Mid-Air Collisions

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

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.

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

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

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