Parowan midair?

On 6/16/2010 10:20 PM, 5Z wrote:
On Jun 16, 12:34 pm, wrote:
There's several words to describe that - "competitor" and "big brass

Actually, I'd call it pretty irresponsible. That glider could, at any
moment have a system failure due to weakened structure. The only
smart response is to land IMMEDIATELY, and definitely avoid overflying
any people on the ground.

Just checked the rules, and there's nothing in there regarding a
pilot's responsibility after a collision.

But several years ago, at a national contest, there was some heated
debate at the mandatory meeting about what a pilot should do in such a
case. If I recall correctly, an immediate landing for inspection was
mandated, with one or two vocal "I'm here to WIN!!!" dissents.

Nothing bad happened this time. But what if someone had been hurt or
killed due to a system failure while the pilot continued to soar?
What would be reported in the media? What would the NTSB response be?

-Tom
Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
the FARs:

49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or
any public aircraft not operated by the
Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
of the United States, or any foreign
aircraft shall immediately, and by the
most expeditious means available, notify
the nearest National Transportation
Safety Board (Board) field office when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the
following listed incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction
or failure;
(2) Inability of any required flight
crewmember to perform normal flight
duties as a result of injury or illness;
(3) Failure of structural components
of a turbine engine excluding compressor
and turbine blades and vanes;
(4) In-flight fire; or
(5) Aircraft collide in flight.
(6) Damage to property, other than
the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000
for repair (including materials and
labor) or fair market value in the event
of total loss, whichever is less.
(7) For large multiengine aircraft
(more than 12,500 pounds maximum
certificated takeoff weight):
(i) In-flight failure of electrical systems
which requires the sustained use
of an emergency bus powered by a
back-up source such as a battery, auxiliary
power unit, or air-driven generator
to retain flight control or essential
instruments;
(ii) In-flight failure of hydraulic systems
that results in sustained reliance
on the sole remaining hydraulic or mechanical
system for movement of flight
control surfaces;
(iii) Sustained loss of the power or
thrust produced by two or more engines;
and
(iv) An evacuation of an aircraft in
which an emergency egress system is
utilized.
(b) An aircraft is overdue and is believed
to have been involved in an accident.

It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if
you 1st finish flying the contest.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 16, 11:38*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39*pm, Ramy wrote: I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled
his way back with 5 feet of wing missing...

Ramy

[snip]

A scary scenario but I'd want to be feeling *really* comfortable about
how the ship is handling before extending the prop/running the engine.
If something is wrong you may make it worse, and if it gets worse you
may seriously impair your ability to bail out. You need to retract the
engine again, which normally involves closing the throttle and turning
off the ignition and flying slow enough to be able to use the prop-
stop then retract back the mast. If the 26E got uncontrollable under
power you would need time to do something like close the throttle,
turn of the ignition and retract the mast far enough for the prop to
strike the fuselage so the running or windmilling prop does not chew
you up on exit... and you hope anything still hanging out there does
not get in the way of your egress. Enough armchair quarterbacking from
me, the pilot involved is very experienced on type so it will be
interesting to see what he did to pull this off. Fantastic that he
made it back safe.

The notion of a glider being allowed to attempt to complete a task
after a mid-air does not sit well with me. It is just the wrong
inducement for pilots involved. And given all the other SSA rules
focus on things like start safety etc, this just seems out of place. I
hope the rules committee look at this.

Darryl

The preliminary report is on the FAA web site today. Unless the FAA
and NTSB were on site yesterday, I suspect until released by the FAA
and pilot interviews completed, neither glider (and maybe pilot) is
available for flight or repair.

YMMV,

Frank Whiteley

At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.

I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives
"irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate
with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles
with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't
any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true,
why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing?

-John

I totally agree that this rule is very sensible and should apply.

Besides, after two aircraft colide with enough force to tear a wing
tip off you
can bet your life that the FAA will ground both gliders until detailed
examination
is perfromed to prove that either is considered airworthy.

So.....your going to miss the rest of the contest in any case, so why
further risk your life
and more importantly those of others with a potentially damaged glider
that could loose control
at the worst possible time, like when your at the top of a gaggle in a
thermal.

I understand that the pilot in the Ventus probably felt his glider
suffered no signifigant damage, but would you not
want to take responsibility and at the very least escort the damaged
plane home so that you could radio for help if his
glider went down somewhere.

Even if a radio communication between the two pilots revealed that the
clipped wing glider thought he was OK to make it home, I think
escorting him to a safe landing would have been the most admiral thing
the other pilot could do and would gain him much more respect
and notatiaty than winning a contest day that nobody in the rest of
the world gives a crap about.

Sorry for sounding so harsh but winning a contest day is not even
close to winning the respect of your peers.

I guess under this kind of stress it is difficult to make the best
decissions.

Its always easier to see it clearly sitting on the ground typing at a
keyboard, but following your gut in this case might have been better
than striving to win.

Soap box dismounted!

