Parowan midair?

On Jun 18, 6:52*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote: *wrote in message
....

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). *Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn

This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. *This discussion serves a
very useful purpose in that regard.

What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. *This
would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.

--
Mike Schumann

This is an excellent opportunity to analyze the facts once the NTSB
gives their report and the pilots are free to talk about it.

I hope they are willing to endure a bit of debate on the subject in
order to help everyone learn how to handle a situation like this.

I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
the correct choice, since as we all know,
in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
and NOTAM'ed areas.

Even not following the regulations and sporting rules until landed, is
valid in an emergency.

We will just have to wait and hope that the pilots involved engage in
an information session with the soaring community
so we can learn.

In retrospect in almost every racing sport there is an element of
danger, where lives can be lost.

I just never was willing to acknowledge that Glider racing was one of
them, and perhaps many of us are in the same quandry, judging
by the split of opinion.

Accepting that puts the race into a whole other perspective where
indeed I could relate to the decisions of the pilot to carry on.

Winning is the reward of a life well lived despite the risks.


Ray

We have 2 morons.

One for flying 75 miles with a un-airworthy aircraft, when closer
airports were available, and the other one, for trying to finish a
task after colliding.

Both should have FAA violations waiting at home, for reckless and
unsafe operations.

And if the CD declares the Ventus a winner that day, he probably
should get a spanking as well for encouraging flying in this
condition...

Sigh... Idiots!!!!

On Jun 16, 1:48*pm, Andy wrote:
SSA contest report indicates that 2 gliders made contact on the first
day. *If the gliders are identified correctly then one continued to
win the day and the other returned to the airport missing part of one
wing and so far has no log posted.


As I mull over what this event means for how we should run contests,
two things come to mind

1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that
point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score
points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly
things when points are on the table.

We could allow a pilot to land, inspect the glider, persuade the CD
it's ok, and take off again. But any impact raises questions about
airworthiness that just can't be answered for the purposes of
continuing a contest flight by an in-fight examination. (In-flight
exam helps you to decide whether to nurse it home or jump, but this is
an issue of managing an ongoing crisis, not competing in a race.)

2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and
ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to call the day off.

In this case, it might have been helpful for someone to ferry the
glider missing 5 feet of wing back to the airport. If he lost control
or had to bail out over the boondocks, a pair of eyes would make a
huge difference.

Others have suggested that the other pilot of the midair should do
that, but that doesn't make much sense. Typically the other pilot in a
midair has his own bits of dangling fiberglass, and may not be in the
best mental state to fly top cover anyway. The reports didn't suggest
anyone else volunteering to help here. A yellow flag might have
produced some.

We've had other cases of crashes where it was vital for competitors to
abandon the task and stick around the crash site or parachute impact.
It's asking a lot to expect pilots to do that, especially at a
nationals, when their competitors are blasting on earning points and
world team spots (with their "radios off"). It's only fair, and we'll
only really get the needed cooperation, if points are off the table.
Getting another day in, compromised by unfairness to those who stuck
around to help, does not seem worth danger to life and limb. If
someone needs to abandon the task to help with a serious safety
situation, we all should abandon the task to do so.

I emphasize, this is only appropriate when we need help from
competitors for an ongoing issue, not as a knee-jerk reaction to any
event.

Does this seem like the sensible approach?

John Cochrane

On 6/18/2010 11:16 AM, jb92563 wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:52 am, Mike
wrote:
On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote: wrote in message
...

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn

This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. This discussion serves a
very useful purpose in that regard.

What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. This
would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.

--
Mike Schumann

This is an excellent opportunity to analyze the facts once the NTSB
gives their report and the pilots are free to talk about it.

I hope they are willing to endure a bit of debate on the subject in
order to help everyone learn how to handle a situation like this.

I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
the correct choice, since as we all know,
in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
and NOTAM'ed areas.

Even not following the regulations and sporting rules until landed, is
valid in an emergency.

We will just have to wait and hope that the pilots involved engage in
an information session with the soaring community
so we can learn.

In retrospect in almost every racing sport there is an element of
danger, where lives can be lost.

I just never was willing to acknowledge that Glider racing was one of
them, and perhaps many of us are in the same quandry, judging
by the split of opinion.

Accepting that puts the race into a whole other perspective where
indeed I could relate to the decisions of the pilot to carry on.

Winning is the reward of a life well lived despite the risks.


