Any details on the Uvalde mid-air / bailout?

[Gary Emerson]

Be curious to know what the damage was prior to bailout, etc... and
situation surrounding the contact. Thermaling? Cruising?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 11, 8:04*pm, Gary Emerson > wrote:
> Be curious to know what the damage was prior to bailout, etc... and
> situation surrounding the contact. *Thermaling? *Cruising?

Just received an email from the bailout pilot--Mike Brooks of the
Greater Houston Soaring Assoc. This is his account and is being posted
for the educational purpose of understanding what happened, from his
perspective. The investigation into the accident is still ongoing and
this is his basic account (he was flying a Genesis II):

"I was having a nice run into the turnpoint following FT, a Ventus 2.
We had thermalled a bit together before the turnpoint. We made the
turnpoint, and I was still in trail with FT. Shortly after the turn,
FT pulled up into a nice thermal, and I did the same. We were both
established in the thermal at about 5,000 msl and I had about three
turns of strong lift. I then heard a massive bang, and the ship went
out of control immediately to the right. Control inputs didn't help. I
went through a couple of cycles of what might have been an inverted
flat spin before I pulled the canopy latches. The canopy departed as
soon as I pulled the latches - I didn't have to pull the spring
jettison handle. I saw it falling against the background of the earth,
so I know I was inverted at that point. I undid the rotary belts
release and I was out of the cockpit. I found the D-ring and pulled
it, and the chute opened right away. I was probably still in the
thermal because I saw my seat pads and various cockpit stuff floating
around near me. I saw the ship tumbling away below.

I never saw 7U, Bob Carl, who apparently had entered the thermal below
me and pulled up. I was in about a 55 degree bank to the right, and
his left winglet impacted my right wing lower surface. It then dug in
and opened a gash for most of the length of the wing out towards the
tip, taking out the aileron bellcrank and other drive pieces. The gash
was back a bit from the leading edge, and this thin skin folded back
into the airstream and was effectively a spoiler about half the length
of the wing and maybe 8 to a foot high. This is from the FSDO exam of
the pieces."

[Shawn[_6_]]

wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:04 pm, Gary Emerson > wrote:
>> Be curious to know what the damage was prior to bailout, etc... and
>> situation surrounding the contact. Thermaling? Cruising?
>
> Just received an email from the bailout pilot--Mike Brooks of the
> Greater Houston Soaring Assoc. This is his account and is being posted
> for the educational purpose of understanding what happened, from his
> perspective. The investigation into the accident is still ongoing and
> this is his basic account (he was flying a Genesis II):
>
> "I was having a nice run into the turnpoint following FT, a Ventus 2.
> We had thermalled a bit together before the turnpoint. We made the
> turnpoint, and I was still in trail with FT. Shortly after the turn,
> FT pulled up into a nice thermal, and I did the same. We were both
> established in the thermal at about 5,000 msl and I had about three
> turns of strong lift. I then heard a massive bang, and the ship went
> out of control immediately to the right. Control inputs didn't help. I
> went through a couple of cycles of what might have been an inverted
> flat spin before I pulled the canopy latches. The canopy departed as
> soon as I pulled the latches - I didn't have to pull the spring
> jettison handle. I saw it falling against the background of the earth,
> so I know I was inverted at that point. I undid the rotary belts
> release and I was out of the cockpit. I found the D-ring and pulled
> it, and the chute opened right away. I was probably still in the
> thermal because I saw my seat pads and various cockpit stuff floating
> around near me. I saw the ship tumbling away below.
>
> I never saw 7U, Bob Carl, who apparently had entered the thermal below
> me and pulled up. I was in about a 55 degree bank to the right, and
> his left winglet impacted my right wing lower surface. It then dug in
> and opened a gash for most of the length of the wing out towards the
> tip, taking out the aileron bellcrank and other drive pieces. The gash
> was back a bit from the leading edge, and this thin skin folded back
> into the airstream and was effectively a spoiler about half the length
> of the wing and maybe 8 to a foot high. This is from the FSDO exam of
> the pieces."

Anyone know if Bob bailed out or landed?


