Sigh... (USA)

On 6/10/2012 12:47 PM, Ramy wrote:
On Friday, June 8, 2012 10:47:31 AM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
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

Below are the pilot reports with their permission:

From Walter:

"snip After reaching 10,700 feet over Tuly Peak I headed upwind to work
the Dog Skins ridge, I was loosing some altitude and went back to the Red
Rocks where several other gliders were also searching for lift. There was
some turbulence but no good thermals to circle which caused most gliders to
manouver around in search of lift. I was keeping track of the gliders in
the area but suddenly at about 6,800 feet I felt a jolt and a loud noise as
another glider I hadn't seen colided with me. The Cirrus immediately turned
the nose down and at first it seemed I had lost control of the glider.
During impact I hit and slighly cut my left leg against the instrument
panel and my Oudie went flying. I could see a damage on the left wing but
being around 2,000 feet over the ground and heading down with what seemed
limited control I didn't think there was much time to try seeing if I could
regain control. I decided to bail and was surprised I couldn't get the
canopy to open (may have turned out to be my saving grace). I then focused
on controlling the glider the best I could and head to a landing area.
After getting the glider to level flight, I headed back towards the airport
for a straight in landing on runway 21R since the main runway had a glider
getting ready to take off. I made a call on the radio that I had an
emergency and lowered and locked the landing gear. The landing was normal
without incidents but there wasn't much height left. I had to wait for
someone to come help me since I couldn't open the canopy from the inside as
the back hinge had released but not the front part and it was stuck.

After talking to the other pilot Bill Johns (who used to be a fighter
pilot) from BASA flying a Pegasus and hearing his account of the event, we
hit pretty much head on, with him flying right over my canopy and his right
wing hitting my left wing (I was in a gentle right bank and he was either
flying straight or on a gentle right bank). He saw me about 1 second before
impact and thought he was going to take my tail off, but fortunately he
missed that. My wing was somewhat damaged but other than loosing 80% of my
left aileron and having parts of the fiber glass torn (see first 2
pictures), it was still flyable. After landing we noticed that the root of
the Cirrus wing had signs of stress and damage as well. The Pegaus lost
about 3-4 feet of his right wing tip and half of his right aileron (see
3rd picture). He didn't loose control of his glider and headed back to the
airport, landing after me on the dirt next to runway 21L.

If we had been flying thermals in a gaggle or if we were all flying ridge
it would have been simpler since we would be following a protocol. The
instructor Mark said the thing he might have done differently was to leave
the area since there were too many gliders flying in different patterns
(some trying to find thermals, and some trying to fly the ridge). I
understand that trying to see each other would have required a careful and
lucky scanning of the horizon, but even so, I am not sure how easily we
would have been able to see each other. A FLARM device sounds really good
to me right now, as any indication of a likely collision, even if 3 or so
seconds before impact would have prevented the accident."

From Bill:

"snip All ASI gliders were to be on 122.9, ASI frequency, so there was a
lot of chatter to do with airfield activities as well as airborne gliders.
I made an initial call that I was climbing over the Red Rocks, then
monitored and did not hear reports by other gliders in my area. As it
turned out, I wish I had been more proactive in providing and asking for
other position reports.

At 2:46PM, as I headed westerly, wings level, at about 7000', another
glider suddenly appeared from under my nose on the right side, very close
aboard, and complete opposite direction, too close for me to react prior to
impact. The impact was charactarized by a loud "bang" and perception of
parts flying in my right peripheral vision. The Pegasus was unphased by
this, though she lost about 2 feet of right wingtip and the outboard half
of the aileron. I experienced no loss of control, and made a shallow turn
to the right to look back for the other glider. Ailerons and parts were
fluttering in the distance and the Cirrus was well below, but continuing in
stable flight to the east. I made a call to Air Sailing informing them of
the mid air, that both gliders appeared to be OK and we would be returning
for emergency landing. I continued at altitude, following the Cirrus as
he made a low, wide circling turn and lined up for 21R. Once he was down,
I proceeded over the field at 6500', lowered the gear, checked spoilers and
verified again that I had good control at pattern airspeed. I landed 21L
uneventfully.

