2005 Worlds Juniors Accident.

The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
now been published.

It may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...65%2002-07.pdf .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
now been published.

It may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...65%2002-07.pdf .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.



My first thought is that competition finishes, as we know them in the
UK, will probably have to be altered quite radically. A quote from the
report:

"[pilots] may have thought that because ultimately they were landing,
they were absolved from the obligation to observe Rule 5 whilst they
were racing towards the finishing line. However, gliders do not normally
approach a glider site at high speed and very low height requiring
pop‑up manoeuvres to avoid obstacles outside the airfield boundary.
Usually, they land from an approach involving a gradual descent at
moderate airspeed, crossing the airfield boundary at a height that does
not normally present a risk to spectators or passers-by. Therefore, it
is clear that the finishing technique used in this race by many of the
competitors did not constitute ‘landing in accordance with normal
aviation practice’ (see Rule 5 para (3)(a)(ii )) which automatically
exempts pilots from having to observe the ‘500 feet rule’ stipulated in
para (2)(b))."

The alternative, if such finishes are to be retained, is for an
exemption from the UK CAA for each competition, and it seems clear from
the report that this would require competition organisers to ensure that
spectators could not enter the potential at risk zone, which would be
practically impossible at many airfields I know.

I'm not a competition pilot, and haven't the nerve to fly a proper
competition finish, so wouldn't want to suggest how to change what we
currently do. I certainly don't have a view that such finishes are too
dangerous to be allowed to continue. However, reading the report is
sobering, and suggests to me that we won't be allowed continue as we
have been used to.

I hope our friends across the pond read the *ahem* dialog the US had here on
RAS the last two springs about competition finishes vs. finish cylinders and
other suggestions.

Interesting point about the 500' rule. I don't think that came up over
here.

"Chris Reed" wrote in message
news:eqfvo4$3g9$1@qmul...
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.). wrote:
The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth
has
now been published.

It may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...65%2002-07.pdf
.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.



My first thought is that competition finishes, as we know them in the UK,
will probably have to be altered quite radically. A quote from the report:

"[pilots] may have thought that because ultimately they were landing, they
were absolved from the obligation to observe Rule 5 whilst they were
racing towards the finishing line. However, gliders do not normally
approach a glider site at high speed and very low height requiring pop-up
manoeuvres to avoid obstacles outside the airfield boundary. Usually, they
land from an approach involving a gradual descent at moderate airspeed,
crossing the airfield boundary at a height that does not normally present
a risk to spectators or passers-by. Therefore, it is clear that the
finishing technique used in this race by many of the competitors did not
constitute 'landing in accordance with normal
aviation practice' (see Rule 5 para (3)(a)(ii )) which automatically
exempts pilots from having to observe the '500 feet rule' stipulated in
para (2)(b))."

The alternative, if such finishes are to be retained, is for an exemption
from the UK CAA for each competition, and it seems clear from the report
that this would require competition organisers to ensure that spectators
could not enter the potential at risk zone, which would be practically
impossible at many airfields I know.

I'm not a competition pilot, and haven't the nerve to fly a proper
competition finish, so wouldn't want to suggest how to change what we
currently do. I certainly don't have a view that such finishes are too
dangerous to be allowed to continue. However, reading the report is
sobering, and suggests to me that we won't be allowed continue as we have
been used to.

Although I fly SC, I'm not a competition pilot, and I won't even
attend my first competition until this spring. So please make
allowances for my ignorance. That said, things about this accident
don't make sense:

1. Why were the spectators and cars on the opposite side of the hedge
from where the planes were coming? If you want to be seen and avoided,
wouldn't it be much better to be in front of the hedge?

2. Why were the planes allowed to fly so low (30 feet) at least 1,000
meters from the airport? I've spent a lot of time in rural England,
and I know that there are a lot of hikers in the country. Were there
signs posted to warn any poor hikers about fast, quite, low flying
aircraft?

3. Why, in this day of GPS, didn't the organizers simply use a 500 or
a 1,000 foot finish? It eliminates problems of misjudging your energy,
although admittedly it isn't as exciting for people hanging around the
airfield.

As a group, we worry about someday an airliner hitting a glider and
what that would do to the sport. Why is killing a spectator (or worse,
a hiker) on the ground any different?

-John

The answer to question 1. is that the road/track where the cars were parked
is on the west side of the hedge and easily accessible, on the east side
from where the gliders were finishing is just a field. This is clearly
shown in the photo at the top of page 59 (4th page of the report).

Part of the answer to question 3. is that the rules for a world competition
are FAI rules, on page 69 (14th page of the report) the report points out
that the rules for an IGC sanctioned competition are not the BGA's
Competition Rules. This is why the third Safety Recommendation 2006-121 by
the AAIB is addressed to the IGC. So your question is addressed to the IGC,
not the BGA in this instance.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

"jcarlyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Although I fly SC, I'm not a competition pilot, and I won't even
attend my first competition until this spring. So please make
allowances for my ignorance. That said, things about this accident
don't make sense:

1. Why were the spectators and cars on the opposite side of the hedge
from where the planes were coming? If you want to be seen and avoided,
wouldn't it be much better to be in front of the hedge?

2. Why were the planes allowed to fly so low (30 feet) at least 1,000
meters from the airport? I've spent a lot of time in rural England,
and I know that there are a lot of hikers in the country. Were there
signs posted to warn any poor hikers about fast, quite, low flying
aircraft?

