![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 5, 5:35*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote: On 7/5/2010 11:09 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Jun 16, 11:48 am, *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. Any more information available? Andy. Maybe worth noting that there was also a mid-air collision at the 31st Worlds on Day 1 (4th July) between two standard class gliders which was also caught on IGC flight logs. According to the contest web site both gliders were able to land and the pilots are OK. See flight logs for 8K and GX (reported as FX on the score sheet). According to the contest site, one glider had an anti-collision device, presumably Flarm, the other did not. One glider was thermaling and the other appears to join the thermal (or at least try to avoid the thermal circle?) but misjudges and there is a collision. That pilot had the day disqualified and a two day suspension for what the CD determined was dangerous flying. As with the Parowan mid-air there was a gaggle stacked up above the collision point and the collision involves at least one of the gliders entering the thermal. Likely a lot of gliders to look at and I wonder in both cases how much the pilots may have been distracted from seeing the gliders at the same altitude by looking up at the gaggle above to help judge the thermal location. And as discussed in this thread earlier, continuing on task after a collision is specifically not allowed by FAI rules (Annex A 4.1.4). Here one glider did continue back to the contest airport/finish. He was already on the final leg but did seem to pass up several other closer options to land. I wonder how the CD interprets the 4.1.4 "land as soon as practicable" requirement, but moot in this case since the pilot was disqualified anyhow. I mention that only to point it out, not to judge, without knowing the condition of the glider and facilities available at the landing sites I do not know what I would do. Darryl I didn't see any mention that there were additional gliders in the vicinity of the Parowan mid-air. *Is there some further documentation that describes this? -- Mike Schumann Download all the IGC files for that Parowan contest day and play those in SeeYou (EditAdd Flight and do a multiple select on all the IGC files). There were at least three gliders in a thermal, one just starting to leave, and the two gliders in the collision appear to be joining that thermal below those other gliders. I have _no_ idea if either pilot of the colliding gliders have ever commented on watching those gliders above or whether this was a factor. Darryl |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Midair near Minden | Fred | Soaring | 52 | September 1st 06 11:41 AM |
Midair near Minden | Jim Culp | Soaring | 0 | August 29th 06 05:52 PM |
Another midair! | tango4 | Soaring | 3 | April 27th 04 06:14 PM |
Pix of two midair F-18s | Pechs1 | Naval Aviation | 9 | January 8th 04 02:40 PM |
Midair in RI | Martin | Piloting | 3 | November 18th 03 10:29 PM |