I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
giders were working in the same area. The conditions unknowingly put us
each at the same altitude searching for lift, and nothing is harder to see
than another glider head on. The other pilot reported he never saw me
before, during or after the incident. Also, I learned after landing that
he had lost control and attempted a bailout, had trouble opening his canopy
release, so went to plan B and was able to recover the aircraft. We were
no more than 1500' above the steep terrain at impact.

Both of us flew the next day and I had my best flight of the camp in the
ASK-21 that Friday with Rob Stone. His comment...Bill's head was moving
all the time...he sure was looking around!"


My conclusions after reviewing Walter's igc trace:

1 - Although the mid air happened at 2500 feet above the airport, they were
only slightly more that 1000 feet above the hills below, probably too low
to bailout successfully. the failure of the canopy release may have been
indeed his saving grace. 2 - After the impact he dropped quickly and lost
2000 feet in one minute. Luckily the ground was dropping at the direction
he was flying! He was only around 500 feet AGL after the first minute. 3 -
The dive did not really slowed down much until the landing flare. 4 - The
turn and the dive took him straight to the runway. He did not have time or
altitude to land anywhere else. He was on the ground 2 min after impact.

None of them had flarm or pcas. Other then the obvious conclusion that
flarm could have saved the day, another lesson is to check your canopy
emergency release mechanism to make sure it works. Better scanning would
have helped only if they knew exactly where to look at the right moment.
Better radio communication as we often do in some places may have also
helped preventing this accident.

I consider the results a miracle.

Ramy



Walter, Bill, Ramy:

Thank you!!! Information is good. Timely is even better.
- - - - - -

Bill, Walter:

Wow... (and thank heaven you're both still with us!).
- - - - - -

Ramy:

Well before reading your commentary below Bill's & Walter's writeups, I'd come
to the exact same conclusion. This could easily have involved one or two
fatalities.
- - - - - -

Bob W.

Ramy wrote:

I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
giders were working in the same area.

I can only support this. Looking out is the first thing to do. But FLARM
really can help to save your day (maybe your life). I had a near miss
yesterday. FLARM did indicate traffic right of my course. Still not seeing
the other glider, I did a left turn. In the same moment the other glider
passed me in a distance of maybe two wingspans.

These little boxes really work. Everyone who can afford a glider of some
1000 $ or ? can also afford another some 100.
Chris

On Sunday, June 10, 2012 1:43:00 PM UTC-7, Chris wrote:
Ramy wrote:

I think short of something like FLARM, the only thing which could have
prevented this would have been better situational awareness of which other
giders were working in the same area.

I can only support this. Looking out is the first thing to do. But FLARM
really can help to save your day (maybe your life). I had a near miss
yesterday. FLARM did indicate traffic right of my course. Still not seeing
the other glider, I did a left turn. In the same moment the other glider
passed me in a distance of maybe two wingspans.

These little boxes really work. Everyone who can afford a glider of some
1000 $ or ? can also afford another some 100.
Chris

Few weeks ago I had the opportunity to see how head on target looks like. I could see the other glider couple of miles away since he was banking, but once he leveled off and headed directly towards me, the wings completely disappeared and all I could see was a little dot for his cockpit. The dot was not moving and only slowly growing (at the beginning). There was no way I would have noticed this dot while scanning if he did not bank before. I did not remove my focus from the dot so not to loose sight, and asked him on the radio if he sees me at 12 o'clock. He didn't until I banked away 10-15 sec before we crossed each other. If I didnt see him we would have cleared each other by few feet since he was slightly lower. This convinced me how difficult it is to see another aircraft, especially white slick glider, which is in collision course. Sure we always easily see other aircrafts, but they are not in collision course and as such are moving targets which our eye can detect much easier, or they are banking which makes it easier to see.

