2005 Worlds Juniors Accident.

John Cochrane wrote:
This is a well written, very thoughtful report. Well done.

I agree with John. I also agree one solution is the 500' finish rule
he's advocated. I don't agree it's the only solution or necessarily
the best solution, but we've thrashed out that subject at length
already so there's no need to again. I'll simply observe that part of
the reason many of us fly contests is for fun and that the best way to
eliminate the risks of flying is never to launch.

What struck me about the report was that nearly all of the parties who
might have contributed to this accident--the pilot, the organizers,
and the photographer himself--could and should have taken steps to
have avoided it. My impression is that had the rules in effect at the
time been adhered to and enforced (whether those were CAA regulations
or the contest rules or just general safe flying practices and common
sense), this accident wouldn't have happened.

I've never flown in the U.K. but I've seen comparable situations at
many U.S. contests owing to (1) pilots emulating their fellow pilots
(for all of our much-touted individualistic personalities, we can be
like a bunch of sheep at times); and (2) the sense that because it's a
contest, the normal rules for safe flying are suspended.

These are serious problems, but they're problems of attitude. And the
solution to them is not necessarily a new rule addressing one, albeit
potentially dangerous, situation. The analogy is a little weak but as
one example, we in the U.S. had a tragedy at a national contest a few
years ago launching a water ballasted glider too close to bystanders.
The solution to this dangerous practice was not to eliminate water
ballast but to insist that all bystanders remain behind the launch
line.

It's certainly possible that a random hiker could be mowed down by a
low-finishing glider but it's also possible that any of us could do
the same thing landing out in a farmer's field somewhere. Should we,
then, eliminate all practices that might lead to outlandings?

Like most aviation accidents, there appears to be no single cause
here, but rather a series of questionable decisions and actions that
cascaded and culminated in loss of life. Without trying to fix blame,
it seems to me that at any point any of the parties could have acted
to comply with the aforesaid rules/practices, broken the "chain," and
unilaterally prevented this tragedy.

And now that I've offended almost all involved, I apologize for
drawing conclusions about an accident I have no knowledge of apart
from a report I had absolutely no role in preparing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

First of all let me add to others prior statements of what a tragedy this
was resulting in the loss of a renowned photographer as well as the certain
burden it has placed on the pilot and families involved and the organizers.

As usual Chip has thoughtfully remarked on what many of us have felt about
racing and the attempt to make it safer. Most importantly is the idea that
it is the attitude and vigilance of the pilot that is the primary reason all
flights are conducted safely or not. No amount of regulation will overcome
the poor judgement that some pilots exhibit.

Having considered what has happened to others and with realization of the
consequences it is our practice locally that we finish one mile out and if
after doing so, wish to do a pass, do it down the runway after making
several radio calls announcing our intention and asking for traffic
advisories. If there are any conflicts we abort the pass. I do not think
that the 500 foot finish is any safer for reasons that have been discussed
here in the past. I also respect the opinion of others that disagree.

Thanks for your thoughts Chip,
Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

This accident is a perfect example of something that
should never happen. The ultimate responsibility for
the tragic death is that of the pilot concerned and
no-one else. No-one held a gun to his head and forced
him to fly so close to a point where he knew there
were people, and it should be emphasised that this
event occured outside the airfield boundary.
Observant readers of the report will note that the
silver car that the photographer was standing on was
situated on the left hand margin of the extended landing
area boundary which rather begs the question as to
why the pilot of the glider concerned felt it necessary
to bank to the left, with a bank angle of 20 degrees,
which on the face of it would take him further away
from the landing area. I do not have a great deal of
trouble reaching a conclusion but it is up to you to
make your own decision on that.
The photographer was going about his lawful business
in an area outside the airfield boundary, and it was
well known that he frequently took such positions.
He was an experienced glider pilot himself and no doubt
trusted that pilots would have the good sense not to
fly into him. I would refute any suggestion that he
was in any way 'responsible' for the accident, his
action may have been unwise with the benefit of hindsight
but given the known circumstances it was not unreasonable
for him to do what he did. Whether his presence 'encouraged'
pilots to fly in the way that they did is perhaps a
question that can never be answered, certainly by the
pilot concerned.
As to the future we are now in a position where the
CAA could set the rules for competition finishes in
the UK and they are not likely to consider the aspects
of fun and spectator enjoyment in their deliberations,
or at least place much weight on such considerations.
I find the worm burner competition finish acceptable
over an area where I have the control of the activity,
it is good to watch and reasonably safe provided access
to the area over which it takes place is controlled.
No competition director has any control over what takes
place outside the airfield boundary and for that reason
a margin for safety has to be set. The safety margin
that may now be imposed on us will probably be greater
that we would like.
Like the rest of life safety rules only have to be
made for the information of fools, those who are aware
of the possible consequences of their actions and are
resolved to always take action to mitigate such consequences
do not need rules to make them fly safely.
Perhaps one way forward is to require that every pilot
taking part in a competition comes with a certificate,
setting out the minimum level to which they may decsend
during a finish, from their CFI in the same way that
aerobatic pilots are cleared to minimum levels depending
on their competence, ability and experience. This at
least would enable competition directors to receive
some assurance instead of finding out to late that
what is being done is outside the competence of the
pilot concerned. It would not restrict those who are
able to fly very low safely, avoiding a blanket prohibition
which would in many ways detract from the spectacle
of well performed competition finishes.

