Parowan midair?

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 11:16 AM, jb92563 wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:52 am, Mike
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

I don't see any pressing reason, in this case, to wait for the NTSB
report before discussing this accident. Unlike many aircraft accidents,
where the cause is not clear until the NTSB has had a chance to make a
detailed examination, in this case we have a simple accident caused by
two pilots not seeing each other until it was too late.

Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). Presumably, the flight recorder
traces have been submitted to the contest organizers so that the pilots'
performance can be graded (one pilot apparently won the day's task). I
have always assumed that records for SSA sanctioned contests were
public. Why should other pilots not be able to look at these traces to
see what kind of situation these pilots were in so that they could not
see each other until it was too late.

The more, and earlier discussion that these types of events receive, the
better. Maybe someone will learn something from this that will prevent
another accident before the final NTSB report is issued in a year or so.

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 18, 9:58*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:
Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). *

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

On 6/18/2010 3:03 PM, Andy wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:58 am, Mike
wrote:
Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest).

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

Do you have a link to the traces?

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 18, 12:43*pm, Mike Schumann
wrote:
On 6/18/2010 3:03 PM, Andy wrote:





On Jun 18, 9:58 am, Mike
wrote:
Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest).

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. *That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. * With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. *I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

Do you have a link to the traces?

--
Mike Schumann- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll send you a private email.

Andy

On Jun 18, 12:03*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:58*am, Mike Schumann
wrote:

Both aircraft were presumably equipped with flight recorders (since they
were participating in a contest). *

Both flight logs are published and it is easy to see where the paths
of the 2 gliders met. *That time agrees within 3 minutes with the
accident time published in the FAA prelim incident report. * With both
loggers recording at 4 second interval it is not possible to see
exactly how the gliders met, at least not with my viewing software.

One of the aspects that NTSB reviews after a mid air is the visibility
each pilot had of the other aircraft in the time leading up to the
event. *I'm sure the logs will provide better than usual data to
support such an investigation but I have to wonder if NTSB will take
the interest since this was a no injury accident.

Maybe a careful analysis of the log data by the soaring community
would gives us more insight than the NTSB report.

Andy

A few years ago there was a collision during a ridge running
excursion. Based on the surviving pilots recollection, the wreckage
debris and the damage to both sailplanes we were able to forensically
reconstruct the flight path of both aircraft up to the point of the
collision. I worked with an engineer who took all that data, along
with the information in the flight handbooks of the sailplanes and
such and from that we created spline paths and keyframes to create
bank angles and trajectory. I took that information and created a
fairly accurate animation of the collision.

The creepiest part of that was when I put the camera in one of the
glider and watched from the "pilots" POV as the other glider slid
right in to him.

The result was a broken wing in one glider and a uncontrolled crash
that resulted in his death, the other pilot bailed out and survived.

Brad

On 6/18/2010 8:16 AM, jb92563 wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:52 am, Mike
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

snip

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.


I may be misinterpreting what you've written, but I sure don't think a
successful outcome means they made the correct choice; it might also
mean they were very lucky.

--
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

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.

Mark makes some great statements about a pilot’s mentality after a
collision.
To quote:
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"

However, I think that it would be very few pilots that would say that
they handled such a situation perfectly after the fact, nearly every
pilot could probably think of something they could have done better
after they themselves have had the chance to do some arm chair
quarterbacking.

As far as continuing to race after the collision, this would seem to
be the poorest decision made in this incident, however with the
thinking, the collision “wasn’t that bad” it hit on a strong part of
the glider, which I have a pretty good view of (the interior inside
the cockpit). The thinking “I don’t have that much farther to go
anyway”. The thinking “The other pilot is OK, so far.” The thinking
“if I am careful, I can complete the task.” The thinking “it is
better to stay high and see if anything is going to get worse
anyway.” It is pretty easy to see how this kind of decision could be
made.

As for returning to Parowan, it disturbs me to see statements like “it
is the pilots duty to land at the nearest airport”. That is absolutely
incorrect and it is based on the fact that he was able to make a
fairly normal landing, which was an unknown at the time. It should say
“it is the pilots duty to do the safest thing possible” and landing at
the nearest airport may not be the safest thing, if fact it was
unknown if a landing could even be safely performed. My mottos for an
emergency are “Don’t do anything to make it worse” and “Try as little
new stuff as possible during the emergency, ie. Stick with what you
practice and are familiar with as much as possible.” Returning to
Parowan certainly had a number of advantages. I am assuming that he
was some altitude above the ground maybe as much as 10,000 feet, he
did not want to deploy the spoilers so that means he can either circle
down over the nearest airport that he is unfamiliar with and I doubt
while concentrating on flying damaged aircraft that he would want to
be doing a lot of research about them. I am sure other pilots could
have and may have even helped him evaluate his options. Or he could
use the altitude he needs to lose to return to Parowan where he is
familiar with the airport and the people on the ground know what is
going on. Best case scenario here is they could have even had
emergency services waiting for him when he attempted the landing
Worst case is he may have to bail out, but he may have to do that no
matter what he decides. From what I have heard Cedar City may have
been a better option with a larger runway and more services, but the
trade off was he would have been landing at an unfamiliar airport and
it was even further away.

Some pilots I am sure would have just bailed out of a glider with such
damage, and I am sure they would not have been faulted for doing so,
but bailing out has its risks as well.

While it can nearly always be argued they could have done better, they
at least made adequate decisions and it is useful to mentally place
yourself in their position and try to figure out how you would handle
the situation, It may influence how you handle your emergency if/when
it happens.

just my 2cents worth
Brian Case

In the UK, in the event of a mid-air collision in a comp, however
minor, both competitors are scored to the point of the collision and
are expected to land (or bail out) as soon as possible afterwards.

A few years ago one of our top comp pilots was killed shortly after a
mid-air. He was flying a brand new and very expensive glider and
attempted to land it in a damaged condition. Unfortunately the tail
boom eventually failed when he was too low to bail out and it dived
more or less vertically into the ground, killing him instantly. The
glider he collided with was able to make a safe landing.

You should consider bailing out of a damaged glider well before flying
on round the competition task!

Derek C