Shawn

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 12, 4:28*pm, wrote:

> Just received an email from the bailout pilot--Mike Brooks of the
> Greater Houston Soaring Assoc. This is his account and is being posted
> for the educational purpose of understanding what happened, from his
> perspective. The investigation into the accident is still ongoing and
> this is his basic account (he was flying a Genesis II):

Thanks for posting the report. Glad both pilots survived what must
have been a very frightening experience.

Any report on damage to the Ventus? I would imagine it must have
received substantial damage too.

We don't have many contest mid-airs. The last one I heard of was also
at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
and both pilots got home ok.

A bit surprised, perhaps even amused, that RG1 received an airport
bonus. There must be more to that story.

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events02/media/10_110RG.txt

Andy

[Fred Blair]

For the day, RG1 shows 'no flight log',

"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 12, 4:28 pm, wrote:

> Just received an email from the bailout pilot--Mike Brooks of the
> Greater Houston Soaring Assoc. This is his account and is being posted
> for the educational purpose of understanding what happened, from his
> perspective. The investigation into the accident is still ongoing and
> this is his basic account (he was flying a Genesis II):

Thanks for posting the report. Glad both pilots survived what must
have been a very frightening experience.

Any report on damage to the Ventus? I would imagine it must have
received substantial damage too.

We don't have many contest mid-airs. The last one I heard of was also
at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
and both pilots got home ok.

A bit surprised, perhaps even amused, that RG1 received an airport
bonus. There must be more to that story.

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events02/media/10_110RG.txt

Andy

[[email protected]]

> Any report on damage to the Ventus? I would imagine it must have
> received substantial damage too.

7U successfully returned to the Uvalde airport. I haven't heard any
exact reports about that part of the accident. I do know that the
Ventus' left winglet was gone. I'm guessing the winglet acted like a
can opener when it sliced through the bottom of the Genesis wing.
Amazing that he was able to remain airborne and under control although
compromised.

The collision was near Bracketville--which is about 25 miles west of
Uvalde.

[DRN]

On Aug 12, 7:24 pm, Andy > wrote:
> We don't have many contest mid-airs. The last one I heard of was also
> at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
> and both pilots got home ok.

We do have lots of contest mid-airs. I've been at several contests
where there was a mid-air, including a fatal in Bayreuth at the pre-
worlds.
I lost a friend to a mid-air in Oz. John Good bailed out after a mid-
air
in Chester. Several midairs at contests I attended resulted in only
minor damage.

Be careful out there,
Best Regards, Dave "YO"

[Tim Taylor]

On Aug 12, 8:03 pm, wrote:
> > Any report on damage to the Ventus? I would imagine it must have
> > received substantial damage too.
>
> 7U successfully returned to the Uvalde airport. I haven't heard any
> exact reports about that part of the accident. I do know that the
> Ventus' left winglet was gone.

It is not a good idea to make statements that you have not verified.
Right now it is not great to speculate until more details are
available.

And even though you "know the winglet was gone" I saw it on the glider
when I landed after the contest day. I examined it from about 6
inches so I can tell you it was there. So let's leave the speculation
and hearsay out of the discussion unless you have specific facts or
better yet a copy of both igc files and the final FAA report.

Tim (TT)

[Bruce]

Speculation about fact is generally futile - go get the facts.

I am no expert but experience and some reading indicate that we can't trust our memory of events as much as we would
like - our conscious capabilities tend to get overwhelmed, and we miss things. Overwhelming events induce confusion and
or amnesia in varying degrees. Then along comes the conscious part of the mind (back from it's boot up) and fills in
the gaps. Which is one reason it is important to try to write things down as soon as possible after an incident before
we start to develop illusory memories.

So - Mike did a good thing writing the facts as he recalls them down - a.s.a.p.

As an aside - I believe speculation about how similar situations might develop is useful if we think and analyse and
possibly get a little safer.

