Any details on the Uvalde mid-air / bailout?

On Aug 13, 7:31*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
*We don't have many contest mid-airs. *The last one I heard of was
also

at Uvalde, also in a thermal, but that resulted in much less damage
and both pilots got home ok.

I would tend to agree that we don't have too many mid-air collisions
in competition, one about every 4 years in my experience; Minden (2),
Ephratea (2), Tulare, Cal City, Uvalde (2). Lots of ships and good
soaring conditions are some factors that make mid-airs more likely to
occur. When entering a thermal, I slow up outside the circle then
merge in the side. Pulling up in the thermal has been the culprit in
about half the above mishaps and sadly, 3 pilots are no longer with
us!
JJ

I think the new changes in the rules covering the start gate have help
spread out the field. It did not help in this situation since it
occured on course. Flying at Montague I know I came close to two
gliders during the start. It is especially critical as everyone is at
the top of the start gate. On course you can think you are all alone
but often I am surprised when I see another glider. Looking outside
is something I need to keep working on!

All,

This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
are.

I was at Uvalde a few years ago when a towplane experienced a problem
that caused the pilot of the fully-loaded glider to release before
reaching the end of the runway just to be safe. No big deal but the
write up here or on the SSA contest report site included a line or two
that might have made it sound more dramatic than it really was (I
watched it happen and spoke to both pilots afterward so I have some
facts). Imagine my surprise when, the next morning while I was staging
my ASW 24 on the grid, two gentlemen from the FAA's San Antonio FSDO
showed up asked questions. One fellow was very polite, extremely
knowledgeable, and--not incidentally--an experienced glider pilot who
owed a high-performance ship. The other one was, well, more in the
mold of the stereotypes we love to hang on government employees. But
both had a job to do and that was to investigate a report (ours) that
something had been done not in compliance with all the applicable
regulations. I chatted amicably with them for at least 15 minutes and
then they wandered off to find one of the organizers (who I
immediately telephoned so he would be able to allocate adequate time
to be interviewed by these gentlemen). All turned out fine, as we
expected it would.

But the lesson is that anything you say on this forum will likely be
read by other glider pilots, non pilots, and the FAA. So statements
like "we have lots of mid-airs" and "I came close to other gliders"
and so forth are incendiary. I don't believe the former is true. I've
been at contests where a mid-air occurred and am aware of a few
others, but I suspect the statistics comparing those incidents to the
number of contest flights or hours or whatever look very good. As for
the latter, I agree it's great to learn from each others' mistakes--
and I've written up some of my own--but this isn't the place for
confession without context and details.

Just my [typically long-winded] opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Aug 12, 5:51*pm, "Fred Blair"
wrote:
For the day, RG1 shows 'no flight log',

I had assumed the accident happened on day 3 since the official
results for that day show that both pilots withdrew from the contest.
Obviously that can't be correct if both pilots flew and collided the
next day.

Thanks for the clarification.

Andy

Absolutely.... I agree.
I remember the gentleman who bared his soul after
surviving a low altitude mid-air in Washington State.
I also understand that his comments and others in the usenet were
admitted in a court proceeeding. Sometimes less said is better, especially
if
you are "presenting facts not in evidence"....

--
Have a great day

Scott
wrote in message
...
All,

This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
are.
Just my [typically long-winded] opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Disagree... vehemently.

What other forum could we possibly use?

The example you give is a poor one. Though the Uvlade glider pilot you
reference was gracious after the fact, it was a very serious situation, and
repeated more than once on that particular day. (Others were much more vocal
about the level of risk they were subjected too.) The offending tow pilot,
it turns out, was wholly unqualified for the job at hand, flying an
underpowered tow plane, and towed several ships at critically low airspeeds.
He wasn't even aware that gliders could carry water ballast.

Even with a competent PIC on board, I dreaded every tow I took behind it.

I'm glad the FSDO responded. It put the appropriate level of apprehension
back into contest management, on whom we depend to make sure that we're
being supported by competent contest personnel, just as they depend on our
competence.




wrote in message
...
All,

This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
are.

I was at Uvalde a few years ago when a towplane experienced a problem
that caused the pilot of the fully-loaded glider to release before
reaching the end of the runway just to be safe. No big deal but the
write up here or on the SSA contest report site included a line or two
that might have made it sound more dramatic than it really was (I
watched it happen and spoke to both pilots afterward so I have some
facts). Imagine my surprise when, the next morning while I was staging
my ASW 24 on the grid, two gentlemen from the FAA's San Antonio FSDO
showed up asked questions. One fellow was very polite, extremely
knowledgeable, and--not incidentally--an experienced glider pilot who
owed a high-performance ship. The other one was, well, more in the
mold of the stereotypes we love to hang on government employees. But
both had a job to do and that was to investigate a report (ours) that
something had been done not in compliance with all the applicable
regulations. I chatted amicably with them for at least 15 minutes and
then they wandered off to find one of the organizers (who I
immediately telephoned so he would be able to allocate adequate time
to be interviewed by these gentlemen). All turned out fine, as we
expected it would.

