Sigh... (USA)

Not a good past 2 weeks per FAA prelims...midair (no reported injuries, thank
heaven!) apparently yesterday, & a takeoff groundloop a week ago Monday.

Three "substantially damaged" gliders.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 101LV Make/Model: CEN Description: CENTRAIR 101
Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

- - - - - -
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 943SB Make/Model: DISC Description: DISCUS BT/BM
Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
- - - - - -
- - - - - -

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 817V Make/Model: EXP Description: SZD-55-1 GLIDER
Date: 05/28/2012 Time: 1800

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: FARMINGTON State: NC Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON DEPARTURE GROUND LOOPED, FARMINGTON, NC

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
- - - - - -

On Friday, June 8, 2012 9:56:30 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
Not a good past 2 weeks per FAA prelims...midair (no reported injuries, thank
heaven!) apparently yesterday, & a takeoff groundloop a week ago Monday.

Three "substantially damaged" gliders.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 101LV Make/Model: CEN Description: CENTRAIR 101
Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing:
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

- - - - - -
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 943SB Make/Model: DISC Description: DISCUS BT/BM
Date: 06/07/2012 Time: 2145

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: Y Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: SPARKS State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N943SB COLLIDED MID AIR WITH N101LV UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. SPARKS, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
- - - - - -
- - - - - -

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 817V Make/Model: EXP Description: SZD-55-1 GLIDER
Date: 05/28/2012 Time: 1800

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: FARMINGTON State: NC Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT ON DEPARTURE GROUND LOOPED, FARMINGTON, NC

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
- - - - - -

Both pilots landed safely back at Airsailing after loosing a section of their wing and most of the aileron, according to preliminary reports and photos I've seen. Incredible luck. This was not a contest, just a small gathering. Apparently it did not happen in a gaggle or while thermaling and they never saw each other. So much for those who claim that powerflarms are only needed in contests...

Ramy

On Friday, June 8, 2012 1:47:31 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
So much for those who claim that powerflarms are only needed in contests....

Ramy

To paraphrase Douglas Adams (author of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"):

"I find that any technology invented before I turned 25 to be absolutely indispensable. I will grudgingly make use of any proven-to-be-useful technology that is invented before I turn 50. As for any technology invented after I turned 50, I'm pretty sure that it comes straight from the devil... and he can keep it."

As an over-50 former tech geek, Adam's observation seems spot on to me. My university hooked me on email in 1983. My cellphone came along later in life... so I mostly keep it turned off. Facebook and Twitter are plainly demented and evil.

Adam's adage breaks down for me for anything soaring related. I'm a newbie and I have a "beginner's mind". I'm naive, relatively inexperienced in soaring, and totally open to good ideas. I can only scratch my head... why would the soaring community not want to install a device that substantially reduced the chances of mid-airs? A $2000 add-on to a $50,000 glider??? (An S-mode transponder seems like a good idea as well. I mean... TCAS.)

Back to Adams. Once you turn a certain age, there's a tendency to see new technologies in a negative light. How much does that reluctance to take up new game changing technologies invented after a certain point in life affect the wider deployment of Powerflarm? I'd like to think, that once Power Flarm is out of "Beta Test", that it will catch on quickly. That five mile ridge that I fly gets awfully crowded on Sunday afternoon.

I'm very grateful to the racing community for proving the value of PowerFlarm (and ferreting out the glitches). Flarm would never happen in the USA without these pilots. Thank you.

After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three experienced pilots a month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to make Flarm mandatory on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private owners, if they are flying under the federal insurance system (this means: almost every sailplane used in French clubs).

At 13:53 09 June 2012, wrote:
After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three
experienced pilots
a=
month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to
make Flarm
mandato=
ry on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private
owners, if they
a=
re flying under the federal insurance system (this means:
almost every
sail=
plane used in French clubs).


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

SUMMARY
COLLISION BETWEEN TWO SAILPLANES IN HATTULA ON 12
JUNE 2011
An aircraft accident occurred near lake Renkajärvi in Hattula,
southern Finland, on Sunday 12
June 2011 at 15:57 Finnish local time, when two single-seat
sailplanes collided in the air. The
pilot of the other plane rescued himself with a parachute, and
the other pilot was killed. Both sailplanes were destroyed.
The sailplanes involved were participating in Finnish Gliding
Championships. The collision occurred in gliding flight in good
weather conditions between the turnpoints of Forssa and
Syrjäntaka, at a height of approximately 1400 m inside Pirkkala
Military Control Area (Airspace class D)
of which southern part was reserved for the competition. Both
pilots were experienced sailplane
pilots and competitors.
Before the collision, the planes were flying almost the same
route and occasionally very close to
each other. The collision happened when the lower flying plane
increased altitude and reduced
speed, finally hitting the bottom of the higher flying plane.
From the force of the impact, the rear fuselage and right wing of
the lower plane broke off and the
canopy was shattered. The plane went into a steep dive, and
also the left wing broke off. The
fuselage crashed into the ground at high speed. The pilot was
found outside the wreckage. He
had unfastened the seat belt but not launched the parachute.
The bottom of the higher plane was
cracked, its steering system was damaged and the canopy was
broken. The pilot rescued himself
with a parachute.
Both planes had two GPS devices, and their recordings were
used in the accident investigation.
The planes were also equipped with a FLARM system for collision
avoidance. According to the
rescued pilot, the FLARM did not alert before the collision, which
may have been due to the limited capabilities of the system as
described in its instructions manual.
The accident was caused by pilots’ insufficient situational
awareness leading to the situation,
where the planes got above each other and their flight paths
intersected in the vertical direction.
At the same time the pilots could not see each other.
Contributing factor was the fact that the
collision warning system did not alert.
The accident was caused as the planes got above each other in
a position where the pilots could
not see each other, and their flight paths intersected in the
vertical direction. Contributing factors
included the pilots’ insufficient situational awareness and the fact
that the collision warning system did not alert.
Safety Investigation Authority, Finland issued a safety
recommendation to the Finnish Aeronautical Association, urging
them to hold a safety information session before every gliding
contest. In
addition, it was proposed that safety issues be addressed in the
briefing session for each day of
competition.

