Parowan midair?

Some facts that might temper some of the speculation he

The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
mountainous terrain. This area is very low population and the risk to
people or structures on the ground was minimal. The nearest airport,
Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
the pilots. The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan. If I had been flying
south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. (He calculated
that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
reasonably well.) There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
the event of a landing problem.

The Ventus pilot reported at this morning's meeting that, with the
benefit of hindsight, he probably should have terminated the task and
landed. I've polled a few competition pilots, and they are divided
almost equally between those who would carry on and those who would
land with an apparently undamaged ship.

There is no evidence of careless or reckless flying by either pilot -
it is likely just one of those events where their position and speed
reduced the pilots' visibility until it was too late. Neither pilot
saw the other until just before impact.

The FAA inspected both gliders today. The Ventus had two very small
compression marks in the nose that did not affect structural
integrity. The Ventus was thoroughly gone over by an experienced
glider repair guy, has a clean bill of health and is back in the air
and on course as I write this.

We may be unable to figure out exactly what happened, but a reasonable
guess is that the nose of the Ventus impacted the wing of the ASH 26
somewhere near midspan, pushing it down hard. This increased the
aerodynamic load on the wing to the point where the structure failed
five feet from the tip.

Mike the Strike

(Parowan weatherman)

Thanks for the facts Mike. I'm just glad no one got hurt.
John Ackerson

On 6/17/2010 3:07 PM, Mike the Strike wrote:
Some facts that might temper some of the speculation he

The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
mountainous terrain. This area is very low population and the risk to
people or structures on the ground was minimal. The nearest airport,
Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
the pilots.
There is no NOTAM for Fillmore, and all the pilots in the contest should
have known that.

The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan.
Beaver is 23 NM/26 miles from Parowan. From the approxiamate location of
the collision you describe, Richfield is 10 NM; Salina is 23 NM;
Junction is 36; Delta is 33 NM; Beaver is 43 NM; Milford is 44 NM.
These are all paved municipal airports with 4 having 75+ wide runways,
the others 60 feet wide; one is 4500 long (Parowan if 5000') and the
others are greater than 5000'. So, plenty of closer airports with good
runways.

If I had been flying
south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. (He calculated
that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
reasonably well.) There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
the event of a landing problem.


I agree there would be lot more people at Parowan than these other
airports, and perhaps closer to the biggest hospital. Of course, if it's
the hospital you worry about, you should fly past Parowan and land at
Cedar City!

One strategy would be to contact contest ground and have them arrange
for emergency help to be at another airport, or even use 121.5 to
declare an emergency to ensure help arrived at the airport of choice. I
suspect an ambulance could arrive at any of them before it was necessary
to land there.

So, I think we are still left with the question: why did the pilot
choose to fly to Parowan with all these other, closer options? My best
guess is I would have opted for Parowan if the glider seemed stable,
controllable, and "obviously" able to make it to Parowan, but sitting
here, thinking it through, it doesn't seem as good an idea as landing
after arranging for help.

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

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Jun 17, 7:45*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 6/17/2010 3:07 PM, Mike the Strike wrote: Some facts that might temper some of the speculation he

The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
mountainous terrain. *This area is very low population and the risk to
people or structures on the ground was minimal. *The nearest airport,
Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
the pilots.

There is no NOTAM for Fillmore, and all the pilots in the contest should
have known that.

* *The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan.

Beaver is 23 NM/26 miles from Parowan. From the approxiamate location of
the collision you describe, Richfield is 10 NM; Salina is 23 NM;
Junction is 36; Delta is 33 NM; Beaver is 43 NM; Milford is 44 NM. *
These are all paved municipal airports with 4 having 75+ wide runways,
the others 60 feet wide; one is 4500 long (Parowan if 5000') and the
others are *greater than 5000'. So, plenty of closer airports with good
runways.

* *If I had been flying
south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. *(He calculated
that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
reasonably well.) *There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
the event of a landing problem.

I agree there would be lot more people at Parowan than these other
airports, and perhaps closer to the biggest hospital. Of course, if it's
the hospital you worry about, you should fly past Parowan and land at
Cedar City!

* One strategy would be to contact contest ground and have them arrange
for emergency help to be at another airport, or even use 121.5 to
declare an emergency to ensure help arrived at the airport of choice. I
suspect an ambulance could arrive at any of them before it was necessary
to land there.

So, I think we are still left with the question: why did the pilot
choose to fly to Parowan with all these other, closer options? My best
guess is I would have opted for Parowan if the glider seemed stable,
controllable, and "obviously" able to make it to Parowan, but sitting
here, thinking it through, it doesn't seem as good an idea as landing
after arranging for help.

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

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

The only attractive airfield options other than Parowan were Fillmore
and Beaver. These were in the I-15 corridor west of the mountains
which also has lots of landable fields. Crossing mountains and
deserts to the others makes no sense. Richfield, Salina and Junction
required traversing high remote mountain terrain to areas with poor
cellphone coverage. Delta is in the opposite direction in the middle
of the desert with absolutely no redeeming features and Milford
requires crossing a lower mountain range. Flying south towards home
was the smart option. Once you have Beaver made, it's a short hop to
Parowan - a no-brainer.

As I said, I most likely would have done the same.