But the lesson is that anything you say on this forum will likely be
read by other glider pilots, non pilots, and the FAA. So statements
like "we have lots of mid-airs" and "I came close to other gliders"
and so forth are incendiary. I don't believe the former is true. I've
been at contests where a mid-air occurred and am aware of a few
others, but I suspect the statistics comparing those incidents to the
number of contest flights or hours or whatever look very good. As for
the latter, I agree it's great to learn from each others' mistakes--
and I've written up some of my own--but this isn't the place for
confession without context and details.

Just my [typically long-winded] opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Aug 15, 6:54*am, "user" wrote:
The offending tow pilot,
it turns out, was wholly unqualified for the job at hand, flying an
underpowered tow plane, and towed several ships at critically low airspeeds.
He wasn't even aware that gliders could carry water ballast.


What YEAR at Uvalde are you referring to when this incident happened?

No Chip is absolutely correct. Speculation and discussion of this nature
can only do harm although the posting of one of the pilot's first hand
account is useful and does give a heads up to the rest of us. The
speculation concerning the damage to the other glider was inaccurate.
There is great danger in posting information to be read by people who do
not understand what soaring is all about.

I note you are anonymous User, might you be a journalist looking for
sensational story? From your posting it would appear not but it would not
be the first time that an open forum had been used to collect information
later used for a piece of sensational and inaccurate reporting to the
detriment of the sport.

At 11:54 15 August 2008, user wrote:
Disagree... vehemently.

What other forum could we possibly use?

The example you give is a poor one. Though the Uvlade glider pilot you
reference was gracious after the fact, it was a very serious situation,
and
repeated more than once on that particular day. (Others were much more
vocal
about the level of risk they were subjected too.) The offending tow
pilot,

it turns out, was wholly unqualified for the job at hand, flying an
underpowered tow plane, and towed several ships at critically low
airspeeds.
He wasn't even aware that gliders could carry water ballast.

Even with a competent PIC on board, I dreaded every tow I took behind
it.

I'm glad the FSDO responded. It put the appropriate level of
apprehension
back into contest management, on whom we depend to make sure that we're

being supported by competent contest personnel, just as they depend on
our

competence.




wrote in message
...
All,

This is not a private channel. If you love soaring in the US and want
to be allowed to continue it the way we do now, which is conducted
overwhelmingly in accordance with the FARs and safe flying practices
and is statistically quite safe, then be careful about saying things
that are not fact based or have the effect of making us seem more like
daredevils and less like the safety-conscious pilots most of us really
are.

I was at Uvalde a few years ago when a towplane experienced a problem
that caused the pilot of the fully-loaded glider to release before
reaching the end of the runway just to be safe. No big deal but the
write up here or on the SSA contest report site included a line or two
that might have made it sound more dramatic than it really was (I
watched it happen and spoke to both pilots afterward so I have some
facts). Imagine my surprise when, the next morning while I was staging
my ASW 24 on the grid, two gentlemen from the FAA's San Antonio FSDO
showed up asked questions. One fellow was very polite, extremely
knowledgeable, and--not incidentally--an experienced glider pilot who
owed a high-performance ship. The other one was, well, more in the
mold of the stereotypes we love to hang on government employees. But
both had a job to do and that was to investigate a report (ours) that
something had been done not in compliance with all the applicable
regulations. I chatted amicably with them for at least 15 minutes and
then they wandered off to find one of the organizers (who I
immediately telephoned so he would be able to allocate adequate time
to be interviewed by these gentlemen). All turned out fine, as we
expected it would.

But the lesson is that anything you say on this forum will likely be
read by other glider pilots, non pilots, and the FAA. So statements
like "we have lots of mid-airs" and "I came close to other
gliders"
and so forth are incendiary. I don't believe the former is true.
I've
been at contests where a mid-air occurred and am aware of a few
others, but I suspect the statistics comparing those incidents to the
number of contest flights or hours or whatever look very good. As for
the latter, I agree it's great to learn from each others' mistakes--
and I've written up some of my own--but this isn't the place for
confession without context and details.

Just my [typically long-winded] opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

I suspect we're talking about two different situations. The Uvalde
example I used involved a mechanical issue. The tow pilot was highly
experienced and qualified and also a very respected competition pilot
who has flown some of the most sophisticated sailplanes in the
world...with and without water ballast. And it was a one-time
incident, not something that recurred all day.

I agree there is a danger that the FAA and others, including
journalists, could get the wrong impression from reading RAS. Most of
us are knowledgeable and know not to believe everything we read on
this forum. Many of us also know some of the posters personally and
can read between the lines, so to speak. And we probably all have our
lists of "must read" and "ignore" authors. Not all of the above is
necessarily true for the FAA, journalists, and other "outsiders" who
may draw the wrong impression from speculative or downright
misinformed comments, or from opinions packaged as facts.

Just be careful what you say. This is an open frequency, not a members-
only club (to mix metaphors).

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

IMHO it isnt a really good idea to delve into accidents online. There was a
midair
in Washington State, where a survivor went thru a very detailed and well
thought out
posting of what went right, what went wrong and why. It ended up in court
when the widow
of the other guy decided to litigate the incident even thought the ntsb
ruled that the non-surviving
aviator was at fault.. Food for thought..........

Scott.

Just be careful what you say. This is an open frequency, not a members-
only club (to mix metaphors).

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

The accident report is shown at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...14X01240&key=1