Fred Blair wrote:
> For the day, RG1 shows 'no flight log',
>
> "Andy" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Aug 12, 4:28 pm, wrote:
>
>> Just received an email from the bailout pilot--Mike Brooks of the
>> Greater Houston Soaring Assoc. This is his account and is being posted
>> for the educational purpose of understanding what happened, from his
>> perspective. The investigation into the accident is still ongoing and
>> this is his basic account (he was flying a Genesis II):
>
> Thanks for posting the report. Glad both pilots survived what must
> have been a very frightening experience.
>
> Any report on damage to the Ventus? I would imagine it must have
> received substantial damage too.
>
> We don't have many contest mid-airs. The last one I heard of was also
> at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
> and both pilots got home ok.
>
> A bit surprised, perhaps even amused, that RG1 received an airport
> bonus. There must be more to that story.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/events02/media/10_110RG.txt
>
> Andy
>
>

[JJ Sinclair]

We don't have many contest mid-airs. *The last one I heard of was
also
> at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
> and both pilots got home ok.

I would tend to agree that we don't have too many mid-air collisions
in competition, one about every 4 years in my experience; Minden (2),
Ephratea (2), Tulare, Cal City, Uvalde (2). Lots of ships and good
soaring conditions are some factors that make mid-airs more likely to
occur. When entering a thermal, I slow up outside the circle then
merge in the side. Pulling up in the thermal has been the culprit in
about half the above mishaps and sadly, 3 pilots are no longer with
us!
JJ

[Hal[_2_]]

On Aug 13, 7:31*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> *We don't have many contest mid-airs. *The last one I heard of was
> also
>
> > at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
> > and both pilots got home ok.
>
> I would tend to agree that we don't have too many mid-air collisions
> in competition, one about every 4 years in my experience; Minden (2),
> Ephratea (2), Tulare, Cal City, Uvalde (2). Lots of ships and good
> soaring conditions are some factors that make mid-airs more likely to
> occur. When entering a thermal, I slow up outside the circle then
> merge in the side. Pulling up in the thermal has been the culprit in
> about half the above mishaps and sadly, 3 pilots are no longer with
> us!
> JJ

I think the new changes in the rules covering the start gate have help
spread out the field. It did not help in this situation since it
occured on course. Flying at Montague I know I came close to two
gliders during the start. It is especially critical as everyone is at
the top of the start gate. On course you can think you are all alone
but often I am surprised when I see another glider. Looking outside
is something I need to keep working on!

[[email protected]]

All,

This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
are.

I was at Uvalde a few years ago when a towplane experienced a problem
that caused the pilot of the fully-loaded glider to release before
reaching the end of the runway just to be safe. No big deal but the
write up here or on the SSA contest report site included a line or two
that might have made it sound more dramatic than it really was (I
watched it happen and spoke to both pilots afterward so I have some
facts). Imagine my surprise when, the next morning while I was staging
my ASW 24 on the grid, two gentlemen from the FAA's San Antonio FSDO
showed up asked questions. One fellow was very polite, extremely
knowledgeable, and--not incidentally--an experienced glider pilot who
owed a high-performance ship. The other one was, well, more in the
mold of the stereotypes we love to hang on government employees. But
both had a job to do and that was to investigate a report (ours) that
something had been done not in compliance with all the applicable
regulations. I chatted amicably with them for at least 15 minutes and
then they wandered off to find one of the organizers (who I
immediately telephoned so he would be able to allocate adequate time
to be interviewed by these gentlemen). All turned out fine, as we
expected it would.

But the lesson is that anything you say on this forum will likely be
read by other glider pilots, non pilots, and the FAA. So statements
like "we have lots of mid-airs" and "I came close to other gliders"
and so forth are incendiary. I don't believe the former is true. I've
been at contests where a mid-air occurred and am aware of a few
others, but I suspect the statistics comparing those incidents to the
number of contest flights or hours or whatever look very good. As for
the latter, I agree it's great to learn from each others' mistakes--
and I've written up some of my own--but this isn't the place for
confession without context and details.

Just my [typically long-winded] opinion. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 12, 5:51*pm, "Fred Blair" >
wrote:
> For the day, RG1 shows 'no flight log',

I had assumed the accident happened on day 3 since the official
results for that day show that both pilots withdrew from the contest.
Obviously that can't be correct if both pilots flew and collided the
next day.

Thanks for the clarification.

Andy

[XYZ]

Absolutely.... I agree.
I remember the gentleman who bared his soul after
surviving a low altitude mid-air in Washington State.
I also understand that his comments and others in the usenet were
admitted in a court proceeeding. Sometimes less said is better, especially
if
you are "presenting facts not in evidence"....

--
Have a great day

Scott
> wrote in message
...
> All,
>
> This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
> to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
> overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
> and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
> that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
> daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
> are.
> Just my [typically long-winded] opinion. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> USA

[user]

Disagree... vehemently.

What other forum could we possibly use?

The example you give is a poor one. Though the Uvlade glider pilot you
reference was gracious after the fact, it was a very serious situation, and
repeated more than once on that particular day. (Others were much more vocal
about the level of risk they were subjected too.) The offending tow pilot,
it turns out, was wholly unqualified for the job at hand, flying an
underpowered tow plane, and towed several ships at critically low airspeeds.
He wasn't even aware that gliders could carry water ballast.

Even with a competent PIC on board, I dreaded every tow I took behind it.

I'm glad the FSDO responded. It put the appropriate level of apprehension
back into contest management, on whom we depend to make sure that we're
being supported by competent contest personnel, just as they depend on our
competence.




> wrote in message
...
> All,
>
> This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
> to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
> overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
> and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
> that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
> daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
> are.
>
> I was at Uvalde a few years ago when a towplane experienced a problem
> that caused the pilot of the fully-loaded glider to release before
> reaching the end of the runway just to be safe. No big deal but the
> write up here or on the SSA contest report site included a line or two
> that might have made it sound more dramatic than it really was (I
> watched it happen and spoke to both pilots afterward so I have some
> facts). Imagine my surprise when, the next morning while I was staging
> my ASW 24 on the grid, two gentlemen from the FAA's San Antonio FSDO
> showed up asked questions. One fellow was very polite, extremely
> knowledgeable, and--not incidentally--an experienced glider pilot who
> owed a high-performance ship. The other one was, well, more in the
> mold of the stereotypes we love to hang on government employees. But
> both had a job to do and that was to investigate a report (ours) that
> something had been done not in compliance with all the applicable
> regulations. I chatted amicably with them for at least 15 minutes and
> then they wandered off to find one of the organizers (who I
> immediately telephoned so he would be able to allocate adequate time
> to be interviewed by these gentlemen). All turned out fine, as we
> expected it would.
>
> But the lesson is that anything you say on this forum will likely be
> read by other glider pilots, non pilots, and the FAA. So statements
> like "we have lots of mid-airs" and "I came close to other gliders"
> and so forth are incendiary. I don't believe the former is true. I've
> been at contests where a mid-air occurred and am aware of a few
> others, but I suspect the statistics comparing those incidents to the
> number of contest flights or hours or whatever look very good. As for
> the latter, I agree it's great to learn from each others' mistakes--
> and I've written up some of my own--but this isn't the place for
> confession without context and details.
>
> Just my [typically long-winded] opinion. :)
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> USA

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 6:54*am, "user" > wrote:
The offending tow pilot,
> it turns out, was wholly unqualified for the job at hand, flying an
> underpowered tow plane, and towed several ships at critically low airspeeds.
> He wasn't even aware that gliders could carry water ballast.


What YEAR at Uvalde are you referring to when this incident happened?

[Don Johnstone[_3_]]

No Chip is absolutely correct. Speculation and discussion of this nature
can only do harm although the posting of one of the pilot's first hand
account is useful and does give a heads up to the rest of us. The
speculation concerning the damage to the other glider was inaccurate.
There is great danger in posting information to be read by people who do
not understand what soaring is all about.

I note you are anonymous User, might you be a journalist looking for
sensational story? From your posting it would appear not but it would not
be the first time that an open forum had been used to collect information
later used for a piece of sensational and inaccurate reporting to the
detriment of the sport.

