Sigh... (USA)

I had a nasty land-out in 2007 on the Caprock west of Hobbs; I was very lucky not to have been hurt (other than my ego, of course), but my iPAQ went flying during the violent roll-out! The iPAQ wasn't 'locked' to its cradle in any way; now everything in my cockpit is 'locked-down!'

Foxtrot2



On Monday, June 11, 2012 12:53:09 PM UTC+2, Dan wrote:
Is it possible to post what mount solution was
being used (velco, suction, hard-point) so we can re-assess what we
are using with ours?

Dan

After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three experienced pilots a month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to make Flarm mandatory on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private owners, if they are flying under the federal insurance system (this means: almost every sailplane used in French clubs).

At 13:53 09 June 2012, wrote:
After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three
experienced pilots
a=
month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to
make Flarm
mandato=
ry on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private
owners, if they
a=
re flying under the federal insurance system (this means:
almost every
sail=
plane used in French clubs).


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

SUMMARY
COLLISION BETWEEN TWO SAILPLANES IN HATTULA ON 12
JUNE 2011
An aircraft accident occurred near lake Renkajärvi in Hattula,
southern Finland, on Sunday 12
June 2011 at 15:57 Finnish local time, when two single-seat
sailplanes collided in the air. The
pilot of the other plane rescued himself with a parachute, and
the other pilot was killed. Both sailplanes were destroyed.
The sailplanes involved were participating in Finnish Gliding
Championships. The collision occurred in gliding flight in good
weather conditions between the turnpoints of Forssa and
Syrjäntaka, at a height of approximately 1400 m inside Pirkkala
Military Control Area (Airspace class D)
of which southern part was reserved for the competition. Both
pilots were experienced sailplane
pilots and competitors.
Before the collision, the planes were flying almost the same
route and occasionally very close to
each other. The collision happened when the lower flying plane
increased altitude and reduced
speed, finally hitting the bottom of the higher flying plane.
From the force of the impact, the rear fuselage and right wing of
the lower plane broke off and the
canopy was shattered. The plane went into a steep dive, and
also the left wing broke off. The
fuselage crashed into the ground at high speed. The pilot was
found outside the wreckage. He
had unfastened the seat belt but not launched the parachute.
The bottom of the higher plane was
cracked, its steering system was damaged and the canopy was
broken. The pilot rescued himself
with a parachute.
Both planes had two GPS devices, and their recordings were
used in the accident investigation.
The planes were also equipped with a FLARM system for collision
avoidance. According to the
rescued pilot, the FLARM did not alert before the collision, which
may have been due to the limited capabilities of the system as
described in its instructions manual.
The accident was caused by pilots’ insufficient situational
awareness leading to the situation,
where the planes got above each other and their flight paths
intersected in the vertical direction.
At the same time the pilots could not see each other.
Contributing factor was the fact that the
collision warning system did not alert.
The accident was caused as the planes got above each other in
a position where the pilots could
not see each other, and their flight paths intersected in the
vertical direction. Contributing factors
included the pilots’ insufficient situational awareness and the fact
that the collision warning system did not alert.
Safety Investigation Authority, Finland issued a safety
recommendation to the Finnish Aeronautical Association, urging
them to hold a safety information session before every gliding
contest. In
addition, it was proposed that safety issues be addressed in the
briefing session for each day of
competition.

On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are an imperfect
rescue system. Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to prevent the
above referenced accident. But also notice that one pilot was saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad investment?
Obviously the answer is no. Parachutes clearly save lives, even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn

On Jun 9, 11:17*am, Vaughn wrote:
On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:



FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.

http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are an imperfect
rescue system. *Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to prevent the
above referenced accident. *But also notice that one pilot was saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad investment?
Obviously the answer is no. *Parachutes clearly save lives, even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn

Could good "old" PCAS help in this situation assuming both gliders
have transponders and are being interrogated.
And for that matter the one at AirSailing (hopefully we will find out
if they had this equipment). It too is far from perfect but the alert
it gives never fails to get my attention and elevates scan to the top
priority of my pilot load(or equal with flying the plane).

On 6/9/2012 11:50 AM, db_sonic wrote:


Vaughn

Could good "old" PCAS help in this situation assuming both gliders
have transponders and are being interrogated.
And for that matter the one at AirSailing (hopefully we will find out
if they had this equipment). It too is far from perfect but the alert
it gives never fails to get my attention and elevates scan to the top
priority of my pilot load(or equal with flying the plane).

