Benalla

Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged gliders returned to airfield. Such routine is this at WGC level that it did not make news anywhere?

If you look at the score sheet, LK and HK were involved in this occurrence
I have put both igc files together in this GoogleEarth KML file https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...se4comfort.kmz

It looks like LK turned inside HK during thermalling
HK immediately returned in the direction of Benalla and landed on Baddaginnie (Earlston) airstrip.
LK initially continued the task and flew back a little bit later to Benalla.

This slide was shown during a safety briefing
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ng-wgc2017.jpg

At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders
returned to airfield.

Matthew Scutter's Gliding
https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScut...fref=hovercard

At 12:32 14 January 2017, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders
returned to airfield.
This the work of an ethics committee.

1) It is hard to argue that someone who gives up their race to assist
another pilot in mortal trouble isn't doing the right thing

2) It is also hard to argue that the organisation that decides to cancel
the race because said pilot gave up his race for noble reason and was so
disadvantaged isn't doing the right thing

yet note that the rules say that pilots involved in a mid air must suffer
a technical land out at that point. I was not present in this rule making
but presume that the reasoning is that this rule discourages pilots from
continuing in potentially lethally compromised gliders. It also has a
deterrent effect on rash pilot behaviour as the penalty is very high, even
if not to life and limb.

so

3) It is therefore possible to argue that the organisers who cancel the
task, remove the points downside to the pilots from unsafe flying and that
is wrong.

Better to find a way to reward the good shepherd for his proper and
humane decision?

Always controversial, not always correct
Jim

Lol!!!!

At 14:29 14 January 2017, Jim White wrote:
At 12:32 14 January 2017, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders
returned to airfield.
This the work of an ethics committee.

1) It is hard to argue that someone who gives up their race to assis
another pilot in mortal trouble isn't doing the right thing

2) It is also hard to argue that the organisation that decides to cance
the race because said pilot gave up his race for noble reason and was s
disadvantaged isn't doing the right thing

yet note that the rules say that pilots involved in a mid air must suffe
a technical land out at that point. I was not present in this rule makin
but presume that the reasoning is that this rule discourages pilots fro
continuing in potentially lethally compromised gliders. It also has a
deterrent effect on rash pilot behaviour as the penalty is very high,
eve
if not to life and limb.

The rule was, I believe, introduced after a mid-air (in cloud) in a UK
Nationals in the late 1960's. One of the pilots flew on for about another
50 km with a couple of feet of wing missing.


so

3) It is therefore possible to argue that the organisers who cancel th
task, remove the points downside to the pilots from unsafe flying and
tha
is wrong.

Better to find a way to reward the good shepherd for his proper an
humane decision?

Always controversial, not always correct
Jim

So I am confused. Matthew Scutter's FB post says both gliders crashed and both pilots safely bailed out. One glider spiraled in and the other looped all the way to ground. Other posts say one glider returned to Benalla and the other landed at another airport. Glad both are safe, terrible about the collision and loss of equipment.

The first mid-air the day before, I never did hear who was involved and level of damage, what class glider...

Stay safe down there guys and gal!


On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:45:07 AM UTC-8, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders
returned to airfield.

Matthew Scutter's Gliding
https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScut...fref=hovercard

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 10:00:56 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
So I am confused. Matthew Scutter's FB post says both gliders crashed and both pilots safely bailed out. One glider spiraled in and the other looped all the way to ground. Other posts say one glider returned to Benalla and the other landed at another airport. Glad both are safe, terrible about the collision and loss of equipment.

The first mid-air the day before, I never did hear who was involved and level of damage, what class glider...

Stay safe down there guys and gal!


On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 4:45:07 AM UTC-8, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
At 11:10 14 January 2017, RuudH wrote:
Op donderdag 12 januari 2017 15:13:23 UTC+1 schreef krasw:
There was a mid-air collision in 18m class today. Both damaged
gliders
returned to airfield.

Matthew Scutter's Gliding
https://www.facebook.com/MatthewScut...fref=hovercard

There is a bit more info here from John Good...

http://ussoaringteams.org/january-14th/

Two mid airs.

But to be fair, they did get a safety briefing after the first midair that included a slide about waving to other pilots as they enter a thermal.

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 9:20:18 AM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
Two mid airs.

Day 5 isn't canceled.
Not that high again. Clouds seem to be scarce.
15m has a 280k nominal task with two 25km circles.
18m has 279k nominal with two 30km circles.
Open is 283k nominal with a 10km and two 25km circles.
Jim