Accident at Szeged WGC

On Aug 1, 1:24*pm, johngalloway wrote:
What about this?

Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a
minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). * *Many
contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up.
Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below
which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute
minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the
glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that
point and so gets distance points only for the flight. *Gliders that
reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an
extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not
gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back
along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal
scoring practice.

A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance,
finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum
turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure
that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of
airfield finishes is maintained. * *The control point position and
minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go-
around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers.

[My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low
minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the
airfield. *The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully
finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and
glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding
at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other
is minimised. *Using a line they can spread out laterally without
penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point.
Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast
finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each
other because of different eyeball judgements about their height.
Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.]

John Galloway

There is a flaw in your statement as there is no reason with a finish
cylinder to flt to a particular point. The US cylinder, as an example,
is set to score the finish point and time to wherever the pilot enters
the cylinder. As such there is no incentive or need to concentrate
gliders on some small point. They can finish and then work into
joining the established landing pattern at low speed and with time and
altitude to fit in and hopefully, land safely.
UH

On Jul 31, 7:14*am, John Smith wrote:
John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
This is not about being girly men, *it is about conducting
our sport with responsibility towards outsiders.

Exactly. It is always sad when a pilot kills himself, but then, after
all, it was him who decided to take the risk. But when an innocent
outsider gets involved, then it's a completely different story.

I don't know what the pilot did wrong or right. But the primary
responsability for this accident lies at the organisers, who decided to
set the task so that the final glide led over a populated road.

WRONG. The primary responsibility for this accident lies at the Pilot.
And it does matter what the pilot did wrong or right.
rrk

I have sympathy for both sides here.
The contestant who loses a lot of points if he does not make a hop over
the wall.
The truck driver who was confronted with an emergency in the normal
course of his work.

So - let's disregard all the legality and sophistry. Is it ethical?

The pilot knew what risk he was taking.
The unwitting victim in the truck was exposed to risks he should not
have been, and had no choice in taking.

The discussion is left to the class as an exercise, some initial points:

Could the organisers have closed the road? - I don't know - but it would
have been a good idea.
Could the organisers have made an effective plan to ensure the pilots
made safe decisions. Not really from my understanding of the FAI rules,
and the general consequences of contest thinking.

Should the pilot have made the safe decision and landed 500m short? -
indubitably. (In hindsight).

The problem is that in almost every contest there are multiple instances
of "getting away with it". If he had been 12m further along (at 90km/h
that is about half a second...) it would have been an almost unremarked
landing. The contest director would have issued a warning for "low
finish" and everyone would have the opportunity to celebrate a heroic
return after a difficult day. There might have been a complaint from the
truck driver, but who would give credence to his claim that he missed an
aircraft by centimetres...

Legally - from an Air Law perspective - the glider was in the act of
landing, so the low height is not illegal. From a road law perspective?
In road law this would probably result in a "reckless driving" charge.
In most jurisdictions , if you knowingly operate a car in such a way
that you knowingly and wilfully endanger others it is considered a
criminal act. The courts could reasonably apply the came logic here.

Did the pilot see the truck? Who knows, but I doubt it. There are well
documented tests that demonstrate how we selectively filter things out
when the cognitive load is too high.

Last question is what do we as soaring pilots do to prevent this kind of
thing from happening again.

Lots of suggestions have been made.
As an observation - Racing pilots , in my experience make very logical
decisions when it comes to maximising the points they will get.

S- do we change to finish cylinders or apply minimum heights or some
other mechanism to align safety with contest points. - Then when it
comes to decision time the better choice is more likely - I personally
like the one of a minimum height at a positioning turnpoint with points
deducted for distance from there is you are below the height to make a
safe approach. Unfortunately even that will not prevent people pilots
using the excess energy to make screaming approaches to land 1cm over
the fence.

The problem is that it is already getting regulated to the point where
it becomes impractical.

So - do we just accept that insanely low flying is a logical consequence
of racing gliders with incredible performance? If so the we need to
ensure that it does not happen where non-participants are placed at
risk. You would need to be able to clear a substantial approach area of
people for that...


Bruce


On 2010/08/01 8:30 PM, Craig Reinholt wrote:
On Aug 1, 10:24 am, wrote:
What about this?

Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a
minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). Many
contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up.
Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below
which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute
minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the
glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that
point and so gets distance points only for the flight. Gliders that
reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an
extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not
gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back
along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal
scoring practice.

A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance,
finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum
turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure
that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of
airfield finishes is maintained. The control point position and
minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go-
around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers.

[My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low
minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the
airfield. The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully
finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and
glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding
at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other
is minimised. Using a line they can spread out laterally without
penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point.
Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast
finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each
other because of different eyeball judgements about their height.
Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.]

John Galloway


The previous discussions fall into one of two camps. One to implement
a higher finish to improve the chance of a safe pattern/landing and
the other is for maintaining the low (exciting) finish. Race results
are unaffected either way. We all understand both sides of the coin.
To me, however, risk versus reward comes into play here. The reward is
excitement at the end of a mentally and physically challenging day.
But who is at risk?

If all this talk was just about the inbound pilot, I’d say without
reservation to keep the low finish going. If a pilot is foolish enough
to push the boundaries and gets himself hurt or killed, that is his
problem. I have zero sympathy for that person. I’ll reserve that for
his family. However, when my hide is on the line with incoming pilots
who skill level or physical condition at the end of the day (read
dehydrated, mentally upset, tired, etc.) is suspect, then I want
options and the low finish minimizes that. Then, of course, we have
the innocent bystanders that this thread started with.

Perhaps compassion for what may happen to the other guy should
outweigh the excitement that the low finish provides the pilot?

Craig Reinholt


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Bruce -

Except there's a flaw in your logic. You correctly point out that a
minimum height at a steering turn before the finish could put people
on a glide-path to make the airport. But doesn't stop them from
screaming in at low altitude (as you point out). And given how far
gliders can fly in ground-effect, your argument for long, safe
approaches would mean clearing a few MILES around the airport. Its
just not practical.

Wouldn't a minimum height of 500 feet or so across the finish-line fix
this? There's ZERO incentive to come in low if you're going to lose
points for it. Yes, it doesn't stop a pilot from doing something
stupid; but you can never make things idiot-proof. All you can do is
reduce the incentives to make bad decisions - and a minimum height
removes any incentive for trying to squeak in, for all but a few
instances.

--Noel

Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

On Aug 2, 7:43*pm, Dave Springford wrote:
Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. *What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. *This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

.... and also add that the glider will probably be flying faster when
reaching the finish ring, so will have a bit more energy to spare

or if it doesn't, it can land short if necessary

On Aug 2, 11:43*am, Dave Springford wrote:
Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. *What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. *This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

Thanks for the correction Dave. I went back and looked at the last 3
days task sheets and now see that when 16 is the landing runway then
Szeged34 is the finish centre, and when 36 is active Szeged16 defines
the centre. I had missed that.

Andy (GY)

On 2010/07/30 4:03 PM, ppp1 wrote:
This looks very bad. Pilot ok, but the truck driver in critical
condition.

http://picasaweb.google.com/itb.pano...SzegedHungary#


Any news on the truck driver's recovery?

Did the authorities press charges against the pilot. He was apparently
detained at least temporarily by the police.

Bruce

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---