Ray

I don't see any pressing reason, in this case, to wait for the NTSB
report before discussing this accident. Unlike many aircraft accidents,
where the cause is not clear until the NTSB has had a chance to make a
detailed examination, in this case we have a simple accident caused by
two pilots not seeing each other until it was too late.

Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). Presumably, the flight recorder
traces have been submitted to the contest organizers so that the pilots'
performance can be graded (one pilot apparently won the day's task). I
have always assumed that records for SSA sanctioned contests were
public. Why should other pilots not be able to look at these traces to
see what kind of situation these pilots were in so that they could not
see each other until it was too late.

The more, and earlier discussion that these types of events receive, the
better. Maybe someone will learn something from this that will prevent
another accident before the final NTSB report is issued in a year or so.

--
Mike Schumann

1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that
point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score
points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly
things when points are on the table.

I agree this sounds like a rule that should be implemented.



2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and
ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to *call the day off.

Just thinking out loud on this issue, perhaps the rules should allow
for any pilot involved in a potential and/or emergency situation to
request one other glider to abandon the task and assist the pilot in
safely landing the glider. The assisting pilot would at the
descression of the CD be awarded enough points to maintain his
position on the score sheet, But not more than a 3rd place finish for
the day.

This way the assisting pilot is not significantly penalized for
assisting, However the assisting pilot can not use this rule to
maintain a leading position in the race.

Of course the other scenerio as you mentioned is just calling off the
day.

Brian Case

"Brian" wrote in message
...

1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that
point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score
points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly
things when points are on the table.

I agree this sounds like a rule that should be implemented.



2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and
ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to call the day off.

Just thinking out loud on this issue, perhaps the rules should allow
for any pilot involved in a potential and/or emergency situation to
request one other glider to abandon the task and assist the pilot in
safely landing the glider. The assisting pilot would at the
descression of the CD be awarded enough points to maintain his
position on the score sheet, But not more than a 3rd place finish for
the day.

This way the assisting pilot is not significantly penalized for
assisting, However the assisting pilot can not use this rule to
maintain a leading position in the race.

Of course the other scenerio as you mentioned is just calling off the
day.

Brian Case



You could give pilots that stay and help 1000 points for the day.
I always think the best of people....... but something tells me that the
spot of the accident will stay overcrowded for several hours ;-)

In yacht racing, a competitor can ask for and be given redress for
assisting another vessel that needs assistance. If memory serves me
correctly, it's usally an average of the daily score that the
assisting vessel obtained during the regatta.

Although I haven't any idea how this mid-air occured, there are blind
spots that people should be aware of. I had a near miss years ago at
a nationals when I was ahead and below another glider. Obviously, I
couldn't see above and behind me and he couldn't see "under his
feet". When I got a thermal and zoomed up, my tail missed his cockpit
by a few feet! The increased numbers of sailplanes in a contest,
following the same line of cloud streets or ridges, a moment of in
attention with your head in the panel, messing with your computer can
all add up to a statistic.

I think what we need to focus on is what can be learned from this
accident and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening
to someone else. Personally, I think situations like this make a case
for getting Flarm or an equivalent system established here in the US.

Barry

On Jun 18, 9:15*am, jeplane wrote:
We have 2 morons...

Sigh... Idiots!!!!

So says the anonymous one.

On Jun 18, 9:15*am, jeplane wrote:
We have 2 morons.

One for flying 75 miles with a un-airworthy aircraft, when closer
airports were available, and the other one, for trying to finish a
task after colliding.

Both should have FAA violations waiting at home, for reckless and
unsafe operations.

And if the CD declares the Ventus a winner that day, he probably
should get a spanking as well for encouraging flying in this
condition...

Sigh... Idiots!!!!

I see the same reactions in every thread about an accident. You can
devide the reactions to 3 groups:
1 - Inteligent people trying to analyze the situation and learn
lessons without pointing fingers.
2 - Those who point fingers and calling names without knowing what
they are talking about.
3 - The "wait for the NTSB report" crowd, who must have never seen an
NTSB report otherwise they would know that NTSB reports are usually
useless and often published so late no one remembers the details.
Better say "wait for pilot reports" or a report in "Safety Corner"
although since Thelen stopped writing those reports himself, no one
seems to dare writing about accidents anymore.

BTW, at least one trace is available on OLC, but I could not find
anything that could suggest where the midair happened...

Ramy

On Jun 18, 9:58*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). *

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy