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