Ray




On Jun 17, 4:36*am, stephanevdv wrote:
This is the rule as laid out by IGC in Annex A (international
competition rules) to the Sporting Code, Gliding section:

4.1.4 A competitor involved in a collision in the air shall not
continue the flight but land as soon as practicable. Both pilots will
be scored as having landed at the position at which the collision
occurred.

Seems a sensible rule to me...

On Jun 17, 4:27*am, brian whatcott wrote:

* I don't believe that any competent authority has yet determined that
the Ventus is still (safely) flyable...

A follow-up report from my Parowan source indicates that the 2cx has
been inspected and has been determined to be airworthy. As to the
competence of the inspector I have no information. If the 2cx is
experimental I assume that the only requirements would be for the
person conducting the inspection to hold an airframe rating (the A of
A&P).

Andy

On 6/17/2010 10:40 AM, Andy wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:27 am, brian wrote:

I don't believe that any competent authority has yet determined that
the Ventus is still (safely) flyable...

A follow-up report from my Parowan source indicates that the 2cx has
been inspected and has been determined to be airworthy. As to the
competence of the inspector I have no information. If the 2cx is
experimental I assume that the only requirements would be for the
person conducting the inspection to hold an airframe rating (the A of
A&P).

Andy


I don't understand how one glider could take off the wing of another
glider without suffering some damage itself.

Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
the FARs:

49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or
any public aircraft not operated by the
Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
of the United States, or any foreign
aircraft shall immediately, and by the
most expeditious means available, notify
the nearest National Transportation
Safety Board (Board) field office when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the
following listed incidents occur:
[....]
(5) Aircraft collide in flight.
[....]
It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if
you 1st finish flying the contest.

By using your radio to ask your ground crew to phone the nearest NTSB
office? One could even argue that this IS the "most expeditious means
available."

B.

On 6/17/2010 2:22 PM, Bart wrote:
Not only was this irresponsible, but it was most likely a violation of
the FARs:

49CFR § 830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or
any public aircraft not operated by the
Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
of the United States, or any foreign
aircraft shall immediately, and by the
most expeditious means available, notify
the nearest National Transportation
Safety Board (Board) field office when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the
following listed incidents occur:
[....]
(5) Aircraft collide in flight.
[....]
It is hard to see how you could meet the requirements of this section if
you 1st finish flying the contest.

By using your radio to ask your ground crew to phone the nearest NTSB
office? One could even argue that this IS the "most expeditious means
available."

B.

B.

It will be interesting to see if that's what actually happened.

--
Mike Schumann

It's great that we have so many experienced opinions voiced on this
subject. Too bad none of them was in the cockpit at the time, much
less at the contest in question. In 45 years of glider flying, I've
very occasionally been in gaggles where there were midairs (never
involving me, fortunately). The first thing that usually happens--as
in this case, according to the contest report--is one or both pilots
announce the collision or otherwise communicate the situation. Then--
if they're still flying--each seeks input/in-air inspection from other
pilots in close proximity before making their decisions, which--as
here--may be different. In the cases I'm most familiar with, some
pilots have continued on, others have landed, wisely, as soon as
possible. I suspect the decision-making process varies depending on
the terrain, progress along the task to that point, weather, and state
of mind in addition to the condition of the aircraft. That's not to
say that one would fly on with safety in doubt, merely that every
situation is different.

I also know the pilot of the Ventus. He's highly experienced,
qualified, and motivated to win, but I would not consider him to be
incautious or of a "safety be damned" bent. I wasn't there that day so
except for this posting, I'll try to refrain from offering opinions.
Healthy facts-based debate in this forum is good. Speculation doesn't
accomplish much. Never forget that not all of the readers of this
newsgroup are knowledgeable and committed glider pilots. Let's not
make the same mistakes that we justifiably criticize the media for
making. Instead, let the facts emerge before we add fuel to a fire
that we started.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Jun 17, 12:43*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
It's great that we have so many experienced opinions voiced on this
subject. Too bad none of them was in the cockpit at the time, much
less at the contest in question. In 45 years of glider flying, I've
very occasionally been in gaggles where there were midairs (never
involving me, fortunately). The first thing that usually happens--as
in this case, according to the contest report--is one or both pilots
announce the collision or otherwise communicate the situation. Then--
if they're still flying--each seeks input/in-air inspection from other
pilots in close proximity before making their decisions, which--as
here--may be different. In the cases I'm most familiar with, some
pilots have continued on, others have landed, wisely, as soon as
possible. I suspect the decision-making process varies depending on
the terrain, progress along the task to that point, weather, and state
of mind in addition to the condition of the aircraft. That's not to
say that one would fly on with safety in doubt, merely that every
situation is different.

I also know the pilot of the Ventus. He's highly experienced,
qualified, and motivated to win, but I would not consider him to be
incautious or of a "safety be damned" bent. I wasn't there that day so
except for this posting, I'll try to refrain from offering opinions.
Healthy facts-based debate in this forum is good. Speculation doesn't
accomplish much. Never forget that not all of the readers of this
newsgroup are knowledgeable and committed glider pilots. Let's not
make the same mistakes that we justifiably criticize the media for
making. Instead, let the facts emerge before we add fuel to a fire
that we started.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Amen!