Don
Director Tibenham Comps

Observant readers of the report will note that the
silver car that the photographer was standing on was
situated on the left hand margin of the extended landing
area boundary which rather begs the question as to
why the pilot of the glider concerned felt it necessary
to bank to the left, with a bank angle of 20 degrees,
which on the face of it would take him further away
from the landing area. I do not have a great deal of
trouble reaching a conclusion but it is up to you to
make your own decision on that.

If you look closely at the GPS tracks on Figure 5 you'll see that the
accident pilot appears to have approached the hedge a bit from the
left/South at less than a 90 deg angle/not perpendicular (see black
track). An estimated 20 deg bank angle to the left is most likely a
consequence of him making a slight adjustment/bank to the left to line
up perpendicular to the runway/finish line. The accident report
mentions that the pilot does not recall having conciously banked which
suggests that he might have done one of those instinctive adjustments
we all do when lining up for the runway, his primary focus appeared to
have been on clearing the hedge (page 58). My humble guess is that he
popped up to clear the hedge and upon seeing past the hedge
subconciously banked a bit to better aline with the runway. Looking at
the red and blue track as a reference he probably needed to adjust his
track by about 10 deg to the South when crossing the hedge to line up
the same way the other two competitors did.

Looking at figures 4a/4b and how close he was to the hedge supports
that he probably did not do a concious banking maneuver; had he been
just a couple of meters or so further to the South (to the right in
figures 4a/4b) he would most likely have struck the hedge with the
wing tip and not the unfortunate photographer. Any concious banking
maneuver should have triggered him to pull up more before banking
irrespective of the cavalier attitude shown by flying this low in the
first place.

My humble two cents,

Markus Graeber

Just to add to another aspect of this accident report, the continuing
low approaches when competition officials radioed instructions to fly
above 200 ft. Well, perhaps the pilots did it deliberately, but I'm
not so sure.

The accident report states: "The language used during international
gliding championships is English and so all competitors should be able
to understand such an instruction". I'm afraid that's rubbish. English
is the only official language for rules, communication etc., but
knowledge of English is NOT mandatory for the pilots. Many
international competitors speak very bad English or even no English at
all. I'm not assuming this: I was a ground team member in two world
championships. Non-English-speaking pilots just learn the
indispensable terminology for take-off and landing by heart (The same
trick applies when an English pilot - who doesn't speak the local
language - flies in Spain, France or Germany, for example). Their team
captain translates the most important information from briefings and
other instructions.

The same holds true for the organizers, by the way. In both
championships I was involved with, only some officials were able to
speak English sufficiently fluently. I remember some security
briefings where it was decidedly difficult to understand if some parts
of the airspace, normally restricted, were available to the
competitors or not! And communication between the organizers and the
tug pilots was in local language only. Not exactly a safe situation...

Please don't assume that everybody in the world understands and speaks
English - or even "Globish". It just isn't true!

Accidents don't happen by accident, and it is always sad to read about
the chain of events, which quite often, could have easily been
avoided.

WOW! The competitors kept flying so low, even after the mishap, that
the rescue staff had to duck. Increase the risks, and you will end up
on a report too...

The picture on the contest cover is familiar. Was the photographer
Hughes Beslier? http://beslier.free.fr/

If so, it is truly sad....

Richard
ASW19
Phoenix, AZ

On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, "jeplane" wrote:
Accidents don't happen by accident, and it is always sad to read about
the chain of events, which quite often, could have easily been
avoided.

WOW! The competitors kept flying so low, even after the mishap, that
the rescue staff had to duck. Increase the risks, and you will end up
on a report too...

The picture on the contest cover is familiar. Was the photographer
Hughes Beslier?http://beslier.free.fr/

If so, it is truly sad....

Richard
ASW19
Phoenix, AZ

The photo of the contest cover (figure 7) was taken by Neil Lawson
himself, the photographer killed in the accident (see page 68). His
incredible website and photos can be be found he http://
www.whiteplanes.com.

Markus Graeber