will overcome
the poor judgement that some pilots exhibit.

Having considered what has happened to others and with realization of the
consequences it is our practice locally that we finish one mile out and if
after doing so, wish to do a pass, do it down the runway after making
several radio calls announcing our intention and asking for traffic
advisories. If there are any conflicts we abort the pass. I do not think
that the 500 foot finish is any safer for reasons that have been discussed
here in the past. I also respect the opinion of others that disagree.

Thanks for your thoughts Chip,
Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Don Johnstone]

This accident is a perfect example of something that
should never happen. The ultimate responsibility for
the tragic death is that of the pilot concerned and
no-one else. No-one held a gun to his head and forced
him to fly so close to a point where he knew there
were people, and it should be emphasised that this
event occured outside the airfield boundary.
Observant readers of the report will note that the
silver car that the photographer was standing on was
situated on the left hand margin of the extended landing
area boundary which rather begs the question as to
why the pilot of the glider concerned felt it necessary
to bank to the left, with a bank angle of 20 degrees,
which on the face of it would take him further away
from the landing area. I do not have a great deal of
trouble reaching a conclusion but it is up to you to
make your own decision on that.
The photographer was going about his lawful business
in an area outside the airfield boundary, and it was
well known that he frequently took such positions.
He was an experienced glider pilot himself and no doubt
trusted that pilots would have the good sense not to
fly into him. I would refute any suggestion that he
was in any way 'responsible' for the accident, his
action may have been unwise with the benefit of hindsight
but given the known circumstances it was not unreasonable
for him to do what he did. Whether his presence 'encouraged'
pilots to fly in the way that they did is perhaps a
question that can never be answered, certainly by the
pilot concerned.
As to the future we are now in a position where the
CAA could set the rules for competition finishes in
the UK and they are not likely to consider the aspects
of fun and spectator enjoyment in their deliberations,
or at least place much weight on such considerations.
I find the worm burner competition finish acceptable
over an area where I have the control of the activity,
it is good to watch and reasonably safe provided access
to the area over which it takes place is controlled.
No competition director has any control over what takes
place outside the airfield boundary and for that reason
a margin for safety has to be set. The safety margin
that may now be imposed on us will probably be greater
that we would like.
Like the rest of life safety rules only have to be
made for the information of fools, those who are aware
of the possible consequences of their actions and are
resolved to always take action to mitigate such consequences
do not need rules to make them fly safely.
Perhaps one way forward is to require that every pilot
taking part in a competition comes with a certificate,
setting out the minimum level to which they may decsend
during a finish, from their CFI in the same way that
aerobatic pilots are cleared to minimum levels depending
on their competence, ability and experience. This at
least would enable competition directors to receive
some assurance instead of finding out to late that
what is being done is outside the competence of the
pilot concerned. It would not restrict those who are
able to fly very low safely, avoiding a blanket prohibition
which would in many ways detract from the spectacle
of well performed competition finishes.

Don
Director Tibenham Comps

[Markus Graeber]

> Observant readers of the report will note that the
> silver car that the photographer was standing on was
> situated on the left hand margin of the extended landing
> area boundary which rather begs the question as to
> why the pilot of the glider concerned felt it necessary
> to bank to the left, with a bank angle of 20 degrees,
> which on the face of it would take him further away
> from the landing area. I do not have a great deal of
> trouble reaching a conclusion but it is up to you to
> make your own decision on that.

If you look closely at the GPS tracks on Figure 5 you'll see that the
accident pilot appears to have approached the hedge a bit from the
left/South at less than a 90 deg angle/not perpendicular (see black
track). An estimated 20 deg bank angle to the left is most likely a
consequence of him making a slight adjustment/bank to the left to line
up perpendicular to the runway/finish line. The accident report
mentions that the pilot does not recall having conciously banked which
suggests that he might have done one of those instinctive adjustments
we all do when lining up for the runway, his primary focus appeared to
have been on clearing the hedge (page 58). My humble guess is that he
popped up to clear the hedge and upon seeing past the hedge
subconciously banked a bit to better aline with the runway. Looking at
the red and blue track as a reference he probably needed to adjust his
track by about 10 deg to the South when crossing the hedge to line up
the same way the other two competitors did.

Looking at figures 4a/4b and how close he was to the hedge supports
that he probably did not do a concious banking maneuver; had he been
just a couple of meters or so further to the South (to the right in
figures 4a/4b) he would most likely have struck the hedge with the
wing tip and not the unfortunate photographer. Any concious banking
maneuver should have triggered him to pull up more before banking
irrespective of the cavalier attitude shown by flying this low in the
first place.

My humble two cents,

Markus Graeber

[stephanevdv]

Just to add to another aspect of this accident report, the continuing
low approaches when competition officials radioed instructions to fly
above 200 ft. Well, perhaps the pilots did it deliberately, but I'm
not so sure.

The accident report states: "The language used during international
gliding championships is English and so all competitors should be able
to understand such an instruction". I'm afraid that's rubbish. English
is the only official language for rules, communication etc., but
knowledge of English is NOT mandatory for the pilots. Many
international competitors speak very bad English or even no English at
all. I'm not assuming this: I was a ground team member in two world
championships. Non-English-speaking pilots just learn the
indispensable terminology for take-off and landing by heart (The same
trick applies when an English pilot - who doesn't speak the local
language - flies in Spain, France or Germany, for example). Their team
captain translates the most important information from briefings and
other instructions.

The same holds true for the organizers, by the way. In both
championships I was involved with, only some officials were able to
speak English sufficiently fluently. I remember some security
briefings where it was decidedly difficult to understand if some parts
of the airspace, normally restricted, were available to the
competitors or not! And communication between the organizers and the
tug pilots was in local language only. Not exactly a safe situation...

Please don't assume that everybody in the world understands and speaks
English - or even "Globish". It just isn't true!

[jeplane]

Accidents don't happen by accident, and it is always sad to read about
the chain of events, which quite often, could have easily been
avoided.

WOW! The competitors kept flying so low, even after the mishap, that
the rescue staff had to duck. Increase the risks, and you will end up
on a report too...

The picture on the contest cover is familiar. Was the photographer
Hughes Beslier? http://beslier.free.fr/

If so, it is truly sad....

Richard
ASW19
Phoenix, AZ

[Markus Graeber]

On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, "jeplane" > wrote:
> Accidents don't happen by accident, and it is always sad to read about
> the chain of events, which quite often, could have easily been
> avoided.
>
> WOW! The competitors kept flying so low, even after the mishap, that
> the rescue staff had to duck. Increase the risks, and you will end up
> on a report too...
>
> The picture on the contest cover is familiar. Was the photographer
> Hughes Beslier?http://beslier.free.fr/
>
> If so, it is truly sad....
>
> Richard
> ASW19
> Phoenix, AZ

The photo of the contest cover (figure 7) was taken by Neil Lawson
himself, the photographer killed in the accident (see page 68). His
incredible website and photos can be be found here: http://
www.whiteplanes.com.

Markus Graeber