I cannot help to add some observations, based on what I have heard and
read. My discussion is focused on the 26E, though much of it applies
to the second pilot as well.

Evaluating the extent of damage and therefore the airworthiness of a
composite aircraft (especially carbon) after it has sustained impact
is not easy even in a well-lit shop with inspection devices. I
believe that doing so airborne from the distance of another aircraft
with enough certainty to gamble your life on is impossible.

Secondly, with a wing open to the airstream. there is a very strong
likelihood of air loads peeling much, if not most of the remaining
skin(s) off the spar and/or the foam core. I have been in the bizarre
and unhappy position of hoping that many square meters of my wing skin
would tear away as opposed to being a 1 x 4 meter spoiler. If it had
not torn away, I would have landed in the trees/rocks. I survived.
It was "luck".

The human factors side of the post-impact equation is known,
predictable, and self-destructive. Mix the following carefully in
your brain:

The shock of being involved in a near-death experience mid-air,

Post-accident denial

Hopeful/delusional expectations that "everything will be OK"

The desire to return to normalcy

The "racing mentality"

Stir thoroughly, add some well-meaning and equally delusional input
from others ("The ship looks OK") and you get an individual willing to
believe anything positive.


Will ANYONE seriously bet your life and the happiness of those that
love you that:

That 5 ft of span and control missing from a wing is No Big Deal

That it is possible to evaluate the condition of such a wing while
airborne

That the structural condition of the aircraft is not likely to
deteriorate due to flight and air loads

That it is reasonable to continue to soar for another 75 miles like
this?

Put another way, would you drive your car 75 miles home at freeway
speeds after a huge collision on the interstate that left you missing
a big chunk of the structure based on another driver's positive visual
observation and the fact that it handles OK for the moment?


I will refrain from commenting on the "racing rules" discussions. Any
group that condones, and tacitly rewards behavior such as this is
beyond my comprehension. When rules are necessary to prevent behavior
that defies all logic, and decades of ingrained hard-won aviation
safety paradigms (paid for in dead bodies and ruined lives of loved
ones left behind), we need a new sport.

The "we must have FLARM / ASDB / Electron Slinger du jour" hue and cry
defies the track record of "see-and-avoid", especially in gaggles, and
is, in my opinion, a hardware solution to a "software" problem; namely
declining pilot training, competency and a deeply rooted cultural
addiction to staring at / listening to electronic devices.


I wish you all safe flight and much good fortune. If you find this
scenario even remotely reasonable, I believe you will eventually need
the latter. Your aviation paradigm is strongly weighted toward
letting random circumstances (luck, your diety of choice,
predestination) decide your survival.