At 11:54 15 August 2008, user wrote:
>Disagree... vehemently.
>
>What other forum could we possibly use?
>
>The example you give is a poor one. Though the Uvlade glider pilot you
>reference was gracious after the fact, it was a very serious situation,
>and
>repeated more than once on that particular day. (Others were much more
>vocal
>about the level of risk they were subjected too.) The offending tow
pilot,
>
>it turns out, was wholly unqualified for the job at hand, flying an
>underpowered tow plane, and towed several ships at critically low
>airspeeds.
>He wasn't even aware that gliders could carry water ballast.
>
>Even with a competent PIC on board, I dreaded every tow I took behind
it.
>
>I'm glad the FSDO responded. It put the appropriate level of
apprehension
>back into contest management, on whom we depend to make sure that we're

>being supported by competent contest personnel, just as they depend on
our
>
>competence.
>
>
>
>
> wrote in message
...
>> All,
>>
>> This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
>> to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
>> overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
>> and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
>> that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
>> daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
>> are.
>>
>> I was at Uvalde a few years ago when a towplane experienced a problem
>> that caused the pilot of the fully-loaded glider to release before
>> reaching the end of the runway just to be safe. No big deal but the
>> write up here or on the SSA contest report site included a line or two
>> that might have made it sound more dramatic than it really was (I
>> watched it happen and spoke to both pilots afterward so I have some
>> facts). Imagine my surprise when, the next morning while I was staging
>> my ASW 24 on the grid, two gentlemen from the FAA's San Antonio FSDO
>> showed up asked questions. One fellow was very polite, extremely
>> knowledgeable, and--not incidentally--an experienced glider pilot who
>> owed a high-performance ship. The other one was, well, more in the
>> mold of the stereotypes we love to hang on government employees. But
>> both had a job to do and that was to investigate a report (ours) that
>> something had been done not in compliance with all the applicable
>> regulations. I chatted amicably with them for at least 15 minutes and
>> then they wandered off to find one of the organizers (who I
>> immediately telephoned so he would be able to allocate adequate time
>> to be interviewed by these gentlemen). All turned out fine, as we
>> expected it would.
>>
>> But the lesson is that anything you say on this forum will likely be
>> read by other glider pilots, non pilots, and the FAA. So statements
>> like "we have lots of mid-airs" and "I came close to other
gliders"
>> and so forth are incendiary. I don't believe the former is true.
I've
>> been at contests where a mid-air occurred and am aware of a few
>> others, but I suspect the statistics comparing those incidents to the
>> number of contest flights or hours or whatever look very good. As for
>> the latter, I agree it's great to learn from each others' mistakes--
>> and I've written up some of my own--but this isn't the place for
>> confession without context and details.
>>
>> Just my [typically long-winded] opinion. :)
>>
>> Chip Bearden
>> ASW 24 "JB"
>> USA
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

I suspect we're talking about two different situations. The Uvalde
example I used involved a mechanical issue. The tow pilot was highly
experienced and qualified and also a very respected competition pilot
who has flown some of the most sophisticated sailplanes in the
world...with and without water ballast. :) And it was a one-time
incident, not something that recurred all day.

I agree there is a danger that the FAA and others, including
journalists, could get the wrong impression from reading RAS. Most of
us are knowledgeable and know not to believe everything we read on
this forum. Many of us also know some of the posters personally and
can read between the lines, so to speak. And we probably all have our
lists of "must read" and "ignore" authors. Not all of the above is
necessarily true for the FAA, journalists, and other "outsiders" who
may draw the wrong impression from speculative or downright
misinformed comments, or from opinions packaged as facts.

Just be careful what you say. This is an open frequency, not a members-
only club (to mix metaphors).

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[XYZ]

IMHO it isnt a really good idea to delve into accidents online. There was a
midair
in Washington State, where a survivor went thru a very detailed and well
thought out
posting of what went right, what went wrong and why. It ended up in court
when the widow
of the other guy decided to litigate the incident even thought the ntsb
ruled that the non-surviving
aviator was at fault.. Food for thought..........

Scott.

> Just be careful what you say. This is an open frequency, not a members-
> only club (to mix metaphors).
>
> Chip Bearden
> ASW 24 "JB"
> USA

[ContestID67]

The accident report is shown at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20080814X01240&key=1