Parowan midair?

On 6/18/2010 3:03 PM, Andy wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:58 am, Mike
wrote:
Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest).

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

Do you have a link to the traces?

--
Mike Schumann

On 6/18/2010 2:45 PM, drbdanieli wrote:
In yacht racing, a competitor can ask for and be given redress for
assisting another vessel that needs assistance. If memory serves me
correctly, it's usally an average of the daily score that the
assisting vessel obtained during the regatta.

Although I haven't any idea how this mid-air occured, there are blind
spots that people should be aware of. I had a near miss years ago at
a nationals when I was ahead and below another glider. Obviously, I
couldn't see above and behind me and he couldn't see "under his
feet". When I got a thermal and zoomed up, my tail missed his cockpit
by a few feet! The increased numbers of sailplanes in a contest,
following the same line of cloud streets or ridges, a moment of in
attention with your head in the panel, messing with your computer can
all add up to a statistic.

I think what we need to focus on is what can be learned from this
accident and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening
to someone else. Personally, I think situations like this make a case
for getting Flarm or an equivalent system established here in the US.

Barry


We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The
SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an
example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 18, 12:43*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 6/18/2010 3:03 PM, Andy wrote:





On Jun 18, 9:58 am, Mike
wrote:
Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest).

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. *That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. * With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. *I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

Do you have a link to the traces?

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll send you a private email.

Andy

I've flown Parowan on several occasions and if I were in that
predicament with 6 feet of missing wing and questionable spoilers but
the plane was stable in flight I would go to the longest runway at
which I knew there would be people to help. That would be Parowan. IMO
following rules would not be the most important objective. The goal
would be survival.

On Jun 18, 12:53*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

Does this seem like the sensible approach?

Yes.

As an aside to others... we could do without the name calling, thanks.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

On Jun 18, 12:03*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:58*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:

Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). *

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. *That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. * With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. *I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

A few years ago there was a collision during a ridge running
excursion. Based on the surviving pilots recollection, the wreckage
debris and the damage to both sailplanes we were able to forensically
reconstruct the flight path of both aircraft up to the point of the
collision. I worked with an engineer who took all that data, along
with the information in the flight handbooks of the sailplanes and
such and from that we created spline paths and keyframes to create
bank angles and trajectory. I took that information and created a
fairly accurate animation of the collision.

The creepiest part of that was when I put the camera in one of the
glider and watched from the "pilots" POV as the other glider slid
right in to him.

The result was a broken wing in one glider and a uncontrolled crash
that resulted in his death, the other pilot bailed out and survived.

Brad

On 6/18/2010 1:04 PM, Gary Evans wrote:
I've flown Parowan on several occasions and if I were in that
predicament with 6 feet of missing wing and questionable spoilers but
the plane was stable in flight I would go to the longest runway at
which I knew there would be people to help. That would be Parowan. IMO
following rules would not be the most important objective. The goal
would be survival.

If runway size is important, Cedar City ( 8600' x 150') is only 16 NM
past Parowan (a mere 5000' x 75'), lots of people, and lots closer to
the hospital.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

On 6/18/2010 6:23 AM, vaughn wrote:
wrote in message
...


Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn
I know both of them, though not very well, and so far I don't see
anything that will cause them problems; in fact, I think some of the
discussion might help them make better choices in the future.

What problems do you think these discussions cause the pilots involved?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 6/18/2010 8:16 AM, jb92563 wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:52 am, Mike
wrote:

On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote: wrote in message

...


Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.


While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?


Vaughn

This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. This discussion serves a
very useful purpose in that regard.

What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. This
would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.

--
Mike Schumann

snip

I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
the correct choice, since as we all know,
in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
and NOTAM'ed areas.


I may be misinterpreting what you've written, but I sure don't think a
successful outcome means they made the correct choice; it might also
mean they were very lucky.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

I cannot help to add some observations, based on what I have heard and
read. My discussion is focused on the 26E, though much of it applies
to the second pilot as well.

Evaluating the extent of damage and therefore the airworthiness of a
composite aircraft (especially carbon) after it has sustained impact
is not easy even in a well-lit shop with inspection devices. I
believe that doing so airborne from the distance of another aircraft
with enough certainty to gamble your life on is impossible.

Secondly, with a wing open to the airstream. there is a very strong
likelihood of air loads peeling much, if not most of the remaining
skin(s) off the spar and/or the foam core. I have been in the bizarre
and unhappy position of hoping that many square meters of my wing skin
would tear away as opposed to being a 1 x 4 meter spoiler. If it had
not torn away, I would have landed in the trees/rocks. I survived.
It was "luck".

The human factors side of the post-impact equation is known,
predictable, and self-destructive. Mix the following carefully in
your brain:

The shock of being involved in a near-death experience mid-air,

Post-accident denial

Hopeful/delusional expectations that "everything will be OK"

The desire to return to normalcy

The "racing mentality"

Stir thoroughly, add some well-meaning and equally delusional input
from others ("The ship looks OK") and you get an individual willing to
believe anything positive.


Will ANYONE seriously bet your life and the happiness of those that
love you that:

That 5 ft of span and control missing from a wing is No Big Deal

That it is possible to evaluate the condition of such a wing while
airborne

That the structural condition of the aircraft is not likely to
deteriorate due to flight and air loads

That it is reasonable to continue to soar for another 75 miles like
this?

Put another way, would you drive your car 75 miles home at freeway
speeds after a huge collision on the interstate that left you missing
a big chunk of the structure based on another driver's positive visual
observation and the fact that it handles OK for the moment?


I will refrain from commenting on the "racing rules" discussions. Any
group that condones, and tacitly rewards behavior such as this is
beyond my comprehension. When rules are necessary to prevent behavior
that defies all logic, and decades of ingrained hard-won aviation
safety paradigms (paid for in dead bodies and ruined lives of loved
ones left behind), we need a new sport.

The "we must have FLARM / ASDB / Electron Slinger du jour" hue and cry
defies the track record of "see-and-avoid", especially in gaggles, and
is, in my opinion, a hardware solution to a "software" problem; namely
declining pilot training, competency and a deeply rooted cultural
addiction to staring at / listening to electronic devices.


I wish you all safe flight and much good fortune. If you find this
scenario even remotely reasonable, I believe you will eventually need
the latter. Your aviation paradigm is strongly weighted toward
letting random circumstances (luck, your diety of choice,
predestination) decide your survival.