![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 16, 1:48*pm, Andy 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. As I mull over what this event means for how we should run contests, two things come to mind 1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly things when points are on the table. We could allow a pilot to land, inspect the glider, persuade the CD it's ok, and take off again. But any impact raises questions about airworthiness that just can't be answered for the purposes of continuing a contest flight by an in-fight examination. (In-flight exam helps you to decide whether to nurse it home or jump, but this is an issue of managing an ongoing crisis, not competing in a race.) 2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to call the day off. In this case, it might have been helpful for someone to ferry the glider missing 5 feet of wing back to the airport. If he lost control or had to bail out over the boondocks, a pair of eyes would make a huge difference. Others have suggested that the other pilot of the midair should do that, but that doesn't make much sense. Typically the other pilot in a midair has his own bits of dangling fiberglass, and may not be in the best mental state to fly top cover anyway. The reports didn't suggest anyone else volunteering to help here. A yellow flag might have produced some. We've had other cases of crashes where it was vital for competitors to abandon the task and stick around the crash site or parachute impact. It's asking a lot to expect pilots to do that, especially at a nationals, when their competitors are blasting on earning points and world team spots (with their "radios off"). It's only fair, and we'll only really get the needed cooperation, if points are off the table. Getting another day in, compromised by unfairness to those who stuck around to help, does not seem worth danger to life and limb. If someone needs to abandon the task to help with a serious safety situation, we all should abandon the task to do so. I emphasize, this is only appropriate when we need help from competitors for an ongoing issue, not as a knee-jerk reaction to any event. Does this seem like the sensible approach? John Cochrane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly things when points are on the table. I agree this sounds like a rule that should be implemented. 2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to *call the day off. Just thinking out loud on this issue, perhaps the rules should allow for any pilot involved in a potential and/or emergency situation to request one other glider to abandon the task and assist the pilot in safely landing the glider. The assisting pilot would at the descression of the CD be awarded enough points to maintain his position on the score sheet, But not more than a 3rd place finish for the day. This way the assisting pilot is not significantly penalized for assisting, However the assisting pilot can not use this rule to maintain a leading position in the race. Of course the other scenerio as you mentioned is just calling off the day. Brian Case |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Brian" wrote in message
... 1) If you have a midair, you should be scored for a landout at that point. We need to take the temptation to continue the flight and score points off the table. Even the best pilots can be tempted to do silly things when points are on the table. I agree this sounds like a rule that should be implemented. 2) If we need pilots to abandon the task and help with a serious and ongoing safety issue, the CD needs to call the day off. Just thinking out loud on this issue, perhaps the rules should allow for any pilot involved in a potential and/or emergency situation to request one other glider to abandon the task and assist the pilot in safely landing the glider. The assisting pilot would at the descression of the CD be awarded enough points to maintain his position on the score sheet, But not more than a 3rd place finish for the day. This way the assisting pilot is not significantly penalized for assisting, However the assisting pilot can not use this rule to maintain a leading position in the race. Of course the other scenerio as you mentioned is just calling off the day. Brian Case You could give pilots that stay and help 1000 points for the day. I always think the best of people....... but something tells me that the spot of the accident will stay overcrowded for several hours ;-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In yacht racing, a competitor can ask for and be given redress for
assisting another vessel that needs assistance. If memory serves me correctly, it's usally an average of the daily score that the assisting vessel obtained during the regatta. Although I haven't any idea how this mid-air occured, there are blind spots that people should be aware of. I had a near miss years ago at a nationals when I was ahead and below another glider. Obviously, I couldn't see above and behind me and he couldn't see "under his feet". When I got a thermal and zoomed up, my tail missed his cockpit by a few feet! The increased numbers of sailplanes in a contest, following the same line of cloud streets or ridges, a moment of in attention with your head in the panel, messing with your computer can all add up to a statistic. I think what we need to focus on is what can be learned from this accident and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening to someone else. Personally, I think situations like this make a case for getting Flarm or an equivalent system established here in the US. Barry |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6/18/2010 2:45 PM, drbdanieli wrote:
In yacht racing, a competitor can ask for and be given redress for assisting another vessel that needs assistance. If memory serves me correctly, it's usally an average of the daily score that the assisting vessel obtained during the regatta. Although I haven't any idea how this mid-air occured, there are blind spots that people should be aware of. I had a near miss years ago at a nationals when I was ahead and below another glider. Obviously, I couldn't see above and behind me and he couldn't see "under his feet". When I got a thermal and zoomed up, my tail missed his cockpit by a few feet! The increased numbers of sailplanes in a contest, following the same line of cloud streets or ridges, a moment of in attention with your head in the panel, messing with your computer can all add up to a statistic. I think what we need to focus on is what can be learned from this accident and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening to someone else. Personally, I think situations like this make a case for getting Flarm or an equivalent system established here in the US. Barry We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP. -- Mike Schumann |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann
wrote: We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP. Mike, believe me: If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it possibly available in 2012. FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about. Andreas |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 21, 1:23*am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote: We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. *The SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP. Mike, believe me: If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW *- and you are not going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it possibly available in 2012. FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about. Andreas I have flown with FLARM in a UK competition. It tells you that there are other FLARM equipped gliders nearby and in a crowded thermal the collision warning goes off quite frequently, even though you can see the other gliders and there is no chance of collisions. If you get a warning from another glider you haven't seen, it can be quite difficult to work out where it is, especially in a circling situation. It is not a substitute for keeping a good look out! Derek C |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6/20/2010 8:23 PM, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:46:15 -0400, Mike Schumann wrote: We don't need FLARM, we need MITRE's low cost ADS-B transceiver. The SSA needs to send a letter to Randy Babbitt using this accident as an example of why we need a green light to get this unit certified ASAP. Mike, believe me: If you have ever flown half a year with FLARM with lots of gliders around (e.g contest), you are going to want one NOW - and you are not going to have the patience to wait for the better solution that it possibly available in 2012. FLARM isnt't going to solve all of the problems, but I am pretty sure that it would have prevented the incident we are talking about. Andreas FLARM is useless unless everyone is equipped. That is NOT going to happen in the US. Low cost ADS-B could be available tomorrow if the FAA would certify the units. NAVWORX and MITRE have working prototypes that could go into production overnight if we can get the FAA to get off their but. We need to get people to send letters to Randy Babbitt to get some top level attention to this. It also wouldn't hurt to copy Craig Fuller at AOPA. They should be pushing this a LOT more agresively than they have. -- Mike Schumann |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 18, 12:53*pm, John Cochrane
wrote: Does this seem like the sensible approach? Yes. As an aside to others... we could do without the name calling, thanks. -Evan Ludeman / T8 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 18, 9:53*am, John Cochrane
wrote: On Jun 16, 1:48*pm, Andy wrote: [good stuff snipped] Does this seem like the sensible approach? Yes. Thanks for starting to get the ball rolling on this so quickly. 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 |