3. Why, in this day of GPS, didn't the organizers simply use a 500 or
a 1,000 foot finish? It eliminates problems of misjudging your energy,
although admittedly it isn't as exciting for people hanging around the
airfield.

As a group, we worry about someday an airliner hitting a glider and
what that would do to the sport. Why is killing a spectator (or worse,
a hiker) on the ground any different?

-John

I'll concede that the cars would park on the access road, not in the
field. Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) be
seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

-John

On Feb 8, 5:14 pm, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
wrote:
The answer to question 1. is that the road/track where the cars were parked
is on the west side of the hedge and easily accessible, on the east side
from where the gliders were finishing is just a field. This is clearly
shown in the photo at the top of page 59 (4th page of the report).

Part of the answer to question 3. is that the rules for a world competition
are FAI rules, on page 69 (14th page of the report) the report points out
that the rules for an IGC sanctioned competition are not the BGA's
Competition Rules. This is why the third Safety Recommendation 2006-121 by
the AAIB is addressed to the IGC. So your question is addressed to the IGC,
not the BGA in this instance.

jcarlyle wrote:
Now can you explain why anyone in their right mind would stand
on top of a slippery car, mostly hidden behind a hedge (see Figure 1
of the report), and play peek-a-boo with quiet, high speed aircraft
when they could simply walk through openings in the hedge which are
clearly right there (see Figure 2 of the report) so they could (a) be
seen by the pilots (b) could see the plane and drop to the ground if
necessary, and (c) get some inherent protection by the self-
preservation instinct of the pilot wanting to miss the hedge?

Uh, maybe because that particular person wanted to get yet another
spectacular photograph, and the pilot was trying to help and/or give him
a bit of a scare?

Marc

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." wrote in message
...
The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
now been published.

It may be found at
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...65%2002-07.pdf
.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

I used to instruct at Husbands Bosworth thirty years ago. We hosted the
British Nationals one year and the CFI asked me to take all the competitors
up in a two seater to show them the site from the air and point out local
hazards etc. Naturally I let these pundits do the flying, and for quite a
few their circuit procedure was so sloppy, and their airmanship so bad,
that
I grounded them until they had taken a further check ride with our CFI. I'm
afraid that the HB accident merely goes to show that not a lot has improved
in thirty years.

I am appalled that the organisers of a competition were prepared to
tolerate
the really dreadful flying that was going on. 'Popping up' would have got
you grounded in my time if anyone had seen you doing it. I know the planes
are better these days, but I doubt the pilots are. There is no reason why
the finish line cannot be between 250 and 500 feet. It does not need to be
on the ground.

Alistair Wright
UK Silver C 4759

On Feb 8, 9:45 am, "W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\)."
wrote:
The U.K. Air Accidents Investigation Branch accident report on the fatal
crash involving a photographer on 9th August 2005 at Husbands Bosworth has
now been published.

It may be found athttp://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/LS1F%20Glider,%20BGA4665%2002-07....

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

Not to revive a flame war, but the solution is obvious. The race
finishes at 500 feet, followed by pattern and landing.

Pro: This won't happen again. Plus fewer crashes 1 mile out, in the
fence, or low energy problems at the airport.

Con: Less fun.

John Cochrane BB

PS: I love the part about being really low for safety, so you can see
the wires and then pop over them better. Yeager would be proud.

John Cochrane wrote:
This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

I agree with John. I also agree one solution is the 500' finish rule
he's advocated. I don't agree it's the only solution or necessarily
the best solution, but we've thrashed out that subject at length
already so there's no need to again. I'll simply observe that part of
the reason many of us fly contests is for fun and that the best way to
eliminate the risks of flying is never to launch.

What struck me about the report was that nearly all of the parties who
might have contributed to this accident--the pilot, the organizers,
and the photographer himself--could and should have taken steps to
have avoided it. My impression is that had the rules in effect at the
time been adhered to and enforced (whether those were CAA regulations
or the contest rules or just general safe flying practices and common
sense), this accident wouldn't have happened.

I've never flown in the U.K. but I've seen comparable situations at
many U.S. contests owing to (1) pilots emulating their fellow pilots
(for all of our much-touted individualistic personalities, we can be
like a bunch of sheep at times); and (2) the sense that because it's a
contest, the normal rules for safe flying are suspended.

These are serious problems, but they're problems of attitude. And the
solution to them is not necessarily a new rule addressing one, albeit
potentially dangerous, situation. The analogy is a little weak but as
one example, we in the U.S. had a tragedy at a national contest a few
years ago launching a water ballasted glider too close to bystanders.
The solution to this dangerous practice was not to eliminate water
ballast but to insist that all bystanders remain behind the launch
line.

It's certainly possible that a random hiker could be mowed down by a
low-finishing glider but it's also possible that any of us could do
the same thing landing out in a farmer's field somewhere. Should we,
then, eliminate all practices that might lead to outlandings?

Like most aviation accidents, there appears to be no single cause
here, but rather a series of questionable decisions and actions that
cascaded and culminated in loss of life. Without trying to fix blame,
it seems to me that at any point any of the parties could have acted
to comply with the aforesaid rules/practices, broken the "chain," and
unilaterally prevented this tragedy.

And now that I've offended almost all involved, I apologize for
drawing conclusions about an accident I have no knowledge of apart
from a report I had absolutely no role in preparing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"