Parowan midair?

Mark makes some great statements about a pilot’s mentality after a
collision.
To quote:
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"

However, I think that it would be very few pilots that would say that
they handled such a situation perfectly after the fact, nearly every
pilot could probably think of something they could have done better
after they themselves have had the chance to do some arm chair
quarterbacking.

As far as continuing to race after the collision, this would seem to
be the poorest decision made in this incident, however with the
thinking, the collision “wasn’t that bad” it hit on a strong part of
the glider, which I have a pretty good view of (the interior inside
the cockpit). The thinking “I don’t have that much farther to go
anyway”. The thinking “The other pilot is OK, so far.” The thinking
“if I am careful, I can complete the task.” The thinking “it is
better to stay high and see if anything is going to get worse
anyway.” It is pretty easy to see how this kind of decision could be
made.

As for returning to Parowan, it disturbs me to see statements like “it
is the pilots duty to land at the nearest airport”. That is absolutely
incorrect and it is based on the fact that he was able to make a
fairly normal landing, which was an unknown at the time. It should say
“it is the pilots duty to do the safest thing possible” and landing at
the nearest airport may not be the safest thing, if fact it was
unknown if a landing could even be safely performed. My mottos for an
emergency are “Don’t do anything to make it worse” and “Try as little
new stuff as possible during the emergency, ie. Stick with what you
practice and are familiar with as much as possible.” Returning to
Parowan certainly had a number of advantages. I am assuming that he
was some altitude above the ground maybe as much as 10,000 feet, he
did not want to deploy the spoilers so that means he can either circle
down over the nearest airport that he is unfamiliar with and I doubt
while concentrating on flying damaged aircraft that he would want to
be doing a lot of research about them. I am sure other pilots could
have and may have even helped him evaluate his options. Or he could
use the altitude he needs to lose to return to Parowan where he is
familiar with the airport and the people on the ground know what is
going on. Best case scenario here is they could have even had
emergency services waiting for him when he attempted the landing
Worst case is he may have to bail out, but he may have to do that no
matter what he decides. From what I have heard Cedar City may have
been a better option with a larger runway and more services, but the
trade off was he would have been landing at an unfamiliar airport and
it was even further away.

Some pilots I am sure would have just bailed out of a glider with such
damage, and I am sure they would not have been faulted for doing so,
but bailing out has its risks as well.

While it can nearly always be argued they could have done better, they
at least made adequate decisions and it is useful to mentally place
yourself in their position and try to figure out how you would handle
the situation, It may influence how you handle your emergency if/when
it happens.

just my 2cents worth
Brian Case

In the UK, in the event of a mid-air collision in a comp, however
minor, both competitors are scored to the point of the collision and
are expected to land (or bail out) as soon as possible afterwards.

A few years ago one of our top comp pilots was killed shortly after a
mid-air. He was flying a brand new and very expensive glider and
attempted to land it in a damaged condition. Unfortunately the tail
boom eventually failed when he was too low to bail out and it dived
more or less vertically into the ground, killing him instantly. The
glider he collided with was able to make a safe landing.

You should consider bailing out of a damaged glider well before flying
on round the competition task!

Derek C

On Jun 18, 9:53*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
On Jun 16, 1:48*pm, Andy wrote:
[good stuff snipped]

Does this seem like the sensible approach?

Yes. Thanks for starting to get the ball rolling on this so quickly.


Darryl

On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:


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, believe me:
If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
possibly available in 2012.

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.




Andreas

On Jun 21, 1:23*am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann

wrote:
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, believe me:
If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW *- and you are not
going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
possibly available in 2012.

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.

Andreas

I have flown with FLARM in a UK competition. It tells you that there
are other FLARM equipped gliders nearby and in a crowded thermal the
collision warning goes off quite frequently, even though you can see
the other gliders and there is no chance of collisions. If you get a
warning from another glider you haven't seen, it can be quite
difficult to work out where it is, especially in a circling situation.
It is not a substitute for keeping a good look out!

Derek C

On Jun 21, 7:04*am, Derek C wrote:
snip
It is not a substitute for keeping a good look out!

FLARM that is. Of course not, and the Flarm website is very clear
about that, but it can be a useful aid. I certainly appreciated
having it on the South Downs Ridge earlier this year.

Flarm saved my a$$ 2 weeks ago north of Samadan (just southwest from
Innsbruck). Snowline at 2000 meters,we were at 2300 meters flying
under the edge of a cloud Flarm warning goes off. Couldn't see
anything but rolled into a tight climbing turn. Directly in front,
backdrop of snow, was a Duo on the nose going for the same thermal. As
soon as we pulled up and turned the Duo rolled the other direction. No
harm no foul, no Flarm?????

2 sailplanes at the same altitude, snow on the rocks in the
background, we were doing 170KMH and he was probably moving pretty
fast also. Within seconds of the Flarm warning we would have been
turning and climbing into the thermal. Would we have seen the Dou? I
would like to think so! Should my family rely on that happening? That
is one to think about.

I know Flarm is probably not the answer in the US, not enough planes
have Flarm already to get critical mass. Here in the Alps and Germany
most XC planes are now equipped but there are still enough without to
cause some problems.

Please, keep a good lookout!

Bob

On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote:


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, believe me:
If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders
around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not
going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it
possibly available in 2012.

FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure
that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about.




Andreas


FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.

--
Mike Schumann

I've been following this thread with complete astonishment that anyone
could consider the conduct of the Ventus pilot praiseworthy in any
respect. There was simply no way for this pilot to assess the
airworthiness of the glider after the collision. Just because the
visible portion of the nose appeared to be intact does not mean the
glider was undamaged elsewhere, or even that the nose was airworthy.
Taking this risk in the name of a competition that is ultimately
meaningless is not only unbelievable, it's a detriment to soaring,
which is already in jeopardy in many areas. Someone with such poor
judgement has no place in our sport. "Careless and reckless" are the
words the FAA will use to remove this pilot from the community. I'd
go with "stupid." There is simply no excuse for what this individual
did.

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message ...
On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:

.... Snip ...


FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to
happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA
would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that
could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off
their but.

We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top
level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at
AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have.

--
Mike Schumann

Just courious, what do you consider "Low Cost." Us guys with old inexpensive sailplanes would like to know.

Wayne