I have now personally known or met 5 pilots who were involved in mid airs in the last 3 years or so. So much for the claim that it is a rare event. We are all attracted to the same small energy lines and as such the sky is not as big for us as it is for other aircrafts. This mid air happened in a small gathering with less than 6 gliders in the air, not a big contest.

Ramy

Ramy

"...my Oudie went flying"

Thankfully, both pilots were unhurt. The one thing not mentioned so
far - the attachment of miscellaneous electronic equipment might also
be a lesson learned. Is it possible to post what mount solution was
being used (velco, suction, hard-point) so we can re-assess what we
are using with ours?

Thanks for the prompt and frank first-hand narratives - evidence of a
good safety culture!

Dan

I had a nasty land-out in 2007 on the Caprock west of Hobbs; I was very lucky not to have been hurt (other than my ego, of course), but my iPAQ went flying during the violent roll-out! The iPAQ wasn't 'locked' to its cradle in any way; now everything in my cockpit is 'locked-down!'

Foxtrot2



On Monday, June 11, 2012 12:53:09 PM UTC+2, Dan wrote:
Is it possible to post what mount solution was
being used (velco, suction, hard-point) so we can re-assess what we
are using with ours?

Dan

At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas wrote:
I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
in the
cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
would be
no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
possible. We
don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
expensive. It
is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
in its most
basic available form.

Chris N.

That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
showed
that there were some blind spot (ranges 2km). I installed an
antenna
splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
the
gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
canopy.
"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
nautical
miles for the colonials).
Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.


Bert,

This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
analysis.

I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
Possibly we could add necessary components into
www.soartronic.com as DIY kits, so that everyone can have one
on minimum cost.

On Jun 11, 9:13*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:









On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas *wrote:
I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
in the
cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
would be
no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
possible. We
don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
expensive. It
is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
in its most
basic available form.

Chris N.

That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
showed
that there were some blind spot (ranges 2km). I installed an
antenna
splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
the
gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
canopy.
"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
nautical
miles for the colonials).
Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.

Bert,

This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
analysis.

I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
Possibly we could add necessary components intowww.soartronic.comas DIY kits, so that everyone can have one
on minimum cost.

Kimmo,

I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discovered www.dolba.de
where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the canopy. I
talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks English
as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He obviously
sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it. The
splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the two
antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I did
measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the antenna,
the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
socket).
Improvement was great - I had tried various positions/antennas in the
previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a relatively
solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with metal
boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna blocking
any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind spots.
With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around me.

On Jun 12, 3:55*am, Bert TW wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:13*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:









At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:

On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas *wrote:
I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
in the
cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
would be
no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
possible. We
don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
expensive. It
is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
in its most
basic available form.

Chris N.

That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
showed
that there were some blind spot (ranges 2km). I installed an
antenna
splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
the
gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
canopy.
"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
nautical
miles for the colonials).
Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.

Bert,

This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
analysis.

I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
Possibly we could add necessary components intowww.soartronic.comasDIY kits, so that everyone can have one
on minimum cost.

Kimmo,

I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discoveredwww.dolba.de
where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the canopy. I
talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks English
as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He obviously
sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it. The
splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the two
antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I did
measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the antenna,
the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
socket).
Improvement was great - I had tried various positions/antennas in the
previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a relatively
solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with metal
boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna blocking
any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind spots.
With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around me.

I see those antennae are optimized for 868 Mhz, not 915 for north
america; there will be some loss as a result. Nice to see the market
come up with solutions like this, though.

At 07:55 12 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:
On Jun 11, 9:13=A0pm, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:
At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:









On Jun 10, 1:16=3DA0am, Chris Nicholas =A0wrote:
I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one
high
in the
cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below,
there
would be
no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
possible. We
don=3D92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or
too
expensive. It
is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm
even
in its most
basic available form.

Chris N.