This situation may be the worst possible: the high glider is behind the
low glider, and neither can see the other. Possibly, the upper glider's
fuselage blocks the Flarm signals in both directions. PCAS might provide
a notification that the other glider was present (if at least one glider
had a transponder and the other the PCAS), as the glider positioning
would not interfere with transponder signals.

Still, a PCAS system would not warn you that a collision was imminent,
as it can not detect what appeared to happen: a quick pull up, perhaps
triggered by hitting some lift. How often do we do that, without
checking behind and above first? I do it a lot as I travel along under a
cloud street, and I know others also do it.

Maybe we need a mirror positioned to easily see that blind spot.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

At 18:17 09 June 2012, Vaughn wrote:
On 6/9/2012 1:52 PM, Kimmo Hytoenen wrote:


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are
some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should
have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

FLARM is an imperfect warning system just as parachutes are
an imperfect
rescue system. Clearly (and tragically) FLARM failed to
prevent the
above referenced accident. But also notice that one pilot was
saved by
his parachute, while the other unfortunately wasn't.

Does the above accident imply that parachutes are a bad
investment?
Obviously the answer is no. Parachutes clearly save lives,
even though
they are imperfect.

Does the above accident imply that FLARM is a bad
investment?
Same answer as above, same reasoning.

Vaughn


Very good point. What will chute manufacturer do if a chute fails
to open?

This unfortunate accident in Finland brings up 2 issues:
1- sharing the details of such accident is very important. This should be an example why a lower antenna should be strongly recommended.
2- we should never fly directly above or below another aircraft as we have huge blind spots at these directions.

Ramy

At 13:53 09 June 2012, wrote:
After a midair (two-seater with towplane) killed three
experienced pilots
a=
month ago, the French soaring federation has decided to
make Flarm
mandato=
ry on every glider and towplane used by clubs and private
owners, if they
a=
re flying under the federal insurance system (this means:
almost every
sail=
plane used in French clubs).


FLARM can be a very good system. However, there are some
issues which I am not sure if FLARM as a company is taking
seriously enough. In US PowerFLARM seems to have some
advantages over European version.

This is a report of a very unfortunate midair, which should have
been avoided. Both planes had FLARM systems installed.


http://www.turvallisuustutkinta.fi/1302672994222

SUMMARY
COLLISION BETWEEN TWO SAILPLANES IN HATTULA ON 12
JUNE 2011
An aircraft accident occurred near lake Renkajärvi in Hattula,
southern Finland, on Sunday 12
June 2011 at 15:57 Finnish local time, when two single-seat
sailplanes collided in the air. The
pilot of the other plane rescued himself with a parachute, and
the other pilot was killed. Both sailplanes were destroyed.
The sailplanes involved were participating in Finnish Gliding
Championships. The collision occurred in gliding flight in good
weather conditions between the turnpoints of Forssa and
Syrjäntaka, at a height of approximately 1400 m inside Pirkkala
Military Control Area (Airspace class D)
of which southern part was reserved for the competition. Both
pilots were experienced sailplane
pilots and competitors.
Before the collision, the planes were flying almost the same
route and occasionally very close to
each other. The collision happened when the lower flying plane
increased altitude and reduced
speed, finally hitting the bottom of the higher flying plane.
From the force of the impact, the rear fuselage and right wing of
the lower plane broke off and the
canopy was shattered. The plane went into a steep dive, and
also the left wing broke off. The
fuselage crashed into the ground at high speed. The pilot was
found outside the wreckage. He
had unfastened the seat belt but not launched the parachute.
The bottom of the higher plane was
cracked, its steering system was damaged and the canopy was
broken. The pilot rescued himself
with a parachute.
Both planes had two GPS devices, and their recordings were
used in the accident investigation.
The planes were also equipped with a FLARM system for collision
avoidance. According to the
rescued pilot, the FLARM did not alert before the collision, which
may have been due to the limited capabilities of the system as
described in its instructions manual.
The accident was caused by pilots’ insufficient situational
awareness leading to the situation,
where the planes got above each other and their flight paths
intersected in the vertical direction.
At the same time the pilots could not see each other.
Contributing factor was the fact that the
collision warning system did not alert.
The accident was caused as the planes got above each other in
a position where the pilots could
not see each other, and their flight paths intersected in the
vertical direction. Contributing factors
included the pilots’ insufficient situational awareness and the fact
that the collision warning system did not alert.
Safety Investigation Authority, Finland issued a safety
recommendation to the Finnish Aeronautical Association, urging
them to hold a safety information session before every gliding
contest. In
addition, it was proposed that safety issues be addressed in the
briefing session for each day of
competition.