At 13:53 09 June 2012, wrote:
After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three
experienced pilots
a=
month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to
make Flarm
mandato=
ry on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private
owners, if they
a=
re flying under the federal insurance system (this means:
almost every
sail=
plane used in French clubs).


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

SUMMARY
COLLISION BETWEEN TWO SAILPLANES IN HATTULA ON 12
JUNE 2011
An aircraft accident occurred near lake Renkajärvi in Hattula,
southern Finland, on Sunday 12
June 2011 at 15:57 Finnish local time, when two single-seat
sailplanes collided in the air. The
pilot of the other plane rescued himself with a parachute, and
the other pilot was killed. Both sailplanes were destroyed.
The sailplanes involved were participating in Finnish Gliding
Championships. The collision occurred in gliding flight in good
weather conditions between the turnpoints of Forssa and
Syrjäntaka, at a height of approximately 1400 m inside Pirkkala
Military Control Area (Airspace class D)
of which southern part was reserved for the competition. Both
pilots were experienced sailplane
pilots and competitors.
Before the collision, the planes were flying almost the same
route and occasionally very close to
each other. The collision happened when the lower flying plane
increased altitude and reduced
speed, finally hitting the bottom of the higher flying plane.
From the force of the impact, the rear fuselage and right wing of
the lower plane broke off and the
canopy was shattered. The plane went into a steep dive, and
also the left wing broke off. The
fuselage crashed into the ground at high speed. The pilot was
found outside the wreckage. He
had unfastened the seat belt but not launched the parachute.
The bottom of the higher plane was
cracked, its steering system was damaged and the canopy was
broken. The pilot rescued himself
with a parachute.
Both planes had two GPS devices, and their recordings were
used in the accident investigation.
The planes were also equipped with a FLARM system for collision
avoidance. According to the
rescued pilot, the FLARM did not alert before the collision, which
may have been due to the limited capabilities of the system as
described in its instructions manual.
The accident was caused by pilots’ insufficient situational
awareness leading to the situation,
where the planes got above each other and their flight paths
intersected in the vertical direction.
At the same time the pilots could not see each other.
Contributing factor was the fact that the
collision warning system did not alert.
The accident was caused as the planes got above each other in
a position where the pilots could
not see each other, and their flight paths intersected in the
vertical direction. Contributing factors
included the pilots’ insufficient situational awareness and the fact
that the collision warning system did not alert.
Safety Investigation Authority, Finland issued a safety
recommendation to the Finnish Aeronautical Association, urging
them to hold a safety information session before every gliding
contest. In
addition, it was proposed that safety issues be addressed in the
briefing session for each day of
competition.

On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are an imperfect
rescue system. Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to prevent the
above referenced accident. But also notice that one pilot was saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad investment?
Obviously the answer is no. Parachutes clearly save lives, even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn

On Jun 9, 11:17*am, Vaughn wrote:
On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:



FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.

http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are an imperfect
rescue system. *Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to prevent the
above referenced accident. *But also notice that one pilot was saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad investment?
Obviously the answer is no. *Parachutes clearly save lives, even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn

Could good "old" PCAS help in this situation assuming both gliders
have transponders and are being interrogated.
And for that matter the one at AirSailing (hopefully we will find out
if they had this equipment). It too is far from perfect but the alert
it gives never fails to get my attention and elevates scan to the top
priority of my pilot load(or equal with flying the plane).

At 18:17 09 June 2012, Vaughn wrote:
On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are
some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should
have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are
an imperfect
rescue system. Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to
prevent the
above referenced accident. But also notice that one pilot was
saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad
investment?
Obviously the answer is no. Parachutes clearly save lives,
even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad
investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn


Very good point. What will chute manufacturer do if a chute fails
to open?

On 6/9/2012 11:50 AM, db_sonic wrote:


Vaughn

Could good "old" PCAS help in this situation assuming both gliders
have transponders and are being interrogated.
And for that matter the one at AirSailing (hopefully we will find out
if they had this equipment). It too is far from perfect but the alert
it gives never fails to get my attention and elevates scan to the top
priority of my pilot load(or equal with flying the plane).

This situation may be the worst possible: the high glider is behind the
low glider, and neither can see the other. Possibly, the upper glider's
fuselage blocks the Flarm signals in both directions. PCAS might provide
a notification that the other glider was present (if at least one glider
had a transponder and the other the PCAS), as the glider positioning
would not interfere with transponder signals.

Still, a PCAS system would not warn you that a collision was imminent,
as it can not detect what appeared to happen: a quick pull up, perhaps
triggered by hitting some lift. How often do we do that, without
checking behind and above first? I do it a lot as I travel along under a
cloud street, and I know others also do it.

Maybe we need a mirror positioned to easily see that blind spot.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)