Mike

On Jun 18, 12:00*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:45*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:





On 6/17/2010 3:07 PM, Mike the Strike wrote: Some facts that might temper some of the speculation he

The collision happened about 75 miles north of Parowan over
mountainous terrain. *This area is very low population and the risk to
people or structures on the ground was minimal. *The nearest airport,
Fillmore, has been under construction and its status was unknown to
the pilots.

There is no NOTAM for Fillmore, and all the pilots in the contest should
have known that.

* *The next nearest airport with a decent runway was Beaver,
which is only 20 miles or so north of Parowan.

Beaver is 23 NM/26 miles from Parowan. From the approxiamate location of
the collision you describe, Richfield is 10 NM; Salina is 23 NM;
Junction is 36; Delta is 33 NM; Beaver is 43 NM; Milford is 44 NM. *
These are all paved municipal airports with 4 having 75+ wide runways,
the others 60 feet wide; one is 4500 long (Parowan if 5000') and the
others are *greater than 5000'. So, plenty of closer airports with good
runways.

* *If I had been flying
south with a damaged but controllable glider, I probably would also
have opted to keep on to Parowan, as the ASH 26 did. *(He calculated
that he had lost about 15% of performance and could still thermal
reasonably well.) *There were many more people at Parowan (Beaver is
usually deserted) and much more chance of getting rapid assistance in
the event of a landing problem.

I agree there would be lot more people at Parowan than these other
airports, and perhaps closer to the biggest hospital. Of course, if it's
the hospital you worry about, you should fly past Parowan and land at
Cedar City!

* One strategy would be to contact contest ground and have them arrange
for emergency help to be at another airport, or even use 121.5 to
declare an emergency to ensure help arrived at the airport of choice. I
suspect an ambulance could arrive at any of them before it was necessary
to land there.

So, I think we are still left with the question: why did the pilot
choose to fly to Parowan with all these other, closer options? My best
guess is I would have opted for Parowan if the glider seemed stable,
controllable, and "obviously" able to make it to Parowan, but sitting
here, thinking it through, it doesn't seem as good an idea as landing
after arranging for help.

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

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

The only attractive airfield options other than Parowan were Fillmore
and Beaver. *These were in the I-15 corridor west of the mountains
which also has lots of landable fields. *Crossing mountains and
deserts to the others makes no sense. *Richfield, Salina and Junction
required traversing high remote mountain terrain to areas with poor
cellphone coverage. *Delta is in the opposite direction in the middle
of the desert with absolutely no redeeming features and Milford
requires crossing a lower mountain range. *Flying south towards home
was the smart option. *Once you have Beaver made, it's a short hop to
Parowan - a no-brainer.

As I said, I most likely would have done the same.

Mike

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site. Competition or not, if you get right down to the
brass tacks of things, the pilot who continued, if he passed by
available closer sights including RTB, was not demonstrating good
judgement nor safe practice. If the finish was the closest available,
then his flying to the extremes to compete with damage was simply poor
judgment. Competitions do not exempt us from safety and FAA
regulations. It's worth your life???

It is amazing to see how things are rationalized to promote accepting
mistakes as being something else, much less admired. Student pilots
read these posts as well as seasoned aviators. Lead by example, even
in competition. The Holy Grail doesn't exempt us from safe, lawful
flying practices. My two cents.

Tim

"soarpilot" wrote in message
...

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn

On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote:
wrote in message
...

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn


This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. This discussion serves a
very useful purpose in that regard.

What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. This
would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 18, 6:52*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 6/18/2010 9:23 AM, vaughn wrote: *wrote in message
....

Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). *Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn

This is an opportunity for everyone to learn. *This discussion serves a
very useful purpose in that regard.

What would be very helpful would be to actually see the flight traces of
both aircraft so we can understand how the actual midair happened. *This
would be just as instructional for the soaring community as this
discussion over what the pilots did after the collision.

--
Mike Schumann

This is an excellent opportunity to analyze the facts once the NTSB
gives their report and the pilots are free to talk about it.

I hope they are willing to endure a bit of debate on the subject in
order to help everyone learn how to handle a situation like this.

I suppose because each pilot returned home safe, ultimately they made
the correct choice, since as we all know,
in the event of an emergency the pilot has the right to land ANYWHERE
he chooses, including closed airfields, restricted areas,
and NOTAM'ed areas.

Even not following the regulations and sporting rules until landed, is
valid in an emergency.

We will just have to wait and hope that the pilots involved engage in
an information session with the soaring community
so we can learn.

In retrospect in almost every racing sport there is an element of
danger, where lives can be lost.

I just never was willing to acknowledge that Glider racing was one of
them, and perhaps many of us are in the same quandry, judging
by the split of opinion.

Accepting that puts the race into a whole other perspective where
indeed I could relate to the decisions of the pilot to carry on.

Winning is the reward of a life well lived despite the risks.


Ray

On 6/18/2010 6:23 AM, vaughn wrote:
wrote in message
...


Both pilots' duty (as safe pilots) was to land at the closest
available site.

While the safety aspects of this incident are interesting to us all, I
respectfully suggest that this line of discussion be closed down (at least for
now). Do you really want to multiply the problems of the pilots involved?

Vaughn
I know both of them, though not very well, and so far I don't see
anything that will cause them problems; in fact, I think some of the
discussion might help them make better choices in the future.

What problems do you think these discussions cause the pilots involved?

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

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz