Parowan midair?

Andy wrote:
... why should a pilot who was hit through no fault of
his own be eliminated from a contest if he is able to determine,
perhaps by an inspection by another pilot and a controllability check,
that the glider is still safe to fly?..

Andy

Using his X-ray vision, and on-board non-destructive testing
instrumentation, of course.

Brian W

This is the rule as laid out by IGC in Annex A (international
competition rules) to the Sporting Code, Gliding section:

4.1.4 A competitor involved in a collision in the air shall not
continue the flight but land as soon as practicable. Both pilots will
be scored as having landed at the position at which the collision
occurred.

Seems a sensible rule to me...

I totally agree that this rule is very sensible and should apply.

Besides, after two aircraft colide with enough force to tear a wing
tip off you
can bet your life that the FAA will ground both gliders until detailed
examination
is perfromed to prove that either is considered airworthy.

So.....your going to miss the rest of the contest in any case, so why
further risk your life
and more importantly those of others with a potentially damaged glider
that could loose control
at the worst possible time, like when your at the top of a gaggle in a
thermal.

I understand that the pilot in the Ventus probably felt his glider
suffered no signifigant damage, but would you not
want to take responsibility and at the very least escort the damaged
plane home so that you could radio for help if his
glider went down somewhere.

Even if a radio communication between the two pilots revealed that the
clipped wing glider thought he was OK to make it home, I think
escorting him to a safe landing would have been the most admiral thing
the other pilot could do and would gain him much more respect
and notatiaty than winning a contest day that nobody in the rest of
the world gives a crap about.

Sorry for sounding so harsh but winning a contest day is not even
close to winning the respect of your peers.

I guess under this kind of stress it is difficult to make the best
decissions.

Its always easier to see it clearly sitting on the ground typing at a
keyboard, but following your gut in this case might have been better
than striving to win.

Soap box dismounted!

Ray




On Jun 17, 4:36*am, stephanevdv wrote:
This is the rule as laid out by IGC in Annex A (international
competition rules) to the Sporting Code, Gliding section:

4.1.4 A competitor involved in a collision in the air shall not
continue the flight but land as soon as practicable. Both pilots will
be scored as having landed at the position at which the collision
occurred.

Seems a sensible rule to me...

On Jun 18, 3:04*am, jb92563 wrote:
Sorry for sounding so harsh but winning a contest day is not even
close to winning the respect of your peers.

Do you actually know that they weren't, for example, on the last leg
of the task, with Parowan the closest practical landing point?

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 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

I've flown Parowan on several occasions and if I were in that
predicament with 6 feet of missing wing and questionable spoilers but
the plane was stable in flight I would go to the longest runway at
which I knew there would be people to help. That would be Parowan. IMO
following rules would not be the most important objective. The goal
would be survival.

On 6/18/2010 1:04 PM, Gary Evans wrote:
I've flown Parowan on several occasions and if I were in that
predicament with 6 feet of missing wing and questionable spoilers but
the plane was stable in flight I would go to the longest runway at
which I knew there would be people to help. That would be Parowan. IMO
following rules would not be the most important objective. The goal
would be survival.

If runway size is important, Cedar City ( 8600' x 150') is only 16 NM
past Parowan (a mere 5000' x 75'), lots of people, and lots closer to
the hospital.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

I've been following this thread with complete astonishment that anyone
could consider the conduct of the Ventus pilot praiseworthy in any
respect. There was simply no way for this pilot to assess the
airworthiness of the glider after the collision. Just because the
visible portion of the nose appeared to be intact does not mean the
glider was undamaged elsewhere, or even that the nose was airworthy.
Taking this risk in the name of a competition that is ultimately
meaningless is not only unbelievable, it's a detriment to soaring,
which is already in jeopardy in many areas. Someone with such poor
judgement has no place in our sport. "Careless and reckless" are the
words the FAA will use to remove this pilot from the community. I'd
go with "stupid." There is simply no excuse for what this individual
did.