Parowan midair?

Why were they circling in opposite directions? Didn't see one
another?

On Jun 17, 4:37*am, Dan wrote:
Why were they circling in opposite directions? *Didn't see one
another?

apparently not, since they collided.

Dan wrote:
Why were they circling in opposite directions? Didn't see one
another?


There's a rhetorical question!
Perhaps if they DID see, they were playing chicken?

Brian W

On Jun 16, 11:38*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jun 16, 9:39*pm, Ramy wrote: I must wonder if he used his motor to get back to Parowan or thermaled
his way back with 5 feet of wing missing...

Ramy

[snip]

A scary scenario but I'd want to be feeling *really* comfortable about
how the ship is handling before extending the prop/running the engine.
If something is wrong you may make it worse, and if it gets worse you
may seriously impair your ability to bail out. You need to retract the
engine again, which normally involves closing the throttle and turning
off the ignition and flying slow enough to be able to use the prop-
stop then retract back the mast. If the 26E got uncontrollable under
power you would need time to do something like close the throttle,
turn of the ignition and retract the mast far enough for the prop to
strike the fuselage so the running or windmilling prop does not chew
you up on exit... and you hope anything still hanging out there does
not get in the way of your egress. Enough armchair quarterbacking from
me, the pilot involved is very experienced on type so it will be
interesting to see what he did to pull this off. Fantastic that he
made it back safe.

The notion of a glider being allowed to attempt to complete a task
after a mid-air does not sit well with me. It is just the wrong
inducement for pilots involved. And given all the other SSA rules
focus on things like start safety etc, this just seems out of place. I
hope the rules committee look at this.

Darryl

The preliminary report is on the FAA web site today. Unless the FAA
and NTSB were on site yesterday, I suspect until released by the FAA
and pilot interviews completed, neither glider (and maybe pilot) is
available for flight or repair.

YMMV,

Frank Whiteley

At this point we don't know all the facts regarding this incident.

I do know the pilot in the Ventus, though, and the adjectives
"irresponsible" and "reckless" are not ones that I would associate
with him. Let's consider the fact that the ASH-26 pilot flew 75 miles
with 5 feet of wing missing. That suggests that he felt there wasn't
any closer spot to safely put his aircraft down. And if this is true,
why castigate the Ventus pilot for not immediately landing?

-John

On Jun 16, 11:48*am, 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.

Any more information available?

Andy.

Wouldn't one of the aircraft involved have informed the contest
organizers and they recall the ships involved immediately?

I figure that the contest organizers are obliged to protect the other
competitors from a potentially damaged ship or pilot (Bad judgement)
from
creating an even bigger disaster.

I think we all know that perhaps a single problem/mistake is not
necesarrily life threatening but when you combine a few more
bad decisions or problems then very bad things are likely to happen.

Like letting a possibly damaged ship or an unacceptably aggresive
pilot continue in a contest or practice day.

At the very least I think the competitors should be scratched on that
flight just for allowing a collision, no matter who's fault it was, as
a deterent to flying or allowing someone else to fly too close.

I know that contest pilots push the envelope, but bad press at a time
when the public would like all personal GA aviation prohibited is not
very conducive to us keeping our privaledges.

Ray

On Jun 16, 1:20*pm, jb92563 wrote:
At the very least I think the competitors should be scratched on that
flight just for allowing a collision, no matter who's fault it was, as
a deterent to flying or allowing someone else to fly too close.

On the other hand 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?

I know nothing of the circumstances of this incident but I know for
sure it is possible to be hit by another glider without being at
fault. The concept of "allowing" another, probably unseen, glider to
fly too close is nonsense.

Andy

On Jun 16, 3:29*pm, Andy wrote:
I know nothing of the circumstances of this incident but I know for
sure it is possible to be hit by another glider without being at
fault. *The concept of "allowing" another, probably unseen, glider to
fly too close is nonsense.

SH!T happens. Worse nonsense is is allowing a possibly unairworthy
glider to continue on task. By mandating an immediate landing and
scoring to the point of collision, there's no question about what
needs to be done.

-Tom

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...