That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm
range
analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius
cM)
showed
that there were some blind spot (ranges antenna
splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage
near
the
gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside
the
canopy.
"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than
2
nautical
miles for the colonials).
Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.

Bert,

This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one
in
their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no
idea
how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the
position of
antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
analysis.

I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can
you
Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna
splitters
and antennas used, so that we can make similar
installations.
Possibly we could add necessary components
intowww.soartronic.comas DIY
k=
its, so that everyone can have one
on minimum cost.

Kimmo,

I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discovered
www.dolba.de
where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the
canopy. I
talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks
English
as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He
obviously
sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it.
The
splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the
two
antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I
did
measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the
antenna,
the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
socket).
Improvement was great - I had tried various
positions/antennas in the
previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a
relatively
solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with
metal
boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna
blocking
any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind
spots.
With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around
me.


I got reply from a specialist today. Unfortunately he explained in
detail how a system of two antennas cause loss of the signal where the
waves block each others (interference). The
PowerFLARM solution with two receivers seems to be the only
working solution for two (or more) antennas.

On Jun 12, 5:14*am, Dan wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:55*am, Bert TW wrote:









On Jun 11, 9:13*pm, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:

At 13:44 10 June 2012, Bert TW wrote:

On Jun 10, 1:16=A0am, Chris Nicholas *wrote:
I think that if Flarm were installed with 2 antennae, one high
in the
cockpit or on top of the fuselage, and the other below, there
would be
no Flarm blind spot and it would be as near perfect as
possible. We
don=92t do that because it is too much trouble and/or too
expensive. It
is hard enough to persuade many pilots to have Flarm even
in its most
basic available form.

Chris N.

That's what I decided on last winter., because the Flarm range
analysis on my carbon fuselage Flarm installation (Ventius cM)
showed
that there were some blind spot (ranges 2km). I installed an
antenna
splitter, the original Flarm antenna outside the fuselage near
the
gear doors, and a stripe antenna behind my head inside the
canopy.
"Blind spot" now means a range of 4 km ( a bit more than 2
nautical
miles for the colonials).
Investment was $200. My ass is worth more than that.

Bert,

This kind of information is exactly what I would like to hear.
FLARM is an excellent idea, and I hope everyone installs one in
their ship. Also I hope that everyone make sure that his/her
FLARM system operates well. My problem is, that I have no idea
how to improve FLARM operation. I have changed the position of
antennas, and got mixed results, according to the range
analysis.

I believe that system of two antennas would be good. Can you
Bert please share with us your knowledge of antenna splitters
and antennas used, so that we can make similar installations.
Possibly we could add necessary components intowww.soartronic.comasDIYkits, so that everyone can have one
on minimum cost.

Kimmo,

I am not a specialist at all. By chance I discoveredwww.dolba.de
where you can see the antenna mounted as strips into the canopy. I
talked to the guy (Bernd Dolba, I'm pretty sure that he speaks English
as well), and he talked me into installing two antennas. He obviously
sold be the stuff he makes for that :-) but I'm happy with it. The
splitter is a small passive box which receives the input of the two
antenna, and feeds them into the antenna input of the Flarm. I did
measure the required cable lengths first, and he send me the antenna,
the splitter and the three cables (the lower antenna outside the
fuselage is the original Flarm antenna, he just provided me the
socket).
Improvement was great - I had tried various positions/antennas in the
previous year, but the combination of a carbon fuselage, a relatively
solid instrument panel (it's GRP, but behind its crammed with metal
boxes...) and my requirement that I don't want any antenna blocking
any of my view is more or less hopeless for not having blind spots.
With the present configuration, I cover the whole space around me.

I see those antennae are optimized for 868 Mhz, not 915 for north
america; there will be some loss as a result. Nice to see the market
come up with solutions like this, though.

FWIW, there are a lot of aftermarket antennas available for 915 MHz.
Google "915MHz antenna". EDN has some interesting PCB antenna designs
which could be modified for thin-film stick-on antennas.